Political Hack to Run CIA

[Roadtoad]

Part of what runs through my mind is that the CIA long ago lost its focus on what it was supposed to be doing. Panetta's primary experience is running large bureaucracies. Given that constitutes the bulk of what the CIA is, (and that one thing it lacks is competent field officers), one thing he could do is cut the bureaucratic BS and get more qualified individuals out into the field. A good program which decentralizes a lot of what happens in Langley might be helpful, and would make it possible for us to have the kind of early warning the CIA is supposed to be providing.

If it were me in Panetta's shoes, I'd be doing everything I could to cut through the crap that prevents the CIA from infiltrating our enemies. Part of this is the Rendition program, as well as the institutionalized torture programs they're now using. For all the claims we've hears, they're counter-productive and dangerous. If you want people to trust you, you need to make that pay off for them.

Considering that during the Cold War, a defector from the Iron Curtain was pretty much left to fend for himself when he came to America, (a fact known to most of our enemies), there seems to be little incentive to switch sides. Panetta could help to change that attitude in CIA HQ.

Don't sell Panetta short: He's got a very long resume, and could wind up being a serious asset, not only in spite of his lack of intel experience, but in part, because of it. Part of the problem with Porter Goss is that, as a former CIA officer, he instantly assumed he was an "expert" in fixing the agency.

 

[CFLarsen]

What good is such criticism of a candidate deemed to be bad, if one can't come up with a better candidate than the one Barack Obama chose?

After all, Barack Obama is the one who won the presidential election. The American people have decided that he is the best American alive to make the necessary decisions for them.

If it is a fair question to ask what the qualifications are for the person running the CIA, then it is a fair question to ask what the qualifications are for those who think they can do better than the one the American people chose.

It would seem to me to be a rather improper nullifying of the result of a free election, in a free country. But hey, if someone feels they are qualified to do that, why not?

This is all about qualifications - isn't it?

Spouting things off the top of one's head is not exactly a qualification. It sure doesn't instil a lot of confidence. It just gives the impression of someone merely venting.

Which is fine, of course. Just as long as it isn't claimed to be a serious critique.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If he were Chief of Staff, or this were a Cabinet position, yeah, it would be. Those positions exist out of the need for the President to delegate specific responsibilities to.

But positions like Director of the CIA, National Security Advisor, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a bit different. More is involved than "this is my policy, go and execute;" the situation there is reversed. They're responsible for proactively informing the President what's going on. They're still answerable to the President, but their positionneeds to consist of more than a political agenda.

The thing is that the head of most if not all of the heads of the parts of the executive branch are appointed by the president for political purposes. This is part of how they impose their views on policy to the goverment.

I can also see why putting someone who is more of an outsider in can be seen to be intent on cleaning up the CIA's image.

Yeah, there's a bit of that.

I can see the merits in cutting down or changing the nature of how such heads are determined.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Good questions, really, and I'm really not inclined to come up with a "the ideal candidate will have experience in X, Y, and Z" list.

But this is political, when have qualifications matter much? Look at a history of american presidents and pick your least favoretts as examples.

 

[Roadtoad]

I've recommended the book before. I'll do so again:

Legacy of Ashes. Read it.

 

[gumboot]

The "torture" criticisms seem to be misplaced. Any agency like the CIA will operate within the framework set for it. If the framework set for it was too liberal, the blame lies with the people who set that framework, not the people operating in it.

Many of the actions of the US military during WW2 were made illegal war crimes immediately following the end of the war. Did that immediately disqualify any currently serving officers from picking up top positions? Was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs position given to a political person? Obviously not.

Personally I find the entire concept of heading government agencies with arbitrary political appointments to be bizarre in the extreme. Yet another flaw (as I see it) in the US system.

 

[CFLarsen]

If there is a flaw, what is the proposed solution?

 

[Cicero]

Many of the actions of the US military during WW2 were made illegal war crimes immediately following the end of the war.

Personally I find the entire concept of heading government agencies with arbitrary political appointments to be bizarre in the extreme. Yet another flaw (as I see it) in the US system.

Ah, what were these actions taken by the Allies that were OK under the Geneva Convention during WWII that were illegal after September, 1945?

Yeah, we need more influneces from Australia. Anyone who can keep a Vegemite sandwich down would be qualified for Surgeon General.

 

[Cleon]

Anyone who can keep a Vegemite sandwich down would be qualified for Surgeon General.

Or at least a recurring role on "Jackass."

 

[Roadtoad]

Personally I find the entire concept of heading government agencies with arbitrary political appointments to be bizarre in the extreme. Yet another flaw (as I see it) in the US system.

Perhaps, Gumboot. This has been a long-standing criticism of our system of government. The reality remains, however: The president appoints a cabinet, based upon criteria which he deems is important. As he is the elected official that we have chosen to take that role, it's his choice which determines who takes the position.

However, Panetta is not a slam-dunk. He must still be vetted by the FBI, and he's still got to be confirmed by the Senate. After that, once he's in office, he's got to deliver.

If Americans don't like Panetta as CIA chief, there's a process to be followed. We can still petition the Senate via our e-mail, letters and phone calls, and tell them we don't want Panetta to accept that position. As a public official, we can even ask Panetta himself to decline the job. Should his confirmation go through, we can still ask him to step down, and we can still ask our elected representatives, including President Obama himself, to fire Panetta, assuming the man is not doing the job.

That's the kicker right there: Panetta has demonstrated to someone that he can deliver. Whether that was as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, or whether it was in any of the other lesser roles he's played over the years, including his role(s) in the House, those have had some part in helping Obama decide whether Panetta should take the job.

Consider that he was first elected as a Republican, and that he left that party after the Nixon Administration tried to get him fired for (dare we say this) actually trying to enforce the law. This man is not a wimp.

Consider also, he may have had a very quiet role which kept Bill Clinton in office. No evidence, but considerable inference. I get the feeling that he probably had a little chat with Bill once the news of his business with Monica Lewinsky had broken.

I don't agree with the politics or policies of the man, but he was instrumental in helping to balance our nation's budget. George W. Bush could have learned a lesson from him.

Again, let's see. He might actually turn out to be very good at this job. One thing that might help is if he takes the time to listen to the intelligence officers who answer to him.

 

[CFLarsen]

The chief of the CIA - or any kind of "chief", for that matter - doesn't necessarily have to be particularly knowledgeable of the area he is "chief" of.

It's nice if he is, but such positions are primarily organizational, not operational.

The best bosses I have ever worked with were the ones who knew basically nothing (and acknowledged it), but were able to listen. To good arguments, to good evidence, to good knowledge. And then made the right decisions, based on all that.

 

[Cicero]

Or at least a recurring role on "Jackass."

Also known as Congress first day of school. Harry Reid in the role of Steve-O.

 

[dudalb]

Personally I find the entire concept of heading government agencies with arbitrary political appointments to be bizarre in the extreme. Yet another flaw (as I see it) in the US system.

I agree, but the US system is not the only offender. I am sure that other nations have done the same thing. If memory serves there was a flap in the UK over some ministry appointments.
And it is a flaw that I don't think there is a systamatic fix to.

 

[Cicero]

Lets face it the CIA needs an overhaul more than any other governmental branch and all of the "experts" from the intelligence community are well corrupted for supporting torture, illegal domestic wire taps and renditions.

If Piñata ties the hands of the CIA, and if and when there is a successful terrorist attack on the U.S. this year, Obama will be able to demonstrate how the new and improved CIA is superior to the Bush 43 CIA.

 

[Steven Howard]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the appointment of a "party hack" as head of the CIA wouldn't exactly be unprecedented.

Also, consider that John McCone, the CIA director from 1961 to 1965, had no previous intelligence experience and yet most people seem to think he did a pretty good job.

By contrast, his predecessor Allen Dulles had extensive intelligence experience during and after WWII. As CIA director, Dulles oversaw not only the Bay of Pigs invasion but also the illegal conspiracy that kept Operation Paperclip (sneaking ex-Nazi scientists into the US with new identities) going after it officially ended in 1947.

 

[Unabogie]

"Ties the hands of the CIA"? In what way would he do so? Are you referring specifically to torture? What specific actions that the CIA is now taking would be stopped, and how might the absence of those actions cause a successful attack? Is this your way of advocating committing atrocities against prisoners in our custody?

If so, then your judgment and morality are in serious question, but I'll allow you the chance to state your case in more detail.

 

[R.Mackey]

This announcement surprised me... I have some experience with Neon Leon, congressman in the Monterey Bay area where I grew up (he and Norm Mineta were my windows into Washington, depending on where the redistricting fell on any given year). He earned a good reputation as a reformer, and I would consider him pretty well qualified from an executive and ethical standpoint.

Whether he has any good ideas for the CIA, however, I'm skeptical. It's possible he'll do a great job, but he could also turn out to be a terrible force-fit. I'll be interested in the hearings.

 

[gumboot]

Ah, what were these actions taken by the Allies that were OK under the Geneva Convention during WWII that were illegal after September, 1945?

Area bombing of civilian cities leaps immediately to mind.

Yeah, we need more influneces from Australia. Anyone who can keep a Vegemite sandwich down would be qualified for Surgeon General.

 

[gumboot]

If there is a flaw, what is the proposed solution?

The British model makes far more sense - government departments are run by the civil servants that work in those departments, and government ministries headed by politicians provide oversight and implement policy.

 

[gumboot]

I agree, but the US system is not the only offender. I am sure that other nations have done the same thing. If memory serves there was a flap in the UK over some ministry appointments.
And it is a flaw that I don't think there is a systamatic fix to.

The UK system is different to the US system. Ministries are not the government department, but an oversight component that enacts policy. For example the Ministry of Defence - headed by the Minister of Defence who is a politician, overseas the British Armed Forces which is headed by a member of the Armed Forces - the Chief of the Defence Staff. It is incorrect to refer to the Armed Forces as the Ministry of Defence, or the Ministry of Defence as the Armed Forces - they are separate entities.

Indeed, this is the same system used for the US military, but for whatever reason it is not used for many other departments. (Consider the Secretary of Defense, who heads the Department of Defense, versus the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who head the United States Armed Forces).

If we take the British equivalent of the CIA - the Secret Intelligence Service, it is headed by a Director General - currently Sir John Scarlett. Looking through the list of heads of SIS, it appears every Director General was a career member of the SIS with the exception of a couple of people who had careers in military intelligence and were involved in the creation of SIS.

To reflect the UK system, in the US you would have a Secretary of Intelligence who had oversight over the CIA, but the actual Director of the CIA would be a career intelligence officer who had worked in the CIA for decades.