Apparently President-elect Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA came as a surprise to almost everyone. Panetta has no experience with intelligence, and has minimal credentials on national security issues. It looks like a mainly political appointment of a man most think has effective management skills.
I'm skeptical of the no experience argument, and of making too much of his nomination one way or another. Unfortunately experience doesn't guarantee results, especially in a highly politicized position such as CIA director. George Tenet had plenty of experience in intelligence. How well did the CIA perform under his directorship? If Panetta is smart -- and most seem to think he is -- he'll manage the agency using his strengths, and take advantage of the experience and knowledge of those under him.
As a Republican I don't expect to be pleased by most of Obama's appointments, but I find nothing particularly shocking about this one. And I wouldn't be surprised if Panetta actually does a decent job at CIA. The pick has also apparently annoyed some prominent Senate Democrats, such as Dianne Feinstein. Any political appointment that creates dissension between Obama and Democrats in the Senate isn't all bad.
As a Democrat that enjoys reading your blog, I have to say that I agree with you on all points -- including "Any political appointment that creates dissension between Obama and Democrats in the Senate isn't all bad."
ReplyDeleteI haven't followed the story too closely because I felt that it was a non-issue, but I figured that maybe Obama sees the CIA as an agency that needs reforming and would like to bring in someone from outside the intelligence community. In my industry, one of the most tiring things is seeing the person who has "risen through the ranks" simply because of the time associated with a company because oftentimes they don't make good managers. A good, intelligent manager should be able to jump to another industry and quickly get up to speed by learning from subordinates. Of course this is no scientific truth or anything but just an observation on my part.
"I haven't followed the story too closely because I felt that it was a non-issue"
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much my attitude. Unless Obama nominates someone who is obviously corrupt, or some sort of radical, I'm not going to get too worked up about it. It's difficult to tell how these appointees will actually perform. Don Rumsfeld looked like a good choice for defense when he was nominated by Bush. That didn't work out too well to say the least.
"Obama sees the CIA as an agency that needs reforming and would like to bring in someone from outside the intelligence community."
Yes, and I don't think that's such a bad idea. The CIA could certainly use reform and improvement.
It's actually surprising, if only because during the campaign it was McCain who proposed radical reforms of the CIA, and Obama who took the realist route and suggested only small changes.
ReplyDelete"it was McCain who proposed radical reforms of the CIA"
ReplyDeleteGood point. I had forgotten about that.