Monday
Jan122009
Leon Panetta: A dissenting view
Monday, January 12, 2009 at 10:43AM
I think Leon Panetta is a first-rate choice to run the CIA. I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of people, and not just conservatives, who disagree with this. Their argument, which has merit, is twofold: First, we're fighting two actions abroad, Afghanistan and Iraq; second, and flowing from this, is that we need a seasoned, life-long professional intelligence veteran to run the CIA. In other words, you don't hire a stockbroker when you need a heart transplant.
Here's why I think this argument is wrong, especially given certain unpleasant realities at the CIA. First, as a former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, Panetta has as much administrative skill as any bureaucrat in Washington. The amount of balancing, managing, delegating, editing, referring and prioritizing that a president's chief of staff must do would boggle the average mind. During his tenure, Panetta proved quite adept at this job. And being a former solon helps too. Washington generally, and especially the waters in which the CIA must swim, are as political as it gets. Having long-established cordial relations with the congressional oversight and budgeting committees can only serve the higher cause of effective intelligence.
But there is another reason, one that folks on the left would be less likely to admit but one which President-elect Obama has obviously paid close attention to: the hard truth that the CIA has occasionally behaved as a rogue agency. There are two aspects to this. The first is one that liberals do like to talk about – the CIA's role in coercive interrogations and renditions. This represents some of the most disreputable practices of U.S. policy since the Alien and Sedition Acts.
There is a second aspect of CIA rogue behavior, one that liberals don't like to talk about – the fact that the agency is not always loyal to elected representatives, leaks like sieve and can damage U.S. foreign policy. One can disagree vehemently with that policy – as I did during the Bush years – but it is not the CIA's role to undermine the executive branch. Those liberals who delighted in CIA leaks during the Bush years may not feel as gleeful when, as and if President Obama becomes the target of disgruntled intelligence bureaucrats.
Panetta, as a politician loyal to Obama, and thus, to the American people, knows the leak game. He knows how to impose political as well as employment penalties on those with a bent for leaking. And one thing that Republicans and Democrats do agree on: Leon Panetta is a man of unquestioned integrity.
It may seem odd in a time of war, but sometimes one must not only think outside the box but also reach outside the box to see and solve a problem. And Leon Panetta is outside of a box that is badly in need of reform.
Here's why I think this argument is wrong, especially given certain unpleasant realities at the CIA. First, as a former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, Panetta has as much administrative skill as any bureaucrat in Washington. The amount of balancing, managing, delegating, editing, referring and prioritizing that a president's chief of staff must do would boggle the average mind. During his tenure, Panetta proved quite adept at this job. And being a former solon helps too. Washington generally, and especially the waters in which the CIA must swim, are as political as it gets. Having long-established cordial relations with the congressional oversight and budgeting committees can only serve the higher cause of effective intelligence.
But there is another reason, one that folks on the left would be less likely to admit but one which President-elect Obama has obviously paid close attention to: the hard truth that the CIA has occasionally behaved as a rogue agency. There are two aspects to this. The first is one that liberals do like to talk about – the CIA's role in coercive interrogations and renditions. This represents some of the most disreputable practices of U.S. policy since the Alien and Sedition Acts.
There is a second aspect of CIA rogue behavior, one that liberals don't like to talk about – the fact that the agency is not always loyal to elected representatives, leaks like sieve and can damage U.S. foreign policy. One can disagree vehemently with that policy – as I did during the Bush years – but it is not the CIA's role to undermine the executive branch. Those liberals who delighted in CIA leaks during the Bush years may not feel as gleeful when, as and if President Obama becomes the target of disgruntled intelligence bureaucrats.
Panetta, as a politician loyal to Obama, and thus, to the American people, knows the leak game. He knows how to impose political as well as employment penalties on those with a bent for leaking. And one thing that Republicans and Democrats do agree on: Leon Panetta is a man of unquestioned integrity.
It may seem odd in a time of war, but sometimes one must not only think outside the box but also reach outside the box to see and solve a problem. And Leon Panetta is outside of a box that is badly in need of reform.
Reader Comments