Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The CIA is on the tracks, and the train is coming
By Dov Zakheim
Leon Panetta may know very little about intelligence, but he knows a lot about managing difficult organizations. After all, he was Chief of Staff in a White House that was not noted for its organizational rigor. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, he had to say "no" more often than he said "yes." He will have to do more of the same in a CIA that is one and the same time demoralized, yet the subject of bitter criticism for behaviors than seem to stretch the boundaries of legality.
The CIA is a tough organization. It has done in many would-be reformers, both on the Right and the Left. No doubt there will be some among the Agency's veterans who will view Panetta as another outsider around whom they can run circles, while newer, younger Agency types, with only the past few years as their guide, may resent what they might see as "do-gooder" meddling with their organization.
But life has changed for the CIA. The one major legacy it will inherit from the Bush years is that it no longer has the same direct line to the President it once did. Rather, its Director is subordinate to the Director of National Intelligence, pushing the organization into the background. In addition, the CIA will be carefully watched by a Democratic Congress that has been itching to tighten oversight screws but was prevented from doing so by a Republican Administration. The Obama team is unlikely to provide the CIA with the same political cover.
So those tough veterans, and those spirited newbies are in for a shock. They may try to run circles around the new CIA boss, but they will then hit the brick wall of Congress. Ironically, Panetta might be a reformer, but with his years in the Congress as well as the White House, he may actually be a better and more successful Agency leader than one who might have come from its own ranks -- someone, say, like Porter Goss.






This is an example of
what is completely wrong with people who feel compelled to write something when they have nothing to say. First of all you cite Panetta's management prowess by giving as an example the totally un-managed Clinton White House. Where was the prowess on display? Then you go on and give a totally simple-minded breakdown of the two (are there only two? tough vets and newbies? how lame!) types of characters that Panetta will face in the CIA...you sound like you are pitching a movie idea rather than doing any useful commentary. It is such a shallow dive to pick on the CIA...they have become like the idiot uncle we keep locked up in the attic. We can't get rid of him because he's family but every time we bring him out he soils himself. I don't know much about the character of the people in the CIA but I do believe we have vast needs for 'actionable' intelligence...If it turns out that Panetta was brought in as window dressing or just to keep the lid on then why not shut the operation down or outsource to the Mossad. Dear Dov, please drink more coffee when you opine on weighty matters or buy yourself a copy of Final Draft.
nothing to say
The phrase "nothing to say" just about says it all, doesn't it ?
Two Questions
1. If the White House under Clinton was poorly managed and Panetta was in charge, what makes him a good manager?
2. Are there only two types of CIA employees...tough veterans and spirited newbies?
I am not sure we have been enlightened about why Panetta is a good bet or what challenges he will really face. Personally I think it was a big mistake.