TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.01.2009
Is Panetta Experienced Enough?

With controversy swirling around Obama's selection of Leon Panetta for CIA chief, we approached a few respected intelligence experts for perspective. Those we spoke to were supportive of the choice and the theory that intelligence experience is not an absolute prerequisite for a good director. Paul Pillar, a professor at Georgetown University and former CIA officer, explained why he feels so confident:

I think he'll do fine. ... The director is not a line officer; he's not running cases and doing detailed analyses. He has to rely on many people in organization at various levels below him who are doing that- he has to exert leadership, he's not supposed to micromanage. Even someone coming up through the ranks is not going to be in a position to directly apply [his experience]; if it's experience from years ago, it might even be out of date.

Of course, not having served at the lower levels, you don't know the certain ways that the organization happens to operate and the ways intelligence officers react to things and do on junior or senior level. But even Robert Gates, who's often described as rising through the organization from the junior level, skipped over and parachuted to the upper levels as result of [former CIA director] William Casey. ...You have to have the ability to question and ability to make judgments, uphold standards of integrity, and not do the other person's job.

Gregory Treverton, an intelligence policy analyst at the Rand Corporation, is also cautiously optimistic about Panetta's prospects:

There are costs and benefits to not being an insider. On principle--especially if your main concern is credibility and oversight--having an outsider is a good thing. You need a fresh look at the business, someone who comes to the whole process of accountability and oversight afresh. ... Someone who's been chief of staff carries some advantages. The clandestine service would probably prefer one of their own. But the analytic side ought to be intrigued by the choice, because he knows what presidents need and like.

The downside--now that the CIA is even more dominated by the clandestine service than before--is that operational issues have a steep learning curve. An outsider who tries to make changes may become too reliant on his sherpas, get coopted, and pretty soon he could become a prisoner of the status quo.

--Suzy Khimm and Barron YoungSmith

Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 7:11 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

iambiguous said:

From a stump post that asked the same question:

The futility [even absurdity] of asking if anyone is qualified or "right" to head the CIA is that the overwhelming majority of us have absolutely no idea what it means to BE qualified because we we know even less about what the CIA "missions" are.

I recall for example in the early/mid 1960s, the CIA was peddled in the press as the folks who went around the globe collecting information to help keep the world safe from the Commies. Then Phillip Agee published "Inside The Company" and it turned out instead the Toolshed was used to destablize and even bring down governments not keen enough on maintaining "a favorable business climate" for giant US corporations like United Fruit and IT&T.

Especially those progressive folks in Central and South America.

Indeed, this is yet another fascinating aspect of watching Obama take control of the US government. Does he have any idea what the CIA really does? If not and he finds out it has less to do with spreading democracy and more to do with destablizing democratic regimes not on the Monroe Doctrine fast track, will he turn a blind eye like Clinton and Carter and Johnson always did?

george walton

January 6, 2009 10:31 PM

ChanRobt said:

Yeah, and how 'bout Lanny Davis to replace Gates at Defense.

January 6, 2009 10:41 PM

gabriel2001 said:

Langly needs a BIG house cleaning. I'd push hard for early retirement anyone hired in the last 8 years, or at the least reassignment.  Keep a few old dogs around just so someone know what skunk smells like and get a lot of young eager beavers to mess things up on their own terms.  At least it will be the end of same old same old.  You see where experience has gotten us so far.

January 7, 2009 1:05 AM

Robert Powell said:

C'mon Chan. Leon is no Lanny Davis.

I tend to agree with Pilar and Treverton on this. The biggest current problem with the CIA in my view is absurdly high expectations. The track record of the agency is a catalog of fiascoes and cluelessness--Daniel P. Moynahan had the best idea, which was to simply abolish it and let military intelligence do the job. Panetta's appointment might indicate that The Agency is being downgraded, which is all to the good as far as I'm concerned.

January 7, 2009 2:15 PM