The Case for Panetta by Robert Baer

[babylonsister]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ed01ed40-4a7b-4ce6-b98e-62da05e46bab

The Case for Panetta by Robert Baer
Why having Obama's ear is more important than intelligence experience.
Post Date Friday, January 09, 2009


The fight over the appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA director died down as fast as it flared up. The question now is whether Panetta, never having worked in intelligence, will figure out how espionage works fast enough to save the CIA--and keep the president out of trouble.

The CIA certainly needs saving. Many believe 9/11 could have been prevented if the CIA had notified the FBI in enough time when two hijackers moved to San Diego in early 2000. In a Parthian shot, the Bush administration is blaming the CIA's bad intelligence for leading us into war in Iraq. And now, with the two enduring wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon is firmly on top of the intelligence heap. The CIA needs to be thinking about its relevance. The Pentagon already has 80 percent of the intelligence budget, and would be more than happy to take the rest.

Obama's decision to appoint Panetta was likely influenced by the presence of Hillary Clinton at State and Robert Gates at the Pentagon. Obama has been around Washington enough to know that intelligence is a blood sport--bureaucratic blood, that is. He knows that appointing a CIA director from the ranks of the agency--an intelligence professional--no matter how capable and smart, would be eaten alive by Clinton and Gates. George Tenet knew the intelligence community inside and out, but still caved on Iraqi WMDs when the White House turned on the heat.

This isn't going to happen to Panetta. He may go along with a White House consensus, but it won't be because he is outgunned. Having served as Clinton's chief of staff, Panetta knows his way around the Oval Office as well as Clinton and Gates. He's a man who will not be satisfied with a day-pass to the White House or wait for an invitation to see the president.

snip//

Panetta's first task will be to remind Obama daily that it was the president and his team that cherry picked the bad intelligence on Iraq, just as it was the administration that forced extraordinary renditions and torture on the CIA. Along the way, he will also need to convey the message that the CIA is capable of doing excellent work when left alone--work that neither the State department nor the Pentagon can do.

If he can accomplish those two things, and hold his own against Obama's cabinet heavyweights, Panetta could be the man to save a young and inexperienced president. In 1961, another young, idealistic president was convinced by "intelligence professionals," among them then-CIA Director Allen Dulles, to green-light the Bay of Pigs. This administration will face more crises, more wars, and more temptations to ask the CIA to undertake some harebrained covert action like Kennedy's attempted invasion of Cuba. Panetta will have the stature to stroll into the Oval Office and tell the president, "No."


Robert Baer served in the CIA as a field operative from 1976 to 1997. He writes a column for Time.com. His memoir See No Evil was turned into the film Syriana. His latest book is The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower (Crown Publishers, 2008).

[Zavulon]

1. Plenty of Obama advisers can and should do what Baer thinks Panetta should.

If I were on the fence about this nomination (and I'm not - I think it's a bad idea), this article would not be the tipping point in swaying me.

[babylonsister]

2. And I think he's a good choice. Go figure. nt

[Zavulon]

3. I kind of DID figure that, what with you posting an article in his defense. (NT)

[babylonsister]

4. And what's your problem with him? I respect Baer's POV; he

seems like a pretty straight shooter.

[Zavulon]

5. My problem with Panetta, or Baer?

With Panetta, my only problem is that his background doesn't warrant the posting any more than Harriet Miers' background qualified her for SCOTUS. Otherwise, I like the man. I'd have supported him for a lot of other nominations, just not this one.

With Baer, just that his argument is weak. By his logic, Panetta is qualified for any job in Obama's administration, which he clearly is not. I don't think anyone is. Otherwise, you may as well start passing out jobs based on contributions.

[babylonsister]

6. Actually, a lot of people think Panetta is more than qualified.

You know it doesn't matter what we think, but I found this interesting. And yes, there are many articles pro- and con- for this appointment.

And being involved in the Iraqi Study Group also isn't a bad thing, imo.


http://www.slate.com/id/2208020/pagenum/all/#p2

snip//

It is worth emphasizing, however, that Panetta is not as green to the spook world as some of his appointment's critics have maintained. In the 1990s, as President Bill Clinton's budget director and White House chief of staff, he was not just passively exposed to intelligence issues.

Richard Clarke, who was the White House counterterrorism director under Clinton (and, briefly, under Bush before resigning and then emerging as a celebrated critic), wrote in an e-mail today:

Leon was in all of the important national security meetings for years, both as {Office of Management and Budget} director and as chief of staff. He made substantive contributions well outside of his job description. And as OMB director, he was one of a very few people who knew about all of the covert and special-access programs.

Clarke's first point is crucial—Panetta knows, from experience, what a president wants and needs from intelligence reports, so he could represent the agency's views more cogently than many insiders might.

But the final point is important, too. These "special-access programs"—satellites, sensors, and other intelligence-gathering devices whose very existence is known only to those with compartmentalized security clearances—form a welter of costly, overlapping, ill-coordinated, and largely unsupervised projects that are run by private contractors to a greater extent than most people might imagine.

One former CIA official who is familiar with these programs (and who asked not to be identified) speculates that Panetta's main task might be to clean up not only the agency's high-profile mess—the "black ops" that have tarnished America's reputation around the world—but this budgetary-bureaucratic mess as well. Certainly, he knows where the line items are buried to a degree that few insiders can match.

snip//

[Zavulon]

7. I know.

I'm just not one of them. Having previous exposure to classified - even extensive exposure - simply doesn't qualify one to run an agency like the CIA.

I do have to admit that I find the last point in your most recent post to be his best qualification, but I really don't think it's enough. Let's both hope that I'm wrong.