The appointment of Leon Panetta to run the CIA in the Obama administration has sent shock waves through the US intelligence community.
Panetta, who was Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House, is a budget hawk who in the past has argued for tougher control of intelligence spending. At the same time, he has been a fierce critic of the CIA’s campaign of kidnapping, assassination, torture and warrantless wiretapping, which was authorized under the Bush administration.
For decades, the CIA has fiercely resisted outsiders being imposed on its clandestine and insular world. The last two outsiders to run the CIA, Admiral Stansfield Turner and John Deutch, were widely considered failures, and CIA professionals argue that Panetta, who lacks any intelligence experience, will find the job exceptionally challenging.
The appointment is particularly surprising for two reasons. First, the intelligence transition team was heavily packed with former CIA officers and so the thinking inside the beltway was that the Agency was assured an easy ride with the appointment of one of their own. Second, the Congressional Intelligence Committees were not consulted about the appointments and the miffed Democrats in charge have made clear they think the appointment is a mistake.
For weeks, the Obama team have struggled to find a CIA Director. The front runner, John Brennan, withdrew his name from contention after he was attacked for his alleged support of torture. While the criticism was unfair – he had already left the Agency when much of the activities took place – Brennan’s fall was a clear signal that Obama would have to find somebody untainted by the Bush years. That mandate forced a wider search which in turn played into the hands of the real reformers who have long argued that intelligence experience is unnecessary to run an organization that is no different from any other bureaucracy or business.
There is a large group of people who have access to the world of secrets both inside and outside the CIA who are quietly cheering the appointment. For decades, the CIA’s institutional inertia and resistance to change resulted in shoddy intelligence and weak analysis. For example, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, it was the British and not the Americans who had spies in place. Since 2001, the CIA has invested heavily in recruiting spies but has little to show for it, especially in the terrorist groups that are its principal target.
Under Bush, the Agency’s budget has increased exponentially but the inefficient processes have continued under both George Tenet and General Mike Hayden who are both congenial company but weak managers with no understanding or control of oversight and accountability.
That will not be a problem with Panetta. In the Clinton White House, he was one of the few strong personalities who ruled the competing egos and the budget with an iron hand. If he can deliver even a fraction of such discipline to the CIA, he will be doing America and the world a great service.
Comments