Laura Rozen: Panetta choice for CIA is praised by some in the foreign policy field

[BurtWorm]

I find this reassuring. My instinct was to think Panetta was a weird choice--not as weird as Gupta for Surgeon General :wtf: but something out of left field nevertheless. "Out of the box" may be more like it, and in this case, that could be good. Odd that Zelikow is praising the choice as brilliant, but I doubt it's because he thinks it will benefit Condee Rice in some way. ;-)

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/node/14914



A former senior CIA manager said the message of the Panetta appointment was clear: "The message is, 'I don't want to hear anything out of the CIA. Make it go away. No scandals. Keep it quiet,'" the former officer told me. "They put over there a guy who is a political loyalist, who will keep everything nice and quiet, but who won't know a good piece of intelligence from a shitty piece of intelligence, and wouldn't know a good intelligence officer" from a bad one.

But former intelligence analyst Greg Treverton, now with the Rand Corporation, said Panetta's experience as a former White House chief of staff might give him a unique understanding of the presidency and its needs for intelligence. "One of my experiences with people like Panetta who have been chief of staff is that they have a clear sense of what is helpful to the president that most senior officials don't," Treverton told me. "They get it. What he could do and couldn't do. And that's an interesting advantage Panetta brings. Knowledge of what the presidential stakes are like, how issues arise, and what they need to be protected from, for better or worse."

Retired CIA deputy director for the East Europe division Milt Bearden said Panetta is a "brilliant" choice. "It is not problematic that Panetta lacks experience in intelligence," Bearden e-mailed. "Intel experience is overrated. Good judgement, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance. Why not DNI?"

The Panetta choice also makes sense to him, said Philip Zelikow, a former counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (and Foreign Policy writer)<BurtWorm adds: And the controversial executive director of the 9/11 commission>. "The issues of presidential trust and clean hands are, at this moment in history, most important," Zelikow said by e-mail. "And even an 'intelligence professional' would have to rely on others in many ways. ... So Obama and his team have made a certain kind of tradeoff."

Initial Hill reaction was one of puzzlement, and consternation by at least one key senator that she had not been consulted on the choice. "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," incoming chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was cited by the Los Angeles Times. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time." Confirmation prep teams, take note.

[Bucky]

1. Gupta's a good choice because 95% of the surgeon generals job is PR

It makes more sense to hire a PR expert than a physician for that job. Although obviously a PR expert with some background in public health & safety issues would be ideal. Seen through that vector, the choice really comes down to either Sanjay Gupta or David Hasselhoff.

[BurtWorm]

2. I wanted Hugh Laurie, myself.

:headbang:

[Bucky]

3. You mean for Surgeon-General... or do you just want Hugh Laurie?

Apparently lots of people do. I'm tempted to start walking with a cane and snarling at everybody just to get a date.