Why Leon Panetta is the Wrong Pick for CIA Director

Barack Obama has let me down already.

I would have thought that after all these post-Sept. 11 years of blasting our intelligence agencies for missing this and that, that Obama would have selected as his CIA director someone who is well-versed in international and domestic intelligence, who knows what our shortcomings are on the ground overseas, and who knows how to fix them. But yet, his pick? Leon Panetta.

I'm not criticizing Panetta's abilities to run an agency, or be a great manager, or whether he knows the right people in the right places to get things done.

But of all the positions, this is one where we don't need a bureaucrat. We need a spy - er, I mean, intelligence professional - at least, as close to one as we can get. Bin Laden's still out there, as are other Al Qaeda leaders, along with a host of other people who, by now, want to kill us.

From AP:

"President-elect Barack Obama's decision to fill the nation's top intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering [ he also will pick Retired Adm. Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence] surprised the spy community and signaled the Democrat's intention for a clean break from Bush administration policies. ...Obama is sending an unequivocal message that controversial administration policies approving harsh interrogations, waterboarding and extraordinary renditions - the secret transfer of prisoners to other governments with a history of torture - and warrantless wiretapping are over, said several officials."

Ok, fine. So make a break with the Bush administration and send that message. But do it with someone who knows the material. Sending someone who is not an intelligence expert is sending a message - but not exactly a good one.

Yes, Panetta worked on the Iraq Study Group. Oh, and he also, as President Clinton's chief of staff, lef the internal effort to find a new CIA chief that led to the selection of John Deutsch in 1995. Hmmm, that still doesn't seem to quite be enough resume material to make him qualified as "CIA director."

The New York Times says members of Obama's transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democrats with intelligence experience. There are other reports that several candidates with actual CIA experience (gasp) were passed over.

From the Times:

"Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program."

Seriously? That's why? Because she at one time thought that wiretapping phone calls coming into this country either from or between suspected terrorists was a good idea? Lots of people were on board with certain techniques that only later became politically unpopular (i.e. Nancy Pelosi and waterboarding, if you believe this story). I'm not sure that should wipe them entirely out of contention.

Then there's this, from the LA Times:

"A former top CIA official said that the Panetta announcement signaled two things for the agency: 'a) that they want total political control and b) the dismantling continues.'"

"Total political control?" I thought the whole idea of the CIA was that, regardless of what party was in the Oval Office and in Congress, this was an agency that could forge ahead above the political fray? This is not to be confused with above the law...

There's a belief that having Panetta at the helm will bring CIA closer to the president in the orbit of agencies vyying for his attention. While great, the CIA still has to give the president valuable info he can use to be at all effective.

Republicans likely will try to make hay out of Panetta's past wrangling with the CIA over its budget; I for one hope he, this time, doesn't try to cut corners here but instead puts more money into our intelligence and information-gathering efforts overseas, including boosting human intelligence sources. Anyone with even a mention of intelligence on their resume will tell you that we can have all the technology in the world, but if we don't have human assets on the ground, we're still way behind the curve.

Everyone who knows Panetta agrees he's the nicest guy there is, is well-connected and is a great manager. Great. But just how much will that help us tackle the greatest threats to our security in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and other corners where bad guys may lurk? I hope he's a fast learner.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on our soil, I've become fascinated by books, movies, reports - anything relating to America's intelligence capabilities - or lack thereof. Directly after the attacks, I sat in on congressional hearings grilling intelligence officials over how such a horrible thing could have happened on their watch. I've talked to intelligence experts. Folks, it's scary. It's scary just how much we don't know, and how we're severely lacking in assets that can help us.

Consider this: The NYPD has more than 700 members who speak 47 different languages - including Pashto, Urdu and Fujianese - and has about 60 Arabic speakers. About two years ago, the FBI had about half that number of Arabic speakers. The CIAs numbers were thought to be similar.

I've tried to understand how it could be that the greatest nation on Earth could be so behind in the spy game. I would hope that the Obama administration would not continue to dismantle or devalue the CIA - a trend that seems to have been going on for the past few years - but to give it the leaders and resources it needs to be truly a world-class intelligence operation.

Here's hoping Panetta defies early expectations of him and does just that. And perhaps he can help restore the agency's reputation a bit while he's at it.