Yes, yet another in the long stream of Panetta diaries.
The Panetta brouhaha has erupted on DKOS, with impassioned arguments from both sides. I want to lay out my case in a diary, although I know it will quickly vanish.
Join me below the jump.
My argument is going to move away from any speculation on why DiFi and Rockefeller may be against him (although there are many). Rather, I am going to make the case that what is effectively a top level manager (don't want to say CEO) has a very different purpose than a mid or lower level manager.
Those people that manage higher level employees (such as the DCI) have the following functions, none of which require intelligence expertise.
- Act as communication gateway with the congress and military.
This function requires a good communicator, with ties in both of those organizations. Note that this does not preclude an "intel professional", but it does not require one either. This man ran the White House and as such, knows with whom, when, what, and how to communicate. He should bring much needed transparency to the organization.
- Secure and provide resources for the people actually doing the work.
This function is a staple of higher management and has been sorely missing from the CIA for a long time. As I have read in some comments, the DCI needs to "get the right bodies in the right place at the right time".
This simply requires the ability to listen to your own high level managers and secure resources (see point 1). Again, it doesn't preclude a "professional", but it absolutely doesn't require one. For those that would say "How will he know the right bodies, place, and time?", simply realize that there are managers on the ground to tell him that. Wouldn't it be nice to have a DCI that listens to them?
- Stay the HELL out of the way of the people actually doing the work.
This is a bit of a follow on from point 2, but distinct enough for its own point. The problem with promoting an "expert" to the position of management is that they forget that they aren't doing the old job any more. Experts tend to be much less willing to delegate to people so that they can perform functions one and two. This actually does speak against an intel professional as DCI, as someone like that will probably meddle too much in day to day activities. Note: Porter Goss' issues with this.
-------
My final point is an analogy I have provided elsewhere. It goes like this. If you promote your best sales person to be sales manager, it may be bad for two reasons. First, the skills required to manage sales people are distinctly different than those required to be a sales person. Just because someone is a good sales person does NOT mean they are a good manager. And second (and perhaps more importantly), if they're so good at selling, why don't you want them selling instead of managing?
To apply this to the Panetta case, why not put an "intel professional" in a position where they are actually doing intel work?
-----
Now, to the rebuttals I expect and their response.
Rebuttal 1: The professionals at CIA will not respect an "outsider". This is bad because they will withhold information from him and work to get him removed.
Response: Bull sticks. The professionals at CIA take their jobs seriously and are there to do a good job. The chain of command is just that, a chain of command. No serious career CIA employee would do this. (Temper this by saying, any Bush appointee might, but the career guys won't.
Rebuttal 2: The DCI needs intel experience so he can effectively assign resources.
Response: See Point 2 above. That is what the careerist managers are for, it is redundant (and possibly dangerous - point 3) to have the DCI be able to do that.
Rebuttal 3: The Senate Intel Committee doesn't want this guy.
Response: Boo Fucking Hoo. And they have done such a great job? Sorry, I said I wouldn't get into the complicity of DiFi and her "colleagues" on SIC, but, the DCI doesn't need their support.
-----
So - I hope this stays on the list for a while so that we can debate these points. I am open to hearing from pro and con.
Cheers.