NEW YORK --- After a decade of war with al-Qaida the potential for another devastating terrorist assault "remains very real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday following a somber visit to ground zero of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.
Showing posts with label Panetta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Panetta. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
General Patraeus to CIA
The New York Times reports today that President Obama is expected to name Leon E. Panetta Defense Secretary and David H. Petraeus C.I.A. Director.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html?_r=1&hp
The Panetta move is understandable, in part, because it allows consistency at policy level. Hopefully, Panetta's tour at the CIA will have formed in him an appreciation for the role of the Intelligence Agency that will correctly distinguish and define intelligence programs within the military establishment. The Patraeus assignment is, in my view, extraordinary. Certainly there have been former military flag officers assigned in the past. Not certain if Stansfield Turner was active duty while head of CIA in the '70s, but, whatever Turner's rank or status, he was a disaster for the Agency and the country in that role.
Patraeus is of different mettle and experience. I would have thought that his experience and credibility would have warranted a role with a broader portfolio. His experience and abilities should provide the leadership essential for the CIA as well as enhance its credibility among critics. His experience has however focused him on military needs and applications almost exclusively in counter terrorism and insurgency. Notwithstanding the substantial para-military components now within the Agency, the need for "classic" intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities are critical. Efforts to counter cyber-terrorism include human and other clandestine operations. China, for example, has only, it appears, tangentially touched his primary military responsibilities. Africa (now becoming fixed in China's sphere of influence) as well has not been a primary focus. South America will take independent study. His recommendations to the President on current and long term intelligence directions and policy may accordingly be parochial. In the past these factors would not concern me to the degree they do today because in the past the Agency was staffed by career intelligence officers with extraordinary dedication to the best interests of the Country. Today a substantial number of positions are staffed by contract personnel whose enhanced salaries and corporate influence must present conflict in dedication.
In sum, he will have a learning curve, be unable to speak candidly to a broad audience and enters a field of endeavor fraught with potentials for all sorts of scandals, diversions and failures. His acceptance of the role seems to speak, in my view, to his own personal integrity, devotion to duty and love of this country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html?_r=1&hp
The Panetta move is understandable, in part, because it allows consistency at policy level. Hopefully, Panetta's tour at the CIA will have formed in him an appreciation for the role of the Intelligence Agency that will correctly distinguish and define intelligence programs within the military establishment. The Patraeus assignment is, in my view, extraordinary. Certainly there have been former military flag officers assigned in the past. Not certain if Stansfield Turner was active duty while head of CIA in the '70s, but, whatever Turner's rank or status, he was a disaster for the Agency and the country in that role.
Patraeus is of different mettle and experience. I would have thought that his experience and credibility would have warranted a role with a broader portfolio. His experience and abilities should provide the leadership essential for the CIA as well as enhance its credibility among critics. His experience has however focused him on military needs and applications almost exclusively in counter terrorism and insurgency. Notwithstanding the substantial para-military components now within the Agency, the need for "classic" intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities are critical. Efforts to counter cyber-terrorism include human and other clandestine operations. China, for example, has only, it appears, tangentially touched his primary military responsibilities. Africa (now becoming fixed in China's sphere of influence) as well has not been a primary focus. South America will take independent study. His recommendations to the President on current and long term intelligence directions and policy may accordingly be parochial. In the past these factors would not concern me to the degree they do today because in the past the Agency was staffed by career intelligence officers with extraordinary dedication to the best interests of the Country. Today a substantial number of positions are staffed by contract personnel whose enhanced salaries and corporate influence must present conflict in dedication.
In sum, he will have a learning curve, be unable to speak candidly to a broad audience and enters a field of endeavor fraught with potentials for all sorts of scandals, diversions and failures. His acceptance of the role seems to speak, in my view, to his own personal integrity, devotion to duty and love of this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)