Gen. Patraeus and the CIA (cont.)

Responding to a friend's comment:

I am glad that you brought up the record of Sec. Gates as we discuss the expected transition in leadership within the administration. By all current accounts he has been the best example of civilian leadership in recent memory. It appears that the quality of his public character and management abilities might well be taught those aspiring to public service and to many now so engaged.

I believe that you correctly point out the transferrable management skills of those at the four star level in the military. As a four star general, I am confident that Gen. Patraeus has those skills. I am more concerned, and have been, about the recent and ongoing construct of the CIA and its ability to effectively support both para-military and classic intelligence and counter-intelligence programs. The spotlight has been on the para-military and Patraeus has held the leash in those counter terrorism and insurgency operations. Decades of service in uniform will, presumably, cause substantial concern for continuing military missions and objectives. What I suggest is that counter terrorism/insurgency is not the greatest threat to the United States and the CIA's directives and Patraeus's leadership will need to address that shifting paradigm.

It is now an open question whether Gen. Patraeus will remain on active duty while CIA Director. Should he do so, he should not follow the example of Michael Hayden who in his roles with the CIA and NSA continued to wear his military uniform. The distinction in responsibilities and authority must be clear.

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.

Fire that writer, Mr President

Mr. President: Fire the writers who wrote your budget speech today. The issues are lost, the seriousness is lost, and the strength of your arguments are ineffectively presented in a rambling disjointed speech. The ideological flow will not persuade or convince those now so used to hyperbole and simple, baseless slogans. Choose 4 to 6 specifics and break down each to simple three word summary for presentation to the masses.

Budget on Facebook

The budget impasse - my Facebook responses:

"Where does the blame rightfully lay?"

Of course, this is politics. The players: a Democrat executive and Senate protecting values through programs deemed important and Republican operatives attempting to undo and void those programs. This is politics at this point in time having nothing to do with the deficit. In Congress, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maine and elsewhere, Republicans seek to roll back programs for ideological purposes under the guise of fiscal necessity. We are seeing the first battles and skirmishes of a class war only now being met with a defense by "the silent majority."


"We must do something like this for the sake of our Grandkids---Wake up America!"

Agreed we must do something and "Wake up" to do it. Our country has encountered and survived past "crises" by the strength of our ingenuity and willingness to adapt to overcome the challenge. As I read the paper outlining the Republican/Ryan strategic approach to the deficit and our future, I see nothing but the same failed ideology that, in large measure, created this "crisis." The rhetoric of the paper is comforting and inviting. But the invitation is to class war with further economic loss to all but corporations and the elite. New paradigms and an adaptation to global challenges with investments in education and freeing entrepreneurs must displace the existing oligarchy.

The Budget Battle

Assuming for the sake of argument that the most recent national election constituted a political "mandate" to firmly address the federal deficit, there is NO national mandate rationally discernible from that election to cut either federal regulation of air quality standards or support for women's health programs (labelling this by both political parties as "abortions" is inaccurate and misleading) or remove funding, for purely ideological reasons, for other programs of relatively insignificant budgetary effect.

Nor should a majority party in one House of Congress presume to speak for all Americans when the Executive and the Senate are controlled by the opposing party under the continuing mandate of two national elections. Eliminate all "riders" to the funding bill and the ideological issues can be argued and presented directly to the electorate for 2012.