Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 27, 2011 16:09:51 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-to-nominate-cia-director-leon-panetta-as-defense-secretary/2011/04/27/AFRoxeyE_story.html?hpid=z1Of course, I think David Petraeus is an ideal choice for CIA director. Can you think of anyone else really with a better understanding of the nation's intelligence needs in the face of its (IMO anyway) most serious threat? I don't know about the politics of it. Arguably, if Obama thought that Petraeus was a possible rival in 2012, this posting will remove him somewhat from the public spotlight. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this was not a political move, it was just the best choice. I agree and applaud the President for this. Not sure entirely how I feel about Panetta as SecDef, but it also makes sense from the administration's perspective. I think Panetta's history is as a political partisan, but he didn't run CIA that way, and I don't think he'll run the Defense Department that way. I do think he'll follow through on the administration's push for large defense cuts, but Gates was going through with that anyway. I think Panetta will see that through, as would anyone who got appointed to this position. Crocker is interesting in that he was Bush's guy in Iraq. Well, his second guy. I don't think too many people outside of the far, far left question that Crocker did very well in that position. I don't know if he can succeed in creating better diplomatic solutions and relations in Afghanistan, but I don't know if anyone can succeed in that job. He's as good or better than just about anyone else. No one's a bigger critic of Obama than me, but on these moves, I give an overall thumbs up, with a thumbs WAY up on the Petraeus selection
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 27, 2011 16:58:33 GMT -5
The Patraeus appointment seems odd to me--I would think that his skills would be more useful in a military position, like replacing Adm. Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I agree Crocker is a great choice, and I don't really know enough about Panetta to comment about his ability to run DoD.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 27, 2011 17:32:14 GMT -5
Some very interesting choices, to say the least.
Petraeus will do a great job as CIA director, but I'm not sure it's the best use of his talents. I'm also pretty sure it's not the job he wanted. According to those in the know, Petraeus really wants to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and this appointment might be an obstacle along that road.
Panetta will be a downgrade from Gates, but you could say that about anybody. He might do a fine job, but politically he could be a problem for Obama. The great thing about Gates in the political sense was that he was a Republican and Bush's man, so it was a lot harder to call Obama soft on defense when it was a Republican implementing his agenda for the DOD. Without that sort of political shield, I expect a lot more cries about Obama being soft on defense, especially if he cuts the DOD's budget.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 27, 2011 18:49:16 GMT -5
Some very interesting choices, to say the least. Petraeus will do a great job as CIA director, but I'm not sure it's the best use of his talents. I'm also pretty sure it's not the job he wanted. According to those in the know, Petraeus really wants to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and this appointment might be an obstacle along that road. Panetta will be a downgrade from Gates, but you could say that about anybody. He might do a fine job, but politically he could be a problem for Obama. The great thing about Gates in the political sense was that he was a Republican and Bush's man, so it was a lot harder to call Obama soft on defense when it was a Republican implementing his agenda for the DOD. Without that sort of political shield, I expect a lot more cries about Obama being soft on defense, especially if he cuts the DOD's budget. I don't know if this is implied or not, but won't Petraeus have to retire to take the CIA directorship? Isn't that a civilian position? So wouldn't that take Joint Chief's chairman off the table forever? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 27, 2011 19:02:33 GMT -5
Petraeus is retiring. This summer, I believe.
I'm sure he might have put off his retirement for a chance at Chairman of Joint Chiefs, but he wasn't going to get that.
Back to hockey.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 28, 2011 9:00:02 GMT -5
Leaving aside some of the utter nonsense in this thread such as "Arguably, if Obama thought that Petraeus was a possible rival in 2012, this posting will remove him somewhat from the public spotlight", the story linked below gives a pretty good account of the further overlapping of missions and responsibilities between the CIA and Pentagon, and why cross-developing managements at the very top of makes sense. Understanding both elements is more important than ever before, contributing to the effectiveness of Current SecDef Gates who was formerly CIA Director. Paralleling the Pentagon's ever increasing reliance on Special Ops, the CIA's black ops and in-country intelligence gathering has mushroomed. In many ways, it is an overlapping/rejoining of the two functions that were established together under the OSS during WWII -- then disbanded/separated after the war. Obama’s Pentagon and C.I.A. Picks Show Shift in How U.S. Fights
Excerpts
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decision to send an intelligence chief to the Pentagon and a four-star general to the Central Intelligence Agency is the latest evidence of a significant shift over the past decade in how the United States fights its battles — the blurring of lines between soldiers and spies in secret American missions abroad.
...
The result is that American military and intelligence operatives are at times virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.
...
Officials acknowledge that the lines between soldiering and spying have blurred. “It’s really irrelevant whether you call it a covert action or a military special operation,” said Dennis C. Blair, a retired four-star admiral and a former director of national intelligence. “I don’t really think there is any distinction.”
...few believe that the trend is likely to be reversed. A succession of wars has strained the ranks of both the Pentagon and the C.I.A., and the United States has come to believe that many of its current enemies are best fought with timely intelligence rather than overwhelming military firepower. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 28, 2011 9:08:34 GMT -5
Nice of you to dismiss what I already dismissed. Very useful.  |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 28, 2011 9:08:17 GMT -5
I don't know if this is implied or not, but won't Petraeus have to retire to take the CIA directorship? Isn't that a civilian position? So wouldn't that take Joint Chief's chairman off the table forever?Good question, and I don't know the answer for sure, but there is a relevant precedent that would seem to suggest otherwise. In 2003, General Peter Schoonmaker, was recalled from retirement to become the Chief of Staff of the US Army, and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had retired 3 years earlier, and from his previous post as Commander-In-Chief, US Special Operations Command. During his 3 year retirement, Gen. Schoonmaker had been working in the private sector. I am almost certain he was the first Officer from Special Ops to rise to the level of Chief of Staff. And, given the article linked in my previous post in this thread, I don't think that was a coincidence. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 28, 2011 9:10:11 GMT -5
Nice of you to dismiss what I already dismissed. Very useful. Cute of you to bring it up just so you could dismiss it. Why then bring it up in the first place? |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 28, 2011 9:25:23 GMT -5
Nice of you to dismiss what I already dismissed. Very useful. Cute of you to bring it up just so you could dismiss it. Why then bring it up in the first place? It should be acknowledged because it is one of the obvious possible explanations for the unorthodox personnel shift. We've also seen it once in the last two years with the appointment of Gov. Huntsman to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. It's not likely a major contributing influence in Obama's decision though and so it should be dismissed. In fact, I think one of the single savviest things Obama could do next year would be to replace Amtrak Joe with Gen. Petraeus on the 2012 ticket. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Apr 28, 2011 9:59:18 GMT -5
Could someone explain to me what this means for Afghanistan? We've gone from McKiernan to McChrystal to Petraeus within the span of 2 years and when Petraeus took over the media was basically saying "if he can't get it done then it can't be done and we'll have to get out". Does this signal a winding down in Afghanistan?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 28, 2011 10:26:07 GMT -5
Could someone explain to me what this means for Afghanistan? We've gone from McKiernan to McChrystal to Petraeus within the span of 2 years and when Petraeus took over the media was basically saying "if he can't get it done then it can't be done and we'll have to get out". Does this signal a winding down in Afghanistan? I wish I knew the answer to that question. And yes, I brought up the political possibilities because (A) it was already being discussed on MSNBC and other places (though I will grant you that alone wouldn't disqualify it as utter nonsense, given that MSNBC covered the birther issue more extensively than any other network by a mile); (B) the administration has certainly entered re-election mode, not 100% by any stretch, but they're definitely messaging and positioning for the campaign; (C) David Petraeus' name is consistently mentioned as a potential future presidential or vice presidential candidate; and (D) the position of CIA director is, in fact, a position largely out of the public spotlight, as evidenced by the fact that no one has heard from Leon Panetta since he got into a fight with Nancy Pelosi. So, yes, I think it's worth bringing up and is "arguable." I don't consider any of the above points "utter nonsense." I do not happen to believe they were a significant factor and I credit the administration for its choices. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 28, 2011 10:31:39 GMT -5
Could someone explain to me what this means for Afghanistan? We've gone from McKiernan to McChrystal to Petraeus within the span of 2 years and when Petraeus took over the media was basically saying "if he can't get it done then it can't be done and we'll have to get out". Does this signal a winding down in Afghanistan? When Petraeus succeeded McChrystal in Afghanistan, he was replaced as the commander of CENTCOM by an equally capable intellectual general, Gen. Mattis, USMC. That should provide sufficient continuity in the Afghan fight that I think Petraeus's departure from the theater will not signal an abrupt departure from the administration's present course. Keep in mind too that unlike MacKiernan, Gen. McChrystal wasn't fired for cause, he was the quarterback running Petraeus's game plan already. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Apr 28, 2011 10:56:33 GMT -5
(D) the position of CIA director is, in fact, a position largely out of the public spotlight, as evidenced by the fact that no one has heard from Leon Panetta since he got into a fight with Nancy Pelosi. Not true - he was a guest judge on Top Chef DC, hated on Angela and Amanda's dishes, and then got called out of the room halfway through the tasting. I've never seen more uncomfortable banter after he left the room - all the other CIA employees looked like they would rather be hiding under the table than answer any question Padma had. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 28, 2011 11:00:52 GMT -5
(D) the position of CIA director is, in fact, a position largely out of the public spotlight, as evidenced by the fact that no one has heard from Leon Panetta since he got into a fight with Nancy Pelosi. Not true - he was a guest judge on Top Chef DC, hated on Angela and Amanda's dishes, and then got called out of the room halfway through the tasting. I've never seen more uncomfortable banter after he left the room - all the other CIA employees looked like they would rather be hiding under the table than answer any question Padma had. Ha! Wow. I never saw that. OK, fair enough, TC. ;D |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 28, 2011 11:51:54 GMT -5
Could someone explain to me what this means for Afghanistan? We've gone from McKiernan to McChrystal to Petraeus within the span of 2 years and when Petraeus took over the media was basically saying "if he can't get it done then it can't be done and we'll have to get out". Does this signal a winding down in Afghanistan? Rotating military leaders happens. As Rosslyn mentioned, the issue is the plan. Also, as Rosslyn mentioned, the bigger job is actually CENTCOM (Mattis' job) - running the US forces in Afghanistan is (technically, at least) subservient to that. Note that, had there been concerns about continuity, Petraeus' deputy could have been promoted - however, the prime issue was being able to sell the war to Congress and the public. What this means for Afghanistan - soldiers are still going to die. The plan related to giving the best chance to make those deaths mean something remains in place and isn't scheduled to change - and shuffling the chairs doesn't mean much. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 28, 2011 12:02:44 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 28, 2011 12:16:42 GMT -5
Cute of you to bring it up just so you could dismiss it. Why then bring it up in the first place? It should be acknowledged because it is one of the obvious possible explanations for the unorthodox personnel shift. It's a cheap shot. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 28, 2011 13:37:37 GMT -5
It should be acknowledged because it is one of the obvious possible explanations for the unorthodox personnel shift. It's a cheap shot. It's not a cheap shot! Numerous pundits have commented on it. Petraeus has been discussed as a candidate, and it's reasonable to assume that he may have been Huntsman-ed. Commenting on it, even to say that you don't think it's the reason why, seems fully legit. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 28, 2011 14:14:16 GMT -5
It's legit to comment on it, but the way it's phrased is a cheap shot. But that's ok, 'cause that's what we do. I know I do! ;D
|
|
