Panetta to be SOD

bruno said:
I'm sure that Panetta got chosen because of his understanding of the budget process combined with his performance as DCI in the last couple of years, whcih contrary to initial speculation was actually pretty solidly in the camp of protecting the Agency and it's personnel. That's probably a good thing for the DoD- he knows how things work in the budgeting process and can work with Congress to keep the Dod from catastrophically losing out on it's critical priorities

I agree.

Bruno said:
I think that Gen Petraeus appointment is the wild card here- he is obviously a very intelligent man who understands the users perspective on intelligence and having re- written the Counterinsurgency doctrine obviously understands that world pretty well. There is however an institutional resistance to radical change, and I wonder if Gen Petraeus will bring change, be changed, or be a short term resident of the position becasue he could neither adapt or force the change on his organization.

Agree again.

The thing is just as you have that fear of Petraeus, I feel the same way about Panetta.

Anyone who ever has lived in the corporate world knows that the new leader will try to place their stamp/mark quickly to say this is my vision. Too many people believe the military is not like that world. They will be sorely mistaken to follow that fallacy.

I recall Rummy's perspective back in 01/02. The Army was not his BFF. They felt that he played favorites from a military POV with the Navy and the AF. Gates had a total different approach.

This is going to be Panetta's and all I am saying is let's wait until the dust settles, because I will bet my life that those who believe he is the best will feel differently when he is the SOD.

MPO, I believe Panetta is going to take an approach from a budget POV "quick reactionary" if he is in a pushed come to shove.
 
Anyone who ever has lived in the corporate world knows that the new leader will try to place their stamp/mark quickly to say this is my vision. Too many people believe the military is not like that world. They will be sorely mistaken to follow that fallacy.

I think Panetta operates differently, as a leader, recognizing the importance of valuing the existing organization; I heard an analysis recently by John McLaughlin, former Deputy Director of the CIA, who said this about Panetta (in converation with Jim Lehrer on the NewsHour):

"JIM LEHRER: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the general consensus was that when Panetta became head of the CIA, some of the folks in the agency doubted whether or not he was qualified to come in. And he was looked upon as somebody, a politician who had come in and may not be the right person.

He did -- did he, in fact, win over the troops of the CIA?

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: He did very much so. There's a bit of a myth that the CIA will not embrace an outsider. They will if it's someone who is as respected and connected and savvy as Leon Panetta.

But to be fair, I mean, he didn't know a lot about intelligence when he came. He was a very quick study. And he did the thing that a CIA director has to do in order to succeed. And that was, he listened. And he didn't bring a lot of people with him. He brought in one person with him. He came in...

JIM LEHRER: One outside person with him?

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Only one person came with him, his chief of staff.

JIM LEHRER: Everybody else that is under him at the CIA now are people who were already in office?

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Is that unusual?

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: It is unusual. And -- but it sends a message to the troops there that this is a person who is going to rely on them, look to them, show them a lot of respect. You know, the CIA is always in the midst of controversy, so they are always looking for someone who can defend them, stick up for them. And he's done that. And he's learned his brief very well."​
 
Back
Top