Is Torture on Your Resume?

 

January 21, 2009

In choosing Leon Panetta, a former eight-term Congressman from California and President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, President Barack Obama has picked a well-known public servant.  Although Panetta is respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike, who describe him as a man of integrity and an able administrator, the nominationhas aroused controversy.

Lack of Specific Experience?

The argument against Pannetta is that he does not have enough experience in the spy and intelligence business.

With the United States engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and with conflicts simmering from Pakistan to Russia, the CIA will play a key role in informing our next president’s foreign policy decisions.

The Torture Factor

Commentators note that Obama’s first choice for the position was reported to be John Brennan, an intelligence official in the Bush administration.  Brennan was eventually skipped over because of his ties to the Bush administration’s policies related to the handling of enemy combatants, including degrading treatment, torture and detention without trial.

Obama said during his campaign that he was against the use of torture.  The rejection of individuals who were part of the past administration suggests a desire to make a complete and symbolic break with policies of the Bush administration on this issue.

However, many Americans believe that when facing a ruthless enemy, torture is an acceptable tool in the effort to protect the public and obtain valuable information from prisoners.

The Case for Panetta

The torture issue has partially obscured the question lawmakers will face when asked to confirm Panetta for the top CIA post:  Does the administrator’s job require intimate understanding of the intelligence agency?

As Chief of Staff to President Clinton for three years and a congressman for 16, Panetta has concerned himself with national and international issues, including security, for a significant part of his career.  While this is arguably not the same as a career in intelligence, it is, none-the-less, an undisputable level of responsibility and familiarity with national security preparing him for the role.  He began his distinguished career in public service as a First Lieutenant in the army from 1964-66.

Admittedly, knowing the nuts and bolts of an operation is often invaluable to organizational leadership.  Intelligence experience would give the director the certain ability to question and evaluate the proposals, reports and performance of his underlings.  

Fresh Perspective

On the other hand, might there be an advantage of having an able administrator, loyal to the President (the only elected official in the entire intelligence hierarchy), rather than to the agency and its personnel and practices?

Given the recent record of repeated intelligence failures (lead up to 9/11, Osama Bin Laden’sdisappearance post 9/11; WMD in Iraq and unanticipated difficulties with strategies in Afghanistan and Iraq) trusting an insider may not be wise.  Obama can ask Panetta for results and if results do not come, Obama should be able to get frank assessments from someone he trusts about what is wrong and how it can be fixed.

Leadership Needed

The CIA is a massive operation with nearly 20,000 employees. There are senior-level departments heads, who have worked their way through the ranks, who should form the bridge between daily operations and Panetta’s big-picture management. The Director of Central Intelligence, or DCI, does not need to micro-manage daily activity.   He needs to guard against “failures of imagination” as the 9/11 Commission Report put it, protecting against “accepting what are viewed as givens, including that efforts to identify and fix glaring vulnerabilities to dangerous threats would be to costly, too controversial, or too disruptive.”

Among the most obvious faults cited in the 9/11 report were the inadequate communications within the intelligence community.  An outsider might very well have seen such weaknesses more clearly than one who is lulled by experience into the belief that the way things are is the best way and the way they will always be.

Historically, two well-regarded CIA chiefs, John McCone (1961) and George H.W. Bush (1976), came to the CIA without intelligence experience.  McCone served under President Kennedy, and his agency provided Kennedy with evidence of the Soviet placement of missiles in Cuba, precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The early detection of threatening military weaponry using advanced technology and organized surveillance was a crucial step in holding a line, albeit a tense one, on efforts by the Soviets at world domination.

During his tenure as Ronald Reagan’s CIA head, George H.W. Bush, was best known for supporting the use of cutting-edge intelligence gathering technology.  This may have been possible for the express reason that he was an outsider instead of a director schooled in a previous era of agency procedures.

At this point, the confirmation process should not be a big hurdle for Panetta