The defense community is buzzing now that the announcement of Leon Panetta to become the next Secretary of Defense (yes, at last, a Democratic president is choosing a Democrat for SecDef, amazing). And most likely, the intel community is going to be talking about having all-star General David Petraeus as its next director (but you won't hear them, they're too covert). Spencer Ackerman has some thoughts here at the Danger Room, here's Jason Fritz at InkSpots with some good analysis, or you can rely on the MSM coverage.
I don't have that much to say about the issue. People note that there are more qualified individuals out there to head the Defense Department and CIA, and they'd be right. But this isn't about hiring the most qualified persons, it's about ensuring that the president's near-term objectives are addressed by stable hands that the president trusts. That means he's not going to go outside for new individuals who might be hung out by partisan debates during the nomination process.
There are those who will suggest that Obama put Petraeus in a government position in order to sideline any ambitions by the general for a 2012 presidential run. These people tend to ignore Petraeus' insistence that he's not really interested in politics as much as the Republicans are interested in a celebrity status retired general running for their ticket. There are others who will suggest that Petraeus will shape up and reform the intelligence community to provide more accurate, timely, and "actionable" intelligence on terrorism, while Panetta will reform the defense community to actually field defense systems on time and transform into a modern 21st century fighting force. These people tend to ignore the unchanging bureaucracy and processes that meticulously grind down any new leadership trends or notions of reform until those leaders move on, beaten down by the system.
No, I think there is a much simpler answer to this uninspiring selection of leaders. Obama does want to clean up the GWB administration's mess in the Middle East during his second term. To do that, he needs to be able to work with Congress on an executable strategy that slowly downsizes our military efforts overseas while increasing the emphasis on spycraft and international cooperation in current conflicts. Panetta can be trusted to skillfully manage the DoD bureaucrats while also getting cooperation from the Congressional committees that might block the administration's objectives. Meanwhile, Petraeus has the experience with counter-terrorism and the intel community to have the credibility to show that the Democratic-led administration isn't a soft, liberal bunch of war-hating hippies.
These assignments do not reflect the best-qualified individuals who were available to lead and/or transform the DoD and CIA, stuck in the twen-cen as they are, but they are the best-qualified individuals to achieve the president's immediate objectives of drawing down in the Middle East and to ensure that he has a good stump platform for his second term ambitions. I think when you hear the nominations for the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and (eventually) Secretary of State, the same pattern will emerge.
Sometimes I am amazed in a country of 300 million the same small, incestous group continues to run the country. On the other hand, looking at the latest batch of "teabagging" politicans who got elected, I am not sure there is pool of sane, intelligent people to pick from for leadership positions.
Posted by: JTinVA | 29 April 2011 at 10:09 AM