April 27, 2011

"President Barack Obama will name CIA Director Leon Panetta as his nominee to succeed Robert Gates as defense secretary..."

"... Obama is considering Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, as the next possible CIA director."

33 comments:

kk said...

So we've made it to the deck-chair-rearranging stage, have we?

Moose said...

Wow. 2 whole years serving in the military.

Seriously - I guess this is future of the military. As a purely political organization with guns.

The Drill SGT said...

He was unqualified at the CIA, he's more unqualified as the SECDEF.

He'll be good at cutting Defense though.

Expect the military civilian rift to increase inside of DoD

Petraeus to CIA? Not a great fit. Chairman or SECDEF, sure.

Patrick Barry Barr said...

Gen. Petraeus, with an eye on the White House, cannot afford to go a second round with President Obama. The President will pick the malleable, sure-bet Panetta.

traditionalguy said...

The US military has always been the target the Obama destroyers have aimed to defeat. High speed trains, windmills, and solar panels pushed while coal and oil extraction is virtually prohibited is not being done at full speed to Save the planet from CO2, but to end the economic engine that has supported the US military's world domination.

Roger J. said...

My instinct (probably wrong but what the hell) tells me Mr Obama is as kk notes rearranging deck chairs for the coming election.

Mr Panetta is a political hack. Gates crossed swords with Mr Obama on Libya and is now damaged goods, General Petraeus is, I suspect, highly regarded among Americans. Putting him in the CIA would be a disaster--the CIA cannot be fixed by its chief--read Legacy of Ashes for how the CIA works--I suspect Mr Obama may perceive Gen Petraeus as a possible opponent and may be trying to marginalize him.

Oh well--thats my excusrion into the realm of political consipiracy theories for today.

Sayomara said...

One has to wonder how much of moving Gen. Petraeus to CIA is about keeping him away from the Joint Chiefs(a very public position and one Colin Powell has shown has strong political advantages should you run for high office) vs head of CIA which I'm sure Gen. Petraeus will do his best but is unlikely to do anything of note.

Obama already knows he wants to cut 400 billion from the Defence department he just needs a hatchet man who will give him a reason. And while we should have no sacred cows, when dealing with deficit Obama has made no effort to given any hint he will cut anything else.

Moving Gen. Petraeus again just smells of politics and not leadership.

Roger J. said...

Patrick Barry Barr--I have not seen anything that suggests Gen Petraeus has political ambitions--may I ask your source(s) on that?

Never served with him although he was a cadet in one of the courses I taught, but that is the extent of my personal contact with him.

Roger J. said...

As don corleone said, hold your friends close, but your enemies closer: eg Ms Clinton

Maguro said...

I believe Les Aspin was the last Democratic hack politician to hold the job and that didn't work out too well. Hope Panetta does better.

Paul said...

Yep a real "Titanic" move Obama has there!

2012 can't come to soon!

traditionalguy said...

As Director, Petraeus cannot reveal CIA secrets. So he is muzzled when the military is down sized.

Roger J. said...

My guess is that General Petraeus is a lot smarter than his CIC and will pass on this "opportunity"

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Panettas claim to fame is that he's a dem hack ex-congressman from California that will say yes to anything Obama puts on his plate.

He's clueless at CIA and will remain clueless at the Pentagon.

Obama has not led the U.S. for one minute since winning the election. His every waking moment has been one campaign ploy after another.

It's the only thing he can do well, that's why his handlers have thrown him out on the campaign trail way early just to get him out of his own way.

The United States of America is a ship without a rudder with this uh, person at the helm.

Cripes almighty....

bwebster said...

My first thought on reading this news this morning was, "And who ends up at State?"

Roger J. said...

bwebster--that would be curley since larry and more are already in the administration

PaulV said...

Rumsfeld is available.

WV: slitanob
There is more than aone way to
slit a nob

Roger J. said...

a bit off topic but it has been noted that Mr Obama has not approved Gov Perry's request for a disaster declaration for the texas wildfires--this is political punishment and the jug eared idiot should be impeached--but thats just me--by his actions mr obama precludes any federal assistance money to aid teaxans suffering as a result of the fires

This fucking clown is a disgrace to the office and really deserves impeachment. Really

PaulV said...

You have to be a good politician to rise to top in military. Patraeous has shown the same desire to be POTUS as Eisenhower did. He just has to decide which is his party.

Bob said...

Panetta will do Obama's bidding but the DOD will do fine with him. The CIA actually grew to like him. He's an adult and not a complete political hack.

I think the more interesting move is with the CIA. This is the first time that an intel user will be in charge. And someone who's a skilled insider with a lot of gravitas. If you don't think that means some big restructuring inside the CIA you don't know Petreus.

Roger J. said...

bob--you raise a very interesting point--as an intel user the first thing in my experience has been to weigh intel reports--they are always so heavily caveated as to not be worthwhile for a decision maker--rather they are couched in caveats the ultimate impact is to provide intel analyst reporters for cover if their predictions go south.

thats the bureaucratic nature of our current intel system--it really sucks

edutcher said...

Well, he was a mess at the CIA. Let's spread it around.

Petraeus would have been a good fit at Defense, but we can't have that.

jr565 said...

Second verse, same as the first!

E.M. Davis said...

I'm sorry, but we cannot have a guy named Leon in as our Secretary of Defense.

cokaygne said...

Could someone please tell me, what has the CIA done for us lately? Moynihan correctly criticised them for not having a clue about the collapse of the USSR. Have they gotten better? Did they call any of the current uprisings in Arab countries? Have they done anything in Pakistan but piss off the whole country and turn them against us? I know there are lots of brave agents and I feel bad for those who have been betrayed by Panetta, but why do we need them?

Quilly_Mammoth said...

I wonder if Panetta learned about his new job from CNN?

Kirk Parker said...

Bad for Petraus, and very very bad for DoD.

John Lynch said...

Am I alone in thinking that these job appointments are flipped the wrong way?

Alex said...

What a joke. Thanks libs for destroying the institutions that made America great. The CIA, the military, the Boy Scouts, the church. Thanks a lot.

dick said...

I think this is very political. Zero knows that Petraeus is so highly thought of by the public that should he choose to run, Zero would be in big trouble for re-election. What he is doing is the same thing he did with Hillary. He stuck her in State and then did all his foreign policy things with his buddies and just used her for social events. That way he could keep her from building a resume.

I think he is trying to do the same thing with Petraeus but I think he is biting off more than he thinks if Petraeus chooses to make a move. I think Petraeus is a far better politician than Zero besides being far more of a man.

If Petraeus should run for president then I for one would surely support him. He has the gravitas, the ability in foreign policy, the knowledge about the security of the nation and also knows about the budget procedures. He would be a far better president than Zero ever thought of being.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

People suggesting Petraeus for Secretary of Defense fundamentally do not understand that job.

That is a job for someone with 4 years or fewer in the military. It is the embodiment of a civilian run defense department. If we put a soldier in that role, that role might as well not even exist. We have a top military man, and he has his generals, and so forth. Between them and the President is his secretary of defense, who should be a civilian. It's been this way for an awfully long time.

Is Panetta a good choice? Of course not.

However, I don't so much mind Petraeus running the CIA. He's tough enough to reform a badly screwed up agency.

shiloh said...

OK, I was wrong. Two years ago I predicted Gen. Petraeus would be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

My bad.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com