CIA: Politics by other means

The signal to noise ration at the CIA has been something less than 1 for a long time now.

George Tenet's slam dunk was something less than that. And what other Western intelligence agency believes that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program as reported by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate?

Over the last eight years at least, the CIA has made more headlines for its leaks to the New York Times than it is has in being instrumental in giving us an accurate picture of the world. And such leaks have made it more difficult to work with other Intelligence Agencies around the world. I mean why would you talk to a CIA agent or official about your operations if the likelihood is high that it would be on CNBC the next day? You wouldn't.

Now this is not to say that there are no dedicated intelligence professionals at the CIA. I am sure there are. But it seems that they are outnumbered by the number of political hacks who are more interested in giving us their opinion of how the world should be instead of an apolitical assessment of how the world actually is.

And now, it seems the number of political hacks at the CIA will increase by one: The Director.

President-elect Barack Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, a longtime Washington insider with little intelligence experience, to serve as the next head of the CIA.

Better choices were passed up

Part of the delay in naming the intelligence team has stemmed from Obama's need to feel comfortable with his choices and, at the same time, meet concerns among Democrats on Capitol Hill that those picked were not directly involved in harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that were used against detainees, officials said.

But such "techniques" are used only when the President authorizes them. Which means that whomever President-elect Obama picks would use or not use such techniques on the President's order. This includes Panetta. It would also include O'Brennan.

...his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Detention and interrogation programs that were known about and authorized by Speaker Pelosi among other high ranking Democrats.

So having an intelligence novice or having an experienced intelligence officer does not matter in this regard. But when it comes to rebuilding the Human Intelligence network, or understanding what it means to put a covert operative's life on the line, experience matters.

Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.

“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.

A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.

Ms. Feinstein’s Republican counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said he would be “looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”

But how hard does he have to look? It just ain't there. And no amount of examination is going to make such experience appear.

What we need now more than ever is an Intelligence organization that can be trusted to tell us things we need to know. And we need an intelligence organization that trusts it's leaders not to burn them when they are putting their lives on the line for us.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Panetta, gifted bureaucrat that he may be, can not bring us what we need.

I hope I'm wrong.