Feinstein/Panetta: Senatorial Prerogative, "Intelligence Professionalism," and Political Leadership of the CIA

There are lessons to be learned from Sen. Dianne Feinstein's reaction to the nomination of Leon Panetta as CIA head. One is that powerful Democratic Senators can be no less sensitive or arbitrary than their GOP counterparts. Another is that the phrase "intelligence professional" can be used like a mantra without being properly defined for the public. Nevertheless, the appointment of a "politician" to run the CIA is not inherently wrong. It can be a good or bad thing -- depending on how it's done, and by whom.

Senatorial Prerogative: "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director," Sen. Feinstein said. "I know nothing about this, other than what I've read." While that appears to have been an oversight on the Obama team's part, it's surprising that she made such a public issue of what is little more than a breach of DC protocol. It might have been wiser to communicate her sense of wounded pride privately. Now, voters will be left wondering whether any future resistance to the Panetta nomination comes from high-minded concern or merely a politician's ego.

Sen. Feinstein's statement goes on to say: "My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

This reaction is particularly telling when looking back at the nominations she didn't oppose. She voted for Gen. Michael Hayden's confirmation as National Director of Intelligence, for example, despite the fact that intelligence agencies had conducted spying operations on Quakers and other peaceful antiwar groups in the US during his watch. (Data on these groups was stored in a Defense Department database, as documented by NBC News.)

Nor was "professionalism" an appropriate defense for Hayden. He sponsored a technology initiative called Trailblazer, which never worked and went millions of dollars over budget. A failure this costly and spectacular would have been a career-ender for any executive in the private sector, but Sen. Feinstein still voted to confirm him.

She also voted to confirm Porter Goss, who - like Mr. Panetta - was a career politician tapped to serve the Bush Administration. Goss had also made highly inflammatory and deprecating remarks about Democrats and other Americans who differed with him on policy. Feinstein expressed "concerns" and said the nomination was "troubling," but voted for him just the same. Goss was a former CIA officer, however, which gets us to the issue of ...

Intelligence "Professionalism": Although Goss was a highly political choice, his CIA experiences leads us to the question of what it means to be an intelligence "professional." Panetta's opponents are telling us that's a prerequisite for the job. If you're confused about what that means, you're not alone. Nor are quotes like this one from Prof. Amy Zegart of UCLA likely to help: "It's a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice ... The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them. This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can't hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions."

There are two problems with this argument. First, neither Prof. Zegart nor anyone else has explained why intelligence issues are qualitatively more difficult to understand that tax or transportation policy, both of which are complex and have more than their shared of trained professionals. Secondly, Mr. Panetta is not a newcomer to intelligence issues. As Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, he ensured that the President reviewed all critical intelligence every morning. He is an experienced consumer of intelligence, which is an excellent qualification for the position.

None of this is intended to denigrate the experience and talent within our intelligence services. There are many skilled people in these organizations, working without recognition under difficult circumstances. But, pace Prof. Zegart, there are many skilled people working in tax policy too. That doesn't mean that being led by a politician is bad. The right politician can, in fact, give the professionals the support they need to do their work successfully.

Political Leadership: That leads us to the question of whether a "politician" should lead an intelligence agency. The CIA's morale has been crushed and its ranks have been decimated by the political leadership and influence of Porter Goss, Dick Cheney, and others over the last eight years (without enough objection from Sen. Feinstein). Career officers have been force into retirement for holding unpopular views about Iraq,neoconservative ideologues have been dictating report content, and leaders like George Tenet have curried favor with their bosses at the expense of the organization they were entrusted to run.

That's not the kind of "political leadership" Leon Panetta promises to provide. He will not endorse or support torture, "extraordinary rendition," or any of the other extralegal techniques the CIA has carried out over the last few years. But he will encourage the professionals to do what they do best: Gather and interpret intelligence honestly and effectively, without having to bend to the ideological demands of their political overseers. And hopefully, agents will also be able to carry out "black ops" (to the extent they're approved) without worrying about being indicted someday. Panetta's reputation and his relationship with the President will help him usher in a new day for the CIA, restoring its respect at home and its effectiveness abroad.

Panetta opponents warn us that insiders will run circles around him. They're forgetting about the man to whom Mr. Panetta will report. Retired Admiral Dennis Blair has been a director of the Joint Chiefs, a leading defense analyst, and the first associate CIA director for military support. Admiral Blair and Mr. Panetta can successfully restore the CIA's reputation, reconfigure its mission, and give it the tools it needs to meet its 21st Century mission.

Hopefully Dianne Feinstein, who has sadly been on the wrong side of intelligence policy too many times over the last eight years, will come to understand the wisdom of this appointment.

Comments

[Ellen Dana Nagler]

As always (in my experience at least) your analysis and conclusion are spot-on. Thank you for the clarity.