Petraeus 'to be next head of CIA' - Breaking News

#1
Well well well. Did Stanley McChrystal get pushed to give Petraeus a better step up the ladder? Or did Stanley sacrifice himself for the greater good? Deputy Director CIA anyone?

Incidentally, was FourZeroCharlie bang on here and this move is to avoid some type of candidacy battle and possibly being a Grade A opponent should Petraeus decide to fight Obama?

Gen David Petraeus, the head of international forces in Afghanistan, will be nominated as the next CIA director when its current chief moves to head the Pentagon, US media report.
BBC News - Petraeus 'next head of CIA', Panetta to lead Pentagon

I'm too lazy to see which way Petraeus swings, although I'd wager Republican, so is this a cunning ploy to get him the top job and away from being dangerous in political circles
 
#4
Well well well. Did Stanley McChrystal get pushed to give Petraeus a better step up the ladder? Or did Stanley sacrifice himself for the greater good? Deputy Director CIA anyone?

Incidentally, was FourZeroCharlie bang on here and this move is to avoid some type of candidacy battle and possibly being a Grade A opponent should Petraeus decide to fight Obama?



BBC News - Petraeus 'next head of CIA', Panetta to lead Pentagon

I'm too lazy to see which way Petraeus swings, although I'd wager Republican, so is this a cunning ploy to get him the top job and away from being dangerous in political circles
I read about this and was confused. They are taking Petraeus and making him head of the CIA and the Panetta and making him Secretary of Defense. Not sure what exactly makes Panetta a better choice than Petraeus for def secretary but then again, a lot of things this administration has done has confused me.
 
#5
Why not choose someone who knows something about Intelligence, rather than military / paramilitary operations ?
Hasnt that been the CIAs problem for years, they love all the paramilitary, regime toppling etc but arent interested in human source intel, and therefore havent got a scooby about whats going on in most countries of the world ?
 
#7
I read about this and was confused. They are taking Petraeus and making him head of the CIA and the Panetta and making him Secretary of Defense. Not sure what exactly makes Panetta a better choice than Petraeus for def secretary but then again, a lot of things this administration has done has confused me.
Well, Panetta was eminently qualified for CIA because he was a MI 2 louie for 8 months. Now Panetta is eminently qualified for Sec Def because he was a 2nd Lt.


Follow the logic?


Obama does......
 
#9
After reading some of your posts, I suspect confusion may be your natural state Ghost.... Look, here's the deal .... a serving US military officer, or even a recently retired US Military Officer, cannot be the SECDEF by law ...... Something about that Civilian rule of the military thing that we are a little attached to in American democracy....

Per federal law (10 U.S.C. § 113), a person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force....

Frankly, if I'm Petraeus, I would pass on the CIA Director job.... but not to run on the Republican Loon presidential ticket .... but because he should've been the next Chairman of the JCS -- he is by far the most intellectually innovative and out-of-the-box thinker that the US military has produced in a generation .....which means there were many in the Military who are glad he's NOT in the running for the Chairman's job..... and politically, I suspect the Administration (particularly Biden) was suspicious that he would be an obstacle on withdrawing forces from Afghanistan (too vested in achieving success there)....

We get another Jarhead as the Chairman .... Sure as hell hope that Cartwright is better than what Pace turned out to be ..... and will better represent the interests of the Armed Forces corporately and NOT just the maritime services


Nathan Hale
Captain
Continental Army
I'll forgive your social faux pas and talk to the other points you mention. I was indeed unaware that there was a 7 year lag time between being an officer and being able to accept office as SECDEF. I thought it was much shorter than that.

My point was really that I know a bit about Petraeus but not much about Panetta other than he never served and was a lawyer. I suspect the political realities are far outweighing the effectual benefits of having the right person in the right position as you state.
 
#10
Panetta's had a pretty torrid time of it at Langley, picking up a lot of pieces and restraining some of the more enthusiastic members of the direct action community internally. I expect he'll do OK as SecDef - his job will be to manage down the budgets and keep the Chiefs from frothing at the mouth too much when they find that the money tap is firmly closed for the foreseeable. Look for squeals of anguish when the RIFfing starts.

As to Petraeus, he's an inspired choice for the CIA. He knows the Agency well as a customer and an enabler, will have a good idea where there's scope for change - and of what change is required. Six years there and you never know what he might decide to do next - certainly, it's a big job to be getting on with while the second terms goes on and the Republicans sort themselves out into some sort of credible party again.
 
#12
No one here seems to have picked up on the pretty obvious problem here. Namely that the CIA is supposed to be a civ agency.

When the Shrub nom'd Hayden (who at least was an intel man) both Reps and Dems had major concerns.

Even the relatively conservative WashPo is commenting:

Petraeus would helm an increasingly militarized CIA - The Washington Post

And the ever-excellent Greenwald sums it all up pretty nicely:

One reason why it's so valuable to keep the CIA under civilian control is because its independent intelligence analyst teams often serve as one of the very few capable bureaucratic checks against the Pentagon and its natural drive for war. That was certainly true during the Bush years when factions in the CIA rebelled against the dominant neocon Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith clique
 

Similar threads

Top