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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Fat_Cav, Apr 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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?

    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
  2. No, he was pushed because he's an ineffective God-bothering minge.
  3. Good, he's always struck me as one of the few that actually knows what he's doing.
  4. 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 ?
  6. [mmmmmmmmmmmmm
  7. 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......
  8. courageous restraint is that Kunts responsibility, every day soldiers are fighting with there hands tied because of this, knowthis because i was on herrick 11 when it got brought into play!!
  9. 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.
  11. My thoughts entirely, in the tent and pissing out.......
  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:

  13. [mmmmmmmmmmmmm