• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Gates gone -- Panetta at DOD, Patraeus to CIA

phrogdriver

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Gen Petraeus going to CIA?

Off the rumornet this morning.

I wonder if this marks an intent to deliver more operational-level intelligence to the users.

Even more interesting, I'm really surprised by the Panetta-as-SecDef idea. Either this guy is brilliant, and able to manage anything, or he is the best-connected man to ever live.
 
Fog

Fog

Old RIOs never die: They just can't fast-erect
None
Contributor
Patraeus to the CIA is a solid move, and one of the few by O'Bama that I approve of. The other side of that coin (IMHO) is that in appointing Panetta to be Sec'y of Defense, he's sending a long-time demo political hack into the top DOD job. We never really know what goes on at the CIA, but Panetta will be very transparent at DOD. He's got some BIG shoes to fill in following Gates, who may be one of the top defense secretaries of all time. Gates seemed little influenced by anybody's party politics w/ the possible exception of repealing Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.
 
SWACQ

SWACQ

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I'm not all that thrilled. Of course, I'm not thrilled about $4 a gallon gas either. Not much I can do about either one. We can bitch and moan about it, but won't change anything.
 
Calculon

Calculon

It's Calculon! Hit the deck!
Panetta was apparently recommended by Gates himself so it'll be interesting to see what this guy is all about
 
statesman

statesman

Shut up woman... get on my horse.
pilot
Fog said:
Patraeus to the CIA is a solid move...

He's got some BIG shoes to fill in following Gates, who may be one of the top defense secretaries of all time.
Click to expand...

I agree on both points.

The DADT thing though it seems to me that if the POTUS says "find a way to do this" you just find a way to do it. He certainly didn't raise hell about it, but the country as a whole seemed ready for DADT to go away, and the Congress passed a bill so its hard to say he was "influenced by party politics"... He may have just seen it as a bigger fish to fry sort of situation. But I'm not in his head, so I dont know.

Either way I'm interested to see what the Gen. does over at the CIA. He definitely has a resume that gives me a warm fuzzy about his qualifications. Which isn't always the case when it comes to political appointees... (Paul Bremer comes to mind).

Not a fan of Panetta either, but I will say this Gates has really set the DOD in a certain direction, and he hasn't had a great deal of resistance in doing it, he is very popular as far as public opinion and Congressional opinion is concerned, and Uniformed Members seem to really like him as well... those all combined make me skeptical that Panetta could make many changes that will piss people off... Gates' momentum will last a little while. My biggest concern would be mismanagement... time will tell.
 
mmx1

mmx1

Woof!
pilot
Contributor
Flying Toaster

Flying Toaster

Well-Known Member
None
mmx1 said:
I think this is much ado about nothing. I don't get the objection to Panetta, either. There was an outcry when he was tagged to head the CIA owing to his legislative background, but he seems to have handled it well - which is to say without embarrassment and having earned Gates' respect.
Click to expand...

Probably something about the fact he has close to zero experience handling defense and his resume just shouts of political hack. Even if the CIA absolutely hated what he did, it would seem the nature of their work prevents them complaining all that much. It also wouldn't be much of a stretch to say he either knew, or could see the writing was on the wall he would be the next SECDEF and avoided stepping on too many toes. That being said, it's a lot less him and more that he's an indicator of what's coming.

How would you go about a wholesale gutting of our armed forces? A first logical step would involve appointing a political hack who is politically "saavy" (CNN's word on why he's a good choice), knows very little about defense, doesn't care about defense, but knows the legislative "process." All speculation and opinion on my part, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's coming...
 
K

KBayDog

Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, does any of it matter? There are some things none of us can control; appointments are in that category. No use in speculating/commenting on what might or might not happen. Nothing positive can come of it.

Just say "Aye, aye, Sir" and execute.
 
mmx1

mmx1

Woof!
pilot
Contributor
With the exception of George Marshall, they've all been politicians with negligible defense resumes - Caspar Weinberger, Melvin Laird, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld all came from the Congress. If your fantasy was Petraeus as SecDef, that would have been largely unprecedented and undermined the tradition of civilian control that the SecDef represents. Marshall was a short-term fill when the Defense Department was going through its growing pains.

There have been names floated with more policy experience, like Michele Flournoy, but the position is honestly less policy and more management and playing the Washington game as far as fighting within the Cabinet and with Congress. One of the other names floated was Secretary Clinton - how about that for a heart attack for youse guys - and reportedly she's had a great working relationship with Gates during their tenure.

But whatever, you see what you want to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top