Panetta SecDef Petraeus CIA

[Tinker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html

Interesting news.

[Najar]

Is Gates shunted for contradicting HRC in the press on Libya?

[Tinker]

[Najar]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42275424/ns ... anscripts/

Wtach the portion where Gregory asks about Lwhether Libya is of vital interest to US , and how Hillary recovered from gates answer.

Tinker , Gates was opposed to boots on the ground , and I am afraid that they are clearing way for the boots on the ground. We dont need another trillion dollar debt fighting a desert war against a dictator who has support among his people. They are moving 'yes men' to those jobs , and these guys will come out with rosy pictures on the war - similar to 'iraqis dancing with sweets on the street'.

[Tinker]

Seems like the French are going to be putting the boots on the ground. Let them have it.

[Azrael]

[Najar]

[AzariLoveIran]

[rednblacklumberjack]

So, might Petraeus help to unwind the CIA operations - drones or drug-running - in Pakistan? Or escalate?

[Mr. Perfect]

Neocons rising.

[rednblacklumberjack]

Tom Ricks breaks it down like this:

Defense Secretary Panetta: Yes, another alumnus of Congress. Ugh. But Panetta has a reputation of handling the CIA well, and that is not an easy job, as the place has the nasty rep of either undermining or capturing its outsider chiefs. I think this move signals that Obama plans to take the defense budget way down, and that Panetta's expected job will be to hold the place together and sell the spending cuts to the few remaining hawks in Congress.

CIA Director Petraeus: Honestly, I am a bit puzzled by this. Smart, hard-working, etc. But why this man for this job at this time, especially at a time when there is already reason to worry about the militarization of our foreign policy and diplomacy? Well, it gets him out of Afghanistan. Cynics think it also keeps him from being critical during next year's presidential campaign, but I actually don't think Petraeus has political ambitions, or even much of a desire to participate in electoral politics.

Gen. Allen commanding in Afghanistan: As a general, a lot of very Petraeus-like characteristics-cerebral, innovative, open to new approaches-- but without the political clout Petraeus carries on Capitol Hill. A bonus here, but not one I am sure the White House recognizes: Also, as a Marine, Allen is likely to be skeptical of Army support structure, and will likely be comfortable with an austere infrastructure during the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gates off to Texas: A great defense secretary, but a bit of an embarrassment to the president given his clear opposition to intervening in Libya, as well as his skepticism about deeper defense cuts.

[Azrael]

Obama chose Petraeus to lead the CIA because he wanted an outsider who would be difficult to undermine or capture and because he has someone else in mind for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Mr. Perfect]

Quite simply, he had to replace Gates and went with Panetta.

Leon Panetta is the most competent level headed Democrat I've ever seen in the post WWII Democrat generation, however he is indeed just a pol. One would hope to have somebody coming in with some other experience.

Petraus is more Obama choking on change, and his fear of putting an actual liberal in a warfighting capacity. Unfortunately a neocon is as bad as a liberal, and since Obama's FP is indistinguishable from Wolfowitz/Perle these days of course the neocon Petraus would fit right in.

Allen means more neocon in AFG. Lots for neocons to be happy about in this.

[AzariLoveIran]

[Captain Murphy]

It's just musical chairs. No good ideas will be forthcoming on how to handle our messes.

[Mr. Perfect]