Panetta: Pandering to Insecurity

With Robert Gates listing his planned resignation for a time around August 2011, the Whitehouse is now scrambling to fill what can only be described as tremendous shoes of the Georgetown-educated military officer who previously served as the CIA director during the 1990s. Like with any major position, the Obama Administration has began its process of elimination to determine and ideal candidate for the slot, throwing out names of potential successors and subtly arguing in the interests of a particular leader.

Yet one problem prevails. The candidate of the Whitehouse's choosing is Leon Panetta. 

(Photo credit goes to swamppolitics.com)

To make the argument that the nation's Secretary of Defense should be a man trained as an attorney and chief of staff rather than an individual with a firm background in intelligence and foreign affairs is problematic enough, but to further iterate that the same person should be a man who has shown total ineptitude during his tenure as head of the Central Intelligence Agency and even been corrected multiple times by his very subordinates falls into the category of radically unacceptable. A superpower such as America cannot quibble about with irrelevant pursuits by placing figureheads at the helm of government blocs dedicated to national security because it projects an image of passiveness and disregard to foreign enemies. 

Being capable of effective leadership in the intelligence world is not measured by having served in another position with similar demands; President Obama seems intent on disproving this point with his flagship candidate. The issue remains however that Panetta lacked experience prior to his anointment as CIA Chief, and his missteps have continued to grow throughout his tenure. His juvenile decision to rebuke the necessity of an intelligence distance school to separate sensitive information from the Congress is a prime example, and multiple members were forced to write to his office and demand a correction. 

While other presidents have made similar choices in the past, their choices for defense-related positions were always individuals with extensive experience either first hand with intelligence or on specific congressional committees. Panetta's preparation comes from being head of the House Budget Committee, a body that deals with fundings rather than hard national security issues. Thus placing him in such a critical position would only jeopardize American security while failing to provide an authority with considerable background on the front line of issues related to his post. 

Administrations will inevitably make mistakes as they seek to rule the country properly, yet on issues of defense, which effect all Americans, these errors are not so simple to correct once they occur. In the best interests of the nation, President Obama must refrain from costly decisions solely grounded with the intention of satisfying his friends' political aspirations. Should Panetta be moved to another post, it would most ideally be Agriculture Secretary, a post in which he can do minimal damage to national governance. 

Jessica Yi

National Alliance Vice Chairman