Vickers

What a remarkable career. At least now I know who the smart former Green Beret from Charlie Wilson's War is...

A new national security team

Here are some quick comments on the national security moves:

It appears clear to me that Ryan Crocker will be an upgrade over Karl Eikenberry as ambassador to Afghanistan.

As to the other moves, in my mind, Secretary Gates is the finest Secretary of Defense in our history. Mr. Panetta, although talented, probably won't come close to Secretary Gates. Secretary Gates has been fighting the DoD bureaucracy since the beginning of his tenure asking for budget cuts and to spend money on "stuff" we need now, not 20 years from now; he was a visionary. Mr. Panetta, a Washington insider, is not a visionary.

With regards to the GEN Petraeus move, it seems like a lateral move that just allows him to collect his Army retirement check and a paycheck for being CIA Director, while keeping him in the United States with his family (most of the time). This move also keeps him off the ballot, an added benefit to career politicians that view him as a potential threat.

Finally, Lt. Gen. Allen will do a fine job in Afghanistan if his work in Iraq's MNF-W is any indicator.



Here is an excerpt from the article:

Perhaps the greatest risk of the reshuffle comes in Afghanistan, where the departure of Gen. Petraeus will remove America’s most skilled military commander from a campaign that appears to be teetering between success and failure. Lt. Gen. Allen, however, was a key contributor to the successful turnaround of the war in Iraq; and Mr. Crocker offers a major improvement over his predecessor, Karl Eikenberry, who contributed substantially to the souring of U.S. relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

GEN Petraeus to CIA Director?

I don't quite understand this one... if GEN Petraeus ultimately wants the job of Secretary of Defense, why not just give it to him it when Secretary Gates (pbuh) resigns? Maybe his peer flag officers wouldn't like that? Boo hoo hoo.

CIA’s Loss of Top Spies ‘Catastrophic,’ Says Agency Veteran

It looks like the CIA is having trouble keeping good officers just like the U.S. Army... one more effect of the Bush Doctrine.

“It’s comparable to the hemorrhage of junior officers from the Army right now, in the sense that these are leaders whose experience and hands-on ability right in front of their people on the front line is so critical,” he said...

"I mean, the money makes it easier. Nobody joined the CIA to make money. If money was your driving force, you never would have been there in the first place," Faddis said. "People leave because they're just fed up. They leave because of the management structure. They say, 'I've tried and I've tried and I've tried to change this place, and it's just never going to turn the corner and I'm done.' That's the sentiment."

"But frankly I think there are other factors," he added. "There's a general perception of cronyism, favoritism, that the way to get promoted — that the guys who are not being promoted are the guys who are doing aggressive operations in dangerous parts of the world. If you're a chief of station in a dangerous part of the world running aggressive operations, and your contemporary is a staff aide sitting on the seventh floor in meetings, there's no question of who's getting promoted. It's the guy standing next to the boss telling him what he wants to hear. It's not the guy in a dangerous place really trying to take the fight to the enemy."