Three Reasons We Won't See A Competent Person As CIA Director Under Obama

The main reason we won't see a person as CIA Director who'll lead the CIA effectively is no one who knows what it takes to execute the CIA's charter wants the top position where he/she isn't allowed to do what he/she KNOWS is necessary to carry out the CIA's responsibilities. Opponents of doing what it takes to appropriately prosecute this war on terror have painted themselves into a corner by so blindly and vigorously demanding restrictions on intelligence-gathering tools such as wire-taps on communications with enemies or suspected enemies of our country bent on destroying us. They're also tending to demand American citizens' rights for those captured on the field of battle, even rights well beyond the guidelines of the Geneva Convention. (The nature of terrorism has made the whole world the battlefield. There are no distinct boundaries in this war.)

Such 'play nice' rules applied to a truly ruthless enemy like this who, unlike enemies for which the Geneva rules were created, plays by NO rules himself (except kill all Westerners) is weakness that he'll take advantage of at every turn. This enemy is unlike those in our past. It doesn't just want to defeat our military and rule our country. It wants us dead. To them there are no innocents on our side in this war. Total ruthlessness like this begs different rules.

The second reason has everything to do with politics and political correctness. The myopic, mindless and bull-headed determination to have no one in CIA leadership who was there under Bush and who executed or appeared to support his policies/objectives eliminates from consideration all those who have the learned the most about how to fight this new type of war effectively. That's just stupid.

A third reason is the pool of available candidates for President-elect Obama to choose from is, from a practical standpoint, empty. Job dissatisfaction throughout the ranks within the CIA is growing based on the belief that the mission of the agency cannot be fulfilled operating under the coming new policies governing the war on terror. Patriots and warriors want to fight for a cause, not a political agenda.

Regarding the first reason above, because of the nature of the war on terror and the nature and objectives of our enemy, it is folly to apply twentieth century world-war rules. If one doesn't fight to win then there's no point, really, in fighting. At least against bullies. And our enemies are bullies of the highest order. In the case of the war on terror, many opponents of sensible rules seem to want instead to simply annoy the enemy, not defeat it. The rules we ought to apply, by any measure of reason, should be geared toward success whatever it takes, not toward unilaterally(!) putting ourselves at a significant disadvantage.

The implications of this are a good subject for another day.