previous post next post  

Administration Staff Changes...

By The Armorer on April 27, 2011 | | Comments (5)
Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to CIA.

So, will it be Panetta's job to be Louis Johnson, Truman's SecDef whose job was to essentially dismantle DoD, or Robert MacNamara? Both suck, if for different reasons. Petraeus to CIA - I don't think the General is going to have a good time there. But I think the President likes having him off the street for 2012, and doesn't really care if the general flails or fails at CIA.  In fact, that might even be perceived as a feature, not a bug, by this group.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

Tags:

5 Comments

By Rivrdog on April 27, 2011 3:01 PM
This sort of shake-up is normally what we'd get after the Second Inaugural. By doing it now, trying to end the pesky Birther thing, etc, Nobama is using the Assumptive Close, a top sales technique for both tangible and intangible selling. He's trying to sell us the idea that he is unstoppable, and has already won a second term in office.

Let's not fall for it. Each part of this shuffle has a specific reason, and the overall effect will be to weaken the defense posture of the US even further.

Keep the watch-fires burning, and ignore all the hokum involved with the Assumptive Close.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 27, 2011 3:59 PM
I dunno if I entirely buy in, Rivrdog.  Gates has been looking for an exit.  I do think the Petraeus move is part and parcel of co-opting the general out of the next political cycle.
 
By Grumpy on April 27, 2011 6:16 PM
John, in your post, I noticed your spotlight on your good friend, Robert McNamara, yeah right! PLEASE NOTE, that sentence was the most sarcastic line I have ever written.

Gates never wanted to serve under another President. I believe he accepted the post, with the understanding, that this was a “Stop–Gap” measure at best. When we step back and look, we'll see a train wreck in slow motion. Actually, Gates got on board before the train wreck was in the process of happening. I don't think he knew how serious this would be. But as the rest the year went along, people were beginning to see the results and they were not happy.

 I don't think either General David Petraeus or Leon Panetta are the best men for the job. Leon Panetta is a politician put in position to do one of the dirtiest jobs available. My question is this, why move Leon Panetta at all? Why not just move  David Petraeus to SECDEF? 

I forgot the 11th Commandment, "Thou Shalt NOT use common sense in Government!!" It turns out to be a rhetorical question, that answers itself.
 
 
By Grumpy on April 27, 2011 6:47 PM
What happens, if after all of this plotting and planning, Petraeus pulls an Eisenhower type of move, resigns or retires and runs for POTUS? Remember, voters did not vote *for* Obama, they voted *against* the whole Bush-Cheney thing. The difference is monumental. The Obama backfire would make the whole Bush backfire look like a "phart in a windstorm". Just a thought!  
 
By wolfwalker on April 28, 2011 5:07 AM
I really don't get either of these moves.  I mean, most of the things that Barry Lackwit does make little sense, but this makes even less than most.  What do you gain by putting an ex-congressman spook into SecDef's chair?  What benefit do you get from taking a battlefield general, who came up through the ranks of the combat troops, and making him lord of the spooks? 

Even politically it seems like a bad move - as I understand it, military and CIA generally don't get along very well, so putting somebody from one in charge of the other seems tailor-made to fail in all sorts of exceptionally unpleasant ways.  This move does both.