AP Sources: Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to CIA (Updated)

The LA Times, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-petraeus-cia-201104… CIA chief David Petraeus' possible new critic: himself</a>, addresses APH's concern a bit.

My only concern at Petraeus to CIA is whether he'll allow the analysts there to publish reports that reflect negatively on the progress here in Afghanistan. It seems everytime there's a NIE it is fairly pessimistic, and the answer from ISAF it seems every time is that the NIE is based on old data. Personally I lean more towards pessimism here as the economics are still a disaster and I don't see much sustainable progress with massive financial support. I honestly hope Petraeus will not force/allow the NIEs to politicized to make progress look better.

Good point, Todd.
I still think he was best fit for National Security Adviser, but you're right to say he could have ended up in a more powerless/symbolic position. The Panetta pick, however, just seems worse and worse the more I think about it. Still, I'm going to try and be optimistic here and give him a chance to do good.

Re: Petraeus

We needed a Capt. Kirk, and what we got was a Jean Luc Picard, who philosophizes and bloviates ad nauseum about the cultural nuances of Islamist killers and other assorted ingrates, while they set about to kill us all.

The carnage inside an operations room of the Afghan Air Corps at Kabul airport has yet to be sorted, identified and tallied but this much we know: Another Afghan Muslim "partner" in uniform -- a veteran military pilot according to the AP -- has opened fire on NATO troops in a meeting, killing as many as eight troops and a contractor.

While we await the grim but thoroughly predictable details -- the exemplary lives of the personnel murdered while "partnering" with our Afghan "allies"; the shooter who for reasons "unknown" to ISAF earned his place in Islamic paradise through this "holiest" act of jihad against infidels (ISAF would croak before saying that) -- I want to call attention to a <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/gannett-army-campbell-afghanistan… from the Clarksville, Tenn. Leaf-Chronicle that was featured last week at Army Times</a> and which came to my attention from friends in the military segment of our thoroughly bifurcated society

The article is titled: "NCOs offers stern message for war-bound soldiers." And what is that "stern" message? The article -- written a day after another Hair-Trigger-Moderate in the Afghan Army went off, using grenades to kill five Americans troops -- reports that message as being, "Don't trust anyone but you still have to partner up" -- and in that order.

Stern though the "old Army sergeant" described in the article undoubtedly is, I hear in his message a plaintive SOS. Help. We want you to live through your thoroughly ill-conceived and even insane nation-building mission, So don't trust any Afghan you are ordered to "partner" or "mentor," train or relax with. Any one of them could kill you and your comrades any time, from teatime to meeting time.

And why is that, old and stern Sergeant? Not even he is about to go there even as he pounds his contradictory, logic-defying, but, we pray, life-saving message into the young soldiers' heads.

If he did, he would say something like: There is indeed a clash of civilizations where the West and Islam meet, and we are putting you, our men and women in uniform, on its front lines, defenseless against its violent manifestations "inside the wire." You are not there to stamp it out, or to protect our country against it, but rather to remain blind to it for the unfounded ideological reasons of our leaders, to appease its demands, to adapt to its laws, and, ultimately, be subsumed by its worldview. Nation-building is good, our leaders tells us. COIN is the way, our leaders tell us. Congress doesn't give a damn about you, your legs or the gaping hole in the US Treasury. So "partner" enough so as not to get thrown in the brig but never let your guard down ever and come home safe.

Two words explain Panetta's nomination - "budget cuts".

Granted anyone replacing Gates will have large shoes to fill, but I find this a terrible choice for SECDEF. I'd like to know the administration's rationale for sending someone with a career in civil rights, education, health, hunger, and the environment to oversee the Pentagon.

Well, here's hoping this works for the best. I can't help but think the CIA isn't exactly worthy of Petraeus, someone I feel would make a great National Security Adviser, but hopefully he'll do great things with the Agency.