Past CIA Directors Who Didn't Have Extensive Intelligence Experience

The basic philosophy that you need to have prior experience in an important job is never more acute than right now as Barack Obama chooses his national security team. As a psychological knee-jerk reaction, we want someone in the CIA who knows what they're doing during a time when the top cops needs to go beyond just knowing how to do their jobs. But when you go by history, we tend to forget that some top jobs in government had their share of people hired who didn't have extensive experience beforehand in the departments they managed. While it's hard to believe we'd have a President who'd hire someone in the CIA who didn't have prior intelligence experience, it actually did happen more than once.

Consider it perhaps the weakness of the 1960's in general if you want to. Let's keep it on the record at least that the first 20 years of the CIA's existence had very good (if not controversial) leaders. During most of the 50's and early 60's, Allen W. Dulles (yes, the brother of the Secretary of State who instigated the bully mentality to international relations) ran the CIA with well-regarded efficiency. However, he also made the CIA too independent, which called out for reform after John F. Kennedy's assassination.

But give credit to President Kennedy for trying to reform it before he was struck down. And in his attempts to bring something different to the fore, he decided to look beyond someone who had all their dealings strictly in intelligence. You could easily compare this situation to Barack Obama trying to bring something different to the CIA during a crucial time with the pick of Leon Panetta who merely has legal and budgetary credentials rather than working with intelligence.

It wasn't much different in 1961 when Kennedy appointed John McCone to head the CIA and replace outgoing Dulles. McCone had little to no experience in the field of direct intelligence. The reason Kennedy picked McCone was because of his experience working as the head of the Atomic Energy Commission since 1958. Kennedy knew that having a CIA director with an understanding of nuclear weapons would make a big difference, regardless of doing any prior intelligence organizing or on-hand work. No doubt it wasn't lost on Kennedy that a nuclear crisis could be possible during his administration.

As we know, that happened exactly a year later when McCone was tested to his worth. Unfortunately, McCone doesn't get much mention in mainstream historical documentaries that he did considerable work on ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. The President (along with his brother Bobby) rightfully gets most of the credit when that seems to be a natural progression of important moments in history.

The point was that McCone succeeded in showing he was right for the job despite no intelligence experience. We were also at the cusp of something dire happening with the fear of developing nuclear technology. Many people felt it in the air already by 1960 what with the Cuban revolution and the USSR swearing to bury us. It's not much different from Al Qaeda perpetually threatening to do the same thing to us.

So how can we compare McCone to Leon Panetta? Well, if nothing else, the comparison might come more in the fate of their job with the CIA rather than particular experience...

____

There seems to be something about Panetta Obama sees that he thinks will make a huge difference in the CIA as Kennedy saw in McCone. Perhaps it's just in Panetta's ability to run a tight ship with his budgetary prowess. That might be enough in making sure everybody does their job right when not everybody in the CIA has been on the same line of thinking with the director.

Unfortunately, when you get a CIA director with experience in something more subtle, it may not be appreciated by either the current President or a different President should something unforeseen happen. After President Kennedy was assassinated, John McCone stayed as CIA director for two more years. To this day, there's plenty evidence to show that McCone was one of the most efficient leaders of the CIA, or at least during the 1960's. Working with President Johnson, however, proved to be a royal pain when it seemed anybody else who had a good idea was upstaged by LBJ's bullish tactics.

McCone's foresight was right on the money when warning Johnson of the repercussions to our involvement in the Vietnam War. He saw an impasse there as well as warning about the nuclear program developing in Israel. Johnson pretty much gave McCone the proverbial Texan finger to these warnings--hence prompting McCone to quit his CIA post in the spring of 1965. Incoming was the ultimate nightmare in a CIA director to replace him: One who hated the job and the President.

Well, William Raborn didn't have a lot of intelligence experience either, and may be one example of not hiring a CIA director who doesn't at least fit a better bill. It was really the fault of Johnson himself for bringing in someone who dealt merely with intelligence in the Navy. He nevertheless wasn't opposed by Congress, even though Raborn only stayed a little over a year as CIA director. Ironic that the person with the least amount of intelligence experience in the history of the CIA should have stayed there perhaps his whole career. Chances are, though, McCone wouldn't have gotten along well with President Nixon.

We'll have to consider then that Leon Panetta may just have to be in comparison with both McCone and Raborn. In experience level, it'll be at a McCone level, with perhaps an early departure akin to Raborn just because Panetta won't find the job to his liking. Panetta, too, will likely have a major test in a crisis as McCone did.

Beyond that, conjecture shouldn't tell us reality. Had Kennedy stayed alive, McCone would have been CIA director for years. If Barack Obama gets two terms and stays safe (both good bets), Panetta may prove to be one of the best CIA directors in years. We may ultimately be enlightened that a President decided to look at a job resume and went beyond the obvious to see other potential skills that could be even more useful.

We should be so lucky in the regular job market...

Source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12678229/