YES, HOPE FOR CHANGE

Those of us looking for a clean break from the Bush administration's policies can breathe a cautious but justified sigh of relief. President-elect Obama’s appointment of former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence is the strongest suggestion yet that such a clean break is in the making, at least in one crucial area of policy: torture.

For the last couple of days, the media has struggled to wrap its mind around this pick. Panetta was nowhere on anyone’s radar for DCI, and in all fairness to the oracles of the conventional wisdom, that was for good reason. The previous two candidates floated for the post represented anything but a fresh face. Initially, many thought that John Brennan, a man with a quarter-century of service in the American intelligence community, would be the pick – he resigned from the chairmanship of a prominent intelligence think tank after the election to work with the transition full-time. But when allegations arose that Brennan was involved in (or at least lukewarm about) decisions to use abusive interrogation tactics against detainees, the outrage among bloggers, psychologists and even law professors was too much to bear, and he withdrew from consideration.

After that, there was some speculation that Obama might retain current DCI Michael Hayden. But to some sources, it was clear that Obama himself was looking to use the appointment to make a bigger statement about his disagreement with Bush policies, and Hayden wouldn’t do it – his prior work as Commander and Director of the Air Intelligence and National Security Agencies, respectively, made him an entrenched member of the intelligence community. Not so with Leon Panetta, who will be a newcomer to the intelligence world. So how is Panetta qualified for this job?

There are several reasons. First, despite his lack of experience in intelligence, Panetta has a long history in Washington. He was a congressman for 16 years prior to serving as Clinton’s OMB director and eventual Chief of Staff. In those roles, he was a principal force behind the balanced budgets of the late 90s. He was also a member of the Iraq Study Group in 2006, along with current and future Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The past working relationship between Panetta and Gates might be a significant motivating factor behind the decision, along with the fact that Panetta seemed to grasp a central problem in Iraq: that no one was in charge. By extension, Obama may hope that Panetta’s organizational expertise might make him forceful advocate for the administration’s policy at CIA.

An equally important point, especially for those who equate experience in Washington with capture by the "Establishment" and resistance to change, is Panetta’s stated revulsion to torture as an interrogation technique. Less than a year ago in an article in Washington Monthly, he had this to say:

Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

If confirmed by the Senate, Panetta’s appointment would undoubtedly send a loud and clear message throughout the intelligence community (and, for that matter, the global community) that torture is no longer the American way of dealing with its enemies. The appointment of Hayden or Brennan or any other longtime member of the CIA phalanx would not do this, even if such an appointee was personally opposed to torture. And given reports from some intelligence professionals that the primary attraction of foreign fighters to Iraq has been the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, it is extremely important that the successors to our current intelligence directors be clearly opposed to such techniques.

Finally, Panetta’s status as a civilian unconnected to the intelligence community could make things much easier for him in instituting these policy changes. Unlike Hayden, his ability to progress in his career has not been dependent on developing a favorable constituency within the intelligence establishment – he simply has less to lose by implementing Obama’s policies. Further, as Scott Norton noted in Harper’s, some intelligence professionals think experience in the community is not the most important ingredient for success as a DCI:

“Intel experience is overrated. Good judgment, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance.”

Panetta will have plenty of experienced intelligence experts serving below him, who will keep him up to speed and help him implement his policies. Indeed, his own experience as a Chief of Staff likely gives him an instinctive sense of what is necessary organizationally. Most of all, though, the appointment of Panetta ensures that the next DCI will be someone of the same mind as Obama: someone who absolutely believes torture should not be official US policy. With this guiding light, there is good reason to hope that the failed congressional oversight of the intelligence community these past few years will be replaced by a competent, righteous and self-policing intelligence leadership.