ST Alpha - "I just don't get it. Why would you take a general and put him in charge of spooks when you're looking for a guy to lead generals? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

I just don't get it. Why would you take a general and put him in charge of spooks when you're looking for a guy to lead generals? -- nm

Posted by Will Hunting (aka JoeMetz) Apr 27 '11, 04:52

(No message)

Responses:

because he's a better manager, and that's what the spooks need. - znufrii Apr 27, 05:53
this happens in every industry. in education, it's particularly common and damaging. we have academics running finance offices, for instance. - amanda jones Apr 27, 05:26
SecDef needs to many other things beyond that. - Mel Profit Apr 27, 05:04 8
- The Patreus pick is exactly what I'm asking about...why take a highly regarded General and put him in charge of spooks when the job you're hiring for - Will Hunting Apr 27, 05:11 7
  - It's extremely rare for a military man to be SecDef. I think they go to great lengths to put a civvie there to maintain the whole "civilian control of the military" thing. -- nm - Ender Apr 27, 06:37 1
    - (And it's fairly common to have a military man at CIA, their list of Directors is littered with Admirals.) -- nm - Ender Apr 27, 06:39
  - [deleted] 1
    - [deleted]
  - Spitballing, but maybe the CIA isn't producing the right type of intelligence to help in wars like Afghanistan - Roger More Apr 27, 05:20 2
    - If that's the case, I fire Panetta, and find someone Patreaus can work with as the new CIA guy - Will Hunting Apr 27, 05:26 1
      - I guess it depends on what Obama's plans for the Pentagon are, and whether they match Petraeus' -- nm - Roger More Apr 27, 05:30

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.