How Much Should the Obama Adminstration Shake Up DoD and IC Leadership?

Now that we have this whole election thing behind us, it is time for president-elect Obama to get work. Typically, the days following a [decisive] election are wrought with speculation surrounding the make-up of a new administration–and this year is no exception. With Obama already offering the all-important Chief of Staff position to Rahm Emanuel, he has clearly begun the selection process. In this time of transition, when the American military is deeply involved in two wars and the intelligence community continues to evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the natural question is: who will Obama pick to lead our armed forces and intelligence agencies?

First, the case has been made clearly by several people that Obama must keep Secretary Gates at the Pentagon. All Our Might is doing an excellent job of reporting the rumors surround possible heirs to the post, but from my perspective Gates has been pragmatic steady hand, whose leadership has played an understated role in the success of DoD operations in Iraq. He has also been willing to reach out to academia, which in my view is a major distinction Gates holds against his predecessors. With the sharp uptick in violence in Afghanistan, and continued strife within Pakistan, now is not the time to remove Gates. Beyond the top military position, however, this transition presents a unique opportunity to inject new leadership where it is needed most.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence may be in need of the most change. Director McConnell came into the office with much promise. As a student of Colin Powell, I hoped he would lead the nations spy agencies with the same independent sentiment he had while at the NSA. Unfortunately, he was quickly politicized by the Bush administration, and has been unsuccessful in promoting cultural change among the analytical rank-and-file. To his credit, he has embraced open source as a legitimate INT, which is a policy that must be continued into the next administration. The critical change need in the next DNI is that he or she must be able to relate to the new generation of analysts flooding the hallways of every agency, which will mean trading youth and energy for experience. Admittedly, this is a short list, so short in fact I cannot come up with one name as a suggestion.
Beyond these major positions, it is less clear how much more change is needed. As the Air Force continues its conquest of cyberspace, it will certainly need leadership that reflects this new area of responsibility. General Hayden’s treatment of his inspector general raises serious suspicion about his judgment, and he also shoulders some of the responsibility for not promoting cultural change within the CIA, and IC more broadly (SpyTalk addresses future CIA leadership directly). Finally, who will bring a new ideas to the DoD and IC research agencies? Lisa Porter’s biggest accomplishment at IARPA has been the canceling of their only procurement after allegation of conflict of interest. If this agency is to be successful, it will require leadership with a vision that matches its lofty goals.
These are my views, but more importantly, what are your opinions? Where do you believe most change is needed, or who should be kept? Please add your $0.02 in the comments or to me in e-mail.
UPDATE: Thomas Niblock has assembled an excellent set of questions the Obama administration will likely have to consider within its first 100 days–3/5 of which are directly related to national security.
Photo: defenselink.mil

Automatically Generated Related posts:

1. Obama Gives ‘Cyber’ One Bullet in Defense Priorities
2. DSB on ‘Defense Imperatives’ for Obama Administration
3. 100 Days of Threats in the Age of Obama
4. What’s Wrong with the Obama Job Loss Graphic?
5. Open Letter to Regina Dugan, Bring Social Science to DARPA