[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by 1026

Is the CIA a liberal rat's nest like State? If so, this is probably a good deal.

It is not a question of liberal vs. conservative so much as bureaucratic inertia and comfort.

The Agency is comfortable with its bloated bureaucracy in Northern Virginia. Covert operators burn out quickly and in the modern world you don't have the derring-do of the Miles Copeland and Kermit Roosevelt era. But there are plenty of sinecures for analysts, especially for people more comfortable carping from the sidelines, Monday-morning quarterbacking, backseat-driving and metaphor-mixing over cocktails. And there are plenty of Washington Post reporters willing to share the cocktails and scratch backs in return for good leaks. Note the coverage - as Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard notes:

According to the Post, top advisers to Goss are "disgruntled" former CIA officials "widely known" for their "abrasive management style" and for criticizing the agency. One left the CIA after an undistinguished intelligence career and another is known for being "highly partisan."

On the other side, though, are disinterested civil servants: an unnamed "highly respected case officer," and Stephen Kappes, deputy director for operations "whose accomplishments include persuading Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi to renounce weapons of mass destruction this year."

In a piece entitled "How Dare They?," Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense, is even harsher:

Let's assume everything these guys are saying is true. That they are all highly-skilled professionals whose lives have been dedicated to doing an important job for their country. That they are the best we have to do this job, and their failures are not their fault. That Porter Goss and his principal staffers are arrogant idiots from Congress who not only lack any clue about what they're doing, but are abusive and disrespectful to the pros. And let's toss in the assumption, as the Post quotes one former senior CIA official, that "[t]here's confusion throughout the ranks and an extraordinary loss of morale and incentive." So what should these troubled professionals do?

If they were as professional as they profess, if they were as dedicated as they declaim, if they were the leaders they would lead us to believe, they would do a whole bunch of things. But not resign. That's the selfish, unprofessional, and -- yes -- unpatriotic thing to do. What you do is tough it out, fight for what's right, and do everything you can to straighten your boss out and repair what damage he does while still following orders.

In the hope that some of those who are thinking of resigning may read this, I want to address you directly. Each of you should ask yourself the following questions. Do you think your job is important to the war against terrorists and the nations that support them? Do you believe you're good at it, and are making a significant contribution to the nation's defense? Do you think that, by your hard work and experience, you may save one American's life or give the president one more option in any decision he has to make? Do you believe that your subordinates rely on your leadership and mentoring? If you answered any of those questions with a "yes," and you still dare to resign, you should hang your head in shame for the rest of your born days. It's all about duty, honor and country. If you think your personal gripes are more important, then go ahead and resign. And good riddance to you.

As they say in the blogosphere, read the whole thing.