Leon Panetta, the choice of the president-elect to head the Central Intelligence Agency, has drawn some "friendly fire" as the result of the proposed appointment.

The swing in sentiment has been an interesting process.  He was totally unexpected by members of congress, and that really had them cranked up.  Dianne Feinstein was originally quoted as saying that she had always said that the CIA head should be a person with intelligence credentials, and that she found none in Leon Panetta's past.  Then, after the "unseen forces" had finished with her, she backtracked to say, "I am supportive.  I know him to be a man of credibility and a man of conscience and a man of talent."  Missing from her accolades was any reference to his experience in intelligence.  And for good reason; he has none. 

Mr. Panetta has credentials as a good manager and he certainly has Washington experience.  He is from the mold of many of the president-elect's appointees.  He has the experience, the "gravitas" if you would, that the president-elect lacks.  To his credit, the president-elect is making picks that strengthen his own position.  This appointment, however, strains the imagination.

The CIA is made up of intelligence people and 'spooks'.  It is rife with institutional memory and it resents any outsider that presupposes to come in and to take over.

Panetta is no different, other than for lacking even the smallest amount of experience, and there is no reason to suspect that he'll be any more effective at the CIA than any of the other outsiders who have sat behind the same desk.

The head of the CIA is subservient to the intelligence czar, and maybe that is what the president-elect counted on when making this appointment.  The CIA, however, does not see itself as subservient to anyone or to any other agency.

Therein lies the rub.