The controversy over Leon Panetta’s lack of intelligence experience as President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to replace Michael Hayden as Director of the CIA misses the point. You don’t have to be a hard-core intelligence professional to run the agency. Some intelligence experience other than having been a consumer of CIA products as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff would help, but it’s not absolutely necessary. What's necessary is an understanding and appreciation of the CIA's multiple missions and culture and the leadership ability to make it function effectively.

Looking back over my 40-year relationship with the CIA, I've often been among its critics. As a US Army clandestine case officer in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I routinely interacted with my CIA counterparts. The relationship was often more competitive than cooperative, especially in Vietnam when we went after the same covert sources. I once found myself moving an agent from safe house to safe house to keep him out of the agency’s clutches. “Big Brother,” as we referred to them, had all the resources and clout. They almost always got what they wanted, unless we were able to keep them totally in the dark, which we did on rare occasions.

As a senior Defense Intelligence Agency China analyst in the late 1970s and early1980s, I worked on several national intelligence estimates with CIA analysts. Our battles over different methodologies for counting Chinese ballistic missiles were often heated. I came away from that experience, however, much the better for it. My association with CIA analysts taught me a great deal and made me a better analyst.

As a military attaché in the People’s Republic of China in 1983-84 and as a civilian in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1984 to 2007, I was a daily consumer of CIA intelligence. I couldn't have done my job effectively without it. Nevertheless, having served in the field and as an intelligence analyst in Washington, DC, I viewed the intelligence I received with a critic’s eye and didn't always agree with everything I read or heard.

Despite my differences with the CIA over the years, and there were many, I always had great respect for the CIA professionals I interacted with. I don’t share the negative attitude toward them that some Americans have, shaped largely by what they read and see in the media, spy novels and movies, or that some of my colleagues in government had based on their experiences.

At its core, the CIA is made up of loyal American men and women who love their country and are dedicated to serving it. They live and work, however, in a culture of secrecy and anonymity, frequently the target of partisan politics and interagency warfare. From time to time they're pushed from above to do things they shouldn't do. At other times, people inside the agency have exceeded their authority. Like every agency of government, they have their share of prima donnas.

The CIA’s failures and missteps are well known--the shoot down of Francis Gary Power's U2, the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, spying on US civilians and other abuses of power in the 1970s, the intelligence failure on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Each contributed to the narrative about the agency. Their cumulative effect has been to whittle away at the CIA's mystique and incur restrictions and oversight of CIA activities. The agency's clandestine human collection never completely recovered from legislative restrictions enacted after the 1975 Church Committee investigation.

Also damaging to the CIA’s image in recent years have been the constant stream of leaks emanating from senior people inside the agency who have disagreed with the president. No sooner did he sign a finding authorizing some covert action than the public read about it on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. What kind of national intelligence organization is it that can’t keep a secret?

Since 9/11 the CIA has been at the center of a debate over interrogation and detention policies in the war on terror. It’s been accused, under direction from the White House, of torturing high-value prisoners, unlawful detentions at Guantanamo, and transferring captives to foreign governments who do not share US human rights practices. It’s this issue that’s principally responsible for Obama’s selection of Panetta, an outsider not previously associated with George W. Bush's CIA.

It’s encouraging that Obama has selected retired Admiral Dennis Blair as his director of national intelligence, that he seeks to retain CIA deputy director Stephen Kappes, and that he has appointed John Brennan as his top White House counterterrorism advisor. All are experienced professionals. Brennan, Obama’s first choice to head the CIA, withdrew his name because of fears that his statements supporting controversial interrogation techniques might prevent his confirmation.

Nevertheless, it will be Panetta’s task to create the environment required for CIA professionals to do their job well, to serve the president and American people. That won’t be easy. With the CIA under attack from the left, Panetta will take office committed to reversing many current CIA practices. He'll be working to win over concerned and hesitant CIA employees at the same time he's undertaking a crash course in on-the-job training. Not the best environment for an agency engaged in wars on multiple fronts that require aggressive and innovative out-of-the-box thinking to stay one step ahead of the enemy.

Mr. Panetta has a steep hill to climb if he expects to retain the agency’s best talent, conduct effective intelligence operations, and produce top-quality intelligence analysis. He must demonstrate to the CIA’s 20,000-plus employees that he's there to do more than just implement the new president’s policies. He can’t stifle initiative by punishing those who dutifully carried out the previous director’s policies approved by President George W. Bush. He must convince them that he understands and appreciates their culture and wants to provide them with the tools, support, and leadership they need to serve the president and help keep America secure, prosperous, and free. A little house cleaning may be in order. He just has to be careful what he throws out and what he brings in.