Before getting so pissed that I turned off the TV, I saw a “Chris Matthews Show” panel preen about the obvious faulty tradecraft of the CIA at FOB Chapman in Khost province. As if they knew the first thing about what happened; as if they knew the third thing about intelligence (yes, Mr. Ignatius; I’m including you here); as if they knew anything beyond what was conventional wisdom safe to spew on a Sunday chat show without fear of contradiction or exposure.
Robert Grenier has an eloquent expression of the pain that the CIA is in after the disaster at Khost. I consider this the key paragraph:
But for the grace of God, my colleagues and I could have come up similarly short on any number of occasions in Pakistan and Afghanistan during the run-up to 9/11 and the resulting American-led invasion. Brave young men and women met in wild and obscure places with dubious characters; had they not done so, we would not have had the human information network that was vital in routing Al Qaeda and the Taliban so quickly in 2001. Some flew on helicopters deep into Taliban-controlled areas to meet with tribal leaders whom we felt we could trust, but whose followers might have had the means and motivation to murder my colleagues. We fully expected to lose many of our people in those days. That our losses were light in the end was a testament to their courage, their professionalism and, yes, their luck.
And if and when CIA officers in the field implement stricter force protection procedures, those same journalists will huff about the agency’s “risk-averse” culture. Where information ends — like in the intelligence world — journalistic and political groupthink will fill the vacuum.
I also concur with this point of Grenier’s about flight 253, and it goes all the way up to President Obama and all the way out to each of us: “A wealthy nation that refuses to invest sufficiently in available technology, or to put up with travel delays necessary to see whether passengers are carrying explosives onto airplanes, chooses instead to excoriate the intelligence community for failing to see unerringly into the minds and hearts of men.”



14 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
In all honesty, I don’t understand the sentimentality towards the CIA and its operatives. That organization and its operatives are generally very malevolent figures. For Christ’s sake, we’re talking about an organization that has supported and trained death squads in Latin America, that has toppled regimes politically inconvenient to the US, that in general has a very dark and secretive, sinister history. The US has to have a functioning intelligence apparatus, fine; but don’t shed a tear for these people, the things that they do cause tears all over the world.
Spencer,and Seymour, one may certainly agree that the CIA is malevolent (not saying I do) but that’s irrelevant to your points: a) people who weren’t there, wil never be there, and know nothing about what it’s like to “be there” are opining out of their – you-know-what’s piously like “serious” people. And yes, they will soon be complaining about “risk-averse cultures.”
In a way, of course, this post is redundant on the subject of media pundits’ cluelessness combined with pompousness, not to mentionn way undue ability to influence decision-making and public opinion.
But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be pointed out whenever it happens. Thanks.
Good take on the piece, Spencer. I agree completely, except with respect to Ignatius. I believe that if any Village journo is qualified to speak about intelligence methods, it is David Ignatius, if only because we know that his career is really not much more than recounting the most sympathetic accounts of their activities that various people in the community have provided him with. That is, unless we’re saying that those to whom he speaks have a reason other than an honest assessment of what happened to besmirch the tradecraft of what must have been one of the most accomplished, forward operating teams in the fight. That doesn’t make them (and therefore him) obviously right — only that there does seem to be an honest question of whether they may have gotten careless in this one instance. But maybe you know different. (And I mean that sincerely.)
Spencer/All the other morning during the Diane Rehms weekly round up (the international hour) Barbara Slavin and a few others had what I thought a very arrogant and smug attitude about the CIA/Xe agents being blown to bits. They sort of chuckled about not checking Al Balawi when he came in, It was so fucking odd
Here is the one hour Round up
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/10/01/08.php#29284
Also this reasonable fellow on Washington Journal had some insightful and reasonable suggestions about airport security etc
Nihad Awad, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Executive Director
Saturday
Nihad Awad discusses the issues surrounding the Muslim community and the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253. He reacted to a video clip of President Obama’s statement about Muslims made on Thursday, January 7, 2010. Mr. Awad talked about racial profiling and better security procedures at airports.
Washington, DC
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/09/WJE/A/28202/Nihad+Awad+Council+on+AmericanIslamic+Relations+Executive+Director.aspx
Ray McGovern hits the nail on the head again. Both Glenn Greenwald and McGovern have focused on Helen Thomas’s simple, logical and straight forward question “what is the motivation”
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/010810b.html
Answering Helen Thomas on Why
By Ray McGovern
January 8, 2010
Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day.
Share this article
After Obama briefly addressed L’Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote “must do better” on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the vapid remarks about rechanneling “intelligence streams,” fixing “no-fly” lists, deploying “behavior detection officers,” and buying more body-imaging scanners.
Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public.
what gets lost in all this is the simple proposition that NO government can protect all the people all the time from all things .. it’s an idiotic expectation .. but it nonetheless does underlie a lot of this bullshit ..
there’s always a risk .. and risk can’t ever be eliminated totally ..
It’s very true. But Americans don’t understand this, even intellectually, much less in their guts. Security (largely by default) from outside hostile attack is our expectation because it is our experience. 1812, 1941, 2001. That’s about it, unless I am mistaken. Now the world has changed. There is no reason to expect Americans to adjust very quickly or easily or willingly to this, in my view.
(But reasonable adjustments — delays at the airport, maybe chilling a little about a machine taking pictures of your naughty parts — these are adjustment that can be made easily and willingly. It’s the acceptance of the decreased security [despite those measures] that is harder to take on board.)
“It was designed to win political advantage by holding intelligence officers — whose offense was to follow faithfully their lawful orders — up to opprobrium and scorn.”
It ought to be noted that this is a far, far scummier thing to write than anything the media has said about Khost. The media is ignorant scum, Robert Grenier is malevolent scum.
Attention everyone at the CIA: please quit your job. We would be a better and safer country if you never exited. We don’t owe you gratitude, you owe us apologies. If you don’t like that, feel free to find another job.
If Grenier wants to advocate for defunding the CIA and giving the money to TSA, I’m all for that. But if you’re gonna take the money, you’re gonna have to take the blame when shit goes wrong.
Yes, we do need to hear from Ackerman on Grenier’s enthusiastic defense of torture. Particularly, I may add, given that quite open, unashamed, and frequent torture seems to be the Wave of the Future. There was that recent Rasmusssen poll showing the public in favor of waterboarding Abdulmutallab by 58-30; I’ve seen Marc Thiessen and Reuel Marc Gerecht (as well as Grenier) defending torture just today (although none of them can quite bring themselves to actually use the word, preferring “no Marquess of Queensbury rules” or the immortal “enhanced interrogation techniques”); and even Fareed Zakaria (who DOES use the word) was rather equivocal on the subject in his Wash. Post column today.
We badly need to deal with this. If we ARE going to resort to torture in interrogations — and virtually all of us can conceive of SOME situations in which we could regard it as justified, up to that ticking nuclear bomb — we very badly need to ring it with limits and firm official rules. Such as, perhaps, creating a multi-member court (like the FISA court) to decide the emergency occasions on which its use may be justified, instead of letting one man by himself (up to the Oval Office) make the decision.
A few recent relevant posts from former DIA and Army intelligence officer Pat Lang, FYI, in case they haven’t been noted previously. The first two are on the Khost incident.
The-CIA-and-the-passion-of-the-wogs
A dearth of “tradecraft”
A couple posts on John Brennan, here and here (hint: Lang is not in Brennan’s fan club). From the first link:
This limb of Eisenhower’s Dragon [aka the MIC(C)] is looking as sickly as the other organs and limbs, as was probably inevitable.
Hmm, that last sentence had a misplaced set of parentheses – should have been …MI(C)C…, for the very important coulda-shoulda-been inclusion of Congress in the acronym.
By the way, word has it that Eisenhower originally wanted to call it the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, but he was talked out of including Congress shortly before the speech where he introduced the term. Is there solid documentation of that account (e.g., in his letters/memoirs), or is the evidence more tenuous, e.g., something like family members saying they are sure Eisenhower wanted to include Congress, but not having any documentation to back that up.
Yes, we do need to hear from Ackerman on Grenier’s enthusiastic defense of torture.
He didn’t defend torture, enthusiastically or otherwise, but he did offer up the “just following orders” nonsense for his comrades.
Pat Lang has permitted an anonymous guest to post a brief, alternative (favorable) view of John Brennan – link.