"Clap On, Clap Off": Is the light on at the DNI?

"Clap on, Clap off . . . way off on Muslim Brotherhood"

When Congress is in session, crowds in the gallery, when allowed to observe, are reminded to hold their clapping until the session concludes.  If only the White House could have held its Clapper until the end of a hearing on Capitol Hill today.  Instead, the Obama administration made the unfortunate decision to allow Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper to answer questions and deliver his assessments of the situation in Egypt without the much-needed benefit of a teleprompter.  

 DNI Clapper, as widely reported, testified that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had worked peacefully for the "betterment of the political order" and, in a whopper that would have caused Pinocchio great nasal growth pains:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

 So far out in left field was this assessment, that the White House rushed to correct DNI Clapper's mind-boggling inaccuracy.  A DNI spokesman clarified later today that DNI Clapper was aware the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious, not secular, organization, but that it had largely operated in Egypt in a secular manner under Hosni Mubarak's rule in that country.  What he failed to explain in the hearing was WHY Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood under his thumb for 30 years.  The reason of course, is that the Brotherhood, when speaking to gullible Western media, portrays itself as a minor secular political party with no clout in Egypt, dedicated to building hospitals and other social projects to save humanity.

The peaceful hospital-building political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, no doubt welcoming Egyptian voters on election day in September 2011. 

When one speaks with Egyptians and other citizens in the Middle East, or if one watches Al Jazeera for 10 minutes, one can learn very quickly that the reason the Brotherhood builds hospitals is because the Brotherhood creates a demand for emergency medical facilities by fomenting terrorism and anti-Semitism with a violent tinge to it.  People get hurt around the Brotherhood.  Ask Anwar Sadat whether the Brotherhood "eschews violence", and it might help explain why Mubarak used an iron fist to limit the group's activities in Egypt for decades.  Read the words of the Brotherhood's supreme religious leader and decide for yourself if the "secular political party" is a benign entity as DNI Clapper testified today.  Judge for yourself if the Brotherhood, in its ideology and goals, is any different than al Qaeda, which the Brotherhood allegedly claims is an abomination of Islam.  For a group that is so tightly embracing Hamas that it is impossible to determine where Hamas ends and the Brotherhood begins, its faux condemnation of al Qaeda is ripe with comedic value
beyond anything even the Onion could concoct.

What is most disturbing about DNI Clapper's testimony isn't simply that it was inaccurate, which it clearly was, but that it is in direct conflict with assessments of the Brotherhood produced by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and a host of other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, not merely in the U.S. but among all of our key allies across the globe.  Simply stated, no agency in an allied country has ever assessed the Muslim Brotherhood as anything but a terrorist organization that has participated in violence, directly and through financing and recruitment.  DNI Clapper must know this.  The CIA's and FBI's assessments of the Brotherhood are nothing like what DNI Clapper presented today.  It is no wonder he is backing away from his testimony at a speed only Usain Bolt has experienced among mortals.

We must wonder why DNI Clapper, who should know very well the intelligence (that is the "I" in DNI, after all!) the CIA, FBI, and others have gleaned about the Brotherhood, would testify that the group is of little concern and is a bit player in the "revolution" taking place in Egypt since January 25.  Members of Congress in attendance at today's hearing should obtain for themselves the assessments of the Brotherhood from the intelligence and law enforcement agencies DNI Clapper is supposed to listen to, and brief the Obama administration accordingly.  Clapper clapped on about the humanitarian achievements of this terror-sponsoring group, and then he clapped off when one of his staffers with access to simple intelligence sources, such as Google, discovered that no one in the intel industry, except perhaps himself, believed a word of the fiction that the Brotherhood is benign.  Clearly his testimony was politically motivated. Somehow, in all of this Clapping on and off, we must hope and pray that a light came on somewhere in the administration to reveal the very real threat to Egypt and Israel the Brotherhood presents, and that no real political power will be afforded it before or after Egyptian elections are held to replace Mubarak.

NIE Shows CIA, State in Denial on Iran

Portions of the much anticipated new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will be released to the public today, and finally average citizens will get a clear view of the end product funded by their taxes. After more than two years of meetings, conferences, briefings, draft sessions, and revisions, the American intelligence agencies’ NIE concludes only that there is no consensus between them on very fundamental issues. The “major points” made by the report are truly shocking revelations that no one outside of an intelligence agency could possibly have concluded without all of that specialized training and experience (sarcasm off):

-Al Qaeda is still trying to get its hands on a variety of WMDs and, gasp, would use them if it possessed them.

-Al Qaeda has regrouped and restored most of the ingredients necessary to launch a major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland.

-Al Qaeda, another gasp, is working hard to place operatives in the U.S.

-The U.S. faces “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” for at least the next three years. The predicted main sources for that threat are, third gasp, Islamic terrorist groups, particularly Al Qaeda. The threat to the U.S. comes from “the undiminished intent to attack the homeland and a continued effort by terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.”

Of course, NIE summaries released to the public are sanitized of any classified information or source references, but the level of sanitization for this NIE is insulting to Americans who do not have access to the full report. Capital Cloak readers are intelligent and interested in matters of national security and intelligence. You did not need the NIE, representing millions of dollars and thousands of hours of research, to tell you what you already knew: Islamic terrorists want to kill Americans in America with any weapon they can acquire. In my profession, we knew these things long before 9/11, and anyone who did not learn these lessons after 9/11 continues to live in a fantasy world of “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.” What then was the purpose of the NIE and all of the media hoopla surrounding it?

Like most NIE’s, the one released today contains the official conclusions of the sixteen agencies that comprise the intelligence community. If nothing else, NIE’s offer a glimpse at the functionality and ideology of each agency, and often the gulf between certain agencies are nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in these documents. Sometimes inter-agency disagreements are little more than technical trivia, but disputes also can create institutional paralysis. When several major agencies offer divergent opinions of the same issue, it leaves the executive and legislative branches that rely on those opinions for policy decision-making in a difficult position. Unfortunately, as the NY Sun reported today, the new NIE includes a critical point of disagreement between agencies on what is likely the most important issue currently facing America: Iran.

Despite clear and increasing evidence that al Qaeda’s resurgence is occurring not only in Pakistan’s mountains but also in Iran, analysts within the State Department and CIA argue in the new NIE that Iran’s Quds Force, terrorist special forces units designed to support terror operations and report directly to Iran’s supreme leader, are acting independently of Iran’s official government in their funding, equipping, and transporting al Qaeda terrorists who have attacked and continue to attack American troops in Iraq. According to these two agencies, the simple fact that Iran is a Shia nation while al Qaeda is run by radical Sunnis makes collaboration between the two groups against a common enemy unlikely if not impossible. They appear convinced that Iran’s government is not giving orders to the Quds Force to assist al Qaeda terrorists with their fight against the U.S. in Iraq.

That conclusion is incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded. It is true that al Qaeda’s Sunnis view Iran’s Shia population as “infidels” under a technical Koranic interpretation, but the differences between the two are far easier to overcome than the religious and cultural divide between Islam and non-Islamic nations and cultures. Thus it is far more logical to conclude that Shia-Sunni collaboration against the West is not only possible but extremely likely, and if the combined effort succeeds in defeating Western cultures, these two differing branches of Islam could then turn their attentions or contentions to each other. But don’t try to convince anyone at State or the CIA, they are convinced that the two are not capable of working together. Extending that flawed logic to its equally flawed conclusion, these two departments apparently believe that Sunni terrorists would refuse to join with Shia terrorists in a war against Israel. It is much more logical to conclude that branches of the same religion would gladly join hands and martyr themselves in a war against the U.S. or Israel, as doing so is necessary to bringing about their ultimate goal: a global Islamic state under Sharia law.

National Review’s Michael Ledeen nicely countered the flawed thinking behind the estimate that the Quds Force acts independently:

Instead, every new revelation about Iran’s role in the terror war is greeted with the pathetic mantra “but this does not prove that the regime itself is involved.” As if General Suleimani of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force would dare launch operation after operation against us in Iraq without the explicit approval of his commander-in-chief, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Do our analysts not know that the Revolutionary Guards were created for the explicit purpose of responding to the whims of the Supreme Leader? Whenever the Guards move, they do so precisely because “the regime” has willed it.

While Americans should be insulted by the common sense vanilla plainness of the public portions of the new NIE, we should also be concerned that two of the most influential agencies in any administration, the CIA and State Department, refuse to recognize that the Defense Department, which has infinitely more sources of information in the region at this time, is warning that Iran, despite a doctrinal religious difference with al Qaeda Sunnis, is actively supporting the terrorists in Iraq and killing our troops. Iranian weaponry and explosives are found in ever-increasing numbers within Iraq. Those weapons and IEDs did not leave Iranian supply facilities on their own or without the approval of Iran’s government.

The liberal media jumped out in front of this issue long ago, accusing the Bush administration and specifically Vice President Cheney, of pushing for action against Iran, branding such recommendations as “war mongering.” Yet it should be noted that counterterrorism expert and bitter Bush critic Richard Clarke’s deputy Roger Cressey told the NY Sun that when President Bush took the fight to the Taliban after 9/11, al Qaeda relocated its operational centers to two areas: Pakistan and Iran. Cressey described known meetings and meet locations of al Qaeda leaders in Iran and made it quite clear that the Shia Iranian government had no qualms about allowing and even embracing al Qaeda within its borders because they share common enemies, the U.S. and Israel. Those who casually toss out accusations like “war mongering” should remember that it was the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, highly revered in liberal circles, that first reported publicly Iranian ties and assistance to eight of the 9/11 hijackers, with Iran’s government offering them passage into and out of Afghanistan.

What liberal critics and apparently the CIA and State Department fail to grasp is the concept of war. They mistakenly sit idly by, tinkering with foreign policy “solutions,” waiting for Iran to formally declare war on the U.S., and only then will they choose to recognize war-like behaviors for what they are and recommend decisive action to defend America. Unfortunately, the days of nations notifying each other through declarations of war are long gone, and whether or not State and CIA officials recognize it, Iran is conducting a war against the U.S., allowing well funded proxies to fight it for them. Another term for such proxies is mercenaries, and even liberals cannot deny that England’s employment of Hessian mercenaries against America in the Revolutionary War did not make Hessians responsible for the war itself. While Iran’s proxies kill our troops with no repercussions resulting for the mullahs, Iran continues to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons production with no intention of stopping or being induced to stop by sanctions or other diplomatic methods.

In war, there is logic behind meeting the enemy on a “neutral” battlefield. In this case, Iran is taking the fight to us in Iraq, attempting (very half-heartedly) to conceal its involvement, while making sure that Iraqi, not Iranian, citizens are killed in the battles and crossfire. At some point, however, defeating an enemy requires destroying his resources, production capabilities, and governmental centers. This is why it is so critical that the U.S. remain and stabilize Iraq; victory there will set the stage for the coming conflict with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and soon to be its number one WMD threat.

The boots on the ground in Iraq insist that Iran is already at war with us. Hopefully the CIA and State Department will come to recognize this fact instead of holding tenaciously to the ridiculous notion that differing Islamic radicals groups cannot work together to hasten our demise.

Technorati Tags:
NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, Iran, Quds Force, Al Qaeda, Islamic Terrorists, CIA, State Department, 9/11 Commission

Ex-CIA Expert Wrong on Terror Motives

The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, has carved out a niche for himself as an author, television news terrorism expert, and designated bitter former intelligence officer turned U.S. government basher. As such he is the darling of liberal media outlets, and he is a frequent and welcomed guest. His writings and commentary are consistently filled with dire warnings to western governments that they do not understand the motives of Islamic terrorists and thus cannot win the War on Terror. Scheuer may have held prominent positions within the CIA, but that apparently did not insulate him from adopting a sympathetic view of what he believes are the motives behind Islamic terrorism.

Speaking in Sydney, Australia earlier this week, Scheuer blasted the U.S. and its allies for failure in the War on Terror, but I want readers to focus on a few key arguments Scheuer put forth to explain why he believes the West will lose the War on Terror. I will then counter Scheuer’s description of Islamic terror motives with the words of an actual radical Islamist who paints a very different portrait of Islamic motives. First, Scheuer’s “blame the West for terrorism” argument, excerpted from Australia’s The Age:

"We in the West are fighting an enemy we have woefully chosen to misunderstand and to whom we are losing hands down and on every front," he said.

Mr. Scheuer said there was no hope of bringing democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan without a much greater commitment to defeat insurgents.

He said the West's biggest mistake in the war on terror was to ignore the grievances of Islamic insurgents.

He said Western politicians, including Prime Minister John Howard, deceived the public by suggesting that terrorists were motivated only by hatred for freedoms enjoyed in the West.

Mr. Howard had "warbled" the "wildly inaccurate ditty" that the London bombers were motivated by a hatred of Western culture, Mr. Scheuer said.

He said Al-Qaeda was motivated by anger towards US foreign policy in the Middle East rather than by hatred for Western culture.

That included the US military presence in the region, its backing of tyrannical Arab regimes and "unqualified" support for Israel.

Scheuer accuses Western governments of misunderstanding the enemy, and based on my own experience I would agree that understanding of radical Islam is in short supply within our government agencies. The federal government is far too influenced by groups like CAIR and not influenced enough by those who actively track Islamist extremist activity, like Jihad Watch. However, Scheuer should engage in serious introspection to examine whether he likewise possesses only a shallow knowledge of terror motives. After a long career with the CIA studying and combating Islamic terrorism, it is remarkable that Scheuer ascribes political rather than religious or cultural motives to Islamic terrorists. Everything I have learned about Islamic terrorists leads me to a very different conclusion about their motives: radical Islamists seek nothing short of total global Islamic rule, with Sharia law as the established behavioral code for all mankind.

If that sounds like a radical conclusion, it is, but perhaps the words of former Islamic radical Hassan Butt published by the UK Daily Mail, will help readers distinguish the true terror motive from propaganda arguments incessantly regurgitated by Islamists and Western liberals alike that the West could somehow pacify these terrorists by changing our foreign policies:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

…And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

…I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.

…And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

Scheuer and Western governments, liberal or conservative, need look no further than Butt’s phrase, “creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice,” to gain a realistic understanding of Islamic terrorists’ motives. There is nothing complicated contained in this radical theology. It is not based on our oil interests, or our “occupation” of Iraq, or our support of Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine. It is based on crystal clear distinctions between good (Islam) and evil (unbelievers) and the assurance that any action taken to hasten the dawning of a global Islamic state, no matter how violent, is justified and fulfills Islamic scriptural prophecy. We are merely the largest and most formidable obstacle to this quest for global Islamic domination.

Only when Western governments and media terror “experts” like Scheuer acknowledge the true motive of the enemy in the War on Terror will the formulation of effective strategies to win that war be possible. America and her allies united in WWII to prevent the establishment of a global totalitarian Nazi state. Preventing the establishment of a global Islamic state under Sharia law will require a similar and likely longer-term unity and commitment to victory.

If the divisions among us exposed by the Iraq War and the War on Terror are any indication, such unity of purpose between our two political parties may already be impossible. When presidential candidates from both parties echo Scheuer’s flawed argument that America causes terrorism through its foreign policies (Ron Paul-R and all Democratic candidates), or claim that the War on Terror is merely a Bush bumper sticker slogan (John Edwards), it is clear that ignorance of our enemy’s motives is endemic at the highest levels of Western government and media institutions.

Technorati Tags:
Michael Scheuer, CIA, Terrorism Expert, Hassan Butt, Radical Islam, Islamic State, War on Terror, Jihad, Foreign Policy

ABC Warns Iran of US Covert Actions

If Harry Reid had referred to the War on Terror rather than the Iraq War when he stated “this war is lost,” perhaps he would have been closer to the truth. America faces the world’s premier terror sponsor, Iran, rapidly advancing toward nuclear capability, but neither the American government nor the American media have the collective will or discipline to win any war, let alone a war against terrorism.

The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identify terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.

The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region...

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community...

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq...

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran...

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program...

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders...

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams...

What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.

Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.

In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.

“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.

Tenet: Interrogations MVP of Terror War

Washington insiders are known for making startling revelations in the media immediately prior to the date on which their memoirs hit bookstore shelves. Former CIA director George Tenet is no exception. His book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, available for sale Monday, has already been a hot topic of discussion in the media, as portions of it have been leaked along with previews of Tenet’s appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program to be aired Sunday. Speculation has run rampant that Tenet would anger the White House with his assessments of the War on Terror, but the NY Sun reported today that Tenet adamantly defended the Bush administration’s use of “aggressive interrogations” in a bold and straightforward manner uncommon among DC’s elite.

Tenet, addressing the issue of interrogations and alleged torture so ferociously opposed by Democrats, reportedly stated:

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Mr. Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us," he said.

Consider that last sentence again carefully. In the estimation of a man who served as DCI under Presidents Clinton and Bush, aggressive interrogations, presumably including the technique known as “water boarding” (previously described by Capital Cloak here) have been the most effective tool in protecting America from terrorism. Interrogation of enemy combatants, so loudly denounced by war critics is more valuable than the FBI’s counterterrorism section and Joint Terrorism Task Forces found in every major American city. Aggressive interrogations yield more actionable intelligence than the NSA’s electronic and communications monitoring capabilities so feared by privacy scaremongers. Interrogations are worth more than CIA covert operations and intelligence analysts’ reports.

It is a remarkable statement from a man whose reputation and marketability are so closely intertwined with public perception of the CIA. The capture of these enemy combatants, and often the initial interrogations, are military rather than CIA operations, and thus Tenet is crediting Defense Intelligence (with additional assistance from CIA) for extracting more actionable intelligence than all other agencies and programs combined. When one considers the enormous flood of documents, captured transmissions, and reports from citizen informants currently swamping American intelligence agencies, one begins to realize how critical it is to obtain information directly from captured terrorists with firsthand operational knowledge of terror plots, terror leaders, names, aliases, locations, dates, times, and travel methods.

Theoretically, all of these pieces of a terror plot puzzle might eventually be put together by American intelligence. The NSA may capture a phone call in which vague references to an attack in America or Britain are made. Defense Intelligence may find laptop computers, surveillance videos, and maps on which targets are circled. The FBI may receive a warning from an anonymous citizen that Islamic men were talking about a bomb in New York. The pieces of the puzzle may be many and seemingly unrelated. That is complicated by the continued failure of intelligence agencies to share newly obtained information real time with each other, thus the chances of someone at one of these agencies putting the pieces together and discovering the big picture are slim indeed.

That entire puzzle process is typically avoided when enemy combatants are interrogated, and yes, interrogated aggressively. There is no need for a lucky analyst to discover a plot when the terrorists themselves, under moderate duress, reveal their plans and how to find the plotters. FISA warrants, privacy rights of Americans, the Patriot Act, FBI’s Carnivore, all the anti-terror tools liberals fear and despise are much less productive than direct capture and interrogation. That logic is at the heart of President Bush’s strategy to fight terrorists in the Middle East to prevent fighting them in America. He recognized long ago that taking the gloves off when interrogating captured al Qaeda operatives was the only sure way to infiltrate their organization and hit them before they hit America again. Of course, surveillance and other tools are still necessary for detection of so-called homegrown terrorists and should not be abandoned. Still, the arguments for aggressive interrogation, whether from President Bush, George Tenet, or former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, have always been compelling and convincing.

Liberal (and some conservative) critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror and national security must face three difficult questions: You are opposed to the Patriot Act; you are opposed to the NSA domestic surveillance program; you are opposed to FBI’s carnivore and other Internet mining tactics; you are opposed to the war against al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq; you are opposed to holding enemy combatants for interrogation; you are opposed to any form of aggressive interrogation, including water boarding; you are in favor of illegal immigration; you are opposed to citizen ownership of guns; are there any anti-terror policies you support? How do you propose we obtain intelligence before terrorists strike America again? Would you prefer to be incinerated by a bomb or see a terrorist frightened into revealing the location of that bomb because he “thought” he was drowning?

While it may seem improbable to most Americans, lulled as they are into believing they are safe, men like George Tenet and President Bush confront such doomsday scenarios daily. Note the strain and sense of urgency Tenet felt in his daily work:

"We don't torture people," the former director told CBS. "The context is it's post-September 11. I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again, plot lines that I don't know. … I'm struggling to find out where the next disaster is going to occur."

Tenet has been criticized by many within and outside the intelligence community for his perceived failure to put the puzzle together to prevent 9/11. However, such criticism sheds light on the critics and their motives. Prior to 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America relied solely on our intelligence agencies for understanding and penetration of terrorist groups. The War on Terror, however, through “aggressive interrogation,” has given America access to and understanding of the terrorists themselves. If American intelligence agencies could have received information in that manner prior to 9/11, Tenet and others would have had a much better chance to prevent the attack. Senators and Congressmen know this, but to keep the media spotlight on themselves they condemn these methods and list interrogation tactics among the list of reasons why the president is a “war criminal” or deserves impeachment.

Thankfully, Tenet recognized the overwhelming value and success of the interrogations at Guantanamo and other locations, and rose to defend the Bush Administration’s use of these tools to protect Americans from further terror attacks. Whether or not Tenet criticizes the administration for other perceived shortcomings remains to be seen, but he should be recognized for courageously and publicly warning against abandoning the tools and techniques that have proven most effective in thwarting terrorists: using their own knowledge against them.

Post Editors and Columnist Absolute on Immorality of Torture: But What Would President Applebaum Do?

Apparently the only moral issue that liberals treat as an absolute is the faux-noble assertion that torture is always wrong, regardless of who is being tortured, or why. Today’s Washington Post editorial “Top-Secret Torture” meshes seamlessly with Post columnist Anne Applebaum’s commentary, “Tortured Credibility” to form a forked-tongued hiss against the Bush administration for allegedly torturing confessed terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Both pieces asserted that the alleged use of torture had destroyed America’s credibility in the war on terror. The Post’s editors and columnist, relying on the military tribunal testimony of Mohammed, accepted at face value Mohammed’s accusations of torture in “secret CIA prisons”, and interpreted the fact that the Bush administration was debating the legality and merits of torture immediately prior to the capture of Mohammed in 2003 as concrete evidence that torture had actually been performed. In essence, if the administration openly debated the issue, it must have done so out of guilt for current and future applications of torture.
On that flimsy premise, the Post’s editors sink their fangs into America’s interrogation methods as it related to terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq:

Yet some of the harshest action taken against Mr. Mohammed has already been widely reported: He was treated to "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, an ancient torture method that every U.S. administration prior to this one has considered illegal. CIA detainees are also known to have been subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation.

The Post editorial sanctimoniously declared that all previous U.S. administrations had considered “waterboarding” to be illegal, but typically failed to place such an accusation in historical context. Conveniently omitted was the fact that only one U.S. administration prior to the current one had experienced an attack on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists: The Clinton administration and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. After that incident, terrorists were tracked down by law enforcement, jailed, tried, convicted, and sentenced. The perpetrators of that attack remain incarcerated and will continue to be for multiple life terms. What was the result of that “humane and dignified” counterterrorism legal approach? It encouraged al Qaeda and other groups to conclude that they had nothing to fear from our legal proceedings and ponderously slow law enforcement investigations. They continued planning and executing more spectacular attacks, including the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the Bombing of the USS Cole, and ultimately 9/11.

The fact that the Bush administration was, gasp, “debating the merits of torture,” demonstrates only that the administration was doing its job by exploring all options, not immediately taking any choices off of the table simply because the international community might find them distasteful. Comparatively, the civilized world would prefer that we never utilize a nuclear weapon in combat, but we won’t be beating those proverbial swords into plowshares anytime soon. There are no Geneva Convention rules that apply to international terrorists like al Qaeda that recruit and operate in a multitude of nations, wearing no uniform and fighting under no recognized governmental flag. Prisoner of war status, let alone full American legal rights, should not be afforded these opportunistic killers. They are fighting for an extremist religious creed, not a nation.

A credible commander in chief never rejects outright any options available to him or her in the defense of the nation, and it is liberal peacenik utopianism to declare, as Applebaum did, that torture:

. . . is not merely immoral. . . it is also ineffective and in fact profoundly counterproductive: There is no proof that it produces better information but plenty of evidence that it has discredited the United States.

Applebaum is not privy to the classified interrogation reports generated during terrorist detainee interviews, and thus has no real knowledge of whether interrogation or “torture” tactics are implemented. Likewise, she is in no position to judge whether the information thus gleaned is better than intelligence obtained through criminal prosecutions or Geneva Convention compliant prisoner of war “interviews”. Since the intelligence gathered from Mohammed and other detainees, regardless of the methods used to obtain it, will remain classified for two more decades, it is reckless to make absolutist blanket statements now about the efficacy of intense interrogation or even actual torture in the War on Terror.

The frequent and injudicious use of torture is distasteful to everyone, including those who may be asked to perform it. However, if liberals continue to insist that torture is always wrong and should never be utilized, they may eventually come to rue the day they had an opportunity to discover and prevent a catastrophic attack but could not stomach the method that would have exposed the plot.

It is quite a simple exercise to think up a scenario in which the resolute morality of the anti-torture absolutists would face its ultimate challenge. Imagine that U.S. President Anne Applebaum, who was elected on a platform promising an end to the Iraq War and condemnation of torture as immoral and ineffective, is reading to children at an elementary school in Washington, DC one late summer morning. As she reads, her Chief of Staff whispers in her ear that the FBI, following a tip from a concerned Muslim-American, has captured a known terrorist who appears to be suffering from severe radiation poisoning in his apartment in Alexandria, VA.

The Chief of Staff further whispers that the terrorist has admitted to planting an armed, timed-detonation nuclear device inside the District of Columbia, but refuses to reveal where the device has been placed. The Chief of Staff concludes with the words, “He told the FBI the device would detonate in 2 hours. We cannot evacuate the city in that time, Madame President.” President Applebaum politely excuses herself without alarming the children, and moves to a holding room where she can confer with her advisers.

The CIA director advises President Applebaum that the terrorist in custody was previously imprisoned by the Russians during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA Director further advises that Russian intelligence received much useful information on Mujahideen movements from this terrorist because he displayed only moderate resistance to torture. Russian intelligence operatives had found “waterboarding” to be the single most effective method for extracting information from this individual now in FBI custody, usually requiring no more than 1 hour of the procedure before he broke.

The FBI Director reminds President Applebaum that the terrorist knows where the device is and how to disarm it, but laughs and shouts “Death to the Great Satan” when asked to reveal where the bomb is located. No one in the room wishes to be responsible for recommending it, but the question hanging in the air, to be answered only by President Applebaum, is, “Should we ‘waterboard’ this terrorist, find the bomb, and save Washington, or would that be immoral, further discrediting the United States in the eyes of the world?”

The Washington Post editorial and Applebaum’s column would indicate that the writers have not given sufficient consideration to the ramifications of declaring torture as an intelligence tool to be immoral and universally insisting that it should never be used. Sound advice in time of war would be to keep all available arrows in the quiver, no matter ho unattractive, sharp and prepared for flight. Moral absolutism as it applies to torture is convenient and noble in peacetime, but when potential death for millions hangs in the balance, as in the above hypothetical scenario, international opinion should not dictate what tools a U.S. president should utilize to “provide for the common defense” of the nation.

"I'm Sorry, So Sorry, but You Had it Coming": Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Carefully Crafted "Confession" Fools Only the Foolish

During each installment of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly shares what he considered to be the “Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.” In that spirit, Spy the News! today offers the “Most Blatantly Dishonest Statement of the Day.” The newly confessed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who also admitted to beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle and planning nearly every major terrorist attack in the world between 1993 and his capture, uttered the following “apology” for some 9/11 casualties during a military tribunal (transcript available here):

When I said I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don't like to kill children and the kids.

Unfortunately for Daniel Pearle, KSM’s “sorrow” for killing so many Americans on 9/11 did not dissuade him from savagely beheading Pearle on camera for the world to witness the following year. There is likewise no evidence of sorrow in any of the 31 terrorist actions or plots for which KSM claimed responsibility, including the Bali bombing pictured at right. Pages 17-19 of the tribunal transcript list each of the plots he allegedly planned according to his own confession. If KSM’s confession is accepted at face value, he would be considered history’s greatest terrorist mastermind, a jet-setting jihadist of unparalleled achievement. Yet that begs the question, did he actually plan and orchestrate this long list of planned attacks, or is he merely taking credit either for personal aggrandizement or to protect his al Qaeda co-conspirators? I find it highly improbable that KSM was involved with each of these plots to the level that he now alleges. His Oscar-worthy expression of "sorrow" fits neither his known personality nor his jihadist commitment, and thus should only be considered a tryout for Best Actor rather than as an expression of any semblance of humanity. Read the list of actions he claims responsibility for again, and you will find no remorse, no sorrow, no tears. You will only find hate and a heretical religious fervor.

It is not uncommon for a prisoner facing no hope of release to confess to multiple crimes or terrorist acts for a variety of reasons, ranging from hopes for assignment to a more exclusive prison facility than a common criminal would receive to diverting investigative attention away from his or her accomplices. A careful reading of KSM’s testimony suggests that he viewed his appearance before the tribunal as a method for judicial martyrdom and a public relations windfall. KSM revealed his understanding of world media and displayed remarkable skill in his ability to cast himself as a sympathetic figure to other peoples and nations “oppressed” by America.

He compared Bin Laden to George Washington and claimed that using current American criteria for declaring a warrior for "independence" to be an "enemy combatant," George Washington could have been classified one as well. Of course, KSM omits the fact that the American colonies formally declared their independence, formed an organized military service, and established an autonomous war time government. To my knowledge, radical Islamic terrorists have not done any of these and thus represent no declared or recognized nation, but I digress.

KSM artfully seized on rising anti-American sentiment in Latin America by condemning America for “invading” Mexico and stealing two-thirds of its territory in the name of Manifest Destiny in the nineteenth century. His testimony covered a broad range of historical and religious comparisons. He appeared to know instinctively how best to manipulate the media coverage of his confession to satisfy the anti-Bush appetite of the liberal media. He believed it would likely be his last opportunity to be heard.

There are some in the media who believe KSM’s statement that he was tortured by the CIA rather than interrogated, and others see similarities between his expressions of sorrow and the torture-induced “confessions” of war crimes the North Vietnamese extracted from American POWs, including Senator John McCain. McCain wrote about such confessions in great detail in his memoir Faith of My Fathers, and even a cursory comparison of those cruelty-induced confessions with the boastful admissions of KSM should convince anyone that KSM made no statements under duress at the tribunal and was not tortured into a confession, as our POWs were, in grotesque and unspeakable ways. To compare the two situations is an insult to the courageous suffering America POWs endured in Vietnam.

It is fascinating that many in the media accept KSM’s word as unassailable truth when he stated he was tortured by the CIA prior to his transfer to Guantanamo, but they omit his testimony that he was not tortured in any way at Guantanamo and that his confession was in no way induced by any tactics or made under duress. Selective trust in a terrorist is a dangerous mentality, and it clearly illustrates that some in the media trust a confessed terrorist mastermind responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide more than they trust President Bush. Media Bias? You decide. Spy The News! is confident of which one Daniel Pearle and the 9/11 victims would trust.

Proposals Calling for New Domestic Intelligence Agency Based on MI5 Ignore Similarities with FBI

With every new story about “incompetence” or “intelligence failures” within our federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies, citizens and newspaper editors step forward to cry for a new intelligence agency to be established in the U.S. to replace the FBI as the lead agency for domestic counterterrorism investigations. In the wake of Friday’s released unclassified report revealing that the FBI under reported its use of National Security Letters (an exigent circumstance records request similar to an administrative subpoena), it did not take long for critics, unfortunately including the editors at the Wall Street Journal, to expand the rhetoric beyond the National Security Letter reporting issue and call for a new agency that will magically succeed where they perceive the FBI has failed.

According to the WSJ editors:

This is another fiasco for the FBI, which may simply be incapable of effective counterterrorism. Every independent group that has looked into the FBI--including the Robb-Silberman commission--has found that the agency is failing in that duty. Whatever discipline is handed out for this latest foul-up, the country needs to debate again whether domestic antiterror functions should be taken from the FBI and given to a new agency modeled after Britain's MI5. The FBI's culture of crime-fighting and case-building to win convictions may be incompatible with the prevention and intelligence demands of counterterrorism.

The WSJ editors omitted the important fact that the Robb-Silberman commission, while highly critical of the FBI, did not advocate the creation of a new agency to take over the FBI’s counterterrorism duties. The commission reported that the FBI had agreed to make significant changes to address its shortcomings by 2010, and thus withheld any proposal for a new agency until after 2010. Well into 2007, and with the FBI in the news again for administrative errors, it is unclear what, if any, progress the FBI is making toward restructuring itself before its detractors take the reigns of reform with relish in 2010.

Having experience in these fields, I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the FBI and other federal agencies in the effort to prevent and investigate terrorist activities and further to prosecute Americans linked to terrorism. Mistakes, at times grave but usually unintentional, have been and continue to be made by the FBI and other agencies. That is the nature of human intelligence and law enforcement, and these mistakes certainly deserve attention and scrutiny in the spirit of suggested improvement. However, to point to MI5 as the panacea model that will solve America’s domestic counterterrorism woes ignores two critical points: First, MI5 has experienced many of its own frequent and very public failures; second, forming new government agencies is almost never the answer to a governmental reform problem.

There are numerous examples of MI5 intelligence errors, including the infamous "Cambridge 5," a massive internal penetration of MI5 by Cambridge University students recruited and handled by the KGB. MI5 was also criticized for a perceived failure to warn Britains of the targeting of entertainment spots in Bali prior to the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 24 British Citizens, among many other victims. MI5 critics likewise believed the agency should have made connections among individuals later discovered to have perpetrated the London Tube bombings in July 2005. One of the bombers reportedly visited Britain just weeks prior to the attack but was never placed under surveillance by MI5. For a fascinating look into MI5 that FBI critics should examine is Spy Catcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer. These are merely two examples out of many in which MI5 was criticized for precisely the same shortcomings the FBI waded through after 9/11.

Perhaps MI5’s organizational structure is superior, but its efficacy is questioned by the British government and press with nearly as much zeal as the FBI experiences from Congress and the American media. It is a truism among intelligence and law enforcement personnel that your mistakes are front page news, while your successes are met with a shrug of the shoulders. Failure is always a bigger story than success. If you successfully identify and prevent an attack, you are simply told “thanks for doing your job.” If you make a mistake, the vultures immediately squawk for your duties to be given to someone else, preferably a new entity with no record of failure or success to tarnish its pristine reputation.

We have been down this road before, as recently as post 9/11 with the establishment of the behemoth Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS was ostensibly formed to collectivize agencies possessing national security and emergency response capacities and duties to “secure the homeland,” and improve coordination and efficiency of responses to national emergencies. Has it worked? Not according to a recent poll that declared DHS to be the least trusted agency within the U.S. government by the American people. Interestingly, public trust in the FBI, CIA, and NSA, despite media excoriations of FBI terrorist investigations, the CIA’s failure to locate and kill Bin Laden, and the alleged threat to privacy posed by the NSA domestic surveillance program, is higher than trust in DHS. Why the lack of confidence in DHS? The Department’s size, with 20+ agencies and 170,000+ employees, may influence skeptics to conclude it will never integrate fully or that some components have no direct role in securing the homeland, such as FEMA. Yet it seems clear that the more significant reason may be that Americans are wary of any new government department or agency (DHS was created in 2002) and are more apt to place their trust in agencies that have track records, even records rife with mistakes, to no track record at all. How long would it take for a new domestic intelligence agency to become operational and engender public trust? How many attacks will occur during such a fundamental reorganization?

Therein lays one of the significant arguments against the formation of a new American MI5 intelligence agency to take over the FBI’s domestic counterterrorism functions: Where will this new agency obtain its analysts and field operatives? What will be new about it other than its name and reporting structure? The learning curve in these fields is too long and the War on Terror too pressing to afford sufficient time for an entirely new agency to select inexperienced personnel and train them according to the new agencies techniques and standards. If such an agency were created, there would be an immediate need for experienced intelligence analysis staff, and the applicant pool would consist of the same analysts currently functioning within the FBI, CIA, and DHS. Through no fault of their own, these intelligence staffers would bring established organizational cultures, information sharing issues, and varying work ethics, thereby ensuring that the “new” agency would be anything but new in its ideas or preconceived intelligence estimates.

What the WSJ editors and others who have called for the creation of a new intelligence agency neglect to recommend is the need to give equal scrutiny to the possibility of restructuring the FBI by reassigning jurisdiction over many financial crimes to other federal agencies that are currently smaller and limited in scope, such as the Treasury Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and others. Thousands of FBI agents currently investigating white collar crimes could be freed from those cases and assigned to higher priority investigations, specifically domestic counterterrorism. If it is true, as a Washington Post contributor argued in 2005, that the FBI is 90% criminal investigation and 10% intelligence, then it would make more sense to move those percentages closer together and not lose whatever level of expertise exists in that 10%, than it would to simply take the 10% away and create yet another government agency. If after such a restructuring and narrowing of focus the FBI continued to prove inadequate to the task of counterterrorism, then a proposal to reassign such duties to a different or new agency should be considered.

Under reporting the number of National Security Letters it issued and inadequately training agents on what information could or could not be requested with the letters were clearly internal administrative errors. The Inspector General’s report declared that such errors were not criminal in nature and there was no evidence that any privacy rights were violated by the FBI’s issuance of the letters or the subsequent under reporting of the number issued. Yet critics are always poised to call for the most drastic remedies, and often use the symptoms of minor illnesses like under reporting to suggest the patient, in this case the FBI, has no hope for recovery. If occasional error or failure to connect the intelligence dots were considered symptoms of terminal illness in an agency, no intelligence or investigative agency, foreign or domestic, would have hope for survival, as all appear similarly afflicted.

The WSJ editors, though, did make an important statement regarding any proposed remedy to the FBI’s shortcomings:

The worst outcome would be if Congress limited the administrative subpoena power in order to punish the FBI. By all accounts, these "national security letters" have proven to be useful in tracking potential terror threats. In particular, the Bush Administration shouldn't now give in to any such demands merely to appease Congress or save the jobs of Messrs. Mueller or Gonzales.

Spy the News! concurs with this opinion and advises readers to watch the development of these issues, as Bush administration critics will seize upon National Security Letters as an alleged menace to personal and corporate privacy rights. The National Security Letters work, and despite media stories with alarmist headlines insinuating that the FBI was “snooping” on Americans and intentionally not reporting it, the only remedy that is needed in this case is an organized reporting system that tracks the number of letters issued and assures that agents are properly trained in what information they can and cannot obtain with this valuable tool in the War on Terror.

Pakistan Wheels and Deals with Taliban: Pirated U.S. Missile Technology Used Against NATO Aircraft

Have you ever wondered what happened to the cruise missiles fired on orders of then-President Clinton into Afghanistan in 1998 in his less than half-hearted attempt to strike at Osama Bin Laden? According to Afghani Taliban and Al Qaeda sources interviewed by the Asia Times Online, some of those high tech missiles never detonated and were then retrieved by Pakistani military units near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If you have read Tom Clancy’s novel The Sum of All Fears, in which Arab terrorists (not the ridiculous Hollywood version with white supremacist villains) acquire a nuclear bomb when an Israeli Air Force fighter jet loses a nuclear bomb that does not detonate on an Arab farm, you can envision what Pakistan did with these armed and fully intact U.S. cruise missiles.

Pakistani military scientists took note of the sophisticated sensors utilized in the cruise missiles and reportedly did what China has been doing with Microsoft software and Motion Picture Association recordings for years: they made illegal copies. The copied sensors were then successfully fitted to an unknown number and variety of existing Pakistani missiles, which greatly enhanced the capabilities of Pakistani offensive and defensive weaponry.

The Taliban, meanwhile, had long sought more sophisticated weapons to utilize against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan after 2001 in their efforts to return to power and oust President Karzai. According to the Asia Times Taliban sources, the Taliban acquired older Soviet model SAM-7s (Surface to Air Missile) in 2005, and received immediate training from Al Qaeda operatives. However, those ancient anti-aircraft missiles were largely ineffective against high tech coalition fighter jets and bombers because they lacked an important technological capability: heat-signature tracking and exhaust decoy sensors. The Taliban needed to seek help with resolving this sensor disadvantage and they turned to their natural ally and protector, Pakistan, the alleged American ally in the War on Terror, and its stock of pirated U.S. cruise missile sensors. In a new deal struck between Pakistan's government and the Taliban, Pakistan has reportedly provided the Taliban with pirated sensor technology the Taliban is using to upgrade its arsenal of SAM-7s.

As Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief, noted: the introduction of SAM-7s equipped with the copied sensors ironically could alter the dynamics of the NATO battle with the Taliban. This shift could give the Taliban important advantages in much the same fashion as the Afghani resistance forces benefited from the U.S. gift of Stinger missiles in their historic fight against Soviet occupation. American and NATO planes would be under constant threat from American sensor equipped SAMs. For a stunning series of photos of a next-generation SAM-7 (SAM-14) terrorist attack on a DHL courier jet in Iraq, click here. These photos and the accompanying account of the attack on an Airbus 300, illustrate that terrorists in Iraq, equipped by Iran (and by some accounts, Pakistan), are in possession of even more sophisticated SAMs than the Taliban’s modified version.

Shahzad reported that the Pakistani government (he does not specify at what level) has formed an alliance with the Taliban:

Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able safely to move men, weapons and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan. The deal. . . will serve Pakistan's interests in re- establishing a strong foothold in Afghanistan (the government in Kabul leans much more toward India). . . . Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory".

Taliban commanders planning this year's spring uprising acknowledged that as an independent organization or militia, they could not fight a sustained battle against state resources. They believed they could mobilize the masses, but this would likely bring a rain of death from the skies and the massacre of Taliban sympathizers. Their answer was to find their own state resources, and inevitably they looked toward their former patron, Pakistan.

Interestingly, also reported today was the announcement by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that the CIA has “compelling” evidence that Bin Laden and his second in command Ayman al Zawahri are currently in Pakistan and are reestablishing al Qaeda training camps in the provinces bordering Afghanistan. While Pakistan makes mostly symbolic occasional arrests in the War on Terror to placate America and retain enormous amounts of financial aid, it is simultaneously forming logistical alliances with and providing pirated weapons technology to our Taliban enemy. While playing this duplicitous game of “(Evil) Axis and (Naïve) Allies,” Pakistan may also be providing Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership safe haven within Pakistan’s borders with the tacit approval of the Islamabad government. These factors should make more clear the reasons why Vice President Cheney and Stephen Kappes, CIA Deputy Director, made separate visits this week to Islamabad to confront President General Musharraf, presumably with a diplomatic pouch full of satellite imagery and ultimatums.

Spy the News! has previously documented Pakistan’s growing threat to the region, its minimal efforts to capture and extradite Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and its fear of radical Islam within its population. Pakistan’s pirating of U.S. missiles to improve its own defense capabilities occurred pre-9/11 and, while patently dishonest, should have been a predictable response to the recovery of abandoned multi-million dollar missiles that, like their mission itself, failed spectacularly. However, Pakistan’s provision of this missile technology to the Taliban in its fight against the Karzai government and American and NATO forces is inexcusable for an alleged post 9/11 ally.

The Bush administration, beyond the personal visits and verbal warnings of the Vice President and CIA Deputy Director, must send a clear message to Pakistan that not $1 in U.S. financial aid (Pakistan is the second leading recipient of U.S. financial aid) will be given to Pakistan until Pakistan, with NATO assistance if requested, destroys every Taliban and Al Qaeda camp within Pakistan’s borders, including all mobile anti-aircraft batteries infesting the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan pirated the sensors for those SAMs and must now atone for the traitorous act of supplying them to terrorists engaged in conflict with the U.S. and NATO.

Pakistan currently meets most of the criteria set forth by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq: Offering safe haven to terrorists; documented proliferation of nuclear weapons technology or materials; arming and funding known terrorist organizations (state sponsor of terror), including the new cooperative agreement described in this post and in the Asia Time Online. Clearly, generous American financial aid has not moved Pakistan reliably into the American camp in the War on Terror. It is time to invest elsewhere until Pakistan reforms itself and swings both legs over the fence it has been straddling. President Bush received much liberal criticism for the following ultimatum in November 2001, but it should be repeated to and accountability demanded from the country that holds the key to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda but refuses to turn it or provide it to those who will:

A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform. . . . That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something.

Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. . . . You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

It is time for Pakistan to give its final answer.

Hollywood's Favorite Villains: Government, Law Enforcement, and the Military

As part of my previous post, I discussed the growing cynicism and outright suspicion many Americans harbor toward the US Government, and the media’s contribution to that destructive trend. From memory and with a few mouse clicks to refresh it, I have compiled below a sampling of movie plots in which the military or government agencies are the villains. The list is by no means all-inclusive, as I realized when researching that this trend began in earnest in the 1960s and has produced a disturbingly large number of movies that could appear in this list. When films depicting corrupt local police departments (NYPD and LAPD are witheringly vilified) are included, the number of movies in which government or law enforcement are the enemy is far exceeded by the list of films in which criminals are the heroes. Audiences are influenced by these portrayals, and mistrust of police and government agencies is a direct result of Hollywood’s choice of villains.

Here is a small sampling of such films, with a brief synopsis of each plot. Please note that the inclusion of any film on this list is not an endorsement of it. Many of these movies have aired on network or cable television minus their abundant gratuitous violence, sex, and language. Unfortunately their anti-government themes were not also scrapped:

Mercury Rising – The NSA tests an unbreakable super code by putting it in a puzzle magazine. An autistic 9 year old deciphers the code in the puzzle. The NSA sends hit squads to kill the boy. He hides in his home; the NSA kills his parents, and then ruthlessly hunts the boy to terminate him.

Enemy of the State – An NSA boss and hit squad attempt to murder a lawyer who stumbles upon evidence of an NSA murder.

Capricorn One – NASA fakes a manned mission to Mars, and then the mission controller plots to kill the astronauts in a staged capsule fire.

The Siege – The National Guard imposes martial law on NYC, rounds up Middle-Eastern men, and imprisons them in a stadium turned internment camp. Defense Intelligence then tortures suspected terrorists for information.

Mission Impossible – A CIA Spymaster attempts to provide an international criminal with a Top Secret list of all CIA field agents. He then kills his entire field operations team except one.

A Few Good Men – A Marine General covers up an illegal “code red” disciplinary action that resulted in a marine’s death.

The Bourne Supremacy/The Bourne Identity – An amnesiac CIA assassin is framed for a botched CIA political assassination and is hunted by his corrupt former supervisor who must kill him to hide the truth.

Good Shepherd – A squeaky-clean young CIA recruit becomes disillusioned and corrupted by the McCarthy-era CIA culture.

The Recruit – A mole within the CIA kills agent trainees working to expose him/her.

S.W.A.T. – A corrupt LAPD SWAT officer helps a high-profile drug lord escape custody. The officer also kills a fellow SWAT member.

Clear and Present Danger – The US Government conducts an illegal war on a drug cartel in Columbia. The President and his National Security Advisor make a deal with the drug lord, and the National Security Advisor, through the conspiring CIA Deputy Director, pulls the plug on the military operation, abandoning covert US troops trapped in Columbia.

Broken Arrow – An Air Force Stealth pilot rejected for promotions intentionally crash-lands a B3 bomber carrying two nuclear bombs. He then extorts the US Government for a huge ransom or he will give the bombs to terrorists.

Swordfish – The CIA hires an accomplished spy to coerce a computer hacker to steal billions in unused government funds left over from a shadowy DEA operation.

The General's Daughter – The murder of a base commander’s daughter brings an undercover detective to West Point Military Academy. The detective discovers a high level cover up of illicit and violent behavior among cadets and Academy brass.

U.S. Marshals – A State Department Diplomatic Security agent frames a former agent for a diplomatic assassination and then joins a US Marshal manhunt for the framed killer. The rogue agent kills a deputy Marshal and attempts to murder the former agent and the US Marshal.

Space Cowboys – A NASA mission chief sells US satellite guidance technology to the Soviet Union. The Soviets later deploy the technology in a nuclear missile launch platform that threatens to destroy the world.

Air Force One – Russian nationalists hijack Air Force One with the help of the President’s Secret Service detail leader, who guns down his entire agent detail and gives their tactical weapons to the terrorists.

The Sentinel – A member of the president’s Secret Service detail, suspicious of a plot to assassinate the president, is framed for the murder of a fellow agent and blackmailed over his affair with the First Lady. In unraveling the assassination plot and protecting the president, he discovers a supervisor within the Secret Service, in charge of security at the G-8 Summit is the assassination mastermind. It could have been worse, though. In the book on which the film is based, the First Lady was plotting with the Secret Service supervisor to kill her husband.

Snake Eyes – A Naval commander participates in a conspiracy to assassinate the Secretary of Defense.

Absolute Power – The President murders his mistress while a burglar hides in a closet and witnesses the crime. The Chief of Staff and the Secret Service cover for the President by making it look like the mistress was killed during a burglary. The Secret Service agents and the Chief of Staff realize a burglar actually did witness the murder, so they conspire to track down and kill the witness.

Is it any wonder that public trust in government is declining when depictions such as these are standard fare from Hollywood? If this list also included television programs such as The Agency and 24, the plots would seem even more ludicrously cynical toward government. The US Government and military have flaws, as they are operated by imperfect beings. There have been scandals and of course there have also been double agents, moles, and unscrupulously ambitious officials. Yet, considering the millions of people who have served in government since the nation's founding, the number who have plotted to assassinate 9 year old autistic boys who can crack super codes is reasonably small. Apparently only Alec Baldwin was anti-government enough to relish that movie villain role.

Who is our enemy? According to Hollywood, terrorists seem far less sinister than our own intelligence or law enforcement agencies. The Hollywood mantra from these films is clear. We have more to fear from the Patriot Act than from Al Qaeda, more to fear from our military than from any foreign foe. The work of military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel is difficult and dangerous enough in reality, but when public paranoia, fueled by anti-government entertainment, prevents cooperation and trust, national security itself is endangered.

Technorati Tags:
Law Enforcement Diplomatic Security Service LAPD SWAT Secret Service West Point Air Force Air Force One Government Conspiracies National Guard US Marshal Service Hollywood Marines NSA CIA NASA