People keep going on and on about that klutz who fried his privates with his fizzled BVD bomb — a “terrorist” I continue to marvel that any part of al Qaeda would claim — but it seems I’ve heard much less about the guy who actually waltzed into a secure area and blew up 7 Americans, including a mother of three.
Yes, there has been more coverage of it than I have seen, what with the distraction of the holidays and traveling and such. But still, I found it useful to read this piece in the WSJ about what the attack said about our counterintelligence weaknesses.
What happened in Khost is more meaningful not only because it was a successful attack, but because it struck at the very heart of our security apparatus. We thought this guy was working as an agent for US, so seven CIA officers sit down with him. I wonder if any of them realized he was a double agent before he set off the bomb?
The reasons this guy was successful (I almost wrote, “The reason he got away with it…,” but I don’t suppose that applies to suicide bombers) are the very reasons why we are so vulnerable at home and abroad — our intelligence officers are hampered by dependence on foreign services, a lack of understanding of Arabic, a lack of local knowledge, and perhaps a lack of experience. Some of the things in the WSJ piece are speculation — the ex-CIA officer who wrote it doesn’t know enough facts about THIS case, and surmises quite a bit — but the broader observations still ring true.
Interestingly, while he has some critical words for the Obama administration, the writer is optimistic that the president’s pragmatism will lead him to wise action to address some of our weakness. I hope that’s right (and believe there is reason to think he is).
Now this just beats everything. We’re now 8 years into combat operations that by all accounts have done nothing to make our nation safer. We still have these security glitches that occassionally result in the loss of life. Here’s what we need to do to make our country more secure:
1. Immediately withdraw all military forces from the middle east. Clearly the continued involvement of our military serves mainly as a recruiting bonanza for the radicals in the region. If we simply leave the place a huge incentive for the militant cause is removed.
2. Direct a large share of the money saved by the military withdrawal to beaf up our weak security infrastructure.
3. Stop trying to police interject American politics into every trouble spot around the world except to play the role of mediator. Once we establish ourselves as a neutral in internatinal disputes we become less of a target.
4. Return all detainees currently illegally held in Gitmo.
Once we establish ourselves as a benign nation who has no qualmes with the religious beliefs of others then we can take the high ground in affirming our national integrity as laid out by the Constitution. A trillion dollar military and constant interference in the affairs of others only makes us a bully in the eyes of the world and makes us a magnet for all sorts of attacks.
Actually, he was a triple agent.
Bud, I wish it were all that simple, but I’m afraid it is not. Alone the fact that we armed the mujahideen in the ’80s, ignored them in the ’90s, and then had to fight them after ’01, shows what happens when we go in like a bull in a china shop, and then try to retreat, having left the place in shards. We have to help the region to stability; we need to help more than one region to stability. Isolationism won’t work. It was the clarion call in the 1930s; it didn’t work then, either.
Yeah, Burl, I got a little confused about that, but I stuck with double because this was my understanding:
He had infiltrated the jihadi movement on our behalf, so he was our agent. But he doubled on us.
Of course — and I don’t have enough details to nail this down — if he was a jihadi already whom WE turned, that means he was a double agent for us, and a triple for the jihadis.
Back in the Cold War, this sort of thing could go on forever, and you were never sure whether anyone was a straight agent, a double or a triple. Think Yuri Nosenko, or any one of dozens of others who MAY have been defectors, but may have been agents provocateur.
But there’s something to be said about suicide bombing: It lets you know who the guy was really working for.
remember one of America’s finest undercover agents was outed by Cheney et al.
that served to put a big chill on remaining agents.
if memory serves correctly, there are multiple articles out there implying Obama is at war with the CIA at present.
give it all some thought people…..
@Herb
I wish we were “helping a region to stability” in ways that did not involve massive troop infusions. More intelligence and diplomacy, less saber rattling….
but I guess we’re stuck with trying to super-glue the shards back together……
The CIA also drafted intensive, comprehensive plans on how to manage Iraq should an invasion take place. These plans were all scrapped by Bush/Cheney and replaced with … deliberate chaos?
@Kathryn
I wish it, too. Unfortunately, we’ve gone into the massive troop thing for decades now. In the 80s we armed Saddam in Iraq, and the mujahideen in Afghanistan. In the 90s, we fought them both. The results are very much with us.
I agree that we often could do things a lot better with the speaking softly, but we tend to rely more on the big stick. I guess there are historical reasons for that. Part of it, I guess, is our legacy from WWII– a legacy that got us into trouble in Vietnam.
The other thing I’ve seen is that junior diplomats in any given country will have the sense to ask the right people on how to deal with various departments in the government, but when it comes down to the crunch, they don’t take the advice. I can’t be for sure, but my guess is that the big boys in Washington trump their decisions, and all wisdom goes out the window. The administration and Congress want to satisfy the voters.
The situation in Yemen is much different than what the news media are reporting, but no matter what administration is in power, they have to get more funding for the anti-terror operations. The way to do that is to issue statements about how precarious the situation is.
The CIA used to be run by Poppy Bush, and we know how much respect the son paid the father there!
the CIA is still run by poppy bush via proxy
Herb, of course it’s not that simple. But what I laid out here should serve as a template for how we proceed in the future. The Reagan approach obviously has failed us as the folks in the middle each became resentful of our beligerant tone and aggressive attitude toward the region. When Clinton came along things were slowly improving but the residual effects of the Reagan era manifested itself into the various terrorist acts that we suffered through in the 90s and on 9-11.
When was the last time a terrorist organization targeted Switzerland or Sweden? It just doesn’t happen. Those countries stay out of foreign entanglements and pursue domestic policies that make their people healthier and less dependent on foreign energy sources. The result is a far longer life expectancy than we have as we pursue military solutions to non-military problems.
It will probably take decades to undo the damage done by the pro-military folks who have for too long controlled our security interests. Sadly we will continue to lag behind the rest of the world in what really matters: a long and healthy life for all.