Why Counter-Terrorism Is In Shambles 370
Early last week several questions were submitted to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern about the sad state of counter-terrorism in the United States, and he has answered frankly and in-depth. In addition, McGovern solicited former FBI attorney/special agent Coleen Rowley to review his answers and provide her own comments. Ray's biggest tip to the intelligence community was to "HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THOSE RESPONSIBLE. More 'reform' is the last thing we need. Sorry, but we DO have to look back. The most effective step would be to release the CIA Inspector General report on intelligence community performance prior to 9/11. That investigation was run by, and its report was prepared by an honest man, it turns out. It was immediately suppressed by then-Acting DCI John McLaughlin — another Tenet clone — and McLaughin's successors as director, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and now Leon Panetta."
So essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'War on Terror' will prove to be ineffective as the 'War on Drugs'. When you boil it all down, you are pitting human intelligence against human intelligence. Humans are very clever critters and will find one way or another around obstacles. If any progress at all is to be made, you need to fight the disease, not the symptoms. You have to ask "Why are these people doing this in the first place?" and address that as the root problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's the problem: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here's the problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you may still say what you want. Just anywhere [wikipedia.org]. I may still post things on the internet. But I should be prepared to be arrested for things I didn't even write [dailymail.co.uk]. You may still protest against politicians. But you'll be sent to areas where nobody cares and certainly no camera will see your protest.
In case you didn't notice, you're still allowed to say what you want, what's limited is your exposure. And what is it good for to talk about grievances if it's made sure that nobody can hear you? It's classic constitution circumvention. You're not silenced because you can't say what you want, you're silenced by taking away any possible audience that might hear you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not silenced because you can't say what you want, you're silenced by taking away any possible audience that might hear you.
If your possible audience can't hear you, how do we and millions of others know about it?
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? That was entirely post-attack. The attack was paid for by Saudis, and executed by nationals from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt.
Now, do you see Iraq in that list? Fuck no, you don't. Do you see Afghanistan there? Fuck no, you don't. Do you see us attacking Egypt? No. Lebanon? No. The UAE? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Instead, we attacked Iraq (a total WTF) and Afghanistan, a country uninvolved in the attack; no nationals, no funding.
And if you think it's ok to attack a country because they don't want to hand someone over, then you better start ducking, because the US holds people back from all manner of countries. A [japanbases.com], B [iraqinews.com], C [wordpress.com], D [ocsatire.com], etc.
If you think it's ok to attack a country because you don't agree with how they do things, then holy chickenshit, you'd *really* better duck, because there's a whole line of countries that can say that about us.
If you think it's ok to attack a country because they're screwed up internally, that is, not obeying their constitution or other founding papers... yeah, you guessed it, duck. because we're so far away from our constitution it can't be seen from here.
But I think you might agree with me that if someone attacks you, then you have some justification to hit back at where they come from and/or who paid/ordered the act. Let me repeat, just for the sake of trying to point the objective facts to you:
Re:Here's the problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever you want to call them. I feel absolutely zero need to respect the current PC terminology for these superstitious middle easterners, or their so-called "religion." It's a cult of reality-challenged people, just like every other religion, and just like every other religion, it breeds more reality-challenged people doing moronic things.
As far as I'm concerned, our ideal path here is to crash develop electric vehicles, never buy another drop of oil from them, never let another one across our borders, and never send them another red cent. Let them eat sand, to vaguely paraphrase Marie Antoinette, and with about as much concern as her delivery.
Sure they do. They come from a nice mix of the gullible, the ignorant, and the reality-challenged. The same place Christians come from. It's purest superstition. They live their lives -- and die -- by/for an imaginary friend. They're natural idiots, or people of sadly lost potential made idiotic by consumption of mythology.
Re:Here's the problem: (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, your first post was very well said but making blanket statements about large groups of people just because they believe differently than you isn't being funny or intelligent, it is outright being a bigot.
I myself am an Atheist and have a hard time believing so many people are so into Religion, but hey, I could be dead wrong. The belief that there is no Supreme Being to worship is a belief and leap of faith in itself. As much as we've progressed with science and logic we have not found that key that says with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as God/Allah/Random Deity.
As far as my faith (or lack thereof) is concerned I have as of late been hanging around with a group of people from Iran and a group of people from Palestine, all followers of the Islamic faith. I'm not sure I've met many people more open minded about my opinions. I treat their religious ideals with respect (Instead of say...telling them that they are idiots) and they do the same for me. That is more than I can say about most Christians (who inform me that I am going to Hell or something) or how most Atheist/Agnostic people treat those involved with religion (who usually are more than willing to tell people how stupid and ignorant they are.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes? Back it up. Otherwise, bullshit.
Re:Here's the problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of muslims are a little bit hypocritical. Same as the vast majority of all people. They subscribe to Islam and revere the Koran, and indeed many do have a lot of sincere faith. But the Koran contains, as does the Bible and other holy books, odd little things that if taken literally and in absolute terms, are very destructive. So they're quietly downplayed or forgotten about. So who gets to say who is a True Scotsman *ahem* True Muslim. Well there's no absolute authority other than God / Allah Itself, and It isn't publishing specifications in the papers for us. For most people, including muslims, someone is a muslim (or a Christian) if they say they are.
A lot of criticism which starts from picking out some part of the Koran to illustrate how Islam believes in wiping out non-believers or whatever, is flawed. Not because there aren't such examples in the Koran, but because it's not really addressing the vast bulk of muslims who don't in their hearts believe or want such things. Yet these people are still muslims. It's an argument based on wanting to prove that culture X is evil and therefore finding legalistic reasons why it ought to be, instead of actual observation. There are nearly two-billion people on this planet that self-identify as muslim. If even one in ten-thousand were determined terrorists wanting to commit atrocities on the United States of America, that would be two-hundred thousand 9/11 hijackers, shoe-bombers, market-place killers decimating the USA right now. Simple fact of the matter is that muslims, like everyone else, are basically just people. There are good and bad bits to their cultures (and I'm an outspoken critic of some of those bad bits), but the demonisation of many millions of people by much of the US media is absurd. And the responses of the US government are absurd - and that's why the anti-terrorism measures have been ineffective:
The causes of terrorism have gone unacknowledged because they have to be. To acknowledge them is to address excess influence on policy and media by the oil industries, by the military-industrial complex, by politicians playing the Fear card to win votes and power, it's to acknowledge the actions of the Israeli government and the US sponsorship of their actions, it's to acknowledge the US navy bombing resistance camps at the request of the Saudi regime, it's to acknowledge all sorts of things that the US government doesn't want to acknowledge. But like someone who's an alcoholic, compulsive eater or whatever, you can't address a problem if you don't acknowledge it is there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to address the root problem as there is no solution to it. This battle goes back over 2000 years. There are instructions in the Old Testament indicating that God directed the Jews to slaughter all others who occupied Israel including infants without any mercy at all. When modern Israel was created Moslems were considered less than human. If you think about that era you will realise that many races were considered less than human at that time. Not being a racist would have been an
Re: (Score:2)
The 'War on Terror' will prove to be ineffective as the 'War on Drugs'. When you boil it all down, you are pitting human intelligence against human intelligence. Humans are very clever critters and will find one way or another around obstacles. If any progress at all is to be made, you need to fight the disease, not the symptoms. You have to ask "Why are these people doing this in the first place?" and address that as the root problem.
....but then everyone would have to admit that were at war with Islam.
Not going to happen.
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are quite a few big assumptions in that phrase.
First, is that "terrorism" is a serious threat to the population. The numbers of people who have been killed by terrorists do not bear this out. I live in one of the biggest cities in the US, blocks away from the tallest building in the country, and I'm more likely to die from choking on a cheesey poof than from "terrorism". The real issue then is the disruption to society caused by these acts of violence.
Maybe a "counter-fear" program is what we need instead.
Re:So essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if I'm right-handed?
Seriously though, that statement cost you all your credibility. I'd have been willing to overlook the fact that the views of both Rev. Wright (Obama's former minister) and the "retard professor" (though I have no idea who would fit the bill here...what alleged professors do you hang out with?) constitute the fringe of society and are not, by any stretch, represented accordingly by the vast majority of folk with more than two brain cells to rub together.
I would also be willing to overlook the fact that your reasoning behind Osama's motives is astonishingly shallow (our military is never "invited" anywhere; arrangements are negotiated and compromises are made in order to establish outposts, mostly for the purpose of political leverage).
I would even have been willing to overlook the fact that your comment really doesn't even have a coherent point to it, and doesn't seem to relate back to the parent comment or even to the original article (who cares that "you can't just do what everyone wants you to do"?).
But then you went and introduced stale partisan bickering (and backed it up with the beaten-to-DEATH random word CAPITALIZATION that so CHARACTERIZES political diarrhea). Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Insightful)
To clarify: "invited" by the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia. Our presence was not at all popular with the population, but the king didn't particularly give a fuck.
Oh, and we executed Japanese commanders for authorizing the waterboarding of POWs during WWII. Can you explain why Bush and Cheney both shouldn't be in front of a firing squad?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because terrorists that hide behind civilians and refuse to obey the laws of war aren't entitled to the same treatment as soldiers who fight under a flag and officers?
Do you include the "terrorists" who actually turned out to be completely innocent. e.g. Khalid El-Masri [wikipedia.org] . Who gets to decide who is a terrorist or or unlawful combatant? The victor? If those "soldiers and flag officers" are captured as reclassified as unlawful combatants,does it suddenly become ok to torture them?
What if some "military contractors" are captured? Is it ok to torture them because they are not official soldiers? The problem is, when a country starts torturing people in this way and deciding who's a legitimate soldier or not, it sets a dangerous example. The same game can be played by anyone. e.g. US Special forces caught in Iran? With no official war declared, Iran could claim they are unlawful combatants and have no rights. It's a very dangerous path.
Since you brought up WWII, why don't you do a little research and find out what happened to unlawful combatants who violated the laws of war. Start by researching the German troops that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge. When we captured them they were subject to summary execution.
WWII saw it's own version of the reclassification of POWs. Just after the war German POWs were reclassified as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs). This was so that their Geneva Convention rights could be denied. Yet again, the victor gets to decide who is allowed to be treated as a proper POW. Any soldier serving in the US army should be angry over this kind of practice since they may end up as a POW themselves at some point.
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Informative)
Because terrorists that hide behind civilians and refuse to obey the laws of war aren't entitled to the same treatment as soldiers who fight under a flag and officers?
Wrong. Nazi officers were tried and executed for war crimes of killing non-uniformed French and Soviet partisans and civilians for reprisal killings.
Of course it was more or less Germans just rounding up anyone who they thought my be a non-uniformed resistance fighter and shot them on the spot, but it was a still a sticking point.
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely you don't think German troops wearing Allied uniforms are analogous to independent terrorists and civilians captured in a war zone.
If they are shooting at you, what's the difference? The guy in the uniform declares himself to be a soldier, and to play by the rules of war. The guy who just carries the gun, is not a professional soldier, not playing by the rules, and so he dies.
I mean, somebody shoots at you, you shoot them. It's brutal, but that's war.
None of the people in Gitmo should have ever even been prisoners.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are shooting at you, what's the difference?
Maybe you've missed the context of the thread. At the point in time we're talking about, no one is shooting at anyone -- the "enemy combatant" has been captured and is no longer armed.
I mean, somebody shoots at you, you shoot them. It's brutal, but that's war.
Sure. If someone's shooting at you, go ahead and shoot back. But if you decide to capture him instead, don't torture him. Seems pretty simple: it's a straightforward application of the principle "don't torture anyone".
None of the people in Gitmo should have ever even been prisoners.
You seem to be implying that everyone in Gitmo was shooting at us (and thus should've been killed instead of c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you are joking in regards to applying torture for such petty reasons (or for any reason, really). If not, go fuck yourself you subhuman creature.
Correction - we let the japs off the hook (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and we executed Japanese commanders for authorizing the waterboarding of POWs during WWII. Can you explain why Bush and Cheney both shouldn't be in front of a firing squad?
Actually, for the most part, unlike the NAZIs, we really let the Japanese off the hook for World War II. We rooted out the entire German ruling class and pretty much destroyed Prussia. In Japan, we kept the ruling class. We kept Hirohito, we kept a lot of the players behind the scenes. The only guy that really got it was Tojo, who
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds convenient... Execute Japanese torturers and then turn around and say "oops our bad we shouldn't have done that" and so we shouldn't be expected to hold our own people to that degree of accountability... No... this is another case of whoever wins the war makes the rules.
Re:So essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is your point? It's the "righties" who trot out the tired old "they hate us for their freedoms." Stating that's bin Laden's reasoning doesn't imply agreement with his beliefs.
As far as politicizing counter terrorism, it was the Obama administration that made it political, threatening to prosecute intelligence agency personnel for actions taken during the Bush administration. Its all about politics.
The right has politicized terrorism to the point of absurdity, and Obama's administration just threatened to prosecute intelligence agency personnel for BREAKING THE LAW.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that the type of waterboarding supposedly authorized by the DoJ was not the type actually used at gitmo.
So, regardless of all other arguments, the one that claims legal cover due to legal memorandum from the DoJ doesn't fly.
""[T]he waterboard technique ... was different from the technique described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training."
Footnote, page 41, declassified DoJ memo [luxmedia501.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Informative)
What exactly is your point? It's the "righties" who trot out the tired old "they hate us for their freedoms." Stating that's bin Laden's reasoning doesn't imply agreement with his beliefs.
Yeah, but it is true. I mean Osama Bin Laden, has said? Have you actually read what the terrorists have said? Maybe its because of our paranoid right wing ways, but, when Osama Bin Laden says something, when anyone says something about us, around the world, that's bad, we tend to read it. We right wingers will go out to the terrorist sites and read what they say about us. We have our own institutions that track this stuff, and the truth is, well, they actually really do hate us.
They hate the west because of our decadence, because of our uppity women, because of our wealth, our way of life. We're the romans, these guys are the barbarian radicals. They hate because our way of life is not only an assault on their traditions, it is an assault that appears more effective of a way of life than theirs is. To their mind, all of our advance therefor must be the work of satan, because our wealth is merely an evil temptation to abandon their traditional beliefs. We can't be reasoned with, except as a tactic. We are evil, the work of satan, with terrible morals, and we can only be destroyed, don't you get it?
Like, think, abortion clinic bomber logic, but, one that sees not only abortions as evil, but making french fries, and then you kinda have your head around where the islamic mind is at these days.
Re: (Score:2)
By the extremely repressive regime in Saudi Arabia. And thanks to their rich oil fields, we were only to happy to oblige.
Re:So essentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as politicizing counter terrorism, it was the Obama administration that made it political
I have this vague memory about some color coded threat level that was never green, and seemed to go from yellow to orange any time there was an election...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm. Seems to me that some mods are modding "disagree." I don't see how this is a "troll" at all.
That said, shortly after Obama was inaugurated, Interpol listed 81 international terrorists [interpol.int] with intent to attack Saudi Arabia. Seems like the greatest reason we were being attacked may be because the Bush family was friends with the Saudi royal family, and we were very, very loyal about protecting them, even to the threat of our homeland.
It also tells me that we make an easier, more productive target than the H [wikipedia.org]
Re:So essentially... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very hard to "point" extremists anywhere, especially when they're hopped up on religion, fried from hatred, and/or shackled from ignorance.
Maybe the best we can do is make sure their activities don't have the desired effect, which is to make us terrified.
I can say with statistical certainty that nobody who's reading this tonight is going to die from terrorism, or from terrorists being treated like the criminals they are. All the fear does is make us a more attractive target. If the people who are trying disrupt our society by making us afraid find out that they're not going to have the desired effect, it might not be so easy to convince a 26 year-old young man to blow himself up.
Take reasonable precautions around the soft targets, sure. Investigate extremist groups, sure. If someone wants to learn to fly a plane but not land, maybe ask some questions. But putting society into a forever war won't do a damned thing to stop terrorism. Just the notion of a "War on Terror" plays into the hands of the people who want to disrupt our society.
These are not James Bond super-villians we're talking about here. Not an "existential threat". Just sociopaths who believe that there's something holy and heroic about killing civilians. Nutty, dangerous criminals, in other words. We've used law enforcement to deal with nutty criminals for nearly a millennium and society has survived and progressed.
I think it's pretty clear that the impetus for the "War on Terror" really doesn't have anything to do with "stopping terror" and may be just the opposite. Maybe fighting terrorism has less to do with what our military or intelligence service does than what we decide to do ourselves, as a civil society.
Re:So essentially... (Score:5, Interesting)
People were willing to tolerate the US in saudi when the threat from iraq was immediate. People, on the whole, aren't stupid enough to miss the big picture here. The problem is 3, 4, 5 years later why is the wealthiest muslim country reliant on a foreign power to protect itself? (Given that they can buy US weapons) The *continued* presence of the US there shamed every saudi who believed their country should be able to defend itself from a poorer, weaker (and slightly smaller populationwise) potential adversary. If we all woke up tomorrow and realized mexico had an army of 10 million with a huge inventory of tanks aircraft etc, and was sufficiently well armed NATO rushed into help guard the US border that's one thing. But 5 years later if the potential adversary, with less money, technology, trade, access and overall weaker it's a problem. The *continued* US presence, and no fly zones over the oppressed, gassed people of Iraq was a shame on the honour of the people of Saudi, the protectors of the muslim holy places, that they are relying on a bunch of Christians from across the ocean to guard them from another muslim state. Either they lack legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the muslim world, at which point we should wonder why we're supporting them, or they figure we're dumb enough to run in and help them for free, why should they bother, and we should wonder why we're the only ones who think this needs to be done 'our' way.
The US troops in Saudi pushed bin laden over the edge, but he wasn't exactly pro US or Saudi Royal family before that. The house of Saud for all practical purposes may as well all carry US or EU passports, as they syphon off all the money they can, and then store in the US and EU. As a western country that's basically what we want them to do, if they took that money and reinvested in their economy or that of their neighbours we wouldn't have it back (think trade deficits) As it is economically Saudi arabia may as well be part of the US. But long prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the US moving into Saudi he was against what the US puppet in Israel was doing to the Palestinians, the wealth disparity in Saudi between the princes and everyone else, US involvement in southeast asia, Russian control over chechnya, the perceived relations between egypt and the US (hence he was able to merge AQ with the Egyptian IJ)
This is something the lunatic left understands perfectly. The House of Saud are the protrusion of Western imperialism into Saudi, created by Britain (like several middle eastern states) and propped up by their successors in the US. That's the problem. They aren't a government of the people, for the people or anything else, nor, in the best of both worlds old school british system are the people represented. You cannot beat someone into submission, at least not states. Every single rebellion in history has played this out. Either you give them a fair shake or eventually they will come back for it, and the house of Saud is definitely not fair to the people of Saudi arabia or their supposed brothers in the rest of the muslim world who they leave in poverty. France and Germany were at each others throats over the overlapping populations along the rhine, the solution, was first move all of the germans out (since we won WW2), and then push them towards being a single state rendering the issue moot. Indians fought, and lost, a rebellion in 1857, it took them 90 years, but eventually they got independence.
There were lots of mistakes that led to Al qaeda hating the US as much as it does. Some of that was simply not inviting them to be part of the coalition to liberate kuwait, a mistake no one even conceived that we could have been making. Al qaeda offered to do it all, we not only turned them down but insulted them by suggesting they couldn't even participate - something 20 years in hindsight we can see, by definitely had no idea of at the time. Some of it is fundamental and deeply ideological. There are still KKK members in the US, there are still people
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you ever hear of the Lend Lease Act? Go google it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, exchange our support for a western-style democracy for love of radical islam.
Re: (Score:2)
The Answer is Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason counter-terrorism is in shambles is BECAUSE IT CAN WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PROBLEMS.
The number of actual terror attacks is so damn low, it is in the noise. So it doesn't matter if we have an uber-perfect counter-terrorism program or one that is total bullshit. The results are gonna be pretty much the same - barely any terrorist attacks.
In places where there is a substantial threat, like everybody's favorite example - Israel - they have to actually do something in order to make a difference. And even then the results are far from perfect - they have more successful terrorist attacks in Israel than we have just attempted attacks in the USA.
Re:The Answer is Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to see how frequent terrorist attacks can become, take a look at Iraq,
Wooooooooooosh!
The reason "terrorist attacks" are so frequent in places like Iraq is because of LOCAL CONDITIONS. Terrorism does not appear out of nowhere. It takes a lot of local infrastructure in order to pull off, including motivated individuals with lots of experience in both the tradecraft of terrorism and the local society.
And, lets see if I get your argument correct here - even though we haven't been doing anything substantial and the number of attacks have been near zero, we need to massively ramp up the amount of effort we put in to stop all those non-existent attacks? Right? Because I'm saying the opposite and you appear to be disagreeing with me.
Actually, Israel is outsmarting the terrorists by staying on the offensive.
And yet they fail far more often than our own counter-terrorism program.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I suppose you do work for the CIA? You have precisely as much evidence as he does: none. Sounds like you're preaching
Re:The Answer is Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Like what happened during 9/11? Or the underpants bomber? Or the shoe bomber? Perhaps the bali bombers? Only the 9/11 hijackers fit the mold of the experienced terrorists. The others are fairly low grade terrorists with nearly no experience, just given a bomb and told to set it off.
You are proving my point. 9/11 was it. Underpants and shoes didn't work - they weren't good enough. Bali bombers were in their home court they had experience with local society.
I didnt realise you work for the CIA or the DHS to know about every foiled attack or plot to say that attacks have been near-zero. Just because you dont see the attacks being foiled, doesnt mean they arent happening.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent. The JFK bombers [popularmechanics.com], the Sears Tower Plot [independent.co.uk], etc, etc. If they are so willing to trot out these incompetents and actually take them to trial, you can be pretty sure they would at least charge ONE competent terrorist. But so far, nada.
Israel succeeds more often, as they are attacked far, far more often than the US.
TADA! Glad you see my point. Now I just don't understand why you thought you had to argue with me in the first place.
Always surprised me (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer to that first question (the first part anyway) could basically be summed up in one sentence: Read the goddamned 9/11 Commission Report. As one of probably seven Americans who actually did, I must say that it always surprised me just how flat it seemed to fall on the populous and government both. Sure, it made the NYT best-seller list for a bit, because hey, in 2004 what better coffee table book was there?
Sure, the first third of the report might be horrifying, and the middle third was extremely dry, but they were still extremely telling. What's more, the final section offered some suggestions, potential fixes, and forward-thinking plans that were excellent. Of course none of them were fully-fledged, but they were great jumping-off points. How many were put into action? Surely not too many, and five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
The main message in the report was that of any good relationship, communication, and that's precisely what hasn't been happening. McGovern hits a lot of good points, but I agree with him that this is all incredibly old. Not stale, because it hasn't been done, but old nonetheless. And lord knows holding those responsible responsible is a novel concept.
Re:Always surprised me (Score:4, Interesting)
There were many aspects of the 9/11 Commission that were implemented. DHS and DNI were both implemented, and both disasters. Two entities created with bureaucracy as their focal point leads to nothing but disaster. DHS cannot properly allocate resources, cannot hold onto talent, promotes the most incomptent boobs into positions of power, and is lead by a moron, Janet Napolitano who makes former FEMA chief Mike Brown look like Rudy Giuliani. The DNI is a complete wreck, which was suppose to "coordinate" intelligence sharing between all the agencies, but has instead keeps trying to usurp the functions of the CIA.
Re:Always surprised me (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what George Tenet did or didn't do, I don't know how much of a nutball the owner of that site is, and I have no idea if McGovern was good as his job while he was in the business for 27 years, but he was right about that one thing: there are no consequences to being appointed to a prominent US government position and being a fuckup.
That site had a funny smell around the edges and some of McGovern's response starting out seemed pretty hand-wavy, but the part about why the CIA was created and why there's a Director of that organization rang true. Intelligence about Japanese intentions was available, it failed to be correlated, and Pearl Harbor happened. So why did the investigation fail to name names? Why did the 9/11 Commission mumble around with suggestions that didn't involve actual people?
I can think of two answers to that, that are the opposite sides of the same coin. The first being the good old boy network: "George is a good man he is. I know 'cause I see him in passing every Tuesday at my country club. He must be a good man, because I'm a good man, and we're both members of the same clubs and go to the same restaurants and the same shows." The second being everybody on the Commission wanted to believe that each individual in US intelligence was competent, well-meaning, and diligently doing their job. "Aww shucks, he don't mean nuttin'. If he got appointed to that there job, surely he couldn't have done anything wrong. That's unpossible!" They wrote of institutional failure, as if institutions have some existence outside of the people staffing them. The consequences of the two attitudes result in an unholy marriage of cronyism and irresponsibility.
People decry the children of today. Everybody gets a trophy for showing up, everybody wins, everybody is a beautiful and unique snowflake. I've got bad news. It starts at the top, with OLD people. Elementary schools are just falling in line. George Tenet is 57 years old and presided over what was arguably the US's worst intelligence failure of the past 100 years (2402 killed at Pearl Harbor, 2992 killed on 9/11). Judging by his Wikipedia page (which shows evidence of mangling by opposing factions), he's still wealthy and comfortable and happy. They even gave him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
I suppose he got it for showing up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe too many people are involved in the process to be clear who exactly is at fault. If there's a bug in code I've written alone that's probably my fault, but if that bug shows up in a shipped version of a playstation game there are lots of layers of people who might have made a mistake.
Intelligence on a global scale is a huge operation, the guy who takes the phone call in nigeria is not the same guy who sends it to a law enforcement agency or who tries to do anything about it. Computers are really g
Re:Always surprised me (Score:5, Insightful)
five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
Really? We've had, what, like one terrorist attack - the fort hood guy - since then that killed anyone. Ok, I guess the DC sniper counts too.
If anything, we are reeling from too much action - the tens of billions of dollars of wasted productivity every year just because of the pointless hassle at the airports. How many people have died indirectly because of that? What life-saving drugs have been slowed coming to market by 6 months or a year? What charitable contributions to food banks and medical procedures have dried up because the money went to dealing with the inefficiencies created by the TSA?
I'm confident in saying we've killed more people indirectly with our counter-terrorism programs than we have saved. After all, the TSA makes a press release every time they bust a guy with a lot of drugs or water bottle and a taped-up battery pack, [tsa.gov] but they have never once issued a press release stating that they've stopped an actual terrorist attack on a plane. And when they are actually tested - they miss the bomb 90% of of the time. [9news.com] And just look at the idiots they actually convict of plotting terrorist attacks - like the guys who thought they could blow up JFK by igniting a gas pipeline. [popularmechanics.com] The guys they "catch" are so hopeless they were no threat to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The guys they "catch" are so hopeless they were no threat to begin with.
Maybe the terrorists on 9/11 got lucky. They may not have been as hopeless as the recent lot, but they weren't as good as their success might suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of the incompetent terrorist actually plays a hand in the conspiracy theory. The maneuvers made by the 9/11 planes, particularly the one that struck the Pentagon, would've been very difficult to pull off in even the conventional planes the pilots were trained on - to say nothing of big passenger jets. Having said that.. the right combination of skill, luck, and desperation can often lead to some highly improbable results.
Re:Always surprised me (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely not too many, and five and a half years later we're still reeling from that inaction.
Hey I have a suggestion that may help with this problem:
Stop reeling.
No seriously, just stop. You'll be okay. The impact of the blow that initially caused you to reel has long since passed and it's just your own head that is keeping you in this state. So just stop. America has been like a child that was pushed down and just keeps crying and crying and crying. But as soon as you make a funny face at them or otherwise distract them suddenly they're smiling again because the injury stopped hurting a while ago, it's just their brains told them they had been hurt so they should keep crying.
That's us. That's you. You're reeling because your brain says you should be; there's no real reason for it. It's gone on long enough and it's time to get over it. Terrorism happens. It happens to us a lot less than it happens to other people, and while the one major attack we've had was one of the worst, since then our country has been safe and peaceful compared to so many other parts of the world. Britain, Spain, damn, Israel! They've had to deal with this kind of thing regularly and you know what? When something bad happens they are angry and sad and hurt but then they move on. They don't spend eight years reeling from a single blow.
This is why so many democracies supported us when we invaded Afghanistan. Because that was appropriate and they understood our pain. Then they were not so supportive when we invaded Iraq in the name of the War on Terror, because it made no sense. And despite all the disinformation the government was spouting, we both know that the only reason that we, the American people, went along with the invasion of Iraq was because we were still reeling. The people were terrified and angry, and they went along with any outlet for it. We were like a child, lashing out at any enemy even if they weren't the one who hurt us.
So you know the number one thing that we need to do as a country? We need to take a lesson from our British, Spanish, French, Israeli, Japanese, and so on and so on friends and just get over it. Shrug and move on. Terrorism happens, and what the terrorists want is for you to spend eternity terrified that they might do it again. Get it? That's why they're called terrorists?
Frankly we need to be doing less to stop terror. At least in the way we have been. TSA and DHS and all this bullshit isn't helping, it's just reminding us that we were hurt so we should be scared and angry and all that. We both agree that they've done shit as far as effective policy goes, yet here we are still safe and sound and unhurt. The tools we need to fight terror are the ones we've had all along -- give them more resources if you must, but that's the extent of it. They'll never be good enough, so occasionally someone will hurt us. Oh well such is life.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by reeling. Not mentally or socially, but institutionally. As the above posters have been so kind to point out, there have been some improvements and there have been very few attacks or serious threats, but there haven't been a lot of changes. At least publicly, we're still under a very similar institutional thought process to September 10th. People can point fingers at Bush or Obama's lack of confirmations, but the underlying process of what is being done hasn
We are focused on symptoms and fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the main thing is we forgot that terrorism is a tactic, and let ourselves get swept up in Fear.
From my personal experience (multiple counter-terrorism ops) what works is fairly simple: basic police detective work.
Torture doesn't work. Fear plays into what they want.
Stop living in fear and treat this as we treat natural disasters and food poisoning - don't overreact, don't reduce your freedom or liberty, but do allocate a PORTION of your police resources to proper detective work in tracking them down.
That works. None of what we've done so far does, sadly.
Re:We are focused on symptoms and fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, the main thing is we forgot that terrorism is a tactic, and let ourselves get swept up in Fear.
In my opinion, I don't believe that most people ever knew this tidbit of information in the first place. Sure some people would parrot what they heard on the network news after 9/11, "I won't be afraid and let them take my freedoms!", but then they blindly support the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act.
I agree with you 100% though. People being retarded and killing other people is a fact of life that is perfectly handled by proper detective work.
Also, people need to realize that 'terrorism' is being used b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I never said we shouldn't use it as a tactic.
Just that we need to remember that.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, people need to realize that 'terrorism' is being used by both sides of the fence. The best example, the 'national threat level' has never been set to Blue or Green. This is a system meant to make the citizens of their own country 'feel safe' but all it does is make people think, "Hey.. you gonna get blowed up real-good-like someday.".
The entire point of the "national threat level" is to give the government "justification" for continuing the "war on terror". Are we safer than before 9/11? Yes. Why? Because the passengers in flights now are going to overwhelm and take down any hijacker. Before 9/11, you generally did what you could to appease the hijacker, you landed somewhere, if you were uncooperative you might be shot to "make an example", but if you were lucky and cooperative you ended up alive. Anything beyond that is simply pure l
Re: (Score:2)
I couldnt agree more.
What we have now is 'security theatre' that we are convinced 'doesn't work' because everytime we turn on the tv the news is fear mongering us into believing that the bogeyman is just waiting to pounce.
If you read about the terrorism operations that have been stopped in the last few years _many_ of them have one truly scary thing in common: they were set up by government informants that just recruited a few yokels from a local mosque by offering them money / weapons and whipping previous
Re: (Score:2)
First, who is the "we" in that sentence? For example, I'm not afraid, and the government certainly isn't listening to me or representing me in any way... though I am very concerned that the government will do something idiotic that will mess up my life in some way.
Second, I am not at all convinced that fear is the motivation for many of the government's actions. It's more likely that it's an excuse, or
Re: (Score:2)
God, I wish we had more people saying this.
in the US you're doing it the stupid way (Score:5, Interesting)
It was since 9/11 that it struck me: the US secret services, intelligence and security communities are... well, a bit dumb. The measures taken on planes after 9/11 should have been there before. Plain-clothes officers on planes were introduced only AFTER the fact. In Israel that has been common practice since the 70's. I don't even need to mention security theater at the airports in the US. And then the more recent Jordanian double-agent that kills 7 CIA officers in Afghanistan. Then there's the ridiculous list of no-fly passengers that is checked against a name!? Really? Now that's really hard to defeat. And it aggravates everybody who happens to have the same name. These just from the top off my head, but there are much more such stupendously silly things.
Beyond drastic, strategic changes in philosophy, the intelligence community in the US should be more imaginative, more broad-minded, more alert. Basically, more intelligent.
After? (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service [wikipedia.org]
how to effectively counter terrorism. (Score:2)
simply start and continue fixing real problems in the world and terrorist won't be able to gather a following of suicidal individuals or other recruits because they won't have a verifiable reason.
What the World Wants [unesco.org] is not what the fewer than 1% of the world population wants.
Its really quite amazing when you consider there are near 7 billion people on this planet and what that equates to in less than one percent being war mongering leaders.
FBI, CIA, NSA, Intelligence Agencies... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a long history here that needs to be taken into consideration... We are seeing a paradigm shift in our government that is long overdue. It used to be that the government had to protect paper documents, "eyes only", and the biggest threat were photocopiers and miniature cameras... not any more.
I wrote about this transformation many years ago. Is it any wonder why the NSA is being brought up and groomed to help protect the critical information assets that the United States has?
From my post:
HumInt/SigInt:
Human Intelligence, CIA
Signal Intelligence, NSA
The English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries. In WWII, the United States felt that it should get into the act and turned to the English for guidance.
With their tutelage, the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war. We had clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders. Gathering intelligence became a methodical science... then, once the Soviet Union collapsed, the clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders went with it.
The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity. Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders. The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.
Not only has this rule-set reset turned the CIA upside-down, it has rendered it all but useless. The UK isn't doing much better either. The problem is that western society itself is at odds with the rules required to make an effective spy agency. Our open government(s), free access to information, laws against spying on citizens and so forth are what both protect our civil liberties as well as create the environment in which our enemies can plot against us.
The CIA knew about al Qaeda operators operating in the USA prior to 9/11, yet did nothing to notify the FBI. This is because of the opposing nature of each agency. The CIA finds a criminal and wants to string them along to see what intelligence they can uncover by monitoring them. When the FBI finds a criminal, they want to string them up. From the CIA perspective, the FBI sure knows how to screw up an investigation and destroy your intelligence network.
The CIA is now dysfunctional to the point of uselessness. In fact, there isn't a single effective spy agency in the western world. The current battle we're fighting and the enemy we face is one that cannot be defeated by military might, it is a war that MUST be fought using intelligence.
So, the administration turned to the only other agency with experience in gathering and monitoring enemies. It also happens that this agency is experts at SigInt, as opposed to the HumInt. The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens, UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications. This exception has always been allowed, no warrant necessary. There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.
No other nation even comes close to the SigInt capabilities of the NSA...
It is imperative that the NSA get on top of this nations information security. A staggering number of government agencies are still not even behind firewalls! There is so much bureaucratic stagnation that nothing meaningful has been done to secure this nations governmental infrastructure.
Finally, they are putting an agency in charge that actually *knows* something about security. I applaud this effort wholeheartedly.
Regards,
Joel Helgeson
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just fyi, I'm only replying to this part because it's the only part of your brilliant post I can take any issue with.
The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens, UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications. This exception has always been allowed, no warrant necessary. There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.
That's simply not true. FISA is the law that says that the NSA or any other government entity canno
Why Counter- Terrorism Is In (Score:4, Insightful)
What if they don't want you to address the causes, maybe the causes are a natrul effect of how business is done. Dealing with causes means changing how you do business.
Many will say that I'm trolling, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The so called acts of "terrorism" against the USA, could be called by another name. They are the resistance. The United States is an empire. it's ok, it's not a bad thing in itself. Embrace what you are. So, there is a resistance. A small, stupid, disorganized, and full of religious fanatics resistance. The fact that the resistance isn't bigger doesn't mean there are not a lot of other people that would like to resist, they just don't think blowing up buildings is the way to resist the empire.
So, when you say "Anti-terrorism" you actually mean "Anti enemies of the empire". What the government is doing is chasing the enemies of the empire. It is doing so using the worth methodologies: fear, violence, persecution, surveillance. And what the US is accomplishing is far from stopping that resistance: It actually gets more people to join in, and causes even more hate against your country.
The UK was once a Huge Empire, and they conquered most of the known world. And nobody hated them as much as everyone hates the US. And many times, what they did was actually far worse than the actions of the US. Then, why is the US hated so much? two reasons: One, people don't like self-righteous fucks. Do what you must, but don't pretend to be the land of the free and home of the whatever anymore. You are an empire. Conquer and STFU. Stop trying to sell the "American" way to everyone. Second: Conquer, but don't destroy. The UK conquered half the world, and now those places are known as Australia, The United States, Canada ... The US, OTOH, conquered Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and those places are the same shitholes they were before. They are actually worse now after you screwed them up. Want their oil? Conquer them, get their oil, and in the process establish there and build trains and schools. The Colony model works, the big country takes the resources and cheap work that they need, and the small startup country grows and learns. Eventually, it becomes independent.
But if you keep conquering, screwing the place up, and then leaving, with the sole goal of selling more weapons and controlling the price of oil, people will hate you mroe and more, and they'll continue trying to blow the fuck out of your country.
Being a self righteous fuck and saying "why does the world hate us" doesn't help. Realizing what you are, and acting in consequence does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The so called acts of "terrorism" against the USA, could be called by another name. They are the resistance. The United States is an empire. it's ok, it's not a bad thing in itself. Embrace what you are. So, there is a resistance. A small, stupid, disorganized, and full of religious fanatics resistance. The fact that the resistance isn't bigger doesn't mean there are not a lot of other people that would like to resist, they just don't think blowing up buildings is the way to resist the empire.
So, when you say "Anti-terrorism" you actually mean "Anti enemies of the empire". What the government is doing is chasing the enemies of the empire. It is doing so using the worth methodologies: fear, violence, persecution, surveillance. And what the US is accomplishing is far from stopping that resistance: It actually gets more people to join in, and causes even more hate against your country.
The UK was once a Huge Empire, and they conquered most of the known world. And nobody hated them as much as everyone hates the US. And many times, what they did was actually far worse than the actions of the US. Then, why is the US hated so much? two reasons: One, people don't like self-righteous fucks. Do what you must, but don't pretend to be the land of the free and home of the whatever anymore. You are an empire. Conquer and STFU. Stop trying to sell the "American" way to everyone. Second: Conquer, but don't destroy. The UK conquered half the world, and now those places are known as Australia, The United States, Canada ... The US, OTOH, conquered Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and those places are the same shitholes they were before. They are actually worse now after you screwed them up. Want their oil? Conquer them, get their oil, and in the process establish there and build trains and schools. The Colony model works, the big country takes the resources and cheap work that they need, and the small startup country grows and learns. Eventually, it becomes independent.
But if you keep conquering, screwing the place up, and then leaving, with the sole goal of selling more weapons and controlling the price of oil, people will hate you mroe and more, and they'll continue trying to blow the fuck out of your country.
Being a self righteous fuck and saying "why does the world hate us" doesn't help. Realizing what you are, and acting in consequence does.
So what we remove the Iraqi government and declare it the 51st state?
I sincerily doubt we will be hated less by doing that.
Re:Many will say that I'm trolling, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense.
First, the US is not an empire. Empires take from their subject states, the United States gives out money, technology and protection. Look at the Roman Empire or British Empire, they levied troops from their subject territories while ripping out the natural resources and taxing trade.
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan have never been part of this American Empire you are spouting about. the US sold Saudi Arabia technology, bought oil and let Saudis come to school in the US. Afghanistan's relations with the US were even more tenuous, Iraq was more of a French and Soviet client-state than American ally, while Yemeni-American relations have been distant while the US helped Pakistan for decades against the Soviets and India.
The UK didn't conquer most of the world, at peak they controlled 1/4 of the land mass and population, and they never controlled the vast bulk of the continental United States.
Your examples of countries the US "conquered" are all wrong, here are some countries the US did control and did conquer.
Japan.
Western Germany.
Italy.
South Korea.
Central and western United States.
Look at Israel's economy (a client state of the US) compared to the economy of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi - they have the highest per capita GDP.
Take some time to look at Vietnam - the US pulled out, the south was lost and now that its opened up to the west, its booming. Look at the quality of life in Afghanistan now, oh and it's far from conquered.
USA not an empire but has client states? (Score:4, Insightful)
You say the USA is not an empire but Israel is a client state of the USA? It seems to me that empires still do exist but the forms of power are a little more subtle than in the Roman or British Empire. People are not excluded from positions of power if they are not Roman citizens - though it could be argued that you'd be marginalised from positions of power if you don't speak English in 'client states'. The British flag is not run up flag poles right across the Empire - though there are preferential trading agreements and even pricing for 'client states' and promises of economic and other support.
I think geopolitics still exists but it has become a little more subtle. To be fair of course this doesn't just refer to the USA but many other countries. It strikes me that aid money - long term, not disaster support, can be used as a means of establishing and maintaining influence.
Re:Many will say that I'm trolling, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the US is not an empire. Empires take from their subject states, the United States gives out money, technology and protection.
There are different kinds of empires. Not all of them do their conquering as blatantly as Genghis Khan or the Spanish conquistas. The British Empire was a trade empire during it's first half, exporting technology, trading and bringing home wealth. Chinese empires have seldom attempted to expand or conquer.
Look at the Roman Empire or British Empire, they levied troops from their subject territories while ripping out the natural resources and taxing trade.
When the US entered Afghanistan, they bought war lords to help them combat the Taliban. The US doesn't tax trade but controls the rules of trade.
The US is an empire all right.
Different empires have different missions, but as imperial missions come, the American mission is pretty similar to the British and the Roman: To spread "civilization" in the name of a christian god. Look to the Spanish empire, the Chinese empires, Tsar Russia and the Soviet Union for other missions.
I really recommend reading Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States [amazon.com] by Herfried Münkler, a great book which steers clear of the usual theories of imperialism and tries to go beyond, to explain the dynamics of empires, hegemonies and states.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagreement with the US's policies does not validate the use of violence towards the US or its citizens. There are ways to change policy without the use of violence -- that is the foundation of civilization.
Terrorists need to find a way to resolve problems like civilized individuals -- to stop acting like barbarians.
Nobody hates the english? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ooh. Go to Scotland and say it is your favorite part of england. Hope you can run fast. Then do it in the wrong parts of northern Ireland.
Many Indians (the sub continent, not the race the USA practically wiped out) fought WITH the nazi's to dismantle the British empire. The palestines worked together with the nazi's as well, again to get the British out (and this is one of the reasons britain has had such a dubious role in the entire conflict, basically both Israelis and Palestinians fought them).
Now the
Re: (Score:2)
Why!
Copyright police (Score:2)
Because the FBI and CIA are wasting huge resources tracking down and chasing CD and DVD counterfeiters acting as the private police for a group of corporations who have convinced the governments of the world, through extensive bribes, that they're obsolete business models are vital to the modern world.
agree with the spirit, but some of the details...? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm basically on board with McGovern, but some of the particulars stuck out to me as half-baked: "Add Washington's propping up of dictatorial, repressive regimes in order to secure continuing access to oil and natural gas -- widely (and accurately) seen as one of the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan." I think it's true that the US props up dictatorial, repressive regimes in the Middle East and southern Asia (Kuwait, Pahlavi's Iran, ...). I think it's true that we would never have gone to war in Kuwait/Iraq in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, or Iraq in 2003, if this hadn't been an oil-producing region. This is clearest in the case of Kuwait, and also reasonably clear in the 2003 Iraq invasion, since the WMD pretext was obviously bogus. The least clear one is Afghanistan, which really did have at least some reasonable justification in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks -- although if the region had never had oil, it would have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists originated.
But how can McGovern say that "one of the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan" was "to secure continuing access to oil and natural gas?" This doesn't make any sense. Saddam Hussein was exporting oil before we invaded in 2003. The invasion devastated oil production. And Afghanistan has never been a big oil producer.
I think it would be more accurate to say that we went to war in Kuwait in 1991 in order to stabilize the Middle East oil producing region, and we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 as knee-jerk reactions to the 9/11 attacks (which is pretty pathetic, because the whole purpose of terrorism is basically to cause a knee-jerk reaction).
He makes a big deal out of how nobody admits that one of the main motivations for terrorist attacks on the US is anger about Israel. This is undeniably true. The problem is, what the heck can we do about it now? We tried to hand democracy and territory to the Palestinians on a silver platter, and they messed up. Is there some obvious solution to the Israel problem that I'm missing?
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about Saudi Arabia so it's not really half-baked.
The Iraq war had a lot of reasons, most of which are stupid and to the detriment of the USA even if they help individuals and a few corporations, and to this point it's failed at the sensible one (site for US base which he refers to later). I'm surprised that leading retired military figures think that Iraq w
Re: (Score:2)
But how can McGovern say that "one of the main reasons for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan" was "to secure continuing access to oil and natural gas?" ?" This doesn't make any sense. Saddam Hussein was exporting oil before we invaded in 2003. The invasion devastated oil production. And Afghanistan has never been a big oil producer.
You're thinking "nation-state" and not "regional".
We are not interested in anybody's particular oil fields -- not Iraq's, not Iran's, etc. What we want to ensure is that there is a free market, which means a free flow, of oil and natural gas, throughout the region. As you may know, there is a big narual gas pipeline being built through Afghanistan, which will connect the Ukraine and other big natural gas fields to the west. We want to make sure that no President Hussein or President Ahmadinejad can distru
Axe to grind (Score:2)
Clearly there is an axe to grind here, probably for more than what Tenet deserves. That said, what is left out of this critique is the failings of policy makers who in fact determine what the intelligence community focuses on. When policy makers (be they politicians or career employees) focus on short term intelligence needs the IC must reallocate resources to address those wants. Inevitably this is at the expense of longer term intelligence gathering and asset development. Then when something does go
Oh ffs people. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't feed the trolls, it's fucking simple.
You can't win a war on a word (Score:2)
Especially if you keep redefining the word. Simple as that.
What if this was never about winning a war (on a word) but rather redirecting attention from the war on human rights and personal freedoms (many of which defined in the Constitution everyone loves foaming about), in the interest of money-driven slavery and mass-mind control?
Now, put *this* in your pipe and smoke it :)
Or, wake up and get off the grid.
Say it with me now. . . (Score:2)
The terrorists were manufactured.
The public is persistent and scrappy, and they refuse to let up. More information keeps cropping up and the threads keep expanding and the picture gets more and more clear. So any beliefs one might have settled on last year or three years ago or earlier based on the available information and spin at the time always need to be updated. That's the way of knowledge; Love it or lie to yourself, (and pretend that Popular Mechanics isn't run by cherry-picking true-believers of
The magic words are: "YOU'RE FIRED." (Score:3, Insightful)
Honest. That's it.
Nobody in a government bureaucracy ever gets fired, no matter how much they screw-up. So, when the pundits and the politicians huff and puff, all the bureaucrats do is roll their eyes and go back to business as usual.
Go all the way down the chain of the command, and FIRE every single person who touched this mess. Only then will you get the bureaucrats' attention.
'Nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what a terrorist would say!
Get 'im!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a terrorist
That's not for you to decide.
Clearly you deserve neither liberty nor freedom ! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's always what I say whenever I hear about all this 4th Amendment crazy talk. I don't sell drugs, so what the hell do I care?
Re: (Score:2)
We could call it the Ministry of Love (or MiniLuv, for short).
Re:Hold them accountable? Who? Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two problems with this statement.
1 You can't be sure they are a terrorist while your punching them there have been several people tortured who were, in the end, found innocent.
2 Torture only makes the person say what they think will make you leave them alone. Maybe they confess to something they didn't do or maybe they give you bad intelligence.
In World War two it was discovered that the best way for the allies to get intel from their prisoners on what the Germans were up to was a steak dinner.
Torture is just a violent jerk finding righteous excuses for unconscionable behavior and is counter productive every time.
Re: (Score:2)
In World War two it was discovered that the best way for the allies to get intel from their prisoners on what the Germans were up to was a steak dinner.
You mean like the one Cypher had with Agent Smith? Yes! I see how that works!
Re: (Score:2)
In World War two it was discovered that the best way for the allies to get intel from their prisoners on what the Germans were up to was a steak dinner.
Torture is just a violent jerk finding righteous excuses for unconscionable behavior and is counter productive every time.
Coming soon: Inglorious basterds 2: revenge is a dish best served medium rare.
This time, an American shock troop focuses not on brutally killing Nazis, but instead on serving them excellent steak dinners.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hold them accountable? Who? Congress? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're on the right track. Torture backfires in a variety of ways on a regular basis. When it comes to effective interrogation, I always like to cite the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Hussein.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml [cbsnews.com]
Re:Hold them accountable? Who? Congress? (Score:4, Insightful)
We want them to catch the bad guys - AND WHEN THEY FAIL to do that job, hold them accountable. Which wasn't clear in the summary, but was clear in the article.
George Tenet was the CIA director. CIA's job is to get all of the intelligence information in a CENTRAL agency (who knew?). Mandated by congress at it's creation after WWII.
9/11 happened. CIA blew it, and there was no consequence for the people We The People hired. Tenet wasn't fired for NOT DOING HIS GODDAMN JOB.
Instead of holding the CIA accountable for their failure, we create Homeland Security, National terrorism center, TSA, Patriot Act, so-on and so-forth, ad infinitum. We declare "War on Terror" - which will end up like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. Generate a lot of money for a lot of technology and industry without ever providing a path to victory.
Bureaucracy at it's finest.
Too bad we didn't have a President. He could've said "CIA blew it. Tenet, you're fired. Let's get someone in here who can be bothered to be responsible."
Instead we have all of the BS that's been justified in the name of security, and we're worse off (security-wise) than we were on 9/12/2001.
Re:Hold them accountable? Who? Congress? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I would say that's right on. Congress, the whole darned institution, not just your O'Reilly-esque political Punch and Judy show, should be held accountable for any failure(s) of the CIA.
They oversee it. They order it. Michael Scheuer smartly said, during the hearings on extraordinary rendition, that a "half-assed bureaucrat like [himself] wouldn't do anything without the approval of Congress."
I wanted to stand up and applaud him when I saw it. We kidnapped people with Congressional authority, and it is amazing that nobody's been held accountable for their incredible lack of ethics and malfeasance. There needs to be an investigation.
--
Toro
Re: (Score:2)
just let them do what they want, namely, kill each other, we simply cannot put an American MP on every crossroad of the world.
Yeah it's not like they would ever try to kill us.
Dabbling at maintaining the world order (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Why have terrorists launched attacks against non-US entities then? In poor countries even.