Assassins, Daggers and Snares, Oh My!

Congressional Democrats are aghast and apoplectic at revelations that the Central Intelligence Agency developed contingency plans to assassinate senior members of Al Qaeda in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Though the plans called for dispatching small teams of clandestine operatives to either capture or kill critical members of the terrorist group - such as it's leader Osama Bin Laden and his aide de camp Ayman Al-Zawahiri - they remained little more than vague conceptual skeletons. Plagued by legal, logistical and diplomatic concerns, the plans - such as they were - were never executed and left to collect dust on a proverbial classified shelf in the Agency's labyrinthine headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

At the heart of the Democrat's self-righteous fury is the Agency's failure to disclose the program to Congress. Following directions from then-Vice President Dick Cheney, the existence of the program and it's associated plans were withheld from the two Congressional Intelligence Committees responsible for oversight of clandestine activity. Despite current CIA Director Leon Panetta having both terminated the program and informed Congress literally within hours of being briefed on it's existence, the Democratic chairs of both Intelligence Committees and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have demanded all pertinent information and called for a formal investigation of what they view as the Agency's having misled them for nearly eight years. Lawyers at Langley have responded that since the program essentially remained in the conceptual phase and failed to come to fruition, it did not meet the reporting criteria that trigger Congressional notification.

While I would personally be aghast had the Agency not seriously considered such a program and the attendant contingencies, legalities and risks, the episode highlights a number of interesting points. Among them are.....

- The ongoing tensions between transparency, operational security, oversight and effectiveness. To say the Agency has a storied history littered with adventurous miscalculations and unintended consequences is an understatement. They are the ones responsible for coining the term "blowback", after all. With their dirty laundry aired for public view by the Church Committee in the 70's, Langley was subsequently subjected to what many in "the Company" view as onerous Congressional oversight. In the ensuing decades, there has been an ongoing struggle for the Agency to effectively carry out it's mandate and maintain operational security while complying with Congress's desires for transparency. Many in the intelligence community, including Robert Baer, believe the ultimate result has been to inculcate a pervasive sense of apprehension among Agency personnel. This leads to a crippling aversion to the risky, frequently amoral activities and engaging with the unsavory and corrupt characters that are often integral to the successful execution of the Agency's mission. This latest episode highlights an example of planning for some of the more socially unacceptable activities associated with Agency's national security role and the fact that different interpretations of the reporting requirements that oversight entails continues to aggravate an already beleaguered and suspicious relationship between Langley and Capitol Hill.

- The respective missions, institutional structure and cultures of Congress and the Agency guarantee that tension between the two will be the norm, not the exception. Compartmentalization and control of information is critical to the successful execution of the Agency's mission. This stands in stark contrast to the dissemination, discussion and debate of information that is likewise part and parcel of the role of Congress. Accordingly, the two institutions are naturally leery and suspicious of each other. Langley is fearful information provided in the course of notification and oversight will be leaked to the press and lead to a collapse of operational security. Should even program generalities - much less sources and methods - enter the public arena there is the possibility not only for the failure of intelligence collection, but also the compromise of Agency personnel. Sadly, as the Valerie Plame affair illustrates, such dangers are not the exclusive domain of the Legislative Branch. That's to say nothing of the possible imprisonment or execution of foreign nationals involved in Agency programs exposed by the press. This further hampers the Agency in fulfilling it's mission by dissuading possible foreign recruits from working with it for fear of exposure and the subsequent perils to life and limb, family and friends. Accordingly, secrecy and operational security are premium objectives to be maintained at all costs - including enduring ongoing tension with and episodic vitriol from Capitol Hill.

Conversely, Congress - which is the world's largest marble megaphone - has an insatiable appetite for information, discussion and debate. The rumor mill, echo chamber and political public square run non-stop, 24/7. Unlike Langley, which is both metaphorically and literally isolated from the press, Capitol Hill and it's denizens are wired directly into it. Their relationship is symbiotic and hard-wired. With information being the coin of the realm in Washington, they - Congress and the press - are naturally suspicious of those who would horde and embargo it, regardless of the justification. Being the people's representatives, Congress seeks to ensure the Agency is acting in a lawful and morally acceptable fashion in the course of carrying out it's mission. Similarly, the press believes they play a complimentary role to that of Congress. Indeed, they see themselves as defenders of the republic, supplementing Congressional oversight by shining a probing, unfiltered light into the dark corners of Langley's secretive offices. The result is and will continue to be a relationship defined by the tense and often combative struggle between compartmentalization and dissemination of information.

- Rightly or wrongly, the Agency will always be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Many of the same critics that blasted Langley as inept and intellectually bankrupt in failing to detect the 9/11 attacks prior to their initiation, now decry even the thought of dispatching teams of assassins to hunt down those who ordered and orchestrated the very same attacks. Never mind the fact that these were little more than brainstorming session eraser board scribbles, the very idea shakes the foundations of our moral authority, they protest.

It is this self-righteous outrage, subsequent onerous oversight, lingering ghosts of the Church Committee and fear of federal prosecution that has critically hamstrung the Agency and it's personnel. The inevitable result is a schizophrenic bureaucracy that maddeningly vacillates between a sclerotic and moribund apprehensiveness, focused more on self protection than mission and a frenetic, no-holds-barred mania that often borders on the reckless and sophomoric. Accordingly you have an institution with often anemic capabilities that is alternately condemned for it's ineptness on the one hand and it's adventurism on the other.

And finally....

- Despite his having decamped the security of the legendary undisclosed bunker beneath the Naval Observatory, former-Vice President Dick Cheney's influence continues to reverberate unabated throughout the marbled halls of Washington. Moreover, it shows no signs of dissipating any time in the near future.

Same as it ever was, faithful readers. Same as it ever was.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see who wins this latest round between Langley's cloak and daggers and Capitol Hill's stuffed suits.

Lost On the Road to Nowhere - Obama's Route to Peace

In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's state visit to Washington, talk of the "road map" to Middle Eastern peace once again dominates the blogosphere and punditocracy. Though the imagery of his meeting with President Obama is one of respectfully resolute, though cordial statesmanship, one thing is strikingly clear. While the two leaders share a commitment to traveling the road to peace, they are navigating from distinctly different maps.

Indeed, President Obama's route begins in Jerusalem, with the first milestone nearby in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. For Netanyahu, however, the point of embarkation is Tehran, with follow-on stops at Iran's nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Natanz coming shortly thereafter. Regardless of which path is ultimately settled on, both are fraught with perils and potholes that may well derail the arduous journey. In addition to the treacherous political terrain itself, it is home to bandits and malcontents skulking in the shadows with malevolent intent. While some snares and pitfall are easily found, others though more subtle and less perceptible are no less dangerous. As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.

So join me, if you will, as we take a look at a few of the dogged issues behind the headlines that will determine in large part where the road ultimately ends.

As previously noted, one of the first stops on the President's road map is the Israeli-occupied West Bank. While Obama believes that an immediate halt to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the territory is the first crucial step to jump-starting the journey towards peace, the Israelis point to their withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a harbinger of things to come should they acquiesce to this request.

Not only did Israel fulfill it's commitment to surrender Jewish settlements in Gaza, but it sent Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in to forcibly remove those who would not comply with Jerusalem's order. To the Palestinian's delight, images of IDF personnel manhandling and dragging away kicking, screaming and crying settlers in restraints were broadcast across the globe. Heralded as a great victory by Hamas and the Arab street, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) subsequently failed to keep their end of the bargain

Not only were there no similar scenes of raids on weapons caches and Hamas members being led off in custody from clandestine munitions shops, the PA was eventually driven out of Gaza and replaced by the terrorist group. Having established their writ and dominion over the Strip, Hamas then set about turning it into a literal launch pad for it's corp of rocketeers. This set in motion an escalating series of events that culminated in Israel's weeks-long offensive immediately prior to Obama's inauguration. Given the Palestinian's track record and the transformation of seceded land into bases from which attacks are launched at Israel, it is natural that security guarantees designed to prevent a recurrence of this calamitous state of affairs would be a top precondition of Jerusalem and Netanyahu.

The issue of security in the wake of an Israeli withdraw from West Bank settlements is a doorway that leads to the more complex and intertwined issues of both long term Israeli security and the true extent of sovereignty a Palestinian state might expect to exercise.

For obvious reasons, Israel would prefer a militarily toothless Palestinian state that focused primarily on police, intelligence and security forces should one eventually be established. For similarly obvious reasons, a Palestinian state would want the ability to exercise it's sovereignty to the fullest extent. Part of that is the right to defend itself through the establishment and retention of military capabilities, however meager they may ultimately be.

The Palestinians will vehemently argue they have a right to defensive military capabilities. The Israelis will respond there is no need for anything more than police and security forces as a Palestinian state will have no natural predators against which it must defend itself. The unspoken rationale behind the Israeli position will be the desire to A) prevent the Palestinians from developing a credible and potentially threatening military capability and B) facilitate the retention of a balance of power that dramatically favors the Israelis and C) allows them the ability to militarily intervene in Palestinian affairs without fear of reciprocal military reprisals.

In addition to this, the Israelis will insist on three non-negotiable security concessions the Palestinians will chafe at. First, they will demand the Palestinians forgo the development of any militarized air capabilities, including both fixed and rotating winged craft. Next, they will seek to restrict Palestinian airspace to commercial use only. Finally, Jerusalem will attempt to constitutional prohibit the Palestinians from entering into military-to-military mutual cooperation agreements and alliances.

The Palestinians will view these demands not only as intolerable, but also as an infringement on their sovereignty - a de facto extension of the Israeli political yoke.Again the Israeli rationale is obvious - maintenance of unchallenged military superiority and prevention of the transformation of a Palestinian state into a base of operations for Iranian Quds Forces.

The unspoken fear in Jerusalem is that should the Israelis acquiesce to Obama's preferred route, the time necessary to resolve the Palestinian issue will allow Iran to obtain their long sought after nuclear capability. Even more frightening is the thought that the birth of a Palestinian state will be accompanied by a declaration from Tehran that not only is Iran the latest member of the nuclear club, but they are extending their nuclear umbrella over Israel's newborn neighbor. Depending on the alignment of the political stars at the time, Tehran might likewise extend it's strategic shield to encompass both a Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon and their clients in Damascus as well. This would leave Israel facing Tehran's nuclear-protected proxies on four fronts, an unacceptable and potentially untenable strategic position for Jerusalem. That being the case, one wonders if Netanyahu and the Israelis can convince the President his route is not the road to peace, but will ultimately leave them all lost on the road to nowhere.

We're on a road to nowhere, come on inside, faithful readers. Takin' that ride to nowhere, we'll take that ride.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if the White House has the common sense to pull over and ask directions when it gets lost.

Obama's Worldly Woes - Part II : Pakistan

Though the global economy struggles in the face of the most dire economic crisis since the Great Depression and America stands a mere week away from inaugurating its’ first biracial president, the eyes of the world are intensely riveted on Israel and the Gaza Strip. While daily headlines and hourly news updates once again focus on the latest round of the generations-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its immediate implications for the soon-to-be-inaugurated Obama presidency, many in the intelligence and national security community believe that a potentially graver challenge for the fledgling administration lies farther to the east in Pakistan. How is it a once ardent ally in the War on Terror at best now appears to be drifting erratically out of Washington’s orbit and at worst could quickly become the flashpoint for an unthinkable nuclear crisis that ignites a firestorm of anti-American protests and attacks across the Islamic world? The answer is simple, really – politics. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Pakistani military strongman Pervez Musharraf saw the Bush administration’s metaphoric line in the sand of the War on Terror as an opportunity to shed his nation’s pariah status and move back into the good graces of the world’s lone superpower. At the time, an alliance between the two states was both mutually beneficial and politically expedient – much like it had been in the 1980’s when the common foe was the occupying Russian army in neighboring Afghanistan. In the process, along with the flowery praise and gushing gratitude of Neoconservatives, Islamabad would reap billions in military aid as Washington used dollars as well as missiles and unmanned drones in the fight against Al-Qaeda and its fellow radical anti-Western Islamist travelers. As the War on Terror wore on, though, Lord Palmerston’s old admonition that nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests once again proved true. With reports indicated 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and their Taliban allies had reconstituted themselves in Pakistan’s northwestern Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Washington naturally began pressing Islamabad to earnestly pursue the fugitives from America’s vengeance. With its’ troops bloodied and humiliated in their repeated and ultimately vain forays into the FATA, there was little doubt that the region was Pakistani sovereign territory in name only and that the Musharraf regime exercised no meaningful authority or influence over the tribes. As domestic political pressure rose and Musharraf struggled to retain some semblance of independence in the wake of growing cries that he was nothing more than a compliant puppet and had become Washington’s man in Pakistan, Islamabad became more reluctant to comply with the Bush administration’s requests or act on American intelligence. Acknowledging the domestic circumstances confronting the Musharraf regime yet unwilling to pass on opportunities to aggressively pursue actionable, time-sensitive intelligence, an unspoken agreement was struck that allowed unmanned American drones to fill strike targets Islamabad was either unwilling or unable to engage. While initially mutually acceptable, the agreement wore thin as civilian casualties mounted, plausible Pakistani deniability evaporated, reports began to surface of American helicopters breaching Pakistani airspace and public protestations over her sovereignty moved from the streets Karachi and Peshawar to the halls of government in Islamabad. Exacerbating rising tensions between the two ersatz allies was Washington’s courtship of Pakistani nemesis India as a counterbalance to an ascendant China. Entering into an agreement on nuclear cooperation with New Delhi while denying Islamabad similar consideration, the impression set in that Washington was at the least less than grateful and unappreciative of the sacrifice of Pakistani blood, treasure and political capital on its behalf. At worst, there was growing concern that America had embarked down a path with India that would ultimately leave Pakistan in its wake once its usefulness had passed – much like it had after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan n the early 90’s. As this volatile mixture percolated through the filter of domestic Pakistani politics, the Musharraf regime found itself confronted by pseudo-democratic reformists on one hand and a more aggressive and public Islamic revivalist movement on the other. These competing forces ultimately resulted in Musharraf’s resignation and the assassination by Islamist elements of democratic hopeful and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on her return from exile. In the wake of Musharraf’s military rule, a weak civilian government has struggled to maintain control of a deteriorating domestic political environment for the past year. Adding to Islamabad’s increasing untenable position are rising tensions with India resulting from the three day terrorist siege of targets in the economic center of Mumbai in November. Evidence collected by the Indian government – including a confession from the lone surviving commando – indicates the terrorists were trained and equipped in Pakistan. Given past involvement by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence directorate in attempts to destabilize and attack India and historic animosities over the disputed Jammu-Kashmir region, the involvement of rogue elements within the ISI – if not the knowledge and complicity of its leadership – is not unimaginable. The concomitant tension that followed in the wake of the Mumbai siege has tapped a virulent vein of nationalism within Pakistan that while temporarily ameliorating Islamabad’s domestic position has increased pressure on it to be defiant and even belligerent in the face of New Delhi’s angered accusations. As a result, Islamabad has dispatched forces to reinforce with Indo-Pakistani frontier, many of who have been diverted from their tentative watch over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Thus, what awaits President-elect Obama on his inauguration next Tuesday is a Pakistan that is home to and a hot bed for recruitment for an unrepentant Osama Bin Laden and a reconstituted Al-Qaeda and Taliban; a government that is confronted by an increasingly aggressive Islamic revivalist movement; unable to exert meaningful control over significant portions of its territory; uneasily eyeing improved relations with historic patron China as a hedge against America’s growing disillusionment; fearful of a possible military coup; doubtful of its ability to control its own intelligence and security apparatus and though nuclear armed, is conventionally disadvantaged should tensions between itself and India erupt into war. Adding to this volatile situation is Pakistani and American fears should war erupt between the two decades long antagonists. Should war breakout, Islamabad is fearful it could not conventionally withstand a concentrated and impassioned Indian offensive. That being the case, haunted by the thought that its defeat would lead to the collapse of the government and the disintegration of the Pakistani state, analysts in Washington are equally concerned that Islamabad might see the use of nuclear weapons as its last chance for survival. Paranoid that Washington would seek to emasculate Pakistan of its nuclear defenses, many in Islamabad believe an outbreak of hostilities with New Delhi would be accompanied by an attempt by American special forces to seize control of its nuclear arsenal. Such a move would then be portrayed by Al-Qaeda as well as Iran as another example of America oppressing the Muslim world and denying the faithful their ability to defend themselves from their Hindu enemies. The result would be a wave of anti-American protests and violence across the Middle East and increased domestic pressure on her Arab allies. Should such a mission fail, it would almost certainly guarantee the immediate use of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons for fear of losing them. That would naturally necessitate a similar response from India. The result would be nuclear carnage involving two states with a combined population of over a billion. Should Islamabad be able to resist the urge to use its nuclear arsenal and it loses a war with India, its domestic position may well crumble completely. In such an instance, a fractured and disjointed entity may be left in its wake. Elements of the military sympathetic to the Islamic revivalists may see the opportunity to openly side with the fundamentalists against America and the western world. Such a move could result in the extension of the nuclear umbrella to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban against American attack, if not direct transmission of nuclear weapons to the groups. No doubt this would significantly impede Obama’s ability to fulfill his campaign promise to prosecute the hunt for Bin Laden regardless of where the trail and intelligence might lead. It is this collection of nightmare scenarios that tops the list of 3AM calls the President-elect Obama most fears upon taking residence in the White House next Tuesday. Thus the question arises – How can the Obama administration pursue its national security interests, expand the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and continue to reinforce its burgeoning alliance with India without further destabilizing a Pakistani government that increasingly views itself as backed into a corner both domestically and internationally with exceedingly limited options for how it might successfully extricate itself and survive in the long term? What time is it, faithful readers? Two minutes to midnight? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if the education of Obama is a comprehensive and relaxed review or a turbulent and fevered crash course.

Obama's Worldly Woes - Part I : Israel

Confronted with a mounting economic crisis at home and weary from seven years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the War on Terror, the American electorate choose the domestic-focused candidate of change over the internationally-fixated security candidate last month. Turning their focus squarely on the home front and the myriad challenges facing the heartland, voters turned a deaf ear to John McCain’s warning that America could not avoid the threats posed by a violent and often chaotic world merely by withdrawing from it. While she might abandon the fields of battle, dispense with occupation and nation-building, recall her soldiers and Marines, and even forgo the unilateral defense of her national interests, neither threats to her national security nor adversaries and ill-wishers would vanish magically into the ether. Walking in the footsteps of Cassandra, McCain was roundly ignored and soundly defeated; America had had her fill of the world and would tend to her own now. Now a mere twenty days till the candidate of change takes the Oath of Office, while Americans may share Bobby Vinton’s old desire to make the world go away, recent headlines as well as little noticed events indicate it will do anything but. Much like Michael Corleone’s angry lament, just when we thought we were out, they pull us back in. Join me, if you will, as we take a look over the next few days at the obvious and obscure challenges that face and will ultimately test both America and her soon-to-be-sworn-in neophyte president in the days to come. Today we’ll begin with Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Iran. As the ongoing combat in Gaza highlights, it’s difficult to say the least to have substantive negotiations with someone that is firing either rockets or missiles at you. Moreover with someone that denies your very right to exist as Hamas does Israel. This latest episode highlights the fact that Israel must deal with two separate Palestinian entities – a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a Fatah-led West Bank. Until there is some resolution between the two Palestinian factions that produces a single entity willing to publically accept Israel’s right to exist, a comprehensive and substantive agreement that culminates in the much discussed two-state resolution will remain little more than a mirage on the horizon. While many believe a comprehensive agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians cannot be achieved without the active and aggressive involvement of the United States, the Bush administration’s blatantly pro-Israeli stance has hampered its’ ability to have any meaningful impact on the process as it is seen as a less than even-handed arbiter. That being the case, the incoming Obama administration will walk a precariously tight rope between competing pressures to be a more balanced and objective arbiter on the one hand verses remaining an ardent and stalwart supporter of Israel on the other. Among those corners from which pro-Israeli pressure is likely to come is the Office of the Secretary of State as Senator Hillary Clinton has been both passionate and vocal in her support of Israel and enjoys considerable political support and personal popularity in the American Jewish community. Meanwhile, there is growing concern that in addition to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and dreams of regional hegemony, it is also seeking to expand its’ influence and destabilize Israel by supporting both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Increasingly, Israel believes Iran is conducting a coordinated and multi-faceted campaign against it. Depending on Israel’s course of action over the coming months, it may well find itself embroiled in a multi-front war. Should Israel attack the Iranian nuclear program, among the various options at Iran’s disposal in response is the unleashing of Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel; encouraging an escalation of attacks by Hamas including increased rocket fire and a campaign of suicide bombers in Israel proper; clandestinely attacking Israeli and Jewish targets globally, possibly using both Iranian Quds Forces operatives and Hezbollah or even going so far as directly attacking Israel with its long range Shahab-3 missiles. Were Israel to find itself confronted by a growing and unmanageable insurgency in the Palestinian Territories as well as a rain of Hezbollah rockets along it’s northern border, Syria may see the moment as an irresistible opportunity to at last reclaim it’s national pride and the long lost Golan Heights in one fell swoop. Urged on by it’s patrons in Tehran and riding what would most likely be a rising tide of enflamed and passionate anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab street across the region, Syria might believe Israel to be too thinly spread and preoccupied to mount an effective defense of the contested Golan Heights. Such a calculation would result in open warfare between the two long standing antagonists that would include an unrelenting Israeli air campaign designed both to repel and punish Syria. While the primary objective would be the immediate defense of Israel and its’ territorial security, the secondary objective would be to demonstrate in no uncertain terms her will to unmercifully punish any potential aggressor. Having suffered a blow to it’s’ aura of invincibility in its’ summer 2006 engagement with Hezbollah, Israel would see an attack by Syria as an opportunity to reestablish its’ military credibility in the region. At the same time it would be sending a message to Tehran that should it confront Jerusalem directly it should be prepared to reap the whirlwind and face the full fury of her military might. In the end, what initially began as an attempt by Israel to secure its’ regional position and confront a rising threat in Iran may well place it at the heart of a region wide conflict. In the process, America would inevitably be drawn into the conflict. Either through asymmetrical Iranian attacks on its forces in Iraq, direct confrontation with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz or international pressure to reign in its Jewish ally, support a cease fire and aggressively move on a comprehensive regional accord, Washington will be inextricably tied to the decisions made in Jerusalem. With this highly volatile mix awaiting President Obama the moment he takes the Oath of Office, it is increasingly likely that Israel and its’ tenuous regional relations will once again move to the forefront of American foreign policy concerns. The more things change, the more they stay the same, faithful readers. Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and a dangerous and volatile world torments a weary and forlorn America.