{"id":110550,"date":"2017-12-02T09:40:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T09:40:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T11:01:49","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T11:01:49","slug":"the-scandal-that-isn-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/the-scandal-that-isn-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Scandal That Isn&#39;t"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>Barely a week ago, a U.S. drone launched Hellfire missiles on a Taliban  convoy and hideout in the Karwan Manza region of South Waziristan. At  least 50 people&#8211;most of them terrorists&#8211;were killed.<\/p>\n<p>According  to press reports, it was the 24th such attack by American drones inside  Pakistan this year. Since 2004, there have been at least similar 48  strikes in Pakistan&#8217;s tribal areas, eliminating scores of terrorists and  elements of their support infrastructure.<\/p>\n<p>Did we mention that  many of these attacks were carried out by the Central Intelligence  Agency? While the missile strikes have been widely publicized&#8211;and the  CIA connection was loosely established&#8211;the extent of the agency&#8217;s  involvement wasn&#8217;t disclosed until last year. That&#8217;s when the U.K. <em>Times <\/em>reported  that CIA drone operations originated from an airfield in Pakistan, with  the cooperation and support of the Islamabad government.<\/p>\n<p>But the program remains shrouded in secrecy. Less than a month ago, an article in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.atimes.com\/atimes\/South_Asia\/KF17Df01.html\">Asia Times <\/a><\/em>claimed  that the CIA has refused to share even &#8220;basic data&#8221; with other  intelligence agencies on its drone attacks against terrorist targets.  According to the <em>Times<\/em>, the secrecy surrounding the program was  being used to &#8220;hide abuses&#8221; and &#8220;high civilian casualties&#8221; associated  with the UAV strikes.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">Intelligence  analysts have been unable to obtain either the list of military targets  of the drone strikes or the actual results in terms of al-Qaeda or  civilians killed, according to a Washington source familiar with  internal discussion of the drone strike program. The source insisted on  not being identified because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8220;They  can&#8217;t find out anything about the program,&#8221; the source told Inter Press  Service (IPS). That has made it impossible for other government  agencies to judge its real consequences, according to the source. <\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">Since  early 2009, Barack Obama administration officials have claimed that the  predator attacks in Pakistan have killed nine of the 20 top al-Qaeda  officials, but they have refused to disclose how many civilians have  been killed in the strikes. <\/span><\/p>\n<p>Continued U.S. reliance on  the drone campaign has drawn criticism from some military experts. The  left-leaning Center for a New American Security (CNAS) issued a paper in  June, condemning the widespread use of UAVs to hit Al Qaida targets.  Nathan Frick, the former Marine officer who serves as the think tank&#8217;s  CEO&#8211;and co-authored the paper&#8211;said that CIA officials claim the drone  strikes have killed over 300 terrorists, but refuse to say who is  included in that total. They also refuse to discuss the issue of  civilian casualties, or share critical data with other intelligence  organizations.<\/p>\n<p>If the CIA won&#8217;t provide that information to their  intel partners, it&#8217;s a pretty safe bet that the agency has been  less-than-forthcoming with Congress. But recent revelations about the  drone campaign (and the secrecy that surrounds it) didn&#8217;t elicit so much  as a peep from Congress. And of course, CIA Director Leon Panetta  hasn&#8217;t rush to the Hill to brief relevant congressional committees, or  promise to cancel the program.<\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;s a stark contrast to the  latest, phony scandal to snare the intelligence community. Last month,  Mr. Panetta scrambled to terminate a secret CIA effort, purportedly  aimed at kidnapping and eliminating top Al Qaida leaders. The initiative  apparently began during the Bush Administration, but never moved beyond  the planning stage. Members of Congress say they were never informed,  and (if recent media leaks are accurate), former Vice President Dick  Cheney told the agency to keep the program a secret.<\/p>\n<p>As you might  expect, Congressional Democrats were positively aghast. California  Senator Diane Feinstein suggested that &#8220;laws might have been broken,&#8221;  when Mr. Cheney issued his reported directive, and the CIA went along,  never bothering to inform Congress. Of course, Senator Feinstein&#8217;s  committee has yet to hold hearings on the matter, and some intelligence  officials insist that Cheney is &#8220;getting a bad rap,&#8221; since the program  never came close to being operational. But Ms. Feinstein clearly  understands the importance of setting the template for a story.<\/p>\n<p>The  irony of this ploy is simply staggering. After establishing legal  restrictions and rules of engagement (in the 1990s) that made it  virtually impossible to apprehend or eliminate senior Al Qaida  operatives, Democrats spent much of this decade criticizing President  George W. Bush for &#8220;failing&#8221; to get Osama bin Laden. Now, after learning  of a plan to achieve that goal, the Democrats are atwitter, because  they weren&#8217;t &#8220;fully briefed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Congress ought to  congratulate the CIA for even considering the operation. After  Congressional excesses gutted the agency&#8217;s operations directorate in the  1970s and 80s, it&#8217;s amazing that anyone at Langley still have the guts  to recommend a direct action plan. The fact it wasn&#8217;t implemented speaks  volumes about long-term fallout from the &#8220;reforms&#8221; implemented by  Congress more than 25 years ago. In many regards, the CIA remains an  organization that lives in fear of another Pike or Church Committee, and  stages its operations accordingly. The days of bold action and original  thinking at the agency are long since past.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, there&#8217;s  another inconvenient truth that should give the Democrats pause. Turns  out the &#8220;secret&#8221; program really wasn&#8217;t so secret after all. As former  terror prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted in a recent column for <em>National Review<\/em>,  the CIA initiative was part of a Bush Administration finding, aimed at  killing or capturing senior Al Qaida leaders. Congress was acutely aware  of that finding; CIA &#8220;planning&#8221; was nothing more than an attempt to  satisfy that presidential mandate.  Is there an actual mandate for the  CIA to brief every idea floated in response to a presidential directive?   The lawyers will debate that one for years, but the logical answer is a  resounding &#8220;no.&#8221;  <\/p>\n<p>There are a number of reasons that the secret  program never reached operational status. One is the enormous risk to  agency operatives (or SOF personnel), on the ground, attempting to  kidnap or assassinate key terrorists, in one of the most inhospitable  and unforgiving environments on earth. And besides, the CIA found a more  effective way to eliminate Al Qaida personnel&#8211;those drones that have  killed scores of suspected terrorists since 2004.<\/p>\n<p>Under President  Obama, the frequency of those attacks has increased dramatically,  despite Afghan complaints about collateral damage and civilian  casualties. Apparently, Mr. Obama has overcome his concerns about U.S.  military forces (and intelligence agencies) &#8220;air-raiding&#8221; Afghan  villages.<\/p>\n<p>To be fair, the drone strikes are effective, and  President Obama is well advised to ramp up the effort. By one estimate,  those attacks have wiped out a significant number of Al Qaida&#8217;s &#8220;middle  managers,&#8221; although senior terror figures remain elusive. Still, the  impact of CIA Predator attacks shouldn&#8217;t be underestimated. Terrorists  killed by those Hellfire missiles are essential for Al Qaida operations  in Pakistan, Afghanistan and around the world.<\/p>\n<p>So why isn&#8217;t  Congress concerned about the secrecy that veils the CIA drone war?  Obviously, the Democrats don&#8217;t want to cross the commander-in-chief, who  has made Predator attacks an integral part of his anti-terror strategy.  Additionally, tough questions about the UAVs would raise new questions  about their basing in Pakistan, and Islamabad&#8217;s assistance in the  operation.<\/p>\n<p>As you&#8217;ll recall, those elements had never been fully  confirmed until earlier this year, when they were accidentally disclosed  during an open Senate hearing. The offender? None other than Diane  Feinstein. Needless to say, Senator Feinstein&#8217;s little slip has greatly  complicated our targeting efforts in Pakistan.  <\/p>\n<p>You&#8217;d think that  Ms. Feinstein&#8211;and her fellow Democrats&#8211;would understand that some  secrets are worth keeping. We&#8217;d also hope their party would recognize  the difference between a genuine national security scandal, and one  largely invented for political purposes. But then again, we&#8217;re talking  about a party that has largely lost credibility on defense and  intelligence issues, given  Democrats&#8217; willingness to play politics with  such matters.<\/p>\n<p>Just more of the same.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Barely a week ago, a U.S. drone launched Hellfire missiles on a Taliban convoy and hideout in the Karwan Manza region of South Waziristan. At least 50 people&#8211;most of them terrorists&#8211;were killed. According to press reports, it was the 24th such attack by American drones inside Pakistan this year. Since 2004, there have been at [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110550"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}