| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:52 am Post subject: Zionist Neocon Pentagon turns heat up on Iran |
| http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Pentagon turns heat up on Iran
Washington and European Union on collision course over how to neutralise Tehran's nuclear capabilities
Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday November 21, 2004
The Observer
Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets.
With a deadline of tomorrow for Iran to begin an agreed freeze on enriching uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons, sources have disclosed that the latest Pentagon gaming model for 'neutralising' Iran's nuclear threat involves strikes in support of regime change.
Although the United States has made clear that it would seek sanctions against Iran through the United Nations should it not meet its obligations, rather than undertake military action, the new modelling at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear to political target lists, is causing deep anxiety among officials in the UK, France and Germany.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to meet on Thursday to decide whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for being in breach of non-proliferation measures.
Sources close to the Bush administration have warned that Tony Blair will have to choose between the EU's pursuit of the diplomatic track and a more hardline approach from the White House.
While George Bush clearly favours more stick and less carrot, it is not yet clear what the stick might be: US administration sources say targeted air strikes - either by the US or Israel - aimed at wiping out Iran's fledgling nuclear programme would be difficult because of a lack of clear intelligence about where key components are located.
Despite America's attempt to turn up the heat on Iran, analysts remain deeply uncertain whether the increasingly bellicose noises which are coming from Bush administration figures represent a crude form of 'megaphone' diplomacy designed to scare Iran into sticking to its side of the bargain, or evidence that Washington is leaning towards a new military adventure.
Details of the emerging Pentagon thinking have come as US officials have spent the past week turning up the pressure on Iran before the deal comes into force.
US officials are expected to meet European diplomats and IAEA officials to complain about Iran's continuing production of substantial quantities of uranium hexafluoride, which can be used in a weapons programme.
Although not explicitly barred in the accord, US officials believe it amounts to a serious show of bad faith by Iran.
Speaking on the fringes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting in Santiago yesterday, Bush ratcheted up the pressure on Iran.
'It is very important for the Iran government to hear that we are concerned about their desires and we're concerned about reports that show that, before a certain international meeting, they're willing to speed up the processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon,' Bush said.
Referring to the European countries that negotiated the deal with Iran, Bush added: 'They do believe that Iran has got nuclear ambitions, as do we, as do many around the world.
'This is a very serious matter. The world knows it's a serious matter and we're working together to solve this matter.'
Under a pact reached by the European countries and Iran last week, Iran is due to suspend all uranium enrichment, while it negotiates a deal in which it would receive trade incentives and peaceful nuclear technology.
Yesterday, the Foreign Office tried to play down fears that Iran is already breaching the deal which was negotiated with the EU, insisting that the IAEA be allowed to issue its own verdict on Tehran's compliance this week.
'We will wait and see what the report is: the Iranians have got until 25 November,' said a spokesman.
But Whitehall sources said the UK accepted that Iran had a complex and extensive nuclear programme that could not be shut down overnight.
'There is a lot of speculation that is unfounded. Obviously there have been a lot of concerns in the past, but there's a deal on the table and we hope that they will stick with it,' said one.
Last week, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has just announced his resignation, told reporters that US intelligence had seen hard evidence that Iran was close to putting a nuclear weapon on a long-range weapons system.
The allegation was immediately challenged by officials in the State Department, who said the information, which had come from a single 'walk-in' source, had yet to be verified.
Special reports
Iran
Iraq
Israel and the Middle East
Saudi Arabia
World news guide
Iran | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:57 am Post subject: Re: James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' on the Neocon Warmon |
|
Access the embedded link for the 'A Clean Break' document via the following URL:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100603.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:24 am Post subject: Not What You Think |
| Not What You Think
(from Information Clearing House)
by Charley Reese
11/20/04 -- With all of the political hoopla and heifer dust that is spread about the Middle East, you might think we are totally dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Actually, we are not.
The United States imports about 62 percent of its oil and other petroleum products. Only about 11 percent of domestic usage comes from the Persian Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia, for example, supplies about 7.2 percent of domestic usage.
Our main imports by far come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. From January to July 2004, Saudi Arabia was fourth, just ahead of Nigeria and behind Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Iraq was sixth. These figures [.pdf] are from the American Petroleum Institute.
We are bogged down in the Middle East because of Israel, not oil. Iraq was perceived as a threat to Israel, not to Saudi Arabia and certainly not to us. A man who at one time prepared the president's daily intelligence briefing told me years ago that there was never any indication whatsoever that Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia. We just used that as an excuse for the first Gulf War.
The majority of American diplomatic efforts in the Middle East are directed at trying to persuade Arab countries to accept Israel. Their relationship to Israel is really none of our business.
I realize that members of a Christian cult that originated in the 19th century believe they have a biblical obligation to love Israel. Well, people are entitled to their religious beliefs, but none of them has any business being used as a basis for American foreign policy. We have one, and only one, interest in the Middle East. That is access, at a fair market price, to oil. Whether the countries from which we buy oil like or don't like Israel, are democracies or monarchies or dictatorships, is immaterial and irrelevant.
I harbor no ill feelings toward Israel. In many ways, it is an admirable country, but it is a foreign country, and the United States should treat Israel the same as it treats every other foreign nation. We should make it clear, for example, that Israel's enemies are not our enemies. If the Israelis and the Syrians don't get along, that's their business. Our relations with Syria should be based strictly on how Syria treats Americans and America's interests.
Unfortunately, Israel has a very powerful lobby in the United States. Even though our intelligence people said Syria was cooperating with the United States in the war on terrorism, we nevertheless applied sanctions, not because of anything Syria said about us or did, but because Syria allows some Palestinian organizations opposed to Israeli occupation to operate inside Syria.
When Jimmy Carter was president, we ended up in effect paying bribes both to Israel and to Egypt so they would sign a peace treaty. That was a dumb thing to do. It was in their interest, not ours, to sign a peace treaty. Why should the American taxpayers be dunned to pay for it?
The whole underlying basis of the neoconservative cockamamie idea of democratizing the Middle East at the point of a gun is the theory that if the Arab countries are democracies, they will accept and get along with Israel. I seriously doubt that, as their dispute with Israel is not over forms of government but over Arab land Israel has seized and refuses to relinquish.
George Washington advised us to harbor neither habitual enmity nor habitual friendship for any foreign country. He also advised us to beware of foreign influence in our domestic affairs. Both pieces of good advice, and both ignored because too many politicians in Washington are wet-pants scared of the Israeli lobby.
We should not be involved in the Middle East at all except as purchasers of oil, but we will go on spending treasure and blood in that area until the American people elect some politicians brave enough to face down the Israeli lobby.
Establishing a modern state of Israel in the middle of the Arab world was a British colonial idea. Americans should not pay with their lives and tax dollars for a British blunder.
© 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:27 am Post subject: 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' |
| Read the 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article below as Neoconservatism is a Jewish movement which has hijacked the Bush regime (keep in mind though that not all Jews support Neoconservatism):
Thinking About Neoconservatism:
September 18, 2003. Thinking About Neoconservatism. By Kevin MacDonald. Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on ...
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Stephen J. Sniegoski on Justin Raimondo and the neocons
... Kevin MacDonald goes over the Jewish/neocon connection in his enlightening article at VDare.com, "Thinking About Neoconservatism." MacDonald writes: "Ethnic ...
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/offsite_snieg_raimondo.htm | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:16 am Post subject: Undeterred by Failure in Iraq, Neocons Push for U.S. Attack |
| http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2004/0411021.html
Washington Report, November 2004, page 21
Special Report
Undeterred by Failure in Iraq, Neocons Push for U.S. Attack on Iran
By Andrew I. Killgore
During the tacit alliance between Iran and Israel from 1972 to 1979, Iran provided oil and lucrative contracts to Israel. In return, Israel—via the United States—provided huge amounts of arms, stoking the ambitions of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to play a larger role in the region. Nor did Washington object when the shah announced plans to build 10 nuclear power plants.
Iran’s 1979 political cataclysm, however, ushered in a Shi’i Islamist regime. Tehran began to support its fellow Shi’i in Lebanon, particularly the resistance by Hezbollah to Israel’s illegal occupation of south Lebanon. There flowed the Litani River, the waters of which have been coveted by the Zionists since the 1919 peace conference ending World War I.
Israel successfully argued in Washington that Iran’s support of Hezbollah amounted to sponsoring “terrorism.” As a result, Iran was linked to Libya in the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), for which the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is largely credited with authorship. ILSA provided for U.S. sanctions against any company spending $20 million on Iran’s or Libya’s oil or gas industry. European companies failed to succumb to U.S. pressure, however, and Iranian aid for Hezbollah continued. Under AIPAC pressure—and without consulting newly inaugurated President George W. Bush—Congress extended ILSA for five years in 2001.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush linked Iran with Iraq and North Korea in an “axis of Evil.” The 2003 invasion of Iraq followed, based on Saddam Hussain’s alleged possession of “weapons of mass destruction” and ties to al-Qaeda. With over 1,000 American soldiers killed and thousands wounded, that war has gone very sour, and may cost Bush the November election.
Iran is geographically three and a half times bigger than Iraq and three times as populous, so a U.S. ground invasion with an already overtaxed military seems out of the question. That does not rule out air strikes, however. The neocons’ excuse this time is not Iran’s continuing support for Hezbollah, but its alleged plans to produce nuclear weapons. Once again, the purported threat is not against the United States but against Israel, which already has up to 200 nuclear weapons.
But that threat to Israel is what accounts for the support of such neocons/Zionists as Norman Podhoretz, “father of the neocons,” for an attack against Iran. “Like anybody else in the world who is sane,” Podhoretz told the Aug. 22 New York Times, “I am very much worried by Iran gaining nuclear capacity. I am not advocating an invasion of Iran at this moment,” he added, “although I wouldn’t be heartbroken if it happened.”
In October 2003, Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany to allow unannounced inspections of its nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an effort to reassure the world that it did not seek nuclear weapons. On Aug. 22 Assadollah Sabouri, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, announced that Iran would delay until 2006 the start of its first nuclear power plant. Tehran has contracted with Russia to build an unspecified number of plants, he said, and had agreed to return the spent fuel to Russia.
Iran plans to produce its own fuel, Sabouri stated, but is “many years away” from doing so.
Predictably expressing his doubts was John R. Bolton, U.S. under secretary of state for arms control and a certified neocon said to have gotten his job in order to “keep an eye” on Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to Bolton, “These Iranian assertions give the lie to their contention that their nuclear program is entirely civil and peaceful in purpose.”
With Iraq gone sour and the Europeans (France, Germany, Britain) so deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program, the chances of avoiding a U.S. attack on Iran look good. But the neocons got us into the disastrous war on Iraq, and have demonstrated that they will go to any lengths to advance Israel’s interests. Like a roomful of Energizer bunnies, they just keep going and going and going… | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject: The War against Iran is Getting Closer |
| Forwarded:
Steven LaTulippe believes america’s war against iran is getting closer, "the drumbeat for an attack against Iran continues more stridently than ever. … it is becoming increasingly obvious that President Bush is now wholly on-board with the neocons’ agenda and that an Iranian conflict may be on the way." (Steven LaTulippe ‘A Few Thoughts Before We 'Liberate' Iran’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe35.html November 24, 2004). The cia is being purged, "It appears as though the long knives are out in Washington. Career operatives in the CIA and State Department who opposed the neocons’ attempt to "sex up" the intel during the run-up to the Iraq War are being purged wholesale." Doubtlessly to make way for the employment of more israelis who will add to the pressure for a war against iran by fabricating more phoney evidence.
William S. Lind points out that the neocons are now entrenched in the bush administration, "Most indicative is the fact that not a single neocon has been given his walking papers. So long as they are running the show, substantive change is unlikely." (William S. Lind ‘Last Exit Before Gas’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=4050 November 25, 2004). He believes that america has an opportunity before the january 30th elections in iraq to leave the country with some "dignity" (sic) but suspects that american troops in iraq could be vulnerable if the zionist state in palestine decides to launch an attack on iran. Iran is likely to retaliate not merely against the zionist state in palestine but against america troops in afghanistan and iraq. What this seems to suggest is that america has no influence over what the zionist state does even if it puts american troops in great jeopardy.
The zionists are desperate for a war against iran not merely to carry out the palestinianization of iran (as they have carried out the palestinianization of iraq) but because any retaliation by iran or its hezbollah allies will justify its annexation of southern lebanon and the great strategic prize of the litani river.
The biggest issue about the attack on iran is not so much whether it will take place but over who will start it. Will the zionists get the americans to start it or will they start it themselves – and expect america to join in the attack if the war spreads?
The zionists in the american administration who initiated the american invasion of iraq, appointed zionists to take charge of the country after the invasion, used zionist military officers to torture and humiliate ordinary iraqi people into becoming informers, and then used zionist military tactics to destroy residential areas to murder those who objected to having their country raped and pillaged by their biggest enemies, the zionists. It’s said that in american prisons, tough guys have their bitches. In american politics, the zionists, israeli infiltrators, have their shabbat goys. These shabbat goys are going to get a good banging if they aren’t careful. Perhaps the zionists in the american administration are also aiming at the palestinianization of america? | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:37 pm Post subject: CIA BEING CONVERTED TO NEOCONISM |
| http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/927863.htm
CIA BEING CONVERTED TO NEOCONISM
"The place is boiling," one longtime CIA officer said.
"People think it's slash and burn."
MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 25 November: They already have firm control of the Pentagon, which also actually means some 80% of the "Intelligence" Budget. And they've made great progress in recent years taking over the State Department as well as the National Security Council. Now crusading "Neocons" -- many Jewish and nearly all connected over the years with the Israeli-Jewish lobby in Washington -- are determined to finally bring the last resistant power center, the CIA, into line. Washington these days is like the land of the body-snatchers, everyone looking over their shoulders, the fear factor rising higher and higher.
Now the Israeli-connected Neocons are in reality the very Washington operatives that are really responsible for all that has gone so wrong in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Most of the lies about Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction", most of the most militant and blood-thirsty tactics of the military, can be traced back to them, to their ideology, and to their purposeful deceptions and trickery.
But by successfully blaming so much that has happened instead on the CIA the Neocons not only are getting themselves off the hook, they are using the opportunity they now have to purge the CIA of any and all who have opposed them; especially those who have tried to come forward with honest and truthful information about what has been happening. The situation is so bad that the CIA's Acting Director, himself being forced out in the purge along with many other senior long-timers at the Agency, has to write on the Washington Post's Op Ed Page that "The CIA Is No 'Rogue' Agency".
And there's serious purpose to this madness; it's not just the fully empowered Neocons getting back at their political and ideological antithesis. The Neocons know very well that their work is hardly done; they are preparing the way for their plans for still greater warmongering and crusading soon to come.
Whatever one thinks of them and their ideology, the Neocons are seriously getting ready for what is to come. Those who oppose them, those who are frightened by them, should be more wary then ever!
As for the CIA itself, once purged, once converted to neoconism with few restraints, the once proud Agency will not only bulk up on new neocon-approved spies but will be unleashed for more and more covert ops, assassinations, and 'regime changes'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing Change, Not by the Book
CIA Officials Let Critic Publish
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 25, 2004; Page A04
In his first television interviews in June, an anonymous CIA analyst made a splash not only because he was a novelty but also because he was accusing the CIA of failing to adapt to al Qaeda's changing structure.
By August, as the presidential campaign heated up, the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" was chastising the administration for the war in Iraq. "I'm not an expert at all on Saddam or WMD or Iraq," he told Channel NewsAsia, "but as it factors into the war against al Qaeda and al Qaeda-ism, it was a tremendous gift to bin Laden."
Some administration officials and others in the national security world viewed the unusual interviews from a CIA employee as a sly move by departing CIA Director George J. Tenet to retaliate against the White House for letting his agency take so much heat for the failed prewar judgments on Iraq and other missteps.
But two former CIA officials and the author himself said four top managers at the agency, not including Tenet, made the decision to let "Anonymous" publish and give interviews. The officials said they did so only because they feared that the author would resign, earning even more attention for a work they viewed as partly ludicrous. They said the agency underestimated how the book would play in the presidential campaign.
Nevertheless, the fallout over Michael Scheuer's comments -- he began using his name just before leaving the CIA this month -- provided the latest example of how some in the White House and their allies, on one side, and the CIA, on the other, have come to believe that each is out to take down the other.
By the time a new CIA director, Porter J. Goss, took over on Sept. 24, "both sides were primed to be offended," said a former senior CIA official who admires Goss.
Now, Goss's every gesture is being magnified through the lens of suspicion and apprehension as he undertakes the kind of bureaucratic change that would be difficult under any conditions.
"There is probably no doubt that Porter Goss was given a mandate to bring this organization around," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee. He said that "to do it smoothly would have taken more time. Porter knows the people. He knows the agency, and he obviously believes there hasn't been enough change since September 11. I support him."
"There is some internal tension. The key is how Porter manages it," Hoekstra said. "The question becomes, do you pull so hard you break the rubber band."
The debut of the Goss era was bound to be painful even without suspicions by some that Tenet's successor was arriving to carry out a White House-directed purge. Reeling from criticism over the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and faulty intelligence on Iraq, the CIA had lost its biggest public defender, Tenet, in July. By contrast, Goss, when chairman of the House intelligence committee, had publicly lashed out at CIA deficiencies more than once.
Tension rose with a rumor that Goss had a hit list of 80 employees and the retirement of an unusually large number of people when he took over. Following Tenet out the door were officials in charge of security clearances, personnel and recruiting, global logistical support, internal management, legislative affairs, and public affairs.
Then, two weeks ago, the director of operations quit, as did his deputy, after a blowup with Goss's chief of staff, Patrick Murray, who is perceived by some longtime CIA officials as disrespectful of many people who have spent their lives there. This week the chiefs of the European and South Asia divisions "submitted their papers," according to former and current CIA officials.
"The place is boiling," one longtime CIA officer said. "People think it's slash and burn."
While Goss has largely remained silent about his plans and strategy, his latest attempt to calm the waters has backfired. In an e-mail to employees on Monday, Goss said "as agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."
Some employees interpreted the message as a clampdown on dissent. Other CIA employees and the CIA public affairs office said it was a restatement of the agency's obvious mission as an executive branch agency and adviser to the president.
"It was more like a clumsy effort to say, 'It's our job to supply the facts to the president,' " said Frederick P. Hitz, a former CIA inspector general. "There have to be changes, but 'housecleaning' is a strong word."
Against this backdrop, CIA employees worry that the White House believes the agency has turned into a den of Democrats, a notion that is laughable to many career employees who witnessed the closeness between Tenet and Bush.
"They're paranoid," one former official said of the White House.
John McLaughlin, deputy director of the CIA, took the unusual step of responding to the tumult with an op-ed article in yesterday's Washington Post that was headlined "The CIA Is No 'Rogue' Agency."
He acknowledged allegations that CIA employees leaked information to hurt the president. But McLaughlin said he knew "beyond a doubt . . . that the CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president, as some allege. The accusation is absurd."
Even Scheuer, whose book is deeply critical of the CIA leadership, has been taken aback by the attacks on the agency. Waiting in the Green Room on Sunday to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press," Scheuer said he found himself face to face with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had earlier described the CIA as a dysfunctional, rogue agency.
"I told him, 'Sir, I'm a Republican, I vote Republican, and I thought your comments were scurrilous,' " Scheuer said in an interview.
Scheuer said the group of people who decided to allow him to publish his book included A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, the CIA's executive director; Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director for operations; Scott White, deputy for analysis, Scheuer's immediate supervisor at the counterterrorism center; and Phil Mudd, deputy director of the center.
One former agency official involved in the decision-making said the book represented Scheuer's personal opinion and contained nothing classified. Neither Tenet nor McLaughlin took part in the decision, Scheuer and the former CIA official said.
The CIA "decided it was better to let him vent than resign and go off and say things," the former official said.
Once he did, Scheuer said, colleagues let him know there was a move afoot "to seize my royalties" in retaliation.
When Scheuer, who was required to inform the CIA about his interviews after the fact, began having numerous sessions with the same reporters that were never published, the CIA figured he was no longer talking about the book. It then imposed onerous prior permission rules, which he could not meet.
Scheuer said he tried to refocus his media interviews but reporters mostly wanted to talk about Iraq.
At the end of July, Bill Harlow, the head of CIA public affairs, called him in. "This is affecting the president, you're getting involved in the election. The agency is being interpreted as not being evenhanded," Scheuer said Harlow told him.
Harlow said in an interview that the agency's leadership explained to Scheuer that his comments to the media were "inappropriate for a currently serving intelligence officer."
"No one was happy about what he was saying," said the former CIA official. ". . . This is a problem of unintended consequences."
The CIA Is No 'Rogue' Agency
By John McLaughlin
Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page A21
Seldom in my memory has there been such intense controversy about the CIA. Seldom has so much of what is said been so distorted and misinformed. Seldom has there been so little concern about the potential impact on the agency's ability to perform its mission and the consequences that holds for national security.
The time has come to turn down the temperature of the debate, to take a deep breath, and to get some balance and thoughtfulness into the discussion.
Let's start by dispelling the myth that the CIA has become a "dysfunctional" and "rogue" agency.
Like any organization of human beings, the CIA is far from perfect and has made mistakes -- mistakes we have recognized and are working to remedy. But dismissing the agency as "dysfunctional" is way out of line. This is an organization that, during the six months of seemingly deadlocked debate over "intelligence reform," has worked with its intelligence-community and foreign partners to take down about a dozen important terrorists who were plotting against our country and its allies. Despite waves of harsh criticism, the agency has never once lost its focus or its drive to protect the U.S. homeland and American interests abroad.
This is the same agency that, through its operators and analysts, was in large part responsible for many of the victories against terrorists and weapons proliferators cited during the recent election campaign -- the penetration and destruction of the illicit A.Q. Khan nuclear supply network, the closely related surrender of Libya's weapons of mass destruction, the capture of many of the key perpetrators of Sept. 11 attacks, to mention just a few.
It is the same agency that worked with its partners in the intelligence community to piece together analysis that drew attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions and North Korea's illicit uranium enrichment program.
"Risk-averse" is another charge now casually hurled at the agency by pundits and commentators. Risk-averse? Tell it to the CIA officers who flew into hostile Afghanistan ahead of U.S. troops just 16 days after Sept. 11 and linked up with Afghan contacts developed years before. Tell it to the scores of CIA operations officers and analysts located with American troops throughout Iraq. Tell it to the CIA officers living side by side with foreign partners in remote and dangerous areas elsewhere, determined to deny sanctuary to terrorists. Or tell it to the analysts who daily put their reputations on the line by making difficult judgment calls with incomplete information on some of the most highly charged issues of our time.
Americans need to start thinking of these officers as our troops without uniforms, for that is what they are.
So let there be no doubt: The CIA is a risk taking enterprise -- the risks are both physical and intellectual. But those who claim the CIA is risk-averse should make clear whether they are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt when something goes wrong -- always possible in any truly risky endeavor -- rather than immediately charging "intelligence failure" or "rogue agency."
Put another way, is there real tolerance for things that go awry in carefully planned operations that must be carried out in circumstances not completely under anyone's control? There should be, because there is often as much "fog" in clandestine intelligence work as there is in wars.
Beyond all this, it is alleged that the CIA was leaking material before the election to damage the president. There were leaks to be sure, but the truth is that no one, other than those who leaked and those who reported, knows where they were actually coming from.
What I do know beyond a doubt is that the CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president, as some allege. The accusation is absurd. CIA officers are career professionals who work for the president. They see this as a solemn duty, regardless of which party holds the White House. Has everyone ruled out the possibility that the intelligence community during this period was simply doing its job -- calling things as it saw them -- and that people with a wide array of motives found it advantageous to put out this material when the CIA's views seemed at odds with the administration's?
Unlike the CIA's critics, I point no fingers. I only regret that we are in a period when intelligence is being used as a weapon -- but more against ourselves than our enemies. We should all agree that this must stop.
Many people have called for a return to civility in Washington. To me, civility means thoughtful and well-informed debate. Nowhere is this more needed than in the debate over intelligence. Like the U.S. military, our nation's intelligence officers face daunting challenges now and for years to come. Constructive criticism can help. Tirades and hyperbole will not.
The writer is deputy director of central intelligence.
Bush Orders the CIA To Hire More Spies
Goss Told to Build Up Other Staffs, Too
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page A04
President Bush has ordered CIA Director Porter J. Goss to increase by 50 percent the number of qualified CIA clandestine operators and intelligence analysts, an ambitious step that would mean the hiring and training of several thousand new personnel in coming years.
Bush also ordered the doubling of CIA officers involved in research and development "to find new ways to bring science to bear in the war on terrorism, the proliferation of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and against new and emerging threats." In the presidential order, dated Nov. 18 and released by the White House yesterday, Bush also called for a 50 percent increase in the number of CIA officers proficient in "mission-critical languages" such as Arabic.
The directive comes as the CIA is under intense scrutiny and in a period of transition under Goss's new leadership, and as the administration is under pressure to show progress in addressing the shortcomings documented by the Sept. 11 commission this summer. Last week Congress was unable to agree on details of legislation to dramatically reorganize the U.S. intelligence community.
In addition to calling for such a reorganization, the 9/11 commission had also urged strong increases in the number of clandestine officers, intelligence analysts and language specialists, as had the Senate and House intelligence committees.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the CIA has undertaken an unprecedented recruiting and training campaign. The president's order left unclear how that would be accelerated.
The 50 percent increases he called for "are huge," requiring a new training facility "and even more aggressive recruiting, or lowering the quality of people," a former CIA official involved in the recruiting effort said.
The exact number of CIA officers in one area targeted for increase -- the clandestine service, officially known as the Directorate of Operations -- is classified, but former officials say it is around 4,500. Only about one-third are in the field as case officers who recruit agents, a former official said. The rest provide support from headquarters and overseas. Overall, the agency is believed to employ about 20,000 people.
U.S. officials said much of what Bush proposed was already being undertaken by the CIA and had been outlined in a strategic plan finished in December 2003. Officials said the White House was not aware of that planning when the president signed the directive, the existence of which was first reported by the New York Times.
Goss has said he wants to make significant changes in the way the agency does business, but he has been unclear on many specifics.
His tenure so far has been tumultuous. Several senior and mid-level clandestine officers, including the director and assistant director of the Directorate of Operations, have resigned or retired.
In his order, Bush gave Goss 90 days to put together a budget and implementation plan for hiring and training the new personnel. One former senior agency official said yesterday that the task "could take years."
Bush's order said the increases should be done "as soon as feasible."
Since many new trainees will be used against tough targets such as terrorists and closed governments such as North Korea and Iran, the training and eventual placement overseas will be even more difficult. Many will not be able to work out of embassies with diplomatic cover -- as many traditionally have -- but will operate covertly in their target countries. These officers will be "NOCs," which means they are there under "non-official cover," and subject to arrest as spies if they are caught.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, suggested that Congress should be "prepared to triple the budget for intelligence" if needed. "We will answer the issue of resources," he said.
In a separate presidential directive -- also issued Nov. 18 and released yesterday -- Bush gave the attorney general 90 days to provide plans for the creation of a "specialized and integrated national security workforce" within the FBI.
That directive builds upon reforms set in motion by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who announced in June that he was creating a "directorate of intelligence" aimed at improving the collection and analysis of intelligence information within the FBI.
The president also signed an order calling on the national security agencies to study whether to expand the types of covert operations undertaken by the military, activities that are now largely handled by the CIA's paramilitary division.
Bush set a 90-day deadline for that study as well.
The Sept. 11 commission recommended that the Pentagon assume all paramilitary activities, including those in which the hand of the U.S. government is to remain secret. None of the recent intelligence reorganization bills contained that provision, however.
The Defense Department has been studying and experimenting with new ways to use military forces to collect intelligence and conduct other covert operations. In this realm -- technically called "intelligence preparation of the battlefield" -- some skeptics view the department as inching into covert actions.
This is controversial, in part because it would mean that if soldiers involved in a covert operation are captured, the government would not admit they are U.S. military personnel. CIA operatives sign up for this risk. Military personnel do not, except when they agree to be temporarily transferred to the CIA.
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
