FrumForum correspondents and readers are encouraged to blog about the books they are reading this August.  Please send any entries to editor[at]frumforum.com with the subject line, “Summer Reads.”

Alan Jacobson is a New York Times bestselling author and his latest book, Inmate 1577, is an example of why he is so popular.  Even though this work is the fourth in a series in which the main character is Karen Vail, an FBI behavioral analysis profiler, reading the earlier books in order to understand the plot is not necessary.

Inmate 1577 is a plot-driven novel where the characters are the supporting cast.

Jacobson’s chilling descriptive plot leaves the reader in a suspenseful state.  Victims are elderly women who have been abused and brutally murdered by a psychopathic sadist.  Their husbands have also been killed and are found miles from the original crime scene with a number tattooed on their head.  Jacobson’s writing style is unique in that he uses clues in the story like pieces in a puzzle.  There is the constant cat and mouse action between Vail, the profiler, and the offender.

Jacobson intertwines two plots throughout the book: one that takes place in the 1950’s and 1960’s while the other takes place in the present day.  By the end of the book these two plots come together with the key to the mystery being Alcatraz, an island that served as a federal prison.

Although the work reads like a novel, it provides insight about psychopathic serial killers.  Jacobson includes the thoughts of both the killer and the profiler.  For example, the reader learns that a psychopath takes a “trophy,” an artifact which allows them to relive the kill and a “ritual” — what the killer does to the body: their imprint.  Additionally, the reader learns that psychopaths are organized, plan their kills, are not “crazy”, and know right from wrong.

According to Jacobson, he consulted with a retired FBI profiler, Mary Ellen O’Toole, whose “expertise is psychopathy so this is right in her wheelhouse.  She helped me by reading chapters at a time and the first draft manuscript. We had some great discussions where she helped me to qualify the real reason behind what a killer does. I wanted to make Karen Vail the first female FBI profiler who faced a lot of the same experiences that agent O’Toole faced.”

There are great analogies in the book, which also enhance the plot.  After the first murder, Jacobson describes the weapon used by the victim as “… impotent on the ground, like a cold revolver stuck in the deepest reaches of a holster, never given the opportunity to be of service.”  Another quote shows the irony of how an investigation progress, “As the body count rises, so does our knowledge base.” These quotes add to the understanding and reality of the plot.

Some political statements were made — like a comparison of the budget crisis in California to being “fiscally challenged”, and Leavenworth prison’s dome, which was a replica of the US Capitol. Jacobson commented, “By and large I tried to keep political commentary out of my novels.  However, some of the things the California legislature spends their time and efforts on are very silly.  When I practiced chiropractics in Sacramento and was asked to be a lobbyist I witnessed things that are real eye openers, the political games being played.  The architect designed Leavenworth to actually model the nation’s Capitol dome.  The irony is that one of the most maximum security prisons that houses the worst criminals was made to look like the place where our Senators and Congressmen do their business.  It was a tongue and cheek jab at some of our Congressional figures.”

Inmate 1577 is a riveting book. It is not only entertaining but is very insightful with twisting and intertwining sub-plots.  The reader will not want to put down this fabulous read.

The military victory brought out a wide range of emotions from the 9/11 families.  Gordon Haberman who lost a daughter, Andrea, was very somber, stating “my first impression was great humility for all the servicemen who have given their lives… I have to give President Obama credit where credit is due.  He authorized this.”

Susan Rescorla, whose husband Rick died on 9/11, cried when she heard the news and wanted Americans to understand that “I have lived it every day since my husband was murdered.  This is a moral victory, a symbol.”

Bob and Shirley Hemenway who lost their son Ronald were pessimistic, feeling that “Americans will forget real fast, in about a week.  A piece of justice has been served by all who died.  However, this is just a step along the way.  The five at Guantanamo Bay must also be put away.”

Debra Burlingame, who lost her brother Chic, a pilot on American Airlines Flight 77, was very emotional.  She recounted how “on the morning of 9/11 I got the call from the same brother who [later] called to tell me that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. I am glad that Bin Laden knew the American people had finally caught up with him.”

All had the same feelings of bestselling author Vince Flynn that, “It’s a great day for America, the CIA, and the JSOC.”  Maureen Santora, who lost a son, Christopher, said it best, “Americans are strong because we are compassionate.  God bless our soldiers and God bless America.  I am thrilled this has finally happened.  My son Christopher and his buddies and all those who were murdered are celebrating in heaven that goodness won over evil.”

The former intelligence officials FrumForum spoke with wanted Americans to know that the foundation for getting Bin Laden had been laid shortly after September 11th.  They agreed with Pete Hoekstra, the former ranking member of the intelligence committee who commented that “there have been a lot of people focused on catching him for almost ten years.  There is no doubt that this is a success and will have an impact since it clearly shows everyone that no one is safe.”

One former high-ranking CIA official was proud of the Agency and the Navy SEALs and wanted Americans to understand that “this was a victory for persistence.  We have been unrelenting, the mojo never left.  People working at counter-terrorism have never taken their eyes off the ball. “

Jamie Miscik, the former CIA’s deputy director for intelligence explained at the The Global Conference on Tuesday that prior to 9/11 the intelligence community knew that something was going to happen but did not know when.  She proudly stated that “from 9/11 until Sunday people in the intelligence community were focused with intensity, skill, and dedication in making sure we got Bin Laden.”

The officials thought President Obama exhibited a great amount of courage in approving the operation.  Fran Townsend, the former Bush Homeland Security Advisor, remarked that the President chose a risky operation but felt he had no other option.  She explained that a predator attack was not an option since it was necessary to get eyes-on-confirmation that Bin Laden was really dead.

The White House is also debating whether to release photos of Bin Laden’s body. According to Townsend, the videotapes and still photos of the battle “must be released even if grisly. There will be some who will not believe his death absent of the photographs.  We did it with the sons of Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

There were mixed reactions regarding Pakistan’s role in hiding Bin Laden.  Hoekstra thought that individuals within the Pakistani government knew where Bin Laden was but not the Pakistani civilian administration itself. Townsend believes that either the Pakistani government knew or is very incompetent.  She felt the Pakistanis were not trustworthy and was confident that “the Obama Administration did not tell them anything.  If you pass sensitive information to them and that information was leaked the operation would be rendered impossible.”

Does the elimination of Bin Laden mean the War on Terror is over?  Absolutely not, say the experts.  Michael Hayden, the former CIA Director summarized the feelings of the intelligence officials FF spoke with by noting that Bin Laden’s death boosted America’s reputation around the world.  Although America showed dedication and commitment in achieving the mission, he too made it clear that the war on terror is still ongoing.

He emphatically stressed that, “it was important to get Bin Laden.  It does hurt them. They will have trouble replacing him.  This is a nice macro lesson for the entire world about the reach, precision, and persistence of American power. However, this is far from over.  Al Qaeda is not a hierarchy; it’s a network.”

Everyone interviewed pointed out that besides the Taliban there are other fronts to worry about, notably in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia.  Americans need to be diligent warns Clare Lopez, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy, considering “Ayman al-Zawahiri (the expected successor) is responsible for Al Qaeda operations…and still wants to kill Americans.”

Jamie Miscik warned that “Bin Laden was a hugely important symbolic leader of this movement.  His absence will have a dramatic impact on the organization.  Although he was not calling the shots for every single operation, he was a huge, attractive, charismatic figure.  When the analysis is done what is usually seen is a quick surge in the activity to show that they are still relevant, that they still have the ability to carry out an attack.”

A former high ranking CIA official agreed that the operation boosted our standing.  He noted: “America can use this incident to say to the Pakistanis, if you do not help us we will do it ourselves.”

Overall, this was a successful operation in which all Americans can be proud of the intelligence community and the military, notably the SEALs.

Tweet

In an email response, former President and CIA Director George H. W. Bush commented to FrumForum: “I am enthusiastic about this appointment.  I have great respect for General Petraeus, and I think this is great for the country and great for the intelligence community.”

FrumForum interviewed other former intelligence experts to see if they agree with President Bush’s assessment of Petraeus.  All interviewed describe the general as being intelligent, well respected, politically savvy, well-liked by congressional figures on both sides of the aisle, and a good bureaucrat.  However, they also commented that there is some anxiety and apprehension since the last two directors, Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta were leaders who were great advocates for Agency professionals, well-trusted by their overseas counterparts, had good working relationships with Congress, and were very fair minded.

Will having only a military background hamper Petraeus’ effectiveness as CIA director?  The obvious comparison will be to Michael Hayden, an Air Force general.  A former CIA official noted that, “Petraeus is a great General but does not have the background in the intelligence world.  Hayden worked in intelligence a very long time before he became CIA director.”  Pete Hoekstra, the former ranking member of the intelligence committee, would have preferred someone whose career was not exclusively with the military since “there is a fundamentally different approach and culture between the CIA and the military.  The military is a very much hierarchical organization.  President Obama’s national security team seems dominated by military people between the DNI Director and possible CIA Director.”

A former CIA operative agrees with Hoekstra and wonders, “can Petraeus as CIA director, during certain circumstances, firmly explain to the President that the intelligence does not support his policy.  Since the general has been in the Army for over thirty years he is used to saying to his commanders ‘yes sir; how can I serve you?’”

Fran Townsend, the former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, does not see the military mentality of Petraeus as a problem.  She believes that “Petraeus has shown himself to be unafraid and unabashed for speaking the truth.  He is a man who has always succeeded and I cannot imagine him taking a backseat to anybody.”

Another apprehension about General Petraeus is that he was in charge of the war strategy.  The military assessment of the Afghanistan war was more positive than the CIA assessment. Again, many pointed out that there is a different mentality in the military where underlings are expected to follow authority. Will the general allow the analysts to have the freedom to write the truth as the facts present themselves?   A former high-ranking CIA official feels Petraeus is “smart enough not to squash CIA views.  He will challenge them but it’s a good thing to question the analysts.  Being demanding is not a bad thing.”

Hoekstra emphasized that by the time Petraeus becomes Director there will be a pretty good indication of the situation in Afghanistan: “will the positive analysis of Petraeus’ office be correct or will it be the CIA analysis?  The ultimate question is will his objectivity be clouded by the fact that he ran the Afghan operation?”

The expertise of the general was also called into question.  The issues he has worked with for the last ten years have been centered on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The agency deals with other issues such as China, Russia, counter-proliferation and counter-narcotics, as well as political and economic issues.  Townsend does not feel these areas will be short-changed since “he has succeeded in every assignment that was given to him.  I think he will be equally successful at the CIA.  He will have to determine the CIA’s role going forward.”

A high-ranking former CIA official offers a word of warning: be careful about bringing in a large number of people who want to change or fix everything. Petraeus should use Panetta as an example: he only brought along his chief of staff to make sure morale was not negatively affected.

Everyone FrumForum spoke with agrees with Hoekstra that “if there is going to be a military person there is no one better than Petraeus.  Considering what he has done for the country I will give him the benefit of doubt and wish that he does well at the CIA.” Hopefully the general will be in the mold of Dwight Eisenhower who knew how to use our intelligence to protect America’s national security.

Tweet

President Obama has recently authorized The Central Intelligence Agency to send clandestine operatives into Libya to gain intelligence information.  The problem is that these initial reports came from someone inside the Obama Administration.

Some intelligence experts interviewed by FrumForum could not understand why the information was leaked.  They question whether the Obama Administration was putting the President’s political ambitions ahead of America’s national security.  A former senior CIA official speculated that “there was not one but a multitude of sources that leaked this information and it was done to prove they were tough.” Another former CIA official went further and stated that, “They should have kept their big flapping mouth shut, and they said exactly the wrong thing.  They said the CIA is there to collect information on the opposition to determine who the rebels are which makes the operatives job harder.”   A former operative angrily noted that those officers on the ground have been compromised and now have to explain to the rebels that they are not collecting information about them.

Just as with the initial intervention into Afghanistan during the early days of the War on Terror, the CIA is in the forefront in helping determine the major issues of the conflict.  Throughout Qaddafi’s forty-one year reign the only legitimate opposition was from the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.  The logical conclusion has to be that at least some of the rebels are Al Qaeda sympathizers.  The CIA is currently in Libya to assess motivations, decide who the rebels are aligned with, what they need to win, and then make recommendations.

Many interviewed hope that through covert action America will be able to cultivate someone who is pro-Western, and possibly even a former military officer who has strong tribal connections.  This means that the CIA has to be able to assess if America should assist the rebels by training, funding, and arming them.  As former CIA Director Michael Hayden told FrumForum “the worst possible outcome is a stalemate because there will be an ungoverned area that would give power to Al Qaeda.  The CIA needs to find out who the rebels are and what do they support.”

The lesson learned from this is that the CIA needs more analysts and more collectors to be able to focus on a multitude of issues since as Hayden commented “it becomes infinite because there are so many possible problems.” Besides the importance of counter-terrorism they need to have analysts and operatives that can collect political information to identify who the opposition is and their motives.  The CIA’s role is vital to securing America’s national security. The Obama Administration should rely on the CIA to gather information or conduct covert actions but out of the public eye.  As a former CIA official sarcastically noted “what part of covert doesn’t the administration understand?”

Many we spoke with noted that the official Obama Administration policy does not mesh with what is actually happening in Libya. Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FLA) argued that

the President had not clearly articulated what our mission is in Libya.  What are we hoping to accomplish?  What is the U.S. role in achieving those objectives?  What is our endgame? I don’t think the President has sufficiently answered any of these important questions that should have been addressed before any action was taken.

Michael Hayden, former CIA Director, concurs and also feels that actions speak louder than words.  Despite the talk that the U.S. will step back and take a secondary role, he pointed out that America is still playing a prominent part in handling surveillance, intelligence, indirect fire attack, electronic warfare, and refueling. Hayden explained that

usually we want the game figured out and I am not sure we have figured that out. The no fly zone has little relevance to the tactical situation.  Libyan airplanes were not causing the problem.  His air force was not winning the war for Qaddafi; it was the preponderance of ground power.

The Libya intervention also raises another question: should America turn against all despots, including those who were supportive against Al Qaeda?  A national security decision was made to build a relationship with Qaddafi that chose to look the other way and forget about his past criminal actions in hopes of persuading him to eliminate his biological and WMD programs.

Pete Hoekstra, the former ranking member on the intelligence committee, pointed out that for the last eight years the official U.S. policy has been that Qaddafi is an ally, not an enemy:  President George W. Bush re-established diplomatic relations, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton appointed an ambassador and President Obama doubled military aid to Libya.

Hoekstra also argued that the Obama administration’s Middle East policy is:

sending a very confused signal.  America is bombing Qaddafi who was considered an official ally, yet did nothing when there were riots in the streets against the Iranian government. What are you going to do with tyrannical regimes around the world that have a revolt?  Are we going to support those rebels?  I don’t think so.

On the other hand, James Woolsey, President Clinton’s CIA Director believes that there is no clear-cut rule to decide when to take action against despots and when not to. He would like to see the Obama Administration stop using kid gloves with the regimes of Libya, Syria, and Iran. “Don’t fool yourself: what the President says matters.  A change of government can only get better than the theocratic, genocidal maniacs in power now.  We should do everything possible to help the dissents including arming and training them.”

All those interviewed disagree with one remark from the President’s speech.  Obama stated that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.” Those FrumForum spoke to strongly believe that once the President chose to go to war, the definite objective had to be to eliminate Qaddafi as Libya’s leader.

Hoekstra compared a wounded Qaddafi to a wounded bear, noting that:

he is the guy who ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103 and exploded a bomb outside a German nightclub that was directed against American troops.  As long as Qaddafi remains in power you can bet he will be vengeful and target American interests.  He had done it before so why wouldn’t he do it again?

Former CIA Director James Woolsey agreed and pointed out that:

Libyan civilians will not be protected without eliminating Qaddafi. It’s extremely naïve to believe that if we leave him in power he will be a nice guy. The worst thing America can do is to become tentative.

Woolsey further stressed that if Qaddafi is not eliminated, Islamic despots will be emboldened because the Libyan leader will be able to say he defeated the great Satan: America.

However, a former CIA official pointed out that replacing Qaddafi brings a multitude of problems since no one has any idea who will fill the vacuum or what the true allegiances of the rebels are.  He noted that Abdel Hakim al Hasidi, a declared Libyan rebel leader, fought against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and recruited troops to fight against the U.S. in Iraq.  Hayden confirmed that many Al Qaeda recruits as well as the largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq came from Eastern Libya.

A former CIA official explained to FrumForum that America should implement the Obama Doctrine only

when there is an abiding U.S. national interest at stake.  I do not believe that America should send military forces to a country simply for humanitarian reasons or for human rights preservation.  We should, however, commit only when there is a vital U.S. interest, such as nuclear proliferation, counterterrorism, or important economic interests.

Unfortunately, as Hayden pointed out, “By intervening we have unmistakably taken on an operational, political, and ethical responsibility. If Qaddafi is in any way remaining in power he wins,” and America loses.

Tweet

There are three versions of the aircraft.  While all F-35s are stealth fighters, the F-35A will be used by the Air Force with a conventional takeoff and landing capability. The F-35B will be used by the Marines with a short takeoff/vertical landing capability.  The F-35C will be used by the Navy with catapult launch and arrested recovery capabilities.  Presently, there are eight international partners with each one contributing varying amounts to the development phase, the cost of the program, and a commitment to purchase a certain number of the aircraft.

All interviewed believe that the F-35 is necessary for America to maintain its air superiority. This high end stealth aircraft replaces several less effective, aging planes flown by three branches: the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.  Richard Myers, a four star Air Force General and former Chief of Staff, explained that the

F-35 will allow the US and our allies to penetrate those defensive environments that have advanced fighter and missile defense systems.  This aircraft has the ability to penetrate and deliver weapons on targets in the face of sophisticated enemy defenses. I definitely support this plane.

One of the test pilots for the F-35, David “Doc” Nelson, has flown all three versions.  He commented that all have the same combat capability, range distance, and state of the art sensors.  What he likes best is the ability to fly invisible to radar with sensors that allow the mission to be completed with accuracy.  He described it as

being in a boxing ring with your opponent blind folded.  This is the first time we will be able to provide a stealthy platform that can fly off aircraft carriers.  We can sit off anybody’s coast and have a threat within arm’s length that they won’t see coming. This plane is well worth its value and is an offer that America cannot refuse.

The one variant that seems to be having some technical problems is the Marine version (F-35B).  Dave Majumdar of the Air Force Times reported that Secretary Gates decided to put the Marine Corps version on a two-year probationary period and quoted him as saying that by doing this “we do not slow progress of the conventional (F-35 A) and carrier variant(F-35C).”

A defense expert who spoke with FrumForum praised the plane as the next generation of aircraft.  He asserted that it would

enable America to keep its dominance.  I am confident that the issues with the Marine version will be solved. This is one of the best aircraft and cannot be cancelled or the Armed Services will be left in a bad way.

Nelson agrees and pointed out that on March 9^th he flew the plane and accomplished three vertical take-offs and landings at different speeds without any problems.  Furthermore, an official with Lockheed emphasized that in the last ten weeks there have been “fifty successful vertical landings which is a very good indicator that many of the issues dogging the F-35B have been resolved.”

Many of those in Congress believe that some of the F-35’s initial equipment was unnecessary.  They point out that in the 1990’s some politicians decided to put in an earmark to develop an extra engine for the plane. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), head of the Armed Forces Caucus, believes that there must be “some serious analysis of the DOD budget from scratch.”  This appears to be happening.

Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FLA) authored an amendment, which the House passed last month that stops funding for the F-35 extra engine program.  This bi-partisan amendment will save taxpayers $450 million over the next several months and $3 billion in total provided it passes the Senate as well.

Rooney commented to FrumForum that “Although I think this aircraft is a work of art, the extra engine is a luxury our country simply cannot afford.  We should be looking at defense spending and cutting those items that are wasteful.  This was a no brainer for me.”

With America potentially facing such varied adversaries as China and terrorist groups, a multi-faceted plane is needed. As Congressman Hunter asserted, “The armed services committee must focus on all the threats facing America today.  The upshot of this is that it will be expensive.”  Yet, the F-35 is well worth it since it will maintain American air dominance for the foreseeable future with its many advances: a more powerful engine, long range distance, and superior stealth ability.  As Nelson pointed out: “it handles like a dream.”

Tweet

A former operative felt that “as usual the administration and Congress are using us as scapegoats.  We have been reporting on the growing discontent and warned that after Tunisia, Egypt would be next.”  All agreed that warnings about the Egyptian discontent were given over a period of years; however, there is no way to predict the exact timing and intensity of such an uprising.

Should the CIA assessment after the initial Egyptian demonstrations have been more informative? One former CIA operative was definitely in the minority when he said that the CIA analysts did not initially view the protests as leading to President Mubarak’s downfall.  However, everyone else interviewed shared the opinion of Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  Rogers noted:

I believe there was sufficient information to know that within a relatively short period of time we had at least an idea about what was happening.  The problem stemmed from the administration’s inconsistencies, the confusions of their policy.  It’s easy to blame the intelligence committee because they can’t defend themselves.  I can tell you I thought the information was very good.  The CIA absolutely informed the administration of the possibility of the events unfolding.

The former CIA officials point out that warnings were given but were unable to predict exact dates and times.  Intelligence involves the ability to use sources to gain information about trends.  Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, spoke to FF.  He elaborated on his recent CNN op-ed defending the performance of the intelligence community and stressed that Americans should understand that intelligence doesn’t involve “predicting the unpredictable.”

Another former high-ranking CIA official was: “very confident that the CIA provided warnings on a strategic level that things could blow up.  Intelligence can be expected to find secrets, such as nations preparing for war, but what will be the exact tipping point for a revolution remains a mystery. I am very sure that included in the intelligence assessment was the fact that the Egyptian people would not react well to Mubarak having his son take over as president and creating a dynasty.”

Americans need to understand that those working in the CIA are human beings and not robots.  They do not have a crystal ball that as Hayden commented can predict “the proximate cause, the exact timing, or the specific trajectory of a certain event.”  A former high-ranking Bush official advised that it is too soon to examine what happened and if anybody is at fault:  “I am confident that the intelligence community will go back and review what judgments were made and what they were based upon.  Were they reasonable or wrong?  Was it the case that the CIA got it right but no one listened?”

As a former CIA official commented, “Americans don’t like intelligence very much until they need it and then they can’t get enough of it. Before accusing the CIA of dropping the ball people need to understand these were incredibly difficult situations that involved a lot of operational and political ambiguity. I am very confident that after further review the CIA will be vindicated.”

Tweet

Suleiman previously served as Egypt’s intelligence chief. In that role, he was a partner with the United States, sharing of counter intelligence and helping to fight jihadists. In addition, FrumForum was told that Suleiman tried to generate behind the scenes talks between the Palestinians and the Israeli government.  He helped America gain a better understanding of the senior Al Qaeda leadership since many member s of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad joined with the Saudis.

Peter Hoekstra, the former ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, commented: “I know Suleiman.  He would be a good transitional figure.  Besides recognizing the threat from the radical Jihadists he can facilitate some political and economic reforms as well as maintain stability in Egypt.”

The billion-dollar question is will the Egyptians accept Suleiman?  John Burgess, a former Middle East diplomat, felt that Suleiman has a fair chance to unite the Egyptian people were Mubarak to resign quickly.

Michael Hayden, the former CIA Director, believes that America needs to use “what influence we have, without acting arrogantly, to make sure the center holds so that Egypt does not turn into a radical state.”  Hayden added that: “Suleiman would be acceptable to those supporting Mubarak since they were close, acceptable, at least for a time, to the demonstrators because the Presidency would not go to Mubarak’s son, and acceptable to the military since he is someone they could count on to lead an orderly transition.  It would be steady as you go with Suleiman.”

Tweet

Shortly after taking office, President Obama stopped the CIA interrogation program, limited the interrogation techniques to those in the Army Field Manual, and supposedly formed an elite group, the High Value Interrogation Group (HIG), that could be dispatched anywhere in the world to interrogate captured terrorists.

Congressman Rogers told FrumForum that the Obama interrogation policy appears to “promote risk-aversion.”  Rogers added:

Since the policies have been implemented there has been a sharp reduction in the information we get through debriefs and interrogation of suspects.  We should never have taken the way we collect information off the table, as long as interrogation does not mean torture.

Former CIA officials interviewed agree with Rogers.  They feel that there must be an honest conversation as to what should and should not be done regarding interrogation.  They also argue that President Obama made a big mistake by making the policy public.  There are those in the current government who argue that the Bush Administration, in 2006, redid the Army Field Manual without a classified annex, making the entire manual public.  This revision highlighted to America’s adversaries its interrogation techniques and limits.  Michael Hayden, the former CIA Director, explained that:

The Bush Administration was willing to go ahead and have these limits made public because they had another program, the CIA program, where the limits were not made public and were unknown, while the Manual’s reach was limited to the Department of Defense.

Have interrogations now though been made so legally difficult, so inflexible, and so politically risky that the default option is to kill the terrorists? Representative Rogers also argues that there should be more freedom of action in questioning terrorists.  Compare that with this administration’s policy of killing people through predator attacks rather than attempting to capture and interrogate them.  A former high ranking CIA official sarcastically commented that

the harsh interrogations worked.  The only way we can get it right is from gathering information.  Why is it acceptable to kill from the air; isn’t that a form of torture, burying people under rubble?  Yet, this administration sees it as OK even though the moral high ground is questionable.

All the former officials believe that the CIA should interrogate terrorists since this agency, according to a former operative,

is best equipped to know what kind of intelligence can be extracted from suspected terrorists.  The intelligence community should be able to do more than what the military is permitted to do since not all the enhanced interrogation techniques are torture and no one claimed that the techniques used in the Army Field Manual exhausted all other lawful techniques.

Congressman Rogers has the right idea in challenging the administration on operational grounds.  Regarding the HIG, hard questions have to be asked, such as who is in charge, what do they do, and who have they captured and questioned? This group was formed in August of 2010; yet was not functional enough to be available to question Mullah Baradar, captured in Pakistan, and the Underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab, who was captured in Detroit.  Another former operative is not sure of this group’s usefulness since

it is too big and cumbersome.  It’s hard enough to get a CIA officer quietly into another country for interrogation.  Now there is this group that is very visible, very big, and very public. Last I heard this group only exists on paper.

All agreed that the CIA should be allowed to hunt down terrorists and capture them anywhere in the world, since they are trained for these purposes. They emphasize that the Obama Administration should be pressured by the Intelligence Committee to make interrogation techniques less visible to the public and more flexible in the type of techniques used as long as they are lawful. Hayden strongly believes that the situation should determine how information is collected,

depending on the character of the detainee, the information he holds, and the size and imminence of the threat.  When you take lawful intelligence tools off the table, given the nature of this war that is the equivalent of disarmament.

And, that is no way to protect Americans.