On Monday, the New York Times reported that:
Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials
. . . for some incredible reason we’re told the plan was never carried out!
The concept seems to have gotten mired down in organizational CIA overkill:
Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation? Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?
HEY! Earth to Langley, VA: SINCE WHEN DID WE START GIVING A RAT’s *SS ABOUT A BUNCH OF INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS ? ! ? ! ? ! We’re at WAR here, RIGHT? US targeted killings of Al Qaeda terrorists is a legal act of self-defense, point blank and simple – I mean, if it’s OK to launch Hellfire missiles off Predator drones into multi-family dwellings in remote corners of Pakistan, what on Earth is wrong with taking out your targets with surgical precision?
OK – Problem identified; allow me to suggest a solution:
You throw enough money out there to hire a dedicated group of pissed-off ex-Green Berets like myself, and finance our operations. We know how to plan long-term operations, we speak foreign languages, we know how to live incognito overseas, and we have a certain motto when it comes to this sort of thing: “If it bleeds, you can kill it.” We’ll get the job done.
For planning guidance, check out General Patton’s maxims. Here are a few to consider:
A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.
Take calculated risks.
Do not fear failure.
In case of doubt, attack.
No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike.
The only thing to do when a son-of-a-bitch looks cross-eyed at you is to beat the hell out of him right then and there.
And there’s this beauty, of course:
No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.
Originally posted at STORMBRINGER.
24 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Sean – imagine that in the 1970’s, the Brits sent hit squads to America to take out people associated with the IRA. Imagine that in the 1980’s, the Soviets had sent squads to America to assassinate those associated with supplying weapons to the Afghan rebels. In the 1990’s, if Saddam had sent squads to America to kill Chalabai and friends who were trying to drum up support for America invading Iraq.
Yes, international lawyers have their place. I am assuming that the CIA actions weren’t going to be against Al Qaeda operatives in our combat zones in Iraq or Afghanistan – we were already targeting them under existing operations. Therefore, they must have been developing plans to assassinate Al Qaeda (or suspected Al Qaeda, which we’ve learned is far from a guarantee of anything) within the borders of soveriegn nations, many of whom are putative allies, without their consent.
2 The Hits Just Keep On Coming « Around The Sphere // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:29 pm
[...] New Majority, Sean Linnane Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)No TitleMenstruating from the BenchEurope and [...]
3 JohnMcC // Jul 15, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Mr Balconesfault, your hypothetical is actually not so hypothetical. In ‘76 the Chilean secret police of Gen Pinochet’s gov’t planted a car bomb and neatly killed a Mr Letelier, former Chilean ambassador and anti-Pinochet campaigner, and his American assistant Ronni Moffitt.
Even those right-wing Americans who despised Salvatore Allende (the leftist President of Chile who had appointed Mr Letelier and was overthrown by Gen Pinochet) were outraged. It was–I think–the first act of terrorism by agents of a foreign government on American soil.
It’s worth recalling also that Gen Pinochet was hauled before a court and judge for some of the lawless actions of his gov’t.
Having said all that–I would be the biggest cheerleader at the parade honoring the American who brought home the head of Osama bin Laden. And I would cherish forever the moment he appeared in the sights of my .30-06!!
But I’m not an agent of the American gov’t.
4 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Basically people like Linnane don’t respect laws……..Nor do they have the sense of perspective to be able to weigh the downsides and upsides of a policy…….to them as to fanatics through the ages the end justifies the means even if it involves the US govt behaving like a terrorist organization…….Basically these people are not conservatives……they have no respect for laws, due process or the constitution……they are simply Authoritarians of the right in his case, but at the end of the day not very different from Authoritarians of the left. There are words to describe them but it’s not patriotic Americans……they are the antithesis of all we stand for.
5 puckwi // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Sean,
Thanks for this post. My reaction when I saw the big Times headline about the program to kill al Qaeda was basically, “no kidding.”
6 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm
People like ottovbvs have no respect for operational security or what is required to make clandestine or covert action successful. He is in the same league of folks during the 70s Church commission who gutted the CIA HUMINT capability in order to satisfy his intrepretation of the law. He will wrap himself in the law just as he accuses others of wrapping themselves in the American flag of not being patriots, not caring if the practical consequences of his actions means AQ can kill more Americans while we handcuff ourself in a legal straightjacket.
7 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm
………….Yes I’ll plead guilty to being a believer in the law…….You’re clearly not……I hope you remember that the next time someone breaks into your house…..in fact in the early sixties I did some time in the military in the artillery and intel so I suspect I have far more practical experience of operational security than you’ll ever have……I’m afraid you’re just advancing all the tired old mantras that have been advanced forever to justify illegality……It’s fairly sick but I recognize that’s where the far right of the Republican party have chosen to position themselves………to be honest I find you people rather malodorous.
8 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:37 pm
ottovbvs, you have no idea what I do or how much experience I have in national security. I used your own tactics of making a carciture of the author and throwing it back at you and you did not like it one bit, did you? At least on some of your other posts you made an argument. Now you’ve just resorted to impunging others’ characters you don’t agree with. Your arguments have been reduced to name-calling.
9 ottovbvs // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:49 pm
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:37 pm
………As far as I know you may be deputy director of the CIA or the man in the moon……it really wouldn’t make any difference……you’re displaying a complete contempt for legality which I find distasteful and is in fact totally contrary to our national traditions….. As to name calling, this of course wouldn’t fall into that category:
“He is in the same league of folks during the 70s Church commission who gutted the CIA HUMINT capability”
………..Look you’re welcome to you views but at the end of the day they amount to the end justifies the means regardless of circumstances…..the belief of authoritarians through the ages….it’s not pretty and I couldn’t give a rat’s bottom about what you perceive as your tactics
10 dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Ottovbvs, your ideology completely blinds you to the reason why I wrote what I did, and its meaning. Like most trolls, you try to score points by taking everything people write out of context on these boards. Which is fine– your posts speak for themselves.
11 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 7:58 am
dragonlady // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm
……..Why don’t you stick to the facts and stop bloviating…..and what I think you’d call name calling……I understand your meaning quite clearly and it’s that you have no problem with illegality because you take the rather immature view that it doesn’t matter if the US breaks the law because we’re “special”…….I’m sure you’d be the first to start screaming if, say, the Chinese or Iranian govt’s despatched hit squads to knock off people in this country….this is the real world not some Bourne movie
12 balconesfault // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:43 am
The problem I see is that there is no buy-in from the right wing that adherence to international law protects us all. If the US is clearly operating renegade “hit squads” within the borders of soveriegn nations, those countries governments will face internal political pressures to limit or even prohibit activities of our intelligence community within their countries. They will also become less likely to share information with us regarding presence of suspected terrorists, for fear we’ll just “try to take care of things” in a way that could become embarrassing to them – a government that is exposed as tacitly cooperating with the US as our agents assassinate citizens or even visitors to their countries will very quickly lose the support of any nationalistic people. It would lead to balkanization of international anti-terrorism measures, at the same time that almost everyone agrees that greater cooperation between nations to control terrorism is needed.
In short, it’s not only illegal and immoral, it’s pig ignorant stupid. It’s akin to sticking your fingers into a fan to stop it when the switch is broken, instead of taking the time to walk over to the wall to unplug it.
13 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:36 pm
balconesfault // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:43 am
“The problem I see is that there is no buy-in from the right wing that adherence to international law protects us all.”
……….It is totally extraordinary……If you go back to Nixon…..most Republicans including me thought the guy had stepped over the line and had to go…….Even during Iran Contra although a lot of Republicans were willing to let Reagan off the hook basically because they liked him many were very uncomfortable about giving arms to Iran……now illegality doesn’t matter and the president can do whatever he wants (providing he’s a Republican of course).
14 dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Balconesfault, foreign intelligence services were generally cooperative with the CIA until everything got splashed on the NYT. The whole point of clandestine operations is secrecy and plausible deniability if the op turns sour. You’re analogy of us assassinating citizens of their countries makes it sounds like we’re picking people at random–this is AQ we’re talking about! You think there would be a huge uproar if we took out UBL? While I do not know the details of this particular CIA plan, there is actually a method to the madness with positively identifying a target and the authorization of force discussed at the highest levels of government. It is common now for many more lawyers to be in the room when discussing a CIA plan than operatives themselves. So don’t assume this is Hollywood like with agents running around, guns blazing, shooting people at random. Obviously whatever they planned, there were enough problems with it that two CIA directors cancelled it.
As far as international law, I am not giving it the middle finger. But I recognize the current construct was designed for war against nation-states, and not a transnational lethal terrorist group. Obviously there are different interpretations of law and if you’re going to insist we give AQ constitutional rights and read them Miranda, you bet your hide I’m going to chafe at that. Do you know under LOAC that AQ is NOT entitled to the protections as a regular POW? Because it defeats the whole purpose of the law–you give your enemy no incentive to follow it if you always extend them protections. That doesn’t mean that anything goes–debate over the law and its applicability is fine. But I do not support some ridiculous political trial of former Bush admin officials for pouring water on KSM, the main planner of 9-11 no more than I support dragging Clinton admin officials back for rendition. It would not give us more “moral authority.” It would undermine us by telling all foreign intelligence partners that their cooperation with us is subject to media scrutiny and a political trial. Our enemies would use it against us by showing the Islamic world just how “evil” and “corrupt” we are. Nor do I want to revise the history text books to show FDR was somehow evil for detaining Nazi spies without trial, or Lincoln for suspending haebus corpus. I’ve worked with many lawyers in combat and while they definitely have a role, they are not the ones calling the shots and should not be. Because in the end, they are not the ones responsible for putting American lives on the line–it is the commanders and our national command authority that bear this ultimate responsibility. So before you Monday morning quarterback everything, you may want to give the folks who are actually fighting in the field some benefit of the doubt.
15 ottovbvs // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:35 pm
dragonlady // Jul 16, 2009 at 8:49 pm
……..Once again you’re just wrapping up a denial of legality and American exceptionalism in a blizzard of rationalisations that are all over the board………Bottom line if it’s ok for us to go to France and murder someone we believe to be a terrorist, then it’s ok for China to come here murder someone who they deem a terrorist. Yes or no? I’d whack Bin Laden as soon as the next man but it’s nowhere near as simple as that although you want it to be……..And if it’s all so accurate how come we’ve lifted so many wrong people and shipped them off for torture……fu’s occur and have consequences……these incidents are bad enough……imagine if we gun down the wrong man in Rome or Paris
16 jreb // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“I’d whack Bin Laden as soon as the next man but it’s nowhere near as simple as that although you want it to be” (ottovbvs) I really doubt that statement, you’d be so busy wringing your hands and making sure that every i was dotted and every t crossed and second guessing every decision made that by the time you got the courage up to perform the mission Bin Laden would be gone.
17 balconesfault // Jul 17, 2009 at 12:39 am
jreb: “by the time you got the courage up to perform the mission Bin Laden would be gone”
dragonlady: “there is actually a method to the madness with positively identifying a target and the authorization of force discussed at the highest levels of government. It is common now for many more lawyers to be in the room when discussing a CIA plan than operatives themselves. So don’t assume this is Hollywood like with agents running around, guns blazing, shooting people at random”
So which is it? Is the flaw in being too deliberate, and risking losing the target? Or is it in being too “random”, and risking violations of law?
No, there would have been few whose opinions we care about who would have been disappointed had we successfully assassinated Bin Laden. When casting a wider net for “Al Qaeda terrorists” the record becomes much more mixed as far as our intelligence services are concerned.
18 VA Shepherd // Jul 17, 2009 at 8:09 am
What’s your take on this?
http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/07/they-are-masters-at-chess.html
19 balconesfault // Jul 17, 2009 at 10:58 am
“What’s your take on this?”
It seems pretty silly, given the news reports out of the Russia meetings:
***
“Obama said Russia’s concerns would be given more consideration when discussing [missile defense plans],” said Yury Ushakov, a deputy chief of staff at the Russian government.
***
Obama actually seems to be playing this one extremely well … given that his base of support in the US largely wants him to abandon the plans for building missile defense systems in Eastern Europe altogether. He’s not letting that box him in, he’s keeping the systems on the table as a bargaining chip – and at the end of the day, if he gains some significant concession from the Russians as part of a deal for not moving forward with the system it will be a win-win for him.
I know that the neocons who absolutely want deployment, come hell or high water, will not be happy with any concession that Obama might get from Russia to cancel the program. But they’re not really going to be happy with anything he ever does, and his very election represented in part a repudiation of their political philosophy by the American electorate, so I doubt he’s going to lose much sleep over that.
20 VA Shepherd // Jul 17, 2009 at 11:45 pm
balconesfault: …and the receiving line of Russian flunkeys totally dissed Obama because…?
http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/07/they-are-masters-at-chess.html
21 balconesfault // Jul 18, 2009 at 10:18 am
Who cares? You’re talking about a black man who grew up in America to make it to the most elite US universities without the advantage of a Colin Powell or such as a dad, and a guy who kept his cool through a campaign where he was at various times attacked not for his policies, but as being a closet Moslem, a terrorist sympathizer, a black racist, anti-semetic, and a communist … I’m pretty sure that a few hacks Russian flunkies refusing to shake his hand isn’t going to “get him off his game”.
Perhaps had he grown up a privileged white guy with wealthy and well connected parents and billionaire friends to pave over every difficulty in life for him, that might cause him to act rashly … but I’m pretty sure Obama has shown he can do a pretty good job of keeping his cool, and keeping his eye on the ball, even when petty slights are thrown his way.
22 Dustin Ferrell // Jul 18, 2009 at 10:52 am
balconesfault, ottovbvs –
No clearly Sean doesn’t respect “international law” if he doesn’t come to the same conclusions as you.
Ottovbvs, it is especially repugnant for you to question a veteran about “perspective.” There must be a less obnoxious way to defend your blind moral equivalence.
23 MarkEichenlaub // Jul 18, 2009 at 11:39 am
This whole thing reeks of manufactured scandal/distraction.
24 dragonlady // Jul 18, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Why do folk on the Left give AQ the benefit of the doubt but immediately decry our own CIA and armed forces on any unsubstantiaed allegation? I think it’s hilarious they compare Dubya to Nixon. Nixon broke domestic criminal laws for personal political gain. What Bush did was in the context of national security like FDR, Lincoln, Truman, Clinton, etc., in trying to keep AQ from killing us.
Speaking of breaking domestic laws for personal political gain, we turn to the Obama administration for firing IGs. Where is the outcry from the Left on an immediate investigation since they are the self-appointed vanguards of upholding the rule of law?
You must log in to post a comment.