Riding The General Staff

Tawdry inconsequentiality sums up the Petraeus matter. Petraeus and Allen, two Imperial Viceroys from CENCTOM, strode across the globe with more direct and indirect power regionally than any U.S. diplomat or civilian, outstripping in many ways their Roman forebears. Yet the Pro Consuls are socially seduced by shameless con artists. How does this happen?

Jill Kelley, the Philadelphia native, is apparently a ruthless social climber only five years in Tampa. Her apparent wealth masking profound insolvency, alleged IRS fraud, and a litany of creditor lawsuits for staggering sums. Her potentially sociopathic sister knows both generals well enough to finagle two ineffective letters of character support in her child custody war. A judge saw more clearly than the two Titans of CENTCOM. He rejected them, noting her mendacity and untrustworthiness are well known to the court.

‘Camp whores’ (of both genders) are a well known sociological phenomenon. Yet these two did little more than play hostess at various functions. None are obviously stunningly attractive outside the Jersey Shore framework. But flaunt a lifestyle vastly beyond their means. Something else must explain their extraordinary access. It’s not about Petraeus or Allen individually, but a systemic phenomenon.

Reports now indicate that Petraeus used to arrive at Kelley’s parties in military motorcade with 28 Tampa police as escorts. Kelley in return offered expensive cigars, bottle service and musical serenades. It’s corrupt from both sides. Why does CENTCOM condone this?

Kelley tried to get her house declared the other day a diplomatic mission because of a flimsy volunteer certificate bestowing the awesome title of ‘Honorary Ambassader’ [for cheese whiz, or the like]. This is the person who trades personal emails with the Titans of CENTCOM? She has those bona fides. Besides 30,000 pages of emails with General Allen. Her intimacy with Allen involves flying up from Tampa to see him in Washington, D.C. Evidence suggests she had some similar access to Petraeus.

A foreign intelligence service couldn’t design a more useful penetration of Imperial Viceroys. Especially when Jill Kelley is millions in debt and fighting foreclosure and her sister, she of the court order, just declared $3.5 MM bankruptcy. There are a dozen intelligence services that would toss some coin for their access and then guided/targeted collection efforts.

Apparently, to penetrate an American Viceroy you just need some decent tits a good profile, cigars, a foreclosed Mercedes, ruthless self-promotion and South Philly/Jersey shore moxi. The Chinese might well be dumbfounded at the ease and minimal funds involved.

The Affair and Petraeus

Quick thoughts. We’re somewhat sympathetic to both original ‘sinners.’ Everyone probably knows an ex that did not take a breakup well (or been that ex). Sure, she pursued him. He was the alpha male in a system based on latent crypto-homoerotic glorification of the top dog. He made the mistake. To sociological analysis noting the affair began 2 months at CIA without his accustomed staff, etc. we repeat the above: he made the mistake. Full stop.

re Petraeus’ departure and reducing CIA paramilitary interest, history teaches it’s the President, not the Director that determines this. CIA built up its capacities in every major military conflict to compete with and complement the Pentagon. Stan Turner’s famous 1978 ‘Halloween Massacre’ under Carter was in part (though not entirely) a house cleaning of paramilitary personnel from Vietnam. Few can say that his refocus on technical collection by itself improved things.

Current CIA paramilitary interest began in the Fall of 2001 and grew in a steady line. If you’re here you likely agree the drone program is out of control. What calls itself CIA these days still responds to White House interest, priorities and wishes (spoken or unspoken). Obama must be the one to set new priorities, not a Director.

We agree the FBI’s role is both ominous and pathetic. We also agree the underlying emails should not be sufficient for an FBI investigation. One silver lining: people see that the Bureau does not need a court to access all of their email and Cloud data from 6 months ago. The Bare-Chested Dude (take that, Cigarette Smoking Man!) adds to the entire South Philly/Jersey Shore-in-Tampa motif. His circumventing Bureau Protocol to ignite Congress directly a further warning that the FBI can not be trusted to control information.

Should Petraeus have resigned? Yes. Not because of all the pontification of blackmail, etc. That same 1959 mindset has always been used to enforce needlessly orthodox lifestyle preferences. It’s been rolled back in many areas. Had he chosen to remain, he would of necessity be defending his actions and be perceived as bureaucratically weakened, internally and externally.

Misc.

These past days may be the only time ever among grown men, we’ve heard someone actually say “Look at those arms, pretty hot, eh?” So there’s that.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

FISA And The FAA Of 2008

DNI’s recent letter (the “Letter”) to Feingold regarding FISA and in particular Section 702 (PDF here) underscores three things:

  1. Many in the blog and twittersphere are unable to read a letter longer than 140 characters;
  2. Feingold’s opposition to the FAA (FISA Amendments Act) is even more marginal politically today than during his quixotic stand in 2008; and
  3. The National Security Nomenklatura are secure enough to toss Feingold a marginal bone, showing no concerns about repercussion.

Feingold sought DNI permission to discuss three statements about the FAA. He wanted political cover to avoid claims of violating security and to lock DNI into a position.

Feingold’s most notable statement of the three submitted was that after 2008 FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) ruled that the government acted unreasonably retaining information on AMCITs (American Citizens) in one instance. The Letter noted that FISC ruling but underscored remedial steps were since taken. Hardly the major admission characterized by breathless blog posts and tweets.

Feingold, FISA, DNI, FAA

Long time readers know our background and experience with FISA and intelligence oversight going back decades. Here’s our verdict on this little dust up.

In boxing terms, Feingold didn’t even land a glove. If that’s all Feingold has to work with since 2008, stick a fork in it. DNI knows it, too. A FISC determination was made, and allegedly their concerns were followed. Rather than a black eye, this episode becomes a poster child for ‘rule of law.’ The Letter is typical Nomenklatura bureaucratese, feigning interest in cooperation with Feingold, civil rights, etc. But there’s also a barely concealed gloating underlying tone in the formality. They know Feingold’s got nothing to work on. And he’s probably even more alone in the Senate than in 2008.

A long time ago we wrote about how unlikely Congress could prevail in re-asserting meaningful intelligence oversight. And that assumed Congress as a separate and co-equal branch of government re-discovered itself.

Congress failed all of us at the beginning. With PATRIOT ACT (and blowing past its sunsets), with each subsequent compromise and a decade of Duma-like timidity. One or even a handful of Senators can’t revive an entire institution, let alone the other body.

We are all of us like the people in our short story in the link above, prey for what was once supposed to guard. Now that Obama normalized and put his bi-partisan (albeit of the Kenyan, socialist, KGB mole variety) imprimatur on Cheney’s excesses, we don’t foresee rollback in our lifetime.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Stasi Surveillance State’s Local Deal Of The Day

And you thought Groupon, Living Social and Google stalked you.

Local, state and federal entities in 2011 served wireless carriers over 1.3 million demands for subscriber information. Note “over” 1.3 million. No one has accurate records. Or can explain how the information was used.

The 1.3 million number is farcically low. Sprint alone said it responded to 500,000 subpoenas in 2011, and each subpoena typically demanded information on more than one subscriber. Do the math. Want more? Governments demand (and get) *total* data dumps from entire cell towers for a period of time. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of subscribers’ information swept into government hands *each time*.

FBI, Surveillance, Warrantless Surveillance, cellular data, geo location

Is it legal? No one’s really sure. Carriers often require warrants. Or subpoenas. Or they comply without formalities, agreeing to governments’ burgeoning declarations of emergency. Digital information doesn’t easily fit in old analog legal frameworks. Thus, carriers are coming forward asking Congress to clarify the rules. And cover their expenses.

We’ve discussed here our experiences representing carriers during CALEA negotiations and implementation. Then as now carriers in public go through the motions respecting customer privacy. During CALEA, there was a tribal defense of the ‘cage’ from FBI intrusion. Still, carriers and equipment vendors’ real concern was — and is now – controlling their costs and getting reimbursement.

Increased government reliance on surveilling wireless data is not merely to exploit murky legality. Government and carriers both know that mobile users increasingly use their phones just for data, email, SMS, web, etc. Actual voice traffic is decreasing or is part of a digital app (Google Talk, etc.). Carriers say they soon will offer data only plans.

Seen in this light, Congress’ geo-location bills – the Geolocation, Privacy and Surveillance Act – are merely a start. (They provide useful limits on data use and require probable cause). These bills also focus on a tree and miss the forest.

What are digital realities in a mobile computing universe? Our data increasingly is in the cloud, stored precisely where? Phones are computers, now with quad cores and 1 and 2 gigabytes of RAM. For example, over a decade ago the Bureau began using roving bugs, cell phone microphones as remote wiretaps. Those implications — of old technology and notions of ‘wiretapping’, when people thought of cell phones as analog phones — are still not widely understood by the public. Activating cameras and recording? Already done, by government and even contractors. Cameras are now ubiquitous in your home, from tablets to PCs/Macs to er, mobile phones.

Fast forward to today. Much of the information government seeks from cellular carriers also exists elsewhere in the cloud – including old fashioned voice conversations. Our information is no longer in one place or even stored on your mobile computer-phone. What rules govern government access to our third party-held cloud data?

Geo-location abuses above are galling but no surprise. It’s depressing that Markey claims he is ‘stunned’. Geo-location legislation would be welcome even if incomplete and missing the point. The advent of mobile cloud based computing means we must re-structre completely law enforcement and National Security Nomenklatura’s role. It’d be nice if Congress found the will to use geo-location to begin the long walk out of the Bush/Obama surveillance night.

Can the Duma be counted on? Doubtful. Minorities, especially in the House, have almost zero agenda-setting power. Even as Chair Markey’s track record in the House is uneven, although his knack for publicity is undeniable.

Is it even Congress’ fault? Facebook and thousands of others teach us privacy is a transactional commodity. Americans daily click away their GPS data without thinking for restaurant deals and spa discounts. Nomenklatura abuses are abstract and complicated. Easier to tune out and return to Angry Birds (which also surveils us screen swipe by swipe).

Does location tracking really bother you? Tell the truth.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The Baroque Incentives Of A President Addicted To Dealing Death

Overtly covert wars and drone assassinations happen because Obama and his unremarkable White House national security staff want them. Obama’s fulsome embrace of tactical expediency only accelerates degeneration of American strategic thinking into compartmentalized, impulsive, unconnected random spasms of violence.

Ignatius repackages known struggles within the U.S. Islamabad embassy over who controls U.S. drone war in Pakistan, the ambassador or CIA? (Ignatius adds a morsel that St. David Petraeus is cross).

Drone War, Obama
Bureaucratically, ambassadorial struggles for policy control are not unprecedented. State overall has been fending off encroachment on ambassadorial authority for a long time. Rummy pushed DoD assassination teams into embassies who expressly were exempt from ambassadorial oversight. Earlier, even Commerce and FBI drove wedges. Managing an embassy now is far more demanding for any ambassador than just 20 years ago. Without the drones.

In Pakistan’s case, the ambassador’s attempt to control policy predestined to fail. He didn’t understand Obama court political realities. Obama faces domestic gridlock. (Much of it his own doing). Foreign policy and especially ‘covert’ action are his release. The ambassador really contested Obama’s authority and the one sphere of presidential positive feedback.

Foreign policy as mentioned here recently is the preferred refuge for domestically stymied presidents. CIA, CTC and DoD covert militarism cater to Obama’s frustration and proclivity for judging others. They tease and often deliver instant gratification: ‘results’ (aka death), action, baseball cards, full motion video and alleged secrecy. Approving who lives or dies? Doesn’t get any judgier.

Per the NYT it requires a veritable death bureaucracy, faceless GS and super grades, to feed the Addict-In-Chief. The death apparatchiks routinely offer candidates like discussing draft picks in ‘Moneyball’. The rot is deep. Think about this the next time someone suggests watching ‘Conspiracy’. Obama insists on bringing the Cesarian thumbs up/down into the Oval Office. Is it really noble sacrifice to control the otherwise out-of-control system? Then why the leaks bragging about it all?

It’s a compartmentalized program, except spread very far and with direct presidential patronage. The secrecy, insularity and reward mechanisms (presidential approval, a ‘good kill’) create an alternate reality, smug, aloof and at odds with those not read in (let alone ‘Consensual Reality’).

Into this disposal, the ambassador in Pakistan stuck his hand. Others control the switch. Only a poor poker player challenges Obama to abandon his one area of seeming control and instant kicks for what? Prolix cables back to Foggy Bottom? More complexity and frustration with brown people far away?

State’s failure in Pakistan is part of a wider pattern. Lack of strategic coherence is in some ways unavoidable. Institutions of all types erode and dissolve into digital ADD across American society. Tactical impulsiveness commands media, corporations and individuals. Why should foreign policy be any different? Compartmentalized thinking and operations are perfectly suited for a fractured age.

Crafting and implementing enduring, strategically rational architectures perhaps was easier under the old monoculture. No one can deny contemporary American inability to govern domestically. Still, it’s not that we are powerless even so. The root enabler of American imbalance abroad — and Obama’s personal mechanism of death — are the budgets we craft here at home. DoD and the Community must be pared down from their wartime extravagances. Eliminating the gross resource imbalance at least makes a more coordinated, recalibrated strategic posture likely. And State restored to a modestly functioning role.

One unanswered question is would Weberian bureaucratic logic compel any president in these circumstances to pursue similar activities — regardless of character?

All we know is this president isn’t interested in trying to find out.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Droning On And On: Obama, Alone

The Times’ piece on the drone assassination program reveals depressing and all too predictably sordid details about the routinization of murder 2009-2012. We also see another glimpse of Obama the political actor.

Sure, he’s exposed (again) as politically expedient, hiding his actual intent and practice behind empty rhetoric. He thinks he’s clever enough to fool us (the rubes) with vague slogans and govern otherwise. We’ve all known that about him. If you read this blog, since 2007 in fact.

Obama, Drones, Assassination

We once again see Obama needing to be ‘the decider’. He alone will sign off on specific assassinations (‘that was an easy one’). Most world leaders work hard not to have their finger prints on murder. Obama’s compulsions ensure the paper trail leads to the Oval Office. Perhaps we will be told Obama nobly sacrificed his ethics, values and country’s moral compass to forestall a coup by the military-intelligence-contractor complex.

The Times casually notes Obama prefers controlling bureaucratic process to working with Congress and passing legislation. He’s not unique; many presidents find Commander in Chief duties more enjoyable for that reason. Obama’s fixation on laborious (dubiously useful) arms control conversations with Medvedev another case in point.

Nonetheless, Obama’s abdication of the presidency as a political responsibility is unusual. He seems to have two preferred roles: campaign rhetoric guy and the decider. His post-partisan conceit lacks room to be leader of a political party or architect of domestic agendas. Thus he really couldn’t be bothered to respond to the Tea Party’s rise in 2009-10 or care if he lost the House. How ironic that the most ‘socially networked’ presidency in fact eschews political engagement when it matters.

No enrolling domestic vision or transformative legislation is ever achieved by Obama’s ‘decider’ model. Politics is people and people don’t usually cotton to someone insisting they’re always the final (and smarter) arbiter. Politics in the end is not about detached judging of others. The truth is out there for Obama to see. How many genuine friends and full throated supporters does he have now at his side?

He asks for four more years to decide things for us. Four more years of condescension. Four more years of palsied politics and empty rhetoric. Unanswered by the Times piece – where does Obama think he will take targeted assassination in four years? And when will it all come home to roost?

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Wikileaks And Stratfor Reveal An American Fantasy

The remarkable thing about the Stratfor Wikileaks flap is what it says about America 2001-2011. A hyper-militarized society conditioned to fear the outside world, prostrate itself before ‘the warfighter’ and venerate the clandestine inevitably would create a Stratfor-like entity.

This is exactly why places like The Atlantic get it precisely wrong. Here, the The Atlantic smugly assures us, the -in-the-know-Atlantic-reader, that George Friedman and others (some of whom the Stiftung knows) built a fairly significant cash flow from nothing based purely on ‘marketing.’

Something more than ‘marketing’ is revealed by Stratfor’s significant cash flow. (Friedman after all makes more money than Newsweek/TheDailyBeast. We’d be interested in seeing The Atlantic’s numbers). Corporate intelligence subscription newsletters have catered to Wall Street and executives for decades. Still, Friedman’s achievement building a business from nothing to today’s enterprise is a fact.

How did it start?

[Read more...]

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Whatever You Do, Don’t Tweet About This: Intelligence Community Wants To Monitor Social Media

Large standing military and security forces have troubled ruling regimes from the dimmest tribal pasts down to today. Governing ideology doesn’t matter: totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist, Mao-ist or American corporatist democracy/demotic – all rely on and are often threatened by these – in political science terms – ‘power institutions.’

FBI, Surveillance, National Security State

[Read more...]

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Tinker, Tailor, CSI – An Adequate Remake

The 2011 cinematic version of Le Carre’s finest novel, Tinker, Tailor is a competent procedural that manages to tell the story of a 1970s British mole hunt with diligent attention to period atmosphere. Those unfamiliar with the book or lyrically accurate and evocative 1970s BBC mini-series with Alec Guiness likely will find the movie fine entertainment.

Tinker, Tailor On Auto Tune

Both the book and BBC series at heart are about layers of betrayal: to colleagues, to institutions, to ‘set’ or social caste, to spouses, to country and ultimately disappointed life entitlement. It’s no accident the BBC series’ credits roll with Oxford spires and a choral lament. That is the alpha and omega of the story. None of that is in the movie. And thus we are left with something less.

The movie also misses a key character. 1970s Britain. Swedish director Tomas Alfredson works overtime to pull the viewer into his re-created 1970s world. Shot after shot lingers on mini-skirted extras, 1970s furniture rejected by “Mad Men” as not innocently 60′s enough, period wall paper in the background and lots of 1970s cars. The film chromatic scale even seeks to lure the viewer in. Yet it’s a manufactured strain that still can’t capture what the BBC cameras did effortlessly — London (and Oxford) as imperial detritus, floating on memory.

The screenplay invents some new scenes and omits others but like a good CSI or NCIS episode tells how a British mole burrowed to the aorta of British intelligence and turned it all into an arm of Moscow Center. When confronted after capture the movie’s mole declares his rationale “I made my mark.” Very 21st Century. In the book and BBC series, this scene is a complex fugue like crescendo of all the cascading betrayals.

The major theme? Young men working in intelligence during WW II, recruited from Oxford to rule the world themselves betrayed by fate. Their youthful expectations to preside over an empire invisibly now just a bitter joke in a world of American and Soviet preponderance. The movie doesn’t touch this but inserts serial betrayal as simply dastardly acts. Tinker, Tailor on Auto Tune.

Some changes are just odd. The original plot device to start the book and BBC series is a sabotaged covert mission to Warsaw Pact Czechoslovakia. The cat’s paw here was fake Soviet mobilization along the NATO border to trigger a crisis in London. For some reason, the movie puts this mission to Budapest and Hungary. Why? Soviet mobilization in Hungary? Even then. Puzzling, maybe, but yawn.

Perhaps modern audiences can’t conceive of Czechoslovakia as ferrin enough. After all, Czech super models adorn beaches from the Aegean, Dubai to the Hamptons. The whole “New Europe” thing? American BMD sites? Recently departed Vaclav Havel being so familiar for decades ? So . . . Hungary?

Ever Listen To A Band With Some Instruments Just *Slightly* Out Of Tune?

We felt the movie generally miscast but the acting solid and serving the truncated procedural format. Our new Smiley, as mole hunting protagonist, is stoic and purposeful, with hesitancy intended to show character. Gone is the apparently befuddled, genuinely uncertain (about Ann and many things) Smiley, quiet but with intellectual stride. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon from Batman to you kool kidz, said he modeled his take on Le Carre himself.

Oldman in one or two shots is shown to act physically weak. That’s age but not character. Oldman’s Smiley vehemently confronts Lacon and The Minister that they’ve been duped by The Mole, etc. Oldman’s viscerally assertive, combative and unabashedly confrontational. The anti-Smiley. On all counts. But exactly what a 127 minute procedural format requires.

The rest of the major cast are too young to be men of WW II now in the 1970s. John Hurt, playing Control, rips off his earlier portrayal of Chancellor Sutler from “V for Vendetta”. (We did think about a chest burster but that’s just us). His Control is a alcoholic who likes to socialize with the staff. The movie abandons Control’s journey of quietly frantic desperation to fend off an internal coup. That would have been more valuable than the fabricated scenes of his drinking and carousing.

Similarly, we thought fabricated scenes of violence gratuitous. They seemed tacked on to remind today’s audience that “THE SOVIETS ARE MEAN.” Maybe that was the smart thing to do.

The Bill Haydon and Jim Prideaux cast in the movie are improbable urchins. Both actors are fine, but there’s no way in hell that Prideaux, the spy betrayed in Czechoslovakia Hungary was “Old Circus” – i.e. an institutional legend, whose stature in fall would topple Control from his throne. This Prideaux looks like the guy you see when you walk by Charles Schwab who welcomes new customers. Haydon, too. Far too young to be the foundational superstar. The movie’s Haydon plays the louche well but simply lacks the internal, instinctive Christ Church hauteur essential to his Miltonian Fall. And without that, all you have “I made a mark.”

A few minor quibbles with supporting roles. Toby and Bland get so little screen time their performances don’t register much. Greatly missing, however, is Toby’s unctuous superciliousness. Ricki Tarr comes across as a petulant tennis coach. His time on screen outsized given sacrifices forced on other characters in the screenplay.

Percy in this movie is a complete fumble. YMMV. And Peter Guillam? What’s with that?

Lacon, the permanent career intelligence functionary is reduced on screen to a quasi- accountant/minder (who plays squash). Gone are his estate, the foundation of his knighthood and pre-occupation with order and appearance. Again missing are motivations and impulses driven from entitlement and prestige. Perhaps this is surgical precision here – if that overarching theme is absent why provide Lacon the buttressing details?

All in all, the audience appeared to enjoy the movie a great deal. If Smiley here is not quite Horatio Cane or Gibbs he still wraps up the puzzle nicely in 127 minutes (and is shown at close assuming Control’s throne (again out of character) triumphantly). We give it a good 3 Leos out of 5. Those less immersed in the BBC series or book may rate it higher.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Great Moments In HBGary’s Pwnage Pt. 1

(Presented without comment)

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

NIEs On Pakistan And Afghanistan: Same As It Ever Was

NIEs contradict DoD and CENTCOM’s optimistic spin in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nothing will change.

Political-military tectonic plates are locked for another decade of war. The only viable possibility to change this outcome would be a possible external shock. One example? Foreign debt penalties imposed for U.S. fiscal recklessness. Otherwise, it’s done. As for granular merits themselves, George Carver could have taught these new kids on the block a thing or two about his dealings with MACV. Yeah.

Plus, let’s face it. NIEs ain’t what they used to be. In the dimly remembered B.C. (Before Cheney) era, the intelligence product cycle produced a res, a thing, a report, an appraisal, fact, etc. to assist policy makers to choose wisely. The distinction between intelligence and policy used to be — or at least said to be — sacrosanct. Dick Helms and his predecessors often left the room after delivering their assessments to underscore that intelligence was separate from policy-making.

NIEs as the Community consensus were accorded special deference in this regard. Unlike Tenet’s lurid parody in 2002 they’re usually fairly dry documents, deliberately not designed for talking points or AgitProp. In fact, the high art of a true NIE is to parse phrases and verbiage so that no matter what happens, the NIE predicted/warned/advised/suggested. Savage battles might be fought over a footnote. The final document would be a work of bureaucratic zen.

2 years A.C. (After Cheney) and of course all of that is now quaint. Not just NIEs are different. So is the Community. It’s politicized and radicalized in ways it doesn’t even realize, like the proverbial frog in water raised degree by degree. The ramifications cascade down from the NIE-level to day-to-day matters. Few are left from B.C. and the DO’s ranks at the Agency already depleted before then. Today’s remaining survivors (that didn’t badge flip) are obviously still affected – one way or another – by Cheney’s war of annihilation. Who wouldn’t be? Down the line, the new, larger cohorts obviously reflect dilution/diminishment. The realities are struggles for mission, budget and prestige in a still unsettled DNI world. And give them some slack: the intelligence ‘consumers’ are a sorrier lot, especially in the Duma.

President Goldilocks chose the mushy path of middling escalation. That’s his policy choice. He made this situation inevitable. He declared our Gordian Knot cut with an 18 month escalation and drawdown. Absurd at the time. This is how the Stiftung described it:

Obama it seems increasingly clear will embrace his inner Goldilocks Paradigm and cave to the tragically inappropriate and misguided COIN meme peddlers. He will festoon his surrender to CENTCOM manipulation with a compromise troop number and — as we noted before — the political optics of a more agile, pervasive global counter-terrorism focus. But his imprimatur will transform this needless exercise in political expediency into a policy that will echo for decades and only further radicalize and cohere the very anti-Americanism it seeks to ‘pacify’ locally and for jihadists elsewhere.

Recall Kagan rejoiced at success getting Obama to escalate. They (proponents of war) just needed Obama to get some skin in the game. Once he escalated he would be trapped their way.

Obama engendered cynicism runs deep. His fake deadlines and goals barely get mentioned anymore. How easily Petraeus et al. steered Obama and the country into 2015. New post-2008 CENTCOM military construction continues across the Middle East. People know by now how little Obama’s declarations mean. His cynicism. His war.

God help us.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS