| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Robert Baer - The Intelligence War |
| 2004-04-30 |
| This is an OpEd from WSJ.com, posted 4/27. The link died, so here is the full text, but it’s not too long. To understand the state of U.S. intelligence before Sept. 11, read the now famous declassified Presidential Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001. As you read, though, keep in mind that when it comes to finished intelligence, PDBs are the crown jewels. They meld the best information from the CIA’s clandestine sources, our embassies all over the world, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and every other federal agency with a possible input. Like crown jewels, too, they are protected to within an inch of their lives. In all my years in the CIA, I never once was given access to a PDB, and I was by far the rule, not the exception. Compartmentation rules forbid it. Sources and methods are too valuable. The Aug. 6, 2001, PDB, in short, represents the very best intelligence we then had on Osama bin Ladin and his plans. So how good was it? In fact, pretty awful. The first item in the PDB refers the president to two interviews that Osama bin Ladin gave to American TV in 1997 and 1998. In the interviews, bin Ladin promises to "bring the fighting to America," following "the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef." As it turns out, bin Ladin was telling the truth, but that’s not the point. In intelligence documents as in corporate reports and the evening news, the best stuff goes up top, and in this case the best was cribbed straight from the boob tube. How about items two and three? The information in both relates to bin Ladin’s intention to attack the U.S., but it is from "liaison services"--i.e. foreign governments. We now know from leaks what those liaison services were, but we don’t know the provenance of the information. Was our friendly liaison reading it in the local paper? Was it fabricating, as happened with the Italians and the Niger yellow cake that was supposedly going to Saddam Hussein? The CIA rule used to be that you never ever trust liaison reporting unless you can confirm it with your own sources. Imagine The Wall Street Journal relying on Mad magazine for its investigative sourcing, and you’ll see just where such sloppy vetting can lead. Not until three-quarters of the way through the PDB do we finally get to our own intelligence: a clandestine source who reported directly to a U.S. official that "a bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks." Why bury this seemingly valuable nugget? Perhaps because our own source was dead wrong. Sept. 11 was planned and organized in Afghanistan and Germany. The 19 hijackers found their own way here and relied on their own funds. Support inside the U.S. came from unwitting contacts. No American Muslim was recruited to help the hijackers. What’s in the PDB is damning enough, but to me, maybe the most alarming part is what’s not there. In the entire document--this crown jewel of intelligence--there isn’t a single mention of Saudi Arabia, the real Ground Zero of 9/11. Apparently, we had no idea suicide bombers were being recruited there or that cash was being raised for an attack on America. Today, we’re told that things are better. The CIA is getting more money, better recruits, and more support from our allies, especially from Saudi Arabia. But I wonder. There still hasn’t been an indictment to come out of the Kingdom related to 9/11. Either Riyadh doesn’t know who recruited the 15 hijackers and paid for 9/11, or it doesn’t want to tell us. (You’ll notice the 9/11 Commission tiptoed around the subject of Saudi Arabia. That’s like investigating Lincoln’s assassination without dipping into the Civil War.) In his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, CIA director George Tenet--the most candid of any of the witnesses, by the way--said we need five more years to catch up. I think he’s optimistic. It takes a generation to build an effective clandestine service. In the meantime, we have no choice but to rely on the Saudis to tell us whether we need to worry about all the killing going on in the Kingdom, whether it really has the petroleum reserves it claims to have, and a lot of other issues vital to our national security. Personally, I would like to have my own source to tell me what’s happening inside the Kingdom’s fire-breathing mosques. That’s the only way we’re going to find out if more young Saudis are being recruited and money raised for another 9/11. Until then, we’re flying blind not just on Osama bin Ladin but on Islamic extremism throughout the Arab world and our own. That’s the opposite of intelligence. Mr. Baer is a former CIA officer with the Directorate of Operations |
| Posted by:John |
| #2 FYI: Good intelligence is built on time, money and blood. The more of two that you have, the less you need of the remaining one. Reagan wisely put in money and time in large amounts. Bush I cut some of the money and time and traded off for blood in GWI (That and listened to state department weenies). Clinton threw away the time (experience), and chopped the money, leaving us only blood to pay with. Which we have done starting with 9/11. The current President is throwing money and blood into the mix, since he has no time left to spend (we threw it awy int he 1990's). My only problem is that Rumsfeld and Congress are trying to still go cheap on the money: deploying less troops, not raising an additional active duty division, using Humvees instead of armor, etc, all of which add up to us having to to pay more in blood. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-30 1:15:40 PM |
| #1 He knows what he is talking about. Our "play nice" policies under the adminstation from 1992 to 2000 destroyed a lot of capacity for intelligence gathering. And worse, it destroyed the kind of ground-laying operatives that are imperative for re-establishment of effective operations in many sectors. Relying on non-intrustive measures, third party, and lobbing cruise missles is no way to conduct operations. Except if you are risk averse, ignroant and do not like or trust the Armed Forces and Intelligence Services of the US. And THAT was the biggest mistake of all that the CLintons made: they didnt liek or trust the military or intelligence. The former they used as a social experimentation group (integrated boot camps, ets) and abused as police (turning war fighters into peace keepers is the best way to destroy fighting capability), and the latter the hobbled with operational restrictions, crippled by encasing in vertical chains of command subdividing agencies further ("divide and conquer"), and withering away by chopping budget and legal authority for any in-situ operational personnel. We are paying the price for the neglect and abuse of the Clinton years. Only instead of dollars, now we are paying the dues in the blood of US service members. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-30 1:10:51 PM |