| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| For those who missed it yesterday - Iran harboring al-Qaeda leadership |
| 2006-03-22 |
| The full text of the article is available yesterday, but I just wanted to make a couple of points. The first is that the US doesn't appear to have any clue as to what's going on in Iran HUMINT-wise, which in addition to being worrisome for anyone in favor of airstrikes, makes it extremely difficult to just pooh-pooh this stuff. The SIGINT says that the senior al-Qaeda leaders can still move and communicate - 3 years after Saif al-Adel masterminded the Riyadh bombings. The fact that the ranking Democrat on the House IR subcommittee devoted to terrorism says that intelligence indicates that the Iranians are in collaboration with al-Qaeda is rather telling in and of itself. The article describes Abu Khayr as "the head of Al Qaeda's leadership council," which may indicate that we should probably move him up the food chain. Abdel Aziz al-Masri is named as "a biological weapons expert who heads the network's effort to develop weapons of mass destruction," so I'm assuming that he's Abu Khabab's replacement as the head of the WMD committee. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #25 You had to be warned, Frank? Now I am shocked. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-22 22:06 |
| #24 reminds me of the warning not to eat cheetos and read playboy... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-22 20:11 |
| #23 Pappy: You forget one thing. They're _stupid_. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-03-22 19:37 |
| #22 Is this a sound critique of these types of articles or ranting from a jaded news consumer? I'll go with the former, DG. Sort of. It's a symbiotic relationship. Do I think the sources have an agenda? Yes, most times. Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a 'keep the lines open' action so that the 'reliable source' can, at times, feed misinformation or targeted-information. Do I think the LAT or any other media would print names? No, not if they want to keep getting information. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-03-22 19:29 |
| #21 Now that's an evisceration, lol! Well done! |
| Posted by: Creater Crater3500 2006-03-22 13:10 |
| #20 I will refrain from my copy and paste “schtick”, as described yesterday, and ask a few questions regarding this article instead. What is an “official”? Am I to assume they get a government paycheck? And if so, in what capacity do these officials represent the government? Because it is the “LA Times” am I to assume these officials actually exist and if so, do they know what they’re talking about? Because they wish to remain anonymous should I assume they’re on the up-and-up or is it reasonable to think they may have an agenda? If the information is legitimate and in light of the climate surrounding Iranian nuclear ambitions why aren’t these officials willing to assign their names to these allegations? Should I assume the information is coming from reliable intelligence or is it from people or groups that have an agenda themselves? Is this a sound critique of these types of articles or ranting from a jaded news consumer? I accept the necessity for un-sourced news from both the source and the journalist’s perspective. But if you remove all the recycled speculation attributed to anonymous sources from this article what do you get. One actual current quote that is itself speculation. But hey…it’s the LA Times bayybee! This article will be picked up and reprinted as actual current news in powerhouse papers like “Iranfocus”. Apologies for extended rant. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-03-22 13:02 |
| #19 That's what inspired my comment. Cheetos are great while waiting for the next comment to show up, but you need wet paper towels to clean your fingers or the keyboard gets all gummy and ucky. I could switch to something healthy and less uckifying, like Trisket, but they taste like shit. There's a Paul Hogan line in there somewhere... :) |
| Posted by: Creater Crater3500 2006-03-22 12:52 |
| #18 I'ma fiend for reading the ingredients of all premium quality salty snack food items. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-22 12:48 |
| #17 Ever read the back of a bag of Cheetos, 6? :) |
| Posted by: Creater Crater3500 2006-03-22 12:47 |
| #16 You're all dangerously cheesy and snarky. Safer not to comment. Sorry. :> |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-22 12:44 |
| #15 Aye, Captain, let's hit 'em tomorrow. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-22 12:34 |
| #14 A very close friend of mine was the HUMINT collections manager for USEUCOM for a few years. It was a Major slot filled by an Air Force Master Sergeant (E-7). Most of what he did was highly classified. One of the most unheralded aspects of the end of the Cold War was the number of people that showed up at Stuttgart and said "I was your agent at XXXXXXXX". Covert human intelligence has many ups and downs. You may never know if an agent has been "turned" - discovered and forced to work for the other side. You may not be able to correlate a report with any other type of intelligence, making it suspect. You may have an agent right where you want him/her, but that agent doesn't have the intelligence or training to provide technical details of what he/she sees. It's a dangerous job that provides only one type of intelligence that must be corroberated by others in order to be useful. I'm both surprised and grateful that we get as much useful information as we do. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-03-22 12:33 |
| #13 It's the same tired shit we went through with Iraq. Intelligence, SIGINT or HUMINT, is not going to be entirely conclusive. Particularly since the CIA has no direct activity on the ground, we are dependent on resistance third-party intelligence gathering. The MSM will judge these sources according to their own predetermined perspective as to whether or not they are credible. It all comes down to judgment and probability. My personal judgment is that Al Qaeda is running operations from Iran and has furnished Zarqawi with safe haven for years. Moreover, the longer we wait to kick the door down, the longer the Moolahs have to counteract our efforts through more sophisticated methods. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-22 11:32 |
| #12 conflating farting with drunkenness, now thats cheezy. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-22 11:19 |
| #11 too indoxicated to notice I'd say. DRUNKENESS IS WHEN YOU FEEL SOPHISTICATED, BUT CAN'T SPELL IT. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-22 10:56 |
| #10 2b? |
| Posted by: Creater Crater3500 2006-03-22 10:51 |
| #9 Was I useless, 2b? |
| Posted by: Creater Crater3500 2006-03-22 10:44 |
| #8 I'd answer it's HUMan INTelligence, but I don't trust you guys. You're all dangerously cheesy and snarky. Safer not to comment. Sorry. not to feed a useless troll, but .... then why did you comment? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-22 10:41 |
| #7 HUMINT fall into two basic realms, that being COVERT and OVERT. OVERT, you break wind in room full of people, everyone notices but no one can identify the source. COVERT, you break wind in a room full of people, you know you broke wind, but everyone else in the room is too indoxicated to notice. |
| Posted by: Sheaper Glererong6638 2006-03-22 10:02 |
| #6 Don't we have a lot of folks who came from Iran and tell us where they have been digging for the last 5 years ? I think we get some very well informed who oppose the MMs and spill everything they know. Isn't it possible that some of them can contact relatives in Iran who are on the inside ? We may know all there is about Iran. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-22 09:27 |
| #5 "Human Intelligence" ie boots on the ground, spies and their handlers, etc. SIGINT is "Signals Intelligence" ie communications intercepts, satellite surveillance, etc. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-03-22 09:08 |
| #4 I'd answer it's HUMan INTelligence, but I don't trust you guys. You're all dangerously cheesy and snarky. Safer not to comment. Sorry. |
| Posted by: Creater Crater3500 2006-03-22 09:06 |
| #3 What's HUMINT ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-22 09:04 |
| #2 Dan is, I think, being a little bit unfair to the US Intel community. While it is true that we don't have definitive data on what Iran's leadership is up to or what their logistical arrangements are with Al Q at any given time, this does not mean that we have no HUMINT. Having HUMINT does not guarantee perfect knowledge, it does not even guarantee good knowledge. In Iran, as in many other countries, the various departments, security services, councils and individuals each have their own game where they are lying to each other or conniving with each other or moving assets around to make a point. Yes, having HUMINT is better than not having HUMINT. But the payoff for having HUMINT is difficult to quantify and even after the fact it is not clear what the impact of the HUMINT was. East Germany had excellent penetration of W Germany's security offices. It didn't do them much good in the end. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-03-22 08:16 |
| #1 thanks for the inline Dan. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-22 01:59 |