Dirty counter-terrorism

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a fascinating—and chilling—2006 Atlantic article by Matthew Teague about the world of terrorists and double-agents. The specific setting is the British counter-war against the IRA. But the situation it describes is relevant to our own war with Islamicist terrorism.

The article was mentioned by “James Drake” in a comment made on my post about the murder of the CIA operatives by a double agent in Afghanistan. The CIA officers in Afghanistan appear to have shown a very unfortunate laxity about following the usual security precautions against double agents.

Compare and contrast, if you will, to the attitude of the British described in the IRA article. They showed a hardness bordering on amorality, one that raises many deep and troubling ethical questions. How far to the dark side is it necessary to go in order to eliminate a greater darkness? At what point can we say that we have become so like the enemy that the two are barely distinguishable?

Once you read the piece, you will understand that all our furor over something as relatively mild as waterboarding is almost comical in comparison. Here’s an excerpt (the man known as “Fulton” is a double agent working for the British against the IRA):

Each night Fulton rocked himself to sleep repeating the mantra his handlers had given him: “The greater good. The greater good. The greater good.” He and [another double agent] engaged in a difficult mathematics, a calculus of souls. If a man kills thirty people to save 3,000, has he done right? What about thirty for 300? Or thirty for thirty-one?

At one point I asked Fulton whether, in light of the human toll he would exact in the course of his career, someone could have served the greater good by killing him as a young man. I meant the question to be rhetorical. But Fulton just nodded.

“Yes,” he said.

I don’t know whether Fulton was correct in his answer. But I certainly understand the question. Winning a war requires making extraordinarily tough choices among a host of profoundly dreadful alternatives, trying to find the least bad one, and Fulton was the agent of some terrible things. I also understand that, if the article indicates the sort of ruthlessness and hardness we need to win this fight, we’re in big trouble.

[NOTE: This post reminded me of the quote usually attributed to George Orwell: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” The idea is true, but the quote may not be his; here’s Wiki on that score:

* Alternative: “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”
* In his 1945 “Notes on Nationalism”, Orwell claimed that the statement, “Those who ”˜abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf” was a “grossly obvious” fact. “Notes on Nationalism”
* Notes: allegedly said by George Orwell although there is no evidence that Orwell ever wrote or uttered either of these versions of this idea. They do bear some similarity to comments made in an essay that Orwell wrote on Rudyard Kipling, when quoting from one of his poems. Orwell did write, in his essay on Kipling, that the latter’s “grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.” (1942)
o “Yes, making mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep” – Rudyard Kipling (Tommy)
o “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.” – Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men)
* Alternative: “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” – Winston Churchill (miscellaneous quotation, no date)

In the case of the double agents in the Teague article, those “rough men” sometimes inflicted violence on the innocent as well, as part of the fight to eliminate terrorists who would inflict even greater harm on the innocent.]

About those Brown/Coakley polls

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I wrote about the wide disparity in poll results for next week’s special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat. I wanted to add this link, which attempts to explain some of the differences between the polls, as well as this one. The gist of both is that the Globe poll, which found Coakley ahead by so much, under-sampled Independents and also reported them as far more pro-Coakley than any other poll has indicated.

What’s more important than any poll, however, is the fact that polls are not going to tell us much in this particular race. First of all, it is exceptionally fast-moving; Scott Brown was practically unknown a couple of weeks ago and now he’s “gone viral.” Weather will matter. Motivation will matter even more; all indications are that Brown’s supporters are far more driven than Coakley’s, but will it be enough? And then there’s the little issue of election fraud and machine politics.

If Brown loses but still makes a good showing, it will have national repercussions on other Democrats who will be running for office soon; it might focus their minds a bit more, as does a hanging. I want Brown to win, of course. I think it’s an uphill battle, but possible. But I make no other predictions, except that Tuesday, January 19, should be “interesting.”

Dueling polls

The New Neo Posted on by

So, which Brown/Coakley poll is closer to reality?

This one, which says the Massachusetts Senate race is a dead heat?

Or this one, which has Coakley up by 15?

Dunno. However, the all-important details of the demographics of the second poll (such as how many of each party were sampled) remain a mystery. Both are being reported by pro-Democratic sites, and both involved randomly selected “likely voters.”

The poll that shows the race as a dead heat reported its sampling. Here are the percentages:

Obama voters: 54
McCain voters: 38

That sure says something. As does this:

Democrats: 44
Republicans: 17
Independents/Other: 30

And even in the poll showing Coakley way ahead, there are signs of possible trouble for her. It was taken on January 2-6, and if most of the questioning was done closer to January 2, that was before the main push for Brown really began. Up to 25% of those polled were undecided. And among respondents who said they were “extremely interested” in the race (the most likely voters of all), it was a dead heat.

Interesting.

Are Obama’s lies politics as usual?

The New Neo Posted on by

Most people now recognize that Obama has been lying about a lot of things. But it’s often said that’s just business as usual for politicians, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.

Blogger Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club, a writer with a keen mind and a graceful style, as well as more than his share of that rare commodity known as wisdom, has this to say on the subject:

An Election Promise is now almost synonymous with a Lie. Few voters believe that an election promise will actually be kept, but many vote according to what they are promised anyway…

But although the politician may lie, he may also be expected not to break his promises blatantly or obviously…Perhaps Barack Obama is perhaps the last gasp of nostalgia; the last hurrah for the Kennedyesque indulgence of electing someone for his charisma and personal beauty. Deep down in their hearts a considerable number of those who voted for Obama knew he would never conduct the health care negotiations on Cspan or even keep them safe. But there was something hypnotizing about the possibility of magic; something compelling about the prospect of getting something for nothing; something touching in the hope that if you truly, truly believed in hope and change from an associate of Tony Rezko and the Blag, that you would really get it.

I have deep respect for almost everything Fernandez writes, but this time I disagree with him, at least in part. Yes indeed, we’ve become very used to politicians telling lies. And yes, I suppose “a considerable number” of those who voted for Obama didn’t expect him to keep the promise about televising the deliberations on C-span. But I think an even more considerable number believed he would.

Here we’re not talking about a tangential or trivial lie, although the C-span promise may seem to be minor. But it went to the very heart of Obama’s attractiveness to voters, which was that he was a different sort of politician. The C-span promise was tied to a larger and more fundamental promise about being responsive to the people and actually listening to them, and well as allowing them to witness the deliberations of their government. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama never actually made the explicit pledge “I will never lie to you.” But it was implicit, and it was central to his appeal.

This was true especially for young people, who formed one of the demographics most responsible for Obama’s win. Young people may be cynical (although they tend not to be as jaded as their elders). But what cynicism they had most of them suspended in the case of Obama. One had only to look at their shining eyes to see how much they believed, and whether it was because of hypnosis or the “possiblity of magic”—still, they had real (if misplaced) faith in Obama’s openness and veracity.

So Obama’s lie was about who he fundamentally is in terms of honesty and openness. It was a lie about lying itself. I cannot recall another president who built his campaign so heavily on an important personal characteristic and then demonstrated the exact opposite so quickly, nakedly, and without apology. In sum: Obama lied about the most central fact of his character.

And then there’s the little matter of where Obama stands on the political spectrum. Many politicians tack left or right during a campaign as the situation demands. For example, they tend to be more extreme in the primaries because they are catering to their base, and then move to the center once nominated because they must now appeal to the country as a whole. Obama, however, was deceptive from start to finish about extent of his leftism, although the canny observer could look at his record and divine his true leanings. But most people did not do so.

It’s possible that other candidates would love to practice such a degree of deception, if it could get them elected. But most are precluded from it because (a) they have a longer and more well-known track record that can’t be hidden; and (b) the press would expose them. Obama, however, was able to get away with what he did because his record was shorter and more obscure, and because the MSM colluded with him in covering it up.

I submit that this is not business as usual. This is something sui generis in American politics. And this is something that everyone who’s paying attention—Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats (including idealistic liberals, and those who expected more of a voice in the political process)—can recognize and be angered by.

Draft Krauthammer in 2012—because the nation needs a shrink

The New Neo Posted on by

I noticed a commenter calling him/herself “KrauthammerIn2012,” and it got me thinking: hey, why not?

He’s smart. The fact that he’s a paraplegic doesn’t matter; we’ve had one (or close to one) for president before, and he did pretty well, according to a lot of people.

As for journalists—well, Churchill across the pond had been one, and I hear he did okay as Prime Minister.

We’ve never had a psychiatrist before. But I think the nation needs one. Especially in 2012, when we’ll be trying to pick up the pieces of the debacle caused by the previous president, and wondering how we could have been so stupid as to vote for him.

So, whaddya think? And my fellow psychobloggers, you might want to chime in on this one, too.

[NOTE: And speaking of psychiatrists and psychobloggers, my esteemed colleague Dr. Sanity is back.]

[ADDENDUM: Here’s an article with some interesting background on Krauthammer. It’s undated, but my guess is that it’s about twenty years old.]

How the states will be hurt by Obamacare

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s finally dawning on many states that Obamacare as currently constructed will place enormous extra burdens on them when they can least afford it.

And even Time magazine is now pointing out just how bad that will be, although it might have been nice to have had such an article before the vote in the Senate. But I guess that’s what all the secrecy was about—to do the dirty deed before anyone knew what was about to hit them.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger feels betrayed:

[Schwarzenegger] was one of the few prominent Republicans to favor the Obama health care reform effort. Now he is calling on Congress to “rethink it.” In a Dec. 22 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he wrote, “When asked for my support, I was assured that federal legislation would not increase costs to California.” Instead, a state with a $21 billion budget deficit is looking at what Schwarzenegger calls a “crushing new burden” of at least $3 billion a year.

How could Arnold ever have believed he could trust the promises of the likes of Nancy Pelosi? I suppose he thought she might actually care about the prospect of bankrupting her own state. More fool him.

[NOTE: Here’s a good summary article about the many ways in which this bill stinks. I’m not at all sure I agree with the last sentence, however, although I hope the author is correct.]

If elected, will Brown be seated—constitutional crisis, anyone?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is shocking news:

This needs to go viral ”” everyone you know needs to read this. Democrats have admitted to a scheme to ram through the Healthcare Rationing vote before Scott Brown can be sworn in as Senator, should he defeat his Democrat opponent on January 19th.

Paul Kirk, currently serving as interim Senator in Massachusetts, has declared that Brown, if he should be elected, will be delayed from any voting in Washington for as long as possible. Masssachusett’s Soros-funded Secretary of State, the corrupt William Galvin, has promised to do everything he can to stall the certification of Republican Brown “so that Democrats can pass the healthcare bill”.

But I suppose it shouldn’t be shocking. It has been clear for quite some time that we have a government that has lost sight of the idea of “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Power is all there is now: yes, they can.

But I wonder why the Democrats have seen fit to let out this information now. Even if they are planning such an action, why announce it at this point? Scott Brown hasn’t won, and chances are he won’t. So why let the people of Massachusetts (and the United States) know in what contempt the Democrats hold them? Why make it so clear that the will of the people does not matter, if that will happens to run counter to the plans of those in power?

Because, make no mistake about it: if Scott Brown were to be elected to the Senate from the state of Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue, it would be for the sole purpose of his vote against the health care reform bill. If the head honchos in Massachusetts were to refuse to seat him until that vote was taken, it would be for the sole purpose of thwarting the will of the people of their own state, and of the nation.

And they’ve let us know that’s their plan, even before it’s strictly necessary to do so. Why? For Massachusetts voters who might be on the fence, this ought to cause them to vote for Brown over Coakley, if only to stop this sort of naked power grab.

I’m remembering that Massachusetts was the proud site of the Boston Tea Party. The battle cry of that era was, “Taxation without representation is tyranny!” As it was then, so it is now.

[NOTE: Here’s Scott’s response, a call to arms to opponent Coakley:

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.”

Donate if you can. And please spread the word, especially to any voters you know in Massachusetts.]

[ADDENDUM: More. Still more. And here’s more about opponent Coakley and her involvement in keeping an innocent man in prison.]

Since when did the CIA stop frisking informants?

The New Neo Posted on by

As we learn more about the suicide bombing of CIA officers in Afghanistan, it seems that time-honored safety precautions were broken:

[The bomber] fed the agency honest-to-goodness actionable intelligence about jihadis to build up his credibility, to the point where he came to be regarded as their best asset in years. They looked the other way when he posted on jihadist online forums, accepting his assurances at face value that he was only saying what he was saying to fool the enemy ”” even though, of course, he wasn’t. Finally he told them that he had big news about Zawahiri, which drew a phalanx of CIA officers eager to land the biggest of the big fish. So eager, in fact, that he reportedly wasn’t given a polygraph before being taken to the base and was allowed to skip checkpoints before arriving at the rendezvous point.

This is every bit as shocking as the lapses that allowed the underwear bomber to get as far as he did. Actually, it’s a great deal more shocking, because this is the CIA in the field that we’re talking about, not a group of bureaucrats at computers in DC and a bunch of underpaid screeners at an airport.

It is axiomatic—even to laypeople—that in intelligence work, even if you’ve gotten some low-level information from an informant, that person might be setting you up and lulling you into a false sense of security, the better to betray you in the end. Yes, there has to be some sort of trust developed, but it must always be hedged with reservations. In other words, never fail to take the usual precautions and search for weapons. This rule was apparently violated. Another basic rule that was apparently violated is known as “don’t bunch up” (i.e. congregate in groups in the informant’s presence).

So, why might these rules have been broken? Perhaps the great excitement over the idea that the informant had information on a very big fish indeed—Zawahiri—caused the CIA operatives to let down their guard. Maybe there also was something about this particular informant, who was a well-educated Jordanian doctor, that engendered a sense of bonding and therefore trust (of course, Zawahiri is also a doctor, as have been no small number of other terrorists, as the CIA no doubt knows).

Although the Obama justice department has worried the CIA with threats of lawsuits over decisions made during the Bush administration about so-called “torture,” it’s hard to see how that could have impacted on this event, except to lead to a certain amount of demoralization.

But there’s another policy of the Obama administration that might have had an effect. Obama has been pushing the idea that, if we were just kinder and gentler in approaching other cultures and even potential enemies, they are more likely to be won over. This notion might have trickled down and influenced CIA policy in Afghanistan, with the goal of creating an atmosphere that would let this informant know he was trusted by dropping certain elementary security precautions.

When I heard the story, it reminded me somewhat of an event that occurred on September 9, 2001, the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Afghan leader of the anti-Taliban movement. In the aftermath of 9/11, that killing was widely regarded as a preparation for the WTC and Pentagon attacks two days later, and the US retaliation against Afghanistan that was likely to follow.

Why do I say it’s similar? The assassins, North Africans masquerading as journalists and cameramen, spent weeks near Massoud’s camp, pressing for an interview with him and apparently gaining the trust of some of his entourage. Massoud and his staff were veterans of many assassination attempts and were highly aware of the need for tight security. But for some unknown reason the two “journalists” were not subject to the usual measures when the time finally arrived for the interview:

But the security was surprisingly slack. No one searched the men or examined their video camera. Massoud, who had survived assassination attempts, asked the men only where they came from and how they got there.

Massoud paid with his life for this moment of laxness. The country of Afghanistan paid as well, since it is often thought that his presence as a highly respected and admired figure might have helped unite Afghans under his leadership.

We’ll never know. But Massoud’s death, as well as the more recent deaths of the CIA agents, teach us one thing, and that is that anyone in such a position must never let down his/her guard. It has often been said that in order to succeed, “We have to be lucky all the time — but they only need to get lucky once.” It’s true that luck sometimes has something to do with it. But so does skillful execution. In order to prevent them from getting “lucky,” we must follow the security rules stringently, with no exceptions.

[ADDENDUM: See also this (hat tip: Artfldgr).]

What’s behind the Cafferty tirade on CNN?

The New Neo Posted on by

Pigs fly, and liberal CNN pundit Jack Cafferty is very angry at Obama for breaking his campaign promise about health care debate transparency:

[See a transcript here.]

Not only is Cafferty unequivocal in calling Obama a liar, but he’s pretty blunt when he says, “Here’s hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.”

Cafferty has clearly had it right now with the Obama administration. But why is he going so far as to break ranks to say this? I don’t pretend to know, but here are my guesses:

(1) It’s not just that Obama lied, it’s the obviousness of the mendacity. There’s no wriggle room on this one; anyone who’s been paying any attention for the last two years knows it’s a bald-faced lie. And in addition, there’s been no explanation for it, and no excuses. The administration is simply ignoring the lie as though it doesn’t matter, and insulting the press in the bargain. This makes pundits who liked and supported Obama look foolish, and they don’t like to look that way. Thus, the anger—it’s personal now.

(2) I’m not familiar with Cafferty’s stand on health care reform, but my guess is that he may have wanted it to go much further than the current bill, and therefore is angry because that point of view will not be heard. Note that Cafferty begins this way:

How dare they? President Obama, Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal ”” that’s another word for secret ”” negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

The “public” that’s being shut out isn’t just the Republicans. If it had been, somehow I very much doubt that Cafferty would be speaking out against the process, despite the broken promises. But shutting out everyone else—including liberals and the press—well, “how dare they?” indeed!