By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on January 9, 2008 at 10:21 PM in Current Affairs
COMMENT BY LARRY JOHNSON. I have received some back channel emails from several friends–retired military and intelligence officers–who knew Charlie Wilson or worked on the Afghan Task Force in some form or fashion. Folks have different views and thoughts. Here’s a great piece from a dear friend who served with U.S. special operations forces and had a distinguished military career. This is his take.
Larry, OK, I’ve seen the film and the History Channel documentary, and I’ve read the Criles book, and as mentioned earlier I was involved in part of this.
As far as the movie goes, I liked it very much. It’s very well done and nicely captured the feeling of that period in time and the politics of the situation. I think there are some time compressions, and some things were deleted, but it’s still worthwhile. I particularly liked Tom Hanks as Charlie Wilson, except he made him smarter, funnier and more sympathetic than he actually was.
Now to the grisly details. After FBNC I finagled a job on the Army Staff. I’d been operating off the books for almost five years and with a new wife and two children, I needed to get back into the mainstream of the Army. Regreening it was called, and for those who’d served at FBNC for any length of time, at that time it was mandatory if you ever wanted to be promoted again. And I had decided I did. I was assigned to Strategy, Plans and Policy Division (or Directorate) as the Africa guy, but at that time I had absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan or anything else in Central Asia. I’d been there about four or five months when the XO came in my office and dropped the file on my desk. Until I opened it I had no idea anything of that nature was going on. The file dealt primarily with the STINGER xfers. Until I saw the documentary I had no knowledge of the arms buys from Egypt or how we’d been supporting the Muj to that point.
Within a week, ten days at most, the first major problem appeared. We had already sold STINGER Basic to the Pakistanis and they were having trouble with it. Soviet acft were crossing into Pakistani airspace in pursuit of the Muj and the Paks couldn’t hit them. Since STINGER was in the process of being fielded in our Army, and had never been tried in combat before the Paks started firing at Soviet border crossers, the credibility of the whole program was at stake and the Army had to respond to the Pak’s concerns.
A friend of mine named Jerry Fry, also on the Army Staff, was the Pakistan desk officer. Jerry had been Chief of the Army Section in the ODRP (the MILGROUP). He had some of the languages, knew the organization and personalities of the Pakistani Army, and because of his assignment on the ARSTAFF was the logical guy to pull together the response. He quickly put together what amounted to a STINGER MTT and flew to Pakistan to see what was wrong. He took with him several drones, a REDEYE, one or more STINGERs and a trained gunner. A demo was arranged at their air defense school (if memory serves it was on the coast~on the Arabian Sea) and in the hands of a competent operator it was quickly shown that there was nothing wrong with the missile. Subsequent investigation showed the problem was lack of training and maintenance, and an organizational problem in that the missiles (MANPADS-Man Portable Air Defense Systems) had been taken away from the Chief of Air Defense and given to the frontline corps commanders. Without a proponent the missiles quickly deteriorated and the gunners lost proficiency. The Pakistanis had just absorbed this lesson when the first shootdown in Afghanistan occurred. Engineer Captain somebody (I remembered his name as Abdullah, but in the documentary your friend Milt Bearden says his name was Jaffer or Gaffer. I’d go with Bearden. I wasn’t in theater at the time and didn’t hear about it for at least two days after it happened). At any rate he crept out into the airfield at Jalalabad (as I recall) and torched at least two Hinds. The movie shows three. I’m fine with that too. Any whole number is fine with me, but that shootdown demonstrated to our Congressional critics the system worked and had utility in that tactical environment, and I think it showed the Muj that we had given them a good weapons system. It also embarrassed the Pakistanis in that the Afghans could shoot down a Soviet plane, but they couldn’t.
Inspite of the positive jolt the first shootdowns gave all of us, there were still problems. The Muj hadn’t really mastered the system yet, and were very much inclined to fire out of range. In the early days if they could see it they’d shoot at it. The missile only had a slant range of 5-8 miles, and could be tricked by a snowbank or a brushfire. The solution to the first problem was provided by MG Donald Infante, then the boss at our Air Defense Center and School. Within a week or two he and his staff developed a simple template affair to be worn around the neck on a lanyard. It looked like a short ruler and had three or four different sized holes in it. When held at arms length each hole corresponded to one of the Soviet frontline acft. If the gunner could identify the type of acft he was looking at all he had to do was hold the template up to the sky and when the wings or the rotor blades touched both sides of the MiG-21 hole or the Hind hole it was in range.
The solution to the other problem(s) involved better training for the trainers. The facility designed to train MANPADS gunners was called a Moving Target Simulator, an instrumented dome-like affair that simulated various engagement scenarios likely to be faced by a gunner in a NATO environment. They cost about $1M apiece in 1985 dollars, and at the time I believe there were only three in the World, one in Germany, one somewhere in PACOM(?), and the one at Fort Bliss. Infante made the one at Bliss available to us to train the trainers. By day it was used by US students, but at night it was used by 5th Group and Agency guys to perfect their skills so they could train the Afghans.
I had to laugh when they introduced the Vickers character as their weapons expert. I frankly didn’t know there was an Afghan Working Group at Langley. I assumed somebody was managing it, but until I saw the documentary and read the Criles book I had no idea who. The way it really worked, we didn’t hear a squeak from them until they got in a jam and or didn’t know what they were doing. The Oerlikon business was a prime example. They didn’t know an Oerlikon from a Krupp coffee maker. All they knew about Oerlikons was what they read in the manufacturer’s manual, and it was our guys who had to try and convince them, and Wilson, that the Oerlikon was not the answer to their problem. The same kind of problems occurred with the STINGERs. Once they got over there someone figured out they knew how to fire them but didn’t know how to use them. Over a long weekend I sat down and wrote tactical manuals for the employment of STINGER in Afghanistan and Angola. I’d been to Angola during the war for independence and knew the area where they would be used rather well, but I’d never been to Afghanistan and had to rely on two officers who had, the Army Library, and the two relevant field manuals to come up with an abbreviated field manual for use in the high altitude, cross-compartmented terrain typical of that environment. The combination of improved training, Infante’s target acquisition template, and the tactical manuals seemed to work. Planes started falling out of the sky.
The other guy who should have received credit in the documentary but didn’t was MG Charles W. Brown. Charlie Brown. For some reason our whole branch got transferred from DCSOPS to DCSLOG, and when it did Charlie became our boss. In the Criles book he makes the point that Wilson couldn’t have gotten away with what he did without Tip O’Neill’s tacit consent. Charlie was my Tip O’Neill. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army at the time was Max Thurman. One of the Vice’s primary responsibilities, over and beyond running the staff, is to husband the Army’s resources and I was in the process of stealing a large number of his STINGERS for something he most emphatically did not approve of. Charlie was a barely reformed Nebraska cowboy. As he once laughingly explained, he was the only man he’d ever met who’d gone to college on a polo scholarship. Almost thirty years of service hadn’t taken the ranch twang out of his voice, but he did not look healthy even 21 years ago. He had a smoker’s cough (that later developed into cancer) and a perpetual prison pallor brought on by too many days and nights in the Pentagon. He’d made a career out of letting people underestimate him, but he was wonderfully personable and insightful, a truly honorable man, and extraordinarily shrewd and capable. Also, one of the most skillful bureaucratic infighters I’ve ever known. Thurman wasn’t too hard on lieutenant colonels and majors, but he was death on colonels and general officers, and in addition to carrying our mail on the Hill, I suspect Charlie took most of the tongue-lashings and abuse meant for me. I owe him a great deal, for this and many other things, and will always think of him with profound respect and gratitude. As an afterthought, it was Charlie Brown who first called my attention to the Criles book.
My part in all this was to provide the missiles, train and coordinate training for the trainers, develop the tactical manuals for the Muj and UNITA, and address problems, political and military, that impacted on the use of the weapons in-country. One part of that involved symplifying the Program of Instruction for STINGER gunners. Early on I discovered about a third of the POI was diagnostics and maintenance. I suspected neither the Muj or UNITA would waste much time on that so threw it out and rewrote the whole thing to emphasize target identification, acquisition and training. One of the 5th Group NCOs who actually trained the Muj later told me they took care of their missiles like they were camels. If the weapon whistled or gurgled, or lit up when they twisted this or that nob they knew the missile was feeling well and would engage. If it didn’t the missile was sick and needed attention from the Americans. Usually just a battery swap, but everyone likes to feel useful.
Since there were no moving target simulators where the training was being done, at one point the UNITA trainees were using the resupply acft to practice target acquisition. I don’t imagine the pilots would have been particularly pleased if someone had told them, but nobody got shot down who wasn’t supposed to so I guess it worked out.
When I left the program the Muj and UNITA between them had shot down 77 Soviet/Cuban acft. The piece de resistance was an IL-76 shot down in Angola with a full load of Cubans aboard. I’ve forgotten the body count but it was most gratifying.
Other odds and ends:
1. The documentary makes the point that the Army was opposed to turning over STINGER to UNITA and the Muj. This is true.
~ We were just fielding STINGER and hadn’t yet fully equipped the Regular Army with the new MANPADS. Some frontline units committed to NATO were still using REDEYE, a first generation system of considerably less capability.
~ We’d invested millions in the technology and were probably a full generation ahead of the Soviets at that point. There was a fear the missile would fall into Soviet hands and they would reverse engineer it, to our detriment. And something like that did in fact happen.
~ We understood the potential benefits of introducing STINGER into Afghanistan as well as anyone, but by this time we’d also heard about Charlie Wilson. Legislative Liaison had told us about his alleged drug use, his drinking, his hit and run, and his lack of discretion, and we didn’t want a program we’d spent millions on held hostage by someone we didn’t trust.
~ There was also the fear some of these missiles would subsequently be used against us or our partners in Western Europe.
~ By the same token we were also aware that this represented, to a degree, payback for Vietnam. A mildly funny story related to that point. During the period of the STINGERs greatest success our DATT in Moscow was invited to the Frunze Military Academy to make a presentation to the students and faculty. During the Q and A the bright young Popovs got on him about US assistance to Afghanistan and Angola. He listened for awhile then said, “I’ll make a deal with you. We’ll provide exactly as much assistance to the Mujahadin as you did to the North Vietnamese. How will that be?” That pretty much ended the Afghan discussion, but it’s fair and accurate to say the Army and the program manager were conflicted over the xfer of these missiles to guerrillas.
2. In the documentary Charlie Wilson, the real one, says the Chief of Staff of the Army came to see him to explain why we shouldn’t give STINGER to anyone outside NATO. Maybe, but I doubt it. The Chief was John Wickham, and he was the last senior officer to find out about it. When I briefed Vuono, then the DCSOPS, he asked me if the Chief had been briefed and I responded, “Everybody but him.” If Wickham had gone up the Hill I would have had to do a briefing book and I was never asked to do that. I don’t think the real Wilson would know the Chief of Staff if he tripped over him. I suspect the man he saw was Charlie Brown; I know he was up there to see Wilson on one or more occasions. At least once I was with him.
3. Clarence (Doc) Long was exactly as depicted in the film and documentary.
He represented a working class district in Baltimore~Bethlehem Steel and the shipyards were in his district~and he was virtually impregnable. Primarily because he had the largest admin support staff in Congress. Twenty or thirty people working on nothing but constituent complaints. Long’s district got the best service he could provide and they loved him for it, but he was not the brightest light in Baltimore Harbor and held his chairmanship only by reason of seniority. In 1980 I heard him make the exact same speech he made in the film~ several times. They captured it perfectly.
4. Mike Vickers: Inspite of my snide comment about his bona fides as a ”weapons expert” I suspect he was a good guy. I’ve looked at his picture and I don’t recognize him, but that doesn’t mean anything. I imagine he spent most of his time at Langley beavering away on the project. Like everyone else, trying to make chicken salad out of pig’s knuckles, and gradually becoming invested in its success or failure. Hats off to him. May he live forever.
5. Same general comment on Gust. I’ve looked at the pictures of him until my eyes cross and he doesn’t look familiar. If he dressed the way he looks in the still photos I’ve seen, I probably thought he was someone’s bodyguard. I’m kind of sorry I didn’t know him. I have a feeling it would have cheered me up considerably.
6. As for Milt Bearden, he does look familiar. Can’t say where, but it wasn’t the Embassy. I’ve never been there. Possibly in the north, but more likely in Washington DC. I understand he’s a fine man. Give him my respectful best wishes and congratulations on the recognition he’s received. Anybody who can wetnurse Charlie Wilson for that long and to that effect deserves at least the Order of Bombas y Cuerpos, with a Gold Liver Clasp and diamond studded hernia belt.
7. Wilson did have a STINGER launcher mounted over the door in his office. Until I saw the History Channel documentary I didn’t realize it was the one used to shoot down the first Hind, but it was there.
8. One of the other players in this melodrama was Jay Garner, later appointed by the Bush Administration to be the first political czar in Iraq. As a colonel he was running Artillery Branch in Force Development, the guys who decide how much of something the Army needs, and the STINGERS came out of his procurements. He was the same fine man then he is now. And reasonably good-humored about it.
9. And finally the matter of Chuckie himself.
~ I freely admit I wasn’t around him much, but much of that was by design. From what I’d heard about him and his antics I knew we weren’t going to be exchanging Christmas cards, and after the program achieved critical mass I didn’t want to screw it up by some untoward remark. Particularly if it embarrassed Charlie Brown or the Army~or got me fired.
~ But, having said that he was an unlikable son-of-a-bitch, arrogant in an infantile sort of way and convinced of his superior insight and moral superiority.
~ The Defense Attache used his C-12 (a militarized version of the Beechcraft Super Kingair 200) to haul Wilson around in-country. On one of his trips to the north (probably Peshawar) Charlie had one of his girlfriends along and the pilot wouldn’t let her on government transport for the return trip to Karachi or Islamabad, or wherever he was going. As I heard it the pilot wasn’t being difficult, that was just the rules. Probably Congressionally mandated. Congressmen’s wives were no problem, Embassy staffers and wives no problem, but girlfriends weren’t supposed to fly at government expense and the pilot stuck to his guns. I’m told that in the next budget cycle Wilson struck the C-12 flying hour program out of the appropriations bill. The Air Force provided some training money from other funds, but there was turbulence in the C-12 program for the next several years. Two acft were taken out of service altogether and there were at least two crashes, both attributed to pilot error. As I said, I cannot confirm from my own knowledge that Wilson did it, but I was told he did by Legislative Liasion and the Air Staff, and a couple years later by someone in Attache Affairs. If he did I think that speaks volumes about his capacity for pettiness and his sense of entitlement. (If provoked I’ll put in a request under the FOIA and see what turns up. Also have several friends who were C-12 pilots in that era, and I’ll ask them about it.)
~ I also have heartburn with his abortive little flutter into Afghanistan. What purpose did that serve? As a soldier I hate to see soldier’s lives put at risk to gratify the childish impulses of
an egomaniacal jerk. If the Soviets had known he was in Afghanistan, and God forbid they’d captured him, how would that have played out? Bearden would have had to commit everything he had in the area to save or rescue him, with what result? I wasn’t anywhere close by when he did it, but I suspect Bearden was. (I can’t imagine anyone would let Wilson go north without adult supervision.) I’d be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.
~ And finally, I’m irritated that a man like that receives so much credit for the efforts of the 200-300 Americans who actually made it happen. The Mike Vickers, Gusts, Infantes, Browns, Beardens, above all the 5th Group trainers and Agency pogues who were the interface between the Muj and America, and all the others who actually made Wilson’s one unquestioned moment of inspiration and clarity a reality. With a nod from the White House they could have done it without him, but he couldn’t have done it without us.
I understand since his retirement from public life he’s become a lobbyist. That sounds about right.
In short, I liked the movie but I’m still comfortable with my original impressions of Cocaine Charlie, the man voted one of the twenty least effective legislators in the House of Representatives by House staffers. I cannot begin to explain the pivotal role he played in all this, and the fact so much good came from the conscience-striken efforts of such a trivial man. But it did. He was the maypole we all danced around. Perhaps the best way to rationalize him is to characterize him as one of Lenin’s useful idiots. I doubt Lenin would appreciate the irony, but nothing else makes sense. If I’m ever near the Reagan Library I plan to stop by and see if there is some kind of PDM or presidential finding authorizing all of this. I can’t believe Reagan or one of his senior staffers didn’t know about or authorize it. I’m reinforced in my beliefs by the spate of recent articles about him by others who knew him back then, most recently Robert Scheer, of Creative Syndications, last Monday.
I should also mention in fairness that some of those closest to him still think he’s a prince. Tomorrow I’ll send along a msg from one of his former staffers who thinks he’s wonderful. WTFO. Further deponent sayeth not.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Have not seen the movie.
The name most important to remember is Dan Rather.
He went to Afghanistan to film resistance fighters using ordinance, specifically stingers, and no doubt Rather had CIA advisory handlers all the way.
There’s a damned good chance his people and handlers dealt directly with UBL’s people there as well.
After 9-11 and before Iraq I used to remind people that fact. Nobody really wanted to remind America that it developed the support and communications networks of these groups at prior times. More could be said by Americans who helped elevate the cause of resistance support against the Soviet.
Instead of recounting his prior contacts with these elements of international foreign policy, Rather went for cheap points on a valid “known known” of AWOL’s guard skip legacy. His producer instead burned him, stupid is as stupid does…
Rather could have disclosed his own links to the neocon enablers and the ties since that developed from the days of muj. and that alone would have probably been enough to stymie the Iran/Contra branch of gov’t that was pushing the OSP agenda after 9-11.
We have been so quick to make deals that are never in our intrest, long term and when they come to bites in the ass, we always are in denial when Murphy brings FUBAR to the potluck.
My man Zbig said that the people we enlisted in Operation Cyclone were doing God’s work, right?
& while we’re into reviews:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/interviews/000715.php#more
Dahr is one of a kind. In person he is as humble, down-to-earth, and personable as he is articulate in print. And he “gets” Iraq.
I was one of the “Agency pogues” working “midrange” (that is, as a sterile arms supplier overseas) on the project. I happened to have a truly excellent ordinance guy who questioned the Oerlikon idea right off of the bat (as did I), as well as a couple of other, pre-Stinger AA ideas that didn’t make it into the movie. My questions on the Oerlikon were “how are these guys going to move that sucker around?” and “even if the actually get it in the right position, will they hit anything?” Our questions were received with a “you’re too junior to have any imput” response, so we had to standby and watch the various AA solutions go through several unsatisfactory iterations before they actually broke down and coughed up the Stinger. And even then, well, see above.
Hoffman’s portrayal of the now late Gust was pretty accurate.
Oerlikon 20 mm cannons?
The very same. Kinda hard for the Muj to lug around if they needed to run fast. You wouldn’t believe where some of them ended up in Agency’s universe of “lethal” beneficiaries.
Off topic, but Philip Agee is dead in Cuba at 72.
Sorry, the link:
MSNBC
from the link. given this sites interest in valerie plame i thought this interesting.
Yup! And the CIA did some of the same stuff in Iraq back in the ’70’s. We lost some friends as a result of that.
In the 90s, as well. Yes, we did, to our great shame. Some of us who were involved at the working level were stunned at the betrayal after we had made solemn promises to people that we had lived and worked and broken bread with. We begged, we pleaded, we invoked American honor. And we were issued orders home. The Iraqis that we betrayed told us to leave because they feared what would happen to us if we were caught. What would happen to us, mind you! That is my memory of Iraqi character.
Yes, in the nineties too. I know about that as well, but it did not affect us as the business in the ’60’s and ’70’s did. In fact, we have sometimes wondered whether, if we had not left Iraq
Yes, in the nineties too. I know about that as well, but it did not affect us as the business in the ’60’s and ’70’s did. We had left some time ago - just in time, we have reason to believe. Oddly, our departure had more to do with an opportunity here than it did with the political situation there, but it was lucky timing.
Your remark about Iraqi character brings to mind the amazing contrast between the impressions of Iraqis held by people who have been in some way close to them, and the people who have been part of the occupation and who have, I believe, been indoctrinated to see them in a particular way.
I am reminded in particular of a perfectly horrifying document sent to me innocently by a person who says he is an officer and was involved in military intelligence there (and I believe him), and which was supposedly prepared by one of the military guys he worked with (or perhaps who worked under him). It purports to compare the character of an American with that of an Iraqi, and supposedly the description of the American character was written by a member of the occupation forces, and the description of the Iraqi character was written by an “Anbar Iraqi” - a concept, by the way, which only exists in the American mind.
Naturally, the American character is a portrait of the ideal human being by American standards. And equally naturally the supposed self-description of the “Anbar Iraqi” (which curiously enough is written in exactly the same English as the American self-description) is a compilation of the very-different-from-American stereotypes Americans have been fed about Arabs in general and Iraqis in particular.
When I told this gentleman that there was simply no way the Iraqi part was a self-description, and that it was obviously made up and written by the same guy who had so idealistically described the American, he said he would be very disappointed if that were true. This is the level of naivete and ignorance of even some of the better people who are occupying Iraq, and is of course propagated happily by the media via embedded reporters as well as pundits and self-appointed “experts”.
Contrast that with the impression of Iraqis on someone like “citizen journalist” Dahr Jamail, who was, for all practical purposes, embedded with Iraqis rather than with invasion/occupation forces. Or, apparently, on you.
One of my biggest irritations from the beginning has been the nonsense that Iraqis have some strange, alien “culture” that requires special study to understand if you are going to to successfully shock, awe, invade and forcibly occupy the country (read achieve submission). My constant message has been that in order to understand Iraqis’ reaction to shock and awe as well as what followed is to realize that at the core of things Iraqis are first and foremost human beings and have the same basic wants, needs, emotions, and reactions as all other human beings including Americans. All the rest is just a matter of different secret handshakes, and you don’t need to know all the secret handshakes to understand Iraqis if you simply put yourself in their place as a human being and imagine how you would react in similar circumstances. As soon as you are willing to do that everything will become perfectly clear (and if you are a decent human being you will become deeply ashamed of what you are participating in).
PS I just remembered something someone posted here to the effect that house to house raids such as the ones regularly conducted by Americans in Iraq just don’t work in Iraqi culture. Oh, really? And please tell me in what culture it DOES work to have heavily armed foreigners breaking violently into people’s homes at 3 AM, rampaging through the house, screaming in a foreign language, brandishing weapons, trashing everything in sight, dragging people out of bed in their night clothes, manhandling women and children, forcing the men of the house to the ground on their stomachs in front of the family and neighbors, and pressing their faces into the dirt with boots on the backs of their necks. I was not aware that this was acceptable behaviour in American culture or in any other culture. But then, what do I know?
Shirin, read the Bill of Rights:
Article III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, Montag, does this mean that what I described would not be considered polite in American culture, and is not something an American host would find pleasurable coming from visitors? Well, then, it seems that this is something that Americans and Iraqis have in common, so why are Americans so mystified that Iraqis also do not appreciate this kind of behaviour?
It has been my experience that the mainstream American military isolates its soldiers from the foreign societies where they are stationed (for whatever reason), basically because officers (and I speak as one of them) fear (1) blowback from the local populace from a misbehaving few soldiers that it is believed will be out of proportion to the misbehavior, and (2) blowback from the local populace from the insensitive behavior of the many resulting from general ignorance. In other words, to the extent that we can keep our soldiers locked up and segregated from the residents, the safer and happier everyone will be, both them and us. And, more importantly, the less risk to our precious careers.
We must be correct at least on (2), because these actions indicate our own ignorance as officers. While we keep our soldiers locked up, we try to “educate” them on the people that surround them with canned powerpoint presentations, a population about which we ourselves are embarrasingly ignorant. Then we send them out armed with plenty of death and destruction and expect them to sort out the “enemy” from local residents that we have trained them are typified by a burning of hatred of all non-Muslims.
I bought into all of this, too, until I left the military and got a job where I was alone overseas and depended on “the locals” to protect my blue-eyed behind. Then you get a different perspective entirely, and wonder how you could’ve been so stupid.
What is interesting is that the particular intelligence officer to whom I referred said he came into close contact with lots and lots of Iraqis every day. I suspect, though, that he rarely came into contact with Iraqis other than the ones who were working for the occupation, who were either willing collaborators, or were doing so out of a desperate need to feed their families. It is also likely that a lot of them were Kurds - not that Kurds are terribly different from other Iraqis, but they had a different take on the American presence, particularly in the beginning.
Truly, though, you should see that supposed self-description. It is more or less the equivalent of an ordinary middle class black American describing himself as a lazy, shiftless, unambitious, ebonics-talking, watermelon-eating, baby-mama-abandoning, crack-smoking gang banger. It is completely appalling, and even more appalling that my correspondent actually bought that it was 1) genuinely a self-description, 2) in any way accurate or realistic.
You can email it to me at i2739atAOLdotCOM if you would like.
Will do.
Shirin,
When the U.S. Civil War started Sam Houston warned his fellow Southerners that the war wouldn’t be a walk in the park. They foolishly thought that the Yankees would give up after a few setbacks. Houston warned them that while Yankees were slower to anger than Southerners, once they got mad they STAYED mad.
Well, in 1862 the Union fought the disastrous Battle of Fredricksburg, in which Union soldiers were mowed down in rows to no effect. The Confederates on the heights above were well pleased with the day’s work, figuring–yet again–that a few more such bloody noses would have the Yankees ready to concede Southern Independence. Then from below came a sound that made them gasp in astonishment–the Yankees were SINGING! Proudly, defiantly, they were singing “The Battle Hymn of The Republic.” They were going to keep coming on until they won.
Now if Americans are capable of misjudging our own countrymen like that, why should our track record with actual FOREIGNERS be any better? People will always believe what they want to believe–until they’re hit over the head with reality.
Agee is a self-righteous asshole. In the late 1980s, he was caught in a democratic (albeit a corrupt democracy) Latin American country that is hardly a pawn of the U.S. conducting active counterintelligence operations against the CIA station, most likely in the pay of the DGI. Except for the loss of business for the prostitutes that the old fart frequented, he probably won’t be missed.
My, my. My oldest brother interviewed him on a major DC radio station years ago. Later in the week he received a transcript of the show in the mail. No note. Just the transcript.
ordinance? ordnance? am kinda suprised Mr Murder & retired both opt for spelling #1 & this is coming from me who can’t spell my way outta a paper bag, what’s up? Or are you guys going for a duel meaning?
In my case, I got distracted by the TV. Alan Combs was opining that the reason that the NH pre-election polls were so wrong was that white voters lied to the pollsters about voting for Obama and then “in the sanctitty of the voting booth” refused to vote for a black guy and chose Hillary, who was comfortingly white.
(Yes, that misspelling above is a joke. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
Alan Combs was told that by Officer Obey. Poor Bastard.
i wondered if the Sibel Edmonds story was in “tinfoil hat” territory on this diary and was assured that i wasn’t — and was directed to this diary by Mr Johnson
Check Out Sibel Edmonds
i wonder if Mr Johnson has any comments on the recent piece by Chris Floyd
The Bomb in the Shadows: Proliferation, Corruption and the Way of the World — where the Clintons may have a role in the mess — any opinion??
(i live in SC and my primary is coming up — i am kinda leaning Obama but i respect Mr Johnson’s opinion which is why i come here and read the diaries. thanks!)
btw, anyone read the review of Charlie Wilson’s War by Chalmers Johnson?
From pegs second link..The Bomb in the Shadows.
Look at the Sen. John Kerry’s work on BCCI. He has done his home work and the investigation records are detailed.
I’ll check out the piece.
Re Chalmers, he’s grinding an axe. Major factual error in his piece, the US did not provide Stingers to any Arabs. Only went to the Afghans.
The people who attacked us on 9-11 came primarily from Saudi Arabia.
I remember reading that a number of stingers where sold to third parties besides the Russians…There was never a full accounting was there?
thank you !
Hm, and WHO put in place “The people who attacked us on 9-11″? CIA did, and EXACTLY because of their role in Afghanistan (so called “Afghan Arabs”) In short, CIA founded Bin Laden, even though mostly via SA and Pakistan.
Larry, what do you mean by saying that Chalmers Johnson is grinding an axe?
Are you saying that there were no Arabs fighting with the Afghans in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 80’s? Or that no stingers were directly handed over to Arab jhadis?
Is this grinding an axe?
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/chalmers_video
Or is someone who spent years as an educator trying to educate?
WOW! This guy hit one out of the park! This is a grand slam. This is the stuff that makes NQ so great; it is one of the best postings I have ever read here.
Larry already vouched for this man, but I want to add that his account tracks with my experience as a young ADA, Air Defense Artillery Lieutenant in the mid 1980’s. West Germany. HAWK missiles which have since been replaced by the PATRIOT missile system. But I was trained on Stingers at Ft. Bliss, TX.
I will quickly emphasize that I had nothing to do with training the Afghanis, or working policy at the Pentagon, etc, etc. I was just an Army LT toiling in the vineyards in Deutschland.
My Battalion commander (for those who don’t know, that’s a Lt. Col.) had worked for MG Infante. (MG’s are British sports cars, and also Major Generals. Or 2 stars. The way to remember the pecking order — and the military is all about pecking orders is the following: Be My Little General. Brigadier (1 star), Major (2), Lieutenant (3), General (4).) I know someone quite well who worked in the Army’s Legislative Affairs section. Didn’t know Gen. Charlie Brown, but the characterizations of Army Generals from the Chief of Staff on down tracks, and the policy making aspects — I would later work for Congress critters, House and Senate — ring true. As does, regrettably the fallout of not flying the Congressmen’s girlfriend; the culture of politicans can’t be so petty when they get crossed.
WTFO is What The Flip, Over. (polite version.)
I really enjoyed reading this account. There where alot of folks bustin buts… I would like to know what they have to say in retrospect.
I’m waiting for the sequel. Inquiring minds want to know how so many mooja runners ended up at Bank of America eatin’ a stock loss from the subprime & more importantly if Brezinski’s blowback was a hit or a miss. I have a personality flaw: am always hopeful there’s a plan. I’m so screwed up I’m hopeful there’s a 50yr/100yr plan ’cause the 20yr/30yr modeling only looks like a sputterin’ joy ride for defense contractors & a crash n burn for the peanut gallery. Maybe the Big plan is we disguise ourselves as a 3rd world country & just blend into the background…now that would be a really special op. That could really mess with some minds. 26 trillion in the hole & compounding, the new American wizardry, man it is genius! Let’s take our ameroes & invest in synthetic DNA that claims it can make oil from H20 molecules…
justsomeone, hardcore folks on the right will tell you that is the plan. the NWO is to turn the globe into a plantation for the globalist bankers and we are all serfs.
in order for that to happen the good ol’ u.s. of a has to be destroyed.
one of the principal ways to destroy a country is get it in debt up to it’s eyeballs. ergo, incessant war.
the worst president ever until w. came along was woodrow wilson. read thomas fleming’s book the illusion of victory.
an evil toad would say should destroy our manufacturing base, have a stranglehold on the media so we can control the 6 most important inches in an individual, the space between your ears. that we should ahve the cia import drugs into america. see inspector gen. hitz’s report in 1998. iran contra. sorry, it happened. facts are stubborn things and all that. there’s more but you get the idea.
imho, there is the mother of all economic sh*tstorms approaching this country. not saying it will happen. but it could. and the establishment is making things worse.
the right isn’t always wrong.
Wow, you guys are all blowing my little mind, recounting your experiences.
Larry, thanks so much for bringing this piece here. Fascinating, to say the least, even if I don’t understand all the acronyms.
don’t worry about the alaphabet soup stuff. you got the gist of it. if you put two words together the military slaps an acronym on it.
one that is useful to know is that fbnc = ft. bragg, north carolina. home of the 82nd, special forces and delta force.
Thanks wethornet. That was the one I had the hardest time figuring out.
Sorry I didn’t spell out what some of these acronyms mean.
ODRP–Office of Defense Requirements Program.
Many countries have milgroups, but the name is usually worked out with the host nation, and normally reflects their sensitivities. This name is peculiar to Pakistan.
DCSOPS–The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.
DCSLOG–The Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics.
DATT–Defense Attache
ARSTAFF–The Army Staff
MTT–Mobile Training Team
FBNC–As described
WTFO–Exactly what Wethornet said it was
speaking of milt bearden. has he said/written anything about pakistan since the bhutto assassination? does he write essays on the web? if so, where?
are there any articles/interviews, etc, about how the u.s. walked away from afghanistan? we disrupt the shit out of your country, war’s over (for us), we won, best dealing with the chaos, bye, see ya.
my 2 cents. i would prefer that we didn’t meddle in other country’s affairs. ron paul is exactly right on the constitution and what the founders wanted. but, if we are going to do so, then we help, and not abandon, our allies.
“we disrupt the shit out of your country, war’s over (for us), we won, best dealing with the chaos, bye, see ya.”
PLEASE do that with Iraq! PLEEEEEEEEEEZE! Iraq will have no hope of mending itself until you are gone, so go. Soon. Please.
i wish we would shirin, i wish we would.
~~
while i’ve got you. did you see my comments downblog — sorry, i don’t know where, stuff’s happening a little to rapidly here at nq — w/i the last day or two, about the iraq war documentary http://www.meetingresitance.com? and of which, i cannot say enough about.
Ron Paul takes nationalism a bit too far.
for a different take on the movie, here’s this film critic.
A brilliant demonstration of how Hollywood can take a true story of history and politics and remove all the truth, history and politics from it. Charlie Wilson’s War turns the illegal covert funding of fanatics — fanatics we’re still dealing with — into a wacky escapade with no consequences whatsoever. I can’t wait for the invasion-of-Iraq comedies!
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/12/31/the-ten-worst-films-of-2007-jamess-take/
link to the full review.
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/12/21/review-charlie-wilsons-war-jamess-take/
“Charlie Wilson’s War turns the illegal covert funding of fanatics — fanatics we’re still dealing with — into a wacky escapade with no consequences whatsoever. I can’t wait for the invasion-of-Iraq comedies!”
My sentiments exactly. When are people going to stop glorifying imperialist-minded, short-sighted, ultimately disastrous stupidity?
This is absolutely terrific Larry, please thank your friend.
I happened to spend some time in Chitral in NW Pakistan in the autumn of 1981 and what I remember was the appalling conditions in the Afghani refugee camps with winter coming on. I also saw a lot of kids hanging around the rotting canvas tents.
Guess they just ended up in the madrassas in Peshauer with the crazy mullahs. For the price of one of those fucking missiles, I bet it would have been possible to set up a school for those kids. Huh? what a concept?
But oh no, everyone was feeling sorry for themselves (the defeat in Nam and Iran) and had a hard on for the soviets…and by God it was morning in Murika and we were gonna kick some commie ass using brown people in turbans surrogates. Poison gas precursors to Saddam and missles to the ragheads.
Look where it got us.
Blowback’s a bitch. The Catholics call it sins of omission. You pay for them.
I am not going to see the movie because I don’t think I want to see Forrest Gump does Afghanistan.
It will just piss me off too much.
john i read the book so i’m not sure about seeing the movie … i almost never like a movie after reading the book. as to your points, i agree while i find it most interesting to hear from the folks who were so intimately involved in the program. their thinking then and their thinking now … it never fails to enthrall me or sometimes disgusts me.
as to this operation, why should it surprise anyone that a foregin policy driven by payback would have such disastorous blowback. there is no way you will ever convince me the top echelon of the reagan adminstration wasnt aware and endorsed this operation. hopefully, in the not so distance future this country will spend as much effort and money waging peace as we do war. what a concept … hey.
Thank you for saying, John.
That these loose-cannon, hubristic types and their hairball actions-without-findings or whatever they’re called, are glorified when they’re found out is pretty outrageous, yet there’s never any outrage at what they’ve actually done!
All this knee-jerk meddling - spun now as adventurous and romantic heroism and patriotism and advancing our “cause” - has set us up for a fall.
We scratch our heads and only later find out the real reasons for the blowback. When the dots are finally connected, people are past caring, but they do love a good yarn.
Not being up to date with military and national security acronyms, what is FBNC?
ft. bragg, north carolina. home of the 82nd, special forces and delta force.
I just learned that from wethornet last night.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/01/10/0110cia.html
Apuzzo’s a mole for the GOP if memory serves. Almost everything he puts out there helps shape perception for the party in power.
Don’t give us another Ollie North. If he will not disclose, throw his ass in jail.
Unless you get prior admission of testimony on the record so as not to have him change it in court.
Judge won’t inquire into CIA tapes case
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 9, 6:24 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_videotapes_8
and which gop president appointed said judge? and how long has he been a member of the federalist society? jes asking.
a great post!
but like some others, when y’all starting throwing around acronyms my eyes glaze over and i remember why i dropped latin after the first term. a glossary could help dummies like me.
Tony Blair & JPMorgan: the Enron connection
http://www.davidosler.com/2008/01/tony_blair_jpmorgan_the_enron.html
Enron money is being used to launder ongoing political campaigns worldwide. Previous assertions made by myself said that a heigtened scrutiny should be placed upon companies that dealt with the energy scam. Much of South Central Asia’s current wars, assassinations, scandals, have ties back to the same money network.
Look at those donations closely. The current GOP race is getting a cash infusion from Enron’s getaway crew, laundering from abroad.
Enron was behind the 42 million to the rulers in Afghanistan before 9-11. It was behind the pipeline deals that even Obama advisors like Brzezinski and GH Venture Partner and current GOP campaign policy consultant Henry Kissinger were backing…
Enron jets flew GOP staffers to Florida to riot and block recount efforts in an election theft.
Now you see why Blair backed Bush and overrode dissent re: The Downing Minutes.
Follow the Money.
Enron’s account firm Arthur Andersen went to the UK when it was on probation for accounting Enron’s spiraling pyramid scheme. There they also helped bolster member sof the Iraqi National Congress including liar in chief Ahmed Chalabi who was our number one witness for the OSP’s prewar WMD claims and various puppets he had that were part of the original Coalition Provisional Authority.
The above links and stories aren’t perhaps very politically popular to readers here, but the corporate media isn’t going to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Thank you for your contributions to this forum.
This was the first thing I read about the Enron tentacles
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0202a/enroncoverup.html
The Puzzle of the Enron Coverups
…apologies for the lack of spellcheck, windows were crashing and the mouse would not open the spellcheck window, gtg reboot…
Quote for the day..
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
Philip K. Dick
also mr.murder. I would never agree to testify to anything for anybody without immunity in Washington DC.. Remember Ken Starr? Roger Clemons better keep that in mind next month when they call him in front of congress..Something Barry Bonds lied about.
Re: “Retired”, “Peg”, & “Mr.Murder”:
Many thanks for your reasoned discourse and respect for historical context. Many herein seem to be determined to continue the dissembling typical of revisionists and ideologues, as well as making disparaging personal comments regarding those, such as Dr. Chalmers Johnson, who continue to expose the folly of the imperialists and their corporate/financial facilitators. These shallow deceptions are becoming more obvious to those who are willing to see beneath the layers of propaganda and wordspeak carefully crafted by the unwitting “true believers” on behalf of their masters. We can only hope that these misguided loyalists will awaken from their misinformed trance, and join in purging our beloved nation of the corruption of our Constitutional principles and values.
Hm, Retired clearly thinks that CIA is great. Given that CIA still is (and was) the prime tool of imperialists and their corporate/financial facilitators, I doubt he share your views on the story.
Retired has built and sent mine detection kits to Afghanistan so as to help Afghans detect explosive devices that the Soviets and their surrogates concealed in attractive toys. The idea was that Afghan children would find said toys and take them home so as to kill their rebelious parents (along with the kids, of course). I’m sure that you and Dr. Johnson would object to this activity as “imperialsm,” if, in fact you had been aware of it at all. Funny how this didn’t make it into his supposedly thorogh treatise on how horrible CIA and America was/is.
Retired: How is it that 70% of CIA operations have been farmed out* and folks still use it as pinata?
* Thespywhobilledme
Actually, the answer can be found on that very website, as Dr. Hillhouse is a true scholar of the topic. The short answer is that when Congress authorized a massive expansion of the Agency post-9/11, they only authorized so-called “green” or program (i.e., contractor) dollars instead of “blue” or personal services (i.e., employee) dollars and positions. Thus, contractors were used for the expansion, resulting in the rough 70/30 workforce split.
CIA employes and executives are still responsible for command and control of the operations, however, and thus bear the brunt of things going wrong. The rough analogy would be McDonald’s contracting out its order-taking process to a remote subcontractor (which some of them do). It may be a contractor that is responsible for screwing up your Big Mac and ordering the grill man to make you a fish sandwich, but you still blame McDonald’s for the screw up.
Oh, by the way. If you are an American, to give credit where credit is due, it was your tax dollars that paid for my labor, the parts for the mine detection kits, and the shipping costs. I’m sure that the Afghans whose lives were saved by your money are grateful.
No, I am not an American, and please, could it be that kind-hearted CIA would not have to “save Afghans’ lives” from USSR if the same CIA (on behalf of USA prez and Brzezinski) were NOT founding future Al-Qaida to “trap” USSR in Afghanistan. Afghans were just used as a bait for CIA hunt - a very nice of CIA, sure, and to count how much of them were murdered, tortured or simple starved to death as a result - and STILL are- yes, I am sure Afghans are VERY greatfull.
Well, you must be very grateful that you are not an American. I can see it would be very depressing for you to be part of such a hateful, terrible nation that has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. One only wishes that the entire world could be like that perfect place, that perfect people, that you are part of. Cheers!
Oh, sure, when I say that CIA is a dirty body which murders, tortures and topple democratic rulers, it means I hate USA LOL
And when I reminded about some not nice facts regarding CIA “saving” Afghans from USA, I got such informative answer. “You shall know the truth and truth’ll set you free”, is it not?
“saving” Afghans from USSR, sorry for error
Zzzzzzzz….
by the way, the tale about USSR-made bombs for murdering Afghan kids reminded me about VERY REAL cluster bomblets looking very much like food packages (you see, USA is such wonderfull invader, it droped food at the same time it droped bombs)
A red pill moment from the Matrix, sponsored by???
Sorry, I did NOT see Matrix, I prefer Iranian cinema, so I cannot get the hint. But, if somebody is interested, here it is about USA bomblets http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/cluster-bck1031.htm
“A key United Nations clearance expert has expressed concern about the similarity of the coloring of the yellow BLU-97/B cluster bomblets and the small yellow food aid parcels being airdropped in Afghanistan, noting that people are being encouraged to pick up the food parcels, but that picking up a bomblet would be lethal. He said, “Our experience in Kosovo showed us that children and youths were highly susceptible to the submunitions…. It is highly likely that many in Afghanistan will not know the difference between aerially delivered food aid and aerially delivered munitions.” BBC Worldwide Monitoring reported that U.S. Psychological Operations units broadcast a radio message warning Afghan civilians of the similar yellow color of the cluster bomblets and the food packages, noting that cluster bombs will not be dropped in areas where food is air-dropped but stating, “[W]e do not wish to see an innocent civilian mistake the bombs for food bags and take it away believing that it might contain food.”"
As I said, first they bombed, then they warned. How nice, very unlike those evil Russians.
Zzzzzz…
Now I could brag that CIA-man I have a discussion with was
1)informative
2)argumentative
3)polite
But, after all, CIA modus operandi is NOT a free discussion LOL
I read this book when it first came out. After all these years I remember few real details. However three things stand out in my mind. 1 being APPALLED at how one man could manipulate our government so easily into something that could have turned into a horrible disaster. 2 Feeling very sorry for the CIA person who was constantly over run by Charlie. And 3 how ironic that the biggest maimer and killer of our men and women in Iraq was developed by the CIA for Charlie to use against the Russians. God save us from “cowboys”.
As a matter of fact, there was NOT “one man could manipulate our government so easily into something that could have turned into a horrible disaster”
“In its effort to lionize Charlie Wilson as the savior of the Afghan people, who are scarcely present, the film omits a few inconvenient facts. The maverick congressman came onto the scene well after the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter had decided to give financial and military support to the Islamicists engaged in guerilla warfare against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, which had come to power in a military coup in 1978. This preceded the Soviet invasion of the country in 1979.
The Carter regime, which hoped a war in Afghanistan would be the USSR’s Vietnam, began funding and arming the most right-wing fundamentalists, the ideological ancestors of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.” (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/char-j12.shtml)
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are a classic combination… Charlie Wilson’s War made me feel a little better about U.S. foreign intervention, it seemed to work out that time
hey !!
its very unconventional point of view.
Nice post.
realy gj
thx