ISI Goes Rogue
By 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 November 29, 2008 at 10:28 AM in Current Affairs
Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, has his hands full and some daunting challenges in the coming weeks as evidence emerges that renegades inside Pakistan’s intelligence service (i.e., ISI) were the masterminds of this week’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The number and variety of the targets attacked is the first piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to the support of an intelligence service.
Reports from survivors of the siege at the Taj Mahal Hotel contain the disturbing news that staff in the hotel–existing employees–joined in with the attack. And the attackers clearly demonstrated a firsthand knowledge of the hotel. Something you would not get just by watching a video or reading a report. While it is possible that a group of Islamic extremists like the Lashkar banded together on their own to infiltrate personnel into these hotels, this smacks more of an organized intelligence organization. Getting your intelligence assets into an upscale hotel where they can report on the comings, goings, and doings of prominent business and political leaders is a coup. It is not the kind of thing that any Al Qaeda affiliated group has shown it can do.
It is important to emphasize that the Government of Pakistan is not sympathetic to or supportive of these rogue intelligence officers. To the contrary, the impetus for this attack may have been the move by President Zardari to disband the political wing of the ISI. If anything it is a reminder Zardari is not in a strong position and his grasp on power is both tenuous and fragile.
There are some troubling signs that Zardari’s efforts to reach out to India are faltering. After promising to dispatch the chief of ISI to India, the Government of Pakistan has reversed itself and is sending a lower level official. Sends the wrong signal in my view.
We are fortunate that U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson is in place in Pakistan. She knows what the stakes are and is working furiously behind the scene to support Zardari’s efforts to take on the powers inside Pakistan who continue to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of national security policy.
There are moderate, responsible, not-sectarian leaders in Pakistan. Helping them surmount the Islamic radicals embedded in the intelligence service must be a priority for U.S. policy. The last thing we need now is to have Pakistan’s nuclear weapons fall under the control of radical Islamists. That is a fear, generally unspoken, that lurks in the back of the minds of U.S. officials wrestling with the complexities of Pakistan.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Larry, it was the Lashkar militants, but with the support of the ISI. The fact remains that the official pakistani govt. (not rogue elements) did not clamp down and eliminate the Lashkar because the these terrorists were inflicting wounds on India due to the Kashmir problem (a bone of contention between India and Pakistan).
But now that they have targetted americans, brits and israelis, the pakistani govt. may be forced to clamp down and eliminate them. But I seriously doubt it. The reactions from Pakistan are not encouraging, and they seem more in the damage control mode. They seem to be protecting the lashkar again.
The Lashkar is a well funded organisation and their training expertise is almost equivalent to their sister organisation, the Al-Qaida.
Despite all the conciliatory noises emanating from Pakistan, the Indian govt. seems to be pissed off that the pakistani govt. is not sending across the ISI chief to New Delhi, although less than 24 hours earlier, the pakistani head promised the indian prime minister that he would do so. This smacks of a coverup all over again.
Larry I have read your posts for months now and because of them I have become much more versed on the defense and intelligence matters. Thks.
Thant said and may be this is utterly naive, but would the only solution be a nuclear disarment of both India and Pakistan?
What do you think? Is that even on the table?
They are both nuclear capable states. So it isnt possible. If all world powers go in for nuclear disarmament, then it may be possible.
And that will never be realistic, unfortunately.
As mostly reasonable, psychologically healthy Westerners, we project the best of ourselves onto others, the best of our government, seeing things as we wish they were, other than how they really are, the stupidity, the utter lack of intellectual sophistication, the amateurism that comprises many other governments (ours included, but at least we have some balance).
The only thing I would say is not all governments have smart people at the helm, if nuclear arms cannot be eliminated, their use can be made cost prohibitive, one way or another.
BTW, given the networks, I really have a hard time thinking intelligence didn’t know about this attack, one way or the other.
It’s a chain, India wouldn’t do it because China has it. China wouldn’t give up because US has it. It’s not as easy as we think.
Larry, could this be another example of the law of unintended consequences and US policy over the course of the last eight years? Could things have been done differently?
It isn’t just US policy in the last 8 years.
US policy literally USED the Pakistani ISI to provide weapons and training to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight Russia—and that was under the Carter administration, secretly funded and encouraged by Brezinski. They saw it as an opportunity to sucker Russia into Afghanistan and drain financial and military assets in a 10 year war. It worked; the USSR went bankrupt.
But our own government provided funds and training for those mujahadeen training camps (funded through Pakistan’s ISI), while Carter, and later Reagan, called these Islamists “freedom fighters.”
Our policy USED the ISI as the “good guys” during certain decades, depending on who we were calling the “bad guys.”
Unintended consequences, indeed.
But not just the last 8 years.
As I recall, on the day of our own 9-11 attacks, George Tenet was having breakfast with the leader of the Pakistani ISI. Planning what? Who knows?
This is a monster our own policy helped create, for 30 years.
Well, if you want to get sharp with me over a simple question, then by all means, let’s get to it–let’s add Reagan who was so interested in the collapse of the Soviet Union at any cost that he forgot to consider the vacuum its downfall would leave behind.
I’m not talking here about a policy from 30 years ago that we can do little about now. I AM, however, asking what could Bush have done after 9/11, with all the sympathy and support we received, to do something about Afghanistan/Pakistan. And yes, I am referring to the squandering of this support by invading a country that we had no business invading and by not finishing the job we set out to do in Afghanistan.
If you re-read my post, you’ll find that I mentioned Reagan, with no approval implied.
But it was actually Carter who began that secret ISI funding—how do you think the mujahadeen GOT those weapons that brought down Russian helicopters?
And Carter’s NSA director was Brezinski, who was obsessed with the Soviet Union.
Brezinski, by the way, is one of Barak Obama’s leading foreign policy advisors.
No need to get huffy. The “unintended consequences” of our funding and supporting the Pakistani ISI as our “helpers” in the region has been going on since Jimmy Carter, thanks to Brezinski.
Blaming George W. Bush and the last 8 years is a tad short-sighted.
The fact that Brezinski has Obama’s ears is scary! Change, my foot.
If you haven’t already seen it, the movie Charlie Wilson’s War is all about how those weapons got to the mujahadeen.
You need to go back a reread my original post. There was no blame–just a question. You started the “blame” nonsense.
Further your blaming of Carter for Bush’s mistakes 30 years hence is an irrelevant non-sequitur.
Moreover, that still doesn’t answer my original post, now does it? As I recall, it was about the last 8 years, the aftermath of 9/11, the failure to finish th job we started, and what we could have done differently, GIVEN ALL THE GOODWILL AND SYMPATHY WE HAD AFTER 9/11.
You don’t have to lecture me about Carter or Brezinski, as I served in the military during the Ford and Carter administrations and know first-hand the sorts of things that went on, especially with the former Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries having been on a tactical site two miles from the former East German border.
As a final note–it was addressed to Larry.
Oh good Lord, Ferd.
Read up on Carter and Brezinski.
ISI has been doing our “dirty work” for 30 years.
Larry woulda told ya the same thing.
ISI probably has a huge portfolio recording all the “pranks” they’ve pulled on our behalf.
The last 8years is just a continuation of same.
Get a grip.
Look, missy, I don’t have to read about what I lived through. You really need to get a grip. I don’t think you were even alive when I served, now were you? And if you were, 30 years is a long time for you to continue to hold a grudge against Carter for a mistake that was all part of the Cold War, which started with Truman and continued uninterrupted through 1991 and Bush I.
And yet you still didn’t answer my original question just like every other anal-retentive bot who is called on their BS.
Try again to answer what I asked in the first place or just dry up. One or the other.
Missy?????
Take a nap, Ferd.
Ferdd, just talked to the Farkles and they say they haven’t heard from you in awhile. Is your hair still red?(How many people have a clue what this means? Probably no one under 50.)
thanks Larry for the article…The Crusades continue…
This is a tenuous situation, no doubt. I wasn’t sure Pakistan would stay in one piece after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last year, but somehow they managed.
Yesterday I listened to an interview on one of the live feeds with a high-ranking Palestinian- maybe Gilani? and the reporter kept pressing him about allowing the Lashkar-e-Taiba to stay in place- Gilani hemmed and hawed- but at the same time- he sounded sincerely angry about the attack.
Pakistan has a choice to make- but with so many disparate factions- will they come to a consensus about harboring terrorists?
I read earlier one of the terrorists interrogated said there were 20 of them that came from Pakistan- but clearly there had to be more. He also said they were trained to get out of Mumbai after they completed the mission- said this wasn’t a suicide mission. Huh? How could they really think they were going to survive storming a city of millions?
Why not plan for egress?
I am a layman with backyard mechanic skills when it comes to this stuff but that said,
If you look at the sites involved it would appear the attackers / ammo came from the sea and a trawler (rust-bucket) was involved. Similar to the picket lines the thugs in Somalia have been running.
The sat intel or CCTV for the port of Mumbai prior to these attacks will yield some clues. Port security anyone?
The inside job and level of penetration will be looked at with a fine tooth comb, I am sure. What lessons will be learned?
I have not heard what the circumstances around the death of Hemant Karkare, the chief of Mumbai’s Anti-Terrorist Squad were. Which I REALLY curious about.
LJ; how much of the command & control loss was due to intel ops?
That takes a while and if that is the case this op must have started 3 - 6 months ago…and well under the radar…
Why do I have the feeling that this “attack” was to distract and not the primary goal? I smell misdirection afoot and I am wondering what else is going on when the limited resources are dedicated to the forensics of this event.
Thanks Mr.Johnson for your perspective on this.
I have not heard what the circumstances around the death of Hemant Karkare, the chief of Mumbai’s Anti-Terrorist Squad were. Which I REALLY curious about.
These 3 officials when alerted all jumped into the same car heading for the hospital that was under attack when they arrived around the back of the building 2 gun men ran out and shot all 3
They were stating they should of all taken 3 different vehicles to move.
Just me I saw you comment down thread.
Hard to say if the “two gun men” where just posted at the back or they had spotters and comm’s.
Which I was REALLY curious about…
errr. LOL
They were planning to use the hostages to make their get away, at least that is what one of them captured is saying.
Thanks Larry, for your insight.
The ISI will not go quietly into the night.
There are several factions there, and they
have been running the country for years, using
the government leaders as their tools.
The whole area is a mess. The tiger has been let loose, and is running wild. The genie can not be put back into the bottle. Many years of conflict are ahead of us.
How can this be resolved? What’s the plan, and by whom?
I don’t know, Larry…..forasmuch as some pundits/politicians say Iran is our biggest concern in future years—and they are, of course—-it DOES seem that the stabilizing of Pakistan, and its lawless areas slipping into Afghanistan and around the world, will be the next president’s biggest challenge.
But we all thank you for keeping us abreast of the information we should know to assess the situation OTHER than what the Village media has been told to tell us.
I’m reading that the Georgian Ambassador to Russia is now admitting that Condi Rice and George Bush gave a quiet APPROVAL of Sashkavilli’s (sp?) aggression against S. Ossetia, and that the version Putin/Medvedev gave is really the true version.
Won’t find that out in the WAPO or the NYTimes, will ya?
Tell us the truth, Larry……does the CIA really have reps in all the press, placing the “version” they want the American people to believe?
I had ‘heard’ this before. Cite, please.
Your request for cite was unclear, but I’ll assume it was about the Georgia/Russia war.
BBC article titled “Saakashvili defends S. Ossetia War,” names Ambassador Erosi Kitsmarishvili (Georgian ambassador to Moscow) as admitting Georgia started the war and believed it had received Washington’s approval for its attack.
This is Saakashvili’s own ambassador speaking.
[...] ISI Goes Rogue : NO QUARTER beebop on Beltway Boys on States + Auto Industry “Bail-Out” (Rahm’s verboten term); workingclass artist on ISI Goes Rogue · HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS NEED IMMUNIZATION : NO QUARTER at Hillary Clinton On Best Political Blogs on HEALTHCARE … [...]
Some how we need determine that competent heads are guiding the situation. We also need to be aware that others terrorists are not necessarily our terrorists. Yet maybe we can leverage the international situation to the point there is effective cooperation (aka interpole typ.
Hopefully there are people in the CIA and National Security Council that can sort some of this out regarding our strategic interests. Some how the US public needs to be convinced that competent people are comming to the program to resolve this and then we have to be patient and vigialant. Hopefully moderate ex CIA people can get the microphones versus the neocon type.
Given the sophistication of the India operation alluded to by Larry on this operation, one needs to wonder about what is going on here.
I don’t think this is the way to think about it. At some other point, you could probably have said Lashkar was India’s problem but not anymore — they just became everybody’s problem.
Terrorists are terrorists. There is no their terrorists, and our terrorists.
Interesting view. First- please explain what you mean that “Others terrorists are not necessarily our terrorists” It might actually be simpler to tell us what terrorist organization supports the U.S.?
Given the inter-connectedness of the world and the fact that India and Pakistan are both nuclear and allies of ours- and further- that Americans, Brits and Israelis were specifically targeted,it appears whoever is behind this attack are very much OUR terrorists. Would you agree?
Secondly- definitions interest me. What exactly, is your definition of a neo-con?
What one is, I can’t say. But I do know they aren’t: they are neither new nor conservative.
Deb, considering the fact that terrorists were operating in far more areas of the world than just India or the Middle East, the “others terrorists are not our terrorists” is a VERY accurate statement.
Where was the US when London offices were being bombed by the IRA? When Madrid and Barcelona were targets of ETA? When the Rosse Brigate kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro? When Aum Shin Rikyoo released sarin gas in Tokyo? When Jewish terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in the 1940s in the cause of a Jewish homeland?
The whole “global war on terrorism” has been EXCLUSIVELY an American “war” as though ONLY the US had ever been attacked. Hell, Dubya even invoked the NATO charter–something that not even our NATO allies, UK, Germany and Italy, had done when THEY were faced with terrorist groups.
Until US interests were DIRECTLY attacked, the US paid little heed. Hell, I’ll go so far as to say it: Until 9/11, the US paid almost no attention to terrorist actions EVEN WHEN THEY TOOK PLACE ON U S SOIL. The early 1970s saw attacks on a Turkish consulate in LA, with the US taking no more official action than it would had an American citizen been mugged in London. Hell, the Klan used terrorist tactics against Blacks during the Civil Rights struggle (bombing churches and Black ministers’ homes) but, for nearly a decade, very little was really done. Until the Att’y General stepped in and turned the actions into “violations of civil rights”, absolutely nothing was done to hold the perpetrators accountable for their deeds.
LJ:
Is the chief of ISI trustworthy? At least, does Zardari know the chief of ISI is not involved w/rogue wing of ISI? It’d be a great contradiction to send him to India otherwise.. (?)
Andy, the Pakistani head promised the Indian Prime minister that he would send the ISI chief to India. In a later statement, the pakistani military stated that there was no request from the civilian govt. to send the ISI chief to India. And a few hours later, the Pakistani govt. officially refused to send the ISI chief to India, and stated that they were sending a representative instead.
I suspect that there are 2 power centers in Pakistan. The military and the civilian govt. The civilian govt. chickened out. Thats what it looks like.
Benny, the two power centers has known to exist for a long time and the civilian govt when in existence is always secondary to the Pak military.
Thanks benny; I didn’t know that.
It seems from what you say that Zardani reversed under military pressure. Or that he has no control over ISI (including on its “chief”) at all?
Still the question is why wouldn’t the military & chief of ISI not want to collaborate w/India’s investigation? It sounds suspicious… like whoever in the military pressure Zardani knows more than the rest about what happened and who was involved… (?).
Andy, among Indian security circles, it is well known that the ISI tacitly supports the Lashkar, the organisation responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
And no, Zardari has no control over the military, and in extension, the ISI.
No Quarter:
Questions in the form of hypothesis:
Suffice it to say, comments and actions of world leaders have not proceeded to downplay the Mumbai terrorism as a crime (1). The ‘crime’ hypothesis that might be worth testing suggests that if this downplay occurred than chances for cooperation between India and Pakistan might actually increase.
However, the WP Post article below says just the opposite in many respects.
President-elect Obama says: “These terrorists who targeted innocent civilians will not defeat India’s great democracy, nor shake the will of a global coalition to defeat them,” Obama said in a statement. “The United States must stand with India and all nations and people who are committed to destroying terrorist networks, and defeating their hate-filled ideology.”
Agreement with re: to global cooperation for the defeat of a global terrorist network includes “the will of a global coalition to defeat them”. However, if the hypothesis stated above is correct then reference to “their their hate-filled ideology” gives terrorists more credit than they deserve.
In lieu of Larry’s comments re: the ISI, it is also unfortunate that Pakistan is withdrawing its senior intelligence officer which is an indication of less cooperation when more cooperation is the test of the ‘crime’ hypothesis. Finally, if the military is required for help with an overwhelmed law enforcement then perhaps the “war footing” reference below also gives terrorists more credit than they deserve.
(1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112900858.html?hpid=topnews
Investigation Begins as Assault in Mumbai Ends
Lone-Surviving Gunmen in Custody as Civilian Death Tolls Near 200
By Emily Wax and Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, November 29, 2008; 10:32 AM
rogue? like oliver north, with the blessings of the prez.
We could ask Ollie about that but he’d probably say, “I cannot recall…”
or ‘present’.
Larry, thank you for these blogposts. I value your informed opinion and knowledge.
Two things: Pakistan is a state sponsoring terrorism (not just in India but on the other side in Afghanistan) and has to be recognized as such.
Hindus in India have to react to this in a measured way and not take it out on local Muslims. Unfortunately, politicians there are like anywhere else. They will try to foment the divide for getting votes. You will find Muslim districts everywhere serving as vote banks. Somehow Indian Muslims have to be brought into the mainstream.
{On a side note sometimes, politicians are the worst breed creating more havoc than help. Some of the things my brother said about Hindu-Muslim situation mirrors with what went on in the US elections this time. Predominantly AA voting districts, trying to keep them clustered as vote banks for the Dems, even Obama said how AAs moving into the suburbs will cause problems for people like him. More evidence of how third world tactics were in play here in this election.}
Wow…thanks for this insight: Pakistan is a state “sponsoring terrorism.”
Scarey thought, really, that if enough evidence is found to prove this (not cooked up like our neocons), based on Bush policy of pre-emption (now discredited, I think), India might have just cause for a first strike, or their own version of “shock and awe.”
Good grief, is all I can think of to say.
Based on the deaths of Americans, our own FBI has a right to be involved in the investigation, right, Larry?
Will the CIA’s 30 years of involvement with the ISI be a conflict of interest?
Tangled web, and all that.
Yes FBI & British Intelligence I heard were all going out to India
Ok. Thanks, Justme. I hadn’t read that.
Appreciate the info.
———————————————–
“Agreement with re: to global cooperation for the defeat of a global terrorist network includes “the will of a global coalition to defeat them”.
————————————————
A prime example of this is the Saudi subsidy of the Wahabi organization.
I would add, what about the governments that in advertently stimulate the hate. The one that comes to mind is the Isreali settlement of the West Bank which is internationally recognized as a problem and the United States subsidizes
Wow. Some chilling accounts. But it sure sounds like it was well planned and thought out for some time, doesn’t it?
Maybe there is another reason they chose not to send the head of the ISI to India. Current govt in Pakistan seemed genuine in their condemnation and future desires with India-to me. Of course, I’m the last to know there. But considering there is a rogue group within ISI, maybe that has something to do with it. Not to spread rumorws on anyone. Just maybe a more thought out reasoning? … I hope.
Thanks for the info.
thank you for the update Larry. The reports from inside the hotel are conflicting, with some saying hotel staff were heroic in protecting the targeted victims, and some reports seeming to suggest an inside job of sorts with staff involved. God Bless the victims and those sorting it out..
I am not reading that in the Indian newspapers about the hotel staff helping the terrorists. But there is no question they had either infiltrated the personnel or got critical logistical info or support prior to the attack. How they got that, the investigations have to reveal. My brother was mentioning how some of these 20 years olds could pose simply as some hotel management students at some univ. and talk to facilities management people, particularly the security and the housekeeping personnel, befriend low level personnel to gather enough info about the day to day operations — seems entirely possible. Think of the 9/11 hijackers trying to enlist in flying schools and such. The key is for people/personnel to be trained to recognize odd inquiries, be vigilant.
pm317, a few of the terrorists checked into the hotels a few days before the tragedy, and stocked up arms and ammunitions. The rest came from Karachi by boat, and they were guided by those who were already residing at the hotels.
{I just wrote a long post in reply and lost it.}
Benny, I was responding to Larry’s line about the hotel staff joining in on the attack — I don’t see that anywhere. You’re right. The coast guard was looking for unidentified or bearing some sort of Pakistan(?!) id and the terrorist hijacked an Indian trawler to get near the shore. They killed the crew except for one navigator who was also killed at the end.
Hey Pm317,
Where did you see the report of;
“the terrorist hijacked an Indian trawler to get near the shore.”
? Link.
Well, try this: http://www.indianexpress.com/
I don’t see that particular article on the main page anymore — it said something about they came from the sea in its title.
Oh s**t, Israel is very, very pi**ed off. Looks like they are planning to take on the base of the terrorists by themselves. Man, I gotta admire them.
Sh*t is right, benny.
If there is any nation that will claim the right to Bush’s pre-emption, it’s Israel.
Duck and cover.
Do you think the Israelis will do this before Bush leaves office? Between Bush and Obama, I’d definitely choose Bush.
They didnt like the murder of the rabbi. According to my info, that has really pi**ed them off. They plan to strike right back. According to them, no one attacks Israelis, and gets away with it. Hope this doesn’t become into a worse international incident. Yeah, if anything happens, it will be under Bush. definitely not under Obama.
That would be their best time, indeed. That being said, I do hope the Israelis will be judicious in their selection of targets.
posts are vanishing anyone else get that?
Yea, my posts are getting caught in the spam filter — we may be using some objectionable words.
Yes!
wanted to post the BBC has a link stating
A top Indian official says there is “no authentic information” suggesting UK citizens were involved in the Mumbai attacks.
If u need to read link go to the BBC under UK on left
If I remember correctly something was said on when they arrived at the port to stay quiet etc I think it was on Fox or could of been CNN
I have not heard what the circumstances around the death of Hemant Karkare, the chief of Mumbai’s Anti-Terrorist Squad were. Which I REALLY curious about.
These 3 men when alerted all jumped into the same car heading for the hospital that was under attack when they arrived around the back of the building 2 gun men ran out and shot all 3
They were stating they should of all taken 3 different vehicles to move.
Karkare died on the first day of the attack. At that time, info was unclear. There was a report that certain murderers had entered the hotel, and were threatening people. He never knew that it was hard-core terrorists. As a basic cop, he went to the hotel relying on the belief that these were simple murderers, and not terrorists. Thats why he died on the very first night from terrorist bullets.
Seems to me that Karkare and his cohorts underestimated the scale of this in their response. I feel deeply sad about that young NSG Major who died in the Taj too.
Larry thankyou as always for your insight….
Larry, very thoughtful post. Pakistan, whether it was involved this time or not, has always managed to get away due to some excellent PR. It seemed to be doing so yesterday at a press conference in India. And bloggers from Pakistan are spreading the meme that it is “homegrown indian terrorism due to injustice on Muslims”. While we have f**ked up as Indians, we understand that and keep working on it.
One Pakistani blogger tried to spread that on my blog and I responded at
http://thecomicproject.blogspot.com/2008/11/mumbai-attacked-message-to-pakistani.html
I read your blog and I agree with what you say here to that Pakistani blogger:
I also agree with you that calling this homegrown is ludicrous. The scale and sophistication and not to mention the destruction, all of which indicates big finances and groups like Lashkar and Al Queda. Some Muslims outside the US thought 9/11 was an internal/homegrown attack.
http://www.poorrichardsalmanac.biz
VIDEO: ELITE INDIAN COMMANDOS TALK ABOUT ACTION!
ONLY 10 TERRORISTS!
TRAINED BY PAK ISI!
WATCH LIVE INDIAN TV!
I don’t discount ISI involvement, but I would like hard evidence. It’s in India’s benefit to point the finger at Pakistan and dismiss its own groups, and thereby dismiss it’s Kashmir problem. Pakistanis extremists will continue to exploit the situation because the Kashmiris will turn to those who help them, as it was done during the US Revolution by the French
[...] responsibility for the Mumbai horror, we enter a world of murky ambivalence. Lashkar-e-Taiba is said to be affiliated, in some vague way, with "rogue" elements of Pakistani intelligence, which is, [...]
[...] responsibility for the Mumbai horror, we enter a world of murky ambivalence. Lashkar-e-Taiba is said to be affiliated, in some vague way, with “rogue” elements of Pakistani intelligence, which [...]