Juan Cole has called attention in two recent posts about how the Bush teams electoral calculations may have seriously compromised anti-terrorist operations in connection with the recent arrests in Britain:
Did the Bush Administration Burn a Key al-Qaeda Double Agent? 08/07/04
Bush Outing of Khan and the Faustian Bargain 08/08/04
Essentially, the concern is that in order to add credibility to its new terror alert of last weekend, the Bush administration prematurely outed a double-agent working for the pro-US government of Pakistan inside al-Qaeda. Cole points to this article (Why I refuse to feed the media's summer frenzy Observer [UK] 08/08/04) by British Home Secretary David Blunkett. His "measured tones," says Cole, "barely disguise his fury at the Bush administration for having gone public with details that have endangered an ongoing British investigation and forced the premature arrest of twelve suspects, against whom it is not clear a case can be made at this point."
This is very much a developing story. But Cole's two posts to date on this topic reinforce how important it is to have a minimum level of credibility between the governments and their publics on important information related to possible terrorist actions. One possible scenario in this case is that because the current terror alert system is fatally flawed, Bush officials thought they needed to add some heft to last weekend's terrorist alert by adding details. In particular, the detail that led to the outing of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan as an agent within al-Qaeda.
Cole also points to this Observer (UK) article, Blunkett rejects terror calls 08/08/04, which is largely an analysis of the meaning of Blunkett's piece:
Blunkett's words reflect a growing row over political handling of intelligence, with accusations in Washington that George Bush may be overemphasising the threat in order to boost his chances in November's presidential election - and in London, a new willingness by the Tories to make political capital out of the terror issue.
Last night, Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, rose to Blunkett's defence, warning of a 'Faustian bargain' between the media and politicians over terrorism. 'I am acutely aware that there is a Faustian bargain on offer for those who want it: airtime, in exchange for ratcheting the fear factor one notch higher,' he told The Observer .
He said the Bush administration's naming of potential targets in New York was 'of dubious worth', and that information should be published 'only if it would prove useful in preventing injury and loss of life'.
The risk of playing games for short-run political gain by prematurely leaking the name of double-agents or sting operations of marginal value is highlighted by this news: How big Al Qaeda's footprint is in the US Christian Science Monitor 08/06/04.
In all, the [recent] developments show an even stronger emphasis on tracking down Al Qaeda. But in the US, the challenge of identifying and finding individuals in sleeper cells can be daunting: Unlike many of the spies and moles of the cold-war days that frequented the cocktail circuit in Washington, Al Qaeda operatives in everyday America specialize in blending in there. Because of the cell structure of the organization - think of it as bubble wrap with no individual cell even knowing which others exist - it's clear how difficult gathering intelligence against this enemy is. ...
"It's a really tough one. My first thought is the public is an irrelevant player," says Juliette Kayyem, an intelligence expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "The likelihood that I am going to figure out that the guys next door are terrorists is pretty unlikely. It's better to hope that the government is doing a good job of professional surveillance."
In fact, government officials announced Thursday that two leaders of a mosque in Albany, N.Y., were arrested on charges stemming from an alleged plot to purchase a shoulder-fired missile.
These arrests follow ones in Lackawanna, N.Y., and Portland, Ore. But experts say doubts remain about the seriousness of those individuals' connections to Islamic extremists. It's clear none had the ability to produce the kind of professional and detailed reports that prompted this week's heightened security alerts. (my emphasis)
Effective intelligence and police work, including effective international cooperation, are essential to improving American defenses against terrorism. Instead, the Bush administration's determination to use the "War or Terror" as a way to promote fear at home and justify the invasion of Iraq has seriously compromised the country's ability to achieve that.
USA Today, which in today's media environment no longer looks like such a light-weight in comparison to more prestigious news organizations, recently editorialized about how information-sharing between federal agencies to prevent people on terrorist watch lists from boarding airline flights even under their own names is sadly lagging in implementation: Post-9/11 checks for terrorist fliers still miss the mark 08/06/04.
Since 2003, the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] has misdirected its energies by pushing to set up a flawed passenger-screening system that would have snooped into the lives of all fliers to determine whether they pose a terrorism risk. The plan, criticized by airlines, travelers and privacy advocates for being too intrusive, was scrapped last month. The TSA could have better spent the time figuring out how to access other government watch lists to screen for suspected terrorists.
And if the Bush administration had made protecting Americans from terrorism instead of invading Iraq to get non-existent "weapons of mass destruction," then maybe the FBI today would be able to brag about more than inticing some pizza shop owner in Albany NY into giving them some money to help kill a Pakistani diplomat.
No comments:
Post a Comment