Will the aftershocks of the terror report be felt in the White House?

Posted By Peter Feaver Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 1:29 PM Share

President Obama’s national security advisor, retired Gen. Jim Jones, has warned that the initial report on the mistakes made by the administration in the run-up to the Christmas Day terrorist incident will “shock” Americans. Frankly, given the amount of dramatic rhetoric already floating in the public commentary on the issue, it is a bit shocking that the Obama team’s rollout would be itself so alarmist. If they think the American people are going to be shocked at the missteps made on their watch, then the missteps must be quite egregious, indeed.

President Obama signaled that himself on Tuesday when he gave public remarks to denounce finger pointing and then used that opportunity to point the finger so squarely at one segment of the intelligence community: the analysts. He exonerated other parts of the homeland security complex, explicitly the intelligence collectors and implicitly the point-defenders like low-level Transportation Security Agency officers, and laid the blame at the analysts and intelligence integrators whose job it is to take the disparate pieces of information of the jig-saw puzzle and put them together. Without naming the agency, he put the National Counterterrorism Center, the new entity formed after 9/11 to do precisely this function, squarely in his crosshairs.

Until the report (to be released today) has been fully dissected and cross-examined, it is impossible to say whether President Obama is pointing his finger at the right culprit. Of all the parts of the complex system and of all of the post-9/11 reforms, I would have considered the NCTC to be one of the better functioning. From a purely political point of view, it would be in the Obama team’s interest to have the locus of the problem identified at this level, which is primarily run by permanent civil service professionals rather than higher up at a level dominated by political appointees. However, just because it would be in their political interests for something to be so does not mean they are wrong or spinning when they claim it is so.

If the facts in the report back up the accusation leveled by President Obama, then the shock of the report may well be short-lived because, as General Jones indicated, the fixes required may only be “tweaks.” But if the failures at lower levels can be traced to decisions, actions, and paradigms promoted at higher levels, the shock may linger, and the aftershocks will be felt in the White House.

EXPLORE:OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, SECURITY

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

8:43 PM ET

January 7, 2010

Finger Pointing

"... if the failures at lower levels can be traced to decisions, actions, and paradigms promoted at higher levels"

Rhetorically:

If you're against it, it's "finger pointing".

If you're for it, it's "holding accountable".

Substantially:

If there's been no investigation of responsibility, it can only be "finger pointing"

Once responsibility is ascertained, it is no longer "finger pointing".

So Feaver, making no distinctions between rhetoric and substance, tells us that the president, who has avoided leaping to premature conclusions and is now indicating where responsibility lies, is merely engaging in the finger pointing he has challenged in others. Then he suggests that maybe the president is trying to misdirect attention from responsible parties by blaming civil servants.

What is Feaver's evidence? He offers none at all. He knows he doesn't have anything to justify pointing the finger at higher administration officials - so he casts an aura of suspicion instead.

Very clever. No wonder he's a professor.

SURESH SHETH

7:05 PM ET

January 11, 2010

US complicity in its own Afghan tragedy

It is becoming painfully clear from the video of Jordanian bomber and Wall Street Journal article titled ‘Risky ally in war on polio: the Taliban’ on January 9, 2010 that the US governments have been silent partners of Pakistani governments in the continuing deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan ever since US overthrew Taliban government in 2001.

That is because US governments have been tolerating Pakistani governments’ sanctuary, support and protection of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s Afghan Taliban (QST) in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan which is fully under the control of Pakistani governments and Haqqani in North Waziristan while US and Pakistani governments trumpet Pakistan’s so-called heroic efforts to destroy Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan and Swat valley.

Furthermore US efforts to isolate Al Qaeda as the only enemy that US needs to defeat as emphasized by President Obama recently are pointless. Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban - all three are the peas of the same pod as proved by Jordanian bomber‘s posthumous video.

The video by Jordanian bomber and the Wall Street Journal article only reiterate what General McChrystal so vividly wrote in his August, 2009 assessment to President Obama:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

It is bizarre to say the least for US governments to even claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic fundamentalists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistani governments are sheltering, supporting and protecting the very leaders of this Taliban insurgency.

BOREDWELL

1:33 PM ET

January 15, 2010

Drum roll, heads roll

It's de rigueur to point fingers-especially the middle one-and assign blame in the aftermath of an "event" such as this. Yet, given the information made available to us, pragmatists of the less reactionary bent might well say, "let's get real here.!" TSA officers do not exist in either Ghana, Lagos or Amsterdam and therefore can't be called to task for oversight. In the first two, reports state that airport security is so lackadaisical as to be considered nonexistent. The EU has postponed the use of full body scanners due to privacy invasion concerns. Amsterdam had them but due to the EU's temporary ban and the fact that neither the TSA nor Homeland Security mandated their use for flights to the US this security item becomes moot. And what about the alleged bomber's dad? He voices his concerns to the US embassy based not on facts but worries that turn out to be prescient. The embassy forwards a cable to the appropriate agencies where the info sits in a database. In November, US Intel learned a man had been detained by African Union security forces at the airport in Somalia. In his carry-on was a baggie containing PET and syringe. Then, a Canadian group, leaked info about a possible bomb plot of a US airliner. The US determined this intel to be of the "poison pen letter" variety and dismissed it.
When assessing our shortcomings it would be best to look at the SOPs rather than the purported SOBs.

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.