More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Keith Thomson

Keith Thomson

Posted: May 8, 2009 01:55 PM

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Happy Campers?

What's Your Reaction?

Forty-nine percent of Americans oppose the use of torture no matter the circumstance, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll (48 percent believe the United States should consider torture on a case basis). The country also is split on whether President Obama should investigate the treatment of terrorism suspects under the previous administration (51 percent want an inquiry, 47 don't).

At the same time, the intelligence community's perception that fear will be removed from the equation has caused morale to plummet. "At its lowest point since the days of the Church Committee in the 70s," is the consensus I gathered from a range of intelligence community sources (most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity/information for background use only). One source said that Al Qaeda members are happy with the new U.S. policy that essentially has opened our interrogation playbook to them. Fred Rustmann, who was a CIA operations officer for twenty-five years, says that the terrorists "feel as if they've been given a Get Out Of Jail Free card."

"Al Qaeda becomes dangerous when they have a feeling of security," former Homeland Security Advisor Kenneth Wainstein told me. "We've seen that movie before with Afghanistan, in the 1990s, when they built up the infrastructure they used for 9/11."

"Now, when an Al Qaeda recruit is going through his version of SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape] training camp, he is being told exactly what his interrogation will be like if he is captured," Rustmann says. "He has no fear of it. He knows that he'll come out okay. He knows that any threats to run him over to a country that will torture him are false. He knows he will not be killed or physically or mentally harmed. There will be no scars on his body or psyche when the interrogation is over. The most he'll endure will be days or weeks of discomfort. He'll be able to hold out. He won't break. There will be no incentive for him to betray Al Qaeda plans and intentions, or to give any information other than his name, rank and serial number."

While careful to draw a line at cruelty, Rustmann adds, "There has to be incentive for the prisoner to answer the interrogator's questions. If there is no incentive, the prisoner will simply stonewall the interrogator. And particularly when there is no time for lengthy rapport building and recruitment, fear is the best incentive for cooperation."

"The hope is that our liaison counterparts will do the heavy-lifting," Rustmann says.

The Pakistani ISI interrogation tactics reputedly make those employed at Guantanamo seem like spa treatments.

Rustmann notes: "People always think that the CIA will find a way to get things done, despite the laws. That may have been the case in the old days, but not today. They won't risk their careers and possible jail time."

Of course, fear is not the only way to gain our enemies' cooperation.

Some are swayed by ideology -- The City Upon a Hill has a good track record. Some are motivated by ego, the chance to avenge a grudge against one's superior, for example. And then there is, historically, the CIA's greatest sales aid: The Almighty Dollar.

With these tools, CIA officers will attempt to recruit Pakistani and Afghanistani locals -- even locals who hate the West -- in order to learn the whereabouts of Al Qaeda camps and destroy them.

"We have been successful recruiting from strength and not having to coerce people into cooperating," Rustmann says. "You need to give them a way to rationalize their behavior. Give them an excuse -- a better life for their families, for instance. They may still hate you. But they'll work for you -- there are a lot of workers in America who hate their bosses."

But such penetrations are rare, and time-consuming ("a year or more," Rustmann estimates). Also, as Rustmann puts it, "It's the hardest sales pitch you'll ever make in your life: inducing someone to willingly betray his country. And that's a Russian or a Frenchman, not a religious fanatic like an Al Qaeda jihadist."

Still, there is an excellent historic precedent for penetration on a fee basis: It worked in, of all places, Afghanistan in 2001.

"Along with Delta and Special Forces, the CIA officers were the first into Afghanistan, handing out money," Rustmann recalls. "That's how we got the Northern Alliance on our side. It was like a rent-an-army, and not a lot of money: two dollars a day was a great wage for a soldier. And you can buy fanatics too."

 
 

Follow Keith Thomson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kqthomson

Forty-nine percent of Americans oppose the use of torture no matter the circumstance, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll (48 percent believe the United States should consider torture on a ca...
Forty-nine percent of Americans oppose the use of torture no matter the circumstance, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll (48 percent believe the United States should consider torture on a ca...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
04:51 PM on 05/10/2009
Well, it's hard to argue with success.

With that "rent an army", we not only captured Bin Laden but also didn't have to commit US troops to Afghanistan after the initial invasion.

And with the torture used, we got all the answers we were looking for. The same sex marriage of Saddam and Osama in Prague, their honeymoon tryst as illegal aliens picking lettuce in California, and the US tax payer funded abortion in California..

It's a pity that the questions asked didn't include (a) where Jimmy Hoffa's body is and (b) was there a gunman on the grassy knoll? We could have solved a lot of mysteries.
09:13 AM on 05/09/2009
The old adage that water seeks it's own level seems to be in play at the present time. There are some common threads that seem to bind some countries together by virtue of their similarities.

Countries that condone and use torture.
Countries that have a large segment of religious radicals bent on forcing society to follow their beliefs.
Their citizens feel they have a need for unlimited weapons for their own self protection.
They have a corrupt judicial and parliamentary systems where money talks.
They have violent societies and high incarceration ratios compared to other nations.
They don't provide free universal medical services to their citizens.
They have very limited freedom of the press where truth gets suppressed.
They have no rights to privacy and their governments can spy on them using phone tapping etc.

Who can name 4 countries who presently have all these latter similarities that link their cultures?
09:47 AM on 05/09/2009
1. The USA
2.
03:44 PM on 05/09/2009
While I cannot for the life of me understand what this has to do with the fact that we have publicly advised to the world how the murderous terrorists will be treated if captured by the U.S., I can answer your utterly irrelevant question:

-Condone and Use Torture: Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Cuba
-Religious Radicals: same as above but add Egypet
-Unlimited Weapons: same as above, and add the Palestinians for good measure
-Corrupt Judicial system: all the Middle East, Venezuela, Cuba
-Violent Societies: Palestinians, Iran, much of Africa, Venezuela
-Don't Provide Free Universal Health Care: USA, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, and more
-Limited Press Freedom: Russia, China, Middle East, Venezuela, Cuba
-No right to privacy: Russia, China, Middle East, Cuba
04:08 PM on 05/09/2009
Move to Pakistan, please. you want to hurt people, you want to force them to admit they did something, Not realizing that all you get is what you imagine is the truth. Children can tell what mom wants, without a word. Torturers will subconsciously do that, but brutally.

We won't have as many enemies to fight if:

the world knows we do not torture.
05:50 PM on 05/09/2009
The murderous terrorists will be punished, if captured by the United States and if there is proof that they are murderous terrorists. Extracting a confession by torture is not just barbaric, but worthless. I would confess to anything, if tortured. So would anybody else.
08:44 AM on 05/09/2009
Hopefully the result will be that captured Taliban never make it to prison. Clearly the "rules of war" are out dated and need to be modified.
11:46 PM on 05/08/2009
"Fred Rustmann, who was a CIA operations officer for twenty-five years, says that the terrorists "feel as if they've been given a Get Out Of Jail Free card."

Ok first of all, your great source Rustmann is not even with the cia anymore (since 1990). And he is somewhat of a crazy person. Back during the Wilson/Plame scandal he would go on Sean Hannity's show and claim she wasn't a covert agent, which of course later turned out to be false

But to his point, No they are not getting out of jail free. They are going to be imprisoned in jail. That's the purpose of a jail, jailing people, not torturing people.
And secondly, we don't care what they think. Our policy on torture is not dictated by them.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
12:37 AM on 05/09/2009
And thirdly, Taliban don't play Monopoly.
11:16 PM on 05/08/2009
Kenneth Wainstain, Fred Rustman? Really? This is the rare case where Mr. Thomson's credibility would have been better served by attributing the quotes to "anonymous" sources. Kenneth Wainstain is fresh out of Alberto Gonzo's DOJ and I'm guessing by the time-line, that immediately following Holder's conformation, He asked KW to beat feet. Apparently, non-partisan Kenny has landed with a D.C. firm specializing in defending white collar criminals.-- Think his most marketable skill was his willingness to sharing his Rolodex? Then we get a venerable old spook who says, "The hope is that our liaison counterparts will do the heavy-lifting." Considering Fred "007" Rustmann retired 11 years before 9/11, and how he now works as a security guard...er, uh... consultant, - I somehow doubt Fred picks up his insider insights over martini's with Gen Jones, Sec Gates and Director Panetta. I figure biz is bad for Fred, so he jumped at an offer to wax whiney over free drinks and cocktail weenies. Perhaps Mr. Thomson missed President Obama's addressing the depressed officers at CIA headquarters but it's still available on Youtube.
YouTube? I guess "M" didn't divulge that bit of spy tech to Double 0 Fred after the whole Church committee thing.
09:57 AM on 05/09/2009
I don't think the validity of what Rustman and Wainstein are saying is negated by their associations. Such attacks are ad hominem. Both men are speaking from experience.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
pfrogger
04:56 PM on 05/10/2009
really.
when one of those sources went on to Hannity and "claim she [Plame] wasn't a covert agent, which of course later turned out to be false".

so it doesn't matter?
this whole story is one sided. don't worry about the law. that's for regular people. the CIA can break any law they wish. everyone knows that.
don't worry that torture is a recruiting tool used by the terrorists. and that the US waterboards has been known for years.
don't worry about the ethics, morals, and laws of this country. you are the CIA after all.
10:08 PM on 05/08/2009
Loathe to hurt a fly, I abhor the idea of torture. I hate the idea of shooting someone even more. At Normandy, I would have done so to get ashore. Interrogations of course are mostly not life or death, so drastic action like water boarding is unnecessary. Some of the other methods like sleep deprivation don't bother me as much, providing there is no lasting damage, and only if there is important intelligence to be gained. But I'll drop that stance in a heartbeat if someone suggests a more viable means of attaining that information. I don't get the sense that the Central Intelligence Agency advocates these policies to get their jollies, but rather because of pragmatism.
10:07 PM on 05/08/2009
This is what happens when anecdotes are elevated to "facts".
09:33 PM on 05/08/2009
Pres. Musharraf in his memoir, "In the Line of Fire" (http://www.amazon.com/Line-Fire-Memoir-Pervez-Musharraf/dp/0743283449) talks about Pakistanis making millions in CIA dollars informing on militants, including, if I'm not mistaken, al-Qaeda.
12:14 PM on 05/09/2009
Thats almost a regular line business in that part of the world now!!
08:55 PM on 05/08/2009
We succeeded in stopping the Sunni insurgents in Iraq by paying them not to fight us. They were paid to guard their territories so they wouldn't feel the need to fight us. That was one of the successful aspects of the military surge in 2007.

Money is an amazing motivator and facilitator but it doesn't always work. For example, no one collected the $25 million bounty we placed on Bin Laden's head or that of his partner in crime Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I am not on the torture bandwagon because we fought wars without waterboarding. In fact at least one of our troops was court martialed for waterboarding in Vietnam. The Israelis don't use it, some countries don't use it, why not adopt their techniques before swiping our national credit card and pay our adversaries? We can't pay them forever.

And what about rendition? Would the CIA be liable in such cases?

I am not worried about Al Qaeda or other terrorists knowing our interrogation techniques playbook. It was mostly taken from the Chinese and that was no secret. Such techniques lose some of the edge when they are anticipated but the famous Zimbardo prison experiment showed prisoners lose their sense of security in a relatively short time.

We need to explore other avenues and I am sure UK and Israel are able to assist us. The trick is, we have to listen rather than think we are so exceptional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tdpubs
Content publisher for small business marketing
08:50 PM on 05/08/2009
If you were asked whether it is permissible to dunk some terrorist's head in a bucket of water to save the country or politely wait for him to tell you where the bomb is, you would probably say dunk the sucker.

I can bet the word torture was not included in the polling information. If you use enhanced interrogation or dunking, it sounds like something you see in the old cop movies. If you say torture, it sounds like something from a horror movie.

That is why everyone on the Conservative side violently avoids the word torture. How many of those respondents would say sure if the question was posed to them this way? "Would you arbitrarily torture someone to find out if they were guilty or innocent of a crime?" I bet you that the poll numbers would be different.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tdpubs
Content publisher for small business marketing
08:43 PM on 05/08/2009
I find it difficult to believe that the "bad guys" are happy now that they know we are not going to torture them. These guys are not looking to get coffee and doughnuts if captured, they want to be tortured. They think of it as an honor to be tortured by the devil. The only people who are afraid of being tortured are the innocent people who have never made a commitment to the terrorist cause.

As heartless as this might sound, I'm less offended by the torture of KSM and more outraged by the rendition and torture of innocent people who are caught up in the madness of the Bush Doctrine.

The idiots who use the torture rationale are the same ones who believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. The threat of death only works on the innocent. People who murder others without remorse are called sociopaths. There are plenty of those now looking for an excuse to justify their actions in the previous administration.
08:13 PM on 05/08/2009
Another attempt to try to convince people that torture is useful and OK. There are no such secrets about our playbook. The terrorist groupls already know what to expect. If they were really that stupid, 9/11 would never have gotten off the ground. They may be fanatics, but some of them are very smart fanatics. We underestimate them on many levels. Fear mongering alone will not defeat them. We need to put some "intelligence" in the CIA.
09:38 PM on 05/08/2009
The terrorists certainly know what to expect now. Who but the CIA knew the playbook beforehand? The unknown can be pretty terrifying. At least the CIA's interrogators had that going for them beforehand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
levee
07:29 PM on 05/08/2009
Is the point here that the "we" should always be able to use torture against the "they"?

I think their morale is low because they weakened a nation when they abandoned its principles. It is not being weakened by the move to rectify those principles. If their morale is low because they can't torture then they ought to be let go.

Every war is a civil war.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
07:08 PM on 05/08/2009
The CIA should be abandoned, aborted, eliminated, discarded. The United States of America does not need a secret army of assassins.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:35 PM on 05/08/2009
Pres. Ford signed Executive Order 11905 prohibiting assassinations by government organizations. Reagan strengthened it with EO 12333. Do you have some recent evidence of assassinations by employees the CIA?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
11:27 PM on 05/08/2009
I agree completely
They have caused us nothing but problems from the very beginning. Literally everything they have ever done has come back to hurt America. From their overthrow of Iran, the support of Bin laden, Sadaam, to their laughable intelligence assessments ect.
None of it has ever helped, it has always hurt
And they have nothing to do with spying either, that's the NSA
And they have nothing to do with interrogations either, that's the FBI.

The CIA is worthless and counterproductive at every turn in our history
06:54 PM on 05/08/2009
I'm amazed that such a high percentage of people supposedly support torture. I say supposedly because I'd like to know all about the poll before I believe its numbers. Anyway, Fox and the right wing have been putting our reems of propaganda saying what our esteemed leaders approved wasn't torture. They know it's torture, we know it's torture. They're now switching to saying it's ok to torture if they get what they want.

What this article doesn't mention is the fact that torture produces erroneous data, lies. That's a well-founded fact. Lots of gyrations being made here to justify their misbehavior.

If these guys thought torture was ok, they would have admitted that those soldiers who went to jail and through hell, were doing what Condi and Dick told them to do.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
09:22 PM on 05/08/2009
I would like to see a poll that asks if you support torturing innocent people. Most of the people who get tortured in this world (and there are many) including the hapless citizens of countries that happen to get bombed and invaded by the United States, are innocent of any wrong doing.