CIA Chief Panetta on Israel and Iran, Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Congress, and Torture
Earlier this week, the surprising new director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, eight-term Congressman and former Clinton White House chief of staff, was back in California to tour the high-tech satellite and missile-industrial complex of southern California. He took a lunch break to talk with the Pacific Council on International Policy. Here are a few interesting things he said to me and to other members of the Pacific Council:
On Israel Attacking Iran
Noting that he visited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu three weeks ago to warn Israel not to take unilateral action against Iran's nuclear program while the US was trying to engage the Islamic Republic with diplomacy, I asked if he felt assured by Netanyahu's response. "Yes," Panetta said. "The Israelis are obviously concerned about Iran and focused on it. But he understands that if Israel goes it alone it will mean trouble. He knows that for the sake of Israeli security they have to work with others."
The CIA chief also re-affirmed the agency's controversial assessment in the waning days of the Bush administration that Iran had paused for the moment in its effort to build a nuclear weapon:
The judgment of the US intelligence community is that Iran, at a minimum, is keeping open the option to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. It is our judgment that Iran halted weaponization in 2003, but it continues to develop uranium enrichment technology and nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. Assessing Iran's intentions is therefore a top priority. It is not an easy intelligence target. Our main focus is getting an accurate picture of its capabilities.
On the Drone Attacks in Pakistan
During his opening comments to the Pacific Council, Panetta said that the CIA's primary mission was "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaida." The success of efforts so far, he declared, could be measured by their search for new safe havens in Yemen and Somalia. In particular, he argued that the policy of remote control drone strikes along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was a success:
Serious pressures have been brought to bear on Al Qaida's leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas. There is ample evidence that our strategy is in fact working. We do not expect to let up on that strategy. I'm convinced that our efforts are seriously disrupting every operation that Al Qaida is trying to conduct; it is interfering with their ability to establish plans to come at this country.
Others, such as David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency expert who advised General Petraeus in Iraq, don't see it that way. I asked Panetta what he thought of Kilcullen's case that the drone strikes have killed only 14 operatives while killing 700 civilians, thus causing an anti-American backlash in Pakistan more than disrupting Al Qaida.
His response:
These are covert, secret operations. So I can't go into particulars. Suffice it to say that the operations have been very effective because they have been very precise in terms of hitting targets with a minimum of collateral damage. Sometimes critics sweep [casualties] from other less- precise operations, for example F-16 jet strikes, that go into these areas and can cause collateral damage. In discussing this, I sometimes find that the numbers are mixed together. But I assure you that in terms of our strategy it is very precise and very limited in terms of collateral damage. And, very frankly, it is the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the Al Qaida leadership.
The question that has pre-occupied the Obama administration since the Taliban and its allies took over Swat and invaded Buner, not all that far from Islamabad, is the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. When I last interviewed Pakistani president Musharraf in 2004, he told me that "Pakistan's nuclear assets are more secure than those in the former Soviet Union." I asked the current CIA chief if he concurred. He did, kind of.
"With respect to Pakistan's nuclear weapons, we do try to understand where these are located," he said. " We don't, frankly, have intelligence about where they are all located. But right now we are confident that the Pakistanis have a pretty secure approach to try to protect these weapons. This is something we will continue to watch very closely. Obviously, the last thing we want is to for the Taliban someday to have access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons."
On Investigating Bush-Era Torture
Several members of the Pacific Council asked whether the new CIA director felt it was important to draw a line in the sand against future uses of torture by outing past practices and practitioners in some way, including Congressional investigations. The spy chief's position is clearly determined by where he now stands. Without ever using the words waterboarding, torture or even abuse, he made his plea:
There are many in the US Congress today who want to focus on the past. I don't deny the importance of learning the lessons of that period. And as someone who was a member of the US Congress for eight terms, I believe in the oversight role and power of the legislative branch. But in looking at past practices we have to be very careful we don't forget our responsibilities to the present and the future. We are a nation at war. We have to confront that reality every day. We cannot therefore examine the past in a way that becomes so politically divisive that it interferes with our capabilities to stay focused on those who would threaten the U.S. today and tomorrow.
Whatever the CIA does it will do so in a way that upholds the Constitution and values that America stands for. I deeply believe, as President Obama does, that we do not have to make a choice between our values and our safety. Our responsibility is not only to protect our shores, but to protect a government of, by and for the people.
(C) Global Viewpoint Network
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just wondering, but if Netanyahu keeps threatening to bomb Iran ostensibly as a pre-emptive measure, then wouldn't Iran be justified in bombing Israel as a pre-emptive measure against Israel's pre-emptive measure?
Bush or Obama - it doesn't change anything. The US is in a perpetual state of war with enemies of it's own creation. The people are lied to by both the Repulicrats and the Democans. Whatever it takes to stir up sufficient fear, justification and rationalization for the continuation of war and aggression. Differences on issues like pro-choice
The political system as it is, with little or no correlation between what the people vote for and what they get from the lawmakers they elect, is at the root. Until special interest groups and corporations are prohibited from funding election campaigns this will persist.
So right now it's Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and with Iran providing a neat opportunity for continuation in the not so distant future. After that, well there's South America, Africa and a host of Asian pacific countries.
Part I
It delights me that D/CIA Panetta is talking up the CIA killer drone program. When Panetta claims that "there is ample evidence that our strategy is in fact working", he is 100% accurate.
Recently, GeneralPetraeus confirmed that AQ has shifted its organization to Pakistan. We've also known for some time now that Pakistan is sliding backwards at a drip-like pace. After what happened in the Swat Valley, many fear that this disintegrati0n is accelerating at an alarming rate.
Based on the assessments of some working out of Pakistan, I would argue that there is no greater anti-American constituency than the Taliban-infested tribal regions (the 15% Pashtu population). Any presence of US troops to hunt AQ would be met with fierce resistance. Our best weap0n is the Bush-implemented drone program (which Panetta accurately labels "the only game in town").
The Agency went public in February with extraordinary news. It claimed that drones over the past 6-9 months (about the time the BushAdministration cranked up the targeting in last summer) had been "so successful" that it is was "possible to foresee a complete AQ defeat" in the Af-Pak border region. The CIA argued that the leadership of AQ had been "DECIMATED".
One of the best early decisions by PresidentObama was continuing this program. In fact, he has accelerated it. Off the top of my head, there have been about 18 strikes under Obama (in 4months), compared to about 35 in all of 2008.
Focusing on the small gains made against a nebulous enemy in a localised area at the expense of destabalising an entire nuclear armed nation is greatly myopic. The consistant problem with the US strategy is to make 20 new sworn enemies for each person, innocent or guilty, that is killed.
To disrupt the activites of a troublesome enclave is one short term goal, but to make an enemy of an entire nation of millions in the process, is spectacularly counter productive. Winning against the tactic of terrorism is a slow paradoxical process. It requires great cleverness and very little force.
If Afghanistan had been dealt with properly from the outset, Pakistan would not be facing the problems a botched, underfunded, undermanned campaign has forced on it.
Your response is a collection of suppositions based on flimsy evidence.
DECIMATING the leadership of AQ is not a "small gain"; it is an indicator of an efficacious counterterr0rism program. Your conjecture that drone strikes are destabilizing Pakistan is speculation supported by weak evidence.
In fact, had you read Part II, you would know that until fairly recently the CIA did not regularly target anti-Pakistan elements. What is destabilizing the country is the consolidation of power by Taliban elements and their advancement towards Islamabad. You can thank in great part the lackadaisical COIN efforts by Pakistani security forces.
Surely there are serious negative repercussions that result from collateral damage and reprisals, but I have seen the related violence statistics and they are not overly significant vis-à-vis attacks that it would necessitate a policy rollback. While you argue that "disrupting" AQ is one short term goal, you seem to be unaware that it is one of our primary goals.
Our efforts so far have paid dividends; AQ is crumbling along the Af-Pak border. The drones are increasing internal liquidation as terr0rists attempt to kill 'spies' who are suspected of feeding information. There is even speculation of flight from FATA.
When you state that counterterr0rism is a "slow paradoxical process" that "requires cleverness and very little force", you are absolutely correct. This is why the drone program, with its sophisticaed and highly classified targeting technique, as well as its precision accuracy, is still the "only game in town".
Part II
The President also sagaciously decided to broaden the program to include anti-Pakistan elements, in particular the forces controlled by Batiullah Mehsud. This is part of the reason we should view all those 'condemnations' from Islamabad with skepticism.
Recently there was a brief lull in the targeting, which some observes started speculating as a possible program 're-evaluation'; others chattered that the Administration was trying to bolster the fragile Zardari government. However, last week the Agency went ahead with a few strikes, collecting heads and dissipating rumors that the program was being immediately rolled-back. The Predators are still hunting.
As to the criticism: there is no denying that there are adverse consequences as a result of this program. However, in terms of the Islamabad's fight with the Taliban, I believe the negative effect is GROSSLY exaggerated i.e. cancelation of the program wouldn't lead to meaningful political reconciliation, nor will it tone down anti-Americanism by any substantive degree. Frankly, David Kilcullen (a man I respect) is flat-out wrong on this issue.
For a variety of reasons, I was a critic of the Panetta nomination a few months ago. I thought there was a plethora of other career intelligence professionals who were better suited for the job. But so far Mr. Panetta has been a team player; advocating on behalf of his personnel and avoiding being a cheap Administration operative. Let's hope this continues, particularly as certain elements continue their politicized assault on the CIA.
USA, Iran and Israel
The steps required to allay our fear that Iran in the future may develop Nuclear Bomb are:
A: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium;
USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.
B: Nuclear Shield;
An international nuclear shield must protect all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;
C: A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East;
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.
President Harry Truman in 1946 gave this statement about nuclear bomb:” It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women and children who have nothing whatever to do with this military aggression. That happens when it is used.” He was referring to using the bomb on Japan.
There are currently nine states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
President Truman said: “Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men.” [Truman, public Papers]
The positive news here is actually the straightforward and transparency of this administration. Of course, there are top-secret aspects to everything, but this openness over Darth Vader orchestrating his own worldview from an undisclosed location is amazingly positive.
90% of the battle of this issue is transparency of non-covert, diplomacy along with other normal and typical operations. Having the actual goals put in the paper to be worked out helps too.
One of the biggest questions is if Iran is working their nukes for MAD by seriously targeting Israel or want to sell their oil on the market to others that are addicted (like us) for $150 a barrel. Seems like in the next year or so we may have a better view, but in any game theory, Iran stands to benefit and become an economic superpower in the region by actually selling every drop of oil they possess, as opposed to attacking Israel, and using their nukes for energy.
Cheney and others simply manipulated Israel and Iraq, (the US) along with the entire region because in fact they do not want Iran to use their oil economically. A nuked out Middle East (in some places can anyone tell the difference today?), would not accomplish a much easier and lucrative goal to attain.
Openness wherever possible and objective updates to the public directly from the administration is the key.
We're killing terrorists and an occasional innocent civilian - Trust me.
Or are we killing innocent civilians and the occasional terrorist?
Sledgehammers don't make very good flyswatters.
Leon, could you please tell Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Adm. Mullen that "It is our judgment that Iran halted [nuclear] weaponization in 2003." Forget about the fact that the evidence for even earlier work in this arena is highly suspect.
Obama is just continuing the idiotic Bush policy of war instead of diplomacy!
Panetta say we are at war. With whom? When was war declared by Congress?
We're still occupying Iraq to keep the peace and our role there is to monitor the situation to keep various religious sects from fighting. If we're at war, who is our enemy in Iraq?. Surely, he's not talking about Al Qaeda of Iraq which is comprised of only a few, comparatively.
Is Panetta talking about war in Afghanistan?. Obama said recently that we're in Afghanistan because of Al Qaeda, but General Petraeus recently said that Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan. Obama keeps repeating the Bush policy that we want to make Afghanistan a democracy.
If we're at war, who are the enemies?
Congress has appropriated a fortune for these wars.
Haven't you noticed?
The radical Islam terrorists.
Radical Islamic terrorists weren't really an issue in Iraq until we invaded.
Translation: Criminals in high places are immune to prosecution.
Didn't The CIA write the Manual on Torture that was distributed throughout Central and South America especially Nicaragua and teach torture at the School of the America's.
I'm just sayin...
Yes, former ambassador John Negroponte ran the torture program in central America during the 1980's out of Honduras. They sent local to the School of the Americas in Georgia to learn how to torture. Of course the CIA tortures, but remember the old bull "we are at war". Yes, U.S. Citizens are at war, with our worthless federal government!
Leon, leon, le-on...
We are not "at war"... we are muddling through a very profitable (for defense contractors) occupation of two (sometimes three) countries.
Your moral ambiguity does not surprise me in the least.
What do you call dead people that died as a result of a profitable occupation of two countries? Casualties of a profitable occupation? Funny how that sounds like an Oxymoron.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
