Tag Archives: CIA

Uncategorized

What if we'd left Bergdahl behind?

1 Comment

As the feeding frenzy continues over the release of a one-time prisoner of war in Afghanistan, a lot of key questions have arisen.

I’ve covered some of them already in this blog. Another one has popped up.

What would the reaction have been had the United States — knowing the history of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s views on the Afghan War and perhaps suspecting he had left his post, as has been alleged — left him behind?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208213-reid-charges-gop-with-hypocrisy-on-bergdahl

The demands for answers have been loud, clear and largely justified.

Bergdahl was released by his Taliban captors after he’d been held for five years. In exchange, we released five high-ranking Taliban thugs from Gitmo on the condition they be restricted from traveling out of Qatar for a year. After that, well, it’s anyone’s guess, I suppose.

Bergdahl reportedly opposed our Afghan War effort. He said so in emails back home. Those views allegedly were known by the Army. We went after him anyway. President Obama said Americans “don’t leave soldiers behind” in war.

What we gave up to get him and the allegations that he “deserted” his comrades have raised a huge uproar.

Some of my very own friends here in the Texas Panhandle have called Bergdahl a traitor. They want him punished, thinking they know all the facts already. One fellow even said we ought to send him back to his captors.

Whatever.

Still, the question remains: What would be the tone of the criticism if we’d turned our backs on a soldier who some Americans already believe committed an act of treason? Would those people who today are critical of the recovery effort applaud an abandonment?

My strong suspicion is that they would be screaming themselves hoarse at the notion that the United States actually would leave one of our warriors behind, in the hands of a ruthless enemy.

Perhaps that takes us directly into the excruciating decision made at the White House, the Pentagon, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Oval Office itself.

It hardly, therefore, seems fair for peanut-gallery pundits to draw premature conclusions about a delicate matter about which they know next to nothing.

Yes, there are many questions to answer. How about first getting those answers?

Uncategorized

Questions arise about Bergdahl's release

Questions and concerns have surfaced about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from his Taliban captors.

They are legitimate and serious questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-discusses-details-of-us-operation-to-exchange-taliban-detainees-for-captive-soldier/2014/06/01/551c21f8-e95f-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

My most pressing concern is this: How is the United States going to ensure that the five high-ranking Taliban officials released from Guantanamo Bay prison do not re-enter the fight against this country?

We gave up these individuals in exchange for Bergdahl’s release after five years in captivity. He reportedly was in failing health and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said his release was expedited to “save his life.”

The Taliban terrorists were turned over to Qatar officials and have been placed on a one-year “travel restriction.” How does that work? U.S. officials reportedly worked out a deal to have Qatari officials sit on these guys for a year. After that? Who knows?

Here is where I hope the CIA and every other U.S. intelligence agency capable of taking part is doing their job. By that I have to hope that we’re keeping eyes on these monsters 24/7, watching every move they make. Do we need to know the particulars? I have no need to acquire such highly classified information, but I do hope our intelligence professionals are up to the task of keeping these guys in their sights at all times.

As to the questions about whether the Obama administration broke the law by negotiating with terrorists and doing it in secret, we have to accept that sometimes we have to do unseemly-looking deeds to accomplish a worthy goal. The administration says it did keep congressional sources informed of what was going on.

As long as we can keep the released Taliban officials on a very short leash and prevent them from turning against our forces, then I’m willing to accept the strategy employed to have one of our own men released from captivity.

Our spooks, however, had better not mess this up.

Uncategorized

Al-Qaida threat prompts needed response

The standing down of U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East provides an example of a lesson learned from a tragic event.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/politics/us-embassies-close/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I refer to Benghazi, which has become a sort of shorthand for the terrible Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in that Libyan city, which left four U.S. officials dead, including the nation’s ambassador to Libya. Benghazi also has become a prime target for right-wing conspiracy theorists who keep contending that the “scandal” is the result of gross negligence on the part of the Obama administration and the State Department.

I contend, however, that it was a tragedy brought on by the confusion of a fire fight that certainly was the result of some mistakes. Are senior administration officials to blame for purposely deceiving the public? I doubt that is the case.

But the standing down of embassy compounds shows that national security officials can learn from those mistakes and seek to prevent future tragedies.

Al-Qaida reportedly had been planning some kind of major attack on U.S. installations, which prompted the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Agency to order the closures of the embassies and the heightened alert of our military forces stationed near the trouble spots.

I, too, wish Benghazi never had happened and I wish we could bring those brave Americans back to life. What’s done is done and the nation mourns that tragedy. I am grateful, though, that our national security team can learn from — and act on — the mistakes it has made.

Uncategorized

Snowden to get released from airport custody

Edward Snowden, the man on the lam from U.S. officials for leaking national security information to the world, is making a break for “freedom” from Russian airport arrest.

The Russians have given Snowden temporary asylum, which has angered U.S. officials deeply. Snowden had been holed up in a Moscow airport transit lounge since fleeing there from Hong Kong several weeks ago.

I can hear President Obama’s critics now: BHO is a feckless president; he’s getting pushed around by Russian President/strongman Vladimir Putin; we need to do something, anything, to punish the Russians.

What, precisely, is the United States supposed to do to Putin and the Russian? Bomb them? Invade? Slap an embargo on them?

Barack Obama is not without some options. The first one is to get on the phone, call his pal Vlad and tell him how angry he is. I’ll bet real money that Putin, the former KGB spook, won’t budge. He doesn’t frighten easily.

I also believe the president should cancel his upcoming summit with Putin in Russia. The two men will nothing else to discuss than what to do about Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked the secrets.

Perhaps the president should remind Putin what he said just a few weeks ago, that Putin didn’t want to do anything to upset his American “partners.” Well, he’s just done it.