Someone in Congress should ask ';Did anybody at Langley give permission for the Afghan to enter the CIA base in Afghanistan?';
Was this a decision made by field case officers acting independently from Langley?
Were they authorized to make such a decision?
What exactly were the steps taken to vet this particular Afghan before he came in the the CIA base and blew himself up killing 7 case officers?
Was the tradecraft in this case by the book, or was it at variance with the book?
Should Leon Panetta, the DCI on whose watch this occurred by fired for failure to train and ensure compliance with training?
Seems harsh. But in the Navy, if the ship runs into the dock, even if the Captain is asleep in his cabin, he gets fired. It's called accountability.
Without it, nobody in the Federal government would do any part of their jobs. It would be 6 million people asleep at the switch.
Panetta is not an asset to the CIA, even though he is very well connected politically. The DCI has to be skilled in analysis and collection. He does have deputies in those areas, but the DCI sets the tone.
In this case it appears to be a very slackadocious tone.
It looks like Osama Bin Laden's tradecraft is better than ours. He tells a mature suicide bomber to burn a couple of small operations (tell the CIA about them, so the operations get busted). Then when his man is invited to go onto the CIA base, an extremely powerful explosive vest, perfectly fitted so it does not show under an Afghan military uniform is ready to rock and roll. Osama does not have B-2's, and he does not have Predators, but he's had plenty of time to become skilled in spy/counterspy work. He knows how to infiltrate. He was part of driving the Russians out of Afghanistan, and he didn't just do it by shooting stingers. He used intelligence tradecraft.
We need someone with that level of skill to replace Leon Panetta. We do have people like that. Unfortunately none of them have backgrounds as Democrat political hacks or ACORN members.Should Panetta be Fired from CIA along with Napolitano from DHS?
I appreciate your question very much and like your style.
We need someone just like you in that position.
It is to bad we have a traitor in our White House. Can't wait to get rid of him and his corrupt buddies.
What I am wondering is, why can't they take Osama out? Someone knows where he is.
It is like the Bush administration said, terrorists can make a lot of mistakes, but we can't make any.What I would do would seal the borders and no visas for now. No one coming in or out.
Panetta and Napolitano are in way over their heads but obama would just pick someone just as incompetent.
I think Sheriff Joe from Mesa . Az would be a good man to be in that position or at least be an advisor. obama hates him because he is one tough hombre. Obama has tried his best to get rid of him but Joe hangs in there..Should Panetta be Fired from CIA along with Napolitano from DHS?
thank you and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I would like to see Sheriff Joe shake obama down.....ha ha
Oh yes, Stormin Norman is a good man..and ike of course
My son was a fighter pilot in the USAF and he has the same temperment as Sheriff Joe..He would reduce those terrorists to dust.
Report Abuse
They have both proven to be inept disasters - yes (but it won't happen - they are there as a payback).
As for the CIA and Panetta, I agree with Joseph the Second's excellent response. The responsibility is local and there was a lack of good judgment locally.
As for the Secretary of Homeland Security - she is way out of her depth - but we really haven't had a competent one since the position was created. I suggest that USA hire someone from Israel.
Nope. We can change the Head of THOSE Departments once a month for all THAT matters, but it's NOT going to change anything ';on the Ground';, where it Counts. The Reality IS; Where there is a ';Will';- a terrorist is GOING to ';find a way...'; And They're eventually GOING to bring down another big Plane, big Building, or anything BIG- that will result in lots of American deaths...-no matter WHO is at the Helm of the CIA, Dept. of Nat. Security- or whatever. All we can REALLY ';Do';, is to be as vigilant %26amp; as DETERMINED as we can be- NOT to allow acts of Terrorism- ROB Us of the very Freedoms they seek to Destroy. Because if we allow Ourselves to ';trade'; Freedom for Security, then the Terrorists will have Achieved their ';goals';- by driving Us into a ';Prison';of Our OWN making... .. . -that we'll be Forever ';defending...'; :(
I'm going to say no, because there agents were likely in the process of vetting.
In addition, the agents in the field, especially in clandestine operations, operate almost autonomously in their groups, relying on their intuition. It's tragic that those agents died, but it's part of the business. You're going to lose some agents, and those going in know full well that they may not be coming back alive.
The questions you say should be asked (my answer in parenthesis). Granted, I'm just a civilian, but...)
Someone in Congress should ask ';Did anybody at Langley give permission for the Afghan to enter the CIA base in Afghanistan?'; (No, that decision is largely up to those there.)
Was this a decision made by field case officers acting independently from Langley? (Most likely, it appears to be made by field officers there; I wouldn't be surprised if one of those who made the decision is among the dead.)
Were they authorized to make such a decision? (Almost certainly yes; in the field, the CIA relies largely on intuition and infiltration to garner information.)
What exactly were the steps taken to vet this particular Afghan before he came in the the CIA base and blew himself up killing 7 case officers? (Most likely, the vetting was ongoing at the time.)
Was the tradecraft in this case by the book, or was it at variance with the book? (Not sure.)
Should Leon Panetta, the DCI on whose watch this occurred by fired for failure to train and ensure compliance with training? (Absolutely NOT; the CIA is quite the most dangerous place to work in the federal government; what happened is tragic, but it goes with the business of national security. You win some, you lose some---just don't let our secrets slip out.)
No comments:
Post a Comment