Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Past CIA Directors: 'We can neither kill nor surveil our way out of terror.'
EyeOnMiami has this important review today of the Showtime special, "Spymasters: CIA in the crosshairs", based on interviews with living former Directors of the CIA......
There are two conclusions reached by America's top spymasters. They concur on the following points, whether appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents.
The first is that terrorism is impervious to surveillance. In other words, no matter how much money we spend on tracking our enemies (or citizens), we will never root out every terrorist before they inflict their mayhem. This point stands in sharp contrast to headline stories: we have entered a new phase of "the war against terror" demanding new techniques of surveillance.
The second: we can't kill our way out of terrorism. Readers, pay attention: these are definitively not pronouncements by liberals.
Both these points need emphasis since the (GOP) Congress is rife with jingoistic calls for "more boots on the ground" in the Mideast, blaming President Obama for everything from the sun rising to the sun setting.
The documentary appears almost as though the past CIA directors, to a man, believe something strange and difficult is happening within the body politic of the United States. One can sense, in their direct appeals to the camera filming them, a need -- not to expiate, far from it -- but to explain the limits of CIA power.
It is highly unusual for top officials of the CIA to speak candidly for the record. Consider, for example, that CIA Cold War directors would scarcely allow their photos to be taken, much less be quoted in the media. So "Spymasters" signals a sense of utmost urgency for calm, rational reflection of mistakes we made, to chart a path forward.
The most shocking revelation, widely noted, is by George Tenet, an appointee of George W. Bush. Tenet explains how Condoleezza Rice, the Bush Secretary of State, failed to acknowledge and act on CIA warnings of an imminent attack on America during the summer of 2001. He brings new information to the charge.
Up to this time, the 9/11 narrative has been that a briefing paper on Al Qaeda's plan to attack America was sitting on the president's desk in August. Tenet recounts that after his staff briefed him on concrete information gleaned from surveillance of some of the 9/11 terrorists in June 2001, he was so worried that he instantly disrupted Rice's schedule to convene a meeting with her and his senior staff. In her memoir, Rice reports she does not recall the meeting of any special significance because the terrorism threat had been a constant agenda item during this period of time, but Tenet contradicts Rice. He "slammed his fist on her desk" in an emergency meeting. Afterwards? "Nothing."
The second admission -- by Robert Gates, a Bush CIA director held over by President Obama in his first term -- is self-evident to anyone who has paid attention to the tragic costs of war since 9/11. Gates says to the camera, and to the world, in effect: "Imagine how the world would have been different, if we had not gone to war in Iraq under false pretenses."
In the end, what these CIA directors emphasize -- except perhaps George HW Bush -- is that the best we can hope for through the application of CIA involvement in the Mideast is to "buy time and space" for politicians with the will and moral authority to solve problems that cannot be resolved by war. The key message is "we cannot kill our way out of terror".
There are two conclusions reached by America's top spymasters. They concur on the following points, whether appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents.
The first is that terrorism is impervious to surveillance. In other words, no matter how much money we spend on tracking our enemies (or citizens), we will never root out every terrorist before they inflict their mayhem. This point stands in sharp contrast to headline stories: we have entered a new phase of "the war against terror" demanding new techniques of surveillance.
The second: we can't kill our way out of terrorism. Readers, pay attention: these are definitively not pronouncements by liberals.
Both these points need emphasis since the (GOP) Congress is rife with jingoistic calls for "more boots on the ground" in the Mideast, blaming President Obama for everything from the sun rising to the sun setting.
The documentary appears almost as though the past CIA directors, to a man, believe something strange and difficult is happening within the body politic of the United States. One can sense, in their direct appeals to the camera filming them, a need -- not to expiate, far from it -- but to explain the limits of CIA power.
It is highly unusual for top officials of the CIA to speak candidly for the record. Consider, for example, that CIA Cold War directors would scarcely allow their photos to be taken, much less be quoted in the media. So "Spymasters" signals a sense of utmost urgency for calm, rational reflection of mistakes we made, to chart a path forward.
The most shocking revelation, widely noted, is by George Tenet, an appointee of George W. Bush. Tenet explains how Condoleezza Rice, the Bush Secretary of State, failed to acknowledge and act on CIA warnings of an imminent attack on America during the summer of 2001. He brings new information to the charge.
Up to this time, the 9/11 narrative has been that a briefing paper on Al Qaeda's plan to attack America was sitting on the president's desk in August. Tenet recounts that after his staff briefed him on concrete information gleaned from surveillance of some of the 9/11 terrorists in June 2001, he was so worried that he instantly disrupted Rice's schedule to convene a meeting with her and his senior staff. In her memoir, Rice reports she does not recall the meeting of any special significance because the terrorism threat had been a constant agenda item during this period of time, but Tenet contradicts Rice. He "slammed his fist on her desk" in an emergency meeting. Afterwards? "Nothing."
The second admission -- by Robert Gates, a Bush CIA director held over by President Obama in his first term -- is self-evident to anyone who has paid attention to the tragic costs of war since 9/11. Gates says to the camera, and to the world, in effect: "Imagine how the world would have been different, if we had not gone to war in Iraq under false pretenses."
In the end, what these CIA directors emphasize -- except perhaps George HW Bush -- is that the best we can hope for through the application of CIA involvement in the Mideast is to "buy time and space" for politicians with the will and moral authority to solve problems that cannot be resolved by war. The key message is "we cannot kill our way out of terror".
(Emphasis added)
'.....except perhaps George HW Bush'---- (CIA Director from January 30, 1976 until January 20, 1977)
That says it all.
Moral, political and socioeconomic will has been virtually unseen in our political leaders for many years.
The time is now for widespread change, instituted by those who possess that will.
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Left to right: Henry Luce, Allen Dulles, Clare Boothe Luce, and Billie Cassady aboard the sailing yacht, Niki.
Prescott Bush wrote to Clover Dulles...
Thank you, seafan, for your most important OP. The players -- the beneficiaries of secret government agencies and policies, from drug dealing to dirty banking -- call themselves The Aspens, look like a forest of individual trees above ground, but really are connected by their roots underground. When the former CIA directors, en masse, express their worries, you know damn well they're worried about their threat upon the United States of America -- from We the People to the Constitution itself.
Prescott Bush wrote to Clover Dulles...
I recall in the summer of 1961, after the ill-fated Bay of Pigs affair, you were away and we called Allen to come for supper, and he accepted. That afternoon he called and asked if he could bring a friend, and we said "surely." So he brought John McCone, whom we had known well, but had not thought of as a particular friend of Allen's. But Allen broke the ice promptly, and said, in good spirit, that he wanted us to meet his successor. The announcement came (the) next day. We tried to make a pleasant evening of it, but I was rather sick at heart, and angry too, for it was the Kennedys that brought about the fiasco. And here they were making Allen seem to be the goat, which he wasn't and did not deserve. I have never forgiven them. (Misspellings corrected here.)
SOURCE p. 368 online:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7OnBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=john+mccone+%2B+prescott+bush&source=bl&ots=dJAjiC_h6D&sig=fkfjmBYhc8KD3Relu4Vc93mEyCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBmoVChMInOeZgovAyAIVBpiACh0JnAxi#v=onepage&q=john%20mccone%20%2B%20prescott%20bush&f=false
SOURCE p. 368 online:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7OnBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=john+mccone+%2B+prescott+bush&source=bl&ots=dJAjiC_h6D&sig=fkfjmBYhc8KD3Relu4Vc93mEyCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBmoVChMInOeZgovAyAIVBpiACh0JnAxi#v=onepage&q=john%20mccone%20%2B%20prescott%20bush&f=false
Thank you, seafan, for your most important OP. The players -- the beneficiaries of secret government agencies and policies, from drug dealing to dirty banking -- call themselves The Aspens, look like a forest of individual trees above ground, but really are connected by their roots underground. When the former CIA directors, en masse, express their worries, you know damn well they're worried about their threat upon the United States of America -- from We the People to the Constitution itself.