Redstate

By smagar Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

BESIDES schadenfreude,that is.  Full disclosure--I whooped for joy when I heard of McCarthy's (?) firing.  And, I had gleeful images of Dana Priest and James Risen and Eric Lichtblau being taken into custody at the Pulitzer awards dinner, to be followed by a glittering perp walk.

But, I thought I could add to the discussion on (whoop-whoop-whooping over) this issue by saying again WHY leaks are a bad thing.  And, from my experience as an intelligence professional, WHY they imperil us.

Read on.

I am as Anglo as they come.  Plus, a nerd to boot.  Sending me to years of Arabic language training and Iraqi dialect training won't make me a good mole.  I'll never penetrate an al Qaeda cell.  Most Americans won't either.

We need other nations, who have citizens with the right cultural and language backgrounds, to penetrate those cells for us.  And then, pass us the information they collect.  THESE are the kinds of invaluable HUMINT sources we sorely lack.  Everyone agrees to that.  BUT, I sense some Americans have the misperception that, if we recruit hard enough and spend enough money, we can eventually build a HUMINT mole corps that can penetrate any bad-gal/guy cell, anywhere, anytime.

Ummm...not a chance, folks.  To wage and win a HUMINT war worldwide, we will NEED other countries to provide us raw intelligence.  Provide us the dots, in you will, that we'll have to connect to try to stop the next 9/11.  Americans, PLEASE do not delude yourselves that our intelligence agencies can do it all, IF ONLY they're properly funded/equipped/manned/trained/managed.  We need allies to win this war--and, perhaps, to survive , in the face of a global terror threat that views America as a target and its civilians as acceptable targets.

Other countries will not provide us raw information IF THEY THINK we can't keep our mouths shut!  And, without raw info, we won't have enough dots to connect to make an accurate picture.

From yesterday's NRO Corner, by Byron York:

But, at least in Poland, the story caused enormous anger and unhappiness behind the scenes. In an interview with National Review, one source with knowledge of the Polish government's dilemma would not address the facts of the story, but called the damage "horrific." The source cited two reasons. First, the Polish government believes that it is now, as a result of the Post story, on al-Qaeda's hit list, setting off fears that Warsaw or Krakow could follow Madrid and London as European terrorist targets. And second, the leak shook the pro-American Polish government's faith in the United States. Poland has been a loyal ally of the U.S., sending troops to Iraq and keeping them there when others withdrew. That decision has been costly not only in lives -- 17 Poles have died in Iraq -- but also in terms of Poland's relations with largely anti-U.S. European governments. And now Poland worries about whether it can trust its most powerful ally. "The next time we are asked to do an operation in common, we will always think twice about your intelligence community's ability to keep a secret," the source said.

Emphasis added.

If countries won't share information with us--information we often CANNOT GATHER FOR OURSELVES--we could be in much more peril than we would otherwise be.

THE SCENE:  A Eastern European country's Ministry of Intelligence.  The Minister of Intelligence is speaking with his deputy:

Deputy:  Sir, this information from our sources in Karachi could be invaluable to the American FBI.  When the American FBI liaison arrives in a few minutes, do you want to brief him on this information, or should I?

IM:  We're not telling this to the Americans.

Deputy:  But...but.. our sources indicate that some al Qaeda operatives are traveling to New York in the next few weeks.  The Americans MUST know this.

IM:  First and foremost, my mission is to keep OUR countrymen safe.  And to look out for the interests of OUR nation.  With that said, we cannot afford to have these Karachi sources compromised.  We need the information they provide, as much as the Americans do.  If these sources come to believe that we cannot safeguard the information they provide, then they'll stop providing it.  To anyone--including us.  And, I cannot afford that.  And, as we know, the Americans cannot keep a secret.  Do you understand?

Deputy:  I understand.  I'll show the FBI liaison in.

(Enter the FBI liaison)

Liaison:  Good morning, sir.  I'm hoping you have some information we could use.

IM:  Good morning to you as well.  Unfortunately, I don't have anything for you.  And, while you're here, it turns out I'll be unable to attend the counterterrorism seminar in New York next month.  Circumstances beyond my control--I'm sure you understand.

Eventually, America makes contact with its enemies.  With good intelligence, our chances increase that we can identify our enemies, pinpoint their weaknesses and then strike at them BEFORE they can strike at us.  

If, on the other hand, we have poor intelligence on our enemies, one of two things normally happens.  In ground combat, for example, you send patrols out to see if a certain part of town holds hostiles or not.  I'm sure you've seen the scene before in the movies:  An infantry patrol walks warily into a quiet cul-de-sac, looking for hidden snipers.  The nineteen-year old soldier on point looks into an alleyway.  Seeing nothing, he turns to speak to his sergeant--and instead lets out a sigh as the high-caliber bullet fired from a nearby window zips through his shoulder, heart, lower hip and onto the street.  The soldier slumps to the ground, forever nineteen.

This is the hard way to find the enemy.  

Or, the enemy finds you.  As he did on 9/11.

We have very few defenses against terrorists.  Especially ones who are committed to killing us.  Good intelligence isn't a "nice-to-have" thing.  It's a "gotta-have" thing.  Without it, we are endangered.

This firing (and, hopefully, follow-on arrest) sends useful messages:

• It tells other leakers in the Intelligence Community that they may not get away with it.  Keep up the polygraphs, Director Goss!
  
• It shakes the media, who currently lives in a cocoon best titled "It's Not My Problem."  The MSM must believe that, if US intelligence and national security is damaged by their reporting, well...that's a shame, but it's really not the media's worry.  This week, I read several of Dana Priest's weekly online discussion in the WaPo--specifically, the ones immediately following the CIA prisons story.  The woman has obviously rationalized that she's doing a great public service.  Nowhere did I see her say that it was OK for her reporting to damage US intelligence operations, because she was servicing the greater good by informing the American people of what its government was doing.  THAT would be acknowledging what she was doing, and accepting responsibility.  Instead, I sense that Priest feels that it's not her problem if American intelligence is damaged/hindered.  Let someone else clean it up.  Maybe this firing will encourage Administration officials to speak openly and forcefully about how these leaks hinder the Intelligence Community's efforts to keep Americans safe.  I'll bet that's a discussion Dana Priest doesn't want to have.  ("Ms. Priest, who empowered you to write stories that potentially make our intelligence community LESS able to keep Americans safe? ). In the cocoon of the WaPo newsroom, PBS studios, Ivy League faculty lounges and Pulitzer award dinners, Dana Priest can avoid this conversation.  Now, maybe she'll have to engage in it.

May there be many more investigations,and polygraphs, and subpoenas, and firings (if warranted.) And, we could really use a few good perp walks.  And, a healthy public discussion.  Frankly, I'd like to hear Len Downie and Fred Hiatt justify media actions that potentially imperil the CIA and FBI's ability to find and stop the next wannabee suicide bomber, before he can walk up to the Girl Scout cookie stand in the Pentagon City mall foodcourt, smile back at the smiling ten-year old seated before him--and push the detanator button hidden in his coat pocket, thus blowing bits of Girl Scout cookies and bits of Girl Scouts all over the mall.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to hear Len and Fred and Dana explain why they feel empowered to make decisions like that, on behalf of me, the Girl Scout, and everyone else in Pentagon City Mall and malls like it across the country.

Bring it!