National Security

CIA Largely in the Dark on Interrogation Tactics

CIA turned to countries known for their use of torture including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to develop program.

Torture and the Law

Bush told ABC news he knew administration officials met to discuss the use of torture against detainees. Could a prosecutor charge him with a crime?

Fast and Loose With the Facts

Bush and Cheney will probably leave office with a sad legacy, while two prominent reporters who backed the war have seen their careers flourish.

Clinton Devised Both Pro-war and Anti-war Candidacy

Ten minutes in Hollywood on Thursday could prove to be Clinton's Waterloo -- if not now, then perhaps in November.

Biden Punks Crocker: 'I Would Therefore Pick Al Qaeda on The Afghanistan-Pakistan Border'

There was once a blog called Joe Biden Is Thugged Out. (I swear this is true.) Biden just proved why.

The Colonels and 'The Matrix'

A group of young thinkers has triggered a simmering debate about how far the military should go in embracing counterinsurgency.

Reframing the Israel Debate

The new Jewish group argues that an independent Palestine is in the United States' best interest.

When War Seems Unwinnable: Why Tet Matters

By the close of 1967, a half-million U.S. troops were in Vietnam, and Americans at home, viewing the war on television in their living rooms, had become inured to familiar images. Sweating in the fierce tropical heat and humidity, platoons of “grunts” were disgorged from hovering helicopters and cut through thick jungles or crossed flooded rice fields to faraway villages, occasionally stumbling onto mines or booby traps, or drawing fire from concealed snipers.

It's Not Like We're In Two Resource-Intensive Ground Wars Where Economy of Force is Crucial or Anything

Iraq. Afghanistan. And then, the Navy. From the Pentagon public affairs shop today:

Maliki, Sadr, and the Wages of Sin

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is giving powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr's forces three days to surrender in Basra, as clashes between Maliki's security forces and Sadr's Mahdi Army -- in which the U.S. intervenes on Maliki's side -- escalate. But with the U.S. happy about the now-abrogated Sadrist ceasefire, why is the U.S. military getting involved? The Washington Post isn't sure:

It was unclear why U.S. forces would take part in a broad armed challenge to Sadr and his thousands-strong militia on the eve of Petraeus's assessment, which the Bush administration has said would greatly influence its decision on whether to draw down troop levels.

Here's an answer. As long as Maliki is in the prime minister's chair, and as long as we proclaim the Iraqi government he leads to be legitimate, Maliki effectively holds us hostage.  "I need to go after Sadr," Maliki says. "The situation is unacceptable! In Basra, he threatens to take control of the ports, and in Baghdad, he's throwing my men out of their checkpoints. Would you allow the Bloods or the Crips to take over half of Los Angeles?" And as soon as he says that, we're trapped. It simply is not tenable for Petraeus to refuse a request for security assistance from the Prime Minister to deal with a radical militia.

In Solidarity With Jim Risen

The Justice Department is going after New York Times reporter Jim Risen for the non-crime of revealing President Bush's illegal domestic surveillance program. It's pathetic and unsurprising -- a fixture of Bush Justice -- that the activity DOJ pursues isn't the blatant illegality of Bush violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but instead the fact that government sources blew the whistle to a great investigative reporter.

 

The right response from the press, and the public, is to put one arm around Risen and, with the other arm, extend a single finger in the direction of the Justice Department.

Sadr Fighting Marks Surge Limits

With militias more powerful than Maliki's military or police, it's clear the surge didn't make room for the political process.

Complexity, Intellectuals and Iraq

George Packer has an amazing essay in the debut issue of the revamped World Affairs foreign-policy journal. Summarizing it is beyond my abilities, so just read it. But the gist is that most Americans have a reductive view of Iraq that can't account for the complexity of the country. Our understanding, and what facts we emphasize, tracks with whether or not we think the Iraq war was just or wise. I don't really disagree with that. But something about the piece rubbed me the wrong way. (Full disclosure: Both Packer and WA's editor, Lawrence Kaplan, are friends of mine. Kaplan has also commissioned a piece from me.)

CIA Still Stonewalls on JFK Mystery Man

Flouting a federal court order, the CIA refused Wednesday to make public long-secret records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

At a federal court hearing in Washington, CIA attorneys declined to provide any records related to the secret operations of a deceased undercover officer named George Joannides whose role in the JFK story has never been explained by the agency.

A three-judge appellate court panel ruled in December that the agency had to search its files for records of Joannides' secret operations in 1963, when he served undercover in Miami running "psychological warfare" operations against the government of Fidel Castro. The court also ordered the CIA to explain why 17 reports on Joannides' secret operations in 1962-1964 are missing from the National Archives.

The CIA provided no written explanation of its actions during a hearing before Judge Richard Leon. Afterwords, agency attorney John Truong claimed orally that a search of files on Joannides operations found no records responsive to my 2003 Freedom of Information Act request.

Truong  offered no explanation, written or oral of the missing records, In December, Judge Judith Rogers ruled that the CIA's previous explanation of the 17 missing reports  was inadequate. "On remand the CIA must supplement its explanation," she wrote. That has yet to happen, despite the agency promising to comply with the appellate court order by April 30.

U.S. Lacks Pakistan Strategy

Washington faces a situation analogous to that experienced in 2001, say national-security experts.

'Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.' Pt. 2

Everyone remembers that on Aug. 6, 2001, while President George W. Bush was clearing brush in Texas, he received an intelligence brief warning about Al Qaeda’s strategic intent to attack the U.S. homeland.

Et Tu, Washington Times?

Steve Hayes and Jeff Goldberg, adorably, really believe that the Joint Forces Command report that refutes their lies about Saddam working with Al Qaeda actually vindicates them. Or, to play mindreader for a second, they don't, but they really don't want to admit that their reputations are built on deception. So they'll run what might be called the Audacity Gambit: bluff so confidently in the face of reality that, they hope, their critics will be too confused to respond.

The thing is, that only works if their ideological confreres put forward a unified front. And today, even the staunchly conservative The Washington Times had to bow to reality. Here's how Rowan Scarborough described the report's findings:

When Advocate Turns Advisor

Samantha Power's "monster" comment may have undermined her future as a political advisor, but was the result of her success as a journalist.

McConnell: Buckley's Death Inspires Me!

Lillis is on the phone reporting or something, so I'm going to steal his thunder on this press release Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just sent out about the late William F. Buckley.

Bill Buckley inspired us with the passion and conviction of his life.  And when we learned that he had died in his study, he inspired us by his death.

Um, dude. What were you inspired to, you know, do?

 

FISA Battle Is More Politics than Policy

Call it a game of political chicken: Four days after the Bush administration lost its authority to sidestep the courts when eavesdropping on some U.S. residents, House Democrats and the White House remain embroiled in a high-profile rhetorical battle over what the change means for the nation's security.