The two damaging reports

By

Dr Ghayur Ayub

Two reports hit the headlines of the world media. First; Washington Post published a series of three articles, totalling thirteen thousand words, which explored the vast national-security industry built since 9/11. According to the paper’s investigative reporters, Dana Priest and William M. Arkin, “the top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept.11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.” This is a scary scenario as it amounts to an alternative geography of the United States hidden from its own public that can easily slip out of hand.  

The report discloses that some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the country with an estimated 854,000 civil servants, military personnel and private contractors holding top-secret security clearances as they enter into offices protected by electromagnetic locks, retinal cameras and fortified walls. It is reported that 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks. The analysts who make the documents based on conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying ads up to a staggering number. For example, every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency (NSA) intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The agency sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases enhanced by computers.

Here comes the hitch; analysis requires human judgment, and half the analysts are relatively inexperienced. Some of them are contracted analysts straight out of college, knowing very little about the priority countries such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, they simply re-slice the same facts already in circulation thus creating windows for possible overlooking of critical information or even providing suitable opportunities to private contractors to adulterate information with malicious intent.  

It is a huge dilemma. Talking on the issue, the Defence Secretary Mr Gates admitted, "There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that - not just for the CIA, for the secretary of defence - is a challenge." In the Department of Defence, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials  known as ‘Super Users’ know about all the department's activities. According to two such ‘Super Users,’ there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work. "I'm not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything", confessed one. The other recounted that for his initial briefing, he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table and told he couldn't take notes. Program after program began flashing on a screen, until he yelled to stop it as he couldn’t remember any of it. Another retired army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq, was asked to review the method for tracking the Defence Department's most sensitive programs was stunned by what he discovered. He concluded that it was impossible to tell whether the country was safer because of all the spending and all the activities. Even CIA Director Leon Panetta, once commented, ‘with these deficits, we're going to hit the wall.’

According to Adm. Dennis C Blair, an ex-director of national intelligence, "Much of what appears to be redundancy is, in fact, providing tailored intelligence for many different customers," His statement opens up a wide range of tricky questions about those ‘customers’ in the context of private contractors such as Blackwater Inc and government’s dependence on them in this type of work. This is especially so, when secrecy can undermine the normal chain of command and senior officials use it to cut out rivals or when subordinates are ordered to keep secrets from their commanders. As a consequence, the subordinates tell their superior what they need to know.

According to the report, this is not like Eisenhower's ‘military-industrial complex,’ which emerged with the Cold War and centred on building nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union. This is a national security enterprise with an amorphous mission to defeat terrorists. 

As the first report was taking its toll, a second report was published by Julian Assange of Wikileaks in New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel Magazine taking everyone by surprise. This report was based on 90,000 leaked classified documents related to Afghan war and AF-Pak strategy. It aimed to fuel growing doubts in Congress about US President Barack Obama’s war strategy at a time when the US death toll is soaring. It also aimed to turn public opinion in Western Europe against the war and thus forcing their Governments to withdraw their troops. Despite the falling popularity of Barak Obama, the Gallup poll suggests 71% of Americans respect military institution the most. The leaks want to destroy that perception by highlighting military atrocities on civilians as pointed out by Assange in a press conference; ‘prima facie there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material,” and that "thousands' of US attacks in Afghanistan could be investigated for evidence of war crimes”

Out of 90,000 files, only 180 accuse ISI for actively collaborating with the Taliban in Afghanistan while accepting US aid. According to the documents, the ISI representatives with help of Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Hamid Gul, met directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organise militant networks fighting US soldiers. For example; it is alleged that in April 2007, the ISI sent 1,000 motorbikes to Haqqani network based in Pakistan to carry out suicide attacks in Afghanistan; or the ISI deployed children as suicide bombers; or it planned to kill NATO forces by mixing poison in their alcoholic drinks. The report further discloses that the spy agency offered up to 30,000 dollars for the assassination of Indian workers. Last year, a report suggested that the former head of ISI was encouraging insurgents to focus their operations in Afghanistan "in exchange for the government of Pakistan's security forces turning a blind eye" to insurgents in Pakistan.

It is curious to note that one of just a handful of reports mention Osama Bin Laden is in fact dead, quoting a June 2007 intelligence report from the Afghanistan National Directorate of Security that he died in a Peshawar hospital.

Embarrassed by the leak, the US government is trying to tackle it in divergent ways, such as; to stress on investigative pattern; to highlight the ISI role; to emphasise on the claim that “military lives will be lost”; and to play it down as if "there’s nothing new here” in the documents.

As for who is behind the leak; the Pentagon says it is still investigating the source and the military has detained Bradley Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst in Baghdad, for allegedly transmitting classified information. At the same time, a spokesman also said that they could have come from anyone with a secret-level clearance. Some sources blame “Chinese dissidents", as the leaks portray a familiar liberal/left philosophy of "open government”. According to Assange, "we believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies.” In a way, he seems to be speaking a liberal/left viewpoint.

Another aspect of the two reports is that these are hard times for newspapers in America as their weekday circulation is barely two-thirds what it was in 1990s. The difference between the two stories is that the Washington Post has shown the out-of-control expansion of secret agencies without openly accusing them for criminal conspiracies, rouge elements or corruption; while the NY Times has gone for the jugular. It is typical cut throat competition between two major players of print media that makes the reports damaging for Obama government.

Lastly, as to what Pakistan should do to counter the allegation; the answer is simple; do nothing. As the documents rightly suggest, ‘Pakistan’s overriding interests in Afghanistan doesn’t have much to do with the United States. Their fixation is India, plain and simple. They don’t want India to gain any sort of foothold in Afghanistan... Pakistani interests are not the same as America’s in Afghanistan, far from it.’ The cool-headed Gen Kiyani understands it, as hinted by the two experienced ex chiefs of ISI- Lt. Generals Durrani and Hamid Gul in talk shows. The civilian lawmakers (lawbreakers in some cases), on the other hand, seem jittery. Who can blame them; they have been groomed in a political atmosphere of slave mentality. They know only one thing; don’t make the master angry. A word of advice for them on lighter side; get a coconut every day and drink its milk like Tarzan used to. That might make them strong and say no to their masters.

The end