Category Archives: Insurgency

Rotation NATO Operation Atlantic Resolve

Posted on by

Atlantic Resolve (OAR) Land Forces training mission Dec. 15 from the Texas-based 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Vilseck, Germany.

The 2nd Cavalry Regiment assumes responsibility as the next rotational U.S. Army unit to take part in ongoing multinational land forces exercises across NATO’s eastern border to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Advance elements of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Cavalry regiment have already arrived in the Baltic nations and Poland to prepare for the arrival of the unit’s personnel and equipment. The squadron is expected to complete the deployment of its personnel and equipment to the four nations by the second week of January.

1/1 CAV will rotate back to its home base in Fort Hood, Texas, in time for the holiday season.

Operation Atlantic Resolve demonstrates U.S. commitment to NATO Allies following Russian aggressive actions in Ukraine.

“As the main enabler for NATO land forces in the U.S. European Command, we are absolutely committed to assuring and defending our NATO allies. We’ve been executing Army operations with a combination of forward stationed and rotational forces since early spring of 2014,” said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, U.S. Army Europe commander. “Our commitment to each other and interoperability are stronger than ever. USAREUR is the leadership laboratory for the Army as we have the unique advantage of working side by side with our Allies and partners every day.”

In close coordination with the host nations, both allied and U.S. Army units will conduct a transitional period over the holiday break from mid December to early January to allow the flow of outbound and inbound unit equipment and for Soldiers to spend the holidays with family.

Meanwhile:

U.S. army may station tanks in Eastern Europe

The U.S. Army plans to deploy about 150 tanks and armored vehicles to NATO countries next year and some of the heavy armor may be stationed in Eastern Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, said on Tuesday, cites LETA/AFP. 

The move is part of a U.S. effort dubbed “Operation Atlantic Resolve” in the Baltic states and Poland to reassure allies anxious about a resurgent Russia, with American troops deploying for several months at a time to conduct joint exercises.

Nearly 50 armored vehicles are already in place and another 100 “M1 Abrams” tanks and “Bradley” fighting vehicles will be pre-positioned in Germany and possibly elsewhere for the U.S. troops conducting drills with NATO partners, Hodges told AFP in a phone interview from Estonia.

“The troops will come over and train, and they’ll go back. The equipment will stay behind,” Hodges said.

The arrangement was “a lot cheaper” than transporting tanks across the Atlantic and more efficient for the training mission, the general said.

Hodges said he would soon make a recommendation on whether to store some of the tanks and armored vehicles among NATO’s eastern members.

“I’m going to look at options that would include distributing this equipment in smaller sets, company-size or battalion-size, perhaps in the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, places like that,” he said.

The United States has about 29,000 forces permanently stationed in Germany, Italy and Belgium but has stepped up temporary deployments of troops for training and exercises designed to send a signal to Russia and NATO partners.

About 600 U.S. Army troops from the 1st Cavalry Division are to depart in mid-December after a three month stint in the Baltic countries and Poland. They will be replaced by soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based in Vilseck, Germany, who then will hand over in the spring to members of the 3rd Infantry Division, he said.

Hodges said the troop rotations will continue through 2015 and into 2016.

Then Zerohedge reports: Having grown used to images and clips of “Russian” tanks rolling through Ukraine, crossing borders, and generally creating havoc, we thought the following clip was of note. With NATO and Russia rattling sabres ever louder, the site of a trainful of American tanks passing through Latvia will, we are sure, do nothing to calm both sides. Video is here.

As LiveLeak reports,

According to the representative of national armed forces of Latvia, till December 6 transportation of heavy military equipment of the first cavalry division of army of the USA from Adazhi and Estonia was carried out to Lithuania.

*  *  *

As NATO builds its forces…

Before:

After:

 

and “incidents” surge…

 

 




 

What You Should Know about BDS

Posted on by

Anyone remember that Israel is still working diligently to defend herself? Anyone remember that the West is not only doing nothing to support Israel as an ally but in many cases is working against her as noted by SecState John Kerry dealing with Iran on the nuclear program which failed but then he is still using all back-channels with regard to a peace process with the Palestinians.

There are countless grass roots operations under Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) that are also working against Israel. Businesses in America and even universities have joined the BDS network. Here is what you should know.

Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)
Overview

Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) are the tactics of political warfare used against Israel, based on the exploitation of human rights, double standards, comparisons to apartheid South Africa, and false accusations of “war crimes.”
  • Definitions:
    •  Boycotts of products, culture, and academics – BDS activists lobby stores not to carry Israeli products and encourage others not to purchase them. They send letters to artists, musicians, authors, and academics, imploring them not to perform and appear in Israel or cooperate with Israeli institutions. Boycotts undermine liberal values, such as academic freedom and freedom of expression, by restricting openness and tolerance.
    • Divestment from companies that do business with Israel – Distorting the concept of ethical investing, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accuse companies that conduct business in Israel of involvement in war crimes and violations of international law. The NGOs approach investors, primarily large banks and pension funds, and push for the exclusion of these companies.
    • Sanctions against self-defense measures – Anti-Israel activists demand that the international community enact comprehensive sanctions against Israel – treating Israel as a pariah state. The ultimate goal is legally enforced sanctions by the UN Security Council. Other forms of sanctions include arms embargoes, which are premised on baseless charges of war crimes. Similarly, legal proceedings are initiated against Israeli officials to punish Israel for defensive actions. 
  • BDS is the main component of the “Durban strategy,” which was adopted by dozens of NGOs at the 2001 UN Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, which crystallized the strategy of delegitimizing Israel as “an apartheid regime” through international isolation.
    • Other tactics of the Durban Strategy include “lawfare” campaigns against Israeli officials in international courts; lobbying international bodies, including the UN, EU, US and criminal courts; publishing false reports and accusations of “war crimes,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid”; organizing provocations such as flotillas and violent demonstrations under the guise of humanitarian operations and human rights.
  • The campaign seeks to end the “occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” and promotes the right of “Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.” These goals undermine the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination.
  • This campaign is financed and supported extensively by foreign governments, as well as foundations and religious charities, which provide frameworks for anti-Israel political influence. *See funding chart below.
  • Most of this money comes from Europe, usually involving taxpayer funds funneled through secret processes to organizations that operate under the banners of promoting human rights, humanitarian aid, democracy and peace.
  • BDS seeks the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
    • Co-founder of Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) Omar Barghouti (2004): “The current phase has all the emblematic properties of what may be considered the final chapter of the Zionist project. We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.”
    • As’ad Abu Khalil, a central activist in the U.S. (2012): “Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the State of Israel.”
    • Pro-BDS author Ahmed Moor: “OK, fine. So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state…. I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential….In other words, BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown.”
  • BDS is not an established organization or movement, but comprised of dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and radical activists.
  • In practice, the BDS campaign has little success on the ground, but its effectiveness lies in its ability to penetrate the public and political discourse and blur the lines between legitimate criticism of Israel and the complete de-legitimization of Israel in the international arena.
  • BDS activists utilize the threat of political, economic, academic and cultural isolation as a means of pressuring Israel, and seek to have this idea penetrate the public and political discourse, as a means of influencing governments and businesses to adopt BDS tactics.

Then when a retired General and a former director of the CIA puts out warnings with regard to BDS, sanctions and Israel, listening and action is prudent.

NEW YORK (JTA) — Former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus said that any nuclear deal with Iran should not include a significant decrease in sanctions on the country.

“No deal is better than a bad deal,” Petraeus told a crowd of over 1,700 Wall Street insiders on Monday night at the UJA-Federation of New York’s annual Wall Street Dinner, a fundraiser that broke last year’s record by raising more than $26 million. “And turning the screw on the sanctions is better in the end.”

At the dinner presentation, Marc Lipschultz, the global head of energy and infrastructure at the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, asked Petraeus, also the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, about the Islamic State jihadist group and other global threats to Israel.

Petraeus responded that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel in Europe is potentially more dangerous to Israel than threats in the Middle East and “might keep more people awake at night than anything else.”

He also said that Hezbollah’s threat to Israel has largely been neutralized by the Iron Dome defense system.

 

 

Putin’s Secret Submarines and Strategy

Posted on by

Russia has been placing, flying and deploying strategic military assets around the globe that appear in some curious locations, like aircraft near Newfoundland, aircraft near Alaska and ships near Nicaragua and Cuba.

Now it seems that a submarine that was detected and vanished has gained the attention of several countries.

Many countries are paying attention however, no one is saying if this is aggression, surveillance or part of a Putin Cold War Part 2 operation.

Few speak to the matter of Ukraine and even less when it comes to the risk of the Baltic States.

LONDON—The U.K. called in assistance to help hunt for a foreign submarine off the west coast of Scotland starting in late November.

Maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) from France, Canada and the U.S. conducted patrols in conjunction with British surface warships in the search for the submarine in late November and the first week of December, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth in northern Scotland.

The incident began when a periscope was sighted in waters where U.K. and other submarines would normally surface as they head into or out of the Royal Navy’s submarine base at Faslane, home of the U.K.’s ballistic missile submarines.

At the height of the operation, aircraft involved in the hunt included two U.S. Navy P-3 Orions, a single CP-140 Aurora from the Royal Canadian Air Force and a Dassault Atlantique 2 of the French navy. Also involved was one of the U.K.’s Raytheon Sentinel radar-reconnaissance aircraft.

The U.K. defense ministry and the participating air arms have not confirmed they were hunting for a submarine. But a U.K. defense ministry spokesman told Aviation Week that Britain had “requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period.

The aircraft are conducting Maritime Patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations.”

A spokesman for the Royal Canadian Air Force said: “Following a request for assistance from the United Kingdom, the Canadian Armed Forces deployed one CP-140 Aurora Aircraft to RAF Lossiemouth for a limited time.”

Maritime patrol aircraft are occasionally deployed to Scotland, mainly for NATO’s Joint Warrior exercise. Such exercises are usually announced in advance, but November’s deployment was unexpected, with the aircraft and supporting airlifters arriving around Nov. 26. The deployment appeared to end last last week.

The incident comes more than a month after Swedish authorities halted a search for a foreign submarine operating in its territorial waters in the Stockholm archipelago. While the Swedish search was unsuccessful, defense officials said there was no doubt that the country’s waters had been violated by a foreign power.

It is not clear whether the submarine being hunted by the U.K. and other Western nations had entered U.K. territorial waters, or if the maritime patrol aircraft successfully located the sub.

The Sentinel may have been using its radar to try to spot periscope-sized objects on the surface and then cue MPAs onto the target.

On Nov. 28, the U.K. reported it was tracking four Russian warships passing through the Strait of Dover and into the English Channel heading out into the Atlantic. The surface ships included a Ropucha-class landing ship and an Udaloy-class destroyer. These were shadowed by HMS Tyne, a Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel.

The U.K. retired its own fixed-wing maritime patrol capability provided by the Nimrod in 2010, and has been limited to the use of ships and helicopters for the anti-submarine mission.

Further, another look at Putin’s aggression and certain risks are worthy of immediate attention especially as the Russian currency is unstable due in part to the falling price of crude oil.

Russia and the West

The Geopolitical Nihilist

Jakub Grygiel

Putin’s Russia may be able to wreck the geopolitical status quo, but it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

Russia’s bold moves into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine give one the impression that a calculating strategist sits in the Kremlin. Putin’s own public pronouncements tell us that his apparent aim is to restore Muscovite power and influence over territories deemed by him to be historically Russian. Putin is thus feared to be a shrewd competitor willing to use all forms of Russian power—from nuclear innuendo to a superiority in conventional forces to relentless information warfare—in order to build methodically a new regional order. In other words, he may be a geopolitical master.

But there is another possibility. It’s plausible that he has no such well thought out vision of geopolitical reconstruction, and little or no planning for how to establish and maintain whatever new rules Moscow might impose. Even if Putin did have a new regional order in mind, he may be incapable of translating it into reality. By choice and by necessity, Putin may simply be eager to wreck the status quo with nary a thought given to what comes after. In other words, he may be a geopolitical nihilist.

Consider, for instance, that it is unclear what Putin’s desired “international order” would look like. His own statements on this subject are increasingly more detached from reality, rants fueled by his own propaganda. (He suggests, for instance, that Ukraine is oppressing Russians, or that the U.S. and the West more broadly have been aggressors against Russia for the better part of two decades.) Whether he believes this nonsense or not will never be known, but there is little in such harangues to suggest that he has a positive vision of an alternative political order. We know—and he knows—what he viscerally hates, but the destruction of what he hates does not imply a replacement.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, even if Putin has a long-term vision of the order he wants to establish, he may be unable to implement it. Weak and declining revisionist powers, such as today’s Russia, do not have the capacity to establish a stable regional order. They lack the strength necessary to maintain it, even though they may have a deep desire to demolish the existing one. The best they can do is to increase uncertainty about their behavior, flailing here and there, expanding their influence and control in weakly defended adjacent regions, and more broadly, increasing the perception of risk in the mind of their opponents. The result is a volatile and unpredictable situation—costly to all, but seen by the declining revisionist as perhaps more costly to its rivals (and thus in the selfish logic of relative gains, beneficial!). A declining revisionist power is a wrecker of order.

The inability to formulate and implement a cogent and viable alternative does not mean, however, that Putin’s Russia is not a serious menace to the security of Europe and the interests of the United States. Geopolitical nihilism is not the same as geopolitical passivity. Russia presents perhaps a greater problem than a strong revisionist state with clear and implementable plans for how to reorganize the international or regional order.

Russia has neither the power nor the authority to maintain an order, but it has plenty of force and abundant desire to destroy the existing one.

Russia is in fact still a formidable military power. It has a massive nuclear arsenal that is presented to the world as superior to the American one and as a symbol, if not a symptom, of great resilience and strength. As many analysts have observed, Russian conventional forces have undergone a dramatic, though still limited, improvement since the 2008 war in Georgia (and in any case, they are superior in size, firepower, and sophistication to those of Russia’s European and Central Asian neighbors). Yet the economy is in shambles, producing little of value and drawing wealth mostly from the extraction of natural resources. Moreover, Russia’s authoritarian political system is fragile, based on the so far unchallenged rule of Putin and his clan, a large propaganda apparatus fanning nationalist hysteria and resentment toward the West, and a good dose of violence targeted at political opponents and potential claimants to power. Russia is a ramshackle gas station run by a small group of well-armed, delusional gangsters.

This political, social, and economic fragility means that Russia cannot replace the existing order on Europe’s eastern frontier—an order that is based on exactly those pillars fraying or outright missing in Russia. But she can destroy it because of her military might. Russia cannot compete as an economic potentate or as a politically attractive entity, but can and does employ its military force to destabilize the region. It is not surprising therefore that Ukraine can be Western and European by the Ukrainians’ free choice but may still fall under Russian vassalage by the sheer brutality of Muscovite firepower. This is 21st century competition meeting 19th century extortion.

Extortion—brute force—creates an order that lasts as long as the fear it generates lasts. Were Russia a rising power, that fear and the resulting order might have some staying power. But today’s Russia is not China; neither is she the post-World War II superpower that could roll over a large swath of the Eurasian landmass and impose a bloody Soviet order. Whatever Moscow may establish in its immediate region through its armor, artillery, and nuclear threats will be backed by a flimsy state, seeking its own justification through invented myths of Western frauds, perversions, and belligerence.

The fact that Russia is unable to replace the existing order with her own stable and durable one does not mean therefore that the threat is nonexistent. On the contrary, the threat is more pronounced because the risks presented by Russia are higher. If Moscow had a clear idea of what it wanted to achieve—how far it wants to extend its influence, and what new rules of international behavior and domestic comportment it will enforce—the uncertainty would be smaller. We may, as we should, still deeply dislike and oppose the proposed order, but at a minimum the boundaries of the conflict would be well defined.

In this case, however, the vision seems to be nihilistic in the long term. Hence the on-and-off Russian interventions in Ukraine, the constant provocations in the Baltic regions, the boasts about nuclear capabilities and the willingness to use them, the Russian aerial forays from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, and so on. These are all attempts to shake the existing order. These actions have varied intensity and outcomes: While Ukraine is being broken apart by Russian artillery and armor, Alaska and Diego Garcia are safe from the occasional Tu-95s sputtering near their airspace. But the principle unifying all these actions is a negative one: to destabilize by introducing elements of greater risk.

Putin as the geopolitical nihilist is therefore different than the various tsars that he wants to emulate. In mostly unpleasant and violent ways, the past tsars built and rebuilt the Russian empire by expanding into adjacent lands while seeking some diplomatic arrangement with the more distant great powers. Putin expands into Russia’s southern and western neighborhood but with the aspiration to destroy the stability of the post-Cold War era. He seeks no grand diplomatic bargain that could underpin a new settlement.

What such a view of Russia entails is worrisome. Geopolitical nihilism indicates that a whole spectrum of actions, deemed unlikely because of the dangers they carry, is on the table. We now know, for instance, that Putin is willing to invade —not once, but twice (Georgia in 2008 preceded Ukraine). He is likely to continue that pattern and push farther westward irrespective of the costs. He has also engaged in nuclear saber-rattling for several years (for example, the Zapad 2009 military exercises ended with a simulated use of a nuclear weapon), and he is lowering the nuclear threshold. Nihilism is not order-building; it revels in destroying it. The spectrum of actions that establish an order is limited by their effectiveness at implementing the rules, whatever they may be, of behavior: their purposefulness is constraining. The spectrum of actions that destroy order, on the other hand, is much more open-ended.

The Western strategy of waiting Russia out through a 21st-century version of containment—a mix of economic sanctions, ostracism in global fora, and very modest, mostly rhetorical, shoring up of deterrence—will not suffice. Russia cannot be let to dwell on its internal decline and realize sooner or later its international ineptitude. Verbal rebukes and restatements of NATO’s Article 5 will not turn a geopolitical nihilist into a constructive partner or even into a rival with whom we can reach a negotiated settlement. Nothing in Putin’s statements and behavior suggests that Russia can be persuaded to accept the existing international rules and norms of behavior and to cease the belligerent posture it has adopted. On the contrary, this is a threat that is impossible to mitigate without a resolute and forceful policy that will physically stop and reverse the advance of Russian forces in Ukraine and be ready to do so in the future elsewhere. This can only be achieved now by arming Ukraine. The geopolitical nihilism of today’s Russia will not be persuaded or negotiated away or simply waited out. It has to be defeated.

Kerry/WH Rely on Lawyers to Manage Islamic State

Posted on by

To date, the strategy in Iraq and Syria, defeating Islamic State has been in the lap of Susan Rice working exclusively with Centcom. Meanwhile, John Kerry participated in a Senate hearing over war in Iraq and the core of the dispute is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Presently, the United States is operating on the original AUMF which includes al Qaeda and all associated terror networks.

Yet, there are additional disputes over the temporary authorization of the White House which does not require Congress. This temporary authorization limits the number of ground troops and John Kerry is demanding open options for additional forces when fighters from foreign countries are not reliable for defensive measures, more robust rules of engagement or rescue of personnel.

Presently, managing Daesh (Islamic State) is just that, managing, not even containing much less defeating and any strategy has not been forthcoming. In fact it can be said that no strategy was one of the conditions of the employment demise of Secretary Chuck Hagel at Defense as he demanded an operational strategy for Bashir al Assad and Syria from the White House. None has been revealed except to vet, hire and train opposition forces in various locations outside of Syria.

In the hearing/briefing, John Kerry delivered his reasons for having all options for Iraq and Syria including additional uniformed troops that do get proactively involved in hostilities without planning, rules or timelines. The exchange between Senator Menendez and Kerry has been heated for a long while. As days click by, still no resolutions are on the horizon.

Going back to September, the heated exchanges began between Senator(s) Menendez and Kerry.

Instead of asking Congress for new authority to go after terrorists in Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration is turning to “good lawyers within the White House, within the State Department,” Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday.

How is it that the Obama administration thinks it can rely on a 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to go into Syria and Iraq 13 years later, Sen. Robert Mendendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Kerry at a hearing on Wednesday.

Kerry responded that “good lawyers” at the White House and State Department have concluded that the 2001 AUMF is sufficient because it “includes…al-Qaeda and associated forces.”

For the most recent hearing, the heated exchanges continued.

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry clashed Tuesday with senators over using US ground combat forces in the fight against the Islamic State.

In several tense exchanges, mostly with Republican members, Kerry urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to strip from a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) language limiting the deployment of American ground forces.

A force authorization measure drafted by panel Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., “does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of ground combat operations except as necessary.”

The measure would allow the use of American ground troops to rescue other US forces or citizens, as well as to conduct missions like intelligence collection, enabling “kinetic strikes” and providing “other forms of advice and assistance to forces fighting [Islamic State] in Iraq or Syria.”

CongressWatch obtained a copy of the draft AUMF on Tuesday. The panel is slated to mark it up on Thursday. Menendez urged his panel members to offer amendments at that time, should they have ideas not included or want to change what he has crafted.

Kerry told the senators the Obama administration has no intention of using American ground forces for combat operations in Iraq or Syria. That fighting, he says, will be done by “local forces.”

But he also pleaded several times with members to opt against crafting a force-authorization measure that would tie the president’s hands by taking ground troops off the table.

The draft AUMF would last three years, a timetable Kerry said the White House supports.

It also includes no language limiting the countries inside which President Barack Obama or future commanders in chief could launch operations targeting the violent Sunni group. Kerry gave the White House’s endorsement for that, as well.

Kerry and Menendez butted heads over the scope of any measure Congress might approve, almost certainly next year under two GOP-controlled chambers.

At one point, the chairman sharply told Kerry — who once chaired the panel — “if the White House wants an open-ended” AUMF, “they should just say it.” Menendez spoke passionately about his measure being tailored to keep America from getting involved in other “protracted” ground operations in the Middle East.

Kerry several times referred to the draft as a “good starting point,” saying White House officials intend to work with Congress in the coming weeks on the final shape of a force-authorization measure.

He traded barbs with GOP members who questioned why Obama, despite saying on Nov. 5 he wants an AUMF, has yet to write one and send it to the Hill.

And Menendez criticized the administration, saying despite having three conversations with the White House counsel, the panel has gotten little feedback. The proposed draft of the AUMF is found here.

Feinstein’s Acrimony for the CIA Revealed

Posted on by

Today, December 9, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Majority leader for the SSCI, stood on the Senate floor for almost an hour and delivered a chilling verbal summary of the $40 million dollar investigation into the CIA Torture Report. She spoke in a measured and assertive tone naming names all the way through. My bet is she delivered this performance for the sake of setting the table to close Guantanamo immediately.

Further, Feinstein put every American in peril wherever they may travel internationally as well as all foreign service officers and our very own troops. She has aided and abetted the enemy as her 500 page summary report has been publically published for all enemies to read. What is worse, several countries friendly to America are formally exposed and will likely never cooperate again with U.S. intelligence. We cannot know the future damage but the threat assessments have risen dramatically as all foreign U.S. military bases are presently on higher alert and some embassies are in fact closed for an undetermined period of time.

Feinstein de-facto denied all evidence that the CIA program saved lives, stopped terror plots and led us to other terrorists in the global network, then perhaps the fact that over the weekend, Pakistani forces killed the man who was believed to be al-Qaeda’s top operational commander, Adnan el Shukrijumah — a terrorist who was identified thanks to the CIA’s interrogation of two senior al-Qaeda operatives.

The enhanced interrogation program was terminated several years ago and since several laws were passed to ensure they were never applied again. For Feinstein to say her only motivation was to ensure this never happened again, is misguided at best.

What is worse, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any participants of the program but the United Nations is saying otherwise such that many contractors and CIA operatives could be bought up on charges on international law.

This matter is by far not over yet, we have people in media that are in fact outing names of countries that cooperated and they are posting names of CIA operatives that had a hand in the program. Feinstein crossed the Rubicon and the wake of destruction, damage injury or life is still yet to be realized.

As a last note, this CIA Torture Report is highly partisan as no former or still active CIA operative was interviewed during this process nor was the top lawyer at CIA, John Rizzo. Rizzo formally asked to be interviewed and was denied. Rizzo then formally asked for a copy of the report and was denied.

If you don’t think that George Soros did not have a hand in the Feinstein investigation, you need to think again.

Jose Rodriguez who ran the rendition/interrogation program had his own response to Feinstein.

WASHINGTON – The Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program calls a damning Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation activities a “totally egregious falsehood.”

Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told WTOP in an exclusive interview, “For those of us who were there, who read the reporting coming out of our black sites and who acted upon that intelligence, the conclusions by the SSCI report that the program brought no value, and the CIA mislead the Congress is astounding.”

The committee, in a scathing, 600-page summary of a five-year, $40 million investigation into the now defunct Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program, says the agency of misled Congress about a program that essentially brought no value to U.S. efforts to track down the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The program included waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques that have been classified as torture.

The Senate Committee report cited several key findings:

  • The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.
  • The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.
  • The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.
  • The CIA program was far more brutal than the CIA represented to policymakers and the American public.

But Rodriguez says the value of the program was clear and convincing. He says the program produced connective intelligence that led U.S. authorities to the key players in al-Qaida’s hierarchy.

He laid out a pattern.

“Abu Zubayda was waterboarded for the first 20 days of August 2002. Two weeks later, we captured the first important high value target, Ramzi bin al-Shibh,” said Rodriguez.

Bin al-Shibh, was a key collaborator within al-Qaida’s Hamburg, Germany, cell comprised of Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi. They formed the cell that became the essential agents of the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the following days, weeks and months, CIA personnel and contract employees executed the enhanced interrogation program designed by the agency’s Counterterrorism Center to extract valuable information. They captured Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the perpetrator of the U.S.S. Cole attack. And using the intelligence they gathered, they systematically pieced together details that led them to the mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March of 2003.

Gary Berntsen, the CIA officer who led a team of military and intelligence assets into Tora Bora, Afghanistan in 2001 looking for Osama bin Laden, said the tactics paid off.

“The information they turned over, gave us entire the second tier of al-Qaida, when they were attempting to launch attacks on the U.S.”

A key contention in the Senate report is the CIA misled members of Congress. But Rodriguez says “the Senate, the House intelligence committees were briefed more than 40 times during the life of the program.”

But in a long briefing before the Senate Tuesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein said the CIA’s destruction of the video tapes of the interrogation session was an attempt to keep Congress in the dark.

Rodriguez said the tapes were recorded to help intelligence operatives understand the people they were interrogating.

They were destroyed because, he said “our people in the field came back and said these tapes are vulnerability for us, because we don’t have a place to store them and our faces are all over the place in these tapes.”

“We acknowledge that the detention and interrogation program had shortcomings and that the Agency made mistakes. But the intelligence gained from the program was critical to understanding al-Qaida,” the CIA said in a statement, responding to the report.

“While we made mistakes, the record does not support the study’s inference that the agency systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences on the effectiveness of the program. Moreover, the process undertaken by the committee when investigating the program provided an incomplete and selective picture of what occurred,” the statement reads.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement alluding to the intelligence community angst over the report, “President Obama has made clear, some things were done that should not have been done — and which transgressed our values.”

But Clapper indicated, this is not a new issue.

“We recognized this 10 years ago and stopped the program as it was originally conducted; even more important, we have since enacted laws, implemented presidential orders and established internal policies to ensure that such things never happen again.”

 

Below is ODNI Director, James Clapper’s response and Barack Obama’s response.

DNI Message to the Intelligence Community Workforce on the Release of the SSCI Report

December 9, 2014

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper sent the following message to the entire Intelligence Community workforce earlier this morning.

Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its report on the detention and interrogation program.  In all of my experience in intelligence, I am hard-pressed to recall another report—and the issues surrounding it—as fraught with controversy and passion as this one.  Virtually no one who has any familiarity with the report and what it describes is “neutral.”  The rebuttal to the majority report issued by the minority on the Committee is but one example of strong alternative views.  Proponents of publication ardently believe that the report must be issued to cleanse a stain on the pages of our history, and to ensure that the practices it describes are never repeated.  Others, with equal conviction, believe that the report is unfair and biased; fails to account for the immediate impact of the attacks on 9/11—on American citizens and on those in government charged with protecting the country; and will result in greater jeopardy to American citizens, facilities and interests overseas.

The officers who participated in the program believed with certainty that they were engaged in a program devised by our government on behalf of the President that was necessary to protect the nation, that had appropriate legal authorization, and that was sanctioned by at least some in the Congress.  But, as President Obama has made clear, some things were done that should not have been done —and which transgressed our values.  We recognized this ten years ago and stopped the program as it was originally conducted; even more important, we have since enacted laws, implemented Presidential orders and established internal policies to ensure that such things never happen again.

I don’t believe that any other nation would go to the lengths the United States does to bare its soul, admit mistakes when they are made and learn from those mistakes.  Certainly, no one can imagine such an effort by any of the adversaries we face today.  In the months leading up to today’s publication, we went through an exhaustive, good-faith dialogue with the Committee to reach a mutual agreement on what could be said publicly about the program, consistent with the enduring need to protect national security.  We made unprecedented efforts to enable the release of as much of the Committee’s report as possible.

Now that the report is public, there is certain to be much discussion of its contents—and of the alternative views of the program and the period during which it operated.  That discussion will go on, but the critical imperative for all of us who are privileged to work as members of the Intelligence Community is to remain sharply focused on our missions and the work before us.  We must sustain our vigilance to deal with the myriad threats and challenges that face the nation, including any that may arise in the coming days as a possible reaction to the report.  The women and men of the CIA specifically, and of the Intelligence Community generally, have helped to keep this nation safe for nearly 70 years.  That remains our ultimate mission; it reflects the trust that Americans have always placed in us.  I have every confidence that we will continue to meet those expectations and honor that sacred trust, just as we have always done.

James Clapper

Statement by President Obama — Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

December 9, 2014

Throughout our history, the United States of America has done more than any other nation to stand up for freedom, democracy, and the inherent dignity and human rights of people around the world.  As Americans, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who serve to keep us safe, among them the dedicated men and women of our intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency.  Since the horrific attacks of 9/11, these public servants have worked tirelessly to devastate core al Qaeda, deliver justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupt terrorist operations and thwart terrorist attacks.  Solemn rows of stars on the Memorial Wall at the CIA honor those who have given their lives to protect ours.  Our intelligence professionals are patriots, and we are safer because of their heroic service and sacrifices.

In the years after 9/11, with legitimate fears of further attacks and with the responsibility to prevent more catastrophic loss of life, the previous administration faced agonizing choices about how to pursue al Qaeda and prevent additional terrorist attacks against our country.  As I have said before, our nation did many things right in those difficult years.  At the same time, some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values.  That is why I unequivocally banned torture when I took office, because one of our most effective tools in fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe is staying true to our ideals at home and abroad.

Today’s report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence details one element of our nation’s response to 9/11—the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which I formally ended on one of my first days in office.  The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests.  Moreover, these techniques did significant damage to America’s standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners.  That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again.

As Commander in Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the safety and security of the American people.  We will therefore continue to be relentless in our fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremists.  We will rely on all elements of our national power, including the power and example of our founding ideals.  That is why I have consistently supported the declassification of today’s report.  No nation is perfect.  But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.  Rather than another reason to refight old arguments, I hope that today’s report can help us leave these techniques where they belong—in the past.  Today is also a reminder that upholding the values we profess doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us stronger and that the United States of America will remain the greatest force for freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known.