Stratfor analyzes the successful Taliban suicide attack against the the CIA in Khost last month.
As Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi exited the vehicle that brought him onto Forward Operating Base (FOB) Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan, on Dec. 30, 2009, security guards noticed he was behaving strangely. They moved toward al-Balawi and screamed demands that he take his hand out of his pocket, but instead of complying with the officers’ commands, al-Balawi detonated the suicide device he was wearing. The explosion killed al-Balawi, three security contractors, four CIA officers and the Jordanian General Intelligence Department (GID) officer who was al-Balawi’s handler. The vehicle shielded several other CIA officers at the scene from the blast. The CIA officers killed included the chief of the base at Khost and an analyst from headquarters who reportedly was the agency’s foremost expert on al Qaeda. The agency’s second-ranking officer in Afghanistan was allegedly among the officers who survived.
The CIA officers clearly violated tradecraft in this incident, which makes me wonder what else they were weak in. I am just not impressed with the CIA, especially in analysis. They attacked George Bush more successfully than they did the Islamists. I reviewed Timmerman’s book a couple of years ago. I wish I had more confidence in this institution.
Tags: Afghanistan, terrorism
Boy, oh, boy… you and me both, Doc.
And it’s not “just” the Intelligence agencies, it’s the corporatism of today’s military.
Hey… we’re not talking a new phenomenon either; we’re talking simple human nature and how the system of rewards and punishment inherent in any large bureaucratic structure operate.
I don’t think there is “an answer.” Heck… even at the supposed height of CIA power and expertise they couldn’t take out Castro. (*SHRUG*)
Life ain’t a Vince Flynn or Tom Clancy novel. Worse, the mirror of fiction to reality no doubt shows a more complete picture of how BAD the situation is within the institutions rather than how many real life “Jack Bauers” there are. (I’m guessing VERY few – perhaps none.)
BILL
You get a better picture of the military from WEB Griffin’s novels. He was there a long time and Clancy hasn’t ever been. Every Griffin novel has a bunch of fuckups in charge. I laugh sometimes reading them because he must have had trouble as an EM with a Colonel Minor. That name comes up a lot and the guy is always a jerk.
I’m a big Griffin fan, Doc; Castillo’s fate (when last we tuned in) is case in point.
(*SMILE*)
BILL
The Castillo series is excellent. Some of his later novels are weak in character development. The latest one is an example. As the series goes along, the lead characters keep becoming supermen. Right now, I’m reading the history of commercial aviation plus I’ve been working my way through Neville Shute’s novels. He died 40 years ago but his books are all still in print.
Neville Shute, huh? Interesting. I admit, prior to this post I was unfamiliar with Shute (Norway), but having just clicked over to Wikipedia and read about the gentleman, I’m guessing I’d enjoy his novels.
Yeah. Griffin (William Edmund Butterworth III) tends to allow his characters to “grow” in a “superhero-ish” sense. He also tends to repeat stock dialogue and “go to the same well” much too often.
All this said… in line with my comments with regard to your original post, Griffin’s characters reflect reality in the sense that Brennan (for example) could be a stock character – an untrustworthy self-serving bureaucrat – in any Griffin novel.
Hey… Doc… are/were you a MASH fan? You know… the book, the movie, the series…???
The reason I ask is that when I was a kid, Griffin – using his real name – penned a series of “MASH” books based upon the original characters but updated (at the time we’re talking early/mid ’70’s) to “modern comic adventures” of the now (then) civilian doctors and their circle of famous acquaintances.
Are you familiar with the series…???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M*A*S*H_%28novels%29
BILL