Stuff we already (mostly) knew: Israeli air raid was delayed by U.S. for months
posted at 11:29 am on October 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Lots o’ tips coming in about this ABC News scoop, which was even more of a scoop two weeks ago when the Times of London first reported it. Remember? Israeli commandos daringly infiltrating the suspected Syrian nuke site and escaping with hard evidence to reassure jittery American intelligence officials? From ToL:
Israel had been surveying the site for months, according to Washington and Israeli sources. President George W Bush was told during the summer that Israeli intelligence suggested North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site…
But Washington was not satisfied. It demanded clear evidence of nuclear-related activities before giving the operation its blessing. The task of the commandos was to provide it.
ABC claims the raid was originally set for the week of July 14, a little less than a month after Ehud Barak was sworn in as the new defense minister, and adds two new wrinkles: not only had U.S. intelligence overlooked the site completely but Condi Rice, learning nothing from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, apparently convinced the Israelis to warn Assad before the raid that they knew about the site.
In early July the Israelis presented the United States with satellite imagery that they said showed a nuclear facility in Syria. They had additional evidence that they said showed that some of the technology was supplied by North Korea.
One U.S. official told ABC’s Martha Raddatz the material was “jaw dropping” because it raised questions as to why U.S. intelligence had not previously picked up on the facility.
Officials said that the facility had likely been there for months if not years…
Some in the administration supported the Israeli action [earlier in the summer], but others, notably Sect. of State Condoleeza Rice did not. One senior official said the U.S. convinced the Israelis to “confront Syria before attacking.”
Unless Assad is even more of an idiot than he’s reputed to be, if there was any nuclear material there when the Israelis “confronted” him it was long gone by the time of the raid on September 6.
Grasping-at-straws exit question: Is there any positive spin at all to be put on the claim that U.S. intel didn’t know about the Syrian site? Playing possum, maybe, to make Iran think we’re not hip to their own secret nuke sites in advance of a possible bombing run? Help a brother out here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Right now, it’d be all too easy for me to jump on the “Bush administration has to go” bandwagon, but the alternative is (was) the party that wants to have “dialog” with Syria and Iran.
Unfortunately, thanks to things like this, the likelihood of the Dembots winning the White House next year grows stronger by the day.
flipflop on October 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Knowledge of anything means nothing without action. We know Iran is fighting a proxy war yet we do nothing. If we knew the NK’s were tranferring tech to Syria (nuclear or not) we did nothing. We could know where all of the nuke sites are in Iran, but that helps no one without action.
I don’t think we are/were playing possum. We are the possum.
sunny on October 6, 2007 at 11:40 AM
There is no positive spin with regards to this. For all the lip service Bush has been paying to Israel, he’s been cutting them off at the knees on matters of their security for a number of years.
I have my reasons as to why I think this is, and I’m keeping them to myself.
Krydor on October 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Occam’s Razor baby - we’re schmucks.
Dean Barnett on October 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Positive spin? None whatsoever.
This moonshine-induced blindness is of a piece with U.S. intelligence’s brushing away of the Atta-Iraqi meetings in the Czech Republic, the utter cluenessness about the Libyan nuclear program (and its collaboration with other governments), and the North Korean assistance given to the Syria-Iraq-Iran axis in the run-up to the Iraq War during 2002-2003.
U.S. intelligence has been blindsided by these and many other unpleasant facts they refuse to confront or investigate.
RD on October 6, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Positive spin?
Not necessary. I think it’s likely that US intelligence leaves certain tasks to Israel so that we can focus our efforts elsewhere. That Israel learns of things before we do is unsurprising and not extraordinary.
LB - the one that isn't LaShawn Barber on October 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Maybe the Muslims want a nuclear armed califate with Iran, Syria, and Lybia as charter members and North Korea as their usefull idiot. After years of secret development, all the players announce that they’re nuclear capable at the same time. That way the West has a many headed Hydra to deal with instead of just Iran acting alone.
What’s amazing is how our stupid politicians don’t take this stuff seriously. We simply won’t get it until American cities lie in radioactive smoldering ruins.
Mojave Mark on October 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Condi = Skeletor in drag.
Griz on October 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM
“Grasping-at-straws exit question”
Sorry, but I can’t help in the way you ask. We have too many eggs to juggle and, with that, too many options in prioritizing.
In addition, as evidenced by Condi’s alleged position, we don’t have the inclination to keep secrets, either ones that should be or ones that are supposed to be. It has, IMHO contributed significant difficulty to our efforts in gathering intelligence.
I will say something positive though. The interdependent relationship of the US and Israel is our best guarantor for the timely and important gathering of crucial intelligence in the Middle East. In that vein, I’d liken them to being our specialists in that arena, to the point that I almost hope a concious decision was made to ‘let Mikey do it’ because it will be safer, more productive and establish a better system for “need to know”. The remaining drawbacks to such a relationship, I think, are easier to handle for us.
Dusty on October 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Well, it does makes the US look like a–holes but it does give us some nice cover with our putative Arab friends. FWIW. State can take the hit.
BJ* on October 6, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Yeah, I got one. Groundwork. The intel. community got a black eye over intel that said that nukes were there when they weren’t. This episode gives the intel community a black eye for not knowing about nukes that were there. Thus, even playing field. IF we strike Iran, and the Left worries that it is another Iraq with faulty intel, then the Right can speak up and worry that it could be another Syria with faulty intel. Equilibrium has been achieved. Yes, this is spin…not reality.
Weight of Glory on October 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Here is your spin bro!
Bwahahahaha!!!!!
csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Not necessary. I think it’s likely that US intelligence leaves certain tasks to Israel so that we can focus our efforts elsewhere. That Israel learns of things before we do is unsurprising and not extraordinary.
But, that’s the problem. The Israelis had the evidence and were not allowed to act by the US Government.
Krydor on October 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Yes, I sometimes wonder if Rice is required to play good cop to satisfy in-house State Dep’t critics, and int’l public opinion.
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Bu-but…the Great Satan is controlled by the Zionist Entity!
Isn’t it?
flipflop on October 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM
So much for “Condi for Prez”, or “NFL Commissioner”.
Helloyawl on October 6, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Well they did act, and we certainly didn’t stop them. Since we guarantee Israel’s security, I see no reason why they shouldn’t consult with us before committing to any shooting that might draw us in.
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM
The State Dep’t is an impediment to a Republican president.Hopefully Condi just keeps it out of Bush’s way.
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Man what in the world are you guys quacking about? You to Allahpundit? First let me explain something, this article is talking about two separate incidents that DID happen. 1) a commando raid to gather indisputable evidence and 2) a bombing run on the facility.
You can be sure of this, unlike some past US presidents the Israeli military doesn’t bother bombing empty building or aspirin factories. Assad didn’t move anything because the Russians assured him that the Israeli F-15’s could not touch the facility. Remember those fancy Russian SAM’s that Assad just bought?
This is why Syria didn’t make a formal complaint to the UN, why they didn’t retalitate why NK complained so weakly and why Russia also made such a pathetic complaint.
This is also why Condi insisted that Israel warn Assad, and how by the way did the Israeli’s manage to get past the Russian SAM’s, the US Navy told them how. It’s also why the Russians have been buzzing NATO air space lately, because they have to respond in some fashion to what the US and Israel did.
The US told Russia in no uncertain terms, we can by pass your best defense systems any time we so choose. This was a message to Iran, Russia and China. It was a very clear and unequivocal message that if and when the US decides to take action against Iran there is nothing any of them can do about it.
doriangrey on October 6, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The fact of the matter is that historicly our intelligence assets have been substandard…
WW1: Didn’t know about Mexico/Germany talking about basing subs in Mexico until BRITAIN let it into the media…
WWII: Pearl Harbor
Korea: Chinese invasion, total suprise.
VietNam: Went in clueless… and had no idea about their wanting to surrender late war, as Giap said… bit of a push there and according to him it would have been done.
Cold War: At one time we thought they had over 1000 bombers which could reacy the US… they had 3, and they could only reach us in a one way trip. Spent 10s of millions against a threat that never existed.
Lebanon 83?: Won’t even go into it.
Iraq: WMDs?
Face it… we pretty much suck when it comes to intelligence..
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
So long Condi.
Valiant on October 6, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Don’t forget the resurrection of Russia’s long bomber patrols, and their announcement of the mother of all bombs. All face saving too maybe.
I like your analysis.
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
So now America via Bush has control over the Israeli military? Doubts! At best consensus was reached, something our lovely democrats currently in congress are incapable of.
DannoJyd on October 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Is anyone all that surprised that our greatest enemy in international politics is our own State Department?
Lawrence on October 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
On the other hand, we never know about a lot of the successes due to the nature of black ops.
You left out 9/11, a victory for Jihadists and the Clinton PC policies.
Mojave Mark on October 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
DorienGray-
And if you’re right, Condi played them. Bet they beat their woman that night.
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Well they did act, and we certainly didn’t stop them. Since we guarantee Israel’s security, I see no reason why they shouldn’t consult with us before committing to any shooting that might draw us in.
JiangxiDad
If I read the article correctly, and I think I did, the Israelis were ready to go and the State Dept. told them to “confront” Assad, which basically told Assad to move his stuff.
Don’t worry about the USA getting drawn into a shooting war. The Israelis were kneecapped last summer by State. The only thing worse for Israel than the Bush administration would be a Democrat in the White House.
Krydor on October 6, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I wasn’t disputing your take on what the article said. I was just kind of assuming that the article is in fact wrong, and then wondering if it’s wrong/incomplete because most MSM stories are, or because it reflects some kind of purposeful disinformation. I never believe what I read in the MSM, but I am not always sure why.
I truly don’t know what influence State has with Bush. And I thought Israel’s biggest problem was Olmert.
JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM
doriangrey on October 6, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Ya, that’s the ticket. So take that Putin.
oakpack on October 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM
[Lawrence on October 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM]
No, not at all. Right now, the members of our military are better diplomats than most of those in the State Department could ever hope to be. Personally, I think military service should to be a pre-requisite for holding a job at the State Department.
Dusty on October 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Actualy I think Putin is playing an even deeper game with bringing back the Long Range bomber incursions into NATO airspace.
They really are NOT a threat, unless unopposed. Any modern fighter knocks them down in droves in short order, once engaged.
Problem is that we HAVE to respond, and defend more airspace from a truly nonviable threat, spreading our resources and the limited amount of first line fighters we have.
When the are busy escorting bombers at the Northern borders of NATO/North America, they can’t be off bombing Iran.
Its more a move to say “don’t put up those Radars in Eastern Europe, or we’ll annoy you” than a serious threat.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I truly don’t know what influence State has with Bush. And I thought Israel’s biggest problem was Olmert.
JiangxiDad
Point taken on the accuracy of the MSM…
Yeah, Olmert was a big problem in that he caved to international pressure to not defend his country. That was compounded by this idiotic State stance of negotiating with people who want you dead, and are quite open with their desire to kill you.
Israel is on the front line with the war on Islamic Extremists, and they have been hung out to dry for the past 6 years by what is supposed to be their number one ally.
Krydor on October 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM
It’s yet another blow to the concept of a hypercompetent government that could have pre-planned 9/11?
Other than that; there isn’t much. Our intelligence services are awesome. Just awesome.
Maybe Ron Paul is right. Disband the CIA, etal. It’s not like they are helping us out anyways.
lorien1973 on October 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Exactly, Putin knows that those old bombers are no real viable threat, he has to on the other hand respond to the implicant threat made by the US Navy. Make no mistake about it while it was the Israeli planes that carried out that strike, they did it with information received from the US Navy.
The statement made was this, we can bypass your best defense systems without resorting to our best offensive capabilities. We can show any of our allies how to bypass your best defense systems and are perfectly willing to do so at any time we deem necessary.
Putin’s use of those old bombers is a classic chess move, move a pawn into attack position and force your opponent to counter with a defensive posture. America’s best response to this would be the classic “Sicilian Defense” which is to counter the threat of a pawn with another pawn.
In other words, each time the Russians deploy these old bombers, send up fighter/interceptors that are the closest we have to the same generation of air craft. Let that old cold warrior know that Bobby Fisher isn’t the only American Chess Grandmaster and that America still has Russia’s number.
doriangrey on October 6, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Interesting point except that we are quickly fazeing out all of our older model fighters and replacing them with Raptors and such.
By Congressional mandate we can only have so many fighter squadrons, so it isn’t as if we are adding fighters as we build them, we are using new fighters to replace older models.
So he can threaten with a pawn… but we have managed to replace all our Pawns with Queens… and thus have to counter their pawn with a high value and capability piece, while not actualy killing the pawn.
The last real war we fought, WWII, we won with Mass, not with technological quality. Top line German equipment was much better than anything we had, but we had much more mediocre equipment than there limited amount of awsome equipment.
The fact that we have spent MASSIVE amounts of money lately upgrading equipment, while not increasing the SIZE of the military tells me we are not learning from history.
Our enemy can spread us thin enough, and engage on enough fronts, to where we cannot use our technilogical superiorty to win…. we’ll win on the fronts we can fight on, but it will leave other fronts where we will concede the battlefeild to the enemy.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
With so many reports coming out of dissenting views in the State Dept, the CIA, the Pentagon, etc.. All straddling respective ‘party’ lines and personal political views, what are the chances good solid intel will not be shelved, drawered, skewed and lost in the tangle in the US?
You guys leak like crazy because individuals take it upon themselves to ’shape the agenda’ which does not suit them, that’s hardly prize winning factors for earth shattering intel / analysis.
Don’t mean to be harsh, but as Krydor pointed out Israel is getting shafted by the inept Dept of State and the appeasement crew for some time now, and here we don’t buck the requests from the US lightly, as per good allies.
saus on October 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM
ABC is not known for great credability.
allrsn on October 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM
I agree.
And I too don’t put much stock in the reporting of the MSM, especially when they promote exclusives with unnamed US officials. In this case, we don’t really know what confront means and we don’t know the timeline of such confrontation. I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Assad was told his secret wasn’t a secret anymore. And since there really is not that much time between July and September it seems to me that perhaps Condi saw an opportunity to play the situation into a bigger prize, which btw we got by demonstrating several strategic advantages.
Texas Gal on October 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
The ABC piece is propaganda spin - can’t trust Republicans with foreign and military policy because they’re incompetent!
Hogwash… I’m 100% with doriangrey’s thoughts on this.
T J Green on October 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I wish I could say that you are overstating the case with regards to the US State dept. But sadly I seriously doubt that you are. There are way to many terrorist coddling useful idiots in America for you guys to be getting much of anything else from our State Dept right now. Hopefully the next administration will be Fred Thompson who will have the Malkins to clean house in the State Dept, the CIA, the Pentagon and other civil servant departments where the socialist/liberal/democrats are advancing their own agenda’s instead of that of the administration that employees them.
doriangrey on October 6, 2007 at 2:00 PM
You’ve got every stinking politician, reporter, blog nut and whatever looking over our covert operations’ backs. You have so many “verify ten times before acting” geniuses waiting to jump on our government’s case. Then, you’re surprised, outraged and whatever over this?
MNDavenotPC on October 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
No doubt it sure does need to be done but as someone who has worked for a government agency I can tell you it is not an easy task because of the protections that any employee who does not “work at the will” has. That means the only way to clean house it to build disciplinary action cases that usually take a couple of years, build unsatisfactory work cases that can take longer or reassign people to other roles which takes the creation of new positions that have basically no impact on the mission of the department. This is the problem with all those agencies. My guess is for the most part those that are the problem children are minding the P’s & Q’s and know the system better that those who are the ‘work at the will’ appointees who want them gone too.
So as someone who has had to deal with these kinds of problem children for more years than I like to recall, I completely understand the challenge they are. It would take an army of new mid-level managers several years of diligence to clean the house.
Texas Gal on October 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM
I make this remark three or four times a day, and I usually feel like I spending my time as wisely as if I were trying to teach calculus to a toy poodle. I don’t know what it will take to make people get it. I do know it is useful to remind people that the United States is not omnipotent and that there are guarantees that our military will always be the best. We better be careful about who next achieve military dominance.
thuja on October 6, 2007 at 2:28 PM
That we now know for certain liberals inside the CIA have effectively neutered the agency.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Verifying 10 times is one thing. This, however, is slightly different. State made the Israelis tip their hand, which is verifiable, and gave a window of opportunity to Syria.
Krydor on October 6, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Re:positive spin
At least Republicans know not to nominate Rice if she stands.
uptight on October 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I count Condi Rice as one of the disappointments of the second Bush term.
Another is that Bush did little if anything to remove the shadow government from the federal bureaucracy. Stupid.
petefrt on October 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM
AP
Note that one of the Times of London reporters is Uzi Mahnaimi who Meryl Yourish has warned you before.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/16/three-state-strategy-israel-planning-attack-on-hamastan-peace-with-fatahstine/
http://www.dartblog.com/data/2007/01/006846.php
slp on October 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I’ve been really disappointed with Condi Rice. Seems the culture of the State Dept has influenced her rather than the other way around.
CP on October 6, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I have often wondered about this problem, having known several civil servant deadwood types in my life. What happenes if Congress just decides to defund an angency? You eliminate the budget, lay everybody off, subsequently create some new replacement agency, and then only hire back the good workers. I’m not suggesting that anybody in Washington will actually do this, just wondering if it would work - legally.
Thanks
Herikutsu on October 6, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Clueless Condi Rice of the Veil - another incompetent Bush appointment in a long list of Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, Colin Powell.
Hilts on October 6, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Technically it could be done but you have to consider the timeline that is necessary in creating a new agency. It’s really complicated and a long process. Just the creation of staff positions can take a year then you have the hiring process and if it’s top down that could take a couple of years.
I’m really impressed actually that the Homeland Security Dept came together as fast as it did when it required merging existing departments that I’m sure had to negotiate not only areas of duplication but authority and overlapping personnel.
Salaried positions are funded annually, so for the Feds it’s October to September. Once an employee passes their 1 year hire date they are no longer probationary and fall into a classification that requires documentation to fire them. Actually, one of the easiest ways to get rid of dead weight is to restructure a specific division/department and reclassify all the staff positions, but you can’t target specific employees (you get into to affirmative action and EEOC problems) you have to target specific job classifications, then you can use seniority in that classification. For example, you could target CIA analysis, but that would mean the first in will be the first to go and that doesn’t seem to me to be the solution. It seems to me that the entrenched with the seniority are the problem children.
So when someone makes the assumption that Condi or Gate (Rumsfeld) et al could just get rid of those that are the problem, it really isn’t that easy and not really something that is realistically accomplished in the short term without an influx of new mid level managers department wide who are dedicated to getting rid of the problems and have the tenacity to stick with it .. because I tell you the truth when I say it is almost impossible to do because the system will beat you down! And those mid level positions are not ‘work at will’ and very hard to get into place when you have an entrenched administration of an agency in control of the human relations departments.
Texas Gal on October 7, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Unfortunately, a president can’t just fire all the career bureaucrats. They are unionized federal workers. It would be a good idea to clean house as best as he can upon assuming office. That was one major mistake Dubya made in 2001… he left in place far too many Klintonistas that he could have fired on day one.
Texas Nick 77 on October 7, 2007 at 7:02 AM
Is it better to attack to remove possible WMD’s, and be wrong?
Or not attack, and be right?
Being “mistaken” is sometimes more advantageous to our security.
But you have to be able to explain this concept seriously.
Which is Bush’s (and Rice’s) fatal poltical flaw.
They can’t talk their way through a wet tissue.
profitsbeard on October 7, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Thank you for the explanation - it helps a lot. I knew that the idea would not be practical for a short term process, I was just wondering if it was legally viable.
Thanks again.
Herikutsu on October 7, 2007 at 1:55 PM
I cannot think of a more disappointing official in the Bush Administration (barring the President himself) than Condi Rice. I remember people actually touting her as potential Presidential or Vice-Presidential material. (Well, maybe she is — for Hamas or Hezbollah or Stanford.) Rice seems every day more and more an Israel-hater. (Remember the “robust truce” she promised after forcing a ceasefire down Israel’s throat last summer? It is an open secret that Iran is rearming Hezbollah to the teeth.) Okay, she is nice to look at: I cannot deny that.
sanantonian on October 7, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Atlas Shrugs got a blog post on this, including a video with Caroline Glick from Israel
Comments:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/10/condi-is-a-disg.html
Condi is a disgrace
It is emerging that we knew for months, months, that there was a NORK nuclear site in Syria. We stopped Israel from taking out this most dangerous of all weapons. We are pathetic. Bush has gone over to the darkside.
[Copy of story clipped]
Video
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/10/le-resistance-i.html
VinceP1974 on October 7, 2007 at 9:52 PM