Scarborough scoop: How the Taliban’s double-agent bomber ambushed the CIA
posted at 9:39 pm on January 6, 2010 by Allahpundit
I’ve been watching new info trickle in for the past 24 hours, and the more I see, the number I get. He fed the agency honest-to-goodness actionable intelligence about jihadis to build up his credibility, to the point where he came to be regarded as their best asset in years. They looked the other way when he posted on jihadist online forums, accepting his assurances at face value that he was only saying what he was saying to fool the enemy — even though, of course, he wasn’t. Finally he told them that he had big news about Zawahiri, which drew a phalanx of CIA officers eager to land the biggest of the big fish. So eager, in fact, that he reportedly wasn’t given a polygraph before being taken to the base and was allowed to skip checkpoints before arriving at the rendezvous point.
Which brings us to Scarborough. According to his sources, the bomber detonated within seconds of stepping out of the car. How can that be, though? Wouldn’t the agents have been waiting for him in some sort of room? The only explanation I can come up with is that he told them he had info on Zawahiri that was extremely time-sensitive — so much so that they shouldn’t spare a second and should rush out to meet him when he pulled up. Is that what happened? Like I say, mind-numbing. Exit quotation: “I have no idea how a potential hostile ends up standing next to at least 13 CIA personnel… I have never heard of anything as unprofessional.”
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As is the case with any terrorist act, we must be vigilant and smart 100 percent of the time to thwart them. They only need to get lucky once. Pray for the souls of the fallen. Hope that we can learn and be better prepared in the future.
Extrafishy on January 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM
I don’t agree with you one bit, someone did not do thier jobs and people are dead for stupidity. Thes people were in a war theater, there is no room for stupid mistakes like this.
Trust but verify.
gdonovan on January 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM
Is it just me or is this attack eerily similar to the assasination of Ahmad Shah Massoud (aka the Lion of Panjshir) on September 9, 2001?
If so, we may all want to strap our seatbelts on over the next couple of weeks/months.
sayabule1 on January 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM
With all of their expertise, no one followed common sense, no one followed their duty to act professionally. They let their feelings (excitement, impatience) overcome any intelligent behavior. And we as a country paid dearly for it. It hurt terribly to hear of the slaughter of these hard working people. It then brought on a feeling of fear of the future in our fight against these jihadists. It also made me angry. Our enemy is patient with the enthusiasm that only zealots possess. It seems the classic case of betrayal. Where were the grown-ups?
mbabbitt on January 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Sloppy procedure in a bureau led by an accountant with no field experience. The policy of the administration and its appointee Leon Panetta is that the CIA will ask the terrorists nicely to give us information. We wouldn’t want to scare them with water or offend them in any way.
alliebobbitt on January 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Here is your answer at No Quarter. Larry Johnson there is ex-CIA and explains. AS USUAL it is the PC, diverse, police that have the blood of these agents on their hands!
An excerpt of his explanation:
During the Clinton Administration the Director of the CIA at that time, John Deutsch, decided to allow intelligence analysts to be assigned overseas to serve as Chiefs of Station and Chiefs of Base, a position traditionally reserved for experienced Operations Officers. Operations officers aka “Case Officers” are selected and trained to recruit human spies. They do their work, for the most part, outside of the United States. A Case Officer must successfully complete an extensive course in how to conduct human intelligence operations. The course teaches all facets of tradecraft, such as recruiting an asset, setting up and running meetings with sources and clandestine communication. The course can last as long as five months. This is only the first phase in training. The next stage of training comes in the field. Graduates are assigned to field divisions and begin working under the tutelage of senior, experienced Case Officers. At least that is how it was supposed to be done at the CIA prior to 1990.
When Deutsch decided to discontinue only assigning experienced Case Officers as Chiefs overseas and started appointing senior intelligence analysts to head up overseas operations he was proceeding on the assumption that just because someone had been in the CIA for more than 10 years they were somehow magically qualified to be sent overseas to run Human Intelligence operations. Being good at bureaucratic politics is not the same as being good at managing human intelligence sources aka “spies.” But we cannot just blame Deutsch. Every single one of his successors have continued this idiotic practice
patriotparty1 on January 7, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Everything about the situation was unprofessional. They acted stupidly and carelessly. Look at the people involved. IMHO anyone with three kids is not a field operative and needs to be doing analysis work. (male or female)
If politics and being PC is that important to CIA then they really are useless and the country is blind.
dogsoldier on January 7, 2010 at 10:43 AM
You might consider taking a long walk off a short pier. Leon Panetta should lose his job over this. He has wanted to resign before. Now would be a good time.
alliebobbitt on January 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM
***
I became an engineering co-op student with the local power company in 1961. A lot of the substations and power houses were 70 years old–or more. Safety was very lax in the old days–lots of dangerous high voltages, poorly guarded generators, etc.
***
The senior operator gave us “college kids” very practical advice on how to say safe. Use rubber gloves, never touch anything that wasn’t de-energized and grounded, etc. His final words were, “The first mistake here is your last mistake–you will be dead if you make it!”.
***
Ditto on Army Basic Training a few years later. An experienced Sergeant who had served in WW2 and Korea taught us what to do to stay alive. Never trust–always think ahead. Don’t get careless–or you die.
***
Failing to search the “defector”–and not having him “under the gun” and shooting him immediately when he wouldn’t remove his hand from his pocket caused this debaucle. Never forget the basics–and the costs for being careless or stupid. Verify first–then trust.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on January 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM
By understandable, I mean it was understandable as a human being. Yes, all of the people who died made a stupid mistake by running to crowd around the guy. Do we need to piss on their graves?
Monkeytoe on January 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Way to large a group with to many high value targets in one place. No problem with having the meeting but it should have been one or maybe three people not 13.
Not a bad idea to have a double agent. There are risks involved though and it seems they trusted this guy way to much.
Reminds me very much of the assassination of the Anti Taliban Afghan leader prior to the invasion of Afghanistan.
jpmn on January 7, 2010 at 12:48 PM
I think they should employ the TSA’s full body scanners any place where such a situation could occur in enemy territory.
Or have Leon Pannetta meet with the double agent in the field personally to obtain the purported new intel…
s/
Sweet_Thang on January 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM
The CIA operations on the ground and how they debrief assets like the double agent involved here are not determined by politics. They took a risk by not searching him because he had been on the base multiple times and he was a secret asset as was his handler, the Jordanian officer. I don’t think senior officers need resign over this. The CIA needs to retain all the experienced people it can right now. I doubt those involved will make the same mistakes again.
It’s easy for well rested people sitting at their PCs in the comfort of their homes or offices to bitch about the stupidity of guys who are living rough with little sleep who are in danger of getting killed 24/7. You think you can do a better job then sign up and go.
lexhamfox on January 7, 2010 at 1:23 PM
It seems to me that the CIA officers in question were not the people who would have been doing the “searching”. If I am not mistaken, wouldn’t that be the guard’s job? Or some other security personnel? Before we go on to blame the people who were killed for this, maybe we should find out who was responsible for letting the guy in, it is entirely possible that those killed had the expectation that he HAD gone through all the checkpoints and was cleared. Did he have a friend on the inside who let him in?
Lily on January 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Lily on January 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM
The guy was most likely on an approved entry list. His ID check out and they let him in. It seems that the CIA had no reason not to trust him except he was a spy. DTA should have been the common watch phrase (DTA = Dont Trust Anybody), especially in the spy game. Lesson learned or past lessons ignored. Some folks in those type jobs think they are “Gods” and cannot make mistakes.
Claimsratt on January 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM
It is plausible that the civilian deaths made the agent upset and he got revenge for his guilt, it is also plausible that the agent gave false info, and maybe AQ felt his cover was about used up, so time for stage two.
WoosterOh on January 7, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2