White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan
Source: Washington Post
The CIAs top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obamas surprise visit with U.S. troops.
The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the Chief of Station in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.
The disclosure marked a rare instance in which a CIA officer working overseas had his cover the secrecy meant to protect his actual identity pierced by his own government. The only other recent case came under significantly different circumstances, when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq.
The Post is withholding the name of the CIA officer at the request of Obama administration officials who warned that the officer and his family could be at risk if the name were published. The CIA and the White House declined to comment.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-mistakenly-identifies-cia-chief-in-afghanistan/2014/05/25/ac8e80cc-e444-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)The more conspiracy minded will say that there are no mistakes.
24601
(3,959 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)I'm sure it's probably a simple mistake...for now.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)suddenly the CIA station chief is outed? Hmmmm .
drm604
(16,230 posts)So it's really not much of a coincidence. Without the visit there wouldn't have been a list and therefore no chance of an accidental outing.
I'm not excusing the mistake, just pointing out that the reason you're giving is not a reason to be suspicious.
marshall
(6,665 posts)This woman or man is currently undercover in Afghanistan. Somewhat different circumstances. It will be interesting to see the fallout.
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)Right?
Boomerproud
(7,952 posts)and guess what-that ends up in his lap. If heads don't roll (and they won't) then I don't see how anyone can defend this administration anymore. At the least Faux will be trumpeting this new "scandal" for the next week.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)That's not good.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)wouldn't want to be that guy or his friends.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)put the name on the list in the first place, whoever saw the list and just didn't catch it before it was sent out, and whoever DIDN'T bother to see the list to double-check it. Instant discipline is needed here.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)probably scream for Impeachment. (Kinda like Benghazi!! )
Ex Lurker
(3,813 posts)As far as the actual damage, it's probably a little less than it seems. The identity of the station chief in a given country isn't that hard to figure out with a little basic open source information and some intuitive reasoning. He/she is a manager, and isn't likely to be the one meeting informants in a back alley. This makes the person higher profile, and nobody likes that. And it raises the personal risk, but embassy staff in AFG are high priority targets to the bad guys anyway.
Still, this is a screwup, and not one that we want repeated. They had better tighten up.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,813 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)CIA section chiefs are nt known as such- they are undercover as diplomats- not as CIA agents.
a non-secret secret leaks out. oh my.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)Did you know his name?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)with wikileaks?
Baitball Blogger
(46,702 posts)Was he a Bush holdover? 'Cuz, I can see an upside to this.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)They are not politically appointed. The only people in the CIA that are appointees are the Director and his top staff.
Baitball Blogger
(46,702 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)call out so directly the Plame incident. Is that a first?
"The only other recent case came under significantly different circumstances, when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband, a former ambassador and fierce critic of the decision to invade Iraq."
drm604
(16,230 posts)Notice the wording though. Not "exposed by officials of the George W. Bush administration in an attempt to discredit her husband", but "exposed as officials of the George W. Bush administration sought to discredit her husband". Notice the subtle difference?
The version in the article tries to weasel around the issue by not saying directly that she was exposed in order to discredit her husband. Instead it says that she was exposed *during* the attempt, which is literally true but could be interpreted as saying that the exposure was just coincidental to the attempt to discredit her husband.
mopinko
(70,089 posts)up till then, they hadnt even noticed any of that nasty plame stuff.
laugh it up, fuzzballs.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Perhaps the obsessive focus on political spin needs to be re-considered.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)OTOH,
job security for ...
lawyers
investigators
lawyers
committee staffers
and
lawyers
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)This is from a review of Mark Mazzeti's "The Way of the Knife: The CIA, A Secret Army, and A War at then Ends of the Earth"
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2013/0608/bk/book06_dorschner_knife.html
<snip>
Mazzetti reiterates his basic premise numerous times, namely that we have entered a dangerous new era in intelligence. Describing a line of causality, Mazzetti asserts that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration threw all caution aside and ordered the CIA to do whatever it needed to do to capture or kill those responsible. Mazzetti describes how the CIA subsequently kidnapped suspects and handed them over to friendly intelligence services for torture, or for confinement in CIA black sites around the world (and at Guantanamo). These methods ultimately proved counterproductive when the torture came to light and the United States could not figure out what to do with growing numbers of terrorist suspects. Held as enemy combatants rather than criminals, the suspects were often denied due process, making it extremely difficult to wrap up their cases. This is playing out at Guantanamo. President Obama is facing growing numbers of detainees on hunger strike, wants to close the facility, and is finding it difficult to do so.
Mazzetti asserts that once the Bush Administration determined that holding terrorist suspects without charge indefinitely had become a liability, it was desperate for a better solution. Growing advances in drone technology seemed to provide a way out. Drones provided the President with the capability to kill terrorists anywhere on earth. The action was swift and certain, ending the need for detentions. Instead, the United States constructed a kill list. Drone strikes became instruments of counter-terrorism policy under President Bush, but were vastly expanded under President Obama.
Prior to 9/11, the CIA was not in the killing business and its covert action capability was withering on the vine. According to Mazzetti, the 9/11 attacks brought big changes to the Agency. In the 1970s revelations of Cold War excesses by the CIA shocked the nation. Congress conducted well-publicized investigations, and public anger led to calls to rein in the spies. The CIA was founded to provide intelligence to the President. Covert action not supposed to be authorized, but was only possible due to vague language in the CIA charter. However, the unique ability of the CIA to conduct covert activities anywhere in the world has proven too tempting for American presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Even Presidents with an avowed aversion to covert action become seduced by it. Covert action has become a method of dealing with complex crises that escape easy solution. Critics claim that they invariable do more harm than good. Mazzetti agrees, and claims that the current shift towards targeted killing and covert wars in the name of counterterrorism will prove the most harmful covert actions of all.
Mazzetti describes a world turned upside down. In the post 9/11 world, the CIA controls a fleet of drones based around the world dedicated to eliminating those on the White House kill list. The CIA also controls small armies of local paid soldiers in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other locales fighting a war in the shadows against Islamic terrorist groups. These missions have overwhelmed the Agency. It has reassigned more and more personnel from traditional espionage to counter-terrorism missions. With insufficient personnel, the CIA is increasingly relying on contractors. According to Mazzetti, the CIA had at one point so many personnel assigned to Pakistan, conducting so many disparate missions, that no one in the country had a handle on how many there were or where they were located. This was a recipe for disaster that blew up when contractor Raymond Davis shot and killed two petty thieves in Lahore, Pakistan and an innocent Pakistani was hit and killed by a CIA vehicle in a rescue attempt.
<snip>
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Better safe than sorry I suppose.
tanyev
(42,552 posts)Turbineguy
(37,322 posts)to distract from BENGHAZI!11!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)You're FIRED!
Nice coincidence with the A Stan visit though.
Want to bet there will be extra passengers coming home?
This is yet another instance where attention to detail is missing. Are we that lazy?