Last night I wrote about Leon Panetta getting bad information about what's happening in Egypt from his underlings at the CIA. That's a bad thing, right? You know what's worse?
The administration appeared as taken aback by Mr. Mubarak’s speech as the crowds in Tahrir Square. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day.Emphasis mine. Think about that for a minute. The head of intelligence is basing his views on media broadcasts? Why bother having spooks at all? All we know is what we get from the news readers on CNN or MSNBC or (heaven forfend) Fox News? Worse still, why would unnamed (natch) "American officials" admit such a thing? Did they somehow think such an admission would make people think better of anyone involved, including the president?
American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee. But a senior administration official said Mr. Obama had also expected that Egypt was on the cusp of dramatic change. Speaking at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, he said, “We are witnessing history unfold,” adding, “America will do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy.”
Our government looks like a bunch of impotent fools when we start making official pronouncements based on what we pick up from the news feeds. That benefits no one. I don't even know where to begin to solve these systemic problems, but putting someone in charge of the CIA who actually understands something and ashcanning Leon Panetta might be a start.
5 comments:
Mark,
First of all, congrats regarding the Pack. That was a very good Super Bowl, and we don't get a lot of those.
Secondly, you might want to slow your roll here. Why do you want to give any credence to some hack who is willing to speak off the record. Additionally...it appears that Panetta was pretty much right on the mark. Mubarak's last gasp attempt at keeping power in his grasp turned out to be just that, and he is gone 12 hours later. It's a populist uprising for God's sake. And it seems to be moving in the right direction. Diplomacy ain't bean bag and it can't be scripted.
There is at least a thousand reasons why Panetta might not want to say something like "I have been assured by the Egyptian high command that Mubarak will be gone tomorrow." Or worse, still, "I have been assured by the Israeli Intelligence officials, who have been assured by the Egyptian high command..." Doncha' think?
Regards,
Rich
It's a populist uprising for God's sake. And it seems to be moving in the right direction.
I don't think we know either of those things. Most populist uprisings don't end up with military control.
There is at least a thousand reasons why Panetta might not want to say something like "I have been assured by the Egyptian high command that Mubarak will be gone tomorrow." Or worse, still, "I have been assured by the Israeli Intelligence officials, who have been assured by the Egyptian high command..." Doncha' think?
There are other options, too, such as saying something like "the situation is fluid and we're monitoring events closely." That would have been okay and wouldn't have made the administration look foolish.
My larger point is still the same -- we aren't well served right now by the intelligence apparatus in this country. I see no reason to slow my roll on that point.
Thanks for the congrats on the Pack, though. We enjoy our victories where we find them and this has been a highly enjoyable year.
Mark,
I did say "seems to be". And populist uprisings don't happen very frequently in a country of 80 million with 1.5 million people on the Interior Ministry's payroll. My point being that I don't know how this could have been done without the military playing a role.
Look, I am not naive. Once everybody stops partying in Tahrir Square, the hard work starts. But it seems silly to deny or downplay that the Egyptian people have just won a stunning and historic and fairly rapid victory. And they did it without bombs, guns or terrorism while their military played the neutral broker. And more importantly, it was done almost entirely by Egyptians. This wasn't about us, and that seems to me to be a pretty good thing, so far. All we can continue to do is watch, wait, and hope that the military sticks to its role as a broker. Every successful revolution reaches this point. And they all have little turning points where things can swing wildly one way or the next. Let's hope and pray that this continues its current trajectory.
Lastly, I am not exactly a fan of our intelligence community and agree with many of your points. I am merely pointing out that there are a lot more things to criticize them for than being 12 hours off on the projected end of a despot's 3 decade reign. And you are conflating two things. One is Panetta's statement that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day. (Which, it turns out, he was pretty close on). The other was an off the record quote by a nameless, faceless "American official" with no accountability. They are very different things. Lastly, you want to criticize someone, you might start with the hack "reporter" who ran with that drivel. There is WAAAAY too much of that going on in our 24/7 news cycle these days, and these hacks allow themselves to be played by folks in and out of positions of power. You know that 20 years ago, that quote would have never seen the light of day.
Regards,
Rich
I sure hope I'm wrong but when it comes to foreign Policy it would appear that:
Obama = Carter
Egypt = Iraq
If an Islamic State that adheres to Sharia Law develops in Egypt, I'm fearful that Israel is going to feel threatened to the point whereby they may feel forced to make a pre-emptive strike. This could be the final pre-cursor to the onset of World War III.
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that our government found it both appropriate and expedient to directly interfere in the domestic affairs of another country promoting a regime change? I'm not a fan of totalitarianesque dictators, but since when do we publicly lobby for their ouster?
Big Mistake with my posting, although some may find it tastily scintillating. I meant to say that:
Egypt = Iran
My bad!!!!
Post a Comment