Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bombing of CIA operatives looks like retaliation against their escalated mission in Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:02 AM
Original message
Bombing of CIA operatives looks like retaliation against their escalated mission in Afghanistan
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 08:31 AM by bigtree
New York Times
Friday, January 1, 2010

Attack highlights CIA's expanded role overseas

CIA operatives stationed at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost Province, where Wednesday's suicide bombing occurred, were responsible for collecting information about militant networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and plotting missions to kill the networks' top leaders.

In recent months, U.S. officials said, CIA officers at the base had begun an aggressive campaign against a radical group run by Sirajuddin Haqqani, which has claimed responsibility for the deaths of dozens of U.S. troops.

Even as the CIA expands its role in Afghanistan, it is also playing a greater role in quasi-military operations elsewhere, using drone aircraft to launch a steady barrage of missile strikes in Pakistan and sending more operatives to Yemen to assist local officials in their attempts to roll back al-Qaeda's momentum in that country.

Among those killed, officials said, was the chief of the Khost base, who was a mother of three and a veteran of the agency's clandestine branch. Besides the seven CIA officers who died, the blast also wounded six agency personnel, according to a CIA statement.

___ "Those guys have recently been on a big Haqqani binge," said the Pentagon consultant. "I would be really shocked if the bombing on Wednesday wasn't some kind of retaliation."

read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/01/01/MNGD1BC1TP.DTL


Afghan authorities distance themselves from CIA 'black ops'

The CIA agents were killed on Wednesday when a suicide bomber breached the forward operating base (FOB) Camp Chapman and detonated an explosives-filled vest in a basement gymnasium.

The CIA uses FOBs to collect intelligence and conduct direct drone attacks along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, said a Western diplomat, who referred to the activities as "CIA black ops''.

"It should come as no surprise that the Afghan government wants nothing to do with this,'' he said, on condition of anonymity.

"Karzai is not interested in the security of these places. He has zero control over the FOBs that are located along the border. As far as the Afghan state is concerned it's a black hole and whatever happens is the CIA's lookout.''

read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/afghan-authorities-distance-themselves-from-cia-black-ops/story-e6frf7jx-1225815363437


Interesting to have the bombing of CIA operatives come right after the disputed raid in which Karzai says civilian children were killed . . .


from Thursday, December 31, 2009: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJhEcHHops0gD6qyRhMMvKL4yZAA

KABUL — The Afghan government demanded Thursday to take into its custody foreigners wanted over the alleged killing of 10 civilians, sharply escalating a war of words with its powerful Western military backers.

The National Security Council (NSC) made the demand at talks chaired by President Hamid Karzai, who has been vocal in condemning international forces he believes are responsible for the incident last Saturday in the eastern flashpoint of Kunar.

"The meeting of the National Security Council demanded that those responsible for the deaths of those innocent youths must be handed over to the Afghan government," a statement from Karzai's office said.

NATO forces have disputed the results of the Afghan probe, saying the foreigners involved were non-military Americans on a sanctioned operation who fired in self-defence after being shot at by villagers.

But Afghanistan's powerful NSC accepted the findings of the investigation, saying foreigners entered a house and shot the 10 people, who were unarmed and posed no threat.


. . . were the bombings retaliation?


related:

CIA deaths will be avenged, official says
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/01/CIA-deaths-will-be-avenged-official-says/UPI-23941262350065/


Afghan CIA bomber 'was courted as potential informant'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8437054.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Richard Engel's Report The Other Night...
If you saw Rachel, you saw his report on how bad things are in Afghanistan. The biggest problem is the Afghan Army that is rife with desertions and is infilitrated with Taliban and their sympathizers...taking the training and weapons the US gives them and turns them around on us. The Afghan police are nothing more than Karzai's private Army...also ineffective and corrupt. After 8 years, billions of dollars and nearly 1,000 lives, our situation is worse than ever.

Call it chess vs. checkers or an elephant trying to stomp on an ant...but our military still hasn't learned of this country's history and culture; trying to use geopolitical solutions to tribal problems. Instead we've gotten ourselves in the middle of a civil war with all sides now training the guns on the growing American presence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. what I find interesting today
. . . is the violent unfolding of predictable effects of the president's scattershot strategy of prodding and provoking the Afghanistan resistance with our escalated forces as the CIA does what they normally do behind the scenes. I keep asking my self, to what end? If we have any hope at all that the Karzai regime would have any functional legitimacy among the Afghans, that hope is, nonetheless, regularly undermined and dashed by these manipulations and opportunistic alliances with normally opposing, warring factions which will predictably advantage their own causes with whatever weapons or support we give them. All the while, the CIA believes they can keep a lid on the objectionable consequences and advance our own dual-cause of propping up the regime while pursuing the destabilizing grudge match against the ideology of al-Qaeda propagandists in Pakistan and elsewhere. The entire effort is defeated from the start by the misguided notion that we can 'build' nations behind the puny force of this all-volunteer military without defeating our own influential goals. And so it goes . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. What frightens me is that we all know
Karzai was/is owned by Bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. our military still hasn't learned of this country's history and culture
That's because the chain of command is filled with arrogant officers like McChrystal and won't educate the troops under their command.

But it's also filled with troops who tow the line, and maybe even a few who relish the thought of killing more "hajis" because they believe that it'll make the country safe, or they're out for revenge for a buddy who went home in a box.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_Lawyer09 Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Whatever your opinion of McChrystal
and/or the rationale and motivations of troops in Afghanistan, your assertion regarding training is wrong and baseless. This isn't to say that conventional units recieve as in depth training, as say a PsyOps or Civil Affairs Unit, but there have been great strides made in this area. That is one of the primary reasons, McChrystal, arrogant or not was chosen to assume command. The all too conventional, to include the inside the box training that was not working. I also take issue with your generalization regarding "arrogant officers". There are good and bad officers, just as there are good and bad enlisted members. The military afterall is a microcosm of society for the most part. There are a shitload of dedicated officers, Platoon Sergeants and Squad Leaders that are staying awake nights, thinking of innovative methods to keep their people alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I think you make a good point about the professionalism of the officers
Edited on Fri Jan-01-10 09:19 AM by bigtree
The issue I have with the military in Afghanistan is with their contradictory mission to 'build' the Afghan government and army. while at the same time, pursuing our destabilizing grudge match against 'al-Qaeda'.

It does go mostly unappreciated in our debate how many well-meaning, dedicated forces are engaged in the humanitarian and development pursuits that normally would fall to the beleaguered State Dept.. Among the most notable are the agriculture forces who have assisted farmers in increasing their yields through more effective and efficient practices; our medical forces who are revolutionizing medical care in the areas they are deployed in; our forces that are involved in building and protecting schools, roads, and using the force of their protection to enable the safe transport of commerce and humanity through the more dangerous regions of Afghanistan.

All of that undermined and overshadowed, though, by the self-perpetuated cycle of attacks and reprisals generated by resistance to our military presence and activity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Interesting.
I've noted on DU a number of times that much of my "opinion" on issues involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India come from a close friendship with a man (now retired) who spent several decades in that region. He was of the second generation in his family to do so. He recommends different books for me to read, in order to get a better understanding of the history of that region, which is essential in order to understand what is going on today, and to be aware of what is likely to happen tomorrow.

A person can have a good opinion of the vast majority of those serving our country, and still be strongly opposed to the current "mission" in Afghanistan. And that includes recognizing that among those who are awake late at night, thinking of ways to save lives, are those who know that the US needs to end its military occupation there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_Lawyer09 Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I'd be interested to know his opinion on the book
"Seeds of Terror" How heroin is bankrolling the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by Gretchen Peters. I thought it was damn good! Ahmed Rashid, the author of "Taliban" and "Descent into Chaos" Says: A stunning, deeply disturbing book, a must read for all Western policy makers and President Obama, before they implement any new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." Let me ask you this: Do you think our presence in Afghanistan serves any purpose? Are you one of those that feels are presence is solely relative to resources, i.e. oil pipelines, Caspian oil reserves etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I'll ask him.
And I will find a copy of the book. One of the best things about DU, in my opinion, is that I benefit from other people's suggested readings. And certainly, drug trade in general has raised the money to finance violence for far too long, with heroin being specific in the case in point.

I think that the US policy in Afghanistan has both primary and secondary motives and consequences. I do not think that everyone involved in the decision-making process shares the same value system. Thus, for example, a politician siting in a comfortable office in DC, supported by energy corporations, is going to have a different goal than a career military man or woman.

That tends to result in having influences in the decision-making that focus on two areas -- military strategy and access to resources -- and the overlap is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole. I would prefer to have two specific groups leading in the making of our foreign policy in Afghanistan: the military and those with the primary motivation as peace-makers. Although that might sound unrealistic at first, I am convinced that the overlapping of common interests in terms of national security and reducing violence is more practical, and has a greater chance of success, than the overlapping interests of national security and energy corporate interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_Lawyer09 Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph
I personally think the military is shouldering to much of what should be State Dept. functions. This occured over time as the DOS was relegated to a position of unimportance. They need to bolster hiring and watch for dilletantes like L. Paul Bremer who promote group think and work against DOD and DOS cooperation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. McChrystal made "great strides" in hiding abused prisoners from the ICRC.
Not to mention his role in the cover up of Tillman's death. I think you're confusing creativity and criminality. Our troops deserve better than him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. The Sad History Of Empire...
The Soviets failed for many of the same reasons. Yes, our military is top-heavy with lackeys promoted through the booosh regime that needs to be shaken out if we're to take control of the Pentagon back from the contractors and reign in the military-industrial complex.

I don't fault the soldiers...toeing the line is what you want in a disciplined operation. It's what line, that's what we have to look at and I see a sad, bitter lesson ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Using western weapons and training was something the Viet Cong excelled at the last time.
It was one reason why the VC survived for so long against US firepower and manpower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Deja Vu...
One part of the report I saw mentioned how the military was having to retake ground they had taken in the past...just like Vietnam.

The Taliban, like the VC, have two things in their favor...the people and the terrain. They aren't going anywhere...they're fighting for their homes and culture. They can and will wear us out as they have to many other invaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. NO that was the USSR, supplying and training them.
we never attempted to stop that for fear of escalating a war with the USSR. Ironically we retaliated by bleeding the USSR in Afghanistan by supplying the muj (they are not the al-q people).

There is no USSR this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. I posted a similar thread yesterday
and it sank like a stone.
Rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I had the little piece about the agents involved in the civilian killings
. . . and I started to add it to that thread, but there wasn't a recent report like this one to highlight their actual role. I think this is worrisome, in that the outcomes of these intelligence-directed manipulations are historically compromising and often spark significant blowback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bruneiyuki143 Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
8. cia
they should have had diplomatic manners in their minds to avoid further touble
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm certain
. . . they believe they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. i`m not sure but i think you are the first member from the Philippines
welcome aboard the democratic underground
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
14. is the cia running our foreign policy now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. In the sense that
the State Department is a CIA front, yes. Definitely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Between State and the revelation that BlackWater is CIA connected
and also Karzai, it seems to me that CIA has more influence now than it has had in a long time. The rumor was that Porter Goss went in and gutted the CIA, resulting in the retirement of long time employees. But it looks more like he reorganized and re-energized it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Porter Goss
guuted the agency in that he forced the most moderate thinkers out, and returned it to the far more hard-lined, rigid group that it had been. The potential for reform was there, but he destroyed it. That was, of course, his mission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. just heard the cia will be avenging the deaths of their agents - the cia mind you...
what a strange byline, the cia to be avenging their own 'privatized' deaths - can i be the only one watching the lid being popped off this can? by the pricking of my thumbs something very wicked this way comes. they're fixing to drop the leash on privatizated war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Take a look at how the CIA ran Greece operations
they are about to expand the scope of their war. The real targets are not in Afghanistan, they are a network of people who recruit, supply, and fund this war. Anyone fitting that category, who does not reside in the US, just had their life get a whole lot cheaper.

They will respond globally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Well, consider the Valerie Plame case...
...remember, she did all of her field work while she was the wife of a U.S. Ambassador.

And Julia Child also participated in intelligence gathering while she was the wife of a State Department employee, in their various postings.

The CIA clearly is intimately involved with U.S. foreign policy, and has been for a good long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. U.S. troops: "do the heavy lifting" while China "picks the fruit" article:
"Uneasy Engagement"


But the foot soldiers in a bowl-shaped valley about 20 miles southeast of Kabul are not fighting the Taliban, or even carrying guns.

They are preparing to extract copper from one of the richest untapped deposits on earth. And they are Chinese, undertaking by far the largest foreign investment project in war-torn Afghanistan.

Two years ago, the China Metallurgical Group Corporation, a Chinese state-owned conglomerate, bid $3.4 billion — $1 billion more than any of its competitors from Canada, Europe, Russia, the United States and Kazakhstan — for the rights to mine deposits near the village of Aynak.

Over the next 25 years, it plans to extract about 11 million tons of copper — an amount equal to one-third of all the known copper reserves in China.

While the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda here, China is securing raw material for its voracious economy. The world’s superpower is focused on security. Its fastest rising competitor concentrates on commerce.

S. Frederick Starr, the chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, an independent research organization in Washington, said that skeptics might wonder whether Washington and NATO had conducted “an unacknowledged preparatory phase for the Chinese economic penetration of Afghanistan.”
“We do the heavy lifting,” he said. “And they pick the fruit.”

The reality is more complicated than that. The Chinese bid far more for the mining rights to the Aynak project and promised to invest hundreds of millions more in associated infrastructure projects than other bidders. It is a risky venture that has not yet proved to be economical, and it has already been dogged by allegations of bribery.

But the Aynak investment underscores how China’s leaders, flush with money and in control of both the government and major industries, meld strategy, business and statecraft into a seamless whole. In a single move, Beijing strengthened its hold on a vital resource, engineered the single largest investment in Afghan history, promised to create thousands of new Afghan jobs and established itself as the Afghan government’s pre-eminent business partner and single largest source of tax payments.

Afghanistan is not the only place where the United States and China find themselves so oddly juxtaposed in the post-9/11 world. China is investing more in extracting Iraqi oil than American companies are. It has reached long-term arrangements to buy gas from Iran, even as the government there comes under the threat of Western sanctions for its nuclear program. China has also become a dominant investor in Pakistan and volatile parts of Africa.

snip

But even if elements of the agreement fall through, the Chinese have already positioned themselves as generous, eager partners of the Afghan government and long-term players in the country’s future. All without firing a shot.

Nurzaman Stanikzai was a mujahedeen in the 1980s, using American-supplied arms to help drive the Red Army from his homeland. Today he is a contractor for M.C.C., building the Aynak mine’s electric fence, blast wall, workers’ dormitories and a road to Kabul.

“The Chinese are much wiser. When we went to talk to the local people, they wore civilian clothing, and they were very friendly,” he said recently during a long chat in his Kabul apartment. “The Americans — not as good. When they come there, they have their uniforms, their rifles and such, and they are not as friendly.”

American troops do not, in a narrow sense, protect the Chinese. The United States Army stations about 2,000 troops in Logar Province, where Aynak is located. But an Army spokesman said they generally patrolled well south of the mine area and had not provided direct security for Chinese investors or mine workers.

The Afghan National Police, which does protect the mine, was largely built and trained with American money. The 1,500 guards the police have posted in and around Aynak are special recruits not drawn from the main force, according to Maj. Gen. Sayed Kamal, who heads the National Police.

But the conclusion is inescapable: American troops have helped make Afghanistan safe for Chinese investment. And there is no sense that either government objects to that reality.

snip

The Chinese, meanwhile, have rebuffed requests to join the Afghan war effort, saying that national policy forbids military action abroad except as part of a peacekeeping force. Instead, China’s foreign policy is based on commerce.

snip

The United States views Southwest Asia mostly as a security threat. China sees it as an opportunity. Decades of military cooperation with Pakistan, which shares India as a rival, have flowered into an economic alliance. A Chinese-built deepwater port in Gwadar, Pakistan, on the Gulf of Oman, is expected eventually to carry Middle Eastern oil and gas over the western Himalayas into China.
Afghanistan, which borders both Iran and Pakistan, drew scant attention from China until the middle of this decade.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/world/asia/30mine.html?_r=1&sq=afghanistan china copper&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-01-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
29. Plus they are teading, by negative reinforcement, for the CIA to be afraid of developing
"assets" like this informant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC