The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Critics of the Bush administration have been grasping at straws to claim that coercive interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders had nothing to do with last week's successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden. One claim, like that made by the New York Times, is to assert that a mosaic of intelligence led to the success of the operation, and it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which piece produced the location of bin Laden.
The editors misunderstand how intelligence works. While the intelligence community has a mosaic of intelligence on al Qaeda, it cannot focus on a target without a specific lead -- it needs a name and location of a person in order to try to find links to bin Laden. The mosaic of intelligence doesn't sit around and spit out leads by itself.
According to the Obama administration itself, the lead here came solely from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other al Qaeda leaders after they were subjected to coercive interrogation and became cooperative.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
The "mosaic" word has been popping up everywhere in the last few days. Obama alluded to it or even said the word on 60 Minutes last night. They're simply closing ranks and sticking to their script. I was quite surprised when the Obama administration seemed to be going down the route of saying that KSM was the critical source of the intelligence (and we all know how that would have happened), but it seems that they're now trying to self-correct and cover their tracks. In other words, they're just getting back to their regularly scheduled programming after a brief opening of the kimono.
Oct '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Professor,
Michael Ledeen has some interesting, albeit somewhat tangential, thoughts on this issue (http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/). He seems to disagree with your fundamental conclusion that waterboarding is not torture. He also raises points that suggest the relevant information may have been obtained through other means given the time it took to develop this case. Of course, no one ever intended or wanted it to take nearly a decade to find bin Laden and the methods probably served other purposes he may consider legitimate.
I respect both you and Mr. Ledeen. On this one, sides do not have to be chosen. Both approach the questions with analytical good faith. The same can rarely be said of your more vocal critics.
Jul '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
The message points are "mosaic" and "gutsy." Please conform.
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Professor, do you have any thoughts on the dimensions of the petard the administration would have been hoisted upon had they taken Bin Laden alive? That is to say, how might their own rules for interrogation, constitutional rights, and civilian trials have played out?
Mar '11
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Prof:
I watched your interview on Huckabee (not a program I often watch, but this one was good). It was good to see you get the recognition you deserve.
I think you suggested that it would have been better to take Mr Bin Laden alive, to get the most information possible from him. After that, I'd suggest he be dumped in the shark-infested Arabian Sea (sorry, Martyrs Sea), still alive - but no way that would happen with our current enlightened President.
Feb '11
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Let's see, we've gone from ticking time bomb to routine information that is of use years later. Amazing how the necessity for torture is allowed to mutate. Frankly, I find the arguments nauseating. What's next? Us?
May '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Hang On, how can you justify that adjective "routine"?
Beyond that, one way the Left has tried to win the torture debate on the cheap is by claiming it's worthless. I have personal experience with this; a good friend of mine declared once that coercive interrogations never produce anything but false confessions. Now we have direct evidence from the War On Terror that that is not true. On its own, this news does not prove torture is justified--how could it?--but that hardly makes it irrelevant.
The Left can't hope to win an honest debate by invoking the scary word "torture." It needs to admit there's a continuum of Not Nice things we do to Bad People, anywhere from locking them up to shooting them in the head. Drawing lines is less satisfying that hurling epithets, but that's the work that needs to be done.
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
It's also worth considering that one can oppose waterboarding or other similar methods while also acknowledging that they played a role in obtaining key information. I always thought that opposition to these pain inflictions should be based on principle and not whether or not they worked. We're seeing a great example of why the decision to claim that they don't work has backfired.
Feb '11
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
I think it's worse than that. *** They did work ***
So how much more of this is going to be justified as a result? That's what I find truly frightening.
Feb '11
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Fredösphere
Hang On, how can you justify that adjective "routine"?
· May 9 at 9:31am
Who's who is pretty routine information.
Aug '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Well put, Mollie. But I don't see much of a connection with "principles" and the Left. For them, the ends always justify the means, and hypocrisy is a word reserved for conservatives.
PS - I gotta start proof-reading my posts more carefully before I tap the nefarious "post comment" button.
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 10:09amDec '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
The “debate” about "enhanced interrogation" is largely about moral posturing, where the line is drawn, and who decides. If the stakes are high enough all but the most suicidal idealist with a martyr complex would approve of "enhanced interrogation", including waterboarding.
The arguments…
#1 is historically false.
#2 is impossible to prove conclusively and contains a large element of idealistic wishful thinking. If someone does not want to talk they won't, no matter how clever the interrogators and how much time is available.
#3 is an absurd assertion without evidence. The usual "debate" on this challenges someone to present a plausible scenario which is then nitpicked to death to "prove" it is not plausible.
#4 is another absurdity. Almost everyone will draw a line somewhere. Does any rational and sane individual really think it is better to let millions die rather than subject a terrorist to sleep deprivation or waterboarding ?
In the end it comes down to who makes the decision and when. I think most believe it is a Presidential decision.
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
Nickolas,
If you're interested in reading a moral argument against the use of pain on detainees, here's a good place to start.
And Tim Carney has a piece today titled "Effective! And still wrong -- The case against pragmatic ethics."
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 10:21amMay '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
That doesn't even begin to describe the The New York Times' "intelligence problem."
Nov '10
Re: The New York Times' Intelligence Problem
That's a terrible place to start. It defines "torture" so broadly as to make anything less than a friendly chat over a nice cup of tea tantamount to "torture."
Reasonable people can disagree over whether waterboarding is or is not torture (I agree with Prof. Yoo,) but we will never have a serious debate until the anti-torture side stops broadening the term to include, "making people uncomfortable." Making people stand up in a cold room and listen to Metallica for a few hours is not torture by any reasonable definition.