Showing posts with label Dennis Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dennis Blair. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Congress Warned Terror Attack Likely Within Next Six Months

Well, we've always been threatened by international terrorists for more than two decades, but this is a particularly worrisome report; Congress was warned that we should expect a terror attack within the US within the next six months from an al Qaeda or an affiliate:
The assessment by Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, was much starker than his view last year, when he emphasized the considerable progress in the campaign to debilitate Al Qaeda and said that the global economic meltdown, rather than the prospect of a major terrorist attack, was the “primary near-term security concern of the United States.”

Citing a recent wave of terrorist plots, including the failed Dec. 25 attempt to blow up an airliner as it approached Detroit, Mr. Blair and other intelligence officials told a Senate panel that Al Qaeda had adjusted its tactics to more effectively strike American targets domestically and abroad.

“The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11,” said Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director. “It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”

As the C.I.A. continues its campaign of drone attacks aimed at Qaeda operatives in the mountains of Pakistan, the officials also said that the network’s splinter groups in Yemen and Somalia were taking on more importance.

But Mr. Blair began his annual threat testimony before Congress by saying that the threat of a crippling attack on telecommunications and other computer networks was growing as an increasingly sophisticated group of enemies had “severely threatened” the sometimes fragile systems undergirding the country’s information infrastructure.
It is highly unusual that the CIA and national security establishment would provide such a specific timeframe for their analysis.

Yet, the DHS advisory system is unchanged: it's yellow generally and orange for flights. It would behoove DHS to increase the threat levels so as to increase scrutiny on those areas it considers to be possible targets if they're really contemplating that a terror attack would be attempted within the next six months.

At the same time, the intel services are concerned that there may be a cyberattack that could result in crippling damage of some form.

Meanwhile, there are reports that the underwear bombing suspect Abdul Mutallab is talking to investigators and giving valuable intel. That could be part of the reason that the intel services believe that al Qaeda is threatening an attack within the next six months.
In recent days, two law enforcement sources said, Abdulmutallab has told authorities more about where he trained overseas and others he met there -- leads that the FBI has shared with other members of the U.S. intelligence community. Investigators are following up to corroborate the information.

U.S. investigators flew members of Abdulmutallab's family from Nigeria to the United States on Jan. 17, the senior administration official said. The family members have proved vital in getting Abdulmutallab to talk, he said -- indicating that it would have been counterproductive to interrogate him under military rules, as some have suggested.

The president is getting briefings on the interrogations of Abdulmutallab, the official said.

All three sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Officials are continuing to flesh out Abdulmutallab's contacts with radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who allegedly met with the suspect before the bombing, one source said.

No plea deal between Justice Department lawyers and federal public defender Miriam Siefer is imminent, the sources said, but both sides began negotiating last week, as reported by The Washington Post.

If convicted, Abdulmutallab faces a virtual life sentence on six criminal charges, including using a plane as a weapon of mass destruction. In exchange for his renewed cooperation, authorities could recommend that a federal judge reduce any prison sentence Abdulmutallab might face, a common occurrence in the criminal justice system.
The best advice is to remain vigilant and to watch for unusual behavior and items that seem out of place.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Obama's Choice For Director of Central Intelligence: Leon Panetta?!

Of all the people that President elect Barack Obama could choose to be Director of Central Intelligence, he picked a guy who has absolutely no intelligence experience, no military experience, and is strictly a numbers guy: Leon Panetta.

What does this say about Obama and the intel community from which he had choices?

Admiral Dennis Blair was also named to be national intelligence director, according to officials.

Panetta is qualified to be DCI why? How? What are his qualifications?

Admiral Blair is more qualified to be DCI than Panetta. Then again, according to Blair's wiki, he's got himself a thing for not following orders and odd relationships with defense contractors.

Is it an admission that there's no one qualified to run the intel business in the nation, so we've got to get a numbers guy to do it? Or just no one qualified that is a Democrat? Or that Obama couldn't find someone who wasn't associated with current intel policy that the far left could find satisfactory (aka opposed aggressive tactics to uncover terror plots, waterboarding, and other tactics used since 9/11 to prevent further terror attacks inside the US), or a combination of the above?

UPDATE:
Panetta was calling for intel spending cuts during the 1990s at a time when Clinton's CIA director was warning against such a move?

UPDATE:
Sen. Diane Feinstein is not a happy camper with the choice. The California Democrat wasn't informed of the choice. That's a polite way of saying, you never bothered to ask my opinion. She's not alone either. Sen. Jay Rockefeller echoes those sentiments; couldn't Obama have found someone with experience who opposed the aggressive interrogations, which the left construed as torture? Steve Kappes was apparently their choice; someone who had experience and opposed waterboarding.

I further disagree with Instapundit's take relying on Angelo Cordvilla about Panetta being a good choice to fight Obama's turf battles with the CIA to avoid the problems that dogged President Bush from 2001 onwards.

The CIA is a massive bureaucracy with its own inertia. It will do what it must to survive those who pass through. That means that there will always be people who oppose the President, regardless of which side of the aisle is in charge. There are partisans who think that they know better than the President or that they are the ones who make the decisions. They are the ones who leak information to the press, which often reports it regardless of the potential for undermining national security.

Panetta's selection wont fix any of that. If anything, it will make the problem worse since he has no understanding of the culture at CIA and no experience in intel matters. He's a bean counter, and a bad one at that given that he opted to cut the intel budget during the 1990s when al Qaeda was an emerging threat.

It's wishful thinking to believe that Panetta will fix the problems at CIA or will allow Obama to avoid the pitfalls that befell Bush. The reality is that bureaucracies the size, scope and nature of CIA are creatures unto themselves.

The thing is that someone has to get the CIA under control and to ensure that the nation gets the best intel possible from all sources - human and signal. It means dealing with unsavory characters. It means getting your hands dirty from time to time, but the end result should be an organization that is free of politics and puts the national interest first and foremost. Having opposing viewpoints proffered isn't a bad thing either, but it should be free of politics.

The Panetta choice does nothing to solve the problems, and shows that Obama is putting politics ahead of the best person for the job.