“Crazy pants” defensive policy
I guess I’m not the only person who wondered about the overly-broad defensive measures that the Obama Administration took last week when they were quaking in their boots over the “decimated” al Qaeda and their plans for attacking American interests overseas and specifically in the Arab Crescent. McClatchy reports the reactions of some experts;
Take this sampling of reactions from prominent al-Qaida observers:
“It’s crazy-pants — you can quote me,” said Will McCants, a former State Department adviser on government extremism who this month joins the Brookings Saban Center as the director of its project on U.S. relations with the Islamic world.
“We just showed our hand, so now they’re obviously going to change their position on when and where” to attack, said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst who was part of the team that hunted Osama bin Laden for years.
“It’s not completely random, but most people are, like, ‘What?’ ” said Aaron Zelin, who researches militants for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and blogs about them at Jihadology.net
“I’m not going to argue that it’s not willy-nilly, but it’s hard for me to come down too critical because I simply don’t know their reasoning,” said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington research institute.
In the absence of specifics about what the Obama administration refers to as a “specific threat,” seasoned analysts were reluctant to comment because there’s so little insight into the government’s decision-making. Instead, a mix of speculation and conspiracy theory fills the void.
I think if I was taking protective measures for my embassies, I wouldn’t insure that it leads every single news program for over a week now. That kind of tips your hand. I guess they figure that being this cautious and being this vocal about it makes up for their failures in the Benghazi fiasco.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
Who needs the paid experts? We had as many insightful and astute comments here at TAH when this latest tomfoolery was first announced by the obamaman’s administration. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the experts came here to get some ideas. As for “crazy pants,” I like it but I always get a kick out of the straightforward and honest language employed by gov’t officials–just as soon as they are retired or have otherwise sought greener pastures outside of gov’t.
Ever wonder why nothing makes any sense now?
Because maybe the people who know what the H is going on are leaving the sinking ship in droves, since the sinking ship won’t listen to them.
Or maybe this is a “deflect and redirect” strategy being employed so that the news will stop talking about the IRS, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, etc etc etc.
Did it work? It appears so to a point.
But I mentioned it in the other post, in Iraq and Afghanistan, when there was a lot of chatter we expected attacks regularly. But, when they went quiet, we got really worried because it meant something big.
Here’s a thought: Perhaps there was no credible threat, and the enemy is just testing the waters to see how the U.S. would respond to “chatter”, announce the threat, and observe what mechanisms are put in place – a feint, if you will – with plans for something bigger/broader down the road.
Intelligence and capabilities collecting, of sorts.
So you all think this chatter may be like the boy who cried “Wolf”?
That makes sense.
Nuance, folks. It’s all nuance. (wink, wink)
9-11 is still a month away…
@5 – In a way, but I speculate. The battlefield is a fluid environment. Why should this be any different. Our enemies have shown they have become more and more adaptable, from IED’s, et al over the years. If you can discover what the enemy is doing and exploit that to your advantage, then that’s half the battle. Just makes sense to me.
That’s what I would do.
Ferreting, eh? Could well be.
Or maybe just harassment – e.g., make an idle threat that seems credible just to see us waste the resources associated with responding.
My money is on some combination of both.
An objective of any terrorist operation is to disrupt (their) enemy’s operations, particularly those that are causing goodwill amongst the local population.
Another (strategic) objective is to cause (their) enemy governments to clamp down on that population, causing that government to lose support of the populace.
Al-Qaeda appears to be meeting it’s objectives, without risking any of its assets. It shut down US and other Embassies across the Islamic World, with just a few conversations. Additionally, it can now analyze when and where those conversations occurred, and figure out which of its communications are, or may be, compromised.
Contrast this, with the actions of Winston Churchill and the Allies during WWII. The Allies had cracked Germany’s most secure encryption, and intercepted “chatter” that conclusively predicted an attack on a particular English town. Churchill could have ordered the evacuation of the town saving tens of thousands, which would have alerted the National Socialist govt of Germany to the compromise of its encryption, and potentially cost the Allies the war, and hence hundreds of thousands of lives.
Churchill, likely did not sleep well that night, as he did not warn the Englishmen of their impending deaths, and the Enigma machine continued to turn the tide for the Allies.
Assuming that the threat this week was all it was made out to be, by the Administration, there was no need to announce anything, and every need to mount a strong defense, and counter-attacks. Would beefing up security have alerted the enemy? Quite probably, but not as much as broadcasting to the world what was collected by Intelligence Agencies.
This “leak” was every bit as, if not more, damaging as anything Snowden has released to the media.
I read it and I swear it’s so idiotic and random what they are saying that I even checked the tags and I was expecting to see “joke” or “parody” but who needs that when we have this administration huh? *facepalm*
The Administration learned all the wrong lessons from Benghazi.
WOTN: if you’re referencing the purported a priori ID by Ultra of Coventry as target for the famous 14 Nov 1940 air raid that nearly obliterated the town – well, that appears to be a myth. Winterbotham’s claims in The Ultra Secret to that effect appear to be incorrect and have been contradicted by others present and by more complete analysis.
The Ultra intercepts regarding German air attacks for that day did indicate that an attack was forthcoming on some town in England. However, none of the Ultra intercepts decrypted in time to be of use identified the raid’s target. The expectation among British leadership was that London – not Coventry – was the likely target. The fact that Coventry was the target was a surprise.
Churchill returned to London that afternoon based on the expectation that London would be hit. Whatever faults Churchill had, cowardice was not among them.
The story of Churchill “writing off” an English town to keep Ultra secret indeed sounds like something he’d have had the guts to do, and is often repeated. But it appears that Churchill was never forced to make such a gut-wrenching decision during World War II. Ultra intercepts provided warning of many attacks, but don’t appear to have ever pinpointed specific targets.
@4
Agree. Firmly believe that this was a counter intel operation by the bad guys. Find out about listening in, have a thousands escape, then chatter away to test the response.
I think you guys are giving this Administration far too much credit. The underlying reason for the hysteria is that the timing was centered around BO’s birthday.
I saw mention of the timing in the first reports about this alert. If true, we are being treated to the spectacle of the lady elephants reacting to the mouse in the movie “Dumbo,” and Al-Qaeda is laughing their a$$es off after confirming that they were being watched.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but this administration has a history of encouraging over-the-top sycophantic behavior.
Trust that I’m not giving this administration credit for anything, aside from the dumbassery it has accomplished since 2008.
Considering the enemy has disrupted U.S. diplomatic activity abroad, in 22 countries, it has achieved something. I believe they’re probing the U.S. response, and have likely garnered some useful intel. IMO, they are adjusting for something – just not sure what.
Squirrel!
I’ve seen several analyses by people that conclude that it’s all a distraction from the NSA, Obamacare, IRS, etc. scandal machine. That makes more sense that telling the enemy that you’re closed this week, come back another time.
While our enemies plan for the long run with policies the United States only has reactionary appeasement 4 year cycles of diminished return.
Shit is ridiculous and it’s no wonder why our power is on the decline while the nation is being robbed.