Not So Secret Drone Bases

The Washington Post has a front-page story about a "ring" of supposedly secret drone bases, apparently oblivious to the fact that if they are a featured story in the paper, they are hardly all that secret anymore. These bases, a critical part of our worldwide counterterrorism efforts, have been exposed by our enemy Wikileaks, as part of its release of stolen diplomatic cables.

As I've pointed out before, Wikileaks has already done far more damage to the U.S. than most terrorists can dream of, and this is just the latest example. Al Qaeda doesn't need intelligence operatives in the U.S. conducting espionage to uncover details about U.S. counterterrorism efforts. It has Wikileaks to do it for them. The exposure of these secrets might make for interesting reading, but that damage to U.S. interests is real and significant. The Post covers the situation with Seychelles.

The government of Seychelles agreed to host U.S. drones and to keep their counterterrorism mission secret, using a cover story that they were there for anti-piracy operations. The U.S. told Seychelles that the drones would be unarmed.

During a meeting with Seychelles President James Michel on Sept. 18, 2009, American diplomats said the U.S. government “would seek discrete [sic], specific discussions . . . to gain approval” to arm the Reapers “should the desire to do so ever arise,” according to a cable summarizing the meeting. Michel concurred, but asked U.S. officials to approach him exclusively for permission “and not anyone else” in his government ... Michel’s chief deputy told a U.S. diplomat on a separate occasion that the Seychelles president “was not philosophically against” arming the drones, according to another cable. But the deputy urged the Americans “to be extremely careful in raising the issue with anyone in the Government outside of the President. Such a request would be ‘politically extremely sensitive’ and would have to be handled with ‘the utmost discreet care.’ ”

Here you see that the U.S. made a secret agreement with the president to cut out the rest of his government. In order to conduct these type of operations we need to make agreements with various countries that involve these sorts of back-door dealings, because of domestic political consideration in the states hosting our drones. How much harder will it be to obtain bases now that everyone knows that the U.S. is unable to keep even sensitive diplomatic correspondence secret, and unwilling to take necessary actions to destroy a hostile organization that is stealing and publishing those secrets? If you were the president of some other nation approached by the U.S., would you make a similar agreement, knowing that the U.S. can't keep secrets?

More Damage From Wikileaks

Since the U.S. has failed to eliminate the threat posed by Wikileaks, it was only a matter of time before it inflicted more damage on U.S. interests.

WikiLeaks has published on the Web nearly 134,000 leaked diplomatic cables in recent days ... the newly published cables included the names of some people who had spoken confidentially to American diplomats and whose identities were marked in the cables with the warning “strictly protect.”

This isn't the first time Wikileaks has callously endangered the lives of people who have worked with the U.S.

Last year, WikiLeaks was sharply criticized by human rights activists for disclosing the names of Afghan citizens who had provided information on the Taliban to the American military.

Supposedly they've been more careful with their publication of stolen files until now. But I guess you can't expect people who solicit treason and publish secrets in an effort to damage U.S. interests to be very responsible. As I've written multiple times before, the U.S. government should be doing everything possible to destroy Wikileaks, a hostile non-state entity that poses a threat significantly greater than many of the terrorists we are killing with the drone assassination program.

Wikileaks Strikes Again

In its continuing attack on U.S. interests and foreign policy, Wikileaks released more stolen diplomatic cables revealing secret U.S. financing operations in Syria.

The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

Wikileaks has again shown its callous disregard for the lives of anyone in Syria that might be targeted by the Assad dictatorship, and has contributed to propping up the regime. Assad can make a better case now, supported by these latest revelations, that opposition groups are under the control of hostile foreigners who are meddling in Syrian affairs. It's free propaganda that helps him paint himself as a true Syrian fighting against U.S. influence. None of this apparently matters to Wikileaks, as long as it is able to strike at the U.S.

It's long past time that the U.S. recognized Wikileaks as a dangerous and hostile non-state entity, that has already done more damage to American interests than most terrorist attacks. It should be targeted and destroyed by whatever means might prove most effective.

Another Method of Dealing With Wikileaks

I've made my position on Wikileaks clear in previous posts. In my opinion it's a hostile foreign entity that the U.S. should destroy through covert action. But in reality, there is no chance that the Obama administration will act forcefully to eliminate the threat. At best the administration will be able to impose some legal difficulties on Wikileaks. I'm highly skeptical that it can be shut down through legal action. Given that situation, maybe we should try something else.

Since we know Wikileaks is targeting the U.S., and has already obtained information from a U.S. traitor, why not take advantage of that for our own purposes? The FBI regularly conducts sting operations designed to ensnare terrorists. Would-be bombers like the latest Islamist in Portland put their plans together only to find that their supposed collaborators are actually FBI fronts. It's an effective way to disrupt terrorists before they strike. Something similar could easily be done with Wikileaks.

The U.S. could have another apparent traitor or traitors contact Wikileaks with new troves of classified documents. The supposed traitors would be FBI (or some other agency) agents. The documents would be a mix of real but harmless material, combined with false or altered data. The false data would be disinformation designed to advance U.S. foreign policy goals. This would serve two purposes. First, depending on what information was planted, the U.S. might reap certain advantages before the authenticity of the documents was called into question. Second, if and when the fake documents were discovered to be fake, the credibility of Wikileaks would suffer. It would be revealed as a dupe of the United States. The authenticity of any future document releases from the U.S. would automatically be greeted with suspicion. Idiotic conspiracy theorists around the world are willing to believe almost anything, no matter how crazy. It's even possible that some would start to view Wikileaks as a CIA front and a tool for U.S. propaganda. Discrediting the organization and turning it into a laughing-stock would be almost as good as destroying it.

Majority of Americans Favor Prosecution of Wikileaks

A new poll indicates that 70% of Americans recognize that Wikileaks is harming the U.S.

Americans overwhelmingly think that WikiLeaks is doing more harm than good by releasing classified U.S. diplomatic cables, and they want to see the people behind it prosecuted, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A large majority of Republicans, 81%, see Wikileaks as harmful, and even 58% of liberals agree that it is doing more harm than good. 59% of Americans overall support prosecution of Wikileaks members. Only a delusional 22% see the leaks as positive. It would be interesting to find out how many support violent covert action against Wikileaks, as I and others on the right have advocated.

The Ongoing Wikileaks Saga

As everyone probably knows by now, Julian Assange turned himself in to British authorities as a result of his European arrest warrant and will face sex charges filed in Sweden. This could be either a good or bad development. It's possible the charges will stick, he'll be convicted, thrown in jail and essentially discredited as a sex criminal. On the other hand, there is probably a decent chance that there won't be enough evidence for a conviction, he'll walk free, and use the incident to portray himself as a martyr.

Despite the situation with Assange, Wikileaks says it will continue releasing stolen U.S. diplomatic cables. Assange alone is not the problem, and regardless of what happens to him personally, Wikileaks remains a hostile non-state organization engaged in a direct attack on the United States. Along with the Assange situation, there have been some other positive developments. Visa and Paypal have both suspended business arrangements with Wikileaks, and the Swiss closed Assange's bank account. Those are helpful measures, but they don't go nearly far enough.

As I've argued before, Wikileaks has already inflicted significant damage on the U.S. Instead of waiting around for the next attack, the U.S. should take both overt and covert action to destroy this organization. Attacking its finances is well and good, but the U.S. should directly target the key individuals running Wikileaks. It's past time for some of them to start dying or disappearing. Unfortunately it is unlikely that our current president will act beyond the usual strongly-worded statements, and tentative legal tactics. We can wage an extensive assassination campaign in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but we apparently can't act to destroy an enemy that has carried out a successful assault, and caused far more damage than most of the people we are killing.

Even Hillary Clinton Understands that Wikileaks is an Enemy of the U.S

Here's the Secretary of State,

``This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests,'' Mrs. Clinton said, ``it is an attack on the international community: the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.''

``It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems,''

As I've been arguing, Wikileaks is not a journalist organization, it's an enemy entity targeting the United States. Hillary Clinton is claiming that it is also an attack on the mythical "international community." It isn't. The target is clearly the U.S. But the secretary is obviously attempting to build international support for suppression efforts aimed at Wikileaks. With that in mind, casting the attack as an assault on the international system of diplomacy is a reasonable tactic.

But words aren't enough. The Obama administration is big on talking. In fact, it puts great faith in diplomacy, "engagement," and so-called "smart power" or "soft power." The Obama approach to foreign policy -- even more than most -- is directly undermined by leaks which reveal candid assessments, gamesmanship, private conversations and all sorts of other information which diplomats and leaders expected would never see the light of day. Like other leaks, it reinforces the perception that the U.S. government simply can't be trusted to keep secrets secret. When you know someone can't keep a secret, you naturally become much more guarded and wary in your conversations.

Some have attempted to dismiss this leak as much ado about nothing, or at least see the concern as overblown. I'm one of the first to cry "much ado about nothing" in many cases, but this isn't one of them. Anyone who knows how foreign policy and diplomacy operate has to understand the serious damage of these leaks. Hillary Clinton is exactly right when she calls the Wikileak's action an attack. But recognizing an enemy attack is one thing, responding to it effectively and eliminating the possibility of future attacks is another. Let's see if the Obama administration does anything beyond talk.

Wikileaks Launches Another Attack on the U.S.

As everyone probably knows by now, Wikileaks, an organization working with U.S. traitors to reveal classified information, has exposed a vast number of secret U.S. diplomatic documents.  

some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both secret and noforn.

Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.”

If you read through the NYT article and others, you can see the scope of this information, which reveals all sorts of things that could damage U.S. relations with numerous countries, and render the conduct of U.S. foreign policy far more difficult. What Wikileaks has done is nothing less than a direct assault on the United States. The release of these documents has the potential to be more damaging than many types of terrorist attack. There should be no question that Wikileaks as an organization is a clear enemy of the U.S., and it should be treated as such. Instead of tolerating these attacks and doing little beyond issuing a condemnation, the U.S. government should do everything within its power to destroy Wikileaks, as it would any other non-state entity launching attacks on the U.S. It's time to stop tolerating this enemy that has repeatedly acted with impunity against us.

During the Clinton and Bush years we had a useful program known as extraordinary rendition, which President Obama foolishly shut down -- at least as far as we know. If, like many of Bush's policies, we are still doing something similar, this would be an ideal way to deal with some of the key enemies running Wikileaks. They could simply disappear, with the side benefit that interrogation might yield information regarding which traitors in the U.S. are supplying them with documents. If that isn't possible, there should be a strange rash of fatal accidents and random murders among top level members of Wikileaks. Other options should also be explored, such as legal measures, cyber warfare, disruption of financing and anything else either covert or overt that can be used to destroy the organization. 

UPDATE

Republican Congressman Peter King of New York appears to essentially agree with me -- although naturally he can't be quite as specific about actions we might take.

"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I'm also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization," King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.

"By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever," he said. "To me, they are a clear and present danger to America."

Leftists Upset at Even the Joking Suggestion that an Enemy of the U.S. Might be Eliminated

Jonah Goldberg of National Review, who is pretty good at riling up the left, wrote an article in the Chicago Tribune called, "Why is Assange Alive?" Despite the provocative title, if you actually read the column you will see that Goldberg is not calling for the Wikileaks head to be killed. Instead, he is making fun of those who see the CIA and U.S. intelligence in general as some sort of evil entity wreaking havoc throughout the world.

if you read left-wing accounts of the intelligence community, two versions dominate. The CIA and similar outfits are either evil and incompetent, or evil and supercompetent. Sometimes the folks at The Nation will mock the CIA for trying to blow up Fidel Castro with an exploding cigar. Other times some Oliver Stone type will insist that the military, or the CIA, or the National Security Agency or rogue elements from those quarters, managed to assassinate John F. Kennedy and pin it on a Marxist dupe named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Under either scenario, you'd think Assange, super-whistle-blower of the international left, would be a greasy stain on the Autobahn already.

He uses the fact that nothing has happened to Assange -- a mysterious disappearance or death in the case of the super-competent evil CIA, or a bungled assassination plot in the case of the incompetent evil CIA, as a tool to debunk either view of the agency. But that's going way too far for the left. Look at some of the hilarious reactions. Here's reading-comprehension challenged DougJ posting at Balloon Juice.

Jonah Goldberg calls for Julian Assange’s murder. ... If you don’t think that the right is serious about using violence to take power, you’re not paying attention.

Uh no, he didn't. And even if he had, advocating violence against an enemy of the U.S. has nothing to do with taking power and using violence against political opponents in America. But understanding that would require not just reading comprehension, but logical reasoning ability, something in short supply at Balloon Juice and similar blogs.

Then there is Talk Left, which is usually a bit more rational.

It's not a serious question of course. And Goldberg is not a serious person. But for all the fainting couches the "progressive elite" pundits fell on regarding Markos' book American Taliban, it is remarkable that this column was published by a major newspaper in the United States.

The left really hates Goldberg. There's not even the slightest comparison between Markos' ridiculous book, which even the left panned, and anything Goldberg wrote in that column. Why wouldn't it be suitable for a major newspaper? Most of the left is so far out of touch with mainstream American thought, that they are easily shocked by things that come from differing perspectives.

Here's the always laughable Alex Pareene at Salon.

The point of the column is to assert that Assange should be murdered, because he is obviously horrible, while also saying that Goldberg is "OK" with the government not assassinating a foreign national guilty of no actual crime, so that people can't say Goldberg called for Assange to be killed.

Goldberg specifically says he isn't calling for Assange to be killed, the point of the column is entirely obvious, but Pareene prefers to just make up his own interpretation in order to attack Goldberg.

Those are just a couple of the hysterical leftist reactions. They are horrified at even the joking suggestion, used to make an entirely different point, that the U.S. should do anything about a foreign national waging an information war against America, doing everything possible to undermine the U.S. war effort, and serving as a useful idiot for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Thoughts on the Latest Wikileaks Documents

I haven't had anything to say about the latest Wikileaks document release because the material that has gotten the most attention is the least interesting. A huge amount of information was released, so I'm sure there are plenty of things to note. But the big stories are no great surprise to anyone who has paid attention and knows anything of war and military history.

First up is the Iraqi torture story. Is anyone surprised at all the the Iraqis have been abusing prisoners? How many countries in the region don't abuse prisoners? The only reason this story has been pushed is to create some anti-American propaganda, and to pretend that the U.S. is somehow responsible. The U.S. is damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we kept tighter control over the Iraqis it would be used as evidence that we were running a puppet government, imperialism and all the other things enemies of America at home and abroad already accuse us of.   Given the scale of the problem, there'd probably still have been abuses. And even nation-building proponents tend to recognize some limits on nation-building. Once you grant a new government sovereign rights, you have to let them exercise them.

Then there are the civilian casualties. Civilians die in wars. When it's an irregular war where identification of enemies is difficult, people switch sides, terrorists deliberately target civilians and the war itself is primarily fought in heavily-populated areas, many civilians are going to die. Because of the nature of the war there are going to be all sorts of accidents and incidents where the wrong people are killed. Focusing on the civilian deaths and various incidents is used by anti-American propagandists to obscure the fact that the U.S. military has bent over backward to minimize civilian casualties -- to the point of putting it's own forces at far greater risk. But there's only so much you can do given the nature of this sort of warfare.

Some on the right have also seized on the Wikileaks documents to pretend that since we found some WMD in Iraq, this justified the prewar intelligence assessments and the Bush administration's assessment of the potential threat. Let it go people. The Wikileaks revelations are nothing new in this area. We already knew that there were some WMD found in Iraq. But left-over, aging chemical artillery shells were definitely NOT what U.S. intelligence and the Bush administration expected. The U.S. military went into Iraq fully expecting to face a significant chemical weapons arsenal. What we actually found did not in any way match the prewar intelligence estimates. The estimates were so far off that it is unreasonable to pretend that what we did find in any way validates them.

One final point... Control of information and propaganda are important components of warfare, particularly irregular wars in which the U.S. is not employing its full military might. I've seen people actually arguing that we shouldn't classify things just because they might be embarrassing to the U.S. That's exactly why they should be classified. When we are fighting a war, we want our spin on events to prevail as much as possible. The same people who think secrets should be revealed would be happy to admit that the Abu Ghraib scandal seriously hurt the U.S. war effort. They'd talk about how it was a recruitment tool for the enemy, and so forth. It wouldn't have been, had we been able to keep it secret. Ugly incidents and even justifiable actions that can be spun a certain way to attack the U.S. are going to happen in warfare, especially over a years-long irregular conflict. Having secrets dumped into the open is a massive propaganda coup for the enemy.Those doing the dumping are directly aiding our enemies, regardless of whatever their particular motives might be.