"the strong do what they can, and the
weak suffer what they must."

Indeed.

But, then, one should not be surprised when asymmetric reprisal attacks like 9/11 happen. Do not be surprised when it all comes to bite you in the backside.

"the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.............and the weak later on exact revenge in any way they see fit..."

-Clint

Israel could take a lesson from that also.

Prof. Walt,
As always, I find your commentary to be right on. The U.S. would be well served to have a reality check on their false impressions of Jack Bauer/Jason Bourne-esque "covert action". If we better understand the limits of our national security apparatus, then our citizenry will achieve a more nuanced and realistic view of the security challenges we face and the things we must to do to prepare for these eventualities.

When I initially read up on this blossoming story, I was struck by the same confusion. However, after thinking it over, I believe there is much more to the story that has not yet been publicly revealed. First off, its seems likely to me that this proposed targeted terrorist assassination scheme was much more of a "game changer" than the drone-attacks we are all very familiar with. Meaning, this proposed scheme might have included inserting covert, "hit" teams into all sorts of foreign nations, friendly allies included, probably without notifying their respective governments. This would be a significant departure from the drone program, whose purview has been limited thus far to the Iraq & Af-Pak theaters, where the USAF is already engaged in war-time bombing and missile strikes. A few months back, if you recall, Sy Hersh mentioned publicly about some initial reporting he has conducted about an assassination program that reported "directly to cheney", it seems that this story might be the first public glimpse into this program. While my suspicions have not yet been confirmed, and might be premature and totally off the mark, we will just have to wait and see. However, my money is on the fact that this proposed program had much more serious legal and political ramifications than the drone attacks.

Also, a general point about posting to this blog. Even though I read your posts regularly, I initially hesitated about posting anything because of the sort of childish drivel that takes up much of the comments section here. Bloggers and readers, can we please try and elevate the discussions here to greater intellectual heights? I think Prof. Walt's postings, which are consistently enlightening, deserve at least that much.

There has to be more to this story than a team to go after guys like Bin Laden. No senators would have been shocked to learn of such a program.

I'm guessing that with Bush/Cheney's conception of the post-9/11 environment as effectively a global war, and with their "with us or against" outlook, we are talking about a program that did preliminary work on a significantly larger portfolio of potential targets, comprising all sorts of foreign leaders and eminences who might plausibly be classified as among "America's enemies."

Meanwhile, Marc Lynch posted a discussion today of a controversy raging in the Palestinian press about the alleged involvement of Mahmoud Abbas and others, including an "American delegation" in plans to assassinate Yassir Arafat back in 2004:

I thought movies like Syriana were pretty close to the truth vis-a-vis drones, and US puppet regimes, BTW.

Professor Walt:

Please put this under the tag, "Movies," too?

Thanks
A former student

PS - Incidentally, care to put up a list of most realistic spy/national security novels or movies?

Nothing to add to what you wrote.

While reading I wondered whether you might have some books on intelligence and spies to suggest for those who would like to get a better understanding about how they really work - both historical accounts and analytic assessment. Thank you.

My fear is not of the misperceptions amongst the public (U.S. or international) caused by movies like the Boune series. My fear is of the misconceptions they may cause among officials about what the government itself may be maximally capable of.

There has to be because the CIA Hit Squad business was reported on in 2002:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/international/15INTE.html

So what is the current fuss over?????????????

I suspect that the governmental and diplomatic uproar about this program, different from that of the drone attacks, is because it was likely aimed at friendly countries who hadn't given permission for covert actions on their soil. Like the time Abu Omar was kidnapped in Milan.

Otherwise, the popular outrage is because it fits more squarely with pop culture's rendition of the CIA. Here in Beirut, after Sy Hersh had brought up the issue outlets like al-Manar and NBN were circulating Wayne Madsen's (ridiculous) claims that an assassination squad run by Dick Cheney was responsible for killing Rafiq Hariri and Elie Hobeika. I know for a fact that these spy movies don't just warp the view that Americans have of their clandestine services, but the image held by foreigner citizens as well.

First of all, I haven't heard much indignation about the decision to kill Al-Qaida leaders in and by itself. From either side of the isle. The tactic is a legitimate one, which has been used by Israel on a number of occasions and with varying success. So deconstructing the idea that it might not be be right or proper to kill Al-Qaida leaders abroad looks suspiciously like demolishing a straw-man argument.

Secondly, the question of whether it furthers US interests to have such an assassination program is an interesting one, and one that is deeply political. Of course the executive branch bears the first and the heaviest responsibility for making that assessment. However, our constitutional framework stipulates congressional oversight. It does this because the population at large is the real stake-holder in case of any repercussions. Not the current administration and not the party which happens to supply the current administration. The Intelligence oversight committee was put together specifically to protect that stakeholdership. Therefore thwarting that oversight is a political and constitutional mistake of the highest order, regardless of any legal aspects.

Thirdly, there is of course the legal aspect. Either the CIA was ordered to undertake the assassination of Al-Qaida leaders if and when feasible, (in which case the Congressional oversight commission should have been informed at once and Mr. Cheney's secrecy order was beyond the pale) or it was not and Mr. Panetta's testimony is misleading. One or the other. And I'd like to see it cleared up which is which.

Without references to hypothetical Jack Bauers please.

Do such productions lead viewers in the U.S. and abroad to exaggerate what the United States is actually capable of doing?

Oh yes, indeed. That's what makes 9/11 so terrifying...OBL recreated "The Towering Inferno".

Agree with everything in this post..

On the pop-culture point about people believing gov't operatives have better capabilities than they actually do:

That's what made the whole SEALS dropping out of the air and picking off three pirates from the back of a ship such an awesome story! That NEVER seems to actually happen. Certainly wouldn't help any conspiracy theorists give up their fears about black helicopters....

I smell a rat in this faux controversy - "we're shocked, shocked, to learn that the Bush administration developed a secret program to assassinate Osama bin Laden, and - criminally - refused to tell Congress about it, even though they never acted on it. Oh, the bastards . . . ."

First of all, we all knew bin Laden was "wanted dead or alive." We went to war in Afghanistan to destroy him. However, when we had him trapped in Tora Bora, that's when the real controversial secret occurred: the Bush Cheney Neocon administration decided they didn't want to kill bin Laden so soon, they had more wars to launch, and a quick decapitation of Al Queda would undercut the Global War on Terror, the Clash of Civilizations, the battle between Western Democracy and Islamofascism, by sating American blood lust triggered by 9/11 and the Anthrax Attacks. The best US forces to complete the kill at Tora Bora waited in vain for orders to join the siege. Bin Laden walked out. Bush said he wasn't overly concerned with bin Laden, it's Saddam Hussein who poses the bigger threat.

There came another time, as I recall, that bin Laden's location in Pakistan was determined and Special Forces waited for orders to embark, which Rumsfeld nixed. Too risky, supposedly. Mrs. Rumsfeld asked her husband, "What about UBL?" to no reported response. Bin Laden sat in hiding in Pakistan for years, with little or no reported US military, intelligence or diplomatic effort to locate him and take him out. That is the ugly secret.

I would wager that the real secret controversy is the deliberate manipulation or constraining of our efforts to decapitate Al Queda in service of the Neocon Agenda of forced regime change in Iraq, Iran & Syria. That's what would've been kept from Congress, and would've been highly controversial within the intelligence and military communities. It wasn't just that the Neocons took their eye off the ball, got distracted from their mission; it was that they had a different mission.

Now that this ugly news is starting to come out, the policy reversed, it is being dressed up in all the misdirectional clothing worthy of a Karl Rove - it's a story about the heroic Neocons willing to bend Congress's leaky right to know in service of serious combat against the bad guys, for which the spineless liberals are now shrieking hysterically about stupid disclosure rules.

The truth is classified. Those with something to hide are leaking a very self-serving version of events, intended to further mislead, and further postpone their own day of reckoning.

Not one single public official, nor any pundit, in the United States has said anything even vaguely critical about the idea of assassinating terrorist leaders. The debate has been about breaking the law re: Congressional oversight, which in turn is part of larger debate about the rule of law and its role in US foreign policy. It is a debate within the U.S. foreign policy establishment, not a challenge to it from the outside.

Of course, someone could make the case that the legal status of such a program (in terms of international law) is the same as the legal status of, say, Cuba sending assassins into Miami to attack people who have launched terrorist attacks against Cuba. But that would be something that could only be said from outside of the US foreign policy establishment and would be viewed as a sign of mental illness within it.