The Indians are gonna be pissed.....
UPDATE: This article has virtually disappeared from the NYTimes website. The article is still there, but there are no headline links to it anywhere I can find, and it has been replaced by a much more neutral article which only vaguely references the links that spectacularly headlined the piece last night. (So, I'm not the only one who questioned this article.)
Original post: While the official Bush administration figures try to tie the Mumbai attacks to Al Qaeda, we have our first real story alleging a closer link to the Pakistani military/ISI. (NYTimes)
The one thing I would add is that we're in a very soft space where people are making allegations to advance their own foreign relations causes. It's clear that this source is leaking on behalf of somebody for purpose, but the who and why aren't really clear.
Later: I wasn't really clear. I'm not necessarily endorsing this as true or not. The nature of how this is coming out makes it appear as a leak for effect which means it might be wholly or partially true, or selectively or deceptively released.
Coming on the front page of the NYTimes, though, this incendiary leak is sure to set India alight and sour any chances of India/Pakistani rapprochement.
So, we come back to the who and why of the leak. Is the "former Defense Department official" a careerist acting as a conduit for honest intel agents, a Wolfowitz type trying to shape the India Pakistan outcome, someone trying to push out a Bush administration message to help Mullen in his trip to Pakistan?
The intended effect is clear. It's the intel and the motivation that are blurry.
Original post: While the official Bush administration figures try to tie the Mumbai attacks to Al Qaeda, we have our first real story alleging a closer link to the Pakistani military/ISI. (NYTimes)
A former Defense Department official said Wednesday that American intelligence agencies had determined that former officers from Pakistan’s Army and its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped train the Mumbai attackers.
But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that no specific links had been uncovered yet between the terrorists and the Pakistani government.
The one thing I would add is that we're in a very soft space where people are making allegations to advance their own foreign relations causes. It's clear that this source is leaking on behalf of somebody for purpose, but the who and why aren't really clear.
Later: I wasn't really clear. I'm not necessarily endorsing this as true or not. The nature of how this is coming out makes it appear as a leak for effect which means it might be wholly or partially true, or selectively or deceptively released.
Coming on the front page of the NYTimes, though, this incendiary leak is sure to set India alight and sour any chances of India/Pakistani rapprochement.
So, we come back to the who and why of the leak. Is the "former Defense Department official" a careerist acting as a conduit for honest intel agents, a Wolfowitz type trying to shape the India Pakistan outcome, someone trying to push out a Bush administration message to help Mullen in his trip to Pakistan?
The intended effect is clear. It's the intel and the motivation that are blurry.
posted by mikevotes at
5:40 PM
12 Comments:
Anonymous official + no specific links = worthless information.
By
Anonymous, at 5:56 PM
Yeah. Within a intelligence viewpoint, agreed.
But, as I was trying to say in that second half, stuff like this has diplomatic ramifications. On the front of the NYTimes, it's certainly going to hit the streets and halls of India, and have an effect there.
I would love to know who is putting this out there and why.
By
mikevotes, at 9:09 PM
I guess the basic idea is to keep piling pressure on Pakistan in the hope that they crack. I heard Robert Kagan on the BBC today advocating international intervention. Presumably that means military intervention. It would be nice to know how that fits in with Obama's vision for the region.
By
Anonymous, at 9:30 PM
There seem to be two main courses being proposed. The "international intervention" track and the stability first track that the primary goal should be to strengthen the Pak civilian government above all else.
I don't know what Rice and Mullen are telling them now.
.....
And, excuse the crassness, but this terror attack, as a tactic, has thus far been hugely successful, altering the priorities and politics, somewhat changing the landscape.
By
mikevotes, at 9:35 PM
I think someone wants to turn the War on Terror into the War on Islam. They probably don't care too much if the nukes start flying.
By
Anonymous, at 9:51 PM
Maybe. There are enough "former Defense officials" who hold that line.
But it could also be someone who simply opposes the Pakistan policy.
By
mikevotes, at 6:50 AM
I can't see the Pentagon being too enthusiastic about taking over the tribal areas...but you never know.
By
Anonymous, at 7:18 AM
I just put an update on this, this article has virtually disappeared from the website, (no headline links from anywhere I can find,) so it seems like someone at the NYTimes realized they were being used and printing trash.
To your comment, that's what I'm saying, from this article, it's hard to determine actor and motivation.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks around the Pentagon who are tired of Pakistan dicking around in the tribal areas who would like to see a more open conflict between the Pak government and "terrorists."
Not saying they want the US in there, but they may want to force a more direct effort by the Pakistanis.
By
mikevotes, at 7:36 AM
The Pashtun have been 'dicking around in the tribal areas' since the time of Alexander. The Pakistanis know this very well. Maybe the Pentagon has some new ideas.
By
Anonymous, at 7:56 AM
I don't know.
I'm trying to look at this from a leaker motivation sense, and there is a group in the Pentagon who wish that Pakistan would roll into the tribal lands and clean it out.
I understand history, geography, and reality argue against this, I'm just trying to divine the "former defense officials" possible motivations.
By
mikevotes, at 8:00 AM
Expanding the war most likely. Presumably they see some kind of positive outcome.
By
Anonymous, at 8:16 AM
The leaker seems obviously hostile towards Pakistan.
Again, the who and why are vague.
By
mikevotes, at 8:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home