Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, January 6, 2009 09:35 AM

  @ asiashooter

  Don't read me wrong. I am in total agreement that these policies were not only criminal, and NOT EVEN REMOTELY in the US's best interests, but why is the appointment of a true intelligence professional out of the question, when it comes to the new DCIA. Applauding Panetta in this job makes about as much sense as Rumsfeld in the Pentagon.

  The last real "insider" (former DO officer) as DCI was Bill Colby ... and with him and from him, we furthered the eventual rise of the nascent Taliban, kissing up to Pakistan's ISI when they encouraged the fundamentalists, and other blowback that came to bite us real bad on 9-11. See, e.g., Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" and Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars".

  At some point, some in the CIA (and Richard Clarke in the administration) started taking alarm at the Taliban and bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. But the highers-up in the CIA for long were so dependent on the ISI and concerned about Pakistan's stability (and its nukes) that they didn't want to rock the boat, and those that wanted to encourage support for Masoud and the secular Pashtuns (Karzai after his split from the Taliban), Uzbeks like Dostum, and republican royalists, were thwarted and shortchanged. And State was also of the misguided opinion that neutrality towards (and pressure on) the Taliban might moderate them. High CIA went along with this, to the frustration of the bin Laden unit, etc..

  The last thing we want in the CIA is some former DO "cowboy" running their own show with their own ends in mind, without oversight or restraint.

  Cheers,

  —Arne Langsetmo Read Arne Langsetmo's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel