CIA's Post 9-11 Spy Plan 'nocked Down

[3113]

More money down the drain

CIA's ambitious post-9/11 spy plan crumbles

The CIA set up a network of front companies in Europe and elsewhere after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a constellation of "black stations" for a new generation of spies, according to current and former agency officials. But after spending hundreds of millions of dollars setting up as many as 12 of the companies, the agency shut down all but two after concluding they were ill-conceived and poorly positioned for gathering intelligence on the CIA's principal targets: terrorist groups and unconventional weapons proliferation networks.

The closures were a blow to two of the CIA's most pressing priorities after the 2001 terrorist attacks: expanding its overseas presence and changing the way it deploys spies. The companies were the centerpiece of an ambitious plan to increase the number of case officers sent overseas under what is known as "nonofficial cover," meaning they would pose as employees of investment banks, consulting firms or other fictitious enterprises with no apparent ties to the U.S. government. But the plan became the source of significant dispute within the agency and was plagued with problems, officials said. The bogus companies were located far from Muslim enclaves in Europe and other targets. Their size raised concerns that one mistake would blow the cover of many agents. And because business travelers don't ordinarily come into contact with Al Qaeda or other high-priority adversaries, officials said, the cover didn't work.

Momentary pause for a scream here

Summing up what many considered the fatal flaw of the program, one former high-ranking CIA official said, "They were built on the theory of the 'Field of Dreams': Build them and the targets will come." ...The agency has sought to regroup by designing covers that would provide pretexts for spies to get close to radical Muslim groups, nuclear equipment manufacturers and other high-priority targets. But current and former officials say progress has been painfully slow, and that the agency's efforts to alter its use of personal and corporate disguises have yet to produce a significant penetration of a terrorist or weapons proliferation network...."Terrorists and weapons proliferators aren't going to be on the diplomatic cocktail circuit," said one government official familiar with the CIA's cover operations.

After the terrorist strikes, the Bush administration ordered the agency to expand its overseas operation by 50%. The agency...got a major boost in funding [from Congress] to expand the nonofficial cover program, which is commonly referred to by the acronym NOC, pronounced "knock."...the new plan called for the [creation of] front companies...[which looked] like consulting firms or other businesses designed to be deliberately bland enough to escape attention. About half were set up in Europe, officials said -- in part to put the agency in better position to track radical Muslim groups there, but also because of the ease of travel and comfortable living conditions. That consideration vexed some CIA veterans.

"How do you let someone have a white-collar lifestyle and be part of the blue-collar terrorist infrastructure?" said one high-ranking official....But the plan was to use the companies solely as bases. Case officers were forbidden from conducting operations in the country where their company was located. Instead, they were expected to adopt second and sometimes third aliases before traveling to their targets. The companies, known as platforms, would then remain intact to serve as vessels for the next crop of case officers who would have different targets.

...critics called the arrangement convoluted, and argued that whatever energy the agency was devoting to the creation of covers should be focused on platforms that could get U.S. spies close to their most important targets. "How does a businessman contact a terrorist?" said a former CIA official.... "If you're out there selling widgets, why are you walking around a mosque in Hamburg?" Rather than random businesses, these officials said, the agency should be creating student aid organizations that work with Muslim students, or financial firms that associate with Arab investors.

Besides broad concerns about the approach, officials said there were other problems with the companies. Some questioned where they were located. One, for example, was set up in Portugal even though its principal targets were in North Africa.....the agency is still struggling to overcome obstacles, including resistance from many of the agency's station chiefs overseas, most of whom rose through the ranks under traditional cover assignments and regard the NOC program with suspicion and distrust.

This was a long article and I did edit it. In essence, the CIA riffed on and adapted a method that worked for the U.S. with Cold War Russia, but was pretty much completely wrong for getting close to terrorists. For the full and unedited version: CIA Spy Plan

 

[Katyusha]

post deleted due to duplication

 

[Katyusha]

This was a long article and I did edit it. In essence, the CIA riffed on and adapted a method that worked for the U.S. with Cold War Russia, but was pretty much completely wrong for getting close to terrorists. For the full and unedited version: CIA Spy Plan

More money down the drain indeed. Our biggest problem with the "war on terror" is that we refuse to understand how terrorists operate and we continue to treat this like we're fighting, or seeing threats from, an established government. Sure, our government TALKS like it knows what it's dealing with and maybe it does, but it has yet to produce a solid strategy for actually discovering and fighting and getting rid of them. All strategies thus far have been based on how one fights an established government and a formal military. And they're pissing away money and time and LIVES by continuing this way. ::sigh::

 

[cantdog]

More money down the drain indeed. Our biggest problem with the "war on terror" is that we refuse to understand how terrorists operate and we continue to treat this like we're fighting, or seeing threats from, an established government. Sure, our government TALKS like it knows what it's dealing with and maybe it does, but it has yet to produce a solid strategy for actually discovering and fighting and getting rid of them. All strategies thus far have been based on how one fights an established government and a formal military. And they're pissing away money and time and LIVES by continuing this way. ::sigh::

I think you're confusing the Iraq thing with the actual anti-terror efforts.

 

[Katyusha]

I think you're confusing the Iraq thing with the actual anti-terror efforts.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

 

[rgraham666]

National security agencies like to keep on doing what they are successful at, on a bigger scale if possible. So I can't say I'm surprised.

And The War On Terror was always meant as a replacement for The Cold War. There was a huge infrastructure built around fighting the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed there were a lot of people who were going to lose jobs as a result.

Unfortunately, terrorist require different strategies than the Soviet Union. But, as so often happens, the people assigned to the job can't make the turn.