Killing Us Not So Softly

This NYT alert just came in:

Bomber Who Killed C.I.A. Staff Worked With Jordanian Intelligence

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The suicide bomber who killed seven C.I.A. officers and one Jordanian intelligence officer last week in southeastern Afghanistan was an asset of the Jordanian intelligence service who had been brought to Afghanistan to help hunt down top members of the Qaeda network, according to a Western official briefed on the matter.

The Ranting ManBear in mind: this guy was an intelligence asset for Jordan, one of our allies, a “staunch friend in the War on Terror”, as G.W. Bush liked to say.

Shouldn’t this cause us to rethink some of our most basic strategies?

How much stupider can we get?

Can anyone say “Catastrophic Failure”?

[Rant ends here]

5 thoughts on “Killing Us Not So Softly

  1. It all boils down to this:

    How do you form alliances with religiously imbued government institutions that do not voluntarily recognize any sort of pact or truce and, instead, only allow for an opprotune temporary cessation of hostilities, called hudna, and only when it is to their own benefit?

    How do establish meaningful trust relationships with followers of an ideology whose doctrine purposefully sanctions deceit and misinformation as valid strategies?

    Short answer, YOU CAN’T.

    Long answer, YOU CAN’T.

    Much as with the “moderate” Muslim, whenever push comes to shove, any and all Islamic nations will circle their wagons against the unbelievers. It is why the concept of collective punishment needs to be applied with great liberality until those schisms within Islam finally begin to work against the overarching interests of this world’s Muslim population.

  2. How do you form alliances with religiously imbued government institutions?

    You pay through your nose for their supposed ‘loyalty’. They’ll always whine that we’re not paying enough for that, but paying more won’t help.

    How do establish meaningful trust relationships?

    You can’t.

  3. Henrik, forunately, I know you well enough from our previous interactions to where it is clear that you have no malicious intent.

    Still, if you are to re-cast my own comments, please consider using an elipsis (…) to show that some text has been excised. In this particular case, it is vital that my statement about forming, “alliances with religiously imbued government institutions”, be qualified by mentioning the Islamic practice of hudna.

    America has far fewer problems in its alliance with Japan, whose government is still imbued with Shintoism. We also have functional relations with Southeast Asian governments like Thailand despite the deep influence of Buddhism in such political bodies.

    Such is most definitely not the case with respect to any Western relationships involving Islamic governments who, nearly to a man, routinely demonstrate the most duplictious sort of conduct in their dealings with non-Muslim majority nations.

    In response to your own obversation, while political entities with some sense of honor may at least be counted upon to “stay bought”, nothing of the sort applies to Islamic bodies and it is long past tea for the West to begin holding all Muslim institutions at arm’s length in any dealings we are obliged to have with them.

    Far better is to simply steamroll them into submission if, indeed, “submission” is what they are so fond of. Time is running out for any further displays of good will regarding Islam and the sooner they are ground beneath the boot heel of Western military might, the less likely it is that the non-Muslim world will have to endure the current probability of WMD terrorist atrocities.

    Such unilateral action by the West would also be the healthiest thing for this world’s Muslim population in that, by averting such WMD terrorist atrocities, it might also be possible to forestall the looming Muslim holocaust.

  4. Could some of the problems with intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic be that they have been to heavily subjected to the diversity culture to the point that it effects their decision making processes, maybe they need deprogramming to give them more of an edge.

  5. 4Symbols:

    I would say ‘Yes’ but not the men on the ground who see what goes on day to day and listen in to the islamic terrorists as they communicate.

    The problem is the leadership of those agencies, or lack of leadership. The leaders have been replaced by managers who don’t want to upset the politicians by pointing out that muslims hate most other people.

Comments are closed.