Oliver North
Leak City
In most administrations, "leaks" of classified information precipitate presidential ire. Nearly all such unauthorized disclosures are the consequence of disgruntled government employees deciding that a "leak" is the best way to stop some activity they have decided should not continue. To justify their unlawful actions, they call themselves "secret whistle-blowers."
The so-called "mainstream media" love them. Most American presidents do not. That's what makes the current commander in chief's reactions to a whole series of "leaks" so unusual. President Barack Obama doesn't seem to be concerned at all.
President Ronald Reagan was infuriated by the publication and broadcast of highly classified plans for the rescue of medical students on the island of Grenada in 1983. He believed the leaks endangered both the students and U.S. troops.
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were, by all accounts, outraged when sensitive information on how the U.S. intercepted Osama bin Laden's communications and tracked terrorist finances made its way into the press. The revelation precipitated congressional and Justice Department investigations. And we all know what happened when the name Valerie Plame was published in connection with efforts to determine whether Saddam Hussein had acquired uranium from Niger.
The Obama administration has taken an entirely different tack. Last week, the mainstream media engaged in a feeding frenzy over a three-part series in The Washington Post revealing the locations of sensitive U.S. government sites and names and addresses of contractors performing classified intelligence work for the U.S. government. This week, POTUS brushed off the publication of more than 90,000 pages of classified U.S. military cables on WikiLeaks, a leftist, anti-military website. For the O-Team, this is no big deal.
In his Rose Garden remarks July 27, Obama observed he was "concerned about the disclosure" but went on to note the "documents don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed our public debate on Afghanistan." He then launched into a now-familiar discourse: "For seven years, we failed to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge in this region." In short: "Don't blame me; blame Bush."
Pointing to "failures" and "leaks" from his predecessor's administration has generally worked for Obama. The masters of the media and the potentates of the press have been very accommodating. But that support may prove to be harder to keep as opposition to his own faltering war policies accumulates here at home and in Afghanistan.
While the Obama administration was dismissing "no-news-here leaks," an internal opposition group, describing itself as the "Voice of Afghan Youth," surfaced on the Internet. I stumbled on the group's videos this week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyY1m43XA3I) while searching for what the Afghan media were saying about the murders of two U.S. Navy sailors, Petty Officer 3rd Class Jarod Newlove and Petty Officer 2nd Class Justin McNeley.
Notably, these videos appear to be in two languages -- Persian and English -- but not in Pashto, the "official dialect" of the government in Kabul. If the information in these videos is accurate, they may be of far greater danger to the Karzai and Obama administrations than anything on WikiLeaks.
Unhappily for the White House, the videos allege that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, two of his family members and his closest adviser, Mohammad Omar Daudzai, are involved in massive corruption, opium dealing and colluding with the Iranian government. Daudzai is depicted as an "Evil Wazir," a wicked figure prominent in ancient Persian folklore and the epic poem "Shahnama." He and Karzai's brother Ahmad Wali both are castigated for taking "gold monthly from the boss of American intelligence" -- meaning the CIA.
Though this charge is hardly new, the accusation that Daudzai is also in "the pay of the Persians" is a virtual improvised explosive device. So, too, is the claim that Karzai -- described as the "misguided king of Kabul" -- has himself "taken Persian gold" and allowed Iranian spies to "operate freely in Kabul and the provinces."
After I alerted several military and intelligence friends overseas and here in the states to the "Afghan Youth" videos, their responses ranged from "very interesting" to "I wonder who is behind this" to "damning for Karzai, his cronies and those who are tied to him." None of my sources acknowledged having heard of the "Voice of Afghan Youth" before I called.
When I asked about the "new poisonous powder" identified in one of the videos, I was told, "Given the descriptions of the exposure consequences, it is likely some form of cesium being traded on the black market. Cesium formate is used primarily for oil drilling, but in other chemical forms, it's used in medical diagnostics. Of course, if someone fired a rocket containing radioactive cesium into a NATO base, we would probably have to close it."
These "Afghan Youth" videos -- out there for anyone to see -- ought to be a treasure-trove for those who call themselves "investigative reporters." But then again, it's so much easier to wait for some disaffected American to simply call with the latest "leak" -- and then sit back and wait for the Obama White House to blame Bush. If the allegations in these videos are accurate, that won't work this time.
Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of "American Heroes." To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
General Madness
Set aside for a moment how inconceivable it is that an article in Rolling Stone magazine could be the cause of anyone's being fired — much less a U.S. commanding general in the midst of a war. But that is what happened this week.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a tough, combat-experienced officer who knows how to fight. He knows how to kill the enemy. But he clearly doesn't get it when it comes to the media. His staff let him down — badly — by allowing Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone to hang around with a tape recorder.
That the Pentagon, Central Command and Gen. McChrystal's staff granted unfettered, prolonged access to this publication reflects ignorance, arrogance or both. Everyone involved in approving this "embed" ought to be fired for egregious lack of judgment. They apparently believed they could win over Hastings. They were dead wrong.
I don't disagree with much of what Gen. McChrystal and his staff are quoted as saying about the O-Team in the article. I have used many of the same terms to describe the present administration — albeit with fewer expletives. It also should be noted that despite claims of "several lengthy interviews" with McChrystal, there are very few lines of text in the offending article directly attributable to the general.
On our most recent Fox News trip to Afghanistan, we reported that many of the troops were concerned about new rules of engagement, cuts in night operations, and limits on raids and airstrikes making them more vulnerable to Taliban attacks and improvised explosive devices. Rolling Stone looked for and found troops who were unhappy with the rules of engagement in order to support its contention that the war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable." That refrain is increasingly prevalent because President Barack Obama refuses to use the words "win" and "victory."
McChrystal's firing has been likened to President Abraham Lincoln's replacing George McClellan during the Civil War and President Harry Truman's sacking Douglas MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War. Not accurate.
Both McClellan and MacArthur vocally opposed the stated policies and strategies of their presidents. That's not what happened here. In announcing he had "accepted" his battlefield commander's resignation, Obama acknowledged that he and McChrystal "are in full agreement about our strategy." This week's firing was simply political theater designed to enhance Obama's stature as a "leader" in the eyes of his supporters and critics.
Obama suffers from decision-deficit disorder. He routinely is described as detached, disengaged, ambivalent and uncertain in everything from the economy to securing our borders to the Gulf oil spill to the war itself. He has been unable or unwilling to name our radical Islamist enemies or define victory. He is the only commander in chief to announce a deadline for withdrawing troops while committing more Americans to combat.
McChrystal was relieved because a thin-skinned president couldn't take criticism in the press and needed to prove he's the boss. The intemperate published remarks made by McChrystal and his staff in Rolling Stone provided an opportunity for Obama to show his left-wing base that he is in charge.
The task of commanding 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan now falls on the shoulders of Gen. David Petraeus. In accepting the assignment, Petraeus has not only stepped down from the more senior post as head of U.S. Central Command but also been thrust into the role of "America's only competent general." One critic suggested, "He's very good, but it does make us look like we're a banana republic." Another, a senior officer, said, "Petraeus has accepted 'mission impossible' — herding coalition cats, getting the cooperation of a completely corrupt regime in Kabul and meeting the often conflicting expectations of an inept regime in Washington."
Leading the unruly coalition in Afghanistan may well prove to be far more challenging than what Petraeus had to do in Iraq from 2007 to 2008. In Baghdad, he had a close working relationship with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the respect of other coalition leaders, a supportive and united White House, and backing from a bipartisan coalition in Congress. The command in Kabul offers few of these advantages, for the O-Team is nearly incapacitated by internal rivalries and enormous egos.
"Why would Gen. Petraeus take what amounts to a demotion?" I asked. The answer, from an admirer, was revealing: "He was selected because he is a proven commodity. Everyone knows Petraeus is a battle-tested commander and a patriot. In Iraq, he showed how to work every military, diplomatic and political angle necessary to get the job done. By taking the evidently thankless job in Kabul, he just guaranteed he will be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Perhaps. But first, Petraeus has to persuade this commander in chief to say "victory." He has a year to do it.
Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of "American Heroes." To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
