Considerable anxiety has been expressed about the possibility of al Qaeda taking advantage of the handoff of security agencies from the Bush administration to the incoming Obama team.
But according to CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, all's very quiet on the Western front.
For the moment.
Hayden, who headed the eavesdropping National Security Agency before taking the CIA job, said Thursday there had been "no increased chatter" about plots picked up by U.S. intelligence, according to my CQ colleague Tim Starks, who covered Hayden's appearance at The Atlantic Council of the United States, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.
"We do not see any real or artificial spike" in that chatter as a result of the election, Hayden said in answer to a question after his speech.
On the other hand, Hayden said, "We don't know what we don't know."
Hayden also said he'd stay on in the Obama administration if asked, Starks reported.
"If asked to stay, I think both of us would seriously consider it," Hayden said of himself and Mike McConnell, the National Intelligence Director.
But Hayden also said both understand they "serve at the pleasure of the president" and that it was important there be a "personal relationship" between the president and his intelligence chiefs.
During the campaign, Obama repeatedly argued that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, because the main front against terrorism is in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
On Thursday, Hayden sounded like he was getting with the program.
"Today, the flow of money, weapons, and foreign fighters into Iraq is greatly diminished, and Al Qaeda senior leaders no longer point to it as the central battlefield," Hayden said in his formal remarks.
As for al Qaeda, the terrorist organization has suffered "serious setbacks" but is adapting, Hayden said, and its safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas "remains the most clear and present danger to the United States today."
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Hayden is an extraordinary general officer--and one without beholden ties to the current Republican administration. He's been a GO since '93 and achieved 3-button rank in '99; in other words, he made his rank during the last Democratic administration. His promotion to 4-stars was fortuitous and resulted from political appointees' screw-ups in key intel positions.
He has almost 40-years of active duty time--he doesn't get a pay raise for sticking around and being abused.
Posted by: Flatus
| November 14, 2008 12:46 PM
"Quiet on the Western Front?"
Who's Hayden trying to fool?
"On November 9, 2008, the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported, citing 'a source close to the Al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen,' that Osama bin Laden had ordered a new attack on the U.S. which will be 'far greater than the 9/11 attacks'" (MEMRI, November 10, 2008).
Hayden's approach is similar to one discussed in Douglas Adams', "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." In it, Adams writes of the most dangerous beast in the Galaxy--which also happens to be at the same time the dumbest--for if you throw a towel over its head so it does not see you, it also believes that you do not see it!
Posted by: Tzimtzum
| November 14, 2008 11:37 PM
Tzimtzum,
That beast is not dangerous if you throw a towel over its head. The trick is to get close enough to throw in the towel.
I presume your point is that alQaeda is burrowing away unseen. Not that I disagree with you, however.... Well, if the bad guys are unseen, how can you or I tell they are burrowing away ? Just when is the absence of something the proof that it is happening ???
Posted by: xrepublican
| November 15, 2008 1:08 AM
xrepublican
Let's just call it "The Uncertainty Principle," similiar to the one found in Quantum Mechanics. If I measure the velocity I cannot determine the position; and if I see the position, I cannot figure out the velocity--my point being that even though Hayden might not be willing to state where, when, or how, the threat is still out there and still quite real. Yet, he downplays it.
The chatter level is meaningless if it is kept constant, maintained at a high enough rate with unimportant message filler. Replacing the filler with pertinent information when necessary, does not change the rate but it certainly impacts the importance of the message. Since the content of messages--if using something like Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)--appears random, and since the data rate is the same (no increase in chatter), how does an analyst sorting through a multitude of intercepted messages distinguish between messages of value and just fillers? Frankly, he doesn't. So to say that the chatter rate has not increased and therefore things are quiescent is really a vacuous statement.
Hayden's statement, "All is Quiet on the Western Front," is similar to that of the biblical preacher whose message tickles the ears of his listeners. Historcally, the reports concerning alQaeda as printed in Al-Quds Al-Arabi have been right on the money. And I would hope that Hayden's intelligence sources have the same validity as that of a British Arabic Language newspaper. Do I need to put Hayden in the same camp with Barney Frank, who stated not that long ago that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound institutions?
Hayden would have been much better off not discussing the subject at all.
Posted by: Tzimtzum
| November 15, 2008 12:25 PM
Why speculate about the reasons for his remark--they undoubtedly exist and the remark was made consciously.
The man is no Barney Frank.
Posted by: Flatus
| November 17, 2008 4:38 PM
Post A Comment