SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home John Brennan, Obama’s (Alas) Nitwit Counterterrorism...

THE SPINE MAY 20, 2010

John Brennan, Obama’s (Alas) Nitwit Counterterrorism Adviser, And His Plans To Make Hezbollah Moderate. He’s Also The Inventor And The Watchdog Of The Watchlist. My, My.

The dispatch is from Reuters. And the dateline is Wonderland.

Flush with success in turning Iran away from nukes and Syria away from Tehran, the administration seems to be setting its sights on turning Hezbollah away from Hezbollah.

If this is truly the goal of the administration, look for an another spectacular humiliation. No, worse: It will be a spectacular self-abasement. After all, there’s no evidence that the Lebanese terror fraternity is looking to become mild and modest. Actually, it’s mostly an idea in the head of John Brennan, the president’s chief aide on terrorism and homeland security. Pudding-headed notions go far in today’s Washington. So, hey, why shouldn’t he try? Obama himself is trying a less daring experiment, to turn Islam towards the West ... or, rather, the West towards Islam. Or whatever.

But, if Brennan really wants to be helpful, why doesn’t he figure out how Faisal Shahzad got on an Emirates flight bound for Dubai even though his very name—not just a description—had been on a drastic alert list for hours.

What does this have to do with John Brennan, aside from the fact that the man happens to be the president’s counselor on such matters?

Plenty! More than you imagine, unless you read the news when he was appointed or Eli Lake’s detailed report that dealt with other matters. And then there are the fashionable questions, such as whether Brennan did or did not support rendition and “enhanced interrogation techniques.” He did.

And why not? After all, Saudi Arabia, where Brennan had spent three years as CIA station chief and a later term in the American embassy there, tortures galore without any finicky objections from the Jeddah Civil Liberties Union. During the campaign and afterwards, Obama made a big to-do about torture. But not about Brennan’s torture counseling during the Bush administration. The president initially wanted him as head of the Agency but really couldn’t go that far. So he gave him the White House post, maybe because he thought him indispensable. How could someone whose career was intimately intertwined with George Tenet’s—you do remember him, don’t you?—be anything other than indispensable!

But back to the watchlist.

Not the Shahzad watchlist, which didn’t work anyway. This is about the watchlist that didn’t exist, the one for the 23-year old pampered Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who got his explosives mixed up in his underwear on Christmas morning. After Janet Napolitano told us that everything was swell and the Justice Department read the young man his Miranda rights (of which he promptly availed himself), Obama promised a “thorough review” of the watchlist system. A thorough review, indeed.

Or, as Laura Rozen and Carol E. Lee put it in Politico on December 30, 2009:

President Barack Obama promised a “thorough review” of the government’s terrorist watch list system after a Nigerian man reported to U.S. government officials by his father to have radicalized and gone missing last month was allowed to board a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit that he later allegedly tried to blow up without any additional security screening.

Yet the individual Obama has chosen to lead the review, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, served for 35 years in the CIA, helped design the current watch list system and served as interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center, whose role is under review.

In the three years before joining the Obama administration, Brennan was president and CEO of The Analysis Corp., an intelligence contracting firm that worked closely with the National Counterterrorism Center and other U.S. government intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies on developing terrorism watch lists.

“Each and every day, TAC makes important contributions in the counterterrorism (CT) and national security realm by supporting national watchlisting activities as well as other CT requirements,” the company’s website states.

According to financial disclosures forms released by the White House, Brennan served as president and CEO of TAC from November 2005 until January 2009, when Obama named him to the White House terrorism and homeland security job. The disclosures show that Brennan reported earning a $783,000 annual salary from The Analysis Corp. in 2008.

The forms also show that Brennan sat on the board of directors for TAC’s parent company, Global Strategic Group, from August 2007 until January 2009. Brennan’s ties to the system he is now charged with reviewing could raise questions about the independence of Obama’s review. One former senior intelligence official told POLITICO it is “unsavory to see Obama put Brennan in charge of a review of this matter, since it is possible that NCTC or TAC could have failed in their responsibilities.” 

Senior administration officials said that for the past few days, the White House’s legal and ethics counsel has been reviewing Brennan’s ties and determined that given Brennan’s knowledge of and experience with the intelligence community, any conflict was outweighed by the need for Brennan’s expertise on the issue.

“By virtue of his experience, John brings a unique mixture of know-how and understanding to this assignment,” said Denis McDonough, National Security Council chief of staff. “The applicable ethics rules recognize that when the public interest outweighs other issues, an official should be authorized to proceed with an assignment, particularly in the national security arena. Our counsel have determined that to be the case here and have authorized John to proceed — with the understanding that others will review specific issues relating to TAC should any arise.”

If a scenario arises where Brennan has to deal with an issue concerning TAC, White House officials said that someone else involved in the interagency review without those ties will handle it. The officials said that at this point no one outside the government is involved in the review.

The White House has posted a blog item written by Norm Eisen, special counsel for ethics and government reform, noting the ethics waiver for Brennan and explaining why Obama believes he is the right person to head this review and how its legal counsel determined that it was in the public’s interest.

“Nobody had any hesitation on this one,” one official said.

A career CIA official, Brennan served as chief of staff to CIA director George Tenet in the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Tenet assigned Brennan with setting up and heading the Terrorism Threat Integration Center (TTIC), which was intended to integrate U.S. terror threat intelligence from multiple agencies and the FBI — to “connect the dots,” as officials and pundits then ubiquitously put it.

The TTIC evolved into the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004, and Brennan briefly served as its interim director. In 2005, Brennan left the U.S. government to become the president and CEO of The Analysis Corp., which, according to company literature and former intelligence officials, had the major contract to maintain terrorism watch lists with the U.S. government.

“Brennan took with him to [The Analysis Corp.] the management of the database system he had created at NCTC,” the former intelligence official said.

Additionally, one of TAC’s biggest customers is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which manages NCTC, Tim Shorrock reported earlier this year on a website associated with his book on intelligence contractors, “Spies for Hire.”

Not all observers see Brennan’s experience as problematic. Indeed, such experience is precisely why the White House thought Brennan could provide a useful critique of counterterrorism policies and programs in the job.

Another former top CIA official, who insisted on anonymity, said excluding Brennan from the process would be foolish. “That would be just silly. He did first set up the TTIC and the NCTC, but he left at a point where it was just meeting the runway,” the ex-official said. “It’s been under different leadership now for years. John successfully started it.”

Asked if Brennan might have a conflict of interest or an interest in defending the existing watch list, the ex-official said, “I don’t think he can be viewed that way. He’s a very solid guy. People might say that, but it would be kind of goofy. He’s the right guy to do it. No one works harder or is more conscientious than John Brennan.”

Brennan, who advised Obama on intelligence and national security issues during the campaign, is not a stranger to controversy. Initially he was the leading candidate to be Obama’s CIA director. But he withdrew his name from consideration in November 2008 after critics on the left assailed his ties to controversial interrogation policies under Tenet and the Bush administration.

At the time, Brennan wrote to Obama, pointing out that he was “strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration,” including harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding.

“The fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored,” Brennan wrote.

Later in the day, Rozen added more information on her blog:

The White House is standing by President Obama’s pick to conduct his watch list review, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, though he served as interim director of one intel agency under review and, more recently, served as president and CEO of a company on contract with the NCTC to do watch-listing, POLITICO’s Carol E. Lee and I report in a story today.

[…]

In a letter to Obama Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said she thought the NCTC’s standard for when to add a person like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to the no-fly list was too restrictive. “It is clear that the U.S. Government was warned of Mr. Abdulmutallab’s radicalization more than a month before he flew from Nigeria to Amsterdam to Detroit,” Feinstein wrote. “Yet apparently no action was taken other than to put Mr. Abdulmutallab in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE). .... I understand that no such action was taken because of a policy, established in 2008 and remaining in place today, that limits the circumstances under which the government adds an individual to the watchlist.”

“I believe the 2008 standard is too restrictive and should be changed,” she wrote. “The U.S. Government should watchlist, and deny visas to, anyone who is reasonably believed to be affiliated with, part of, or acting on behalf of a terrorist organization.” 

And from the Washington Times:

The White House official leading the interagency review into the U.S. terrorist watch list system that contributed to a near-catastrophe on Christmas Day used to head a company that provides critical analysis to those who create the watch list.

John Brennan, President Obama’s special assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security, is expected to report to the president Thursday on how the national system for detecting and preventing terrorist attacks failed to prevent a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a Northwest Airlines plane in Amsterdam with a military-grade explosive sewed into the crotch of his underwear. Passengers subdued the would-be terrorist after he failed to set off his bomb.

Mr. Brennan served between November 2005 and January 2009 as the chief executive officer of what was then known as the Analysis Corp., a contractor that provides intelligence analysis used in developing the watch-list system.

And who is going to review the new failed watchlist? John Brennan. Who else? Who is better qualified? Having been in on the unbelievably ineffective watchlist business, privately and in government, since just about 9/11 and before, Brennan seems just right for the job.

Unless, of course, he is switched to some actual foreign policy position in which he can pursue his Hezbollah fantasy.

I very much suspect that there is a Saudi angle here also. The kingdom paid for the present arrangement in Beirut and got very little for it. The ascendancy of the Shi’a, in general, and the Shi’a terror encampment, in particular, would not seem to be in the interests of Riyadh. Nor are the abject terms of the dominion of Bashar Assad over Saad Hariri, who began by placing the assassination of his father in Assad’s hands and ended up kissing them. Well, the Saudis are always very realistic, realistic according to their mercenary calculations. It would make sense that they should try to find a foothold in Hezbollah, and what better way to do it than through an American client? I don’t mean Obama. I mean Brennan.

Of course, the president tried a similar gambit with Syria and lured several wise folks into the campaign, including Senator Kerry, who, I very much suspect, knows better. As it happens, there is now a movement afoot in the Senate—and not just among the Republicans—not to confirm any ambassador to Syria. I hope it succeeds.

What won’t succeed is Brennan’s hare-brained idea to convert Hezbollah elements to nice boys and girls:

“Hezbollah is a very interesting organization.”

This is undeniable.

“There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing…”

Is Brennan also illiterate?

“And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and try to build up the more moderate element.”

Go at it, John. And, please, leave the watchlist to someone else.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 28 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

28 comments

What is WITH these (alas) nutty headlines?!!??!

- subterran

May 20, 2010 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the titles draw me in :) I guess John Brennan thinks Hezbollah is ready for chapter four? of "The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual" [Paperback] Sarah Sewall (Introduction), John A. Nagl (Foreword), David H. Petraeus (Foreword), James F. Amos (Foreword) Publisher: University of Chicago Press; 1 edition (July 4, 2007) http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510/ref=pd_cp_b_3 or else someone has decided to let Syria have Lebanon back, and let Hezbollah form the nucleus of the next Lebanese Army?

- K2K

May 20, 2010 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama's top intelligence adviser resigns" "(CNN) -- The president's top intelligence adviser, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, has announced his resignation, effective Friday. Blair, a retired four-star Navy admiral, has served in the post since January 29, 2009. His office oversees 17 federal agencies of the U.S. intelligence community, including the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Word of Blair's resignation comes two days after the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that sharply criticized the National Counterterrorism Center, overseen by Blair's office, for failing to properly coordinate intelligence activities to detect the alleged attempted Christmas Day airline bombing in advance." http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Obama%27s+top+intelligence+adviser+resigns+-+CNN.com&expire=&urlID=427112193&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FPOLITICS%2F05%2F20%2Fintelligence.director.resigns%2F%3Fhpt%3DT2&partnerID=211911

- jdyer

May 20, 2010 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and try to build up the more moderate element.” Sheer, American-type hubris, at its most delusional and naive. Dangerously naive. "someone has decided to let Syria have Lebanon back, and let Hezbollah form the nucleus of the next Lebanese Army?" I don't see anyone being too exercised over the latest news about this pair: "Hezbollah and Syria are building a massive fortified wall, running from Rashaya Al-Wadi on the western, Lebanese slopes of Mt. Hermon (85 kilometers southeast of Beirut) in the south, to the Lebanese Beqaa Valley town of Aita el-Foukhar, in the north, debkafile’s military sources reveal. The structure, 22 kilometers long in parallel to the Lebanese-Syrian border promises to be one of the biggest fortified structures in the Middle East. It is designed as an obstacle against any Israeli tank forces heading through Lebanon toward the Syrian capital, Damascus. When it is finished, the barrier will isolate a key Lebanese border region – 14 kilometers wide and 22 kilometers long – from the rest of the country and place it under Hezbollah-Syrian military control. This region is inhabited most by Druzes and Christians" http://volvbilis.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/syria-and-hezbollah-reportedly-building-a-massive-wall-in-eastern-lebanon/

- noga1

May 20, 2010 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama White House Pussy-Whipped Again As United States Slips Down Alphabetical List -- Apparently We're Just Above Venezuela! And yes, it's slow, and the site has been offline around a dozen times over the last 48 hours, and THIS CAPTCHA DEAL IS DRIVING ME FREAKING BATTY!!!!

- ironyroad

May 20, 2010 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You'd think if nothing else, there would at least be some notice of the fact that Hezbollah is now a state with borders, piffle on that state within a state sophomoric stuff. Ah, that's hypocrisy for you. " If there are no Jews It ain't news Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish: "Do you know why we Palestinians are famous? Because you are our enemy. The interest in us stems from the interest in the Jewish issue. The interest is in you, not in me. So we have the misfortune of having Israel as an enemy, because it enjoys unlimited support. And we have the good fortune of having Israel as our enemy, because the Jews are the center of attention. You’ve brought us defeat and renown.”

- noga1

May 20, 2010 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

actually, outside of the U.S. and EU, there has been plenty of news in English about Nasrallah as Syria's control agent in Lebanon through Hezbollah. Admittedly, North Waziristan, Af-Pak, Thailand, the Korean peninsula, Russian power plays, Iran, the decline of American power, and the whole Euro thing (cataclysm comes to mind), are monopolizing most of the attention on foreign affairs this week. I suppose we can blame it all on Carlos Slim, the Lebanese-Christian-Mexican billionaire who owns a chunk of the NYT, and featured guest at last night's State dinner for Mexican President Calderon. noga et al: today, Chait posted his response,"The Downside of Anger", to Beinart's Daily Beast response to Chait's response to Beinart's NYRB essay. Time for the Marx Brothers "who's on first" routine?

- K2K

May 21, 2010 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks malahat but I think I prefer embarrassing failure in teaching, rather than in comedy or show biz, as it can be kept to a small circle and consumed alone in misery and darkness.

- ironyroad

May 21, 2010 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Few, if any Westerners know as much about Lebanon as does Michael Totten who has spent much time there there and has spoken to people on all sides of the polygonal conflict that is Lebanese history. As would be expected, Totten makes mincemeat of Brenann's naive, ignorant, and downright idiotic idea. Worth the read (here). Shabbat Shalom, Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

May 21, 2010 at 6:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty's mental deterioration continues to pick up speed - either that or the need to make grammatical or logical sense is beneath someone of his manifest superiority.

- WandreyCer

May 21, 2010 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the correction Malahat. My knowledge of historical pranksters is very weak. It would seem that conflict with John Brennan was one of Dennis Blair's "failures". When did Peretz ever admit he reads The Washington Times? I thought Senator Kerry and his wife Teresa remain quite enamored of the Assads, which would indicate a bit of magical thinking based on the Assad resumes and Westernized social skills.

- K2K

May 21, 2010 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

|noga1 ““And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and try to build up the more moderate element.” Sheer, American-type hubris, at its most delusional and naive. Dangerously naive.” It isn’t just “American hubris,” Noga, though it is a dangerous idea. It’s been part of the mindset since at least the 1950’s that each organization has more than one point of view represented within it and that some are more hard line than others. Now, I would have assumed that a reader of Derrida would have agreed with this notion since he didn’t believe in singular and coherent principles.

- jdyer

May 21, 2010 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a reader of Derrida" You wanna start a fight? I'm hardly that. I like some of his ideas and find them useful. That's about it.

- noga1

May 21, 2010 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

|noga1 ““And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and try to build up the more moderate element.” It is no longer American hubris. It became official U.S. Army policy in 2007. They thought it worked with Iraq's Sunni Awakening (not using present tense due to sudden resurgence in Sunni attacks on Shi'a during the current no-new government interlude) see chapter four of "The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual" Same tactic now in play with the reconcilable Afghan Taliban; and, with Abbas/Fayyad's U.S. Army-trained police force in the palestinian West Bank. Hezbollah really is now part of Lebanon's government, but I have no opinion yet on whether any Hezbollah is moderate.

- K2K

May 21, 2010 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the absolute and incontestable victory we won in Vietnam nearly forty years ago shows the necessity of never taking the other side's political history into account, never wasting time thinking about the nationalist element of a purportedly transnational ideology, and most of all never considering that our enemies may have a mix of motives for opposing us, some of which we can potentially meet and some of which (e.g. dislike of foreign invaders) we should be perfectly able to understand. So, yeah, total waste of time with that book Petreus. Sorry. And Odierno -- why did you ever both with peeling the Sunni insurgency off from Al Qaeda, Boring!!!

- ironyroad

May 21, 2010 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sorry, that should be: why did you ever bother . . .

- ironyroad

May 21, 2010 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “"a reader of Derrida" You wanna start a fight? I'm hardly that. I like some of his ideas and find them useful. That's about it.” Hey, nothing wrong with being a Derrida reader. I was one, once. Still, one reads Derrida for his method of explication and not for his conclusions. Once I began to question his methodology his texts became unbearable to read. I am always ready to fight about Derrida with deconstructionists, or about deconstruction with Derrideans.

- jdyer

May 21, 2010 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"True enough in general, but I'm not sure the particular example is analogous. Ho Chi Minh didn't base his nationalist movement on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Not only was that, malahat, Ho, though a Marxist was also an admirer of Jefferson as well as a nationalist. This means that he lived and worked within the Western tradition. This is very different from Islamic movements whose contact with European ideas centered on Nazi antisemitic doctrines.

- jdyer

May 21, 2010 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right, but the Sunni insurgency -- to take a significant contemporary example -- was not in essence an "Islamic movement[s] whose contact with European ideas centered on Nazi antisemitic doctrine." It was in fact a partly nationalist, partly tribal/ethnic, partly social-oligarchic movement fired up by the resentment largely brought into being by the Blessed Paul Bremer. To that extent the approach the army took -- remember, at a time when Iraq was spiralling completely out of control -- was both imaginative and productive.

- ironyroad

May 22, 2010 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad “Right, but the Sunni insurgency… was in fact a partly nationalist, partly tribal/ethnic, partly social-oligarchic movement fired up by the resentment largely brought into being by the Blessed Paul Bremer. To that extent the approach the army took -- remember, at a time when Iraq was spiralling completely out of control -- was both imaginative and productive.” Well the situation in Iraq was little more complex than that, Irony. It was the Sunnis who came to the Americans and asked for protection because the Shiites were kicking the shiit out of them. This is when the US decided to put troops in large population centers to protect them. This is what the “surge” was all about. You can read about it in an excellent article in the conservative The Claremont Review of Books by Angelo Codevilla http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1678/article_detail.asp As to the ideology of the sunni insurgency it was a mixture of Baathist ideals and Islamicism: http://www.slate.com/id/2108576

- jdyer

May 22, 2010 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of Vietnam, our current backing of Mahmoud Abbas and Hamid Karzai is not unlike our backing of Nguyen Van Thieu. All are losers who would fall by the wayside if it weren't for our support. The State Department sure knows how to pick 'em.

- NR114746

May 22, 2010 at 1:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For all the criticism here, just or wild, it seems as if Marty's message is getting through where it counts: "Emanuel to rabbis: US 'screwed up' " By HERB KEINON "The Obama administration has “screwed up the messaging” about its support for Israel over the past 14 months, and it will take “more than one month to make up for 14 months,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said on Thursday to a group of rabbis called together for a meeting in the White House....." http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=175654

- jdyer

May 22, 2010 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: "Er, that's Hamas that has the excerpts from the Protocols in its charter. Hezbollah? It merely runs them as a series on its TV network." not yet available at Netflix, although my search did bring up Ricky Gervais in "The Invention of Lying" jackson, the "Rahm, Ross and the Rabbis meeting" was followed by Obama meeting 37 Jewish members of congress last Tuesday, no press allowed, but also only covered by Israeli press and Politico. Only Eliot Engel dared to speak a bit about that meeting, to JTA. Judge for yourself if Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, takes the best approach in his Forward opinion piece, posted May 19 for the May 28 edition: "...American Jews, therefore, need to be doing several things: pushing their government hard to take decisive action on Iran, working equally hard to develop trust and good will with the administration, and minimizing areas of tension that are of secondary importance. ..." [that means stop complaining about Obama, and apartments in Jerusalem?] http://forward.com/articles/128174/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailmarketingsoftware&utm_content=70954918&utm_campaign=May282010&utm_term=ReadMore

- K2K

May 22, 2010 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"John, rather than looking for terrorists to make nice with, why don't you focus on fixing the broken homeland security system that failed to detect at least two attacks, attacks that thankfully failed - the attempted bombing of an airliner on Christmas 2009 and the Times Square attempt earlier this month? We were lucky, not good. Rather than "building up" so-called "moderate elements" of Hizballah, why not work toward the organization's elimination? Lebanon and the region would be better off without them - your remarks only legitimize them and complicate the situation." http://francona.blogspot.com/2010/05/brennan-wants-to-build-up-moderate.html

- noga1

May 22, 2010 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

perhaps John Brennan wants regime change in Egypt, thinking El-Baradei, not the potential for the Islamists? "...The Mubarak regime of Egypt has taken a hard line on the Iranian-backed Hamas, accurately seeing them as inseparable from the Muslim Brotherhood it faces at home. Last spring, the regime arrested 49 members of Hezbollah planning attacks on its soil on Israeli targets. The Egyptian prime minister said that Hezbollah had “virtually declared war” when it called on Muslims to overthrow their government and others in the region. All of these governments and others understand that their sectarian identity and ties with the U.S. mean their replacement or domination is part of Iran’s scheme. ..." from the best single dot-connecting source on why Sunni Arab states fear Iran, so I am going to take a leap and admit that it is from Ryan Mauro at a source that I doubt either Brennan or Peretz is reading (will TNR.com's spam barrier explode? apparently not): http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-israeli-arab-alliance-against-iran/?singlepage=true

- K2K

May 22, 2010 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't deny the complexity, JD -- indeed my comment was proposing some complexity to respond to K2K's one-dimensional remarks -- but although Codeville's article is well-argued and convincing in places, he leaves out (a) the disbanding of the Iraqi army as a major factor that contributed in ways direct and indirect, to the insurgency and (b) the U.S.'s initiative at the battalion and even company level to put out feelers regarding peeling off the Sunnis from Al Qaeda. No description of the broader Surge context can ignore those factors and those who do ignore them usually have some political agenda they want to advance e.g. denying that counterinsurgency strategies that put protecting the local people at the center can work.

- ironyroad

May 22, 2010 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: I hope you realize the one-dimensionality of my 05/21/2010 - 8:07pm EDT remark was solely intended to ridicule the one-dimensionality of John Brennan, or anyone else in the U.S. government, thinking he/she can apply the "lessons learned" from Iraq's Sunni Awakening to Hezbollah, and the Taliban. Every insurgency is unique in so many ways. Layer on the complexities of extra-national state sponsors and/or transnational groups like Al Qaeda. Americans are not very good at understanding other countries and cultures, especially those that are not western and Christian.

- K2K

May 22, 2010 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, but Hezbollah isn't an insurgency. It's a large (given the size of Lebanon) political movement with assets that rival the state's own.

- ironyroad

May 23, 2010 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close