Syria - the battle for Aleppo

Aleppo, Syria - حلب، سوريا

Aleppo is critical for the opposition, but not so much for the regime. The real battle will be for Damascus.

The battle for Aleppo, which started a few weeks ago, has now been joined in earnest. The regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad has committed armor, artillery, attack aircraft and helicopter gunships to the fight, wreaking devastation on one of the world's oldest and continuously-inhabited cities.

Aleppo is by far the most important confrontation between the regime and opposition since the uprising began 16 months ago. The outcome will have a profound effect on the future of the rebellion. The battle for Aleppo has much greater ramifications for the opposition than the regime. If the regime is successful in crushing the opposition in Aleppo - which it appears intent on doing regardless of the damage to one of the world's most important historical cities - it may deal a fatal blow to the Free Syrian Army.

Bashar al-Asad, like his father Hafiz before him, has spent almost his entire time in power developing a network of supporters throughout the Ba'th Party and Syrian government (some would argue that it is one and the same), including the Syrian armed forces. While the Syrian military may be no match for the Israelis or the Turks, they are certainly capable of employing overwhelming force against ill-equipped and poorly trained volunteer fighters. The regime soldiers and airmen also seem willing to kill their own people for Bashar al-Asad. Say what you will, al-Asad has proven himself to be a capable politician, able to engender a level of support that is surprising.

I believe that al-Asad has decided that he must crush the opposition in Aleppo. He could have made a similar decision months ago when the main venue for the uprising was in the central cities of Homs and Hamah. At that time, the president likely believed that the opposition was going to be a short-lived phenomenon and did not warrant the level of military force we are now observing in Aleppo.

As the fighting spread to the northern area, closer to the al-Asad family home near Latakia and an opposition-supporting Turkey, it appears that the president determined that the situation required stronger military action. In the recent past, we have seen the commitment of additional army units, backed by armor, artillery and combat aviation.

As I watched the footage of the coverage of the fighting in Aleppo, I noted that the Syrian military units are equipped with T-72 tanks. The T-72 is used by the best units in the Syrian military, those being the trusted and what we call the "regime protection units," such as the Republican Guard and the 4th Armor Division. The officers in these units are mostly of the same 'Alawite sect as the president and are beholden to the regime for their livelihood. Now that the country is in a virtual civil war, these officers have cast their futures with the president. When the al-Asad regime falls, these officers will have to answer for their actions.

Can the regime survive a military setback in Aleppo? Does pulling out and allowing the opposition to control the city mean the end of the regime? Unfortunately not. While a loss for the opposition could sufficiently weaken it to the point where they are no longer effective, a loss for the regime will not have the same effect. While Aleppo is important from a psychological standpoint, it is not Damascus.

Damascus has been, is and will continue to be the center of gravity for whoever rules Syria. A look at the deployment of the Syrian armed forces underscores the relative geopolitical importance of Damascus versus Aleppo. The vast majority of Syria's military forces are arrayed south and south west of Damascus. Why? That's where Syria believes its major foreign threat to be - Israel. The Syrian army is deployed in an arc mostly south and to the west of the capital to defend Damascus against an Israeli thrust over the Golan Heights up the major established road network. It is the same roads used for centuries - it includes the road used by Saint Paul on the famed "road to Damascus."

The Syrian military is also deployed to the southwest of the city to protect the centuries-old attack routes through Lebanon's south Biqa' Valley, followed by a pivot to the east and an attack through the passes to Damascus. It has been used by countless attackers since antiquity up to the French at the Battle of Maysalun in 1920.

The major combat elements of the Syrian Air Force and Syrian missile forces are deployed in the south of the country at bases and positions that would facilitate defense from an attack by the Israelis, or to facilitate an attack on the Israelis. There is almost no military power arrayed in the north of Syria, in the area of Aleppo. Most of Syria's training bases and military industry is in the north, but as far as real military power, almost none.

The battle of Aleppo will be a harbinger of things to come. If the opposition is defeated by overwhelming military force, which it might be since the Bashar al-Asad regime seems to have no reticence about turning its military - the armed forces built to fight the superior Israel Defense Forces - on its civilian population, it may well portend the end of the uprising. The opposition cannot afford to lose in Aleppo - for them it is do or die.

On the other hand, the al-Asad regime can sustain a setback and regroup its vastly superior military might to fight another day. The two sides have adopted interesting rhetoric: the opposition is calling Aleppo the "grave of the regime" while the regime is touting the Saddam terminology of the "mother of all battles."*

Of course, that is Aleppo. The real battle will be for Damascus.

_____________
* The phrase um ma'arik (mother of battles) has been translated to "mother of all battles." It is a fairly common Arabic language construct that has been sensationalized in the press.

Syrian air attacks on Aleppo

This video was taken by members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Aleppo (Arabic: Halab), Syria's largest city located in the north of the country.

BBC has reported it as MiG fighters, the FSA calls it a "warplane of MiG design" (ta'irah harbiyah bisamam al-migh). My gisted interpretation of the Arabic in the clip:

"He's attacking...look, look...a warplane of MiG design, 24/7/2012...God is great...24/7/2012, a warplane is bombing neighborhoods of the city of Aleppo...."

The aircraft is actually an L-39ZA Czech-built trainer with a light attack capability. The ZA variant, of which Syria has several squadrons, can carry a 23mm twin-barrelled cannon in a conformal under-fuselage pod, as well as four pylons for air-to-ground bombs and air-to-air missiles. It is an effective counterinsurgency platform in a low-threat environment, hence its appearance in the skies over Aleppo.

Syrian Air Force L-39 tail number 2090 (courtesy Luftwaffe A.S)

Given Syria's admission that it possesses chemical and possibly biological weapons - which was no secret - and reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad has actually considered their use, the appearance of counterinsurgency aircraft is of concern. The aircraft can carry two 500 kilogram (1,100 pounds) bombs, one of the chemical weapon delivery methods in the Syrian inventory.

The Syrian L-39ZA squadrons are based in the Aleppo area, with the primary mission of advanced pilot training. The two bases, Rasn al-'Abud and Jirah, are only minutes by air from Aleppo. The chemical weapons are produced in the Aleppo area, but the known Syrian stockpiles are further south, west of Homs and near the airbase at Dumayr. Moving bombs over Syria's fairly good roads from either of these locations would be easy and take only a few hours.

Obviously, Bashar has supporters not only in the Syrian army, but also in the Syrian air force. They also show no reticence in attacking their own people - the aircraft does appear to be firing at the beginning of the clip (at 0:03/0:04 seconds).

If someone (read: US and NATO) is looking for a reason for a no-fly zone, here it is.

Syria's potential use of chemical weapons?

Syrian chemical warfare facilities

Two months ago, I wrote an article about Syria's chemical weapons (Syria's chemical weapons and the uprising) in which I said, "Syria has not admitted that it possesses chemical weapons, but it is hardly a secret. It is believed to have the largest stockpile of undeclared chemical weapons in the world, including the most lethal chemical warfare agent ever developed, the persistent nerve agent VX."

Today, a spokesman for the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jihad Maqdisi, appeared to make the first admission that Syria does indeed possess chemical and possibly biological weapons. It is a stunning admission, but Muqdisi is young and inexperienced. Watch for the Syrian government to "clarify" his remarks. No matter, as I said earlier, Syria's chemical weapons capabilities are hardly a secret.

Maqdisi's other comments have received wide coverage in the media, but with conflicting headlines. The Associated Press reports, "Syria says will use chemical weapons if attacked," while Agence France Press reports, "Syria vows not to use chemical weapons." Both are technically correct and technically incorrect. These headlines show the difference in how various new services report information, and are symptomatic of the sad state of journalism today.

Maqdisi said, in English, "No chemical or biological weapons will ever be used, and I repeat, will never be used, during the crisis in Syria no matter what the developments inside Syria. All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression."

That sounds all well and good, but keep in mind that the Syrian regime has constantly referred to the opposition as terrorist and foreign extremists, thus opening the door to the use of such weapons.

Would the regime of Bashar al-Asad use chemical weapons on Syrian territory against its own people? Hard to say, but who could have imagined Syrian army artillery batteries on Jabal Qasiyun overlooking Damascus shelling sections of the world's longest continually-inhabited city?

Bashar al-Asad has proven to the world that he will not depart the scene peacefully, that he will have to removed with force. The Syrian opposition is prepared to do just that. If desperate enough to kill almost 20,000 of his own people, Bashar may be desperate enough to order his forces to respond with his arsenal of chemical weapons - he also possesses the means to deliver the weapons.

Thanks to Mr. Maqdisi's comments, I expect to see declarations by the Israelis and possibly the United States that they have readied special operations forces to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles not only to prevent their use, but equally as important, to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist groups, of which there is no shortage of in Syria. In particular, Israel is concerned that the weapons may end up in the arsenal of Hizballah, the Iranian-sponsored Lebanese terrorist group.

I was also surprised by Maqdisi's inclusion of biological weapons. The 2006 assessment provided to Congress stated that Syria did not have a weaponized biological agent. Perhaps Maqdisi misspoke, or perhaps he let something slip. No matter, the mere fact that an official of the Syrian government is even talking about chemical and biological weapons should raise red flags in the region and around the world.

I wonder how the Russians view these remarks. Are they still standing beside Bashar al-Asad? Do they really want to be seen supporting a leader who may use chemical or biological weapons on his own people? That puts Bashar on the same level of Saddam Husayn, who killed as many as 5,000 of his own citizens with chemical weapons in 1988.

Will Syrian officers, if ordered to do so by their commander in chief, use chemical weapons on their fellow Syrians? The al-Asads, first Hafiz and now his son Bashar, have had over 40 years to consolidate their power base and mold the armed forces into a loyal, regime-protection military. Almost all senior officers have been vetted for their loyalty to the regime and Ba'th Party - everything they have is dependent upon the survival of the regime.

I don't know if the Syrian military officers would follow the orders to use chemical weapons, but I wouldn't bet my family's life on them not.

Syria, the uprising and Mezzeh

Some personal thoughts on recent events in Syria from the perspective of having lived in Damascus for several years.

Over the past few days, there have been clashes in the city of Damascus, specifically in the al-Maydan, Kafr Susah, al-Rukn and al-Mizzih (usually spelled Mezzeh in the media) sections of the city. I am intimately familiar with these areas, especially the last two. The U.S. embassy, where my office was located, is in Abu Rumanah, adjacent to al-Rukn, and we lived in the al-filat al-gharbiyah (West Villas) section of Mezzeh. (See red dot on map above for approximate location of our apartment.)

Mezzeh was a pleasant place to live - numerous ambassadors and attaches lived in the area. We lived across the street from the Cuban ambassador, but we did not have any contact except the occasional buenos dias as we drove out of our respective driveways. The area was safe, especially on our street (Taha Husayn street) - the house on the corner was that of Ahmad Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), a terrorist organization with American blood on its hands. Between Jibril's guard force and the Syrian guards watching the PFLP-GC guards, the area was notoriously safe.

The main street of Mezzeh is called the autostrade, from the French, home of numerous embassies and United Nations facilities. To get to work, I drove on the autostrade to 'Umayad Square, which is actually a large multi-lane traffic circle referred to by Westerners as "Oh my God circle" because of the Syrian drivers careening into and out of the circle.

It is on these same streets that we now see Syrian army tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, while the skies over the upscale area are dotted with Mi-8/17 (NATO: HIP) armed assault helicopters.

It is no longer the city that I knew and in a way, loved. Syria was then and is now ruled by a iron-fisted dictatorship. I was there to represent the United States, specifically the Department of Defense and the United States Air Force. There were only perfunctory contacts between the military establishments of the two countries, usually limited to my handling of the military aircraft used for Secretary of State visits and one visit by then-President Bill Clinton. (See my earlier article, The President, the Secret Service and me....)

That said, I made many friends with "normal" Syrians, those not affiliated with the Syrian regime. Most of them were not supporters of the al-Asad government, but had little choice and virtually no input into the running of the country. Are all of them in favor of removing that same dictatorial regime? Surprisingly, no. Many of them fear - rightly so - what will come when (and I think it is safe to say when, not if) the Ba'th Party regime is removed.

There is an abiding fear among many Syrians that the replacement government will likely be dominated by the Islamists, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of the people I knew and am still in contact with fear their secular existence will come to an end. Those not in the mainstream Sunni sect of Islam - the 'Alawites, Christians, Druze, Jews, Kurds, etc. - fear their freedom of religion will basically evaporate as an Islamic regime is imposed.

I hope that does not happen, but I fear that it is a distinct possibility.

Chasing Demons from the Middle East to the Balkans

A Michael Totten interview with Rick

The Middle East is always unstable, but it’s more volatile now than it has been in years. Syria’s civil war threatens to spill over its borders into Lebanon. Egyptian voters sent the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi to the presidential palace in Cairo. The Israelis are publicly mulling the option of a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Tehran is threatening a massive retaliation against American military bases in the Persian Gulf region. The Turkish navy just recovered the bodies of air force pilots shot down over the Mediterranean by the Syrian government, bringing NATO one step closer to military intervention in the Levant.

Now is as good a time as any to hit up Rick Francona again for his take on all this. Read the article

Turkey, the CIA and Syria - upping the ante

Syrian rebels with folding-stock AK-47 assault rifles

So, it's just not our government that is afflicted with intelligence leaks. The latest revelations not only are sourced to American officials but also to Arab intelligence sources. I suspect in this case, Arab refers to the Saudis, who have been out front in supporting the Syrian opposition with the three things you need for any successful insurgency: money, weapons and training.

According to the reports, a small group of CIA officers are operating "secretly" in southern Turkey. I added the quotes around secretly since that descriptor is now overcome by events. The officers are there to make sure the weapons being provided by countries that are providing lethal aid - not the United States - are not falling into the wrong hands inside the Syrian opposition. In other words, they are trying to make sure that weapons only go to certain Syrian groups.

While that sounds like a good idea, it's is unrealistic. Once we provide the weapons to the opposition and they are moved into Syria, there is no effective control over them, unless we are willing to send our officers into Syria with them. That does not appear to be the case, at least not yet. I would not be surprised that if we have not already inserted CIA or special operations troops into Syria, we will do so in the near future.

The misguided notion that we can control who gets the weapons perpetuates the fantasy that the United States is not providing "lethal" assistance to the Syrian opposition forces. We are directly providing medical supplies, communications gear, advice and of course, money. Money is a fungible commodity - it is moved easily and once dispersed is virtually impossible to track. So who knows what they are buying with the money?

Of course, the government claims that they have assurances the opposition is not buying weapons with our money. So, the opposition buys nonlethal things with our money and uses the Saudi money that they would have had to spend on those nonlethal things - freed up by our contribution - to buy weapons. It's a kabuki dance that we have done for years all over the world.

According to the Arab intelligence officer, "CIA officers are there, and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people." Yes - that's what intelligence services do; this is why we have intelligence agencies. This should come as no surprise to anyone - I would be shocked and disappointed if we were not doing these things.

And to make the situation in Syria even more tense....

Turkish air force RF-4ETM Simsek (Lightning) reconnaissance aircraft

Syrian air defense forces shot down a Turkish air force F-4 operating from Erhac air base in southern Turkey. Erhac is home to both F-4 fighter-bombers and the unarmed RF-4 reconnaissance version. I suspect this was a reconnaissance flight from the 173rd Squadron flying along the Syrian border collecting intelligence on the situation inside Syria. This intelligence collection may be in support of the potential future imposition of a no-fly zone of parts of northern Syria.

The Turkish RF-4 has excellent standoff sensors, so there would be no reason to violate Syrian airspace. The aircraft are equipped with the Israeli-made Elbit Condor-2 electro-optical and infrared long range oblique photography system and the Israeli-made Elta EL/M-2060P synthetic aperture radar/ground moving target indicator systems. These state-of-the-art systems are exactly the types of sensors an intelligence collection manager would want to use to monitor events in Syria.

The aircraft was supposedly shot down near Ra's al-Basit, which is about five miles south of the Turkish border on the Mediterranean coast. The border in this area, although well-marked on the ground, is irregular and takes sharp twists and turns. The pilots may have inadvertently cut one of the corners too close for the Syrians. Since Syrian surface-to-air missile brigades do not fire without higher authorization, the Syrians knew what they were doing.

Even if the Turkish plane was over the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast, geopolitics come into play here. Although there is a border, the Syrians do not recognize it. The area, called the sanjak of Alexandretta, is claimed by both countries. After diplomatic squabbling between the French and Turks during the period of the League of Nations mandate in the region, the area became part of Turkey in 1939. I remember attache functions in Damascus in which the Turkish attaches would storm out of the gathering if the Syrians displayed a map with the sanjak as part of Syria (which they always did).

It gets better. While most countries, including Turkey, recognize territorial waters and airspace as limited to 12 nautical miles from shore, Syria claims it territorial waters and airspace extend to a distance of 35 nautical miles. The aircraft could have been in what Turkey (and the United States) recognizes as international airspace, while Syrian authorities believed they had entered Syrian airspace.*

If the Europeans and Americans are looking for an excuse to declare a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, or intervene in some other manner, today's shoot down of a Turkish air force aircraft constitutes an attack on a NATO nation. The other NATO nations are obligated by treaty to come to Turkey's defense.

This is going to get worse before it gets better. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Syrians are going to be killed or wounded before the world acts to stop the Bashar al-Asad regime. Today's events only highlight the hair-trigger situation.

__________
* From time to time, the United States Navy sails warships and flies combat aircraft along the Syrian coast (as we did off Libya for years) to demonstrate our right to be in these international waters. Thus far - and intelligently - the Syrians have not challenged these freedom-of-navigation operations.

Stagnation in Egypt - no real solution on the horizon

Presidential candidates Ahmad Shafiq and Muhammad Mursi

First, there was an election in Egypt, albeit somewhat contrived by the ruling military leadership. Only candidates that had been qualified by a commission appointed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) were allowed on the ballot. Out of those, two emerged as too close to call and were forced into a runoff election, the results of which are supposed to be released on Thursday, June 21. So what you had was a contest between candidates approved by the military, a runoff supervised by the military, and now the results to be announced by the military.

In Egypt, as in many of the countries in the Middle East, the military is the ultimate arbiter of power. The SCAF stepped in to fill the power vacuum created by the fall of former President Husni Mubarak. They alone wield power in Egypt. If they are not happy with the results of the elections - and indications are that they are not - they will simply alter reality and remain in power. There is no coalition of political organizations or entities in the country capable of challenging the quite capable Egyptian armed forces. They are quite capable because we, the United States, trained and equipped them.

There was great dissatisfaction among the electorate in Egypt as the voters went to the polls. Most of the people believed that the SCAF had severely and arbitrarily limited their choices. With the runoff, their choices were limited even further - you could vote for a former general and Mubarak regime official (Ahmad Shafiq), or a representative of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (Muhammad Mursi). Many of the people that stood up to the Mubarak regime in Tahrir Square last February don't believe that either Shafiq or Mursi represent what they envision as the future of arguably the most important country in the Arab world.

The SCAF is aware of this - these generals are neither stupid nor tone deaf. However, despite a large Islamist presence in the armed forces, the Egyptian military is not likely to favor the imposition of an Islamic state in Egypt. There are practical reasons that parallel the social and religious reasons for which they do not favor such governance. Several Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood leaders have advocated the abrogation of the peace treaty with Israel.

This policy goal is fraught with danger. That peace treaty is the funding mechanism for about $1.3 billion of U.S. aid annually to the Egyptian armed forces. Without the treaty, there is no reason for the United States to continue to fund the Egyptian military. Also, without the treaty, Israel will have to reallocate its defense resources from countering threats from Iran and Syria, and add Egypt to the mix. As I said, Egypt has large and capable armed forces and pose a real threat to the Israelis. The Egyptians will not be able to defeat the Israel Defense Forces on the battlefield, but combat between the two will be expensive for both sides, expensive in both blood and treasure.

From the Egyptians with whom I correspond, it appears to me that most of the people that were in Tahrir Square are not going to be happy whatever the outcome. They do not want what they consider a "remnant" of the Mubarak regime, that being Ahmad Shafiq, nor do they want a radical Islamist in the person of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Mursi. So what is the option? Do they favor the military stepping in and setting aside an election, basically squelching the voice of the people?

We have already seen hints that the SCAF is considering changes to the basic structure of the Egyptian government, reducing the power and authority of the president while retaining most of the real power for themselves. How will this play in Washington? The Obama Administration faces a dilemma - they did not support long-time American ally Husni Mubarak when the people rose up against the regime. Are they now going to side with the SCAF to prevent the installation of an Islamist government that threatens American interests in the region? Tough call.

My crystal ball is a bit cloudy. I don't know what will happen in Egypt. I do know that the people are not happy with the SCAF. They did not like the limitations on the number of candidates in the first election that has led to the runoff. They do not like the impression that if Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Mursi emerges as the winner that the SCAF will move to limit his power. The people do not necessarily favor an Islamist government, but they do not like the fact that a group of generals are deciding the fate of their country in essence without the people's input.

My personal preference would be the installation of a moderate, secular government headed by Ahmad Shafiq, although he was not my first choice in the general elections - I favored Amru Musa. We do not need an Islamist-inspired or dominated government on the border of a key American ally - Israel - nor do we need the principal power in the Arab-speaking world to be an Islamic state.

At some point, we as a country have to decide - are our interests more important than a pure democracy in Egypt? Again, tough call. I'm going with American interests. Not a real solution, I know, but it's better than chaos.

Intelligence and the Obama Administration - Amateur Hour?

The recent spate of revelations of successes, failures and inner workings of the U.S. intelligence community highlights a trend of what I assess is a series of controlled leaks for political purposes. The release of such sensitive data may have some political expediency for an Administration desperate to win re-election, but the ramifications are greater than these political hacks realize.

Let me pick out some of the more egregious examples of "too much information."

We all remember the December 25, 2009 failed attack by "underwear bomber" 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutallab, a Nigerian trained by al-Qa'idah in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and inspired by radical American-born cleric Anwar al-'Awlaqi. Al-Mutallab attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a Detroit-bound airliner. After immediately reading the terrorist and would-be mass murderer his rights, thus limiting our access to whatever intelligence information he possessed, the FBI revealed that the device malfunctioned because of a flaw in its detonator design and the fact that the PETN explosive charge got damp during the flight.

A professional intelligence agency would never have revealed that information, however, the FBI is not really an intelligence organization. Although it has an intelligence role, when all is said and done, the FBI is a law enforcement organization focused on collecting evidence and prosecuting cases. I fear that telling AQAP that their detonator design was faulty was a major factor in the 2012 case that I will address later. (More in my earlier article, Al-Qa'idah members - criminals or combatants?)

It seems the Obama Administration could not wait to tout its success in foiling a terrorist attack on the United States, when in reality, it was just blind luck. The fact that the perpetrator's own father had tipped an American embassy about his son's possible recruitment as an Islamist terrorist and nothing was done with that information points out a colossal intelligence failure, not a success.

One of the most shocking intelligence leaks - in my opinion, an authorized, calculated release of sensitive intelligence and operational security information - came just hours after the May 2, 2011 successful raid into Pakistan that resulted in the death of al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin. The Administration could not wait to describe the raid in great detail, revealing heretofore unknown special operations capabilities, the type of intelligence materials gathered at the Abbottabad compound, and most shockingly, how the Central Intelligence Agency had mounted an impressive on-the-ground surveillance and agent operation in the Pakistani city unbeknownst to the Pakistanis.

It got worse. In January, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (he was the CIA director at the time of the raid) revealed on national television the identity and role of a recruited U.S. intelligence asset. It defies logic, and borders on the criminal. See my earlier article, Breaking faith: the CIA and the Pakistani doctor.

Now we hear that the Administration has granted unparalleled access to sensitive information for a movie production company to produce a feature film about the raid, highlighting again the successes of the Obama Administration possibly at the expense of operational security and protection of intelligence sources and methods. The movie was originally scheduled to be released just before the November elections. Is it any wonder that people are cynical of this Administration and its ability to safeguard America's secrets?

In the spring of 2012, it was revealed publicly that the CIA (with Saudi and British assistance) had penetrated an AQAP bombmaking cell, the same cell that was responsible for "underwear bomber" 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutallab. Excellent work, until it came to taking credit. Again, the Administration described the source in great detail to the point that there is no way AQAP has not figured out who the penetrant is. Rather than engineering an arrest or some other operational conclusion to the case, the Administration claimed victory and released too much operational information, compromising sources and methods in the process. We also may have unwittingly validated AQAP's success in perfecting their previously-faulty detonator design. See more inmy earlier article, CIA penetration of al-Qa'idah - how about "need to know?"

The latest "authorized leaks" concern a previously extremely close-hold American capability in the information operations arena, sometimes referred to as "cyber warfare." This involves the Flame and Stuxnet computer attack programs targeted against the Iranian nuclear program dating back to the previous administration. Why are we hearing about these sensitive capabilities in the New York Times? Why has the Obama Administration not directed the Justice Department to investigate the sources of the leaks, about whom the Times writes, "None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day." Is there no concern for our ability to use these capabilities in the future?

This disregard for operational security is reminiscent of Congressional leaks that ended intercept of Usamah bin Ladin's satellite phones in 1998. At that time, I was in charge of a Defense Intelligence Agency counter-terrorism effort targeted against several organizations posing threats to U.S. forces overseas, including al-Qa'idah. The loss of the ability to collect and exploit bin Ladin's communications hurt our ability to track al-Qa'idah and determine its plans, indirectly leading to the failure to detect and prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. These leaks are that damaging.

The leaks, in my opinion, must be the work of Administration political appointees managing public perception or those connected with the Obama re-election campaign. No professional intelligence officer would countenance these leaks - the consequences are too dire. Those of us who have done this for a living will not even hint at some of our sensitive intelligence operations even decades later. The loss of the information would be severe, and the threat to the sources is real. This is not an academic exercise - people die or spend their lives in prison. Look no further than Pakistan and Dr. Afridi.

I can only imagine that Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper is pulling out what remains of his hair. I worked for General Clapper several times over my career. He has spent almost his entire adult life in the intelligence community - he gets it. How he copes with what appears to many of us as "Amateur Hour at the White House" is beyond me.

Breaking faith: the CIA and the Pakistani doctor

Pakistani television reporting of 33-year sentence for Dr. Shakil Afridi

It is inexcusable. It is the first and most important lesson case officers are taught at "The Farm"* - you have a moral and professional responsibility to safeguard the security of an asset. Security is the key part of any successful operation - it is the first and last thing you cover with your asset each and every time you meet or communicate. No security means no operation at best, a dead or imprisoned asset at worst.

Somewhere in the operation that led to the killing of al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin, someone forgot that most basic of concepts. A CIA asset, Pakistani physician Shakil Afridi, has just been sentenced by a Pakistani court to more than 33 years in prison for "conspiring against the state." His crime? Working with American intelligence against bin Ladin. Our crime? Allowing him to get caught.

How did this happen? Why was he allowed to remain in Pakistan after the operation? Was there no plan to extract him and his family immediately after the raid? This is basic Agency tradecraft, but in this case, the basics seem to have been ignored.

That said, the use of a local physician to collect DNA samples of residents in the area of Abbottabad under the guise of a vaccination program to verify the presence of bin Ladin was brilliant. It will be a teaching point at The Farm for years to come - as it should be. The case officer who came up with this method was thinking outside the box.

Unfortunately, somewhere up the chain of command, someone dropped the ball on ensuring the safety of the asset. Was Dr. Afridi considered a throwaway? A local source to be sacrificed for the greater good, a small pawn in the larger game of taking down Usamah bin Ladin? If so, this is not the same CIA that I knew. If this is how we treat our assets, why would any potential asset ever agree to work with or for American intelligence agencies again?

What makes this case ever more egregious is that it appears senior Administration officials did not even attempt to protect the doctor's identity. From the press reporting and the Administration spin, I cannot tell how the Pakistanis learned of Dr. Afridi's involvement, but what has come out is troubling.

There were Pakistani press reports, what they call the results of their own investigation - more likely a feed from the Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate. Plausible, since the ISI can be an effective internal security service.

However, here is where it gets disturbing. Two senior Administration officials made statements to the press about the doctor's identity and the role he played in vetting information that bin Ladin was in Abbottabad.

First was Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Panetta was the CIA director at the time of the bin Laden raid. In January of this year, he appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" and said, "I'm very concerned about what the Pakistanis did with this individual. This was an individual who, in fact, helped provide intelligence ... that was very helpful with regards to this operation. And he was not in any way treasonous toward Pakistan. He was not in any way doing anything that would have undermined Pakistan."

The second official was described as "a senior U.S. official with knowledge of counterterror operations against al-Qa'idah in Pakistan." This official stated, "The doctor was never asked to spy on Pakistan. He was asked only to help locate al-Qa'idah terrorists who threaten Pakistan and the United States. He helped save Pakistani and American lives. His activities were not treasonous, they were heroic and patriotic."

Given the tone and tenor of the statement, I assess that the "senior U.S. official" was none other than White House terrorism advisor John Brennan - it sounds just like him. Either John never attended the tradecraft course at The Farm (Brennan was a reports officer, not a case officer) or he missed the lecture on protecting your intelligence assets. You NEVER reveal the identities, access and most critically, the names of your intelligence assets. Never. The Farm - Rule Number One.

Now what?

Unfortunately, this colossal blunder does not leave the United States with many options to secure Dr. Afridi's release. First, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that Pakistan is an ally. At best, they are a useful adversary and at worst complicit in the deaths of American troops in Afghanistan. The ISI was embarrassed by the raid and the fact that we have exposed them as either incompetents or complicit liars. I have worked peripherally with the ISI - they are not the former, so I have to go with the latter.

What would I do? I would not have missed the opportunity last week to address Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari while he attended the NATO summit in Chicago on Afghanistan. Rather than snub him as President Obama did, I would have had a private "come to Muhammad" meeting with the president and explained that unless the doctor was pardoned or released via whatever face-saving mechanism Zardari could work out, the relationship between the United States and Pakistan would undergo drastic changes.

First, the American ambassador in Islamabad would be recalled and our diplomatic presence downgraded to the chargé d'affairs level. Then all American financial aid (not the symbolic $33 million cut voted on by the Senate), military parts and supplies for Pakistan's American-built equipment and any military training assistance would be halted. Drone attacks would continue from American bases in Afghanistan, this time without Pakistani coordination. All Pakistani military officers attending courses in the United States would be returned to Pakistan, as would most of the Pakistani embassy staff. None of that would change until Dr. Afridi and family arrive in the United States.

Instead, the State Department tells us that "we have regularly taken up this matter with Pakistan" and will "continue to go forward." Forward? The man, an intelligence asset of the United States intelligence community was just sentenced to 33 years in prison, a virtual death sentence. Absolute drivel. Amateur hour.

Do something. Do it now.
___________

* "The Farm" is the CIA training facility "believed to be located at Camp Peary on the outskirts of Williamsburg, Virginia." Since I was trained at the facility, I can neither confirm nor deny that it is there....

Memorial Day 2012

I wrote this in 2007 while a military analyst at NBC News. With a few word changes, I think it holds true yet today. The original is still available at MSNBC.com.

'On behalf of a grateful nation'
Let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
Military analyst - MSNBC

Lt. Gen. Ed Soriano, left, presents Jessica Hebert, sister of Spc. Justin Hebert who was killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, with an American flag during his military funeral (AP Photo/The Herald, Meggan Booker). Ed and I served together in Desert Storm - this must have been his toughest duty.

Memorial Day weekend – most people associate that with the start of the "summer driving season" or a chance to buy appliances on sale. The constant news coverage of still high gasoline prices tends to overshadow the real meaning of the holiday. It is not about driving or shopping – it is about remembering the men and women or our armed forces who died while in service to the country. It is important that we not forget that – after more than a decade, we are still at war and we still lose some our finest young men and women every week.

Yes, we are still at war. No one knows this more than the families of those who have fallen on battlefields far from home with names most of us cannot pronounce. Unlike most of the wars America has fought in the past, we are fighting with an all volunteer force – there has been no draft since 1973. Every one of the fallen volunteered to serve this country, and deserve a moment of remembrance. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans serve in uniform (in World War II, it was over 12 percent) at any one time.

In the draft era, a much higher percent of the population entered the service, creating a large pool of veterans. Veterans understand the unique demands of military service, the separation from loved ones, the dangers of combat. With far fewer veterans or a veteran in the family, community and government, it is easy to lose sight of the demands military service requires of our men and women in uniform – and to forget too quickly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sometimes one could get the feeling that foreign countries – especially those that have been liberated by American forces in the past – pay more tribute to our fallen troops than we do. I will never forget standing in a church in rural France – not a fancy cathedral, not a tourist spot, nothing architecturally significant, just a small village church. I would not have paid much attention until I spotted a well-maintained corner with a small American flag and a plaque.

I walked over and read the simple but powerful words in French and English, "In gratitude to the United States of America and in remembrance of her 56,681 sons that now and forever sleep in French soil." A elderly parishioner sitting in a pew nearby saw me reading the inscription and asked if I was an American. I said that I was – she slowly rose, nodded at the memorial and said, "You are welcome in France."

Over the years, over a million American troops have died in military service. Each fallen warrior is afforded a military funeral. Military funerals symbolize respect for the fallen and their families. Anyone who has attended a military funeral will never forget it – the American flag draped on the coffin, an honor guard in full dress uniform, the crack of seven rifles firing three volleys as Taps is played on the bugle, the snap of the flag as it is folded into the familiar triangle of blue, the reverence of fellow warriors.

Before his final salute, the officer in charge presents that folded flag to, in most cases, a young widow. He makes that presentation "on behalf of a grateful nation."

At some point on this day, let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women, and that we are in fact a grateful nation.


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive and Rick Francona