Betray important U.S. intelligence secrets, and all that happens to you is that you lose your subsidies? Why isn't Ahmed Chalabi in a U.S. jail right now?
Why are we ruled by these fools?
Posted by DeLong at June 1, 2004 10:27 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postThe New York Times > Washington > Chalabi Reportedly Told Iran That U.S. Had Code: Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader and former ally of the Bush administration, disclosed to an Iranian official that the United States had broken the secret communications code of Iran's intelligence service, betraying one of Washington's most valuable sources of information about Iran.... The Bush administration... asked The New York Times and other news organizations not to publish details.... The administration withdrew its request on Tuesday, saying information about the code-breaking was starting to appear in news accounts....
American officials said that about six weeks ago, Mr. Chalabi told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East. According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code. That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off American officials to the fact that Mr. Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the American officials said. American officials reported that in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Mr. Chalabi had said that one of "them" — a reference to an American — had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Mr. Chalabi said the American was drunk....
The account of Mr. Chalabi's actions has been confirmed by several senior American officials, who said the leak contributed to the White House decision to break with him.... The F.B.I. has opened an espionage investigation seeking to determine exactly what information Mr. Chalabi turned over to the Iranians as well as who told Mr. Chalabi that the Iranian code had been broken, government officials said. The inquiry, still in an early phase, is focused on a very small number of people who were close to Mr. Chalabi and also had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code....
American intelligence officials said the F.B.I. investigation into the intelligence leak to Iran did not extend to any charges that Mr. Chalabi provided the United States with incorrect information, or any allegations of corruption. American officials said the leak about the Iranian codes was a serious loss because the Iranian intelligence service's highly encrypted cable traffic was a crucial source of information, supplying Washington with information about Iranian operations inside Iraq, where Tehran's agents have become increasingly active....
Until last month, the Iraqi National Congress had a lucrative contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency to provide information about Iraq. Before the United States invasion last year, the group arranged for Iraqi defectors to provide the Pentagon with information about Saddam Hussein's government, particularly evidence purporting to show that Baghdad had active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Today, the American intelligence community believes that much of the information passed by the defectors was either wrong or fabricated.
Are you kidding Brad? They don't even got competent knee-breakers and stranglers on the payroll, much less guys who can think. The American intelligence services have besides their technical spying capacity and cute toys like the unmanned aerial drones are the biggest laughing stock of the world.
Even if we put a Democratic President in charge I don't see that changing. Can you see Kerry ordering a hit on Chalabi? Putting him in jail and such would be fine by me, but something should happen to that literally traitorous bastard. Even if Kerry were to do so however, we would have to depend on the good auspices of our intel agencies again. They're not completely worthless but they're extremely unreliable to put it mildly.
Posted by: Oldman on June 1, 2004 11:55 PMRegarding the whole Bush Administration mess:
Shit, meet fan.
Fan, meet shit.
On the other hand, I find it a little comforting to know that the Iranian offical, upon learning we had broken their code, cabled that message home using the code he'd just been told we'd broken. Why? Because it's nice to know that other people's governments are capable of ludicrous, slapstick-worthy blunders, too.
Unless they wanted us to know they knew we knew...but my brain reboots if I try to think in terms of those sorts of machinations. Never attribute to malice &c.
Posted by: cyclopatra on June 2, 2004 12:40 AMIt's pretty clear the Iranians did the smart move.
By telegraphing they knew, the Iranians looked for two possible outcomes.
1) either Chalabi was honest and the US would be put in an impossible bind. Continue to deal with Chalabi further, despite his treachery... Or hang Chalabi to dry and lose the opportunity to further spy on Iran...
2) or Chalabi was lying. Then it didn't matter what the coded message would be.
In EITHER case, the Iranians were going to CHANGE the code. But look at the results they got now...
US government discredited as total FOOLS !
Thanks for nothing neo-morons !
So Chalabi should be thrown into jail, without trial, for something which could well have been an Iranian intelligence trick.
Who oh why is this blog ruled by this fool?
(Think: Iran discovers that the US has cracked their comms code. Think: how can they reap advantage from this? Think: send a message implicating an innocent person, cause maximum damage to US. Think.)
"Why isn't Ahmed Chalabi in a U.S. jail right now?"
Because the US judicial system isn't run by mostly unsourced, largely unconvincing reports in newspapers? Newspapers love running espionage stories because the public lap them up, and the intelligence services don't respond if they are completely wrong. A lazy journalist's dream. And lazy partisan bloggers pick up any stories which are fabourable to their rants, ignoring those that aren't.
Posted by: PJ on June 2, 2004 02:51 AMYou act like betraying US secrets and not being punished is something unusual, Brad.
Want to bet that US intelligence isn't being shared all the time with Israel, against US law, and that those responsible are known to do so by GWB?
Read, AM. "The account of Mr. Chalabi's actions has been confirmed by several senior American officials, who said the leak contributed to the White House decision to break with him...." Read how Chalabi's intelligence chief has bolted to Iran, AM. Read.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on June 2, 2004 03:25 AMNo Bruce. All they have at this stage is the Iranian comms. There is nothing in the NYT article which is inconsistent with a frameup.
And don't worry about presumptions of innocence or any such irritants. Lynch 'em!
I read AM and see that he agrees that the Bush Admin has been tricked yet again. oh why, oh why are we ruled by these fools?
Posted by: mac on June 2, 2004 04:33 AMFirst: Why isn't Chalabi in jail?
Chalabi says:
-------------------------
"...'I have never passed any classified information to Iran or have done anything — participated in any scheme of intelligence against the United States,' Mr. Chalabi said on 'Fox News Sunday.' 'This charge is false. I have never seen a U.S. classified document, and I have never seen — had a U.S. classified briefing.'..." *
-------------------------
If that's true, assuming he did "know" something he shouldn't have known, the "crime" is that he learned it from somebody who shouldn't have told him.
Second: If Chalabi is the person who told the Iranians about their "problem", THEY apparently didn't believe him.
According to the account in the NYT:
-------------------------
"...The Iranians sent what American intelligence regarded as a test message, which mentioned a cache of weapons inside Iraq, believing that if the code had been broken, United States military forces would be quickly dispatched to the specified site. But there was no such action..." *
-------------------------
It was only after the Americans abstained from taking the "bait", that Iranians sent a message (or messages) regarding Chalabi and/or his "tip":
-------------------------
"...According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code. That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off American officials to the fact that Mr. Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the American officials said.
American officials reported that in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Mr. Chalabi had said that one of "them" — a reference to an American — had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Mr. Chalabi said the American was drunk..." *
-------------------------
* Chalabi Reportedly Told Iran That U.S. Had Code
By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: June 2, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/politics/02CHAL.html?hp
Posted by: Mike on June 2, 2004 05:58 AMIn WWII, Stanley Johnston of the Chicago Tribute published that the US knew of the Midway attack in advance, making clear that the US had broken Japanese codes. The decision to prosecute Johnston was debated because prosecuting would mean admitting openly that the US had broken the codes. I would not second guess the spooks. Chalabi may be a useful snake.
OTOH, our intelligence has had many major failures including the failure to predict collapse of the FSU, Iraq, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewel, Tim McVeigh. Kerry needs to clean house.
The biggest failure of the Clinton administration was in the intelligence arena. The worst Clinton appointment EVER was FBI director Louis Freeh. Adm Woolsey is certainly in the top 10 worst appointments. That mistake was eventually corrected.
I don't think making one super intelligence agency is the best model. Military needs its own intelligence, because its tactical priorities are not necessarily aligned with administration strategic priorities. Turf battles have to be contained or they create too many problems.
Our current situation has other parallels with intelligence problems in WWII. Pearl Harbor did not receive advance notice of the Japanese attack because of Turf battles with Washington Washington thought they would attack the Philippines (which they did the next day) and did not share important information with Pearl. Pearl discovered Japanese intentions at Midway, while Washington got it wrong. Pearl, with less information got it right because they were in theater and understood strategy. Washington did not.
Before 9/11, the field offices were picking up clues but could not get past the turf battles at the top. In Iraq, the State Dept. and people on the ground had better estimates but were ignored.
Posted by: bakho on June 2, 2004 06:08 AMPJ, somebody or another has raided Chalabi's office twice, without protest from the US. Seemingly someone in a position of authority in Iraq believes something about Chalabi. Then we get some apparently-authoritative statements from unnamed people high up in the REPUBLICAN BUSH ADMINISTRATION. And no denial.
Jumping over a little bit, but what was the significance of the recent selection of government officioals? Allawi is a relative of Chalabi -- that doesn't necessarily mean he's an ally or stooge, though. How was he selected? Josh Micah Marshall went crazy trying to figure that out, and so did eye trying to follow the story on Google News. The state of the speculation right now is that the UN was definitely muscled out, that the US ultimately supported the selection, and that the Iraq Governing Council (heavy Chalabi influence) apparently has taken charge ("hijacked the process" in JMM's term) even though the goal was to sideline them. So what ares the relationships between the Americans who supported the raids on Chalabi's home and office, the ones accusing him of being an Iranian agent, and the Americans who rubber-stamped the selection of Allawi?
One solution is that the Chalabi raids were fake, meant to give Chalabi street cred with the Iraqis. That seems unlikely to me, however -- there would have been less messy ways to do that, which would have had fewer damaging domestic (US)repercussions.
There's a strong tendency of Americans to underestimate the political skills of Third-worlders. (China is a great example). Economically, techinically, and militarily thrid-worlders are weak, but many of them have learned how to play their weak hands very skillfully.
Chalabi is an MIT-Chicago math PhD. This suggests that he's no dummy. Iraq also has a continuous 5000 year history of bureaucracy, which means that the Iraqi's folk methods of bureaucratic infighing are probably pretty siphisticated; conniving, conspiring, manipulating, etc.
By contrast, our own representives are mere political science PhD's (also from Chicago). It's no wonder they were snookered. One of the beauties of American life may be the exctent to which it is actually possible to be successful while remaining somewhat straightforward and honest, but this doesn't translate well in diplomacy.
Many versions of the "Nigerian heir" scam depend on convincing previously-honest citizens that they, personally, have finally been awarded a chance to get in on some of the crime action. Maybe that's what happened in Iraq. Chalabi, a known criminal, just told a lot of nice Americans about all the money he would be able give them if they just took their life savings out of the bank and funded his operation.
P.S. This story isn't being covered up, but it isn't making a big splash in the media. That's because there's so much ass-covering going on. What we really need is a series of regime-changes -- first in the Defense department, then in the presidency, but finally, and most important, in the media. It's not just Judith Miller who has egg on her face.
Posted by: Zizka on June 2, 2004 06:08 AMI'm not sure AM has it all right, but there is a lot to this story that doesn't smell right. Certainly, the Iranians would have run some interesting ops knowing that their codes were compromised. If they valued Chalabi as a source, they would would have been careful not to blow the relationship, not recklessly exposing him by using the same channel to report his role in the relevation. But beyond this, I cannot believe that the US gave Chalabi and his buddies anything sensitive in the way of intelligence. The guy was known scum, not to be trusted. This is the part that smells worst.
Now maybe, just maybe, WE were the ones running the clever op, letting Chalabi think he was getting useful stuff when in fact it was contrived garbage. It does get murky in the intell world.
But in any event, don't take press reporting at face value.
Posted by: Jim Harris on June 2, 2004 06:10 AMEr, AM. If all the government has as evidence is "the Iranian comms", and it is therefore obvious that the whole thing might be a frame-up by Iranian intelligence, then why are those "senior government officials" so apparently sure that Chalabi really is guilty, and why has the White House -- which originally regarded Chalabi as its chief teddy bear -- made the extremely painful decision to break with him?
As for other possible evidence that Chalabi is not "an innocent person": well, we do have that lengthy recent "Salon" article describing the other evidence of his close ties to Iran, and quoting numerous of his former associates on how he's been repeatedly telling them for a decade that he has no use for the Americans and was simply using them to try to muscle himself into power. And we have the fact that his intelligence chief is now hiding out in Iran, which Chalabi has announced he approves of wholeheartedly: "We know from Abu Ghraib how the Americans treat prisoners in Iraq." Definitely a faithful friend of ours.
There's no need to "lynch him", AM. If the evidence is as good as it appears to be from this article, we can throw him in the slammer in an entirely legal and aboveboard way. If, of course, we still have any influence left at all in Iraq after this affair is over.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on June 2, 2004 06:17 AMHe's not a terrorist who was encouraged by al Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings, that's why.
I mean, if we started throwing every person in jail who'd revealed classified information, like who broke whose codes, or who revealed a CIA agent's identity, well, then...
Spies and those CIA types and their scions have standards, after all.
Posted by: John Lyon on June 2, 2004 06:18 AMMike: "If that's true, assuming [Chalabi] did 'know' something he shouldn't have known, the 'crime' is that he learned it from somebody who shouldn't have told him."
No, Mike. That's ONE of the crimes. The other is that Chalabi supposedly then told the government of Iran about it, which he knew perfectly well was a non-no.
"The biggest failure of the Clinton administration was in the intelligence arena."
I'D say "the biggest failure of the Clinton Administration" was its failure to convert the (cold war) "peace dividend" into universal health care.
(If appearances are any indication, Brad (and Kerry) seem determined to repeat the mistake.)
After THAT fiasco, I'D say their second largest failure is a toss-up between:
Their endorsement of a patently opaque, undemocratic, Transntaionally Corporate, version of the WTO,
Their endorsement of China's premature entry into that very same WTO,
and/or
The way they "systematically" ignored and/or "papered over" our trade deficits...
Posted by: Mike on June 2, 2004 06:23 AMDear Bruce Moomaw:
I get the impression you don't approve of Chalabi's behavior. I don't either. That's our right.
But it's NOT a crime for a citizen of another country to tell one or more of his friends in a third country something he knows (or thinks he knows) about OUR country.
If it's true that the US was able to read Iranian intel code without their being aware of it, how does that square with the imputation made on this blog previously that the whole Iraqi war was orchestrated by Iranian intelligence? Would we not have caught at least a glimpse of the frame-up?
Posted by: walons on June 2, 2004 07:11 AM"The biggest failure of the Clinton administration was in the intelligence arena."
I thought that it was the failure to get the Palestinian-Israeli peace accord ratified.
I never voted for Clinton, but on the whole I would vote for him today if he was running for some office. He made his share of mistakes, but has there ever been a modern president that ever faced more ferocious opposition from the very start? Unlike W, he is/was capable of growing and improving, and that is one reason he was so despised.
Posted by: Alan on June 2, 2004 07:19 AMI'm enjoying the debate over whether it is a crime or not, for Chalabi (not a citizen) to allegedly tell his Iranian spymaster (not a citizen) something Chalabi knows about America (that we can read their encrypted messages).
But one teeny little question. Is it a crime or not, for a DRUNK AMERICAN in the Bush Administration who knows this little tidbit about our ability to read Iran's ciphers, to tell Chalabi?
We haven't yet heard from Bush about this, but now that it's public knowledge, I'm sure he's about to comment. Don't you think so?
Say - heard anything about the Plame leaker?
Posted by: Scooter Drunky on June 2, 2004 07:32 AMI predict that Chalabi will have a fatal accident within months. He just knows where too many bodies are buried for the neocons to let him live. Because he can do so much damage to the Bush admin and the neocon agenda, he's untouchable so long as he's alive.
Posted by: Kosh on June 2, 2004 07:48 AMYeah, I think that we should introduce the rule of law to Iraq right this minute by giving the benefit of the doubt to Chalabi here. Read him his Miranda rights and release him on his own recognizance.
Oh, wait, he hasn't even been arrested or charged. Well then, how about this: We should only talk nice about Chalabi, or else we're as bad as Hitler and the terroists win. Will that one fly?
I really do sense the presence of clueless space cadets here. My alarm sensors are screaming, in fact. We have thousands of people locked up without rights, some of them known to be innocent, some of them being tortured, and we've murdered a lot of them (hundreds in Afghanistan).
But talking about Chalabi's probable guilt is a no-no? We're going to go all ACLU-purist suddenly? Just for this one guy, who has admitting to scamming us into a disastrous, costly war? Even though the people attacking him are his former sponsors?
My understanding is that there are power struggles going on both in Iraq and within the US government, that nothing is under control and nobody knows who's in charge or what's going to happen, and that the attacks on Chalabi are moves in that particular game. Treating this as an American criminal case is as loony as you can get.
Iraq is still a place where personnel decisions are often decided Mafia-style with a bullet to the back of the head, and that strikes me as a good plan for dealing with Chalabi.
Posted by: Zizka on June 2, 2004 07:49 AMAs Chalabi is a British citizen, not an American citizen how can passing American secrets be a crime? Are not spies for other countries just deported? and not allowed back in?
Posted by: bakho on June 2, 2004 08:14 AMBakho,
interesting point. Chalabi is British and he clearly endangered the lives of Coalition soldiers (which include subjects of the Crown) by the secrets he told the Iranians. Treason against the Crown of England, clearly. What's the penalty for that, again ?
Occam's razor meet Cheney's hacksaw: the most convoluted explanation of events must be true if that's what it takes to be consistent with the neoconservative agenda.
Posted by: Kuas on June 2, 2004 09:31 AMHello:
does anyone remember a man named HAQ
Not a recently cancelled television show
Haq, who was executed by the Taliban in the early days of the Afghan war, like week 3.
Haq was to be the man in Afghanistan. He was a exiled important political figure, who was told by Taliban not to re-enter that country; or he would be shot- Taliban style.
So, what did we do to him. We (CIA) sent him back in there to negotiate with Taliban. We gave him a cell phone, and also leaked to press, NY times that Haq is being sent to this beguiled country to negotiate and he working with CIA.
well....they shot, I mean executed him immediately upon arrival, found his cell phone, probably was leaked to them also, besides NY times that Haq was working with CIA.
Haq was planned to be the Afghan president, not Karzi, whom was the understudy, 2nd choice.
So, there are a few similarities here:
No. 1: How to set-up a compatriot in a way to get rid of him.
or
No. 2: WE (State dept, war dept) are inept bunglers, not fit to carry the "grocery bill". A complete crew of low IQ patrons who snuck into power with a pen stroke; not a vote.
I guess leaking Valerie Plame's name and real occuptation is all part of it; either they are bunglers who have no forethought of their actions & repercussion, like a frat president on Alpha row...or they do it on purpose to screw people over and have no shame
I cannot figure it out- it is either , or- or both?
Why would they leak beforehand that Haq was working with CIA and send him over when he was warned not to return. No, 1st you win the war, then you send Haq over when things are calm, Huh?
this event is just one of the many questions leading on the avenue of "whoooops, lets hope this one blows over, also"
Posted by: Dave S. on June 2, 2004 10:12 AMSome points.
1) Think about the subtext of this story (or better cover story). That is that U. S. intelligence had accomplished something (broken a code), Chalabi inadvertantly learned of this ( drunken source), and then those comical Iraninans transmitted the information in the broken code, thereby giving up Chalabi. The subtext is a competent orginazation betrayed almost accidentaly and catches the guy through the stupidity of others.
2) What this story is not: That the U. S. war drive was aided by an Iranian "agent of influence." Which would be really damaging.
3) Timing. In fact the fall of Chalabi coincided with the visit of Tony Bl;air. There was some press speculation that it was Blair that brought evidence of Chalabi's spying.
4) U. S. Intelligence takes this thing very seriously. Jonathen Pollard did something very similer for the Israili's and he is still in jail (since the 80's) and serving a life term. Why hasn't Chalabi been arrested?
5) Because the politics of what would inevitably be a show trial would turn the Iraq war from a war for democracy into a war that Iran duped us into. This is still being played out in the press.
To paraphrase Copernicus, what would it look like if it was the Iranians who wanted to discredit Chalabi and planted that bit of information, knowing from another source whom they did not want to compromise, that the Americans would be able to decode the message.
Posted by: Martin W on June 2, 2004 11:32 AM"As Chalabi is a British citizen, not an American citizen how can passing American secrets be a crime? Are not spies for other countries just deported? and not allowed back in?"
Posted by bakho at June 2, 2004 08:14 AM
Spies from other countries are put in prison for long periods of time, unless they have diploomatic immunity, or get traded.
All that citizenship means is that Chalabi might have committed espionage, but not treason against the USA. Territoriality shouldn't matter, since the position of this administration is that its writ runs all over the world, and that it has dominion over Iraq.
Posted by: Barry on June 2, 2004 11:33 AMHe's not an American citizen and his purported crime wasn't committed in the U.S. So he can't be put in a U.S. prison. There's always Guantanomo, I guess - maybe that's what Brad meant?
Posted by: Andrew Boucher on June 2, 2004 11:38 AMHmmm. No mention anywhere of the real US agency that deals with codes and cyphers. Something is awfully funny here, and I don't wanna say anymore...
Posted by: CSTAR on June 2, 2004 11:45 AMHmmm. No mention anywhere of the real US agency that deals with codes and cyphers. Something is awfully funny here, and I don't wanna say any more...
Posted by: CSTAR on June 2, 2004 11:46 AM"He's not an American citizen and his purported crime wasn't committed in the U.S. So he can't be put in a U.S. prison. There's always Guantanomo, I guess - maybe that's what Brad meant?"
Not true, spies of other nationalities are imprisoned in the United States. Colonel Rudi Abel was a a Soviet Spy imprisoned in the United States and then "traded" for U2 pilot Gary Powers. A position like this means any foreign national would be immune. This has never existed. If a crime is committed against Americans in another country that criminal can be extradicted and tried in this country. Think about the recent trial of the Mexican drug lord for the murder of a DEA agent in Mexico. (He was acquitted) Then there was the "shoe bomber" his crime was outside the territorial limits of the United States and he is a British Citizen.
Well, since Jordan is nearby, I'm sure Chalabi can be accommodated at low cost.
Posted by: Eli Rabett on June 2, 2004 01:03 PMWhy isn't Chalabi in jail? Because he's not an American and has no particular obligation to protect American secrets.
To obtain a security clearance, you have to promise not to reveal classified information to individuals who are not authorized to receive it. Someone in the Bush Administration broke that promise, and as a result our national security has been compromised. That individual, if caught, should go to jail.
Robert Novak was not sent to jail for revealing that Valery Plame was a CIA employee. The case for putting Chalabi in jail is even weaker because, unlike Novak, Chalabi is not a U.S. citizen and owes the United States no allegiance.
If Chalabi should be serving a jail term anywhere, it's in Jordan. Assuming that Jordan had solid proof that Chalabi stole money from Jordanians, the proper thing to do when Chalabi came to the United States was to extradite him to Jordan, not to seat him next to Barbra Bush at the State of the Union address. The difference here is that theft is universally recognized as a crime, whereas espionage is good or bad depending on which side you are on.
The overall case against Chalabi is that he wasn't looking out for American interests, whether the issue was Iraqi WMD or Iran's secret codes. But it's silly to expect people from other countries to put American interests ahead of their own national interests. And if the Bush Administration would look after American interests, the Chalabis of the world wouldn't matter.
"The biggest mistake of the Clinton Administration" is spending so much to enhance our military firepower, which is now in the hands of the neocons. And as quite a few posts have said, with all those fancy weapons (which make military actions more like massacres), the neocons were like a bunch of hammers running around looking for nails. And "when the only tool in your tool box is a bomb, every country looks like a target list."
Posted by: pat on June 2, 2004 02:43 PMEverybody is talking as if the US were following some kind of law in Iraq -- Geneva convention, Iraqi law, international law, American law. But we aren't, as we've made clear in words and deed. So all the legalistic talk above is moot.
So why hasn't the US shot Chalabi, sent him to Guantanamo, or something equivalent? Obviously because he's too big a player in Iraq. Probably because we still need him for various tasks. Probably because he still has plenty of US supporters, and the two raids on his home and office were the most that his enemies dared to do, or were able to do. And maybe they were just warning shots, or even hoaxes intended to give Chalabi street cred (though I doubt the last one).
Posted by: Zizka on June 2, 2004 02:56 PMDoes it make a difference that Chalabi was on the US payroll? Would he have had to sign any legal confidentiality agreement?
The latest New Yorker has a very detailed, heartbreaking account of our history with Chalabi. (Heartbreaking because it makes us look like such idiots.)
Posted by: moog on June 2, 2004 05:32 PMChalabi, incidentally has a Ph. D. in Math from U Chicago. His thesis title, was ''On the Jacobson radical of a group ring''. It is sometimes reported --erroneously-- (most recently by JANE MAYER of the New Yorker article quoted by moog) that his Ph. D. was in knot theory...not the case. This thesis is in algebra or group representation theory (although it is not clear whether these are discrete or topological groups)
C*-algebras, if you might wonder, have a trivial Jacobson radical (which is in some odd way one of the reasons they are useful in Theoretical Physics). To mystify even further anybody that reads this, I suppose there is a far-fetched link between Harmonic analysis, the abstract Plancherel theorem and linear *************.
Posted by: CSTAR on June 2, 2004 07:25 PMI guess nobody will look at this at this late date, but I want to consider what conclusions we could get if we assume some of the people involved in the Chalabi thing were competent.
First, it was not incompetent for the iranian field guy to use the compromised channel to report that the channel was compromised. Probably we had all their codes, so he couldn't have just used an alternate version. He would have had to report it some slower way. Is it better to delay reporting it, or to let the USA know you know? If they don't know you know, you can make disinformation to put over the channel for them to read. But you have to prepare the disinformation, and you have to tell the guys who're supposed to get it that they should ignore it. It's a lot of trouble and there might not be any disinformation you particularly want the US to believe. Meanwhile there's always the chance that somebody who doesn't know will put something important over that channel. And by the time you tell everybody the channel is compromised using slower channels, the US will probably hear that you know and you lose the disinformation advantage. Better to spread the word over the fastest channel and lose the least real info.
But if you're iranian you ought to assume the NSA has broken all your codes and will break new ones as fast as you make them. It might not be true but it's the responsible approach. So you send info that way that you don't care if the americans have, and things that are so important to send fast that you accept the americans getting it too. And if it's important you maybe make two or more versions and send them all, and the guys on the other end know which one is right but with luck the NSA won't know.
Also if you go by that assumption you might as well send fake warnings every now and then, whenever you're ready to change the codes. "Chalabi told us the americans have broken this code." "Allawi told us..." "Our spy in the CPA told us..." "Our spy in the Marines told us..." If the NSA only breaks the codes every now and then they might fall for it. If they make a fuss that you hear about then you know that they really did break the codes, and even if you don't see the rippples you might cause them some trouble.
OK, now assume the NSA guys are competent. You're NSA, you have all the codes. When the codes get changed it helps you a lot to get some guy on the ground to give you a decoded document or two, but mostly you don't need that. You hear one of those silly "X told us..." messages every time they change their codes. The codes aren't that useful, really. The iranians hardly ever do anything unexpected and you can tell a whole lot just looking at the pattern of where the messages go. But you might as well look at the messages since the machinery is set up and it gives you something to do while you wait to retire.
So now let's assume the CIA guys are competent. You're in the CIA, and the stupid neocons are incompetently running the occupation. They're setting up their guy Chalabi to run the government as a nominal democracy. You dumped Chalabi a long time ago because he didn't really perform. Your own guy Allawi didn't perform all that well either, he was going to do a coup and take over in place of Saddam and it failed completely. So now the neocons are looking very bad and they're looking for excuses. They aren't going to admit it was their own incompetence. You can point out to them that Chalabi lied to them. Maybe you might plant a few european media articles quoting him as proud of fooling them, the sort of thing he might say himself but much less diplomatic. And then you give them this routine iranian message -- you don't have to forge it or anything, it says Chalabi told them we know the codes -- and they get upset and dump him. And you go to the iranian intelligence guy who invented the message and point out what a favor you've done for him, and tell him you'll gladly do him more favors as you get the chance. Maybe he'll do something to make you look good when he gets the chance.
Now let's assume the neocon guys are competent. Ah. I don't see any way to do it, unless they're split up into warring factions and it's more important for them to make each other look bad than it is to get results. They look pretty bad. But they can do some damage control. If Chalabi was working for the iranians all along, then they made just one big mistake -- trusting Chalabi -- instead of whole lot of mistakes. And maybe they weren't really bad, maybe it was that the iranians were very very good. (But it was a mistake to publicly announce they were going after iran back such a long time ago.) Excuses aren't nearly as good as results, but at least they have the excuse that they made one big mistake, and the media tells everybody that Chalabi is superhumanly charming etc.
So everybody but Chalabi wins something from it. Chalabi wins something too, if he's discredited then Allawi doesn't need to have him killed. The worse he looks the better his chance to stay alive.
Res firma mitescere nescit - A firm resolve does not know how to weaken
Illiud Latine dici non potest - You can't say that in Latin
Canis meus id comedit - My dog ate it
Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas? - Seen any good movies lately?
Ex uno disce omnes - From one person learn all persons (From one we can judge the rest.)