Flashback: "Intelligence Analyst" Larry C. Johnson: "The Declining Terrorist Threat (July 10, 2001)

WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.

At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's.

Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries — Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts.

While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year.

Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.

Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses.

Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it — Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane.

Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions — outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia — caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa.

The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia — you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.

Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.

The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan.

I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.

Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.

Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.

I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Revealed: the secret cabal which spun for Blair

Investigation: By Neil Mackay

"[$cott] Ritter and other intelligence sources say Operation Rockingham and MI6 were supplying skewed information to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) which, Tony Blair has told the Commons, was behind the intelligence dossiers that the government published to convince the parliament and the people of the necessity of war against Iraq. Sources in both the British and US intelligence community are now equating the JIC with the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the US Pentagon. The OSP was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was 'dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace', adding that it 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam'.

He added: 'It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.'

Johnson said that to describe Saddam as an 'imminent threat' to the West was 'laughable and idiotic'. He said many CIA officers were in 'great distress' over the way intelligence had been treated. 'We've entered the world of George Orwell,' Johnson added. 'I'm disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can't allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.'"

http://www.sundayherald.com/34491

"They should be eliminated"? What exactly does he mean?

This guy is an expert on EVERYTHING:

From the Counterterrorism Blog, a consortium of experts in intelligence and security, Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and TV intel pundit:

BOLTON AND THE ART OF COOKING INTELLIGENCE

The nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN is another body blow to the intelligence community and sends a clear message to analysts that speaking up about political pressure will only damage your career. Despite the whitewash reports provided by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silbermann Robb Commission, which insisted there was no "politicization" of the intelligence on Iraq, we now have a documented record of blatant efforts by Bolton and Otto Reich, two senior political appointees, who tried to shape intelligence conclusions and punish intelligence professionals who worked on Cuba. (Let there be no doubt, there was pressure applied on Iraq). The pressure applied to the INR analyst and the NIO for Latin America is one way that intelligence gets politicized. What is truly amazing is the failure of Republican leaders to be outraged by this conduct. The defense of John Bolton by most Republican Senators is sending a chilling message to the analytical community.

Who would dare come forward now and admit the political appointees tried to cook the process? Analysts have seen how some Republican Senators attack the analysts who were pressured. They have seen how the integrity of the analysts have been called into question. They have seen the character assasination. And yet some of these Senators, like Norm Coleman and George Allen, have the audacity to insist that nothing untoward happened to harm analysts.

Unfortunately there are not more men of integrity like Senator Voinovich. He has put party aside and focused on principle. Men like Voinovich are why I became a Republican in the first place. Unfortunately the Senator from Ohio does not appear to be surrounded by many Republicans who are willing to condemn and punish the politicized bullying carried out by Bolton.

No one really appreciates what Bolton tried to do to the NIO for Latin America (NIO/LA). I have been privileged to know the NIO/LA for almost 19 years. He was my predecessor as the Honduran analyst and helped me learn the ropes and set the standard for doing good analysis. He is one of the best and brightest within the analytical community. Yet he has been vilified by some. I never cease to be amazed that a man like the NIO/LA, who started off in Washington working for a Republican Congressman can be vilified by Republicans as some sort of liberal, Democratic activist.

It is important to clarify some misinformation that has been bandied about in the media. For starters NIOs are not "mid-level munchkins." In fact they are the senior analysts in the community. They are (or were) the Director of Central Intelligence's personal representatives.

When NIOs brief on issues or clear on speeches they are not representing their own views, instead they represent analytical communities. Their job is to present community views and community dissents and areas of different emphasis, including (when appropriately caveated) their own.

The attack on the NIO/LA by Bolton and Reich was an attack on the whole analytical community. They assaulted the "coordinated" analysis of the intel community.

In my experience the NIO/LA was known for strict adherence to analytical "tradecraft" -- i.e., the transparent, depoliticized analytical method of doing analysis. This process involves identifying variables and the factors that drive events, describing possible trends, and offering an assessment of multiple scenarios. Unfortunately, political operatives like Bolton and Reich only wanted one driver, one trend, and one scenario.

Thanks to the work of the Foreign Relations Committee we now know that Bolton lied to the Committee during his initial testimony. He and his minions made multiple, prolonged efforts to have the NIO/LA removed from his position. Fortunately the senior managers at CIA, including Director Tenet, resisted this effort.

The issue before the Senate is not whether to send a tough guy to the UN. Instead, the issue is whether the Senators are willing to hold political appointees accountable for efforts to manipulate intelligence and punish intelligence professionals for simply doing their job. A vote for Bolton is simply another way of saying, "it doesn't matter if you try to cook the books; those who do get a reward".

Posted by Larry Johnson at 07:00 PM |Permalink

Booman Tribune ~ Intelligence Expert Bashes Bolton
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/5/26/62312/4957

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.