Rendition
Some
years ago, by sheer accident, I became aware that a number of
sensitive operations were being conducted out of an international
airport, somewhere in the world, on behalf of an unnamed U.S. government agency.
This
was at a time when the project was unknown to the general public.
This
project was with the full knowledge of the Intelligence Oversight
Committee (SSCI) but with only limited 'need to know' availability of
information given to senior politicians (including the Prime
Minister) of the country through which the flights were routed in transit.
From information now publicly available, key
players appear to have been engaged on a 'need to know' basis.
A
number of very sensitive operations went through this international
airport. I
was only aware of 3 but there may have been more. All
were vital to the (then) security interests of the United States and
another unnamed country. Two were rendition stop overs, the third was
completely unrelated but a component part of the War On Terrorism and
involved yet another interloped country - again with the approval and
full knowledge of certain elements the government of that country and
the United States. The government of that country, to this day,
denies all knowledge for the latter and, when issues came to light,
conducted it's own 'impartial' investigation, which found absolutely
nothing of relevance. For
this component operation the full cooperation of trusted individuals
was essential for it to succeed.
It has not been made public to this day the extent of involvement or knowledge of the U.S. government of this component operation but certainly it's success was/would have been/ extremely beneficial to the global fight against terrorism.
Whilst the operation, sadly, did not bring about peace in a particular part of the world, certainly the operation itself was an effort to ultimately bring about conditions which might have led to peace. It is because the motives were just and the ideals of world peace is something, in my view, we should all always be striving towards in the democratic world, for these reasons there is little point in giving full details.
Whilst the operation, sadly, did not bring about peace in a particular part of the world, certainly the operation itself was an effort to ultimately bring about conditions which might have led to peace. It is because the motives were just and the ideals of world peace is something, in my view, we should all always be striving towards in the democratic world, for these reasons there is little point in giving full details.
In any event, I kept no written record as I was not intending to use it for any particular purpose and had no responsibility to do so for any party nor employer.
Fortunately the names of many individuals in allied countries involved in assisting the U.S. in the war on terrorism have not been released by
Senate Oversight Reports which have examined activities of government departments following on from 9/11. To
do so would deal a mortal blow to U.S. allies whose future
cooperation may, even at this moment, be in doubt should another 9/11
(or crisis of similar or greater proportion) ever happen. This is
because most assumed that the details of the sensitive assistance
given to the U.S. by friends (countries) and allies (countries) in the aftermath
of 9/11 would never be made public - at least not for thirty or so
years – giving everybody a chance to 'work out' their chosen
careers and professions before the proverbial s**t hit the fan.
[In certain instances, however, enough details have been released to enable an astute researcher to put the pieces together.]
[In certain instances, however, enough details have been released to enable an astute researcher to put the pieces together.]
Some
countries (and politicians) have been, to date, unluckier than others
in this regard.
I
am not sure whether Congressional Representatives really do
appreciate (or even care) how much goodwill has been lost by
unnecessarily revealing details of countries participating in
assisting the United States in the War on Terrorism.
One
can argue whether rendition of terrorism suspects was the right
program (for my part, as one who has never worked for the U.S.
government, I have always thought it was not) but to give location
details of detention facilities worldwide and other even more sensitive information with regard to levels of participation and cooperation of governments will, in my opinion, negatively impact on
future security cooperation in sensitive matters – especially if
such countries are yet again being requested, at very short notice,
to participate in another American 'project' at some stage in the
future. If I were a politician and U.S. ally, I would certainly think again
before saying 'yes' to a friend who had 'outed' next to everyone
involved within a few years of what were supposed to be secret
operations.
I
would go further and say that even Senior Staff of Government
Departments would be reluctant to 'follow orders' if there is even
the slightest chance that they will be prosecuted for either 'war
crimes', 'revealing sensitive information', or some other spurious
grounds to get politicians 'off the hook' for failed programs
(failed, because those same politicians failed to provide the
necessary levels of logistical support and even failed to provide
moral support, leaving their protégé
'swinging in the wind' in
order to save their own political careers or indeed to deflect from
oversight and scrutiny their very own failures, as politicians, to
take advice from those commanding in the field – resulting in
debacles, setbacks and humiliation for serving officers.)
[There is also a certain hypocrisy whereas senior politicians reserve certain rights and privileges with regard to the release of classified information for their own personal memoirs and then the same ham-fist subordinates doing likewise in efforts to smother (or snuff out) conflicting opinions (historical viewpoints) as to why certain events did or did not succeed and their impact on the course world history.]
Asking
commanders to fight wars, then, subsequently, either because of
political infighting resulting in paralysis or in the interests of
political expediency, telling them it will have to be accomplished
with one or both hands tied behind their backs might not be so easy
for U.S. politicians to achieve in the future. The best candidates
for the (future) job may withdraw if they think that 'failure is not
an option' policy might not be accompanied by sufficient resources to
get the job done – or indeed if they are likely to be 'the patsy'
anointed to conceal political incompetence.
While
certainly there has to be accountability and public scrutiny of
political decisions and their impacts on events and individuals
worldwide in any democracy I fail to be persuaded that such should
extend to the damaging of allied cooperation by revealing such detail
as to render the War on Terrorism ineffectual – and then for those
very same politicians [and media]] to say how ineffectual the War on Terrorism actually was (!)
If
politicians are going to routinely scapegoat their field commanders
(as historically, Empires always have) then, in an interconnected world
such as the one we are in, they should not be surprised if such
'patsies' 'bite back' to defend their reputations from the (metaphorical) ' death of
a thousand cuts' regardless of what gagging restrictions the
politicians attempt to impose to save their own reputations (sic. their actions) from that same public (sic. electoral)
scrutiny as they attempt to conceal their own shortcomings and
halfhearted support for tasks they simply do (did) not have the stomach,
the (political) courage, the (political) time nor can they stand 'the heat' to
see controversial decisions they have 'Okayed' (or nodded) through to
completion.
©Patrick
Emek, 2015