Stanely McChrystal

Is David Petraeus Leaking to Undercut the President? Or Is Someone Framing Him?

The WaPo has the latest in seemingly yearly series of leaks of Top Secret cables designed to undercut the President’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan sent a top-secret cable to Washington last month warning that the persistence of enemy havens in Pakistan was placing the success of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan in jeopardy, U.S. officials said.

The cable, written by Ryan C. Crocker, amounted to an admission that years of U.S. efforts to curtail insurgent activity in Pakistan by the lethal Haqqani network, a key Taliban ally, were failing.

The hints and feints the article offers about who leaked the memo provide ample entertainment for a Saturday afternoon.

Note the way the WaPo describes its sources inconsistently. It offers this quote from a senior defense official.

“The sanctuaries are a deal-killer for the [Afghan war] strategy,” said a senior defense official who is familiar with the ongoing debate and who, like several officials in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. [my emphasis]

But then the WaPo suggests military leaders have motive to leak the cable, distinguishing between “defense” and “military” officials.

The cable, which was described by several officials familiar with its contents, could be used as ammunition by senior military officials who favor more aggressive action by the United States against the Haqqani havens in Pakistan. It also could buttress calls from senior military officials for a more gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan as the 2014 deadline for ending combat operations approaches.

These military officials have maintained for months that the strategy of targeting raids against Taliban leadership and building local Afghan governance is showing impressive results. [my emphasis]

Mind you, none of these military officials seem to be directly quoted here–at least not defined as military officials. The comment might just reflect the knowledge of Greg Jaffe, WaPo’s military writer. Though it would be consistent if a General or two leaked such a cable–after all, Stanley McChrystal is assumed to have leaked a similar cable during Obama’s Afghanistan review in 2009, for similar reason.

Yet I’m most interested in this quote, of someone whose affiliation was rather pointedly (given the description of defense and military sources) not identified.

“There’s no debate about the importance of going after Haqqani . . . and Taliban militants who launch attacks into Afghanistan,” one U.S. official said. “Support for this is universal.” [my emphasis]

The article also defaults to “US officials” elsewhere, though that could be because the sources came from multiple agencies. Note, “US official” can be used to refer to members of Congress, as well as agency officials.

In any case should we assume these unmarked sources are intelligence ones–the beat of Greg Miller, the WaPo’s intelligence writer and the other byline on the story?

Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @adamjohnsonNYC: My latest By Treating Clinton SuperPAC as Separate Media Embraces Core Myth of CitizenUnited https://t.co/I0wOQLFbOt ht…
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @DanielLarison We're engaging publicly and it keeps making things worse so let's pretend we aren't to avoid accepting any responsibility!
16mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @SenSanders: Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea. That…
22mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carriecordero @johnson_carrie @benjaminwittes Well, sure. Bumbling moron Ronald Reagan got briefed+did job, why not racist idiot Trump?
27mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JayQPublic Nope! But to suggest US engagement -- of both military and diplomatic type -- is not visible is laughable nonsense.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT OK. You endorse a paragraph built on premise that our engagement IS NOT VISIBLE. That's your choice.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT What does "a more visible engagement" imply. Let's start w/very very basic stuff.
32mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT I mean are you REALLY suggesting American engagement is not visible anywhere in the whole wide world? Really?
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT In other words, "Yes, I'm part of that projection and disavowal and I'm not afraid to abuse logic to participate."
34mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT It is projection, disavowal of mainstream US FP (for both Dems & GOP) of their consequences. Not getting that is failure that > Trump
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT Better alt might be to say, "US intervention (of which Hillary proponent" caused shit I'm about to list, let's call for engagement.
37mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SeucT It suggests "American engagement" is not visible. That's batshit nuts.
38mreplyretweetfavorite
May 2016
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031