The Coffeespy

Assuming the LA Times story in the Early Bird today is accurately sourced, it seems yet another “government official” is talking about classified material for some reason:

U.S. Special Forces teams sent overseas on secret spying missions have clashed with the CIA and carried out operations in countries that are staunch U.S. allies, prompting a new effort by the agency and the Pentagon to tighten the rules for military units engaged in espionage, according to senior U.S. intelligence and military officials.

The spy missions are part of a highly classified program that officials say has better positioned the United States to track terrorist networks and capture or kill enemy operatives in regions such as the Horn of Africa, where weak governments are unable to respond to emerging threats.

Ok, that’s the gist of the story, which acknowledges that communication and coordination are improving and that neither the CIA nor the DoD elements involved seek to end the program.  Now for those unfamiliar with journalistic style, you are supposed to place the facts in order of importance.  According to the LA Times, this merits the third paragraph:

But the initiative has also led to several embarrassing incidents for the United States, including a shootout in Paraguay and the exposure of a sensitive intelligence operation in East Africa, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter. And to date, the effort has not led to the capture of a significant terrorism suspect.

Oh my, a shoot out in Paraguay.  That sounds bad.  How could our people be so irresponsible.  Yes, that’s important and belongs in paragraph three because it has the potential cause harm to our relationship with Paraguay.  Oh, wait… here’s the rest of the story buried in paragraph 17:

In 2004, members of an MLE team operating in Paraguay shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to rob them outside a bar

Ah… So they killed an armed robber.  Well, that sounds a little different than the wording in paragraph three would have you believe.  But something’s nagging me from that third paragraph still… oh, yes: “the effort has not led to the capture of a significant terrorism suspect.”

Since the qualifier “significant” was used, I suppose some “insignificant” terrorism suspects have been captured.  Would these be guys who hadn’t developed their plan enough to be termed “significant” or simply people with the right mindset who hadn’t been completely recruited?  In any case, we now come to the “official” and what this person could possibly be hoping to gain:

At a time when the military is stretched thin, the official questioned the priority of using Special Forces for espionage, noting that the MLE program has not produced a significant success in terms of disrupting a plot or capturing a terrorist suspect.

“These are a highly trained, short-supply resource of the U.S. government,” the official said. “What … are they doing there instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan?”

Choice One: Current operations are jealously guarded by the operators and their chain of command.  They’ll receive a codename and then only referred to by that codename.  Since very few, and I mean VERY few, people will have access to every single codenamed operation run world-wide by this program, it is very unlikely that a person would be able to make an accurate statement on the success of the program.  They would have to be involved not only in the operational reporting chain, but also the body of analytical work growing off of that reporting chain.  Otherwise, they’re simply lying or uninformed.  Either way, liars and the ignorant don’t make good sources.

Choice Two: There is going to be a short list of people who know about every single operation run by the DoD program.  Find this person and plug this leak.  Now.  They have a political agenda and are using the press to play it out.  If the source isn’t one of the dishonest or one of the ignorant, then it’s someone who doesn’t like having their yard played in: the CIA.  If it IS the CIA, then you can see what they’re doing with that additional oversight they’ve been granted.  Using it against DoD, through the press, to get their toys back.

And the LA Times plays along…

One last thing:

On at least one occasion, a team tracked an Islamic militant in Europe. “They were trying to acquire certain information about a certain individual,” said a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official declined to name the country, but said it was a NATO ally and that the host government was unaware of the mission.

This bit makes me believe the source is not a CIA official with an axe to grind, nor is he a liar.  He’s simply stupid.  How many Americans would accept the team involved throwing up their hands simply because the target went to Germany or France or the like?  “Oh, we were following that guy that detonated himself in the National Archives but he flew to Norway so we couldn’t follow him.”  What crap.

On top of that, is it really any secret that allies watch each other and move personnel through each others’ countries?  When I was on active duty in Germany we ran into some Brits in a training area.  They asked a barrage of questions concerning our SINCGARS radio and how the encryption worked.  Every single one of us knew we had just been targeted and the Brits were hoping to gain intelligence.  It’s just the way it’s done.

An “official” with any wherewithall will know that.