Posted By Blake Hounshell Share

Isn't it interesting that the underpants bomber -- whose failed attempt to detonate plastic explosives on a Detroit-bound plane killed zero people -- has gotten a lot more attention than the CIA bomber -- who successfully perpetrated a devastating attack against a CIA forward operating base in Khost, Afghanistan, killing seven?

Granted, most Americans are probably more interested in the former story, because it directly concerns them. But now, the focus of media attention is shifting, with a couple new data points coming out.

First, the CIA bomber, a Jordanian doctor of Palestinian origin named Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, showed his face today in a video of himself  next to Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, posthumously published by Al Jazeera. (Interestingly, Balawi was also a prolific jihadi blogger who told the CIA that his online writings were part of his cover.)

And second, the CIA disclosed that Balawi detonated himself moments before he was about to undergo a pat-down search. As CIA director Leon Panetta puts it in an op-ed in today's Washington Post, " This was not a question of trusting a potential intelligence asset, even one who had provided information that we could verify independently."

It is never that simple, and no one ignored the hazards. The individual was about to be searched by our security officers -- a distance away from other intelligence personnel -- when he set off his explosives.

(Panetta's claim that poor tradecraft was not to blame for the bombing's success is undermined by the Post's own reporting. )

NPR also notes today, as has been reported elsewhere, that Balawi was considered "a valued CIA informant" whose reports were restricted to the highest levels of the agency. "He was feeding us low-level operatives and we were whacking them," a former intelligence official told the network.

The new details about the attack are interesting, but the most significant news here is that the Pakistani Taliban is taking credit. That means there's going to be intensified pressure on the Pakistani government and military to finish the job against the Mehsud network, whose base in South Waziristan was just successfully assaulted last fall. Hakimullah has obviously survived to fight another day, and now he can boast about having outfoxed the mighty CIA.

"We say that we will never forget the blood of our Emir Baitullah Mehsud, God's mercy on him," Balawi says in the video, some of which is translated here.

Some analysts' initial assumption had been that the Haqqani network, whose area of operations straddles Afghanistan and Pakistan and is near the Khost base, was behind the attack. (The Afghan Taliban originally claimed responsibility, crediting a disaffected Afghan army member.)  Haqqani's people as well as al Qaeda proper may yet have been involved, suggests Pakistani analyst Talat Masood here:

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general, said that in addition to involvement by Mr. Mehsud’s network, the attack on the C.I.A. station in Khost most likely also had some involvement of Al Qaeda and other Taliban factions. Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban groups have also claimed responsibility for the attack.

So what happens now? Well, I think it's fair to say the CIA is going to be out for blood. It may take some time to replenish its expertise in targeting drone strikes -- and reassess the effectiveness of those strikes aided by Balawi's tips -- but Hakimullah is going to be Public Enemy No. 1 now, if he wasn't already. With Pakistan already on his tail, I'd say his days are numbered.

 

GRANT

3:46 AM ET

January 10, 2010

If we haven't been able to

If we haven't been able to find and assassinate bin Laden, Hekmatyar, or or Mohammed Omar in the past nine years then I doubt that an organization's desire for revenge will really have that much effect. Of course it is possible that the ISI will try to kill him just to get the CIA off their backs.

 

FREETRADER

6:41 AM ET

January 10, 2010

I wonder about that statement...

"He was feeding us low-level operatives and we were whacking them," a former intelligence official told the network.

I certainly hope that's true. But it certainly seems possible that our friend the suicide bomber was feeding the CIA information about innocent people. I just hope that the CIA vetts its targets better than its operatives.

 

TYRTAIOS

12:17 PM ET

January 10, 2010

FREETRADER

Freetrader, the operatives as you call them, were aware of the risks - yes they miscalcuated.

What may have lead them to allow al-Balawi to bypass the outer perimeter security was the fact that Captain 'Ali bin Zaydave, his Jordanian handler, who along with the Jordian GID had vettted him for the CIA, was on site - I would ask you to keep that in mind when you play armchair analyst.

 

HAIRYSTEVE20

9:28 PM ET

January 10, 2010

Handler

It shouldn't have mattered if Abe Lincoln and George Washington were the guys handler, he should never have been on a US base.

The only people a Humint should meet are his handler and his handler's boss and never on official premises. Basic Humint handling tells you never trust a Humint. There's always a chance that he is a plant and is playing you. As for good info on 'low level operatives', if a criminal gang plants a Humint they will happily throw away a few small fry to gain the trust of a handler.

If things really go wrong a plant can lead law enforcement agencies to take out a gangs rivals, did this happen here? Were the 'low level operatives' really opponents of the Mehsud clan?

It's also a big concern that, given the level of incompetence shown by the CIA here, that they perhaps unknowingly gave information to Mehsud. Information like how long it takes a drone to make a hit after live information is given. Information like the Humint giving the CIA a piece of information knowing that another piece of info that could only have come from one source was needed before the CIA could act therefore compromising genuine informants.

I can only speculate that over ambitious agency staff threw the rulebook out of the window in the hope of getting a big fish. Unfortunately intelligence work isn't like that in the real world. Procedures are there for a reason and if they are not followed then things loke this will keep happening.

 

FREETRADER

9:29 PM ET

January 10, 2010

"Armchair Analysts"

Perhaps, as you imply, you are something more than an 'armchair analyst'? Actually, I don't pretend to be any kind of expert on the subject, I am simply asking what I think is a reasonable and obvious question. I should also make clear -- I have no anti-CIA agenda. I am in favor of whacking the bad guys. I just hope we are whacking the real bad guys, and not potentially innocent victims of this or other double agents. It may simply be a matter of the CIA having identified these individuals and their getting information on their whereabouts -- in which case the question of identity may be moot.

 

SURESH SHETH

2:38 PM ET

January 11, 2010

US complicity in its own Afghan tragedy

It is becoming painfully clear from the video of Jordanian bomber and Wall Street Journal article titled ‘Risky ally in war on polio: the Taliban’ on January 9, 2010 that the US governments have been silent partners of Pakistani governments in the continuing deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan ever since US overthrew Taliban government in 2001.

That is because US governments have been tolerating Pakistani governments’ sanctuary, support and protection of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s Afghan Taliban (QST) in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan which is fully under the control of Pakistani governments and Haqqani in North Waziristan while US and Pakistani governments trumpet Pakistan’s so-called heroic efforts to destroy Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan and Swat valley.

Furthermore US efforts to isolate Al Qaeda as the only enemy that US needs to defeat as emphasized by President Obama recently are pointless. Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban - all three are the peas of the same pod as proved by Jordanian bomber‘s posthumous video.

The video by Jordanian bomber and the Wall Street Journal article only reiterate what General McChrystal so vividly wrote in his August, 2009 assessment to President Obama:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

It is bizarre to say the least for US governments to even claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic fundamentalists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistani governments are sheltering, supporting and protecting the very leaders of this Taliban insurgency.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More