Armchair Generalist

Freeman's Wisdom

I came across this speech by Charles Freeman, Jr, on the subject of "vested interests and intelligence analysis." I thought it was particularly good, and enjoyed this section.

As the fate of the Department of State’s China hands in the middle of the 20th Century famously attests, sustaining objectivity against the pressures of political correctness has never been easy. The China hands have been far from alone; others with unwelcome expertise and insight into foreign events have met similar punishment and ostracism. To be right when what you say is politically wrong is to invite punishment from the guardians of political correctness. No surprise there. But the very notion that analysis should be wertfrei – value-free – has come under strong attack in recent years. Three months ago, for example, an op-ed in the now mostly neo-con editorial pages of the Washington Post charged me with the epistemological sin of “realism,” arguing that my lack of a passionate attachment to Israel rendered me incapable of correctly assessing the impact of its policies on U.S. interests. It is clear that, in the view of some, selective apology or denunciation of foreign behavior, not the prediction of it or its effects on our country and its interests, are what intelligence work should be all about. 

For such polemicists, politically correct delusion is preferable to a realistic view of the external world as the basis of policy. The splendid results of the approach they have advocated are visible around the globe but nowhere more than in the stable, secular democracy that has emerged in Iraq, the shriveling of Islamic extremism our invasion and occupation of Muslim lands has catalyzed, the peace and development we have brought to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the concord that the suspension of independent American judgment has caused to flower in the Holy Land. You don’t have to be a realist to notice discrepancies between the predicted results of policies and their actual catastrophic consequences. And yet, unchastened by empiricism, those who insisted on these policies continue to advocate more of the same. 

The concept of analysis as polemic finds its major expression in the myriad of “think tanks” – perhaps, more accurately, “belief tanks” – established in recent decades to spin trends and events to promote the ideological or other theses of their founders and supporters. It is also a key characteristic of the cliquish dialogue of the blogosphere, in which partisan commentary reinforces parochial views and fact-checking or skeptical questioning more often elicit obscene ad hominem attacks than serious reflection. Paradoxically, those obsessed with particular issues have more information than ever before to draw upon, even as general civic literacy on foreign affairs and the space for civil debate on public policy issues continue to contract. 

"Belief tanks" - isn't it true? Doesn't matter if you're talking about the AEI or CNAS, they have their philosophies and intent to support particular political persons, whether right or wrong. Read the rest of the article - you'll enjoy it.

Fall of Empires

Stephen Walt ruminates about parallels between the "fall" of the British Empire and the recent failure of American imperialism. It's an interesting article.

As I mentioned awhile back, I devoted a good chunk of my vacation out west reading Piers Brendon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997." As you might imagine, I spent a lot of time thinking about possible parallels and lessons for America's current global position, just as English imperialists spent a lot of time pondering the Roman experience (ably documented by Edward Gibbon).

In a tapestry this rich and varied, it is easy to read into it just about any "lesson" one wants to draw. With that caveat in mind, here are the top ten lessons on empire that I drew from Brendon's book. Even if you don't agree with them, you should still read the book.  

1. There is no such thing as a "benevolent" Empire.

2. All Empires depend on self-justifying ideology and rhetoric that is often at odds with reality.

3. Successful empires require ample "hard power."

4. As Empires decline, they become more opulent, and they obsess about their own glory.

5. Great Empires are heterogeneous.

6. When building an empire, it's hard to know where to stop.

7. It takes a lot of incompetent people to run an empire.

8. Great Powers defend perceived interests with any means at their disposal.

9. Nationalism and other forms of local identity remain a potent obstacle to long-term imperial control.

10. "Imperial Prestige" is both an asset and a trap.

There are undoubtedly other morals one can draw from Brendon's account, and other historical treatments would undoubtedly suggest a somewhat different set of lessons. I wouldn't want to overplay the parallels between Britain and the United States, if only because the U.S. empire is mostly ad hoc and informal rather than a network of formal colonies. But there is one final moral one could also draw from Brendan's fine work: there is life after Empire. 

Interesting food for thought.

It's Not Assassination

The Washington Post talks about the mysterious CIA program about which Vice President Darth Cheney told the Agency not to brief Congress.

Republicans and some former high-ranking intelligence officials question whether the CIA was ever obliged to brief Congress on the program. Former agency officials have described it as a technically oriented intelligence-collection effort unrelated to terrorism suspects or the terrorist-surveillance program that came to light in 2005.

The program began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was authorized by Bush as part of a highly classified directive on Sept. 26 of that year. The directive granted the CIA blanket authority to attempt to kill or capture al-Qaeda operatives.

Former intelligence officials said the program was aimed at enhancing the agency's ability to carry out the goals of the directive. The Wall Street Journal reported that the initiative was intended to help the CIA capture or kill al-Qaeda operatives.

Now the Republican politicians have been complete asses about this issue. There's no question that the CIA should have briefed Congress on every covert initiative they have ongoing - at least to the chairs of the intel committees. They didn't do that. But that's not the weird thing to me - if I had a covert program where the CIA was taking out al Qaeda terrorists, I wouldn't be hiding it. I'd be boasting about it, and daring the Dems to say anything about it.

Today the Washington Post wants to use the term "assassins" as some left-wing bloggers have. I think they're dead wrong for one major reason - that the Executive Order 12333 that prohibits assassinations doesn't apply in this case. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll argue that the term "assassination" applies to heads of state or political figures, not terrorists or - more importantly - nonstate actors who have violent intentions against the US government. That is to say, if you are a known violent extremist who is not affiliated with a national government, and if you have attempted to or actually attacked US citizens or armed forces, then you're a legitimate target. In fact, President Clinton authorized "targeted kills" against al Qaeda in 1998, with President Bush calling for the same in 2001. Ironically, my source for this information is a WaPo news article.

It's pretty simple. We're at war with non-state terrorists, and we're allowed to kill them if they are a demonstrated threat to the United States. It's not assassination if they are not political figures acting within a state political structure - it's self-defense. Any questions?

 

UPDATE: This NY Times article has an interesting note - what's the difference between CIA-operated drones operating in Af-Pak and CIA-funded paramilitary squads doing the same? Discuss.

"Global Commons"

A colleague of mine took umbrage at Michele Flournoy's article in Proceedings where she described the US government's obligation to take care of the "global commons." He suggested that I take another look at the article's words.

These developing challenges in the global commons also offer the United States a profound opportunity to reassert a leadership role in an area that will only grow in importance. Because stability on and within the global commons is a public good, others have powerful incentives to work with us on issues involving governance of cyberspace, ensuring peace in space, and settling contentious maritime issues. Protecting and sustaining stability throughout the global commons cannot be achieved by America alone.

We must lead in the creation of international norms and standards that can help advance the common good and expand the rule of law in these domains of growing importance. Helping to build the capacity of our partners and allies and working toward a common agenda on these increasingly complex issues should be a critical pillar of America's national security and defense strategy.

The article refers to "global commons" about twenty times - somehow, I overlooked the main theme of the article. I think the authors refer to the "global commons" as if it were Barnett's "Gap" where there are either limited, ineffective governments or areas of ungoverned space. That's different than the common definition of "global commons," which refers instead to geographical areas where the natural resources are not covered by any national jurisdictions.

But taking another look at this article and its professed desire to develop a grand strategy to make the world a better place? Is that really what the Obama administration wants to do? No wonder conservatives sneer - that's almost as unrealistic as what the neocons want to do. The authors of this piece want to create a coalition of allies to save the world from itself, while neocons just want to promote democracy by force. I'm not sure either is a good idea for future use of military power. I'm thinking more and more that Bacevich has it right, much more than Flournoy and the CNAS gang does.  

Obama Needs a Grand Strategy

Andrew Bacevich has been busy - his editorial in the LA Times chides President Obama for dragging his feet on the development of a grand strategy. At the least, we ought to have one in place to guide the lesser regional strategies, such as one for Afghanistan, for instance.

First, the Long War may be long, but it should not get any bigger. The regime-change approach -- invade and occupy to transform -- hasn't worked; simply trying harder in some other venue (Somalia? Sudan?) won't produce different results. In short, no more Iraqs.

Second, forget the Bush Doctrine of preventive war: no more wars of choice; henceforth only wars of necessity. The United States will use force only as a last resort and even then only when genuinely vital interests are at stake.

Third, no more crusades unless the American people buy in; expecting a relative handful of soldiers to carry the load while the rest of the country binges on consumption is unconscionable. At a minimum, the generation that opts for war should pay for it through higher taxes rather than foisting a burden of debt onto their grandchildren.

Fourth, the key to keeping America safe is to defend it, not to project American muscle to obscure places around the world. It may or may not be true that a "mighty fortress is our God"; had the United States been a mighty fortress on 9/11, however, the 19 hijackers would have gotten nowhere.

Fifth, by all means let the United States promote the spread of freedom and democracy. Yet we're more likely to enjoy success by modeling freedom rather than trying to impose it. To provide a suitable model, we've considerable work to do here at home. Meanwhile, let's not deny others the prerogative of defining for themselves exactly what it means to be free.

It's much better than the neocon tripe that Lt Gen (ret) Trey Obering and former Cheney deputy and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman lay out for going after Iran. Why Fred Hiatt lets these people - whose theories ought to be laughed at since their repeated failures over the past eight years - propose these arguments is beyond me. It;s amusing to me how politicians can lecture us about the behavior of "rogue nations" while studiously ignoring the irresponsible behavior of other nations.

What I'm hoping for, in all seriousness, is an end to the term "rogue nations." As I see it, this was a phrase that would allow the Bush administration to invade or attack any nations that were not "democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system." That's a quote from the 2006 National Security Strategy. I don't think that description really fits the US government between 2002-2008, but then again, consistency was never a strong point of the former administration.

The Stupidity Is Overwhelming

SHORTER John Bolton: "Now that the Iranian elections are over, we should bomb them. It's only prudent."

Honestly. What a jackass thing to suggest as the protests in Iran are still continuing. But the bigger jackass is Fred Hiatt for allowing this insane trash-talk to be printed in the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, Michael Scheuer claims that we need bin Laden to nuke a city in the United States so that we Americans will wake up to the need for more stringent security measures. Glenn Beck nods sagely and says "so if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now."

What fools these mortals be.

So Confused

Huh - this is funny. Just as the US government is deciding to stop its crop eradication policy and to focus on the drug lords in Afghanistan, the British government's policy - and for that matter, the Afghan government - is set on continuing the crop eradication program. I am so confused.

The British Government said destroying poppy fields remained a key deterrent to growers and one of the "seven pillars" of its anti-opium strategy in Helmand province, just a day after Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan, said that destroying the crop only drove poor farmers to join the insurgency.

In a reversal of policy, he said the United States would stop funding poppy eradication and instead concentrate on encouraging farmers to grow alternative crops.

The Afghan government backed Britain's stance and defended its previous efforts, which relied heavily on ripping up or flattening poppy plants, as "perfect".

General Khodaidad, Afghan minister for counter narcotics, said his strategy had been "the right path".

"We are happy with our strategy and we are working according to our strategy. I don't see any deficiencies in our strategy, our strategy is perfect, our strategy is good."

No arguments here. I'd love to come over and use a 1950s flamethrower on the poppy fields. It'll help fertilize the ground for the food crops that they might plant after the farmers give up on supporting the illegal drug trade. And no, NVH, I don't buy legalization of heroin as an alternative. Marijuana maybe, but not the hard stuff.

Aiding the Somali Govt

The recent news is that the US government is sending 40 tons of small arms and ammunition, about $10 million worth, to Somalia. And you just have to gawk and ask, why? Do they need MORE ammo and guns in that country? No, I have to agree with Steven at Realistic Defense:

I'm not sure that aiding the Somali government is something the United States should be actively doing. Officials in the State Department and the Pentagon have predicted Somalia as the next terrorist incubator for years now. If Somalia falls to radical Islamists, is the United States adversely effected? I think the whole failed states as terrorist havens is an idea that dominates most of the foreign policy establishment, but is severely misguided. Terrorism is a phenomenon that can exist in a variety of states. The liberal democracies of western Europe were home to numerous terrorist groups between the 60's and 90's, so it's not an occurrence isolated to third world countries. And while the United States has not had the same experiences of domestic terrorism as some other countries, several groups from Puerto Rican nationalists to Aryan Nations have been able to operate successfully.

Look at Afghanistan. al-Qaeda was able to set up a permanent base for operations only with the help of the Taliban, which exerted powerful rule over the country. Terrorists need a stable environment, it does them no good to be involved in civil wars, as that only misdirects their energy and resources. We should keep an eye on Somalia, but this sort of offshore balancing is not likely to help either the Somalis or Americans.

So where is that smart power that we've been hearing about? Is it just not turned on yet? Does anyone really want to throw gasoline onto the fire that is consuming Somalia? How exactly is the United States going to make sure that the Somali pirates or militia groups don't get this "aid"? All I can think about is that there must be Bush moles still planted in the State and Defense Department. 

UPDATE: More to the point, does the US government have (or has it ever had) a coherent policy on how to stabilize Somalia? Is AFRICOM engaged or just watching?

Interdicting Afghan Poppy Trade

Richard Holbrooke is telling Congress that the Obama administration is all set to fix the mistakes made by the Bush administration regarding the poppy trade in Afghanistan. I'd prefer burning out the crops, but this way might be better.

Testifying to Congress, Holbrooke said the United States had "a continued focus on stopping the drug trade, but within that we are downgrading our efforts to eradicate crops -- spraying -- a policy we think is totally ineffectual."

"We are going to increase efforts in interdiction and going after the drug lords. So we're not downgrading narcotics, we're downgrading crop eradication," Holbrooke said.
-----------
US military authorities acknowledge that an eight-year anti-drug effort in Afghanistan has failed to step the heroin trade, which is estimated to fund the Taliban to a tune of close to 100 million dollars a year.

In October last year, NATO nations for the first time authorized the international force in Afghanistan to take action against drug traffickers and their facilities.

Yes, it's only taken eight years to figure out that we need an effective way to stop the Taliban's cash crop. Let's see if the new team can do it.

UPDATE: Of course, things would go smoother if the US govt didn't enable the poppy trade.

Understanding the Term "Contingencies"

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is a breath of fresh air compared to the lying bastards who worked the position for the Bush administration, but I think he's got some learning to do about what the term "contingency" means. From Monday's press brief:

Q    Okay.  And on a separate foreign policy issue, the President referred to North Korea in his interview this weekend.  Can you give us an update on that threat and how worried the people in Hawaii need to be about a potential long-range missile?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, Jeff, I can assure you and anybody listening, anybody in Hawaii , anybody in the United States , that the government is taking every precaution necessary to deal with threats throughout the world or threats that might be coming from the North Koreans.  That's -- obviously the President's first task is to keep the American people safe, and I can assure you that steps have been and are being taken to make sure that's the case.

Look, in terms of the North Koreans, I'm not sure that we're a whole lot different than we were in the past few days or past few weeks.  The North Koreans continue to make statements, bellicose statements, threatening different actions.  Many times what they threaten they eventually do.  That further alienates North Korea from the rest of the world.  And I think that has helped the world take unified action, strong steps to ensure that we're taking all necessary action to ensure that there isn't the ability for North Korea to export weapons or export material that would lead to proliferation.  That's been our focus.

Q    And the President said, when he was asked in the interview, that taking contingencies did not mean a military response necessarily.  So what -- how else can one understand that?  What else could "contingencies" mean?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, again, I think the President -- what the President referred to is taking all necessary steps to deal with whatever threat comes out of North Korea .

Q    What does that mean?

MR. GIBBS:  What does that mean?  I think I'd refer you to what Secretary Gates said last week about moving different systems out into the Pacific in order to ensure the protection of the United States of America .

Q    That very language was used when we went into Korea -- I mean, in Vietnam .

MR. GIBBS:  Well, no, I was speaking more about the sort of the outer edge of the United States.

Getting past the stupid-ass decision to deploy military air defense systems in Hawaii to guard against North Korean missiles that will never get within range of Hawaii, I think that Gibbs is confused. It shows where he says, "ah, I'm not saying that the president's use of the term 'contingency' was a military term, but ask SecDef Bob Gates about that issue." 

Nerds Versus Jocks

John Hodgman spoke at the Radio and Television Correspondent's Dinner with President Obama. This is a very talented young man who will definitely make you laugh.

Also see untravel's commentary on Hodgman's speech.

More Neocon BS

And of course, why shouldn't Paul Wolfowitz chime in on Iran as the rest of his merry band of brothers have?

It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom. And if we appear so desperate for negotiations that we will abandon those who support our principles, we weaken our own negotiating hand.

That does not mean that we need to pick sides in an Iranian election or claim to know its result. Obama could send a powerful message simply by placing his enormous personal prestige behind the peaceful conduct of the demonstrators and their demand for reform -- exactly the kind of peaceful, democratic change that he praised in his speech in Cairo.

Hmmm. Henry Kissinger doesn't seem to agree. Please join me in a hearty cry of FUCK YOU to the former DepSecDef who was clamoring to invade Iraq even as the Pentagon was still smoldering on 9/11. Really - just STFU and go back to writing your memoirs with which you intend to justify your past actions. And to Fred Hiatt for printing this shit, for shame.

UPDATE: Maybe it is time to consider cancelling the Washington Post.

Tank Man and Tank Commander

Rob Farley has some deep thoughts thinking about the Chinese Tiananmen square incident. What happened to the guy driving the tank who stopped the column for Tank Man? 

I feel that I can understand why Tank Man risked his life to stand in front of the tank column. I have less of a sense of why the tank commander decided to stop. For all I know, Tank Man may have been Tank Commander's brother. Tank Commander may have been afraid that his superiors would have been pissed if he ran over a guy while cameras might be watching. He may not have wanted innocent blood on his hands, or on the treads of his tank. He may have sympathized with the demonstrators; perhaps his father or mother had been a victim of the Cultural Revolution. Or perhaps he identified the Tiananmen demonstrators with the Cultural Revolution, and sympathized with them. I really have no idea.

 

The thing is, Tank Commander is far more dangerous than Tank Man. Tank Man can simply be shot; most seem to believe that Tank Man was later executed, far out of sight of the international media. The regime survives if Tank Man dies, even if the death of Tank Man isn't the optimal outcome. The regime dies, however, if Tank Commander refuses to run over Tank Man. Eisenstein used the Odessa Steps to demonstrate the corruption of the Czarist regime, but the regime didn't die until the soldiers refused to shoot the demonstrators. The successor regime didn't die until Boris Yeltsin climbed on a tank in August 1991. While there's some mystery as to the fate of Tank Man, I don't doubt that the CCP found Tank Commander and put a bullet in the back of his head at the first opportunity.


Interesting thoughts. That's why he's the professor and I'm just a layman.

It's Funny Because It's True

From Matt Bors, via Alternative Brain.

Absolut Fail

SHORTER William Kristol: "Because neocon labeling of Saddam Hussein as a present day Hitler worked so well, we will now start using the Nazi Germany analogy with regards to Iran with Obama playing the role of Chamberlain."

Observe the Incredible Asshat. And make no mistake, his neocon buddies are all in the same boat.

Iranian Crowd Control

I saw this picture at the British Sunday Times - I think it is an Iranian policeman using pepper spray against a demonstrator. This BBC article discusses the use of that weapon against women protestors.

The police who massively outnumbered the protestors, almost immediately started beating the women to disperse them.

The viciousness of the police attack caused men who were passing by in the street to protest, our correspondent says.

"These are our sisters, how can you do this?" passers-by shouted at police.

The women then gathered again on the other side of the square, but the police used pepper spray against them and onlookers. 

And then I saw the size of the crowds... and thought, dude, you are going to need a LOT more of those little canisters... 

Make Her Go Away!

The only thing worse than listening to Gov. Sarah Palin is having to try to make sense of her inane criticisms of President Obama. What, are there no moose to shoot and skin?

"Reducing Alaska's defense readiness in these perilous times is a show of weakness, it is not a sign of strength," Palin said during a celebration in upstate New York honoring native son William Seward, who negotiated the purchase of Alaska in 1867 as Secretary of State. Video of the speech was posted by the Web site "Conservatives4Palin." 

Palin said Alaska's missile defense system is now more vital than ever, particularly in the wake of North Korea's recent nuclear and missile tests. She said a missile fired from North Korea could easily reach Alaska and other parts of the country.

"And yet, Washington thinks it's best now to actually cut defense spending in Alaska by hundreds of millions of dollars," she said. "Now that is an odd priority there." 

Palin said she will "argue with every ounce of my being for Washington to pay attention."

Getting away from the fact of how overfunded the missile defense program is and how shaving a few billion off its $9 billion annual funding really won't hurt at all, Palin doesn't seem to understand the basics of what the threat is from North Korea and what's actually in Alaska right now. Fortunately, others do. 

Let's set the record straight here. The White House and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have proposed reducing missile defense spending from $10 billion to $9 billion. The missile network in Alaska would still exist, and it would have 30 interceptors.

The significance of the Alaskan program right now is the need to respond to a hypothetical missile attack from North Korea. Since North Korea's nuclear arsenal is quite small, 30 interceptors are more than sufficient to address the threat (if the highly unlikely attack were to occur). The governor is arguing that, in fact, 44 interceptors are necessary. Why? She didn't say.

You know, I take it back. Let her speak out. Let everyone see what a horrible, horrible thing it would have been if she had become vice president of the United States. It will set up her 2012 campaign very nicely.

Let's Be Frugal

House Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is concerned that the Department of Defense is wasting billions of dollars in the acquisition world. After your peals of laughter die down, read the article.

Rep. Jack Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said the Navy must find some way to recoup the $3.2 billion spent on the first tranche of the cancelled VH-71 presidential helicopter.

Murtha made his remarks to reporters after yesterday’s hearing on the Navy and Marines 2010 budget request. He said we have to “take some of that $3.2 billion to build something cheaper.” He admitted he didn’t know how to do it, but the old appropriations bull has support from some of his fellow subcommittee members to do something. “It is just unacceptable that we would waste this much money,” Murtha said during the hearing.

The plain-spoken chairman said he had had a group of people from the Navy and White House in his office earlier this year and asked them why the president needed an escape helo, especially since he would “all alone out there” after an attack since no one else would be evacuated: “I said, ‘what about the rest of us?’ There was a long silence…”

Wow.Just wow. It's not as if the GAO hasn't written many, many reports on the failures of the DOD acquisition process. Let's not even get into the billions lost in Iraq and Afghanistan due to corruption, poor management, and deliberate inefficiencies. And it' s not as if Murtha hasn't been in charge of developing legislation for the Defense Department for the past two years (a good time for him to have addressed this issue), in addition to his twenty-five years as an elected congressman. It also sounds like Murtha has been reading Loren Thompson's article, which would be a mistake. Old man, if you're asking questions like "what about the rest of us?" when what you ought to have been doing is addressing a broken acquisition system that hemorrhages billions every year, then you really need to retire.

UPDATE: Hastening to add, Murtha is not stupid, therefore the question is really "qui bono?" if Murtha is able to keep the VH-71 program funded in some fashion.

Deep Thoughts

Just as only Nixon could go to China to normalize Sino-American relations, only Obama could go to Egypt with the credibility and sincerity to normalize Muslim-American relations.

Honorable Men

Yeah, it's such a shame that the evil Democrat Pelosi accused the CIA of being liars about what they said in their intelligence briefings. Republicans would certainly never do anything against this Agency. I mean, we know that the CIA is staffed with nothing but honorable men and women.

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney personally oversaw at least four briefings with senior members of Congress about the controversial interrogation program, part of a secretive and forceful defense he mounted throughout 2005 in an effort to maintain support for the harsh techniques used on detainees.

The Cheney-led briefings came at some of the most critical moments for the program, as congressional oversight committees were threatening to investigate or even terminate the techniques, according to lawmakers, congressional officials, and current and former intelligence officials.
--------------
The CIA declined to comment on why Cheney's presence in some meetings was left out of the records. One senior intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the names of individual briefers are omitted in all cases -- they do not appear in any of the public documents that describe congressional briefings. In at least some cases, he added, the identity of the briefer was never recorded in the agency's records.
-------------
Lawmakers at times challenged Cheney and CIA officials about the legality of the program and pressed for specific results that would show whether the techniques worked. In response, the CIA briefers said that half of the agency's knowledge about al-Qaeda's plans and structure had been obtained through the interrogations.

It sounds like the CIA has gotten so gun shy about its intelligence assessments and briefs that it would rather be cautiously neutral on any and all topics rather than actually inform people. I don't know what's more sickening, the CIA briefers who deliberately obfuscated what their briefs said and who was in attendence, the Republicans who aided and abetted Darth Cheney's plan, or the spineless Dems who said "what torture? Oh, you mean THOSE briefs..."