Bruce-- I think you should regurgitate this great piece of former DoS analysis from Larry Johnson...who has been a constant critic of the Bush Administration and consultant for one of the networks and political candidates. ...here is what someone who was "with" State had to say about the US and terrorism shortly before we were attacked and thousands of our countrymen killed. I've also attached a piece written about Mr. Johnson this past June further below. ============================================================================ ======== New York Times July 10, 2001
The Declining Terrorist Threat By LARRY C. JOHNSON WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think. At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's. Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries - Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts. While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year. Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year. Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses. Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it - Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane. Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions - outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia - caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa. The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia - or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia - you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear. Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training. The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan. I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful. Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents. Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority. I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way. Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++ <http://nrd.nationalreview.com/> June 5, 2006 THE MEDIA 'Mr. Counterterrorism Guru' He says he's not, but others say he is BYRON YORK On July 10, 2001, the New York Times published an opinion article titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat." It was written by Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department counterterrorism official, who argued that Americans spent too much time worrying about terrorist attacks that would likely never come. "Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment," Johnson wrote, "Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism." And then: They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs are based in fact. Surveying the security situation around the world, Johnson sought to reassure readers. "The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia - or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia - you should take appropriate precautions," he wrote. "Otherwise Americans have little to fear." Two months later, the planes of September 11 crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. And Larry Johnson became known, at least in the eyes of some of his former colleagues, as the author of perhaps the most embarrassing op-ed ever published. "The worst," says one such colleague. "On an issue of national interest, has there ever been a worse prognostication in the history of man?" Probably not. Yet Johnson's career as a commentator did not just continue after September 11 - it thrived. In recent years, Johnson, who says he is a registered Republican, has made a new career of using his CIA credentials to bash the Bush administration. He has become a favorite not only of the left-wing blogosphere - on his website, called No Quarter, he writes entries like "Frog-March the Bastard," which was a call for the indictment of Karl Rove - but also of the nation's biggest newspapers and cable news networks. If you're a reporter looking for a quote criticizing the president about warrantless surveillance, or about the CIA's "secret prisons," or about the troubled efforts to reform the spy agency, Johnson is your man. In just the last few months, his observations about intelligence matters have appeared in or on the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, the Sunday Times of London, the Guardian, the Associated Press, Knight-Ridder, National Public Radio, CNN, MSNBC, and more. Why does Johnson receive such attention? Compared with some of the CIA's other critics, like Bob Baer, who spent 21 years as a case officer, or Milt Bearden, who spent 30 years at the agency and left as a high-ranking official, Johnson's credentials are a little thin. He worked there as an analyst, not as a top manager or a covert agent, for all of four years, 1985 to 1989, which means it has been 17 years since he was employed by the CIA. And his specialty wasn't the Middle East or terrorism; instead, he dealt with issues related to Central America, a subject he's rarely called on to comment about today. What experience he had with terrorism came not at the CIA but at the State Department, where he worked mostly on transportation-security issues from 1989 to 1993. So why the demand for Johnson's opinions? "He's willing to say very bold things," says a former intelligence official. "If you say things that are balanced and reasoned and calm, they're less likely to ask you back than if you throw some bombs." That is certainly true, but perhaps the biggest reason for Johnson's prominence these days is his connection to Valerie Plame Wilson, the woman at the center of the CIA-leak investigation. Although they've never been characterized as close friends, Johnson and Plame began CIA training together in 1985, and Johnson rushed to her defense when her identity was revealed as part of the White House's pushback against her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had attacked the administration over pre-war intelligence. Denouncing the administration figures involved in the matter as "traitors," Johnson maintained that the leak did horrendous damage. "Not only was her cover destroyed, but an undercover company was destroyed," he said in April on MSNBC. "Intelligence assets that were involved with trying to determine, detect, and protect America against weapons of mass destruction - they were destroyed in that leak." That would certainly qualify as a bold - and questionable - statement. In the actual investigation, CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, trying the case against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, has said that prosecutors do not plan to offer "any proof of actual damages" caused by the Wilson leak. Still, Johnson is a go-to guy on the leak affair. And by an almost Zelig-like coincidence, he is also an acquaintance of another woman involved in another big leak case: Mary McCarthy, the CIA analyst fired for allegedly leaking classified information, possibly about the "secret prisons" story. Johnson and McCarthy worked together at the CIA in 1988, and Johnson took up her cause when she was fired as part of the CIA's attempt to crack down on leaks. In an interview with the Washington Post, Johnson speculated that McCarthy might have thought the CIA's anti-leak campaign was "a whitewash," and therefore might have come to the conclusion, "Why not tell the press?" Johnson was speculating, at least in part, because he has not stayed close to McCarthy in the nearly 20 years since they worked together. In fact, he told National Review that "she's the reason I left the CIA," explaining that McCarthy was a "lousy manager" who had "no experience in Latin America." Listening to him talk, it appears they really, really did not get along. Yet when McCarthy became an anti-Bush hero, Johnson put aside his feelings to become her defender. One for all and all for one when it comes to opposing the president. To his credit, Johnson is not one of those figures who refuse to speak with anyone who might ask him difficult questions. He has always been willing to talk to National Review, and, in a discussion for this article, he didn't bristle even when asked about "The Declining Terrorist Threat." Of course, he didn't give an inch, either. "I stand by everything I said in that piece," Johnson says. "Go through it in detail. Put it into the right context. . . . Nowhere in that article did I say we needed to ignore Islamic terrorism." Mark that up as another bold statement. On the issue of his credentials, Johnson says he received commendations for his work at the CIA, but he takes a more modest tone than one might expect. "I don't represent myself to be Mr. Counterterrorism Guru," he says. "I get introduced as the deputy director of counterterrorism at the State Department. But my full title was deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations. In Washington, the longer your title, the less important you are, and I had a really long title." As for his connections - how he knows enough to speak about the CIA after 17 years away - well, that's where the openness ends. "I'm not going to get into the specifics of how I know what I know," Johnson says. And that's that. Of course, that doesn't really matter to Johnson's fans in the press and the left-wing blogs. Johnson is celebrated not so much for what he knows as for what his fans hope he knows: that the Bush administration is corrupt, traitorous, and a danger to national security. These days, he can always find someone to listen. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
