When Did The CIA Become The Sicilian Mafia?

[Are_grits_groceries]

by Taketheredpill

Several days ago, a number of news sources quoted US intelligence officials claiming the CIA would "avenge" the recents deaths of several of their officers from a bombing at an agency base in Afghanistan. Why hasn't there been more commentary about the inappropriateness of "revenge" as a tactic by the CIA?

Tonight I heard commenters on CNN stating that this language is a result of the changing role of the CIA, which has taken on more paramilitary tasks since the "War on Terror" began. But when did "revenge" become a task of the military? Last time I checked, the US military's job was to protect the United States of America, not to avenge deaths of servicemembers. That's personal. We're not paying the military or the CIA to engage in personal vendettas. We're paying them to defend us.
===================================================
Revenge leads to more revenge. I think leaders of the CIA should watch "The Godfather" series again, especially the scene in which Michael Corleone travels to a Sicilian town and asks where all the young men are. Someone tells him that most of them have died in vendettas. At least the Mafia doesn't ask for tax dollars.
===================================================
http://taketheredpill.dailykos.com/

I think people instinctively want a measure of revenge after certain events. The problem is letting revenge drive the policy. Bush used the desire for revenge that people had and guided it toward Iraq and not the real problem. When somebody pokes you in the eye, you run the risk of poking yourself in the other eye avenging that pain. You really can't see what is the best way to go.

"Revenge is a dish best eaten cold" is a very real guide. Time can bring an awful clarity, but clarity nonetheless. The best way to extract justice may be seen along a different route than one that may have been chosen earlier. Time spent waiting doesn't have to be in years. It is relative. Then the question is what to do, and is it worth it?

[malaise]

1. Actually the notion of preemptive war is even worse

than the CIA seeking to avenge anything. The US government is now a rogue government promoting terrorism.

add letter

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Agreed.

The Rethugs and others are using fear to drive that policy.

[AllentownJake]

3. In 1947 when it was founded nt.

[dgibby]

4. Ok, Jake, get out of my head!

I was just about to type the same thing. Any time the BCF is involved with something,can death and destruction be far behind?

[AllentownJake]

5. It was an organization founded to expand the empire after World War II

by it's very nature, it has to be a mafia.

[Chemical Bill]

6. I forget...

was it Lucky Luciano that we let slide on drug charges and then deported so that he would help the war effort in Sicily? And of course the French Connection was put in place to fight communism.

Bill

[spanone]

7. when i read that 'avenge' statement it creeped me out

[Peace Patriot]

8. I agree. That "revenge" thing struck me, too. What have we become--Murder Inc.?

Now we find out that at least two of the dead CIA "officers"--of the seven people killed--were Blackwater (Xe) mercenaries. The job of this "forward operating base" was assassinations--with drones and with "paramilitaries." The drones have murdered some 700 civilians. This suicide bombing (if that's what it was--I am questioning all details of this story)--was more than likely revenge for something they did. Now the U.S. is going to take revenge for that. And on and on. It seems like a gang war. Maybe that's what it actually is--a war over drug profits.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven--beginning with the fact that they announced it. This is simply not done in time of war--revealing deaths in the field of intelligence agents. And the CIA NEVER does it, since they consider themselves to be forever at war. So, what's going on here, that this is all over the news, including the location of the base, the number of CIA personnel killed, their status (station chief, agents, "subcontractors") and what they were up to?

Then there's this tale of the "double" or "triple" Jordanian agent, brought to the base for a high level recruitment meeting (with the station chief) and not frisked. Khost has been described as the most dangerous region in Afghanistan, and this CIA base the most dangerous of posts. And they didn't even pat him down? I mean, come on. And then we hear that another Jordanian brought him there (both were killed), and that the bomber was Al Q, had been in Jordanian custody for months, and had been "rehabbed" but then went and joined the Afghan army as an Al Q operative!?

AT THE VERY LEAST, I would expect this story to be suppressed to hide the incompetence and the security failure. It's not the sort of thing you broadcast in a war. It might come out much later, after a big internal and top secret investigation. But this came out immediately, in a flurry of conflicting details that eventually settled down into a firmer narrative.

My working theory about how this story got into the news is that somebody at the CIA is fed up with this "subcontracting" business and wants to expose it. I've seen stories attributed to "Western officials." I haven't seen stories that identify the original source any better than that. How did the story get out? Why didn't the CIA follow long-standing protocol of keeping it quiet, doing a secret internal investigation and only then leaking bits out, for their own reasons?

I also don't rule out the possibility that this was a Bushwhack operation, perhaps aimed at discrediting Obama, or punishing or threatening the CIA for some purpose. (CIA's got the goods on Cheney/Rumsfeld and are being kept in line?) The Bushwhack principles are traitors to this country. I would put nothing past them.

One more question: Who is the U.S. going to seek vengeance on? Jordan? Various stories have pointed to Al Q in "AfPak." But it was a Jordanian who did it--according to the tale--a Jordanian who brought him there, and the Jordanian security forces who let their released prisoner go join the Afghan army. It's a bit difficult identifying the "enemy" here, with an ALLY so thickly involved. I think the Taliban claimed "credit" but still--he wasn't Taliban, he wasn't Afghani, he wasn't Pakistani, he wasn't a Saudi, a Yemeni, an Iraqi or an Iranian. He was Jordanian. His conveyor was Jordanian. And those responsible for his freedom of action (who let him go, who didn't keep track of him) were Jordanian security. How could they not know that their former prisoner had gone to Afghanistan? And then how on earth could he have walked into the most dangerous CIA base in a war zone without going through security?