Feinstein Didn't Give Away a Secret

by: Brandon Friedman

Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 06:44:49 AM EST


A purported OPSEC eruption occurred on Friday when Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times reported breathlessly that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had divulged at a Senate hearing the fact that U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were operating out of Pakistani air bases.  

A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an air base in that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counter-terrorism collaboration with the United States.

I'm not sure if Miller doesn't know how to use The Google or how to properly source stories, or if this is just a hit on Feinstein.  But either way, it's an example of a manufactured story where there is none.  Nevertheless, blogs picked up on it, each trying desperately to compare Feinstein's statement to legitimately dangerous OPSEC violations committed in the last year by Republican Congressmen like Patrick McHenry and Pete Hoekstra.

More from Miller's piece in the Los Angeles Times:  

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

Okay, this one sentence might be true.  But then Miller goes off the rails:

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan's northwestern border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate.

This part is hilarious.  "Former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information?"  Really?  It's a sensitive secret that Predator drones are being flown out of Pakistan?  Please.  Okay, let's bring up The Google Machine and see just how well-kept this secret actually is.

New York Times, 6 November 2002

In any offensive against Iraq, the Air Force would probably use a combination of armed and unarmed Predators flying from Ali al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, military officials said today. The Predators flying over Afghanistan have operated from an air base in Jacobabad, Pakistan.

CNN, 1 January 2003

In a separate development, an unmanned U.S. surveillance plane crashed Wednesday in southern Pakistan, shortly after takeoff.  There were no injuries or damage on the ground.

Jacobabad police chief Rana Sateh Sher said the medium-sized drone crashed about seven kilometers (4.3 miles) from Jacobabad because of technical reasons.  Flames were extinguished quickly and the wreckage was cleared by local police.

RAND Corporation (via Princeton University), 2004

Pakistan provided the U.S. access to numerous military bases and helped establish a number of facilities including Intermediate Staging Bases at Jacobabad, Pasni, Dalbandin and Shamsi; Predator basing at Jacobabad and Shamsi, and access to other bases used by over 50 aircraft and 2,000 coalition military personnel that bedded down at these locals.

Washington Post, 27 March 2008

Musharraf, who controls the country's military forces, has long approved U.S. military strikes on his own. But senior officials in Pakistan's leading parties are now warning that such unilateral attacks -- including the Predator strikes launched from bases near Islamabad and Jacobabad in Pakistan -- could be curtailed.

News International (Pakistan), 27 October 2008

Certainly, in the early days of our entering the US-led "war on terror," we offered certain strategic bases of which Jacobabad has since been returned apparently over two years ago . . . As for the Shamsi base in Balochistan where there are Predators, one can safely assume that the US would find it tempting to target Iran from this prime location (westward of Khuzdar).

And of course:

Wikipedia, Jacobabad, Pakistan

Pakistan agreed to an American request for a long-term, logistics and support base presence at the Shahbaz Air Base in Jacobabad following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The US forces, mainly from the United States Air Force, were stationed there from Oct 2001 to Nov 2004. Units active during this period included a Predator UAV squadron, a C-130 airlift squadron, a CSAR detachment, and associated support units.

Finding all these media pieces that specifically mention U.S. Predator drones flying out of Jacobabad and Shamsi, Pakistan took all of five minutes.  I'm sure there's much more out there.

So, while I know for a fact that the Pakistani government likes to play down this little arrangement, the fact of the matter is that this hasn't been a secret since 2002.  Thus, trying to peg Senator Feinstein as having spilled the beans is completely disingenuous on the part of the Los Angeles Times.

But lastly, this passage in Miller's piece is great:  

Many counter-terrorism experts have assumed that the aircraft take off from U.S. military installations in Afghanistan and are remotely piloted from locations in the United States. Experts said the disclosure could create political problems for the government in Islamabad, which is considered relatively weak.

Ha ha.  Experts said that, huh?  Maybe try getting some experts who actually know what goes on in Pakistan next time.

Brandon Friedman :: Feinstein Didn't Give Away a Secret
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

So who are the counter-terrorism "experts" that (0.00 / 0)
he is referring to?  

Luv you final comment. Some of those reporting/commenting would  probably have trouble finding Pakistan on an unlabeled map.


Karzai and Zardari both being interviewed (0.00 / 0)
this Sunday. Thought these might be of interest.

Karzai on Freed Zakaria.GPS on CNN at 1pm edt.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Program...

Zardari on 60 Minutes on CBS at 6pm edt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...


Many facets 'bout this... (0.00 / 0)
I wonder what's the real-deal here.  Friedman is correct about the Googled items, thus showing there was no intel squirt.  But this is interesting too:
http://dailytimes.com.pk/defau...

Is the Pak Defense minister clueless?

And another confusing article:
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/0...

WTF?  Perhaps we should just pack up and come home..... they don't deserve our fine men and women walking on eggshells over there.


A little insight into the Coalition of the Unwilling (0.00 / 0)
Its history and doesn't address the current instability of the Pakistan government with 10% Kardari at the head, but you might find it interesting.

"Coercive Diplomacy"

http://wws.princeton.edu/resea...

Notice the warning of possible long term negative consequences of supporting Musharraf.  


[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
for starters, I think the so called "experts" on our side would do our troops and the rest of us a big favor if they take a day off from worthless partisan politics and spend it at the public library, actually reading history.  

[ Parent ]
opsec my butt (0.00 / 0)
If you believe for a minute that the taliban and al qeada did know we were using this base, you really underestimate are enemies' intel gathering abilities. It is not like you can hide a bunch of american planes landing and taking off, or a funny looking slow flying white plane. oh i almost forgot a bunch of americans running around on the base.    

10 day Swat ceasefire and giving Taliban Sharia Law... (0.00 / 0)
Pakistan uses diplomacy [capitulation?] to deal with the Taliban.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...


Bias? (0.00 / 0)
This article is wrong. US forces were known to be using that base (and others) from 2001 to 2006, and this was variously confirmed, at times grudgingly or with controversy, by both the US and the Pakistani government. The prevailing official position was that the US was no longer using that facility by the end of 2006. So essentially, all of the articles before 2006 are meaningless because the US was known to be using that and other facilities. Any occasional statements otherwise in the press after 2006 were suppositions that were always roundly denied by both governments, and never had any independent substantiation, support, or broad visibility.

Sen. Feinstein did give away a secret, and DNI Blair and the entire world community were taken aback when she said it, even if there were whispers of bases in Pakistan still in use by the US. This has gotten incredible amounts of coverage in the global press, particularly in Pakistan and the mideast at large. It's hardly the politically manufactured story this article is making it out to be. There have been dozens of major news stories and the blogs and online outlets in Pakistan have been afire. This articles attempts at rationalization are interesting, but incorrect...the very fact that this article even asserts that pre-2006 news stories "prove" anything demonstrates at best lack of knowledge on the situation and at worst disingenuous political motivations of your own.

Jacobabad was common knowledge back in 03-04, but the problem is that both the US and Pakistanis had said Shamsi, Jacobabad, Pasni, and Dalbadin were no longer used by the US after 2006.

The issue comes because of the recent vocal Pakistani protests at Predator strikes within Pakistan, which would seem odd to a person who knows that the Predators are based in Pakistan ostensibly with Pakistani approval (such as the Chair of the SSCI). The revelation makes it look like Pakistan is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and has created, rightly or wrongly, a troubling incident.


VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
  • VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

    Search

    Advanced Search

    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox