The Berntsen National Security Review

Keith Olbermann: Ready, Fire, Aim

Last Monday, a friend informed me that MSNBC’s host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann had gone off on a rant about me on his show.  The friend told me that Mr. Olbermann had commented on an interview I had done on Fox & Friends on March 1, 2009 in which I had stated that I was displeased with the Bush Administration for not—after seven years— having executed September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees that are classified as unlawful enemy combatants.  Unlawful enemy combatants are those individuals captured on the battlefield conducting military-type operations who are not in uniform, lack any designating unit patch, are not led by recognized authority and do not conduct themselves in accordance with the rule of law.  Under the Geneva Convention, these individuals are also designated as marauders and we are under no obligation to provide them POW status.  I argue that we must provide a suitable and expeditious legal process to handle these critical cases – a legal process that keeps on the table the option of our harshest punishment. 

I watched Mr. Olbermann’s performance later in the evening.  He called me a sadist.  Then he lectured that had Al Qaeda operated under the parameters which I suggested, I too would have been subject to execution by Al Qaeda if captured by them.  I have a newsflash for Mr. Olbermann and his MSNBC producers: Al Qaeda and the Taliban torture, rape and kill all Westerners who fall under their control.  In the specific case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, responsible for the horrible death of close to 3,000 people in the United States, he has been in front of a judge and proudly admitted both his role in his heinous acts and his desire for the death penalty.  I have served on the battlefield against these type of killers on many occasions.  Though I had retired from the CIA in 2005, I returned to Afghanistan from June 2007 to June 2008 and worked as an adviser to the U.S. Army on a Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) Task Force in Eastern Afghanistan.  It was my great honor to work as a member of this unit.  I deeply lament the sacrifices my fellow team members made—several of whom lost their lives or suffered horrific life changing injuries.  Mr. Olbermann’s desire to lecture me, or anyone else who has worked against Al Qaeda, is frankly pathetic.     

Furthermore, MSNBC producers and Mr.Olbermann are not as informed or prepared as they should be—and I believe they do a poor job of representing the NBC brand.  Let me provide a personal story to highlight my point.  After retiring from the CIA in 2005 and publishing my first book, Jawbreaker, I did the television circuit for several months.  One day I received a call from NBC informing me that Tim Russert wanted to interview me for his hour-long CNBC show.  On the appointed day I traveled to Washington, D.C.  When I entered the studio, the lights were down and Mr. Russert was already seated.  In front of him was a copy of my book, Jawbreaker.  It looked worn from use and notes were attached to dozens of pages.  A cameraman directed me to my seat.  I was nervous, of course.  Tim Russert looked across the table and stated, “Welcome Gary.  I have seen all of your interviews and read this book twice. I know you have been honest.  That is why you are here today.  Let’s begin the interview.”  Tim Russert was probing, insightful and clearly in search of the truth.  It was a privilege to be interviewed by him.  The fact that Mr. Olbermann is now a major representative of the same brand is disheartening.

On television news shows, guests are forced to compress answers and it is easy for viewers to come to conclusions that may be less than accurate.  In regards to the issue at hand, I am a published bestselling author who has provided detailed and nuanced answers to some of the most difficult challenges that lie ahead for our country.  In November 2008, I published a policy book called Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism and National Leadership.  Though I am a Republican, the book was written in a non-partisan fashion and I balanced my criticisms of both major political parties for failures in understanding intelligence, covert action, and other critical issues related to national security.  Having said all of this, I return to Mr. Olbermann’s categorization of me.  The word “sadist” is defined as someone who derives pleasure from the pain of others.  I certainly have faults, but sadism is not one of them.  What I desire is justice.  Individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those who employ terror in the cities of the world or in the mountains of Afghanistan should face our harshest punishment, the death penalty.  The sooner we can deliver it, the better.

The Politics of Counter-Terrorism

President Barack Obama’s recently signed Executive Orders, banning enhanced interrogation techniques and closing the Guantanamo (GITMO) prison facility, were met with applause from the political left and horror from the political right.  So continues the politics of counterterrorism.  President George W. Bush used the “Global War on Terror” for a measure of political gain.  And now President Obama, unrestrained and similarly guilty of making statements regarding his own goals on counterterrorism, has brazenly pandered to voters without explaining the true dangers that lie ahead. 

Enhanced interrogation techniques include sleep deprivation, alteration of diet, placement in stress positions and water boarding.  All of these techniques were employed by the George W. Bush administration on three specific members of Al Qaeda: September 11th mastermind, Khaled Sheikh Mohammad; his replacement as Al Qaeda Chief of Operations, Ramzi Bin Al Shibi; and Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri.   All men have admitted publicly that they are not only guilty of participating in the planning of catastrophic attacks (meaning mass murder) of U.S. citizens but are proud of their actions.  The decision made to employ enhanced techniques against these three individuals produced intelligence that allowed for the decapitation of Al Qaeda’s second tier.  Whether one agrees with President George W. Bush’s decision on this matter or not, it is important to understand that at the time of their capture, each of these men were working toward the goal of killing as many Americans as possible while Al Qaeda had simultaneously sought and obtained a fatwa (or religious ruling) from a cleric to employ a nuclear weapon against the United States.   

President Obama’s pledge to halt enhanced interrogation techniques was a central theme of his campaign.  The decision now limits both United States military forces and the CIA to the U.S. Army Military Field Manual.  This betrays the fact that the new President and those advising him either do not comprehend the reality of what is occurring in terms of military interrogations—or, more alarmingly, they have chosen not to understand.  The truth is that the manual’s instructions are utterly ineffective.  As an example, under the current U.S. Army Field Manual, you may ask a suspect once, and only once, if he or she has committed a violent act.  Asking a second time is considered badgering and is a violation.  Ironically, this means that though an American citizen in the U.S. can be questioned intensely, a terrorist captured on the battlefield—knee deep in the bodies of his victims—can only be asked a particular question once.  In order to come to terms with these types of incongruities, the White House urgently needs to send someone into the field.  Someone who can examine and thoroughly monitor the entire cycle: from combat to prisoner capture, from questioning to incarceration. 

President Obama’s campaign rhetoric and political ambition also outweighed any desire for a detailed and honest evaluation of what is being done with the prisoners held in Guantanamo.  I am not in favor of enhanced interrogation techniques as a routine practice.  However, should someone be found with WMD material or found to be a participant in an effort to conduct a catastrophic attack on the homeland, a President can not afford to wholly disarm himself of the option to employ such techniques.  To do so, in this age of technology and terror, would be an act of extreme folly.  It would expose our families to grave danger.  President Obama would be wise to consider President Abraham Lincoln’s rationale for abrogating Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.  Stated succinctly, Lincoln explained: “[t]he Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.”

The closure of GITMO and specifically the future of those housed in that facility is a subject that should concern all of us.  The Bush Administration failed to make tough decisions on the matter.  There are at least one hundred prisoners in GITMO that fit the category of Enemy Combatant.  According to the Geneva Convention, the United States can justifiably, and in accordance with international norms, execute these individuals as marauders.    President Bush’s failure to deal with the status of such killers in an expeditious fashion and his decision to simply pass them on to the Obama Administration was not helpful in the least.  Former Bush administration officials no longer deserve the right to even comment on the status of the detainees; they had their chance and sadly voted present.   For his part, President Obama needs to ensure that any transfer of GITMO prisoners into the custody of other nations is done so on the condition of predetermined sentencing guidelines.  Those that do remain in US custody need to face some form of judicial process. Without these sorts of substantive steps—and without policies based on honest and comprehensive evaluation—we fail to address the toughest and most important issues at hand.  Such is the politics of counterterrorism.