Originally Published on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 Attack highlights increased military operations of brutal secret agency In eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border, a member of the resistance infiltrated a CIA compound and detonated an explosive belt, killing seven CIA operatives and wounding six others.
The CIA promptly vowed revenge for the attack. Some agents spoke candidly on the day of the bombing, chest-thumping that they were in this fight for the long haul. "There is no pullout [in 2011]," said one agent anonymously, "there is no withdrawal or anything like that planned."
In a statement released by the CIA after the attack, the agency stated, referring to the casualties, that "we pledge to them and their families that we will never cease fighting for the cause to which they dedicated their lives-a safer America."
This "noble cause" that the CIA and its agents are vowing to fight until the end did not begin in Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. CIA operations in the country began in the late 1970s.
Washington's public rationale for why the U.S. government must fight in Afghanistan-lack of women's rights, Islamic law, lack of education, and so on-have not always existed in Afghanistan. There is, in fact, a period during which Afghanistan was on a progressive path. In 1978, under the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, women's rights and anti-sexist laws were enacted for the first time in Afghanistan's history. Schools began opening throughout the country and a literacy campaign was initiated. The government functioned on a secular, democratic platform, after a long feudal era.
Never for a moment in my life have I been "in love." I do not believe in the notion. Fireworks have not filled my heart. Flames of a fiery passion do not burn within me. Indeed, my soul has not been ablaze. Thoughts of a hot-blooded devotion seem illogical to me. Such sentiments always have. Fondness too fertile is but torture for me. I admire many, and adore none. For me, the affection I feel for another is born out of sincere and profound appreciation. To like another means more to me than to love or be loved. Excitement, an emotional reaction to another, rises up within me when I experience an empathetic exchange with someone who has glorious gray matter.
Today, it happened. I felt an a twinge that startled me. I stood still as he entered the room. I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine. Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years. In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed. Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder; what of his principles.
I am a discontent and distressed taxpayer! "Disgruntled" is a word that might describe my deep dissatisfaction with how my tax dollars are spent. Yet, on April 15, 2009, typically thought of as "Tax Day," I felt no need to join my fellow citizens in protest. I did not attend a "Tea Party". I too believe, in this country, "taxation without representation" is a problem. One only need ponder the profits of lobbyists to understand the premise. Corporate supplicants amass a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investments. The average American is happy to realize a two-digit increase. Nonetheless, as much as I too may argue the point, assessments are paid without accountability, what concerns me more is my duty dollars did not support what I think ethical projects.
Of this, I believe. I believe in honesty and empathy. I trust in reports that reveal in 2002, the Department of Justice assured the Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who violated anti-torture laws they would be safe from prosecution. Emissaries only need a sincere "faith they caused no "prolonged mental harm." I believe that neither branch of government cares for what I hold dear.
Porter Goss spoke and the nation listened. The world heard this leader. However, the question is, can we trust the words of this man? Is he doing, as others in this administration do, presenting the propaganda of the day?
In a recent interview with a Time magazine reporter, Timothy J. Burger, Porter J. Goss was asked of the hunt for Bin Laden. Is there any progress? Does American intelligence know where this terrorist is? Goss responded: "I have an excellent idea where he is." Mr. Goss added, however, "when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play."
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Goss is suggesting that America acknowledges and honors the sovereignty of other states. He indicates that we are doing what is necessary to respect the dominion of foreign nations. Goss is even implying that America will not violate the sanctuaries of sects that differ from our own. These words would lead one to believe that the United States is allowing other nations to think for themselves and to act independently of our wants. One might even suppose that the desires of the neoconservatives are not our dictum. Is "change a regime" no longer our mission? Possibly, US policy has been modified. Could this be?
Goss continues, "We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways." Now the truth is told.
We as a nation are practicing the policy of "unconventional" wisdom. We will find a way to do as we desire; however, we may need to do it in a manner that is unexpected, and we have thus far.
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
