Why the CIA? Why isn’t the State Department using CIA intelligence to broker a deal? Why would the parties be more inclined to trust the CIA rather than the State Department? How does international relations fit into the role of the CIA? I thought they were a tool to be used by the Executive branch. Other than times when they were acting directly on the presidents behalf (leaving any GD/ conspiracies out of this) have they ever been this involved with this high a profile before?
From the Associated Press:
The full story here: http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=WORLD&PACKAGEID=mideast&STORYID=APIS7CESA200
My guess is that the state department deals with stuff you admit. If one side denies knowledge then the state department can’t do anything.
The CIA will say “I have proof you met with this guy before the incident”
This forces each side to accept responsibility and not hide behind someone else.
Think of the CIA as the cop, and the state department as the judge. If the cop catches you and brings you to the judge, you’re in trouble.
Look at this cartoon:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/06/13/images/site_images/DryBones-Main_Picture.gif
I have a much sadder hypothesis:
Maybe they’re just so desperate to get these people to stop fighting, they’re now willing to try almost anything.
The CIA was brought in as a verification service in the late '90s. Both the PA and Israel agreed to accept the CIA as a neutral party for verification purposes. In theory if the two parties disagreed on the facts of a situation the CIA would be called in, investigate the situation and decide the “facts” of the situation. It was viewed as a way to get the parties to stop argueing over issues like if a particular man was a terrorist or not and get them argueing over now that we know what this man is what do we do about him.
This was viewed within the CIA as a good thing as would protect their funding.
As the CIA is serving as an eyes and ears role on the ground already, and given that that role has largely been a failure (through no fault of the CIA), it seems only natural that the CIA would want to increase their role to protect their funding. In addition the Bush administration has seemed a little reluctant to use the State Department. It seems that Bush feels that it is dominated by Clinton appointees and their hires. Had Bush been given a longer period before he had to take action in the region he probably would have used the State Dept. As it is he probably felt more comfortable using the CIA which is generally viewed as more apolitical.
Bartman said:
I doubt this is correct. Any appointees serve at the president’s pleasure so if Clinton’s people are still in place it’s Bush’s decision that they remain. Besides Tenet himself is a Clinton man, serving on his national security transition team and later as principal intelligence advisor to National Security Advisor Anthony Lake. He is the first CIA chief to survive a change of administration.
Under Clinton’s and Albright’s direction Tenet first met with Israeli and Palenstinian officials in 1996. He was then CIA deputy director. He was deeply involved in the Wye accords of 1998.
Tenet seems to be one of those smart as hell people who can get things done on several fronts and stands outside ideology. Marshall and Kennan come to mind. While it’s too early to put Tenet in such rarefied company, he’s well on his way to joining them. He’s my favorite non-elected government official.