Pakistan's intelligence ready to split with CIA

[donsutherland1]

An update on developments in Pakistan. From the Associated Press:

Pakistan's ISI spy agency is ready to split with the CIA because of frustration over what it calls heavy-handed pressure and its anger over what it believes is a covert U.S. operation involving hundreds of contract spies, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with U.S. and Pakistani officials.

Such a move could seriously damage the U.S war effort in Afghanistan, limit a program targeting al-Qaida insurgents along the Pakistan frontier, and restrict Washington's access to information in the nuclear-armed country.

Pakistan's intelligence ready to split with CIA - Yahoo! News

Even with additional passage of time, I'll note that Mr. Davis' status remains ambiguous (whether or not he actually has diplomatic status), but if he has it, Pakistan should honor its obligations.

But the larger issue that now seems to be coming to light (assuming the article is correct) is that the U.S. has been contracting out Intelligence activities. IMO, that is a bad approach. First, trained Intelligence professionals not amateurs (a security and/or special forces background, specialized as some of the training might be, is not synonymous with an Intelligence background developed through rigorous CIA training that is focused on Intelligence) should be dealing with sensitive information/sensitive contacts. Use of amateurs to substitute for human intelligence deficiencies (lack of manpower) or to try to bolster the capability on the "cheap" is reckless. Second, lack of control in such a situation can threaten intelligence contacts and assets. Third, such a situation can destroy trust, and trust is paramount to intelligence cooperation, especially when high risks are involved.

 

[American]

Give the criticality of the relationship, I'm sure it'll be patched up.

 

[Councilman]

Of all the places where our relationship need to maintained not only for support of our Troops in Afghanistan but to make damn sure the Countries Nukes don't fall into the hands of Radical Muslims.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Of all the places where our relationship need to maintained not only for support of our Troops in Afghanistan but to make damn sure the Countries Nukes don't fall into the hands of Radical Muslims.

Should the Pakistani government collapse, I support full international intervention in Pakistan by means of invasion, securing of all nukes, and subsequent withdrawal to leave that nation to it's domestic fate.

I make no apologies for this position.

 

[Ockham]

I'd like to see this relationship temporarily severed, and the U.S. work through India more. That's a much stronger negotiating position than the current relationship we have with Pakistan. I don't see the benefit of an ally like Pakistan at this time.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I'd like to see this relationship temporarily severed, and the U.S. work through India more. That's a much stronger negotiating position than the current relationship we have with Pakistan. I don't see the benefit of an ally like Pakistan at this time.

Except that by all accounts The Pakistani side if the Afghan border is the real threatin terms of Taliban and Al queada, i bet your co-operation is better with India anyway.

You gain nothing by severing ties with Pakistan, one of the most volatile countries in the world that just happens to have Nukes.

If they didn't have nukes I'd say **** em.

But because they do, y'all gotta do, what you gotta do.

 

[Ockham]

Except that by all accounts The Pakistani side if the Afghan border is the real threatin terms of Taliban and Al queada, i bet your co-operation is better with India anyway.

You gain nothing by severing ties with Pakistan, one of the most volatile countries in the world that just happens to have Nukes.

If they didn't have nukes I'd say **** em.

But because they do, y'all gotta do, what you gotta do.

Yeah I guess...