Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Former Intel Chief: Stop the Drone Strikes
Dennis Blair rips Obama White House
ASPEN, Colo.—Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair unloaded on the White House Thursday evening, strongly criticizing the administration’s reliance on U.S.-directed drone strikes and saying officials have failed to implement the lessons of Sept. 11 by backing away from efforts to integrate the intelligence community.
'Pull back on unilateral actions by the United States,' Blair urged Thursday. (AP Photo) Blair, who was essentially fired by President Barack Obama last year, said the administration should curtail U.S.-led drone strikes on suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia because the missiles fired from unmanned aircraft are fueling anti-American sentiment and undercutting reform efforts in those countries.
“Pull back on unilateral actions by the United States, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Blair urged during an onstage, hourlong interview with CBS’s Lesley Stahl at the Aspen Security Forum. “I think we need to change — in those three countries — in a dramatic way.”
“We’re alienating the countries concerned, because we’re treating countries just as places where we go attack groups that threaten us. We are threatening the prospects for long-term reform raised by the Arab Spring … which would make these countries capable and willing allies who could in fact knock that threat down to a nuisance level,” Blair said.
Blair said drone strikes in Pakistan have hampered Al Qaeda and other militant groups there but they will never succeed in reducing them to a mere nuisance.
“I think that they can sustain their level of resistance to an air-only campaign long enough to continue to pose this threat,” the ex-DNI said. “I just see us with that strategy walking out on a thinner and thinner ledge and if even we get to the far extent of it, we are not going to lower the fundamental threat to the U.S. any lower than we have it now.”
As he elaborated on his views on drone strikes Thursday, Blair conceded that giving the Pakistanis veto over such operations would complicate U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, but he said it would be wise to do, nonetheless.
“That would make our job in Afghanistan more difficult for a while, but it would make it a lot easier over the long term,” he argued.
The former DNI also said he wasn’t suggesting that the U.S. should never act unilaterally, as it did in May when a joint U.S. military-CIA operation killed Osama bin Laden in a raid that took place on Pakistani soil without the prior knowledge of the government there.
“That was a gotta do,” Blair said.
Blair also urged a markedly new approach to the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, which has been particularly strained in recent months.
“We should offer the Pakistanis to put two hands on the trigger,” Blair said, while adding that the U.S. should again press Islamabad to send troops into ungoverned areas along the border with Afghanistan. “Pakistan with American assistance could bring peace to the valleys and it would benefit both of us. … That is the only way that we are going to get that witches brew of terrorist groups in the northwest part of Pakistan under control.”
Under questioning by Stahl, Blair also confirmed some of the disagreements that led to his ouster as DNI in May 2010. He said the White House’s decision to side with the CIA over him in several turf battles left his authority diminished.
“They sided with the CIA in ways that were public enough that it undercut my position. That’s true,” Blair said. He called the outcome “bad for the country” because it limited efforts to combine forces from across the intelligence community in a centrally directed way.
“When this administration came in, there just weren’t many people on the president’s staff or the president himself who had been through the consequences of a stove-piped intelligence community. They saw that the sharing that went on seemed to be OK — for them. They didn’t see the opportunity cost of not pushing it. They were happy with what they saw and wanted to stick with it,” Blair said.
He brushed aside Stahl’s queries about reports that his exit was due in part to a lack of personal chemistry with Obama. “I try to keep the personalities out of it,” the former DNI said.
However, he said the intelligence system Obama has opted for will deliver “an attenuated, least common denominator response to important questions instead of the prioritized, directed response that I think the country needs.”
Asked how Obama would balance the personalities of new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, new CIA Director David Petraeus and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Blair said: “The White House will probably continue to do what they did, which is — we’d like to ask a number of people to get their opinion and we’ll coordinate it in the White House.”
“My experience is the White House is not a very good place to coordinate intelligence much less to integrate it,” Blair added, to a sudden smattering of applause from the audience consisting largely of former intelligence personnel, retired military officers and business people involved in the counterterrorism fight.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on Blair’s remarks.
Obama administration officials and even some of Blair’s allies have said that he picked unwise battles with the CIA and its then-Director Leon Panetta, a veteran Washington operator. He had barely met Obama before being selected for the job and reportedly didn’t mesh well with National Security Council officials.
However, Obama’s decisions to undercut Blair’s authority seriously complicated the White House’s search for a replacement. Several high-profile figures reportedly rejected the job before Obama nominated the Pentagon’s top intelligence official, retired Lieut. Gen. James Clapper, to the post.
Blair has generally kept a low-profile since he was dismissed last year. The retired admiral made a couple of public appearances in May — doing an interview with Charlie Rose and testifying before a Senate committee. In neither case was he as critical of the administration as he was Thursday.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

60 Comments so far
Show AllOn a personal note, I will share with you that I am an Army veteran. I served 15 years in the U.S. Army with two combat tours. I saved more lives of American service members and so called enemy and civilians than any that I ever took. But, the fact remains that I served in an institution that supported empire and has been responsible for the widespread suffering of people around the world.
In 1992 after having served in Panama during Operation Just Cause in 1989, serving in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey from September of 1990 until October of 1991 in support of Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Farewell, Operation Provide Comfort I and Operation Provide Comfort II, I resigned my commission in opposition to U.S. foreign policies. Since my separation from the Army I have been a staunch anti-war activist. Am I beyond redemption because I acted as a force for evil?
I am an atheist. I do not believe in a deity. One does not need to believe in a deity to believe that they need redemption for acts that they committed and believe were immoral.
I forgave myself a longtime ago for participating in an institution that supported empire without ever appealing to any deity.
Rather than the term personal redemption, lets use the Buddhist concept of purification. Buddhism is a non-theistic philosophy. In Buddhist thought, one can perform acts that purify them from acts that they performed that might be associated with negative karmic consequences.
Is there anything that Dennis Blair can do within his remaining years that may purify him of the negative karmic consequences of his misdeeds of supporting policies that have caused the suffering of other sentient beings?
Your assertion that "it is impossible for someone like this Blair critter to do enough good in his remaining years to compensate for the evil he has already done" is not beyond dispute. You have simply made a categorical statement and provided no evidence to support it.
You may find evidence in the fact that Blair was once a powerful member of one of the world's most powerful and ruthless (if not terribly competent) military-security apparatus; now he's talking to small groups of people and covered by media outlets of the power and influence of, well, Common Dreams. You do the math. In the same way, it will take David Brock about three hundred lifetimes' worth of work for Media Matters to be as influential as he was in his few short years of screeding for R. M. Scaife.
You may find evidence in the fact that Blair was once a powerful member of one of the world's most powerful and ruthless (if not terribly competent) military-security apparatus; now he's talking to small groups of people and covered by media outlets of the power and influence of, well, Common Dreams. You do the math. In the same way, it will take David Brock about three hundred lifetimes' worth of work for Media Matters to be as influential as he was in his few short years of screeding for R. M. Scaife.
Everyone else was talking about me, and I didn't want to be left out.
"I don't feel that any evil Blair has done can be compared to that of Brennan and Obama."
True, but not terribly relevant.
"Really beyond dispute? Again, this is nonsense! Look at Cheney and the Neocons et al."
"Beyond dispute" is that someone like Blair can't compensate in future good deeds for his bad ones. The fact that Cheney's were much worse is irrelevant, except as perhaps an indication that my standards are a bit less lenient than yours.
The good that I performed on many humanitarian missions that I undertook as a service member, that are often overlooked by the American public, and my care of countless Panamanians, Iraqi, and Kurdish civilians offsets the personal harm that I as an individual soldier committed against anyone.
It is the height of arrogance on your part to suggest that I am beyond redemption and that since I have done so much for so long, my amends should be substantial.
I made my amends. I resigned my commission and have been active in the anti-war movement, anti-recruitment movement, and anti-reenlistment movement. I've also supported efforts to free Bradley Manning.
I am an atheist. I had an epiphany similar to that which the late great General Smedly D. Butler, the author of "War Is A Racket" had. I came to the realization that my military service had nothing to do with the security of the U.S. but everything to do with supporting corporations and empire.
If you're going to criticize me, then you'll have to also criticize countless other veterans like me of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other military conflicts who at the time of their service did not recognize their errors.
And yeah, you know what else, what Madison Avenue euphemisms for state-sanctioned murder and terrorism did I list?
Maybe you need to take a hike before being so judgmental of others. How old are you? Were you of draft age during WWII or the Vietnam era? Would you have had the courage of the convictions you so admire to have said hell no if you were drafted during WWII or Vietnam?
There's an old maxim that states: "When the bugle calls, you never know who will step forward". It is armchair generals like you who don't answer when the bugle calls but in retrospect can look back and criticize others who in the exuberance of their youth stepped forward when the bugle called. Before being so critical of those who served in the military you might want to heed an old Seneca saying:
"Don't criticize a man until you have walked a night in his moccasins."
Operations Provide Comfort I and II were humanitarian missions that supported Shiites in Southern Iraq and Kurds in Southeast Turkey. They had nothing to do with imperial greed.
The other humanitarian missions that I supported were missions with a medical evacuation hospital in Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, and Guinea. They had nothing to do with empire. They were training missions and were purely humanitarian. We trained medical personnel in those countries. We also provided medical care to civilians such as preventive health care, vaccinations, eye glasses, and dental care in addition to treatment of more serious medical conditions at no cost to the people or their government. We did the exact same thing that many non-governmental organizations do around the world to relieve the suffering of people. Many of these people had never received medical care and would not likely receive it again on our departure.
In your rant, you constantly refer to my service in the present tense. I'm no longer a member of the military. I don't support perpetual warfare and empire.
As, I said earlier, it's easy for pacifist armchair generals like you to criticize others for their service in the military. You yourself in your life probably use products that improve the quality of your life and are provided to you on the backs of people who suffer oppression that is supported by institutions other than the military industrial complex. Unless you are a nudist, the clothes and shoes that you are wearing were probably made in some sweatshop in a third world nation. The computer you are using and its various components might have been manufactured by workers in some oppressive nation. The consumer lifestyle that you live has resulted in as much bloodshed as that spilled in U.S. wars of empire. If you had read and understood Gen. Smedley Butler, you would know that economics is the primary factor responsible for U.S. wars of empire.
Rather than legally apply for conscientious objector status, or have the courage like the great Muhammad Ali to refuse induction into the Army and be subject to criminal prosecution, you apparently fled to Canada. Who knows, if you had possessed the courage to submit yourself to conscription, you might have been able to get deferments that people like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh did.
Why don't you be honest and share with me what degree the fear of death or injury in combat played in your decision to evade the draft along with the lofty moral and pacifist ideas that you now express. It's very easy for you to express your highly laudable ideals of pacifism now since the shooting war that your generation was subject to is now over. You should be grateful that former President Jimmy Carter granted you an unconditional pardon for your draft evasion.
Your statement: "My compassion (sometimes) goes out to the disenfranchised who are bamboozled into America's killing machine...." truly reflects upon your character. Your compassion should always go out to the disenfranchised who are bamboozled into participating in America's killing machine. It is quite easy for me to see now why it was so easy of you to be critical of me in your earlier post for my military service. You apparently lack compassion and the capacity to forgive those like me and Gen. Smedley Butler who participated in wars of empire, even when in my situation I resigned my military commission and have actively devoted my life to opposing militarism and empire, and been an active participant in anti-war, anti-reenlistment, and anti-recruitment movements.
I share with you your abhorrence for American empire and the military-industrial-congressional-complex. Unlike you, I don't possess the arrogance, hubris, and holier than thou attitude such that I criticized those who were bamboozled or subject to what amounted to being press ganged into supporting wars of aggression and empire during their youth. .
I find this logic HIGHLY questionable. For one thing, you insist that your conversation opponent should've recognized the moral authority of a bloodthirsty imperialist government to send him to war, punish him for not going, or decide whether he was worthy of CO status. Such a government had no such moral authority, only the power ability to punish and kill. You should also be aware that Rush has some powerful friends in his part of Missouri, and Cheney already a privileged university student -- hell, he was even a Yalie until he flunked out and went back to Wyoming. Not everyone who wanted a deferment got one, especially if one wasn't in college.
Being a Vietnam veteran I certainly do not mind being criticized given the fact that I was stupid and naive enough to have obeyed orders which ended up killing many innocent Vietnamese people. People in this country rarely, if ever, pose the obvious question: what about those who were victims of American aggression? I also believe that the people who should be lauded are not those who robotically carried out their orders but rather those individuals who had the courage and wisdom to say NO to the U.S. war machine and by doing that many of them then went to prison for their beliefs.
In a just and idealistic world one would see parades be given in honor of those who had participated in the GI rebellion as well as statues of them being built and streets being named after them because of what they had done. But in this super patriotic country that we live in this is certainly not going to happen.
What I have taken exception to is the opinion of some in this thread who suggest that no acts of contrition are sufficient to warrant forgiveness of service members who may have served in the military and supported empire and wars of aggression.
Please go back and re-read in this thread what I viewed to be extremely arrogant, strident, and caustic comments by berniewentboom, and Rosemarie Jackowski.