Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Zero Dark Thirty and the Al Qaeda mysteries

The film Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Bin Laden, prompted historian Jim DiEugenio (who also happens to be a film buff) to write a politically-charged critique which was published on The Consortium. Perhaps foolishly, I declined the opportunity to publish the same piece on this blog. Every time "the Al Qaeda mysteries" (as I have been calling them recently) receive mention here, the 9/11 "controlled demolition" clowns try to get their big clown shoes into the great Cannonfire doorway, and I just didn't want to rehash that nonsense.

Last night, however, I re-watched the superb documentary 9/11: Press For Truth, which may be the only recommendable full-length video on this topic. This film reminded me of the many unanswered questions that still surround Osama Bin Laden. It seems odd, for example, that we never had a proper inquiry into the many reports of links between the hijackers and Pakistani intelligence chief Mehmood Ahmad Mehmood, a man discussed in a number of previous posts (here and here, for example). Granted, some of those accusations originated in the Indian press, and thus may constitute disinformation by a regional foe. But does that idea explain everything we've heard...?

Actually, most of us didn't hear about the Pakistani connection. I find this selective ignorance infuriating. The average person knows all about Alex Jones' "bombs in the buildings" inanity, yet very few Americans understand that the head of an allied intelligence service has been credibly accused of paying the hijackers. If I were more cynical, I might suggest that bullshit conspiracy theories get pushed to the forefront in order to distract people from asking the truly important questions.

Long story short: I've changed my mind about publishing Jim's piece.

However, I have not changed my mind about forbidding any comments about controlled demolition and similar malarky. If you insist on sending such words anyways, and if I censor you, feel free to tell one and all that Cannon must be getting a handsome payment from his evil CIA paymasters. Believe it or not, I reserve the right to harbor similar suspicions about you. Ain't paranoia fun?

All the words below the asterisks were written by Jim DiEugenio (whose completely-revised version of Destiny Betrayed is available right now; a must-read.)

*  *  *
An Incurious ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

On May 2, 2011, under cover of darkness, which is where the film’s title Zero Dark Thirty comes from, a platoon of Navy Seals was airlifted by two Black Hawk helicopters from Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan to Abbottabad, Pakistan.

A modified version of the Black Hawk was used because it employed “stealth” technology, i.e., it flew very quietly while being harder to detect on radar than the conventional model. To further evade Pakistani radar, the helicopters flew very low to the ground and deliberately navigated over hilly terrain.

The mission was codenamed Neptune Spear. And it was timed to consume precisely 40 minutes. The Seals operated under the aegis of the CIA and were working from information primarily garnered by the Agency.

Landing near their target in Abbottabad, the Seals cut the power to the large three-story home. They then broke in by detonating explosive charges around the doors and walls. One of the occupants began to fire at the Seals from inside. This man, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, was killed after a brief firefight. His wife was shot and wounded. His brother, Abrar, was also shot and killed.

As the Seals progressed through the house, a young man named Khalid was shot on the staircase. Finally, on the third floor of the home, one of the Seals found the ultimate target of the raid: Osama bin Laden. As bin Laden ran to his room, he was shot in the head and collapsed. Two women tried to shield his body. One of them was shot in the leg.

Bin Laden was shot two more times. His body was wrapped in a body bag and carried on board one of the helicopters. One Black Hawk had been damaged upon landing, so the Seals destroyed it. A back-up Chinook helicopter was called in from nearby to effect the escape. Thus ended a nearly ten-year manhunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Almost immediately after bin Laden’s death was announced by President Barack Obama, screenwriter Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow announced their intent to make a film about the manhunt and the Seals mission. That July, just two months after the raid, a high-level Pentagon intelligence officer named Mike Vickers told Boal and Bigelow they would allow a Seal involved in the planning of Neptune Spear to provide them information for Boal’s script. According to declassified documents of the meeting, Boal and Bigelow were overjoyed at this opportunity. (Josh Gerstein, Politico, May 23, 2012)

Boal said, “That’s dynamite!” With equal elation, Bigelow chimed in with “That’s incredible.”

Boal was also welcomed at CIA headquarters where he was allowed access to a mock-up of bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound. Boal was even invited to a CIA ceremony honoring the Seals involved. (New York Times, Aug. 6, 2011)

And Boal met with two members of the staff of the National Security Council: Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Adviser on Counterterrorism John Brennan. But an e-mail from Marie Harf of the CIA revealed that the Agency was trying to keep Boal’s visits to Langley quiet. (Politico, May 23, 2012)

This privileged access to secret information is troubling. As many have noted, it is ironic that Boal should be allowed this access by the same administration that has made a habit of threatening with indictments anyone who divulges national security secrets.

The Movie Version

Zero Dark Thirty is a long movie, running for two hours and 37 minutes, with the raid on bin Laden’s compound the penultimate scene taking up about the last 20 minutes of the picture, along with a kind of coda at the end in which the main character, a female CIA analyst on the bin Laden team, identifies the body and is then flown out of Afghanistan.

So, the much longer part of the film involves the tracing of where bin Laden is hiding and convincing the CIA Director and the White House that this intelligence is correct. Yet, one of the problems with the film is that it’s a straight detective film. And since we know how it will end, there is virtually no suspense or surprise along the way. The little that there is comes from the actual intricacy of how bin Laden was tracked down. But these are simply little bits of human-interest angles.

For instance, a well-off Arab living in Kuwait is bribed for information by the CIA. The bribe consists of buying him a brand new Lamborghini late one night. The CIA agent makes a car dealer open after hours so his informant can pick the model he wants. In another segment, Maya, the female lead character, has to talk a phone-intercept specialist who is short of men and resources into tracing a suspect’s cell phone so she can know where he is. A cohort of hers helps her win the technician over and she ends up being able to monitor the man.

But besides these sidelights, the story as it unfolds is pretty much straightforward and linear. In that sense, it’s pretty much a police story. Except that, in this instance, the police are allowed to use questionable ends to justify the result, bringing us to the most controversial aspect of the film – its depiction of torture.

And although the film’s defenders – mostly the movie reviewers who have praised the film – have tried to smudge this point, there is little sense in denying it. As Greg Mitchell wrote in The Nation on Dec. 12, the film undoubtedly shows that torture played a key role in tracing bin Laden to his compound.

Toward the end, the supervisor of the torturing admits at a meeting with the CIA Director that the key information in the manhunt came from a detainee. The viewer should recall that in the beginning of the film it was this man who was being tortured at a CIA black site and who was the first one to give the CIA a lead on bin Laden’s courier, who Maya eventually tracks down.

And as Mitchell adds, “While some of those defending the film have claimed that it shows that torture does not work, or is counterproductive, you don’t really see that on the screen.” He then adds, commenting on these film reviewers, “From their comments, I expected at least a brief scene where one of the CIA types admits this. No such luck.”

Mitchell’s comment is accurate. In fact, it is hard not to conclude that the filmmakers endorse these “enhanced interrogation techniques” as justified by controversial law professor John Yoo. I would go as far as to say that Dick Cheney would like this film’s attitude toward the subject.

In one clip, Sen. Obama, then a candidate for President, is seen declaring his opposition to the process. One of the CIA agents involved in the manhunt shakes her head in disapproval. Near the end, exposés of the techniques used at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are mentioned, but are presented as bad since now detainees all have lawyers. The chief torturer (played by Jason Clarke) says early on to one of his subjects, “Everybody breaks. It’s simple biology.”

Maya is at first seen to be squeamish about the water-boarding of a subject. But as the film goes on, she becomes a hard-bitten professional about the task. The subliminal message being that, if a slightly built young woman can learn to like it, anyone can.

As the reviewer for The Nation, Stuart Klawans wrote, “As for the torture … the movie revels in it. … Arguments that the film exposes torture as abhorrent are absurd. The movie juices the audience on … these physical confrontations.” (To this author, this might be slightly overstated, but only slightly.)

Klawans then went on to address the other issue: “Does the film present torture as the necessary tool for taking down bin Laden? Absolutely.” After agreeing with Mitchell about the subject being tortured at the beginning being the source for the name of the courier, Klawans concludes that although Bigelow and Boal have denied giving “the audience the impression that the use of torture was integral” to the goal, he finds this disingenuous on their part.

Tolerating Torture

There are at least two serious problems that Boal and Bigleow should have understood by making this type of presentation about this controversial issue. First, the opinions on these techniques inside the government were not nearly as unanimous as the film denotes.

As Jane Mayer has written, the program “was deemed so illegal, and so immoral, that the Director of the FBI withdrew his personnel rather than have them collaborate with it.” But further, even the top lawyer at the Pentagon resisted it so that it would not spread throughout the armed forces. (Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, 12/14/2012)

As Mayer notes, this important debate, which reached the highest levels of government, is simply not echoed in the film. Bigelow has responded that “The film does not have an agenda, and it doesn’t judge.” (ibid) But by not showing the other side of the story, while saying that torture helped nail bin Laden, she is expressing a point of view, since her film does not reflect the true circumstances of the situation. Boal was even worse on this point. He actually said the film showed the complexity of the debate over the issue. It does not.

But further, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin of, respectively the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Armed Service Committee, have written that, “The original lead information had no connection to CIA detainees.” They added that a detainee in CIA custody did provide information on the courier but that “he did so the day before he was interrogated by the CIA using their coercive interrogation techniques.” (ibid)

It’s almost as if Boal and Bigelow took the line they did because they became enamored by the access the CIA had given them. Was this part of a quid pro quo arrangement or were they simply the latest “embedded” media personalities to be seduced by the surrounding culture?

One has to pose that question because their depiction is so one-sided. For instance, unlike what Clarke says in the film, everyone does not break in the end. As Mayer wrote, many prisoners were tortured to death while never revealing secrets. And many others simply created disinformation stories to avoid further duress. And some of that disinformation managed to lead America into the war in Iraq.

But perhaps the worst of all, in the ends-justifies-the-means ethos of the film, this question is never asked: What about those who were swept up by the CIA and sent to a black site yet were totally innocent? There were many of these innocent victims. Mayer mentions one: Khaled El-Masri, who was kidnapped and held in detention for four months. He was beaten up, sodomized, chained and hooded. He could barely speak about the experience without weeping.

As hinted at above, many of the early reviewers were very impressed by the dexterous way the film was made. They therefore ignored this key issue, which seems to me to be an important one. But there are other issues in the story besides this one that seem to me to be important, too. Yet the commentators I have read have not dealt with them at all.

First, when the story about the raid first broke, the message conveyed by official spokesmen was that it was a “kill or capture” operation. As time has gone on, this fig leaf has fallen by the wayside. The film does not cavil about the mission’s intent: It was a kill operation all the way.

And keeping with the CIA’s single-mindedness, there is never any question as to whether or not killing bin Laden was the wisest thing to do. I posed that question to longtime CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern: “Why was he murdered? Would it not have been more productive to capture and interrogate him?”

McGovern replied that he had always felt bin Laden would have been more valuable alive than dead, but McGovern said that as time has gone on in this battle against terrorists, the ethos has changed. “It would have been a tough decision as to what to do with him if he were taken alive,” he said.

McGovern added, “There are grounds for suspicion that he was murdered because he knew too much … not just about past U. S. support for him, but relative to 9/11 itself.”

Simplistic Account

Again, these two points are of the utmost interest to this subject. In Adam Curtis’s excellent documentary, The Power of Nightmares, these questions are addressed. And therefore al-Qaeda and bin Laden come off in a much fuller and detailed way than the ciphers they are in this film. Curtis’s film is much more complex and compelling than this new docu-drama – even though it’s a documentary and could not use the narrative techniques of a feature film.

And beyond that, the Curtis film is much more provocative than this one. In the Curtis film, one comes away feeling empowered since the viewer now knows something more about how al-Qaeda and bin Laden began and how those origins were intertwined with the CIA’s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

This “blowback” factor, well elucidated by Curtis, is completely missing in this simplistic film, Zero Dark Thirty. And it tells us much about the distribution of films in America today, and our growing propagandistic culture, that the Bigelow film is playing in first-run theaters with a large ad campaign behind it, while the Curtis film – which was made eight years ago – has yet to find a TV or film distributor in this country.

McGovern’s second point is also ignored in the film. Namely, was bin Laden the main force and sole originator of the 9-11 attacks? One would certainly get that message from this film. But again, when I asked McGovern about this issue he replied with something less than complete certainty. He first said that, by admission of almost everyone, including its co-chairs, the 9/11 Commission was “woefully inadequate.”

But to me, there may be something even more egregiously wrong with this much-ballyhooed film. It leaves out the fuller history of the pursuit for bin Laden, which began at least five years before the 9/11 attacks. (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, p. 3) At its inception, the investigation was part of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center and it had a nondescriptive name, “but in practice it was devoted to tracking the activities of a single man, Osama bin Laden.”

As early as 1993, he had been fingered as an important financier of terror. In 1996, Daniel Coleman of the FBI was sent to a CIA station in Tysons Corner, Virginia, to review the information the Agency had on bin Laden. He was surprised to find out that they had already built a library of 35 volumes of material on the man. (ibid) On the strength of this file, plus the fatwa (declaration of war) issued by bin Laden that year, Coleman opened a criminal case on him. (ibid, p. 5)

Later in 1996, Coleman met at a safehouse with a Sudanese informer named Jamal al-Fadl. This man claimed to have worked with bin Laden in Khartoum. When shown photos of his associates, Fadl identified most of them. Coleman later found out that Fadl was hiding the fact that he was in America because he had embezzled $100,000 from bin Laden. (ibid) But beyond that, Fadl informed Coleman about an organization called al-Qaeda, which was operating training camps and sleeper cells and was already quite active, having trained operatives who had performed a bombing in Yemen in 1992 and tutored the insurgents who had downed helicopters in Somalia that year. (ibid)

Fadl went further. He gave Coleman names of the members and drew up their organizational charts. For two weeks, Coleman tested Fadl to see if he could cross him up. The informant never varied his responses. On his own Coleman built up his knowledge of the group, concluding that al-Qaeda was a worldwide network stretching across the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Central Asia. He was especially worried to find out that many of its associates had ties to the U.S. He then concluded that one of its targets was America.

But Coleman’s problem was the same as faced by White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke: Almost no one in power took the threat seriously, especially after George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001. Even though Coleman’s information grew more refined and precise, the subject was too exotic and bizarre for many other officials to focus on.

Wright’s book, which was published in 2006, changes the portrait of the manhunt drawn in the film, which leads viewers to believe that the search began after 9/11 and made its first breakthrough with the torture of bin Laden’s followers.

By framing their movie as they do – as simply a manhunt for a madman – Bigelow and Boal make their film reductive of its materials, failing to address the complex history and the many enduring questions. The shamefully ebullient early reviewers were happy with that, praising the film as taut and “riveting” and “pulse-pounding” displaying what Bigelow likes to call her “boots on the ground” experience.

There is no doubt that the cinematography and editing of the film are well done. But there is nothing really exceptional about the making of this film. Any number of directors — Jonathan Demme, Ed Zwick and many others — could have done just as well.

And Bigelow really blew it in the casting of Jessica Chastain as Maya. Bigelow has never really been all that interested in acting. (She came to film directing out of painting and therefore is more interested in the visual aspect.) To be kind, Chastain is simply not up to this role. She is an actress who can only deliver the primary colors with little in the way of subtlety and resourcefulness.

If you can imagine what a young Vanessa Redgrave could have done with Maya — in voice inflection, in pattern of facial inquiry and response, in body carriage — you can see how inadequate Chastain really is. But a director who truly understood the demands of the part would not have settled for Chastain in the first place.

Because of all these limitations, all these shortcomings, the film has no overtones, not even any reverberations. When it’s over, it’s over. And that is really bad considering the enormity of the subject.

To make one apt comparison: Oliver Stone’s JFK was not simply about whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. It posed an array of other questions about the event: Was the Warren Commission really looking for the truth at all? Did the FBI actually investigate the case? Was Jim Garrison’s office wired and infiltrated to prevent him from discovering the real facts about the case? Was President Kennedy killed because he was effecting a withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam?

But Stone didn’t ask for help from Washington in making his movie. And he was interested in a lot more than just if Oswald was guilty. Thus, JFK was a much richer and thought-provoking film than Zero Dark Thirty.

When a film shrinks its canvas instead of enlarging it, it’s a good sign that the ambition is simply to chronicle. That is what this film does. And it delivers that chronicling from a dubious and expurgated point of view.
I had no intention of watching this piece of propagandistic bullshit, but thanks for providing a synopsis and commentary. Now I know what the message the US public is supposed to receive from it and why the CIA facilitated its production. Torture is not only ok, it's good and the ends justify the means. Thank you. The Gestapo would have agreed, and so would the people who tortured humans to death for Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and others of that sort. Sometimes they did it to extract information, sometimes just to keep in practice, and sometimes just for fun. I imagine our heroes do the same.

The man that Obama has chosen to be his new head of the CIA will fit right into the prevailing culture there since he has already publicly defended the practices that are advocated by the movie. Now we all know what kind of government we live under and what kind of people we are. Terms like "sickening, shameful, and criminal" seem somehow inadequate.
In re: Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, as I recall, the FBI confirmed the Indian information that the instruction to wire $100k to Mohammed Atta was credibly traced back to a phone number of his.

That partially addresses the objection that this information was originally propounded by Indian authorities (India of course a sworn enemy of Pakistan, and closely aligned with Israel). It also obscures the question of the capability of intelligence orgs to spoof the origination numbers of phone calls, in counterfeit fashion.

Anyone knowing the ISI's relationship to the Taliban and opium/heroin trafficking may consider this man guilty of many things, and yet consider this particular apparently damning fact a possible frame up nonetheless. At a minimum it would surely be sloppy tradecraft.

What is less known still than this stunning apparent evidence of the ISI's general's involvement, however, and much more important a fact elided from this history, is Bin Laden's several firm denials of involvement as relayed through Al Jazeera. This violated Terrorism 101 rules (a terrorist claims responsibility to better effect his terrorism demands), so a more compatible-to-the-narrative invention that he in fact claimed responsibility has been substituted into the minds of the vast majority of Americans. I estimate no more than 1% of Americans have heard of his denials, as they also include his most unwelcome suggestion that Americans should look to their hidden government within the government for the responsible parties (and then continue to still more unwelcome points).


An interesting film to watch in conjunction with 9/11 Press for Truth is an HBO docu called The Journalist and the Jihadi. Few people seem to recall that WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl was chasing Omar Saeed Sheikh and the 9/11 money trail when he was captured and eventually beheaded in Pakistan.
In Peter Bergen's Manhunt, OBL is shot once in the eye.

Now we hear he was shot in the head, then a double-tap. That sounds more like they didn't want a prisoner.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andy, Sandy Hook "research" is all evil, stupid crap. No more about that.

Folks: To be fair, I have not seen "Zero Dark Thirty" myself. I may have a more positive opinion.

I saw the film over the weekend and thought it was a huge missed opportunity to explore the moral /ethical problems in the US using, and then even more damning, defending torture techniques in our never-ending War on Terror. Despite what the writer and director claim, the film leaves the distinct impression that torture was necessary and thereby justified in bringing Bin Laden down. The character meting out the torture decides to leave field duty because "he's seen too much naked flesh." That's about as close as the film gets to suggesting that torture changes and challenges the torturer with grave moral baggage. In fact, this character [can't even recall his name] seems more bummed out that his caged, pet monkeys have been destroyed for security reasons than he is with his inhumane and monstrous behavior.

So, do I think this is an example of glossed up propaganda? Yes, I do. Shamelessly so.

I did not realize how quickly the film fell into place or that the CIA approached the film makers rather than the other way around. That in itself is suspicious.

I wanted to see the film myself rather than take secondhand accounts on the matter. The public is being schmoozed, lulled into accepting the CIA's version of what went down. Seems to be a pattern anymore.

Wasn't this the film that was delayed until after the election because Republicans suggested it unfairly favored Obama? I didn't get that. Maybe they simply didn't want us to recall what a horror show the Bush/Cheney years truly were.

Overall, the film made me feel despair over what we closed our eyes to then and continue to close our eyes to, how quickly we've surrendered Rule of Law for Might makes Right.

Wikipedia says "General Mahmud was known to visit the United States regularly during his time as the head of ISI consulting senior officials in the U.S. administration in the weeks before and after 9/11. In fact, he was with Republican Congressman Porter Goss and Democratic Senator Bob Graham in Washington, discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast, when the attacks of September 11, 2001 happened".

isn't this significant?
Yes, General Mahmood was at breakfast with Porter Goss (soon to be head of the CIA) when 9/11 happened. And later Mr. Goss would tell the media that the CIA had an excellent idea of where bin Laden was, but because of issues of sovereignty they could do nothing.

What upset me the most about the movie has inspired little notice--the casual shooting during the climactic sequence of an unarmed woman in the back. This
movie pushed the envelope, for I have never before seen movie heroes shoot anyone in the back, let alone a woman. We are supposed to rationalize this ourselves--
"Well, she might have been concealing a weapon, the soldier dared not turn his back on her because that might have jeopardized the safety of his comrades, he couldn't abandon the mission to secure her." The same argument could be used to justify machine-gunning all the kids.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic