Ace of Spades HQ

« Aaron's Rules of Media Evidence | Main | al-Sistani Supports New Iraqi Government »

June 03, 2004

Even Joshua Micah Marshall Can't Help But Imagine Chalabi's Been Set-Up

Okay. So here's the story: Achmed Chalabi told the Iranians that we had broken one of the most important codes they use for transmitting high-level intelligence orders.

So, what did the Iranians then do? They transmitted a message back to Teheran stating that Achmed Chalabi had told them that a certain code and been broken by Americans, and that the Americans were, therefore, reading all traffic in that code.

Okay. Fine. But guess which code they used to communicate this incredibly-sensitive information?

The very same code that the message was informing Teheran had been broken.

Anyone see an, err, problem here?

This is almost childlessly transparent. It's obviously disinformation-- sending false information in an insecure code which you know has been broken and is being read by the enemy.

In fact, the only thing which makes this somewhat believable is that it's so ludicrously transparent that it's almost too obvious it's disinformation, and therefore, maybe, what the hell?, perhaps it's just a colossal screw-up by the Iranians.

I've got no particular love of Achmed Chalabi. But if this is what the CIA thinks is "evidence" against Chalabi, then we've got to clean this agency out from top to bottom.

When even left-wing conspiracy-monger and longtime Chalabi-hater Josh Marshall thinks the evidence is hinky, it's time to reconsider how strong the case against Chalabi is.

Here's Joshy:

A couple thoughts on the charges against Chalabi.

Chalabi's advocates are arguing that the case against him simply makes no sense. If Chalabi had told this Iranian in Baghdad that we'd cracked one of their codes, why would he turn around and use that code to inform his masters in Tehran?

My answer? Good question. I have no idea.

Well. Thanks for clearing that up, O Wise One.

He then goes on to argue that this doesn't make any sense, but it's true anyway.

posted by Ace at 06:15 PM

Comments

One possible explanation could be arrogance. The Iranians might have thought that Chalabi was just trying to get in good with them so he could get some info for the US and thus didn't believe him about the US having broken the code.

Or, it could be just plain ole stupidity. That well never goes dry for humanity.

I'm not saying this is a sure thing (Chalabi being guilty) but I do think that there might be a simpler explanation to all this than smoke and mirror. If it turns out that my thinking is incorrect, I'll be happy to admit it.

Phoenix

Posted by: Phoenix on June 3, 2004 07:37 PM

Look, they obviously don't know anything about intelligence work. It's an XK Red 27 technique...
http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/mp3s.cgi?Fish_Called_Wanda=fw7.mp3

Posted by: george gaskell on June 3, 2004 07:39 PM

Never attribute to malice what can adquadetely be explained by stupidity, ignorance, or a bad day.

As for Marshall, well, blind pigs and truffles, stopped clocks twice a day, etc.

Posted by: Mr. Bowen on June 3, 2004 08:18 PM

Never attribute to malice what can adquadetely be explained by stupidity, ignorance, or a bad day.

But that rule doesn't apply at all in espionage, where "malice" and deliberate deception are done 6000 times per day.

See, espionage agencies really are engaged in illegal conspiracies. That's their raison d'etre.

If they weren't conspiring to break the laws of foreign countries, you'd fire the chief.

So one isn't a conspiracy-monger to suggest that, gee, maybe when the Iranians transmitted a signal in a code they knew was compromised, maybe the intended it to be read. That kind of thing is done every day.

Posted by: ace on June 3, 2004 09:17 PM

Actually, as I said, this was done in such a flabbergastingly ham-handed manner that the only real evidence that this is NOT disinformation is that it so clearly IS.

Posted by: ace on June 3, 2004 09:22 PM

Exactly like they said in "A Fish Called Wanda" -- it's a double bluff!

Posted by: george gaskell on June 3, 2004 11:06 PM

Is it possible the Iranians were looking to a) get rid of Chalabi and also b) find out if the US had broken their code? Could we have played right into their hands?

Posted by: Golden Boy on June 4, 2004 12:06 AM

Is it possible the Iranians were looking to a) get rid of Chalabi and also b) find out if the US had broken their code? Could we have played right into their hands?

No.

Here's the thing: It's very valuable to know that the enemy has broken a secure code. You can continue using it for low-level intelligence stuff -- just to convince the enemy you still believe it's secure -- while occasionally using to pass them disinformation which is likely to be believed.

The Iranians would want to protect their own intelligence coup -- to wit, that they knew the code was broken.

Would they want to test to see if the code was broken? Would they want to pass disinformation in the broken code?

Yes and yes, but they'd do it without revealing that they knew the code was broken.

They could pass any sort of false information likely to provoke some sort of response or comment to uthe US in that code, and then wait to see if a response or comment was forthcoming.

It doesn't make sense that they would give up their intelligence asset in the process of doing so.

Plus, look, if this crap is true -- that Chalabi told them the code was broken -- then what the hell are they doing telling us that? Why are they exposing their own valuable intelligence agent? Why are they giving up their own secret that they know we're reading their traffic?

Why would they test the code's integrity by passing along true information that was so important to them?

Posted by: ace on June 4, 2004 01:27 AM

dental health is important to dentists and your oral wellbeing and healthy teeth

Posted by: dental plan on July 13, 2004 10:38 PM

my friends and I really enjoy this

Posted by: police boots on July 15, 2004 12:25 AM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]

TJM gives you a brief tour of his movie collection.

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine

US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.

Robert Mueller, Former Special Counsel Who Probed Trump, Dies

“robert mueller just died,” trump wrote in a truth social post on march 21. “good, i’m glad he’s dead. he can no longer hurt innocent people! president donald j. trump.”

TJM has thoughts on Superheros and Iconography

Canadian School Designates Cafeteria And Lunchroom As "No Food Zones" For Ramadan
Canada and the UK are neck and neck in the race to become the first western country to fall to Islam [CBD]

Chuck Norris, Action Icon and 'Walker Texas Ranger' Star, Dies at 86

Podcast: Sefton and CBD have a short chat about Iran, the disgusting SAVE Act theater, Mamdani's politicizing of St. Patrick's Day, and more!