Afghanistan: After the Wikileaks "Petraeus to Stop Corruption" (Partlow)

We've had the first phase of stories following the appearance of the 91,000 Wikileaks documents: hostility to US troops amongst villagers, even when they hate Taliban; claims of support by Pakistani intelligence services and military for Afghan insurgents; claims of support by Iran for the insurgents (countered by some analysts); revelations that some of those fighting US and NATO forces are coming in from Turkey, a member of NATO; the far-from-surprising news that the US media has been paying Afghan media to run "friendly" stories; the assertion of financial and political misdeeds by Afghan officials

Now the next phase: the US military trying to walk hand-in-hand with the media to counter a damaging story. Although Joshua Partlow of The Washington Post may have been developing this piece before the arrival of the Wikileaks documents, the timing of its appearance is more than a little interesting.

Afghanistan: What Did Wikileaks Reveal? What I Wrote in Kabul in 2005 (Shahryar)
Afghanistan: Why Wikileaks Should Not Be Plugged (Dissected News)

But there is a question, unasked in the article: since the media has featured for years the assurances of US military and politicians that they are combating corruption in Afghanistan with the outcome of "good governance", what makes this good-news prediction of an article --- even if it is headlined by the name "Petraeus" --- any different?

Partlow's article:

Every day, Gen. David H. Petraeus meets with senior NATO officials at headquarters for a 7:30 a.m. update, and at nearly every session, he returns to an issue that has bedeviled the U.S. campaign for years: Afghan corruption.

In his first month on the job, Petraeus has intensified efforts to uncover the scope and mechanics of the pervasive theft, graft and bribery in the Afghan government, examine U.S. contracting practices, and assist Afghan authorities in arresting and convicting corrupt bureaucrats, according to U.S. and NATO officials.

"It is his drumbeat that he started on Day One," said a NATO military official who participates in the morning "stand-up" meeting. Petraeus sees corruption "as an enemy. It is counter to our strategy. And it is readily apparent to me . . . there is a new sense of urgency."

The issue was also a central concern for Petraeus's predecessor, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, as the U.S. military has come to realize that its counterinsurgency goals depend on fighting corruption. NATO surveys have found that anger at corruption is the top reason Afghans support the Taliban over the government.

From police shakedowns to profits from drug trafficking, NATO officials put the yearly price tag of corruption and black-market business at $12.3 billion, just shy of Afghanistan's gross domestic product. Citing U.N. statistics, they estimate that about half of that comes from the smuggling industry and illicit taxes levied on trucks crisscrossing the country. About $2.5 billion is paid in bribes each year, stolen Afghan government revenue tops $1 billion, and billions more is pilfered from foreign aid and NATO contracts, according to a briefing prepared by NATO's anti-corruption task force.

"It has progressively gotten worse. It's at all levels," said one senior NATO official who works on corruption issues. Reversing the situation is "a moral imperative, and it's an operational imperative."

The NATO officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Turning up the pressure

Petraeus has asked his subordinates to brief him more often on progress on this front -- twice a week, instead of once -- and is considering naming a one-star general to oversee anti-corruption work. In his first three weeks in Afghanistan, Petraeus has met with President Hamid Karzai at least 20 times, and corruption has been a regular topic of discussion, the NATO officials said.

In addition to fielding two new teams in Afghanistan to study how American money is spent through reconstruction and security contracts, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is preparing a proposal that would require the Afghan government to meet anti-corruption benchmarks to receive U.S. funds.

"We expect they will live up to their commitments, and we will give them incentives to live up to their commitments," a Western diplomat said.

Read rest of article....

Afghanistan: Why Wikileaks Should Not Be Plugged (Dissected News)

Dissected News analyses the issue of Afghanistan, Wikileaks, and information on the US conduct of the war:

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is VERY good at making headlines.  The last two leaks have justified those headlines, however, with the publication of classified information from inside the U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (Read an Iraq War veteran’s analysis of the leaked video showing the killing of two reporters in Iraq.)

In the newest wave of leaks, more than 90,000 classified documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan have been posted. The findings are sprawling: Pakistani intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI) is supporting the Taliban, Afghanistan has become a new front for the battle between India and Pakistan, Iran is supporting militants on its border, the Karzai government is corrupt, the U.S. military has killed too many civilians, and the militants now have access to some heat-seeking missiles… in short, the war is a mess.

Afghanistan: After the Wikileaks “Petraeus to Stop Corruption” (Partlow)
Afghanistan: What Did Wikileaks Reveal? What I Wrote in Kabul in 2005 (Shahryar)

As my colleague Josh Shahryar points out, not much of this is new information.

We’ve known, for instance, that the ISI supported the Taliban in the leadup to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We’ve also known that the Indian-Pakastani conflict in the region was complicating the effort in Afghanistan. The problem is that large portions of traditional media sources have largely ignored these developments, and thus the American public is surprised by them.  As a result, no one has been holding the U.S. government accountable for actually fixing any of these problems.

For various reasons, now that this information is coming from leaked United States intelligence, this story is finally being paid attention to. Josh suggests it’s the sexy factor, and he’s probably right.

And this is why we need people like Julian Assange.

Not that Wikileaks doesn’t have its detractors. Many people, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have condemned him for endangering national security, as well as the life and well being of people on the ground in places like Afghanistan. Assange, a zealot for the freedom of information and the American first amendment, has himself admitted that Wikileaks may wind up with “blood on our hands,” but he is convinced that the campaign for transparency will be worth the price. I’m not arguing that this point of view isn’t extreme, Assange is as radical as they come, and I’m certainly not arguing that the ones who are leaking this material haven’t broken the law (at least) and possibly their oaths of office and allegiance.

But with a situation as complicated and covered up as the developments in a place like Afghanistan, how are the common citizens of the world supposed to know what’s going on if the mainstream media doesn’t spend the resources to cover these stories, and the only ones with access to this information are under a sworn oath to keep the information secret?

Much has been made about a Washington Post report that over 800,000 people have “top secret” clearance in the U.S. intelligence circle.  Part of the problem is that there is this massive-yet-insulated community of people making our policy. If so many of our linguists (a limited and precious commodity that our educational system is failing to produce), analysts, and experts are included in this group, then a massive part of the expertise of this country is inside of the veil of secrecy. In other words, the few people who do have expertise on this part of the world have their voices shut off to anyone not inside the administration.

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.

UPDATE 26 July: Today's surprise winner of the War Drum? It's the BBC....

Paul Reynolds, in a special analysis "Iran Sanctions: Last Throw of Diplomatic Dice?", falls for the CNN interview with former Bush Administration official Michael Hayden (see Update 25 July) as Very Important to proclaim, "Already, the distant drum beats heralding war talk are beginning to sound."



UPDATE 25 July: Here We Go Again....

CNN, apparently short of significant news coverage, whipped up the war talk in its Sunday interview with General Michael Hayden, head of the National Security Agency and then Central Intelligence Agency during the George W. Bush Administration:

CNN'S CANDY CROWLEY: When you left the CIA about two years ago, you said the two biggest problems facing your successor would be the Iranian nuke program and the drug smuggling and the violence from Mexico. Would you change either one of those?

HAYDEN: No, no. To be accurate, counterterrorism was job one. Beyond counterterrorism, I would put counterproliferation as job two. And within counterproliferation, it is inarguably Iran....

CROWLEY: Do you think, though, there is any answer?

I mean, Iran doesn't seem to be paying much attention to the sanctions. As far as we know, they are still trying to get nuclear capability. If it should, is there any alternative to taking out their facilities?

HAYDEN: It seems inexorable, doesn't it?

We engage. They continue to move forward. We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward.

My personal view is that Iran, left to its own devices, will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn't quite in the red for the international community. And, frankly, that will be as destabilizing as their actually having a weapon.

When I was in government, what we would used to mystically call "the kinetic option" was way down on our list. In my personal thinking -- in my personal thinking; I need to emphasize that -- I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.

Look, Michael Hayden is no more than a hanger-on in Washington these days, his main function to show up in places like The Wall Street Journal to give a weak defence of the Bush Administration's dubious and possibly illegal programmes in "enhanced interrogation", rendition, and surveillance. He has next to no influence in any discussions over Iran policy.

CNN, however, will big this up as a definite sign of possible War, War, War. And The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post and Associated Press are already helping by running this as featured news.

UPDATE 24 July: Oh, this should be helpful....

Republicans in the US House of Representatives, the lower body of Congress, have introduced Resolution 1553 supporting Israel's recourse to "all means necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force".

Nearly a third of the 178 House Republicans have signed the resolution, publicly promoted by its lead sponsor, Louie Gohmert of months.

Iran's Press TV is already circulating and exaggerating the news, "House OK's Possible Israeli Raid on Iran".

UPDATE 1750 GMT: Unfortunate Juxtaposition of the Day....

Sometimes you just have to smile. The National Iranian American Council posts a concise opinion piece, "War is Bad for Democracy", knocking back thoughts of military action against Iran because of "the damage it would do to the indigenous democracy movement".

The Google Ad at the bottom of the page?




It appears that some journalists have missed our coverage this week --- in a dissection of Joe Klein's lightly-sourced hyperbole and in Marc Lynch's comment on the danger of hyperbole becoming received wisdom --- over the hyping of Israeli military action against Tehran.

First, Bret Stephens put out the question, "Why Hasn't Israel Bombed Iran (Yet)?" and then offered four "theories", all of which were void of any information on Israel's current planning and strategy.

Fair enough. Mr Stephens is a staunch defender of Israel over all, and the real point of his piece was to bump any Obama official who might be reading into support of military action:

There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let's hope so. Israel may ultimately be willing to attack Iran once it reckons that it has run out of other options, as it did prior to the Six Day War. But its tactical margin for error will be slim, particularly since an effective strike will require days not hours. And the political risks it runs will be monumental. As Mr. Doran notes, in 1956 it could at least count on the diplomatic support of two members of the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.S. is its last significant friend.

Then, however, The Atlantic Wire --- positioning itself as the mediator of all stories Great and Good and Very Important --- paid tribute (ripped off?) Stephens by turning his question into a Fact, "4 Reasons Israel Hasn't Bombed Iran". Sweet irony: the summary actually had no Facts, only a series of other speculations from other writers.

Then the paradox: Marc Lynch, who had carried out valuable service with his knock-down of the war chatter, did his part to validate the war chatter, "Atlantic Wire: 4 reasons Israel hasn't bombed Iran, rounding up yesterday's debate".

No, this is not a debate. It's a media cluster --- the Daily Show has a Not-Suitable-for-Work term for it --- that feeds off each other's hopes, fears, and thoughts off the top of the head.

And sometimes I fear that this cluster --- pretty much closed off to outside consideration and, yes, inconvenient Facts --- will carry on oblivious to any consequences.

The Latest from Iran (21 July): Khamenei Rattled?

2120 GMT: Back to our lead story today....

Edward Yeranian of Voice of America has picked up on the Khamenei "I am the Rule of the Prophet" fatwa, "Iran's Supreme Leader Says He Represents Prophet Muhammad on Earth".

We are still trying to get to the bottom of whether the fatwa was genuine but has been pulled back from prominence, whether it was released prematurely, or whether it is the outcome of a far-from-ordinary rift within the establishment (to the point of being "disinformation").

We will have a fresh analysis in the morning. Snapshot? Whether the fatwa is genuine or now suspect, the episode does not bode well for Ayatollah Khamenei.

NEW Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.
NEW Iran Special: Khamenei’s “I Am the Rule of the Prophet” Fatwa — Strength or Weakness? (Verde)
Iran & Sanctions: “All Major Pakistani Banks Refuse Transactions” (Shah)
Iran Follow-Up: Dealing with the Media’s “War, War, War” Drumbeat
Iran Document: Isa Saharkhiz in Court “Should the Supreme Leader Be Dismissed?” (18 July)
The Latest from Iran (20 July): Khamenei “I am the Rule of the Prophet”

2100 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Dr. Akbar Karami, a noted religious scholar, has been released on bail.

Student activist Majid Tavakoli, detained since 7 December, has had his first prison visit in more than three months. Ali Tavakoli, Majid's brother, said that he was allowed to see his brother for 10 minutes from behind a booth.

Ali Tavakoli said Majid's physical appearance was better than before and that he was in excellent spirits.

Majid Tavakoli is serving an 8 1/2-year sentence.

1500 GMT: Economy Watch. Reformist MP Mostafa Kavakebian has warned about rising prices before Ramadan in August and said the Bazaar must control those prices without reliance on more imports.

Kavakebian also said that the sale of 18% of the auto company Saipa --- officially going to employees, unofficially rumoured to a firm associated with the Revolutionary Guard --- will suffer the same fate as the privatisation of Iran Telecom.

1440 GMT: The Revolutionary Guards Document. Arshama3's Blog has re-posted and offered a quick assessment of the leaked document setting out Islamic Revolution Guards Corps procedures for monitoring the Iranian opposition.

1435 GMT: The Clerical Front. Four senior clerics, asked about "teacher-centred lectures", have responded by rejecting the concept and declaring that the seminary must remain independent.

1430 GMT: Electricity Squeeze. Hamshahri alleges that Iran is exporting cheap power to the Herat area in western Afghanistan while the domestic industry and facilities are damaged. The newspaper claims Afghans have made a profit of $2 million while Iran has lost that amount.

1415 GMT: Economic Non-Data. Bank Markazi, Iran's central bank, has again declined to publish the country's rate of growth.

1410 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Azam Vismeh has been released from detention.

1355 GMT: Corruption Watch. Rah-e-Sabz writes that more associates of the Fatemi Street insurance fraud have been summoned to court.

1345 GMT: After the Bombings. MP Zohreh Elahyian, a member of the National Security Council, has said that more control of foreign residents is planned. She blamed problems in border regions on Mossad and CIA "with their dollars".

Elahyian said, "We have full control in the Sistan and Baluchistan region, but this incident proves the long-term planning of the enemy."

1314 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Trade and shipping source say the owner of a gasoline tanker, believed to be the Libyan-flagged Lia, has refused to allow the vessel to sail to Iran from Turkey.

1310 GMT: Parliament v. President. Is it reconcilation time? There has been a meeting of Government and Majlis representatives after the 20-day vacation of Parliament, and the Government is reportedly sending the legal decisions on its budget and legislation to the Majlis next week.

1305 GMT: Another Bust-Up in the Establishment. Aftab News publishes what appears to be a dramatic story of more tensions between the Government and "hardliners". The President's chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai reportedly claims that Ahmadinejad said Rahim-Mashi would be targeted as a "kafaar" (infidel) within a year. In particular, there would be problems with Hossein Shariatmadari, the managing editor of Kayhan. Rahim-Mashai is quoted, "To Shariatmadari, I'm no Muslim but a spy, monafegh (heretic), and member of the violet coup."

1250 GMT: The Mystery of the Fatwa. We find ourselves caught up in an increasingly murky story over the appearance of the Supreme Leader's fatwa on Tuesday. It is not appearing on Ayatollah Khamenei's "official" sites. It is still up on Iranian Labor News Agency but not on Iran Students News Agency.

An EA correspondent, noting a similar case recently over another purported Khamenei fatwaagainst Motorola's mobile phones and other products because of the company's business with Israel, writes, "Something is fishy about these supposed fatwas....I am not really sure who is running these fatwas and why."

Meanwhile, sociologist Majid Mohammadi assesses the present fatwa and declares that it is a "gravestone on the rule of justice".

1240 GMT: The Guardians. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati has been re-elected as head of the Guardian Council.

1105 GMT: Today's "Western Approach" Story. Now it's the British who are supposedly begging for talks. From Mehr News: "Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami has twice rebuffed the British ambassador’s request for a meeting. On June 27, the British ambassador to Iran sent a letter to Khatami asking if a meeting could be scheduled, but Khatami did not reply to the letter. Later, the British Embassy sent a letter to him via the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and the cleric responded this time but said he did not want to meet the British ambassador."

Mehr does not offer the possible topics for this meeting, and it is unclear why the British would seek out Khatami, who has no official position in Iran's political hierarchy.

1048 GMT: At the Movies. From CNN:

A government-linked film studio in Iran plans to make a movie about the Iranian nuclear scientist who Iranian officials say was kidnapped by U.S. agents, state media reported Tuesday.

According to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency, Sima Film production company has hired a group of film school graduates to write a script about Shahram Amiri. The head of the production company didn't say when the film would be ready.

1045 GMT: Travel Dip. Kalemeh reports that tourism to Iran has dropped 60%.

1030 GMT: Talking Tough. The Supreme Leader has repeated that the intelligence services of the US, Britain, and Israel are to blame for last week's suicide bombings in southeastern Iran: "One of the main goals of the enemies behind the terrorist attack in Iran's southeastern city of Zahedan was to create division and religious discord."

Ali Larijani, at the World Conference of Speakers of Parliament in Geneva, declared that the US lacks the courage to strike Tehran: "Iran is ready for any possible incidents and is well aware of the ongoing developments in the region. If the US makes such a mistake, it will pay dearly."

1000 GMT: Mousavi Latest. Mir Hossein Mousavi, meeting professors in the Islamic Association of Teachers, has spoken about the Green media and the need to counter the propaganda of Iranian state outlets.

0955 GMT: The Khamenei Fatwa. An English translation of the Rah-e-Sabz article on the Supreme Leader's declaration has been posted: "For the first time, and openly, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, in response to a religious letter, has placed himself officially on the saintly level of ‘all-qualified priest’, ‘deputy Imam at the time of the absence [of the 12th Imam]’, ‘the ruling branch of the Imams’, and ‘true all-time deputy to the Prophet’. He pointed out there shall be an absolute obedience to his governmental orders to reveal ‘full commitment to the Supreme Leader’."

0945 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Thomas Erdbrink and Colum Lynch write in The Washington Post, "New Sanctions Crimp Iran's Shipping Business as Insurers Withhold Coverage".

Beyond noting the recent announcement by Lloyd's of London that it is halting coverage of gasoline imports to Iran, Erdbrink and Lynch quote Mohammad Ronaghi, the deputy manager of Iran's Sea Pars, "Iranian-flagged ships are facing problems all over the world as they currently have no insurance coverage because of the new sanctions. Basically, most ports will refuse them entry if they are not covered for possible damages."

The journalists also note the specific difficulties of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines while carrying this reassurance from its managing director, Mohammad Hussein Dajmar, "These sanctions have not affected us much. The world has many ports. We will sail to those nations that want to do business with us."

0900 GMT: The Push Against Ahmadinejad. The battle within the Iranian establishment is now getting some attention: Robert Tait of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has posted a lengthy overview, "Iranian Conservatives Unite In Bid To Undermine Ahmadinejad".

(A bit of illuminating background to the story. I spoke for about 30 minutes with Tait as he was researching the article. We initially discussed EA's "exclusive" on the discussions between Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, leading MP Ahmad Tavakoli, and Secretary of Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei over a move against the President.

Tait does not refer directly to the Larijani-Tavakoli-Rezaei talks --- it is difficult to do so without named sources --- but writes instead, with a link back to our article:

One report has even suggested that conservatives have met to plot a way of impeaching Ahmadinejad and remove him from office, although seasoned observers caution that such an outcome is unthinkable without Khamenei's approval -- which is thought unlikely.

As an unseasoned observer, I also told Tait that the discussions, even amongst high-ranking conservatives, had to win over the Supreme Leader: that is a key reason why Larijani and Co. were hoping to bring in senior clerics and Hashemi Rafsanjani.)

0700 GMT: We've posted a quick follow-up note on the US-based media's insistence on hyping the possibility/probability of Israeli military action against Iran as fact rather than speculation.

0555 GMT: Let's start the morning with a bit of perspective.

Tuesday's big story was not the supposed US approach to Tehran for discussions --- which was at most a request by Senator John Kerry to come to Iran and which may or may not have been true and may or may not have been whipped up by Iranian state media.

Tuesday's big story was not a possible Israeli military strike against Iran, which for now exists more on the keyboards of feverish "analysts" who --- from hysteria, speculation, ingenuity, or simple desire for such a strike --- than in any plans in West Jerusalem and Washington.

Tuesday's big story was not Iran's five-point plan for Afghanistan, unfurled at the Kabul Summit by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as an attempted sign of Tehran's influence in Central Asia and a counter to Western attention to sanctions and Iran's nuclear programme.

Tuesday's big story was the surprise and then confusion over the Supreme Leader's grab for authority through his fatwa linking his rule to that of the Imams and even Prophet Mohammad. What is the significance? Mr Verde assesses in a special analysis for EA.

UPDATED US "National Security": Revealing the Sprawl of "Top-Secret America"...in 2007 (Shorrock)

UPDATED 1030 GMT: The Washington Post has now published the third and final part of its series, a look at the "intelligence complex" in Fort Meade, Maryland.



---
On Monday, as The Washington Post launched its high-profile three-part series, "Top Secret America", on the vase intelligence network not only within the Government but amongst private contractors, we noted: "Much of this was known by close observers of US politics and foreign policy years before that, soon after — and indeed before — a US invasion of Iraq which was marked by faulty intelligence, wayward covert action, and a distortion of effective (and legal) policy at home and abroad."

For all the information put forth by Dana Priest and William Arkin, it is worth noting --- since the series does not do so --- those who had already documented the expanding sprawl of "intelligence" in and beyond the National Insecurity State. One of those reporters is Tim Shorrock, who published articles in Salon, Mother Jones, and The Nation between 2003 and 2007 and then the book Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.

Shorrock's view of the Post series?

[They] their best to obfuscate what contractors really do for US intelligence. They're eight years behind and still haven't caught up. Basically their stories are throwing big numbers at readers—such as the fact that of 854,000 people with top security clearances, 265,000 are contractors. But that's work that can be done by interns; there's virtually nothing in their series about the broader picture—like what it means to have private for-profit companies operating at the highest levels of our national security."

UPDATED The Perils of US Intelligence: A “Top-Secret World” Beyond Control (Priest/Arkin)
US “National Security”: More on the Sprawling “Top Secret America” (Priest/Arkin)

This is Shorrock's article, "The Corporate Takeover of US Intelligence",  from Salon in June 2007:

More than five years into the global "war on terror," spying has become one of the fastest-growing private industries in the United States. The federal government relies more than ever on outsourcing for some of its most sensitive work, though it has kept details about its use of private contractors a closely guarded secret. Intelligence experts, and even the government itself, have warned of a critical lack of oversight for the booming intelligence business.

On May 14, at an industry conference in Colorado sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the U.S. government revealed for the first time how much of its classified intelligence budget is spent on private contracts: a whopping 70 percent.

The DNI figures show that the aggregate number of private contracts awarded by intelligence agencies rose by about 38 percent from the mid-1990s to 2005. But the surge in outsourcing has been far more dramatic measured in dollars: Over the same period of time, the total value of intelligence contracts more than doubled, from about $18 billion in 1995 to about $42 billion in 2005.

"Those numbers are startling," said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists and an expert on the U.S. intelligence budget. "They represent a transformation of the Cold War intelligence bureaucracy into something new and different that is literally dominated by contractor interests."

Because of the cloak of secrecy thrown over the intelligence budgets, there is no way for the American public, or even much of Congress, to know how those contractors are getting the money, what they are doing with it, or how effectively they are using it. The explosion in outsourcing has taken place against a backdrop of intelligence failures for which the Bush administration has been hammered by critics, from Saddam Hussein's fictional weapons of mass destruction to abusive interrogations that have involved employees of private contractors operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Aftergood and other experts also warn that the lack of transparency creates conditions ripe for corruption.

Trey Brown, a DNI press officer, told Salon that the 70 percent figure disclosed by Everett refers to everything that U.S. intelligence agencies buy, from pencils to buildings to "whatever devices we use to collect intelligence." Asked how much of the money doled out goes toward big-ticket items like military spy satellites, he replied, "We can't really talk about those kinds of things."

The media has reported on some contracting figures for individual agencies, but never before for the entire U.S. intelligence enterprise. In 2006, the Washington Post reported that a "significant majority" of the employees at two key agencies, the National Counterterrrorism Center and the Pentagon's Counter-Intelligence Field Activity office, were contractors (at CIFA, the number was more than 70 percent). More recently, former officers with the Central Intelligence Agency have said the CIA's workforce is about 60 percent contractors.

But the statistics alone don't even show the degree to which outsourcing has penetrated U.S. intelligence --- many tasks and services once reserved exclusively for government employees are being handled by civilians. For example, private contractors analyze much of the intelligence collected by satellites and low-flying unmanned aerial vehicles, and they write reports that are passed up to the line to high-ranking government officials. They supply and maintain software programs that can manipulate and depict data used to track terrorist suspects, both at home and abroad, and determine what targets to hit in hot spots in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such data is also at the heart of the National Security Agency's massive eavesdropping programs and may be one reason the DNI is pushing Congress to grant immunity tocorporations that may have cooperated with the NSA over the past five years. Contractors also provide collaboration tools to help individual agencies communicate with each other, and they supply security tools to protect intelligence networks from outside tampering.

Outsourcing has also spread into the realm of human intelligence. At the CIA, contractors help staff overseas stations and provide disguises used by agents working under cover. According to Robert Baer, the former CIA officer who was the inspiration for the character played by George Clooney in the film "Syriana," a contractor stationed in Iraq even supervises where CIA agents go in Baghdad and whom they meet. "It's a completely different culture from the way the CIA used to be run, when a case officer determined where and when agents would go," he told me in a recent interview. "Everyone I know in the CIA is leaving and going into contracting whether they're retired or not."

Read rest of article....