Spec Ops Embassies

Ahem:

A short article from the Associated Press, by a writer with the glorious name of Robert Burns. It begins:

The U.S. military command in charge of counterterrorism campaigns is putting small teams of special operations troops in U.S. embassies to support the global war on terror, officials said Wednesday.

The presence of these teams, which began at least two years ago but has not been publicly announced by U.S. Special Operations Command, was first reported in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times.

Of course it was.

We can't have the military keeping secrets in small matters like special operations directly targeting terrorists, can we? Won't do.

Our Mr. Burns was also cited in another recent article, called "The Dysfunctional Relationship Between the Military and the Media." As it is a media piece on the media, the media is given first licks, and the opening paragraph charges the Army with lies and distortions. But a military speaker eventually is allowed to reply:

"There's an irony here, because when you had embedding, there was a sense that the reporting was better than ever," says Dan Goure, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute. "But since the end of major combat operations, the relationship has really gone to hell. There is a strongly held perception in the military – particularly the Army – that the media is doing the enemy's work. You guys are seen as the Jane Fondas of the Iraq war. And so the military attitude is, 'why should we level with you, because you're going to screw us.'"

Where would they ever get that idea?

I note one more item of interest from Burns' writeup of the Times article: "The Times reported that the move is opposed by some in the Central Intelligence Agency who view it as treading on their turf."

How would the Times know what CIA officers think about a secret pro... oh, right.

The Times is acting badly by reporting these stories, but the intelligence officers leaking them should go to prison.