Talk:Paul R. Pillar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PAUL R. PILLAR

Paul R. Pillar was appointed National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia in October 2000 upon returning to the Intelligence Community from the Brookings Institution, where he was a Federal Executive Fellow.

He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1977 and has served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. He previously served in the National Intelligence Center (NIC) as one of the original members of its Analytic Group.

He has been Executive Assistant to CIA's Deputy Director for Intelligence and Executive Assistant to DCI William Webster. He headed the Assessments and Information Group of the DCI Counterterrorist Center and from 1997 to 1999 was deputy chief of the center.

Pillar is a retired officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and served on active duty in 1971-1973, including a tour of duty in Vietnam.

Pillar received an A.B. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College, a B.Phil. from Oxford University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is the author of books on peace negotiations and counterterrorist policy. His most recent work, Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy, was published by the Brookings Institution Press in February 2001

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63bios.htm

Contents 1 VIPS? 2 Recent edits here 3 Pillar's view of Baathists and Islamic terrorists 4 "Citation Needed" tags 5 Can we remove false speculation by "dinocrat"? 6 All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15 7 POV Commentary

[edit] VIPS?

Is there any indication he is a VIPS member? -csloat 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

None I could find in VIPS' materials. I think a revert may be in order soon. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits here

RonCram seems so intent on seeing a vast left-wing conspiracy at the CIA that he has tried to cram in every possible criticism of Pillar that he can possibly find. I want to be clear that I don't object to including valid criticism (and the only thing I deleted was something that does not belong in that section; I have no objection to including that fact elsewhere), but I don't think we should be including a quote or summary every time someone mentions Pillar on an unknown blog. I think we should stick to claims made by reputable published sources. Of course it is relevant that there are a few well-known spinmeisters (notably Stephen F. Hayes, whose distortion and cultured myopia is legendary) criticizing Pillar for speaking his mind, but let's not pretend that Pillar is the butt end of a torrent of criticism from real journalists. I've reorganized the links sections but I'm wondering if we should get rid of the blogs entirely; if not, we should include the many blogs who have mentioned Pillar without smearing him, in order to fairly represent that such criticism is not widespread. Also I would prefer if the text not read "Critics claim..." when we really mean "Stephen F. Hayes claims...". --csloat 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I removed one section I wrote because my memory was faulty. I thought it was Pillar's book that caused the uproar in 2004. After a little more research, it appears it was a book by a different CIA official who published anonymously and was an expert in counter terrorism. The anonymous auther is said to be a covert CIA agent, so that would preclude it from being Pillar. Regarding the portion you deleted, I have restored it because it is a viable criticism of Pillar published in the Wall Street Journal. However, I can see where one phrase I wrote could be considered POV and I will delete it. The rest, however, should stay as it faithfully reports the WSJ criticism. Regarding blogs who are supportive of Pillar, please include them but please do not allow any overlap (different writers writing about the same topic). We do not want to beat a dead horse. RonCram 19:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What book are you talking about re: Tenet? I am very curious. Just to clarify... the Saddam-AQ stuff is not a "criticism of Pillar." It actually indicates something he got right. The WSJ may have gotten it wrong, as is indicated by the context of the article, but that does not make it a criticism of Pillar. We can include it but then we need to include a statement assessing the Saddam-AQ situation (indicating the information that every intel agency on the planet, not just the CIA, as well as the State Dept and the 911 Commission, has concluded that there was no substantive Saddam-AQ connection). I think that ventures off into including too much tangential information here but if Ron insists on including the statement I feel it is essential to include information setting the record straight. But it's better to just leave it out. As for blogs, I think we should just have a section "blogs" and include whatever blogs exist (though I agree about no overlap). This isn't a "pro-" or "anti-" Pillar issue for 99% of observers; it's only a few writers who make it out that way. So those that mention Pillar without defending or attacking him are the overwhelming majority; when I get around to making this change the label will probably change too. Also as far as the ^{[citation needed]} tag you remove, I don't see the claim backed up in the WSJ article. Better to simply say the WSJ was critical of Pillar's ideas about terrorism. The debate about what the best approach to the war on terrorism is one that belongs elsewhere. We can certainly include the info that editors at the WSJ wrote an editorial second-guessing the NIO and leading terrorism expert's conclusions after years of work in this area, but I think the way this is written unfairly represents the WSJ's position as popular and justified.--csloat 19:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, here is the WSJ excerpt I was referring to:

None of this is surprising in the case of Mr. Pillar, who is also trying to protect his own lousy track record in misjudging the terrorist threat. Around September 11, he had the misfortune to write a book that rejected the "war" metaphor for counterterrorism, comparing it instead to "the effort by public health authorities to control communicable diseases."

In a public lecture last year at Johns Hopkins University, he sought to downplay Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism. And his corner of the CIA has long claimed that the "secular" Baathists in Iraq would never do business with the fundamentalist al Qaeda. Tell that to Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the Baathists now cooperating in Fallujah.

It appears the anonymous author is Michael Scheuer. [1] I am certain you can google the information from there. I need to get back to work. RonCram 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I had seen nothing about Scheuer's book bringing down Tenet - I'll check on it, thanks. As for the WSJ piece, I know the excerpt you are referring to. Please respond to my points above before reverting. As I said, none of this is a "criticism" of Pillar, since it is the WSJ getting the facts wrong -- we can include the claim but we also need to include the assessment of the claims grounding, which takes us into tangential territory (do you really want a paragraph in here explaining why Saddam was not cooperating with al-Qaeda? Or discussing the use of the "war" metaphor to fight terrorism?)--csloat 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the Bush Administration tried to ignore the problem with the election year book but some White House aides talked about it to reporters. Bush decided to wait until his second term to remove Tenet and then allowed him to save face by resigning, but Bush's decision was set sometime in 2004. Also, several WH people were upset with Tenet for saying the WMDs in Iraq were a slam dunk and then trying to blame the president for going too far. But the flap over the book deal really seemed to seal Tenet's fate to me. Regarding Pillar's critics, it is nonsensical to say criticism is not criticism because the critics are stupid. We need to state the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. I believe it is clear Saddam was cooperating with al-Qaeda just as it is clear the Baathists cooperated with Zarqawi later on. I also think it is easy for people to understand the "war" terminology after attacks on one day kill nearly 3,000 people. RonCram 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Regarding Pillar's critics, it is nonsensical to say criticism is not criticism because the critics are stupid." - well, good thing I didn't say that, then. I suggest you read what I actually did write in order to understand my point. Your belief that Saddam cooperated with AQ is not encyclopedic. We have a whole article devoted to that topic; if you insist on putting incorrect information about it here I will feel the need to correct it. It doesn't matter how easy it is to understand something; the fact is that there are debates among experts about certain things, and we should not pretend those debates are settled just so you can publish criticism of Pillar.--csloat 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pillar's view of Baathists and Islamic terrorists

The following is well sourced and clearly written:

Pillar also wrote that "secular" Baathists in Iraq would never cooperate with fundamentalists like al-Qaeda, but the cooperation between Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the Baathists in Iraq has been very strong.[2]

csloat, you are deleting this passage without cause. The Wall Street Journal is clear on this criticism. I have given you the exact quotation where this comment comes from. Please explain why you are continuing to delete this entry. RonCram 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RonCram please re-read my comments above; I have explained the deletion clearly and you have not refuted (nor even acknowledged) my argument on this point. I have never suggested I didn't know where the comment came from. Please stop distorting my words. I will leave the comment in since you insist on it, making the necessary changes to explain context.--csloat 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation Needed" tags

csloat, you have reinserted the ((fact)) tag after the citation was given. You know well enough that the Wall Street Journal criticized Pillar for doing a poor job in assessing the terrorist threat. I have even quoted the exact passage for you here on the Talk page. For you to reinsert the ((fact)) when the citation is already on the page seems ridiculous to me. Do you really want me to put the same citation is multiple places? If so, I will do it but it seems cumbersome and not in the best interest of wikipedia to do so. RonCram 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the passage where the WSJ specifically notes that "Pillar has a poor track record in assessing the terrorist threat." Otherwise it is just your editorial comment based on something - it's not clear what - that is said in the WSJ article.--csloat 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please the following passage found in the Wall Street Journal editorial: "None of this is surprising in the case of Mr. Pillar, who is also trying to protect his own lousy track record in misjudging the terrorist threat." RonCram 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, don't know how I missed that, I guess I was looking for the word "poor." Thanks.--csloat 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we remove false speculation by "dinocrat"?

I have not removed the ridiculous statement by some unknown blogger to the effect of Pillar's actions being illegal and worthy of prosecution, but I think it should be removed. If anyone would like to defend it here please do so; otherwise, it goes. I am not opposed to having published criticism from reputable sources here, but random and obviously false statements from unknown (and pseudonymous) bloggers that received absolutely no media attention in the year and a half since they wrote it do not seem encyclopedic.--csloat 23:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here.

The story also reports:

On Tuesday night, Loftus praised a Cybercast News Service article published on Oct. 4, 2004, entitled Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties. The exclusive report featured documents showing numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.

The documents also demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. The papers showed that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

The Nightline story about the tapes is important to the Pillar article because Pillar was one of the CIA cabal who did not want any intelligence tying Saddam to WMD or al-Qaeda to come out causing the tapes to come out through an unofficial path.

Read the story here. [3]RonCram 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Commentary

I removed the following but left the direct quote from the writer:

"Joscelyn then discusses Pillar misstatements regarding the operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence documented several instances of a working relationship, including chemical weapons development and Iraqi training of al-Qaeda terrorists. These and other instances were also written about by Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA unit responsible for catching Osama bin Laden in his 2002 book title "Through Our Enemies' Eyes." "[4]

RonCram, please stop adding your opinion as fact. I will continue to remove your edits if you refuse to make NPOV edits.--Jersey Devil 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a talk page about the article, this is not a blog or a political forum. So please do not use this talk page to advertise television programs. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, you are correct that this is not a political blog or forum. However, I fail to see how allowing Joscelyn to express his criticism of Pillar makes the entry POV. The entry as it stands now is cryptic and entirely unhelpful to readers. However, in the interest of seeking a concensus, I will review Joscelyn's piece and try a rewrite you may find more acceptable. RonCram 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes are factual with regards to the article (which is why I kept his quote), what bothers me is putting down opinions as fact. For instance this quote: "Joscelyn then discusses Pillar misstatements" works as if it is already established that Pillar has made "misstatements" which is putting down opinion as fact. One other thing, we really should be working to expand the facts about Pillar's early life. He was an officer for the Army during Vietnam though, I really can't find much info on that.--Jersey Devil 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Even worse. In order to discredit Pillar, Joscelyn maintains the myth that Michael Scheuer found evidence of a partnership between Saddam and al-Qaeda. But Michael Scheuer himself(!) denies having found any evidence. Moreover, he has openly denied it since 2004(!) (see Michael Scheuer) which is two years prior to Joscelyn's 2006 smear article against Pillar. If quoting Joscelyn's articles is informative on anything, it is on his fabrication of lies. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of Weekly Standard or its campaigns. -- ActiveSelective 01:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Scheuer's 2002 book Through Our Enemies' Eyes clearly shows he believes Saddan and al-Qaeda were closely linked. Scheuer changed his view sometime between the publication of his first book and his TV interviews. I suggest you look at Scheuer's quotes in wikiquote. [5] RonCram 01:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Right; Scheuer changed his opinion after looking at the evidence in an official capacity for the CIA, as you know. This occurred roughly 2 years prior to Joscelyn's smear, which is why ActiveSelective is quite correct that Joscelyn is either a nincompoop or a flat out liar on this issue.--csloat 02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)