Dirty Wars (77 page)

In fact, there was a lot to it.

A year after my story in the
Nation
, WikiLeaks released a series of classified cables showing that a month before Morrell denounced my report, the US Embassy was aware that US military Special Operations Forces had been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, helping direct US drone strikes and conducting joint operations with Pakistani forces against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in North and South Waziristan and elsewhere in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. According to an October 9, 2009, cable classified by US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, the
operations were “almost certainly [conducted] with the personal consent of [Pakistan's] Chief of
Army Staff General [Ashfaq Parvez] Kayani
.” The operations were coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US Special Operations source told me that the US forces described in the cable as “SOC(FWD)-PAK” (Special Operations Command-Forward Pakistan) were “
forward operating troops
” from JSOC.

In the fall of 2008, the US Special Operations Command asked top US diplomats in Pakistan and Afghanistan for
detailed information on refugee camps
along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and a list of humanitarian aid organizations working in those camps. On October 6, Ambassador Patterson, sent a cable marked “Confidential” to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the CIA, US Central Command and several US embassies saying that some of the requests, which came orally and in the form of e-mails, “suggested that agencies intend to use the data for targeting purposes.” Other requests, according to the cable, “indicate it would be used for ‘
NO STRIKE
' purposes.” The cable, which was issued jointly by the US Embassies in Kabul and Islamabad, declared: “We are concerned about providing information gained from humanitarian organizations to military personnel, especially for reasons that remain unclear. Particularly worrisome, this does not seem to us a very efficient way to gather accurate information.” What this cable said in plain terms is that at least one person within the US Special Operations Command actually asked US diplomats in Kabul and/or Islamabad point blank for information on refugee camps, information that was to be used in a targeted killing or capture operation.

The cable also revealed that in addition to the requests from SOCOM and the US defense attaché, a SOCOM contractor had also asked US diplomats for “information on camps along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border which are housing Afghan refugees and/or Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).” Specifically, the cable added, SOCOM and its “contractor” have “requested information on camp names and locations, camp status, number of IDS/refugees and ethnic breakdown, and NGO/humanitarian relief organizations working in the camps.”

From the October 2008 cable, it is evident that US diplomats in Kabul and Islamabad were disturbed by the requests, asking various US military, intelligence and government entities for “clarification of the origin and purpose of this tasker.” At the same time the cable suggested that if the CIA or Special Operations Forces wanted such information, they “should send a front channel cable to the appropriate Embassy” or a representative of the director of national intelligence rather than by e-mailing or orally requesting the information from embassy personnel. Clearly, the back-channel approach was used for a reason.

So close was Blackwater to the most highly classified, sensitive operations the CIA was conducting that its members were among the casualties in one of the deadliest known attacks against the Agency in its history, the December 2009 suicide bombing at a CIA outpost at
Forward Operating Base Chapman
in Afghanistan. Blackwater operatives were serving as the security team for the Agency's second-highest-ranking officer in Afghanistan. They were meeting with a source, someone traveling by car from Pakistan, whom they believed knew the whereabouts of Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number-two man. Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al Balawi, it turned out, was a double agent whose true allegiance was to the Pakistani Taliban. In all, seven CIA personnel and a Jordanian intelligence officer were killed when Balawi walked onto the base and blew himself up. Two of those killed were Blackwater operatives.

In addition to working on covert action planning and drone strikes, Blackwater also provided private guards to perform the sensitive task of security for secret US drone bases, JSOC camps and Defense Intelligence Agency facilities inside Pakistan, according to the military intelligence source.

THE ABILITY OF US SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
to operate in Pakistan was clearly viewed as a major development by the US Embassy. “
Patient relationship-building
with the military is the key factor that has brought us to this point,” according to an October 2009 US diplomatic cable. It also noted the potential consequences of the activities leaking: “These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil. Should these developments and/or related matters receive any coverage in the Pakistani or US media, the Pakistani military will likely stop making requests for such assistance.”

Such statements might help explain why ambassador Richard Holbrooke, at the time the top US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, misled the world when he said bluntly in July 2010: “People think that the US has troops in Pakistan;
well, we don't
.”

In late 2010, relations between the United States and the ISI began to rapidly deteriorate. In November, a
civil lawsuit
filed in New York accused the ISI's chief, Ahmad Shuja Pasha, of involvement in the 2008 Mumbai bombings carried out by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. In December, the CIA scrambled to whisk its Islamabad station chief out of Pakistan after local media
blew his cover
and reported his name, Jonathan Banks. The top spy's identity
was first revealed in a lawsuit filed in Pakistan by a man from North Waziristan who alleged that two of his relatives had been killed in a drone strike. US officials accused the ISI of leaking the name in retaliation for the lawsuit that named Pasha. A US intelligence official said that Banks had to be removed because “
terrorist threats against him
in Pakistan were of such a serious nature that it would be imprudent not to act.”

A month later, on January 20, 2011, Raymond
Davis returned to Pakistan
.

PAKISTAN
, 2011—In Lahore, Raymond Davis lived and worked out of a US safe house in Upper Mall that he reportedly shared with
five CIA security personnel
. JSOC operatives
also used the house
. Far from being a diplomat, Davis worked on an ultrasecret, highly compartmentalized, classified team of men tasked with conducting sensitive surveillance and intelligence operations that could lead to targeted killing or capture. Among their tasks, according to US officials, was covertly
gathering intel on the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba
. On January 27, Davis was conducting an “
area familiarization route
,” putting him out in the open on the streets of Lahore for hours. He scouted several locations, including religious schools and government buildings. That's why the Pakistani authorities found, in his car, the high-tech kit of a clandestine operative: weapons with enough ammo to fight a small street war, surveillance equipment, wire cutters, knives and infrared equipment. It would also explain the collection of various identity cards bearing different job descriptions, as well as theatrical makeup. Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer told me it is common for covert operators to alter their appearance to blend in. “
It's acting without a script
,” he said. “That is really what it comes down to. It's tradecraft.”

Davis also had in his possession a “
blood chit
,” which is distributed to all US military personnel entering a hostile environment. According to the US military's Joint Publication 3–50 on Personnel Recovery, a blood chit “is a
small sheet of material
on which is imprinted an American flag, a statement in English and several languages common to the populace in the operational area, and numbers in each corner and, in some cases, centered under the flag, that identify the particular chit. The blood chit identifies the bearer as an American and promises a reward by the USG [US government] to anyone providing assistance to the bearer or helping the bearer to return to friendly control.” They are to be used by US military forces under siege, lost or in imminent danger of capture or harm “
after all other measure(s)
of independent evasion and escape have failed and the evader(s) or escapee(s) consider(s) assistance vital to survival.”

At some point on January 27, as Davis traveled through Lahore, he came
in contact with the men on the motorcycle, twenty-two-year-old Faizan Haider and twenty-six-year-old Faheem Shamshad, also known as Muhammad Faheem. According to the US version of events, the two men scoped out Davis as he stopped at an ATM to withdraw money and then put in place a plan to rob him. But according to four Pakistani sources who spoke to ABC News shortly after the incident, the two men were actually working for the ISI and began tracking Davis after he had
crossed “a red line
.” Days before the incident, Davis “was asked to leave an area of Lahore restricted by the military,” according to ABC's sources. “His cell phone was tracked, said one government official, and some of his calls were made to the Waziristan tribal areas, where the Pakistani Taliban and a dozen other militant groups have a safe haven. Pakistani intelligence officials saw him as a threat who was ‘encroaching on their turf,'” an official said. “Yes, they
belonged to the security establishment
,” a Pakistani security official told Karachi's
Express Tribune
newspaper. “[T]hey found the activities of the American official detrimental to our national security.” Complicating all of this, other Pakistani officials
emphatically denied
the men were ISI.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer said he heard credible reports from his colleagues who work on Pakistan that the two men were in fact ISI. “They were just going to pick him up and make a point, ‘We know who you are,'” Shaffer said. Because Davis had not been declared as CIA to the ISI, “they were gonna make the point to say, ‘We know you're here.'”

“I know a lot more about this than I can say, unfortunately,” Shaffer added. “It suffices to say that the Davis issue was prompted by the ISI, there was a provocation, there was a reason why Davis reacted the way he did and this gamesmanship had gotten to the point where CIA was basically being trailed by the very folks they're working with.”

Which “red line” Davis crossed, if in fact that is what prompted the two men to track him, may never be known. Perhaps it involved getting too close to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Perhaps he was working to expose its ties to the ISI. Maybe he was scouting targets for the Agency's drone bombings. Some suggested that Davis was the CIA's
new chief of station
. Some Pakistani officials went so far as to offer up a wild conspiracy theory that Davis was actually working with the Taliban and other militant groups to plan attacks on civilian targets that could be blamed on terrorists. It was a common allegation hurled at Blackwater in places like Peshawar, the capital of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and a central front in the covert US war in Pakistan. Despite the incendiary nature of these allegations, no evidence was ever produced to back up any of these charges. “The Lahore killings were
a blessing in disguise
for our security agencies who suspected that Davis was masterminding terrorist activities in Lahore and other parts
of Punjab,” a senior Punjab police official alleged, adding that Davis had “close ties” with the Pakistani Taliban. “Davis was instrumental in recruiting young people from Punjab for the Taliban to fuel the bloody insurgency.” Police officials said that the call logs from Davis's phones showed records of links with more than thirty Pakistanis, including “27 militants” from the Taliban and the militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which is designated as a terrorist group by both the United States and Pakistan.

Other Pakistani government sources alleged that Davis was in the country and known to the ISI and had been authorized to work on a CIA program conducting surveillance of al Qaeda and the Taliban. “
Davis's job
was to trail links of the Taliban and al Qaeda in different parts of Pakistan,” a source told the
Tribune
. “But, instead, investigators found that he had developed close links” with the Taliban. “The government and security agencies were surprised to know that Davis and some of his colleagues were involved in activities that were not spelled out in the agreement.” The mainstream Pakistani conspiracy theories on Davis suggested that the American operative was setting up
false flag bombings
to force the Pakistani government to take a more aggressive approach toward militant groups or to give the impression that the country's nuclear weapons were not secure. No evidence was ever presented to support these allegations.

The truth may never be known, but it is certainly possible that Davis was up to something with the Taliban and al Qaeda that Pakistan did not like and the US government would never want to acknowledge. “
All countries conduct espionage
,” asserted Colonel Patrick Lang. “In the course of that task in the ‘game of nations,' some things are done in ‘liaison' with a country's service, in this case, the ISI, and others are not. They are done unilaterally, i.e., illegally in the country where they occur. If one does not do that, then one is vulnerable to the agenda of the ‘liaison' service.” The US intelligence community, Lang argued, “is often accused of not really knowing what is ‘going on' in a country. The way to avoid that is to do some things ‘unilaterally.' In this case are the ISI irritated? I am sure they are. Do you think we believe that Pakistan does not operate ‘unilaterally' in the US? If we do, then we are fools.”