I was in marine headquarters and listened in on the generals daily situation briefs and I never saw anything like this. We do it the good old fashioned way: Interrogate prisoners, follow up on leads, get the locals involved, and try to improve infrastructure. But then again, the briefs weren't "top secret".

Could it be that intel has some "top secret" technique? If they did, nobody would be at liberty to tell you without getting into serious trouble. I personally have strong skepticism about Woodward's claims and think he's just trying to pull a fast one to gain more fame and attention.

Quote:Original post by OmegaHelm
He made some provocative statements about the 'success' of the surge in Iraq being due to a secret weapon or some sort of secret operational capability that allowed US forces to target the bad guy leadership

Seeing this guy isn't a part of this "top secret" program, he shouldn't actually know anything about it, but he acts as if he does!

This means he's had a "secret" briefing with the military, who could have told him any wonderful stories (factual or fictional), which he can then go and repeat the results of to the public at large.
The 'secret' qualifier ensures that these stories themselves aren't repeated to the public - only the moral of the story is told (which is "we can win"), thus protecting the propagandist from scrutiny.

This is a standard military propaganda model, dating back to WWII.

Hodgman makes a good point. Woodward might well be passing along Pentagon propaganda, wittingly or unwittingly. Leftist critics have accused him of being overly cozy with the Pentagon before.

Here is the transcript of the show: Woodward: Military Brass Opposed Surge.

Quote:
...
But beyond all of that, Woodward reports, for the first time, that there is a secret behind the success of the surge: a sophisticated and lethal special operations program.

"This is very sensitive and very top secret, but there are secret operational capabilities that have been developed by the military to locate, target, and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, insurgent leaders, renegade militia leaders. That is one of the true breakthroughs," Woodward told Pelley.

"But what are we talking about here? It's some kind of surveillance? Some kind of targeted way of taking out just the people that you're looking for? The leadership of the enemy?" Pelley asked.

"I'd love to go through the details, but I'm not going to," Woodward replied.

The details, Woodward says, would compromise the program.

"For a reporter, you don’t allow much," Pelley remarked.

"Well no, it’s with reluctance. From what I know about it, it's one of those things that go back to any war, World War I, World War II, the role of the tank, and the airplane. And it is the stuff of which military novels are written," Woodward said.

"Do you mean to say that this special capability is such an advance in military technique and technology that it reminds you of the advent of the tank and the airplane?" Pelley asked.

"Yeah," Woodward said. "If you were an al Qaeda leader or part of the insurgency in Iraq, or one of these renegade militias, and you knew about what they were able to do, you'd get your ass outta town."
...

Notable details: Woodward calls it a program rather than a weapons system. It has the capability to locate, target, and kill. It is as revolutionary to warfare as the tank or the airplane.

It seems to me that a new development as dramatic as that would be extremely difficult to keep secret for long. My guess is that it's a combination of highly advanced surveillance combined with the latest aerial drones and old fashioned assassination methods.

I think the references to al Qaeda are telling as well and lend credence to Hodgman's point. Earlier tonight I watched a one on one interview on C-SPAN with Linda Robinson, author of the book "Tell Me How This Ends: General David Petraeus and the Search for a Way Out of Iraq". She had just returned from Iraq. She said that US troops were still fighting al Qaeda in Diyala province. If that's so, then perhaps this "special operations program" isn't as revolutionary as described.

Here's what the WaPo article on Woodward's book has to say about this.

U.S. Spied on Iraqi Leaders, Book Says

Quote:
...
The book also says that the U.S. troop "surge" of 2007, in which President Bush sent nearly 30,000 additional U.S. combat forces and support troops to Iraq, was not the primary factor behind the steep drop in violence there during the past 16 months.

Rather, Woodward reports, "groundbreaking" new covert techniques enabled U.S. military and intelligence officials to locate, target and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Woodward does not disclose the code names of these covert programs or provide much detail about them, saying in the book that White House and other officials cited national security concerns in asking him to withhold specifics.
...

I imagine that intrepid reporters are going to dig into the crumbs that Woodward dropped and if there's anything to it, they'll be reporting on it in one to six months. Sadly though, what those reporters find isn't likely to make it into the corporate media as they probably don't work for corporate media. This is one for the Danger Room at Wired.

But here's the thing: If this program exists, then it's classified as "Top Secret" as he says. It could very well be "Top Secret - SCI" too, which means knowledge of the program/operations is compartmentalized into a "need to know" basis. Logically, it makes no sense to say that you have a secret but aren't willing to share it. Why tell anyone you have a secret then?

There is no secret to our success in Iraq: It's the result of actually talking to the people who are trying to kill us (or the influential people) and to figure out the five W's and then try to negotiate a peaceful solution (if possible) or kill them if necessary. No secret technology can replace the effectiveness of boots on the ground and solid human relations with the populace.

On another note, the insurgency was a result mostly thanks to Paul Bremer's dumb de-baathification program and disbanding the Iraqi army. Bremer was too high on the kool-aid of "liberty, freedom and democracy" and the political connections to washington. I'd even say that he caused more harm then good during his provisional role.

I'm inclined to think Woodward was fed a line by the Pentagon. Still, who knows what kind of top secret stuff we have operating? Keep in mind that the F117 was first built in 1978 and remained classified for ten years. For all the new gadgets we're reading about in Wired, the stuff being used would probably blow our minds.