Did a "triple agent" kill eight CIA agents in Afghanistan?

And how can we trust the spooks to protect us if they can't protect themselves?

And how can we trust the spooks to protect us if they can't protect themselves?{C}

From antiwar.com:

A week after the deadly CIA bombing at Forward Operating Base Chapman in the Khost Province, evidence continues to trickle in about the attacker, Jordanian informant Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, but questions continue to linger about how such a high-profile attack was able to be carried out.

Seven CIA employees died and another six were injured in what was the deadliest single attack on the CIA since 1983 -- when eight of the agency's employees were believed to be among the dead after Islamist militants bombed the US marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans.

Al-Balawi, the "triple agent" said to be behind the 30 December blast, was a Jordanian doctor and former Islamist militant whom the authorities believed they had turned against al-Qaeda. Reports suggest the CIA considered him their best lead on al-Qaeda in years. The result? Al-Balawi wasn't even given a "rudimentary security screening" upon arriving at the Khost base last week. As Time's Joe Klein writes:

. . . this suicide bomber, a Jordanian doctor named Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, was the CIA's worst ever security breach. In an era when grandmothers are routinely screened at airports, al-Balawi was whisked into Forward Operating Base Chapman, the CIA headquarters for the drone war against al-Qaeda, without so much as a pat-down. He was then ushered into a meeting with 13 CIA operatives and his Jordanian handler.

He then blew himself up.

Hmm. The same spooks and security guys who want to introduce body scanners and racial profiling at airports, to secure our skies, can't even secure their own military base in the middle of a war zone. Ironic, huh?

NOTE: My column in this week's magazine on the so-called Underwear Bomber and our (excessive and inflated) fear of terrorism can be read here.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for International Trade.

Only Nixon, it is said, could have gone to China. Only a politician with the impeccable Commie-bashing credentials of the 37th President had the political capital necessary to strike a deal with the People’s Republic of China.

Theresa May’s great hope is that only Liam Fox, the newly-installed Secretary of State for International Trade, has the Euro-bashing credentials to break the news to the Brexiteers that a deal between a post-Leave United Kingdom and China might be somewhat harder to negotiate than Vote Leave suggested.

The biggest item on the agenda: striking a deal that allows Britain to stay in the single market. Elsewhere, Fox should use his political capital with the Conservative right to wait longer to sign deals than a Remainer would have to, to avoid the United Kingdom being caught in a series of bad deals. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.