Ex-CIA Operative Comes Out of the Shadows

(CBS)  You don't hear from people like Henry Crumpton very often. That's because "Hank," as he's known, spent most of his adult life as a spy for the CIA. Now he has stepped out of the shadows to tell how just after 9/11, at age 44, he masterminded the downfall of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

He did it with just a handful of CIA officers, military special operations teams and an army of Afghan tribal warriors. Crumpton probably knows more about the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban than almost anyone else.

And now that he is out of the CIA, he makes no secret anymore about what he did to defeat them in 2001.

Web Extra: Secret Museum
Web Extra: Tough Talk
Web Extra: Shadow Warrior

"I've described it as our own insurgency to overthrow the Taliban, to attack al Qaeda," Crumpton told 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan.

Asked what orders he gave his men, he said, "Orders were fairly simple: 'Find al Qaeda and kill them, especially leadership. Destroy command and control. If the Afghans, including Taliban leaders wanted to help us, we are receptive.'"

"How did that work? I mean, going to each individual tribal leader one by one and offering them what? Saying what?" Logan asked.

"Well, in a very crude way, it would be a carrot and a stick. The carrot would be 'If you come cooperate with us, we will reward you and your people.' The stick was 'If you do not cooperate, the chances of your survival are greatly diminished.' And we would prove this by attacking Taliban leaders who had rejected our overtures," Crumpton explained.

"Killing them?" Logan asked.

"Yes. And the next day, we'd talk to the tribal leader that was next door. We would make him the same offer. Given the incentive that we had set the previous day, he was much more amenable to negotiations in our favor," Crumpton replied.

"Because he heard the guy that wouldn't cooperate was killed yesterday?" Logan asked.

"Or in some cases, he saw that his fellow commander, his tribal ally was killed," Crumpton said.

Crumpton took 60 Minutes with him in September to the place where his plan first began to unfold: the Panjshir Valley, 70 miles north of the Afghan capital Kabul.

Our helicopter touched down on the same riverbank where Crumpton first landed in the dead of night eight years ago. Just across the river on a hill overlooking the landing site is the original safe house used by the CIA in 2001. Inside the now-renovated building, one of Crumpton's old allies was waiting to greet him.

Muhammad Arif Sarwari, known among the CIA's operatives as "Engineer Arif," was a senior commander of the main coalition of Afghan tribes opposing the Taliban. Crumpton's men - small teams of seasoned operatives - flew into Afghanistan on Russian-made helicopters. On one they painted "9-11-01" on the tail.

The teams linked up with Engineer Arif's tribal militia. "And it worked very well. You could always count on Engineer Arif and his men. We put our lives in your hands," Crumpton told his old ally.

A few miles away, ascending thousands of feet up a winding mountain road, Engineer Arif and Crumpton showed us where they spied on the Taliban and al Qaeda, from a position overlooking the vast Shomali Plains where the Taliban army was dug in, 40,000 strong. From that vantage point, they gathered critical intelligence on enemy positions and movements.

"And this is where you fully expected the Taliban and al Qaeda to fight, right? To defend? To try and stop the advance towards Kabul?" Logan asked.

"Yes, they had the frontline stretched all the way across. They were entrenched and we thought that it would be a stiffer fight," Crumpton recalled.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page »

[rascalhouse]

Hank Crumpton was clearly an effective leader and operative in Afghanistan. He carried out his strategy successfully, and in this interview he is unusually honest and direct in describing how he and his men conducted their mission. We should be thanking him, and listening to his insights into the situation in Pakistan and elsewhere.

[acupuncturegirl]

Crumpton is an expert all right. An expert at being filth. This is the most disgusting thing I have read in a long time. No wonder we are where we are.

And since when, or who, gave permission to attack Taliban? They never were our enemy. This man is not only evil, he is retarded mentally and should be incarcerated somewhere before he initiates more killing.

[rjedgar]

I completely agree. Crumpton wants to run a preemptive killing campaign. This will create more terrorism, not less. The main conclusion of the 911 Commission Report was that terrorism was caused by our meddling in the affairs of other countries. Crumpton sounds just like the terrorists.

I'm disappointed that 60 minutes only provided one point of view.

[lakelbr]

Acupunturegirl....your name says it all. You're the filth and why we have these problems. Leave it to people like Hank and there wouldn't be any 9/11's. You and your ilk are the reason we have them....Hope you feel the love.

[SocietysNightmare]

Nice work there, Mr. Crumpton. You and your colleagues are the reason Americans are shot in the head without warning walking down the street in other countries. Clinton nearly disbanded the CIA, and the 2nd Bush brought it back (the 1st Bush was the Director at one point after all). The CIA is a waste of taxpayer money, and the day I need one of these Jack Bauer Wannabes to protect me will be sad indeed.

[edgy44]

You're confused. The CIA won the war, the U.S. Army lost it. See which one is more cost effective now?

[Treadlightly2]

Wars are a lot harder to sell when people are having trouble keeping food on the table. Wonder what (TOP SECRET)(EYES ONLY) bit of propoganda they'll reveal next? Guess we weren't being attentive enough. Come on people we have a phony baloney war to fight here PAY ATTENTION!

[Treadlightly2]

by stercus_accidit December 27, 2009 9:29 PM EST
Virtually all our wars since Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), Iraq (WMDs) are indictable as puerile and mostly avaricious adventures by the MI oligarchic plutocrats. Lara Logan, CBS and the general media are all jingos thumping for the accepted orthodoxy. Lara likes the thrill and acclaim of the battle. Doubtless a real appeal at the officers club.

Wish I had stayed in school. Frustrating to read something that I think I agree with but have to resort to Wiki first. And yep I agree.
For anyone else who might have been doing something other than homework back in the 70's.
An oligarchy (Greek ?????????, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony.

[1srbin]

It is shocking that reporter did not ask Afghani official why aren't the afghani people fighting Taliban when they are so bad?. Or perhaps it is more convenient to have Americans die for their freedom. CIA man is talking about next attack ("it is matter when"?) why not asking him "based on what" I am tired of people "predicting" stuff. It is irresponsible on the part of journalist not to press for answer and take everything as is. There are too many loud mouths and they should be told to "put up or shut up".

[edgy44]

It's not shocking. It's not even a valid question. The Afghans are notorious fighters. They will fight each other for nothing more than pride, or family. What they don't have, unless we give it to them, is air superiority. That's what the CIA gave those that joined our clan. We killed and wiped out the opposing force (we being the USA). After that, the Afghans cleaned-up the remaining remnants. They are fierce fighters. You can bet your ass on that. They respect only power, and the willingness to use it. If you have power and you don't use it, they don't respect you.

[Zapata-L]

At first I thought that CBS's 60 Minutes segment on the CIA in Afghanistan (12/27/09) was produced by Dick Cheney for the Bush Administration. It was an unapologetic, totally uncritical defense of the CIA's failed policies, and was unworthy of the original high standards set by the 60 Minutes show. It provided a fanciful view of the CIA's role, and ignored the two most important mistakes we made there.

A fanciful view of the CIA's role

1. What I found most amazing was Henry Crumpton's willingness to admit to being a "Spy" leading a CIA clandestine, Special Ops team in an effort to overthrow the Taliban government. According to Crumpton, that began a few weeks after 9/11, during a time when we and the rest of the world still recognized that regime as the legitimate government. As such, their activities were in clear violation of international law.

2. Crumpton appears to accept the CIA mantra that a foreign, infidel (non-Islamic) force can establish an alternative government in Afghanistan by going to tribal leaders and giving them "a carrot and a stick" choice. If the leader did not cooperate, he would call in an undercover air strike, and have the leader killed. Then he would go to the next tribal leader, and say, "If you do not cooperate, the chances of your survival are greatly diminished." That does not breed respect and loyalty. It breeds fear and contempt, and most of us now know that such actions later became the Taliban's and al Qaeda's greatest recruiting tool.

3. Crumpton seems to believe that his efforts were key to driving the Taliban from power. That flies in the face of all the evidence that shows our massive bombing and overwhelming firepower superiority is what caused to the Taliban to abandon their authority.

The two most important mistakes we made in Afghanistan

A. We did not defeat the Taliban or al Qaeda as Crumpton alleges. We merely drove them underground where they waited for their chance to return. Foreign invaders, especially ones so totally different than the local populations, rarely are able to sustain propped up governments for any length of time. We failed to bring a popular, stable government into power, and thus remained the 'evil invading' force -- which was just what the Taliban wanted for a recruitment tool.

B. Crumpton totally ignores the difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban is a local, Afghani organization, and has deep roots in many of the communities. They came to power because they wanted to run the government. Al Qaeda is a loosely organized international organization with goals and ambitions well beyond the Afghani borders. Pre 9/11, the Taliban allowed al Qaeda to operate within their borders, but if they had been faced with a choice between losing power and kicking al Qaeda out, most believe they would have chosen to remain in power (especially immediately after 9/11, when the vast majority of the Muslim world had little sympathy for al Qaeda). By lumping Taliban together with al Qaeda, we forced them to bond as allies, and that has led to many of the problems we have faced since 9/11. The actions by Crumpton and ilk are why we are in the mess we are in today.

[Mortar-29]

Good try, but Crumpton is an expert. You are??

[ibsteve2u]

If you remember that the original mission context was the neutralization of Osama bin Laden, then I would opine that Crumpton's strategy was entirely appropriate.

One thing is a near-constant around the world: The value of one's own - and one's family's - life. Our goal was the elimination of bin Laden - and FAST. That required the reduction of his ability to concentrate force against us, and the elimination of the cover and concealment that he needed to evade us.

So eliminating OBL's fan base was a good strategy. A VERY important consideration is that we originally had NO mandate to stick around and "spread democracy"...we were supposed to find OBL, neutralize him, and get out.

However, I suspect that OBL's - al Qaida's - continued threat came to be perceived as a valuable tool; a bogey man who could be waved in the American people's face whenever PNAC wanted to do something outside of the American people's interests, such as invading Iraq to satiate Israel's supporters while simultaneously manipulating the oil markets.

So the find and neutralize OBL strategy was...lollll..."de-emphasized", and Bush, Cheney, & PNAC, LLP instead CHOSE to invade Iraq, using their bogey man threats of WMDs and, of course, OBL's equally non-existent al Qaida training camps.

But the Bush Administration did, I think, cause major long term damage in that they projected their own morality upon the inhabitants of the nations they invaded. That is, they went in with the attitude that anybody can be bought, and once bought, they'll stay bought.

Although I've not been to the Middle East, I know that in much of the rest of Asia attempting to buy someone is an insult...and an indication that you yourself can be bought, and thus lack honor.

So methinks that the PNACkers did much damage, long term.

[quotelawrence]

CONSIDER HOW BRILLIANT THIS IS HE IS SAYING I KNOW MORE ABOUT TERRORISM THAN ANYONE ELSE, WHY IS HE PUTTING A BULL'S EYE TARGET ON HIS BACK, THIS SOUNDS VERY STRANGE, ALSO IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS IT ALL HAPPENED WITH A HANDFULL OF SPECIAL FORCES THAN WHY ARE THOUSANDS THERE THIS IS CRAP. PROPAGANDA

[Mortar-29]

The thousands came afterwards. Were you paying attention?

[mahalapril]

I could never understand the people who thought that Bush invaded Iraq for no apparent reason except for suspected WMDs in Iraq. It was not a question of whether there were or there were no WMDs in Iraq.We knew Saddam used WMDs on his own people, the Kurds and the Iranians during their 8-year war. Saddam forced the Iraq war for refusing serach of WMDs in Iraq even after many warnings from everybody in the world.The Iraq war was supported by the UN,EU and the US including the democrats. Bush even gave a last warning to Saddam to prevent invasion if Saddam and his 2 brutal sons leave Iraq within 48 hours which Saddam refused. What other justification anybody need for an invasion. It was a very rapid easy win. However the multinational islamic fanatics,Al-Qaida in the Afghanistan war who could have overran already the small 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan ( WHERE THE MULTINATIONAL Islamic FANATICS PREVIOUSLY DEFEATED THE 150,000 RUSSIAN TROOPS JUST BY THEIR SHEER OVERWHELMING NUMBERS FROM AN INEXHAUSTABLE SOURCES FROM ALL OVER THE ISLAMIC NATIONS IN THE WORLD) if they were not distracted to the Iraq war where our US troops in Iraq wiped out hundreds of thousands of these multinational islamic fanatics including many Al-Qaida from Afghanistan.This is the reason why we are still in Afghanistan.

[unshrub]

To mahalapril:

But the issue was if the US could sustain two wars at one time, and history has proved that we could not, otherwise were would not be in the mess we have in Afghanistan. We dropped the ball in Afghanistan becasue of our distractin in Iraq. That is why it was irresponsible by the Bush adminsitration to attempt two wars at once.

[liberalameri]

we knew sadam had WMDs because we still had the receipts
donald rumsfeld personally made the deal

Both the UN and EU declared the IRAQ war illegal, they never approaved of it. The UK was the only ons to support it.

[mahalapril]

It is time for the boy president Obama to grow up. Why sacrifice more Americans and peaceloving ,good people in the world. All Obama has to do is make the safe havens in Pakistan and Iran (whose opposition protesters are just another faction of the islamic fanatics) radioactive for thousands of years. The Detroit commercial jet attempt to blow up the plane will be happpening more and more frequently that they will subsequently succeed,not to mention islamic sleeeper cells already in the US like the Fort Hood domestic islamic terrorism , the foiling of the blowing up of the subways in NYC, the Arrest of 5 muslim extremist Americans in Pakistan who wanted to kill US troops in Afghanistan.
The Obama Administration should be connecting the dots already which Pres. Clinton failed prior to the 9/11 WTC massacre and Clinton was responsible for the massacre of the 3,000 innocent American civilians on 9/11.There were already multiple warning attacks and signal before 9/11. The first was the WTC garage bombing in 1993, the Khobar Tower military housing complex bombing in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen where the Detroit islamic terrorist obtained the sophisticated explosives which was undetectable and the most unforgivable mistake of Bill Clinton of failing to invade Afghanistan already with an act of war by Bin Ladin and Al-Qaida with the bombings of 2 US embassies in Africa which killed more than 250 people. Bill Clinton (which any republican president would no doubt invaded already Afghanistan to get Bin ladin and disrupted the training and planning bases for worldwide islamic terrorism which was justifiable under international law after repeated refusal by Taliban chief Mullah Omar to give up Bin Ladin). This pattern of warning attacks and signals- the apprehension of a would- be islamic terrorist in NYC bombing the subways from Colorado,the arrest of 5 Islamic Americans apprehended in Pakistan, the worst domestic islamic terrorism at Fort Hood,and the failed bombing of the Detroit commercial Jet from Nigeria/Amsterdam. These are the same warning signals/attacks of the Obama(previously Clinton Administration )prior to a 9/11- like attacks on our homeland because Obama have been an islamic terrorist symphatizer,closing Gitmo and putting on trial the CIA interrogators for the non-torture waterboarding,disrespecting the US Military,talking without preconditions with islamic extremists and rogue nations with the opposite effect of our enemies who are now mocking and ridiculing Obama for his military weakness.We should start building underground bunkers now if we don't go bankrupt before then by Obama's economic and military incompetence.