Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why was a Navy adviser stripped of her career?

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I have searched for this and was surprised not to find it covered, it is a strange and conspiratorial story.

The story was in the Washington Post today, a 5 page story.


Gwenyth Todd had worked in a lot of places in Washington where powerful men didn’t hesitate to use sharp elbows.



But she was not prepared a few years later in Bahrain when she encountered plans by high-ranking admirals to confront Iran, any one of which, she reckoned, could set the region on fire. It was 2007, and Todd, then 42, was a top political adviser to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.



Two people who were there said Cosgriff mused in a staff meeting one day that he’d like to steam a Navy frigate up the Shatt al Arab, the diplomatically sensitive and economically crucial waterway dividing Iraq and Iran. In another, they said, he wanted to convene a regional conference to push back Iran’s territorial claims in the waterway, a flash point for the bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Then he presented an idea that not only alarmed Todd, but eventually, she believes, launched the chain of events that would end her career.



According to Todd and another witness, Cosgriff’s idea, presented in a series of staff meetings, was to sail three “big decks,” as aircraft carriers are known, through the Strait of Hormuz — to put a virtual armada, unannounced, on Iran’s doorstep. No advance notice, even to Saudi Arabia and other gulf allies. Not only that, they said, Cosgriff ordered his staff to keep the State Department in the dark, too.


www.washingtonpost.com...

Mental idea right? Well the story continues that Todd leaked the idea of plowing up the Persian Gulf unannounced to the State Department with Cosgriff then ordered to make the visit of a second aircraft carrier public.

From this point on it gets even more mental and basically falls in to a chasm of a bad spy novel, I suggest you read the whole post but it basically included an attempted link of Bahrain Shiites engaging in Iranian encourage anti-American terrorism. I'm still trying to work it all out after finishing reading it earlier on today.

Juan Cole picked up this case on his site.


In spring of 2007, someone in the Bush administration (unindicted co-conspirator Richard Bruce Cheney? Neocons?) Sends uber hawk Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff to Oil Gulf with instructions to provoke a war with Iran. He allegedly toys with challenging Iran’s claim to half of the Shatt al-Arab. He certainly decided abruptly to bring two aircraft carriers to the Gulf, in hopes of provoking Iran into doing something stupid, and without telling the State Department or the White House.

He also pushes analysis alleging that Bahrain Shiites intend anti-American terrorism on behalf of Iran. Adviser to the Navy Gwenyth Todd (former National Security Council staffer) rightly challenges this stupid conspiracy theory (Bahrain Shiites are mostly Arab Akhbaris who reject ayatollahs, and would not slavishly obey Persian, Usuli Iran!). I.e. Cosgriff was allegedly nearly making a coup in order to get up a war.

Failing something so drastic, he may have (or his Neocon superiors may have) hoped to forestall direct talks with Iran that month. Todd blows the whistle on Cosgriff, letting State know about his intended insubordination. Word gets back to Neocons or whoever was behind the provocation and Cosgriff that Todd was the leak. She is abruptly deprived of her base pass and security clearance, a trumped up case is made against her with the FBI that she received money from a former boyfriend who did illegal consulting with Sudan (she says she returned the small sum he sent her).

Todd’s career is ruined, her inquiries and grievances are ignored, she marries an Austrlian naval officer and goes into exile in Perth. FBI harasses her even there. Todd’s account is corroborated by Navy sources speaking off the record, according to the Washington Post.


www.juancole.com...

This highly accomplished woman, who seems highly valued and trusted by all she has worked with, has basically been attacked for trying to prevent a ridiculous situation with Iran where a war could have easily been the outcome. She has lost her job and had to flea abroad for fear of prosecution.

What do members make of this?
edit on 26-8-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Added link




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


I agree with her intentions BUT... What happened to her is perfectly fair if she disobeyed military orders or protocols.

When you join the military you vow to uphold the conduct expected of you. That includes following orders and missions you may not agree with. Unless these were rogue admirals acting without authorization (which I don't) she had no right to go behind their back.

Also the military has zero requirement to report anything to the State Department... They report to the DoD and what State has to say has no bearing on our military.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 


Hmm interesting take on matters. Was she directly answerable to the Navy though?


Then one day in January 2005 she got an intriguing offer from Adm. David Nichols, commander of the 5th Fleet: Come to Manama, Bahrain, as a political adviser, on contract — you can keep your other clients. They had conferred twice the previous year, when Todd stopped in Bahrain during a business trip.


www.washingtonpost.com...

She was a political advisory, contracted in, does that make a difference?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Ah sorry must have missed that. Well if she was advising in a confidential meeting then spilled the beans later I could see why her career would be shot.

She could have known what she was telling outside people would ruin her career but it was the right thing to do. If that's the case I salute her.
edit on 26-8-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I'll say that if things are as she saw them...the little piece of the puzzle she was there at that level to witness and hear....then indeed, there ought to be some hard questions asked about why an effort to directly provoke a conflict was being discussed as something to actually wargame and consider.

On the other hand, and to be fair all around..... I'm just thinking, she was a contractor with what would be limited access by what she was contracted to do. I'm sure there were meetings WAY above her pay grade discussing those same things and possibly, in very different context. Who knows? That's kinda the point. She wasn't even close to the rank or level where she could know.

It's also possible....in fact, entirely so with the leak issues that have haunted Washington since the early days of the Afghan war, that things were being said as a general mental exercise while VERY close notes kept of which versions of what ideas were said.....with what people were in the room at the time.....to see which versions (if any) came out to the open media. They're VERY VERY determined to plumb the leaks and end the flow.....and Bush was near fanatic by the end, as I've read. 2007? ...That'd be an interesting time, either way, 100% legit or not.

Great catch! S/F



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well she was contracted in but she was already a senior adviser in both the Bush administration and previous ones and came from a family of diplomats, she wasn't a nobody and still seems to hold a lot of contacts within the Navy etc.

To me this seems like a situation where a cool head broke up a ridiculously risky and belligerent provocation of Iran. I think Cosgriff was probably under orders from someone higher up or I doubt he would still have a job. Head of the Navy, which was Dempsey at the time? or even higher, Cheney?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
If she did nothing wrong, why go marry a foreign national and leave her country?

Sounds like she was sabotaging internal affairs, sowing distrust and loyalties only to vacate her own country proving she has no loyalty.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It seems to me the exact opposite, that her country was not loyal to her. Trying to prevent the US slipping into another war whilst bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan was an extremely loyal act as this would have been absolute madness.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It seems to me the exact opposite, that her country was not loyal to her. Trying to prevent the US slipping into another war whilst bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan was an extremely loyal act as this would have been absolute madness.


You assume that Admirals are loose cannons with the ability to start a war all on their own, which is complete nonsense. They are professionals who have a lifelong record far more stellar than some political analyst who runs and hides in another country when they screw up. They are entrusted with flotillas of naval power that alone rivals that of entire nations. They also are experts consulted in wartime scenarios, 99% of which will never happen but they are studied and most likely are National Security secrets. This woman was a trouble maker that showed zero loyalty to her country and now resides elsewhere because she leaked secrets, plain and simple.
In reality what she did was cause undo tensions in the region. She herself may have caused a war.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Interesting logic there. So in informing the Department of State, the organ that is supposed to run foreign affairs in the government, of a plan to sail, unannounced, three aircraft carriers up waters Iran claim as their own at a time of high tension between the US & Iran, it was Todd who almost started a war?


Talk about blaming the victim.
edit on 27-8-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Interesting logic there. So in informing the Department of State, the organ that is supposed to run foreign affairs in the government, of a plan to sail, unannounced, three aircraft carriers up waters Iran claim as their own at a time of high tension between the US & Iran, it was Todd who almost started a war?


Talk about blaming the victim.
edit on 27-8-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling


It appears she exposed a scenario that was studied, not an actual imminent action.
Of course the State Department will deny, nobody is supposed to know what the top military brass studies and if someone thinks they know they will deny.
There is a reason for security levels and need to know, this woman is a shining example of that. She saw one piece of a puzzle with no clue where it fits, assumed too much and then got into trouble divulging secrets. Of course her security clearance was revoked and she lost her job, she failed in her duties on so many levels here it is pathetic.
edit on 27-8-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It seemed to have advanced to beyond just an idea.


When he instructed Todd and other staff not to tell the State Department about his plan to marshal the big decks that May in 2007, Todd said, it was just too much. She immediately called a family friend at the State Department’s Iran desk. Her contact alerted superiors, according to sources familiar with events, and Cosgriff was told to stand down.

The armada passed through the strait a week later, on May 23, without incident. Likewise, in Baghdad, Iranian and American diplomats met as scheduled. Cosgriff was furious about “the (expletive) storm" coming down on him from Washington because of the leak, according to Todd and another staff member. Todd was relieved. The big-decks surprise had been defused, and Cosgriff didn’t seem to suspect her of leaking the plan.


www.bendbulletin.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
maybe she lost her job because they realized she was a woman. Lol sorry, that was a bad joke and i mean no disrespect by it. Dont hate me. Just felt an urge i couldnt resist. But as it seems, she blaitantly went against orders of secrecy. Is it really a conspiracy that she lost her job for such a thing? Even if the plan wasnt a very good one she basicly ruined it by flapping her gums. Lol again im tempted to make a joke about women but shall refrain. I truly do love and respect women. Heck, my mother was a woman... But anyway, no supprise she lost it all. I would have gotten rid of her too. And no, not because she was a female, because she screwed the preverbial pooch. I think thats only allowed in mexico.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It seemed to have advanced to beyond just an idea.


When he instructed Todd and other staff not to tell the State Department about his plan to marshal the big decks that May in 2007, Todd said, it was just too much. She immediately called a family friend at the State Department’s Iran desk. Her contact alerted superiors, according to sources familiar with events, and Cosgriff was told to stand down.

The armada passed through the strait a week later, on May 23, without incident. Likewise, in Baghdad, Iranian and American diplomats met as scheduled. Cosgriff was furious about “the (expletive) storm" coming down on him from Washington because of the leak, according to Todd and another staff member. Todd was relieved. The big-decks surprise had been defused, and Cosgriff didn’t seem to suspect her of leaking the plan.


www.bendbulletin.com...


In the end it was mission accomplished, they got rid of some loose lips.....and you know what they do, the very thing the Admirals defend against, sinking their ships. If tensions were rising at the time, they would have to run scams like this to weed out the security risks. Do you really think an Admiral was going to run 3 carriers down a river without anyone noticing back in Washington? The whole thing is comical but they caught a live one on it, and security was better for it.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 



In the end it was mission accomplished, they got rid of some loose lips.....and you know what they do, the very thing the Admirals defend against, sinking their ships. If tensions were rising at the time, they would have to run scams like this to weed out the security risks. Do you really think an Admiral was going to run 3 carriers down a river without anyone noticing back in Washington? The whole thing is comical but they caught a live one on it, and security was better for it.


That is a possibility. However, commanders on the field do all sorts of stuff their political masters are not aware of, its called organisational process. Groups in Washington may well have been aware of this but not all groups, as in the generally more sane Department of State.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Documentary put out by Press TV with Gwenyth Todd. As I understand PressTV has been "banned" in the United States, supposedly to prevent censorship.




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


They don't do things that are going to start a war. They're not loose cannons. A commander in the field has quite a bit of leeway, especially when it comes to force protection, but he's not going to get to the point where he's commanding a carrier battle group, or any other large unit, or on the Joint Chiefs if he's some kind of rogue that's going to provoke a war. And no commander in the field is going to sail a carrier, with 5000 troops on board somewhere it can easily be sunk, and a lot of his people killed, just to start a war, orders or not.





new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join