NY bomb plot suspect Najibullah Zazi

Since World War II we have routinely shared intelligence with the British, even co-locating our efforts in some intelligence facilities. U.K. intelligence recently alerted US authorities to a terrorist bomb attack plot, which the Telegraph announced was stymied. Good. Intelligence works as it's supposed to, and bad guys are caught.

But here's the troubling comment in that report:

"The British discovery also came at just the right time – the US had threatened to sever intelligence links over the release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi."

We did what? Because we are officially miffed at the Lockerbie business, we are willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces in regards to cooperative terrorism intel work with the British?!?

As it frequently does, the Telegraph fails to cite sources or authorities for inflammatory facts alleged, so I want to take that statement with a grain of salt. But if the allegation is true, I am outraged. I understand the game of political brinksmanship and threatening actions that will never really take place in order to make a point or coerce an uncooperative partner. But sometimes threatened actions take on a life of their own. That's a foolhardy place to go if you can't afford to pay the full price of engagement.

We have no business even thinking about playing this game of chicken with our US/UK shared intelligence. There is too much at stake on many levels, not only the obvious hot spot of terrorism, but especially in that regard given our present need for hypervigilance in the matter.

This is not a time or appropriate manner to threaten to take our marbles and go home. In spite of ourselves, the Brits saved our butt on this one.

Now, who was that American bonehead who came up with the threat to "sever intelligence links" as part of our official hissy fit over Lockerbie? He or she needs some basic instruction in Appropriate Leverage 101. And a spanking.

Not necessarily in that order.

____

This post originally appeared at Cogitations.