Charlie Wilson's War

[KidA]

(We really need that movie review forum!)

Good flick. Tom Hanks does a good job. Philip Seymour Hoffman does an outstanding job as the CIA agent. I think many of you will enjoy this flick, though I wouldn't say it's necessarily one that has to be seen on the big screen (not because it isn't good, but it's not a great scenic masterpiece or anything).

[RAT]

(We really need that movie review forum!)

Good flick. Tom Hanks does a good job. Philip Seymour Hoffman does an outstanding job as the CIA agent. I think many of you will enjoy this flick, though I wouldn't say it's necessarily one that has to be seen on the big screen (not because it isn't good, but it's not a great scenic masterpiece or anything).

CW is a story unto himself. Good ol' Souther Dem out of South East Texas...

To bad the rest of the jerks on the hill left him out to dry we would not be where we are today. IMHO.

RO!!!

[Inspector Cluseo]

CW is a story unto himself. Good ol' Souther Dem out of South East Texas...

To bad the rest of the jerks on the hill peft him out to dry we would not be where we are today. IMHO.

RO!!!
While a student at UT I worked lunches as a waiter and nights at the door of an upscale diner/lounge. CW would leave a $10.00 bill and a shot of liqueur on the table as a tip at every meal when in Austin.
Interesting fellow and quite personable
Agree with RAT ...
Saw the movie yesterday...enjoyed it for what it was.

[rgrdrew]

Good story, read the book years ago, just watched the documentary on History Channel, and looking forward to seeing the movie. Quite a character!

[SOTB]

Here is the opportunity for a higher deity to prove its existence.

All he (or she) has to do is prevent this thread from taking an "oh the poor, poor Afghans" or a "Charlie is the reason the Muj beat the Ruskies" direction....

[Slim]

Here is the opportunity for a higher deity to prove its existence.

All he (or she) has to do is prevent this thread from taking an "oh the poor, poor Afghans" or a "Charlie is the reason the Muj beat the Ruskies" direction....

Muj= Freedom fighters!

Charlie wilson= Saviour of the downtrodden freedom fighters!

So much for that opportunity:D



Back to semi-seriousness: I saw the documentary on the History channel too. I don't know enough about it to know if it was accurate or not, but the sentiment I posted above is pretty close to the main them of the doc.

The story seems to lend itself to a halfway decent movie so I'll see it on video, if nothing else to see how Hanks pulls off the womanizing, drunk, cowboy act.

[Sharky]

Muj= Freedom fighters!

Charlie wilson= Saviour of the downtrodden freedom fighters!

So much for that opportunity:D




Dammit. Beat me to the punch.

[KidA]

Well, kind of. Still:

*Spoiler*

The closing of the movie is after the Soviets have withdrawn from Afghanistan and Charlie is at a table with a couple other members of Congress (not identified) and he's asking for $1 million (after we spent $500 million on funding the war) to build some schools in Afghanistan and gives a speech how the average age in A-stan is 14 and all these freedom fighters are going to be returning to their villages after years of warfare and find families killed and places destroyed and it's imperative that they have education because they're going to be frustrated as hell and the Islamists are filling the void of the Soviets and we're going to regret it.

And the money was turned down because "no one cares about schools in Afghanistan. We won."

Not sure how accurate it is, but there you go.

[rgrdrew]

Boy, if that doesn't fit. Pretty much sounds like what has happened.

[Silverbullet]

Interesting how CW is lauded even though he was a corrupt drug addict whore monger.....but in another thread that corrupt behavior is criticized and used to dismiss someone's actions. Guess it does depend on what side of the looking glass you're on when deciding if someone has done the right things or not......

While the book has some fairly accurate details of what he may have pushed to get done, I suggest a broader study be done on the events that led to the Muj being supported. There were a number of others involved who actually went further and were working deep inside Afghan. I had drinks with one about a month ago. Another still works in our gov't at the highest level. They're out there but haven't had books written or movies made about them.

[Spinner]

I've always thought the Herring woman was the more interesting of the two. Without her, Charlie doesn't even begin to think about The Afghans and their cause.

She's like a lot of woman in history, singing their siren song into a horny male's ear and getting him to jump through hoops to gain her affection. Who among us hasn't been manipulated by a woman we set our sights on nailing?

Which is the crux of what happened to Charlie Wilson, at least based on the story presented in the book.

[Guy]

Interesting how CW is lauded even though he was a corrupt drug addict whore monger.....but in another thread that corrupt behavior is criticized and used to dismiss someone's actions. Guess it does depend on what side of the looking glass you're on when deciding if someone has done the right things or not......I don't know why? You just don't come out and say it....

"Bunch of two-faced SOBs!":p :D

Stay safe.

BTW...Its only wrong if, you get caught.:eek: ;)

[SOTB]

The US helped the Muj beat the Soviets -- no doubt about it. We did NOT cause them to win. All we did was MAYBE expedite things.

But for those who want to believe that a US congressman was a hero and/or the void filled after the Soviets left was immediately filled by radical Islamists and/or with schools the Afghans (or the Pakis -- thrown in for cross-thread points) will become more "moderate" -- well, you guys enjoy that fantasy. Personally, I will continue to devote my thoughts of fantasies to multiple naked HOT brunette (or redhead) chicks in the sack with me at the same time....

[airbornelawyer]

Well, kind of. Still:

*Spoiler*

The closing of the movie is after the Soviets have withdrawn from Afghanistan and Charlie is at a table with a couple other members of Congress (not identified) and he's asking for $1 million (after we spent $500 million on funding the war) to build some schools in Afghanistan and gives a speech how the average age in A-stan is 14 and all these freedom fighters are going to be returning to their villages after years of warfare and find families killed and places destroyed and it's imperative that they have education because they're going to be frustrated as hell and the Islamists are filling the void of the Soviets and we're going to regret it.

And the money was turned down because "no one cares about schools in Afghanistan. We won."

Not sure how accurate it is, but there you go.Sounds like typical Charlie hyperbole, but essentially accurate. As of 1990, one year after the Soviets completed their withdrawal, U.S. direct humanitarian aid through AID was about $83 million per year, plus another $40 million or so through UN agencies. U.S. direct aid was about $380 million between 1985 and 1990. Most of this was food and medical aid, but education was also part of the equation.

This of course pales in comparison with military aid, but not by the 500 to 1 factor Charlie implies (assuming you're not just paraphrasing). From 1980 to 1988, military aid came to about $2.3 billion, slowly rising from $30 million in 1980 to $600 million in 1988. It then fell more than half, to around $280 million IIRC, in 1989.

As for schools, as of June 1989, AID claimed to have established 1,021 schools serving 105,000 students. But many people, including my organization, called that claim into question.

But a big factor is that aid, both humanitarian and military, from Saudi Arabia dwarfed U.S. aid tremendously. In 1989, when we supplied under $300 million, the Saudis supplied over $700 million. The Saudis built schools as well, where Wahhabism was high on the curriculum. Saudi and Pakistani-built madrasas were the breeding ground of the Taliban, who took their name from their status as students at these schools.

Non-governmental aid was drying up too. The private organizations which provided medical, food, clothing and other relief to Afghans all depended heavily on contributions, and after the Soviet withdrawal, but especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, contributions dried up. My organization was eventually subsumed into a larger organization focusing on defense policy in general, which didn't seem to care much about the Afghan issue and seemed more interested in using our contacts and mailing lists on their own causes.

I confess I haven't seen the movie and am not sure I will. I also have only read enough of the book to see how Charlie portrays the people I knew and worked with.

[KS11]

Who among us hasn't been manipulated by a woman we set our sights on nailing?


Such as waxing a car for the prospect of a *maybe* BJ?

Hell, I should get one from her in lieu of the crossthread points...

[KidA]

Such as waxing a car for the prospect of a *maybe* BJ?

Hell, I should get one from her in lieu of the crossthread points...

Bitch please. :D

[NightLandNav]

You can't have the facts muddling up a script, especially when the script is supposed to be based on actual events.

If the roles of protagonist/antagonist aren't absolute, the audience will become confused and loose interest in the story....because we're all stupid.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Interesting how CW is lauded even though he was a corrupt drug addict whore monger...
...as were many of our founding fathers.

[NightLandNav]

...as were many of our founding fathers.

Yeah, but historical context is a bitch. ;)

[Silverbullet]

...as were many of our founding fathers.

And you felt that was important to add to a thread about CW and the movie made about him...............?

Interesting that you thought this was relevant.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

And you felt that was important to add to a thread about CW and the movie made about him...............?

Interesting that you thought this was relevant.
...and interesting that you took offense to it. None was intended.

I did think it was relevant. I was just adding to your point by illustrating that many great deeds were accomplished by men of "questionable" morality and that a man's accomplishments aren't lessened by his own indulgences. I thought that was the point you were trying to make.

[Silverbullet]

...and interesting that you took offense to it. None was intended.

I did think it was relevant. I was just adding to your point by illustrating that many great deeds were accomplished by men of "questionable" morality and that a man's accomplishments aren't lessened by his own indulgences. I thought that was the point you were trying to make.

Of course you do.

I guess you were just using brevity to get that all across by associating the founding fathers with a drug addicted whore monger. Good job.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

The point I was trying to make was exactly what I explained it to be. I am sorry that you took it as a jab at our founding fathers.

[Greenhat]

Personally, I will continue to devote my thoughts of fantasies to multiple naked HOT brunette (or redhead) chicks in the sack with me at the same time....


For you, that's a fantasy, huh?










:D

[Greenhat]

Btw, am I just imagining things, or is it more than coincidence that a film about a Democrat having influence on a successful insurgency is released now?

[Remington Raider]

Btw, am I just imagining things, or is it more than coincidence that a film about a Democrat having influence on a successful insurgency is released now?

These are NOT the droids you are looking for . . .:D

[SOTB]

....many great deeds were accomplished by men of "questionable" morality and that a man's accomplishments aren't lessened by his own indulgences....I've always stated that the Corps was invented by a couple of drunks in a bar. I don't know how true that is, but I doubt if they were in that bar to promote chastity and an alcohol-free existence....:D

[Jong]

I've always stated that the Corps was invented by a couple of drunks in a bar. I don't know how true that is, but I doubt if they were in that bar to promote chastity and an alcohol-free existence....:D

That would explain a lot of things! :D

[Spinner]

Such as waxing a car for the prospect of a *maybe* BJ?

Hell, I should get one from her in lieu of the crossthread points...

As long as she does the initial wash...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3aWRUmoSs&feature=related

Was Michael Vickers as instrumental as the book portrays him in getting the weapons and training to the mujahadeen?

The book made him out to be some sort of logistical genius.

[MakoZeroSix]

Just got back from the movies. Awesome flick. It did about as much justice to the book as is possible by a film.

Oh, and I give a fuck if the guy snorted a mountain of coke off of stripper's titties. It has absolutely no bearing on what he accomplished. He did alot better job than those goodie-two shoes bureacrats at the CIA whose "morals" aren't "questionable".

[Massgrunt]

You guys may find this interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122702116.html?nav=rss_politics/fedpage

Sorry, Charlie. This Is Michael Vickers's War.
Defense officials once jokingly described Michael Vickers as being in charge of the
Defense officials once jokingly described Michael Vickers as being in charge of the "take-over-the-world plan." (By Ann Scott Tyson -- The Washington Post)


By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 28, 2007; Page A19

In the Pentagon's newly expanded Special Operations office, a suite of sterile gray cubicles on the "C" ring of the third floor, Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael G. Vickers is working to implement the U.S. military's highest-priority plan: a global campaign against terrorism that reaches far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

The wide-ranging plan details the targeting of al-Qaeda-affiliated networks around the world and explores how the United States should retaliate in case of another major terrorist attack. The most critical aspect of the plan, Vickers said in a recent interview, involves U.S. Special Operations forces working through foreign partners to uproot and fight terrorist groups.

Vickers's job also spans the modernization of nuclear forces for deterrence and retaliation, and the retooling of conventional forces to combat terrorism -- a portfolio so expansive that he and some Pentagon officials once jokingly referred to his efforts as the "take-over-the-world plan," one official said.

Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operative, was the principal strategist for the biggest covert program in CIA history: the paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The movie "Charlie Wilson's War," released last weekend, portrays Vickers in that role, in which he directed an insurgent force of 150,000 Afghan fighters and controlled an annual budget of more than $2 billion in current dollars.

Today, as the top Pentagon adviser on counterterrorism strategy, Vickers exudes the same assurance about defeating terrorist groups as he did as a 31-year-old CIA paramilitary officer assigned to Afghanistan, where he convinced superiors that with the right strategy and weapons, the ragtag Afghan insurgents could win. "I am just as confident or more confident we can prevail in the war on terror," Vickers, 54, said in a recent interview, looking cerebral behind thick glasses but with an energy and build reminiscent of the high school quarterback he once was. "Not a lot of people thought we could drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan."

Vickers joined the Pentagon in July to oversee the 54,000-strong Special Operations Command (Socom), based in Tampa, which is growing faster than any other part of the U.S. military. Socom's budget has doubled in recent years, to $6 billion for 2008, and the command is to add 13,000 troops to its ranks by 2011.

Senior Pentagon and military officials regard Vickers as a rarity -- a skilled strategist who is both creative and pragmatic. "He tends to think like a gangster," said Jim Thomas, a former senior defense planner who worked with Vickers. "He can understand trends then change the rules of the game so they are advantageous for your side."

Vickers's outlook was shaped in the CIA and Special Forces, which he joined off the street through a "direct enlistment" program in 1973. In the 10th Special Forces Group, he trained year-round for a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union. One scenario he prepared for: to parachute into enemy territory with a small nuclear weapon strapped to his leg, and then position it to halt the Red Army.

Vickers recalled that the nuclear devices did not seem that small, "particularly when you are in an aircraft with one of them or it is attached to your body." Was it a suicide mission? "I certainly hoped not," Vickers said.

An expert in martial arts, parachuting and weapons, and second in his class at Officer Candidate School, Vickers was also fluent in Czech and Spanish, which made him overqualified when he joined the CIA's paramilitary unit in 1983. Soon after, he received a citation for combat in Grenada.

But Vickers's greatest influence was in the clinically precise way he reassessed the potential of Afghan guerrilla forces and prescribed the right mix of weaponry to attack Soviet weaknesses. This brash plan to create a force of "techno-guerrillas" able to fight year-round called for exponentially more money, which through sheer force of logic Vickers was able to obtain.

Today Vickers's plan to build a global counterterrorist network is no less ambitious. The plan is focused on a list of 20 "high-priority" countries, with Pakistan posing a central preoccupation for Vickers, who said al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the country's western tribal areas are a serious threat to the United States. The list also includes Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Iran, and Vickers hints that some European countries could be on it. Beyond that, the plan covers another 29 "priority" countries, as well as "other countries" that Vickers does not name.

"It's not just the Middle East. It's not just the developing world. It's not just nondemocratic countries -- it's a global problem," he said. "Threats can emanate from Denmark, the United Kingdom, you name it."

The plan deploys a variety of elite troops around the world, including about 80 to 90 12-man teams of Army Special Forces soldiers who are skilled in foreign languages and at working with indigenous forces. Today, those forces are heavily concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, but as their numbers grow, they will increase their presence in other countries.

"The war on terror is fundamentally an indirect war. . . . It's a war of partners . . . but it also is a bit of the war in the shadows, either because of political sensitivity or the problem of finding terrorists," Vickers said. "That's why the Central Intelligence Agency is so important . . . and our Special Operations forces play a large role."

Vickers is pressing Congress to double "train and equip" funding from levels approved in recent years for the military. The funds, which total $325 million for fiscal 2007, allow the U.S. military and Special Operations forces to pay indigenous fighters and paramilitaries who work with them in gathering intelligence, hunting terrorists, fomenting guerrilla warfare or putting down an insurgency.

The funds are "very important . . . so we can move rather rapidly to train and equip foreign security forces" and more will be needed, Vickers told senators at his confirmation hearing in July. "If you don't have close cooperation, you can't fight the war," he said later.

But while local forces can be far more effective in countering terrorism in their regions, creating the forces must be done carefully, said Thomas, the former defense planner. "The last thing we want to do is create a bunch of right-wing goon squads that go out and shoot jihadists with very little legitimacy."

Vickers is also arguing for billions of dollars in new technology: specialized stealthy aircraft able to fly over countries undetected, unmanned aerial vehicles and other equipment for distant and close-up surveillance, and technology to "tag" and "track" individuals and cars for long distances over time.

Finally, Vickers seeks authority for more flexible and rapid "detailing" that would allow Special Operations forces, in larger numbers, to be seconded to the CIA and allowed to work under agency rules.

"It's striking to see how quickly he moves through large amounts of information" and then gives guidance how to get things done, said Kalev Sepp, deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations, who works under Vickers. "He knows the key players on Capitol Hill. . . . He understands what level of general officer has to be contacted to make decisions," Sepp said.

But with just over one year left in the Bush administration, Vickers is impatient with bureaucratic infighting within the military and between the Pentagon and other agencies, current and former officials said. One official noted that it took Socom about three years to write the counterterrorism plan, and two years for the administration to approve a classified "execute order" against al-Qaeda.

Vickers, who has advised President Bush on Iraq strategy, is convinced that more U.S. troops are not enough to solve the conflict in Iraq and that working with local forces is the best long-term strategy for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Its imperative that the Iraqis provide . . . security, so transitioning to an indirect approach is critical," he said. "The surge has been phenomenally effective . . . but not sufficient," he said, adding that he thinks that without political change the effects of the troop buildup "will dissipate."

Working with proxy forces will also enable the United States to extend and sustain its influence, something it failed to do in Afghanistan, he said. "After this great victory and after a million Afghans died, we basically exited that region and Afghanistan just spun into chaos," he said.

"It's imperative that we not do that again," he said.

[MakoZeroSix]

"He tends to think like a gangster,

Hence his success.

Finally, Vickers seeks authority for more flexible and rapid "detailing" that would allow Special Operations forces, in larger numbers, to be seconded to the CIA and allowed to work under agency rules.


That would rock.

[Silverbullet]

Oh, and I give a fuck if the guy snorted a mountain of coke off of stripper's titties. It has absolutely no bearing on what he accomplished. He did alot better job than those goodie-two shoes bureacrats at the CIA whose "morals" aren't "questionable".

And you're basing that on his version in the book? So, he says he accomplished what he accomplished...... Guess we ought to believe him.

The point is that he was a drug abuser, had alcoholic blackouts and was just a very small part of what was accomplished by guys who stayed in the shadows. This isn't about morals. It's about a guy who has inflated his part and may or may not remember a number of important details but didn't let that stand in his way in his book.

See the article about M Vickers since he is one of the guys I was talking about in an earlier thread.

I'm not stating that anyone should change their mind about enjoying the book or movie. Taking him at face value should be avoided though.

[MakoZeroSix]

The point is that he was a drug abuser, had alcoholic blackouts and was just a very small part of what was accomplished by guys who stayed in the shadows. This isn't about morals. It's about a guy who has inflated his part and may or may not remember a number of important details but didn't let that stand in his way in his book.


And I say BFD that he did drugs. I'll bet you wouldn't be dissing him if he had been a tee-totaling bible thumper. This guy was a character, and through his drunken, debauched antics, made alot of shit happen to get the Stingers and other stuff for the Muj. Of course, the role of Avaratkos and Vickers and others had in the thing shouldn't be marginalized just because he was larger than life. But Wilson got the money rolling, which is a big part of the puzzle. I find it far more interesting and amusing that a whoremongering drunken Texan got the ball rolling than if it had been a faceless, bland, boring bureaucrat. Then again, I tend to judge people more on their accomplishments than their personal lives.

[Silverbullet]

I'll bet you wouldn't be dissing him if he had been a tee-totaling bible thumper.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt but don't write something to me like this again. I'm not joking. This is basically you questioning my integrity.

I don't "diss" anyone and thought that verbiage went out about 10 yrs ago.

My position is that he didn't do everything claimed in the book on top of being a drug addict. If he was tea totaler I would just question his liberal use of fiction. The fact he was a drug abuser, who suffered from alcoholic blackouts just adds to his inability to correctly recount his place in the events.

Then again, I tend to judge people more on their accomplishments than their personal lives.

Based on a book and a movie?

Maybe he excites you but why don't you take the time an research the subj before acting like his book is the final version of how things transpired?

[Greenhat]

Quote:
Finally, Vickers seeks authority for more flexible and rapid "detailing" that would allow Special Operations forces, in larger numbers, to be seconded to the CIA and allowed to work under agency rules.


That would rock.

Ask the Vietnam era guys who worked under the Agency what they think of the idea.

[Sharky]

Just saw the movie yesterday. Laughed my ass off at Avratakos' antics. My kind of guy.

[Typhoon]

Just saw the movie yesterday. Laughed my ass off at Avratakos' antics. My kind of guy.
Since December I've been slowly working through the extensive 500+ page narrative of George Crile, and have just about finished. I'll see the movie when it comes out on DVD. The other night I laughed my ass off at Avrakatos being the only white guy at the Agency to ever get the "Brown Bomber" award, with Avrakotos' presenter his former secretary, a 325 pound black woman, saying "You're the Blackest Motherfucker in the Agency!" :D

[Purple36]

I have learned through experience that even the most accomplished operators fail if they have serious character flaws. Judgement and conduct matters.

[Amarillo]

I have learned through experience that even the most accomplished operators fail if they have serious character flaws. Judgement and conduct matters.
I see your post as deserving further thought and discussion.

Charlie Wilson certainly displayed poor judgment and conduct, but his accomplishments can be said to be quite successful -- amazing, even. (Given that he didn't come up with it all by himself, nor could he have pulled it off without tremendous help.)

Did he fail in the end because he didn't continue doing amazing things?
Or because the amazing things he did ended badly?
Or just because he was a bad boy?

[Typhoon]

Or just because he was a bad boy?
It is just incredible to me that Wilson is still alive after what he did to his body with alcohol...

[Purple36]

I see your post as deserving further thought and discussion.

Charlie Wilson certainly displayed poor judgment and conduct, but his accomplishments can be said to be quite successful -- amazing, even. (Given that he didn't come up with it all by himself, nor could he have pulled it off without tremendous help.)

Did he fail in the end because he didn't continue doing amazing things?
Or because the amazing things he did ended badly?
Or just because he was a bad boy?

My comment was directed toward the overall topic, not Charlie himself.

[Tracy]

Finally, Vickers seeks authority for more flexible and rapid "detailing" that would allow Special Operations forces, in larger numbers, to be seconded to the CIA and allowed to work under agency rules.



That would rock.


No it would not. Didn't work before, won't work now. "Agency Rules" doesn't exist per se, Administration Policy does. You have several major players involved here: The Oval Office, State Department, CIA and DOD. None of them have a consensus on what to do. Ask yourself this: do you really want to report to four chains of command with four different intents?

I am not convinced that DoS or the CIA have any experience in running large-scale COIN campaigns. I applaud Secretary Vickers' initiative, but we can't clone him. Remember: He's with DoD, not the CIA now. Why is that?

CIA with larger forces means more signature and visibility; which is a bad thing because a clandestine service can't do its job as well. Is a larger SOF indicated for counter-terrorism? Oh hell yes, but should a diplomatic or clandestine service run it? No. Leading in one field doesn't translate into another.

[Greenhat]

As it happens, I'm now reading Commandoes and Spies: How the CIA lost the Secret War in North Vietnam. It doesn't inspire confidence in the CIA's ability to run a covert war.

[magician]

No it would not. Didn't work before, won't work now. "Agency Rules" doesn't exist per se, Administration Policy does. You have several major players involved here: The Oval Office, State Department, CIA and DOD. None of them have a consensus on what to do. Ask yourself this: do you really want to report to four chains of command with four different intents?

I am not convinced that DoS or the CIA have any experience in running large-scale COIN campaigns. I applaud Secretary Vickers' initiative, but we can't clone him. Remember: He's with DoD, not the CIA now. Why is that?

CIA with larger forces means more signature and visibility; which is a bad thing because a clandestine service can't do its job as well. Is a larger SOF indicated for counter-terrorism? Oh hell yes, but should a diplomatic or clandestine service run it? No. Leading in one field doesn't translate into another.

There are others here who can speak with far more authority than I, but I will make a couple of comments.

Without getting specific about which agency we are discussing, (because we could be discussing several), some IC managers often purchase insurance, once they reach elevated positions of responsibility and exposure. Too many of them have been left dangling in the past, and they need a way to cover steep attorneys fees to defend themselves from accusations of wrong doing.

While you mull this over, also consider that some of these agencies have a track record of abandoning contractors, or folks who are seconded to various agencies, far faster than they will leave their own, and history has shown that they all run for cover when the special prosecutors come knocking.

I think that Tracy could be making an important point when he points out that Mr. Vickers is now a DOD employee.