Brilliant New Light (Chance Lyon military adventure series Book 3)

by Van Torrey

  “Unfortunately, Ms. President, what we’re getting from our detainee is all we have to go by. We don’t have any lead on Yim except the detainee’s word that all the Koreans were to be picked up by a boat that was to be lying off the cruise ship at the time of the attack. Since we didn’t find anyone fitting the description of Yim among those who had been shot, we might assume that he, alone, escaped. At this point, an objective analysis would confirm that this terrorist act had fundamentally succeeded, at least according to Yim’s plan.”

  Clayton Wheatley concluded his brief on Chance’s report on the interrogation with what they did not learn from the detainee, even though he and Olyphant felt that the man was sufficiently motivated to tell them everything he knew, lest he be subjected to another episode of waterboarding.

  Ray Rollins spoke up next. “It looks like we have several unanswered questions here. First, to whom was Yim reporting and who was actually directing him. Second, were those control persons one in the same and where were they located? Third, who conceived this act of terror and planned it? And lastly, are there more sleeper cells planning more attacks?”

  FBI Director responded, “Good points, Ray. To conclude, I believe we have all the information from the Korean prisoner that one could reasonably assume he, as a mere soldier, had. It is doubtful that the strategic and policy questions we still have would be known to him for reasons of compartmentalization.” said Wheatley.

  “As would be our protocol as well,” added CIA Director Mitchell.

  After a period of pregnant silence, the SECDEF, Justin Roberts, rose and walked over to gaze at a bust of Jack Kennedy that President Hunter had placed in the Oval Office. Without facing the group, he asked Clayton Wheatley, softly, “Clayton, it may be of little consequence, but were the people who interrogated and finally got this intel from our detainee employees of the FBI?”

  As if it were a private conversation between the two men meant to exclude the others present, the FBI Director answered, “Well, Justin, if you have to know, they were contractors, people we have used before. They’re really highly educated and experienced men, and I trust their judgment.”

  “Well, I was just wondering,” replied Roberts, as he ran his hand absently over the bronze bust of JFK, “Wondering why you chose to use contractors rather...”

  Philip Johnson spoke softly, quickly interrupting the dialogue, “Perhaps this is a conversation to have at another time and place, gentlemen. I believe the President wants to see if we can develop some more facts so that we can move forward with hard choices.”

  Director Wheatley decided not to retreat from this out of respect for President Hunter being new to the position of Chief Executive. His explanation might give her an opportunity to make or change policy if he continued with his thought process. Wheatley continued, “With your permission, Philip. Perhaps some background can be of help here. Every person holding a job involving the gathering or analysis of intelligence, as well as those who had to decide on a course of action based on such intelligence, is highly sensitive to the techniques employed in developing it. It is human nature for enemies to use deceit, misinformation, or incomplete truths when they were interrogated by their captors - even downright silence. It follows that a skilled interrogator’s work involves breaking down those defensive barriers that shield the bedrock truth.”

  “Go on, Mr. Wheatley,” said President Hunter.”

  “Since the beginning of the Iraq war and continuing into the conflict in Afghanistan, a spirited debate has arisen at the highest levels of the United States’ government, occasionally pitting those working in the same administration against each other, as well as crossing political party lines and philosophies, about the ethical, moral, and legal boundaries that should be respected by an interrogator working for the United States intelligence establishment. Enhanced interrogations are a technique that, when correctly applied by an interrogator, make the person subjected to it feel more motivated to speak the truth. These methods are frequently extremely effective in getting even the most hard-core holdout to quickly give an interrogator any information he is seeking. These techniques have been denounced by a strange-bedfellow group of detractors as being cruel and unusual torture and, as such, judged to be unacceptable by American Exceptionalism standards.”

  Wheatley continued, “Those who lobby for the exceptionally limited use of enhanced interrogations rationalize it as a last-resort method to elicit information from an important source that could be vital for saving the lives of Americans in imminent danger,” Wheatley concluded.

  Such a debate about its use was being played out, albeit subtly, in the Oval Office today by two thoughtful men who occupied policy-making roles in the same administration.

  “I would like to finish with this thought,” continued Director Wheatley, “without the intel gathered by my contractors, we would be at a complete dead-end in this investigation and have very little to drive this going forward. Americans have died, and it is possible many more could be in danger if we don’t get to the bottom of this. You will all have to make your own moral judgments about the methods employed as we move on here.”

  With the gentle confrontation between Justin Roberts and Clayton Wheatley reduced by the intervention of the President’s Chief of Staff, this gave Rachel Hunter the opportunity to cut to the chase once again. “Director Mitchell, I would like to hear your take on this,” she said.

  Marilyn Mitchell now offered her analysis to the group. “As many of you know from first-hand experience, what may seem obvious on the surface may sometimes turn out to be something much less. In my mind the most important fact is whether this attack was conceived and carried out by the Fhang regime, or by holdovers from the Chong’s. Granted, the results are the same, and there must be decisions made about retribution, but it’s important that the appropriate people be held accountable in whatever actions we might take in response.”

  President Hunter summed the meeting up for the group. “My colleagues, it seems like what we know is counterbalanced by what we do not know, and the latter is vital to the decisions we make about how we are going to deal with the North Koreans. Once again we have a heinous crime perpetrated against Americans by paramilitary operators of a rogue nation. In my view this does not yet warrant a military response that I could defend intellectually in an international forum. Do I hear a contrary point of view?”

  “It may surprise everyone that I see no justification for a formal military response either...at this time,” offered Justin Roberts, President Hunter’s SECDEF with qualification. “However, may I suggest that if the North Koreans feel they can escape accountability by using paramilitary operators to make war on the United States, two can play this game. All I’m saying, Ms. President, is we have some options in our unconventional bag of tricks that we may want to consider that might put an end to this vicious game of cat and mouse we seem to be engaged in with these people.”

  Hearing nothing more from the group, President Hunter concluded with, “So, colleagues, once again, let’s pause to respectfully bury our dead and mourn while we gather more information and carefully plan the path forward.”

  *

  Rachel Hunter had asked her FBI Director, DNI Rollins, and Marilyn Mitchell to stay behind. When the others had gone, she got directly to the point. “Gentlemen, Marilyn, I have made a decision. Even though we don’t yet have answers to those open issues enumerated by Mr. Rollins, I’m not going to spend the weeks, perhaps even longer, it might take to get to the bottom of this latest act. We must send a direct and, if necessary, brutal message to the DPRK that we are going to respond to them at the highest levels of their government for these arrogant and murderous acts that are beyond the pale of human behavior.”

  Continuing, she added, “There would be no point in punishing them by attacks on their already tortured citizenry. If the South Koreans have it right, most of the ordinary citizens of the DPRK have no affection for their leadership anyway. Why make them suffer eve
n more while Fhang and his coterie of thugs remain safe. Further, damaging critical civilian infrastructure in North Korea would, again, only serve to bring more misery on an already beleaguered population that suffers woefully from malnutrition, imprisonment, and abuse from these same leaders. We would gain little or nothing from a military strike against a population center in North Korea. Therefore I think damaging military or commercial infrastructure important to General Fhang’s plans, with as little collateral damage to civilians as possible would be appropriate. If these are to be rebuilt, they will require doing so with funds he will not be able to use for expanding his military or nuclear assets,” Rachel Hunter concluded. “Do any of you see a flaw in my logic? Please speak candidly.”

  “I respect your logic, Ms. President,” offered Ray Rollins. “I’m not an operations person, but we’ve already hit them where it should have hurt by the missile strike that took out his brother. What you are proposing strikes a very different chord and will inflict a great amount of heartburn for Fhang, without attacking him physically.

  “Thank you for your insight, Ray,” said President Hunter. “We have to do something that will make this regime rationally consider the consequences of another murderous strike against America, and I think this is a measured approach we will be able to defend to the detractors who are surely to be heard after the fact. My first job as President is to vigorously defend the lives of Americans that might be threatened by a foreign enemy. I would be abandoning my responsibilities by not responding to the Caribbean Star attack an and the people would, quite properly, abandon me as well. Not every decision is easy or framed in black and white,” Hunter concluded.

  That night as she sought sleep, Rachel Hunter found herself firmly entrenched in the downside of being President of the United States, as she fought off an unending series of bad dreams during which her noble nature was at war with base forces of the darkest evil.

  CHAPTER 24

  RESTRAINT

  “What restraint or limit should there be to grieve for one(s) so dear?”

  Homer (Greek Poet. The Odyssey, The Iliad)

  *

  Although Rachel Hunter was no naïve amateur when it came to the realities of American Presidential politics, her idealism when it came to her Constitutional responsibilities, more specifically her resolve to protect national security under Article Two, Clause One of the United States Constitution, was soon to be tested.

  The national media, both a boon and a bane to U.S. Presidents for decades after their juvenile-like infatuation with President John F. Kennedy, had finally matured into an institution with a more centrist view after a damning post-presidential expose of a previous administration revealed that a major news organization had actually paid for access to high level administration officials, including the President himself. Part of this arrangement had been a gentlemen’s agreement to either disregard or place a favorable spin on certain news stories that were potentially damaging to the image of the administration. After the story was verified as fact, ratings for that news outlet tanked, sponsors abandoned them in droves, and many of the front-line reporters for the organization lost their jobs as well as future credibility in their profession.

  In previous years the media would have been howling for the heads of the perpetrators of the cruise ship incident and the Congress would be saber-rattling for revenge - on anyone and no-one in particular. However, there had been so many instances of international terror since 2001, unless it happened right in their home town, Americans had become somewhat indifferent to such horror. Therefore, since the incident had happened on the high seas, that fact alone seemed to insulate many Americans at home from the fact that American tourists were the victims of seemingly stateless terrorists, most of whom had been killed in the aftermath themselves.

  Rachel Hunter sensed no raucous outcry for revenge in the days immediately following the incident and that fact had puzzled her. Had the demise of American idealism and indignity at the thought of physical violation of our citizens become so complete that we were content to simply turn the other cheek? Rachel Hunter wondered.

  The final answer came in the form of a request from two influential members of Congress from Rachel Hunter’s party and the head of their party’s national committee to visit her in the White House informally. The request came through Philip Johnson, President Hunter’s Chief of Staff. “Ms. President, I think this would be a mixture of business and social. The Senator and the Congressman want to give you an informal sense of how their colleagues feel beyond their public statements on the matter, and the committeeman wants to talk about party business as it might relate to the general election two years hence. If you are inclined to accept, perhaps drinks and dinner in your private residence might be appropriate.”

  After a moment of contemplation, Rachel Hunter responded, “Yes, of course, Phil. But I would like you and Secretary Randolph to attend as well. To balance out the group, why not also invite Marilyn Mitchell? That way the two women will have someone to powder their respective noses with,” she smiled knowingly.

  “Of course, Ms. President. I think I know everyone’s politics except Ms. Mitchell’s,” remarked Johnson. “Do you think there could be any conflict...of philosophies? I think our guests would like the opportunity to be...candid...and might feel mildly inhibited by Ms. Mitchell’s presence,” he ventured.

  “I talk to her a lot Phil. She’s highly intelligent, apolitical, and very grounded. More importantly, I trust her judgment. I’d like to include her.”

  Philip Johnson took that as the last word on the matter and made a note to set the appointment.

  *

  One week later the group met in the second floor living area that was the President’s private living quarters. Rachel Hunter had wisely retained Maurice and his wife as holdovers from their service to Jonathan Braxton, trusting them to make the dinner party arrangements.

  Cocktails and hors d’oeuvres consisted of canapés, assorted fruits and vegetables, and various exotic nuts and legumes. California Merlot, Argentinian Malbec, and Sauvignon Blanc were the wines served, along with more robust spirits consisting of single malt Scotch, Kentucky bourbon, and French Vodka.

  Cocktail conversation was wisely kept by everyone to the lighter subjects such as trends in American entertainment and the arts, the social trends among the younger politically involved demographic, and the state of the American and worldwide economy. Marilyn Mitchell showed herself to be someone well beyond an intelligence wonk, as she held forth with her expertise on consumer technology, and even spontaneously entertained everyone with several minutes of playing old standards on the grand piano in the Gold Room off the President’s living quarters. President Hunter was quietly pleased with her CIA Director’s comfortable and relaxing segue into dinner.

  For dinner Maurice had prepared fresh almond flounder euniere with a dash of his secret seasoning, fresh broiled asparagus, and creamy scalloped potatoes. The dinner wine was a medium dry California Rombauer Chardonnay chosen to compliment the tender seafood. Soon the dinner conversation began to drift from the cocktail talk to the more serious matters facing the nation in the areas of domestic and foreign policy where there were greater divisions of philosophy, and where the members of Congress were eager to make their opinions and those of some of their colleagues known to the President and members of her inner circle in person.

  After the chocolate mousse dessert and coffee, the group repaired to the Gold Room where everyone expected the substance of the evening to come out. Senator Morris, of New York was the senior political leader present and gracefully took the lead in the conversation. “Ms. President, thank you for this opportunity to meet in such an informal and private manner. I think I can speak for my colleagues whom you have graciously invited when I assure you what we have to say will stay in this room tonight. May we be candid?”

  “Of course, Senator. I welcome any constructive input from you and your Congressional colleagues. If we are going to talk
about foreign policy, I hope you don’t feel Ms. Mitchell will be an inhibitor to what you have to say. She has her eyes and ears on much that has to do with our foreign relations these days, and I felt she would be a welcome addition to the conversation. Unfortunately Secretary Randolph is in the Middle East and can’t be with us tonight.”

  “Of course, Ms. President,” replied the Senator as he gave a polite nod of approval in Marilyn Mitchell’s direction.

  The Senator continued: “Ms. President, we know there is a great deal of pressure coming from many diverse circles for you to take some action in retaliation for the terrorist attack in the Caribbean. As for me, my mail and phone calls from New York run the gamut, but most feel that some strong action is necessary. Of course at one end of the spectrum I have those who feel this is a legitimate statement of victims of U.S. imperialism and the other end wants us to drop the big one now - on whom, they’re not sure! Somewhere in between probably lies a reasonable compromise.”

  “My colleagues and I are here tonight to make you aware that, beyond the outraged rhetoric we are expected to produce for the majority of our constituents, many of our more thoughtful colleagues feel, at least initially, restraint would be in order. Any future actions toward these terrorists need to be supported by facts, and thoughtful consideration of the consequences of any such action. More specifically, some of us on both sides of the aisle feel that, in the past, there has been too little thought given to an exit strategy after we have made a military statement in response to a crisis.”

  “A point well taken, Senator. I’ve had such thoughts myself,” remarked Rachel Hunter.