The Pentagon has erupted in “revolt” amid claims from 50 intelligence analysts that senior defense officials manipulated intelligence reports to downplay the severity of the Islamic State’s increasing upper-hand in the Middle East. According to allegations made in an official complaint with the Department of Defense Inspector General, the officers in question doctored reports — among other things — in order to maintain the Pentagon and president’s narrative that the war against the Islamic State, as well as Al Qaeda in Syria, is succeeding. To the contrary, the dissenting analysts — now effectively whistleblowers — have repeatedly attempted to warn that the situation is far more dismal than what authorities are revealing to the public.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official told the Daily Beast, which broke the story late Wednesday. Two senior analysts at CENTCOM — the U.S. military’s central command Middle East and Central Asia — filed the formal complaint with the Defense Department’s Inspector General in July (the analysts are formally employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s dedicated spy wing).
Other analysts are willing to back up allegations with “concrete examples.” 11 of 50 intelligence analysts spoke anonymously with the Daily Beast, detailing various methods senior defense officials have used to downplay the terrorist groups’ influence and power. This is particularly concerning considering the story told to the public is already pitiful, portraying grave threats to the United States.
In some cases, analysts allege reports that portrayed the war in too negative a light were simply prevented from moving higher up the chain of command. In other cases, they were sent back down to analysts, prompting many to self-censor their reports out of fear of rejection or punitive action.
Most sordid, perhaps, are claims that senior officials blatantly altered reports ”…to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress.” Additionally, protesting officials told the Daily Beast that “…in some cases key elements of intelligence reports were removed, resulting in a document that didn’t accurately capture the analysts’ conclusions.” They allege “…the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.”
Many analysts said that because of these practices, they felt they could not provide an honest, unbiased analysis of the situation in Iraq and Syria — a task they were hired to perform. Others expressed this was because of the career ambitions of high-ranking officials who did not want negative reports about the conflict to compromise their chances of further advancement.…More fixing intelligence around policy.
AntiMedia
50 Defense Dept. Whistleblowers Slam “Stalinist” Pentagon Officials For Lying About ISIS
Carey Wedler
Twas ever thus. There is policy and there is analysis/intelligence, two completely different things. If the policy relied on analysis, the world would probably be in a lot better shape, but it isn't.
ReplyDeleteWhen the policy is different to the analysis, as it usually is, the analysis must find a way of coexisting with the policy: the analysis bends until it allows for policy. For example, all the analysts reported that there was no Saddam-Bin Laden connection. But the pressure on analysts is such that they will word a report in such a way to give the policy makers what they want. Analysts who can't back policy or at least keep their mouths shut are weeded out or resign in frustration.
Examples of analysis being at odds with policy are too numerous too mention, but a few examples will suffice here: ISIS, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Chile, Nicaragua.
Sometimes the analysts are guilty of cloud cuckoo land stuff. More often than not, though, the reason is that the good analysts have been weeded out or resigned and been replaced by the kind of ideologically committed Walter Mittys the policy makers are fond of.
The inconvenient CIA analysis that started reporting as early as the seventies that the Soviet Union was disintegrating, both economically and militarily, had to be made more delectable. So new intelligence was conjured up out of nowhere that the Soviet Union had never been stronger and had created undetectable weapons systems. Now, you try proving that undetectable weapons don't exist! The reason you can't find them is because they're undetectable! The scares kept on coming and more and more money was funnelled into the Pentagon.
A lot of the best intelligence comes out of universities. If you were to shut down the intelligence agencies and rely solely on the analysis coming out of departments of strategic studies, you'd be better off. But that isn't the point.