{"id":110886,"date":"2017-11-30T13:02:00","date_gmt":"2017-11-30T13:02:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T11:04:55","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T11:04:55","slug":"cooking-intel-books","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/11\/30\/cooking-intel-books\/","title":{"rendered":"Cooking the Intel Books"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>You remember the refrain: &#8220;Bush lied, people died.&#8221;&nbsp; That phrase took on  a life of its own following the invasion of Iraq; the &#8220;failure&#8221; to  discover Saddam&#8217;s alleged WMD arsenal, and allegations that intel  assessments had been altered&#8211;if not actually fabricated&#8211;to support  administration policies. <\/p>\n<p>As a grand conspiracy, it had to be the greatest of all times.&nbsp; Turns  out that not only did U.S. intelligence believe that Saddam Hussein had  resurrected his WMD program, so did the spooks in the UK, France,  Germany, Russia and just about every other country with a credible intel  service.&nbsp; The problems, as later documented by independent review  panels in the U.S. and Great Britain, was &#8220;group think&#8221; among  intelligence experts who feared down-playing a potential threat in the  post 9-11 world. &nbsp; <\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s a phenomenon I&#8217;ve experienced first-hand.&nbsp; As a analyst, I know the  perils of challenging the status quo or what the community refers to as  the &#8220;consensus&#8221; about a particular situation&nbsp; or threat.&nbsp; Once the  template is set, it takes very compelling evidence to change an  assessment, particularly on something as important as an enemy&#8217;s WMD  capabilities and a potential decision to go to war. <\/p>\n<p>Journalist Judith Miller, who would never be described as a member of  the &#8220;vast right-wing conspiracy,&#8221; nicely summarized the issue&#8211;and its  impact on policy decisions&#8211;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.prageru.com\/courses\/political-science\/did-bush-lie-about-iraq\">in a piece written earlier this year<\/a>: <\/p>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\">&#8220;No, President Bush did not take America into a war because he was  strong-armed by a neoconservative cabal. As President Bush himself  famously asserted, he was the \u201cdecider.\u201d And no, he didn\u2019t go to war for  oil. If we wanted Saddam\u2019s oil, we could have bought it.<\/span><\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"> <\/span><\/p>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"> President\u2019s Bush decision to go to war was based on the information  that he and his team relied on &#8212; information that was collected by the  world\u2019s top agents and analyzed by the world\u2019s top analysts, including  the intelligence agencies of France, Germany and Russia, countries whose  leaders did not support going to war. But they all agreed on one thing  &#8212; Saddam had and was continuing to develop WMD.<\/span><\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\">   Our intelligence professionals, and those of major European countries,  overestimated Saddam\u2019s capabilities. Mistakes like that filter through  the system &#8212; from the White House to Congress to journalists to the  public. And those mistakes impact policy. But here\u2019s the key thing to  remember &#8212; they were mistakes\u2026not lies.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">But  what if intelligence estimates were &#8220;sexed-up&#8221; (borrowing the Brits&#8217;  term) to support a favored narrative or policy option?&nbsp; According to a  House of Representatives Joint Task Force, that&#8217;s exactly what happened  at US Central Command (CENTCOM), after intel analysts filed a  whistle-blower complaint, alleging that assessments were manipulated to  &#8220;present an unduly positive outlook&#8221; on CENTCOM efforts to train the  Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and combat ISIS. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">Appointed by the chairmen of three House committees (Armed Services, Intelligence and Oversight), the task force <a href=\"http:\/\/intelligence.house.gov\/uploadedfiles\/house_jtf_on_centcom_intelligence_initial_report.pdf\">has released its interim conclusions on the matter<\/a>.&nbsp;  And it&#8217;s not a pretty picture; Congressional investigators found that  changes in the command&#8217;s intelligence directorate (J-2) &#8220;resulted in the  production and dissemination of intelligence products that were  inconsistent with the judgments of many senior, career analysts at  CENTCOM.&#8221; &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">And  that&#8217;s just the tip of the iceberg.&nbsp; According to the report, the work  environment in the J-2 began to deteriorate after the departure of  CENTCOM commander General James Mattis and his senior intelligence  leadership.&nbsp; Mattis, a legend in the Marine Corps and one of the finest  general officers of his generation, was forced out in Tampa in 2013,  after running afoul of President Obama and his national security team. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">Mattis&#8217;s  replacement brought in a new J-2, Army Major General Steven Grove.&nbsp;  Under his leadership, the directorate established a new Analytic Review  Team (ART) to improve the &#8220;quality and consistency&#8221; of products  generated by analysts working in the command&#8217;s Joint Intelligence Center  (JIC).&nbsp; According to investigators, the ART quickly grew from a single  reviewer to a multi-member team, and resulted in slower production of  intelligence assessments.&nbsp; The analyst who filed the whistle-blower  complaint alleged that the ART was used by senior intel leaders to exert  more control over J-2 reporting and its contents.&nbsp; Other analysts  claimed the rationale for the ART was never fully explained and  CENTCOM&#8217;s previous, three-step review process provided a &#8220;more than  adequate&#8221; quality control process. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">About  the same time (summer of 2014), General Grove also created a &#8220;fusion  center&#8221; within the J-2 to provide additional reporting that focused on  ISIS and related issues.&nbsp; Some analysts told investigators that it was  &#8220;never clear&#8221; how JIC personnel would contribute to the new center;  others claimed the fusion team actually became something of a dumping  ground for intel specialists whose views disagreed with those of senior  intelligence leaders. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">Analysts  also stated that changes in the J-2s daily intel summary (or INTSUM)  were also used by leadership to tighten control over assessments and  their findings.&nbsp; Additionally, the task force found that CENTCOM&#8217;s  intelligence directorate relied too heavily on operational reporting to  &#8220;soften&#8221; their estimates, and (perhaps most damning), they discovered  that the more &#8220;optimistic&#8221; assessments were not supported by estimates  from other elements of the intel community.&nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">And,  there was an unprecedented amount of &#8220;coordination&#8221; between the J-2 and  officials at the top of the intel chain.&nbsp; From the task force summary:<\/span><\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><br \/><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\">The  CENTCOM Director of Intelligence or his deputy had, and continue to  have, secure teleconferences with the Joint Staff Director of  Intelligence and senior ODNI leaders\u2014frequently including the Director  of National Intelligence (DNI). These calls took place several times per  week before daily intelligence briefings by the DNI to the President.  Senior CENTCOM Intelligence Directorate leaders reported that neither  the Director of the DIA nor other COCOM Directors of Intelligence have  participated in these calls.<\/span><\/span><\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><br \/>The  frequency of these interactions could have provided CENTCOM leaders  with outsized influence on the material presented to the President  outside of formal coordination channels. These frequent interactions are  at odds with the DNI James Clapper\u2019s testimony to Congress that  \u201cintelligence assessments from CENTCOM\u2026come to the national level only  through the Defense Intelligence Agency.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">In  other words, Clapper was &#8220;consulting&#8221; with CENTCOM just before his  daily brief to President Obama, but the information he received was  never vetted against data from other agencies.&nbsp; At best, that&#8217;s sloppy,  inexcusable tradecraft.&nbsp; At worst, it&#8217;s &#8220;cooked&#8221; intelligence, offering  carefully-tailored analysis from a single source that fits a desired  narrative.&nbsp; Obviously, that the more &#8220;sunny&#8221; assessments from CENTCOM  meshed nicely with administration claims of &#8220;progress&#8221; in the war  against ISIS. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">This  is intelligence malpractice of the first magnitude, and the analysts at  Central Command were justified in filing a formal complaint.&nbsp;  Unfortunately, it looks like nothing will come of it, although the DoD  Inspector General is continuing its own probe into the matter.&nbsp; General  Grove has moved on to a new assignment, and his civilian deputy  (identified as a key participant in the analytic scheme) remains in  place at CENTCOM.&nbsp; And Jim Clapper is still gainfully employed as well. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">Many  spooks, current and former, once had great respect for General Clapper,  who enjoyed a brilliant career in the Air Force and later, won plaudits  for his management of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA)  under President Bush.&nbsp; But as DNI, he has been a tremendous  disappointment.&nbsp; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/war_stories\/2013\/06\/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html\">He lied in testimony before Congress on NSA domestic collection efforts in 2013<\/a>,  and now, he&#8217;s been caught in another fib about how military  intelligence on ISIS reaches the highest levels of our government. &nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small;\">But  DNIs serve at the pleasure of the commander-in-chief and Clapper isn&#8217;t  going anywhere.&nbsp; He has apparently mastered the fine art of telling his  boss what he wants to hear, which speaks volumes about that &#8220;modified&#8221;  analytic and production processes at CENTCOM, and the preferences of the  man who is the ultimate consumer of that intelligence.&nbsp; <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>You remember the refrain: &#8220;Bush lied, people died.&#8221;&nbsp; That phrase took on a life of its own following the invasion of Iraq; the &#8220;failure&#8221; to discover Saddam&#8217;s alleged WMD arsenal, and allegations that intel assessments had been altered&#8211;if not actually fabricated&#8211;to support administration policies. As a grand conspiracy, it had to be the greatest of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110886"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}