This is beyond an allegation. When you have at least 50 analysts crying foul over the politicization of intelligence, you have a major problem. The Daily Beast reports that the Obama Administration, with the assistance of senior leaders at Central Command, have been blowing smoke up the ass of the American people when it comes to the threat posed by ISIS:
More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned. . . .
Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that 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.
That complaint was supported by 50 other analysts, some of whom have complained about politicizing of intelligence reports for months. That’s according to 11 individuals who are knowledgeable about the details of the report and who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity.
The political manipulation of intelligence is not new and this is not unique to the Department of Defense. It is a widespread problem throughout the intelligence community. It has been a major problem since Lyndon Baines Johnson tried to pressure the CIA’s George Allen to change his unit’s assessments on the strength of the Viet Cong (the Johnson Administration was pressing the line in 1967 that the U.S. was whipping the North Vietnamese and the VC was weakened).
I experienced the pressure firsthand while working as the Honduran analyst in the Central American Branch at CIA during 1986-1988. During that period the Reagan Administration was insisting that the Contras were on the march and that the Sandinistas were flagging. In the spring of 1988, the Reagan Administration pushed the lie that Nicaragua invaded Honduras:
President Reagan ordered the deployment of about 3,200 American troops to Honduras Wednesday night in a show of strength to counter what the White House called “an invasion“ by up to 2,000 Nicaraguan troops fighting contra rebel units.
Reagan sent two battalions from the 82d Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, N.C., and two battalions from the 7th Light Infantry Division at Ft. Ord, Calif., to Palmerola Air Base in Honduras for “an emergency deployment readiness exercise“ far removed from the tense border with Nicaragua, said White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater.
I was on Capitol Hill with the Nicaraguan branch military analyst briefing members of Congress on the situation along the border of Honduras and Nicaragua when we received a frantic phone call from our office. The initial report painted a picture of a modern day battle of the Alamo. A Contra camp and its fighters were being overrun by the Sandinista Army. It was only when we returned to CIA Hqs and read the actual piece of intel that the true picture emerged. According to a report from the Contra camp in southern Honduras, a Contra patrol 10 kilometers from the main camp had discovered a group of Sandinista soldiers on the move. Shots were fired but no casualties.
That truth was ignored and the Reagan Administration deployed an element of the 82nd Airborne Regiment to Honduras as a show of strength against Nicaragua’s Sandinistas. I witnessed firsthand how intelligence was manipulated for political purposes.
More recently we have the case of Iraq, where we saw how the CIA was pressured by the Bush Administration to manufacture a case for going to war in Iraq. Let’s be clear. There were many so-called “intelligence professionals” who willingly and happily cooperated with manufacturing the fiction that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and was keen on destroying the West. That legacy of deceit persists. Even today we hear the politicians and pundits who eagerly cheerleader that disastrous war blaming their blood thirst on an intelligence failure.
This news about the manipulation of the intelligence on ISIS is a mere symptom of a very serious, widespread problem–the total politicization of intelligence. There are two critical functions that our intelligence agencies must perform. First, collect reliable information about what are enemies are doing, are preparing to do or are thinking about doing. We rely on both human sources and technical measures (e.g., satellite imagery and electronic intercepts) to accomplish this task. Second, and more difficult, is taking that information and explaining what it means. This is the analytical function. The job of an analyst is to assemble a jig-saw puzzle and then explain that puzzle to the policymaker.
There was a time–basically the period prior to 1986–when promotion within the ranks of the intelligence officers was based primarily on merit. Sure there were political considerations that were taken into consideration from time-to-time, but merit rather than ass kissing was a more important factor in promoting an intelligence officer, analyst or operator, to greater responsibility.
That is not the case today. As I have written before, the John Brennan era at the CIA now requires a Supervisor to write up an explanation if they do not promote a minority or gay officer who is up for promotion. Guess what? No one wants to put in writing that a Latino woman or homosexual man are not doing their well enough to merit a promotion. Instead, people who are not competent are being promoted to positions they do not deserve. This is but one example of how our intelligence system is being corrupted and diminished.
With at least 50 intelligence analysts at CENTCOM blowing the whistle we are witnessing something approaching a revolt. This is unheard of in my experience. And I fully understand their frustration. You do not have to have access to Top Secret information to know that Obama’s so-called strategy to defeat ISIS is a failure. Old Navy salts have a saying, “you can’t shine shit.” No matter how hard you rub on a turd you only will end up smearing feces. You won’t make it shiny.
The sad thing in all of this is that politicians never learn a lesson. They persist in lying and deceiving. Obama is not unique in this regard. He joins a long, tawdry line of leaders who have chosen political expediency over truth. What he is doing is dangerous and it does put America’s security at risk. I applaud therefore the brave action of the analysts who are speaking out and refusing to shut up and be a team player. Intelligence analysis is not a team sport. It is about telling political leaders uncomfortable truths they may not want to hear, but need to hear in order to do their job to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
The post Cooking the Books on ISIS appeared first on - NO QUARTER USA NET.