• The Harsh Lessons of History: Faux Reports of Progress Against IS

    September 25, 2015

    Tags: , , ,
    Posted in: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria


    (This article, written by me, originally appeared on Middle East Eye)

    Allegations that American military analysts may have “cooked the books” to skew intelligence assessments about the campaign against Islamic State (IS), providing a more optimistic account of progress, are a sign of bad things to come.

    Bad intel leads to bad decisions. Bad intel created purposefully suggests a war that is being lost, with the people in charge that loathe to admit it even as they continue to stumble forward, ever-more blind. And if that sounds like America’s previous war in Iraq, or its earlier one in Vietnam, you are not wrong.

    A Pentagon Inspector General’s investigation into allegations of overly optimistic intelligence reporting, first reported in the New York Times, began after at least one Defence Intelligence Agency analyst claimed officials overseeing the war against Islamic State were improperly reworking the assessments prepared for senior policy makers. The focus is on whether military officials changed the conclusions of draft intelligence assessments during a review process and then passed them on.

    Intelligence typically involves working with incomplete data (one analyst likens the process to turning over a small subset of rocks in a large field) to assess the present situation and then to predict the future.

    Anyone who claims to be certain about the future is more likely to be a fortune teller than a professional analyst, and so it is quite reasonable and common for a group of honest, well-meaning people to assess a data set and come to different conclusions. To be of value, however, legitimate differences of opinion must be played off one another in a non-politicised, intellectually vigorous check-and-balance fashion, as enshrined in Intelligence Community Directive 203.

    There is a wide gap between that, and what it appears the inspector general is now looking into.

    We can assume, arguendo, the inspector general knows a legitimate difference of opinion when he sees one, can easily rule out a sloppy supervisor, or spot a mid-level official rewriting things to pump up his own credentials. Investigations of the level leaked to the New York Times are not needed to deal with such situations. What appears to be under the microscope is whether or not the intelligence assessments headed to senior policy makers are purposely inaccurate.

    Cooking the intel has a sordid history in the annals of American warfare.

    Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar described the process in a postmortem on the 2003 Iraq intelligence failures, noting “Intelligence analysts and their managers knew that the United States was heading for war with Iraq. It was clear that the Bush administration would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision.”

    Those factors led directly to the flawed if not outright fraudulent 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) supporting the narrative of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The NIE was used by the White House to press Congress into supporting war, and by Colin Powell to do the same at the United Nations. The so-called Downing Street Memo bluntly stated “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

    Analysis during the Vietnam War also pushed forward a steady but false narrative of victory. Former CIA and US Army analyst Patrick Eddington notes analysts’ conclusions that the US would be unlikely to ever defeat North Vietnamese forces were repeatedly overruled by commanders certain the United States was winning. He cites a complex inter-agency process of manipulating data to match the needs of General William Westmoreland’s narrative that enemy morale and military structure were deteriorating.

    The CIA’s Paul Pillar again, stresses the difficulties of dissent, and speaking of truth to power: “You’re part of a large structure that does have a vested interest in portraying the overall mission as going well.” Compare that to what any journalist, graduate student or successful businessperson should be able to tell you, that information must drive conclusions, not the inverse. The more complex the problem, the higher the quality of information needed to successfully solve it.

    The situation with Islamic State is more complex than that faced by the United States in Iraq over a decade ago, or in Vietnam before that. IS is a trans-state, loosely-organised fighting force, whose defeat requires the United States to stitch together a collection of strange bedfellows, each with their own agendas, in hopes the sum will add up to victory.

    The Iranians support Iraq’s Shiite militias against IS, but not Iraq’s Sunni forces. Turkey is prepared to wage war only in equal dollops against America’s opponents IS, and America’s allies the Kurds. The Kurds themselves fight well in their own territories but are loathe to strike elsewhere in Iraq. Creating a unified strategy out of all that demands hard, objective reporting and courageous analysis.

    There are three positions on why the military might not be providing that courageous analysis, and instead substituting a more positive spin on events.

    The first is basic bureaucratic cover – saying things are going well is a neat way of telling the boss that the military is doing the job they were sent to do, a self-administered pat on the back. Such thinking should never be easily discarded. However, higher-ups in the military chain of command will eventually look askance at such tactics, fearful of blow-back if events on the battlefield turn sour.

    The second is of more concern. Imagine a scenario where the president is rejecting advice from his generals to continue the war against IS, and wants to tamp down the level of American involvement (as some say Kennedy wished to do in Vietnam before his assassination). The president pushes back, saying nothing has worked, that ongoing failure comes at great cost. A military that wishes to stay engaged, again, as in Vietnam, might want to create the appearance that current levels of involvement are good, and thus increased involvement will be even better.

    But it is the third position, reporting only the good news senior policy makers signal they want to hear, that history suggests is the dominant reason.

    If American military intelligence insists on pushing false narratives of progress up the chain of command, that strongly suggests someone higher up, afraid of the ground truth, is happy to receive only the palliative of good news. And that is bad news. The lessons of modern history make clear that misleading policy makers who themselves seek to be misled can only yield disastrous consequences.

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • John Poole said...


      Obama on regime change in Libya: “Days, not weeks.” Was he purposely mislead by his advisers or was his petulant narcissism misleading him? Then Obama ran weapons from a then broken Libya to rebels in Syria for a more discrete regime change? None of that would be possible without a public who wants to be misled. Like Bourne stated, -“War is the health of the state”. Americans love war. Its in our DNA.

      09/25/15 9:22 AM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      quote”A Pentagon Inspector General’s investigation into allegations of overly optimistic intelligence reporting, first reported in the New York Times, began after at least one Defence Intelligence Agency analyst claimed officials overseeing the war against Islamic State were improperly reworking the assessments prepared for senior policy makers. “unquote

      This ain’t no war. This is a political means to sell weapons. In war, a nation will use everything at it’s command to win, in as short as time as possible. That would seem to mean the US should be decimating IS using our entire war making capabilities. I mean..look at who we are fighting. Towel headed thugs. That’s all. If we used everything at our command..ISIS would disappear in a week. Unfortunately…the P’sTB..don’t want to “win” a war. They want to keep the arms deals flowing. At least in my universe.

      09/25/15 9:54 AM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      ps..I apologize for the cynicism. Given everything I’ve seen since Vietnam.. it’s incurable now. As for the point of your post…who cares anymore. The Lords of War(LOW) are going to do what they want, regardless of the “The Harsh Lessons of History” . And that’s MY point. The proof is we are still in Afghanistan….because of our and British alliance with Saudi Arabia..because..youbetcha…oil.
      Starting with Rosevelt..


      30 yrs on…

      Living proof @ 06:23 in part 3.


      bartender. a double shot of HARSH LESSONS with a BITTERLAKE chaser.


      09/25/15 10:57 AM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      btw, in part 1, the ads are for Pepsi.. with a label..exactly like the can shown in part 2, that was used to poison the leader of Afghanistan. Irony at it’s best.

      09/25/15 10:59 AM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      ya know, after watching all three parts.. I’ve come to the conclusion the British are even dumber than the US.

      09/25/15 12:23 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      America seems a triumphant trifecta of pathological delusion. Leaders who puposely mislead by listening only to those they know offer misleading information and all so the populace can continue to be mislead into thinking they are truly exceptional. Everybody’s happy! Right?

      09/25/15 3:21 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Would anyone want to see Syria become a free fire killing zone for Alawites, Shia, Kurds, ISIS, Sunni, and sundry militant freelancers?
      Yep, Israel.

      09/25/15 10:36 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      John Poole said…

      “Would anyone want to see Syria become a free fire killing zone for Alawites, Shia, Kurds, ISIS, Sunni, and sundry militant freelancers?”


      sheesch.. I must be dreaming. I could have swore it already is.

      Meanwhile… absurd get’s redefined…


      bartender.. I need a laugh. Turn on the Teh Veh and tune in to CBS news. Chronkite must be rolling in his grave. Oh..and give me a bottle of LordsOfWar with a ExceptionalMorons chaser.

      09/26/15 7:27 AM | Comment Link

    • Bruce said...


      Because, it Bears REPEATING: The definition of ISIS: US (CIA & Company). Graphic above ‘splains for comic book intellects.

      09/26/15 11:37 AM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)