Do you want an opinion from someone who doesn’t have any relevant information? Probably not. However, many journalists and self described experts don’t seem deterred by their ignorance when they write about the U.S. intelligence community.
Normally, a failure to understand a subject would deter someone from writing about it. However, when it comes to intelligence matters general ignorance and inability to ascertain critical details before spinning a story can be an advantage. If the details are secret a journalist can spin a small piece of information into a wider web hinting at scandal and conspiracy.
The latest intelligence “scandal” involves allegations the Obama administration put pressure on intelligence analysts in the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) to skew their assessments to fit White House narratives on the battle with ISIS.
So, while I don’t know anything about it, I might as well add to the noise. Everyone else certainly feels comfortable doing so. I don’t have any specific information or know the players, but I do have a career of experience witnessing these “scandals” from inside the Intelligence Community. And this story fits a predictable pattern.
The latest charges are outlined in an “New York Observer” article entitled “Obama’s Messy Iraq Intelligence Scandal” by John Schindler. Schindler portrays a White House orchestrating a conspiracy to doctor intelligence by interfering with the intelligence analysts at the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM). In this case, over 50 CENTCOM intelligence analysts are said to be revolting against their bosses (by the way, I guarantee that the first thing that comes to mind to any intelligence professionals working outside of the Defense Department is, “why the heck does CENTCOM need so many intelligence analysts?”).
The analysts were allegedly pressured to present “good news” and skew their Iraq assessments to fit with the White House narrative that ISIS is losing. This has stirred up memories of LBJ micromanaging the Vietnam War and Vice President Cheney pressuring CIA analysts to support the view that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In this case, visits to CENTCOM by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are seen as efforts by the Administration to pressure the analysts. Schindler hints that this manipulation of intelligence is being coordinated by the White House.
The Pentagon Inspector General is investigating the matter.
While the narrative is familiar and troubling, it obviously begs the question, is there a there, there?
My experience is that almost all of these scandals result from an effort by one political party or the other to use a sliver of information to indict the other party. This inevitably results in breathless headlines suggesting political interference, conspiracy and cover up. The Republicans look to package any piece of inside information to build a story that suggests the next Benghazi, and the Democrats look for the next Iraq WMD parallel.
In my experience, I have never seen Intelligence Community practitioners bending to one party or another. These “scandals” are almost always much less than they appear in the headlines. Instead, they are usually the result of poor institutional leadership, internal disagreements or simple missteps. By and large, the Intelligence Community is made up of good, hard-working Americans who try to do their best under hard and shifting circumstances. Sometimes they make mistakes. However, they almost never tailor their conclusions to fit one political agenda or another.
While this story might suggest serious internal problems at CENTCOM, General Clapper is hardly Dick Cheney and the CENTCOM J2 office is hardly the central intelligence clearing house for administration policy. It is hard to imagine that if the White House wanted to skew intelligence and twist arms to deceive the American people, they would use CENTCOM – just one of numerous intelligence offices built to provide tactical information to their immediate bosses rather than serve as a national clearing house. Further, the White House doesn’t have to resort to “skewing” intelligence. They simply can do what this White House and all others have done, and ignore it. As we used to say in the Intelligence Community, “You can lead a policymaker to intelligence, but you can’t make him think.”
Further, if the Commander overseeing the intelligence analysts in CENTCOM was indeed trying to use his bully pulpit to support the Administration’s policy in Syria and the Middle East, it would pre-suppose that there is indeed a clear policy to support.
So, what do I see?
- An office of hard working and honest analysts doing their best to present the facts as they see them.
- The allegations are true. CENTCOM bosses inappropriately tried to influence the conclusions of their intelligence analysts.
- However, the White House is not pressuring the analysts or their bosses. The White House does not rely on the CENTCOM intelligence unit for its strategic information on the Middle East.
- Those in CENTCOM leadership feel that they have to put a positive spin on the work of those on the front lines battling ISIS. Indeed, a recent Washington Post article pointed out that there have been more air strikes against ISIS targets over the past year than those aimed at the Taliban in Afghanistan over the past five years combined. How could all that activity be for naught?
- The analysts bravely blew the whistle on incompetent leadership. Pressuring intelligence professionals to bend one way or the other hits at the very integrity of the intelligence process.
- General Clapper is rightly looking into it. However, having no frame of reference other than a desire to suggest politically salacious activity, some journalists assume that Clapper is acting as a White House stalking dog seeking to further pressure the analysts to tow the line. He is not. He is a 50 year plus professional, and is more likely to quit than serve as a political lap dog.
- The White House NSC is trying to tamp down the story and not let it become something bigger than it is.
- The Republicans are trying to spin it up and put conspiratorial face on it.
- A localized story of poor leadership in one small part of a much larger intelligence enterprise is boring, so some journalists use the occasion to suggest that the incident is part of a much larger scandal.
Again, while I have no specific knowledge, this “scandal,” while troubling and worthy of significant punishment if true, is likely something much less than a 2015 version of the WMD imbroglio.
Further, the tendency of senior military officers to frame military activity in the best light is hardly new. Almost every senior briefing and press conference over the past 15 years in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that we were winning. Didn’t General Petraeus tell us numerous times that the training of the Iraqi Army was going swimmingly? How did that turn out?
There will always be a rub between military leaders who are directly responsible for their troops and can hardly tell those young men and women at the front lines that they are losing. Intelligence Agencies directly tied to operational departments will always be less inclined to criticize themselves. This is why President Truman created a “Central” Intelligence Agency that was disconnected from departmental bias, and why the Bush White House refused Admiral Denny Blair’s wrongheaded proposal to allow military leaders to serve as official intelligence representatives overseas. Separately, intelligence professionals are obligated to tell the truth to power in any and all circumstances.
What is the right answer? If you like faux political scandals, feel free to follow the story. If not, let the IG do their job. They are professionals. If there is something nefarious there, they will find it.
