"Exclusive: 50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:00:02 -0400

From: The Daily Beast

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.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

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 accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.

The two signatories to the complaint were described as the ones formally lodging it, and the additional analysts are willing and able to back up the substance of the allegations with concrete examples.

Some of those CENTCOM analysts described the sizeable cadre of protesting analysts as a “revolt” by intelligence professionals who are paid to give their honest assessment, based on facts, and not to be influenced by national-level policy. The analysts have accused senior-level leaders, including the director of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress. The analysts take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going.

The large number of analysts who complained to the Pentagon inspector general hasn’t been previously reported. Some of them are assigned to work at CENTCOM, the U.S. military’s command for the Middle East and Central Asia, but are officially employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The complaints allege that in some cases key elements of intelligence reports were removed, resulting in a document that didn’t accurately capture the analysts’ conclusions, sources familiar with the protest said. But the complaint also goes beyond alleged altering of reports and accuses some senior leaders at CENTCOM of creating an unprofessional work environment. One person who knows the contents of the written complaint sent to the inspector general said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM’s analysis.

Many described a climate in which analysts felt they could not give a candid assessment of the situation in Iraq and Syria. Some felt it was a product of commanders protecting their career advancement by putting the best spin on the war.

Some reports crafted by the analysts that were too negative in their assessment of the war were sent back down the chain of the command or not shared up the chain, several analysts said. Still others, feeling the climate around them, self-censored so their reports affirmed already-held beliefs.

“While we cannot comment on the specific investigation cited in the article, we can speak to the process. The Intelligence Community routinely provides a wide range of subjective assessments related to the current security environment. These products and the analysis that they present are absolutely vital to our efforts, particularly given the incredibly complex nature of the multi-front fights that are ongoing now in Iraq and Syria,” said Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, U.S. CENTCOM spokesman. “Senior civilian and military leadership consider these assessments during planning and decision-making, along with information gained from various other sources, to include the insights provided by commanders on the ground and other key advisors, intelligence collection assets, and previous experience.”

Two of the officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said that analysts began airing their complaints in October in an effort to address the issue internally and only went to the inspector general when that effort failed. Some of those who complained were urged to retire, one official familiar with the report told The Daily Beast. Some agreed to leave.

In recent months, members of the Obama administration have sought to paint the fight against ISIS in rosy hues—despite the terror army’s seizure of major cities like Mosul and Fallujah.

“ISIS is losing,” John Allen, the retired Marine general charged with coordinating the ISIS campaign, said in July.

“I am confident that over time, we will beat, we will, indeed, degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in March, using the government’s preferred acronym for the group.

“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” President Obama said in May.

Yet a growing group of intelligence analysts persisted with their complaints. For some, who have served at CENTCOM for more than a decade, scars remained from the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq, when poorly written intelligence reports suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when it did not, formed the basis of the George W. Bush administration’s case for war.

“They were frustrated because they didn’t do the right thing then” and speak up about their doubts on Iraq’s weapons program, the defense official told The Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

Exclusive: 50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked

It’s being called a ‘revolt’ by intelligence pros who are paid to give their honest assessment of the ISIS war—but are seeing their reports turned into happy talk.

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Sep 25 at 2015 5:00 PM

SFC A.M. Drake — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:00:49 -0400

this is going to get very interesting indeed

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 25 at 2015 5:01 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:01:07 -0400

Shades of Viet Nam and the body count. Hello, OLBJ

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 5:02 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:02:23 -0400

Actions such as these put in Iraq, kept us there and all for nothing. I will be interested to see what comes of this.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 25 at 2015 5:04 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:04:14 -0400

If true those responsible should be fired

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 25 at 2015 5:33 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:33:39 -0400

For $9 an hour I will write correct estimates from my laptop. Isis has thousands of fighters congregating in Sunni towns and cities. That is their Center of Gravity. We have killed a few of them with air assets. Charlie Mike.

Response by SGT Christopher Churilla made Sep 26 at 2015 5:05 PM

SGT Christopher Churilla — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:05:39 -0400

So, we've got officers playing "If I ignore it, it will go away" with ISIS...

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 26 at 2015 5:17 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:17:30 -0400

Yes, I read about it yesterday on a few news reports COL Mikel J. Burroughs.
I had hoped the intel agencies had become more colloquial since the relationships were rearranged a few years ago.
Since this is the world of smoke and mirrors I would expect a few more dust-ups between the respective agencies :-)

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Sep 26 at 2015 6:47 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:47:02 -0400

Yep

Response by LTC Henry Barber made Sep 26 at 2015 9:22 PM

LTC Henry Barber — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:22:36 -0400

A scary thought.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 27 at 2015 1:23 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:23:38 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; With the growing trend of the US military to replace officers who don't "perform perfectly at all times", there is highly likely to be a tendency to (excessively) emphasize "success" and downplay "failure".

In and of itself this isn't either unusual or dangerous.

However, when people start accepting unverified "self-assessments" at being an accurate reflection of reality then you can get into a real hurt locker VERY fast.

Unfortunately this isn't exactly something that is either new, or exclusive, to the US military (or the US government).

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2015 5:27 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:27:53 -0400

Intel drives ops. But politics drive Intel. Unfortunate fact. "...In truth lies victory..."

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 3:39 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:39:05 -0400

Intelligence analyst personal opinions, although noted, are not at all times necessary in the production of finalized intelligence products for national level consumers. Coroborated facts are necessary in the production of finalized distributable intelligence products for national level consumers.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 4:12 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:12:39 -0400

The infusion of raw intelligence data and or intelligence information, in the production of a finalized distributable intelligence product for national level consumers, warrants some adjustment of facts and figures based upon corroborated intelligence information amongst multiple intelligence sources. Defense Intelligence Agency is respectfully one source of intelligence information amongst many. Defense Intelligence Agency's collected intelligence information, is subject to review by intelligence community senior leadership, prior to infusion in a finalized national level intelligence product. More than 15 agencies and departments comprise the United States intelligence community. Of the more than 15, some maintain three and four dimensional intelligence collection capabilities resulting in more accurate assessments of enemy dispositions than Defense Intelligence Agency can acquire. Adjustments of official assessments are normal and necessary in the production of more accurate assessments. I recommend the Intelligence Collection Managers course for DIA analyst followed by a security awareness course of instruction and or seminar. Intelligence analyst personal opinions, although noted, are not at all times necessary in the production of finalized intelligence products for national level consumers. corroborated facts are necessary in the production of finalized distributable intelligence products for national level consumers.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Sep 29 at 2015 11:52 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:52:43 -0400

Unfortunately, this is a age-old problem within the military. Especially with civilian leaders creating unrealistic goals or denying the facts of the situation. Useful and valuable intel is twisted for a political goal. The other issue I see is the quality of intel that we receive. While DOD is spending millions in ISR, we are not getting a great return because we spend little on real intel, human intelligence (HUMINT). Electronic Intel is valuable and can be a life saver on the battlefield, but it lacks the global picture that actual boots on the ground can provide.

Response by SSG Roderick Smith made Sep 30 at 2015 4:52 AM

SSG Roderick Smith — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:52:59 -0400

Wait... you mean there was intelligence that would push a President unconcerned with personal agendas to act decisively, and it was ignored because we have a President concerned with personal agendas?

Politics, politics, politics.

Of course it was watered down. It wouldn't make sense for President Obama's legacy if he sent troops to handle one of the most dangerous threats to the free world, right after he gets done doing everything he can to undo actions taken by a former (republican) president. Public opinion is fickle and guillible, folks.

Response by Capt Sabrena Goldman made Mar 29 at 2018 4:35 PM

Capt Sabrena Goldman — Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:35:16 -0400

Intel like medicine is a science. Even though we’ve made many breakthroughs there will be human nature to deal with.