If assessments were changed,by senior commanders then this commandes should be removed and demoted. that kind of actin can not be tolerated.
This intelligence report smell like that of "Mission Accomplished" in 2003. The misled war conducted by Bush, Cheney and Neocom based on prefabricated intelligence turns out to be a financial disaster (1 trillion in debt and counting) with thousands of civilian and military casualty. This mistake seed the rise of ISIS and the current infernal in the regions. A immoral War based on false pretense will not be blessed by heaven is doom to fail (Sun Tzu – the art of war chapter 1 600 BC)
Are we at war with the Islamic State? I thought they were at war with us but we were trying not to return the favor.
Doesn't anyone actually declare war anymore? Isn't that in our Consittution?
Doesn't anyone actually declare war anymore? Isn't that in our Consittution?
Inspector General created in 2011? Wow...
www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-2011
(wow)
www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general
Created in 1989, the statutory Inspector General (IG) is responsible for independent oversight of the CIA. The IG is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and may only be removed from office by the president. The IG’s authorities and responsibilities are provided in 50 U.S.C. §403q. Although the IG reports to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the statute creates obligations and responsibilities to both the Director and to the Congress.
The CIA Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent office of the CIA that is headed by the Inspector General and promotes economy, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in the management of CIA activities by performing independent audits, inspections, investigations, and reviews of CIA programs and operations. The OIG also seeks to detect and deter fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. The OIG advances the Agency’s mission by providing findings and recommendations expeditiously to the Director, the Agency and the Congressional intelligence committees. The OIG works directly with the Department of Justice and other appropriate federal agencies when investigating alleged violations of law.
www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-2011
(wow)
www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general
Created in 1989, the statutory Inspector General (IG) is responsible for independent oversight of the CIA. The IG is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and may only be removed from office by the president. The IG’s authorities and responsibilities are provided in 50 U.S.C. §403q. Although the IG reports to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the statute creates obligations and responsibilities to both the Director and to the Congress.
The CIA Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent office of the CIA that is headed by the Inspector General and promotes economy, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in the management of CIA activities by performing independent audits, inspections, investigations, and reviews of CIA programs and operations. The OIG also seeks to detect and deter fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. The OIG advances the Agency’s mission by providing findings and recommendations expeditiously to the Director, the Agency and the Congressional intelligence committees. The OIG works directly with the Department of Justice and other appropriate federal agencies when investigating alleged violations of law.
As I can see we are doing nothing to stop ISIS. A little bombing here and there wont stop them. We need to cut off their money supply for food and weapons. Blow up their oil fields. Monitor all their activity from satilite. If necessary invade Iraq and Syria and do away with them. Obama is doing nothing because it might threaten his legacy and his chances for his 2 billion dollar library in Chicago. He needs a lot of donations from his rich buddies to build this thing.
The U.S. has been dropping bombs and missiles on militants in Iraq since 2003, and on Al Qaeda since 2001 here and there, and what has it accomplished? Al Qaeda is weakened, that's true, but now we have ISIS, even more brutal organization.
Bombs and missiles are not the answer.
To defeat ISIS would require such a big commitment that no U.S. president is willing to take it. Bombs and missiles are cheaper and show that something is being done.
Getting caught with reworked and airbrushed reports is small price to pay.
Bombs and missiles are not the answer.
To defeat ISIS would require such a big commitment that no U.S. president is willing to take it. Bombs and missiles are cheaper and show that something is being done.
Getting caught with reworked and airbrushed reports is small price to pay.
1
I do not believe ISIS is an off shoot of Al Qaeda, as the article maintains. Could they expand on this?
For all of the non believers, who think our government would never lie to the public or falsify intelligence, just have a look at this previous NY Times article. Then you decide.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html
We're told we're making progress by taking out ISIS' leaders (which only means ISIS warriors move up the ranks and more sociopaths join their ranks with the promises of quick promotion to power, women and money).
Maybe those leaders and that progress doesn't exist at all.
Remember back in Autumn of 2014 and the Khosaran Group that we never knew existed, then made a big declaration about attacking, and then subsequently never heard of again after the election. Wag the dog.
Maybe those leaders and that progress doesn't exist at all.
Remember back in Autumn of 2014 and the Khosaran Group that we never knew existed, then made a big declaration about attacking, and then subsequently never heard of again after the election. Wag the dog.
Contrary to all conventions of language as a tool, ISIS is referred to by our policy maker in chief as ISIL, it is all one has need to know in understanding this frightening set of circumstances. Louganis diving notwithstanding, the body follows the head.
Ashton Carter says "We have the right strategy."
Very comforting, because after-the-fact analysis of the unpleasantness in Viet Nam, of the Iraq invasion, and of the Afghanistan adventure, showed that there was no strategy beyond going in. The rest of the strategy rested on hope that the locals would carry soon shoulder more responsibility for their own outcomes.
The degree to which all locals were keen to get rid of terrorists was way overestimated.
Very comforting, because after-the-fact analysis of the unpleasantness in Viet Nam, of the Iraq invasion, and of the Afghanistan adventure, showed that there was no strategy beyond going in. The rest of the strategy rested on hope that the locals would carry soon shoulder more responsibility for their own outcomes.
The degree to which all locals were keen to get rid of terrorists was way overestimated.
1
Precisely why would the author or readers not expect this to occur in our now obscenely politically correct, accuse any opponent of being a racist, xenophobe or insensitive or intolerant at the drop of a hat society? Unless one shades and bends the facts, or cherry picks what data to collect so as to reflect the pluralist, smiley faced party line one is a xenophobe or a misanthrope or some kind of an "ist". (Does anyone really believe that illegals paid 1/3 of a living wage that have 4 kids don't cost us more in social services than the 'goods' they allegedly produce. Does anyone really believe that immigrants from hyper violent/corrupt Latin American and Middle Eastern societies commit fewer crimes than US nativist citizens?) Why would we not expect our military intelligence analysts to be under similar dogmatic pressures to support our leader's One World, globalized economic integration, and damn the collateral damage to the majority of citizens, crusade?
Huh. Well, I manage to get through my day most times without being called an "ist". Maybe it's you.
Wow! It's deja vu all over again. The 1982 CBS Reports documentary, The Uncounted Enemy, contended that the top brass in Vietnam, Including Gen. William Westmoreland, inflated enemy casualty figures and deflated American and South Vietnamese casualties to indicate that the USA was winning the war. Westmoreland sued CBS for libel, but withdrew his suit shortly before the end of the trial. While CBS's techniques were ethically dubious, historians seem to agree with the premise. Nevertheless, the truth was never established at the trial.
1
"reworked"? What is meant by that term? "falsified"?
1
The military overstated their successes? You mean like about Vietnam and Iraq and probably every other war? I am shocked, simply shocked.
4
Having experiencing "the light at the end of the tunnel" multiple times since the Vietnam war began I would be shocked if the assessment was proved to be grounded in reality.
2
In late July, retired Gen. John Allen — who is Mr. Obama’s top envoy ... told the Aspen Security Forum that the terror group’s momentum had been “checked strategically, operationally, and by and large, tactically.”
-----------------------
Yes, they're so defunct that destroying Palmyra was a near-insurmountable challenge for ISIS, right? Tragically, no. Shame on Obama, and his version of "Mission Accomplished" -- a whiny "line in the sand" against Assad. The U.N., and the effete European Union, dithered with the WH as Palmyra was destroyed. Gen. Allen should retire again.
-----------------------
Yes, they're so defunct that destroying Palmyra was a near-insurmountable challenge for ISIS, right? Tragically, no. Shame on Obama, and his version of "Mission Accomplished" -- a whiny "line in the sand" against Assad. The U.N., and the effete European Union, dithered with the WH as Palmyra was destroyed. Gen. Allen should retire again.
1
There should be an investigation into the intelligence that the Obama administration used to take down Qaddafi using NATO air power. Taking down an Arab dictator that was no threat to the U.S. was something the President pledged he wouldn't do after Iraq.
Libya is a total anarchic disaster now and the U.S. and Europe will heavily pay for it in the future. President Obama and Hillary Clinton were the architects of this fiasco.
Libya is a total anarchic disaster now and the U.S. and Europe will heavily pay for it in the future. President Obama and Hillary Clinton were the architects of this fiasco.
1
Like Iraq and Syria, "Libya" is an artificial state; a clan and tribal agglomeration whose boundaries were drawn, initially, by Italian colonialists and later solidified by Mussolini, with the blessing of the League of Nations.
Not that Italian involvement in Libyan tribal politics is anything new. Roman legions warred against one local despot or another 2,500 years ago, and the Libyan tribes were part of both western and eastern Roman empires as late as 660 AD.
Gaddafi was from the al-Gaddafa tribe. After other tribes rebelled against his murderous despotism he threatened to annihilate them; commit genocide. Western European militaries intervened and destroyed his heavy weapons convoys; artillery especially.
They couldn't sit back and countenance an inter-communal massacre; as they did in Syria. Blaming President Obama for honoring longstanding N.A.T.O. commitments is unjust.
Not that Italian involvement in Libyan tribal politics is anything new. Roman legions warred against one local despot or another 2,500 years ago, and the Libyan tribes were part of both western and eastern Roman empires as late as 660 AD.
Gaddafi was from the al-Gaddafa tribe. After other tribes rebelled against his murderous despotism he threatened to annihilate them; commit genocide. Western European militaries intervened and destroyed his heavy weapons convoys; artillery especially.
They couldn't sit back and countenance an inter-communal massacre; as they did in Syria. Blaming President Obama for honoring longstanding N.A.T.O. commitments is unjust.
1
The over-reliance on data might be attributed to the more positive analysis. Qualitative analysis depends largely on the interpreter's skill at evaluation and the statistics are enormously deceptive. The manner in which the data was collected, including algorithms, can thwart the final outcome. Quantitative field analysis should include measures of validity as well. But much like the education field, Big Data has not been an enormously beneficial thought process.
Truth shifting is a characteristic of all bureaucratic organizations, whether corporate, government, or military. If you compared internal communications in the DoD and the Port Authority, you would find little difference. Regrettably, this all too human behavior in the military causes more deaths.
At least two years ago Middle East 'specialists' and 'experts', some in the State Department were dismissing ISIS as a significant factor in the region, advocating concentration on Iran. Now, from Ramadi, they are within kissing distance of Baghdad where they are already wreaking havoc, seemingly at will. Truth will always come out.
1
This is nothing new. As the article alludes, this happened in Vietnam. And we know how well that went.
The CIA agents in the field were reporting dreadful news to their superiors in the Agency. The analysts were drawing the appropriate conclusions. But their superiors felt that such bad news could not be passed on. So they tweaked it, dressed it up, and presto, made it all very optimistic. In the meantime, there was havoc with lives and treasure.
It is comforting to know that George Bush and gang - no pun intended - learned those lessons well. And it is reassuring that that same gang - did anyone mention Dick Cheney? - is still calling for the same 'solutions'. Meanwhile, much of the Republican electorate is clamoring for Donald Trump, who undoubtedly will solve our problems in moments. We can anticipate how well that will go.
The CIA agents in the field were reporting dreadful news to their superiors in the Agency. The analysts were drawing the appropriate conclusions. But their superiors felt that such bad news could not be passed on. So they tweaked it, dressed it up, and presto, made it all very optimistic. In the meantime, there was havoc with lives and treasure.
It is comforting to know that George Bush and gang - no pun intended - learned those lessons well. And it is reassuring that that same gang - did anyone mention Dick Cheney? - is still calling for the same 'solutions'. Meanwhile, much of the Republican electorate is clamoring for Donald Trump, who undoubtedly will solve our problems in moments. We can anticipate how well that will go.
2
This excellent article makes it clear that President Obama's decisions are based on "intelligence" coming from a variety of sources, some of which are deliberately deceitful. There is a war party within the Obama administration, in the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department that is lying this country into war. The American people must help the President by all means to fight against this war party. The first step I recommend the President take is to fire the mutinous neocon General George Allen, the ISIS Czar, who on July 24 while Obama was in Kenya, met with President Recep Erdogan of Turkey, who has been supplying ISIS (and Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and the other jihadi butchers) with arms and supplies to be used against both Syria and the Kurds. They negotiated a protected zone along the Syria-Turkey border, supposedly to protect a virtually nonexistent force of "moderate" anti-Assad fighter, but actually to keep the supply lines open from Turkey to ISIS in Syria. This defies President Obama's policy against ISIS. Fire General George Alan, fire General Breedlove, fire Victoria Nuland, and make a decent deal with Putin about Ukraine. President Obama, you won a Nobel Peace Prize, now prove that you deserve it after all.
To quote Napolean - Dynamite, not Bonaparte - "Idiots!" We have been fighting a ground war in and around Iraq since Bush the First. To imagine that we have the capability to target cruise missiles inside a terrorist's underwear drawer and not be in a position to assess the military strength of a force alleged to be the size of ISIS is ludicrous. ISIS is a cover story, a sham war designed to raise hysterical domestic alarms and increased defense budgets to a) continue to prop up endangered regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel and b) to prepare for coming real war in the Pacific.
1
Well it seems to be true because if America has really wanted to destroy ISIS group completely the Pentagon would have done it long ago like in both Iraq wars but unfortunately ISIS persists yet so what's really going on over there is unclear.
1
Faulty intelligence or military analysis is as old as war. When Bush believed it, he was accused of telling a lie. When Obama believes it (al Qaeda is on the run) he is excused as being deceived.
2
Maybe this investigation has more than one reason for the study. ISIS was described as a JV team by our commander in chief. Thousands of lives brutalized and murdered later we have a study to lay the blame of this label on the military. All the bombing has not stopped them Their horrible videos of beheadings just draws more recruits. As their numbers grow, their actions spread to other countries like Libya and Yemen. So looking for someone to blame is fully expected. For sure the buck doesn't stop at the White House and they will get a government agency to prove it.
Great Britain and France were two of the European nations that carved up the Ottoman Empire without regard to ethnic, tribal and religious considerations. Now there is a stream of refugees into Europe from the Middle East fleeing the resulting conflicts there. If anybody needs to put boots on the ground in the Middle East it is those who helped create the conditions for the conflicts in the first place. Additionally, the Turks need to stop their feuding with the Kurds and combat ISIS in Syria or end up having to deal with them when they spill across their border. As long as the USA stays overly involved in the Middle East others will stand on the side lines. The USA can and should only be playing a very limited role in the Middle East. It is time our Military/Industrial Complex experienced some tough love and starts getting weaned from neverending expansion of our Military Budgets.
3
Walt Rostow's unquiet ghost haunts dismal CentCom and Pentagon corridors and offices, still very much alive and well after all these years.
Rostow was President Johnson's National Security Advisor during the latter half of his presidency, after Bundy quit in disgrace (although Johnson might actually have fired him for suspected disloyalty). McGeorge Bundy and Rostow, along with Defense Secretary McNamara, led a coterie of vociferous proponents of Cold War policies that ensnared us in Vietnam, among other calamities.
Obsequious and very much a courtier to a morose, domineering president and still a fervent believer in policies sinking Johnson's presidency, Rostow culled stories he deemed upbeat or positive amid the daily avalanche of bad news deluging the White House. These he presented to the president during their daily meetings to contradict negative reports. He also used them to impugn the integrity and even the patriotism of Johnson's legions of critics -- or anyone urging him to cut his losses and quit Vietnam.
Of course, Rostowian machinations are back again because a general election is upon us. Control of the White House and, with it, American foreign policy will soon be up for grabs. Sen. Cotton's multiple dissimulations and fear-mongering echo what was said by the pro-Vietnam War camp.
Within command staffs and national intelligence directorates the temptation to conceal the full extent of their failures and the futility of fighting ISIS must be irresistible.
Rostow was President Johnson's National Security Advisor during the latter half of his presidency, after Bundy quit in disgrace (although Johnson might actually have fired him for suspected disloyalty). McGeorge Bundy and Rostow, along with Defense Secretary McNamara, led a coterie of vociferous proponents of Cold War policies that ensnared us in Vietnam, among other calamities.
Obsequious and very much a courtier to a morose, domineering president and still a fervent believer in policies sinking Johnson's presidency, Rostow culled stories he deemed upbeat or positive amid the daily avalanche of bad news deluging the White House. These he presented to the president during their daily meetings to contradict negative reports. He also used them to impugn the integrity and even the patriotism of Johnson's legions of critics -- or anyone urging him to cut his losses and quit Vietnam.
Of course, Rostowian machinations are back again because a general election is upon us. Control of the White House and, with it, American foreign policy will soon be up for grabs. Sen. Cotton's multiple dissimulations and fear-mongering echo what was said by the pro-Vietnam War camp.
Within command staffs and national intelligence directorates the temptation to conceal the full extent of their failures and the futility of fighting ISIS must be irresistible.
3
Typically, the military skews intelligence assessments to placate civilian leadership. During the Vietnam War, the Pentagon skewed its intelligence to show Viet Cong strength was lower than CIA estimates to placate the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, which wished to portray the war as winnable. Today, the Obama administration wishes that ISIS can be defeated without a major U.S. intervention, including ground-combat units. So, the military will tweak its intelligence assessment accordingly. When American military leaders tell the public the truth, they are accused of disloyalty or insubordination.
1
People doing a job report what their boss wants to hear, as much as they possibly can. Shock! It even happens in the military. Double shock!!
Anyone with experience in government and half a brain knew full well the official reports would be skewed to the desired results. Old books on Management from the 1960's taught business students to expect that.
If they want to know the truth, they know they have to dig for it. And if they have experience and good sense, they know exactly how to dig for it. It isn't even buried very deep.
On the other hand, if they want to cherry pick intelligence to fit the policy desired, they will find those working for them will do as they are told.
Anyone with experience in government and half a brain knew full well the official reports would be skewed to the desired results. Old books on Management from the 1960's taught business students to expect that.
If they want to know the truth, they know they have to dig for it. And if they have experience and good sense, they know exactly how to dig for it. It isn't even buried very deep.
On the other hand, if they want to cherry pick intelligence to fit the policy desired, they will find those working for them will do as they are told.
4
• ...if they want to cherry pick intelligence to fit the policy desired....
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
~ ALBERT EINSTEIN
A very smart man.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
~ ALBERT EINSTEIN
A very smart man.
Where to find dispassionate analysis in a defense establishment, where rank and promotion are foremost worries?
The lure of new career paths leading to top leadership slots has grown so mesmerizing that some women seek to enter the killer-guild. You have to ask, 'Has anyone thought it through?'.
As long as armed conflict opens awards, command, and promotion opportunities, it will tempt planners to be more optimistic than warranted.
But ISIS the SAS's, USA Special Forces, US Navy SEAL's' USA Army Rangers', USMC's, the RM's, the Black Watch's superior? One would think so from all the commentary.
The answer is 'Baloney!"
Iraq and Syrian rebels need to get organized and to devise a tactical approach and not rely on US supply and technology. Our tactical approach assumes masses of troops, costly technology, huge supply, and equipment that overstresses most bridges it would have to cross.
Light, mobile, coordinated, hard-to-spot fighters constantly annoying ISIS are needed. Whenever ISIS' guard drops they could execute more devastating
manoeuvres.
The lure of new career paths leading to top leadership slots has grown so mesmerizing that some women seek to enter the killer-guild. You have to ask, 'Has anyone thought it through?'.
As long as armed conflict opens awards, command, and promotion opportunities, it will tempt planners to be more optimistic than warranted.
But ISIS the SAS's, USA Special Forces, US Navy SEAL's' USA Army Rangers', USMC's, the RM's, the Black Watch's superior? One would think so from all the commentary.
The answer is 'Baloney!"
Iraq and Syrian rebels need to get organized and to devise a tactical approach and not rely on US supply and technology. Our tactical approach assumes masses of troops, costly technology, huge supply, and equipment that overstresses most bridges it would have to cross.
Light, mobile, coordinated, hard-to-spot fighters constantly annoying ISIS are needed. Whenever ISIS' guard drops they could execute more devastating
manoeuvres.
2
The problem is our guys (odds on they won't be our guys tomorrow) don't want to fight.
Re: "Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis was Distorted," August 25, 2015.
As we wait for the Pentagon's inspector general's report on whether ISIS
analysis was distorted, we can consider factors that have helped ISIS more than hold its own against their enemy. ISIS has changed its military strategies. First, they no longer expose their military installations as sitting ducks for U. S. airstrikes. Resorting to suicide-bombing is saving them military hardware. By terrorizing subject populations, by taxing them minimally, and by making basic amenities available to them, ISIS is preempting internal insurgencies. Add to these gains, the Turkish troops' attacks on the Kurdish peshmerga causing the latter to lose interest in destroying ISIS with the same passion as before.
Equally important, it is entirely possible that more and more Sunni militias and moderates hitherto opposed to ISIS and even Shiites may
turn a blind eye to the horrors ISIS visits upon the Yazidis, local Christians, and captured westerners if their living conditions improve under their new
rulers. Among the chief factors that help sustain ISIS is the loyalty of the people they control, even if it be at the point of a gun.
As we wait for the Pentagon's inspector general's report on whether ISIS
analysis was distorted, we can consider factors that have helped ISIS more than hold its own against their enemy. ISIS has changed its military strategies. First, they no longer expose their military installations as sitting ducks for U. S. airstrikes. Resorting to suicide-bombing is saving them military hardware. By terrorizing subject populations, by taxing them minimally, and by making basic amenities available to them, ISIS is preempting internal insurgencies. Add to these gains, the Turkish troops' attacks on the Kurdish peshmerga causing the latter to lose interest in destroying ISIS with the same passion as before.
Equally important, it is entirely possible that more and more Sunni militias and moderates hitherto opposed to ISIS and even Shiites may
turn a blind eye to the horrors ISIS visits upon the Yazidis, local Christians, and captured westerners if their living conditions improve under their new
rulers. Among the chief factors that help sustain ISIS is the loyalty of the people they control, even if it be at the point of a gun.
2
"....In late July, retired Gen. John Allen — who is Mr. Obama’s top envoy working with other nations to fight the Islamic State — told the Aspen Security Forum that the terror group’s momentum had been “checked strategically, operationally, and by and large, tactically.”
Just who is this guy kidding here...his boss or the American people...?
We've seen this before. When a naive and incompetent ("no-boots on the ground") war campaign fails, the generals wanting to please the boss, invent the results he wants to see in order to keep their cushy jobs.
Just who is this guy kidding here...his boss or the American people...?
We've seen this before. When a naive and incompetent ("no-boots on the ground") war campaign fails, the generals wanting to please the boss, invent the results he wants to see in order to keep their cushy jobs.
4
Our collective "intelligence" agencies combined have the intelligence of a gnat. Brennan must go, as should Allen and all the other insular bureaucrats who operate only to enlarge their budgets, not to protect the homeland. The much lauded Ashton Carter who pays homage to Bibi the Butcher and refuses to close the raging insult to the world that is known as Gitmo, has been a spectacular failure like all of the puppets of the generals. This asinine repetitive pet trick of training others' armies to fight a war they have no interest in fighting is getting to be plain old Einstein idiocy. If the US would exit the Mid East, likely half the problems would simply disappear along with the brutes we support to maintain our oil hegemony that we no longer even need.
3
But the Koch Brothers need the oil to buy the Republican candidates who will vote in favor of energy interests. Damn the climate change, full speed ahead.
Another day in Foreverstan (the Middle East). Sigh.
Well, one point of view is that Foreverstan is impenetrable to the logic of the USA empire. We are used to specific 'evil empires' we can revile and plot to destroy to preserve our hegemony.
In a simple day in Foreverstan, the USA national security military industrial complex is giving arms to the Kurds who attack ISIS who is being supported by Turkey from whom we lease bases from which we can attack ISIS from the air for the purpose of stopping ISIS from attacking the Syrian regime whom we hate and to whose non ISIS opponents who give arms, who are really radical Sunnis from Iraq to whom we gave arms to attack Al Queda who got arms from the US in Afghanistan after we gave arms to the Taliban to attack the Russian army, who ..........................................
Oh never mind. Remove all US troops, CIA and contract killers, and all other US personnel now. Begin a Marshall Plan for Foreverstan now to rebuild the civilization we have destroyed.
Well, one point of view is that Foreverstan is impenetrable to the logic of the USA empire. We are used to specific 'evil empires' we can revile and plot to destroy to preserve our hegemony.
In a simple day in Foreverstan, the USA national security military industrial complex is giving arms to the Kurds who attack ISIS who is being supported by Turkey from whom we lease bases from which we can attack ISIS from the air for the purpose of stopping ISIS from attacking the Syrian regime whom we hate and to whose non ISIS opponents who give arms, who are really radical Sunnis from Iraq to whom we gave arms to attack Al Queda who got arms from the US in Afghanistan after we gave arms to the Taliban to attack the Russian army, who ..........................................
Oh never mind. Remove all US troops, CIA and contract killers, and all other US personnel now. Begin a Marshall Plan for Foreverstan now to rebuild the civilization we have destroyed.
6
American intelligence agencies are simply following in the well-established tradition of shaping their "intelligence" to fit within the political message and rosy scenarios our leadership is fantasizing. So what's new here?
1
Reread the article. It sounds pretty clear that the intelligence agencies were trying to tell an accurate story but policy-executing branches of government between them and senior customers didn't want senior customers hearing a negative story. Intelligence wasn't the problem.
1
"Numerous agencies produce intelligence assessments related to the Iraq war...'the multisource nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision makers'"
Sounds like the blind men inspecting the elephant. None of the parts equal the whole. And, they have the audacity to call it intelligence.
The people running this dog and pony show should be embarrassed.
Sounds like the blind men inspecting the elephant. None of the parts equal the whole. And, they have the audacity to call it intelligence.
The people running this dog and pony show should be embarrassed.
3
To a certain extent, a military assessment of the relative success of the effort to defeat ISIS is irrelevant. Progress will be made ONLY when ISIS's neighbors decide to join in the effort. The odds of US intelligence accurately predicting when this will occur are somewhere in the range of zero to none.
Why is 'Annabelle' so terrified of Iran ('the number one sponsor of terrorism') when Iran is fighting against ISIL directly in Iraq, and indirectly in Syria? Iran is no threat to the USA, or any other Western country. The Conservative Government in the UK would hardly have re-established diplomatic relations with Iran if it were. I'm no fan of the 'Islamic Republic', but cool heads and realism should determine our policies, not unreasoning paranoia.
2
Richard Blaber - I have yet to hear or see evidence of Iranians yelling or carrying signs that read DEATH TO ISIS. They are however still yelling death to America and carrying sign saying the same.
If your neighbor shouted DEATH TO BLABER would you not consider them a threat or would you think you suffered from "unreasoning paranoia"?
If your neighbor shouted DEATH TO BLABER would you not consider them a threat or would you think you suffered from "unreasoning paranoia"?
What is it that makes people who are so courageous with their lives and safety become so cowardly with regard to the truth?
Easy solution, have the intelligence reports sent straight to the White House and Central Command gets a cc.
2
It is doubtful whether American intelligence agencies have much success in the Middle East, especially in countries like Syria and Libya and Yemen, where the most dangerous Islamists, like ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliated groups are based. Americans suffer huge disadvantages there, because their own agents often lack the language skills and insightful knowledge of the countries they spy on. They can't cooperate with government authorities and have to relying on local agents, which is not always optimal, due to their conflicts of interests and loyalty.
9
"April 4, 2011 - CIA Director Panetta Honors Excellence in Foreign Language."
Of course they did! I would like to show my evidence of the. Rey same thing during my tour in 2006-2007 under General Dempsey. He had to submit a quarterly report to Congress and he always altered my reports despite the fact that they were objective and supported by hard evidence. General's get promoted on their "successes" in these operations so there is tremendous
Incentive to inflate the reports or to only report positive information even if it is only support by a scintilla of truth against overwhelming negative information.
Incentive to inflate the reports or to only report positive information even if it is only support by a scintilla of truth against overwhelming negative information.
5
I'm still at a loss to understand where our skin is in this game. Why should I care if ISIS rules Iraq and Syria? All I see here is we are spending vast sums of money that is not helping make anything better in those two countries when it could be used to make things better here. Let the the religious and civil leaders in those countries decide what they want to do with their young men. We just need to secure our borders to prevent them from coming here. Bombing the heck out of their countries clearly doesn't do anything but make matters worse for everybody but the Military-Industrial Complex.
5
Ah, but those "vast sums of money being spent" are doing a lot of good to our economy. The money is being spent here at home, Mr. Wanderer. Jets, helicopters, MRAPs, etc -- all items with huge profit margins that employ skilled labor in factories all over the country. The MIC has made itself indispensable in terms of jobs, now that we don't make TVs or washing machines or furniture or refrigerators or computers or...you name it. We are a war economy in many ways. The DoD is the single largest employer on the planet, sir. There's something very wrong about that, but how are we going to change it?
3
After 5.8-7.0 million casualties in Vietnam, including 400,000 from agent orange and 500,000 with birth defects from agent orange, you would think the military had learned their lessons. Not to inflate enemy casualties (with old men, women, children and farm animals intentionally targeted) and not to fight a war they cannot ultimately win, because it's internecine or nationalist in nature....or religious....and we all must have learned by now, those never 'end'.
7
If ISIS is even stronger than we suspected, the last thing we need to do is free up over a billion dollars to Iran, the number one sponsor of terrorism, who will use it on weapons against us. Why would this country and this group meld? They both want to see Americans dead....
5
Except that ISIS and Iran are enemies. If ISIS is the treat everyone says it is (and I will admit, I am not convinced right now it is a serious threat to anyone not living in certain marts of the Arab world) then we want Iran to be on our side. Or at least Iran to focus on fighting ISIS and not concerned about us.
2
Room 237 - When they start yelling DEATH TO ISIS in the streets of Tehran and stop yelling DEATH TO AMERICA we might stop considering them a threat!
1
The Pentagon, along with the rest of the American national security defense apparatus," intelligently" failed to detect and prevent the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, the absence of Iraqi WMD's and no Iraqi connection to 9/11.
The Pentagon's "intelligence" also failed in Vietnam, Cuba and Iran. And the Pentagon's analytical "wisdom" is failing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya and Yemen. The Pentagon missed India going nuclear, the fall of the Soviet Union and Iraq invading Kuwait.
The wise cliché about confusing malice with incompetence comes to mind.
The Pentagon's "intelligence" also failed in Vietnam, Cuba and Iran. And the Pentagon's analytical "wisdom" is failing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya and Yemen. The Pentagon missed India going nuclear, the fall of the Soviet Union and Iraq invading Kuwait.
The wise cliché about confusing malice with incompetence comes to mind.
9
"Incompetence" is the key word here...And we hear the Pentagon is getting ready to spend $billions on a new super-sophisticated warplane which Lockheed and Norththrop (via their "well-loafered" lobbyits) are competing to build....
Guess who wants this "military-industrial complex charade" never to end...?
Guess who wants this "military-industrial complex charade" never to end...?
1
Is it possible that the US military intelligence (oxymoron) and CIA may be making mistakes or even, heaven forbid, fudging numbers?
1
How is this shocking? It has been going on since the first boots on the ground hit Afghanistan in late 2001. This story describes but one of the many symptoms of a sycophantic, yes-man culture that has dominated the highest echelons of our military. The steady decline of quality with our senior and general officers should be cause for alarm. To get ahead in the uniformed services you need to give the boss lots of Happy Talk (as reported in this story), remind the boss about what a genius he is (it's usually he in the still male dominated upper ranks), check the box (involving lots of DoD sponsored schooling of mediocre quality, and for heaven's sake, don't get a real degree at an elite civilian university) and stay in your lane. Don't make trouble. If you keep your head down for long enough you'll have a nice rank to retire from. And so we are winning the fight against (fill in the blank) stories will continue to roll out of the Pentagon.
5
Well put....This called "LYING your way to the top"...!
Intelligence information was more than “overruled” during the Vietnam War. Gen. Westmoreland and others, including McNamara, considerably extended the war and the 58,000-plus death toll.
Abuses by the Air Force prior to Vietnam, to fund missiles, has continued and become more complex as motives of separate services have folded into the greatly expanded, dangerously entrenched military-industrial complex (MIC), where coordination between defense industries, services, and aligned legislators result in more rapid turnover of weapons systems than necessary, at far greater cost than justifiable, and with less performance gains. The spectacular monopoly, awarding the manufacture of a performance-compromised multi-role to replace the entire spectrum of fighter-attack aircraft over long term, to Lockheed Martin for the F-35, is a most egregious example, the most costly weapons system ever, delayed, paid and designed on the fly to increased costs, a seeming new method of procurement that will undoubtedly be adopted by other services.
The role of the MIC in assessing security risks is also suspect, where terrorism is everywhere, yet nebulous, of rudimentary military capability, yet categorized by spokespersons and officials as “difficult” and requiring “long term” engagement, and where the effort, whether by the U.S. or its military-hardware buying allies, is sure to benefit at least the MIC, which wins no matter how the battles rage on or how many lives and families are destroyed.
Abuses by the Air Force prior to Vietnam, to fund missiles, has continued and become more complex as motives of separate services have folded into the greatly expanded, dangerously entrenched military-industrial complex (MIC), where coordination between defense industries, services, and aligned legislators result in more rapid turnover of weapons systems than necessary, at far greater cost than justifiable, and with less performance gains. The spectacular monopoly, awarding the manufacture of a performance-compromised multi-role to replace the entire spectrum of fighter-attack aircraft over long term, to Lockheed Martin for the F-35, is a most egregious example, the most costly weapons system ever, delayed, paid and designed on the fly to increased costs, a seeming new method of procurement that will undoubtedly be adopted by other services.
The role of the MIC in assessing security risks is also suspect, where terrorism is everywhere, yet nebulous, of rudimentary military capability, yet categorized by spokespersons and officials as “difficult” and requiring “long term” engagement, and where the effort, whether by the U.S. or its military-hardware buying allies, is sure to benefit at least the MIC, which wins no matter how the battles rage on or how many lives and families are destroyed.
13
Didn't LBJ do this with Vietnam? Didn't Dubya do this with Iraq?
Didn't . . . didn't . . . . ? Yes, they all did. Truly, as it says in the Old Testament, "there is nothing new under the sun". Truly, as someone said, "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose". Truly, as someone else said, "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
We don't change much no matter how far we come technologically, do we?
Didn't . . . didn't . . . . ? Yes, they all did. Truly, as it says in the Old Testament, "there is nothing new under the sun". Truly, as someone said, "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose". Truly, as someone else said, "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
We don't change much no matter how far we come technologically, do we?
5
The Pentagon skewed its reports? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. I'll be more shocked when the us army tells the truth.
11
Like Woodward and Berstein said decades ago:
"follow the money".
Fact1: In early 2015 US 170 military trainers trained 4 batallions ( between 6500 and 16000) of Iraqis at Camp Taji ( former US base) north of Bagdad in Iraq. It took 6 weeks.
Fact2: In July 2015 Dyna Corp was awarded a $100,000,000 contract by the DOD for life support" at Camp Taji.
Fact 3. In February 2015 the US deactivated the Joint Special Operations Task force in the Phillipines to great fanfare.
Fact 4: In early July 2015, the US awarded a contract for $18,500,000 to support the Joint Special Forces Task force in the Phillipines
Yesterday I read about how we have wasted money in Afghanistan on a powerplant that is barely, randomly functional. Today:
Fact5: A $110, 000,000 contract awarded by the US government in August 2015 to built powerlines in Afghanistan.
Do any of you readers believe that low level people in the military get to sigh off on these "needs"?
Do any of you believe the high level people in the military aren't wooed by contractors???
"follow the money".
Fact1: In early 2015 US 170 military trainers trained 4 batallions ( between 6500 and 16000) of Iraqis at Camp Taji ( former US base) north of Bagdad in Iraq. It took 6 weeks.
Fact2: In July 2015 Dyna Corp was awarded a $100,000,000 contract by the DOD for life support" at Camp Taji.
Fact 3. In February 2015 the US deactivated the Joint Special Operations Task force in the Phillipines to great fanfare.
Fact 4: In early July 2015, the US awarded a contract for $18,500,000 to support the Joint Special Forces Task force in the Phillipines
Yesterday I read about how we have wasted money in Afghanistan on a powerplant that is barely, randomly functional. Today:
Fact5: A $110, 000,000 contract awarded by the US government in August 2015 to built powerlines in Afghanistan.
Do any of you readers believe that low level people in the military get to sigh off on these "needs"?
Do any of you believe the high level people in the military aren't wooed by contractors???
17
Check out the Overseas Contingency Operations [OCO] -- another Pentagon Slush Fund. THAT lone could do a LOT of good in the country. What THEY tell us is what they THINK we WANT to hear so we [ie Congress] keeps the funding going.
nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/overseas-contingency-operations/
nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/overseas-contingency-operations/
4
No evidence that ISIS even exists.
As long as we are rubbing elbows with Erdoğan so we can drop our bombs on ISIS in Syria straight from Turkey under the condition though that he can then kill Kurds in Iraq whenever it strikes his fancy any US military analysis obviously is totally skewed. We are now equally guilty of the Kurdish massacres going on since Atatürk, some 100 years ago.
7
We live in a world where skewing intelligence gets you a vice presidency at a defense contractor , and leaking inconvenient the truth gets you jail.
3
intel reports are skewed to show isis as less dangerous than they really are, because obama wants isis to win. it is that simple.
But not nearly as simple as you are.
1
It's disturbing to think that the intelligence is possibly being manipulated to put a positive spin on it. The President should never be protected from differing viewpoints.
This is a long conflict that will change the map of the Tigris-Euphrates watershed and it could be ongoing for years. It is not the kind of conflict American troops can solve. We'd just become targets. We'd stick out like a sore thumb.
This is a long conflict that will change the map of the Tigris-Euphrates watershed and it could be ongoing for years. It is not the kind of conflict American troops can solve. We'd just become targets. We'd stick out like a sore thumb.
1
Warmongers and now liars.....I'm shocked! Please note sarcasm.
3
Let's just suppose that ISIS can be driven out of Iraq. But what's the end game?
Where do all those fighters go? And how can we find them, pursue them, and perhaps convert them into nice peaceful citizens of the world who respect other religions? I repeat. What's the end game guys?
Where do all those fighters go? And how can we find them, pursue them, and perhaps convert them into nice peaceful citizens of the world who respect other religions? I repeat. What's the end game guys?
5
The neocons rule in the military and within the MIC.... if governments stopped the distribution of weapons maybe diplomacy would come to the fore
3
Is there anything that this administration does that is not governed by politics and nothing but. Lies, lies and more lies. How is this tolerated by anyone?
3
How is it that when a person lies to the government it is against the law but if our government lies to us there are no consequences? It should be against the law for any government employee to lie to their employer who are the citizens of this country.
1
Who will guards the guards? Regarding military intelligence, newspapers and other media have their work cut out for them.
1
Let's see if we can get a diligent analysis of the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq. Americans would like to learn how information may have been excluded or dismissed when it contradicted the Bush plan to invade. Can we get an official report from the Inspector General please?
Our success with ISIS is hampered by our schizophrenic alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies who educate, fund, and train ISIS leadership. Nations that support terrorists are supposed to be listed as such and punished.
Our success with ISIS is hampered by our schizophrenic alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies who educate, fund, and train ISIS leadership. Nations that support terrorists are supposed to be listed as such and punished.
5
The Saudi's are just helping us to maintain our economy by funding terrorism.
Do you realize what would happen to our economy if we weren't always at war? Remember.....the Bush family are friends of the bin Laden family and flew them out of our country on Bushes own personal jet, as I recall from past media reports of yesteryear.
Do you realize what would happen to our economy if we weren't always at war? Remember.....the Bush family are friends of the bin Laden family and flew them out of our country on Bushes own personal jet, as I recall from past media reports of yesteryear.
4
“A prudent question is one half of wisdom.’ — SIR FRANCIS BACON
ISIS Analysis Was Distorted?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practice to deceive!" — SIR WALTER SCOTT
Victory in Afghanistan was Distorted.
The invasion of Iraq was Distorted.
Victory in Iraq was Distorted.
The Sunni rebellion was was Distorted.
Al Qaeda in Iraq was Distorted.
ISI was Distorted.
ISIS was Distorted.
ISIL was Distorted.
The Arab Spring was Distorted.
The Syrian civil war was Distorted.
The American public is Distorted with lies and false expectations.
"The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did" – MATTHEW WHITE in THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF HORRIBLE THINGS
"The wise man is he who knows when and how to stop" — VICTOR HUGO
What HASN'T been distorted?!
"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." — MARK TWAIN
ISIS Analysis Was Distorted?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practice to deceive!" — SIR WALTER SCOTT
Victory in Afghanistan was Distorted.
The invasion of Iraq was Distorted.
Victory in Iraq was Distorted.
The Sunni rebellion was was Distorted.
Al Qaeda in Iraq was Distorted.
ISI was Distorted.
ISIS was Distorted.
ISIL was Distorted.
The Arab Spring was Distorted.
The Syrian civil war was Distorted.
The American public is Distorted with lies and false expectations.
"The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did" – MATTHEW WHITE in THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF HORRIBLE THINGS
"The wise man is he who knows when and how to stop" — VICTOR HUGO
What HASN'T been distorted?!
"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." — MARK TWAIN
7
So when the intelligence is faulty during the Bush administration, it is a case of Bush lied. It does not matter that s great many intelligence agencies of other countries believed the information as did Saddam Hussein's own people. What matters is that Bush lied.
>
However, when the intelligence estimate of Obama's administration provided faulty information then it is an intelligence failure. It does not matter that the faulty assessment comes only from our own intelligence service and no one else's or that this administration has a reputation for mendacity. All that matters is that this is an intelligence failure.
>
Move along. Nothing to see here.
>
However, when the intelligence estimate of Obama's administration provided faulty information then it is an intelligence failure. It does not matter that the faulty assessment comes only from our own intelligence service and no one else's or that this administration has a reputation for mendacity. All that matters is that this is an intelligence failure.
>
Move along. Nothing to see here.
13
Or maybe Obama's white house is merely trying to divert attention from something else? We know that Obama only lies when he opens his mouth.
4
There's no question that this is on the same spectrum, but manufacturing an entire war is just a whole different order of magnitude. It's like comparing dropping a candy wrapper and dumping 100 tons of raw sewage in a park. The whole reason this conflict exists, that ISIS exists, is because that war was started with a bunch of imaginary threats.
3
Roy Brander - Is there really much difference between "manufacturing an entire war" on false evidence or CONTINUING the fighting of that war for years and years?
Seventy years ago, during the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell noticed that skewed and distorted reports were coming out. This perception led him eventually to develop the idea of "double-speak" in his famous novel.
The manipulation of news and its reporting is a constant in all countries and is becoming quite evident in the issue of Clinton's e-mails. To begin with, it has become normal to talk about the matter as investigation and as a scandal, charged words, when what is going on, at least for the moment, is a review of the e-mails to see what can be released and if it should be redacted. I leave aside for the moment other issues as to not get off the subject.
This morning on "Morning Jo", it was commented by both him and his co-host, that Jorge Ramos "baited" Trump, when what he was doing was asking him how he would build a 1,900 mile fence and how he would deport 11 million people. Ramos was also criticized for getting up and speaking when he was not recognized, as if it were a case of lése majesté.
But nothing was said about the fact that Trump lied when he said he did not know Ramos but in a later exchange told Ramos that he (Trump) was suing both Univision and Ramos himself.
So now, we have distortion not only from the politicians themselves but also from those who are supposed to report the news. Everyone pushes forward his/her interests and we are left. once agin, trying to find out what is really going on.
The manipulation of news and its reporting is a constant in all countries and is becoming quite evident in the issue of Clinton's e-mails. To begin with, it has become normal to talk about the matter as investigation and as a scandal, charged words, when what is going on, at least for the moment, is a review of the e-mails to see what can be released and if it should be redacted. I leave aside for the moment other issues as to not get off the subject.
This morning on "Morning Jo", it was commented by both him and his co-host, that Jorge Ramos "baited" Trump, when what he was doing was asking him how he would build a 1,900 mile fence and how he would deport 11 million people. Ramos was also criticized for getting up and speaking when he was not recognized, as if it were a case of lése majesté.
But nothing was said about the fact that Trump lied when he said he did not know Ramos but in a later exchange told Ramos that he (Trump) was suing both Univision and Ramos himself.
So now, we have distortion not only from the politicians themselves but also from those who are supposed to report the news. Everyone pushes forward his/her interests and we are left. once agin, trying to find out what is really going on.
5
Hearst did the same to promote the Spanish-American war. So it goes.
1
American over-optimism has come back to bite it since the start of the so-called War On Terror. The invasion of Iraq did not go swimmingly, the introduction of democracy did not work, there were no weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence has always been awful.
The truth is ISIS is thriving. It has created 19 governorates, is building a civil society, and is probably unbeatable as a military force without causing the death of 10,000s of innocents - which is unacceptable. So it is here to stay.
Killing the leaders is pointless. Sooner the later the West will have to consider some kind of negotiation with these people and we need someone to negotiate with. Sooner or later the pragmatists will take control and the ideologues will be pushed aside.
An al Qaeda (actually in the name of Islamic State) "strategic lessons learned" document that came to light in 2010 put the blame for its defeat in Iraq down to psychological operations which turned the population against them. The "Surge" didn't get a mention. Yet all the self-serving military bluster - and psyoping of the American people - reinforced the myth of the military and the surge.
Why does everyone assume defeating ISIS is a good thing. They may well be appalling, but if not ISIS, who? What other entity is now capable of governing, sustainably and peacefully, this piece of turf and its 10 million inhabitants? . I have no confidence whatsoever that the US and its allies have a clue as to what comes next.
The truth is ISIS is thriving. It has created 19 governorates, is building a civil society, and is probably unbeatable as a military force without causing the death of 10,000s of innocents - which is unacceptable. So it is here to stay.
Killing the leaders is pointless. Sooner the later the West will have to consider some kind of negotiation with these people and we need someone to negotiate with. Sooner or later the pragmatists will take control and the ideologues will be pushed aside.
An al Qaeda (actually in the name of Islamic State) "strategic lessons learned" document that came to light in 2010 put the blame for its defeat in Iraq down to psychological operations which turned the population against them. The "Surge" didn't get a mention. Yet all the self-serving military bluster - and psyoping of the American people - reinforced the myth of the military and the surge.
Why does everyone assume defeating ISIS is a good thing. They may well be appalling, but if not ISIS, who? What other entity is now capable of governing, sustainably and peacefully, this piece of turf and its 10 million inhabitants? . I have no confidence whatsoever that the US and its allies have a clue as to what comes next.
3
Your conclusion re ISIS is sick.
Did these crooks Occupying the White House leave ONE US government agency unmolested?? We kept telling people, these are charlatans and crooks Occupying the White House, but the crooks had the media in their back pocket, protecting them and camouflaging all their rogue deeds and lawless behavior. So what happened now, why all of a sudden nyt decides it's not "racist" any more to expose and report the crooks' misbehavior? Elections! Elections is what's suddenly happened. They are peddling for a little bit of their own legitimacy right now, that's all. Shame, truly shame on these dishonorable people.
5
You need to see "General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years" on youtube. He lists the countries we have gone into, and says he was told within months of 9-11 that this was our plan. It has mattered not which party was in power as we've marched through the countries on the list.
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
6
We have not gone into Syria, Somalia, Sudan or Iran but hey why let the facts stand in the way of a rant.
Clearly, the Central Command's skewing of data reports is not helping the U.S. win skirmishes againsts ISIS. For the US miltary industrial complex, not known for shying away from destruction, dishonest reports of US successes against ISIS serves to limit US military involvement.
Is Central Command trying to limit the military's involvement to prevent loss of men, collateral damage or save the US budget? If so, it would be a first.
Is Central Command trying to cover up humiliating blunders made in the Middle East against ISIS?
It is unfathomable that Cenral Command is painting a pretty picture of military failures to POTUS. What is their motivation? Has ISIS threatened the US, and will desist only if the US diminishes its fight against ISIS? Are leaders being bribed?
Lying and mispresentation of facts, at the level of Central Command, could perhaps be considered treason. Central Command is certainly not acting in the best interests of democracy and freedom by hiding the truth. With so many lives at stake, and while ISIS continues its savage progress across the globe, shouldn't the Central Command be telling the truth, and further, devise new ways to conquer the new world nazis--ISIS?
This situation must be investigated immediately, and corrective action taken.
Is Central Command trying to limit the military's involvement to prevent loss of men, collateral damage or save the US budget? If so, it would be a first.
Is Central Command trying to cover up humiliating blunders made in the Middle East against ISIS?
It is unfathomable that Cenral Command is painting a pretty picture of military failures to POTUS. What is their motivation? Has ISIS threatened the US, and will desist only if the US diminishes its fight against ISIS? Are leaders being bribed?
Lying and mispresentation of facts, at the level of Central Command, could perhaps be considered treason. Central Command is certainly not acting in the best interests of democracy and freedom by hiding the truth. With so many lives at stake, and while ISIS continues its savage progress across the globe, shouldn't the Central Command be telling the truth, and further, devise new ways to conquer the new world nazis--ISIS?
This situation must be investigated immediately, and corrective action taken.
3
No Central Command is doing the bidding of the Commander in Chief.
2
Correct questions but wrong answers. The presumption that the intelligence is being skewed from the bottom up makes no sense. The bottom would probably like to get more allocation of resources to build their power but their rosy reports would undercut the request for more resources.
Far more likely the rosy reports are the result of pressure from the top down. The Top being the President and his administration which have the most to gain from the rosy reports.
Far more likely the rosy reports are the result of pressure from the top down. The Top being the President and his administration which have the most to gain from the rosy reports.
1
Can anyone tell honestly why on earth the US employs its might to fight ISIS and allow other ISIS equivalents- Assad, and His Militia supporters to take over the area. Is it just destruction and no more. Is it to help Israel. If any this is a big and forced military training camp to millions and I do not think Israelis will come out winners at the end of it.
When you work in arbitrary manners with no guiding morals and with everyone pulling to their interests, you should expect that the intelligence people work in one direction, the foreign office in another and the military in a third one.
As far back as the days of Carter I wrote to the Voice of America who where asking for opinions, that you should do the 'Omar wisdom'.. do justice and sleep and a tree. Without justice you can build as high as you like of walls and barriers but you will never feel secure. Just if you ask what is justice, it is when no one feels unfairly treated, with true justice to go when it happens.
When you work in arbitrary manners with no guiding morals and with everyone pulling to their interests, you should expect that the intelligence people work in one direction, the foreign office in another and the military in a third one.
As far back as the days of Carter I wrote to the Voice of America who where asking for opinions, that you should do the 'Omar wisdom'.. do justice and sleep and a tree. Without justice you can build as high as you like of walls and barriers but you will never feel secure. Just if you ask what is justice, it is when no one feels unfairly treated, with true justice to go when it happens.
1
Really, is it necessary to investigate the analysis of progress against ISIS's aggression when it is quite self evident of the failures to deal with ISIS starting with Obama' s lack of acknowledgement and being aloof to the surrounding issues of the region....
The Pentagon's analysis mirrors the assessment of the emperor .......
The Pentagon's analysis mirrors the assessment of the emperor .......
8
In Vietnam our ordinance to VC KIA's showed that we were clearly winning the war of attrition. Then someone noticed that we had killed off by a factor of three the entire military age population of Vietnam, according to our published enemy casualty estimates by around 1969, and support for the war deflated like a sucking chest wound.
By The Second Gulf War, which was a war of choice, and wasn't regime change a wonderful idea anyway: We had forgotten completely how to count, but 4.5 million Iraqi refugees were hard to hide, and eventually that added up to a lot of stories. The upshot of the recording methods of Iraq War II was that refusing to count didn't work either as a dodge to the truth.
Now, as the blowback from our war of choice, "because we could," has been recognized by reasonable people to have birthed a far greater evil than Saddam, statistical methods have been unable to calculate the condition of the Middle East, without Saddam Hussein to hold back the religious lunatics.
Wahabi Saudi Arabia had panicked in the face of Pan Shia Solidarity post Gulf War II, and lost control of its Sunni, jihadi population. It made them into ISIS in order to become a surrogate, but instead they have become the Caliphate! Apparently, nobody knows how to measure a consequence like that, so the Pentagon has reverted to form, and probably tried to fake it.
Lessons of Vietnam! Were there lessons of Vietnam? Nah! Probably not.
By The Second Gulf War, which was a war of choice, and wasn't regime change a wonderful idea anyway: We had forgotten completely how to count, but 4.5 million Iraqi refugees were hard to hide, and eventually that added up to a lot of stories. The upshot of the recording methods of Iraq War II was that refusing to count didn't work either as a dodge to the truth.
Now, as the blowback from our war of choice, "because we could," has been recognized by reasonable people to have birthed a far greater evil than Saddam, statistical methods have been unable to calculate the condition of the Middle East, without Saddam Hussein to hold back the religious lunatics.
Wahabi Saudi Arabia had panicked in the face of Pan Shia Solidarity post Gulf War II, and lost control of its Sunni, jihadi population. It made them into ISIS in order to become a surrogate, but instead they have become the Caliphate! Apparently, nobody knows how to measure a consequence like that, so the Pentagon has reverted to form, and probably tried to fake it.
Lessons of Vietnam! Were there lessons of Vietnam? Nah! Probably not.
7
I see Vietnam all over again. When will we ever learn?
9
"Truth is so precious, it must often be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." - Winston Churchill.
Unfortunately, as in Vietnam's body count method of claiming successful operations, and Bush Lite's infamous Mission Accomplished speech, the "truth" that is surrounded by lies is itself very subjective.
Unfortunately, as in Vietnam's body count method of claiming successful operations, and Bush Lite's infamous Mission Accomplished speech, the "truth" that is surrounded by lies is itself very subjective.
7
"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry."
Well, we know the Commander-In-Chief did so with his false JV Team assessment.
Well, we know the Commander-In-Chief did so with his false JV Team assessment.
6
It's incredible how many of the comment heron DO NOT include the name of the commander in chief, Barack Obama.
7
@ Al R. Florida
And Obama bashing will resolve everything. Right! Get over it! A black guy is living in the white house. Little more than a year and he'll move out.
What's incredible is that no one mentions GWBush, the Distorterer-in-Chief, who started it all!
What I find "incredible", though true, is that commenters like yourself never "include" their names.
And Obama bashing will resolve everything. Right! Get over it! A black guy is living in the white house. Little more than a year and he'll move out.
What's incredible is that no one mentions GWBush, the Distorterer-in-Chief, who started it all!
What I find "incredible", though true, is that commenters like yourself never "include" their names.
5
Robert Coane,
I don't "bash" Obama. I just try to be objective about his performance. You should try it sometime. His presidency would have been a lot more successful had his people and the press honestly evaluated his policies rather than build cases for acceptable failures. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, ISIS, Benghazi, IRS, stimulus, Obamacare, Fin-Reg, and the poor have gotten poorer. And there is no excuse for his ignoring the further demise of the black community. Objective evaluation would do the country a lot of good.
I don't "bash" Obama. I just try to be objective about his performance. You should try it sometime. His presidency would have been a lot more successful had his people and the press honestly evaluated his policies rather than build cases for acceptable failures. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, ISIS, Benghazi, IRS, stimulus, Obamacare, Fin-Reg, and the poor have gotten poorer. And there is no excuse for his ignoring the further demise of the black community. Objective evaluation would do the country a lot of good.
1
@ Al R. Florida
And Obama bashing will resolve everything. Right! Get over it! A black guy is living in the white house. Little more than a year and he'll move out. You can then maybe move The Donald in. Although I'm sure he'll find it tight quarters he'll enjoy covering the "Trump House" trimmings in gold leaf.
What's incredible is that no one mentions G.W.Bush, the Distorterer-in-Chief, who started it all!
And Obama bashing will resolve everything. Right! Get over it! A black guy is living in the white house. Little more than a year and he'll move out. You can then maybe move The Donald in. Although I'm sure he'll find it tight quarters he'll enjoy covering the "Trump House" trimmings in gold leaf.
What's incredible is that no one mentions G.W.Bush, the Distorterer-in-Chief, who started it all!
Distorted intelligence conclusions to suit the central command goals is the reason behind failure for most of the US military operations abroad be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or, now against the ISIS in Syria/ Iraq. It's a poor reflection on the US decision making specially on matters so crucial as the Defense. It's as if there's a chink in the US armour and it remains unnoticed by the command.
13
Does this mean that the truth is out?
That the defense/security establishment of our country is committed only to its own survival, just name the enemy?
How do we bring this beast back under some kind of proper oversight like DIA was initially supposed to handle, but obv got coopted/learned to self sustain? Yet again, after Vietnam and McNamara's later words we find ourselves enmeshed.
Almost like it's our brand.
I hope this inquiry puts it all out there and the media heavily covers it. Hugely important issue for this country, right here and now.
That the defense/security establishment of our country is committed only to its own survival, just name the enemy?
How do we bring this beast back under some kind of proper oversight like DIA was initially supposed to handle, but obv got coopted/learned to self sustain? Yet again, after Vietnam and McNamara's later words we find ourselves enmeshed.
Almost like it's our brand.
I hope this inquiry puts it all out there and the media heavily covers it. Hugely important issue for this country, right here and now.
8
Didn't we fight a war in Indochina where the "light was at the end of the tunnel' except the light was carried by a VC infantryman during the Tet offensive? Lying is always a cover for something far worse. I shudder to think of what they are really thinking.
5
Since before the Iraq mess, questions pop up in my mind repeatedly. Nobody remembers VietNam? We learned nothing there? 50,000 guys paid for that education. Deja vu all over again...
14
It's obvious.. Only Iran with its popular but unproven army,and the new Israel/Saudi/Egyptian alliance can roll back ISIS.. The biggest fallacy in modern times as it relates to foreign affairs is the capability of Barack Obama .....period
4
Albert S,
Obama's capability in foreign affairs? His capability is masterful at coverup and lying.
Obama's capability in foreign affairs? His capability is masterful at coverup and lying.
2
I agree with you up until your comment about Obama. It isn't just Obama, it is the U.S. in general. We have long ago been labeled the "bad guy." From the very beginning, our interference in the Middle East was problematic. If anyone thinks we should send troops to Iraq, they need to have their heads examined. That would just further antagonize and feed their propaganda mill. It's time for countries in the region to take responsibility. Sure, we can give moral and material support but we should not be leading or even participating in the charge other than bombimg where they tell us it's needed.
1
GW Bush, Cheney and company used falsified intelligence to create their "war of choice". As Colin Powell pointed out then - "you break it, you bought it".
We are paying and will pay for Bush's crimes for generations.
Period.
We are paying and will pay for Bush's crimes for generations.
Period.
1
Politicians and Civilian leadership in the Pentagon use the Military as a tool. Civilian leadership does not care about reality they only care about their agenda. General Dempsey has publicly stated the the POTUS does not take his military advisers advice on how to address ISIS. Political forces are pressuring these agencies to lie. Just as they do with all other agencies. Government is not about truth, justice and the America way anymore, it is all about tribal political power, ego and greed. We live in a world of liars.
5
So why is it news?
I shall keep it away from Vietnam and just start as the last war of choice, Iraq - the oilmen, Bush and Cheney wanted to teach a lesson to Saddam, asked and guided the intelligence agencies to justify a bad Republican war - followed by the bad idea and recommendation by the agencies to disband the Armed Forces of Iraq (fairly secular) which equally punished anyone who opposed them.
These multiple skewed interventions resulted into massive sectarian problem in Iraq with the formation of Zarqawi group, and now IS.
Once the foreign powers saw an opening they have been using Iraq and Syria as their own playground for playing war games.
When would we learn that all local politics also have international ramifications.
I shall keep it away from Vietnam and just start as the last war of choice, Iraq - the oilmen, Bush and Cheney wanted to teach a lesson to Saddam, asked and guided the intelligence agencies to justify a bad Republican war - followed by the bad idea and recommendation by the agencies to disband the Armed Forces of Iraq (fairly secular) which equally punished anyone who opposed them.
These multiple skewed interventions resulted into massive sectarian problem in Iraq with the formation of Zarqawi group, and now IS.
Once the foreign powers saw an opening they have been using Iraq and Syria as their own playground for playing war games.
When would we learn that all local politics also have international ramifications.
10
Why should this be surprising? We are no longer true to our roots, our constitution, or our traditional way of life.
Our government is and was massively intercepting our communications, and, but for a whistle blower, we would not have known that. There are apparently some secret side deals related to the recently negotiated agreement with Iran that reporters uncovered. We would not have known this either, it seems, were it not for a civilian DIA analyst who blew the whistle again.
Government is no longer by the people for the people. Government does not trust the people, and the people cannot trust the government.
Our government is and was massively intercepting our communications, and, but for a whistle blower, we would not have known that. There are apparently some secret side deals related to the recently negotiated agreement with Iran that reporters uncovered. We would not have known this either, it seems, were it not for a civilian DIA analyst who blew the whistle again.
Government is no longer by the people for the people. Government does not trust the people, and the people cannot trust the government.
10
Have we learned nothing? We lost 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam Nam in no small measure because of just this kind of lying, altering records, and protecting a cabal of careerist who would do anything to keep stateside from learning the truth about how hopeless it was. The military chiefs and the pols should be required to undergo a hearing, responding to Vietnam Nam veterans and their civilian peers about every nook and cranny of our ISIL mission and where all the bones are buried.
16
It's good to have different agencies to have dissenting opinions, which serve as a mechanism of checks-and-balances. Commanders should be able to be held responsible for miscalculations and military fiascos. In the past some got away with impunity!
2
It's important to remember that Obama is our commander in chief, and it is he and he alone who authorised the war on ISIS without congressional approval. He said he didn't need it as he's authorised to bomb whomever he wishes in the global war on terror.
Last fall, Frontline on PBS aired an excellent program on the factors that led to the creation of ISIS. (I just watched it on the internet a few days ago.) Apparently, the combination of Shi'ite persecution by Maliki against the Sunni minority in Iraq (which included bogus arrests of the bodyguards of prominent Sunni officials as well as a massacre against nonviolent protesters) and the lack of resources (money and weapons) available to more moderate Sunni factions in the Syrian civil war created the perfect opportunity for radical Islam to fester.
6
Reminds me of the cheery estimates and prognoses about Vietnam that were given to LBJ by Westmoreland and his crew prior to TET.
5
Since General Shinseki was fired, the admirals and generals have been consistently wrong, from staying the course to the surge to the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course the analysis is skewed. The last honest man or women apparently left the building long ago. As after Vietnam, the military needs a heavy housecleaning at the top and a slow steady rebuild.
7
Sounds like someone in the Defense Dept. is trying to steer policy makers away from a more comprehensive approach to attacking ISIS.
2
There's a reason why the U.S. representative democratic form of government is successful: It provides decision space in which representatives can function in providing for complex solutions to complex problems by understanding the actual, as opposed to pretextual, context in as much breadth and depth as can be mustered. When I see stories about how the naysayer information was ignored, I am always at a loss to understand how that has any relevance to the decision at the time it was made when consequent facts emerge which support it.
It seems that our authorities are cheating us. Exaggeration of successes fighting against ISIS and understating of real expenses is a trade mark of Pentagon. Do we really need billions buried in the sands, do we really need this war on the Middle East? We have budget deficit, social spending has reached 63% of total spending in 2015. External debt is over $18,6 trillion.
3
Whereas intelligence-sharing across bureaucratic boundaries is a good thing (recall that 9/11 probably would've been stopped had the CIA and FBI talked to each other more), making "suggestions" about someone else's intelligence assessment -- that is, massaging the data to arrive at a groupthink perspective -- is by its very nature pernicious. It's a good thing we're so very powerful, because our intelligence agencies are not that good at turning all the info they suck up into insightful or useful data points for policy planners.
Putting a good face on things was the hallmark of military intelligence in Vietnam, although the CIA actually good analytical work there. What happens is this: the armed forces like to have a mission, because it means more money for personnel and weapons, and more opportunities for officers to get ahead career-wise. If they think they can get more resources out of the politicians, they accentuate the negative. If they know resources for a particular job cannot grow substantially (and that's the situation in Syria-Iraq, so long as Obama is president), they tell everybody (including themselves) what a great job they're doing. I have great respect for the U.S. military, but its tendency to try to shape thinking to conform to its own imperatives is bad business. And of course the politicians often abet this bad behavior, depending on what their own particular agenda may be.
Putting a good face on things was the hallmark of military intelligence in Vietnam, although the CIA actually good analytical work there. What happens is this: the armed forces like to have a mission, because it means more money for personnel and weapons, and more opportunities for officers to get ahead career-wise. If they think they can get more resources out of the politicians, they accentuate the negative. If they know resources for a particular job cannot grow substantially (and that's the situation in Syria-Iraq, so long as Obama is president), they tell everybody (including themselves) what a great job they're doing. I have great respect for the U.S. military, but its tendency to try to shape thinking to conform to its own imperatives is bad business. And of course the politicians often abet this bad behavior, depending on what their own particular agenda may be.
13
It's all about the money.
A lot of military and government workers who procure war materiel for our wars go on to have careers at defense contractors after their military/government service. They buy war materiel from people who are former military/government folk working for these defense contractors. They are all in this war effort hand in hand, to deceive whoever they can deceive about the need for war to turn a profit. And it is being done around the world. The biggest profiteers of these wars are those countries who produce arms......which are the countries who make up the UN Security Council (what an oxymoron)! Their whole reason for being is destruction and not building. It's not about building security but about selling insecurity and destruction to turn a profit and keep their economies humming along. Just think about the making of one multi-million-dollar military jet or multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. From mining costs to mine material from the earth, transportation costs to get the mined material to foundries, the foundries costs to melt the mined material into the metal to make this war materiel and on and on. All of those costs maintain jobs and income. And those jobs and income are in a politician's state somewhere. And those jobs means that these politicians know a cash cow when they see one and it is a cash cow that will keep everyone employed and those politicians aren't going to vote against war.
A lot of military and government workers who procure war materiel for our wars go on to have careers at defense contractors after their military/government service. They buy war materiel from people who are former military/government folk working for these defense contractors. They are all in this war effort hand in hand, to deceive whoever they can deceive about the need for war to turn a profit. And it is being done around the world. The biggest profiteers of these wars are those countries who produce arms......which are the countries who make up the UN Security Council (what an oxymoron)! Their whole reason for being is destruction and not building. It's not about building security but about selling insecurity and destruction to turn a profit and keep their economies humming along. Just think about the making of one multi-million-dollar military jet or multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. From mining costs to mine material from the earth, transportation costs to get the mined material to foundries, the foundries costs to melt the mined material into the metal to make this war materiel and on and on. All of those costs maintain jobs and income. And those jobs and income are in a politician's state somewhere. And those jobs means that these politicians know a cash cow when they see one and it is a cash cow that will keep everyone employed and those politicians aren't going to vote against war.
You mean the US Military might *gasp* EXAGGERATE its successes?
Nothing new here. I remember how during the '60's that the NVA/Cong "body counts" were so laughable that even Walter Cronkite mentioned how ridiculous they were. If everyone was "killed" that the Pentagon claimed, there wouldn't have been any enemies to fight--but they kept coming anyway.
Imperialism doesn't work, never has, never will. As usual, the problem has to be left to the locals; invaders simply cannot make the choices necessary to change things.
Nothing new here. I remember how during the '60's that the NVA/Cong "body counts" were so laughable that even Walter Cronkite mentioned how ridiculous they were. If everyone was "killed" that the Pentagon claimed, there wouldn't have been any enemies to fight--but they kept coming anyway.
Imperialism doesn't work, never has, never will. As usual, the problem has to be left to the locals; invaders simply cannot make the choices necessary to change things.
20
If the fish stinks, check the head. Any investigation should include the commander-in-chief since he has been known to play fast and loose with this type of information when it suits his political needs, most particularly when he is campaigning.
19
So the commander-in-chief doctored the analysis and intelligence reports? Obama is no Dick Cheney. Not by a long shot.
no mention of any history, even recent history. no mention of any institutional or cultural factors. check your own head, if this is how it works.
1
Bombing campaigns will not defeat ISIS. U.S. troops on the ground will make ISIS recruiting much more effective, and they are probably hoping for our arrival. ISIS has to be defeated by forces from the area, and these forces have not been forthcoming.
This is not a problem that the U.S. military can solve. The forces that could deal with the problem have other enemies besides ISIS, and sometimes decide to favor or go easy on ISIS when it is fighting one of their other enemies.
The military does not like to say that something is impossible, and that more money and weapons for them would not make it possible. This would be wasting an opportunity to grow the budget. The natural relationship between the military and those who evaluate military effectiveness is one of mistrust and enmity and bureaucratic smoked-earth warfare until the military gains control of its evaluators or at least strikes a mutually helpful bargain with them.
This is not a problem that the U.S. military can solve. The forces that could deal with the problem have other enemies besides ISIS, and sometimes decide to favor or go easy on ISIS when it is fighting one of their other enemies.
The military does not like to say that something is impossible, and that more money and weapons for them would not make it possible. This would be wasting an opportunity to grow the budget. The natural relationship between the military and those who evaluate military effectiveness is one of mistrust and enmity and bureaucratic smoked-earth warfare until the military gains control of its evaluators or at least strikes a mutually helpful bargain with them.
30
Consider that the strategy to focus on ISIS leadership, and not ISIS whenever wherever found, has produced its own recruiting benefit as ISIS warriors rise through the ranks. We're battling new enemies with old tactics. This new enemy grows in power due to its members' jihadist beliefs, not the expertise of its veteran officers.
1
A real alliance that recognizes Iran as a legitimate regional power might undo Daesh. It probably is the only think that could work, a Iranian, Pesh Merga West air power alliance with the limited goal of eradicating Daesh.
America's biggest foreign policy problem in the past decades has not been Al Qaeda, ISIS, China, or Russia but, rather, the lack of accountability for intelligence agencies that have essentially turned into the mammoth, self-serving, turf-protecting, self-aggrandizing, butt-covering bureaucracies President Reagan warned us about.
The purpose of these agencies is to collect data and then analyze it, offering to our elected officials the best possible intelligence. This is what they were set up to do. Instead, they have expanded into policy making and operations, the former the province of the elected branches of government and the latter the province of our military, except in the most rare of cases.
At the same time, these agencies have become highly politicized, not merely by intermittent pressure from the President and Congress, but by their own desire to please instead of serve, to win allies for expanding their funding and mission by funneling to our officials what the agencies believe the officials want to hear rather than what they need to hear. I have no doubt this contributed mightily to the war in Iraq.
Until two years ago you could count on two hands the number of Americans who heard of ISIS. Somehow a full-blown, highly organized entity appeared full-blown out of "nowhere", if you listen to our intelligence services for an explanation.
More significantly, not a single President has had the courage, political or otherwise, to hold these agencies accountable.
The purpose of these agencies is to collect data and then analyze it, offering to our elected officials the best possible intelligence. This is what they were set up to do. Instead, they have expanded into policy making and operations, the former the province of the elected branches of government and the latter the province of our military, except in the most rare of cases.
At the same time, these agencies have become highly politicized, not merely by intermittent pressure from the President and Congress, but by their own desire to please instead of serve, to win allies for expanding their funding and mission by funneling to our officials what the agencies believe the officials want to hear rather than what they need to hear. I have no doubt this contributed mightily to the war in Iraq.
Until two years ago you could count on two hands the number of Americans who heard of ISIS. Somehow a full-blown, highly organized entity appeared full-blown out of "nowhere", if you listen to our intelligence services for an explanation.
More significantly, not a single President has had the courage, political or otherwise, to hold these agencies accountable.
60
McChrystal, Petraeus, and the rest of the military brass, have been lying their way through Afghanistan and Iraq from day one. They have far more concern for their own careers, legacies, and operating budgets, than for the country. These campaigns have been nothing but a tragic series of blunders, compounding on each other, and giving rise to ISIS itself. The Middle East is in worse shape than it's ever been for the billions of dollars and millions of lives spent, and there are many times more terrorists with a learned hatred for the US and the West. The military could admit they've been wrong all along and have no idea how to fight this war, or they could continue lying and covering up their mistakes. Where's your money?
75
Clear case of "don't upset the boss".
12
Be careful what can they open up, the boss may well be ordering it, he's tied their hands in so many ways.
1
When the boss floats a narrative, don't contradict it.
1
"ISIS is the largest, most capable, best-armed and most financed terrorist group in the world today. It holds about a quarter to a third of Syria and Iraq. It has created a proto-state in the heart of the Middle East. It has ambitions to destabilize the region and seize a caliphate that stems throughout what they call Greater Syria or al-Sham or the Levant, which would include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. Beyond that, it wants to seize caliphates [that] stretch across the Arab-Islamic world, which would include any place that had once been Islamic — Spain, for instance. From that base, it would attempt to dominate the world. It really has a millenarian vision of conquest in the name of Islam. It will not stop where it is, it cannot be deterred, and it will be highly destabilizing to the region — a region that is still of critical importance to the world’s economy because of the oil resources there."
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/understanding-isis-2/
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/understanding-isis-2/
4
It is sad, ISIS is such a horrendous organization, which has been proved to be as brutal as any other evil entities in history. A distortion about our efforts to defeat by portraying we are winning when there has been little if any progress towards it has been realized.
President Obama's portrayal of ISIS as a JV team was a huge mistake. Obama has achieved plenty. He could afford to apologize about his error.
We should make an all out effort to defeat ISIS, to eliminate al-Baghdadi, one way or another. It is not impossible. Al-Qaeda was a minor organization compared with ISIS. True, it waged 9-11, in such a dramatic way. But as a whole it was not as monstrous as ISIS. We can't wait for neighboring countries to take the lead. They are many and small independently.
President Obama's portrayal of ISIS as a JV team was a huge mistake. Obama has achieved plenty. He could afford to apologize about his error.
We should make an all out effort to defeat ISIS, to eliminate al-Baghdadi, one way or another. It is not impossible. Al-Qaeda was a minor organization compared with ISIS. True, it waged 9-11, in such a dramatic way. But as a whole it was not as monstrous as ISIS. We can't wait for neighboring countries to take the lead. They are many and small independently.
3
Check which General received a phone call from the CIC just before.
3
Give us a break. We are still in Iraq 12 years after "Mission Accomplished" but the inquiry is into ISIS analysis ?
4
CityBumpkin Asked:
"Do we even know what "defeating ISIS" looks like? "
Some of us know what victory over ISIS looks like. Picture it, at your choice, either:
- Prior to 1979-1980 and events leading to the creation of Al-Qaeda: U.S. embassies in Africa would not have been bombed, USS-Cole would not have been gored in 2000, and 9-11 would have been like any normal day in New York.
- 2006: Abu Musaab Al-Zarqawi, former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (henceforth, AQIR) who was killed by our raids would not have been replaced by a former prisoner of Buca Camp prison in Southern Iraq, nicknaming himself "Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" and transforming AQIR into Daesh or ISIS.
I personally prefer the 1st scenario because I could not stomach either of the 2 terror organizations; Daesh or Al-Qaeda.
"Perhaps we had no choice against Al Qaeda, because that organization attacked American citizens on American soil."
Perhaps we did have a choice when we selected the Sunni Jihadists to fight the Soviet Union on our behalf.
" But this war against ISIS is a war of choice, and we should think about all the potential consequences before getting in neck deep."
I don't agree that it is a war of choice. We don't want to be like Victor Frankenstein (fiction) that created a monster he himself could not handle.
"Do we even know what "defeating ISIS" looks like? "
Some of us know what victory over ISIS looks like. Picture it, at your choice, either:
- Prior to 1979-1980 and events leading to the creation of Al-Qaeda: U.S. embassies in Africa would not have been bombed, USS-Cole would not have been gored in 2000, and 9-11 would have been like any normal day in New York.
- 2006: Abu Musaab Al-Zarqawi, former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (henceforth, AQIR) who was killed by our raids would not have been replaced by a former prisoner of Buca Camp prison in Southern Iraq, nicknaming himself "Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" and transforming AQIR into Daesh or ISIS.
I personally prefer the 1st scenario because I could not stomach either of the 2 terror organizations; Daesh or Al-Qaeda.
"Perhaps we had no choice against Al Qaeda, because that organization attacked American citizens on American soil."
Perhaps we did have a choice when we selected the Sunni Jihadists to fight the Soviet Union on our behalf.
" But this war against ISIS is a war of choice, and we should think about all the potential consequences before getting in neck deep."
I don't agree that it is a war of choice. We don't want to be like Victor Frankenstein (fiction) that created a monster he himself could not handle.
7
Sunni terrorism did not begin in 1979. It's been present since the 16th century and escalated ever since the jihadists dismissed the secularism of the Young Turks, then WW1 powers, then kings, then democratic movements, and made known to the world by benefit of global news, travel and migration.
3
Kaffee: Colonel Jessup, did you order the Code Red?!
Judge Randolph: You don't have to answer that question!
Jessup: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled!
Jessup: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessup: You can't handle the truth!
Judge Randolph: You don't have to answer that question!
Jessup: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled!
Jessup: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessup: You can't handle the truth!
4
You'd think that the stuff you read about ISIS is jingoistic propaganda, filled with exaggerations and half truths--except that most of what you read comes from ISIS filming their atrocities and then publicizing them! Hitler didn't brag to world about his concentration camps. Pol Pot tried to suppress news of his slaughters. But ISIS . . . this is real Old Testament mania, this surpasses human understanding. They just beheaded an old archeologist and blew up another priceless temple in Palmyra. And then there is the horrific persecution of the Christians.
How do our intelligence analysts not see all of this?
How do our intelligence analysts not see all of this?
22
That's the point, they do see it but are instructed by the Obama Admin to cover it up.
1
With Obama being the Commander-in Chief and the Military's Chain of Command, it is no surprise to see distortion of ISIS data.
Obama as the CIC has dictated the current strategy against ISIS. Under the rules governing the Chain of Command, the military personnel faces the choices of either supporting the strategy or quit. Over the years, many dissenters such as myself (Colonel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan) have quit after speaking out. Those who stayed furthered their career by supporting or expressing optimism for the Commander in Chief's strategy. General Allen is no exception. He wanted his career. I served under him and he did not tolerate any dissent or negative data on the current strategy. .
This report is depressingly true but not unexpected with Obama as Commander in Chief.
Obama as the CIC has dictated the current strategy against ISIS. Under the rules governing the Chain of Command, the military personnel faces the choices of either supporting the strategy or quit. Over the years, many dissenters such as myself (Colonel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan) have quit after speaking out. Those who stayed furthered their career by supporting or expressing optimism for the Commander in Chief's strategy. General Allen is no exception. He wanted his career. I served under him and he did not tolerate any dissent or negative data on the current strategy. .
This report is depressingly true but not unexpected with Obama as Commander in Chief.
20
Thank you for your service.
It's terrible that ethical soldiers like yourself have no place under Obama's command.
It's terrible that ethical soldiers like yourself have no place under Obama's command.
1
Have you forgotten the manipulated intelligence reports of the Bush administration that started this whole mess in the first place. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, we would not be where we are today so spare me your criticisms of the current CIC!
Did you miss the part where Obama is not getting reliable intelligence?
Also, are you aware of Obama's "team of rivals" management style? He puts his most powerful, articulate detractors in positions of power in his administration.
Also, you were in full support of the Iraq and Afghanistan "strategies", and happily served in those pointless fiascos, but now that there's a real battle worth fighting, one that is a graver threat than anyone admits, you don't like the president so you quit?
Sounds like a political grudge to me. Obama's been an engaged and effective CiC.
Also, are you aware of Obama's "team of rivals" management style? He puts his most powerful, articulate detractors in positions of power in his administration.
Also, you were in full support of the Iraq and Afghanistan "strategies", and happily served in those pointless fiascos, but now that there's a real battle worth fighting, one that is a graver threat than anyone admits, you don't like the president so you quit?
Sounds like a political grudge to me. Obama's been an engaged and effective CiC.
"ISIS is losing", said retired General John Allen.
And we are all, every single one of us without exception, dying.
The question though is when.
It might be possible to sell the public a bill of bluster, but one would hope that at least those in charge get the truth.
And we are all, every single one of us without exception, dying.
The question though is when.
It might be possible to sell the public a bill of bluster, but one would hope that at least those in charge get the truth.
7
Militant Islam is wining.
1
All the partisan finger-pointing won't solve the problem. The larger picture is being missed, starting with, in order to obtain rights to fly from Turkey in these largely ineffectual sorties, the administration has allowed Erdogan to restart war with the Kurds, the only group so far that has proved itself capable of hurting and turning back ISIS on the ground. If the goal is to defeat ISIS, than all our support should go to the Kurds, who have been loyal allies, rather than assist Erdogan's hail Mary stab at holding on to power in the upcoming election by agitating the Kurds into actions that might undermine support for the successful coalition with the Kurds of the main opposition party.
31
Our commander in chief is the most responsible for this misguided policy. A commander is tasked with appointing people he can trust and are loyal to provide him honest answers. If they fail, he must remove them immediately. To blame this failure on some bureaucratic mistakes is a lie and insults the American people.
5
It was either the result of the CIC's direction or more lax leadership on his part, just like all the other poorly managed areas of his administration.
3
I do not see how Obama can be blamed for all of this. The roots of this problem go way back and we are getting blowback form actions taken a decade ago or more. I never saw any way to transform Iraq into a real country unless we planned to stay occupying the country for ever. Whenever we would pull out we would leave a vacuum. The best plan would have bee to offer Iraq statehood. Hawaii proved a territory does not have to actually be in America to be part of the USA. Other than statehood and permanent US presence, what could Obama have done?
I don't even trust the claim that ISIS is any worse than the groups we support. I'm not even sure the groups we support are fighting ISIS. The Kurds are fighting ISIS with weapons we provided reluctantly , The Turks are fighting the Kurds with weapons we provided; and the military wants to claim this is a viable plan? I came of age in the 60s and this scenario is less plausible than Vietnam.
76
Every war the USA has fought since WW II has proven to be unjustified.
That includes our response to 9/11.Our collective responses to that invasion is arguably our worst war effort from start to right now.Yes,the ISIS matter continues our 9/11 "counter attack".
Massaged data from our military leaders about ISIS effort? You expected anything else?
That includes our response to 9/11.Our collective responses to that invasion is arguably our worst war effort from start to right now.Yes,the ISIS matter continues our 9/11 "counter attack".
Massaged data from our military leaders about ISIS effort? You expected anything else?
RG, I think these terrorists are far worse than the Free Syrian Army and the PKK. The later I believe played a key role in helping( tens of) thousands of Yazidis escape IS at Mt Sinjar. I think you will find that the Iraqi Kurds and the PKK, (who Turks argue are terrorists) are not the same, one is Iraqi and one is Turkish/Syrian.
I think America should continue the air strike against Isis even if they are failing. They should continue because Isis is killing all the Christians in that area of the middle east. I am a Christian myself so I hope the christians survive. America should not send ground troops though because to many American soldiers have died in our wars.
9
So you are for a "limited option". ISIS should not be engaged militarily because they threaten "Christians", they should be engaged for the dystopian ideals they want to realize through the violence they promote - which is a threat to all of humanity (Arab, Christian, Jew, Atheist, and anyone else with warm blood in their veins!!). Widen your "moral" scope...it's lacking!! There are plenty of military resources in the Middle east and Turkey to use in terms of ground options inside Syria if the collective body of the Arab world wanted to act. Key to the issue is defining the exact problem ISIS poses in terms of appeal based on the problems that exist in the middle east (politically, socially, and economically). Deal with these and one can deal with ISIS!
As I recall, someone once noted that the first casualty in war is truth. Of course truth has plenty of trouble in the best of times.
68
"Truth is never pure and rarely simple." Oscar Wilde. I might add, and never in politics.
1
A cliche. A better explanation would be Sun Tzu's "all warfare is based on deception."
Trusting the military to report honestly on the condition of battle, is like asking Monsanto to monitor the safety of chemicals in their products.
15
Why would we expect transparency and candor from "military officials" when we get none from the government and our elected representatives? It would be better to say nothing than to color the truth (i.e., lie) to the American people.
8
Every time they report that air strikes have killed another top level ISIS leader I roll my eyes. I hate being so cynical about my own government but I grew up during the Vietnam War. The lies and deceptions thrown at us then escalated to new levels in our disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. I'm sure the military and major political players are feeling the pressure to do something, to show some results in turning back ISIS, but deluding us about our efforts is counterproductive.
48
Does Barack Obama ring a bell? Cat got your tongue?
1
Nothing like this appears in the NYT by chance. Any idiot knows the so-called war against ISIS is failing. When two out of three sorties return to base without having fired a host or dropped ordinance, it doesn't take a military genius to draw that conclusion. My guess this is an planted story by the Administration to get ahead of the truth. In typical Obama fashion, they are trying to hold themselves blameless for a failed (or planned to fail) strategy. Brilliant Alinskyite strategy, by the way. I always wondered how he would get around the Alinsky admonition that community organizers make poor leaders. Now we know. Always appear to be fighting against the very problems you create, either intentionally, or collaterally. Obama ranks as either the most brilliant, among the very top to hold the office in the history of the United States of America.
5
this article is an excellent example of how hard it is to report when the NYT editors'' focus is on keeping on all their DC unnamed source constituencies happy.
Oh well, the bed you make.
Oh well, the bed you make.
2
I don't understand what motivation (other than mere personal ambition) anyone in the Pentagon would have for intentionally distorting intelligence to paint a rosy picture.
On a side note, can we please stop referring to ISIS as a "terror group"? Yeah, they use terror tactics, but also lots of conventional battlefield tactics. They've killed tens of thousands of people already, more than all the terrorist groups in history combined if I had to guess. They are an army and they control more square miles than many governments in the Middle East.
On a side note, can we please stop referring to ISIS as a "terror group"? Yeah, they use terror tactics, but also lots of conventional battlefield tactics. They've killed tens of thousands of people already, more than all the terrorist groups in history combined if I had to guess. They are an army and they control more square miles than many governments in the Middle East.
4
Mford, it's not about motivation at the Pentagon. The pentagon gets its orders from the CIC Barack Obama whose motivation is his politics.
1
It is pathetic to read those that see this as anything other than the current administration making up for its complete botching of Iraq and ISIS. If any statement from Obama will remain with his legacy, it is that we "defeated al Qaida", only to let is slide into the hands of ISIS, a far more severe version of the same terror. Maybe they should inscribe this on a placard at his Presidential library. Comparing this to Vietnam is accurate, as the claims of success were largely to support the current administration at that point.
Equally concerning is how little air time the media is giving the growing evidence our "other allies" in the Middle East Turkey, gave up a group of 500 US trained Syrian rebels, trained to fight ISIS. The date and time of their arrival was leaked to al Qaida, out of fear they would mess up Turkeys manufactured crisis with the Kurds, so Erdogen could get his snap elections. If you voted for Obama, hang your head in shame...
Equally concerning is how little air time the media is giving the growing evidence our "other allies" in the Middle East Turkey, gave up a group of 500 US trained Syrian rebels, trained to fight ISIS. The date and time of their arrival was leaked to al Qaida, out of fear they would mess up Turkeys manufactured crisis with the Kurds, so Erdogen could get his snap elections. If you voted for Obama, hang your head in shame...
5
The first casualty of war is the truth.
4
Gee...You think??? Any monkey with a shred of critical thinking could have reached that conclusion if they did a shred of vetting of their own. Once again mainstream media proved their lack of honesty and infiltration. Alt news beat the mainstream media by about a year - if not more, on this ground-breaking story
6
Since we, in an indirect way, are supporters of ISIS through our support of Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi wing, it seems strange that we might be doctoring our reports on this sadistic cut-off-heads sidekick of ours when we should be able to get the latest information directly from the Saudis. It is obvious that on the sly we have jumped in bed with some strange bedfellows that we wouldn't want to be seen in public with. Sounds like Uncle Sam is keeping his cards much too close to his vest.
5
Let me guess!
Republicans and FOX News will now say that the fact that corrupt Pentagon officials and incompetent generals LIED to Obama and Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry means that everything is all Obama's, Clinton's and Kerry's fault.
Republicans and FOX News will now say that the fact that corrupt Pentagon officials and incompetent generals LIED to Obama and Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry means that everything is all Obama's, Clinton's and Kerry's fault.
5
Let me guess!
Another Obama drone knowing that the so-called war against ISIS is failing is trying to cover for their efforts in making it look like it's going well. Hanging out a few intelligence officials to dry? Just collateral damage.
Another Obama drone knowing that the so-called war against ISIS is failing is trying to cover for their efforts in making it look like it's going well. Hanging out a few intelligence officials to dry? Just collateral damage.
6
Nothing new here. During the Vietnam War they would count the Viet Cong bodies and multiply by ten to account for the ones they said crawled off into the jungle to die.
6
Not to mention the bombers dispatched over Vietnamese airspace for no other reason than to dump fuel and return to base, an action that exaggerated fuel consumption of the war machine and enabled commanders to report that US forces were taking the fight to the Viet Cong. The intel objective was to mislead congress, subvert the will of the American people, and prolong a war that had overstayed its welcome. In this way, US military and intel agencies may conspire to take by stealth and force what they cannot gain through winning the open allegiance of a free people.
3
If anyone thinks that Intel about Iran's violations of the agreement and its plans for expanded terrorism will be allowed to see daylight, they are kidding themselves. We need a mechanism where intel analysts provide a consensus report on Iran to Congress, free of classification and manipulation.
4
Obama will handle Iran's violation of the agreement the same way he handled the botched Afordable Care Act. He will redefine success, change timeframes, fudge the data, ignore previous promises, etc.
And he will have a cadre of supporters who will rally to his side and swear to his duplicitous claims. They will blame the military, the GOP, anyone but him.
And he will have a cadre of supporters who will rally to his side and swear to his duplicitous claims. They will blame the military, the GOP, anyone but him.
2
What campaign? A few airstrikes and drones? This has been one of the worst moral failures in recent history....this group has committed the most horrifying crimes against all we hold sacred, the worst atrocities since WWII and the entire Western World has sat back and done NOTHING to stop them...and they will continue at will until they are destroyed. This is obvious. And it is because we have done nothing that anti-social youth from around the Western World have run to join them. Classic anti-hero attraction.
22
This is not the responsibility of the West. It is the responsibility of the Middle East.
3
You are in Europe and you say this? What happened the other day on a train from Amsterdam to Paris? If ISIS could get some of its people into Lisbon tomorrow from Morocco for instance do you think they would say "Oh gosh, this is not the MIddle East we should go back home."?
1
Please - the worst atrocities since WWII? Check out the atrocities of the various dictatorships the US propped up in the past. Enflamed rhetoric is exactly what gets us in trouble.
2
Military commanders can be releived from command based uopn medical/psychological conditions. The "commander-in-cheif" is a psychopath. At the very least, please remove this administration from power on the basis of a psychological disorder.
Have a nice apoplectic moment...
Have a nice apoplectic moment...
3
Intel comes in many forms. Some good some bad. It is not solved in a public forum. Let the investigation continue.
2
Is it 2015 or 1965? As Walt Kelley once wrote, "the more people or things don't change, the more they stay the same."
1
So now Obama has even corrupted the military, the one branch of government that we all thought we could trust. Of course no one will be punished, what with Hillary committing treason with her personal server ( she did more to damage national security than we will ever know) to Lerner with her multiple personal email accounts. Worse, 16 current and past NASA employees were caught with child pornography and nothing is done. Truly we are heading to a banana republic with Obama and his liberal ilk.
13
Obama corrupted the military? Surely you jest!
5
Obama has corrupted the military?
What planet have you been on for the past 50 years?
What planet have you been on for the past 50 years?
27
Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector in Iraq, was telling everyone who would listen in 2002 that Sadam Hussein posed no threat as far as WMDs go. But when the people at the top want a war, intelligence will be found to provide the rationale.
The fact is that what counts for our political leaders are not the true facts on the ground, but whether their stance toward the conflict is winning points with the electorate back home. No one ever got re-elected for championing the best intelligence if it conflicted with what the people wanted to hear.
The fact is that what counts for our political leaders are not the true facts on the ground, but whether their stance toward the conflict is winning points with the electorate back home. No one ever got re-elected for championing the best intelligence if it conflicted with what the people wanted to hear.
19
The US Navy intercepted SCUD missile exports from IRAQ to N. Korea. About a dozen U.N. resolutions were broken. Sarin Gas was lost and then found in Syria... Not to mention the public executions performed by Saddam and his Sons.. I could offer quite a few facts... Please think again before listening to only one review. It took three Airliners to kill thousands.
8
It took a lot more than three airliners. See the Newsweek article from June 19 of this year about an FBI agent trying to determine why his warnings to the CIA went unacknowledged.
Some US-made mustard gas shells rusting in a field? 30-year-old Sarin that made a couple guys dizzy? I'm sorry but those are not the "weapons of mass destruction" that the American people went to war over.
The Obama Administration bragged about all the air power sorties they launched against the terrorists in Syria during the previous month. During the Serbian conflict (early 90's), George H.W. Bush launched more sorties in a single DAY......
7
You can launch a million sorties a day. It is the targets you hit which is important.
Shades of Vietnam and the "feel good" weekly body counts. The military has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the citizenry ever since the first revolutionary soldier picked up a musket. Now it's pulling the wool over its own eyes.
5
What's the point about whether the data was skewed or not?
If our government cannot say point blank that the complete and total destruction of ISIS is not clearly in our national interest, one has to ask them to more clearly define exactly where that line is drawn?
If our government cannot say point blank that the complete and total destruction of ISIS is not clearly in our national interest, one has to ask them to more clearly define exactly where that line is drawn?
2
Distorted data from military, making their outrageous expenditure of our national treasure look more effective? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
36
Each military service has a civilian chef. Our secretary of defense and our commander in chef are in charge. If they fail to manage and command the military as their responsibility dictates, they must be held accountable. That means Mr. Obama for a start.
2
America's biggest foreign policy problem in the past decades has not been Al Qaeda, ISIS, China, or Russia but, rather, the lack of accountability for intelligence agencies that have essentially turned into the mammoth, self-serving, turf-protecting, self-aggrandizing, butt-covering bureaucracies President Reagan warned us about.
The purpose of these agencies is to collect data and then analyze it, offering to our elected officials the best possible intelligence. This is what they were set up to do. Instead, they have expanded into policy making and operations, the former the province of the elected branches of government and the latter the province of our military, except in the most rare of cases.
At the same time, these agencies have become highly politicized, not merely by intermittent pressure from the President and Congress, but by their own desire to please instead of serve, to win allies for expanding their funding and mission by funneling to our officials what the agencies believe the officials want to hear rather than what they need to hear. I have no doubt this contributed mightily to the war in Iraq.
Until two years ago you could count on two hands the number of Americans who heard of ISIS. Somehow a full-blown, highly organized entity appeared full-blown out of "nowhere", if you listen to our intelligence services for an explanation.
More significantly, not a single President has had the courage, political or otherwise, to hold these agencies accountable.
The purpose of these agencies is to collect data and then analyze it, offering to our elected officials the best possible intelligence. This is what they were set up to do. Instead, they have expanded into policy making and operations, the former the province of the elected branches of government and the latter the province of our military, except in the most rare of cases.
At the same time, these agencies have become highly politicized, not merely by intermittent pressure from the President and Congress, but by their own desire to please instead of serve, to win allies for expanding their funding and mission by funneling to our officials what the agencies believe the officials want to hear rather than what they need to hear. I have no doubt this contributed mightily to the war in Iraq.
Until two years ago you could count on two hands the number of Americans who heard of ISIS. Somehow a full-blown, highly organized entity appeared full-blown out of "nowhere", if you listen to our intelligence services for an explanation.
More significantly, not a single President has had the courage, political or otherwise, to hold these agencies accountable.
6
@Steve Fankuchen,
Very true, you can thank VP Dick Cheney, CIA director George J. Tenet and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for basically going on misinformation and not sharing information for the invasion of Iraq. But GW Bush's trust in these people was the biggest mistake.
Very true, you can thank VP Dick Cheney, CIA director George J. Tenet and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for basically going on misinformation and not sharing information for the invasion of Iraq. But GW Bush's trust in these people was the biggest mistake.
4
@still rockin
Obama's eight years is almost over and you still blame Bush? Of course you do.
Obama's eight years is almost over and you still blame Bush? Of course you do.
2
@TeaRunner,
I'm not laying blame on the Bush he went on what the people in his administration told him. I feel that Saddam and his regime were at treat to his people and the Middle East. All I said were facts on mistakes that were made. I never said the Bush administration lied to start a war, I'm not giving the usual lemming liberal response regarding Bush's mistakes, because in the reality of the real world mistakes are sometimes made with dire consequences.
I'm not laying blame on the Bush he went on what the people in his administration told him. I feel that Saddam and his regime were at treat to his people and the Middle East. All I said were facts on mistakes that were made. I never said the Bush administration lied to start a war, I'm not giving the usual lemming liberal response regarding Bush's mistakes, because in the reality of the real world mistakes are sometimes made with dire consequences.
Fort Leavenworth for the lot.
1
Leavenworth? Pretty extreme when the admin has a tendency to punish the carriers of bad news that contradicts the poltical officer's public story.
Deja vu all over again akin to Vietnam, as noted. Want to know how the real war against ISIS is going? Fly to Kurdistan (Erbil/ERB can be reached from may European airport connections by direct flights) and take a taxi to Mosul- your beheading will likely make the evening news.
1
Obama lied, people died. Period.
6
Obama? Seriously? Surely you meant Bush. Trust me, we would not be where we are today in the absence of The Decider's infinite wisdom.
2
I don't recall Bush ever blaming Youtube and trying to prosecute the scapegoat they created out of thin air.
1
Seek help, HTuttle. It looks like you need it.
I'm amused whenever a pundit quotes an offical statement from a flag officer as support for a position.
With a handful of exceptions, they simply parrot whatever the Administration in power wants them to say, from ISIL, to women in combat, to military spending in general.
Since the early 1990s, flag rank has gone to officers who excel at playing the political game and not rocking the boat. The current group of senior officers value promotion above all else.
With a handful of exceptions, they simply parrot whatever the Administration in power wants them to say, from ISIL, to women in combat, to military spending in general.
Since the early 1990s, flag rank has gone to officers who excel at playing the political game and not rocking the boat. The current group of senior officers value promotion above all else.
19
Politicians, generals, and the media talk about "defeating ISIS" like that term is self-explanatory. Do we even know what "defeating ISIS" looks like?
Over a decade ago the West declared war on Al Qaeda. Now, Osama bin Laden is dead. Most of Al Qaeda's 2001 leadership is dead. This should be victory.
But Al Qaeda as we know it has only transformed, splintered, and spawned even worse Islamist movements like ISIS and Boko Haram. The Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia are even more violent than they were in 2001. Terrorism has not stooped. Sectarian violence has not stopped.
If this is what victory looks like, we should seriously think about what "defeating ISIS" will look like. Perhaps we had no choice against Al Qaeda, because that organization attacked American citizens on American soil. But this war against ISIS is a war of choice, and we should think about all the potential consequences before getting in neck deep.
Over a decade ago the West declared war on Al Qaeda. Now, Osama bin Laden is dead. Most of Al Qaeda's 2001 leadership is dead. This should be victory.
But Al Qaeda as we know it has only transformed, splintered, and spawned even worse Islamist movements like ISIS and Boko Haram. The Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia are even more violent than they were in 2001. Terrorism has not stooped. Sectarian violence has not stopped.
If this is what victory looks like, we should seriously think about what "defeating ISIS" will look like. Perhaps we had no choice against Al Qaeda, because that organization attacked American citizens on American soil. But this war against ISIS is a war of choice, and we should think about all the potential consequences before getting in neck deep.
2
I will tell you what it looks like: complete destruction of their weaponry and its access, complete defeat of any resistance they continue to mount, relinqushing of all territory that they have taken, the taking down of their flag wherever it is flown, and complete signed surrender from their leaders that are still alive at the end of it, the taking and incarceration of all prisoners, a full investigation and wartime international tribunal to hold trials of all responisble for crimes against humanity (ala Nuremburg) to be held in Iraq or Syria, sentences given and executed including capilal punishment. Clear enough?
3
Everybody right up to Obama has a vested interest in portraying the overall mission as going well. I doubt this investigation will go anywhere.
11
If there's a lie to be told, you can fully trust the military to tell it, and the government who sent them wherever they're fighting to back them up.
There are retired military people who still maintain that we won in Vietnam.
There are retired military people who still maintain that we won in Vietnam.
3
ISIS? What ISIS? How did the armed wing of Sunni Islam become - almost overnight - the scariest thing since SMERSH? How did 'Al Qaida's JV' become - almost overnight - an existential crisis? Is it because, following the death of Osama, the terror-industrial complex realised that the War on Terror needed a scarey face to go with it, that the objective concept of 'terror' doesn't work on its own?
4
Gambling in Casablanca? Disagreements between intelligence elements? Say it ain't so. Sounds like some analyst (who likely thinks he/she knows more than the collective wisdom/experience of his or her supervisors) didn't like how his/her assessment was edited by the chain of command and ran to the IG and given the sensitivity of issues like these every complaint has to be investigated... then this same "anonymous" spoke to the press. No wonder our allies trust us less.
2
Skewed from the President himself.
3
What do you expect from arm chair generals and other politicians in uniform? Why stop at skewing and call it for what is...career enhancing lying? They are why we can't win a war, they won't tell civilians like the Child in Chief "no."
2
The unvarnished and uncomfortable truth: The US can NOT IMPOSE, by force of arms, control over Asian or Arab populations - or African or South American populations. Painful lessons in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, and Iraq should have driven this truth home to responsible aspiring American leaders. If we still have some.
These lessons were painfully learned by those of us who assessed "small wars" (I am a retired USAF pilot and intell officer with a Masters thesis on unconventional war; later a PhD (organizational behavior) spurred by curiosity about permanently fixing failing organizations - like the DOD).
But our national jingoism, American exceptionalism, and the lucrative the defense contracting machine have captured the makers of US foreign policy. With regard to the Middle East, the Israeli lobby argues that US long-term national interests exactly match the Israeli government's short-term interests.
How many national fiascos does it take? To keep doing the same thing and expecting different results represents insanity. We are destroying a first-rate economic power (and our vibrant social democracy) by a foolish quest for global military dominance that engenders world-wide resistance.
How would Americans respond if Russia or China asserted their rights to "fight world-wide terrorism" by force of arms whenever and where-ever they wished? We have designed the template for global chaos.
The forgone opportunity costs, alone, are huge.
These lessons were painfully learned by those of us who assessed "small wars" (I am a retired USAF pilot and intell officer with a Masters thesis on unconventional war; later a PhD (organizational behavior) spurred by curiosity about permanently fixing failing organizations - like the DOD).
But our national jingoism, American exceptionalism, and the lucrative the defense contracting machine have captured the makers of US foreign policy. With regard to the Middle East, the Israeli lobby argues that US long-term national interests exactly match the Israeli government's short-term interests.
How many national fiascos does it take? To keep doing the same thing and expecting different results represents insanity. We are destroying a first-rate economic power (and our vibrant social democracy) by a foolish quest for global military dominance that engenders world-wide resistance.
How would Americans respond if Russia or China asserted their rights to "fight world-wide terrorism" by force of arms whenever and where-ever they wished? We have designed the template for global chaos.
The forgone opportunity costs, alone, are huge.
139
Same lessons of WWI and WWII - you can't impose such control over European populations either.
You win with a Marshall Plan and with clear goals of working together to build something more positive than the terror messages that the other side uses.
You win with a Marshall Plan and with clear goals of working together to build something more positive than the terror messages that the other side uses.
@RetProf,
That discredited dogma of “American exceptionalism ” has been the convenient self-serving mantra for politicians, media/war monger demagogues ( FIX News, CFR,AEI,RAND), and defense contractors for decades. It’s a lucrative living for them. Only thing is, it always lead to American soldiers killed in overseas military adventurers .
As for the Israeli lobby enforcing Israel colonial policies on our policy-makers (Congress) the blame squarely falls on us-the voters-who keeps on electing these people to Congress.
That discredited dogma of “American exceptionalism ” has been the convenient self-serving mantra for politicians, media/war monger demagogues ( FIX News, CFR,AEI,RAND), and defense contractors for decades. It’s a lucrative living for them. Only thing is, it always lead to American soldiers killed in overseas military adventurers .
As for the Israeli lobby enforcing Israel colonial policies on our policy-makers (Congress) the blame squarely falls on us-the voters-who keeps on electing these people to Congress.
1
All true.
In addition, the natural working of the balance of power causes others to react by forming stronger opposition to the US throwing its weight around. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen, it is inevitable.
We make our own troubles future troubles this way too. We push together opposition to ourselves when we act this way.
In addition, the natural working of the balance of power causes others to react by forming stronger opposition to the US throwing its weight around. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen, it is inevitable.
We make our own troubles future troubles this way too. We push together opposition to ourselves when we act this way.
Superiors (military or otherwise) get told what they want to hear.
Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news.
Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news.
4
There is certainly some truth in what you say, but I think it is more often the case that no one wants to be the recipient of bad news. Look at Vietnam, when Sam Adams (no, not the beer) of the CIA fought to give the military in Saigon accurate estimates of communist strength. Westmoreland's minions consistently told him to go and come back with new numbers. In the end, Adams was proven right. After the war, CBS ran a 60 Minutes piece which exposed the whole mess (with Adams as a consultant) and both CBS and Adams were sued by Westmoreland. Suit was later quietly dropped.
Which proves that there is courage in the intelligence community, but it comes with a price (it ruined Adams' career and was certainly a contributing factor in his early death). In recognition of this, a group of retired spooks created the Sam Adams Award "to reward intelligence officials who demonstrated a commitment to truth and integrity, no matter the consequences." Past recipients have included Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
Which proves that there is courage in the intelligence community, but it comes with a price (it ruined Adams' career and was certainly a contributing factor in his early death). In recognition of this, a group of retired spooks created the Sam Adams Award "to reward intelligence officials who demonstrated a commitment to truth and integrity, no matter the consequences." Past recipients have included Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
23
If your retired spooks were committed to truth and integrity, no matter the consequences, they would not have become intelligence officials in the first place.
It's hard to call Assange a defender of truth. Snowden alerted the American public to a serious issue that deserved to be known but he did it responsibly and carefully. I look forward to the day when we welcome him home as a hero.
Assange is essentially an anarchist and his release of information has physically endangered not only undercover U.S. personnel but also people working for human rights and democracy under autocratic governments around the world. Throwing every piece of paper you can find to the winds is not a defense of truth.
Assange is essentially an anarchist and his release of information has physically endangered not only undercover U.S. personnel but also people working for human rights and democracy under autocratic governments around the world. Throwing every piece of paper you can find to the winds is not a defense of truth.
1
Good Morning Vietnam. Excuse me. Good Morning, Iraq/Syria! Almost 50 years later and still the same stuff. In Vietnam, it was a body count. Now it's a sortie count.
3
Intelligence analysts always have this problem:Speaking truth to power.Finished intelligence has a lot of art and intuition in it.This implies opinion. All opinions are of equal weight. So disputes. Policy makers or operations C-3 in the military like actionable intelligence or what they call "facts".Usually these consumers pick the intelligence that fits their view to back up their decisions or assessments.
This is the problem all intelligence analysts fit. In general the intelligence assessments clash with policy makers or the operations part of a military staff because other inputs are brought to the table by them which are not included in finished intelligence. The decision to invade Iraq was made to change the power balance in the middle east and get a democratic Iraq to support US interests their. In Vietnam we could not have a united communist Vietnam because that would give the Communists a victory in the cold war and empower Communist China.Lots of analysts disagreed with these policy goals because they did not consider them viable.But other factors affected policy makers then the dynamics of the Iraq situation or Vietnam.
This is the problem all intelligence analysts fit. In general the intelligence assessments clash with policy makers or the operations part of a military staff because other inputs are brought to the table by them which are not included in finished intelligence. The decision to invade Iraq was made to change the power balance in the middle east and get a democratic Iraq to support US interests their. In Vietnam we could not have a united communist Vietnam because that would give the Communists a victory in the cold war and empower Communist China.Lots of analysts disagreed with these policy goals because they did not consider them viable.But other factors affected policy makers then the dynamics of the Iraq situation or Vietnam.
2
It would be really refreshing to have a few high-level government and military officials who would tell the unvarnished truth. If things are not going well, tell us. If things turn around and look more positive, tell us that when it happens.
I'm tired of every general and admiral who testifies before congress sounding like they're reading from the same script. "The situation has been difficult, and the progress we've made is fragile, but we're degrading the enemy strength. I'm confident the path we're on is correct, and progress will accelerate."
I'm tired of every general and admiral who testifies before congress sounding like they're reading from the same script. "The situation has been difficult, and the progress we've made is fragile, but we're degrading the enemy strength. I'm confident the path we're on is correct, and progress will accelerate."
11
Most likely they are doing it because of command influence directly from the White House.
6
["It would be really refreshing to have a few high-level government and military officials who would tell the unvarnished truth."]
YOU WANT THE TRUTH? We can't handle the truth
The person who tells pretty lies, gets elected
. . . the one who tells the ugly truth gets rejected
(Not always, but around 95% of the time)
The voters don't elect people who tell them what they don't want to hear
-PolySci101
YOU WANT THE TRUTH? We can't handle the truth
The person who tells pretty lies, gets elected
. . . the one who tells the ugly truth gets rejected
(Not always, but around 95% of the time)
The voters don't elect people who tell them what they don't want to hear
-PolySci101
1
Reminds me of Vietnam and Gen. William Westmoreland saying, "There's light at the end of the tunnel. Also let's not forget the Thursday follies, and the press briefings that always carried an inflated account of enemy casualties of nthe previous week.
1
It appears that foreign power cannot impose its will upon a determined, organized local opposition, especially if the two forces are separated by great distance. It's one thing for Russia to grab Crimea, but for the U.S. to exert decisive control in Southeast Asia or the Middle East, seems as unlikely as the British winning the Revolutionary War. Power has limits, even American power.
But this is completely beside the point. The padded intelligence reported here is serving enormous military industrial interests. The Great War machine is the prime mover of the American economy, and its operators are in charge, not the civilian government. The bombing campaign against ISIS is as useless as that against the North Vietnamese, and will be about as effective. But the important thing is to have an enemy, and to bomb them. Then we can continue funding lucrative defense contracts, and people will have jobs, and a few people will stay rich and powerful.
Therefore we can predict with some confidence that ISIS will win, in the short term. Those who will eventually defeat ISIS will not be any remote powers, but the local powers: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and what will be left of Iraq. ISIS manifestly their problem, and by helping them we only enable them to shirk their responsibility.
But this is completely beside the point. The padded intelligence reported here is serving enormous military industrial interests. The Great War machine is the prime mover of the American economy, and its operators are in charge, not the civilian government. The bombing campaign against ISIS is as useless as that against the North Vietnamese, and will be about as effective. But the important thing is to have an enemy, and to bomb them. Then we can continue funding lucrative defense contracts, and people will have jobs, and a few people will stay rich and powerful.
Therefore we can predict with some confidence that ISIS will win, in the short term. Those who will eventually defeat ISIS will not be any remote powers, but the local powers: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and what will be left of Iraq. ISIS manifestly their problem, and by helping them we only enable them to shirk their responsibility.
86
Yet jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Europe and America can and have imposed its will upon the Kurds, Syriacs, Yazidis and rational peace-seeking Sunnis of the area.
"cannot impose its will"
Some things can be imposed. It has limits.
Those are far narrower limits than our power wielding policy makers seem to realize.
We are not helpless. We are not all powerful either.
Limits to power are real, and unrecognized lead to defeats. We've had a lot of defeats, which suggests strongly our policy makers are to blame for over reach and lack of realism.
Some things can be imposed. It has limits.
Those are far narrower limits than our power wielding policy makers seem to realize.
We are not helpless. We are not all powerful either.
Limits to power are real, and unrecognized lead to defeats. We've had a lot of defeats, which suggests strongly our policy makers are to blame for over reach and lack of realism.
Individuals who skew intelligence should be arrested and charged with something akin to treason. Enough is enough. People seem to think that truth is optional when it comes to government and it has to stop!
28
The sad reality is likely the other way around. The whistleblower(s) will suffer career truncation and the liars will continue to get promoted.
2
A very important reason for having accurate assessment of the campaign against ISIS is the need to actually win this one. I was against the war in Vietnam, and then Iraq. I don't see how we could sit this one out. I only hope the way in which Isis is fought is ultimately successful. Isis represents a fascist ideology that, even if it doesn't reach our shores, will infect our entire world.
20
renee asks: ["I was against the war in Vietnam, and then Iraq. I don't see how we could sit this one out"]
A: Tell me how this ends
B: US Troops most certainly could defeat these guys, and the locals almost certainly can't, even with our 'help'. ISIS is betting that the US won't attack them, just like Saddam did. BUT, we knew that Saddam's forces would 'lay down" if we attacked, and we know these guys(ISIS)
. . . won't lay down at all, and fighting will continue for a long time
C: If we did defeat ISIS, THEN WHAT???
Another ungovernable, failed state like Iraq or Libya
A: Tell me how this ends
B: US Troops most certainly could defeat these guys, and the locals almost certainly can't, even with our 'help'. ISIS is betting that the US won't attack them, just like Saddam did. BUT, we knew that Saddam's forces would 'lay down" if we attacked, and we know these guys(ISIS)
. . . won't lay down at all, and fighting will continue for a long time
C: If we did defeat ISIS, THEN WHAT???
Another ungovernable, failed state like Iraq or Libya
1
This is not Obama's fault. When Bush allowed L. Paul Bremer to disband Saddam's army, he created ISIS. But you know this, and are just trying to rewrite history to favor conservatives.
25
Well, not quite. When Obama withdrew the last U.S. units from Iraq at the end of 2011 he announced success and that " we leave behind a democratic and secure Iraq ". Alas, two years later an organization characterized by Obama as the "junior varsity " takes over northern Iraq and much of Syria; i.e. the organization known as ISIS. A year later that same organization crosses Obama's " red line " on chemical weapons and uses such weapons on the Kurds.
4
The allies disbanded Germany's Nazi army after WWII. But then again you weren't dealing with people who put tribalism and religion in front of reality!
1
Hey NYT's this was supposed to be a reply to @ANTON comment!
Why do we even bother with "analysts"? Why don't we just outsource the project to a prestigious PR agency, with the same outcome?
22
You missed the memo, it was done ages ago.
2
We do. What do you think those "analysts" are? They are the political flaks who follow that set of politicians into office. See for example where Dick Cheney got all his "intelligence."
Mr. Obama's inability to smack Assad Syria years ago when everyone expected it to happen proved to the region, Putin and the rest of the world that the US administration lacks the courage to use its power to shape a better future. The fear of confrontation and risking American lives is producing more confrontation.
Yes, the US should never have invaded Iraq, but it is broken and we have an obligation to address it--with the regions help. The only vision of Obama administration is to keep Iraq together. The US ISIS campaign is simple, don’t let ISIS suck the US back into war, let the Iraqi’s fight this while they drive towards Iraqi political unity.
The ship of political unity sailed when Maliki was installed and he refused to share power with the Kurds and Sunni’s. The Iraqi army does not exist, it is Shia militia with some Sunni’s sprinkled in. The Shia are controlled by Iranian military and mullahs. We arm them with the latest US equipment to keep the Shia aligned to what is now called inside Iraq -- the Baghdad government.
We need a regional strategy.