Monday’s Washington Post htmlhad a rather interesting—and timely--column by Jack Devine, a former senior CIA official. As Mr. Devine reminds us, with the latest “reform” of the U.S. intelligence community approaching its fourth anniversary, Congress should take another look at the effort, and determine what progress (if any) has been made.
In the aftermath of 9-11, it was obvious that our intelligence apparatus was in need of serious repairs. But, as the retired CIA officer observes, the foundation for reform had its own flaws. Legislation passed by Congress—the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 2004—was based on hastily-adopted recommendations from by the 9-11 Commission, eagerly embraced by politicians of both parties…
“Unfortunately, it [reform legislation] was too quickly seized upon and endorsed by presidential candidate John Kerry and seconded, apparently without serious reflection, by the Bush administration. The proposed reforms were only briefly debated in Congress and were adopted without any serious public discussion of their merits.
Professionals who had spent their careers in the trenches tackling the complexity of the intelligence business were largely sidelined from the decision process. Regrettably, the commission's report was viewed as sacrosanct, and nobody dared challenge its recommendations, despite the fact that many intelligence professionals believed creation of a director of national intelligence would only lead to additional layers of bureaucracy and lack the teeth to bring all the diverse intelligence entities into line.
Nonetheless, Congress easily passed the measure, which afforded the DNI only limited authority over the 16 agencies in the intelligence community. The legislation simply didn't give the DNI the budgetary muscle needed to lead the intelligence community, and it created a troublesome confusion here and abroad regarding precisely who is in charge.
Today, the DNI has become what intelligence professionals feared it would: an unnecessary bureaucratic contraption with an amazingly large staff. It certainly had to be taken as a lack of confidence in the DNI's viability when its first occupant, John Negroponte, stepped down to become second in command at the State Department.”
The result, as Mr. Devine observes, is a DNI who has marginal control over many of the entities that make up his sprawling community. He believes our restructured intel system has also created problems abroad, as evidenced by a recent trip to Pakistan by the Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Mike McConnell, and the CIA Director, General Michael Hayden. The intelligence officials were dispatched to Islamabad to press Pakistani officials for a stronger U.S. presence in Pakistan’s tribal lands, to battle Al Qaida. They left empty-handed.
Devine also believes (not surprisingly) that intelligence reform has had a negative impact on his old employer—the CIA:
The passage of time has not significantly enhanced the power of the DNI, but it has diminished the role of the CIA, our nation's preeminent human intelligence agency -- much to the detriment of our national security. Despite this situation, McConnell has, to his credit, agreed to take on the monumental task of trying to reform the intelligence process in what must by now be largely a thankless task.
[snip]
The good news is that since 9/11 the intelligence budget has grown significantly, to approximately $43 billion, and there has been a sizable infusion of operational and analytical positions.
But are we getting full bang for the buck? How much has it really improved our intelligence capabilities, and has it helped to overcome the information-sharing obstacles that were so frequently discussed after Sept. 11? An amount on the order of $43 billion ought to buy a great deal of intelligence firepower and operational influence.
Most important, are we anywhere near where we need to be in penetrating the terrorist organizations that threaten us, as well as the nation-states that represent serious national security challenges: Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and an increasingly unstable Pakistan? Enough time has elapsed since Congress legislated these changes in 2004 to merit an evaluation of the new bureaucracy. Has this bureaucratic superstructure enhanced our intelligence capabilities? Does it deserve a passing grade for its efforts?
Moreover, the intelligence shortcomings that surfaced in the run-up to the Iraq war, as well as the misreading of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, also speak to the value of conducting a fresh and in-depth evaluation of precisely how well the issues of politicization, collection and analysis are being addressed by the intelligence community. This review can be expected to recommend adjustments that surely are needed -- including dismantling the DNI if necessary and reinvigorating an authentic CIA.
Admittedly, the CIA has suffered greatly in recent years primarily because of policy shortfalls and leadership issues. But no one should underestimate the quality of its staff, its foreign ties and its unique capabilities, which are the cornerstone of the intelligence community. These strengths remain the base for building a robust intelligence agency.
And there’s the rub. While the CIA still retains unique capabilities—and the services of many outstanding intelligence professionals—there is little doubt that the agency remains in crisis. Indeed, many of the problems identified by the 9-11 Commission and the Robb Commission can be traced directly to a CIA that was outmoded, inefficient and some would say, incompetent, during the run-up to the terrorist attacks of seven years ago.
Had the “pros” at Langley been doing their job, it might be argued; the nation might have been spared the horrors of 9-11, and provided better insight into such critical issues as Iraq’s WMD program, and the nuclear efforts of Iran and North Korea. More disturbingly, there is scant evidence that the CIA’s performance has improved since 2004. If anything, elements within the agency remain deeply polarized and politicized, conducting a running war with the White House, the Pentagon and rival intelligence organizations.
Writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, Michael Rubin explains the problem rather succinctly. Not satisfied with developing intelligence information and providing analysis—two of the CIA’s core missions—agency personnel have repeatedly tried to set U.S. policy, with little regard for the potential consequences. This trend, Rubin notes, was particularly evident in post-war Iraq:
Rather than simply present the biographies of the various Iraqi figures, the CIA sought to be a privileged policy player. Its representative announced that not only would Langley be inviting its own candidates outside the interagency consensus, but the CIA would not be sharing the names or backgrounds of its invitees. Putting aside the ridiculousness of the CIA belief that it could invite delegates anonymously to a public conference, more troubling was the principle. Far from limiting its work to intelligence, the CIA leadership was unabashedly involving itself in major policy initiatives.
[snip]
Many of the agency's senior analysts are arrogant after years behind their computers, believing they know far better what U.S. policy should be than the policymakers for whom they draft reports. The recourse of the disgruntled, bored, or politicized analyst is the leak--the bread and butter of any national security correspondent. Journalists who fulfill the leakers' objectives win ever more tantalizing scoops; those who maintain professional integrity and question the agenda behind any leak, find their access cut. The result is a situation in which journalists that might otherwise double-check sources, take a single intelligence analyst at his word, even if he is using them to fight a policy battle.
More recently, CIA efforts at setting policy were evident in the controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program. While “officially” a product of the 16 organizations that make up the nation’s intel community, the estimate was based heavily on analysis provided by the CIA. The report’s key judgment--that Iran had “halted” its nuclear program for more than three years, beginning in 2003—not only reversed previous not only reversed previous assessments, it also undercut the case for potential military action against Tehran.
Since then, senior intel officials have been backing away from the controversial NIE. In his testimony before Congress earlier this month, DNI McConnell acknowledged that Iran is still pursuing uranium enrichment, which he described as “the most difficult challenge in nuclear production.” He also admitted that, due to “intelligence gaps,” the U.S. could not be sure if Iran also suspended covert nuclear activities. In other words, Admiral McConnell provided a pair of stunning caveats to the supposedly-authoritative NIE.
Four years into the latest intel reform effort, the audit suggested by Mr. Devine has clear merit, and should be pursued by Congress and the next administration. But, his suggested return to the “old” intelligence system, with the CIA in the lead, is simply ridiculous. The intelligence community of the 1990s, led by the DCI, set the stage for the twin debacles of 9-11 and assessments of Iraq’s WMD program. And, with no evidence of change in the organizational “culture” at Langley, the notion of turning back the clock is hardly a plan for reform--or better intelligence. Rather, it’s a recipe for the continued politicization of intelligence, and more flawed analysis on critical national security issues.
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
A Passing Worthy of Celebration
Rot in hell: Philip Agee, 1935-2008 (Getty image)
Virtually all spooks--active and retired--reserve a special contempt for those who betray their country, their profession and their colleagues. We can only hope that there's a special place in the celestial inferno for such traitors, with added suffering and damnation for exposing other operatives, a move that (in many cases) guarantees their death.
With that in mind, the recent passing of CIA turncoat Philip Agee is a cause for celebration--and the belief that a fitting, final judgment has been rendered. As Mr. Agree roasts on his own special spit--in the company of Philby, Burgess, MacLean and other traitors--he should be remembered as the man whose "expose" of CIA covert activities led to the execution of several agents and informants.
Intelligence officials quoted in his AP obituary grimly summarize Mr. Agee's post-agency career and the impact of those actions: he rendered grave damage to our national security and died with blood on his hands. And for that, Agee offered no apology.
Instead, the renegade ex-agent tried to justify his treason, claiming that he was repulsed by CIA operations in Central and South America, where he worked as a field agent in the 1950s and 60s. According to Agee, his Roman Catholic conscience persuaded him to leave the agency, and embark on a new career as a critic of both the CIA and its activities.
Toward that goal, Agree claimed it was necessary to expose the agency's operatives and informants. "It was not enough simply to describe what the CIA does," he recalled. "It was important to neutralise the effectiveness of everybody doing it." That meant publishing the names of 250 CIA agents, employees and informants in his 1975 book, Inside the Company: a CIA Diary. A second, two-volume book entitled Dirty Work was released in the late 1970s; it listed the names of more than 2,000 agency employees and affiliates, including agents posted in Western Europe and Africa.
The human toll of Agee's treason has never been publicly quantified. He was expelled from Britain in the mid-1970s, amid U.S. diplomatic pressure and a report that two MI6 agents in Poland had been executed as a result of Agee's expose. The CIA will only say that "several" of its assets died after being identified by Agee. Suffice it to say that scores of agents and informers were likely killed by the former agent's little "crusade."
In another era, the traitor's efforts would have earned him a bullet in the ear and an unmarked grave. But, amid the furor over "illegal" CIA activities in the post-Vietnam era, Agee became an international celebrity. Left-wing British MPs, journalists and other liberals rushed to his defense. The U.K. Telegraph remembers that one Labour MP actually introduced a bill to expel the CIA's London station, rather than Agee.
Amazingly, the turncoat agent was never punished. CIA and Justice Department officials feared that a trial would result in the naming of more operatives, and further damage to covert intelligence activities. Agee's book were eventually printed in 27 countries and earned the former agent a tidy sum, long before the enactment of laws which made it a crime to expose covert agents--or profit from published accounts of illegal activities.
Agee's carefully-cultivated image as an activist was in sharp contrast to his reputation in the CIA. According to the Telegraph, other agents remembered him as drunk and philanderer:
Former colleagues at the CIA claimed that Agee had been forced to resign from the agency in 1969 after complaints about his heavy drinking, poor financial management and attempts to proposition wives of American diplomats. They further alleged that Agee had become a KGB spy after being seduced by a Russian agent, and that he had effectively defected because he did not know how to extricate himself from his personal problems.
More recent revelations affirmed Agee's misconduct--and suggested other motives for his actions:
"...in 1992 a high-ranking Cuban defector accused Agee of receiving up to $1 million in payments from the Cuban intelligence service; and in 1999 Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB librarian who had secretly copied thousands of files and then donated them to British intelligence, gave further details of his relationship with Communist agents in The Sword and the Shield, co-written with Christopher Andrew.
According to Mitrokhin, Agee had directly approached the KGB with information about the CIA's work. Soviet and Cuban intelligence not only provided material for Inside the Company, Mitrokhin alleged, but had persuaded the author (codenamed Pont) to excise "all references to CIA penetration of Latin American Communist parties". The KGB file on the book claimed that it had been "prepared by Service A, together with the Cubans".
Agee maintained that these charges were smears, pointing out that he could not have been a useful double agent because once he had left the agency he lost access to its secrets. But his value to the Soviets lay in his credibility with a large swathe of western opinion. Mitrokhin claimed that the Covert Action Information Bulletin was founded on the initiative of the KGB, which assembled a task force to keep the Bulletin supplied with material designed to compromise the CIA."
Agee kept his U.S. passport until 1979(!), then traveled on documents issued by governments more sympathetic to his cause: Maurice Bishop's Marxist-Leninist regime in Grenada; the original Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and (surprise, surprise) Fidel Castro's Cuba. Afterall, it was the Cuban intelligence service that originally recruited Agee, and provided support for more than 20 years.
At the time of his death, Agee was living in Havana, running a website that arranged tours of the Cuba for those wishing to circumvent U.S. travel restrictions. But the traitor remained unrepentant and dedicated to his cause. Agee's claims--"millions of people all over the world had been killed or had their lives destroyed by the CIA and the institutions it supports"--were outlandish at best (some would call them bald-faced lies). Yet, Agee felt he was entitled to pass a death sentence on other operatives, or those merely suspected of CIA ties. It was a perverse and tortured rationale, and in reality, nothing more than a cover for Agree's own treason.
In an interview with the U.K. Guardian, published almost a year before his death, Agee vowed to continue his campaign against the CIA. "I never stopped what I started in London," he told the paper, "and I don't expect to stop till I'm dead."
For divine termination of Agee's traitorous crusade, we should all be eternally grateful.
***
ADDENDUM: Agee often claimed that he soured on the CIA (and its covert operations) because of U.S. support for corrupt regimes in Latin America. Therefore, it's a bit ironic that his last published article was a condemnation of human rights activists, lobbying for greater freedom in the region's most oppressed state. Agee dismissed their efforts, claiming that the movement is the tool of a foreign power. In case you haven't guessed, the government being defended by Philip Agee was that of Fidel Castro. And the article appeared in the official paper of Cuba's Communist Party.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
The Politics of Intelligence
With more details emerging on the recently-declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program, it seems clear that the assessment--like so many aspects of the intel community--has been affected by partisan politics and individual bias.
To be fair, we should note that the nation's intel apparatus (like any government bureaucracy) is subject to political influence. And the work of intelligence analysts will always be affected by their personal views and biases. However, in something as important as an NIE, every effort should be made to minimize those influences. Sadly, that wasn't the case with the Iran estimate.
In our initial post on the NIE, we noted a New York Sun editorial which (rightfully) challenged the objectivity of Vann Van Diepen, one of the principal analysts who authored the assessment. A CIA employee, Mr. Van Diepen has, according to the Sun, "spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium." You don't need a Top Secret security clearance to understand that Van Diepen's position represents a minority view in most intelligence circles. So, why was he assigned to the NIE team?
A similar question might be asked about other intel officials who played key roles in producing the assessment. The Iranian document, (indeed, all NIEs) are produced under the auspices of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which leads community efforts in that area. The current chairman of the NIC is none other than Tom Fingar.
Does that name ring a bell? It should. As Ken Timmerman at Newsmax reminds us:
Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.
As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues, as revealed in "Shadow Warriors."
In March 2007, Fingar fired his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez.
Mr. Timmerman describes Fingar as part of a "coterie of State Department officials brought over to ODNI by the first director, career State Department official John Negroponte." Another member of that group was Kenneth Brill, another key contributor to the Iranian estimate.
At one time in his foreign service career, Mr. Brill served as U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It appears that Brill was a good match for the organization, which has never been particularly aggressive--or successful--in discovering nuclear programs among rogue states. As today's Wall Street Journal notes, Brill's performance in Vienna was unimpressive, at best:
For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull--.'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
In his book "Shadow Warriors," Ken Timmerman describes Brill as a man who steadfastly refused to address the issue of Iran's nuclear program, despite evidence to the contrary:
“While in Vienna, Brill consistently failed to confront Iran once its clandestine nuclear weapons program was exposed in February 2003, and had to be woken up with the bureaucratic equivalent of a cattle prod to deliver a single speech condemning Iran’s eighteen year history of nuclear cheating.”
Negroponte rehabilitated Brill and brought the man who single-handedly failed to object to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and put him in charge of counter-proliferation efforts for the entire intelligence community.
The collective contributions of Messrs. Van Diepen, Fingar and Brill may explain the NIE's "diplo-centric" perspective and its optimistic outlook on Iran's nuclear program. And that brings us to another point. Media coverage of any NIE invariably highlights the assessment as the "consensus" of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.
Well, almost. One of the dirty little secrets of the NIE process is that some organizations have a greater say (and influence) than others. For example, while representatives of the Coast Guard intelligence and the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MICA) may have been invited to the initial meeting on the Iran report, it is virtually certain that no "coasties" or Marines were involved in the final preparation. Iran's national nuclear program is beyond the purview of many intelligence organizations, so they have no input in the final report.
So, who was actually responsible for the NIE? Well, obviously the NIC (which controlled development of the assessment), along with the CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, State Department and the Department of Energy. The bulk of the information--and analytical expertise--came from only six of the sixteen intelligence agencies.
The delineation of labor goes something like this: CIA leads community efforts in WMD and counter-proliferation, and they controlled the defector reporting which (reportedly) prompted the revised assessment. NSA provided SIGINT information used in formulating the NIE; DIA analysts offered expertise on links between Iran's nuclear program and its military, and NGA's imagery products were used in tracking changes at facilities associated with Iran's nuclear program. Among the other key players, the State Department furnished analysis on the diplomatic aspects of Tehran's nuclear effort, while the Energy Department provided critical assessments on Iranian nuclear research, technology and related matters.
While most (if not all) intel agencies were given an opportunity to review--and critique--draft versions of the NIE, most of the actual work on the assessment was done by the "Big 4" intel agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA and NGA), with key assistance from NGA, the State Department and DOE. That isn't surprising; collectively, the three organizations control much of the nation's intel analysis, and a good chunk of our collection capabilities.
What's more surprising is that the document's preparation was largely entrusted to three individuals who have, to varying degrees, opposed existing U.S. policies in the Middle East and prevailing perspectives within the intelligence community. While honest dissent among intel analysts is welcome--even necessary--we can only wonder if the Iran NIE was influenced more by new information, or by the prevailing biases and political agendas that affect portions of our intelligence community.
To be fair, we should note that the nation's intel apparatus (like any government bureaucracy) is subject to political influence. And the work of intelligence analysts will always be affected by their personal views and biases. However, in something as important as an NIE, every effort should be made to minimize those influences. Sadly, that wasn't the case with the Iran estimate.
In our initial post on the NIE, we noted a New York Sun editorial which (rightfully) challenged the objectivity of Vann Van Diepen, one of the principal analysts who authored the assessment. A CIA employee, Mr. Van Diepen has, according to the Sun, "spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium." You don't need a Top Secret security clearance to understand that Van Diepen's position represents a minority view in most intelligence circles. So, why was he assigned to the NIE team?
A similar question might be asked about other intel officials who played key roles in producing the assessment. The Iranian document, (indeed, all NIEs) are produced under the auspices of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which leads community efforts in that area. The current chairman of the NIC is none other than Tom Fingar.
Does that name ring a bell? It should. As Ken Timmerman at Newsmax reminds us:
Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.
As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues, as revealed in "Shadow Warriors."
In March 2007, Fingar fired his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez.
Mr. Timmerman describes Fingar as part of a "coterie of State Department officials brought over to ODNI by the first director, career State Department official John Negroponte." Another member of that group was Kenneth Brill, another key contributor to the Iranian estimate.
At one time in his foreign service career, Mr. Brill served as U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It appears that Brill was a good match for the organization, which has never been particularly aggressive--or successful--in discovering nuclear programs among rogue states. As today's Wall Street Journal notes, Brill's performance in Vienna was unimpressive, at best:
For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull--.'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
In his book "Shadow Warriors," Ken Timmerman describes Brill as a man who steadfastly refused to address the issue of Iran's nuclear program, despite evidence to the contrary:
“While in Vienna, Brill consistently failed to confront Iran once its clandestine nuclear weapons program was exposed in February 2003, and had to be woken up with the bureaucratic equivalent of a cattle prod to deliver a single speech condemning Iran’s eighteen year history of nuclear cheating.”
Negroponte rehabilitated Brill and brought the man who single-handedly failed to object to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and put him in charge of counter-proliferation efforts for the entire intelligence community.
The collective contributions of Messrs. Van Diepen, Fingar and Brill may explain the NIE's "diplo-centric" perspective and its optimistic outlook on Iran's nuclear program. And that brings us to another point. Media coverage of any NIE invariably highlights the assessment as the "consensus" of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.
Well, almost. One of the dirty little secrets of the NIE process is that some organizations have a greater say (and influence) than others. For example, while representatives of the Coast Guard intelligence and the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MICA) may have been invited to the initial meeting on the Iran report, it is virtually certain that no "coasties" or Marines were involved in the final preparation. Iran's national nuclear program is beyond the purview of many intelligence organizations, so they have no input in the final report.
So, who was actually responsible for the NIE? Well, obviously the NIC (which controlled development of the assessment), along with the CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA, State Department and the Department of Energy. The bulk of the information--and analytical expertise--came from only six of the sixteen intelligence agencies.
The delineation of labor goes something like this: CIA leads community efforts in WMD and counter-proliferation, and they controlled the defector reporting which (reportedly) prompted the revised assessment. NSA provided SIGINT information used in formulating the NIE; DIA analysts offered expertise on links between Iran's nuclear program and its military, and NGA's imagery products were used in tracking changes at facilities associated with Iran's nuclear program. Among the other key players, the State Department furnished analysis on the diplomatic aspects of Tehran's nuclear effort, while the Energy Department provided critical assessments on Iranian nuclear research, technology and related matters.
While most (if not all) intel agencies were given an opportunity to review--and critique--draft versions of the NIE, most of the actual work on the assessment was done by the "Big 4" intel agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA and NGA), with key assistance from NGA, the State Department and DOE. That isn't surprising; collectively, the three organizations control much of the nation's intel analysis, and a good chunk of our collection capabilities.
What's more surprising is that the document's preparation was largely entrusted to three individuals who have, to varying degrees, opposed existing U.S. policies in the Middle East and prevailing perspectives within the intelligence community. While honest dissent among intel analysts is welcome--even necessary--we can only wonder if the Iran NIE was influenced more by new information, or by the prevailing biases and political agendas that affect portions of our intelligence community.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
The Van Diepen Demarche
Today's New York Sun has an insightful editorial on the problems with the recently-declassified NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Reading between the lines of the document (as we have) the Sun finds it lacking in several respects.
For starters, one of the estimate's primary authors, Vann Van Diepen, seems to be less-than-objective on the issue. According to the Sun:
"Vann Van Diepen...has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium. Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington. The bureaucrats may even think they are stopping another war."
If that account is accurate, then it raises serious questions about the NIE's ultimate conclusion, since a "frozen" weapons program dovetails nicely with Mr. Van Diepen's position on Iran's enrichment efforts. Obviously, all analysts are subject to personal bias (to some degree), but you've got to wonder how someone with Van Diepen's agenda was assigned to the NIE team. Oh, that's right. He (reportedly) works for the CIA. And we know how elements of that agency feel about the Bush Administration and its policies toward certain countries, including Iran.
The Sun also observes that it's hard to believe that Iran would halt its nuclear weapons program--an effort that has been sustained for decades, despite increasingly international pressure. The estimate also assigns a degree of rationality to Tehran's nuclear decision-making, a quality noticeably absent in other Iranian programs and policies.
Indeed, why would a nation that denies the holocaust and advocates "wiping Israel off the map" suddenly bow to sanctions and pressure that were anything-but-draconian? Then, there's the issue of how much progress Iran made before the program was supposedly frozen, and the related matter of a possible, covert development program. Lest we forget, North Korea supposedly "gave up" its nuclear program in 1994 under the infamous "Agreed To Framework," but simply its developments underground, and produced an unknown number of nuclear devices over the years that followed.
On a similar note, Michael Ledeen (writing at NRO) notes that, "for the NIE to be true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply. We would add that detailed insights--and amplifying, hard-copy information--from General Asgari might remedy some of those concerns. However, we must add that the reliability of an intel source is validated over time, and through corroboration by other sources. Asgari defected less than a year ago, and (as we noted in the previous post), confirming some of his claims may be difficult, unless we have similar, high-level sources still in place.
Mr. Ledeen is also adept at spotting some of the "spook-speak" and weasel words that invariably qualify any intelligence estimate. At one point, the NIE states that Iran has a "latent" goal to develop nuclear weapons (they're just not doing it right now). And, in the estimate's key judgments, the analysts say that, it's likely that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons, perhaps in the 2010-2015 time frame. Apparently, the State Department "took a footnote" on that one, deviating slightly with the "consensus" and stating that development will not occur until after 2013. How they arrived at that conclusion is not explained in the document's declassified version.
Ledeen reminds us that we've been fooled on nuclear programs before, and Iran may be deceiving us now. We would add that Tehran's deception program isn't as advanced as Russia, North Korea or Pakistan, but then again, concealing a covert nuclear program doesn't take a lot of work. Key processes--including uranium enrichment--can be hidden in small, nondescript buildings like a warehouse, with no external indicators or signatures. And quite predictably, the NIE (renamed the Van Diepen Demarche by the Sun), refuses to rule out the possibility of a convert development effort, or the acquisition of fissile material or finished weapons, from external sources.
As with many NIEs, this one raises more questions than it answers. And remember: this document will be a cornerstone of U.S. policy-making toward Iran for at least the next two years, possibly longer. The potential consequences of "getting it wrong" are very grave, to say the least.
For starters, one of the estimate's primary authors, Vann Van Diepen, seems to be less-than-objective on the issue. According to the Sun:
"Vann Van Diepen...has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium. Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington. The bureaucrats may even think they are stopping another war."
If that account is accurate, then it raises serious questions about the NIE's ultimate conclusion, since a "frozen" weapons program dovetails nicely with Mr. Van Diepen's position on Iran's enrichment efforts. Obviously, all analysts are subject to personal bias (to some degree), but you've got to wonder how someone with Van Diepen's agenda was assigned to the NIE team. Oh, that's right. He (reportedly) works for the CIA. And we know how elements of that agency feel about the Bush Administration and its policies toward certain countries, including Iran.
The Sun also observes that it's hard to believe that Iran would halt its nuclear weapons program--an effort that has been sustained for decades, despite increasingly international pressure. The estimate also assigns a degree of rationality to Tehran's nuclear decision-making, a quality noticeably absent in other Iranian programs and policies.
Indeed, why would a nation that denies the holocaust and advocates "wiping Israel off the map" suddenly bow to sanctions and pressure that were anything-but-draconian? Then, there's the issue of how much progress Iran made before the program was supposedly frozen, and the related matter of a possible, covert development program. Lest we forget, North Korea supposedly "gave up" its nuclear program in 1994 under the infamous "Agreed To Framework," but simply its developments underground, and produced an unknown number of nuclear devices over the years that followed.
On a similar note, Michael Ledeen (writing at NRO) notes that, "for the NIE to be true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply. We would add that detailed insights--and amplifying, hard-copy information--from General Asgari might remedy some of those concerns. However, we must add that the reliability of an intel source is validated over time, and through corroboration by other sources. Asgari defected less than a year ago, and (as we noted in the previous post), confirming some of his claims may be difficult, unless we have similar, high-level sources still in place.
Mr. Ledeen is also adept at spotting some of the "spook-speak" and weasel words that invariably qualify any intelligence estimate. At one point, the NIE states that Iran has a "latent" goal to develop nuclear weapons (they're just not doing it right now). And, in the estimate's key judgments, the analysts say that, it's likely that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons, perhaps in the 2010-2015 time frame. Apparently, the State Department "took a footnote" on that one, deviating slightly with the "consensus" and stating that development will not occur until after 2013. How they arrived at that conclusion is not explained in the document's declassified version.
Ledeen reminds us that we've been fooled on nuclear programs before, and Iran may be deceiving us now. We would add that Tehran's deception program isn't as advanced as Russia, North Korea or Pakistan, but then again, concealing a covert nuclear program doesn't take a lot of work. Key processes--including uranium enrichment--can be hidden in small, nondescript buildings like a warehouse, with no external indicators or signatures. And quite predictably, the NIE (renamed the Van Diepen Demarche by the Sun), refuses to rule out the possibility of a convert development effort, or the acquisition of fissile material or finished weapons, from external sources.
As with many NIEs, this one raises more questions than it answers. And remember: this document will be a cornerstone of U.S. policy-making toward Iran for at least the next two years, possibly longer. The potential consequences of "getting it wrong" are very grave, to say the least.
Changing the Assessment on Iran
Official Washington and the chattering class are abuzz over the recently-declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which assesses that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program three years ago.
The latest NIE on Tehran's nuclear efforts--released only one day before a scheduled Presidential news conference--declares with "high confidence" that the Iranian weapons program remains on hold. The assessment also says with "high confidence" that the pause was "directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."
As the International Herald-Tribune reports (from a NYT article):
The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public "since our understanding of Iran's capabilities has changed."
Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states that Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.
The latest assessment comes two years after the last NIE on Iran's nuclear ambitions, which stated that Tehran was working "inexorably" toward obtaining a nuclear bomb. And, the new intelligence estimate was released only weeks after President Bush and Vice-President Cheney warned of grave consequences if the Iranian government didn't abandon its weapons program.
So, why the stunning reversal?
The answer probably lies in a single name: General Ali Rez Asgari.
General Asgari is the former Deputy Iranian Defense Minister and Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander who defected to the west earlier this year. Asgari is the highest-ranking Iranian military defector in decades; it is widely believed that he has detailed knowledge of Tehran's most sensitive operations, including its sponsorship of Hizballah, and information on Iran's nuclear program.
While General Asgari retired from active duty several years ago, he remained a key player in military and political matters. At the time of his defection, Asgari was on an "official" trip to Syria, for discussions on matters of mutual interest, including upcoming weapons deliveries by Russia, and continued support for Hizballah.
But Asgari never made it to Damascus; he disappeared during a stopover in Turkey and was spirited out of the country by the CIA or the Mossad, with likely assistance from Ankara's intelligence services. In a colossal display of ineptitude, Iranian counter-intelligence officers missed signs of the planned defection. General Asgari sold his home in Tehran last year, and his family joined him on the Syria trip, allowing them to escape as well.
Since his defection, Asgari has reportedly been sheltered in CIA safe houses in the U.S., where he has undergone extensive debriefing. Information supplied by Asgari allowed American intel services to check their information against the defector's account. The (apparent) result is a vastly different picture of Iran's nuclear program than the one offered by the intelligence community just two years ago.
Indeed, the dramatic change in assessments could be viewed as another, damning indictment of our intel services. Reading between the lines of the 2005 and 2007 NIEs, it seems likely that the first estimate was based almost entirely on national technical collection. Information gathered by overhead platforms and other high-tech sensors suggested that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
However, the earlier estimate apparently lacked an important detail--corroboration by human intelligence (HUMINT) sources--insiders who could "fill in the details" on the Iranian effort and its long-range goals. Sad to say, but the new estimate suggests that western intelligence never had a credible source at the highest levels of the Iranian government until Asgari defected (emphasis mine).
Information from the general's debriefs provided fresh data for U.S. analysts, allowing them to compare his information with that obtained from other sources. And, apparently, his information suggested that our intelligence services had missed the mark (again).
Officially, no one in the intelligence community has identified Asgari as the source for the "new" information that prompted the revised assessment. Mr. Kerr's claim that "our understanding has changed" is little more than tacit acknowledgment of new information--or, more correctly a new source with information that was previously unavailable and cannot be refuted (so far). General Asgari certainly fits the profile for that type of source.
If we assume that the defector provided much of the information behind the new assessment, that will raise inevitable questions about his veracity--and the possibility that Asgari is some sort of double-agent. In fairness, we should note that intel agencies (principally, the CIA) work very hard at establishing the reliability of defectors and their information. At a minimum, Asgari would have been subjected to multiple polygraphs and a series of exhaustive debriefings that covered key points over and over again. So far, Asgari's accounts seem to be standing up to scrutiny.
But even Asgari's cross-checked claims might not be enough to prompt that a major reversal of an NIE. That's why we believe that the general brought much more out of Iran than his personal recollections and memories. In his posts as IRGC Commander and Deputy Defense Minister, Asgari was in a position to access classified information on Iranian programs and policies across the political-military spectrum. We're guessing that scores of letters, e-mails, memoranda, spreadsheets and other documents were saved by Asgari, and have been turned over to the CIA. Analysis of that material, coupled with the general's own personal account, was enough to force a change in the NIE.
While the assessment casts a different light on Tehran's nuclear ambitions, it does not give Iran a clean bill of health. The report notes that Iran is still enriching uranium, and could still develop a bomb between 2010-2015, if it so chooses. Also disturbing--at least from the intelligence perspective--we still don't know all the reasons behind Iran's apparent decision to freeze its program, or what might trigger its resumption. That reminds us that there are limits to any source's knowledge, and once they defect, the information becomes dated.
Bottom line: there are still serious gaps in what we know about Iran's nuclear program. According to the AP, the CIA (which leads development of most NIEs) considered at least six alternatives to explain the freeze, including the possibility that the halt is nothing more than a ruse. Some of the other scenarios may have included an "outsourcing" of Tehran's weapons program (a claim that is partially supported by Israel's discovery--and bombing of a nuclear facility in Syria), and the possibility that Iran planned to buy finished weapons from another source, perhaps North Korea.
While some Congressional Democrats praised the "independence" of the new NIE, the report is also evidence of the continuing war between the CIA and the White House. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were briefed on the new assessment (and its conclusions) last week, but interim reports on the Asgari debriefing were available for months--almost from the day he defected. It would be interesting to know how much of this information (if any) was included in the daily intelligence briefings for the President and Vice-President, given their frequent comments on Iran's nuclear program.
If President Bush and Vice-President Cheney ignored early "warnings" from Asgari's debriefings, shame on them. But, given the long-running hostilities between the CIA and the White House, it is possible that much of the data from the debrief and the NIE formulation process was suppressed until the assessment was complete.
How could that happen? It's quite simple, really. Bury the defector reports in routine HUMINT reporting, or simply withhold the biggest "bombshells" for the NIE. Remember: the intel community is responsible for determining what is briefed to the president and members of his senior staff. By sitting on information (as part of the NIE preparation process), or parceling out information in normal HUMINT reporting, anti-Bush factions in various intel agencies could pull another "gotcha" on the Commander-in-Chief, forcing him to rely on the 2005 NIE as the basis for his remarks on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Bush is expected to field a lot of questions on the intel assessment at today's news conference. The MSM won't pose these queries, but they should be asked, nonetheless:
--"Mr. President, when were you first briefed on General Asgari, and how many updates have you received since his defection?
--"In updates provided on the defection, were you ever briefed on new information regarding Iran's nuclear program? When did you first receive that information?
--"Considering the disparity between your remarks on Iran's nuclear ambitions--and the information in the NIE--do you believe the intelligence community withheld information from the White House, or downplayed the significance of recently-acquired information?
The answers to those questions would probably confirm our worst suspicions--relations between the administration and the CIA are as bad as ever, and unlikely to change until the next president takes office.
And, for what it's worth, we would not want to be in General Hayden or Admiral McConnell's shoes this morning.
The latest NIE on Tehran's nuclear efforts--released only one day before a scheduled Presidential news conference--declares with "high confidence" that the Iranian weapons program remains on hold. The assessment also says with "high confidence" that the pause was "directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."
As the International Herald-Tribune reports (from a NYT article):
The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public "since our understanding of Iran's capabilities has changed."
Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states that Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.
The latest assessment comes two years after the last NIE on Iran's nuclear ambitions, which stated that Tehran was working "inexorably" toward obtaining a nuclear bomb. And, the new intelligence estimate was released only weeks after President Bush and Vice-President Cheney warned of grave consequences if the Iranian government didn't abandon its weapons program.
So, why the stunning reversal?
The answer probably lies in a single name: General Ali Rez Asgari.
General Asgari is the former Deputy Iranian Defense Minister and Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander who defected to the west earlier this year. Asgari is the highest-ranking Iranian military defector in decades; it is widely believed that he has detailed knowledge of Tehran's most sensitive operations, including its sponsorship of Hizballah, and information on Iran's nuclear program.
While General Asgari retired from active duty several years ago, he remained a key player in military and political matters. At the time of his defection, Asgari was on an "official" trip to Syria, for discussions on matters of mutual interest, including upcoming weapons deliveries by Russia, and continued support for Hizballah.
But Asgari never made it to Damascus; he disappeared during a stopover in Turkey and was spirited out of the country by the CIA or the Mossad, with likely assistance from Ankara's intelligence services. In a colossal display of ineptitude, Iranian counter-intelligence officers missed signs of the planned defection. General Asgari sold his home in Tehran last year, and his family joined him on the Syria trip, allowing them to escape as well.
Since his defection, Asgari has reportedly been sheltered in CIA safe houses in the U.S., where he has undergone extensive debriefing. Information supplied by Asgari allowed American intel services to check their information against the defector's account. The (apparent) result is a vastly different picture of Iran's nuclear program than the one offered by the intelligence community just two years ago.
Indeed, the dramatic change in assessments could be viewed as another, damning indictment of our intel services. Reading between the lines of the 2005 and 2007 NIEs, it seems likely that the first estimate was based almost entirely on national technical collection. Information gathered by overhead platforms and other high-tech sensors suggested that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
However, the earlier estimate apparently lacked an important detail--corroboration by human intelligence (HUMINT) sources--insiders who could "fill in the details" on the Iranian effort and its long-range goals. Sad to say, but the new estimate suggests that western intelligence never had a credible source at the highest levels of the Iranian government until Asgari defected (emphasis mine).
Information from the general's debriefs provided fresh data for U.S. analysts, allowing them to compare his information with that obtained from other sources. And, apparently, his information suggested that our intelligence services had missed the mark (again).
Officially, no one in the intelligence community has identified Asgari as the source for the "new" information that prompted the revised assessment. Mr. Kerr's claim that "our understanding has changed" is little more than tacit acknowledgment of new information--or, more correctly a new source with information that was previously unavailable and cannot be refuted (so far). General Asgari certainly fits the profile for that type of source.
If we assume that the defector provided much of the information behind the new assessment, that will raise inevitable questions about his veracity--and the possibility that Asgari is some sort of double-agent. In fairness, we should note that intel agencies (principally, the CIA) work very hard at establishing the reliability of defectors and their information. At a minimum, Asgari would have been subjected to multiple polygraphs and a series of exhaustive debriefings that covered key points over and over again. So far, Asgari's accounts seem to be standing up to scrutiny.
But even Asgari's cross-checked claims might not be enough to prompt that a major reversal of an NIE. That's why we believe that the general brought much more out of Iran than his personal recollections and memories. In his posts as IRGC Commander and Deputy Defense Minister, Asgari was in a position to access classified information on Iranian programs and policies across the political-military spectrum. We're guessing that scores of letters, e-mails, memoranda, spreadsheets and other documents were saved by Asgari, and have been turned over to the CIA. Analysis of that material, coupled with the general's own personal account, was enough to force a change in the NIE.
While the assessment casts a different light on Tehran's nuclear ambitions, it does not give Iran a clean bill of health. The report notes that Iran is still enriching uranium, and could still develop a bomb between 2010-2015, if it so chooses. Also disturbing--at least from the intelligence perspective--we still don't know all the reasons behind Iran's apparent decision to freeze its program, or what might trigger its resumption. That reminds us that there are limits to any source's knowledge, and once they defect, the information becomes dated.
Bottom line: there are still serious gaps in what we know about Iran's nuclear program. According to the AP, the CIA (which leads development of most NIEs) considered at least six alternatives to explain the freeze, including the possibility that the halt is nothing more than a ruse. Some of the other scenarios may have included an "outsourcing" of Tehran's weapons program (a claim that is partially supported by Israel's discovery--and bombing of a nuclear facility in Syria), and the possibility that Iran planned to buy finished weapons from another source, perhaps North Korea.
While some Congressional Democrats praised the "independence" of the new NIE, the report is also evidence of the continuing war between the CIA and the White House. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were briefed on the new assessment (and its conclusions) last week, but interim reports on the Asgari debriefing were available for months--almost from the day he defected. It would be interesting to know how much of this information (if any) was included in the daily intelligence briefings for the President and Vice-President, given their frequent comments on Iran's nuclear program.
If President Bush and Vice-President Cheney ignored early "warnings" from Asgari's debriefings, shame on them. But, given the long-running hostilities between the CIA and the White House, it is possible that much of the data from the debrief and the NIE formulation process was suppressed until the assessment was complete.
How could that happen? It's quite simple, really. Bury the defector reports in routine HUMINT reporting, or simply withhold the biggest "bombshells" for the NIE. Remember: the intel community is responsible for determining what is briefed to the president and members of his senior staff. By sitting on information (as part of the NIE preparation process), or parceling out information in normal HUMINT reporting, anti-Bush factions in various intel agencies could pull another "gotcha" on the Commander-in-Chief, forcing him to rely on the 2005 NIE as the basis for his remarks on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Bush is expected to field a lot of questions on the intel assessment at today's news conference. The MSM won't pose these queries, but they should be asked, nonetheless:
--"Mr. President, when were you first briefed on General Asgari, and how many updates have you received since his defection?
--"In updates provided on the defection, were you ever briefed on new information regarding Iran's nuclear program? When did you first receive that information?
--"Considering the disparity between your remarks on Iran's nuclear ambitions--and the information in the NIE--do you believe the intelligence community withheld information from the White House, or downplayed the significance of recently-acquired information?
The answers to those questions would probably confirm our worst suspicions--relations between the administration and the CIA are as bad as ever, and unlikely to change until the next president takes office.
And, for what it's worth, we would not want to be in General Hayden or Admiral McConnell's shoes this morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)