Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
June
17, 2003
Peter
Phillips and Jason Spencer
Entertainment Media 2003
Wayne Madsen
Outting Ashcroft's Latest Hypocrisy
June
16, 2003
Frida
Berrigan
Death in Aceh: US Weapon Aid the
Repression
Publius
Candidate Dem and Citizen Green
Tarif
Abboushi
Roadmap or Roadkill?
Rep. John
Conyers
Bush's Deceptions about Iraq Threaten Democracy at Home
Julian
Samuel
A Review of Pilger's The New Rulers of the World
Uri
Avnery
The Children of Death
Steve
Perry
Bush's Lies,
Part 2
June
14 / 15, 2003
Edward
Said
A Roadmap to What and Where?
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Pryor Unrestraint: Killer Bill Pryor's
Mad Quest for the Federal Bench
David Lindorff
Rumsfeld v. Belgium
Jennifer
Loewenstein
Suicide's Most Willing Accomplice
Lee Sustar
US Tax System: Rigged for the Rich
Ben
Tripp
Of Dissidents and Dissonance
William
S. Lind
Lies, Damned Lies and Military Intelligence
Joanne
Mariner
Rebellious Judges
Gila Svirsky
A Macabre Alliance
Mickey
Z.
Where We Are
Chris Floyd
Metaphysics as a Guide to Murder
Noah
Leavitt
Peru as Our Crystal Ball?
Yves Engler
and Bianca Mugyenyi
The G8 and Africa
Dr.
Gerry Lower
Dear Rudy, Let's Get Those Damned Liberals
Ted Dace
A Review of Kovel's The Enemy of Nature
Adam
Engel
Midnight at the Apocalyptic Pancake
Poets'
Basement
Smith, Greeder, Albert, and O'Hayer
Website
of the Weekend
AEI: Starts Wars; Creates
Poverty
June
13, 2003
David
Vest
Bush
Roadmap to What?
Ron Jacobs
The Iranian Revolution, Reloaded?
John
Chuckman
The Man Who Wasn't There
Jason Leopold
Six Months Before War White House Silenced Critics of WMD Intelligence
Michael
Leon
Missing Weapons, Shrinking Bush and the Media
Negar Azimi
Ashcroft's Cruel Version of America
Saul
Landau
Shiite Happens
Hammond
Guthrie
Then and Now
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars
Web Log 6/13
June
12, 2003
Gary
Leupp
The Intel-gate Row in Britain: a Chronology
Ahmad Faruqui
The Tragic Legacy of the Six Day
War
Wayne
Madsen
Unfit for Office: Time for Rumsfeld to Resign
Laura Carlsen
Hunger and Security
Tarif
Abboushi
Warm and Fuzzy in Aqaba
Ray
McGovern
Deceived into War: Reflections of
a Former CIA Analyst
Steve
Perry
Counting Bush's
Lies, part 2
June
11, 2003
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Attack of the Hog Killers: Why the
Generals Hate the A-10
Elaine
Cassel
Meet Michael Chertoff: Ashcroft's
Top Gremlin
David Lindorff
The Republican Drive to Eliminate Overtime Pay
Tom
Gorman
Greens, the Antiwar Movement and 2004
Alfredo
Castro
Colombia: The Most Dangerous Place
on Earth for Trade Unionists
Nnimo
Bassey and Lawrence Bohlen
Bush Must Stop Telling Us What to
Eat!
Julie Hilden
Spike Lee v. Spike TV
CounterPunch
Wire
Blair Bros. Change Jobs!
Eric
Hobsbawm
The Empire Expands, Wider and Still
Wider
Steve
Perry
DHS: As Big
a Planning Snafu as Iraq?
June
10, 2003
Benjamin
Shepard
A Season in the Anti-War Movement
Chris
Floyd
Bush Family Lies About Iraq and Nazi
Germany
Wayne
Madsen
Weaponsgate
Jason Leopold
Powell's Denials Ring Hollow
Richard
Lichtman
Whining, Whimpering Leftists Confront the Logic of American World
Domination
Ray
Close
A CIA Analyst on Why the Lies About
WMD Matter
Hammond
Guthrie
Banking on Saddam?
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars
Web Log 6/10
June
9, 2003
Alex
Coolman
Male Rape in US Prisons
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft is Coming!
Lee
Sustar
Is Iran Next?
Agustin
Velloso
Equatorial Guinea: Few Rich, Many
Poor
Gila
Svirsky
Some Lives Are Worth Less Than Others
Dr. Gerry
Lower
Human Worth in Bush's America
Michael
S. Ladah
A True Liberation
Ishmael Reed
Iraqi Slaughter, Mayhem and Plunder
Steve
Perry
How to Beat Bush, part 1
June
7 / 8, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
The Terrible Truth
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Going Critical: Bush's War on Endangered Species
Joanne
Mariner
Ashcrofts Sides with Torturers
Steven
Sherman
A Different Theory of Everything
Ron Jacobs
Sports, Politics and the 60s
M.
Shahid Alam
Pauperizing the Periphery
Amelia
Peltz
If This is the Road, I'd Rather be Lost
Shelton
Hull
Another Powell, Another Capitulation
Binoy Kampmark
Nuclear Deterrence and North Korea
Ben
Tripp
A Fish Story
Sen. Robert
Byrd
Where is the Outrage?
Robin
Philpot
Congo Distortions
Julie Hilden
Murder and the Matrix
Laura
Flanders
An Interview with Isabel Allende
David Lindorff
The Last Byline
Adam
Engel
Talk Dirty Scary Monsters
Poets'
Basement
Kearney, Reiss, Guthrie, Albert and Hamod
June
6, 2003
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft the Insatiable
David
Krieger
The Big Lie
Ramzy
Baroud
Sharon and the Myth of the Peacemakers
Anthony
Gancarski
Sharansky: "Crucifixion is a Privilege"
Sam
Hamod
His Own Little Country
Sean Carter
Why Indict Martha Stewart and Not Ken Lay?
David
Lindorff
Cracks in the Consensus
Stew Albert
Ari's Great Set
Steve
Perry
Greens and
Moore in 04? No
June
5, 2003
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Pools of Fire: The Looming Nuclear
Nightmare in the Woods of North Carolina
Imraan
Siddiqi
Ann Coulter's Foul Mouth
Michael
Leon
Clinton, Reno & Waco: Remember What They've Done
Robert
Jensen
Texas Pledge Law Undermines Democracy
Ann Harrison
Rosenthal is Free, But the Fight isn't Over
Paul
Dean
How You Can Be Deliriously Happy in the Age of Bush
Gary Leupp
When Spooks Speak Out
Website
of the Day
Evidence in Black and White?

Hot Stories
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
June
18, 2003
Iraq's WMD
Integrity
and Ethics in Formulating and Interpreting Intelligence
By Col. DANIEL SMITH
(Ret.)
On June 6, Randy Cohen, the New York Times' resident
ethicist, appeared on CNN's NewsNight where he and host Aaron
Brown began talking about ethics and integrity in the conduct
of public business and in the statements and actions of public
figures. Near the end of the time allotted for the discussion,
Brown mentioned weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Cohen
replied in part: "I think this is the big ethical story
of the week: Many people are asserting ... that the president
lied about [WMD] in order to get our country into a war."
In fact, with each passing day, it is
becoming more painfully obvious that the main categorical accusations
against the regime of Saddam Hussein used by U.S. President George
W. Bush and other senior administration officials to justify
the war on Iraq simply are unsupported by facts on the ground.
And because the rhetoric in the run-up to war appealed to the
world to recognize the U.S. action within a religious-based paradigm--labeling
the war as a moral undertaking, and stating that "our cause
is just"--it raises for Cohen the question of the necessity
of integrity in the public arena. It should also be a question
for everyone in the body politic.
After five weeks of looking and a number
of false starts, no extant chemical or biological weapons have
been found in post-war Iraq. Nor have any precursor agents been
discovered. Yet Saddam's possession of these weapons and the
imminent threat these purportedly posed to the Persian Gulf region,
to U.S. troops in the gulf, and even to the U.S. homeland constituted
the administration's chief reason why war was necessary and just.
Moreover, Washington hawks, who have little use for the UN, then
declared that the "fact" that they knew Saddam possessed
these weapons also proved the irrelevance of the UN and the ineffective
nature of UN weapons inspections and verification measures.
A second (albeit a bit late) rationale
designed to touch an emotional chord in the public memory centered
on asserting that Saddam harbored and worked with al Qaeda operatives
and was involved in planning the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon. Again, the claims became unequivocal,
and, in line with the Bush doctrine that harboring or working
with terrorists is a hostile act, preventive war by the United
States was and still is declared to be a "just cause."
Lacking on-the-ground substantiation
of either primary justification, the administration has tried
two tacks simultaneously, with a third in reserve. One is to
mount a continuing staunch offense, as Bush has done, regarding
these rationales in the hope that at some point in time, something
will turn up--ideally a smoking gun. The administration insists
that U.S. forces simply need more time, something that in March
it would not give the UN inspectors but now demands as it pours
1,400 new searchers into Iraq. This tack keeps faith with hard-line
conservative supporters of the military remedy who saw the war
as the only solution for what they deemed an extant threat to
the United States. Thus, despite media revelations that the intelligence
community, including senior analysts, were divided over the evidence
of Saddam's WMD presented by the administration (e.g., aluminum
tubes and mobile biological labs), the spin remains.
The second tack--moving to the forefront
the despicable humanitarian and human rights record of the Iraqi
regime--is both a holding action and a ploy to win over the more
liberal elements of the public who are traditionally concerned
about these issues. Ironically, the administration runs a palpable
risk here of calling attention to incipient violations of its
responsibilities as an occupying power. To date, the flow of
food, provision of clean water, implementation of basic sanitary
measures, availability of health care, provision of a reliable
electricity supply to cities and towns that were electrified
prior to the war, and physical security are all at unacceptable
levels. Despite White House and Central Command assurances that
life is improving and is better for ordinary Iraqis with Saddam
gone, their right to control their own affairs is too slow in
coming.
This in turn is fueling a backlash against
Western forces and administrators. The backlash is not taking
the form of open, widespread rebellion. After all, the United
States has the heavy weapons. But it is manifesting itself in
growing non-cooperation with the occupying Authority. It is then
but a short step to passive support of surviving Baathist, Special
Republican Guard, or Saddam's clan elements willing to carry
out attacks on Westerners, and eventually an increase in attacks
by Iraqis who have become disillusioned with heavy-handed liberation-qua-occupation
by U.S. military forces and civilian administrators.
The back-up tack is the assertion that
"the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad." This
assertion sought to conflate two separate policy problems through
repeated public pronouncements to the effect that removing Saddam
would be the key that unlocked peace in the Middle East and the
gulf. (Such contorted reasoning in the face of the known support
by Syria and Iran of violent groups operating in Palestine, if
done purposefully, raises the question of integrity in trying
to resolve this dispute.) Indeed, as recently as June 3 at the
Sharm el-Sheikh summit with Arab heads of state just before meeting
with the Palestinian and Israeli prime ministers, Bush reiterated
the linkage: "There's a hopeful direction to recent events
in the Middle East. In Iraq, a tyrant in support of terror has
been removed. Reform is taking hold in many societies that are
eager to join in the progress and prosperity of our times ...
. The leaders here today recognize the importance of representative,
democratic institutions to fulfilling the hopes of the Iraqi
and Palestinian people."
Like humanitarian and human rights issues,
this tack as justification for the Iraq war will quickly weaken,
even if Bush tries to keep it in focus for other reasons, such
as burnishing his credentials as a man of peace. Too much about
Palestine is outside of the administration's power to manipulate.
Hamas' refusal to continue talks with Palestinian Prime Minister
Mahmoud Abbas about a ceasefire and halting suicide bombings,
the continuing attacks (dubbed as "targeted killings")
by Israeli helicopters, and the destruction of a civilian bus
in central Jerusalem by a suicide bomber, all coming days after
the summit sessions in the Middle East, are ample proof of how
rapidly events on the ground can confound White House intentions,
pronouncements, and interpretations.
As it tries to maneuver beyond questions
of intelligence, integrity, and public ethics, the administration
and its adherents risk getting themselves further and further
tied into knots. On one hand, they insist that the intelligence
on which the case for war was justified was accurate, was supported
by defectors, and built a cumulative case over the 1990s. At
the same time, they acknowledge a loss of direct, first-hand,
in-country access to information sources between December 1998
and November 2002, when UN inspectors returned to Iraq. During
the period when no inspectors were present, information was coming
in part from Iraqi defectors, many of whom were under the aegis
of the main Kurdish factions or other groups in the Iraqi National
Congress, or rival organizations. But while the administration
seemed to accept this information uncritically and even examined
reports to find evidence supporting its contentions about Saddam's
malevolent acts, it insists that the denials by its two star
al Qaeda prisoners of a relationship with Saddam cannot be accepted
at face value because prisoners have agendas--as if defectors
never do.
Moreover, in insisting the intelligence
process was sound and the substance accurate, the administration
leaves itself open to a charge of either (1) lying, via omission
of the caveats and cautions in the intelligence reports, in what
it said to and withheld from the U.S. public and the world in
justifying the attack on Iraq; or (2) a cover-up if it now knows
that the intelligence about Saddam possessing actual WMD was
wrong. That is as much as to say that in the run-up to war there
was such continuing incompetence in the assessments as to constitute
an intelligence failure of the first order, for which heads should
roll. As it is, administration and CIA officials now suggest
that caveats and doubts voiced within the CIA about the reliability
of reports on Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium never reached decisionmakers.
In this regard, in a June 6 interview
with the BBC, chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix said: "We
went to a great many sites that were given to us by [U.S. and
U.K.] intelligence, and only in three cases did we find anything--and
they did not relate to weapons of mass destruction. That shook
me a bit, I must admit. I was impressed by that because we had
been told that they would give the best intelligence they had.
So I thought: 'My God, if this is the best intelligence they
had and we find nothing, what about the rest?'" This was
confirmed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the end of a
June 11 working lunch with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Responding to a reporter's query about U.S. intelligence made
available to UN inspectors, Annan said: "On the question
of the quality of the intelligence or its being hyped, obviously,
material intelligence was given to the inspectors who used it
in Iraq. We know the result. It didn't get very much."
The administration's defensive hedging
and shift in nuances and qualifications--from "possessing
WMD" to having "precursors" and "equipment"
to concealing "documents" and retaining "programs"
and "know-how" that would allow for reconstituting
WMD if and when sanctions were lifted and inspectors were not
present--may serve to reduce questioning among the U.S. public.
But these maneuvers will not have that effect abroad, as Tony
Blair's dilemma attests. And even this line of defense could
falter if a Republican Congress holds public hearings about a
Republican president who took the nation into a war for which
the toll now stands at almost 170 U.S. dead, with monetary costs
of tens of billions of dollars, and for which more lives and
money will be lost in continuing post-war occupation.
As Randy Cohen asked, "If you are
so wrong about all three causes, then I wonder if you can honorably
hold--continue to hold--your office?" It seems like a fair
question, and an ethical one, for everyone in the country to
ask and keep asking, particularly in light of the 2004 elections.
Daniel Smith
is a military affairs analyst for Foreign
Policy in Focus, a retired U.S. army colonel and a senior
fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National
Legislation. He can be reached at: dan@fcnl.org
Today's Features
Dr.
Susan Block
Sex, Lies and WMDs
Elaine
Cassel
Scalia, the Rumsfeld of the Supremes
Roger Burbach
Brazil Under Lula
Dan
Bacher
The WTO's War on Salmon
Peter
Phillips and Jason Spencer
Entertainment Media 2003
Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation
The Challenge of Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century
Wayne Madsen
Outting Ashcroft's Latest Hypocrisy
Larry
Kearney
Starlight
Steve
Perry
The Bush Administration
Lies Marathon, Day 3
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
Weekend Edition Features
Edward
Said
A Roadmap to What and Where?
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Pryor Unrestraint: Killer Bill Pryor's
Mad Quest for the Federal Bench
David Lindorff
Rumsfeld v. Belgium
Jennifer
Loewenstein
Suicide's Most Willing Accomplice
Lee Sustar
US Tax System: Rigged for the Rich
Ben
Tripp
Of Dissidents and Dissonance
William
S. Lind
Lies, Damned Lies and Military Intelligence
Joanne
Mariner
Rebellious Judges
Gila Svirsky
A Macabre Alliance
Mickey
Z.
Where We Are
Chris Floyd
Metaphysics as a Guide to Murder
Noah
Leavitt
Peru as Our Crystal Ball?
Yves Engler
and Bianca Mugyenyi
The G8 and Africa
Dr.
Gerry Lower
Dear Rudy, Let's Get Those Damned Liberals
Ted Dace
A Review of Kovel's The Enemy of Nature
Adam
Engel
Midnight at the Apocalyptic Pancake
Poets'
Basement
Smith, Greeder, Albert, and O'Hayer
Website
of the Weekend
AEI: Starts Wars; Creates
Poverty
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|