Ghosts of Iraq Haunting C.I.A. in Tackling Iran

[MindMover]

Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — At the nation’s top spy agency, the ghosts of Iraq are never far away.

Times Topic: Central Intelligence Agency

One C.I.A. analyst who had helped develop some of the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction had a breakdown months after the Iraq war began; he had participated in the post-invasion hunt there that found the weapons did not exist. When he eventually was given a new assignment assessing Iran’s nuclear program, he confided a fear to colleagues: that the intelligence community might get it wrong again.

“He felt enormous guilt that he had gotten us into the war,” said one former official who worked with the analyst. “He was afraid it was going to be déjà vu all over again.”

Today, analysts and others at the C.I.A. who are struggling to understand the nuclear ambitions of Iran are keenly aware that the agency’s credibility is again on the line, amid threats of new military interventions. The intelligence debacle on Iraq has deeply influenced the way they do their work, with new safeguards intended to force analysts to be more skeptical in evaluating evidence and more cautious in drawing conclusions.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/world/middleeast/assessing-iran-but-thinking-about-iraq.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss%3f

---

[RJ1988]

1. yeppp.

Those people running the CIA were probably the biggest fraternity dicks at Yale/Dartmouth: hot-headed, arrogant, and self-entitled.

[gateley]

2. K&R nt

[Johnny2X2X]

3. Yet another way

Yet another way that Iraq made us less safe. We could be under real imminent danger from Iran and the American people wont buy it because we've been lied to before.

[MindMover]

4. Or it could be the other way around......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002504844

[got root]

5. the way i heard it, the analyst were pretty good, it was the neo-cons installed by bush& cheney who

'sexed' it up.


but i know, i know, the official BS story is that the workers bees got it wrong, not the policy makers.

and don't worry, now they got more controls in place to prevent such a thing happening again.

so don't you worry your pretty little heads, about nutt'n!



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/george-will-no-measurable-evidence-bush-v-g

[sabrina 1]

6. That's how I heard it also. But Cheney's shadow government was working secretly

to provide 'evidence' when no one else could find it. And then they had help from Judith Miller and a few others. As I remember it, there were reports from the Intelligence Community that some members of Congress chose not to look at before voting giving Bush the authority to go to war. They didn't want to 'know' the facts, they wanted 'plausible deniability'.

I don't believe them this time either. Having been right last time, I have way more faith in my own instincts than anything we hear from the warmongers. And I don't believe, even with Nukes, Iran is a threat to the US. It is if anything, the other way around.

[rudycantfail]

8. Yes, yes and yes

x 1000.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. Those troops ran in to execute guilty men...

men guilty of the crime of cultivating a weapons of mass destruction program that was ultimately targeted at the US. But it didn't exist, so guess what, those executed men were guilty of no crime. And that means their execution wasn't an execution, but murder.

&feature=related

Remember this? "How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?" That was more powerful than anything else in the highest level of the political rhetoric, and it was heard in Moscow, and contributed more to the current solution with Russia than any of the talk coming from Reagan. But the problem is that Sting was not officially putting words into the mouth of the president, the president was playing the game at a lower level than that artist. And that remains the problem. These intelligence agencies are defined by a conservatism biased toward stupidity, rather than intelligent people really putting the content of their souls out there to guide policy with every piece of light, every ounce of wisdom they can muster, like Sting did in that song. And what that really means is that MORE people will be murdered in the next policy blunder, because people zipped their mouths and didn't pour the contents of their soul into the next debate.

I'm only lucky because when I was young I saw a lot of old people die, and I realized it comes to us all, regardless of how conservatively you play the game. The lesson I learned is that at some point your really have to stand up for the truth such as you see it, however limited and incomplete that may be. Its still better than laying in that bed when your 80 wishing you said the thing you didn't say.

[Diclotican]

12. napoleon_in_rags

napoleon_in_rags

Thank you - this is a song I have trying to find for a long time - but never managed to get my hand on for some reason..

And Sting, in this song, really did make some god pointers, to what is important and not important...

And even tho the danger of a nuclear holocaust is less today, than it was when Sting made his song back in 1987, it is still a danger because a few others, who might not have the same control over their nukes - as the old 5 big one had (and even then, it was luck many times that nuclear weapons was not used either in anger, or by accident) And should use it, in anger or by accident is far more possible today, than under the cold war...

And even ONE nuclear bomb on a City, would be a catastrophe we might not really recover from.. Not to say the prospect of even a few more.... It is horrible just to think about...

I hope that the current Administration doesn't do what the last one did, playing right into a stupid war, even when the evidences against war is great, and evidence for a war is not there.. US doesn't have the trust it once had, when telling the world, that war is the best option... And I doubt they would manage to get great support from other NATO members, after all the blunders in 2003.. And in the meantime, we have had a little economical meltdown in Europe, and need our resources here, not to wage war in Iran.. So US are maybe more lonely now, then it was in 2003.. In all, if US was to shoos to go to war, it might end NATO as an alliance, as it was a lot of cracks in the alliance when Jr bullied many to support the war effort, and told the rest of the alliance to go F*** yourself...

Diclotican

Diclotican

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. Yeah, a lot of credibility was lost. The question is what was accomplished.

What did the Iraq war do to prevent nuke proliferation? They didn't cheer and get on the same side as us... Which is no surprise to me, or anybody else in the protests I marched in before the war happened. But it seemed to come as a surprise for a lot of other people... So at this point, I feel pretty vindicated in standing up for peace: Like it or not, what they need to realized is long term the solution is getting 99% of the world on the same side as the issue, building consensus, like Sting was doing in that song. War won't do that. I mean, why would Iran want a nuke? Who threatens it? The US. If somebody shoots the guy standing next to you, its pretty damn clear as to why you yourself might want a gun at that point, and a lot of people understand that. Furthermore, all the talks about controlling the straits of Hormuz underscores the geopolitical significance of the region, so this whole huge divisive global clown show is now being tied to non-proliferation, an issue we should be getting everybody on the same side of, not dividing the world over.

[Diclotican]

19. napoleon_in_rags

napoleon_in_rags

I too demonstrated the war, before it started.. In fact it the ONLY war I ever have been in, but I believed it to be "worth the while", and I was not alone - We was over 60.000 in the main streets of Oslo, demonstrating peacefully that we was against the US led war in Iraq..

The war started anyway, even tho I believe most americans, in Norway understood that many in Norway was against it, in most city's it was demonstration against the war - and most of them was peacefully too...

The war in Iraq did nothing to prevent nuclear proliferation, if it did anything, it did the opposite, as North Korea, and at least dusin other nations decided it was time to work harder on making a bomb or two.. In the Shadow of Iraq, at least 10 nations, the UN watchdog know about started to really work harder to make nuclear weapon a priority.. North Korea made it, by exploding a nuclear device in 2005/07, and then again a new nuclear bomb in 2007... And this is a country who legally is at war with South Korea, as the inter-korean war is not over and they have more than once, treated the South with war... Even holly wars...

The consensus is more or less the same - no one want unstable nations to have nuclear weapons.. in fact most nations Will try to get rid of the danger build into the nuclear weapon at all.. And you have a President who want to end a lot of the stockpiles of nuclear weapons down to a smaller amount, who are more controllable.. And the same Will possible Russia, if not for the same reasons - they have a lot of nuclear weapons who is to old, and to need either replacement - or broken up and the nuclear weapons disposed off...

The "stable" nations, who have nuclear weapons is not the real danger here - even tho they could use them either by design, or by accident.. The unstable nations, like North Korea, India, Pakistan, is nations, who is not stable - and also is capable of using nuclear weapon, with less incentive to be carefully, than the 5 big ones who had nuclear weapons before 1965...

I hope, we as humans can go to a future where the fear of nuclear holocaust are a myth, who our ancestors are not able to phantom about.. I do hope we can get rid of nuclear weapons all together.. But I fear it is a long way to that to happened. As long as nations is fearing each other - and believe the only way to be "secure" is to build a nuclear weapon...

Diclotican

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. Why do you think nations outside the "big 5" have less incentive to be careful?

I understand that as more nations have them, the risk increases of something happening. But it seems like they have just as much incentive as anybody to keep them under wraps. Not saying you're wrong, just curious.

I think in some ways the fall of the USSR was the worst thing for stability. There was this idea of "Pax Americana" - peace under American hegemony - that was advanced here around 2001. But in a world facing unrest simply due to resource issues beyond anybody's control, the anger at the status quo will breed rage toward any force foolish enough to stand up and pretend to be choosing the direction of global events. Human psychology demands the existence of an OTHER, who is either right or to be blamed. Stability in the US is thus aided with its "two party system", which always gives people a sense of alternative to the status quo - even though if you look closely, you can see some issues are advanced by both parties which lack popular support. We fall short of the promise of a real two party system in some ways.

What's needed to prevent proliferation is a strong sense of something like a global right and left. If a person or group feels marginalized or oppressed by the status quo, they need to feel that they kind find common cause with a large group of people distributed throughout the world who feels the same. What's dangerous is isolation: When a group feels that they are being oppressed by "them" - the all powerful other - to the extent where it is up to them to take radical action, against the huge target presented by the vast "other". (The kind of scenario where nukes seem viable as weapons) We need to reduce isolation and find common cause, so any group feels they have kin everywhere.

That's why "isolating" Iran isn't that powerful either. The most relevant group in any country like that is the country as a whole, during times of national threat everybody is a patriot, other divisions disappear. What we need to do is find ways to use technology to establish group identity at a distance that is more powerful than geographically regional identity...

Which is why its good to see a Norwegian like you on DU!

Peace

[Diclotican]

22. napoleon_in_rags

napoleon_in_rags

I'm not sure why nations outside the 5 "big one" is less carefully when it came to the issue of nuclear weapons.. one thing, can be that many of the "new" nations who got nuclear powered the last couple of decades doesn't have made the same limits when it came to the use of nuclear weapons that the big powers have been doing.. After all, the "old" nations have had more than 60 year now, to learn how to treat nuclear weapons right - and not least treat them right.. And after 1945, when Japan was bombed twice, I believe that the idea have been, not to use it, when not needed.. And thankfully use of nuclear weapons have not been needed, even tho it was a short while in 1962, when the world was on the brink of nuclear exchange. And ever since the historians have tried their best to peace together the whole affair, on both sides. And as historians write, it was a dam close call in 1962.. Both sides had generals who wanted to "tear the other to small peaces" and it was just because of statesmanships not seen before, that that conflict ended with the USSR backing down - and the US president more thankfully to have ended a crisis peacefully, than triumfant... Even tho many was not pleased to how President Kennedy ended the war..

The world was definitely more easy to grasp, when we had two poles, and where they could not act out, before the danger of doing that was to great.. I was in 5th grade when the cold war ended - when the berlin wall was going down I saw it on TV.. One of the few times I was allowed to se news at TV, specially the evening news.. This was after a summer, where much things have happened.. First theTiamen Square, and now the Berlin Wall.. Even tho I might not have understood everything what was happening I do understood that a wall who had divided the World in two for so many decades was going down.. And pictures and film from that time, still give me goosebumps and the same butterfly feeling... It was amazing then - and is still amazing to se how it all ended...

After US was making it to the "top dog" in international affairs, the world got more difficult.. In the 1990s, we had a lot of chaos, specially when it looked like most of the Balkans was going up in flames - but at least, the agreement between Russia and USA was clear - make the world more safe by destroying military hardware in Europe.. And as long as US and Russia, and Europe (and most of the rest of the world) was working together to that goal, the world looked as it could be made more secure... But that means that the big powers had to work with the small powers - to that goal.. After the "election" of GWB in 2000, and the distrust he made by acting as a clown, and make enemies right and left the world got more complicated.. The Administration of GWB, did a lot of harm, by insulting both the EU/Europe, and then China by acting as the rest of the world should do as he wanted.. Raggedness of what the rest wanted.. And I would say, that the 8 year of Mr Bush jr, did mot damage to the world as a whole, than Osama Bin Laden was ever to be able to do.. Not just did it made US overstretch big time - it also made a few cracks in the alliances US had in Europe.. Even tho they have tried to plaster the cracks as it ever happened.. It is there... And cracks must be fixed before it goes to long, so the cracks is made into a destroyed wall... The alliance between US and the other NATO country's is important, and Will be important for a long time - but that means also, that both sides of the atlantic have to work hard, to make wrongs right, and not just pretend it never happened..

Your point about the use, or disuse of nuclear weapons is absolutely valid. It exist in some nations, people who believe, that small nuclear weapons IS USABLE, even when the fallout for exploding it would be horrible.. In fact, under GWB plans for making nuclear weapons small enough to be used against deep underground bunkers, (aka Iranian bunkers ) was planned, and I'm not sure if they ever got the plans to do anymore than being on the paper.. But the international consensus regarding the use of Nuclear weapons is that it should not be used - against anyone, if not as the last result.. And to use even small nuclear weapons, against underground bunkers, would absolutely be against the consensus made by everyone else the last 60 year

Nuclear proliferation is dangerously, because sooner - or later a nation who fear they would be attached would use it first, not as a least result.. And I would think country like Pakistan and India, or North Korea would be the type of country that could use a nuclear bomb first rather than as a last resolt... North Korea is still at war footing with the counterparts on the other side of the border - and have more than 1.4 mill soldiers under arms.. And also nuclear weapons and the will to use it....

To isolate a nation, is properly the worst way to stop nuclear weapons to ever be used.. Even under the cold war, it was not exactly a closed border between the east and west.. Even tho it was strict protected, from the baltic sea right true the middle of Europe, to the Meditarian sea - it was also a border where communication was possible - and where some managed to leave for the other side - mostly to the west by the way... And in the 1980s, it was more accessible than ever before, as most of the eastern european country's wanted the hard cash we "rich" west Europeans did have

I doubt the best way to make Iran understood that nuclear weapons is not the best option is to isolate it.. But I'm not sure if we do have any other way to give the government of Iran the message that Nuclear weapons is better of the table... Peacefully use of nuclear power is legal - but weapons is not acceptable.. I doubt that just to trust the Iranians is the best option - they have to show if they are to be trusted - and there US/Iran have problems, as they have not been direct contact between Iran and US since 1980... US contacts have been doing between the Swiss Ambassador in Iran..

But, I'm still optimistic. I hope that Iran can stop the way to nuclear weapons.. And that the profilation of nuclear weapons, and other means of WMD can be stooped, or at least contained..

Yeah, I'm from norway -and not the only one, even tho I feel like a lonely voice sometimes here on DU.

[KansDem]

9. "That the intelligence community might get it wrong again" = lie

Let's call it for what it really is!

[bemildred]

10. Lying is one of the "intelligence communities" main jobs.

Somebody give this guy a clue.

[tanyev]

11. FWIW, Cheney and Rumsfeld were sending troops into Iraq no matter what any analyst said.

Too bad neither of them ever had a breakdown over it.

[leveymg]

13. The CIA's main purpose is to make war and give the President plausible deniability about it.

The Agency does many useful and necessary things in terms of intelligence gathering and analysis. Nonetheless, that is always secondary to policy. When the President orders it, it becomes the instrument of Executive power - secret warfare and deception trump concerns for evidence and accuracy. That's what happened in Iraq, and there's absolutely nothing to prevent it happening again in Iran. Certainly, the State Department isn't going to stand in the way.

[Kolesar]

14. Sixty five years of national intelligence history in four terse sentences

And creeps like Jeanne Kirkpatrick practiced this art of death and accused anybody who criticized her as "hating America".

[Octafish]

15. Not always the President.

Jimmy Carter faced the Safari Club, for one.

[yurbud]

16. this is not fair to the CIA. They did accurate work on Iraq but Cheney pressured them

to change their conclusions.

See the interviews with various intel analysts in Robert Greenwald's UNCOVERED.

[unkachuck]

18. what, our purveyors of lies and deception are losing credibility?

"...the intelligence community might get it wrong again."

....obviously we're not spending enough money on our intelligence community....maybe we should throw a few hundred billion more dollars a year at the intelligence community so they can get it right....

....we could find money for tax breaks for corporations/rich, the military, balancing our budget, deficit reduction, oil subsidies, our intelligence community, etc., by gutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid....after all, what's more important, keeping the 1% fat, happy and rich or keeping Grandma alive?

[daleo]

21. The boy who cried wolf

Trouble is, the politcians hear what they want to hear, and the intelligence people tell them what they want to tell them.

[harun]

23. Hasn't it always been their job to lie us in to war?