Obama’s Syrian Case Shows Cracks

New cracks have appeared in the Obama administration’s case for bombing Syria. Though the White House’s four-page white paper has been palmed off as a U.S. intelligence assessment, it now appears to have been a political document that cherry-picked evidence, reports Gareth Porter for Inter Press Service.

By Gareth Porter

Contrary to the general impression in Congress and the news media, the Syria chemical warfare intelligence summary released by the Barack Obama administration on Aug. 30 did not represent an intelligence community assessment, an IPS analysis and interviews with former intelligence officials reveals.

The evidence indicates that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper culled intelligence analyses from various agencies and by the White House itself, but that the White House itself had the final say in the contents of the document.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers remarks on Syria at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 30, 2013. [State Department photo]

Leading members of Congress to believe that the document was an intelligence community assessment and thus represents a credible picture of the intelligence on the alleged chemical attack of Aug. 21 has been a central element in the Obama administration’s case for war in Syria.

That part of the strategy, at least, has been successful. Despite strong opposition in Congress to the proposed military strike in Syria, no one in either chamber has yet challenged the administration’s characterization of the intelligence. But the administration is vulnerable to the charge that it has put out an intelligence document that does not fully and accurately reflect the views of intelligence analysts.

Former intelligence officials told IPS that that the paper does not represent a genuine intelligence community assessment but rather one reflecting a predominantly Obama administration influence. In essence, the White House selected those elements of the intelligence community assessments that supported the administration’s policy of planning a strike against the Syrian government force and omitted those that didn’t.

In a radical departure from normal practice involving summaries or excerpts of intelligence documents that are made public, the Syria chemical weapons intelligence summary document was not released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence but by the White House Office of the Press Secretary. It was titled “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.”

The first sentence begins, “The United States government assesses,” and the second sentence begins, “We assess.” The introductory paragraph refers to the main body of the text as a summary of “the intelligence community’s analysis” of the issue, rather than as an “intelligence community assessment,” which would have been used had the entire intelligence community endorsed the document.

A former senior intelligence official who asked not to be identified told IPS in an e-mail Friday that the language used by the White House “means that this is not an intelligence community document.” The former senior official, who held dozens of security classifications over a decades-long intelligence career, said he had “never seen a document about an international crisis at any classification described/slugged as a U.S. government assessment.”

The document further indicates that the administration “decided on a position and cherry-picked the intelligence to fit it,” he said. “The result is not a balanced assessment of the intelligence.”

Greg Thielmann, whose last position before retiring from the State Department was director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told IPS he has never seen a government document labeled “Government Assessment” either. “If it’s an intelligence assessment,” Thielmann said, “why didn’t they label it as such?”

Former National Intelligence Officer Paul Pillar, who has participated in drafting national intelligence estimates, said the intelligence assessment summary released by the White House “is evidently an administration document, and the working master copy may have been in someone’s computer at the White House or National Security Council.”

Pillar suggested that senior intelligence officials might have signed off on the administration paper, but that the White House may have drafted its own paper to “avoid attention to analytic differences within the intelligence community.” Comparable intelligence community assessments in the past, he observed including the 2002 Iraq WMD estimate include indications of differences in assessment among elements of the community.

An unnamed “senior administration official” briefing the news media on the intelligence paper on Aug. 30 said that the paper was “fully vetted within the intelligence community,” and that ”All members of the intelligence community participated in its development.”

But that statement fell far short of asserting that all the elements of the intelligence community had approved the paper in question, or even that it had gone through anything resembling consultations between the primary drafters and other analysts, and opportunities for agencies to register dissent that typically accompany intelligence community assessments.

The same “senior administration official” indicated that DNI Clapper had “approved” submissions from various agencies for what the official called “the process”. The anonymous speaker did not explain further to journalists what that process preceding the issuance of the White House paper had involved.

However, an Associated Press story on Aug. 29 referred to “a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence outlining the evidence against Syria,” citing two intelligence officials and two other administration officials as sources. That article suggests that the administration had originally planned for the report on intelligence to be issued by Clapper rather than the White House, apparently after reaching agreement with the White House on the contents of the paper.

But Clapper’s name was not on the final document issued by the White House, and the document is nowhere to be found on the ODNI website. All previous intelligence community assessments were posted on that site. The issuance of the document by the White House rather than by Clapper, as had been apparently planned, points to a refusal by Clapper to put his name on the document as revised by the White House.

Clapper’s refusal to endorse it presumably because it was too obviously an exercise in “cherry picking” intelligence to support a decision for war would explain why the document had to be issued by the White House. Efforts by IPS to get a comment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence suggest strongly that Clapper is embarrassed by the way the Obama White House misrepresented the Aug. 30 document.

An e-mail query by IPS to the media relations staff of ODNI requesting clarification of the status of the Aug. 30 document in relation to the intelligence community was never answered. In follow-up phone calls, ODNI personnel said someone would respond to the query. After failing to respond for two days, despite promising that someone would call back, however, ODNI’s media relations office apparently decided to refuse any further contact with IPS on the subject.

A clear indication that the White House, rather than Clapper, had the final say on the content of the document is that it includes a statement that a “preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.” That figure, for which no source was indicated, was several times larger than the estimates given by British and French intelligence.

The document issued by the White House cites intelligence that is either obviously ambiguous at best or is of doubtful authenticity, or both, as firm evidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. It claims that Syrian chemical weapons specialists were preparing for such an attack merely on the basis of signals intelligence indicating the presence of one or more individuals in a particular location. The same intelligence had been regarded prior to Aug. 21 as indicating nothing out of the ordinary, as was reported by CBS news Aug. 23.

The paper also cites a purported intercept by U.S intelligence of conversations between Syrian officials in which a “senior official” supposedly “confirmed” that the government had carried out the chemical weapons attack. But the evidence appears to indicate that the alleged intercept was actually passed on to the United States by Israeli intelligence. U.S. intelligence officials have long been doubtful about intelligence from Israeli sources that is clearly in line with Israeli interests.

Opponents of the proposed U.S. strike against Syria could argue that the Obama administration’s presentation of the intelligence supporting war is far more politicized than the flawed 2002 Iraq WMD estimate that the George W. Bush administration cited as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. [This article was originally published by Inter Press Service.]

6 comments for “Obama’s Syrian Case Shows Cracks

  1. Kathleen Young
    September 9, 2013 at 16:40

    You are using IPS as a source? Shame.

  2. EthanAllen1
    September 9, 2013 at 14:46

    While, as Gareth Porter surmises in this op-ed, the Executive Branch appears to be fashioning facts to conform with policy initiatives, instead of allowing a totality of factual concensus to determine U.S. policy and finishes this perception with a cursory historical comparison with the now debunked “official” assessments of the prior administration, this piece, ostensibly proffered by a credentialed “national security policy historian and investigative journalist”, fails to place these current “policies” in a meaningful historical context.
    I submit that if ConsortiumNews wants to be on the cutting edge of sounding an ALARM that effectivly awakens an indifferent and complacent public to these serial abuses of the public trust and treasure, such a tinkling of mere dinner bell reportage will produce little or no such result. It is not the proverbial “choir” that needs awakening, it is the sleeping congregation!
    As Usual,

  3. Hillary
    September 9, 2013 at 13:27

    “Obama’s Syrian Case Shows Cracks”
    “Former intelligence officials told IPS that that the paper does not represent a genuine intelligence community assessment but rather one reflecting a predominantly Obama administration influence.”

    Yes the carefully covered over cracks are carefully kept from “we the people” the US public once again.
    As with Iraq anyone with intelligence has to have the time and motive to look for them .
    And because they are so difficult to “see” a poor US public is “dumbed down”

  4. IAN T
    September 9, 2013 at 13:24

    Deja Vu! This is exactly what happened in the UK before the 1991 Iraq War. Tony Blair and his cronies ‘sexed up’ a dossier from a whole range of sources to make his case for going to war. UK intelligence services were sidelined. He even used text from a graduate’s thesis, because it [mistakenly] supported his plan to join with the US. Have we, and especially the USA learnt nothing from that criminal episode?

    • Tyrone Koelmeyer
      September 11, 2013 at 03:03

      Apparently not! However, in light of the protests at home, a lukewarm response from Congress and a handful of allies, Obama has grabbed a chance to save face with the Russian proposal. Whether Syria is prepared to surrender its stockpile of chemical weapons wihout a fight is, at best, questionable.

  5. chmoore
    September 9, 2013 at 13:05

    [sorry if this is a repeat, clicking ‘post comment’ resulted in a ‘needs password’ error]

    I’d like to point out a question that seems to be getting too little focus. The question is…Expected Outcome?

    For argument’s sake, even if we accept as fact, the unconfirmed exaggerated speculation based on hear-say about the Assad Regime’s chemical weapons deployment, doesn’t the need for a positive or beneficial expected outcome outweigh such notions as ‘punishment’ and our ‘world stature’?

    Just for example; if the goal is to stop chemical weapons deployment, why would it make sense to attack Syrian military launch locations, considering the possiblity that these same toxic chemicals could be stored there? It seems like it would be very hard to avoid civilian casualties from toxic chemicals, which would be very different from the usual meaning of “surgical”.

    And aren’t we also increasing the likelyhood of cascading retalitory attacks on all sides?

    I would expect that future world events depend on the outcome of whatever we do or don’t do now, and that if there’s a U.S. caused disaster, it would make our credibility gap much worse, in addition to the human disaster already on the ground.

Comments are closed.