Article

2003-11-29 Home Front

Senior US intelligence analyst defends pre-war Iraq data

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-29 12:38:55 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [1769 views since 2007-05-07] Top

1 I could care less about WMD. UNLESS they actually had them. Then that means, ME IN TROUBLE. Thank's GW. You did good.

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-29 1:38:21 AM|| 2003-11-29 1:38:21 AM|| Front Page Top

2 Whether Saddam actually had them or not, he made a show of having them, and did his best to make us believe he did. All the games he played with the UN over the last 12 years, that ALONE legally justified the war, as noted by 1441. In any event, Iraq is better off without Saddam, and we are better off without him as well. Even the French are better off without Saddam, although their oil stock will take a hit.

Posted by Ben 2003-11-29 4:37:52 AM|| 2003-11-29 4:37:52 AM|| Front Page Top

3 I care about R&D programs as well as production WMDs. A small quantity of weaponized anthrax or nerve gas could be a major problem if it was transferred to Ansar al Islam or any other terror group. So too would a relatively small amount of fissible uranium ... say, enough to make a dirty bomb or two.

It may be many years, if ever, before we know for sure what happened to the WMD that Hussein did deploy in the 90s. But one thing McKay's interim report makes clear is that they were trying to keep a research program going and that they were trying in particular to make advances in biological substances and in acquiring some nuclear capabilities. I was and am actually more concerned, in the short run, about the results of these programs getting out to terror groups than I was about production quantities of armed warheads. Those would be awful if used, of course, but it is harder to hide a full manufacturing program than a few mobile labs.

Posted by rkb 2003-11-29 5:58:48 AM|| 2003-11-29 5:58:48 AM|| Front Page Top

4 Fissible uranium U235 is great for producing nukes but there are better choices for producing dirty bombs.

Posted by JFM 2003-11-29 7:51:31 AM|| 2003-11-29 7:51:31 AM|| Front Page Top

5 Interesting and good to see this unusual step. The country could use a lot more educational and substantive PR from the administration. The "debate" concerning intel, like most of the discussion on the war, has been extremely sophomoric and mostly substance-free. As noted in a comment above, the burden of proof and risk in this situation was on Iraq, both legally and more importantly strategically. The US has no obligation to bare its throat to psychos and low-lifes known to be dangerous and hostile merely because it can't provide ironclad advance proof of a threat.

In that connection, there's a typically amusing and off-base article by Pincus in the WaPo on intel and pre-emption. As usual, the simple logic of pre-emption is mangled beyond recognition, and again the burden is absurdly placed on the target (us) instead of the perpetrator (them). There are even people quoted who cooperate in standing the world on its head -- you see, if we can't be confident of the precision of our intel, we can't use pre-emption. Wrong!

Naturally we want the best possible intel, and the Iraq intel must be subjected to rigorous review (apparently it has already, at least to some extent), but as the Cohen column implies but doesn't state clearly enough, intel is fallible and people have to stop pretending that we can attain well-founded certainty on a regular basis.

The logic of pre-emption is precisely the reverse of that implied in the WaPo piece. Uncertainty about a serious and probable but incompletely understood threat LOWERS the threshhold for actionable intel, it doesn't raise it. Uncertainty -- deriving from imperfect or incomplete intel -- is precisely the BASIS for pre-emption. In an era of catastrophic WMD technologies in the reach of states or groups not amenable to the usual deterrence, pre-emption is the prudent recourse when intentions or precise capabilities cannot be assessed.

Tony Cordesman's work is cited in the WaPo article -- he's to be taken seriously, and it's hard to believe he doesn't understand the pre-emption logic. But who knows.

It's deplorable how vapid and upside down the "debate" on these matters is, as typified by the WaPo article. This Cohen column should just be the start on injecting some logic and reality into the situation -- these are life and death matters, after all.

Sorry for the rant, but this is "Rantburg" after all, and I haven't had my coffee yet ....

Posted by IceCold 2003-11-29 10:13:23 AM|| 2003-11-29 10:13:23 AM|| Front Page Top

6 "no reasonable person could have ... reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached."

Babs? Dr. Dean? 'Lil Steevey? Teddy the Float? Molly (the Smithy) Ivan?

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-29 12:43:31 PM|| 2003-11-29 12:43:31 PM|| Front Page Top

7 The article says 'reasonable person', Ship. Does't apply to the people you listed. Neither does the word "rational".

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-29 6:41:42 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-29 6:41:42 PM|| Front Page Top

8 More Icecold ass kick'n. Folks we've got a poster that bears watching. Rantburg!

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-30 1:07:55 AM|| 2003-11-30 1:07:55 AM|| Front Page Top

09:54 Fred
09:50 Fred
07:37 raptor
07:36 raptor
07:23 Bulldog
07:08 Anonymous
06:58 Anonymous
05:39 SK
01:27 Lucky
01:15 Lucky
01:07 Lucky
00:58 Lucky
00:51 Lucky
00:43 Lucky
00:33 Lucky
00:28 eLarson
00:28 Lucky
00:24 Lucky
00:19 Lucky
00:13 Lucky
00:02 Lucky
23:48 af
23:36 Vlad the Muslim Impaler
23:17 Glenn (not Reynolds)
Merry-Go-Blog