Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 27, February 2, 2004

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

Weapons of Mass Misdirection

So, now it's official: those clueless intelligence agencies misled our poor leaders about Iraq. Indeed, they've been wrong for some time. Bush has reluctantly decided that we do need an investigation about WMD after all: an investigation of how the intelligence agencies have made a series of mistakes on issues with scope beyond Iraq.

In the United Kingdom, they've already had their report. The Hutton Inquiry has similarly decided that Blair and company did nothing other than take the intelligence community at face value.

We should pay close attention here, because we are seeing the process of myth-making in action. Mostly, when we read of history, we have to look back from a point in the future where a story has congealed into a conventional wisdom that seems obvious and is widely accepted. From that future point we have to try to work beneath the story to tease out the suppressed facts and alternative opinions. It seems incredible to us that the actual truth could be so at variance with the official story that 'everyone' believes as 'common sense.'

But that is what is happening now. The myth is being created that incompetence in the intelligence agencies are to blame. Our civilian leaders must now investigate, reluctantly assign blame, sorrowfully punish and graciously accept apologies.

Bunk.

In the run up to the war the intelligence was decidedly mixed. Both the CIA and the intelligence services in the UK produced public reports which certainly did claim there was an active WMD program in Iraq. However, both reports came with qualifications and painted a mixed picture of what was going on. They rejected claims of advanced nuclear programs.

As for al-Queada links, agencies had nothing but scorn for the idea of a connection.

Beyond the intelligence agencies, there were the weapons inspectors in Iraq who were not finding anything at all. And beyond that, were scores of civilian analysts who were saying that whatever Iraq had in the late 80s, had been bombed out of existence by the first Persian Gulf war or had decayed into uselessness by the passage of time, or was simply irrelevant because Iraq lacked any sort of technical infrastructure due to the sanctions to produce, weaponize and deliver chemical or biological weapons.

It is clear, that the civilian leaders took what part of intelligence data served their preconceived ideas, and discarded the rest. But by forming the investigation around the intelligence agencies - who did claim more than turned out to exist - Bush can mislead everyone into not looking at his leadership which must bear the brunt of the blame for taking us to war.

"Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD"
-- The Hutton Inquiry, paragraph 467 (i)(v)

"Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad." -- Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, Central Intelligence Agency, Oct. 2002

"Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq." -- Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction - The assessment of the British Government, Sept. 2002.

"Towards the end of last year US National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed that there were top-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq going back a decade.

No hard evidence was provided for these claims.

In his State of the Union address in late January, President George Bush said: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda."

Again, no concrete evidence was forthcoming." -- BBC, Jan 30, 2003

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
….
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
….
America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- President George Bush, Oct 2002.

Nor can Blair escape. His defense that the "45 minute" claim was in fact instigated by the intelligence agencies and he simply passed it along won't wash. Think of it: you are the leader of a nation, about to send your troops into combat. A report arrives that weapons of mass destruction can be launched against those troops within 45 minutes - almost instantaneously in battlefield terms. What do you do? You put it in a speech. That's it. You don't ask for confirmation of this alarming news, you don't send flash alerts to your battlefield commanders, you don't demand that reacting to it become part of your operational planning, and, for that matter, you don't go to the UN (or the press) and trumpet the news. To me, his actions in regard to this claim show that what he was concerned about was winning a domestic political battle, not conducting a war. It doesn't bolster his image.

Watch carefully, as the intellegence agencies must now take the blame for not preventing their civilian masters from doing what they wanted all along.

Bob Keeshan, Captain Kangaroo, died recently at age of 76. For nearly thirty years he hosted a morning show for children on CBS. It was a gentle, friendly, safe place for children. Assisted by a small cast playing multiple roles, he pioneered children's television. More than simply being the first major children's show, his set standards few others met. It had no violence, even cartoon violence, no arguments between characters and was always positive. This extended to the commercials, for Keeshan did not permit advertisers who produced products he felt were exploitive of children.

I grew up on the Captain, I can still remember most of the words to some oft repeated skits. I remember how he quietly introduced a black character, giving "Mr. Baxter" a title, a respectable job as a school teacher and never had him be on the receiving end of even the mild jokes common on the show. It was gentle teaching of respect by example.

Keeshan was a strong critic of the advertising dominated cartoons that pass for children's television now. Watching my nephew absorb and repeat the threats and braggadocio of his favorite shows makes me certain both of the influence of television and the disaster of early childhood fed a stream of examples of conflict, one-upmanship and irredeemably evil opponents.