|
« Behind the keffiyeh
Main |
February 04, 2004
Weapons of flawed intelligence
The Independent newspaper has triumphantly published an article by Dr Brian Jones, the former leading expert on WMD who has expanded on the evidence he gave to the Hutton inqury to claim that not a single DIS expert backed the most contentious claims in the famous government September dossier. The first thing to say about this scoop is the misleading nature of the Independent's presentation. Its headline over its front-page splash screams: 'Intelligence chief's bombshell: we were overrruled on dossier'. This implies that, contrary to the Hutton finding, the government did in fact overrule the intelligence services to sex up the dossier. In fact, as Dr Jones makes abundantly clear, he is claiming that DIS analysts were overruled within the DIS by their own superiors. Although this is in itself a serious claim, it is a very different matter from the charge of political interference. What it reveals is that the intelligence world was disagreeing within itself -- hardly the first time this has happened. This was in fact perfectly clear from Dr Jones's testimony to Hutton, as was the fact -- which he has now repeated -- that he and the other DIS staff never actually saw the intelligence relating to the 45-minute claim bcause it was so sensitive. In other words, whatever doubts he had about the claim were not worth a great deal because he hadn't been shown the relevant intelligence. He had been kept out of the loop. To say this devalues his complaint is an understatement. He also says this: 'The two DIS representatives on the dossier-drafting group were told at the last drafting meeting on 17 September that the compartmented intelligence would be shown by the SIS (MI6) to only the two most senior members of the DIS, the Chief of Defence Intelligence (CDI) and his deputy (DCDI). At a subsequent DIS meeting on that day, the DCDI ruled that he was satisfied by the SIS reassurance and that no further objections on the contentious issues should be raised with the Cabinet Office Assessment Staff. It transpired from evidence to the Hutton inquiry that the clinching intelligence was never seen by the DCDI.' But was it seen by the actual Chief of Defence Intelligence? Intriguingly, Dr Jones doesn't tell us one way or the other. Most tellingly, however, he makes it clear that the motivation for his complaint that the DIS analysts' concerns were brushed aside is simply to mind his department's own back. He says: 'Earlier in my intelligence career, I and others in my branch had not taken similar precautions and suffered for it. We believed that no large stockpiles of chemical weapons, such as those present in 1990/91, existed because if they did they would probably have been detected by intelligence. The smaller quantities of chemical weapons that might exist would be hard to find, as would small but significant amounts of BW agents and delivery systems. I foresaw that after the likely invasion and defeat of Iraq, it was quite possible that no WMD would be found. If this happened scapegoats would be sought, so I decided that we should record our concerns about the dossier in order to protect our reputation.' So he thought there might indeed be small amounts of WMD -- but because they were small, they might not be found; and if that happened he wanted the DIS to escape any finger-wagging! What cynical self-serving opportunism! And so he went to the Independent -- according to its editor, because he was impressed by its reporting of the Iraq issue. This is revealing in itself since that newspaper was so partisan against the war, and revealed its less than straightforward service to the truth by giving his comments such a deeply misleading headline. Clearly, the disputes within the intelligence service over this whole issue are important. But intelligence is ultimately about making judgments, which mere analsyts within the service -- however skilled -- are not competent to make. There are indeed legitimate concerns about whether the intelligence services have been politicised at the top. The cosy relationship with government is far too close for comfort, not least becasue it erodes trust in their judgment. But Dr Jones's intervention should be treated with some scepticism. It is regrettable that the Tory leader Michael Howard has nevertheless promptly leapt on the Dr Jones bandwagon as yet another weapon to fire at Tony Blair. But it is not only Blair who is being damaged by all this. It is the capacity and willingness of the west to fight against the terror that threatens it. Posted by melanie at February 4, 2004
Comments
Melanie seems to be the only person outside the Government (apart from Lord Hutton) who wants to approve the "dodgy dossier". Even the Daily Mail appears to have lined up with the rest of public opinion in questioning Hutton and the whole WMD house of cards. Any more articles on this subject should be filed under "methinks she protests too much". Posted by: KJN at February 4, 2004 01:22 PMThis to me is the key issue. DIS is where Dr Kelly liaised with the specialists, and where the unease was brewing; and this is the key factor behind anything Kelly made public, and anything he kept bottled up. What astounds me is that Hoon never met with these men. They start a war over WMD but never actually met the specialists in their own department......this is Upstairs/Downstairs. I think all this proves is that the higher the monkey climbs the more you see his bottom !! Posted by: Romulus at February 4, 2004 01:44 PM'[A]fter the likely invasion and defeat of Iraq, it was quite possible that no WMD would be found. If this happened scapegoats would be sought'. Andrew Marr summed up the situation rather well on today's one o'clock news by describing it as an NCOs versus officers dispute. It seems to me that the chairman of JIC should go simply on the obvious fact that he allowed a JIC report: The reason for my hardline on both secrecy and seperation between intelligence and political product is exactly the imbroglio they all find themselves in today. The sight of Tony Blair and John Scarlett clinging to each other in the waves of controversy is not pretty and Scarlett will soon find out just how hard Blair will tread on him in order to reach the lifeboat first! Posted by: David Duff at February 4, 2004 02:18 PMAnna "given that the scope of the Butler inquiry excludes consideration of the use of the intelligence by politicians" This is within the terms of reference, not least in Howard's opinion. Posted by: rob at February 4, 2004 04:12 PMTo add to above, I get the impression that the Lib Dems desire to broaden the terms of reference is to seek evidence that Blair committed to go with Bush pre-1441 Posted by: rob at February 4, 2004 04:19 PMScarlett has no credibility and should never have been on the JIC let alone Chairman. Never before has a spook been Chairman; and Blair showed stupidity in appointing him. Dearlove retired which signals his protest. We are supposed to need SIS to deal with terrorists and Blair has used it for his publicity machine. Just how do we recruit agents, or even Muslim agents, when they see how Dr Kelly was used and abused for publicity purposes ? Posted by: Romulus at February 4, 2004 05:10 PMChairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee
John Scarlett, CMG, OBE, will take up this position on 4 September 2001 on his retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. 4th September 2001 Notes to Editors 1. The Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) is responsible for the management of the work of the Committee. The post is specifically charged with ensuring that the Committee's warning and monitoring role is discharged effectively. The Chairman advises the Secretary of the Cabinet on the funding needs of the Intelligence and Security Agencies and their effective functioning. The postholder assists the JIC in establishing intelligence requirements and priorities for the Agencies, and advises the Secretary of the Cabinet on matters connected with the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of Parliament. The post is also responsible for the Security Division of the Cabinet Office. 2. Further information about the National Intelligence Machinery can be found on the Cabinet Office website in the Government Machine directory. 3. John Scarlett was a Director in the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) from 1998-2001. He joined public service in 1971, and has had postings in Nairobi, Moscow and Paris. He was educated at Epsom College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford. He is married with three daughters and one son. 4. As already announced, Peter Ricketts has returned to the FCO, where he has been appointed Political Director, in succession to Dr Jones Parry.
SENIOR APPOINTMENT: INTELLIGENCE CO-ORDINATOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE The Prime Minister has approved the appointment of Peter Ricketts as Both moves will take place over the summer.
Romulus A very interesting post a 7.04pm. What do you infer from those reported transfers and appointments. You are obviously trying to imply a great deal or you wouldn't have brought them to our attention. Please elucidate, I'm always up for juicy theories about sub rosa wheelie-dealies and your analysis and historical delineation is always entertaining. Are you suggesting that Blair was getting all his ducks in a row before 9/11? Or am I getting too excited? Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 5, 2004 01:12 AMNo Frank, nothing more mundane than the fact that the others returned to the FCO but Scarlett came from SIS......Civil Servants/Diplomats are used to resisting political pressure and turning in a balanced view, Scarlett will be looked down on by the FCO Mandarins, and as we see rightly so.....he lacks judgment Posted by: Romulus at February 5, 2004 07:51 AMWhat continues to bother me is that the Tories are still using a successful war -- a war that has moderated the Middle East and therefore made a future UK a safer place -- as a cudgel with which to beat Blair. It's such nonsense, and again forces natural conservatives such as myself to side with Blair. When will Howard wake up? Posted by: chip at February 5, 2004 03:18 PMSorry Chip, I disagree. Blair has politicised the Intelligence Services and failed to equip the Army; he has 25% troops in iraq by drawing on TA, and us usinfg TA Medics from the NHS who will resign from the TA when they return. The country has TA SAS soldiers in Afghanistan. Blair needed the dossier simply because he wanted to have a vote in parliament and bind his party, NO vote is necessary for a Prime Minister to go to war under Royal Prerogative using Privy Council. He wanted a vote, and he gave misleading briefings to the Leader of the Opposition. You may like the War; I like having a Constitution and a Parliamentary Democracy....I have a feeling both are on the slide. We had a war against terrorists for which we need SIS/MI6....in my area they are trying to recruit Muslims as agents to infiltrate the cells in Britain and Pakistan; just why should someone risk their neck in this way if Alistair Campbell is the one handling their product, or if they are abused like David Kelly. Parliament was once a major institution, Blair has subverted it and perverted the Civil Service in a manner that has weakened democracy and may well fracture our political system. He may have done a right thing, but for the wrong motives, and in the wrong way, and deceitfully manipulated information and presentation such as to undermine democracy and the sovereignty of Parliament.......all for party-political reasons.....because he is loathed in his party and needed to hoodwink them into backing him Posted by: Romulus at February 5, 2004 04:34 PMhe has 25% of those troops in Iraq by drawing on TA reserves, and is using TA Medics from the NHS who will resign from the TA when they return. Posted by: Romulus at February 5, 2004 04:35 PMI think it boils down to: did Blair take liberties during the build up to war (in making the case)? Did he exaggerate; exercise a degree of being liberal with the truth? It has been made clear many times by Tories, that there was no need to “sex up” the case for war. If Tony Blair did fall into this trap, I don’t blame him. The anti-Iraqi-liberation Left have gone all the way in sexing up the case not to go to war. From poorly constructed “it’s about the oil” conspiracy theories to “let Blix do his job” nonsense; the debate has been and still is poisoned by these goblins. Posted by: Poosh at February 5, 2004 04:58 PMRomulus It's difficult to argue with the points you make about Blair's ineptitude and mendacity in many areas. The logistical cock-ups and cynical disregard for detail - all true. He seems to me to have a second class mind (as I think someone else once said of him). And we all know he was a secondary player to Bush vis-a-vis the liberation of Iraq, even though our own boys punched well above their weight militarily and, because of their NI experience, were better in the 'hearts and minds' department; while the GI's adopted the 'grab them by the balls and the hearts and minds will follow' tactic, which has backfired. Indeed Blair was a dire obstruction to Bush at times in the run up to the invasion and I thought Bush was a little foolish to worry about Blair's problems with his own party. But Bush made good PR out of Blair's popularity with the American public. In fact I spent some time in New York in October and found that across a wide spectrum of political opinion vox pops was louder for Blair than for Bush. But the anti-American anti-Jewish bile from the Beeb (through the BBC channel in New York - more muted than here, but still obvious) was beginning to irk my buddies Stateside and they are even more irate now. Despite all of that, the semantics are now extremely tedious. Pragmatically, surely now that Saddam is banged up, raking over the pre invasion lack of clarity, the politicking, and internal mumblings from inside the intelligence community (which has overall been pretty mediocre in it's collection, evaluation, collation, analysis and dissemination), all parties in the Westminster Gas Works should be striving to assist the Americans and our people at the sharp end to bring about stability over there and a hand over of power, so that our chaps can come home. Party politics and premature electioneering are small beer by comparison and the overweening ambitions of people like Howard, Gordon Brown and the obnoxious Robin Cook, present a spectacle that I find difficult to stomach, when everyone in the miltary and law enforcement are trying to cope with the worst security threat this country has had since the blitz. And I say that as one who chased around London like a blue-arsed fly on the day the IRA hit the Old Bailey and almost got New Scotland Yard among several other targets. Moreover, the BBC are still up to their old tricks, manifestly demonstrated in Question Time tonight. If that was really an unbiased representation of the British Public, I'm no longer living in the country I was born and which I have served all my life. As for the panel - beneath contempt! All of them, but particularly that scruffy little polecat Liddle, who obviously fancies himself as stand up comedian for Late Night Comedy Club - second billing to Graham Norton. What a Liddle rod he is. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 6, 2004 01:58 AMFrank, Liddle and Cook are comedians. The problem is that Blair has sent troops around the world more than anyone since 1945. We now read (telegraph 6.02) that Hoon sold off military stocks and left only enough to equip 9.000 soldiers.......then he should have only sent 9.000 soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan.......we should not be selling off Army stocks to save money and buying Eurofighter and Aircraft Carriers while cutting the Army back and sending it into combat. I am not willing to pervert my democracy for people in Iraq. To my mind there was only one answer to Blair's 45-minute hype in New Labour's proxy for The London Gazette ie The Sun. If Saddam Hussein presented a 45-minute threat to us, we should have used a full-thermonuclear strike using Poseidon boats and not bothered sending in rag-tag-and-bobtail dressed in British Army uniforms but without the requisite kit.......they did not have te NBC filters or suits, and some lacked ammunition and radio gear.......... Chamberlain was held to account over Narvik; they did not say we must support him whatever disaster unfolds; and Churchill was very uncharitable with generals who failed to get results to his timetable.......... Blair has failed as a Prime Minister, and especially as a War Leader.......he is more incompetent than Thatcher was in causing the Falklands (and she did through penny-pinching on HMS Endeavour)........I do not accept incompetence Frank; this country is far too tolerant of failure and deceit, calling it "spin" rather than Propaganda. Posted by: Romulus at February 6, 2004 06:41 AMRomulus Those points are taken, because your knowledge and erudition obviously extends far beyond mine and what you says sounds logical and fair. But you still haven't addressed the point of Howard's duplicity on behalf of the Tories; if party political interest is put before national security (at this point in time - because this wrangling must encourage both the enemy without and the enemy within) isn't that going to prolong the agony? And again, I implore someone to give me a prognosis of what would would have happened if Blair had lost the vote to go to war and let Bush go it alone? Are you saying that we and Iraq would have been better off? War is hell but what alternative was there? And please don't tell me the UN would have eventually sorted it, while France, Germany and Russia went on dealing sub rosa with Saddam. As old Bert Wickstead once said to me, after I had discussed some interesting intelligence analysis with him for half an hour or so "Sooner or later we've got to feel some bugger's collar and stop f****** about!" Sorry to use these constabulary aphorisms, but I'm sure you get my drift? Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 6, 2004 04:59 PMFrank, Blair never needed a vote to go to war. I condemn him for it. British Governments do NOT need Parliament's approval; they use an Order in Council and Privy Council members decide. Blair had the vote because he is weak. He was frightened of going to war with Conservative votes and splitting his party like Ramsay MacDonald so he would be dependent on Tory support. Therefore he had to frighten his party into voting to support HIM. That is what the whole Kelly, Campbell, BBC, 45-minute thing is about - a Prime Minister who cannot lead but is frightened of his own party. That is why I condemn him...he has not acted as a Prime Minister but as a party politician looking after party interests, which is why they did not order the Army jkit until the last minute so as not to prejudice the Labour vote - a vote we did not require constitutionally Posted by: Romulus at February 6, 2004 05:05 PMRomulus I agree with all those points; and the ones you made over on the other thread, good stuff. And I hope that Blair goes at the next election (not before for Pete's sake; not glowering Gordie to tide us over), but you still haven't addressed the pragmatic issue about not encouraging the enemy with a display of domestic squabbling. We can all register our vote at the next election to punish whoever for whatever. But in the meantime ...??? Posted by: at February 6, 2004 05:31 PMKelly's last TV interview to be shown Dr David Kelly's last recorded television interview - given four weeks before he died - will be broadcast in a documentary about the late scientist's career. The Five documentary follows Dr Kelly's career from the labs of Britain's biological warfare research centre at Porton Down to the Soviet Union.
|
