A critic of .. intelligence .. turns his sights on the Iraq invasion

[struggle4progress]

A PRETEXT FOR WAR: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies
By James Bamford
Reviewed by Douglas Farah

As debate continues to rage about the flaws in the American occupation of Iraq, James Bamford takes a fresh look at the run-up to the 2003 conflict, to examine how pre-war intelligence spurred the onset of war. Bamford, author of two earlier investigative studies of the National Security Agency, The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets, sets out in A Pretext for War to show that key figures in the Bush administration -- national security adviser Richard Perle, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith -- locked in a plan to wage war in Iraq well before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He charges that these four leading hawks manipulated the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency in a desperate attempt to justify a regime change in Iraq that they had been strategizing to bring about for years. He suggests further that the administration's rush to war grew out of a key and chronic blind spot in American policy circles: the failure to recognize the central role of the Palestinian cause in igniting Arab rage against the United States.
<snip>

For Bamford, though, the crowning scandal was the long-incubating plan to force Saddam Hussein out of power by military force. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and other key members of this war faction -- nicknamed the Vulcans -- had long been laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq. Administration insiders such as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill have already made influential versions of this case in their recently published books, and Bamford relies on Clarke's own account of the immediate post-Sept. 11 security meetings to underline the depth of the administration's Iraq fixation.

Bamford traces the personal relations among the key players spanning several decades. Again he adds some interesting bits to the existing record: e.g., the Pentagon's distrust of the CIA's intelligence; internal turf wars among the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney over what kind of intelligence was used in planning for Iraq; and the Pentagon's establishment of separate intelligence shops to counter the CIA and DIA. Bamford also notes that it was the Vulcans Perle and Feith, together with senior State Department adviser David Wormser, who drafted the basic outlines of Bush's plan to oust Saddam, including the doctrine of preemption, back in the mid-1990s, when they were advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu rejected the plan, which gathered dust until Bush's election, when the group returned to the corridors of power. Bamford says that the new fortunes of Perle, Feith and Wormser, together with Bush's personal determination to repay Saddam for his attempt to kill Bush's father, were instrumental in America's decision to go to war.
<snip>

However, Bamford does add to the public record in significant ways. His deconstruction of the role played by Ahmed Chalabi in feeding false information on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to U.S. intelligence agencies and reporters, especially Judith Miller at the New York Times, is especially timely. Chalabi has recently fallen from grace, and the New York Times is reviewing its reporting on WMD, publicly admitting it should have been more skeptical of some of its sources. The story of "Curveball," an Iraqi defector who provided information that was given great credence by both Pentagon intelligence and the national news media only to be debunked, is also instructive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14202-2004Jun3.html

[myopic4141]

1. The guts to shoot down a commercial aircraft.

One question that keeps raising its ugly head is "did we have the guts to shot down a commercial aircraft prior to 11Sep01". I raise this issue because one of the aspects that always bares itself is the readiness of interceptor aircraft. Let us assume that aircraft were ready and got into the air. Would we have still shot down the commercial aircraft. I think not and am skeptical today whether or not it would be the correct course of action.
To help one along in developing an answer, I decided to present a few items for consideration that should go into the shooting down a skyjacked commercial aircraft. The first item that comes to mind is, do the skyjackers intend to use the aircraft as a missile. If not, then the shooting down of the aircraft would most likely kill more people than the other methods of dealing with skyjackers. Another item would be the number of deaths resulting from allowing missile usage vs the number of deaths resulting from shooting down the aircraft. The minimum number of deaths from shooting down the aircraft is going to consist of the skyjackers, the passengers, and the flight crew. The maximum would include who ever happened to be under the aircraft just before it comes to rest. It should be noted that firing a missile at an aircraft to bring it down does not completely destroy an aircraft (that only results in a Hollywood production), so there may be some very large pieces falling from the sky. Where to shoot down the aircraft is going to be determined by the flight path taken by the skyjackers (it is doubtful that fighters will have any effect on redirecting a skyjacked aircraft like the police do in a car chase). Whose families are less important than the target is the most significant of questions. Would you be willing to risk the school your children are attending or the office/residences of your loved ones? If not yours, then who's?
These question were thought of before and the result was that we were prepared to absorb much before before taking action prior to 11Sep01 because we decided that it was more prudent to stay within the boundaries set by our principles regarding innocent life. It was the more difficult path; but, one that set this nation above all others. Now, we appear to be less rational in the actions we are prepared to take and damn the peripheral consequences resulting from not adhering to the bounds of principles. The real question is not whether we have the guts to shoot down a commercial aircraft; but, are we to act rationally when making the decision to do so? Are we truly prepared for the consequences of being wrong in our assumptions prior to taking action? Apparently not for our leaders shy away from taking responsibility for their errant ways.
Seymore Hersh's writings imply that America's downfall began with the invasion of Afghanistan (referenced to in "Hawks Eating Crow" by Eric Alterman). In reality, it began long before that. The mindset of where we are now could be seen while Bush was governor of Texas in his callous attitude towards those on death row; however, the depths did not become apparent until after 11Sep01 when arabs of foreign and American citizenship were rounded up and held without due process in the name of fear. These were the first to be deprived of there rights where there was no retribution for the actions beset upon them. Next came the Afghanistan invasion where captives were exported to countries that allowed torture or Cuba where they could be kept out of the hands of the American Justice System. These captives were declared void of basic human rights as well as not falling under the auspices of the Geneva Convention. It was declared an acceptable lapse in moral as well as legal ethics on how America is to treat others be they guilty or innocent. Such a declaration going unpunished further eroded America's moral authority in the eyes of the world as well as giving a tacit nod to what is being done in America's name by its leaders.
It was only a short hop to Abu Ghraib where the trend of America fully came to light. A natural progression in the path of men without souls. While many felt appalled at what happened, many took a lesser of two evil approach to dispelling blame. As bad as our actions were, the abused would have been worse off under someone else such as Saddam Hussein. Not the most forthright of arguments from our leaders and one that only shows the lack of moral fortitude required to make the right decision on who will or will not die. Because of Bush and his apologists with their "end justifies the means" attitude, we are no longer viewed as a nation which protects the innocent; but, as a nation which will readily sacrifice the innocent instead.
There is a fine line between guts and foolhardiness and I believe Bush has crossed that line. By doing so, he has dragged a nation down with him. Is this the type of individual we wish to have in making the decision as to whether or not a skyjacked aircraft is to be shot down? Truth is that sometimes it takes more guts to stand up against the popular will and do the right thing rather than cave in and do the wrong thing. Bush has given no indication that he has the wherewithal to determine what is the right thing let alone be able to do the right thing when the time comes.

[teryang]

2. What's the difference?

The government allowed terrorists into the country. Gave them flight training. Protected their presence while they were here. Conspired with their paymasters. Obstructed investigation of their activities. Allowed security at US airports to be controlled by a corporation run by foreign nationals (former intelligence and miliary personnel of a foreign power). Allowed another foreign controlled corporation complete access to FAA computer systems. Then the air defense system was virtually shut down by government cover and deception plans enabling the hijackers to do what they will with all lives concerned.

Thank god, the so called "terrorist" attack went for the Godzilla movie production instead of a real attack on strategic infrastructure. The attack on the Pentagon was reminiscient of the murderer who shoots himself with a .32 after killing his wife with a .45 to make it look like an intruder murdered her.

[myopic4141]

3. I would put more of the blame on individuals within the government.

As to allowing foreign terrorists into the country, we do not seem to do very much about home grown terrorists either until after they do something; but, that is one of the risks inherent when living under the umbrella of liberty. Everyone is given until the last instance in time to change their mind about committing to an action. Once committed, then something can be done. That is the American way and unless you wish to live in a police state, that is the way it should be continued.
Their presence was no more or less protected than anyone else who is here legally which many (if not most) of them were and if I remember correctly, one was arrested for being here illegally and incarcerated.
You will have to talk to Bush about obstructing investigations for it was under his direction that a halt was put on investigations concerning Saudis. They were under investigation until Bush took office. I believe it was the orders from the top that prevented what was known from reaching the higher echelons of government.
Boston was under the control of a US firm, so the foreign argument is nonsequitur.
I am not sure what you are referring to regarding foreign access to FAA computers. The ATC computer systems are mostly self contained single function dedicated units whose sole purpose is to track aircraft in US airspace. Foreign ATC systems are similarly constructed and integrated into a larger world wide system via inter-facility communications which consist mostly of flight plans and weather reports. There are two flavors of ATC systems, namely: En-route and Approach. Approach sites handle all aircraft taking off and landing at a particular airport when they are within a 64 mile radius of the airport. En-route handles all aircraft outside of the 64 mile radius while they travel between departure and arrival airports. The information each site has on an aircraft is position (including altitude), velocity, flight plan, aircraft particulars, and incidentals (emergency, hijacked, and etc). Approach sites have additional capabilities such as MSAW (minimum safe altitude warning), conflict alert (collision avoidance), and automated assignments (runway, controller, holding area, and etc). The software cannot be modified except by rebuilding and installing. The system itself has a mean time between failure rate of one complete site failure every 32 years which includes power outages since they have their own battery backup used during auto-switch to internal generators so there is not a whole lot of impetus to rebuilding a costly system (as demonstrated by the fact that the last system upgrade was in 1980).
Your post is in response to my position on the air defense issue, so, I do not need to address that further.
Just out of curiosity, what would be a "strategic infrastructure" target whose damage or total destruction would be such that this country could not absorb and retaliate against?