ABC, CBS ignored top Marine intelligence officer's assessment that major Iraq province is lost
SUMMARY: NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams was the only evening network news broadcast to report on a classified assessment by the Marine Corps intelligence chief in Iraq that describes that country's Anbar province as "lost."
After a September 11 Washington Post article reported that a classified assessment by the Marine Corps intelligence chief in Iraq had described that country's Anbar province as "lost," NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams was the only evening network news broadcast to report the story. To date, ABC's World News with Charles Gibson and CBS' Evening News with Katie Couric have not mentioned the story.
The Post article stated that "[t]he chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps," Col. Pete Devlin, submitted an "unusual secret report" that "prospects for securing [Iraq's] western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there." The Post did not obtain a copy of the August 16 report, but collected assessments from military officers and other officials. Devlin's assessment has since been widely reported. The Post article noted that an Army officer said the report suggested that "[w]e haven't been defeated militarily [in Anbar] but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost." The article also reported that "[a]nother person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar." Further, the Post asserted that the report's "conclusions are striking because ... the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made."
In contrast with the nightly news programs on ABC and CBS, the September 12 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News covered the story. Host Brian Williams introduced NBC's report by stating that "U.S. forces are apparently preparing to walk away from a big part of Iraq, the hugely important Anbar province." NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported that "[a] new military intelligence report offers up the most pessimistic assessment yet of the military prospects for al-Anbar province" and that "[t]he top-secret report" stated "that there's no chance the U.S. military can end insurgent violence in al-Anbar." Miklaszewski added that the report "said there were never enough American troops in al-Anbar province from the very beginning."
Although ABC's World News with Charles Gibson did not cover the report on Anbar province, ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz did question White House press secretary Tony Snow about the report during a September 12 press briefing. Raddatz noted that "a senior Marine intelligence officer" had said that "if you did not get more troops" in Anbar province, "the situation would continue to deteriorate." She asked, "Are they gonna get more troops there? How are you going to stop it?" Snow eventually responded: "[I]f the president gets a recommendation from the combatant commanders to send more troops to al-Anbar province, they will get them." ABC broadcast the press briefing live on the afternoon of September 12.
From a September 11 article in The Washington Post:
The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.
One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."
[...]
Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.
Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.
Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made.
From the September 12 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: As if to add insult to injury for the Bush administration, we have learned tonight U.S. forces are apparently preparing to walk away from a big part of Iraq, the hugely important Anbar province. That story tonight, Jim Miklaszewski standing by at the Pentagon. Jim, good evening.
MIKLASZEWSKI: Good evening, Brian. A new military intelligence report offers up the most pessimistic assessment yet of the military prospects for al-Anbar province. That's the no-man's land in western Iraq that has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the war. In places like Fallujah, Hit, and the provincial capital, Ramadi, which the U.S. military has never controlled. The top-secret report by a Marine Corps intelligence officer says there's no chance the U.S. military can end insurgent violence in al-Anbar. There's no viable government institutions or chance for political progress anytime soon. Even more ominous, Al Qaeda has been rushing in to fill that political vacuum. And military officials say that Al Qaeda's also recruiting, increasing numbers of Iraqi Sunnis to join that terrorist group, Brian.
WILLIAMS: And Jim, if the Americans choose to make a go of it there, does that necessarily mean a lot more U.S. troops?
MIKLASZEWSKI: Well, that military intelligence report said there were never enough American troops in al-Anbar province from the very beginning. In fact, one senior military official tells us it would take 50 to 60 thousand more U.S. ground forces to secure al-Anbar, and that's just not going to happen. Now, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said today there has been some military and economic progress, but for the first time, it appears that the U.S. is preparing to eventually concede a large piece of Iraq to the enemy and leave it entirely up to the Iraqis themselves to sort it out. Brian.
WILLIAMS: All right, Jim, thanks for that. Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon.
From the September 12 White House press briefing:
RADDATZ: OK, then let's go to the area where terrorism is a very serious problem, al-Anbar province, where your commanders say terrorism is a very serious problem. And you had a senior Marine intelligence officer say if you did not get more troops there, the situation would continue to deteriorate.
SNOW: Well, there are couple of things, and --
RADDATZ: Are they gonna get more troops there? How are you going to stop it?
SNOW: Well, two things. First, his combatant commander is briefing the press even as we speak. He started just a couple of minutes ago. Earlier today, General [Richard C.] Zilmer, who outranks the Colonel, but is aware of the report, said that, "Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation in the al-Anbar province. The classified assessment, which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects coalition and Iraqi forces have." He goes on to say that it is clear that there's violence in al-Anbar province. The answer is, if the president gets a recommendation from the combatant commanders to send more troops to al-Anbar province, they will get them.
RADDATZ: So, what the intelligence officer said, who has been there seven, eight months and seen conditions on the ground every single day, I believe General Zilmer is not there every single day. What he says is what?
SNOW: It is -- what he says is something to take seriously. I suspect that there are many other data points to be gathered from people in al-Anbar. And as you know, what the job of a commander is, is to go and sort through that very intelligence and figure out the best way to proceed. The idea that somehow, somebody has a vested interest in failing in Al-Anbar is preposterous, and you know it. Everybody, including the colonel who writes the report, wants to succeed there. And so --
RADDATZ: But I also know what those reports are and how meaningful they are if someone has been on the ground for eight months.
SNOW: I understand that. And there have also been a lot of other -- you're assuming that there's only one person who's entitled to speak on it. It is conceivable that other people have differing assessments. And I do think that the person who has direct operational responsibility will do more than simply sort of pull his chin and try to come to a conclusion. It is his job to assess the intelligence he gets, not merely from that colonel, but from many others, and to come up with an assessment. Let me reiterate. The president made it clear. He didn't want anybody BS'ing him. He doesn't want anybody lying to him. He didn't want anybody shading the truth to him. He has made it absolutely clear to generals that the job is to win. And the first thing you have to do is, to the best of your ability, cut through that fog of war and tell him what the situation is and what they need to get the job done, and that continues to be the case.
that Marine is a cut-and-run appeaser who hates America and freedom, coddles terrorists, and has forgotten the lessons of September the 11th.
no surprise there. And seeing how low CBS has gone, not really shocked there either. Sad...
During Katie's first "week", CBS had 19 minutes of hard news. Meanwhile, NBC had 44, and ABC 46.
Nineteen minutes of hard news a week means you are going to miss a lot of hard news. One story that lacked sufficient reporting (if there was any) was that the Senate rejected an amendment to protect civilian lives from cluster bombs (S. Amendment 4882 on Sept 6). Seventy Senators rejected the amendment and prominant Democrats such as Clinton and Lieberman joined the unanimous Republican Senators in the rejection.
Releasing of classified info is bad news. Repeating it for political gain is a crime of the highest order. This off of Milblog.org:
"Why You Shouldn't Give Secrets To Journalists [Bubblehead] A Navy JAG is being charged with sending information about Gitmo prisoners to someone "outside the government". From the linked article:
A Navy lawyer who was stationed at Guantanamo Bay has been charged with copying and sending secret information about detainees in U.S. custody to someone outside the government. Lt. Cmdr. Matthew M. Diaz could face more than 36 years in prison if convicted of three violations of military law. Diaz, now based in Jacksonville, Fla., is tentatively scheduled for a preliminary hearing in October in Norfolk, said Beth Baker, a spokeswoman for the Navy's Mid-Atlantic Region. According to the eight specific counts against him, which the Navy released Monday, Diaz deliberately made "a print out of classified secret information connected with the national defense" between Dec. 20, 2004, and Feb. 28, 2005... ...Baker would not identify the person with whom Diaz is accused of sharing secret information. She said only that the recipient was a non government official whose identity likely would come out in testimony. The recipient of the document notified federal authorities, Baker said, and the Navy Criminal Investigative Service began an inquiry in February 2005. Now, I don't know for sure that the person he sent the information to, and who subsequently ratted him out, was a journalist, but it would make sense. More broadly, this lesson could apply to everyone in D.C. who wants to release secrets to make a political point." """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Back on topic,
Let's look at one of the first paragraphs again:
"The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report ... said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Secret Report...classified assessment...Hmm. Who are these officers and officials who would release this info? Looks like NJAG will be involved soon.
seriously, what's with these pinko flip-floppin marines and their defeatist attitudes.
I would call Anbar "misplaced" ,not lost.
We're losing! Tell noone! Classify! Classify!
The Daleks have taken over.
SHOULD mean an informed public with some input into making policy. There was NOTHING in the reporting of that report that should be a military secret. Nothing that endangers troops or is something the enemy doesnt already KNOW. The dirty little secret is supposed to be kept from AMERICANS. The only reason this will remain secret is that it is bad news. Americans have a need for real information in order to make informed decisions about what policies to support. Only those who think the people are and should remain a bewildered herd that ought to just shut up and not question their betters would complain that undisputed facts are which are NOT military secrets are being disseminated to the people. Its a fascist mentality.
There was NOTHING in the reporting of that report that should be a military secret.
The report is classified. We don't know exactly what is in it. Reporting on classified information is dangerous, even if only secret.
Nothing that endangers troops or is something the enemy doesnt already KNOW.
So you are saying that based on just a few second hand comments. We don't know the details of what is in there.
The dirty little secret is supposed to be kept from AMERICANS. The only reason this will remain secret is that it is bad news. Americans have a need for real information in order to make informed decisions about what policies to support.
Let us presume the content is specifically what the enemy has done to win the public's hearts and minds in that province. One would hope we would not put that information out and instead let the military leaders use the information going forward.
Only those who think the people are and should remain a bewildered herd that ought to just shut up and not question their betters would complain that undisputed facts are which are NOT military secrets are being disseminated to the people. Its a fascist mentality.
I am not a fascist and I oppose releasing military information simply to do so. The report is classified as SECRET. SECRET is normally used for operational information so this is certainly about what is going on. The fact that it is not TS/SCI tells me that it is not intelligence per se but more how the troops can use this going forward. Again this is not something I would want out.
I saw where some had said SECRET and others has said TOP SECRET. I am not sure, perhaps this is infact TS/SCI and therefore intelligence information. That makes me even less inclined to release the report as it will cause us to lose our intelligence collection souce.
I am against keeping things secret if the only real reason is that its either embarassing or puts an administration in bad light. The public SHOULD be involved in making policy, to do so they need the information and it shouldnt be kept from them in order to protect policies from thier informed scrutiny. As to these points I would argue:
1)The report is classified. We don't know exactly what is in it. Reporting on classified information is dangerous, even if only secret. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And if they are military secrets I dont want to know them. That is why I said nothing in the REPORTING of the report. That seems to be the point. They didnt give away any military secrets only information that has no possible military secrecy value. If they report troop movements it would be a different thing. Hogprint is arguing against the release of ANY information in the report no matter its real value to the people or whether or not it has any reason beyond the administration doesnt like what it says to KEEP it secret.
2)So you are saying that based on just a few second hand comments. We don't know the details of what is in there. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Same thing. It doesnt matter what was in the report that they DIDNT pas on to America, only what they did and THAT is the point. Its not about what else was in it, we dont know because they DIDNT report it. Only that part with informational value to Americans and NOT military secrecy value.
3)Let us presume the content is specifically what the enemy has done to win the public's hearts and minds in that province. One would hope we would not put that information out and instead let the military leaders use the information going forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not seeing why this makes sense. Are you claiming that they ARE wining hearts and minds but somehow dont know what they are doing to win those hearts and minds? That simply isnt logical. Again the dirty little secret is being kept ONLY from us.
4)SECRET is normally used for operational information so this is certainly about what is going on. The fact that it is not TS/SCI tells me that it is not intelligence per se but more how the troops can use this going forward. Again this is not something I would want out. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I am also not following this. The only thing relevant is what they DID report not what MIGHT have been reported that MIGHT have hurt. Exactly HOW was this information something forward troops could use? Exactly HOW is this operational information? In what way would this be USED for operations in such a way that it being known would hamper that use? Also what Secret was MEANT for doesnt mean it is what it is being USED for. The whole point of keeping it secret seems most likely that the Administration doesnt want Americans to know this is the militarys assessment of the issue its hard to see any military operational value to this information. Its easy to see why Bush wouldnt WANT Americans to know this is the military assessment but its also easy to see why they SHOULD know what the military assessment is. The military just like the President works for US collectively and we pay for these studies. We have a RIGHT to any information there is no good reason to keep secret. Now I see no reasonable argument that what was reported falls exactly into that category
Are you claiming that they ARE wining hearts and minds but somehow dont know what they are doing to win those hearts and minds? That simply isnt logical. Again the dirty little secret is being kept ONLY from us.
I am saying that when I was in and we would collect information on what worked and didn't work we would not let the enemy know. They could be doing 40 different things and 10 work. We don't want them to know which 10 work. Also, the importance is also in our use to counter those actions. If they know how we will counter (or specifically what it is counter against) they can adapt more quickly. This is the way intelligence planning works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4)SECRET is normally used for ... not something I would want out.
I am also not following this. The only thing relevant is what they DID report not what MIGHT have been reported that MIGHT have hurt. Exactly HOW was this information something forward troops could use? Exactly HOW is this operational information? In what way would this be USED for operations in such a way that it being known would hamper that use?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think our difference here is that I look at the totality of the document. Pieces that got out may not look important at first glance but may actually assist the people on the ground as they prepare to counter the US next move.
Also what Secret was MEANT for doesnt mean it is what it is being USED for. The whole point of keeping it secret seems most likely that the Administration doesnt want Americans to know this is the militarys assessment of the issue its hard to see any military operational value to this information. Its easy to see why Bush wouldnt WANT Americans to know this is the military assessment but its also easy to see why they SHOULD know what the military assessment is. The military just like the President works for US collectively and we pay for these studies. We have a RIGHT to any information there is no good reason to keep secret. Now I see no reasonable argument that what was reported falls exactly into that category
I know that we would classify documents as a matter of course because even snippets were so useful. Often that was all we had on the other side but with enough coming in you could deduce what was actually going on. I don't know that the President sent out an order saying to classify bad news but he may have. More likely this is a situation where the people on the ground don't want to give anything up that will hurt them later. In this particular situation, it is much like the PDB title, "Osama planning to attack US". Since the article is classified (I never had access to a PDB) we don't know what was actually said. People will believe it says what best supports their view. Much like how in this case many on the right are keying in on the word "soon" saying it is not lost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree that Americans should have access to anything that won't hurt our troops. I am just saying that this does not necessarily fall into that.
"For in 1950, as Edgar and Schmidt also note, in the wake of a series of cold-war espionage cases, and with the Chicago Tribune episode still fresh in its mind, Congress added a very clear provision to the U.S. Criminal Code dealing specifically with “communications intelligence”—exactly the area reported on by the Times and James Risen. Here is the section in full, with emphasis added to those words and passages applicable to the conduct of the New York Times:
§798. Disclosure of Classified Information.
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section— The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This is a good article. It mainly deals with the Plame case, but it applies to this thread also.
[link to www.commentarymagazine.com]
Some are classified simply to spare the Moron in Chief from embarrassment and having to confront the stupidity of his (i.e. Karl Rove's) policies. Those classified documents SHOULD be leaked. The American public has a right to know when they're being screwed.
Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are the real traitors. They've sold us out for money and power.
Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules In a momentous expansion of the government's authority to regulate public disclosure of national security information, a federal court ruled that even private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information.
The ruling (pdf) by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, denied a motion to dismiss the case of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were charged under the Espionage Act with illegally receiving and transmitting classified information.
The decision is a major interpretation of the Espionage Act with implications that extend far beyond this particular case.
The Judge ruled that any First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech involving national defense information can be superseded by national security considerations.
"Although the question whether the government's interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government [i.e. not holding security clearances] is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense," Judge Ellis wrote (p. 53).
The provisions of the Espionage Act are not impermissibly overbroad or unconstitutional, the Judge ruled, because they are limited by the requirements that the prohibited behavior be both knowing and willful.
"The government must... prove that the person alleged to have violated these provisions knew the [restricted] nature of the information, knew that the person with whom they were communicating was not entitled to the information, and knew that such communication was illegal, but proceeded nonetheless."
"Finally, with respect only to intangible information [as opposed to documents], the government must prove that the defendant had a reason to believe that the disclosure of the information could harm the United States or aid a foreign nation...."
"So construed, the statute is narrowly and sensibly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interest in protecting the national security, and its effect on First Amendment freedoms is neither real nor substantial as judged in relation to this legitimate sweep," Judge Ellis wrote (p. 63).
Secrecy News from the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy
This war is now three years old. Sitrep from Iraq? Kurdistan has just taken down the Iraqi flag. They're flying their own. Iraqi government officials openly talking about the break up of the country. Vicious sectarian violence, Baghdad is practically in fiefdoms. Shi'a hardliners taking over the south, with taliban-style conservatism. Now the assessment that Al-Anbar is lost, the Sunni Triangle...who woulda guessed?
Other theaters. Afghanistan, four years running, bin Laden and Zawahiri still at large, Mullah Omar and Taliban allowed to regroup, anti-US sentiment high, native government militarily weak and constructively ineffective.
Analyze intel. Conclusions? Militarily, we suck. We're going nowhere on either front and it's already FOUR years since the first US boot stepped onto Afghani soil. We haven't won any hearts and minds, we're breaking all the rules of war, this is really bad generaling.