Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Given Awards
 |
James Joyner | Saturday, May 28, 2005 |
Two Army analysts considered chiefly responsible for the infamous “aluminum tubes” report have been given performance awards.
Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded (WaPo, A1)
Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq — the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets — have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said. The civilian analysts, former military men considered experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry, work at the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), one of three U.S. agencies singled out for particular criticism by President Bush’s commission that investigated U.S. intelligence.
[...]
The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts’ work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq’s military. The panel said the finding represented a “serious lapse in analytic tradecraft” because the center’s personnel “could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question.”
Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.
Quite bizarre. Of course, most civil service employees get “Superior” performance evaluations and performance bonuses every year. Lake Wobegon has nothing on the U.S. government.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Swine flu is more popular than Dodd
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- PAXALLES linked with Iraqi Intel Aluminum Siding Tubes Salespersons Reap Rewards - In Accord with Government's Accountability "Tenet"
- HerbEly linked with Platt?s Law, Aluminum Tubes, and Forefinger Pointing
The entire Administration involved with the Bush Crime Family has been rewarded by being returned to office.
Is any one more responsible for the Iraq debacle
than Bush and mr haliburton
I wish I had worked for whichever Federal agency you're referring to when you say most CS employees get performance bonuses every year. In my 5-year stint with the Corps of Engineers, that definitely didn't happen, to me or the people around me.
Yea, I thought we had this whole "accountability moment" last November. I don't know why anyone is surprised about all this.
Just under a decade ago, I was working for the same agency. While I have no idea of what happened, the analysts involved were experts. I can guess that their reports, carefully written, challenged the administration's contention that the aluminum tubes were suitable only for enrichment. Management, aware of the administration case, made the challenge more oblique. DOE, withheld information. Top management, wanting to make the case, ignored the oblique challenge, just as they did with Curveball.
Part of the problem was a failure to ask the right question. Even if the tubes had been suitable only for uranium enrichment, it would have meant that the Iraqi's were only part way to fielding a weapon. this was not an immanent threat and would not have justified a war.
I'm sorry for the analysts involved. If the full story is ever known, I guess it will be another case of SRD- S--- rolls downhill.
Nobody ever claimed the threat was "imminent." The whole notion of "pre-emptive" war is that you take action before it's imminent.
Jeez.
Comments are Closed
