The Uses and Misuses of Intelligence in Four US Wars
Friday 15 October 2010
by: Melvin A. Goodman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: public domain / Wikimedia)
President Harry S. Truman created the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947 to ensure that the policy community would have access to independent intelligence analysis that was free of the policy advocacy of the Department of State and the Department of Defense. The CIA's most important analytic mission was the production of national intelligence estimates (NIEs) and assessments that tracked significant political and military developments and provided premonitory intelligence on looming threats and confrontations.
One gauge for measuring the success of the CIA's intelligence analysis is to measure the Agency's performance before and during four controversial wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Three presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, and Johnson) did not interfere with the production of intelligence analysis in these crises; two presidents (Nixon and George W. Bush) tried to slant intelligence analysis; and now President Obama is fighting a war without benefit of the estimative capabilities of the intelligence community.
President Truman wanted sensitive intelligence with the bark on, and that is what he and President Dwight Eisenhower got from the CIA during the Korean War. Unfortunately, the CIA made a series of fundamental errors in its judgments, including failures to understand the policies and actions of North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, ascertain the nature of Kim's dialogue with the Soviets and the Chinese, provide strategic warning of Kim's decision to go to war, and anticipate China's entry into the war.
As a result of these failures, President Truman named the first civilian director of the CIA - Allen Dulles - and supported the creation of an elite Office of National Estimates (ONE) under Harvard Professor William Langer, a senior Office of Strategic Services (OSS) analyst during World War II. ONE consisted of two offices, an upper tier known as the Board of National Estimates (BNE), composed of senior government and academic officials, and an estimates staff composed of intelligence professionals who drafted NIE's. ONE quickly became the focal point of the CIA's intelligence analysis until it was abolished in 1973 by CIA director James Schlesinger, who shared the Nixon administration's desire to end ONE's independence and its dominance within the intelligence community.
The CIA and ONE did some of their best work before and during the Vietnam War when they told the Johnson and Nixon administrations that the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and would not be a capable ally in the war against the North and that the strategic bombing campaign would fail. The CIA also prepared excellent analysis on North Vietnam's order of battle, which was far more accurate than the politicized intelligence coming from the Pentagon. While Johnson and Nixon did not try to tailor the intelligence analysis of the CIA, they did something worse. They ignored the intelligence that could have prevented the US disaster in Vietnam - and they were contemptuous of the analysts who produced these assessments. Eventually, President Nixon forced the resignation of CIA director Richard Helms for allowing the production of these unwelcome NIE's and appointed Schlesinger as CIA director, hoping to stop the flow of bad news on Vietnam and remove the "existing regime of anti-Nixon Georgetown dilettantes and free-range liberals."
The Iraq war, of course, brought forth the worst in CIA tailoring of intelligence, particularly in the run-up to the war. The CIA cherry-picked the evidence to support the Bush administration's case for war and thoroughly corrupted the intelligence process to convince Congress and the American people of the need for war. In October 2002, the CIA produced a phony intelligence assessment on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), followed by a declassified white paper on WMD which was nothing less than an exercise in policy advocacy and thus a violation of the CIA's charter. The efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, to tailor CIA intelligence have been well documented. The failure to tell truth to power in the case of the Iraq war is the most serious intelligence failure in U.S. history.
The Obama administration's decision-making on the Afghan War has been both puzzling and disappointing. Obama campaigned on the basis of greater openness and transparency in government as well as a willingness to consult diverse viewpoints. His decision-making on Afghanistan has not reflected those promises, a shortcoming particularly apparent in light of his failure to commission NIE's on Afghanistan in 2009 before the decisions were made to significantly expand U.S. forces there. This is in stark contrast to the Vietnam War, when there was a strong debate within the intelligence community on Southeast Asia and the White House and the National Security Council were well apprised of the discussion.
An intelligence assessment could help to answer questions on crucial points regarding the course of the Afghan War, including the relations between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the success of a counterinsurgency campaign without the benefit of a stable indigenous government, the unwillingness of Pakistan to degrade and disrupt Taliban efforts to launch military or terrorist attacks, and the uncertainty of stabilizing governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Either President Obama does not believe that the CIA and the intelligence community have the resources to provide useful insight into these matters, or he realizes that the findings of such an assessment would not be helpful to the policy he has already decided to pursue.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Seems funny the article left
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 14:46 — drosera (not verified)Seems funny the article left out two egregious failures of CIA intelligence--perhaps because they didn't relate to wars. The Bay of Pigs was, of course, a total fiasco. Then, the failure of the CIA to predict the fall of the Soviet Union stands out as evidence for utter incompetence. Add to these failures the illegal actions of the CIA such as the behind-the-scenes manipulations that allowed Allende to be murdered and you have a picture of an organization that should be disbanded and then rebuilt from the top down. We need intelligence but we do not need it from an organization that cooks the books in order to please a political administration or commits illegal acts to achieve results this country deems desirable.
Mt. Goodman, do you know
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 15:17 — Bill (not verified)Mt. Goodman, do you know anything about the history of intelligence in the United States? You claim that Truman, Eisnhower, and Johnson did not interfere with the production of intelligence analysis?
Truman closed down the intelligence agency that was successful in the previous war, the OSS, for political reasons, and established a new agency, so that it's intelligence would be tailored to it's policy.
As far a Johnson, let's suffice to ask, have you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? I guess not. The CIA was completely tailoring it's intelligence product to suit Johnson's policy objectives.
There are probably more examples with these three presidents, but this should suffice.
Either you are grossly uninformed about intelligence history in the United States, or you are completely deceitful.
In today's climate of
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 16:53 — goobagooba (not verified)In today's climate of mega-mendacity, learning from the past in order not to repeat it has been turned on its head. It now reads "learn from the past in order not to get caught at it a second time."
We live in farcically interesting times.
Mr. Goodman-I'd like to hear
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 17:09 — Anonymous (not verified)Mr. Goodman-I'd like to hear from you RE:20:17-Bill.
JFK wanted to dismantle the
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 19:50 — Anonymous (not verified)JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA after the Bayt Of Pigs. He paid the price. The CIA does not have to worry, with Obama they are safe.
central intelligence agency?
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 20:05 — Anonymous (not verified)central intelligence agency? an oxymoron
As has been said here
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 02:06 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)As has been said here before, Goodman is a government propagandist, and I wish TruthOut would not promulgate the articles of such people.
CIA brings insecurity &
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 06:04 — Anonarcmous (not verified)CIA brings insecurity & uncertainty w/ its knowledge.This becomes intolerable to the unintelligent seated powers OR competing political hopefuls.. No one is allowed to rain on their parade! It undermines. Once colored in any fashion, 'intelligence'--it is NO longer that 'intelligence', & therefore not effective. DUH! We see the end results. No doubt we were effective in WW1&2. But seasons change. We are no longer effective. Save your blood.There will be no one for us, ESP post our torture & mistreatments. USGOHOME.USCOMEHOME...b4it is 2 late.
I have read in other spots
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:31 — Anonymous (not verified)I have read in other spots as well that Obama did not ask the CIA for an NIE on Afghanistan. This of course does not mean that he did not consult with the CIA's Afghan experts, and get their opinions.
Perhaps his logic might have been that an official and possibly public NIE on Afghanistan would only place the many growing intelligence agencies within the DOD in opposition to an NIE,,and possibly take the decision even further out of his own control.
But regardless,, the CIA under George Tenent lost face with his leadership,, if that is what you want to call it.We must all remember that 9-11 could have been easily prevented if the existing agencies were just doing their jobs effectively, and not selfishly,, and we must also remember that "W" tended to ignore warnings about Bin Laden. Our government ignored a lot of early warning signals,, too many to list here.
Let me be more specific:
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 18:49 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Let me be more specific: Goodman conspicuously leaves out the Gulf of Tonkin lie(s), etc., as well as other incidents of the CIA ("al-CIA-duh") cooking the intelligence to "justify" wars and incursions into sovereign countries (an act of war) going clear back to its inception, and would have us believe that al-CIA-duh has supposedly only been cooking the intelligence in recent history. But what is most conspicuous, is that he makes it sound like there is supposedly "good" to be found in al-CIA-duh, and like it should continue to exist, but only "doing what's 'right'"; when what Goodman should be doing, if he was truly a man of truth, is doing nothing but pointing out the facts which prove that al-CIA-duh is evil through and through, from top to bottom, "Left" and "Right"...
...Otherwise, Goodman is
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 18:49 — S. Wolf Britain (not verified)...Otherwise, Goodman is just propagandizing the defense of evil and aiding the true enemy(ies), al-CIA-duh, et al., and the U.S. government, in promoting that there is supposedly redeeming value in evil, whether he is intentionally doing so or not. But condoning ANY such evil is drenching oneself in the blood of the many people who al-CIA-duh has either directly or indirectly mass-murdered, and makes one complicit in it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO redeeming value, WHATSOEVER, in ANY evil! Call evil COMPLETELY by its right name(s), and ENTIRELY tell nothing but the real truth, or don't speak or write about it at all! Don't contribute, intentionally or unintentionally, to whitewashing it! Evil is evil is evil, and it doesn't have any gray area, period!