This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
The Ukraine story has followed this pattern with dubious claims being made and repeated by U.S. and Ukrainian officials and then amplified by a credulous Western news media, persuading people who otherwise might know better -- even when supporting evidence is lacking.
Similarly, Official Washington's chorus of loud demands for ignoring Merkel and sending sophisticated weapons to Ukraine continues to build with the latest member of the choir, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
On March 4, Clapper broke the important ethos of professional intelligence officers scrupulously avoiding policy advocacy when he told an audience in New York that the U.S. should arm the Ukrainians "to bolster their resolve and bolster their morale that, you know, we are with them."
Clapper offered this endorsement as his "personal opinion," but who cares about James Clapper's personal opinion? He is Director of National Intelligence, for God's sake, and his advocacy immediately raises questions about whether Clapper's "personal opinion" will put pressure on his subordinates to shape intelligence analysis to please the boss.
We saw a possible effect of this recently when journalist Robert Parry contacted the DNI's office to get an updated briefing on what U.S. intelligence has concluded about who was at fault for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
Blaming the Russians
In prepared testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary Nuland had insinuated that the Russians and the ethnic Russian rebels were to blame. She said, "In eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage; MH-17 was shot down."
This may have been another example of Nuland using "rhetoric" to shape the debate, but it prompted Parry to ask the DNI's office about what evidence there was to support Nuland's finger-pointing in this tragic incident that killed 298 people.
Kathleen Butler, a DNI spokesperson, insisted that the U.S. intelligence assessment on MH-17 had not changed since July 22, 2014, five days after the shoot-down when the DNI's office distributed a sketchy report suggesting Russian complicity based largely on what was available on social media.
Parry then sent a follow-up e-mail saying: "are you telling me that U.S. intelligence has not refined its assessment of what happened to MH-17 since July 22, 2014?" Butler responded: "Yes. The assessment is the same." To which, Parry replied: "That's just not credible." [See Consortiumnews.com's "US Intel Stands Pat on MH-17 Shoot-down."]
But the DNI's response does make sense if later U.S. intelligence analysis contradicted the initial rush to judgment by Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials blaming Russia and the rebels. The Obama administration might not want to surrender a useful propaganda club to bash Moscow, or as Nuland might say, an important piece of anti-Russian "rhetoric."
As for Brennan and his appearance before the stuffy Council on Foreign Relations fielding questions posed by Charlie Rose as the "presider," the CIA director seemed more concerned about the flak his agency has been getting for having a cloudy crystal ball and not anticipating how the Ukraine crisis would unfold, saying:
"Now I know that many would like the CIA to predict the future -- answering questions such as 'will Crimea secede and be annexed by Russia' and 'will Russian forces move into Eastern Ukraine.' But the plain and simple truth is that ... virtually all events around the globe, future events -- including in Ukraine -- are shaped by numerous variables and yet-to-happen developments as well as leadership considerations and decisions."
But the prospect of CIA analysts seeing events clearly -- both understanding what may have caused an event in the past and perceiving the complex forces that may shape the future -- are diminished when the U.S. intelligence community becomes politicized and exploited for propaganda purposes, when it gets enlisted into "information warfare."
Obama could surely use some experienced, mature help in putting an end to this potpourri of you-pick-your-favorite-statement about "Russian aggression." The disarray and deceit on such an important issue does nothing to bolster confidence that he has been tutored well, that he understands the value of sober intelligence work, or that he is in control of U.S. foreign policy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
6
5
