D. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Senior Intelligence Analyst
(U) Committee staff contacted a DIA senior intelligence analyst who, in a previous assignment, had supported the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Special Plans and Near East/South Asia (NESA). The senior analyst's name had been provided to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice Chairman's staff by a former DIA intelligence analyst who believed the senior analyst had experienced pressure to change his analysis from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), specifically the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Special Plans and NESA. The senior analyst's name also came to the Committee's attention when he was mentioned in an October 22, 2003, Washington Post article as having sharply disagreed with the Deputy Under Secretary about "the imminence of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
(U) The senior analyst told Committee staff that the Washington Post article was incorrect because he "never discussed the imminence of the Iraqi threat" with the Deputy Under Secretary. When asked whether he felt any pressure himself, or was aware of any analysts within the DIA who believed they were pressured by anyone in the Administration, particularly by any Department of Defense officials, to change their assessments on Iraq's WMD programs or links to terrorism, the senior analyst said, "no," but said he thought that, " . . . generally it was understood how receptive OSD civilians were to our assessments and what kind of assessments they would not be receptive to." When asked to provide some examples of how this affected analysis, the senior analyst said he was not able to provide any examples related to Iraq. The senior analyst added that, regarding his briefings on the probable Iraqi military reaction to a U.S. operation, "I don't think [the Deputy Under Secretary] had a lot of disagreement with that."
(U) The senior analyst did provide an example of a brief on Israel that he said had not been well received in which he said that the Israeli Defense Forces had "assassinated" terrorist leadership. He said the Deputy Under Secretary told him that the word "assassinated" was very sensitive and said he should not use it. The senior analyst then told the Deputy Under Secretary that he was only using a word that the Israeli press uses and said the Deputy Under Secretary then asked him if the Jerusalem Post used the term "assassinations." The senior analyst told him that three Hebrew journals used the term and he later brought copies of those articles, with highlighted examples of the word "assassinated" to the Deputy Under Secretary. He said that, nevertheless, he never again used the word "assassinated."
(U) The senior analyst also said that he believed the Deputy Under Secretary had been "abusive." When asked for an example of how the Deputy Under Secretary had been abusive, the senior analyst said he was briefing on the number of casualties on each side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Deputy Under Secretary, "raised his voice and waved his hand and said, 'I don't want to hear about that. Tell me what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan.' " The senior analyst said that was the only instance of "abuse," and said that this prompted him to stop briefing the Deputy Under Secretary and to send his subordinates to conduct the briefings instead.
(U) The senior analyst said these briefings prompted him and the Deputy Under Secretary to "mutually back [ ] away" from dealing with each other. The senior analyst said that after this, he was excluded from several bilateral military coordination meetings with foreign governments which the Deputy Under Secretary had attended. He said that he was excluded by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. When asked why he believed he was excluded from the meetings, the senior analyst said that, "I think personalities are involved." When asked later whether he was excluded from the meetings because of personality differences or because the Deputy Under Secretary disagreed with his analysis, the senior analyst said, "I think it was a combination of both," but he could not provide any examples, other than the Israeli Defense Force issue, of when the Deputy Under Secretary disagreed with his briefs.
(U) The senior analyst also said that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs began to present a separate policy brief on the potential connection and danger of WMD and terrorists, rather than use a DIA briefing, in the bilateral military coordination meetings. He said the brief was "highly selective," but said that he did not believe the assistant secretary misrepresented the evidence and said although he believed this was unusual, he did not think there was anything improper about it. He said that he and other analysts in DIA had the opportunity to review and make comments on the brief and said that the Assistant Secretary of Defense was receptive to his comments.
(U) When asked if the senior analyst could explain how his belief that OSD civilians were only receptive to certain assessments may have impacted analysis, the senior analyst could not provide any examples of an effect on DIA assessments or analysis. The analyst said he believed, "analysts were free to make assessments they ordinarily wanted to make, subject to quality control in our agency," and said, "that has never been an explicit sense or understanding," that analysts were making their assessments more in line with what people wanted to hear rather than what the intelligence said. When asked whether analysts refrained from writing assessments that they wanted to write because they believed no one was receptive to the analysis, he said, "I can't say that specifically." He said that he believed, " . . . that is the sort of thing that would have influence on analysts," but again could provide no examples that it did happen. In fact, when staff pointed out that the senior analyst had earlier said the DIA terrorism analysts did not change their assessment on Iraq's links to al Qaeda, even though they were aware that OSD would have liked the analysts to outline more conclusive links, he said, "No, they didn't. I don't think anybody changed their assessments." When asked if preexisting opinions within OSD had any effect on the work that was done at DIA, the senior analyst said, "I can't specifically point to any. I cannot."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
