• Military
• WMD

• Intelligence Menu               

• Systems
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Imagery
• Links

• Homeland Security
• Space

Over the past year, this Committee has focused a large part of its work on reviewing the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, the regime's ties to terrorism, Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and his regime's impact on regional stability. I commend my colleagues, and especially our staff, for the manner and thoroughness with which they conducted the in-depth analysis of the approximately 30,000 pages of intelligence assessments and source reporting, and the interviews of more than 200 individuals. This was a monumental task but in the final analysis, the Committee has produced a comprehensive and revealing report that indisputably begs for Intelligence Community reform.

This report is being released amidst many discussions about reform. While I acknowledge the need to be cautious and deliberate, reform cannot wait. This is a time of unprecedented challenges and we must act now to ensure that our Intelligence Community is poised to confront these challenges. The men and women, the dedicated professionals of the Intelligence Community, who toil every day to protect our national security must have a decisive, innovative and centralized leadership and management structure as well as the requisite resources to perform this vital, and often daunting, task. The days of the Cold War are over; we have entered a new era where our nation faces very different, more pervasive and inimical threats. The Intelligence Community's old structure and old ways of doing business are insufficient for confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century; we can neither minimize nor underestimate the imperative for change. The time has come for a major over- haul of the United States Intelligence Community and that time is now upon us.

Accountability

The Committee's report on the pre-war intelligence on Iraq reveals systemic flaws in the Intelligence Community, perhaps, most notably in many instances, a stunning lack of accountability and sound, "hands- on" management practices throughout the Community's chain of command. These poor management practices contributed to the mis-characterization of intelligence reporting on Iraq's WMD programs. I recognize that intelligence analysis is an imprecise art, with rarely- if ever- any absolutes; however, this report reveals that many judgements regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities were based on old assumptions allowed to be carried over year after year, virtually unchecked and unchallenged, without any critical re-examination of the issue. In short, there was a lack of analytic rigor performed on one of the most critical and defining issues spanning more than a decade.

Intelligence Community managers, collectors and analysts believed that Iraq had WMD, a notion that dates back to Iraq's pre-1991 efforts to retain, build and hide those programs. In many cases, this report shows that the Intelligence Community made intelligence information fit into its preconceived notions about Iraq's WMD programs. From our review, we know the Intelligence Community relied on sources that supported its predetermined ideas, and we also know that there was no alternative analysis or "red teaming" performed on such a critical issue, allowing assessments to go unchallenged. This loss of objectivity or unbiased approach to intelligence collection and analysis led to erroneous assumptions about Iraq's WMD program.

For example, this review shows that analysts minimized reporting from a biological weapons source because the source reported information that did not fit with their beliefs about the existence of mobile biological weapons facilities. We also know that the key judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate, that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents" overstated what was in the intelligence reporting. This review revealed that some Intelligence Community UAV analysts failed to objectively assess significant evidence that clearly indicated that non-biological weapons delivery missions were more likely. In addition, this report reveals that, despite overwhelming evidence suggesting that the aluminum tubes Iraq was trying to procure were for artillery rockets, some Intelligence Community analysts rejected information and analysis from experts, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Department of Energy, who refuted the claim that the tubes were being procured for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This information was rejected because it did not fit into some analysts' notion that Iraq was procuring these tubes as part of its nuclear reconstitution effort.

Clearly stated, the Intelligence Community failed to "think outside the box", a phrase often used by the Community's analytic cadre to describe more innovative approaches to examining a problem set. Critical thinking and objectivity are crucial elements in both the collection and analytic trade crafts and ought to be ingrained, by appropriate training and effective oversight by management, in every collector and analyst entering the ranks of the Intelligence Community. Management has the responsibility to ensure analysts are trained to produce-and actually produce- the best, most objective, unvarnished assessments, and both management and the analysts and collectors have the responsibility to ensure that their trade-craft is practiced properly.

Along this same line of accountability, this report reveals how poor leadership and management resulted in the Intelligence Community's failure to convey the uncertainties in many of the assessments in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq 's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. For example, the Intelligence Community assessed that Iraq had mobile transportable facilities for producing biological warfare agents but failed to alert intelligence consumers that this assessment was based primarily on reporting from a single human intelligence source to whom the Intelligence Community never had direct access and with whom there were credibility problems. In the analysis on Iraq's chemical weapons activities, the Intelligence Community failed to explain that several assessments were based on a layers of analysis of a single stream of intelligence reporting regarding the presence of a tanker truck that was assessed to be involved in the possible transshipment of chemical munitions.

Perhaps the most glaring example of the Intelligence Community's poor management and oversight is revealed in the IC's failure to convey the uncertainties behind intelligence reporting and assessments while coordinating on the State of the Union address and Secretary Powell's speech to the United Nations. Discredited information was included in the President's State of the Union speech, a speech that was a predicate for going to war with Iraq. This should never have occurred and would not have occurred if the speech had been carefully reviewed. Furthermore, this report reveals that the DCI was "not aware of the views of all intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes" and therefore could not inform the President of the full range of the views on that issue. As the head of the entire Intelligence Community, the DCI should have been aware of the debate within the Community surrounding such a critical issue at such a critical juncture.

Finally, during coordination sessions with Secretary Powell in preparation for his speech before the United Nations in February 2003, the Intelligence Community was instructed to include in the presentation only corroborated, solid intelligence. In fact, from our review we learned that the DCI told a National Intelligence Officer who was also working on the speech to "back up the material and make sure we had good stuff to support everything." When Secretary Powell spoke before the UN, he said that every statement he was about to make would be "backed up by sources, solid sources...based on solid intelligence." Incredibly, from our review, we know that much of the intelligence provided or cleared by the CIA for inclusion in Secretary Powell's speech was incorrect and uncorroborated. For example, the IC never alerted Secretary Powell that most of the intelligence regarding Iraq's mobile biological warfare program came from one source with questionable credibility nor did anyone alert Secretary Powell to the fact one of the sources cited in his speech was deemed to be a fabricator-something known by IC analysts since the May 2002 issuance of a "fabrication notice".

Information Sharing

Surprisingly, the Committee's review reveals that even after the lack of information sharing was found to have played a key role in the intelligence failures of September 11, 2001, intelligence agencies still fail to share information within and among its own cadre. The Committee's report details several instances where intelligence reporting, that was held in highly compartmented or restricted channels, was withheld from analysts who had a legitimate need to know the information. These analysts were not given access to information that would have impacted their assessments. For example, the CIA failed to share information on the reliability of two biological weapons sources with all Iraq biological weapons analysts. Information about the credibility of these sources, upon which many assumptions regarding Iraq's biological weapons program were made, could have significantly altered analysts' judgments. In addition, the CIA failed to share some intelligence reporting with other agency UAV analysts on critical issues surrounding Iraq's UAVs. This information was essential for analysts to make fully informed judgments about Iraq's intentions to use UAVs to target the United States.

The Committee's review shows that the CIA continues to overly compartment sensitive HUMINT reporting and that this lack of information sharing prevented key analysts on certain issues from making fully informed judgments. Analysts with a need to know cannot be asked to make judgments about an issue without the full range of available intelligence information or without knowledge of the source of the intelligence information. Despite the acknowledgment of information sharing failures in the catastrophic events of September 11 , critical lessons were not learned and information failures were repeated in the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. It is crucial to our national security that the Intelligence Community cease operating in an overly compartmented and stove-piped manner.

Lack of HUMINT and Coordinated Collection

Another recurring problem within the IC that is identified in the Committee's report is the lack of human intelligence (HUMINT) on the Iraqi target. The Committee's review reveals, as the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 revealed, that our Intelligence Community is averse to undertaking high-risk HUMINT operations. This forced our analysts to rely on inadequate, outdated or unreliable intelligence. From our review, we know that the Intelligence Community relied too heavily on foreign government sources, and the placement of HUMINT agents and the development of sources inside Iraq were not top priorities. Surprisingly, the CIA did not have any WMD sources in Iraq after 1998, and the Community's risk averse culture prevented them from placing or even developing a strategy to place their own agents inside Iraq after until about six weeks prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Committee staff asked why CIA had not considered placing a CIA officer in the years before Operation Iraqi Freedom to investigate Iraq's WMD programs. A CIA officer said, "because it was very hard to sustain...it takes a rare officer who can go in...and survive scrutiny for a long time". This risk averse culture has to change. I am not advocating carelessly placing intelligence officers in harms way; these operations undeniably require extreme caution, preparation and training; however, the very nature of what CIA agents do is risky-even in the least hostile of circumstances.

In addition to the absence of a human intelligence collection effort, the IC lacked an overall collaborative collection strategy to target Iraq's WMD programs. Despite the obvious priority of the target, the Intelligence Community did not develop a unilateral collection effort, and it was not until 2000 that the Intelligence Community initiated a focused and collaborative collection plan against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. After years of being such a high priority issue, the Intelligence Community should have recognized that Iraq's WMD programs merited a coordinated collection plan that would levy, to the extent possible, all our assets-imagery, SIGINT, MASINT as well as HUMINT- against this target.

Recommendations

The Committee's report illustrates critical deficiencies in the Intelligence Community; the points raised above demand change. The challenges we face today and the failures of the past prove the urgency for establishing an Intelligence Community structure that is centralized, coordinated and agile enough to face the struggles of the future. I offer the following recommendations for a major restructuring and revamping of the ail-too ad hoc nature of intelligence operations. These recommendations are a starting point from which we in Congress, in conjunction with the President and the Intelligence Community, must move forward to ensure that the best intelligence is available to protect our country.

Creation of a Director of National Intelligence

To help address the dysfunctional organizational and management structure of the Intelligence Community, I believe that we need to establish a cabinet-level intelligence position-that of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). That is why I am cosponsoring legislation with Senator Dianne Feinstein to create the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In the current Intelligence Community structure, the head of the Intelligence Community has the additional responsibility of running the CIA. These two jobs are too vast for one person. A new DNI, free from the day-to-day management responsibilities of running an agency in addition to the entire IC, would be able to focus solely on managing the IC more effectively. A DNI would be able to focus on breaking down the institutional barriers that contributed to 9/11, and as our report shows, to the largely erroneous assessments regarding Iraq's WMD programs. By his overarching leadership, a DNI would improve coordination and implement a focused approach to intelligence operations allowing the IC to operate as a cohesive entity. Currently, the Intelligence Community comprises fifteen agencies, each with their own mission, individual chain of command, procedures, history and institutional paradigm. A single DNI would have the statutory and budgetary authority to concentrate full time on coordinating intelligence resources, setting priorities, deciding strategies for the entire IC and advising the President on intelligence matters. Moreover, the DNI would have the time to provide greater oversight in developing the budget of the entire intelligence infrastructure-all the more critical considering that approximately 85 percent on the intelligence budget is outside the purview of the DCI.

Improve Intelligence Community Accountability

The Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD is replete with information sharing failures, analytic failures and collection failures. It is imperative that these failures, many of which were identified in the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, are not repeated. I believe that one way to prevent the same mistakes from happening again is to inject more accountability into the Intelligence Community, and I have introduced legislation creating an Office of the Inspector General for Intelligence (IGI) to achieve this goal.

The Intelligence Community Accountability Act will institute better accountability within the Intelligence Community by creating an Inspector General for the entire Community. This effort will expand DCI authorities over the Intelligence Community, assist in instituting better management accountability, and will help the DCI resolve problems within the Intelligence Community systematically. The Inspector General for Intelligence will have the ability to investigate current issues within the Intelligence Community, not just conduct "lessons learned" studies. The IGI will seek to identify problem areas and identify the most efficient and effective business practices required to ensure that critical deficiencies can be addressed before it is too late, before we have another intelligence failure, before lives are lost.

In short, an Inspector General for Intelligence that can look across the entire Intelligence Community will help improve management and coordination, and cooperation and information sharing among the intelligence agencies. An IGI will help break down the barriers that have perpetuated the parochial, stove-pipe approaches to Intelligence Community management and operations.

The revelations in this report are a clarion call for change. With the asymmetric threats of the twenty-first century, intelligence is our first line of defense and Congress and the President are obligated to reform our intelligence apparatus into an adaptable organization prepared to anticipate and prepare for these threats. The failure to do so will prove too costly.