Globe and Mail January 31, 2003
Washington puts stock in pictures
But unlike Cuban missile crisis in 1960s, images might not be enough proof
By Timothy Appleby
The camera may not lie, but neither does it always tell the truth.
For U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, that may be his greatest obstacle when he goes before the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday and tries to persuade its members that Iraq still holds weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Powell was working "feverishly" to have images, intercepted communications and other intelligence concerning Iraq's weapons programs declassified to bolster the administration's case, deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage said.
The Secretary of State is expected to produce satellite photographs of Iraqi tractor-trailers with unusually big roof-mounted air vents, indicative of mobile biochemical weapons labs, USA Today reported Thursday. Other exhibits may include overhead photos of Iraqis driving bulldozers and performing clean-up operations in advance of visits by the UN weapons inspectors currently scouring the country.
While such images might be used to convince Security Council members that Iraq has thwarted UN inspectors, experts in the field say that no matter how detailed the pictures, there is no technology capable of seeing through walls or trees and they will prove little unless corroborated by ground-level intelligence.
"It's a question of purpose and intent," said Mark Brender, executive director of Space Imaging, an Arlington, Va., firm that runs the Ikonos Earth-imaging satellite and counts the Pentagon as its biggest customer.
"Unless you have additional information such as communication intercepts, a picture of bulldozers on the ground doesn't tell what those bulldozers are doing. They could be there putting an addition on to a building."
The Bush administration is said to be wary of revealing its full hand, fearing it could undermine its intelligence network in the region. But at such a critical point in the world debate on Iraq, some countries might not be willing to settle for pictures only.
"I'm doubtful how effective satellite imagery will be in proving the case for military intervention," said François Boo of Globalsecurity.org., a non-profit, Washington-based think tank specializing in defence, intelligence and space issues. "You can see that a building has been reconstructed, but proof would involve showing what's going on inside, and you can't do that."
Mr. Boo said Iraq's intelligence network is too pervasive to have allowed for any serious information to have emerged from the country.
"Iraq is one of the most-watched pieces of real estate in the world," he said. "Saddam Hussein has had a decade in which to try and hide his weapons programs from overhead prying eyes. And he's well aware that the UN inspectors have used satellite images to track what's been going on ever since they left in 1998."
The Powell visit to the UN has drawn comparisons to a similar event 40 years ago, when United States ambassador to the UN Adlai Stevenson stood before the Security Council and unveiled damning photos taken from surveillance aircraft. The pictures showed the Soviet Union had missiles in Cuba - a charge Moscow had denied - and were seen as a turning point in the crisis.
Despite great strides in technology, the quality of satellite images today is on a par with those Cuba shots, taken not by a satellite but by a low-flying U2 spy plane.
The most accurate images are thought to be produced by the Pentagon's own satellites. But one industry executive, who asked not to be named, said the U.S. administration is probably reluctant to reveal its proprietary images for fear of what that might reveal to the United States's enemies and competitors.
"The art of photo interpretation is extremely advanced," the executive said. "Sophisticated imagery analysts can look at a picture and tell you a lot about how it was taken, what time it was taken, what kind of technology was used and start to assemble facts."
Mr. Boo pointed to another factor in Washington's reluctance to disclose more than it might.
"The best way for them to prove all this would have been to pass [the information] along to the inspectors so they could have found the smoking gun," he said. "But there's a Catch-22 there because, if they do that, it would show that the inspections are working."
Copyright © 2003, Globe and Mail
