Posted on 13-9-2002
Facts
- Enemy #1
By Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 6, 2002
When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian
Gulf -- to
reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait -- part of the
administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening
to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images,
Pentagon
officials estimated in mid -- September that up to 250,000 Iraqi
troops and
1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil
supplier.
But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial
Soviet
satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no
Iraqi troops
were visible near the Saudi border -- just empty desert. "It
was a pretty
serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke
the story.
The White House is now making its case. to Congress and the
public for
another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected
to present
specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech
to the
United Nations next week. But past cases of bad intelligence
or outright
disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary.
The questions
they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian
Gulf War,
highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy
considers
military action. "My concern in these situations, always, is
that the
intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than
the policy
being driven by the intelligence," says former US Rep. Lee Hamilton
(D) of
Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on
numerous
foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director
of the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
The Bush
team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion
[about an
imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence
to
support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have
to be skeptical
about it."
EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE
Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example,
the St.
Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite
images of the
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990,
a month
and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including
a former
Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert
warfare,
pointed out the US build-up -- jet fighters standing wing-tip
to wing-tip
at Saudi bases -- but were surprised to see almost no sign of
the Iraqis.
"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending
troops
in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three
times Heller
contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now
vice
president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis
-- offering
to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust
us." To
this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup
remain
classified.
After the war, the House Armed Services Committee issued a report
on
lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War. It did not specifically
look at
the early stages of the Iraqi troop buildup in the fall, when
the Bush
administration was making its case to send American forces.
But it did
conclude that at the start of the ground war in February, the
US faced only
183,000 Iraqi troops, less than half the Pentagon estimate.
In 1996, Gen.
Colin Powell, who is secretary of state today, told the PBS
documentary
program Frontline: "The Iraqis may not have been as strong as
we thought
they were...but that doesn't make a whole lot of difference
to me. We put
in place a force that would deal with it -- whether they were
300,000, or
500,000."
John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of
"Second Front:
Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War," says that considering
the
number of senior officials shared by both Bush administrations,
the
American public should bear in mind the lessons of Gulf War
propaganda.
"These are all the same people who were running it more than
10 years ago,"
Mr. MacArthur says. "They'll make up just about anything ...
to get
their way." On Iraq, analysts note that little evidence so far
of an
imminent threat from Mr. Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
has been
made public. Critics, including some former United Nations weapons
inspectors in Iraq, say no such evidence exists. Mr. Bush says
he will make
his decision to go to war based on the "best" intelligence.
"You have to
wonder about the quality of that intelligence," says Mr. Hamilton
at
Woodrow Wilson. "This administration is capable of any lie ...
in order to
advance its war goal in Iraq," says a US government source in
Washington
with some two decades of experience in intelligence, who would
not be
further identified. "It is one of the reasons it doesn't want
to have UN
weapons inspectors go back in, because they might actually show
that the
probability of Iraq having [threatening illicit weapons] is
much lower than
they want us to believe."
The roots of modern war propaganda reach back to British World
War II
stories about German troops bayoneting babies, and can be traced
through
the Vietnam era and even to US campaigns in Somalia and Kosovo.
While the
adage has it that "truth is the first casualty of war," senior
administration officials say they cherish their credibility,
and would not
lie. In a press briefing last September, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld
noted occasions during World War II when false information about
US troop
movements was leaked to confuse the enemy. He paraphrased Winston
Churchill, saying: "Sometimes the truth is so precious it must
be
accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." But he added that "my fervent
hope is
that we will be able to manage our affairs in a way that that
will never
happen. And I am 69 years old and I don't believe it's ever
happened that I
have lied to the press, and I don't intend to start now."
Last fall, the Pentagon secretly created an "Office of Strategic
Influence." But when its existence was revealed, the ensuing
media storm
over reports that it would launch disinformation campaigns prompted
its
official closure in late February. Commenting on the furor,
President Bush
pledged that the Pentagon will
"tell the American people the truth." Critics familiar with
the precedent
set in recent decades, however, remain skeptical. They point,
for example,
to the Office of Public Diplomacy run by the State Department
in the 1980s.
Using staff detailed from US military "psychological operations"
units, it
fanned fears about Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista regime with
false
"intelligence" leaks. Besides placing a number of proContra,
antiSandinista
stories in the national US media as part of a "White Propaganda"
campaign,
that office fed the Miami Herald a make-believe story that the
Soviet Union
had given chemical weapons to the Sandinistas. Another tale
-- which
happened to emerge the night of President Ronald Reagan's reelection
victory -- held that Soviet MiG fighters were on their way to
Nicaragua.
The office was shut down in 1987, after a report by the US
Comptroller-General found that some of their efforts were "prohibited,
covert propaganda activities."
More recently, in the fall of 1990, members of Congress and
the American
public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old
Kuwaiti girl,
known only as Nayirah. In the girl's testimony before a congressional
caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and
elsewhere,
she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward,
she had seen
Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave
312 babies
"on the cold floor to die." Seven US Senators later referred
to the story
during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes.
In the weeks
after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident
five times,
saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."
But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January,
a few press
reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator
tale.
Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter
of the Kuwaiti
ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait
hospital. She
had been coached -- along with the handful of others who would
"corroborate" the story -- by senior executives of Hill and
Knowlton in
Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had
a contract
worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case
for war. "We
didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's
national
security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview
with the
London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful
in
mobilizing public opinion."
INTELLIGENCE AS POLITICAL TOOL
Selective use of intelligence information is not particular
to any one
presidential team, says former Congressman Hamilton. "This is
not a problem
unique to George Bush. It's every president I've known, and
I've worked
with seven or eight of them," Hamilton says. "All, at some time
or another,
used intelligence to support their political objectives. "Information
is
power, and the temptation to use information to achieve the
results you
want is almost overwhelming," he says. "The whole intelligence
community
knows exactly what the president wants [regarding Iraq], and
most are in
their jobs because of the president -- certainly the people
at the top
-- and they will do everything they can to support the policy.
"I'm always
skeptical about intelligence," adds Hamilton, who has been awarded
medallions from both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"It's not
as pure as the driven snow."
Presidents used to be know as Snow White, but they've drifted.
|