Quantcast

USAToday: A desert mirage: How U.S. misjudged Iraq's arsenal

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
A desert mirage: How U.S. misjudged Iraq's arsenal
USA Today | 2/4/2004 12:13 AM | John Diamond

WASHINGTON — One year before President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, a U.S. spy satellite over the western Iraqi desert photographed trailer trucks lined up beside a military bunker. Canvas shrouded the trucks' cargo. Through a system of relays, the satellite beamed digitized images to Fort Belvoir in Virginia, south of Washington. Within hours, analysts a few miles away at CIA headquarters had the pictures on high-definition computer screens. The photos would play a critical role in an assessment that now appears to have been wrong — that Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

The way analysts interpreted the truck convoy photographed on March 17, 2002 — and seven others like it spotted over the next two months — is perhaps the single most important example of how U.S. intelligence went astray in its assessment of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Analysts made logical interpretations of the evidence but based their conclusions more on supposition than fact.

The eight convoys stood out from normal Iraqi military movements. They appeared to have extra security provided by Saddam's most trusted officers, and they were accompanied by what analysts identified as tankers for decontaminating people and equipment exposed to chemical agents.

But the CIA had a problem: Once-a-day snapshots from the KH-11 spy satellite didn't show where the convoys were going. "We couldn't get a destination," a top intelligence official recalled. "We tried and tried and tried. We never could figure that out."

As far as U.S. intelligence was concerned, the convoys may as well have disappeared, like a mirage, into the Iraqi desert. Nearly a year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Saddam's supposed arsenal remains a mirage.

The convoy photos, described in detail for the first time by four high-ranking intelligence officials in extensive joint interviews, were decisive in a crucial shift by U.S. intelligence: from saying Iraq might have illegal weapons to saying that Iraq definitely had them.

The assertion that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons — and the ability to use them against his neighbors and even the United States — was expressed in an Oct. 1, 2002, document called a National Intelligence Estimate. The estimate didn't trigger President Bush's determination to oust Saddam. But it weighed heavily on members of Congress as they decided to authorize force against Iraq, and it was central to Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council a year ago this week.

Powell argued that Saddam had violated U.N. resolutions, agreed to after the 1991 Gulf War, requiring Iraq to disarm. But David Kay, the former head of the CIA-directed team searching for Saddam's weapons, now says that Iraq got rid of most of its banned weapons about six months after the 1991 war and that, unknown to the CIA, Iraq's weapons research was in disarray over the past four years.

The failure to find biological or chemical weapons in Iraq has undercut the Bush administration's main justification for invading Iraq. And it has raised concerns that the United States is conducting a policy of pre-empting foreign threats with an intelligence system that is fundamentally flawed.

An independent commission, reluctantly backed by the Bush administration, will be established to find out what went wrong. Such a panel is sure to explore whether, like thirsty travelers seeking an oasis, the U.S. analysts were looking so hard for evidence of banned Iraqi weapons that they "saw" things that turned out to be illusions.

READ MORE
 

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
20,067
8,816
Nowhere Man!
Originally posted by N8
A desert mirage: How U.S. misjudged Iraq's arsenal
USA Today | 2/4/2004 12:13 AM | John Diamond
I question everything I read in McPaper. Regardless if it supports what I believe or not. McPaper, Fox News, Time, Newsweek, whatever. They all speculate the truth, prop it up with frequency and spin, then dispel it a month later.....jdcamb
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
But the CIA had a problem: Once-a-day snapshots from the KH-11 spy satellite didn't show where the convoys were going...
Once a day???!?! :eek:

Seems we shoulda kept our fleet of SR-71 Blackbirds active huh..???

:confused:
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,428
0
Charlotte, NC
Originally posted by jdcamb
I question everything I read in McPaper. Regardless if it supports what I believe or not. McPaper, Fox News, Time, Newsweek, whatever. They all speculate the truth, prop it up with frequency and spin, then dispel it a month later.....jdcamb

I thought the article was written rather well. Doesn't seem to overly biased one way or the other.
 

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
20,067
8,816
Nowhere Man!
Originally posted by Mtb_Rob_FL
I thought the article was written rather well. Doesn't seem to overly biased one way or the other.
Well when you have 5 editors to check each story (punched up from the wires by the way) they all seem well written. But since Gannett (who owns USA Today) fired all their Content Editors (like a fact checker) you get 1.) Kinder gentler stories 2.) The truth seems to be secondary to selling papers and 3.) You can play both sides (except for editorial content which in my opinion is rather biased at USA Today) because when the truth comes out finally you can report that to and then sell more papers.... I worked for Gannett for 2 weeks until I saw how things worked. I wanted to work for a real paper though. It was well written though. I just question all USA Today content because I am a suspicious bastard....jdcamb
 

brenth

Monkey
Jun 14, 2002
221
0
Santa Monica
Originally posted by N8
Once a day???!?! :eek:

Seems we shoulda kept our fleet of SR-71 Blackbirds active huh..???

:confused:
I thought they had geo-sychronous sats that could go stationaty over a target? If so, I woulda thought there would be one over iraq for some time before the war, at least since sept 11th ( if the rumors that bush wanted to attack iraq asap after sept 11th are true, no idea if they are or not ). One would have thought that there would at least be in the area. But yet they can only get a shot evey dya? and lost the trucks? :confused:

Don't we still use U2's?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Originally posted by brenth
I thought they had geo-sychronous sats that could go stationaty over a target? If so, I woulda thought there would be one over iraq for some time before the war, at least since sept 11th ( if the rumors that bush wanted to attack iraq asap after sept 11th are true, no idea if they are or not ). One would have thought that there would at least be in the area. But yet they can only get a shot evey dya? and lost the trucks? :confused:

Don't we still use U2's?
Problem with a U2 and real time video is (assuming US air superiority) they need to stay in one spot for a while ergo making easy targets for anti-aircraft missile crews. U2's are fine as long as the AA threat has been eliminated.

It's near on impossible to shoot down a SR-71 at altitude and at speed...
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
Originally posted by N8
Problem with a U2 and real time video is (assuming US air superiority) they need to stay in one spot for a while ergo making easy targets for anti-aircraft missile crews. U2's are fine as long as the AA threat has been eliminated.

It's near on impossible to shoot down a SR-71 at altitude and at speed...
Good point and I assume we no longer have SR-71s? What about Brenth's question of geo-sats?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Originally posted by LordOpie
Good point and I assume we no longer have SR-71s? What about Brenth's question of geo-sats?
The SR-71 fleet has been deactiviated and the aircraft turned in museum pieces. The specifics on geo-sat's a most likey classified.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by brenth
I thought they had geo-sychronous sats that could go stationaty over a target? If so, I woulda thought there would be one over iraq for some time before the war, at least since sept 11th ( if the rumors that bush wanted to attack iraq asap after sept 11th are true, no idea if they are or not ). One would have thought that there would at least be in the area. But yet they can only get a shot evey dya? and lost the trucks? :confused:

Don't we still use U2's?
We do use U2s but the biggest issue was Iraq's unwillingness until early February 2003 to allow those flights. They had opposed them vehmently because of safety issues with coalition plans still patrolling the no-fly zones.
 

brenth

Monkey
Jun 14, 2002
221
0
Santa Monica
But I thought we controled the no-fly zone? or somewhat, and that we controls who could fly there? I thought it was a no-fly for iriq's planes, I didn't think they could protest this?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
If you recall the Iraq military would occationally take a pop-shot at US air craft in the No-Fly Zone. The U2's needed to have the assurance from Iraq that they would not be shot down whilst on their missions to which Iraq stated no deal. So with out that assurance U2's could not be deployed for fear of lossing them to surface-to-air missiles.

This is where the SR-71 could have helped but due to budget cuts by the Clinton administration the BlackBirds were decommissioned because of their expense.
 

brenth

Monkey
Jun 14, 2002
221
0
Santa Monica
I see, yeah I knew that iraq would take pops at our planes, but I thought that they flew so high out of iraqs surface to air range.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Originally posted by brenth
I see, yeah I knew that iraq would take pops at our planes, but I thought that they flew so high out of iraqs surface to air range.
...that's what Francis Gary Powers thought too... but nooooo....