[iwar] [fc:Leaks.Or.Disinformation?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-07-31 20:00:53
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Man.Hijacks.Al-Qaida.Web.Site]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:China.Pursues.Arsenal.Of.Technology]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200208010300.g7130rX18159@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Leaks.Or.Disinformation?]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Washington Times
July 31, 2002
Leaks Or Disinformation?
Pentagon's war plans on front pages
By Tony Blankley
The increasing flow of leaks of our purported Iraqi war plans from the
Pentagon in the last month suggest either that: 1) Our top generals are so
adamantly opposed to the president's intentions that they are leaking
detailed order of battle memoranda in the hope of undercutting them; or 2)
we are in the midst of a mind-numbing government disinformation campaign
designed to baffle and rattle the Iraqi regime, preparatory to commencement
of hostilities.
The conventional Washington opinion has embraced the former theory, in part,
at least, because conventional opinion also opposes the war plans. But I am
inclined to the second theory - disinformation. It is true that the senior
military ranks are able and active players of the Washington leak game on
behalf of routine policy and procurement battles (funding the Crusader
artillery piece, for example).
But it is hard for me to accept that the generals and admirals of my
acquaintance are capable of so wantonly undercutting their commander in
chief on such a deadly matter as imminent war plans. After all, these
unauthorized leaks - if they are really that - might cost thousands of
battle deaths should we soon be going to war.
It is certainly true that between January and the late spring there was a
vigorous policy debate within the administration on whether to invade Iraq.
But from all accounts, the president decisively made up his mind to go
forward just before Israel started its controversial incursions into the
West Bank, when, it will be recalled, Vice President Richard Cheney was
planning his Middle East trip to organize basing rights for the war.
While I concede the following is conjecture, assume that about a month ago
the government started a campaign of, what, in the U.S. intelligence
community is called, purposeful information - or what the Russians call
disinformation.
On July 5 and 6, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times reported on a
leaked "preliminary Pentagon planning document" that called for an invasion
force of 250,000. The New York Times wrote that "The willingness of the
officials to outline Pentagon thinking . . . suggests unhappiness in some
quarters with the current drift of strategizing."
A week later, on July 15, Michael Duffy of CNN/Time Magazine wrote an
article headlined, "Decoding the headlines about Iraq - Bush's team isn't
preparing for war but fighting over whether and how to fight." It was
largely an "informed" analysis of previously reported leaks.
Two days later was a particularly interesting day of reporting. The
Washington Post and Associated Press both reported July 17 on Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld losing his temper over leaks. They cited a leaked
internal Rumsfeld memorandum: "Rumsfeld lamented a damaging lack of
professionalism we continue to see on a daily basis," referring to a
willingness of some defense officials to provide classified information to
reporters. "It is wrong. It is against the law," Mr. Rumsfeld wrote.
That same day, the always-in-control Mr. Rumsfeld went on CNBC to grumble
about leaks. If the secretary of defense wanted to emphasize the credibility
of the Pentagon leaks, what better way than by bitterly (and publicly)
complaining about them?
That was also the day that CNN reported that the Deputy Defense Secretary
Wolfowitz was in Turkey where "A split is reported to have emerged between
the U.S. and Turkey over possible military action." On the same day in
Scotland, the respected paper The Scotsman reported that British Prime
Minister Tony Blair had presented to Parliament the case for supporting an
invasion of Iraq.
Two days later, Mr. Bush met with 10th Mountain Division troops, where he
vowed to strike pre-emptively against countries that are developing weapons
of mass destruction. According to The New York Times, the president just
smiled when the troops yelled "Let's get Saddam."
Two days later, on July 21, a rash of stories from Europe reported that
European leaders were resigned to the likelihood of war with Iraq. The
London Observer reported that a "massive assault . . . could be likely at
short notice." That same day, The Washington Post caught the mood of Europe
with a story that started: "Talk in Europe of a possible U.S. invasion of
Iraq has been shifting . . . [from] panicked incredulity . . . to nervous
resignation."
On July 25, the London Evening Standard and Russia's Pravda reported U.S.
and British special forces were in staging areas in Qatar, Bahrain and
Kuwait "with military action likely within months - possibly as early as
August." The battle plan, according to these leaks, involved attacking the
Iraqi countryside but not going into Baghdad (a Baghdad-last plan). The
authoritative Manchester Guardian reported the next day that a "slimmed down
force of 50,000 . . . could be deployed within a matter of days."
Then last Sunday, The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks - known to have
excellent high Pentagon sources - reported leaks from "members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff" that the senior brass don't think Iraq is an immediate
threat and are recommending containment - not invasion - of Iraq.
The next day, The New York Times had a major front-page story reporting a
new Baghdad-first battle plan (the opposite of last week's Pravda-reported
Baghdad-last plan), in which our forces would take Baghdad, but not the
countryside.
Which leak is the real one? Are any of them real? What's a threatened
dictator to think? Given that Mr. Bush publicly announced his intentions to
change the Iraqi regime months ago, only such a baffling serious of planned
leaks could hope to regain the critical element of surprise.
If this is a purposeful information effort, it wouldn't be the first time.
Back in the mid-1980s, Admiral John Poindexter, Ronald Reagan's national
security adviser, executed a similar disinformation campaign before the
Libyan bombing. After the fact, The Washington Post and other Washington
media complained bitterly about being "used" by artful White House
war-planners. Are they being used again?
Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. His column
appears on Wednesdays.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/7dY7FD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Man.Hijacks.Al-Qaida.Web.Site]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:China.Pursues.Arsenal.Of.Technology]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT