[iwar] Some thoughts on this 'analysis'

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-12-24 17:32:31
Next message: Ravi V Prasad: "[iwar] China helps Myanmar bolster Coco Island facilities"
Previous message: snooker3: "[iwar] FW: IRAQ - WAR TIMING"
In reply to: snooker3: "[iwar] FW: IRAQ - WAR TIMING"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200212250132.gBP1WV929209@red.all.net>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <000001c2ab9d$365e2570$7810ba3f@hto4me> from "snooker3" at Dec 24, 2002 03:38:40 PM
Sender: Fred Cohen <fc@unhca.com>
Organization: Fred Cohen & Associates
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] Some thoughts on this 'analysis'
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Per the message sent by snooker3:

>                             S T R A T F O R

>                     THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE COMPANY

>                         http://www.stratfor.com
> ___________________________________________________________________

> War Timing

> Summary

> The United States is under pressure to provide intelligence that 
> shows Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. This leaves 
> Washington with a problem. The main threat comes from Iraqi 
> chemical weapons, which must be attacked early in a war. If 
> Washington makes public information on where chemical weapons are 
> located, Baghdad can move those weapons around. If the United 
> States provides intelligence, it must follow up rapidly with 
> attacks. For this and other reasons, the pressure to launch the 
> war is growing as diplomatic pressure to avoid the war is 
> beginning somewhat to abate.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.  The US leadership WANTS to atack Iraq, so no
matter what you say it is all an excuse to do so.  If they provided the
intelligence and found nothing they would claim Bagdad moved it.  If
they don't provide it they claim it is because Bagdad would have moved
it.  If the inspectors find nothing it means Iraq is hiding it.  If the
inspectors find something it means that Iraq is hiding it.  The point is
that the conclusions are already completed - only the evidence is
missing. 

When will the world declare that we need a definitive way to determine
the outcome before making the test? Likely never - because it does not
suit political needs to have rational decisions.

> Analysis

> When chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his report 
> to the U.N. Security Council last Thursday, he took the U.S. 
> position, saying that Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration 
> contained serious omissions.

But he did not tell us what they were.  It has to be kept secret? Why?
Because the politicians don't want the people of the world to know what
is really going on.  It eliminates the exclusive to information required
in order to maintain power under the claim of superior knowledge. 

...
> What was most striking was the quiet that followed Blix's report 
> and Powell's evaluation. Russia pointed out that it was not up to 
> the United States, but the Security Council to determine whether 
> a material breach had occurred. Moscow focused on procedure, not 
> on substance. As for the rest of the permanent Security Council 
> members, there was mostly silence. That silence is ominous for 
> Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Unless they stand there and say "no material breech" it is interpreted
as favorable to the US by US media and 'intelligence'.  Silence does not
mean consent.

> The focus has shifted away from the question of Iraq's compliance 
> with the inspection regime; it is now obvious that Baghdad is not 
> compliant. The question now is whether Iraq actually has weapons 
> of mass destruction, and the spotlight is on U.S. intelligence. 

It is obvious based on no facts presented - pretty lame conclusion.  And
the question is now IF they have them? If they don't and the world finds
out, the pretext for war disappears.  And of course it no longer CAN be
about this because if it is we have to also attack North Korea - which
has the weapons and the ability to deliver them (or so we keep hearing). 

> First Blix, then Iraq, challenged the CIA to reveal information 
> on Iraq's weapons program, but the CIA has a couple of reasons 
> for hesitating:

How about '0' - just like much of the perception management campaigne -
it's just not true.  The first reason the intel would not be revealed
would be that there is no reliable intel of this sort.  This would trump
the old sources and methods thing (the method was a guy writing it up
and the source was his imagination) and the easy to move thing (if we
really know where they are and have all this ability to observe things
with satellites and sensors, we could probably track large-scale
movements as well...).

> 1. The agency has an institutional aversion to revealing its 
> sources and methods. Information comes from sources within Iraq, 
> monitoring of telecommunications, penetration of Iraqi computer 
> systems and so forth. Every bit of information provided can 
> compromise a source.

> 2. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities are heavily 
> focused in the area of chemical weapons. These chemicals, 
> contained in drums and shells, can be moved easily and quickly. 
> They will be one of the first targets of U.S. air attacks. Any 
> report filed by the CIA would give Baghdad the opportunity to 
> move them quickly. In fact, even if the inspectors find these 
> chemicals and report them, the Iraqis still would have time to 
> move them before the United States could act. Therefore, 
> providing intelligence on the location of chemical weapons would 
> undermine the United States' ability to destroy them.

...

> The point here is that the situation is shifting perceptibly from 
> a diplomatic to a military issue. The United States has, with 
> some real skill, gone a long way in defusing opposition to an 
> attack. There is no enthusiasm for it and most nations will not 
> participate, but there is now a sense that war no longer can be 
> resisted. The standard position that is emerging, from France to 
> Syria, is that (1) war is coming, (2) other countries don't want 
> to be deeply involved, yet (3) they don't want to be left out of 
> the spoils. That's about as good as it's going to get for the 
> United States this time around.

The US never had any diplomatic effort in this conflict.  Powell was
prevented from having one and a similar sequence of events occurred with
N.  Korea (abandonoing the Clinton cooperation method) and with the
Palestinian Israeli conflict (the US pulled out of it and it escalated
to almost all-out war).  The US has been pushing for war at every chance
and eventually they will have their war - perhaps because the Bush
administration has no domestic agenda, ability to negotiate, long-term
plan, or anything else other than war to lean back on.  And who can
blame them - it won them a mid-term election...

> Which brings us to timing. Blix is supposed to file a definitive 
...

The timing is essentially an irrelevant issue.  The war will happen as
soon as the Bush administration has an adequate hold on power to make it
so.  Likely when the new Congress comes into place.  Perhaps sooner if
Bush has the confidence to do so - not likely till after New Years -
because it won't play well at home till after the holidays - and GW
doesn't want to have to celebrate New Years in the war room.

The only hope for a change in this is, of course, that the US media and
people stop ceding power to the White House, but given the degree to
which they have been cowed so far, iot's not very likely. 

Only personal opnions.  No actual facts to back it up. 

FC
-- This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve --
Fred Cohen - http://all.net/ - fc@all.net - fc@unhca.com - tel/fax: 925-454-0171
Fred Cohen & Associates	- University of New Haven - Security Posture

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Ravi V Prasad: "[iwar] China helps Myanmar bolster Coco Island facilities"
Previous message: snooker3: "[iwar] FW: IRAQ - WAR TIMING"
In reply to: snooker3: "[iwar] FW: IRAQ - WAR TIMING"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 12:01:55 PST