Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
Altered reports ‘overstated’ the amount of physical and financial damage was caused to targets in Iraq and Syria, new reporting revealsmments
Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III answers questions from the media at a meeting in Mosul, December 23, 2009. (Photo: Army Staff Sgt. Caleb Barrieau / United States Forces Iraq)
Intelligence reports that questioned the efficacy of U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State fighters were reportedly questioned, watered-down, or distorted, in order to present a more “glass half full” view of the bombing campaign, new reporting reveals.
In an exclusive report published over the weekend, Daily Beast reporters Shane Harris and Nancy Youssef exposed the actual analysis that military leaders with U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, are being accused of altering in order to paint a “rosier picture” of its ongoing military strategy in Iraq and Syria.
Quoting unnamed defense officials and sources familiar with the analysts’ complaint, theDaily Beast said that analysts’ reports that questioned whether U.S. airstrikes against ISIS were “damaging the group’s finances and its ability to launch attacks” were heavily scrutinized compared to those that provided a more favorable view of the strikes.
The revelations follow earlier reporting which made the existence of the analysts’ complaints known, though the specific nature of the intelligence being altered was initially left vague.
According to Harris and Youssef:
Senior CENTCOM intelligence officials who reviewed the critical reports sent them back to the analysts and ordered them to write new versions that included more footnotes and details to support their assessments, according to two officials familiar with a complaint levied by more than 50 analysts about intelligence manipulation by CENTCOM higher-ups.
In some cases, analysts were also urged to state that killing particular ISIS leaders and key officials would diminish the group and lead to its collapse. Many analysts, however, didn’t believe that simply taking out top ISIS leaders would have an enduring effect on overall operations.
Analysts described feeling “bullied” into reaching favorable conclusions and said they were compelled to “self-censor some of their reports.” SOURCE.. Cheney Lied, What ABout Obama, Video Link