- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: ‘Playing defense on the one-yard line’
- Activists vow to occupy fast-food restaurants to get higher pay
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Summer camp for 1 percenters: Sushi, limos and shopping at FAO Schwarz
- Colorado gun crackdown law found to be built on faulty data
- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
Walking back the cat
Question of the Day
First in a three-part series.
Time to walk back the cat — except this is a tiger of a subject with a very long tail. “Walk back the cat” is spy slang for retracing the train of evidence and assumptions until the double agent, the false source or the analytic error is identified. The cat unraveled the ball of string. Rewind the twisted yarn to find the flaw.
The objective is correcting mistakes so they don’t happen again. After a fault-ridden story runs, newspapers review their fact-checking process. It’s painful, but credibility matters. Intelligence failures, however, exact a more heinous price. Pearl Harbor and September 11. 2001, illustrate the costs of intelligence debacles.
This column starts a three-part series on Western intel assessments regarding America’s long war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And I mean long. Thirteen years is the proper metric for the Saddam War, which began on Aug. 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Iraq’s attack on Kuwait surprised the United States. It was an intel flop based on the assumption Saddam was bluffing. Iraq had pulled the trick before, putting troops on Kuwait’s border. Short hours before the Iraqis moved, the “he’s bluffing” assumption held sway. Then Iraqi military radio traffic spiked and Saddam’s tanks rolled.
Walk back — Kuwait showed Saddam didn’t always bluff, even if he risked war with America.
Israel’s June 1981 air attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor isn’t the first “cat track” regarding Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Iran suspected Saddam might seek nukes.
After concluding Saddam was building the bomb, Israel destroyed Osirak. It received global condemnation for its pre-emptive attack. However, the Middle East, from Riyadh to the ayatollahs’ Tehran, was relieved. In 1981, Iraq’s neighbors knew if Saddam had a nuke, he would use it.
Track to 1984. ABC News documented Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. Iran claimed 80,000 chemical casualties from mustard gas, and possibly nerve gas. Saddam didn’t bluff when it came to using chemicals against enemies.
His enemies included many Iraqis. Halabja is a damning track. In 1988, troops under Gen. Ali Hassan Al-Majid used gas to kill 5,000 Kurds in Halabja. The message: Weapons of mass destruction helped Saddam retain internal power. Revolt by Shi’ites or Kurds could be stopped with gas dropped on defenseless villages.
Iranian casualties and Halabja established not only Saddam’s chemical capability, but culpability.
Kuwait and the 1991 Iraqi rain of missiles on Israel and Saudi Arabia led to U.N. Resolution 687. It established the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspection regime. Resolution 687 required the “destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision” of chemical and biological weapons and “all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”
Iraq couldn’t “acquire or develop nuclear weapons or … material” or components for “research, development, support or manufacturing facilities.” Missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers were forbidden. Resolution 687 was the United Nations at its best, a diplomatic strike on a despot with a demonstrated appetite for mass destruction.
Enforcing 687, however, meant prosecuting a “slow” war. The brunt of that taxing job fell on the Clinton administration. Next week’s column backtracks events and assumptions from 1994 through September 2001.
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Crime-ridden U.S. cities differ on ways to fight gun violence
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq