WHO TO TRUST?

Well, in regard to the sorry saga - the reasons put forward to go to war in Iraq - no worries, no contest...

We were bullshitted first class by government propaganda, media laziness and greed, and some of us not only knew that, but also had the information in hand... But, like on many occasion of dissent or whistle-blowing, who wants to listen in, against the tide of orchestrated hysteria....

(repeat of an article posted on this site 18 April 2005...)

Do you expect that extremely experienced experts in the field of information gathering (spying) on a piddly country (Iraq) would get it so wrong? Do you expect that media is not influenced by political currents? In the mid 1800's A famous novelist wrote something to the effect that newspapers (media) fed on the carcasses of the dead... Not too far off the mark as you saw how most of the media, especially some unashamedly unscrupulous conglomerate jumped on the band-wagon.

A war? Goody goody! That will sell papers by the forest load. More secret commercial favours ALSO demanded tactical support for the war. From the sorry David Kelly affair to small media outlet being given scoops on defectors by "commercial branches" of the CIA, from the blunders made in speeches by Blair and Bush to even the semi-diplomatic rejection of the WMDs concept by "Old Europe", it would take several tomes of an encyclopedia to precisely enumerates and detail all the tricks and turns from the governments of Australia, Britain and the US...

So I will use a broad brush with few examples.... Say, the more enquiries about the "intelligence failures", the more the Administrations in the US and in England are trying to take us for a bunch of fools. In Australia, Andrew Wilkie was the only honourable person who in his position in the Secret Services could see that the information supplied about Saddam's WMDs was not reliable at best and erroneous on average. He wrote a book about it...

INFORMANTS
Most of the information for the reason to go to war came from "defectors" who had a vested interest in bagging Saddam as much as they could... And not only that, it was basically the only info there was. And the lot was hearsay! No proof! No first hand info! This was BREAKING ALL THE RULES of spying...

Even basic rules of first year elementary spy school... But, due to pressure from the US administration, the RULES HAD TO BE BROKEN TO "PROVE" the case for war against Saddam... AS "president" G. W. Bush said in his speech on the first anniversary of 9-11: "We will PROVE Saddam's guilt!!!" to a resounding applause... People believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11, much of the media was going with that too, while all the hard evidence pointed somewhere else...

Professional spies and specialists-assessors of information don't drop their pants by accident, nor, because the weather had turned foggy, do they lose their ability to see clearly on such issues. No, the CIA was "buying" most of its information from Ahmed Chalabi's network of defectors. Chalabi was paid US $350,000 per month, by the CIA, for his efforts...

In fact his "defectors" were coached and briefed by a very secret and small subsection of the CIA... (He was then disgraced a year after the invasion but there's a couple of conflicting theory about that...) [I will add here today (16 April 2013) that I believe that Curveball was a plant coached by the "subsection" of the CIA to tell the Germans a few porkies that they would relay back to the CIA headquarters... Then the CIA would "impatiently want to talk directly with Curveball" as to give some cred to the value of his information and remove him from the clutches of the Germans who were beginning to be suspicious of Curveball and knew is information was bogus... The CIA analyst in Paris as well knew the info was bogus but he was not in on the loop — a double cross from Washington]

TECHNOLOGY
On the other hand, information technology is the fastest growing smart industry in the world. From satellite phones to satellite imaging, from the Internet to Television networks, the technology is mind-boggling. Communication is one of the major characteristics of the human species that has enabled it to define and refine its evolution. But all the sophisticated technology in the world does not control the quality nor the accuracy of the information which can insofar be manipulated to achieve desired outcomes contrary to reality at large.

With all the US technology, the only pictures that Colin Powell could come up with, were that of clapped out trucks with flapping canvases, in 40 plus degree desert heat, to "PROVE" that Saddam was cooking biological weapons... Ahem... In fact it is a farce to even contemplate or say "intelligence failures" on this scale.

With 176 official spy satellites, 88 communication satellites from a private network also used by the Defence Department, drones, FOURTEEN major intelligence agencies - themselves with countless departments of gathering and analysis - five major Armed Forces and five major chains of directorships - usually bright, leadership personnel..., please do not tell me that the US got misled about the existence of WMD in Iraq mostly single-handedly by an alleged convicted criminal, Mr Chalabi? And a couple of fuzzy snapshots? No, the whole lot was a gigantic lie, manufactured by the administration to enforce a political outcome.

WAR STRATEGY
Furthermore, no-one-and I include the media-in the US, UK nor Australia, did proper analysis of the "war strategy" of attacking a country supposedly riddled with secret WMDs that could be deployed within 45 minutes and reach as far as Cyprus...

Obviously the US commanders KNEW there was no such weapons in Iraq, otherwise they would have had to tell "President Bonsai": "Sorry sir, but we have to negotiate...". A victory against Saddam in these circumstances, would have cost at least 50,000 personnel in the first two weeks of the conflict - a devastating unthinkable outcome. In this aspect of fluidity and massive increase of information and its analysis, there are many opportunity to fiddle and hide the truth.

Even during the Napoleonic wars, and also World War Two, accurate information was as important as the fodder on the fields, in order to decimate the other side. Generals do know that. Either Saddam HAS WMDs and we can't attack OR he has not and the coast is clear... The US KNEW : the coast was clear.... 

"Through only a cannonade and not a battle, Valmy was a turning point in the History of Europe. The Duke of Brunswick, invading revolutionary France, turned back - "he did not know what was on the other side of the hill." "There is the classic example of the failure of military Intelligence - the failure to know ... The function of an Intelligence Service is "to know" - to know what are the intentions of an enemy, to know his plans and resources, the disposition of his troops and their morale." J. C. Masterman.

IF the description of Saddam's weaponry by the Pentagon and the daily rags was accurate then there was NO WAY the US would have attacked Iraq the way they did... Struth! The first salvo landed on a restaurant, killing dinners and staff, in uptown Baghdad where Saddam was supposedly having dinner with big oils of his government... Another piece of poor double-cross from an informant who gave the false information just to be interesting and collect ten pieces of silver.

ANALYSIS
Statistics in sport now plays a major role in redefining tactics and medical info in beefing up the athletes, and so does intimate knowledge of one's opponent, to the point of making courage and gun-ho values presently relegated to the war action movie and medal ceremonies. Amphetamines? sure... Intelligence gathering has many dynamics and allegiances that can lead to major conflict of interest. One of the problem the European Community faces at the present is the complex relationship with the UK.

The UK get its intelligence mostly from their own services and share much of it with the US which shares its own with the UK in return, in many fields. For example, the US/UK secret service alliance processes a staggering 130 trillion items of information per month from its satellite network (including through facilities at Pine Gap). Most of this is not shared with the European Community that has its own network of spy satellites on a much smaller scale. In fact one should read here France, Germany, Italy and Spain who have provided the French with the cash to develop the network. It processes a pitiful 2 to 3 million items per month. Their photographic resolution can only define one metre sized-objects, although they have launched a more sophisticated system with definition to about 20 cm. All in all, a ridiculously small exercise compared to the mammoth gathering by the US/UK.

But then there is the X factor: Quality of the information. And then there is the Y factor: Quality of Analysis And then there is the Z factor: What you do with it. Most of the US/UK incoming data is useless. So much so that they would have a tendency to be lost, swimming in a tempest of information overload and miss the vital bits. The French (read the "other Europeans") due to limited resources are a lot more precise in the targeting of the collection. One of the sore point with the US administration on this is the French "friendly? style of spying upon US enterprises in the world - information diligently passed onto the CEO of major French and German companies. The US are doing the same, tit for tat...

Of course these days one has secret codes but these complexities can be broken by computer time and smart analysis. On the subject of WMDs in Iraq, the French knew through their own services that the US/UK were propagating big big lies (mensonges, tromperies, etc were the word they used). When Colin Powell was seriously showing his pictures of Iraqi trucks at the UN, the French and the Germans were laughing their heads off, backstage..

To some extent these were the ONLY PICTURES Colin Powell could show... One can argue, the graphic department of the CIA (all secret service agencies have graphic departments in order to manufacture fake documents and also indulge in opening diplomatic mail without leaving trace)... the graphic department of the CIA could have knocked up a few fake pix of rockets in the desert sand and bob was your uncle... Except the "Europeans" would have known they were fake because they, themselves, scan the blue skies above and the only thing they could not dispute overtly was that the trucks were trucks!!! Sure they could say... we've got pictures of them too but that DOES NOT PROVE anything... The diplomacy that ensued was difficult. I would venture to say on the subject of spying on the ground, the US have been lazy. The French, the Germans and the English are more efficient at gathering good stuff than the Yanks.

TESTING... TESTING...
Regarding the affair with Mr Chalabi having allegedly spilled the beans on the US having broken the Iranian secret codes, I would not be surprised if in fact Mr Chalabi did not tell the Iranians anything but they played the usual trick of testing out what the Americans knew... Send a cable from an operative after having met Mr Chalabi, re Mr Chalabi having said such and such, and the CIA storm that swamped MR Chalabi told the Iranians straight away the US knew their codes.... Childish really... The CIA got tricked big time... [I fact on this one I believe then that Gus was tricked: The CIA knew all along, but the release of the information was deliberate to taint Challabi who up to now had been working for the CIA. The CIA also tainted Challabi with some fake money transactions. The whole "tainting" was deliberate to make Challabi palatable enough to be elected to parliament in Iraq, while secretly remaining at the employ of the CIA. I exposed this theory later on.]

RESOLUTION 1441
WE should be made aware once more that Saddam Hussein did comply with the UN resolution 1441 contrary to the constant blurts of our Mr Downer. Three months before the invasion, Saddam provided a very accurate 10,000-plus pages comprehensive report on his weapons of mass destruction, of their suppliers and their disposal thereof apart from very few missing details, mostly because things had not been recorded,.Of course, the report was dismissed as baloney by the US administration, who also high-jacked it, crossed out a lot of embarrassing bits and released it back to the UN. It was only on a very few small technical details that the inspectors reported breaches-such as Saddam's rockets allowed (under UN sanctions) to reach 150 kms sometimes could have reached 156 kms downwind... These were destroyed.

PROOFS...
So we know the CIA-MI6 manufactured the proofs but...

"An American Senate report will blame the CIA for the Bush administration's unfounded claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and will not address White House responsibility for the debacle." Okay... It's basically impossible to show proofs about the white house having demanded deliberately slanted "proof" on Iraq WMDs, but it's basically impossible for the CIA to goof so badly without a nudge from the White house... via secret channels of course....

Proper analysis of the enormity of the "INTELLIGENCE FAILURES" can only indicate the White House (and Whitehall and Little Johnny) was involved in the creation of the porkies. That the CIA makes a few blunders, that's very careless... that MI6 makes the same blunders, that's collusion. That ASIO makes the same... that's blind stupidity. Making blunders of such huge magnitude, that's deliberate governmental policy.

The French and the Germans had the same sources of information and were far more cautious with it because their own operatives in the field knew the information did not stack up. ONLY ONE PERSON ALERTED THE PUBLIC THAT ALL THE RULES OF PROPER INTELLIGENCE GATHERING WERE BEING BROKEN. ONLY ONE PERSON WAS HONEST ENOUGH TO LET US KNOW WE WERE BEING FED A GIGANTIC LIE... A brave Australian analyst, a dedicated professional army officer, who should get a medal for not only having destroyed his own career, but for putting his own life at risk.

Andrew Wilkie of course has been vilified and belittled by the Howard Government. Even someone like Andrew Wilkie has not had many means of being heard on the subject of our government lies. He is clamped in by the "treason factor" and the secrecy act.

Dr David Kelly did speak out in England too. He gave a lead off the record to a journo who used his information full on, without sourcing somewhere else... The information was correct but denied to be so... David Kelly was thus hounded by the British government... He died. More could be said here of the enquiries about his death and the obvious discrepancies in the reports. The Hutton report did not have access to critical information which was proven tempered with in a later enquiry..

Information on torture:

"MI5 and MI6 had high hopes for war-shortening information from Lecube. They believe they had verified beyond doubt that he was a spy. They only needed to make him talk. But after a week, Milmo wrote "No progress has been made ... it looks as though he is going to be an extremely obstinate nut to crack.? Soon afterwards, Milmo wrote to Philby, seeking approval to apply special measures to the interrogation of the detainee..."
The Guardian "Nobody is Talking? Feb 18 2005 (article on torture) (At the time Philby was a high-ranking Officer in Britain's Secret Service and a double-agent for the Russians...)

Gus Leonisky

Note: Al Janabi was not considered a spy but an informant... Should he have been secretly working for the CIA to deceive the Germans to pass on "information" back to the Americans (one of the usual tricks in double-cross), he would have been a spy... Thus the definition between spy and informant is getting blurred so much that one has no choice, with the "intelligence failure", but to go with an organised deception on a grand scale that was concocted by Bush, Blair and Howard...