Thursday, September 10, 2015

The Lying Liars Who Are Lying Now

Some serious thinkers do not believe in reality. They do not accept the existence of objective facts. They believe that it’s all in the way we see it, thus, the way we interpret it. They believe that we can change reality by interpreting it differently.

They are saying that everything is propaganda. No one set of facts is any better than any other so we should choose our facts selectively, the better to  promote a narrative that will advance our cause.

It’s all a lie anyway, so why not lie for a good cause?

That seems to be the reigning principle behind the intelligence assessments presented by Centcom, the military branch in charge of fighting ISIS. Some fifty intelligence analysts have stepped forth to say that their reports are being modified by higher ups to fit with the the Obama administration narrative. Winning is ignoring all the evidence that says you are losing.

Which lying liar is lying now?

The Daily Beast has the story:

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military's Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

And also:

Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.

If the leaders of Centcom are skewing the analysis to make the administration happy, it means that the Obama administration foreign policy team, led by John Kerry and Susan Rice, wants to hear only what it wants to hear. Because the facts might hurt their feelings.

Some of those CENTCOM analysts described the sizeable cadre of protesting analysts as a “revolt” by intelligence professionals who are paid to give their honest assessment, based on facts, and not to be influenced by national-level policy. The analysts have accused senior-level leaders, including the director of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress. The analysts take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going….

The complaints allege that in some cases key elements of intelligence reports were removed, resulting in a document that didn’t accurately capture the analysts’ conclusions, sources familiar with the protest said. But the complaint also goes beyond alleged altering of reports and accuses some senior leaders at CENTCOM of creating an unprofessional work environment. One person who knows the contents of the written complaint sent to the inspector general said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM’s analysis.

Administration statements reflect the distorted analysis. The Daily Beast reports:

In recent months, members of the Obama administration have sought to paint the fight against ISIS in rosy hues—despite the terror army’s seizure of major cities like Mosul and Fallujah.

“ISIS is losing,” John Allen, the retired Marine general charged with coordinating the ISIS campaign, said in July.

“I am confident that over time, we will beat, we will, indeed, degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in March, using the government’s preferred acronym for the group.

“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” President Obama said in May.

The question now is: are they all lying or do they just not know any better? And, if they do not know any better, is it because they are ignoring the evidence or because no one dares tell them the truth?

Obviously, the Obama administration cannot possibly make good military policy when it does not know (and would rather not know) the military situation.

Now, it is facing the humanitarian nightmare that its policies have unleashed. Since this issue allows it to show its empathy it is happy to deal with it… by allowing more refugees to enter the country.


David Smith said...

Well, one could echo Korzbyski's observation that "the map is not the territory" but I don't think that this is talking about different "maps" describing the same territory so much as misrepresenting the same map...

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: Which lying liar is lying now?

A good question. And a good thing the military has a formal system of complaints to sort all that out.

I don't think any readers of that "exclusive" article will learn anything useful except the generic truth that people have varied opinions, and no ones likes to feel their opinions have been unduly dismissed or diminished.

And their motives would appear sincere, afraid of repeating past humiliations where raw facts have been cherry-picked by political agendas.
For some, who have served at CENTCOM for more than a decade, scars remained from the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq, when poorly written intelligence reports suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when it did not, formed the basis of the George W. Bush administration’s case for war.

“They were frustrated because they didn’t do the right thing then” and speak up about their doubts on Iraq’s weapons program, the defense official told The Daily Beast.

KCFleming said...

3. SJWs always project.

The Progressives accused Bush of lying about WMDs because that's what they'd do, and indeed, did.