Jump to content


Photo

Woodward on Iraq: "CIA Said Instability Seemed Irreversible"


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 crease

crease

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1674 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 08:29 AM

Talk about timely. You've got the senate perched right on the cusp of the 60-vote threshold that they'd need to insert a phased-withdrawal amendment that's veto-proof. And you've got the White House shamelessly spinning the interim report on the Iraqi government's progress toward achieving military and political benchmarks.

In any event, this is an extremely damaging piece. And the irony is that I was about to post a different story--which I thought was exceptionally damaging--before I popped open WaPo's site this morning and saw this. (The other story -- that Al Queda has rebuilt its capabilities to pre-Sept. 11 levels; take a wild guess why; so incredibly infuriating.)

CIA Said Instability Seemed 'Irreversible'

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; A01

Early on the morning of Nov. 13, 2006, members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group gathered around a dark wooden conference table in the windowless Roosevelt Room of the White House.

For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a "Churchillian" vision of "victory" in Iraq and defend the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. "A constitutional order is emerging," he said.

Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said "the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible," adding that he could not "point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.

"The government is unable to govern," Hayden concluded. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function."

Later in the interview, he qualified the statement somewhat: "A government that can govern, sustain and defend itself is not achievable," he said, "in the short term."

Hayden's bleak assessment, which came just a week after Republicans had lost control of Congress and Bush had dismissed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was a pivotal moment in the study group's intensive examination of the Iraq war, and it helped shape its conclusion in its final report that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating."

In the eight months since the interview, neither Hayden nor any other high-ranking administration official has publicly described the Iraqi government in the uniformly negative terms that the CIA director used in his closed-door briefing.

Among the 79 specific recommendations the Iraq Study Group made to Bush was withdrawing support for the Maliki government unless it showed "substantial progress" on security and national reconciliation. And it recommended changing the primary mission of U.S. forces from combat to training Iraqis so that combat units could be withdrawn by early 2008.

In effect, the report from the bipartisan group -- co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) -- was an urgent message from the old Washington establishment to the Bush administration to change the direction of its Iraq policy. But Bush did not initially embrace any of the key recommendations, although bipartisan groups in the House and Senate have recently introduced legislation that would make them official U.S. policy.

Instead, the president in January announced that he was sending more troops to Iraq as part of a "surge," which he said would lead to the victory that had so far eluded U.S. forces.

Both Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, have repeatedly said that there is no military solution to Iraq and that the sectarian strife and the insurgency can be resolved only by the Iraqi government.

Hayden's description of Iraq's dysfunctional government provides some insight into the intelligence community's analysis of Maliki and the situation on the ground. Five days before his testimony, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley had written a memo to Bush raising doubts about Maliki's ability to curb violence in Iraq, but his assessment was not as bleak as Hayden's.

Bush's own optimistic statement to members of the study group did not reflect the viewpoint of his CIA director. But a statement from another administration official interviewed by the panel the same day -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- took it into account.

Asked by former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a member of the study group, if she was aware of the CIA's grim evaluation of Iraq, Rice replied, "We are aware of the dark assessment," but quickly added: "It is not without hope."

A spokesman for the CIA, Mark Mansfield, disputed this account of Hayden's testimony to members of the study group. "That is not an accurate reflection of what Director Hayden said at that meeting, nor does it reflect his view, then or now," Mansfield said.

A senior intelligence official familiar with Hayden's session with the Iraq Study Group said that Hayden told the panel his assessment was "somber" and acknowledged that Hayden had used the term "irreversible." But the official insisted that Hayden instead said, "The current situation, with regard to governance in Iraq, was probably irreversible in the short term, because of the world views of many of the [Iraqi] government leaders, which were shaped by a sectarian filter and a government that was organized for its ethnic and religious balance rather than competence or capacity."

But another senior intelligence official confirmed the thrust and detail of Hayden's assessment, saying that the intelligence out of Iraq this month shows that the ability of the Maliki government to execute decisions and govern Iraq remains "awful."

Hayden, 62, a four-star Air Force general and career intelligence officer, has a reputation as a candid briefer. Since 2003, the CIA, which has more than 500 personnel in Iraq to assist in providing intelligence and analysis, has offered the most pessimistic view of any intelligence agency of both the Iraqi government's performance and the situation on the ground there.

Testifying publicly before the Senate Armed Services Committee two days after meeting with the study group, Hayden was more cautious in his conclusions. He said that there were serious problems in Iraq but that the government was "functioning."

Former defense secretary William J. Perry, one of the five Democrats on the Iraq Study Group, confirmed that Hayden told them the Iraqi government seemed beyond repair.

"That was what we'd been hearing everywhere," Perry said. "He just said it a little more clearly and more explicitly than other people."

O'Connor, a Republican, also confirmed Hayden's assessment. She said she did not agree with his conclusion that it was irreversible, but she said she was pessimistic.

"It is a dire situation," she said. "I don't think it has gotten any better. It just breaks your heart. . . . Iraqi people are dying, American soldiers are dying. So far it does not seem we have achieved any kind of security there."

Arriving at the White House on the morning of Nov. 13, members of the study group spent the day interviewing almost every key figure involved in Iraq policy. In addition to Hayden, Bush and Rice, they also questioned Rumsfeld; Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Zalmay Khalilzad, then U.S. ambassador to Iraq; and, by videoconference from Baghdad, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Bush was joined in the interview by Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and Hadley, but they did not speak. "We thought with that whole group there, we were going to get briefings, we were going to get discussions," said Perry. "Instead the president held forth on his views on how important the war was, and how it was tough."

In his meeting with members of the study group, Hayden described a situation in which the Iraqi government either would not or could not control the violence consuming the country and questioned whether it made sense to strengthen its security forces. He depicted the United States as facing mainly bad choices in the future.

"Our leaving Iraq would make the situation worse," Hayden said. "Our staying in Iraq may not make it better. Our current approach without modification will not make it better."

According to the written record and others in the room, Hayden at one point likened the situation in Iraq to a marathon. He said there comes a point in each race when the runner knows he can complete the challenge. But Hayden said he could see no such point in Iraq's future.

"The levers of power are not connected to anything," he said, adding: "We have placed all of our energies in creating the center, and the center cannot accomplish anything."

Numerous U.S. generals already had told the study group that success in Iraq could not come without national reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites. Hayden agreed, saying: "The Iraqi identity is muted. The Sunni or Shia identity is foremost."

But he clearly saw no end to sectarian killings. "Given the level of uncontrolled violence," Hayden said, "the most we can do is to contain its excesses and preserve the possibility of reconciliation in the future."

He compared the Iraq situation to the prolonged warfare in the Balkans. "In Bosnia, the parties fought themselves to exhaustion," Hayden said, suggesting that the same scenario could play out in Iraq. "They might just have to fight this out to exhaustion."

Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

Members of the study group said Hayden's stark assessment of the Iraqi government dovetailed with what they had heard in September during their visit to Iraq. There, they met with a senior CIA official who held an equally unenthusiastic view. "Maliki was nobody's pick," the CIA official had said, according to written notes from that meeting. "His name came up late. He has no real power base in the country or in parliament. We need not expect much from him."

Given the constant threats and persistent violence, the official had said, it was remarkable that Iraqi government employees showed up for work.

"We continue to be amazed that the Iraqis accept such high levels of violence," he told the study group. "Maliki thinks two car bombs a day, 100 dead a day, is okay. It's sustainable and his government is survivable."

But the government itself was responsible for some of that violence, the CIA official said. "The Ministry of Interior is uniformed death squads, overseers of jails and torture facilities," he said. "Their funds are constantly misappropriated."

In his testimony, Hayden said that the United States had fundamental disagreements with Maliki's Shiite-dominated government on some of the most basic issues facing Iraq.

"We and the Iraqi government do not agree on who the enemy is," Hayden said, according to the written record. "For all the senior leaders of the Iraqi government, Baathists are the source of evil. There is a Baathist behind every bush."

Several participants in the interview described Hayden as dismayed by the startling level of violence in the country but skeptical of the ability of Iraqi forces -- either the military or the police -- to do anything about it.

"It's a legitimate question whether strengthening the Iraqi security forces helps or hurts when they are viewed as a predatory element," he said. "Strengthening Iraqi security forces is not unalloyed good. Without qualification, this judgment applies to the police."

In one bit of qualified good news, he said that the training of the Iraqi army had produced better results than that of the police. "The army is uneven," he said, adding: "Uneven, in this case, is good."

Hayden's frustration with Maliki provides a context to the administration's continuing efforts to pressure the Iraqi leader into finding a political settlement between Sunni and Shiite factions in Iraq. During one week last month, three senior administration officials visited Baghdad to try to speed up the political process.

In her testimony Nov. 13, Rice recounted her discussions with Maliki in which she bluntly told him the importance of making progress on national unity and reconciliation. Rice said she had told the prime minister, "Pretty soon, you'll all be swinging from lampposts if you don't hang together."

Brady Dennis and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.



#2 Nick

Nick

    2.0

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5939 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 08:39 AM

I just finished reading this on the Post website as well. Again, the way the American public has tuned out the war in such a way that military death toll, Iraqi civilian death toll, and the Bush administration's handling of the war is regarded as "old news" is embarrassing. Not only that, but the general eye rolling any protests seem to draw is disgusting.

#3 crease

crease

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1674 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:01 AM

whoa, whoa, whoa -- a handy majority of the public wants us out of there. in fact, i think that public opinion would set us on the (highly unwise) course of 'immediate', rather than phased, withdrawal. so i don't know that i'd characterize the public mood as 'sanguine'. iraq regularly tops the list of issues most important to the american public in polling. what's embarassing--and i have to say shocking--is the administration's insistence on managing this as if it's a political issue, in full spin mode, unwilling to own up to the incredibly grave challenges that we face. the fact that bush went into the iraq study group meeting in full 'stay the course...it's hard work...we can't afford to fail' mode, only to be contradicted in the starkest possible terms by the CIA director (who ROUTINELY briefs the president) suggests either that bush is in full-fledged denial, that his underlings are afraid to deliver the bad news to him in person, or that whatever reaches him is being sanitized to the nth degree. that's frightening to me. the stakes are way too high.

#4 no magnets

no magnets

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4762 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:16 AM

also extremely disturbing is this article, which states michael chertoff's reasoning for saying the US should be heightened alert is based on "a gut feeling." good, i'm glad he's nostradamus now.

#5 Nick

Nick

    2.0

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5939 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:18 AM

whoa, whoa, whoa -- a handy majority of the public wants us out of there. in fact, i think that public opinion would set us on the (highly unwise) course of 'immediate', rather than phased, withdrawal. so i don't know that i'd characterize the public mood as 'sanguine'. iraq regularly tops the list of issues most important to the american public in polling.


Right, and public opinion polls clearly send a message to our own government, to governments around the world and to indifferent/useless rubes sitting in middle American diners reading about NASCAR standings.

Are you suggesting that "polls" are a form of protestation?

#6 sin city

sin city

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3518 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:21 AM

also extremely disturbing is this article, which states michael chertoff's reasoning for saying the US should be heightened alert is based on "a gut feeling." good, i'm glad he's nostradamus now.


more like nostradumbass...
"even boarding in non-signature-view mode i feel your lists of concerts (no one cares) last.fm bullshit (ditto) and oversized .jpgs (srsly fuck off) may distract from my superior posts."

#7 TJENZ

TJENZ

    Golden God

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10469 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:23 AM

also extremely disturbing is this article, which states michael chertoff's reasoning for saying the US should be heightened alert is based on "a gut feeling." good, i'm glad he's nostradamus now.

the optomist in me says he knows something, but doesn't know specifics or can't get into specifics

the realist says he's just another one of Bush's stupid toadies

#8 dice

dice

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4072 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:29 AM

i wish chertoff had had a gut feeling about katrina when he was head of FEMA
http://www.kiva.org

make a difference
99% repayment!

#9 crease

crease

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1674 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 10:09 AM

whoa, whoa, whoa -- a handy majority of the public wants us out of there. in fact, i think that public opinion would set us on the (highly unwise) course of 'immediate', rather than phased, withdrawal. so i don't know that i'd characterize the public mood as 'sanguine'. iraq regularly tops the list of issues most important to the american public in polling.


Right, and public opinion polls clearly send a message to our own government, to governments around the world and to indifferent/useless rubes sitting in middle American diners reading about NASCAR standings.

Are you suggesting that "polls" are a form of protestation?

well, you do have a democratic majority in congress thanks in no small part to voter angst concerning the war. no, they're not erecting barricades on pennsylvania avenue. but i think we're living in a different time (i.e., no draft, no sacrifice but for the families/loved ones of those fighting overseas). do i think there should be mass protests and the like? if it will help to inject some realism into our policy, god yes.

#10 held

held

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3549 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 10:30 AM

the constant play of it's bi-partisan complaints is such a hamfisted defense at this point. between the justice department, the surgeon general and now a semi-incomplete or partial-pardoning for the 'harsh' sentence of a fellow ex-staffer who's basically being played merely to keep his mouth shut like I don't know how many others that are being told to clam it when it comes to congressional hearings (despite meaning very little in accomplishing anything really) iraq and afghanistan are both runaway trains which we do not have a handle on. nor have we succeeded in any manner in getting out of there. nor will we ever really. the terms for which we are acting as the security force alone have everything to do with the way this administration ran in there to take over and while many would agree that they want to stop this bus and get off. unfortunately there's no quick fix and I suspect the next several presidents will be dealing with this nonsense for some time. the real concern I have is whether these nit wits have the desire to start any more trouble than we're already in. I don't think americans are complacent exactly. I think they just see the election as the next major doorway to change. You'll notice the single anti-war protestor finally gave up so to speak. The media's mostly been playing ball and unlike previous conflicts. these are characters that don't stick out or fight head on so there isn't the same sort of footage to be gained.
There is nothing more depressing than trying to appear happy when you are not."
- Nick Cave

#11 Guest_NumberTenOx_*

Guest_NumberTenOx_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2007 - 12:47 PM

whoa, whoa, whoa -- a handy majority of the public wants us out of there. in fact, i think that public opinion would set us on the (highly unwise) course of 'immediate', rather than phased, withdrawal. so i don't know that i'd characterize the public mood as 'sanguine'. iraq regularly tops the list of issues most important to the american public in polling.


Right, and public opinion polls clearly send a message to our own government, to governments around the world and to indifferent/useless rubes sitting in middle American diners reading about NASCAR standings.

Are you suggesting that "polls" are a form of protestation?

well, you do have a democratic majority in congress thanks in no small part to voter angst concerning the war. no, they're not erecting barricades on pennsylvania avenue. but i think we're living in a different time (i.e., no draft, no sacrifice but for the families/loved ones of those fighting overseas). do i think there should be mass protests and the like? if it will help to inject some realism into our policy, god yes.


That's really part of the whole blankness issue-- since we have people who are "supposed" to be paying a price for the situation in Iraq (soldiers [not troops, goddammit] and Iraqis), and our own bottom lines are relatively unaffected (the number of Americans who have lost a relation or a friend over the last five years is a small percentage of the poulation, and our economy hasn't sustained any adverse affects [yet]), well... what's to be concerned with? And since we're fighting the good fight, goin' up against "evil" and all that, well... we should actually feel pretty damn good. Or at least not pay attention.

i wish chertoff had had a gut feeling about katrina when he was head of FEMA

Chertoff wasn't head of FEMA pre Katrina. Michael "Heckuva Job" Brown was. Skeletor became head of interim head of FEMA after Brownie got a heckuva sacking.

#12 pong

pong

    Rockist

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9208 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 03:42 PM

Iraq war bad. Probably best to just get out as soon as possible. Article over.