George Tenet's Fairytale History of the Iraq War
On the morning of March 19, 2003, Saddam Hussein's son Qusay arrived at the Central Bank of Iraq with 50 goons from the regime's Special Security Organization to make a withdrawal of $1 billion in cash. President Bush's 48-hour "deadline" was about to expire; two days earlier, he had warned the Iraqi president and his sons to leave Iraq or face war.
It was high drama -- except that, as this little trip to the bank demonstrated, Saddam Hussein knew that there was going to be a war. The United States had been aggressively bombing Iraq for months, and the CIA had been operating in Iraqi Kurdistan for almost a year. In preparation for war, the Baghdad regime had evacuated offices, activated safe houses and distributed millions to various ministries, holding back more than $100 million in cash for its own uses.
At the CIA, George Tenet writes in his new book, agent networks buzzed in anticipation of the coming war; one of the agency's tasks was preparing to arrange the surrender of Iraq forces. Tenet stumbles, however, in his telling of the now-famous story of the tip that precipitated the first official bombing of the war, of an east Baghdad compound where Saddam was suspected of spending the night of March 19.
Not only does Mr. Facts get some simple ones wrong, but he seems oblivious to one effect of his spy-vs.-spy game: For all its "secret" and oh-so-special operations, the United States' actions in the clandestine world are seen and known by the other side -- which reacts accordingly. In fact, U.S. covert action creates reactions that in the open world may not be desirable.
George Tenet now complains about the Iraq war, explaining that the CIA is not really to blame and adding that the CIA is not responsible for the bad intelligence about Saddam Hussein's whereabouts on March 19 (if Saddam lived, it was Tommy Franks' fault). Tenet wants us to know that the CIA was the first to have boots on the ground, that the CIA had real agent networks, that the agency did fabulous work and could have done even more had the military and the administration not screwed up.
But he seems oblivious to the fact that the CIA had already created a kind of war. To Saddam Hussein, those boots on the ground, plots to bomb his compound and buzzing networks were war.
I started thinking fresh about the events at Doura Farms, Saddam Hussein's compound, when I read in Tenet's "At the Center of the Storm" not once but twice about how U.S. B-2 bombers prepared for the strike in response to the CIA tip-off.
It's a minor detail, but in a fact -checked and seemingly detail-oriented defense-maxima, it is a funny little error: Two F-117 stealth fighters, not B-2's, attacked Hussein's nonexistent bunkers that morning. They were nonexistent because the CIA agents, who seem now to have been as interested in ensuring war as averting it, lied. Not only did CIA agents make up or embellish the facts about a family meeting at the compound, but they then said Saddam Hussein was carried out in an ambulance after in the strike -- a story that the CIA leaked to the news media. (Now Tenet would have us believe that it was a meeting of "senior Ba'ath Party officials" at Doura Farms.)
Tenet also takes a swipe at Gen. Tommy Franks for removing from the target list a "villa" at the complex because there might have been women and children there. I'm not one to defend the hapless commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the suggestion that Franks somehow undermined the CIA because of a misguided desire to save the lives of women and children is obscene.
Other Tenet facts about the attack and the opening salvo of the war are strangely wrong: Tenet says that all of the cruise missiles hit Doura Farms, but we now know that almost half hit other sites in Baghdad. This was a dilution of the emergency strike specifically requested by the CIA to provide cover for their agents who pinpointed Doura Farms.
Then Tenet tells us of the "signal" that the CIA worked out with the Iraqi military for units that were supposedly ready to throw off their uniforms and defect when the war began. The U.S. would attack a certain hill to signal the start of the war, Tenet says, and Iraqi forces would know to surrender. Tenet says it worked as planned: The U.S. fired "napalm and artillery" at the hill, Tenet says, and the Iraqi forces melted away.
"Any resistance encountered in Nasiriyah came from the Fedayeen Saddam," Tenet goes on to say. CIA covert action had neutralized the Iraqi Army, and could have done even more had there been enough U.S. troops to accept the surrender of tens of thousands that the CIA was prepared to deliver.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The U.S. fired no napalm in the war, none. U.S. forces were met with regular Iraqi Army troops of the 11th Infantry Division and other units in Nasiriyah. And it would have been nice, while the CIA was so busy trying to win the war all by itself, if it had focused on its most important task: providing intelligence on the enemy.
The devil is in the details, as they say.
By William M. Arkin |
May 9, 2007; 9:50 AM ET
Intelligence
, Iraq
Previous: Tenet's Slam Dunk Support for Dick Cheney |
Next: Give the Iraqis a Break
Posted by: The Rev | May 16, 2007 11:02 AM
For those who are demanding that Bush and Cheney be held accountable for conspiring to go to war, allow me to point out that George Tenet was a holdover from the previous administration, and the intel that he provided was identical to the intel that Clinton was getting. The difference, aside from 9/11, which made it clear that we could no longer accept the risk of rogue powers using terror groups as proxies to attack us on our own soil, was that when Clinton declared that regime change in Iraq was a US priority, or at least it was until Monica Lewinsky was out of the headlines, you guys were all for it. Spare me the hypocrisy.
If the Bush administration made any mistake in Iraq, it was listening to the people who demanded (and got) moderation in the execution of a war against a fanatical enemy who sees mercy as weakness, honor as stupidity and death as a victory.
Posted by: Odysseus | May 15, 2007 10:05 AM
The Bush administration is guilty of gross mismanagement of the GWOT, but they begin to look sympathetic as the quality of the intelligence they worked with is revealed.
George Tenet's credibility is further eroded with every public statement. His time has come and gone. He needs to leave the world stage and return to the only role he was ever fit for...staffer.
Posted by: Hawk58 | May 11, 2007 8:50 AM
Jaxas,
It's called "ready, shoot, aim".
DC
Look Bill. There is no further need for explanation. We already get what went on back in those days between 9-11 and 3-18. And we know who to hold accountable for the next 50 years.
Posted by: Jaxas
Posted by: DC | May 10, 2007 10:41 AM
I cannot forget all of the self assured boasting that was going on when all of this began. The "adults" were now in charge of American foreign policy after years of liberal pullback from America's God given right to supervise the world. We lad a strong leader in the White House who finally understood the proper use of hard power as exemplified by an agressive use of the US military instead of the soft power of diplomacy and negotiation.
And now, here we are all these years later and we find out just how utterly misguided such supercilious, soaked with hubris braggadocio was. It does not matter that Tenet and the CIA were so utterly incompetent. What matters is that their incompetence and their own hubris was a perfect complement to that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the lost in the weeds neoconservatives who even to this day with all that has gone under the bridge, insist that they were right.
Look Bill. There is no further need for explanation. We already get what went on back in those days between 9-11 and 3-18. And we know who to hold accountable for the next 50 years.
Posted by: Jaxas | May 10, 2007 10:01 AM
It is like the Plame affair, everybody tells a different story. I think they are tripping, stoned on something.
Posted by: Sam Ellison | May 9, 2007 7:21 PM
In my personal experience I have worked for individuals who had made their minds made up to undertake an action or a task. However, these individuals did not want to be held accountable should the action or task result in failure, but did desire to take full responsibility should the task succeed. Thus with predetermined goals that they would not change, they would search for individuals to delegate the action or task to. To refuse the action or task meant termination, demotion, or stagnation. To accept the task or action meant employment, promotion, or a raise. This is what I see being played out by Bush, must likely under the advice of Rove and Cheney. Tenet knew the administration wanted to go into Iraq, he willingly accepted the TASK of providing an EXCUSE for Bush to take the predetermined ACTION of going into Iraq.
Posted by: DC | May 9, 2007 7:14 PM
Maureen Dowd just called Mr. Slam-Dunk a "simpering suck-up." That about covers it. Maybe we shoud add "Liar, Liar, Liar.
Posted by: OldDoc | May 9, 2007 5:28 PM
There is just TWO questionS that the American people had better be asking.That is;WHY HAS CONGRESS NOT IMPEACHED THESE CRIMINALS?WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DONT KNOW?IT IS WAY PAST TIME TO START ASKING THESE QUESTIONS.CONSIDER THE AMMOUNT OF DAMAGE THEY MAY YET DO TO THIS COUNTRY IN THE REMAINING TIME THEY HAVE IN OFFICE.
Posted by: CINCIGAL74 | May 9, 2007 4:56 PM
This book is designed to narrow the view of the reader. The "devil is in the details" analysis Arkin provides quickly demolishes Tenet's book as a disinformation project, however, I think we "miss the forest for looking at the trees". The Bush regime and its faith based execution of the imperial adventure in the Middle East is a disaster for the
national interests of the USA. Is this the real agenda of the neo-cons? The reduction of US finacial, moral, and military power has resulted for this satanic war. Rev says,"never again", but this is simply a rerun of Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan for the Soviets, and Algeria for the French. The evil men who lead us into these debilitating and immoral wars do it again and again. Are they really fools? I think not. They intend the destruction of American power as the main obstacle to a one world agenda. Read the March issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine, there is an article recommending a single currency for the world. This is the end of American sovereignty. It may be the intention of the men who cripple the US to remove it as an obstacle to this plan. Check the following link on Asia Times to see the larger picture damage of the Iraq invasion:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE10Ak03.html
Posted by: bk | May 9, 2007 4:34 PM
It is not surprising that the contents of George Tenet's book are challenged. The Bush administration finds it impossible to take responsibility for any incorrect action. I no longer believe anything anyone in the Bush administration says. George Tenet probably is the more reliable source if one must choose. Things will start looking up once they are out of power, and I look forward to that day.
Posted by: farrarc | May 9, 2007 2:58 PM
I think what this book, and most others like it, reveal, is the fear these public officials have of being seen as incompetent and not worthy of their positions. Responsible for mistakes. "If I had full knowledge, I would have...we did our part... I can't read everything..." It's a picture of every situation that involves multiple people. And the reality of truth various with the number of individuals involved.
It is my personal experience that seeing truth lies in the ability to humble one's self, and fearlessly take in a full view of related events. And in that the turn in the road happened at every juncture of pride, arrogance, prejudice and fear.
And my experience is that writing a book, about personal experiences, should never be attempted until this objective thinking can be done. Meaning, anyone activity involved in office, seeking office, is still working the crowd, and not interested in passing on wisdom.
Posted by: Diana N. | May 9, 2007 2:21 PM
I still say: Better late than never!
Mr. Arkin is providing us with an excellent critique of Mr. Tenant's book. Unfortunately, I am behind in my reading and haven't read it yet.
I completed State of Denial, The Best Story Ever Sold, and I am about halfway through The Assasin's Gate, however.
It may be uncomfortable given all of what Mr. Tenant wrote in his book, but based on what I have read so far in these and other books Mr. tenant conclusions, appear to be mostly right on target.
Either way, this man's patriotism or character was destined to be called into question, i.e., if he had stood up to Bush then, or by his telling his story now.
This whole matter has been and is very instructive!
America's mantra should be, "NEVER AGAIN".
Posted by: The Rev | May 9, 2007 12:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
If the Bush administration made any mistake in Iraq, it was listening to the people who demanded (and got) moderation in the execution of a war against a fanatical enemy who sees mercy as weakness, honor as stupidity and death as a victory.
Posted by: Odysseus
It seems to the Rev that you are rewriting history. All of #43's men and [woman], were members of previous administrations, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, et al.
Many of these folks wanted to take out Saddam, long before they joined up with #43's administration.
Next, #43 concluded and announced that major combat operations were over; he seemed to be quite satisified with the prosecution of the war, based on the war plan that had been put together by Centcom. Tommy Franks, prior to his retirement, told the troops that the majority of them would be going home soon.
The fact is, if Mr. #43 had listened to the intelligent voices of moderation and reason, he would have had an after plan already in place. Rumsfool upstaged the State Department, and the rest, as we all know is history.
Far more mistakes were made than the one that you mentioned, and point-of-fact, that was not a mistake.
His real mistake has been a historical need to listen only to people who agree with him!