Studi Strategici ed Intelligence… for dummies

C’è del marcio al CENTCOM, forse.

Published by Silendo on Settembre 16, 2015

Da una ventina di giorni negli Stati Uniti è pubblica la notizia secondo la quale un analista della DIA, l’agenzia di intelligence militare, avrebbe denunciato alle autorità che alcuni rapporti di intelligence sull’ISIS, anche quelli diretti verso la Casa Bianca, sarebbero stati manipolati dal Comando Centrale del Pentagono, il CENTCOM, responsabile per le operazioni militari contro lo Stato Islamico.
La questione è ora sotto l’esame dell’Ispettore generale del Pentagono e secondo le ultime notizie l’ipotesi è che alcuni alti dirigenti dell’intelligence del Comando Centrale avrebbero modificato i report loro sottoposti inoltrandoli poi, così modificati, al vertice decisionale. In breve, tali documenti avrebbero dipinto un quadro eccessivamente positivo enfatizzando i risultati delle operazioni anti-ISIS. Scrive il New York Times:

[…] The revisions presented a more positive picture to the White House, Congress and other intelligence agencies, the officials said.
The senior intelligence officers are flipping everything on its head,” said one government intelligence analyst, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The analyst said that the complaints involve the highest-ranking officials in Centcom’s intelligence unit, run by Army Maj. Gen. Steven R. Grove.
The Pentagon’s inspector general would not examine disputes over routine differences among analysts, and so it is highly unusual that an investigation would be opened about the intelligence conclusions in an ongoing war. The allegations raise the prospect that military officials were presenting skewed assessments to the White House and lawmakers that were in sharp contrast with the conclusions of other intelligence agencies.
The issue is expected to come up Wednesday when Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of Central Command, is expected to testify before a Senate panel about the military campaign against the Islamic State.
“We do take seriously any allegations of the mishandling or manipulation of intelligence information for purposes other than getting to ground truth,” Representative Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday. “In the wake of the flawed intelligence prior to the Iraq war, we must make sure that all voices are appropriately considered and that assessments are never again politicized.”
Last week, Mr. Schiff said that the intelligence presentations that lawmakers get from spy agencies are in general far better than they were in the period leading up to the start of the Iraq war in 2003, when dissenting views about Iraq’s weapons programs were often buried in intelligence reports or ignored. Today, he said, dissenting views are given more prominence in reports.
Disagreements over analytical conclusions are both commonplace and encouraged. Just as in the peer review process in academia, the government wants analysts to consider opposing viewpoints and revise reports as necessary. Analysts who disagree are encouraged to publish rival papers, but changing someone else’s conclusion is forbidden.
The matter is complicated because the analysts who made the complaint work for the Defense Intelligence Agency — it was created to be immune from the pressures and biases of the officers leading the war — but are supervised by officers at Centcom. At least one analyst complained to the inspector general in July. Last week, The Daily Beast reported that those complaints were supported by a cadre of more than 50 intelligence agents.
Col. Patrick S. Ryder, a Centcom spokesman, on Tuesday reiterated several points he had made when news of the investigation broke last month. The inspector general has a responsibility to investigate all allegations, he said, and he cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.
But Colonel Ryder said that because many different intelligence agencies provide assessments to policy makers — all derived from a wide range of sources — the system is structured to guard against “any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision makers.”
On Friday, Pentagon investigators held a conference call with members of Congress as a growing, bipartisan chorus of lawmakers expressed concerns about the dispute. One official who listened to the call said it was intended to assure lawmakers that investigators were taking the claims seriously. […]

Posted in: Blog
Tagged:
intelligence, iraq, ISIS, medio-oriente, siria, stati uniti

Chi Sono

Silendo

Un appassionato di relazioni internazionali e studi strategici. In particolar modo di questioni connesse con l'intelligence.
Per contattarmi:
info@silendo.org

Leggi tutto...

Accedi

Tweet di @Silendo_org

Archivio

Categorie

Tags

affari strategici afganistan algeria al qaeda arabia saudita australia cina criminalità organizzata cyber-mf difesa egitto estremismo francia germania gran bretagna guerriglia hamas hezbollah india intelligence iran iraq ISIS israele italia Leadership e classe dirigente libano libia libri medio-oriente minkiate nato nucleare e risorse energetiche pakistan palestina russia sentimenti sicurezza nazionale siria somalia stati uniti strategic foresight studi di intelligence terrorismo turchia

Blogroll

  • Affari Internazionali
  • Agentura
  • American Enterprise Institute
  • ANSSI
  • AOL Defense
  • Arms Control Wonk
  • Asia Centre
  • Asia Times
  • Aspen Institute Italia
  • ASPI
  • Atlantic Council
  • Baker Institute
  • Banca d'Italia
  • BBC
  • Belfer Center
  • Bellingcat
  • Bertelsmann Foundation
  • BESA Center
  • Bibliografia sull'intelligence
  • Bloomberg
  • Bloomberg View
  • Brookings Institution
  • Bruegel
  • Carnegie Endowment
  • Carnegie Middle East Center
  • Carnegie Moscow Center
  • CASD
  • Center for a New American Security
  • Center for Economic Policy Research
  • Center for European Reform
  • Center for Naval Analyses
  • Center for Nonproliferation Studies
  • Centre d'Analyse Stratégique
  • Centro Einaudi
  • Centro Studi Confindustria
  • CEPR
  • CF2R
  • Chatham House
  • China Leadership Monitor
  • CISAC
  • Combating Terrorism Center
  • Comparative Strategy
  • COPASIR
  • Corriere della Sera
  • Council on Foreign Relations
  • CSBA
  • CSFRS
  • CSI – CIA
  • CSIS
  • CSS
  • CSS Strategic Trends Analysis
  • Danger Room
  • DCAF
  • Defence News
  • East online
  • ECFR
  • ECIR
  • Economist
  • Egmont Institute
  • Epistemes
  • EsadeGeo
  • ESPAS
  • EU Institute for Security Studies
  • Eurasianet
  • European Policy Centre
  • Fareed Zakaria
  • FAS
  • FAS – CRS
  • FAS – DNI
  • Fas – Strategic Security Blog
  • Financial Times
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Foreign Policy
  • Foreign Policy – National Security
  • FPRI
  • FRS
  • FSI – Stanford
  • Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • German Council on Foreign Relations
  • German Marshall Fund
  • Global Trends 2030
  • Globalsecurity.org
  • Governo italiano
  • H-Net
  • Harvard International Review
  • HCSS
  • Heritage Foundation
  • Horizon Scanning Centre
  • Horizon Scanning Centre – Toolkit
  • House Armed Services Committee
  • House Committee on Homeland Security
  • House Committee on International Relations
  • House Intelligence Committee
  • HSPI
  • Hudson Institute
  • IAEA
  • IDSA
  • IEA
  • IFRI
  • IHEDN
  • IISS
  • IMF
  • INET
  • Infinity Journal
  • Infoguerre
  • INSS – Israele
  • INSS – USA
  • Institute for Government
  • Intelligence & National Security
  • Intelligence Studies Section
  • IntellNews
  • International Crisis Group
  • International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
  • International Security
  • International Security Studies
  • IRIS
  • ISIS
  • Istituto Affari Internazionali
  • Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici
  • Jamestown Foundation
  • JFK School of Government
  • JFQ
  • Joshua Rogin
  • Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Journal of Strategic Security
  • Journal of Strategic Studies
  • Kings of War
  • Lowy Institute
  • LSE IDEAS Blog
  • Macro Polo
  • McKinsey Global Institute
  • Mercator Institute
  • Merlin
  • Military Review
  • Miller Center
  • MIT Center
  • Munich Security Conference
  • National Bureau of Asian Research
  • National Defense Intelligence College
  • National Intelligence Council
  • National Interest Online
  • National Security Archive
  • National Security Journal
  • Naval War College Review
  • NCTC
  • New America Foundation
  • New York Times
  • Newsweek
  • Nixon Center
  • Notre Europe
  • OCSE
  • ODNI
  • On Think Tanks
  • Orbis
  • Oxford Analytica
  • Oxford Intelligence Group
  • Papers – APSA
  • Papers – ISA
  • Parameters
  • Perspectives on Terrorism
  • Peter Bergen
  • Peterson Institute
  • Proceedings
  • Project 2049
  • Project Syndicate
  • Public Intelligence
  • RAND
  • Real Instituto Elcano
  • Reuters
  • Robert Kaplan
  • RSIS
  • RUSI
  • Secrecy News
  • Security Studies
  • Senate Armed Services Committee
  • Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Senate Committee on Homeland Security
  • Senate Committee on Intelligence
  • Sentinel
  • SGDSN
  • SIPRI
  • SISR – Intelligence italiana
  • Source&Methods
  • South Asia Analysis Group
  • Spiegel International
  • Stephen Walt
  • Stimson Center
  • Strategic & Defence Studies Centre
  • Strategic Studies Institute
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly
  • Strategika
  • Stratfor
  • Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
  • Terrorism and Political Violence
  • The Back Channel
  • The Diplomat
  • The Interpreter
  • The Overoholt Group
  • The Strategist
  • The Strategy Bridge
  • Time
  • Transatlantic Academy
  • U.S.-China Commission
  • UN Millennium Project
  • Venus in Arms
  • VOX
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War on the Rocks
  • Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Washington Post
  • WCFIA – Harvard
  • Wilson International Center
  • World Economic Forum
Locations of visitors to this page
© 2025 SILENDO Design & Dev by Artemida Srl