Eric Umansky

The most important sentence in the commission report

"We were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the
intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence
Community," - Page 8.

Thanks to Steve Aftergood, who also noted that President Bush thanked the commission for its "unvarnished" review.

P.S. Now see if you can find that sentence in the NYT's happy-to-get-played take on Monday: "Panel's Report Assails C.I.A. for Failure on Iraq Weapons."

Stryker Stryker

The WP has a big takeout today documenting a bagful of problems with the Army's new armored vehicle, the Stryker. Its strap-on armor is too heavy, and only marginally effective. Its gun doesn't work on the fly. Its computers tend to freeze. Etc. etc.

As it happens, I was once looking into the Stryker myself last year, and in the process talked with the Pentagon's former chief tester. As he explained, the Stryker was rushed into production--and then combat--without proper testing. Hence the problems above that the Post details.

But he also explained the larger context, and one that the Post misses: The Stryker is indicative of what's wrong with the military "transformation" plans that Rumsfeld is so excited about.

The general philosophy of the Army's transformation plan is "lighter, smarter, faster." Basically, the idea is that vehicles won't have to be heavily armored since they'll be networked and filled with top notch sensors meaning they'll have so much information about the battlefield there won't be any need for head-on fighting. 

The problem with that approach when it comes to Iraq is pretty obvious: The  Pentium Power and Wi-Fi networks will probably help you spot enemy  tanks, but it probably won't be the deciding factor against the guys in the neighborhood hanging around with RPGs. For that, the best intel isn't tech-based but, it's from the guys' neighbors. And the belief that the high-tech stuff will provide solid enough intel so as to avoid major combat--and thus the need for heavy armor--seems  just dunder-headed. 

But don't believe me. According to the industry newsletter Inside the Pentagon, Rumsfeld (to his credit) recently recirculated a RAND paper offering lessons  learned on Iraq. Among them:

"Be cautious with respect to Army transformation plans that move to lightly armored vehicles and heavy reliance on networked information systems, given the difficulty in translating good sensor coverage of the battlefield into good situational awareness."

Again, to translate that into English: Just because you have a good computer doesn't mean you know what the hell is going on.

(Let's see if Rumsfeld really follows up.)

A disconcerting trend

From AP:

 

The United States is holding about 10,500 prisoners in Iraq, more than double the number held in October, the military says.

 

About 100 of those prisoners are under age 18, said Army Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for detention operations in Iraq.

Five months ago, the military said it was holding about 4,300 prisoners in Iraq. The growth in the prison population has come amid a lingering insurgency in Iraq and despite the formal transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government last June.

There could be any number of things going on here, not all mutually exclusive: 1) The  military could  finallybe  getting A-list intel and nabbing real insurgents by the boatloads.  2)  Lots of innocent (or close to it) civilians are being picked up in sweeps. (Remember last year when the military acknowleged that the Red Cross seemed to be on the mark when it charged that 70-90 percent of prisoners were innocent?)  3) The election-timed suspension of the release of detainees is still in effect.

Again, I don't know which of these three factors or mix of them represents what's going on. But I'm not the only one who's skeptical that the military is suddenly awash in first-rate tips. 

As the top U.S. ground commander put it in eight weeks ago, "After the transfer of sovereignty, I anticipated more intelligence from the Iraqis. That increase in intelligence has not developed as fast as I would have liked."

That leaves us with explanations 2 & 3, neither of which are very comforting.

Iraq for Dummies (like me)

A confession: Last night while writing about why Iraq's parliamentary meeting fell apart, I didn't really understand  why Iraq's parliamentary meeting fell apart.

The crisis was, more or less, centered around Sunni leaders who kept turning down the ceremonial posts offered them. But I didn't grasp why. Thankfully, TNR's Spencer Ackerman comes to the rescue. The problem, as Ackerman explains, appears to be that the Sunni public sentiment is moving away from supporting the political process. Sunni leaders know that, and they don't want to be pegged as sell-outs:

Were the Sunnis moving toward the political process, Yawer and his Sunni colleagues would jump at the chance to be parliamentary speaker. Ultimately, what this episode illustrates is that if the Sunnis are ultimately going to buy in to the new Iraq, the people who broker that acceptance aren't going to be those who've already bought in. The Shia and the Kurds have a choice: Either deal politically with those Sunnis who've rejected the process or watch their rejectionism increase--and then be prepared to deal with them militarily.

Another freedom in Iraq

Last year, I noted that the  CPA identity was more ambigious than... [insert transgender joke here] . Congressional researchers couldn't figure whether it was an international entity or a federal agency, meaning just coincidentally, it got to bypass all sorts of accountability rules.

The issue was mostly hypothetical when I wrote about it. Not anymore.

Newsweek looks at how two whistleblowers are suing one contractor under the  anti-fraud False Claims Act. The law allows government to join in the suit if it agrees that there's been fleecing going on. In the case of the contractor, Custer Battles, there's little doubt about the fleecing. The Air Force wanted the company banished from Iraq after it "created sham companies, whereby [it] fraudulently increased profits by inflating its claimed costs." The Army's inspector general and told his superiors,  "What we saw horrified us."

But turns out the administration has decided that none of that matters, since, of course,  the CPA wasn't really a part of the U.S. government. 

There are only a few small problems with that fine logic. For one thing, the CPA, was, ahem, fully funded by the U.S. It was refered to in legislation as a "U.S. entity." And contracts with Custer Battles refer to the buyer as  "the United States of America."

This is more than a one-off case. As Newsweek puts it:

Even an administration ally, Sen. Charles Grassley, demanded to know in a Feb. 17 letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales why the government wasn't backing up the lawsuit. Because this is a "seminal" case—the first to be unsealed against an Iraq contractor—"billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake" based on the precedent it could set, the Iowa Republican said.

Finally, Newsweek's kicker:

The administration's seemingly detached approach to these cases could have other implications. NEWSWEEK has learned that federal prosecutors plan to indict several U.S. contractors in Iraq on criminal charges but that these could be undercut if the court rules in the Custer Battles case that the CPA was not a U.S. government arm. "If you make the CPA a U.S. entity, you open the door to all sorts of liability claims. But if it's not a U.S. entity, then you can't parade these people through the court," says Jim Mitchell of the CPA inspector general's office. And that could mean Custer Battles and other companies will ultimately answer to no one.

Sloppy Seconds

I always find it kind of pathetic when the NYT rips off some smaller publication, recasting a story  the little guy has already done without giving credit. So how then to describe it when it happens the other way around:

"BEACHES FOR THE SVELTE, WHERE THE CALORIES ARE SHOWING," NYT Jan. 13, 2005.

"MANY BRAZILIANS GOING HUNGRY, BUT OBESITY ALSO BECOMING A PROBLEM,"

Knight Ridder, today.

Paging the GAO

Considering the .gov url, isn't this site kinda um, fucking illegal?

See no evil

From Reuters:

The Pentagon has refused to reopen an investigation into allegations by three Iraqis working for Reuters that they were abused and mistreated by U.S. forces, saying it stood by an initial probe exonerating American troops.

Reuters says the investigation, during which none of the three was interviewed, was inadequate and should be reopened.

Lawrence Di Rita, special assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said Central Command and Pentagon lawyers had reviewed the military's initial investigation.

"The investigation was found to be sufficient, and no basis was found to reopen it," Di Rita said in a letter dated March 7 and received by Reuters this week.

[...]

"Of course, I reiterate my recommendation that you consider embedding your reporters with U.S. units. It is an excellent opportunity to cover U.S. military activities in Iraq," he said.

Let's revisit what  Reuters'  Baghdad Bureau chief concluded after  separate interviews with the three staffers:

They were accused of shooting down the helicopter. Salem, Ahmad and Sattar all reported that for their first interrogation they were told to kneel on the floor with their feet raised off the floor and with their hands raised in the air.
 
"If they let their feet or hands drop they were slapped and shouted at. Ahmad said he was forced to insert a finger into his anus and lick it. He was also forced to lick and chew a shoe. For some of the interrogation tissue paper was placed in his mouth and he had difficulty breathing and speaking. Sattar too said he was forced to insert a finger into his anus and lick it. He was then told to insert this finger in his nose during questioning, still kneeling with his feet off the ground and his other arm in the air. The Arab interpreter told him he looked like an elephant.

Sound like the three staffers were worth interviewing? And again, this kind of lackadaisical "investigation" is par for the course.

I don't think the journalists were targeted for their work. And I don't think making prisoners  lick their own shit is official policy.  But do think that's what happened anyway, and the Pentagon has decided it couldn't care less. America should be better than that.

Kyrgzstan in photos

The revolution continues apace. (Trust me, click on it.)

Settling on more Settlements

BBC:

The Israeli government has confirmed plans to increase the size of its largest settlement in the West Bank. Approximately 3,500 homes are planned for Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem.

The settlements at Ariel in the northern West Bank, and Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, are also expected to be expanded.                   

Maale Adumim is essentially a suburb of Jerusalem. And I don't think that  anybody, including Palestinian negotiators, expects Israel to give it back in the end. But it's not very helpful remove the veneer and announce a unilateral decision. Or to put it in more pragmatic terms, isn't now a good time for trust-building measures, and not pokes in the eye?