US National Intelligence Estimate Lacks Evidence
USA Today's article on April 6th, "Intel report shows security in Iraq improving," cites senior military officials suggesting that a "new classified intelligence assessment on Iraq says there has been significant progress in security since the last assessment was delivered in August." Regretfully, a more accurate analysis based on the evidence indicates otherwise.
A recent surge in Shiite violence in southern Iraq by militias loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a rise in insurgent attacks on coalition forces and supply convoy lines in the strategic Khyber Pass in Afghanistan, and daily reports of soldiers whose lives have been taken with little political progress to justify their sacrifice is enough to remind us that the improvements noted in this recent assessment are not good enough.
Senators Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin have called for an unclassified summary of key findings from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The Senators are certainly justified in their request. I think they should go further. An immediate investigation into the data that underpins the report's findings is also warranted and the results of the investigation should be supplied in an unclassified format to the American public.
It is troubling that National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell has chosen to withhold unclassified NIE reports from the American people since August. While his justification that intelligence analysts should be able to speak freely without fear that their words will be printed is understandable, it is not the intelligence community that is the concern. The real concern arises when policymakers are allowed the opportunity to manipulate, without accountability, the findings of such classified assessments in the pursuit of cherished political objectives.
It is also worrisome that the recent estimate was issued in advance of congressional testimony by General David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. The last NIE was also issued preemptively in advance of congressional testimony.
The Economist reports that as many as 84 percent of foreign policy experts do not believe that we are winning the war on terror. Why are so many foreign policy experts troubled by government assessments? The answer is that the highly politicized nature of terrorism incident data used by government officials to make national security estimates is a matter of considerable debate and opens questions as to the accuracy of the reports.
What exactly is being measured to judge this so called "progress"? Is it the number of incidents? The lethality of attacks? The frequency or dispersion of transnational terrorist activity? Moreover, where does this data come from and who collects it?.
The commitment of US troops in harm's way and the considerable cost of US military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan—now estimated in the hundreds of billions—require that we make accurate assessments grounded in evidence, not politicized statistics.
Consider this: Between 2001 and 2004, as the Bush administration reported progress in the war on terror, my own quantitative analysis of terrorist incidents provided data proving that US counterterrorism strategies were escalating the frequency and lethality of attacks through a policy of preemptive military action.
In fact, during the period from the onset of the war on terror in October 2001 through December 2004, there was a 74 percent increase in the number of transnational terrorist incidents and a 168 percent increase in the number of deadly incidents when compared to the previous eight years.
The NIE, which is meant to offer the broad consensus of senior analysts within the intelligence community, has reportedly changed little since the last estimate nine months ago. How this could be the case, given the considerable efforts of coalition forces, including a surge in troop presence, is unclear.
What is certain is that until government officials are willing to release key data on which their assessments are based, the public should remain skeptical of reports that suggest progress in the war. It is time the American public stands up and demands an accurate analysis of the efficacy of US counterterrorism strategies by political officials before more lives are lost without justification.