Flash! War is Messy!

Note to all NYTimes reporters:

• War is all about confusion. Clausewitz called it the "Fog of War". Times reporters: Read some Clausewitz. In fact, read any military history.
• Intelligence is not an exact science. In fact the Times article notes this, with a quote from an American officer: "A third senior military officer described the quantity of "no kidding, actionable intel" as having been limited, but added, "In a real fight, you go with what you've got." However, you have to sit through fifteen paragraphs - a third of the article - to get there.

I'm referring of course to yesterday's article, "Errors Are Seen in Early Attacks on Iraqi Leaders", by Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt.

In the special little world that NYTimes reporters inhabit, war really is an efficient, push-button operation.

News flash: The CIA doesn't do intelligence well!

The United States launched many more failed airstrikes on a far broader array of senior Iraqi leaders during the early days of the war last year than has previously been acknowledged, and some caused significant civilian casualties, according to senior military and intelligence officials.

Only a few of the 50 airstrikes have been described in public. All were unsuccessful, and many, including the two well-known raids on Saddam Hussein and his sons, appear to have been undercut by poor intelligence, current and former government officials said.

Hm. OK, the CIA doesn't do intelligence well.

But where did this information come from?

An explicit account of the zero for 50 record in strikes on high-value targets was provided by Marc Garlasco, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who headed the joint staff's high-value targeting cell during the war. Mr. Garlasco is now a senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, and he was a primary author of the December report, "Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq."

The broad failure rate was confirmed by several senior military officials, including some who served in Iraq or the region during the war, and by senior intelligence officials. So let's get this straight:

• The NYTimes supported the gutting of the CIA.
• They also all-but-explicitly back the party that moves to gut the military as a matter of routine.
• Now, when the CIA and the military they so passive-aggressively oppose can't do its job because the party it supports has so successfully hamstrung it with the active connivance and approval of the NYTimes - the Times whizzes and moans about it? It's the inevitable end-result of their best efforts!

Posted by Mitch at June 14, 2004 07:27 AM