Intel analysts: U.S. assessments on ISIL were altered by Obama officials

Special to WorldTribune.com

Senior Obama administration officials altered reports from intelligence analysts at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to make Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and other terror groups seem weaker than the analysts believed.

According to a report by The Daily Beast on Sept. 9, more than 50 analysts had supported a complaint to the Pentagon that the reports had been changed.

U.S. Central Command
U.S. Central Command

FoxNews.com reported that the Defense Department’s inspector general was investigating the initial complaint, which was reportedly made by a civilian employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The assessments were prepared by the intelligence analysts for several U.S. policymakers, including President Barack Obama.

According to The Daily Beast report, several of the analysts raised concerns as early as October 2014 that their reports were being altered to suit a political narrative that ISIL was being weakened by U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” the report quotes one defense official as saying.

Some of the analysts also claimed that key elements of intelligence reports were removed while others said senior leaders at CENTCOM created a work environment where giving a candid opinion on the progress of the anti-ISIL campaign was discouraged, with one analyst describing the tenor as “Stalinist.”

Some of those who complained were urged to retire, and did while other analysts were driven to the point of self-censoring their reports, according to The Daily Beast.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been advised of the complaint.

CENTCOM spokesman Col. Patrick S. Ryder said on Sept. 9 that “while we cannot comment on ongoing investigations, we can speak to the process and about the valued contributions of the Intelligence Community (IC). However, it is ultimately up to the primary agency or organization whether or not they incorporate any recommended changes or additions. Further, the multi-source nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers.”

You must be logged in to post a comment Login