Limited Intelligence

U.S. intelligence services missed a “Wal-mart of private-sector proliferation.”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


OK, so let’s get this straight. The Iraq Survey Group, whose chief, David Kay, just quit, has come up empty in its search for Iraqi WMDs. (The Bush administration professes itself confident that the weapons will turn up “eventually,” even as it diverts resources away from the hunt.) Meanwhile, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says he’s astonished at the scale and complexity of Libya’s successful efforts to get hold of materials and blueprints for nuclear weapons designs. The IAEA’s work in Libya and Iran has already uncovered what ElBaradei has called a “Wal-Mart of private-sector proliferation” involving “things being designed in one country, manufactured in two or three others, shipped to a fourth, redirected to a fifth,” with Pakistan as the key supplier and North Korea a major buyer. “The sophistication of the process, frankly, has surpassed my expectations,” ElBaradei said.

It has also surpassed the expectations of the U.S. intelligence community, which, in its eagerness to prove the existence of non-existent weapons in Iraq, completely missed the existence of real weapons elsewhere. (Remember, too, that the first the CIA knew of India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear progress was when, in 1998, both countries actually tested their bombs.)

All of which is to say, What’s up with U.S. intelligence?

Kay, himself a CIA alum, regularly popped up on network news in the run-up to the war to advocate regime change on the grounds that Saddam surely had (not might have, not will have) weapons of mass destruction. Now he’s just as sure that no such weapons existed, certainly not on the eve of the U.S. invasion.

Kay said:

“I’m personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don’t find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.”

Kay faulted the CIA’s intelligence in Iraq, calling it a mistake to try to gauge Iraq’s weapons programs without the use of CIA spies. During the 1990s, the CIA had gotten intelligence by infiltrating U.N. weapons inspection team. But in 1998, Iraq stopped cooperating with the inspectors (in part because, Iraq claimed (accurately!) that the U.S. was using the inspections process to spy on them) and what intelligence there was seemed to go stale. Kay said the CIA had no idea how badly chaos under Saddam’s leadership had corrupted Iraq’s weapons capabilities. “The system became so corrupt, and we missed that.”

But the flaws in U.S. intelligence system revealed by this go beyond Iraq. Libya’s, and most likely Iran’s, nuclear ambitions were served by a sophisticated black market offering weapons designs, technical advice, and thousands of sensitive parts — and nobody had a clue!

ElBaradei said:

“It’s obvious that the international export controls have completely failed in recent years. A nuclear black market has emerged, driven by fantastic cleverness. Designs are drawn in one country, centrifuges are produced in another, they are then shipped via a third country and there is no clarity about the end user. Expert nuclear businessmen, unscrupulous firms, and perhaps also state bodies are involved. Libya and Iran made extensive use of this network.”

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-profit organization dedicated to international security issues, says that the essential precondition for such a black market to flourish is a break-down in intelligence:

“The fact that Libya could go out and buy an entire centrifuge plant without anyone detecting it is startling. It represents a failure of the export-control system, and most certainly a failure of intelligence.”

All this raises two disturbing questions: 1) What else don’t we know? and 2) Can we ever again trust information from the U.S. intelligence services? It’s far from clear what the answers are.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate