Did U.S. intelligence officers downplay Islamic State reports?

Read the Full Transcript

• GWEN IFILL:

  But, first, a look at a growing controversy that has gripped one part of the government's intelligence community.

  At CENTCOM, the military headquarters for U.S. forces in the Middle East, a number of intelligence officers are claiming that senior officials have been altering their analysis, painting a more optimistic assessment about the fight against the Islamic State group.

  Jeffrey Brown has the story.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  The Pentagon's inspector general is now conducting an investigation of these allegations.

  And this morning, the commander of Central Command, General Lloyd Austin, addressed this issue at a hearing on Capitol Hill.

• GEN. LLOYD AUSTIN, Commander, U.S. Central Command:

  Because the allegations are currently under investigation, it would be premature and inappropriate for me to discuss this matter.

  What I will say is, I welcome the DOD I.G.'s oversight, and once the investigation is complete, based upon the findings, you can be assured that I will take appropriate actions.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  But General Austin drew a sharp rebuke from Arizona Senator John McCain when he described the U.S. efforts to combat ISIS.

• GEN. LLOYD AUSTIN:

  Fortunately, amidst all the — amidst the many challenges that exist in Iraq and Syria, we find opportunities, and we remain confident that our actions in pursuit of these opportunities will continue to produce positive results in the coming days.

  SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), Arizona: So, everything is really going well.

• GEN. LLOYD AUSTIN:

  No, sir, that's not…

• SEN. JOHN MCCAIN:

  Well, then, if things aren't going well and we have had — quote — "setbacks," and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says it's tactically stalemated, and you think everything is going well as — pursuing the strategy and tactics on the ground that we are, General Austin, I respectfully disagree. I respectfully, fundamentally disagree.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Joining us now, Retired Colonel Derek Harvey, a former intelligence officer and special adviser to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He's now a professor of practice at the University of South Florida. And New York Times intelligence reporter Mark Mazzetti.

  Welcome to both of you.

  Mark, let me start with you.

  You have been reporting this story for a month, but it seems to have taken a big jump forward now, as the scope becomes clearer.

• MARK MAZZETTI, The New York Times:

  The scope has become clearer. A number of senior lawmakers have spoken about the seriousness of the matter.

  And it's not just Senator McCain. You have a lot of Democrats as well who have talked about that this issue sort of cuts to the heart of the credibility of CENTCOM, the credibility of senior officers who talk about the progress of the war, or lack thereof.

  So I think you're starting to see it build up, and, as you said, the scope has become clearer. I think we have a better sense that it seemed to be a problem within the intelligence unit of Central Command. But it's a huge unit, some 1,500 people, and they call it — it's called the J2.

  It's people who provide intelligence about the whole Central Command area, but very specifically about this war and how it's going.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Well, Colonel Harvey, help us understand a little bit who's who here. These intelligence officers raising concerns, who do they work for? What's supposed to happen with their reports?

  COL. DEREK HARVEY (RET.), Former Army Intelligence Officer: Well, this is a very interesting command

  And it's comprised of very professional, very capable Defense Intelligence Agency analysts, contractors and military personnel, and they are some of the best and brightest intelligence analysts that this country has, particularly on the problem of terrorism in the Middle East, the Islamic State and the challenges with Iran.

  They are extremely professional, and that's why this is very interesting, because you have very professional people making allegations about the attempts to thwart their assessments. And they have been submitting these reports, apparently, and their concern is that their bottom lines, their analysis has not been able to move forward

  And it's not about sources. It's not about the credibility of the methodology. It's not about what might be a normal intelligence debate about how to think about a problem. It probably isn't about the commanders there having an operational context that the intelligence analysts don't have.

  So, the J2 there, who is the director of intelligence, Major General Steven Grove, and his deputy are involved in this, according to the media reporting. And there are some allegations that their reports have been distorted or parts of them have been left out, which go to the heart of whether or not we're having success or not on the ground, as Senator McCain went through today.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Well, let me ask — let me come back to Mark Mazzetti.

  Two big questions, right? Who's under suspicion of tampering with the intelligence? We just heard one name thrown out. And why would they be doing it?

• MARK MAZZETTI:

  Well, the first question is easier to answer right now.

  I think that it's really focused around the senior command of the intelligence outfit at CENTCOM, so it's Major General Steven Grove, his deputy, Gregory Ryckman, and the allegations among the group of analysts is that they are reworking the assessments.

  The bigger question is why. And we don't know yet, and we're trying to figure out what the implications are, but what specifically the charges are. There have been things — there have been allegations in the last month that maybe there are people who are close to the administration who want to only toe the line of what the administration wants.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Well, allegations, but is there any evidence of…

• MARK MAZZETTI:

  No, and so we're really trying to get to the bottom of the why.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Well, so, Colonel Harvey, what are you picking up from former colleagues of yours about either how high this goes, perhaps why it might be going on and how it's affecting things there?

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  Well, I think the concern within the command is about some things that have been reported in the media about a toxic command environment and about Stalinist approaches that diminish the freedom of intellectual pursuit of the analysts.

  And this investigation and the news media coverage of it is going to have an impact on the ability of the analysts, because it's going to distract people and it's going to sow doubt. And it also, from my perspective, brings in the question in the media, as we heard the coverage of the Senate hearing today, doubts about overall credibility of intelligence, and it raises a host of questions.

  What I wonder about is, did any of these — if these are true — and the inspector general will determine whether or not these allegations are true or not, and so we have to reserve some judgment here, but did anything that wasn't put forward have an impact on how we characterized the fight, and did that lead to a decision being taken or not taken that wouldn't have been otherwise?

  So that's something we need to look at, too.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Well, Mark Mazzetti, we saw Senator McCain in that earlier clip, some of the fireworks there today.

  But you also quoted in your story today, your article today Representative Adam Schiff, the Democrat, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. And he was saying, in your story, that in this administration or in recent years, that some of the internal divisions have been aired pretty well, that it has not been such a problem of sort of keeping bad news under wraps. What's going on?

• MARK MAZZETTI:

  Right.

  So, the famous or infamous example, right, is the pre-Iraq War intelligence, where dissent was disregarded or buried in footnotes or things like that.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  Yes. Yes.

• MARK MAZZETTI:

  So you only got a unanimous picture almost about Iraq's WMD.

  So, in the wake of that debacle, there were all of these checks put in place to prevent that from happening again, allowing alternate analysis to be raised in products, to allow greater debate, to allow all sorts of what they call red-teaming, different — different ways of thinking through problems, and not — and allowing policy-makers to see a lot of different views.

  And so what Representative Schiff was talking about is that, in recent years, it has gotten better to prevent the very problems we saw before the Iraq War. But as Colonel Harvey talked about, there is still this question of, if one intelligence outfit, one command is presenting a certain view, and it's a very, you know, influential command, that will have impact on policy, it will have impact on how lawmakers consider a problem.

  So this is the military headquarters running the war. So what they say matters. And, as Colonel Harvey said, if there are doubts about the veracity of what they're saying, that is going to have a big credibility problem for not just General Austin, but for everybody below him.

• JEFFREY BROWN:

  All right, clearly much more to come here.

  Mark Mazzetti and Colonel Derek Harvey, thank you both very much.

• MARK MAZZETTI:

  Thank you.

• COL. DEREK HARVEY:

  Thank you.