US Intel and ISIL (The New Caliphate)

For John, BLUF:  It takes a brave person to speak truth to power.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Reporter Bill Gertz, of The Washington Free Beacon, had this article on 1 July, "CIA Under Fire for Failure in Iraq".  "Critics say agency did not provide adequate warning of Islamic State attack".

Terminology is changing.  Having learned that it is ISIL vice ISIS (L for Levant).  Now it is just IS, for Islamic State (IS).  The declared Caliphate claims control of territory in Syria and Iraq.

My sense is the article is running toward rubbish.

For example, as per the article, the soon to retire DIA Director, Army LTG Michael Flynn testified back in February that ISIL would be able to take and hold ground.  Where was the White House back then, or the Department of State, not to mention the Press?  What policies were proposed by the various columnists?

Dr Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist and professor at the Marine Corps University, said the intelligence failure was partly a result of politicization of intelligence.

“The fundamental failure is a result of politics infecting intelligence analysis,” Gorka said.

“This administration is ideologically wedded to the narrative that Afghanistan was the ‘good’ war and Iraq the ‘bad’ war since that is the platform that got the president elected originally,” he said.  “As a result Iraq, and events occurring inside Iraq, we’re not allowed to be important.”

Gorka also said another problem is the White House’s limiting its anti-terrorism policies to a single organization—al Qaeda—and not the ideology of jihad and its adherents that has prevented accurate understanding of the threat.

And there you have it.  As usual, the answer was out there, but possibly lost in the noise of other intelligence, conflicting policies and political agendas.

Regards  —  Cliff