© Stringer / ReutersAnalysts claim CENTCOM altered reports to make war against ISIS look better than in reality
One of the defense analysts claiming CENTCOM had prettied up reports on the campaign against Islamic State has been named, along with the two officials he fingered as culprits. House and Senate committees have taken an interest in the investigation.
Gregory Hooker, the same analyst who a decade ago criticized plans for the 2003 Iraq invasion as being "amateurish and unrealistic," was named by the
New York Times as one of the originators of the July complaint against the US Central Command (CENTCOM). Filed by Hooker and another analyst, the complaint was
endorsed by 50 of their colleagues, the Daily Beast revealed earlier this month.
CENTCOM employs some 1,500 intelligence analysts composed of civilian employees, members of the military, and contractors at the MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. The complaint accuses two senior intelligence officials at CENTCOM, Major General Steven Grove and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman, of altering draft intelligence assessments on the offensive against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, according to the
Times. Current and former officials at CENTCOM who spoke to the paper had different takes on what might have prompted the alterations to the intelligence assessments. Some analysts suggested that CENTCOM leaders feared bad news might anger the White House, while others spoke of an institutional bias within the military.
One specific example given to the paper was that analysts were told to cite multiple sources to confirm bad news, while good news needed a much lower standard of verification. Senior officials sent emails cautioning against using certain pessimistic phrases, according to one official. In some cases, a report's conclusions were completely altered.
Comment: Imagine what else was cooking at the "Skunk Works" these decades ago that we don't know about?