Transcript Alternate hypothesis

Group DaVinci
Stan Grossman
Jim Epley
David Miller
Meredith Hollowell
GGS 684
10 February 2011
Secretary Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council, 05 June 2003
A CONTRARIAN ANALYSIS
Agenda
 Profile of Saddam Hussein
 Team B Alternative
 Devil’s Advocate Deconstruction
 What If Scenario
 Conclusions
Saddam Hussein – Profile
 Judicious political calculator
 Commitments and loyalty are matters of
circumstance, and circumstances change
 Nothing must be permitted to stand in “the
great struggler’s” messianic path
 Messianic ambition for unlimited power
 dreams will be realized when the Arab nation is unified
under one strong leader – Hussein
 Will go to whatever lengths are necessary to
achieve his goals
Saddam Hussein – Profile
 Three main threats after 1996:
 Increased Security Vulnerabilities
 Strengthening International Support
 Increased Importance of WMD Program
 Defying the international community on WMD is
a regular reminder to the military of his courage
in defying the superior adversary
Saddam Hussein of Iraq: A Political Psychology Profile
Jerrold M. Post, M.D.
Team B Alternative
Stan Grossman
Hypothesis
 Saddam required at least the appearance of
weapons of mass destruction to maintain his
powerful, threatening image in the region,
and to maintain the loyalty of his military.
 Is it possible that this was a giant bluff to
maintain his image of strength?
Method of Deception
 Evaluate the chain of evidence and conclude
that the links are solid and conclusive, or not
 It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with
these evaluations
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The
Rules of Disinformation
H. Michael Sweeney
The Ladder of Inference
Mind Tools Ltd.
“Evidence-1”
 26 November & 20 January tapes
 Misinterpretation – dual meanings
 “evacuated” – to a central location for
destruction?
 “destroy” message – provides implication of
something to hide while performing simple
housekeeping
“Evidence-2”
 Hard drives at weapons facilities replaced
 One scientist possessed documents at home
 Misdirection – shell game
 Make world believe that weapons exist
 Fabricate mantle of willyness – much admired
trait
“Evidence-3”
 Satellite photos of weapons movement
 Misdirection – shell game
 Fake movement designed to infer existence
 Provide known “indicators” that can be false
“Evidence-4”
 Accused UN inspectors of espionage
 Big lie
 Bluff and delaying tactic
 Put “enemy” on the defensive
“Evidence-5”
 Scientists warned not to cooperate with UN
inspectors
 Received counter-intelligence training
 False implications – appearance of guilt
 Implied threat infers guilt
 Appearance of hiding things
“Evidence-6”
 Defector provides details and returns of Iraq
to his death under suspicious circumstances
 Whatever lengths - ruthless
 Send false information
 Then eliminate the messenger to prevent recant
“Evidence-7”
 Testimony by Iraqi officers to NBC and
delivery mechanisms
 Misinformation – “whistleblower” vs.
adminstration
 Provide false statements from “knowledgeable”
sources
 Complaint – no proof of destruction provided; no
hard proof of existence provided either
“Evidence-8”
 Intercepted communications on dual use
items
 Play up well documented chemical warfare history
 “Why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the
doubt?”
 Misdirection – exactly the point
“Evidence-9”
 Acquisition and construction of missile and
airborne WMD delivery vehicles
 Misdirection – provide what the expect to see
 Easy, low-cost, anticipated props to imply
capability
Devil’s Advocate Deconstruction
Jim Epley
Devil’s Advocate Analysis
No Effort to Comply with Resolution
LEGO breakdown and reassemble process:
Failure to Cooperate
Deceive

Outline the mainline judgment and key assumptions and
characterize the evidence supporting that current analytic view.

Select one or more assumptions—stated or not—that appear the most susceptible to challenge.

Review the information used to determine whether any is of questionable validity, whether deception is
possibly indicated, or whether major gaps exist.

Highlight the evidence that could support an alternative hypothesis or contradicts the current thinking.

Present to the group the findings that demonstrate there are flawed assumptions, poor quality
evidence, or possible deception at work.

Consider drafting a separate contrarian paper that lays out the arguments for a different analytic
conclusion if the review uncovers major analytic flaws.
HUMINT
SIGINT
IMINT
“Evidence-1”
 26 November & 20 January tapes
 Powell
 Evacuate, not destroy
 Effort to hide intent
 Devil’s Advocate
 “evacuated” – to a central location for destruction?
 Arabic-to-English Linguists are in short-supply & being human, aren’t
100% accurate .
 Arabic words for : 1. Evacuate, 2. Remove, and 3. Abolish sound similar
when spoken (2 of 3 begin with an “IL” sound)
 SIGINT Linguist may have gisted “evacuated “ inaccurately.
 “destroy” message – embarrassed to be perceived as
incompetent?
 Destruction of sensitive communiqués is good housekeeping.
 Destruction of classified material is the primary focus of an Emergency
Action Plan ( EAP) which would have been in effect at the time.
“Evidence-2”
 Hard drives at weapons facilities replaced
 One scientist possessed documents at home
 Powell
 Deceive, hide, keep from inspectors
 Devil’s Advocate
 Periodic replacement of hard drives at sensitive locations
is standard INFOSEC and OPSEC.
 Many scientists, engineers, and even students take
working papers & documents to continue work at home
as I’m sure many of us in this room do (to our partners’
discontent).
 Not all “classified” documents are nefarious in nature – In
fact most are rather mundane.
“Evidence-2a”
Road
 “Detailed plans” for a UAV
Rambler
recovered from a residence*
* Location: 5604 Flag Run Drive, Springfield, VA
Cedar
“Evidence-3”
 Satellite photos of weapons movement
 Powell
 Weapons exist based on “movement”, “signatures”
 Devil’s Advocate
 No corroborating hard evidence that anything at all was
actually in the bunkers.
 Decontamination vehicle is a
high-pressure power washer
which can be used for
peaceful commercial
purposes.
 Even the Store-it-Yourself
facility down US-29 in Fairfax
has “Security”.
“Evidence-4”
 Accused UN inspectors of espionage
 Powell
 Proof of guilt and attempt to coerce population
 Devil’s Advocate
 Saddam Hussein was a paranoid psychopath.
 Patriotism is largely about national pride, and enforcement of
inspections by foreigners questioned the legitimacy of Iraqi
National Command Authority claims
 Hence, cooperation with UN inspectors was unpatriotic, as
they were foreign adversaries that were conducting activities
that violated Iraqi sovereignty because the didn’t have the
best interests of Iraq at heart (i.e., espionage).
“Evidence-5”
 Scientists warned not to cooperate with UN inspectors
 Received counter-intelligence training
 Powell
 Indicates attempt to hide truth
 Devil’s Advocate
 Purpose of CI is to prevent the inadvertent passing of sensitive
information to foreign adversaries.
 CI Awareness Training is standard OPSEC regularly practiced all
over the world.
 US normally provides CI Awareness Training annually.
 More sensitive US positions require periodic polygraph
examinations in addition to CI Awareness Training.
“Evidence-6”
 Defector provides details and returns of Iraq to his
death under suspicious circumstances
 Powell
 Details provide proof if existence
 Suspicious death is validation of details
 Devil’s Advocate
 Defector was conducting espionage – Hence he actually was a
traitor to Saddam Hussein.
 May have over-inflated his importance/knowledge/ value by
sensationalizing claims & over-reaching.
 Traitor would have naturally wanted to tell the interrogators (what
he thought ) they would want to hear to keep from being sent back
to “certain death” in Iraq for espionage.
“Evidence-7”
 Testimony by Iraqi officers to NBC and delivery
mechanisms
 Powell
 Proof of existence
 Devil’s Advocate
 “Delivery mechanisms” can deliver anything.
 Similar argument was made against US when Gary Powers was
shot down in his U2 over USSR:
 He stated that he was pushing a button to take pictures,
 Soviets asserted that he could have been pushing a button to drop
bombs,
 Following that logic, Gary Powers could have released chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons from a US plane over the USSR.
 It is very difficult to prove a negative.
“Evidence-8”
 Intercepted communications on dual use items
 Powell
 Need for SIGINT and HUMINT
 Well documented chemical warfare history
 “Why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt?”
 Devil’s Advocate
 Intelligence cited has not been fused and data that were
presented were only separate instances of Single-Source
Intelligence which hardly qualified as Multi-INT.
 Incidents presented were neither thoroughly correlated nor
properly substantiated – Much of it was RUMINT at best.
“Evidence-9”
 Acquisition and construction of missile and
airborne WMD delivery vehicles
 Powell
 Clear indication of intent
 Devil’s Advocate
 UAV/UAS platform didn’t fly beyond the stated
range limitation either one-way or round-trip.
 Demonstration wasn’t technically a violation.
 UAV/UAS platforms are also excellent for aerial
surveillance and some have no lethality whatsoever:
 Global Hawk (remember earlier diagram)
 Fire Scout (also made by Northrop Grumman)
Devil’s Advocate Deconstruction
#2
David Miller
IRAQ’S WMD THREAT
Indeed, the facts and Iraq’s behavior show that Saddam Hussein
and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more
weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
•Iraq is not cooperating and is producing WMDs.
All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed.
General Hussein Kamal, former director of Iraq’s weapons programs, to UNSCOM in August
22, 1995, after defecting from Iraq. Killed upon returning to Iraq in 1996.
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections
covering more than 300 sites. …it is seen from our experience that Iraq
had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process. R
Dr. Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector, UN Security Council, February 14, 2003
• Iraq is cooperating and is not producing WMDs.
IRAQ’S WMD THREAT
What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any
meaningful inspection work.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Inspections are not working.
UNMOVIC inspections are more sophisticated, and receiving
more cooperation from the Iraqis, than previous UNSCOM
inspections, and UNSCOM destroyed more chemical and
biological weapons facilities than the Gulf war. No evidence that
Colin Powell has presented today suggests we need to rush
headlong into war.
Dr. Ian Davis, British American Security Information Council, February 5, 2003
• Inspections are working.
Biological & Chemical Weapons
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological
weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Iraq has and is building WMDs.
From 27 November 2002 to 17 March 2003, UNMOVIC conducted
over 90 inspections of (biological and chemical) munitions-related
facilities in Iraq. No evidence of either current or recent
development or production of proscribed munitions was uncovered.
UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (MOVIC), 2003
While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty
regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did
ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.
Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector from 1991-98 (UNSCOM), July 20, 2002
• There is little or no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
Chemical Weapons
In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in
this picture. Here we see cargo vehicles are again at this
transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied
by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or
chemical weapons activity.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Proves weapons activity
The "decontamination vehicles" U.N. teams were led to by U.S.
information invariably turned out to be simple water or fire trucks.
Inspector Jorn Siljeholm, MOVIC, March 19, 2003
• Does not prove weapons activity
Nuclear Weapons
We have more than a decade of proof that he remains
determined to acquire nuclear weapons.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program.
The Intelligence Bureau and the State Department at this
time we were preparing Secretary Powell (for the UN
speech) dissented on one key issue. And they essentially
said there was no active nuclear program in Iraq.
Laurence Wilkerson, Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of State, statement on preparing
Secretary Powell for UN speech
• Iraq does not have an active nuclear weapons program.
Nuclear Weapons
We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever
abandoned his nuclear weapons program.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Iraq is still pursuing nuclear weapons.
First, we have inspected all of those buildings and facilities that
were identified, through satellite imagery, as having been
modified or constructed over the past four years. No prohibited
nuclear activities have been identified during these inspections.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General IAEA, UN Security Council, January 27, 2003
• No evidence that Iraq is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons Sites

 


 Bombed by Israelis, 1981





 

 Bombed by coalition, 1990-93
 Monitored by IAEA
• Nuclear sites were either destroyed or are being monitored.
Ballistic Missiles
What I want you to know today is that Iraq has
programs that are intended to produce ballistic missiles
that can fly over 1,000 kilometers.
Secretary Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Iraq has an active ballistic missile program.
Iraq doesn’t have the capability to do long-range ballistic
missiles. There is a lot of testing that has to take place, and
this testing is all carried out outdoors. They can’t avoid
detection.
Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector from 1991-98 (UNSCOM), 2002
• Iraq does not have a ballistic missile capability.
What If Scenario
Meredith Hollowell
“What If?” Analysis
A Trail of Causation
 Assumes an event has occurred with potential (negative or positive) impact and
explains how it might come about. Focuses on the causes of an event vs. its
consequences (HI/LP).
 Useful for challenging a strong mindset that a confidently made forecast might
not be entirely justified.
 Use of this technique is important when examining a decision based on
questionable or limited information, providing policymakers with a cautionary
counterpoint to the conventional wisdom.
 Steps to take: Think backwards and develop a plausible pathway through which
this hypothetical event occurs.
 Present to the group the findings that enable decision-makers to ‘hedge their
bets’ even if the conventional analytic line is accepted.
 Continue to monitor any indicators as the situation develops.
Conventional Analytic Line
 According to Powell’s UN Security Council
Brief and the “evidence” compiled:
 Saddam Hussein has WMDs
 Saddam Hussein has shown megalomaniacal
tendencies
 Conclusion: To protect the free world we must
preempt any attack
“What If?”
Scenario
The possibility of a total economic collapse is
remote, but what if, as a result of acting on the
conventional analysis the US finds itself in a
protracted two theater war, causing a
catastrophic economic collapse and therefore
weakened ability to deal with potential security
threats?
Thinking Backwards
 Steps leading up to a total economic collapse
 Act on hearsay and circumstantial findings that Iraq has
WMDs
 Military Action – invade Iraq as a coalition force with the intent
to force Saddam’s hand
 Due to overwhelming fire power and Saddam’s reduced
capability fighting attrition-style warfare from the first Gulf
War, coalition forces easily topple Saddam’s regime and kill
Saddam Hussein
 Prior to being ousted Saddam makes one last bid at
vengeance
 Destroys profit-making infrastructure to prevent coalition use
of it.
Thinking Backwards (cont)
 Fear on the part of the US to leave a political and security vacuum
(similar to Afghanistan in the ’90’s) necessitates an increased presence
on the ground in Iraq
 Now fighting two full-time wars
 Increased military spending
 Iran, seeing a vulnerable US, floods the world market with cheap oil

Causes OPEC nations to slow their purchase of US national debt
 China, seizing the opportunity to increase their sphere of influence, also
stops buying US national debt
 Causes a catastrophic meltdown of the US economy
Historical Perspective
 Nation building, governance overhauls and examples of
their failures
 Vietnam (’65-’75)
 Haiti (1994)
 Bosnia (’95-’04)
Parting Remarks
 Some Implications
 In the ensuing chaos of the toppled regime in Iraq some
of the WMDs, prior to confiscation, go missing
 In the weakened state caused by a second Great
Depression these missing WMDs can more easily be
used against us, to more devastating effect
 Caveats
 Difficult to construct a “What If?” storyline, looking in
hindsight
 Natural tendency to mimic the path history took
 Prevents a more thorough analysis
Conclusions
Conclusions
 Based on:
 Saddam Hussein’s profile and known disinformation
techniques
 Evidence with multiple possible presentations
 Contradictory evidence
 And previously unconsidered impacts
 There is a low probability that Iraq is in possession of
or is pursuing the stockpiling of WMD
 And that this could be a case of posturing in an
attempt to appear strong and still viable as a
national, regional, and global leader