U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013
The U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 was a report published by the
Preparation
Intelligence reports are normally released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and labelled an "Intelligence Assessment." This report was described as a "Government Assessment" and the unclassified version was released by the White House Press Secretary. One former intelligence official told Inter Press Service that the description as a "Government" rather than an "Intelligence" assessment "means that this is not an intelligence community document"; another said that the White House had apparently "decided on a position and cherry-picked the intelligence to fit it".[3]
A 29 August article from the Associated Press describes an unreleased report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that outlined the evidence against Syria that included "a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use."[4]
Pre-publication
A major element of the evidence, as reported by news media prior to the report's publication, was an intercepted telephone call between a
On 29 August an Associated Press report on intelligence community skepticism about the quality of evidence said, based on comments from "two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials."[4]
Report
The report blamed the chemical attacks on the Syrian government, saying rockets containing a
Evidence cited for this included satellite imagery, which the report said "corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred... This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media."
The report dismissed the possibility that evidence supporting the U.S. government's conclusion could have been manufactured by the opposition, stating it "does not have the capability" to fabricate videos, eyewitness accounts, and other information. The report also said that the U.S. believed Syrian officials directed the attacks, based on "intercepted communications".[2]
The intelligence assessment on the attacks suggested a motive for the attack, saying that it "was a desperate effort to push back rebels from several areas in the capital’s densely packed eastern suburbs – and also suggests that the high civilian death toll surprised and panicked senior Syrian officials, who called off the attack and then tried to cover it up."[7]
Responses
A number of members of Congress expressed skepticism about the assessment, including Senator Tom Harkin in a statement on 1 September, "I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial."[8] Republican Representative Michael C. Burgess said, "I saw the classified documents yesterday. They were pretty thin."[9]
On 6 September Democratic Party Representative Alan Grayson also criticised the US report, including the classified one, which he described as 12 pages long. Grayson said the unclassified summary relied on "intercepted telephone calls, 'social media' postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)" Grayson cited as a specific example the intercept of a phone call between the Syrian 155th Brigade and the Syrian ministry of defence, the transcript of which was not available to members of Congress, leaving him unable to judge whether a report in The Daily Caller that the implications of the call had been misrepresented in the report were accurate or not.[1]
Some lawmakers praised the White House report. Senator
Use
The Government Assessment, in its classified version, became the primary basis for the
References
- ^ a b Alan Grayson, The New York Times, 6 September 2013, On Syria Vote, Trust, but Verify
- ^ National Archives.
- ^ Porter, Gareth (9 September 2013). "/CORRECTED REPEAT/Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus". Inter Press Service. Retrieved 5 March 2016.
- ^ a b Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (30 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press.
- ^ "Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say". Foreign Policy. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2013.
- ^ The Guardian, 28 August 2013, Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack'
- ^ Joby Warrick (31 August 2013). "More than 1,400 killed in Syrian chemical weapons attack, U.S. says". The Washington Post. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
- ^ Daniel Halper, 1 September 2013, The Weekly Standard, Harkin on Classified Syria Briefing: 'Frankly Raised More Questions Than It Answered'
- ^ Ian Swanson, the Hill, 2 September 2013, Texas Republican: Evidence that Assad used chemical weapons is 'thin'
- ^ "Robert Menendez: Syria action needed". Politico. 3 September 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
- ^ "Obama Told to 'Up His Game' to Persuade Congress on Syria". Businessweek. 3 September 2013. Archived from the original on September 6, 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
- ^ Pincus, Walter (2 September 2013). "Fine Print: Time to show and tell on Syria". Washington Post. Retrieved 6 March 2016.
- ^ Allam, Hannah; Seibel, Mark (2 September 2013). "To some, US case for Syrian gas attack, strike has too many holes". McClatchy DC. Retrieved 6 March 2016.
- ^ "Obama on the fence about Syria strike without Congress' approval". NBC News. 9 September 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2013.