Abram Shulsky

Last updated

Abram Shulsky
Personal details
Born (1942-08-15) August 15, 1942 (age 81)
Education Cornell University (BA)
University of Chicago (MA, PhD)

Abram Shulsky (born August 15, 1942) is a neoconservative scholar who has worked for the U.S. government, RAND Corporation, and the Hudson Institute. Shulsky served as Director of the Office of Special Plans, a unit whose function has been compared to the 1970s Team B exercise. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Shulsky approved OSP memos with talking points about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Shulsky is critical of the traditional intelligence analysis, which is based upon the social-scientific method, and of independent intelligence agencies. Shulsky favors a military intelligence model which can be used to support policy as, in Shulsky's words, "truth is not the goal" of intelligence operations, but "victory". Shulsky signed a letter to the Clinton White House on Iraq. [1] [2]

Contents

Education and career

Shulsky received his B.A. in mathematics from Cornell University and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in political science from the University of Chicago. [3] At Cornell and Chicago, he roomed with Paul Wolfowitz, whom he met during their time as members and residents of the Cornell Branch of the Telluride Association. [4] [5] Shulsky earned his doctorate under political philosopher Leo Strauss. [6] He is a neoconservative scholar [7] [8] and Straussian. [9]

Shulsky served as staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee in the early 1980s. [10] He worked under Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle during the Reagan Administration and later worked for the RAND Corporation. [10] He worked as a consultant for the Office of Net Assessment, a Pentagon think-tank. [5] In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Shulsky was the Director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP), which served as a source of intelligence. [10] He was hired and overseen by Douglas Feith and William Luti, [5] but Shulsky's "real boss" may have been higher up than Feith. [11] Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz advocated the creation of the pro-war OSP as he "was impatient with the C.I.A." [8] Gordon R. Mitchell, writing in the Quarterly Journal of Speech , stated,

Shulsky’s cell stovepiped dubious intelligence purchased from Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress to senior administration officials, fundamentally distorting policy-making on topics ranging from the threat of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program to the cost of postwar reconstruction in Iraq. [12]

After the OSP took control of providing "intelligence" to justify the invasion of Iraq, many veteran intelligence officers were forced into retirement or transferred to other positions despite years of service. Shulsky developed the "intelligence" received by the White House. According to Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, Shulsky ran the OSP with a clear agenda, to support the efforts of his fellow neoconservatives. [13] In his position at OSP, Shulsky "directed the writing of Iraq, WMD, and terrorism memos according to strictly supervised talking points" [14] and granted them approval. [11] Insider Karen Kwiatkowski characterized the talking points in depth:

These internal talking points seemed to be a mélange crafted from obvious past observation and intelligence bits and pieces of dubious origin. They were propagandistic in style, and all desk officers were ordered to use them verbatim in the preparation of any material prepared for higher-ups and people outside the Pentagon. The talking points included statements about Saddam Hussein's proclivity for using chemical weapons against his own citizens and neighbors, his existing relations with terrorists based on a member of al-Qaida reportedly receiving medical care in Baghdad, his widely publicized aid to the Palestinians, and general indications of an aggressive viability in Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program and his ongoing efforts to use them against his neighbors or give them to al-Qaida style groups. The talking points said he was threatening his neighbors and was a serious threat to the U.S., too... The talking points were a series of bulleted statements, written persuasively and in a convincing way, and superficially they seemed reasonable and rational. Saddam Hussein had gassed his neighbors, abused his people, and was continuing in that mode, becoming an imminently dangerous threat to his neighbors and to us—except that none of his neighbors or Israel felt this was the case. Saddam Hussein had harbored al-Qaida operatives and offered and probably provided them with training facilities—without mentioning that the suspected facilities were in the U.S./Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was pursuing and had WMD of the type that could be used by him, in conjunction with al-Qaida and other terrorists, to attack and damage American interests, Americans and America—except the intelligence didn't really say that. Saddam Hussein had not been seriously weakened by war and sanctions and weekly bombings over the past 12 years, and in fact was plotting to hurt America and support anti-American activities, in part through his carrying on with terrorists—although here the intelligence said the opposite. His support for the Palestinians and Arafat proved his terrorist connections, and basically, the time to act was now. [11]

George Packer, [15] Franklin Foer of The New Republic , [16] and Mitchell all compare the OSP failures to the problems in the mid-1970s Team B competitive intelligence analysis, with Mitchell noting Shulsky "worked on the staff of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that reviewed the original Team B exercise during the Cold War." [12]

In 2006, Shulsky was working in the Pentagon at the Iran desk as "senior advisor to the undersecretary of defense for policy, focusing on the Mideast and terrorism." [17] Mary Louise Kelly of NPR noted some concern from C.I.A. officials that he was in this position. [17] Paul Krugman of The New York Times asked "Why would the Pentagon put someone who got everything wrong on Iraq in charge of intelligence on Iran?" [18]

In 2010, Shulsky was working as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. [19]

Worldview

Shulsky, a Straussian, argues that Leo Strauss would have attacked the dominant method of U.S. intelligence analysis "known as the "social-scientific method," an approach advanced by Sherman Kent, a former Yale History professor and member of the WWII-era Office of Strategic Services (the predecessor to the C.I.A.)". [20] Shulsky critiques the social-scientific method for its potential to err by mirror-imaging. [20] In Silent Warfare Shulsky and Schmitt write, "social science can provide the facts ... but policy makers have a monopoly on choosing the values to be pursued". [21]

Shulsky favors the military intelligence model, "in which the intelligence officer works for the commander rather than an independent intelligence agency". [22] "He can scour the intelligence agencies for information his commander needs and represent the commander's priorities with respect to the collection and dissemination of intelligence", write Shulsky and Schmitt in Silent Warfare. [22] Additionally, "In a supportive role, intelligence must concentrate its efforts on finding and analyzing information relevant to implementing the policy" as "truth is not the goal" of intelligence operations, but "victory". [22] By contrast, in a paragraph discussing Shulsky's views, Dr. Michael Warner of C.I.A.'s History Staff states "the goal of intelligence is truth" but concurs with Shulsky's idea that secrecy is endemic to intelligence. [23]

In a 1999 paper, "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)," also co-authored by Schmitt, Shulsky writes that "Strauss's view certainly alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception." [20]

Publications

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Wolfowitz</span> American politician and diplomat (born 1943)

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz is an American political scientist and diplomat who served as the 10th President of the World Bank, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and dean of Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Perle</span> American political advisor

Richard Norman Perle is an American political advisor who served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under President Ronald Reagan. He began his political career as a senior staff member to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson on the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 1970s. He served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004 where he served as chairman from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration before resigning due to conflict of interests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leo Strauss</span> German-American political philosopher (1899–1973)

Leo Strauss was a German-American scholar of political philosophy who specialized in classical political philosophy. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.

Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the unilateral promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, grounded in a militaristic philosophy of "peace through strength." They are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Douglas Feith</span> American political official

Douglas Jay Feith served as the under secretary of Defense for Policy for United States president George W. Bush, from July 2001 until August 2005. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then–United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior George W. Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq. A similar unit, called the Iranian Directorate, was created several years later, in 2006, to deal with intelligence on Iran.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karen Kwiatkowski</span> Retired military officer and author

Karen U. Kwiatkowski, née Unger, is an American activist and commentator. She is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In 2012, she challenged incumbent Bob Goodlatte, in the Republican primary for Virginia's 6th congressional district seat in the United States House of Representatives and garnered 34% of the Republican vote on a constitutional and limited government platform.

The Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory was based on false claims made by the United States government, alleging that a highly secretive relationship existed between Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the Sunni pan-Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda between 1992 and 2003. The George W. Bush administration promoted it as a main rationale for invading Iraq.

<i>Why We Fight</i> (2005 film) 2005 Canadian film

'Why We Fight' is a 2005 documentary film by Eugene Jarecki about the military–industrial complex. The title refers to the World War II-era eponymous propaganda films commissioned by the U.S. Government to justify their decision to enter the war against the Axis Powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen F. Hayes</span> American journalist

Stephen Forester Hayes is an American journalist and author. In October 2019 Hayes co-founded the online opinion and news publication The Dispatch. Previously, he was a senior writer for National Journal and Editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard. He was a staunch proponent of the Iraq War and an influential figure in promoting the claim that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rationale for the Iraq War</span> U.S. claims and arguments for invading Iraq

The rationale for the Iraq War, both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent hostilities, was controversial. The George W. Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the United States Congress known as the Iraq Resolution. The US claimed the intent was to "disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

David Wurmser is an American foreign policy specialist. He served as Middle East Adviser to former US Vice President Dick Cheney, as special assistant to John R. Bolton at the State Department and as a research fellow on the Middle East at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He served in the U.S. Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer at the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy is a 2006 book written by Francis Fukuyama.

This article is a chronological listing of allegations of meetings between members of al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government, as well as other information relevant to conspiracy theories involving Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The Iranian Directorate or Directorate for Iran is a unit of The Pentagon created in 2006 to deal with intelligence on Iran in the context of diplomatic and military tensions between the United States and Iran. Critics compare it with the Office of Special Plans (OSP) which dealt with controversial intelligence reports about Iraq.

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction". Certain parts of the policies set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Intelligence Summit</span>

The Intelligence Summit is an annual conference run principally by John Loftus and funded by an organization he controls, the Intelligence and Homeland Security Educational Center (IHEC). The stated purpose of these regular meetings is "to provide an opportunity for the international intelligence community to listen to and learn from each other, and to share ideas in the common war against terrorism."

Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2: Dissolution of Entities signed by Coalition Provisional Authority on 23 May 2003, disbanded the Iraqi military, security, and intelligence infrastructure of President Saddam Hussein. It has since become an object of controversy, cited by some critics as the biggest American mistake made in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein and as one of the main causes of the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS).

The Habbush letter, or Habbush memo, is a handwritten message dated July 1, 2001, which appears to show a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq's government. It purports to be a direct communication between the head of Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, outlining mission training which Mohamed Atta, one of the organizers of the September 11 attacks, supposedly received in Iraq. The letter also claims that Hussein accepted a shipment from Niger, an apparent reference to an alleged uranium acquisition attempt that U.S. President George W. Bush cited in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interrogation of Saddam Hussein</span> Overview of interrogation, 2003–2004

The interrogation of Saddam Hussein began shortly after his December 2003 capture, while the deposed president of Iraq was held at the United States Camp Cropper detention facility at Baghdad International Airport. Beginning in February 2004, the interrogation program, codenamed Operation Desert Spider, was controlled by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. Standard FBI FD-302 forms filed at the time were declassified and released in 2009 under a U.S. Freedom of Information Act request filed by the National Security Archive. Saddam, identified as "High Value Detainee #1" in the documents, was the subject of 20 "formal interviews" followed by five "casual conversations." Questioning covered the span of Saddam's political career, from 2003 when he was found hiding in a "spider hole" on a farm near his home town of Tikrit, back to his role in a failed 1959 coup attempt in Iraq, after which he had taken refuge in the very same place, one report noted.

References

  1. ↑ The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril, Eugene Jarecki, Free Press, 2008
  2. ↑ PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000
  3. ↑ Dr. Abram Shulsky Archived 13 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Bio. Accessed 9 August 2010.
  4. ↑ Hirst, Aggie (2013). Leo Strauss and the Invasion of Iraq: Encountering the Abyss. Routledge. p. 59. ISBN   978-1135043698.
  5. 1 2 3 George Packer (2005). The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 105. ISBN   0374299633.
  6. ↑ William Pfaff (25 May 2003). "Lies keep elite in power". Charleston Gazette-Mail . p. 2.C.
  7. ↑ Eric Schmitt (5 June 2003). "After the War: Prewar Intelligence; Aide Denies Shaping Data to Justify War". The New York Times .
  8. 1 2 "Dissect the Iraq Data". Los Angeles Times . 28 May 2003. p. B.12.
  9. ↑ "Q. & A.; War and Intelligence; Seymour M. Hersh talks about government intelligence and covering war". The New Yorker . 12 May 2003.
  10. 1 2 3 Seymour M. Hersh (12 May 2003). "Selective Intelligence – Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?". The New Yorker .
  11. 1 2 3 Karen Kwiatkowski (10 March 2004). "The new Pentagon papers – A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war" (RTF). Salon.com .
  12. 1 2 Gordon R. Mitchell (2006). "Team B Intelligence Coups" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Speech . Taylor & Francis. 92 (2): 144–173. doi:10.1080/00335630600817993. S2CID   143554450.
  13. ↑ Dreyfuss, Robert and Vest, Jason (26 January 2004). "The Lie Factory". Global Exchange.
  14. ↑ Packer, p. 108.
  15. ↑ Packer, p. 106.
  16. ↑ Franklin Foer (21 November 2005). "Intelligence Design". The New Republic . Vol. 233, no. 21. p. 6.
  17. 1 2 Mary Louise Kelly (20 September 2006). "Pentagon Iran Office Mimics Former Iraq Office". NPR .
  18. ↑ Paul Krugman (12 February 2007). "Scary Movie 2". The New York Times .
  19. ↑ Douglas J. Feith; Abram N. Shulsky (20 May 2010). "The Dangerous Illusion of 'Nuclear Zero' – Why even speculate about a nuclear posture that would require world peace as a precondition?". The Wall Street Journal .
  20. 1 2 3 4 Laura Rozen (October 2003). "Con tract – The theory behind neocon self deception". The Washington Monthly . 35 (10): 11–13. Archived from the original on 24 June 2011.
  21. ↑ Peter Gill; Stephen Marrin; Mark Phythian, eds. (2008). Intelligence theory: key questions and debates. New York: Routledge. p. 141. ISBN   978-0203892992.
  22. 1 2 3 Martha Ezzard (24 June 2003). "As intelligence devolves, truth changes shape". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution . p. A.13.
  23. ↑ Michael Warner (27 June 2008). "Wanted: A Definition of "Intelligence"". Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 28 May 2010. Retrieved 20 August 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.