USAF laughs all the way to the bank (Iraqi UAVs)

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-27 01:34am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep25.html

Air Force Analysts Feel Vindicated on Iraqi Drones

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 26, 2003; Page A23

Flipping through photographs of drone aircraft uncovered by U.S. search teams in Iraq, Robert S. Boyd, the Air Force's senior intelligence analyst, stopped at one showing the inside of a fuselage.

Two glass viewing ports could be seen at the bottom of the metal frame. Fastened above was a bracket, which Boyd said was likely for mounting "a camera or recorder of some sort." Also squeezed into the cramped space were the flight controls, leaving little room, Boyd noted, for much else -- certainly not anything capable of dispensing biological or chemical warfare agents.

Discovery of such remnants of Iraq's drone program since U.S. forces seized Baghdad in April has left Air Force officials feeling vindicated. They argued before the Iraq war that the drones were never meant to spread toxins but to fly unarmed reconnaissance missions.

The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and other government intelligence groups disagreed with that assessment. They contended the drones, known in military jargon as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), were intended to carry biological or chemical agents and therefore posed a particular threat to Iraq's neighbors and to U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region. They also warned that if Iraq managed to find a way to launch the UAVs from some place near the United States, the aircraft could threaten American communities.

President Bush and his senior national security aides seized on that assessment to bolster their argument for invading Iraq. In a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush expressed concern that "Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spoke of the same possibility in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February.

What the Bush administration did not reveal until recently was that the government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons. The Air Force dissent emerged publicly in July when the White House released excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.

The disclosure has added to the debate over the administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs before the war, when the president and his senior advisers often cited intelligence assessments that supported their argument for invading Iraq without reference to opposing points of view.

Boyd and his Air Force colleagues are not accustomed to airing their intelligence disputes in public. But with the debate now out in the open, Boyd, who is the director of intelligence analysis for the Air Force, has been quite willing to talk.

"We're certainly not ashamed of our position," he said in an interview in his Pentagon office.

According to Boyd, the dissent began in the summer of 2002, when Air Force specialists received a draft of the NIE, a comprehensive assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities produced by the various intelligence agencies. It asserted that Iraq's drone aircraft were intended to spew deadly chemicals or germs.

"We thought this statement was a little odd," Boyd said, noting that Air Force assessments "all along" had cited reconnaissance -- not weapons delivery -- as the purpose of the Iraqi UAVs.

Iraq had been suspected of trying to develop remotely piloted aircraft for more than a decade, starting with attempts to convert Soviet-made MiG-21 fighter planes. When that failed, Iraqi authorities began experimenting in the mid-1990s with transforming the Czech L-29, a trainer jet, into a UAV. That effort also went nowhere, ending in 2001, Boyd said.

The Iraqis then focused on developing several types of smaller UAVs. But these scaled-down versions were too compact and slight to serve as delivery systems, Boyd said. They ranged in size from derivatives of British and Italian target drones, with wingspans of about 12 feet, to the most common Iraqi UAV, the Musayara- 20, which has wings 16 feet long.

In negotiating the wording of the NIE, Air Force officials agreed to acknowledge that Iraq's UAVs had an "inherent capability" to dispense chemical or biological weapons. But they considered this prospect highly unlikely and inserted language saying the "primary role" of the aircraft was reconnaissance.

"What we were thinking was: Why would you purposefully design a vehicle to be an inefficient delivery means?" Boyd said. "Wouldn't it make more sense that they were purposefully designing it to be a decent reconnaissance UAV?"

In addition to the apparent technical limitations of the Iraqi drones, Boyd said, U.S. authorities received reports from intelligence sources indicating the Iraqi program was intended for spying.

At the same time, CIA and DIA analysts were citing other reports from Iraqi expatriates and defectors claiming the UAVs were designed as delivery systems. But Air Force analysts dismissed these accounts as either outdated or not credible, Boyd said.

Another piece of evidence used by the CIA and DIA to bolster their case was an Iraqi effort to procure commercially available route-planning software that contained topographic data of the United States. Such data, the intelligence agencies argued, could facilitate targeting of U.S. sites.

But Air Force analysts were unimpressed. They noted that such topographic information was readily available on the Internet and from other sources. "We saw nothing sinister about the inclusion of the U.S. maps in route-planning software," Boyd said.

In his U.N. address last February, Powell highlighted two other points about Iraq's UAV program to suggest the drones could be used to spread chemical or biological agents. One was an extensive Iraqi effort to develop "spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs." The other involved evidence that Iraq had tried flying UAVs substantial distances, including one test that went for 310 miles.

But Boyd said the spray devices were weighty tanks that were intended for fighter jets and were too heavy for Iraq's UAV fleet. As for the longer-range test flights, he said they did not mean the drones could carry any bigger payload.

U.S. teams scouring Iraq in recent months for evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have unearthed UAVs -- or pieces of them -- in several locations, including a "parking lot" in southwest Baghdad that Boyd described as part of Iraq's "main UAV development center." He said U.S. officials have determined that before the war, Iraq had an inventory of about 75 UAVs, roughly half of them Musayara-20s.

"Everything we discovered strengthened our conviction that the UAVs were to be used for reconnaissance," Boyd said. Interviews with a number of Iraqis who had been involved in the UAV program have supported this view, he added.

The CIA and DIA, however, are sticking with their prewar assessments, according to spokesmen. A defense official said some of the information that has surfaced since the war supports the argument that the UAVs were intended as delivery systems. He cited a classified report from a captive former member of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's "inner circle," who has told interrogators that shortly before the war, Hussein ordered production of UAVs sped up for attack missions.

Boyd declined to comment on this report, saying simply, "It comes down to how you weigh the evidence you have."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-27 01:40am

*sigh*

Another debate point with Comical Axi vindicated. I did post a small piece on this, but not in this level of detail.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-27 01:49am

Vympel wrote:*sigh*

Another debate point with Comical Axi vindicated. I did post a small piece on this, but not in this level of detail.

See, I'm useful to the board!

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-09-27 02:49am

What's that flag in your avatar?

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-09-27 02:53am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:What's that flag in your avatar?

The symbol of the freedom party apparently.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-09-27 07:51am

StimNeuro wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:What's that flag in your avatar?
The symbol of the freedom party apparently.

The design is based upon the regimental banners flown by units under the command of Gen. Richard Taylor between 1864 and 1865. The odd reversed colour scheme apparently was down to the seamstress misunderstanding her instructions, but a similar colour scheme was employed in the banner for Polk's Corps and is certainly distinctive. Flag regulations were as loose in the Confederate States Army as they were in the U.S. Army in that time period.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-09-27 10:07am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:What's that flag in your avatar?

Its the flag of the Nazi-inspired "Freedom party" in the CSA from Harry Turtledove's American empire trilogy, check it out on Del Rey or Amazon.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 08:21am

CJvR wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:What's that flag in your avatar?
Its the flag of the Nazi-inspired "Freedom party" in the CSA from Harry Turtledove's American empire trilogy, check it out on Del Rey or Amazon.

Is it a facist organization ?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-29 08:37am

But can't a few drops of VX nerve gas kill hundreds of people in only 2 seconds? You could still fit a ear dropper on that thing. And if they had built a robotic thumb and forefinger to press it, which you have to admit isn't an impossible technical achievement for a country with electrical engineers, I think the CIA's assessment was pretty good.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-29 08:43am

BoredShirtless wrote:But can't a few drops of VX nerve gas kill hundreds of people in only 2 seconds?

In theroy only, in pratice you need to release hundreds of pounds of the stuff. Though Iraq did fool around with a few protypes for larger UAV's that could have done so.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 08:49am

Are not UAVs simple to build ? Even India and Pakistan has them.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-09-29 08:50am

evilcat4000 wrote:
CJvR wrote:
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:What's that flag in your avatar?
Its the flag of the Nazi-inspired "Freedom party" in the CSA from Harry Turtledove's American empire trilogy, check it out on Del Rey or Amazon.
Is it a facist organization ?

It's the Confederate version of the Nazi-party. It's policy include death to niggers, the traitors in Richmond that lost the war, anyone who disagree and war on the Union. It's not quite up to the holocost madness just yet but then neither was the Nazis in the 1930'ies...

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 08:54am

Why does Sheppard like such a terrible organization anyway ?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-09-29 08:59am

Check out the cover, it looks like something straight out of a Leni Rifenstahl production...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-29 09:15am

Sea Skimmer wrote:In theroy only, in pratice you need to release hundreds of pounds of the stuff. Though Iraq did fool around with a few protypes for larger UAV's that could have done so.

Yeah, MiG-21 or L-29 drones converted to the purpose- of course with the chemical drop tanks they had negligible range and were also air defense system fodder.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-29 09:18am

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:In theroy only, in pratice you need to release hundreds of pounds of the stuff. Though Iraq did fool around with a few protypes for larger UAV's that could have done so.
Yeah, MiG-21 or L-29 drones converted to the purpose- of course with the chemical drop tanks they had negligible range and were also air defense system fodder.

Yeah but what if these MIG's were carted over by ship to a remote airfield in the US? Not every city is ringed with SAM's you know.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 09:23am

There are better methods of terrorism than transporting MiGs to the US.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-09-29 09:31am

And again something, that was only Ami-propaganda......

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-29 09:37am

evilcat4000 wrote:There are better methods of terrorism than transporting MiGs to the US.

So? Should we ignore a knife weilding maniac at a school, just because he would be more dangerous with a gun?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 09:43am

BoredShirtless wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:There are better methods of terrorism than transporting MiGs to the US.
So? Should we ignore a knife weilding maniac at a school, just because he would be more dangerous with a gun?

It is highly unlikely someone will actualy go through the trouble of bringing chemical armed MiGs to the US. There are easier methods like Car bombing, plane hijackings etc.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-29 09:53am

evilcat4000 wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:There are better methods of terrorism than transporting MiGs to the US.
So? Should we ignore a knife weilding maniac at a school, just because he would be more dangerous with a gun?
It is highly unlikely someone will actualy go through the trouble of bringing chemical armed MiGs to the US. There are easier methods like Car bombing, plane hijackings etc.

Prove it'd be "highly unlikely".

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-29 10:18am

LOL. BoredShirtless is pretending to be Comical Axi.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-29 10:47am

I think I got Sea Skimmer there for a bit eh!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-09-29 02:44pm

CJvR wrote: It's the Confederate version of the Nazi-party. It's policy include death to niggers, the traitors in Richmond that lost the war, anyone who disagree and war on the Union. It's not quite up to the holocost madness just yet but then neither was the Nazis in the 1930'ies...

Actually, by the end of the latest book, Pinkard's started to kill off the blacks in Camp Dependable.

And, on topic, hasn't evidence for Iraq's possession of WMD's been a bit thin on the ground?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-29 02:56pm

This is just another chink in the wall that I used to think was an air tight case for going in and doing what needed to get done. It does not disturb me that we were wrong about the planes, thats a given that sometimes our best guesses will be wrong. What really disturbs me is the fact that the Air Force came out against the CIA's assertion about the UAV's and we heard NOTHING not a fucking PEEP about it until now.

Bush essentially silenced a portion of his government, one of the more vital parts considering that we were goign to war in order to strengthen his claim. He also was aware of the disagreement and surprise surprise sided with those that were on his side of the argument.

Will there be any fallout because of this. I doubt it.

I am becoming very disilluisioned by what I am seeing of late in terms of the case made for war. I am waiting for yet more shoes to drop because if what I suspect is true, Bush made his decision to got to war and turned to the intelligence community to give him a reason to and create the justifications .