The Pentagon have ordered an investigation into claims that the US Military faked information in their reports about ISIS.
According to an anonymous whistleblower, US Central Command told President Obama that they had the ISIS situation “under control” when in actual fact the situation was apparently far worse than they let on.
Somebody must have forgotten to send President Obama the memo that ISIS is a CIA/Mossad creation. Just ask John McCain.
The Pentagon press secretary, Peter Cook, said he could not confirm the investigation. The Pentagon typically does not publicly comment on the work of the inspector general’s office, which is an independent arm of the Defense Department.
Cook said the defense secretary, Ash Carter, “counts on independent intelligence and analysis from a variety of sources to help him make critical decisions about the nation’s security”.
A Pentagon spokesman, Captain Jeff Davis, said Pentagon and Central Command officials have been publicly candid about the difficulty of the war against the Islamic State. At times, however, they have painted a rosier picture than was reflected by developments on the ground.
On 15 May, for example, Brigadier General Thomas Weidley, who at the time was chief of staff to the military headquarters running the war, told reporters that the Islamic State was “losing and remains on the defensive”. Even as he spoke, Iraqi officials were saying that Isis fighters had captured the main government compound in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. Two days later the city fell, marking a significant victory for Isis and a setback for the US and Iraq.
Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for Central Command, said he could not discuss ongoing investigations.
“The [inspector general] has a responsibility to investigate all allegations made and we welcome and support their independent oversight,” Ryder said.
Ryder said the government’s numerous intelligence agencies routinely produce a wide range of “subjective assessments related to the current security environment”, and that it is customary for agencies to comment on others’ draft assessments.
“However, it is ultimately up to the primary agency or organization whether or not they incorporate any recommended changes or additions. Further, the multi-source nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers,” Ryder said.