A source provides details to the American government about the nefarious activities of a Middle Eastern country. That information ends up in scores of secret U.S. government documents. Subsequently, the information winds up on the front pages of major newspapers, and is heralded by war hawks in Washington as a casus belli.
Sound familiar? It should, but perhaps not in the way you’re thinking. Here’s a hint: It’s not 2003, but 2010. This is the story of what happened recently to Iran in the wake of the latest WikiLeaks document release, where U.S military field reports from Iraq made their way into major national newspapers and painted the Islamic Republic as a force out to murder U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
While the WikiLeaks document dump provided a useful way to glean historic details of the seven-year-old occupation, much of the prominent media coverage focused closely on the extent of Iranian support for anti-U.S. forces in Iraq and Iran’s alleged role.
“Leaked Reports Detail Iran’s Aid for Iraqi Militias,” blared the headline on a front page story in The New York Times, which went on to report on several incidents recounted in WikiLeaks documents that journalist Michael Gordon called “the shadow war between the United States and Iraqi militias backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.”
“The field reports also provide a detailed account of what American military officials on the ground in Iraq saw as Iran’s shadowy role training and equipping Iraqi Shiite militias to fight the U.S.,” wrote Julian Barnes in The Wall Street Journal. “American intelligence believed the training was provided not only by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran, but also by Hezbollah, their Lebanese ally.”
And the hawks went wild.
Iraq war supporter and Newsweek Middle East regional editor Christopher Dickey wondered about the inevitability of the U.S. getting ready to “strike back with a vengeance.” Neoconservative journalist Jamie Kirchick wrote a piece on his Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty blog headlined “How WikiLeaks Makes Confrontation With Iran More Likely.” He went on to say that “what is now beyond dispute is that it clearly sees itself as engaged in a war against the United States.”
But, despite Kirchick’s assertions, the details in the WikiLeaks document dump were not actually “beyond dispute.”
The Journal’s take hinted at the problem, and the Times mentioned that the reports were based on events “as seen by American units in the field and the United States’ military intelligence.” These reports are accounts—and often single-source accounts—by U.S. military officials, based largely on unnamed sources whose motivations cannot even be guessed at, let alone their version of events confirmed.
“What the documents reflect is the American military’s view of what was happening,” NYU Center on Law and Security fellow Nir Rosen told the radio show Democracy Now! “If they record a death, if they record a torture incident, then that’s a factual incident that occurred and we know it’s true historically.”
“But a lot of the other allegations about Iranian involvement or various plots, people have been giving them too much credence,” he continued. “The New York Times, for example, has been really celebrating the alleged role of Iran simply because American guys on the ground have been reporting the role of Iran.”
“This is the same American intelligence that thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and thought that Saddam had connections to September 11,” said Rosen, who just finished a second book chronicling his time in Iraq. “We need to be skeptical about some of the allegations.”
Indeed, if one amended the above opening paragraph to say, ‘the U.S. launched an invasion of said nefarious Middle Eastern country,’ this tale would obviously be the story of Curveball, the famously fraudulent defector source who provided details of Iraq’s alleged biological weapons program to German intelligence, which passed it on to their U.S. counterparts.

My experience as a ground level intel collector for the Army was that:
1) There is a push for numbers from the people you report to, each team is expected to produce a certain level of reporting as this is a way to measure productivity, things like value of the reporting are secondary, briefing higher levels of command that your guys have produced hundred of reports a month is an easily grasped measuring metric. Now I certainly never made things up and while I had enough sense to filter out obvious bullshit there are definitely people who for reasons like needing to produce reporting, lack of common sense, or lack of cultural and historical knowledge of the region they were in, would just report whatever bullshit their sources fed them without making any efforts to verify it or even think about it for a minute.
2) Sources are sometimes only good for one specific thing like targeting the cell they are a member of or targeting the Al Qaeda guy who lives down the street or whatever. Once they outlive their usefulness they will sometimes make shit up in order to keep the rewards coming.
3) The truth is tricky thing over in that part of the world. Moreso than in the west, rumors and shit that sounds good are often all it takes for people to believe something. So once something like 'Iran is arming the Shiite militias' becomes the conventional wisdom, then everybody knowingly nods and says of course this is so, everybody knows it. The way a collector asks a question is an important part of this too. 'Where does the militia get weapons from?' is different from 'Does the militia get weapons from Iran?' Cues like that may tip off the source and lead them to answer in a way they think the collector wants to hear.
I think it certainly worth being skeptical of the reports. However, I'm pretty sure based on actual evidence the government has presented (weapon lot numbers, use of EFPs by Shiite militias) that Iran has at the very least provided some arms to Shiite militias. Now I don't think this is a reason for war or bombings or sanctions or whatever. It's not personal, it's business.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 2 Nov 2010 at 09:53 PM
Excellent article, Ali.
My only qualm is your generous description of Michael Gordon as a "journalist." There are many more fitting epithets I can think of, but as this is an academic journal, I'll keep them to myself.
Obviously, Gordon learned a thing or thousand about promoting jingoistic propaganda on behalf of the US government when co-penning all those "Iraqi aluminum tube" articles with Judith Miller all those years ago.
Keep up the great work, since the NYT (and WashPo, etc) clearly haven't.
#2 Posted by Nima Shirazi, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 03:06 AM
Thank you for exposing the questionable reporting of Michael R. Gordon. Reputable analysts such as Gareth Porter have refuted his and the U.S. military's contentions about Iranian involvement in Iraq again and again to no avail. What is missing from this story is that Gordon has regularly "enhanced" the official reports, speculating on Iranian actions far beyond any evidence he might have obtained from the field. The role of General Kenneth Bergner is also important here. Bergner, effectively a flack for the U.S. military with no direct experience in the Iraqi war zone, was sent to Iraq as a kind of public relations effort to see that Iran was implicated. Bergner and Gordon made a perfect pair of cronys. Bergner would provide questionable information, and Gordon would hype it further. The long litany of articles cited in this piece, as well as the most recent one should be read with this in mind. The Wikileaks documents do no more than repeat the same bad information on which this earlier erroneous reporting was based. GIGO.
#3 Posted by William O. Beeman, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 08:23 AM
Another example of false reporting about Iranian weapons in Iraq appeared in a 2008 edition of The Los Angeles Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html
As reported there, the US forces were going to have a news conference to show the Iranian arms captured from dissidents to support the claim that Iranian arms are used to kill "our boys" in Iraq. When they found out that none of the arms were from Iran, they had t cancel the news conference.
#4 Posted by George, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 12:12 PM
Geez!!!!! NO mention of Israel's hand and supporters in feeding false intel. to march the US into attacking yet another Muslim "enemy" of the Jewish state.
NYT Judy Miller was drummed out of her job.for fabricating.
Unfortunately there are more Israel firsters like Gordon to push the war agenda.
Niger documents prior to Iraq invasion were indeed fabricated.
Who????and can same state FORGER provide false passports???:
Methinks yes. Israel.
AH,yes those "intelligence sources" that drive everything,
@$2 biiion a week
#5 Posted by bruce, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 09:25 AM
Ali;your assessment has been developed a great value judgment of the subject
#6 Posted by kami, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 11:05 AM
Great input by James, the army intel guy... very well said.
#7 Posted by Bill, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 01:55 PM
I think the most notable takeaway from the Wikileaks documents is that the left will take away from it whatever they want to and disregard the rest. They salivate over reports of torture by the Iraqi government and civilian casualties but disregard the complete thrashing of the Lancet excess mortality study (which was shown, once again, to be complete horseshit) and the field report in Iranian backing of militias and Revolutionary Guard activity in Iraq.
As to William O. Beeman’s comments: I would have hoped that Gareth Porter would have lost is “reputation” in saner circles after his love affair with the Khmer Rouge … I guess it shows once again that being a good lefty means never having to say you are sorry.
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 03:22 PM
Strange to see Mike talk about being discredited for having the "wrong" friends...
accusing Porter of a love affair with the Khmer Rouge.... Gee, I wonmder who Mike's ideological friends are... Maybe the Neocons...??? As for the Lancet, perhaps Mike could tell me about their Psyops...?? Or is psyops somethng the military practices..??
Main Entry: psyops
Part of Speech: n
Definition: psychological operations carried out by the military, esp. to influence the attitudes and perceptions of individuals, organizations, or governments.
Do you think there is any chance that the military may NOT be truthful...??? Make up lies to hide large numbers of Iraqi or Afghan lives lost...?? Speaking about Cambodia, Wasn't the American bombing of Cambodia a contributing factor in the carnage..?? Invasions and occupations kill large numbers of innocent children, women and men....
#9 Posted by thomas, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 11:49 PM
when will the world sanction israel, this nutty regime that is the sole threat to peace in the middle east and in the world in general? they lie, and start wars. True warmongers.
#10 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sun 5 Dec 2010 at 09:07 AM