Inexplicably, the names in the letter to the NYT editor do not match the names in the screen shots in the original NYT article.

The letter includes non-Flag officers; while the screen shots include all Flag Officers, except Allard (upper left) who is a retired Colonel.

Curiously, there is not a one-for-one correlation between those the NYT previously highlighted, and those responding in writing. We have no information why the other officers, highlighted in the article did not pen their signature to the letter.

Alleged Iraq Propaganda: Deconstructing the Five [5] Officers’ Response to the NYT Reporting

The NYT several weeks ago covered allegations retired military officers had, in exchange for favorable statements about Iraq, received contracts. It was our view the problem was much bigger, and needs to consider the reasons why, since 2001, there have been no investigation.

Many retired military officers have been allegedly implicated in false statements to Congress have chosen to respond in writing. Indeed, long after the NYT original reporting, and our belated, long commentary, five former military officers got around to drafting a note to the NYT editor. Theirs was a short statement, but why did it take so long? We can only speculate how many people in DoD and DOJ OLC coordinated on this letter.

We still have no information why all those highlighted in the NYT article did not sign their name, and why new names are included in the letter. This deserve followup.

Overview of Commentary on Retired Officer Letter to NYT

How do we explain their response to a NYT article which broadly raises the issue of alleged widespread, retired officer corruption in re Iraq: Materially false statements in exchange for favorable contracts and immunity from prosecution, but a by-name reaction by only five retired officers. What about the tens of thousands of officers in retirement who should be similarly upset? Perhaps the White House could only find these five.

We view the letter with suspicion. It appears to be selectively wordsmithed by someone familiar with legal language. None of the officers identifies themselves as a legal officer or a JAG. We presume they are not represented by counsel, but have signed their name to a letter. The style of parsing is less like DOJ OLC but more like OVP. It appears someone has drafted this letter, provided it to some retired officers, but not all officers agree with the language. It appears someone coordinated the signers, as evidenced by their different/non-overlapping ranks and services.

This note discusses in details problems with their letter, assumptions, and credibility. This is not intended to accuse them of any specific or general illegal activity, or war crimes, but intended for public discussion about public figures attached to a NYT news article.

Overall Comments

A. Evidence of Substantial Coordination On A Poorly Crafted Letter

The five names are from different, non-similar branches. The chances of different people, with different ranks, from different services meeting on chance alone, without coordination, are small. It appears someone has found five different people of different ranks and asked them to sign a letter. How five different people in five different services were able to quickly draft this letter and sign their names is an issue for the Pentagon, DoJ OLC, the White House, and military retirees to explain.

B. Beliefs are not facts, nor the object of the NYT concern

The statement repeatedly uses the word “belief”, and asks the American public to embrace “their belief” as something. That’s not the way the original information was presented, nor the concern of the NYT: That factual information was disclosed without disclosing potential conflicts of interest.

C. Failure to Deny

The letter does not refute that there were multiple Pentagon events and coordination between the Pentagon and the retired officers.

D. Nature of one-way communication

Rather, the information appears to be one way: From the Pentagon and military officers to the civilians. The letter does not address why the retired military officers did not provide civilian concerns to DoD leadership or the President.

Part I: Deconstructing the Arguments

The basis for the rejection is unclear:

We object to "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand" (front page, April 20) and its assertion that military analysts are tools of a Pentagon propaganda machine.

They’ve provided no reasonable assurances. Who coordinated with the Defense Department before signing this memo; and how was this note to the NYT crafted: Did only someone from the group of five craft the letter; or did someone else have a hand in drafting the memo?

What was the basis to include only five names, and not have all senior Flag Officers; did some flag officers refuse to sign this memo, if so, how many?

This is a meaningless assertion in that a “belief” can be anything. Whether you believe that belief is or isn’t factually based hardly provides a basis to believe your assertion. This suggests you’ve couched the DoD-sourced data and Pentagon briefing materials as a belief. The President, Congress, and public were not asked to digest beliefs, but imminent threats. This appears to be a muddying of the waters, confusing beliefs about facts with missing evidence about imminent threats.

The issue is whether your belief about what was or wasn’t true was reasonable or unreasonable. The issue is whether you do or do not realize there is a double negative: “never stated” “not believe” You’re not emphatically stating that you did believe it was true, but asking us to infer that from your construction. You need to emphatically state: ”We believed, at the time and now, what we said was true; and we only stated facts and beliefs that were linked with reasonable inferences; and we have not coordinated our response with each them or outside legal counsel.”

”We have never stated anything about defense or national security that we did not believe to be true.”

The question is whether their belief was or wasn’t adequately informed based on Pentagon sourcing; or whether others -- other than the five [5] listed -- were provided information that was unreliable. One could believe something, but that does not mean there is a legal basis for that assertion; nor are the implied conclusions overtly presented as a conclusion of law about an imminent threat, or ongoing military activities.

The public would have had better information and basis to assess your original comments had you disclosed the relationship between the retired military officers and the Pentagon when making the original comments after 2002, not in 2008.

You’ve provided no basis to justify confidence that this is an “essential wartime function” – according to which standards are you asserting this is “essential”? You’ve cited no guidance, rule, provision, or anything to suggest that your briefing materials, comments, or activity is an inherent government function which the public should reasonably expect.

You’ve not established a basis to believe your assertion about what the public should or should not expect; nor have you established any credibility to suggest to anyone why your conclusions about what the public should or should not expect are reasonable, accurate, or credible. All you’ve done is said, “We used to be in the military that still cannot win, but believe us.” Why? You have no answer, merely assertions.

Equally important, we also have served the essential wartime function of helping civilians be better informed about our military, our enemies and how the war is being conducted.

You’ve not provided a basis going forward from 2002 why your views, presentation of intelligence, or other information are superior to independent intelligence gathering or independent auditing. Self-evidently, the President has bungled this war.

It could be argued that by relying on “these experts” the President has created a bigger mess. It defies reason to believe those who are from the very military community that failed to adequately plan should be relied on as a source of “independent” information. That was the point of the NYT article: Once we look at the results of the invasion and occupation, and compare those with the information sources and analysis the President and Congress relied: The results speak for themselves: Many people believed non-sense, and used their military status to avoid criticism of that view, belief, or conclusion.

The NYT Times’ point is that the public is not well served by getting the same “military perspective” from the same types of people who self-evidently have allegedly recklessly managed this war, not prevailed, and are still stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. It defies reason for anyone in the military or formerly assigned to the military to ask the public to believe – in the wake of this ongoing disaster after 9-11 – to have confidence in the military leadership, their decision making, or the ability to translate reality into credible combat strategies. Continuing lack of progress on the ground means something is inherently broken with how combat-status is digested.

Indeed, if your military expertise was relevant and useful, the Congress and President should have listened, and appropriately adjusted. The facts suggest your claim of expertise were things even the Congress and President rejected. Don’t blame the NYT for pointing out to the public what the President and Congress have rejected: Competent solutions, adjustments, and prevailing military strategies.

As evidenced by the non-victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, the five [5] of you have not demonstrated any special insight or solution, nor have you provided a plan that the Congress, public, or President can review that would more competently address the issues. Despite your professed expertise, the national command authority is still waiting for the military commanders to get around to following orders, solving problems, and defeating people who live in caves. We glance from the active duty to the retirees, and we still have no victory. That’s not helping your argument, but confirming the NYT concerns: Something less than optimal happened, and a lot of money was spent for a non-victory. Someone got rich while the non-victory continued.

Perhaps if you discussed your expertise in the context of your decision to leave the military the public might understand why you did not feel your continued service on active duty was of use to the nation, President, or Congress. If the five of you are not happy people are not listening to you in 2008 on your military theories, you have only yourselves to blame: You chose to leave active duty, and not continue your support or the President and Congress while serving in uniform. That was your choice. All we know is that none of you were Chief of Staff, suggesting you were not able to get promotions, and decided to leave the service. You’re a civilian, but asking other civilians to give you – who decided to leave the military – special consideration for your views. Again, your views did not take you to the highest levels to control the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting that something got in the way. Putting all that aside, despite your views, you’ve offered no solutions, and the Country remains bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to take credit for what went right or expressing your views, then you need to take responsibility when your views are not solving problems. You can’t have it both ways.

You’ve failed to take the opposite position: To what extent did you or did not you not adequately inform military personnel of civilian views and questions; or was this only a one-way flow of information: From the Oval Office and DOD for domestic consumption?

We’ve seen no evidence the military personnel the subject of the NYT were briefing military commanders on civilian concerns with dubious claims about combat operations, or civilian concerns with war time. Is it not an essential purpose of retired military officers to ensure active duty military personnel have a civilian perspective on issues of national military policy?

You said, “Thos of us” below without being specific as to which of the five [5], if any, did or did not do the same under the Clinton Administration; nor have you adequately explained the relevance in 2008 of suggesting what did or didn’t happen under one Administration is or is not related, similar, or different than what is alleged to have happened after 2001.

Unlike the Clinton Administration, this President is still engaged in combat operations started in 2001. This is a ground campaign in two theaters. It’s irrelevant to compare what did or didn’t happen in Bosnia with whether your views about events and combat operations after 2001 should or shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Those of us who had a similar arrangement with the Clinton administration are confident that what you have been reporting is really old news.

Please provide a comparison of how the information provided to retired officers after 2002 was different than information provided under other Administrations. Please include in your response a comparison of the briefing materials, access to DoD information, and the role the officers played in civilian contractors.

Please explain why you continue to assert a “belief”. Why are you asking the public to believe that your view of “all” the facts available should or should not be relied on over other civilians? If you and others did, supposedly, have access to “all” the facts, why isn’t your “robust review o the facts” translating into competent, national warfighting strategies to prevail over the enemy? The only reasonable conclusion is that you’ve missed some key facts, and the enemy is doing something you fail to understand. If you did understand it, and the President and Congress believed you, then they would have adjusted and we would have won. “Mission Accomplished” is not the same as factual combat victory.

Since you’ve raised the issue of “all the facts” and “all the information” it’s time for the public to review the information you did get, and why our conclusions appear to be things the President, Congress, and others are not willing to take seriously. It’s irrelevant that the NYT is reporting, despite your statements, we still have not prevailed. You’re only asserting that you have expertise, but are not pointing to ground-success and combat victory after 2001 as evidence of this expertise. You’re only pointing to your experience and asking the public to assume that your experience is the same as expertise. That defies reason, especially in light of the continuing quagmire your peers on active duty have still not been able to secure. This war in Iraq was a war of choice, not thrust upon American, and could have been planned. It was not.

We have said and will continue to say what we truly believe after looking at all information and facts available to us through the prism of our extensive professional military experience.

What is the basis for your assertion that your “prism” is or isn’t more accurate than other prisms civilians might use in re Geneva, imminent threat, POW abuse, or legal standards in the wake of Nuremberg? Again, you’re asserting your experience – not connected with any post-9-11 campaign victory in either Afghanistan or Iraq – is something we should take seriously. When we see your comments translate into a successful conclusion of this war, and ground combat victory, we might revisit your assertions about your expertise, experience, and competence.

It’s a misreading to suggest someone was suggesting anything. The public overtly concluded, based on the best information, that there are reasonable concerns about potential conflicts of interest. You have no basis to claim you can make conclusions about ground campaigns, but others are not able to make different conclusions about the apparent conflicts of interest. You still have not addressed those, nor have you discussed how the military contractors did or did not benefit from your and your colleagues’ comments, access, and interactions with the Pentagon.

If you believe your honor has been unfairly attacked and there are damages, then you should discuss this with your legal counsel, not the NYT. However, you’ve not cited in your letter a reasonable basis for civilian readers of the NYT to conclude your construction of the NYT article deliberately or recklessly did anything invalid, false, or misleading. Self-evidently, the failure of the President and Congress to secure a ground campaign victory alone raises reasonable questions about what role or input you have to any military decision making. For all we know, you’re at the end of the food chain, and unaware of the real conflicts of interests involving other retired military officers which you have not addressed. This goes back to the original question: How were you identified, who selected you, and how were your names this quickly matched with this letter, and how did someone get five different people from five different military careers to respond, without any overlaps? Someone is doing something they’re not talking about, and the public and Congress can find out.

However, since you’ve signed your names, you are not considered public figures and this strips you of certain legal positions you might enjoy if you were not a public figure. The alleged conduct of former military officers was never explicitly attached to your name until you signed your name to this letter. Until now, the public was merely led to believe that the full spectrum of potential conflicts was across the board, and was not aimed directly at one or five former officers. Again, we have no ground campaign victory, but you want people to take your views seriously. The President isn’t listening to you: If he was, we’d have victory. Seeing no victory, we can only conclude the President isn’t listening to you; rather, your roles isn’t to provide useful information to the government, but to do the opposite: Provide information in the opposite direction: From the plateau of supposed expertise – that cannot penetrate the President’s mind – to the land of the civilians. Why should the public take you seriously when you can’t get the President to take you seriously and lead the nation to victory?

You’ve failed to make your case that the NYT suggested anything, and that it was not you – reading between the lines – that inferred something. You’ve provided not textual references to the NYT original article. It’s not the job of the public to construct your argument for you. When you provide quotations, references, and make a coherent argument, then the public might revisit the original NYT article and consider whether you were or were not unfairly represented. All you’re giving the public is vague, sweeping assertions, but no textual reference, nor facts to support a different theory. Again, we have no victory on the ground, but you want the public to believe you have special information, experience, expertise, that even the President is incapable of respecting. That defies reason. Victory on the ground means you have some credibility on the information you have, your views, and your analysis. The experts weren’t listening to you. We have no victory. Yet you want the non-experts in the public arena to do what the senior leadership refused to do: Adjust to your insights.

Suggesting that we intentionally misled the American people for partisan political purposes or some quid pro quo personal gain is an unconscionable attack on our honor and long service to this nation.

You’ve failed to make your case that the NYT has done anything wrong, or that your “honor” or “long service” were unfairly attacked. You’ve not provided any factual evidence, merely asserted – twice – that you believed (your word) something. To suggest that you did something correct, but not remove “belief” suggests you are hedging. That requires some legal sophistication. Please share with the public which legal counsel in DoJ OLC, DoD, or outside counsel you discussed these issues with in crafting this letter.

This statement essentially admits that you were involved with multiple Pentagon-sponsored events. You’ve not made a case that the “hosts” did or didn’t have some other coordination with the Pentagon or White House. Again, you assert, second hand, that the hosts “believed” something. You failed to explain why these “hosts” are not speaking for themselves.

We participated in Pentagon briefings and television and radio network interviews chiefly because our hosts believed we had the credentials to do so as military professionals.

The issue isn’t your credentials, the issue is whether the information you retransmitted was or wasn’t something that was visibly couched as a belief, or as an assertion of fact. The issue is whether your subsequent representation of your original statements, and the other DoD-related coordination, do or do not accurately reflect what did or didn’t happen. You’ve not provided independent information to reassure the public. We have no independent source to now fact-check your assertions: You were supposed to have been that independent view, and no we realize there were dubious assumptions behind that premise about your independence. Who do you propose we discuss these concerns with; and are you going to be specific with a mechanism that might independently review whether the “independent, retired military officers’” information is or isn’t credible? You’ve merely asked the public to believe your assertion that you are credible, but point to nothing on the ground to justify confidence with your original assertions or representations.

If you want to be believed, we need a better process and access to your original notes and presentation materials the Pentagon provided you; then we need to independently review your public statements with those the Pentagon provided; ten compare the information you provided with independent methods, audits, and other reviews. Again, you’re not providing us with a starting point, but an assertion that you ask us to believe on face value. You’ve provided nothing to justify confidence that this premise is valid or should be a starting position.

It’s a question for the court to adjudicate whether your statements were or were not factual; whether you reasonably believed something; whether you have retroactively recouched information; and to what extent your joint letter of five officers amounts to retroactive reshaping by witnesses.

We will continue to speak out honestly to the American people about national security threats. Like our military service, we consider it our duty.

We’d like to hear from some other officers who were not privy to the meetings, coordination, and this letter: What are their views; why did they not join you in signing this letter; and which statements in the letter did their legal counsel have problems with?

Thomas G. McInerney

Paul E. Vallely

Charles T. Nash

William V. Cowan

Wayne Simmons

Clifton, Va., April 25, 2008

The writers are, respectively, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, a retired Army major general, a retired Navy captain, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a retired United States intelligence officer.

Are they claiming to speak for all retired former military officers allegedly implicated in false statements to Congress; or are they speaking only for themselves?

=======================================================

Part II: Deconstructing Key Words

Note the bold type, not part of the original

The Pentagon's Message, and Ours: 5 Analysts Reply
New York Times, The (NY) - May 1, 2008
To the Editor:

We object to "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand" (front page, April 20) and its assertion that military analysts are tools of a Pentagon propaganda machine.

1. You provided no textual references.

2. It’s meaningless to object unless you’re going to file a lawsuit for defamation.

We have never stated anything about defense or national security that we did not believe to be true. Equally important, we also have served the essential wartime function of helping civilians be better informed about our military, our enemies and how the war is being conducted.

3. Saying “never” is something that is a dubious assertion. The NYT article would have us believe the opposite, but you’ve provided nothing specific to justify confidence that this has never happened. The NYT is still concerned. This letter isn’t helping you.

4. This is irrelevant, and a contradiction: You’ve expressly asked us to believe this is “old” news, so why are you upset at what everyone “knows”? That defies reason. This is news, not old news.

Those of us who had a similar arrangement with the Clinton administration are confident that what you have been reporting is really old news.

5. Meaningless: Repeated assertions of belief without textual references, without adequately explaining or discussing other views. You’ve simply asserted the NYT got it wrong on your assertion alone. This argument fails:

We have said and will continue to say what we truly believe after looking at all information and facts available to us through the prism of our extensive professional military experience.

6. Shocked, without a lawsuit: Notice the distraction, shifting attention from the contracting actions to whether or not a specific person did or did not do something right or wrong. This doesn’t address whether contractors as business units, as distinguished from contracting people/officials, did or did not secure contracts because of this favorable commentary by former military officers. The issue isn’t whether the officials did or didn’t get something of value, but whether the contacting firms received something; and then how officials on those board did or didn’t derive secondary benefits from these contract awards. You haven’t refuted the accusation, merely asserted that it raises doubts about your service. That’s not a defense, but a misdirection:

Suggesting that we intentionally misled the American people for partisan political purposes or some quid pro quo personal gain is an unconscionable attack on our honor and long service to this nation.

7. Confirmation of multiple briefings, and the transcripts which they did not cite. They haven’t established how the networks did or did not identify “experts”

We participated in Pentagon briefings and television and radio network interviews chiefly because our hosts believed we had the credentials to do so as military professionals.

8. What was the nature of your “participation”? Please describe your questions you asked, and what methods you asked to review the information. If the Pentagon material was valid, why wasn’t truthful information translating into prevailing battle plans?

9. This asserts that the original statements were honest, when that is the question the NYT asks: Is there a conflict whereby the information was provided without adequately disclosures of conflicts; and were the former military officers less than honest about anything?

10. As corporate officers, public officials have a fiduciary duty to their investors. You’ve used the idea of “duty” but mixed it with a different legal standard of attestation. You may have an “interest” in doing something, but that does not mean you have credibility. It’s an open question to what extent you were duped, or failed to conduct due diligence. Taking a step back, you’re all retired military officers: You’re not tat the top in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The things you were not doing on active duty might have contributed to your inability to continue getting promotions. None of you had four-stars. The highest ranking person was a three-star Flag Officer.

11. Your assertion that you were “honest” is the point the NYT was questioning: If you have a conflict, which you may not understand, your assertion that you are honest doesn’t mean anything: Honesty isn’t the same as credibility. The issue isn’t whether you are being honest, it’s whether – by the results on the ground – we should believe you have special insight or that your connection to the Pentagon was a two-way communication channel, or that you really participated in anything. It appears you were more of an inactive receptacle for DoD views. This conclusion might change if you can provide notes showing you challenged DoD presentations, or offered different views, or left the building because the DoD briefers were providing dubious information. You’ve not provided any evidence to suggest you really participated.

We will continue to speak out honestly to the American people about national security threats. Like our military service, we consider it our duty.

12. As to the claims that the Air Force is doing a great job, the Secretary of Defense admonished the Air Force officer leadership for refusing to cooperate. Perhaps you could use your expertise and influence with the Pentagon to encourage the military leadership to listen to the Secretary of Defense. If you can’t get them to listen to civilian orders, does it really matter what your views are or whether your feelings are hurt about the NYT? No.

The issue on the table is whether the

Thomas G. McInerney

Paul E. Vallely

Charles T. Nash

William V. Cowan

Wayne Simmons

Clifton, Va., April 25, 2008

The writers are, respectively, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, a retired Army major general, a retired Navy captain, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a retired United States intelligence officer.

Part III: For Reference

This is provided for educational purposes only, and intended to provide a clean copy for all readers to independently review.
Here is the original

The Pentagon's Message, and Ours: 5 Analysts Reply
New York Times, The (NY) - May 1, 2008
To the Editor:

We object to "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand" (front page, April 20) and its assertion that military analysts are tools of a Pentagon propaganda machine.

We have never stated anything about defense or national security that we did not believe to be true. Equally important, we also have served the essential wartime function of helping civilians be better informed about our military, our enemies and how the war is being conducted.

Those of us who had a similar arrangement with the Clinton administration are confident that what you have been reporting is really old news.

We have said and will continue to say what we truly believe after looking at all information and facts available to us through the prism of our extensive professional military experience.

Suggesting that we intentionally misled the American people for partisan political purposes or some quid pro quo personal gain is an unconscionable attack on our honor and long service to this nation.

We participated in Pentagon briefings and television and radio network interviews chiefly because our hosts believed we had the credentials to do so as military professionals.

We will continue to speak out honestly to the American people about national security threats. Like our military service, we consider it our duty.

Thomas G. McInerney

Paul E. Vallely

Charles T. Nash

William V. Cowan

Wayne Simmons

Clifton, Va., April 25, 2008

The writers are, respectively, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, a retired Army major general, a retired Navy captain, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a retired United States intelligence officer.

Here is reporting on media reporting of the Pentagon meetings.