http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/world ... r=homepage

Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos
By Michael R. Gordon
The New York Times

Wednesday 01 November 2006

Washington - A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.

A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting.

The slide includes a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an "Index of Civil Conflict." It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.

In fashioning the index, the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy's fighting strength and the control of territory.

The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from "peace," an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked "chaos." As depicted in the command's chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.

An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads "urban areas experiencing 'ethnic cleansing' campaigns to consolidate control" and "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically." According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command's intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.

Gen. John P. Abizaid, who heads the command, warned publicly in August about the risk of civil war in Iraq, but he said then that he thought it could be averted. In evaluating the prospects for all-out civil strife, the command concentrates on "key reads," or several principal variables.

According to the slide from the Oct. 18 briefing, the variables include "hostile rhetoric" by political and religious leaders, which can be measured by listening to sermons at mosques and to important Shiite and Sunni leaders, and the amount of influence that moderate political and religious figures have over the population. The other main variables are assassinations and other especially provocative sectarian attacks, as well as "spontaneous mass civil conflict."

A number of secondary indicators are also taken into account, including activity by militias, problems with ineffective police, the ability of Iraqi officials to govern effectively, the number of civilians who have been forced to move by sectarian violence, the willingness of Iraqi security forces to follow orders, and the degree to which the Iraqi Kurds are pressing for independence from the central government.

These factors are evaluated to create the index of civil strife, which has registered a steady worsening for months. "Ever since the February attack on the Shiite mosque in Samarra, it has been closer to the chaos side than the peace side," said a Central Command official who asked not to be identified because he was talking about classified information.

In the Oct. 18 brief, the index moved still another notch toward "chaos." That briefing was prepared three days before General Abizaid met in Washington with President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to take stock of the situation in Iraq.

A spokesman for the Central Command declined to comment on the index or other information in the slide. "We don't comment on secret material," the spokesman said.

One significant factor in the military's decision to move the scale toward "chaos" was the expanding activity by militias.

Another reason was the limitations of Iraqi government security forces, which despite years of training and equipping by the United States, are either ineffective or, in some cases, infiltrated by the very militias they are supposed to be combating. The slide notes that "ineffectual" Iraqi police forces have been a significant problem, and cites as a concern sectarian conflicts between Iraqi security forces.

Other significant factors are in the political realm. The slide notes that Iraq's political and religious leaders have lost some of their moderating influence over their constituents or adherents.

Notably, the slide also cites difficulties that the new Iraqi administration has experienced in "governance." That appears to be shorthand for the frustration felt by American military officers about the Iraqi government's delays in bringing about a genuine political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. It also appears to apply to the lack of reconstruction programs to restore essential services and the dearth of job creation efforts to give young Iraqis an alternative to joining militias, as well as the absence of firm action against militias.

The slide lists other factors that are described as important but less significant. They include efforts by Iran and Syria to enable violence by militias and insurgent groups and the interest by many Kurds in achieving independence. The slide describes violence motivated by sectarian differences as having moved into a "critical" phase.

The chart does note some positive developments. Specifically, it notes that "hostile rhetoric" by political and religious leaders has not increased. It also notes that Iraqi security forces are refusing less often than in the past to take orders from the central government and that there has been a drop-off in mass desertions.

Still, for a military culture that thrives on PowerPoint briefings, the shifting index was seen by some officials as a stark warning about the difficult course of events in Iraq, and mirrored growing concern by some military officers.

A classified document being published by The New York Times?
Impossible!

An overabundance of classified documents in a supposed open democracy? shocking.

We seriously need to get out of there and let the Religion of Peaceâ„¢ sort this out.

Wow, you're right. Let's toss troop movements on the front pages as well. Open Democracy, right?

You must love genocide.

Pentagon Looking Into Leak of Classified Intel to New York Times

Wednesday, November 01, 2006
FoxNews


WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.

The published report includes a classified one-page slide show from an Oct. 18 military briefing. The slide show is titled: “Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict,” and shows spiraling violence in Iraq and a worsening position for American efforts.

Based on the slide show, Iraq is moving sharply away from "peace," designated in green on the left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the red-zoned right side of the spectrum, marked “chaos.”

As depicted in the command’s chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart since February, when a Shiite shrine in Samarra was bombed by insurgents.

An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide says urban areas are "experiencing 'ethnic cleansing' campaigns to consolidate control,” and violence is at an "all-time high, spreading geographically.”

The Times reports the analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is headed by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.

The New York Times had not yet responded to a request for comment by FOX News about how it obtained the chart, but a spokeswoman for the newspaper said it will.

The report came on the heels of an announcement by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday that he stands behind a plan to spend no less than $1 billion to beef up Iraqi security forces beyond their current levels.

To date, the federal government has spent about $10 billion in this area, according to a recent Pentagon special inspector report.

Any such proposal would require White House and congressional approval. The plan is an attempt to continue efforts to shift control to Iraq.

FOX News' Mike Emanuel and Nick Simeone contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226832,00.html

Are you on drugs? Seriously, get a grip.

uheauheauheauhea, that was pure gold!

So the NYT didnt lie! And it also did the right thing, Thomas Jefferson would be proud of it.

Well, if I believed that we live or should live in a completely transparent society then I should be on drugs.

Did you rejoice reading 1984, didnt you?

People find out that some information is deemed classified by the government and all of a sudden we've reached the point to where people who can grasp this concept rejoice in Orwell's dystopia? Wow.

Dude, I think that the situation of a whole war is something way too big to be classified. The american and world population have the right to know what is going on Iraq.

let me ask you this:

if we have governmental leaders telling us iraq is going well, but we have internal reports saying iraq is near 'chaos,' wouldn't those governmental leaders be considered liars?

Sim.

Well, let me clarify what I'm saying. I'm not implying that the War in Iraq should be subject to a media blackout and the people should be fed propaganda. Of course not. The American people have a right to know the situation...up to a certain point. There is a line that is crossed, such as new tactics about to be undertaken or locations of troops and such.
Does what the NYT published equate to that? Not necessarily, but on the other hand I don't think the media has the right to pick and choose what it is entitled to publish, especially if the document was leaked from the Pentagon and stamped "classified."
As far as knowing what is going on, I think the American people have been kept pretty well informed. Things right now are a mess....do the American people not know that? Has the government denied that? Well, they haven't used those words, and I wouldn't expect them to. Do you think the President is going to use a word such as "chaos" or "fiasco" when he has about 150,000 troops in Iraq? Of course not. On the other hand, he has openly said that it is very difficult in Iraq right now, but he maintains an optimistic tone. Same with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Generals who have given testimony before Congress. Even Senator John Warner has given a fair and balanced assessment of Iraq. So no, I don't think the government is tyring to set up some big diversionary propaganda machine. What I do think it is doing is maintaining an optimistic attitude. We're there and they want to finish what was started and win the conflict. I see no problem with that.

interestingly enough, sen. warner just came back from a tour of iraq and wanted to meet bush. bush didn't feel the meeting was necessary. or so i read.

What we're seeing here, and with all of the other leaks over the past year or two, is that there are some people in the military, the CIA, and other agencies who are very concerned that the country is being run into the ground by those in charge. They certainly wouldn't be leaking classified information to the press if they felt there was anything else they could do within the system to affect a positive change. I think it's important to put yourself in those people's shoes to understand how desperate the situation must seem on the inside to decide to risk as much as they have, personally, professionally, legally, and to a certain extent the national security of our country, to release classified documetns to the public.

absolutely correct. i am proud of them and their bravery to try and get the real picture and stroy out there so the public can begin to see through the lies and half truths. then maybe the public can start making some informed decisions, especially at election time.

daniel ellsberg and others like him are hero's, and i would shake their hand without apology