Magazine | July 6, 2015, Issue

Trained Analytic Incompetence

The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight against Terrorism from al Qa’ida to ISIS, by Michael Morell (Twelve, 384 pp., $28)

In this self-righteous book, Mr. Morell, a former director of the CIA, employs his advanced de­gree in economics to display convincingly why an economist can never reach a conclusion.

Morell’s narrative darts back and forth among four themes: his personal advancement up the ranks, defense of the CIA as an institution, defense of his role in the Benghazi imbroglio, and the great war of our time.

First, his personal journey: It suggests that the surest way to the top is to be, as Morell was, a professional aide, more grandly labeled an “executive assistant.” The author is comfortable in this role, offering sound advice about managing the overflow of data to the top echelons and sprinkling in a soupçon of encomiums about present-day national-security leaders. His essayistic tone marks him as a man of discretion and good will.

Second, he launches a robust de­fense of the CIA, skewering both Edward Snowden, for his treason, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), for her denunciation of waterboarding ten years after she had offered no objection when she was briefed about the technique. Morell is fiercely loyal to his organization, a fine trait in any bureaucrat. There are scathing condemnations of detractors, as well as flattery of Presidents Bush and Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Third, he is obsessed with justifying his role in the 2012 Benghazi tragedy. He ends up demonstrating why he and other intelligence analysts deserve to be distrusted, especially by the operational side of the CIA and by operators in general. His description of the CIA decision-making process turns common sense on its head.

On September 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that the attack the previous day on the Ameri­can consulate in Benghazi was planned and executed by “‘the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman.’ . . . It was established by Abdul Baset Azuz, a violent radical sent by al-Qaeda. . . . The intent was to kill as many Americans as possible.”

Morell, then the CIA’s deputy director for analysis, strongly disagreed. He was the central actor behind the Obama administration’s assertion that the attack was a spontaneous mob escalation. In the book, he invokes the full weight of the CIA decision-making process to justify that assertion.

He writes that, after the attack, the CIA station chief in Libya did send in two reports that, like the DIA, pointed to a deliberate terrorist attack. The station chief insisted that the attack was “not an escalation of protests.” But Morell concluded that “neither of the chief’s two explanations in the e-mail was compelling”: “It was inconsistent with what the analysts thought.” He therefore rejected what the senior person on the ground believed, based on the second opinions of analysts 4,000 miles away. Morell writes that he personally did not second-guess and overrule the station chief: The “analysts” did. And how did the analysts decide that the station chief was in error? They looked at a video from an unmanned aerial vehicle.

“When you assess the information from the video,” Morell writes, “there are few signs of a well-thought-out plan. . . . They [the attackers] did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm.”

Deducing from a video the mental intent of shadowy figures is more mystic than analytic. I’ve been in three wars. I would have been dead decades ago had I based decisions to fire or to get under cover on this kind of guesswork after the shooting had begun.

As for the two Americans killed by mortar shells on the roof of the CIA annex, that, too, Morell dismisses as a random, unplanned attack. “Why did the attackers use only five mortar rounds?” Morell writes. “The logical answer to me is clear — they had only five mortars. If this had been an assault with days, weeks, or months of planning, the terrorists would have been much better armed.”

I commanded a mortar platoon. The odds are 1,000 to 1 against Morell’s “logical answer” of five mortars, each firing a single shell. Most likely, it was the work of one mortar accurately laid in at night, a feat that requires meticulous mechanics and the careful measuring of distances during daylight.

Morell and his analysts exhibit no experience or understanding of combat. In his ethereal world, operators are mere mortals, and real decisions are made above them, by a digital swarm called “analysts.”

“Our operations officers collect in­telligence and our analysts produce the assessments,” he writes. “Analysts have access to all the available information; our officers in the field do not.” But our nation’s military doctrine is the opposite: It stresses that assessments during combat should rest on those closest to the action. Senior staffs far from the battlefield should be in support, not in contradiction. Admittedly, this decentralized doctrine is occasionally violated by generals. But they would not defend their interference, as does Morell, by insisting that centrali­zation is the proper norm. To deny facts on the ground in favor of theory at headquarters manifests trained analytic incompetence.

Fourth, Morell addresses what he calls “the great war of our time.” He writes that ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) “is effectively al-Qaeda,” threatening Middle East stability, re­cruiting “vulnerable young men” on a global basis, and determined to attack America and to acquire weapons of mass de­struction. In February 2013, Morell briefed President Obama on the mortal threat posed by ISIS. Yet, in a magazine interview in January 2014, Obama dismissed ISIS as a “JV team . . . en­gaged in various local power struggles” that “doesn’t lead us to think . . . an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something we have to wade into.”

And how does Morell explain the president’s rejection of “the great war”? He doesn’t. Instead, he lavishes praise. “I admired the president,” he writes. “He was brilliant and deeply attentive in any substantive briefing.” Morell was so enthralled, he writes, that he once whispered to the White House chief of staff, “So that’s why he is the president of the United States.” One hundred pages later, he offers this analysis of the commander-in-chief: “To me, this signaled that Obama was willing to listen to the views of others, and to create an environment where his subordinates felt they were welcome to speak — incredibly important traits, I believe, in any decision-maker.”

This is a weird book, more a harmonica tweet than a trumpet call to arms. Morell reserves his ringing declaration to support for a decision-making process: “At CIA, directors and deputy directors . . . do not determine the analytic line of the Agency. The analysts do.”

This is astonishing: Morell presents himself — and all other CIA directors — as puppets controlled by an amorphous, anointed body of experts in cyberspace. How can we repose trust in an institution when its director elides — nay, argues against — personal responsibility?

Read this book if you want to know why you should be concerned about the CIA’s analytical products. Successive sentences contradict one another, and none leads to a conclusion. Our Islamist enemies in “the great war” pose “a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East . . . with intentions to attack us.” But while discounting those Islamists as a “JV team,” Mr. Obama deserves praise as commander-in-chief. Why? Because he listens to others and was extensively briefed by Mr. Morell on the looming threat. This is a baffling book without a consistent narrative or a compelling logic.

– Mr. West served as a combat Marine and as an assistant secretary of defense. He has written ten books on combat, including six about our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bing WestBing West, a bestselling author and former assistant secretary of defense, served as a Marine grunt in Vietnam and later as a dean at the Naval War College. A graduate ...

In This Issue


Politics & Policy

Judging Lee-Rubio

Of the top three candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, judging from the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, only one has released a detailed tax plan: Marco Rubio, the senator ...
Politics & Policy

Not Me

Right now, two-thirds of all Americans own a smartphone. By the end of 2016, there will be 2 billion smartphones in use worldwide. That means 2 billion smartphone cameras in constant ...


Politics & Policy

The Campus-Rape Lie

There is a lie that is sweeping American higher education — a lie so compelling that it is motivating the systematic violation of constitutional rights, transforming the most intimate of ...

Books, Arts & Manners

Politics & Policy

¿Se Habla Coulter?

Ann Coulter is bold, brash, provocative, talented, fearless, witty, and outrageous. If she were on the left, she’d be lionized. (Lionessized?) She’d be widely regarded as an adornment to society. ...
Politics & Policy

The Way We Teach Today

‘The effect of Dewey’s philosophy on the design of curricular systems was devastating,” Richard Hofstadter wrote over 50 years ago in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Mark ...


Politics & Policy


Cold Comfort Ian Tuttle’s article on a proposed road through congressionally designated wilderness in Alaska (“Deadly Environmentalism,” June 22) omitted several salient facts. While people on both sides of the issue respect ...
Politics & Policy

The Week

‐ Bruce Jenner is female, Rachel Dolezal is black, and Donald Trump is a presidential contender. ‐ Just because she’s an uninspiring figure doesn’t mean she can’t win. Hillary Clinton gave ...

She Said She Said

Hillary’s speeches are like Roman candles that blurp out wet clods of sawdust — a flash, perhaps, but no sparkle, no light. In her Roosevelt Island rebooted reset retooled relaunch, ...
The Long View


From the Twitter feed of @donaldjtrump­potus The USA turnaround starts tomorrow as soon as I take the oath of office and attend to a few personal duties such as negotiating a ...
Politics & Policy


SEX IN THE ENGLISH GARDEN Light, feathery Astilbe Sways gently in the breeze, Afraid she always will be Faint fluff beneath the trees Concealing dear Sweet William, Who rings each foxglove’s bell Mid coreopsis ruffles, White lily, like ...
Happy Warrior

Not Avid for Ovid

Not long ago, four members of the Columbia University Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board wrote a letter of complaint to the university alleging that the study of classic works of Western ...

Most Popular


‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself’

It was just one more segment to fill out the hour, and thereby fill the long 24 hours of Saturday’s cable news on November 2. Or so it seemed. Navy SEAL Mike Ritland was on the Fox News program Watters World to talk to Jesse Watters about trained German shepherds like the one used in the raid that found ... Read More
White House

Impeachment Theater of Trolls

As a boy, I used to watch a television show with a weekly gag titled “MasterJoke Theatre.” A pompous egghead smoked a pipe in a leather-bound chair in a richly appointed library, told a joke, and got a pie in the face for his trouble. What the Democrats launched on the Hill this week is their own variant, ... Read More

A Defining Statement of Modern Conservatism

The greatest documents in American history never lose their ability to astonish. They deserve, and repay, careful study, and inevitably have contemporary resonances no matter how long ago they were written or uttered. There’s no doubt that Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” belongs in the top ranks ... Read More
White House

The Russian Conspiracy That Won’t Die

The Mueller report accomplished nothing. Whether you thought that the two-year, $32 million investigation was warranted or not, the report promised to establish a factual record that both sides could accept, especially on the explosive charge that Donald Trump had conspired with the Russians to win the ... Read More