Laurie Mylroie

**bourbon** · 01-30-2009

Saddam-Qaeda Conspiracy Theorist Surfaces Writing Iraq Reports For The Pentagon, By Justin Elliott. TPMmuckraker, January 29, 2009.

Mylroie is the author of two studies -- "Saddam's Strategic Concepts: Dealing With UNSCOM," dated Feb. 1, 2007, and "Saddam's Foreign Intelligence Service," dated Sept. 24, 2007 -- on a list of reports from the Pentagon's Office Of Net Assessment [ONA], obtained by TPMmuckraker through the Freedom Of Information Act. The ONA is the Defense Department's internal think tank, once described by the Washington Post as "obscure but highly influential."

For a background on Mylroie see Peter Bergen's 2003 article Armchair Provocateur, which hammered her.

**Ken White** · 01-30-2009

source you got that link from...

Is there a point to their screed? ONA listens to a lot of strange folks -- that's their job. Lots of people get 'hammered' in print by journalists, that's their job.

**bourbon** · 01-31-2009

Hi Ken,

While Peter Bergen may have begun his career in journalism, I think most would agree that he has since become one of the top analysts on AQ available in open source. As such, his hammering carries much more water than a mere journalist, who is doing what journalists do.

ONA’s job may be to listen to strange folks, but should they be listening to, and worse contracting, ideological shills? There are plenty of professionals with strange ideas that ONA can hire.

Laurie Mylorie is an ideological shill. This woman championed the theory an AQ-Saddam connection under the banner of her being a Middle East scholar and terrorism analyst. While promoting this theory, she used it in a book to besmirch CIA and State as Sally’s who were not committed to fighting terrorism, because she perceived them as not wanting to invade Iraq. This was poor taste at best, and pushing an ideological agenda at worst.

When her theory proved to be wrong, she shrugged it off with an “oh well, Saddam was a bad guy anyway, I’m glad he’s gone anyway.” Imo, any professional veracity she once had has been negated, and she be relegated to a level on par with lobbyists and exile groups.

**Ken White** · 01-31-2009

Originally Posted by bourbon

While Peter Bergen may have begun his career in journalism, I think most would agree that he has since become one of the top analysts on AQ available in open source. As such, his hammering carries much more water than a mere journalist, who is doing what journalists do.

Eye of the reader I guess; he shows me no particular 'expertise,' quite the contrary. Further, as a member of the New America foundation, I suggest he he has an agenda that makes him also a partisan shill. I hope you'll forgive me if I pay little attention to him or Mylroie...

ONA’s job may be to listen to strange folks, but should they be listening to, and worse contracting, ideological shills? There are plenty of professionals with strange ideas that ONA can hire.

They do that; Mylroie is just one. I disagree with much in the NY Times and The Guardian but I read them regularly...

...besmirch CIA and State as Sally’s who were not committed to fighting terrorism, because she perceived them as not wanting to invade Iraq. This was poor taste at best, and pushing an ideological agenda at worst.

Possibly true on the taste, not necessarily on the agenda aspect. Knowing people employed by both agencies the presumption is, I think, quite correct. While folks are entitled to their opinions, if they're taking the Government's money, they owe the government a certain degree of fealty in their actions...

As for her theory re: Saddam and AQ being wrong, it's a matter of degree, is it not?

**Rex Brynen** · 01-31-2009

I have to say that I agree completely with bourbon as to both the quality and objectivity of Peter Bergen's analyses, and the complete and utter lack of either in the case of Laurie Mylroie.

**Ken White** · 01-31-2009

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I have to say that I agree completely with bourbon as to both the quality and objectivity of Peter Bergen's analyses, and the complete and utter lack of either in the case of Laurie Mylroie.

I disagree on Bergen; as I said, having read a bit of his stuff, I see no expertise; familiarity, yes -- but that's not expertise to me. Your mileage obviously varies and that's fine.

I agree with you both on Mylroie. Only making an issue of it because this seems to me to more an unnecessary political / ideological thread effort than one pertaining to warfare...

**Van** · 01-31-2009

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I have to say that I agree completely with bourbon as to both the quality and objectivity of Peter Bergen's analyses, and the complete and utter lack of either in the case of Laurie Mylroie.

*golf clap* A concise assessment. Well said.

Another element: Inside the Beltway, it is not uncommon for someone in or close to Congress or the Cabinet to have a favored academic, speaker, "expert", what have you, and force that "expert" upon folks who really want nothing to do with the dubious assertions they might spout. Mylroie might have patronage that the ONA couldn't (politically) say no to.

And leaking the facts of the matter to the press as an "unnamed administration official" or "anonymous source" might be an easy way to bring this sort of silliness to the public light.