XVIII. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S SHARING OF INTELLIGENCE ON IRAQI SUSPECT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SITES WITH UNITED NATIONS INSPECTORS

A. Background

(U) In November 2002, the President issued National Security Presidential Directive (NSPO)-21 directing the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) to provide all necessary intelligence and support to United Nations (UN) weapons inspections in Iraq. On January 3, 2003, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) issued guidance to senior IC officials emphasizing that priority shall be given to collecting, analyzing, and producing intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs that is immediately shareable with inspection teams or that is necessary to ensure their safety and security.

(U) Starting in December 2002, Senator Carl Levin sent a series of requests to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking detailed information on the extent to which the IC was sharing intelligence information on Iraqi suspect weapons of mass destruction sites with UN inspectors.

(U) In mid-February 2003, the DCI testified in open session before both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Armed Services Committee that the CIA had shared all information of value it possessed on high-, and moderate-priority suspect sites with UN inspectors. Similar assertions were made by the DCI and the National Security Advisor in two March 6, 2003, letters sent to Senator Levin.

(U) At the Committee's April 30, 2003, closed hearing, Senator Levin voiced concerns that the information the CIA had provided to him and the Committee on the subject was unresponsive, incomplete and inconsistent.

(U) Senator Levin's primary concern was that unclassified written and oral statements made by the DCI to the effect that, by mid-February 2003, the U.S. had shared all information of value on high and moderate priority suspect sites with UN inspectors, were not accurate and contrary to a classified body of information obtained from the CIA.

(U) At the hearing, Chairman Pat Roberts and Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, joined by Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee,

echoed Senator Levin's concerns. Chairman Roberts directed that the Committee staff, pursuant to the Committee's oversight responsibilities, undertake a more in-depth review of how the CIA carried out its information-sharing responsibilities during the November 2002-March 2003 time frame:

Chairman Roberts: " ... the numbers don't add up. That's why it's caused great concern on my part and that of Senator Rockefeller and more especially Senator Warner and Senator Levin. If we could get that straightened out - and I'm going to make a suggestion that we have staff, Senator Levin, work with CIA to see if we cannot have a briefing, if not a hearing..." (SSCI Hearing, April 30, 2003)

(U) The Committee staff met with representatives of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to discuss how and to what extent the U.S. Intelligence Community shared intelligence information on Iraqi suspect weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sites with UN inspectors. The Committee staff also traveled to the UN in New York City and interviewed Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mr. Jim Corcoran, head of intelligence for UNMOVIC.

B. The Lead-up to Renewed Inspections

The United States Government's relationship with UN inspectors in Iraq goes back to 1991, when the Arms Control Intelligence Staff (ACIS) created an office called the Iraq Sanctions Monitoring Task Force. The task force included representation across the IC but was largely staffed from the CIA. The task force supported the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors through a routine exchange of information on suspected WMD sites until UN inspections in Iraq ended in 1998. Quarterly briefings between the IC and the UN continued, however, from 1998 to 2001.

(U) In September/October 2002, the DCI's Weapons Intelligence,

Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) created a United States Government inspections support staff, numbering between 12-18 persons drawn from the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), DIA and National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)67, to support the reconstituted UN inspections efforts in Iraq under UNMOVIC

67NIMA has recently been renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).

and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). UNMOVIC inherited the 1998 UNSCOM files on Iraqi suspect sites.

According to CIA's officials, UNMOVIC's hiring was more diversified among member countries and, as a result, new inspectors faced a significant learning curve vice the corporate knowledge attained by UNSCOM inspectors in the late-1990s. The hiring of the new UNMOVIC inspectors also meant that it took time for the United States Government to establish security procedures and a level of trust with the officials.

In late October 2002, the United States Government brought security and communications network officials to its initial meeting with UN officials in New York City to advise UNMOVIC on security considerations and to get the measure of the organization as a whole. A procedure was established to use State Department officials at the UN to facilitate the passing of information from the United States Government to UNMOVIC. Also at this initial meeting, there was an exchange of programmatic information on what the UN was hoping to accomplish once the inspections in Iraq began.

C. The Sharing of Information - the "Pull" Side of the Exchange

UNMOVIC began requesting information on suspect sites from the United States Government through the State Department office at the UN Mission in November 2002. The UN's "pull" of information was in the form of two requests: 1) a request for in-depth data on 33 sites that the UN considered priority sites for inspection; and 2) a lower priority request for line drawings (i.e., site orientation maps detailing building outlines and locations on 245 sites from the UN's historical files.

The United States Government established a review process in response to the UN requests involving approximately ten to 25 persons depending on the type of site. The focus of the review process was on what information would be shared in response to the request and how it would be communicated to the UN. According to the United States Government officials, the site packages prepared in response to the request were not significantly altered during the clearance process that followed.

The United States Government could only identify the location of 31 of the 33 sites requested by the UN. In-depth, or "full," site packages were provided to the UN on

13 of the 31 sites, with site-specific briefings also provided on five of these 13 packages. Line drawings only were provided on the remaining 18 sites.

Of the 245 site line drawings requested, the United States Government provided 42 before the exchange of information ended in March 2003. According to the United States Government officials, these line drawing packages were being produced at a rate of about one a day. According to UN officials, the United States Government's partial delivery of line drawings did not hinder UNMOVIC inspections.

D. The Sharing of Information - the "Push" Side of the Exchange

(U) Concurrent with its efforts to respond to the UN's request for site information, the CIA began an internal review process in October 2002 to determine what information known about sites considered by the CIA to be top suspect sites should be shared with the UN. This untitled list of sites, set forth in a series of spreadsheets organized by WMD discipline, started small and eventually grew into what would later be called the IC Master Inspection List (IC MIL). Though, as detailed below, there are other IC lists pertaining to suspected Iraqi WMD sites, the IC MIL is the focus of this staff review.

(U) Three documents provided guidance on the Intelligence Community's support for weapons inspections in Iraq: (a) an October 10, 2002, e-mail from the CIA to Intelligence Community officials initiating the inspections support process; (b) National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-21: Support for Inspections in Iraq, dated November 2002; and (c) the DCI's January 3, 2003, memorandum designating the Director of WINPAC, as the executive agent responsible for coordinating and facilitating all intelligence activities in support of UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and forwarding the December 10, 2002, concept of operations for carrying out NSPD-21 Policy.

(U) The process of prioritizing suspect sites began with Intelligence Community officials representing each discipline area (i.e., biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear, etc.) being asked to identify the top ten priority sites for inspection. The IC MIL began with about 50-60 sites and ultimately grew to 148 top suspect sites.

According to the CIA's January 24, 2003, letter to Senator Levin, there were approximately 550 sites on the Intelligence Community's suspect site list. The 148 sites identified on the IC MIL were considered the "top suspect sites for inspection purposes;

that is, inspectors are more likely to find something at those sites than other sites." The 148 top suspect sites were further prioritized in the IC MIL as "high," "medium," and "low" priority: 37 were high priority, 68 were medium priority, and 54 were low priority. (Note: the sum of priority sites is 159 not 148 due to the multiple listing of some sites by type of WMD site. For example, one facility is double counted as both a medium priority biological weapons site and a medium priority chemical weapons site. In addition, according to the information provided by the CIA, nine sites on the IC MIL had no priority designation assigned to them.)

(U) The IC MIL prioritization process was based on which site was the best candidate for finding evidence of proscribed WMD activity, including where the Intelligence Community had recent actionable intelligence.

According to the CIA officials, the UNMOVIC inspectors were overwhelmed quickly after beginning inspections in November 2002, and primarily conducted inventory inspections through December. The CIA officials were concerned about the ability of the UN to handle information from the IC MIL being "pushed" to them. As a result, the CIA timed the release of sensitive information to the UN so the inspectors could quickly inspect and avoid a lengthy delay between receipt of the

information and subsequent inspection

The CIA noted that they had circumstantial evidence intelligence that the Iraqis had penetrated the UN inspections process and had received advance warning of some inspections.

According to United States Government officials, the highest priority suspect sites were briefed to the UN first, followed by lower priority sites. However, the chronology of when the United States Government briefed site packages to the UN indicates that the order of briefings did not always follow this IC MIL high-medium-low priority progression. Certain suspect sites designated medium and low priority in the IC MIL were briefed to the UN before some high priority sites. Additionally, as detailed below, some high priority suspect sites were not briefed to the UN at all.

It is important to note that the UN was receiving intelligence information from governments other than the United States. The UN estimates that 60% of all the intelligence information it received came from the United States Government, with the balance coming largely from foreign government services. UN officials told the Committee staff that although U.S. intelligence leads had run dry, the UN had