[Ed. – Sorry, this is never an honest thing to do. An IG is not equipped to rule on whether intelligence analysis was “skewed.” You aren’t equipped either, which is why you don’t know what you think you do about “WMD in Iraq.” You can tell whether money was counted improperly, even if you’re not an accountant; but neither you nor a career intel analyst has the ability to divine — for the purposes of official rebuke or retribution — the analytical motives of other people. An IG process is not how you fix an intel-analytical problem. If you think there is such a problem, persuade your bosses, or get yourself into the boss’s position, and then revise the conclusions, explaining honestly why you’re doing it. Don’t hide behind an IG process that is unsuited to drawing meaningful conclusions.
This has internal politics written all over it. And yes, it could be a witch hunt. Leaking it to the New York Times, wrapped up in a bow, is a signature Obama White House maneuver. It’s a very bad sign.]
The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry.
The investigation began after at least one civilian Defense Intelligence Agency analyst told the authorities that he had evidence that officials at United States Central Command — the military headquarters overseeing the American bombing campaign and other efforts against the Islamic State — were improperly reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama, the government officials said.
Fuller details of the claims were not available, including when the assessments were said to have been altered and who at Central Command, or Centcom, the analyst said was responsible. The officials, speaking only on the condition of anonymity about classified matters, said that the recently opened investigation focused on whether military officials had changed the conclusions of draft intelligence assessments during a review process and then passed them on.