Rewards for the Incompetent

Well, according to the WashPost, the two key analysts for the Army's NGIC (National Ground Intelligence Center) who argued that the aluminum tubes the Iraqis were buying in 2000 could NOT have been used for rockets were rewarded with monetary payments in 2002, 2003, and 2004. It was largely due to the findings of these two individuals that the push for war in Iraq continued throughout late 2001 and early 2002. The analysts determined that no rockets the Iraqis might produce would require such robust tubing; this could only mean that the tubing would be for nuclear centrifuges (for developing usuable nuclear material). This analysis was made by the two NGIC Army officers in spite of reports by both the U.S. Energy Department and the Internation Atomic Energy Agency that showed the Iraqis had used similar tubes in the past for rockets and that the tubes in question were not adequate for nuclear centrifuges.

In fact, we now learn that at least one analyst in the CIA suggested that the Iraqis were reverse-engineering an old Italian rocket that used the very aluminum tubes in question. This analyst requested that the CIA get the blueprints for the Italian design, but that suggestion was ignored along the chain of command because the CIA had already determined the tubes were NOT for rockets.

The real question here, however, is why the two analysts were rewarded monetarily even after it was determined their intelligence analysis was wrong, and in fact VERY BAD. The Pentagon claims the monetary supplements were for outstanding performance throughout the year, but could the rewards not just have easily have been given to them for 'finding' the 'correct' analysis?

To me, this seems especially likely coming on the heels of the "Downing Street Memo" that I discussed last week. If the U.S. intended to create the analysis that would make an invasion of Iraq most likely, then would the administration not want to reward those analysts who came up with the appropriate information, whether that information and analysis was flawed or not?