The story of CENTCOM analysts accusing commanders of manipulating intelligence reports on ISIS to appease the White House is a story that has some interest in the mainstream media – but what if it is actually connected to a larger issue?

Washington DC -Allegations are mounting that senior intelligence officials at Central Command not only skewed findings on the ISIS war to please D.C., but tried to hide what they did.

In July, a group of intelligence analysts at the U.S. military’s Central Command accused their bosses of distorting and selectively editing intelligence reports about the fight against ISIS in order to portray that campaign as more successful than it really was. As a result of those complaints, the Pentagon’s inspector general opened an investigation.

Now, the allegations of misconduct have extended to a possible cover-up, with some analysts accusing the senior intelligence officials at CENTCOM, Maj. Gen. Steven Grove and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman, of deleting emails and files from computer systems before the inspector general could examine them, three individuals familiar with the investigation told The Daily Beast.

One U.S. official said the alleged activity could amount to obstruction and interference with the inspector general’s investigation, which began last summer.  (read more)

The presumption within the controversy (as it is generally discussed by the media) is that CENTCOM bosses changed the intel to give the impression of success to please the White House.  But what if that wasn’t the reason?

What if the BIGGER story is that CENTCOM officers actually gave the White House accurate negative outlook intelligence, but the White House itself was ideologically adverse to the content therein?

Meaning the White House did not want to take action based on accurate intelligence, because the White House didn’t actually want to fight ISIS; they only wanted to promote the illusion of fighting ISIS.

What if, the bigger story is a potential for risk if the broader public became aware the inept U.S. response to ISIS was not based on faulty intelligence, but was rather based on the fact that President Obama, and those within his inner circle, were adverse to fighting.

Intentionally adverse.

Ideologically adverse.

What if the inept and inadequate response was not ineptitude or inadequacy, but rather an intentional and deliberate ploy to appear inept and inadequate.   The faulty intelligence story then is used as an EXCUSE, to hide the real reasoning – plausible deniability.

Wouldn’t an investigation into the claims of those providing the intelligence then be a risk to the White House?

FOUR DAYS AGO 11/21/15  – A Congressional task force is being created to investigate whether U.S. Central Command, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, manipulated intelligence.

The chairmen of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Armed Services Committee and the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee “are creating a task force to investigate allegations of intel manipulation at CENTCOM,” said Jack Langer, spokesman for select committee Chairman U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a Republican from California.

CENTCOM received the request from Congress for information on intelligence assessments and, in coordination with the Department of Defense, “has responded accordingly,” said Air Force Col. Pat Ryder, a CENTCOM spokesman.

Ryder said that he cannot comment on the information provided because of an ongoing investigation into allegations that CENTCOM altered intelligence reports to provide a rosier picture of the fight against the so-called Islamic State jihadi group.  (read more)

Wouldn’t such a congressional investigation be considered a risk?  Might such inquiry take the conversation in an entirely new direction and expose a hidden, albeit ideological, agenda?

Essentially, the scenario would be: the White House was provided accurate and specific intelligence of ISIS operations, movements, locations, actions and activities, and yet none of that information was every used to carry out the publicly stated objectives….

….nothing ever done to destroy those ISIS operations, disrupt those activities, target those locations.  Intentionally nothing done.

Two ideological NATO Allies, Turkey and U.S.A., who have leaders with ulterior motives in support of ISIS (aka. for all intents and purposes -politically and ideologically- the Muslim Brotherhood).    President Obama essentially aiding his friend and Islamist BFF President Erdogan through “non action” against an entity benefiting the intents of Erdogan.  But Obama has to keep up anti-ISIS appearances for domestic consumption.

What if…. say, two months ago, Jordan, via King Abdullah, and Egypt via Fattah el Sisi then frustratingly turned to Russia to discuss how this U.S. anti-ISIS effort is a false fight in media appearance only.   Their specific two countries are suffering, and becoming more destabilized as the radicalization grows.

What if…. President Obama views Abdullah and el-Sisi as inauthentic Arab leaders who exist only as a result of a centuries old euro-Colonialism.  Ideologically illegitimate and unworthy of U.S. support under his leadership.

What if…. an agreement is reached between Putin, Abdullah and el-Sisi, and then a few weeks later – all of a sudden along comes an actual military entity (Russia) who DOES TAKE ACTION based in large part on the same intelligence the White House was ignoring.

Now, with Russia actually attacking the Islamic State, ISIS is actually and specifically being targeted.  Real loses, not the New York Times kind of media losses – but actual, military and economic losses.

Under this scenario now you have real impacts taking place against ISIS that are adverse to Turkey/Erdogan’s larger plan – and as a consequence out of favor with Obama’s overall and intentional willful blindness.

Under this scenario, now you have ISIS actually being defeated – and a genuine risk where the world would see that Russia was so easily able to defeat ISIS in weeks/months – where the U.S. action in the past two years would be displayed for what it was, a ruse.

Under this scenario, Turkey now has a vested additional interest in undermining the success of Putin – beyond Erdogan’s anger of his nemesis, Bashir Assad, being propped up.

Under this scenario, Turkey could now be taking action to be a thorn in the side of Russia, and assisting to provide cover for Obama by helping to keep ISIS around longer as a viable adversary to Putin as long as possible.

Under this scenario Erdogan shooting down a Russian fighter plane takes on an entirely new dimension.  We’ve called this THE BATHTUB PRINCIPLE – Chaos for a purpose.

Now lets evaluate this “what if” and revisit our Occam’s Razor discussion from two weeks ago:

There are numerous pundits and political followers who are quite upset about President Obama’s news conference in Turkey where he stated his ISIS strategy “is working”.

An example of the punditry proclamations can be encapsulated within this commentary of CNN contributors as outlined by NewsBusters:

On Monday, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and two of her network’s analysts blasted President Obama moments after he ended a press conference where he defended his anti-ISIS strategy. Amanpour underlined that Obama “something that was pretty incredible…that our strategy is working. People do not believe that to be the case. The only strategy that’s working is the strategy that he tends to dismiss — and that’s the ground troop strategy.

Sinjar, Tikrit, Kobani — those are the only ISIS strongholds that have been taken back by a combination of American intelligence and air power, and local ground forces.” (video at link)

Indeed, if you were to google search the various media reports about President Obama’s delivered position almost all of them reflect a similar sentiment. Media scratching their heads and twisting into pretzel contortions wondering why Obama continues to proclaim his ISIS strategy is a success.

What the talking heads all avoid noticing is everything reconciles if you just change position on what the Obama goals are. If you think about President Obama’s goals as NOT wanting to see authentic Islam (ISIS) deconstructed then everything reconciles.

♦ The trucks loaded with oil controlled by ISIS have been driving around Iraq and Syria for well over a year. If Obama wanted to eliminate their financial benefit, he could target and wipe out those transits easily – he didn’t.

♦ Turkey worked strenuously to block anyone from attacking ISIS during the seige of Kobane. If Obama wanted to support the Syrian Kurds in Kobane, and confront ISIS, he could have confronted Recep Erdogan about blocking the use of the NATO base in Incirlik – he didn’t.

♦ If Obama wanted to defeat ISIS in Northern Turkey he could have provided weapons to the Kurdish forces there. Again, he didn’t.

♦ ISIS is now recognized to be a significant entity within Libya, specifically Eastern Libya, a nation where President Obama took action to remove the prior dictator Momar Kaddaffi. If Obama wanted to eliminate ISIS in Libya he would be welcomed to attack them with open arms. He doesn’t. Obama actually makes no attempt at all to engage in Libya.

If you reset your paradigm and accept that President Obama doesn’t necessarily want to see authentic Islam (ISIS) defeated – every contradiction reconciles. It’s called Occam’s Razor:

“The simplest explanation is usually the right one”.

The simplest explanation is that Obama doesn’t want to see authentic Islam defeated.

If you re-purpose your frame of reference, and accept that President Obama is not invested in the defeat of ISIS, but rather sympathetic to the sentiments contained in their misunderstood expressions of Islam, every action taken by President Obama reconciles so neatly it cannot be mere happenstance.

Now, the central element in applying ‘Occam’s Razor’, and determining if the perspective is indeed worthy of merit, is to use the Scientific Method of analysis to attack the hypothesis.

It works like this – the hypothesis is:

President Obama wants to allow ISIS to exist, he essentially supports the expression of their views on Islam; however, he faces a problem where he must hide his intent because his viewpoint is antithetical to the rest of the world.

To test the merit of the thesis – apply the Scientific Method, reverse the hypothesis and look for examples of specific behavior that would contradict the thesis. See if you can identify behavior that proves:

♦ President Obama doesn’t want ISIS to exist and is not hiding his intents.

Can you identify specific action, that means “behavior”, that supports President Obama wanting to eliminate ISIS?

I cannot.

Can you?

Now, please watch this brief video closely. It has been enhanced/emphasized to drive home a point I am unable to deconstruct: