Documents Reveal US Incompetence with Word, Iraq

notNeilCasey writes "The U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, which formerly governed Iraq, accidentally published Microsoft Word documents containing information never meant for the public, according to an article in Salon. By viewing the documents using the Track Changes feature in Word (.doc), the author has been able to reconstruct internal discussions from 2004 which reflect the optimism, isolation and incompetence of the American occupation. Download the author's source document or look for more yourself. 'Presumably, staffers at the CPA's Information Management Unit, which produced the weekly reports, were cutting and pasting large sections of text into the reports and then eliminating all but the few short passages they needed. Much of the material they were cribbing seems to have come from the kind of sensitive, security-related documents that were never meant to be available to the public. In fact, about half of the 20 improperly redacted documents I downloaded, including the March 28 report, contain deleted portions that all seem to come from one single, 1,000-word security memo. The editors kept pulling text from a document titled "Why Are the Attacks Down in Al-Anbar Province -- Several Theories." (The security memo and the last page of the March 28 report can be seen here, along with several other CPA documents that can be downloaded.)'"

Comments

Disallow MS Word

[gr8_phk]

This is a great reason to disallow the use of MS Word in government. Does ODF support this change tracking stuff? Or should they stick to ASCII files?

Re:Disallow MS Word

[Anonymous Coward]

ODF as used in OpenOffice/StarOffice supports change tracking, in arguably less flakey fashion than MS Word - so long as you're not roundtripping the documents between MS Word .doc files and Open Office file conversions, that is! That's a recipe for disaster. This is, as usual, largely microsoft's fault (I've had similarly negative experiences roundtripping change-tracked documents through different versions of MS Word, really).

A Good Book About the CPA

[eldavojohn]

Right now, I've taken a first glance but I don't even want to read this document as it'll just lead to a bad day (I'll read it all later).

But if you're interested in stuff about the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), I would highly recommend a book I read a few months ago entitled Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Pretty much details what's going on there, doesn't shove a lot of ideas down your throat but does do a good job of selectively relaying details that starts one thinking.

I could rant for hours on the information in this book but I'll try to relay one or two things that stuck with me. My biggest problem with how things were handled out there (one of the many issues the book covers) is that we had people more suitable for the job of handling post war Iraq but either sent them home or blocked their attempts to help because they didn't avidly support the person we wanted to take control of post-war Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi. If anyone was seen as competition for Chalabi, they were replaced with someone who was loyal to the American Republican party. The author reports that interview questions consisted of things like views on abortion or even your voting record. People with little or no past experience were put in charge of insanely high level authority.

We went into Iraq with the only plan to overthrow the government. In my opinion, we have the best army in the world and they did their job better than anyone else could. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have some of the worst leaders in the world and, as a result, what ensued from overthrowing said government is a pretty bad debacle. I heard this author speak on NPR and was impressed so I hope you read this book to hear what Chandrasekaran experienced visiting Iraq. The information in this Word document doesn't even begin to describe what Chandrasekaran details in his book.

Re:A Good Book About the CPA

[demachina]

"support the person we wanted to take control of post-war Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi."

Charlie Rose had an interview recently with 3 Iraqi journalists, all of whom are currently in the U.S. studying Journalism, or really escaping the oppressive violence and smoldering pit that is their homeland thanks to George W, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Rummy and Wolfy.

One of them spelled it out, pretty much all the Iraqi exiles who swept in to take over Iraq after the invasion are viewed as "thieves" by the Iraqi people. Chalabi is at the top of the list since he is still under indictment in Jordan for a gigantic bank fraud.

One of facts about Iraq a lot of people seem to gloss over is there is a gigantic pool of oil riches in that country and the people who gain control over the government can enrich themselves and their friends with that control. EVERYONE jockeying for control there, Iraqi and American alike, is angling for control over its oil wealth because they know if they get it they will end up like Saudi princes. This simple reason is why the Shia have zero incentive to pass legislation to equitably share the oil wealth with Kurds and Sunnis and without that there is ALWAYS going to be a civil war there. I'm not sure you will every strike a deal everyone will consider fair.

A recent report suggests large quantities of Iraq's oil is disappearing in to the black market to enrich the people who have gained control over the wells or pipelines, who are mostly Shia in the South and Kurds in the north (though its also possible oil production is also being exaggerated).

I'm not really sure Iraq will ever find peace as long as there is oil wealth to fight over. The fight for control of oil is a source of strife everyplace it is found today. The original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was for control of oil, and I'm not sure the corrupt Emir of Kuwait has any more right to control it than Saddam did. The genocide in Darfur is largely over the oil fields there. A key element in the coup attempt in Venezuela was over oil fields which were recently nationalized. In Russia a bunch of kleptocrats suckered Yeltsin in to giving them control of the oil and gas fields and they got rich, Putin threw the ring leader in jail and seized control of the oil for himself and his dictatorial government. The Saudi royal family rules Saudi Arabia with an iron fist to insure they get the lions share of the oil riches. Not much chance of real Democracy in Saudi Arabia because the Saudi royal family wouldn't get most of the oil revenue in a real Democracy. Iran is in the mess its in after an American backed coup threw out a popular leader who nationalized the oil fields at Britain's expense. The U.S. installed the Shah as dictator who gave U.S. companies control over the oil fields to Britain's dismay. The Shah was so hated he was overthrown in favor of the Ayatollah so there is a repressive theocracy there that hates the U.S. to this day as a result. Its kind of routine in countries on the west coast of Africa with oil wealth for the people in power to pocket much of the oil wealth while most of their countrymen starve.

Not sure you will find Peace in Iraq until you just partition the country, let the ethnic cleansing finish, and let each of the three factions control their own oil fields. The Sunnis were the odd man out but recent oil discoveries in their base in Anbar province suggest all three groups could have their own oil fields. The down side to this is Turkey will probably never tolerate an independent Kurdistan waging a guerrilla war to try to seize the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

Re:A Good Book About the CPA

[demachina]

Expanding Iraq oil production, preferably under the influence of U.S. oil companies was certainly a motivator in the invasion. Not sure anyone real knows all the motives outside the inner circle of the Bush administration. They obviously tipped the fact it was one of their priorities by guarding the oil ministry, oil fields and oil infrastructure after Saddam fell and letting a museum full of priceless artifacts from the cradle of civilization be looted along with just about everything else.

With Iraq embargoed under Saddam it was significantly under producing. It peaked at 3.7 million barrels in 1979 and was down to 2.6 million barrel in 2003 before the invasion. The oil fields were under a mix of Russian, French and Chinese companies under Saddam as I recall which may be one reason they were cool to the idea of toppling Saddam. It certainly would have eased current oil shortages and price spikes if Iraqis had welcomed us with the roses and oil production had gone up instead of down, or barely held even.

The company that announced the big Anbar reserves is a U.S. company, Colorado based IHS, according to this article though its not clear yet which oil companies are going to get to develop the new fields. U.S. and British companies certainly have an inside track at the moment since the U.S. has the Iraqi government by the jugular. As I recall Poland's foreign minister admitted a key reason Poland joined the coalition of the willing in 2003 was to gain an inside track on some oil business.

The discovery of oil in Anbar probably is the single best shot there is for peace in Iraq. It is a seismic shift in Iraq more important than the misguided troop surge or anything else that's happened since 2003. This discovery may be why Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar have turned on Al Qaeda recently. Those tribal leaders are now realizing they are sitting on their own gold mine and its in their interest to work with the global oil establishment to develop it and cash in on it. Prior to this it appeared the Kurds and the Shia were going to keep their oil fields to themselves and the Sunnis were facing long term poverty, which was a driving force behind the Sunni insurgency. The Iraqi government could, if they are wise, let each of the three factions have control of their own oil reserves and go their own way and Iraq could suddenly become a peaceful success story. If the Shia try to screw the Sunni's out of the new oil revenues from Anbar the war in Iraq will never end. People who are poised to reap billions in oil revenue have very little motivation to wage a guerrilla war.

The whole dynamic of Saddam's Iraq is the Sunni were reaping the lion's share of the oil revenue while the Kurds and Shia were screwed, and currently that situation has been completely reversed. If all three factions have their own huge oil fields and revenues from them the whole dynamic changes.

Control the Metadata

[felixdzerzhinsky]

Try contoling the Metadata with a tool that even Microsoft provides for free. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA011400341 033.aspx It can happen with .pdf as well: http://news.com.com/U.S.+military+security+defeate d+by+copy+and+paste/2100-1002_3-5694982.html Not sure about .odf

Re:I learned a long time ago...

[VertigoAce]

Alternatively, from the main menu, select Prepare -> Inspect Document. That will check for "Comments, Revisions, Versions, and Annotations", "Document Properties and Personal Information", "Custom XML Data", "Headers, Footers, and Watermarks", "Hidden Text" (you choose which ones you want to look for and it will report.

It doesn't show you the exact text that it found, but does let you remove all instances of each category. The idea is that you have a document that you actually edit and then use this tool on the copy you intend to distribute.

Re:I learned a long time ago...

[SCHecklerX]

The NSA publishes some very useful guides for dealing with sensitive information here:
http://www.nsa.gov/snac/

Specifically, how to properly redact a Microsoft Word .doc is detailed in this document:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/nsa-redact.pdf

Re:yet another reason for published formats

[The MAZZTer]

The last time they tried PDF we just selected the text UNDER the black rectangles, remember?

Re:yet another reason for published formats

[gosand]

Convert to PDF, and job done.

A prime opportunity to point out that OpenOffice.org can write directly to PDF while MS Word cannot, and you blow it! For shame.

The deleted text

[brian0918]

Here's the deleted text that was repeatedly copied/cropped in their documents. This shows how absurdly inept those in charge were. Note that the most likely theory is the one the administrator rebuts as "a boring theory".

Why are the Attacks Down in Al Anbar Province - Several Theories

1. Over the past month attacks against Coalition Forces in Al Anbar province have gone from over 20 per day to next to none. There are a number of theories for why this is. It is entirely possible that it is merely a blip on the screen or a statistical aberration and we will return to larger numbers of attacks, but it has held for nearly five weeks now and both military commanders and Anbar's citizens are starting to openly talk about it and offer their theories for why it is happening. Among the reasons given:

Rounding up the Bums: MG Swannack and all military commanders (as well as GC) believe that the many high yield raids of the past weeks have made a difference both in getting off the streets some of the leaders and financiers of the resistance and especially some of the technical experts that attackers rely on to carry out their attacks. This has had the spin off effect of causing others to go underground out of fear that they might be next. Most raids also leave in their wake a number of innocents who were either rounded up and detained or had their houses busted up. These can conceivably lead to bitterness over the occupation and spawn new attacks. But there appears to be sufficient care in how the attacks are carried out, adequate information in the community about the mild reality of detention, and sufficient civil affairs clean up afterwards that this has not been a major factor.

Crossed the Line: Violence in Iraq is a form of political discourse as well as being culturally acceptable for settling disputes and scores. Thus for a people which is nearly universal in its opposition to being occupied, attacking the occupier is a natural reaction and is widely accepted, even by those who are friendly to us. "It is nothing personal," one businessman told me, "I like you and believe you could be bringing us a better future, but I still sympathize with those who attack the coalition because it is not right for Iraq to be occupied by foreign military forces." Thus a low level of violence has been widely accepted in Al Anbar and those carrying out the attacks have even been the recipients of admiration and praise. But with the spate of attacks in mid to late November, culminating with the shootdown of the Chinook, there may have been a sense that the insurgents had crossed a line. This was reinforced strongly by General Abizaid when he came here on the heels of that incident and told some 70 Sheikhs and community leaders that he planned to unleash hell if they kept it up. It was further reinforced by the dropping of several JADMs which may have served to get the attention of the province. It is possible that Anbar's leaders realized they had crossed a line and reeled the attacks in.

Operational Pause: A boring theory is that the terrorists are in an operational pause, needing to regroup after the recent spate of roundups. There are very few persons we have met who subscribe to this.

Occupation Ending: A number of individuals have expressed satisfaction at the announcement of the new political calendar, although they don't appear to fully understand it. What has caught their attention is the simple expression that in June a sovereign Iraqi government will be in place. What they have gotten wrong is the idea that the military will be leaving Iraq in June, which one individual said he was sure was a major factor in the diminishing attacks. Oh well, this is one time it might be best that folks don't fully understand things. By June, when there is a transition of the force rather than a pullout, we will have a new set of challenges anyway, but if this bought us some months of peace it will be worth the confusion.

Project Money Flowing: Some individuals have expressed satis

Re:Summary

[JoeZeppy]

I hate (US/Bush/Republicans/US Military) and I'll believe anything (Iran/Chirac/Democrats/Liberal Reporters) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write lots of reports for other pinheads while other people do real work. --

Or conversely:

I hate (brown-skinned foreigners/Hillary/Democrats/liberals) and I'll believe anything (Gonzalez/Bush/Republicans/Fox News) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write positive spin for other pinheads while other people do criminal acts and gut the constitution in the name of freedom and Jesus.

Ain't political discourse fun?

Re:Disallow MS Word (I take back what I said)

[eck011219]

Okay, I just did a quick search and found out that you can't really turn off change tracking. You can hide it, of course, but it's still in there tracking. So the only way to get rid of those changes is to accept or reject each one individually. The information is here (this is for Word 2007, but I assume it's the same for previous versions as well). This is a silly and cumbersome thing to have to do, and you're right -- it makes it a bad way to distribute documents.

Now, the suggestions elsewhere around here that they simply standardize on PDF would solve everything, and they could still use Word if they're used to it. But posting .doc files (which has never seemed like a good idea in any area of business or government for countless reasons anyway -- why distribute something that can be so easily edited?) is rife with peril.

Re:Secrets?

[Control Group]

No.

The authors of the Constitution were very wary of the word "treason" being thrown around, and so were highly specific in what treason is. Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Salon certainly hasn't levied war against the United States. I don't think a reasonable case can be made that releasing these documents in any way aid or comforts the US' enemies (except in the loosest possible sense that they might enjoy some schadenfreude).

Wow, poor IT configuration

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I opened up Word 2k3. It seems that under Options -> Security (I know, a crazy place to expect the government to look). There is a checkbox that reads

Warn before printing, saving or sending a file that contains tracked changes or comments.

I just tested it, and yes this feature seems to work.

Oh, sorry, what I meant is for a large no-bid contract, I can help the military prevent this in the future via real-time user warnings.

Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years

[homer_ca]

There's another risk with PDFs. The army released a PDF that had redacted text blacked out, but the text was still in the document, just covered up with a black stripe. It was easily extracted from the file. It was also a report about Iraq, the incident where an Italian intelligence agent and the hostage he was rescuing were shot at a checkpoint.

Re:The deleted section from the sample

[NickFitz]

The Slashdot editors very rarely change the headline supplied by the original submitter. Out of several submissions I've had published here, I can think of just one where the headline was changed by one or two words from what I originally said. (The change was an improvement, IMO.)

So the original submitter may have wanted it to come off as embarrassing (which it is) but the fact that the Slashdot editor passed it through without modification just means that they didn't see any reason to change what somebody else had said, not that they themselves were trying to create any particular impression in the minds of the readers.

Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years

[OECD]

We routinely provide final/external documents as PDF files

You still have to be careful. There was a case (probably several) a few years ago where PDF files were redacted with black boxes drawn over the withheld text. It worked fine if viewed casually, but of course the text was still actually there.

Even better, OSX's Preview (the default PDF viewer) didn't support whatever they used to make the boxes at that time , so they just didn't show up at all.

Re:Secrets?

[HBI]

The document is FOUO and should never have been released to the public, but FOUO is not classified. Read more on FOUO here.

Re:This "Feature" Has Been Known For Years

[Speare]

Er, I hope you meant that in jest-- there have been a number of incidents with PDF files that had virtual "blackout" rectangles floating over the text, but the actual redacted text was still stored in the PDF as well. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/pdf_ radacting_f.html

Re:Those who don't learn from history...

[d34thm0nk3y]

And even more telling, the approval rating for Congress is even lower. The new, Democrat controlled Congress.

From your article:

Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.

And...

Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans,

Tool to fix that problem

[dave562]

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=144e54ed-d43e-42ca-bc7b-5446d34e5360&displa ylang=en "The Remove Hidden Data Tool" One of the girls upstairs in the PR department ran into the same problem today. It took all of three minutes on Google to find the solution to the problem.

Re:Those who do learn from history...

[The One and Only]

threatened by the Justices behaving like philosopher-kings finding new "laws" in the Constitution that the oafs in Congress should've passed (practice often derided as "legislating from the bench").

People who complain about this remind me of whiny sports fans who blame the refs every time they lose a game. First off, let's be perfectly clear on one thing--most law is case law, i.e. law that is made by the precedent of judicial rulings. This allows the law to grow organically from case analysis rather than simply being handed down from Congress every so often. This is a vital feature of the system of common law we inherited from Great Britain, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

It also protects us from the tyranny of the majority. The civil rights rulings of the 1960's are a perfect example of this--the "will of the people", the laws Congress did pass, all this stuff you people claim to protect, were in this case part of a horrifically evil system that oppressed people for no reason other than their racial origin. It was the Supreme Court, upholding the principles of the Constitution, which stopped this.

I'm not saying the Court never makes bad rulings--they clearly do, particularly in cases like Kelo. But majority rule makes bad decisions far more often, and it's vital that there be some way to put majority rule in check in situations where it is clearly acting unjustly. And that will necessarily involve overturning what Congress and the President do from time to time.