President Bush says about releasing more of the National Intelligence Estimate that was partially leaked the other day. I can't believe the politics and speculation will stop but it's good to have more of the document,
here. Excerpt:
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement — which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts....
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups...
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
• The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
So the NIE underscores the importance of victory in Iraq.
Posts
40 comments:
Well, this is ceertainly a good quote Ann uses:
"The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Oddly, all the media outlets seem to be inspired solely to report the first sentence and not the second. How strange.
The fact that jihadists leaving Iraq may feel that they have failed (that remains to be seen, given that suicidal jihadists somehow seem happy about leaving Earth entirely) does not mean that the invasion of Iraq did not breed more terrorism.
The main thing is that so much of this is obvious. Ideological sympathisers are motivated by a fight involving their idols. If we win we'll be successful in achieving our goals.
No kidding. Just as the Spanish Civil War was important and rallied supporters of communism and fascism internationally, how Vietnam, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan invasion by the Soviets... This is how the world works, especially in an environment where conflicts are heavily ideological as compared to the more calculating realpolitik wars of the European powers before the 1900s (even the religious wars such as the 30 years war were much more calculating and less ideological than those we see now or tend to believe happened then).
Those people who think that terrorism (i.e. Islamism/Salafism/Qtubism/Jihadism/Islamic Fascism) is a real threat to the US and the West tend to believe in taking on these forces wherever they are by whatever means are necessary. Those who don't, or don't believe that the threat should be opposed thanks to the wickedness of the West, will oppose these efforts. Both camps have the same evidence, but interpret it differently.
All of this shouting won't do much, though it will show for history (if any is written by or about the West) who was right. The claim that the West is not facing an existential threat forget the lessons of Rome and Byzantium. The barbarians would have been easy to wipe out, but it was much cheaper to find a modus vivendi or to buy off their opponents. After a while, the opponents who posed no threat were dividing the riches and territory of the empire between them.
Oh . . . My . . .(can't breathe from laughing too hard). . .gosh . . .
The New York Times and Democrats - redundancy apologies - had its pants pulled down to its ankles AGAIN! Exposing their, er, well . . . maybe lack of . . .
Please Ann, let's just start fresh on proving daily abuse of information and concerted efforts to add Democratic Spin to the Front Page by the Gray Lady. We'll start today - actually with last Sunday's purposely misleading article - with the mischaracterization of this report. Your honor . . .Exhibit A!
Kudos to you being a Times lover but having the intellectual honesty to recognize the deliberate anti-Bush administration spin effort. Wish I could say the same for Gj above and others who see their world view (and eventual Congressional takeover) beginning to crumble before their very eyes.
This one is too easy. . .
Interesting to now see what the partisan anonymous leakers at CIA and the treasonous NYTimes/WaPo left out.
I think the most challenging thing is trying to realistically imagine what victory in Iraq looks like. Even if a government there were somehow to get even a modest grip on stability, aren't the angry jihadists already stirred up? Won't they view a Western-style democracy installed/created/caused by the U.S. as illegitimate and simply more fodder for their cause? Given where things are now and that the U.S. has been there for over 3 years, what outcome can be arrived at that will not fuel those who hate the U.S.?
[S]tay the course, and blindly hope for different results? Has this story already been written? ... That's the tough one we need to see real leadership on. (And telling the American people that 'cut and run' is a worse option doesn't answer the question. Enough to win elections, not wars.) - Derve
Derve, this is a war of attrition. Both sides (with the possible exception of our own peaceniks) understand that this war will be won when one side loses the will to keep fighting. They can't defeat us on the battle field and we can't find enough of them at any one time to secure victory through force. Either they come to believe that we'll stay the course come what may, in which case they'll give up; or the American public determines it's had enough, in which case we'll give up. Staying the course and cutting and running are, in the end, the only two options.
The sad fact is that, were it not for the well meaning peace activists, the terrorists might have given up by now. As it is, they've lost thousands more than we have. They should be finding it harder to recruit. (This was the case in Israel not long ago. The suicide bombers kept getting younger and more of them were female.) Their financial backers should be wondering if they're getting a return on their investment. However, every time someone here makes a credible call for our withdrawal, the terrorists and their financiers have reason to hope that just one more car bomb will do the trick. I'm not saying people calling for our withdrawal are trying to help the terrorists. I am saying that's the result.
Interesting to now see what the partisan anonymous leakers at CIA and the treasonous NYTimes/WaPo left out.
Don't you think you're sticking the "treasonous" label on the wrong party? The NYT is just a newspaper with biases. The CIA - or at least elements within it - are the ones constantly leaking classified materials in order to undermine the Iraq war and influence political elections.
If I look back over the last 15-20 years, I see a record of almost complete incompetance and failure to protect America by the CIA. The leaks serving hidden and/or political agendas, however, are crimes, and crimes that potentially harm the country. I'm not quite at the point where I'd call the CIA a rogue agency, but I'm getting there.
BTW, in a thread yesterday I was stating my continued confusion over Clinton's attack on the al Shifa medicine factory in Sudan. Last night I got Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower and I find out that it has since been established that the "intelligence" which was the basis for that attack was erroneous, Bin Laden was not involved with nerve gas there, and the plant was not involved with nerve gas whatsoever. So I guess that's another instance where the CIA was wrong, and really Clinton may have been "wagging the dog" by hastily striking that target, but he was also a victim of CIA incompetance.
My question is, what value, exactly, does the CIA have to justify their existance and massive budget? Apparently they don't know anything about anything that's going on in the world, plus they have all sorts of hidden agendas to undermine policies as well as influence who gets elected in the future.
I still think it's laughable that we even take this "estimate" seriously, although in its full context, the remark about Iraq seems a little less absurd.
There is no way for anyone to know whether a less aggressive Middle East strategy -- invading Iraq being the defining difference between the two ideological/strategic camps in this country -- would have "led to" more or fewer terrorists joining the movement. The psychology of why thousands of individuals join a violent religious cult where death by suicide is a sacrament cannot be explained as simply "the result" of a president's policies.
It's like those old laxative commercial where someone is pondering how many prunes they should eat: "Is four enough? Six too many?" Was Clinton too weak? Bush too strong? I think our political community flatters itself by thinking they matter all that much.
The fact is our Intelligence Community is not an authoritative source, as proven by their many failures since...since I was born really, but especially since the 1980s. We don't have good informants among the jihadi. The writers of this report probably got most of their information from English-language sources, like newspapers.
We invaded Iraq to bring down Hussein, because it was erroneously believed he was developing WMDs, and because (I suspect) we envisioned a day when his reign would end, and felt a need to be on the ground to control the outcome of his fall. We screwed up on the implementation, so things are somewhat worse than they needed to be. Now we're in a necessary war of attrition, one we will win unless we decide to defeat ourselves.
What must be remembered about Iraq today is that the conflict has really shifted from a primarily Sunni attack on the U.S. to primarily sectarian violence, much of it apparently instigated by Iran, with their target not being us, but rather Sunnis in general, and former Saddamites in particular. The Shiites are doing revenge killing (for things done under Saddam), while the Sunnis are retaliating with random indiscriminate violence. Also happening is that the Shiites and Kurds are effectively pushing the Sunnis out of Iraq - apparently about 1/4 have already fled (dropping their percentage of the population from about 20% to 15%).
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (i.e. Iraq) had been under a lot of pressure prior to the death of Zarqawi, but that really opened things up against them, esp. with the information found there. Within a short period of time, hundreds of raids were conducted, and hundreds of al Qaeda and their sympathisers were either captured or killed, with information from one raid leading to another.
Indeed, just today, another al Qaeda leader was killed in a pre-dawn raid by the Brits.
In the last six months, the number of foreign born terrorists being found has dropped noticably. Many of their former Sunni helpers have turned on them.
It should also be noted that al Qaeda can't just send a budding martyr through a one week course and turn him into an effective terrorist. More importantly, leadership takes a lot more training and experience, and that is precisely where al Qaeda has been hit the hardest over the last six months - in its leadership positions in Iraq. The result is that the replacements are not nearly as effective as the guys they are replacing.
It would be interesting to see if the NIE would be different today.
Iraq has almost always been about draining the swamp and not fighing the alligators. The problem with merely fighting the Islamic terrorists is that there is an almost unlimited supply of would-be martyrs. If we knock them out of Afghanistan, then they will move to Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan, etc. We can make life difficult for their state sponsors or facilitators. But we can't stop the flow without a paradigm change. Slow it down, but not stop it.
That is where Iraq comes in. It is smack in the middle of the Islamic world, and is one of the traditional centers of middle east civilization, and has been for millenia. If we succeed there, it will be a viable, attractive alternative to the rest of the Moslem world.
A strong, democratic, Iraq would put enormous pressure on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and even Egypt to reform. And it would in particular be an effective counter to Islamic nihilism so evident in their terrorists.
Yes, it is a dream. But it is also the only really potentially effective long run solution we have seen to the problem of Islamic disfunctionalism that we see throughout the Middle East today.
David, it's very hard to win a war of attrition against an ideology of martyrdom.
Actually, we are winning that war in Iraq - as I noted earlier. The flow of foreign born terrorists is slowing, and those there are dying at a faster rate.
It may be that winning is very important at this point, but I haven't seen a strategy for winning from the President and the Republican party or from the Democrats.
This is where I disagree. I think the Republican strategy is fairly obvious - change the paradigm in the Islamic Middle East, and you change the debate and offer alternatives.
It may not work - Arabs may be incapable of effective democracy. But it at least has a chance for success. The alternative of whack-a-terrorist doesn't - there are somewhere around a billion Moslems in the world today, and probably tens of millions of them are potential terrorists. We have to offer them a viable alternative. Or, we can evict our own Moslems and put up a wall to keep any more from entering this country, and watch as Europe goes under Sharia law.
So the NIE underscores the importance of victory in Iraq.
So the Times either misrepresented the report or gullibly accepted a Dowdified version of it as true? Color me extra-surprised by that one.
Why aren't the people leaking this stuff being hunted down and shipped off to federal PMITA prison, anyway? Is the Washington culture of self-serving leakage just too ingrained for anyone to want to do anything about it?
"I very much disagree with this one, and think you not only underestimate, but don't even have a clue as to the will of the enemy. (remember -- it ain't the left and it ain't rational.)
Leaving aside the presumed rationality of the Left for another day, assuming the will of the enemy is greater than some or most of us might imagine, what does that mean? We have two choices in this war - win or lose.
Given that most of the Left would be happy to leave Iraq without victory, to leave Iraq to the terrorists, in short, to lose the war in Iraq, how does adopting the Left's choice help us win the larger war? Us losing in Iraq will strengthen, not weaken, the enemy's will. Us losing in Iraq will severely erode the pride and confidence of the US military, leaving us with a military reminiscent of the post-Vietnam era. Us losing in Iraq will weaken US political will to continue the fight against militant Islamic fascism. Us losing in Iraq will encourage many more Muslim men without futures to join the jihad because they will believe they can win. Us losing in Iraq will confirm to moderate Muslims and quietly allied Muslim nations that the US is weak, irresolute, faithless and destined to lose the long war. Us losing in Iraq will prove bin Laden's characterization of people choosing the strong horse over the weak horse correct. Us losing in Iraq makes the large war longer, bloodier, and much more difficult to win.
So, again, leaving aside the rationality of the Left, it is difficult to see how losing in Iraq benefits the US, western civilization, or even the long term project of expanding individual liberty and consensual self-government. How does the Left benefit from this?
The strength of the enemy's will tells us we need to strengthen our own will to win. And against that task we have the Left, which is nothing but a cancer on our will to win. The enemy couldn't do a better job of undermining our will to win than the American Left has. It simply could not.
[I]t's very hard to win a war of attrition against an ideology of martyrdom. - gj
Of course it is. They are willing to die for their cause, but that does not mean they are willing to die for nothing. If they had no hope they could drive out the US, would they still be willing to die?
We don't know. We do have several historical examples, one of the most famous is the WWII era Japanese. They demonstrated time and again a willingness to embark on suicidal missions in an attempt to reach their goals. They also put down their weapons once it became clear they could not win. This was true in individual battles as well as the end of the war. So, history teaches that even enemies with an ideology of martyrdom can be defeated. Unless we believe our current enemy is even more fanatical than those we've faced in the past, we have every reason to believe they'll give up once convinced they have nothing to gain by further struggle.
That second line "should jihadist leaving Iraq percieve themselves...to have failed" seems a little less empirical and more speculative than the first, but lets say it is true:
The question for those remaining Bush policy supporters: If winning in Iraq is necessary to prevent further terrorists from being inspired, Why doesn't the President mobilize the country to fight and win? How about a tax on gasoline to go for rebuilding our military and getting us off of foreign oil? How about the President asking personally, in front of the country, for volunteers to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? "We are facing a crisis. The enemy is stronger than we anticipated. We need you to give a year or two to prevent the enemies of freedom from building an empire in the Middle East, all the way to Spain"
Or do you still believe (in spite of what the generals, many conservatives, and pretty much everyone else says) that we are winning in the manner we are fighting?
Didn't the Bush Administration selectively release an earlier NIE, keeping back parts that were critical of the war effort? I do remember reading that somewhere, maybe even somewhere reliable, so before y'all throw stones at the Times, recall recent history.
fenrisulven, I'm curious to know how you know the political party of the leaker of this document.
Not leaving/losing does not equal winning. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Not leaving/losing equals not losing. And right now that is immeasurably better than losing.
And that is no wish.
It is, redundantly, also immeasurably better than anything the Left has to offer.
And that is no wish either.
Something beats nothing every time.
So what part of the following can't you moronic brownshirt fucks understand?
The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush's portrayal of a world growing safer.
In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.
Bush and his top advisers have said the formerly classified assessment of global terrorism supported their arguments that the world is safer because of the war. But more than three pages of stark judgments warning about the spread of terrorism contrasted with the administration's glass-half-full declarations.
"If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide," the document says. "The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."
The intelligence assessment, completed in April, has stirred a heated election-season argument over the course of U.S. national security in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Virtually all assessments of the current situation were bad news. The report's few positive notes were couched in conditional terms, depending on successful completion of difficult tasks ahead for the U.S. and its allies. In one example, analysts concluded that more responsive political systems in Muslim nations could erode support for jihadist extremists.
And speaking of lying right-wing sacks of shit...
You lunatics want to continue living in your little Nazi fantasy world, go right the fuck ahead. But don't expect reality to give you a fucking break.
Althouse: The Stupidest Place on the Internet™.
If winning in Iraq is necessary to prevent further terrorists from being inspired, Why doesn't the President mobilize the country
Because that's Congress' job? They raise and fund the army.
How about a tax on gasoline to go for rebuilding our military and getting us off of foreign oil?
Because that would hurt the economy and do nothing to wean us off foreign oil -- and in any case a dependence on foreign oil has nothing to do with victory in Iraq.
How about the President asking personally, in front of the country, for volunteers to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Because he doesn't think mindlessly throwing more warm bodies at the problem is the solution, and I happen to agree with him.
Or do you still believe (in spite of what the generals, many conservatives, and pretty much everyone else says) that we are winning in the manner we are fighting?
I think the reasonable view is that we cannot yet say who's winning. In any event, I am open to hearing discussion of a better way of achieving our two remaining goals of (a) getting rid of the terrorists in Iraq and (b) establishing a stable, democratic Iraqi government. You haven't explained how raising taxes and sending in more troops will achieve anything positive at all.
So what part of the following can't you moronic brownshirt fucks understand?
Not sure. I quit reading after "moronic brownshirt fucks". :)
And as long as we're cramming the truth down the throats of moronic brownshirt fucks...
"Come join us. Think past "right now." Playing not to lose is no game plan, even with all the cheerleader support in the world. (see quietnorth and JimC above for ideas)
No thanks. It's no game. I swore an oath to the Constitution. Your plans are for the enemy to win, us to lose. Your plans are transparent, even as you fail to understand ours. And we sure as hell aren't playing to lose, no matter how much you wish it so.
Regardless of how you choose to characterize yourself, or me, we have nothing in common and you have nothing for me join. I'm no jihadi, jihadi sympathizer, nor do I think we deserve to lose, or that it would be better for us to lose. I won't be joining your side. It is as bankrupt as the jihadis - but worse, for at least they know who is their enemy.
I listen, I read ... I think. Critically.
But apparently not about how to win the war in Iraq, or else you'd presumbly have a few ideas along those lines worth sharing.
Strange how a person could be such an expert in how we're losing a war without having the foggiest of ideas how we might NOT lose it.
"dave" is funny. He prefers a news story (source undisclosed) describing the NIE to the actual report itself, because the news story conforms to his worldview.
It's Groucho Marx: "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?"
"dave," just keep stepping on the rake. No matter how many times it smacks you in the face, everyone laughs.
But we're really not trying to win, are we? Because that would involve more troops - and thus a draft. And Bush is a wimp and is not willing to do that.
"Simmer down. Don't go alienating and making enemies of half the country now. Hasn't gotten us very much this far, other than winning elections."
Right. Because al Qaeda tells their warriors Americans are weak, don't have the stomach for the fight, and will quit when it gets hard, so all they have to do is hang on, because we'll quit. Because when every anti-war protester tells the enemy if they just hang on, they'll win, they vindicate bin Laden's strategy. Because when every Democrat calling for cut and run tells the enemy if they just hang on, they'll win, they vindicate bin Laden's strategy. Because when every news report highlighting every setback tells the enemy if they just hang on, they'll win, they vindicate bin Laden's strategy. When bin Laden recites American Leftists' complaints about America, they tell the enemy "here are your talking points in your propaganda war against the US." Because every time the enemy thinks they stand a chance if they just hang on, the anti-war protester, the elected Democrat, the journalist and the American Leftists all say, "Yes, hang on until we can cut and run from Iraq, and you'll win."
Making enemies of half the country? I swore an oath to the Constitution with no expiration date. I only wish they already weren't.
Actually - I couldn't give a damn about the draft.
I for one - don't have to worry about fighting.
But I do care about my taxes going up - so no, I am NOT willing to pay higher taxes or incur more debt to pay the soldiers more. Why should they get higher pay if we can just draft people for less money? Are you a communist or something. Pay them what they are worth - which at the current market rate is about $20,000 a year. Sorry - but it is communist to pay them more.
And free tuition and taxes at state schools?
Yes - you are a communist.
State schools have ZERO legitimate reasons to exist. They are a complete waste of taxpayers money and contribute nothing to society that the free market couldn't take care of for itself. State schools are an abomination.
Not only are you a communist, you are completely ignorant about economics.
Nothing is "free". Ever hear of opportunity costs?
University of Texas, Austin? Give me a break. That's the school that the dumb Bush daughter attended. Enough said.
A political party that puts principle above the success of the party is a party that will soon be looking for a new chairman.
The Democratic Party is, naturally, focused completely on winning. To their foes, their current positions seem incredibly cynical, but to them, these positions keep the base activated and organized for possible victory.
I am confident the Democrats will reassert basic American principles if they gain power. Right now, the Democrats don't have that luxury. That's what they really mean when they say "don't question my patriotism." They're patriots, all right. We're supposed to understand that underneath all the hate-Bush rhetoric, they're really supporting his policies and have no intention of changing them very dramatically. Think about it: How could they? We will never be in a pre-9/11 mindset again, and an elected Democrat president will know that more than anyone else.
As pathetic as Clinton was the other night, he was right about one thing: He tried to do the right thing. He made efforts to act on principle. He just failed, is all. And with 9/11, the political consequences of that failure suddenly went from a speck to Jupiter. He can't forgive himself for that -- can barely acknowledge it -- and that's why he was so emotional. It's got to eat at him.
And if you think I'm being sarcastic about the state schools, you really don't know me.
I'll tolerate a military, police and fire department, and the courts. Barely. And that's about it as far as government is concerned with me. Any other money taken from me in taxes is simply legalized theft. Including sending you to school for "free" just because you're too cheap and lazy to pay for it yourself.
Dems are rightly afraid of the full NIE report because it will expose the futility of their nuanced anti-war-but-don't-question-my-patriotism stance.
Their anti-war arguments simply don't stand up to a few moments of silent thought, much less page after page of dry, dispassionate military analysis. What happens the day after we pull out of Iraq?
"They gain political traction. If Iraq falls, they can point to it for the next 20 years to trump the National Defense card in the GOPs hand. Its all about political power to them, its why they hope for quaqmire in the ME, its why they hope for higher gas prices, its why they hope for higher body counts. Nothing else explains it, because their arguments sure aren't based on principle.
Agreed. It is beyond pathetic the nation's minority party would wish for its defeat in war so they might be able govern. Why they want to govern a nation they despise so much they work for its defeat in war makes no sense to me. That alone disqualifies them from ever getting my vote no matter what else happens.
But we're really not trying to win, are we? Because that would involve more troops - and thus a draft.
I was going to say that the idea that we need a draft in order to win the war in Iraq is the dumbest comment in this thread to date.
Then I saw that you'd taken to referring to everyone who wants a paid volunteer military as "communists". Nobody's that dumb -- you're clearly just posing as a loony libertarian to troll for flames.
A libertarian that wants a draft but claims that raising the salary of a position to attract more applicants is a "communist" position?
Oy, leftists trying to troll by impersonating a Libertarian need some serious help. Us Libertarians and VRWC types know you're ideology, and can usually argue you out of it fairly easily. You don't seem to know ours very well. Better luck next time.
As to the iddea of a draft... has possibilities. But only for a full mobilisation a la WWII. That would produce something like 20-30M people under arms, and allow us to conquer and occupy every country from Morocco to Pakistan, including Nigeria, Kenya, etc. An excellent idea and a great way of drawing out every possible jihadi and killing them. Just what the far left wants us to do with a 30M person army is a question that highlights the disingenousness of the idea. But it has merit. Definately offers a solution. Plus, no matter how much it annoyed China or Russia, no one could do anything about it, thanks to US control of the sea and air.
So, anyone have any objections to recolonizing most of Africa? That would also neatly solve the problem of "foreign" oil. Wouldn't be foreign anymore!
I didn't see it above, so here is link to the Declassified Key Judgments in the NIE (in .pdf format).
I felt somewhat vindicated because it hit hard at the democratization points I tried to make earlier in this thread.
Sorry noah.
I must have skimmed over the leadership plans (under President Bush, not President Clinton).
I'll just give it some time, and see where we are one year from now then. Glad to hear everything is in capable hands. Give ya a year to come up with some fresh excuses, if you need to...
Mary/Derve...
one and the same. #;-)
Post a Comment