The war in Iraq is ‘shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives’

Americans have a choice — they can believe the president, who said just yesterday that the war in Iraq is not contributing to the spread of terrorism, or they can believe the combined judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, which collectively believe the polar opposite.

In announcing yesterday that he would release the key judgments of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate, President Bush said he agreed with the document’s conclusion “that because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.”

But the estimate itself posits no such cause and effect. Instead, while it notes that counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al-Qaeda’s leadership, it describes the spreading “global jihadist movement” as fueled largely by forces that al-Qaeda exploits but is not actively directing. They include Iraq, corrupt and unjust governments in Muslim-majority countries, and “pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims.”

Bush said the news reports from Sunday about the NIE’s conclusions were misleading, but they were right on the money. In the one-tenth of the report which was declassified yesterday — if the other 90% was helpful to Bush, it stands to reason it would have been released too — there’s little doubt that the White House has been very wrong for a very long time.

The war is “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives,” the document explains, creating a “cause celebre” for jihadists, which in turn “cultivat[es] supporters for the global jihadist movement.” The movement will likely grow faster, the WaPo noted, than “the West’s ability to counter it over the next five years.”

“Nowhere in the assessment,” the NYT notes, “is any evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion this month in Atlanta that ‘America is winning the war on terror.'” On the contrary, the report says, the terrorists “are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.”

Given the intelligence, the president and his supporters have been selling a bill of goods. We have created a breeding ground for terrorism. The number of terrorists has gone up since we started fighting the war. Only the Bush White House could characterize this as “success.”

It’s worth noting, of course, that this isn’t the NIE; it’s a small part of a much larger document. We don’t know what the rest of the document says, and we have no sense of the intelligence community’s dissents and/or caveats. As Kevin Drum put it, “Without seeing the context, analysis, and dissenting opinions that shaped them, there’s nothing to assess. You either accept the intelligence community’s expertise or you don’t.”

With this in mind, it’s still important for the administration to release a redacted version of the NIE — and publish the Iraq-specific NIE — before the election. After all, Bush said he wants everyone to be able to “draw their own conclusions” about the intelligence, and the only way for that to happen is to get a broader sense of what the intelligence says.

Olbermann called Bush out, accusing him of attacking Clinton “by proxy”. Well, there’s no proxy anymore… Bush is out in the open.

Just listen to the bastard’s brazen Clinton-hit-job assault from yesterday:

“We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren’t in Iraq, they’d find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives. You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  • Bush claims that there are nuances to the full NIE that causes him to draw another conclusion. Considering the conclustions released are, as you state, the polar opposite and originate from 16 US intelligence agencies, clearly they both can’t be right.

    I’m tired of Bush’s “everythings a matter of opinion” spin. You could say the sky is blue and Bush will say it is red claiming we should draw our own conclusions. When will people look at the sky for themselves?

  • I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, “If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives”, then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I’m of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations…which seems unlikely at best.

    Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.

    Read more here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • I’ve heard that the NIE says that while being in Iraq has greatly helped AQ etc. recruitment, it also says that leaving will help them perhaps even more. Not surprisingly, GOPers will tout the later assessment as proof we need to stay in Iraq. Maybe they’re right, maybe not. But would shouldn’t be ignored is the fact that under the GOP’s brilliant leadership we’re in a situation where, whatever we do, we’re screwed. That’s quite an accomplishment.

  • …it also says that leaving will help them perhaps even more. Not surprisingly, GOPers will tout the later assessment as proof we need to stay in Iraq. Maybe they’re right…

    There’s nothing wrong with a tactical retreat when holding one’s ground will result in annihilation. The fact is that the Army and Marine Corps are disintegrating and, worse, there is no commitment by Rumsfeld to properly fund the commitments the armed forces were obliged to make. Something has to give, and it isn’t going to be the insurrectionists nor al-Qaida. Retreat may “embolden” the terrorists. Whatever. Our Army having to hitchhike home from Iraq–or do the equivalent of the “Mogadishu Mile” all the way to Kuwait–will embolden them even more.

  • Daniel is probably right. But both parties have sucked up to Israel as it continues to partition Palestine and effectively strangle any possibility of a successful Palestinian state (or a peaceful solution). So the answer is clear, we need to be honest brokers, but under present conditions that is impossible. The Lobby forbids even pretending like we’re even-handed.

    The first problem is the pro-Israeli stance of Congress. Fix that, and the Israelis will either have to allow a successful Palestinian state to emerge or lose all funding from the US (billions each year). We could diffuse arab resentment GREATLY if we stood up to Israel. Instead, we send them more bombs.

    I think clean elections might help free Congress from its AIPAC-phobia, but the problem is also caused by the end-times propaganda of the American religious right. How we fix that I… have no idea.

  • The war in Iraq DOESN’T MATTER, according to Bush. He provides us with reasons why:

    (1) 9/11 happened BEFORE Iraq. So no matter how much we screw up Iraq, it’s not going to cause 9/11/2001.

    (2) Iraq is a but a “comma” in the history book of human existence.

    You can’t argue with that logic, now, can you?

  • You’re right, racerx, our collective wilful ignorance on US-Israel’s war crimes never ceases to amaze me.

    For example it was big international news yesterday that the U.N. reported upto a million unexploded cluster bombs are in S. Lebanon. They still lie “in bushes, trees, hedges and wire fences”. The UN also said, “The danger of unexploded cluster bombs meant some 200,000 people displaced by the conflict would not be able to return home for up to two years, rather than 12 months as previously forecast.” Also, BBC reports that “The manager of the UN’s mine removal centre in south Lebanon, Chris Clark, said Israel had failed to provide useful information of its cluster bomb strikes, which could help with the clearance operation.”

    Remember seeing or reading about this in our media? No? I rest my case.

  • “the NIE says that while being in Iraq has greatly helped AQ etc. recruitment, it also says that leaving will help them perhaps even more.”

    It’s true that it says something to that effect, but what’s interesting, and somewhat surprising, is that it does not state the converse, i.e., that our insistence on staying the course will make things better. It does state that a success in Iraq would likely help, but offers no judgment as to whether staying is likely to lead to that success.
    Maybe that’s in the other “NIE,” but somehow I doubt it. It seems like that one hasn’t been granted official NIE status because doing that would make it accessible to people outside of the Administration; I can’t believe they’d sit on something that offered support for their position

  • This is the one point on which Boy George II is correct:

    Al Qaeda does have ambitions and they will use any excuse to attack the West, which to them is only a means to gain credibility in the Muslim world for enacting their ambitions (personal power).

    That said, the occupation of Iraq is stupid. It has made us less safe here and aboard because the Bushites and particularly Don Rumsfeld are incompetents. Getting out now is not a bad idea because our Army and Marine Corps are being destroyed by this stupid war (#5). Let the damn Iraqis throw al Qaeda out of their country if they want to. At least they can tell the difference. We can’t.

    Where Boy George II is terribly wrong is the suggestion that our actions in Iraq don’t have consequences in the greater war on ‘Terrorism’ (stupid name). We are recruiting the next generation of enemies, and they are ten times the number we faced before Iraq. This is all Boy George II’s fault, for deciding, 9/12/2001, that Saddam would have to pay for Osama’s crime.

    Intelligent statesmen, when faced with a war, seek allies and try to divide their enemies. Boy George II divides our allies and creates new enemies. He is a danger to the very existence of this country.

    Or might it just be that Boy George II is caught in the Rapture Rhetoric? Does he want a global war not for the whole Century but just as a ticket off this planet that doesn’t require a stay in a pine box?

    And conservatives thought that the best candidates for President and Vice President were two Texas Oil Men. Why should we listen to their opinions ever again?

  • President Bush says, “the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent” as though it were a good thing. Doesn’t that just make them more difficult to find and destroy? I thought the idea was to get them all in one place,(Iraq), and defeat them. Maybe I’m just behind on justifications for the war in Iraq. It is kind of hard to keep up.

  • The war in Iraq is ‘shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives’

    See CB, you don’t have to worry about the next generation.

  • “…because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.”

    Only George Bush could be dumb enough to think that is a demonstration of “progress.”

  • “that because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.”

    Good news, the cancer has metastasized!

    Yeah thanks, doc.

    Could it be that Shrubya thinks diffuse here means scattered, as in chunks of people spread over the streets of Anbar? (Gollee, them terrists done been blowed up!) We of course know that he thinks independence is a bad thing. (Ha, them stupid terrrist, they’ll be askin questions and thinkin and plannin like them danged Democrats steada chargin around with no plan like Rummy tells our boys to do!)

  • We got rid of Osama’s training camps in Afghanistan and replaced it with the global graduate school of terrorist training in Iraq. Doesn’t take an NIE for us to notice how the tactics learned in Iraq are now evident in other quarters of the Middle East. Hezbollah stood their ground against Israel better than any other enemy Israel has encountered. And now in Afghanistan, the Taliban are learning from their graduates in Iraq.
    So, in this respect, there is nothing like the living classroom in Iraq to make the terrorists a more formidable and adaptive force.

  • Comments are closed.