At a White House press briefing today, NSA Stephen Hadley seemed to believe the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was favorable to the White House’s war policy. “One of the things you should conclude from this NIE is the best plan is to have this plan succeed,” Hadley told reporters.
Look, when it comes to convincing spin doctors, Hadley isn’t the White House’s best. He’s not even in the top five. When Hadley is making a demonstrably false claim, which is not terribly uncommon, he doesn’t even sell it well. And arguing that the NIE tells us that an escalation is the “best plan” for Iraq certainly qualifies as demonstrably false.
According to the just-released Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, political reconciliation is likely a bridge too far over the next year and a half.
The Sunnis remain “unwilling to accept minority status” and believe the Shiite majority is a stalking horse for Iran. The Shiites remain “deeply insecure” about their hold on power, meaning that the Shiite leadership views U.S.-desired compromises — on oil, federalism and power-sharing — as a threat to its position. Perhaps most ominously, the upcoming referendum on the oil-rich, multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk threatens to be explosive, as the Kurds are determined to finally regain full control over the city.
Interestingly, the listed prospects for reversing Iraq’s deterioration contradict the NIE’s assessment of where things actually stand. For instance, “broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism” and “significant concessions by Shia and Kurds” could lead to stability — but the NIE’s earlier section viewed both these events as unlikely. To put this in the realm of the current debate, President Bush’s “surge” is designed to give political breathing room to events that the intelligence community formally judges as unrealistic.
Indeed, Bush’s so-called “surge” is premised on the notion that thousands of additional U.S. troops can bring stability to Iraq’s civil war, which in turn could open the door to political progress. That sounds nice, but the NIE notes that “even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.”
In other words, the NIE does not say that Bush’s escalation strategy is “the best plan.” Hadley does know that reporters sometimes check these things, doesn’t he?
As for the NIE’s assessment about the status of Iraq’s civil war, Hadley went into full denial mode this afternoon.
At a press briefing this morning, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the White House will continue to avoid using the term “civil war” to describe events in Iraq, despite the findings of the new National Intelligence Estimate.
Hadley was pressed on the issue by ABC News’ Martha Raddatz: “Why do you go out of your way not to use that word? The president goes out of his way as well. You say labels are difficult, but is it not important — certainly any military strategist will tell you it’s important to know what kind of fight you’re in.”
Hadley justified his position by pointing to the new NIE. He said the White House will not use the term “because it’s not an adequate description of the situation we find ourselves, as the intelligence community says.”
That’s wildly misleading. First, the NIE does say that “civil war” is an “accurate” description of “key elements of the Iraqi conflict.” Second, in instances in which “civil war” does not apply, the NIE explains that conditions in Iraq are actually worse than a civil war — because it includes “extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.”
I have to admit, I sometimes wonder why the White House holds press briefings at all. For that matter, I also wonder why reporters show up.