War In Iraq Making Terrorism Worse

[Annie]

Ignoring the fact that War in Iraq is part of global war on terror, could the leaking be political? No?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjBiZTJkMDZiNjEyZjc5NTM3NTIyZTI1NTlmZTMzMjA=

Monday, September 25, 2006

CIA Leak Schedule: It's High Season until Nov. 7 [Mario Loyola]
A former senior administration official told me that in the run-up to the 2002 mid-term election, he remembers being horrified at how the CIA was leaking qualified intelligence estimates "like a sieve" for political effect. He thinks that the CIA and the State Department are both political assets for the Democrats, but unlike the State Department, which more often undermines the president quietly, the CIA actively intervenes in national elections by systematically leaking stuff calculated to have an adverse political impact on Republicans.

That this latest "secret" report (Iraq-makes-terrorism-worse) was leaked for political effect is obvious in the "conclusion" of the report, which turns on a philosophical (and policy) question that no intelligence credential makes one particularly qualified to address: Is Iraq part of the War on Terror, and will fighting them over there keep us from having to face them here? If you think the campaign in Iraq is part of the War on Terror, then examining whether terrorist recruitment has increased as a result is like measuring public opinion polls in Germany in the days after D-Day to see if the invasion is succeeding.

Attacking your enemies can be expected to make them angrier. Hitting the beaches at Normandy is going to increase your casualties. Those are things you'll see on your way to victory.

The New York Times commonly sites the anger of our enemies and our increased casualties as evidence that we are losing, and cites CIA "estimates" (political opinions, really) in support. This tells you much more about the NYT and the CIA than about whether we are headed for victory or defeat in the Middle East.
Posted at 11:24 AM[/QUOTE]

 

[Annie]

Points made on the same:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWE5NTBlODg1ZmU2YmViZjBjYzQ3ZGU2ZjJiZmVlNzc=

Inspired? [Cliff May]
A new “secret” intelligence report leaked to The New York Times reportedly says that the Iraq war has made the terrorism problem worse.

So let’s understand: Just about everyday in Iraq, al-Qaeda and other Islamist Fascist terrorists murder innocent Iraqis — and rather than enraging Muslims that is inspiring Muslims to sign to themselves become Islamist Fascist terrorists.

And when Muslim extremists kill Muslim civilians in Iraq it just makes people so angry – at Americans.

And had the US not toppled Saddam Hussein, these people now enlisting as terrorists would be doing what right now? Enrolling in law school, watching football games, and investing in 401K’s?

BTW, CNN says Democrats have “seized on the report” to use as political fodder in this election season. Gee, that couldn’t be why the report was leaked, could it? CIA operatives leaking classified information to the Times to help Democrats win elections? I can’t believe such a thing would occur. Surely, there will be calls for an investigation.

The Times story from Sunday is here.

Posted at 8:44 AM

 

[shepherdboy]

I don't buy it. Islam has been around longer then the U.S. and it still has the same goals. To spread Islam over the whole world. By the sword if necessary. And to kill or destroy anyone who gets in its way. They hated the U.S. long before Iraq. I say kill them in their own backyard. Or would the American people prefer to duke it out here in the U.S.? People don't be fooled by this so call leaked intel assessment. Its got a political agenda tied to it. And for those who think that only radical Islamist are a threat, just what side would you choose if the only options were Christianity and Islam Yea, and so will they. When the SH** hits the fan, you are gonna back your culture,creed and religion. If not then where is all the outcry to stop the violence? Its all condone deep down in people's hearts. If not then they are not who they say they are and really are not a follower of Islam.

 

[manu1959]

1946, car bomb, jerusalem......they have been at it a long time

 

[1549]

I have been saying it on these boards for a while...it is a logical deduction.

Wars do not ease tension, they create more.

 

[Annie]

I have been saying it on these boards for a while...it is a logical deduction.

Wars do not ease tension, they create more.

Yup the Germans were mad about Dresden and the Japanese Okinawa, your point?

 

[trobinett]

Yup the Germans were mad about Dresden and the Japanese Okinawa, your point?

OUCH!

 

[Stephanie]

Ummm? What was the reason for the Iranians, taking our Embassy hostages in 1972? Oh that's right.........It was Iraq...How the hell could I forget that...?

 

[Annie]

Hey we all get to read the declassified parts of the report, the WH is declassifying the salient parts:


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/26/115700.shtml?s=lh

Bush to Declassify National Intelligence Estimate

NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2006

Reprint Information

Hayden: 5,000 Terrorists Killed or Captured
Mozart Opera Closed for Muhammad Scene
Cuban Official: U.S. Policy a 'Vulgar Hoax'
Swann Spars With Rendell in Pa. Debate

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Tuesday said it is naive and a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, disputing a national intelligence assessment by his own administration. He said he was declassifying part of the report.

"Some people have guessed what's in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Bush said.

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Bush announced that he was ordering parts of the report declassified during a White House news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Portions of the document that have been leaked suggest that the threat of terrorism has grown worse since the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the war in Afghanistan, due in part to the war in Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

Hey we all get to read the declassified parts of the report, the WH is declassifying the salient parts:


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/26/115700.shtml?s=lh

Hmmmmmm There is a huge investigation into who supposedly "outed" Valerie Plame but no one gives a damn who leaks only certain portions of a National Inelligence Assesment ?

 

[trobinett]

Hmmmmmm There is a huge investigation into who supposedly "outed" Valerie Plame but no one gives a damn who leaks only certain portions of a National Inelligence Assesment ?

Go figure..........:bat:

 

[Stephanie]

Hmmmmmm There is a huge investigation into who supposedly "outed" Valerie Plame but no one gives a damn who leaks only certain portions of a National Intelligence Assessment ?

Yeah. And what's that say about the Democrats who see nothing wrong with using leaked information through the NYslimes for their Politics???

The Democratic party has sunk lower than I've ever seen them...and should not be trusted.....Ever

 

[ErikViking]

A bit slow and behind, this emerged in the news at home too. Your president did a pretty good (but doesn't he look older now?) job too on TV.

Although I agree with 1549 in general, I think this isn't a start of a war, it is a step in a process to end a war. Like Dresden and the nuclear attack on Japan was. (I don't fancy the nukes either, but I don't think tension in the world escalated, on the contrary the war ended, the cold war tension had nothing to do with those events)

In due time I don't think history will notice Iraq as a start or an end. But - and again I don't like the concept of war as a conflict solver - history might reflect on Iraq as an unsual war in the respect of that USA has taken a huge comittment, not only to defeat an enemy on the battlefield, but to actually help the nation back to it's feet. Something that often gets lost in the debate right now.

OT warning: The worst thing that could happen now is a complete withdrawl of US precence. And it is a shame that governments, EU, UN, - you know the lot, can't get over the initial one sided action of the invasion and start helping with the rebuilding. Now it is all up to USA to "clear the mess up". That is childish. I must admit that I don't know the details, but something seems very wrong anyway.

 

[Adam's Apple]

What Did the NIE Really Say?
By Jack Kelly, Real Clear Politics
September 26, 2006

What should trouble us most about the New York Times story is not the dubious proposition it advances that the war in Iraq has made the struggle against Islamic radicalism more difficult. It is that there are people in the intelligence community who use secret intelligence for partisan political purposes.

Even in the unlikely event that the judgments of the NIE were accurately reported, we should not treat them as Holy Writ. It was essentially the same fellows, remember, who missed the warning signs of 9/11, and who concluded that Saddam's possession of WMD was a "slam dunk." Mr. Cochran noted that the 1997 NIE on the terrorist threat -- the last before 9/11 -- mentions Osama bin Laden only as a "terrorist financier," and mentions al Qaida not at all.

for full article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/what_did_the_nie_really_say.html

 

[glockmail]

I have been saying it on these boards for a while...it is a logical deduction.

Wars do not ease tension, they create more.

For those who think that our show of strength in Iraq inflames the Jihadists:

Osama bin Laden told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17265

So which is it?

 

[Annie]

Hey, they forgot it's all the Zionists fault! I'm sure this was an oversite. Links here, of course.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09/the_nie_where_i.html

The NIE - Where is Israel/Palestine?

Having glanced through the newly-declassified portions of the NIE, I am wondering whether one needs a decoder ring to make sense of this - nowhere does this report mention the Israel/Palestine conflict as a source of tension, a motivation for jihadists, or a factor in global anti-American sentiment.

Is this just one of those topics that is not discussed in polite circles within the intelligence community? Or should the Administration be claiming "victory" with its hands-mostly-off approach to the West Bank problem?

Here is the key non-mention:

Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States”
dated April 2006

...Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims— - all of which jihadists exploit.

Maybe the West Bank issue is part of (1), "entrenched grievances". But that hardly is suggested by the balance of that sentence, which cites "corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination".

Do the authors of our current NIE really not want to include among their key judgments that the Israel/Palestine problem fuels jihadists? Why not?

If this is some sort of Washington-insider Political Correctitude in play, well, fine - could someone please help those of us among the Great Unwashed back onto the road to understanding?

Or if Bush was so determined to see a report that justified his relative disengagement with the Palestine problem that he sent Dick Cheney to terrorize the Intel Community with tough questions and invitations for hunting trips, let's get that story.

Or if the Israel-Palestine problem is not a driver of jihad, doesn't that merit a headline or two? Certainly the conventional wisdom a few years ago was the solving the Palestine problem was the key to just about every other Middle East problem.

Baffling.

AN ODD SEGUE: I liked this in the NIE:

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies.

Why the sudden switch to US domestic politics? But there is more:

The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.

Who can doubt it?

Posted by Tom Maguire on September 27, 2006