What the NIE Report Really Means
Jack Kelly hits the nail on the head with a brilliant column:
Attacking our enemies does tend to make them angrier. But they were angry enough to start with, and failing to respond to their attacks can have worse consequences than defeating them in battle.
Anyway, all we know about the NIE is what the leaker and the New York Times want us to know. That's not enough. . . .
I'm for declassifying as much of the NIE as can be done without breaching security. But the Bush administration should not be put in the position of having to choose between protecting itself (by declassifying the report and exposing distortions) or protecting our nation's secrets.
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.
Amen to that. It's long past time for a housecleaning of America's inept, incompetent -- and partisan -- intelligence service.
Attacking our enemies does tend to make them angrier. But they were angry enough to start with, and failing to respond to their attacks can have worse consequences than defeating them in battle.
Anyway, all we know about the NIE is what the leaker and the New York Times want us to know. That's not enough. . . .
I'm for declassifying as much of the NIE as can be done without breaching security. But the Bush administration should not be put in the position of having to choose between protecting itself (by declassifying the report and exposing distortions) or protecting our nation's secrets.
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.
Amen to that. It's long past time for a housecleaning of America's inept, incompetent -- and partisan -- intelligence service.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:05 AM
7 Comments:
CIA should handle only Open Source intelligence. They have shown themselves incapable of keeping secrets.
"They hate us anyway" is a stupid argument and suggests a shallow understanding of terrorism.
Basically, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups need two things to function:
1. Support from enough of the Sunni Muslim population in a country to get enough funds, safe lodging, etc. to operate.
2. A radicalized and angry Muslim youth population from which to draw recruits.
The war in Iraq has done nothing, really, hurt Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein provided no money, arms, or training ground to Al Qaeda, so his loss of power does nothing to hurt them.
What the war has done is give them huge amounts of the two things above that they need to operate. 9/11 really turned much of the moderate Muslim world against Al Qaeda and the Islamists, but the invasion of a country unrelated to Al Qaeda or 9/11 produced incredible amounts of anti-American feeling that fueled a huge growth of recruits and donations.
Furthermore, Iraq now is much like Afghanistan in 1980s. It is now a training ground for young, pissed off Muslim radicals. The veterans of the Afghan war produced the terrorism of the '90s, and in the same way a new generation of terrorists are getting the training and experience they need in Iraq.
All of this increase in terrorists would be worth it if the war in Iraq achieved some other worthy strategic goal. But it doesn't. The war was started as a part of the war on terror, and it is failing miserably in that regard.
"They hate us anyway" is a reflection of the fact that they were expanding and attacking American interests before the invasion of Iraq, not a primary reason FOR the invasion.
What the war has done is to force them to expend much of the two points you've listed. We've killed or captured many of their leaders between the two countries in which our troops are engaged. To add to your understanding of the terrorist mindset, it's important to remember that if they fail to make serious headway, it is THEIR will that will be compromised. As more and more of the military responsibilities are turned over to the Iraqis, the country becomes more stabilized. It isn't an overnight process, especially considering their starting point. But the goal of full Iraqi control in a democratic society is a benefit to the entire region as well as to us.
I really have trouble with the feeling that we're "failing miserably" in Iraq. I know the left thought we'd never topple Sadam when we started, never thought it would be done so quickly, and generally underestimated most of what has occurred there. But to believe that because other difficulties have arisen that somehow we are defeated, not up to the task, are failing, is really an indictment on those who hold such attitudes, that they would have such low regard for our people. We have no choice but to prevail, and setbacks are only setbacks, not indicators of failure. As long as we are engaged, we haven't failed. When we leave before it's over, that's when we will have failed. Ain't likely to happen before 2008.
So what's your point? Do you realize that every war was begun with the very same overconfidence and bravado? Check out the book "1776" by David McCullough and you'll find it there from both sides of that conflict. The same has been said concerning the Civil War. Miscalculations, faulty intel, poor execution, all of that and more has been a part of every war ever fought. But the strength of will, perserverance, determination and a clear understanding of the stakes overcome all of it. But you go ahead and bleat on about any negative thing you can find. You have to do all you can to nourish your BDS. I understand that.
stand back! Editor is "remembering" again.
"recall the delusional..."
And next you'll tell us the country was founded to protect your church. Wa-hah!
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
This goes to the "meat grinder" theory, I suppose:
Bush, as quoted here:There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on! We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.
Cliff: 100% correct!
Well, it depends on the level of security expected. The Bush Haters appear to demand something on the order of 1 US soldier for every 1 Iraqi citizen. (Hat tip: Scrappleface)
Naturally, I could be wrong, but since the Haters never really get specific on how many more troops and of which kinds, they'd like to send, I'm left to guess what they mean.
Post a Comment
<< Home