T Nation

CIA:Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat


"WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 ? A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document."

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled ?Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,?? it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, ?Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,? cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report ?says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,? said one American intelligence official.

or shorter form

CIA to Jeffr/HeadHunter(same person):
“Please shut the f–k up.”

“But some American soldiers working the streets of Baghdad’s flashpoint Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops serving alongside them are among the worst they’ve ever seen ? particularly disappointing in this must-win battle.”

Dear admin:
If this is the result of 3+ years, what will be different in 6 months? 1 year?

In other words, “stay the course” guaranteed to fail, they know it, and don’t care.

Time’e take on troop level problems:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538579,00.html

It’s the glimmers of hope that make the realities in Iraq so heartbreaking. Residents of Ur say that with the Strykers around, sectarian murders have all but disappeared. Neighbors emerge from their homes to chat and allow their sons and daughters to play in the street. But the Iraqis and Americans know that such sanity won’t last. Though 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops have moved to the capital to try to defuse sectarian violence, the level of killing across the city remains as high as ever. That’s because the U.S. doesn’t have enough troops to maintain the peace in the areas they’ve secured, instead relying on Iraqi units who have yet to prove they can impose order.

In Ghazaliyah, a west Baghdad neighborhood the 172nd Strykers cleared weeks earlier, violence has already gone back up to previous levels. For all the progress made in Ur, the troops know the cycle is bound to repeat itself there too. “We leave,” says Sergeant First Class Joshua Brown, as his Stryker pulls out of Ur city, “and it turns into f------ Somalia.”

Again, as I’ve said before, this president is only interested in half-assing this war (like afghanistan).
Its sad to see the yellow-elephant brigade (HH and Jeffr) supporting a president not remotely serious about winning even after the initial mistake of invading with a half-ass plan.

An opinion piece in USA TODAY regarding this admin’s lack of seriousness in the effort to win Iraq.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/09/post_22.html

The best example of the president talking out of his ass for pure politics is here:

“Anbar province. This Sunni heartland, a desolate place about the size of Louisiana, is the base for al-Qaeda in Iraq’s terrorist operations. Last week, the commanding U.S. general in Anbar province acknowledged he did not have enough troops to defeat the insurgency. His senior Marine intelligence officer, in a leaked classified report, earlier argued that another division of troops, about 10,000 to 15,000, could turn the deteriorating situation around.”

We’ve essentially given up on this area to half-ass baghdad. The president talks tough on terror but is too much of a coward to fix the problem HE CREATED, because to do so would require sending alot more troops–a political no-no.

I just don’t get how this doesn’t piss off the war supporters in here?

More debunking from the WP’s article on the NIE on global terrorism:

The latest terrorism assessment paints a portrait of a global war in which Iraq is less the central front of actual combat than a unifying battle cry for disparate extremist groups and even individuals. “It is just those kinetic actions that lead to the radicalization of others,” a senior counterterrorism official said earlier this summer. “Surgical strikes? Nothing is surgical about military operations. They tend to have impacts, affects.”

That description contrasts with Bush’s emphasis this month on offensive military action in Iraq and elsewhere as the United States’ principal road to victory in the global war.

“Many Americans . . . ask the same question five years after 9/11,” he said in a speech in Atlanta earlier this month. “The answer is yes. America is safer. We are safer because we have taken action to protect the homeland. We are safer because we are on the offensive against our enemies overseas. We’re safer because of the skill and sacrifice of the brave Americans who defend our people.”

But “a really big hole” in the U.S. strategy, a second counterterrorism official said, “is that we focus on the terrorists and very little on how they are created. If you looked at all the resources of the U.S. government, we spent 85, 90 percent on current terrorists, not on how people are radicalized.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

Excellent piece in the WaPo today on the NIE leak stories:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html

lead:

It’s too bad we won’t get to see the full National Intelligence Estimate on “Trends in Global Terrorism” selectively leaked to The Post and the New York Times last week. The Times headline read “Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat.” But there were no quotations from the NIE itself, so all we have are journalists’ characterizations of anonymous comments by government officials, whose motives and reliability we can’t judge, about intelligence assessments whose logic and argument, as well as factual basis, we have no way of knowing or gauging. Based on the press coverage alone, the NIE’s judgment seems both impressionistic and imprecise. On such an important topic, it would be nice to have answers to a few questions.

BTW, isn’t this classified? Where’s the outrage? It’s not even claimed that it was declassified by Presidential order, like a certain other NIE that had everyone up in arms a little while ago…

The CIA is just saying what people in the country already know…November draws near…

I heard that fighting the Japanese in WW2 also caused more attacks.

If we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor the world would have been a better place.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I heard that fighting the Japanese in WW2 also caused more attacks.

If we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor the world would have been a better place.[/quote]

That is not the point. After Pearl Harbour you drafted a shitload of people, built a giant military industry and went Klingon on their ass.

Bush says that EVERYTHING changed after 9/11 except that gays are not allowed in the military even if their Arabic is fluent, 400 billion are spent on the war on drugs , though you need the money and manpower somewhere else and, finally, he does not have the balls to put the men on the ground to really end it, because, you know, he is not THAT serious.

Does Bush treat this like a Pearl Harbour?

Does he act as if the “war on terror” is a war that could and should be won?

Does he even act as if he believes his own schtick anymore?

LOL.

Guys, are you even reading what 100meters is writing?

I also like the tactic that, the report says other stuff, like how good things are going, but we aren’t going to use those parts to counter the leak.

Uh-huh. Yeah. The bad news is already out, which is why the damned thing is classified, but we’ll leave the good news classified. I believe that… and I’m buying swampland in Florida as well as a couple bridges in New York.

You guys are hysterical!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The CIA is just saying what people in the country already know…November draws near…[/quote]

Well, little irish. If things are going so badly, the Republicans should be blamed.

Therefore, the dems automatically win.

Finally, you sound very confident. Confident enough to bet?

THE CHALLENGE II awaits!!!

JeffR

lumpy,

Thanks for including me in your posts.

I want to tell you that I’m a little perturbed at you right now. I already have enough government pscho-babble to read without you forcing me to wade through this one.

If the la times/nyt says it’s so, I’ll have to go ferret out the true story.

Damn you!!!

JeffR

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I heard that fighting the Japanese in WW2 also caused more attacks.

If we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor the world would have been a better place.

That is not the point. After Pearl Harbour you drafted a shitload of people, built a giant military industry and went Klingon on their ass.

Bush says that EVERYTHING changed after 9/11 except that gays are not allowed in the military even if their Arabic is fluent, 400 billion are spent on the war on drugs , though you need the money and manpower somewhere else and, finally, he does not have the balls to put the men on the ground to really end it, because, you know, he is not THAT serious.

Does Bush treat this like a Pearl Harbour?

Does he act as if the “war on terror” is a war that could and should be won?

Does he even act as if he believes his own schtick anymore?[/quote]

Hey orion,

I liked your comment about panties in the other thread. It was creative.

Back on track.

If Bush attacked in the manner you suggest, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE PISS fest you and the other sideliners would engage in.

It would make your current european, Anti-Bush, sweat-ins look like a day at the park.

So quit with this line of thought. You wouldn’t support a harder line and you know it.

JeffR

[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL.

Guys, are you even reading what 100meters is writing?

I also like the tactic that, the report says other stuff, like how good things are going, but we aren’t going to use those parts to counter the leak.

Uh-huh. Yeah. The bad news is already out, which is why the damned thing is classified, but we’ll leave the good news classified. I believe that… and I’m buying swampland in Florida as well as a couple bridges in New York.

You guys are hysterical![/quote]

Yes vroom,

The National Intelligence Estimate, which as far as I know is always classified, was specifically classified in this case to hide the bad news. Luckily, some intrepid CIA bureaucrat has bravely leaked his/her summary version of it to the press…

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey orion,

I liked your comment about panties in the other thread. It was creative.

Back on track.

If Bush attacked in the manner you suggest, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE PISS fest you and the other sideliners would engage in.

It would make your current european, Anti-Bush, sweat-ins look like a day at the park.

So quit with this line of thought. You wouldn’t support a harder line and you know it.

JeffR
[/quote]

Jerffy, why am I not surprised that your tactics mirror other republican tactics.

Why don’t you EVER address the issues raised, but instead prefer to hurl insults and make somewhat tenously related accusations at a tangent to the issue being discussed.

Would it be because you actually have nothing to say and you are mad about it? It’s happening an awful lot lately… let’s hope people start to recognize it for what it is.

A bunch of meaningless smoke and mirrors that make people forget about the difficult issues and feel good for a couple moments.

It really is about instant gratification isn’t it?

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I heard that fighting the Japanese in WW2 also caused more attacks.

If we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor the world would have been a better place.

That is not the point. After Pearl Harbour you drafted a shitload of people, built a giant military industry and went Klingon on their ass.

Bush says that EVERYTHING changed after 9/11 except that gays are not allowed in the military even if their Arabic is fluent, 400 billion are spent on the war on drugs , though you need the money and manpower somewhere else and, finally, he does not have the balls to put the men on the ground to really end it, because, you know, he is not THAT serious.

Does Bush treat this like a Pearl Harbour?

Does he act as if the “war on terror” is a war that could and should be won?

Does he even act as if he believes his own schtick anymore?[/quote]

Even though Clinton was “obessesed” with bin Laden Bush has done far more than any other president in fighting radical Islamic terror.

Is it enough? No.

Should America and the rest of the world be making more sacrifices for the fight against this evil? Yes.

Unfortunately there are those that are using this report to say we should do less against this evil.

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I heard that fighting the Japanese in WW2 also caused more attacks.

If we would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor the world would have been a better place.

That is not the point. After Pearl Harbour you drafted a shitload of people, built a giant military industry and went Klingon on their ass.

Bush says that EVERYTHING changed after 9/11 except that gays are not allowed in the military even if their Arabic is fluent, 400 billion are spent on the war on drugs , though you need the money and manpower somewhere else and, finally, he does not have the balls to put the men on the ground to really end it, because, you know, he is not THAT serious.

Does Bush treat this like a Pearl Harbour?
[/quote]

Exactly. He’s not serious about winning. That, as much as the introduction of torture and the reckless fiscal policy, is why I can’t stomach voting Republican anymore. And I have yet to hear anyone convincingly refute your point.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes vroom,

The National Intelligence Estimate, which as far as I know is always classified, was specifically classified in this case to hide the bad news. Luckily, some intrepid CIA bureaucrat has bravely leaked his/her summary version of it to the press…
[/quote]

Actually, Bush has just announced, live during his meeting with the president of Afghanistan, that the report will be declassified as soon as possible.

Now, we’ll see if that is soon enough… and if it contains the full contents, or just other piecemeal counterpoints.

Care to make some guesses… a situation where you can’t rely on someone elses thinking, yet?

[quote]vroom wrote:

Care to make some guesses… a situation where you can’t rely on someone elses thinking, yet?[/quote]

Is that even possible?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Unfortunately there are those that are using this report to say we should do less against this evil.[/quote]

Personally, I think we need to be smarter about it.

Playing whack-a-mole seems to be a losing game… since there is no end to it.