Yesterday, we noted that the MSM (along with their fellow travelers in the intel community), had apparently "cherry-picked" information from a recent National Intelligence Estimate, making their case that the Bush Administration's War on Terror had actually made the problem worse. In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.
Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).
In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.
Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.
The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.
More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.
And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..
The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?
The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.
19 comments:
Thanks for posting this for us.
I forwarded this to Deborah Howell, the ombudsman (ombudswoman?) of the Washington Post.
Thanks very much for confirming the obvious. From my post on your post:
As long as the media goes along, unconfronted, undefeated, it will continue to bias the news towards its un-American perspective. It cares not one iota about we bloggers, but it does care about national embarassment on mainstream outlets -- not just a proverbial cruise missile launched at an empty training camp, but an ongoing campaign of discrediting and embarassing the decision-makers at these papers. The NIE story is the perfect launch vehicle.
Will Bush fight or fold?
Great blog!! You're really providing a valuable service here, thank you.
Heard this on Rush. A had a feeling there was more to this when I first heard it. Thank you.
Thanks for your great reporting on the nie report, spook.
Spook,
New to your site, but an old hand who appreciates your insights. Excellent work!
Thanks for publishing this. It's good information and it will be interesting to see what the MSM and the Democrats will do with it, if they don't just ignore it. Apparently President Bush has decided to declassify parts of this NIE so we can see more of it. But I have to ask, how is publishing this classified information okay, when it's wrong for the NYT to publish leaks? Was the information that you published properly declassified by an appropriate authority? If not, how can you justify publishing it?
In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.
Apparently, you didn't read the NYT article.
Right in the opening paragraph, it states that the the War in Iraq has created a "new generation" of Islamic radicalism.
The article later makes clear that the "new generation" isn't necessarily al Qaeda, but a "new class of 'self-generating' cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection..."
So rather than contradicting the NYT, your (leaked) quote above actually supports what NYT wrote -- that the threat has "metastasized" beyond al Qaeda, making "the overall terrorism problem worse" (emphasis mine).
More data is better... but it is still, as you say, just one side.
"A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse."
Um, that doesn't sound like a "good" result. It would seem to make the threat far more difficult to track, predict, or attack.
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." and
"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
I don't think we and the jihadists have the same definitions of 'success' and 'failure'...
"There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..
Perhaps in Iraq proper, but it seems to be gaining in popularity in Afghanistan and Moslem areas of Africa...
"Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."
This seems self-evident; the question is whether our current efforts are actually _making_ any progress...
I don't see "selective releases" doing anything to clear up this debate. Each side will spin to their own advantage. Spook86, do you have any idea what the chances are of the -entire- report getting opened up?
I don’t see a contradiction between the report stating that US led efforts have “seriously damaged al Qaida’s leadership and disrupted operations and the fact that the American invasion of Iraq has spawned “a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since 9/11.” This is particularly true since the report itself states that these jihadists are more diffuse and decentralized.
First, yes, the US can claim considerable success in removing important elements of the al Qaeda leadership from action (KSM, Hambali, etc.) However, as your own cite above notes, “the people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing.” Although the report states that they lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse,” that does not necessarily mean they are incompetent. The Times article noted that Michael Hayden noted in April that “united by little more than their anti-Western agendas.” Particularly as the report also “examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.” In “Understanding Terror Networks” Marc Sageman argues that this is the direction in which terrorists are moving to, Cyber Jihad, where people with similar aims, and goals can meet and reinforce each other’s world view and in time plan and carry out terrorist attacks without any guidance from the al Qaeda leadership.
As for your claim that this “doesn’t sound like al Qaeda’s pre-9/11 game plan,” that is an arguable point as other members of the intelligence community, such as Michael Scheuer, have argued that ever since the creation of al Qaeda Bin Laden has time and again asserted that his aim in creating the organization, and in fighting the US is not to win the war, but rather to awaken Muslim consciousness to the battle between Islam and the West and to incite Muslims to jihad. As such, having a more diffuse, decentralized and larger group of people committed to jihad against the west, is exactly what Osama bin Laden envisioned when he began his war against us. Additionally, Scheuer has also argued that bin Laden views this as a generational struggle meaning that he does not view al Qaeda (the organization) as the end all of his efforts, but rather al Qaeda the ideology as the ultimate aim. As evidenced by the report, Michael Hayden’s April comments, and even the Administration’s public documents where they have asserted that jihadists have turned the Iraq war into propaganda to recruit more jihadists, all seem to provide ample support to this contention.
As for the importance of the war in Iraq as a make or break point for terrorists…that’s exactly right. Iraq has become an important theater in the larger war, but withdrawal is not the only way in which we loose. Currently, we have a really bad situation on the ground with Shiites and Sunnis massacring each other on a daily basis. Most reports say that al Anbar, is almost completely out of our control and that al Qaeda in Iraq (which was supposed to have been weakened by the death of Zarqawi, has actually become more powerful and has control of various regions within the province. In the South, we have militant, fundamentalist Shiites running the show, many who are anti-American and who receive much Iranian funding and who will tolerate us only in so far as we do not attempt to disarm them. At the same time there are other Shiites, like Muqtada al Sadr, who are for the most part Iraqi nationalists, but who hate the US even more than those allied with Iran. The current Iraqi government controls little more than what the militias and other parties allow it to control. The Iraqi army is not much better, with reports of ghost soldiers (or soldiers who are on the payroll but never show up to work) and infiltrated by Shiite militias that are massacring Iraqi Sunni civilians in retaliation for Sunni insurgents targeting Shiites, adding to the momentum toward civil war. Should we withdraw? Of course not. However, we need to change our strategy, and our goals with regard to what we can achieve in Iraq.
I would continue, but that is a subject of another post, and I wanted to return to my main point. Mainly, that what you call the ripple effect or “should jihadist leaving iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight,” also has its anti-thesis, particularly in what many experts call “blowback” or the notion that if they succeed either through our withdrawal, or failure to achieve any of our objectives (or what I call the “I fight not to win, but to make you loose” mentality they will go home emboldened to recruit more jihadists and carry out the fight not only against us in Iraq, but also against their own governments. Already they have achieved an important aim; in delaying and preventing the formation of a viable democratic Iraqi state (particularly as the ethnic regions are talking about autonomous regions) and by bringing the country closer to civil war than anyone imagined when we first went in.
You also mention that there are indications that the jihadists may be “pursuing the wrong course” and that their “violent tactics are backfiring.” This is welcomed news, and hopefully far more prevalent than even the report states, however, just because Muslims don’t like the Jihadists, it does not necessarily follow that they will like us either, particularly if they perceive us as fighting against all Muslims (which is the aim of the Jihadists) as opposed to the minority that is violently fighting against us. As for the MSM’s tsunami, that reflects for the most part the rise of Islamist parties, and the compounding of these (not only by the MSM) but also by pundits with terrorist supporters (though some are). That is, in almost every election, including Iraq, it has been Islamists who have gained the most not moderates nor western oriented forces. The most telling examples are in Egypt and Iraq.
As for promoting democracy in the Muslim world, most people agree that in the long run that will be one of the most important strategies in this war on terror. However, the disagreement comes with regard to what to do with Islamists who come to power, and with the manner in which democracy is promoted. The example provided by Iraq (which included using military force to topple a dictator and the establishment of an occupation before allowing democratic forces to take over) is what many observers and experts are worried about. Indeed, the president himself seems to understand this, as he stated before the UN general assembly that
“Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions.
But the destination is the same: a free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world.
Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region.
This argument rests on a false assumption: that the Middle East was stable to begin with.”
That said, while I support the our continuing in Iraq, Afghanistan and engaged fighting this war (there aren’t many people who don’t) the piece published by the times, and indeed the parts of the report you cite (which I hear was just released in its entirety) do nothing more than present the very dire situation we are in. The claim that the Times was overly slanted seems a bit overused, particularly given the fact that while through 2005 and early 2006 as newspapers reported the things that were going on in Iraq most “die hard” supporters of the administration attributed it all to the “doom and gloom” mentality of the newspapers. The reality has now come home to roost and if anything it shows that far from being “doom and gloom” the news reported was actually not too far away from the truth. We are loosing Iraq, and it is far too important in our war to engage in partisan bickering. A better approach would be to see what is wrong with our strategy, whether we are achieving our objectives and whether any of our own actions are helping the enemy and to adjust and revise them based on those assessments, otherwise we will loose Iraq and with it the ability to stem at this stage the momentum jihadists believe they have going for themselves.
We are at war with a tribal culture;
Tribalism
Once that is clear a lot becomes simplified.
Islam is at its core tribal. Sharia is tribal.
The Nazis were tribal. Japan's Bushido culture was tribal. And of course the American Indians. Symbolic warfare is common in those societies i.e. attacks on symbols of the enemy strength. The belief that warrior courage can overcome numbers and superior technology.
These kind of enemies are tough because they are very well motivated. They can be defeated.
When I went to highlight the text in the released PDF, to copy it into Word, I noticed something interesting in the space before a “quote” that some in the Rightwing media are quoting. This does not appear anywhere else in the document.
I was wondering if the quote in question was ‘inserted’ and if the wording of the NIE was subtly changed.
Wasn’t the October 2002 NIE also slightly modified when it was declassified?
Saw your blog on CNN. Obviously I will become a frequent visitor of this page.
But, why wasn't this in the decalssified NIE?
"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
Probably because people would have a hard time noticing the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic
What I don't get is how people say it is more dangerous today than ever.
Than when? September 10, 2001, when Muhammad Atta stayed in a local hotel overnight before flying out of our Portland, Maine airport?
Yeah, the world looked pretty peaceful back then. Unless you were one of the people injured in the WTC blast in 1993.
I keep going back to one thing:
HAVE WE BEEN ATTACKED SINCE THEN?
Obviously not. Not for their lack of trying, mind you... Does anyone remember how close they were to blowing up airplanes over the Atlantic a few months ago?
I'd say this administration, in conjunction with the others, is doing a pretty good job of keeping terrorism knocked down in our own country.
HERE is the next big question for you:
IF Nancy Pelosi and her kind were to want to ENCOURAGE terrorism, WHAT would they do differently from what they are already doing RIGHT NOW?
Consider that. Thanks.
Keep up the good worK!!! I bet Mat Lauer will be all over this on the Today Show tommorrw! NOT!!!!
Every moment we live in the fantasy that Iraq is part of "the war against terrorism", the real threat grows.
7:43 PM
***********************************
Every moment that the Left insists that Iraq is NOT part of the general war they only prove again and again their incompetance.
The other side thinks it is an important battlefield and that they are losing there. Zarqawi's manifestos made that clear.
This is not a War on Terrorism, it is a War against Jihadist Islmofacsim.
WHERE exactly do they want us to fight, and did they really want to leave Iraq untouched as a sanctuary base for the Jihadists?
Buzzinator said...
Once again, people miss the basic truth, if Iraq is the cause Celeb for jihadist then Iraq is where the fighting is taking place.
You are only partially right. You see jihadists are not only fighting us in Iraq, but are also exporting the training and experience to Afghanistan and other parts of the muslim world. In time, new organizations and leaders will emerge with experience battling the American army in Iraq. That means, that just as we have adapted to the enemy, they will adapt to us and adjust their tactics accordingly.
The "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them in our own country" meme is one of the biggest fallacies in this current war. Jihadists will fight us in Iraq, in Afghanistan yes, but that does not mean that they will not plan more terrorist acts against us within our own country. That theory would only hold true if there were a finite number of jihadists we were fighting and all their efforts were concentrated on Iraq. However, the truth is as the NIE itself states that we are creating more jihadists or people who have adopted the jihadist mindset than we are killing, hence when the supply of people fighting us increases the enemy can engage us of many battlefields. They fight us assymmetrically so 20,000 of them can keep our army of 140,000 busy in Iraq, our 15,000 busy in Afghanistan and so on. If there is a pool o f jihadists that is growing that means that they also have others who can plan actions against the US, or western interests as London and Madrid have demonstrated.
Remember, Atta and his hijackers were originally going to fight in Kashmir and Chechnya, it was only when they got in touch with members of al Qaeda that they were diverted to the US. Similarly, and now with a more diffuse al Qaeda organization, the cyber jihadists can encourage people outraged over Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib or whatever other grievance they have against us to carry out operations on American soil and not necessarily go to fight in Iraq.
M.SIMON (9/28-3:35 PM): Great observation and accurate analysis. It seems to me that you have isolated the chief psychological and tactical element around which our military strategy should revolve. Historically, what has been the only sure military answer to defeating tribal foes? Hasn't it been superior staying power combined with superior force and weaponry and tough-minded tactics? Is there any historical record of a tribal aggressor being defeated by a lesser foe than described above? What is the historical record of the appeasement and "understanding" approaches prior to conflict, by the objects of such aggression. Aren't they called "victims"? Any doubt that the extreme Jihadists are just the spearhead of what they plan to be a worldwide assault on the infidel?
Also, a comment on semantics. Isn't it more accurate to say that Islam is tribal religion? And, if Islam can be a religion of peace, why do the "peaceful" Islamists never rise up in mass protest of the horrible loss of life inflicted so far by Jihadists? Why is the death of non-Muslims, and non-Jihadist Muslims treated as if those murdered have little or no value in this world or the world hereafter (Whose world?)? When will we see "peaceful" Muslims disavowing or explaining the context of the words "death to the infidel" in the Koran? When will we see non-Jihadist Muslims explaining how an infidel can know to trust what a Muslim says?
On a related tack, can't a good case be made for the tribal behaviour of liberals? "Your label is your identity." Don't most of the activists proudly wear one of the labels "humanist", "liberal", "anti-capitalist", "progressive" (usually Communist) or "socialist". There are many more splinters, I think. Could their behaviour be classified, in general, when faced with bullies as we are now, as "extreme submission" behaviour? It sure looks like they don't want a fight, doesn't it? (I don't want a fight either, but neither do I want to see my children put "under the sword".)
One last speculation. What happens to a gang (tribe) of bullies in the schoolyard when they lose their leader? Doesn't that functional description give the lie to the statement by mad in the ic (5:13 PM): "The Jihadis need us there to sustain there[sic] campaign against the west."? Isn't that a common misconception? The "Jihadis" don't NEED us, as they are driven by their leaders, but they can definitely USE us, if we let them, for propaganda purposes (see MSM).
AND, THANK YOU, J CALVIN 2005-12:01 PM: You have carefully cited the relevant facts of the development of the Iraq conflict. As you said earlier, to the effect of: "What are the liberals trying to do? We can read the whole thing." And we were there for the whole thing (run-up to the war). (But wait, the liberal will say, you won't understand it until I explain it to you --with different words you'll understand.)
Unfortunately, you will not be well understood, as, when a person forces their mind to think only with shibboleths and "talking points" (mdfld-7:57 PM: "Invade a Muslim country...dooms you to fail")(repeated for any discussion) apparently you may lose the ability to grasp the simple truths, much less any interest in knowing actual pertinent facts such as you have cited. The points you make will not be disputed anywhere, but misdirection will be applied at every opportunity.
Also, there are several telling descriptions, from different commenters, of the following scenario: "...the cyber jihadists can encourage people outraged over Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib or whatever other grievance they have against us to carry out operations on American soil and not necessarily go to fight in Iraq."
posted by NYkrinDC : 7:26 AM.
But we shouldn't be monitoring their communications or phone conversations?
Post a Comment