POL - Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
 

Gee, I coulda told ya that!

hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ei=5094&en=003f596f66422cfd&hp=&ex=1159070400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

I would be curious what peopel on here think. How about making this a poll to see for kicks. I tend to agree with the basic premise that the war made it worse for us here in the long run.

Hello, Mr. Obvious.

I said that before the war even started.

Yeah, it's nothing really suprising.

In other news, water is wet. The sky is blue. And that woman that is still in the bar at 2am with an Adam's Apple; that's a man, baby!

Links to the actual classified documents that are leaked to the New York Times would be helpful.

The first thing I would be curious about, is what is the actual classification of the leaked document. CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, or TOP SECRET. Then, I would like to know who leaked it. Otherwise, we might believe this is made up.

Many people did. It was, indeed, the obvious result.

I admire your stead-fast belief in the world as you see it. But, every time you post on these topics this is the image I get...




Don't worry. I am not going to go all "duckman on Mr. Biggles" on you. This is the last you'll see of it from me.

I am not personally attacking you. I am just asking for further information and clarification.

The article has plenty of references to other published sources which say the same thing, as well as public comments by those involved in the WoT or U.S. intelligence apparatus. We'll undoubtedly see some of the text from the NIE in time. How about, instead of buying yourself time and hoping you won't have to comment, either contradicting the tenor of these findings or not.

I only clicked this to read Dutch's replies. Good stuff.

:rolleyes:

SI

If there are plenty of unclassified sources, why not just stick to them? Why leak alleged classified documents?

And what about classified documents should the government verify or contradict? Wouldn't that then be a litmus test for knowing what is actual classified documents and what is forged? Simply put, the government is put into a catch-22 by the New York Times. If they say the document is fake for some documents and leaked as others, then we (and subsequently our adversaries) will know which leaked/forged documents to pay attention to.

But in any event, where is the alleged classified documents the New York Times has? What do they look like? Who classified them? Where did they come from? What were they classified as?

My questions should not be this hard to answer.

It's nice to be loved. :p

For an unclassified document saying a lot of the same things, how about a reference to an April speech by the current CIA director, Michael Hayden?

Plus, if you read the NY Times article, you would know that the NY Times does not have the classified document, so couldn't link to it even if they wanted to. It is reporting what intelligence officials who have seen the document are telling them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Ah, so this alleged document that nobody is allowed to see is steering the mindset of millions of readers, fascninating approach to journalism, but one I don't agree with.

Come on, Dutch. You know very well that this document exists. The government produces this document every few years. Furthermore, if the NY Times has multiple sources who have seen the document (and it says it has more than a dozen from many different agencies, and includes people who participated in writing the report), and they're giving consistent information about its conclusions, then there's a good chance the information about the report's conclusions is reliable.

Honestly, I'm sure it exists as well. I just want to read it.

But Dutchy.. the Times may just be taking a page from the Administration, after all we're not talking about the CIA torture plan.. you know, the one that all senators and representatives are supposed to be voting on this week, with the CIA only briefing 40 or so folks on it.

WASHINGTON -- As lawmakers prepare to debate the CIA's special interrogation program for terrorism suspects, fewer than 10 percent of the members of Congress have been told which interrogation techniques have been used in the past, and none of them know which ones would be permissible under proposed changes to the War Crimes Act.

Only about 40 of the 535 senators and representatives -- the top members of leadership in both parties, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and a small handful of others -- have been briefed on the past practices of the CIA program, which permits more aggressive interrogation tactics than those used by other agencies.

The lack of consultation means that senators and representatives will be voting next week to authorize a program that most know little about, raising questions about Congress's oft-repeated vow to increase its oversight of the war on terrorism.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...rogram?mode=PF

Besides, the White House has confirmed it, just saying it's "not representative of the complete document"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...als_us_report/

Dola: Besides, folks want them to link the whole document so they can accuse them of treason and being unpatriotic, just like the LAST time the Times published acurate information that contradicted the Gov't.

If he doesn't want to be accused of treason or being unpatriotic, I'd suggest not leaking classified information.

Same :D. Its amusing to what lengths people will go to defend this horrid decision.

I'm sorry, I thought this article was posted to discuss it, not me.

Nah, the article is pretty much pointing out the obvious. I'm just here to see how some on the right try to spin it :D.

I don't buy it. The leftist NY Times will print anything that makes this administration look bad. I mean, from what I read we just killed Bin Laden, so we won the war on terror. Mission accomplished!

So, is terrorism up in the world since the Iraq war or not? Or are these just predictions?

We killed him or he got an illness and died, basically because he is old?

Of course, that would be the RIGHT way to frame the question. And then, it would be neccesary to show that one thing is, in fact, caused by the other.

Well we know that terrorist acts were up worldwide in 2003 and 2004. After that the admin decided to stop publishing the numbers.

Maybe someone will leak those numbers. Of course if they leak the full document, Dutch will accuse them of being unpatriotic and treasonous, and if they don't leak the full document Dutch won't believe the reports because he really wants to see the full document... I guess we're just better off not knowing whether terrorism is up or down.

Why would those numbers be a government secret? Doesn't the news tend to cover terrorist attacks? I'm sure there's numbers out there.

The tricky part would be what to do with Iraq terrorism numbers (and how to define terrorism in that context). Obviously, numbers there are WAY up, but I wonder if violence there has sublanted worldwide terrorist activity.

Terrorism may be a bigger threat to the united states than it was before Iraq, but the attention paid to it is way our of proportion to what the actual threat is.

Is it consisent for someone to accuse the administration of "fear mongering", while at the same time saying that because of Iraq, the terrorism threat is enhanced?

I completely agree with Sachmo here so let me try to explain.

Let's say terrorism = 100

Iraq has increased terrorism to 130

The people in power at both the federal and local levels say terrorism = 500!!!

Terrorism threat to where, though? And then again, it is a bit hypocritical to scream about terrorism while persuing policies that increase that threat.

Given that the NIE is a pretty well-known document, and its creation, usage and distribution is not necessarily a complex thing, I think you're trying to make this a lot more confusing for yourself than you need to.

Numerous intelligence and government sources have confirmed to journalists (when they haven't been publically saying so in speeches) that the invasion of Iraq has been detrimental to efforts in the War on Terror and that this is one of the conclusions of the NIE in question. This is a contention made by many people who are not part of the government for years now.

Do you want to address the contention, or do you want to keep stalling?

It amuses me that you were all happy to go into Iraq based on evidence the Bush Administration wouldn't show you, but when the NYT references a document that contains a contention that is contrary to your worldview, you absolutely refuse to hear about it.

Head in the sand, indeed.

Yes. The Administration would have you believe that thousands of potential terrorists stream across our borders each day (see rhetoric in anti-immigration speeches) and that no one is safe, even in Des Moines. The reality is that more Americans have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq (soldiers dead in theater, soldiers dead from injuries, same for civilians) than from 9/11.

I wish my dad would have stayed in the oil business.

After reading the article, I don't think it is telling us anything we didn't already pretty much know.

It says that the report lists the war in Iraq as one factor driving an increase in the "Global Jihadist movement". This pretty much follows because one of the stated goals of Al Qaeda was to remove the west's armed forces from the middle east. Obviously, for those predisposed to become millitant terrorists, i.e. those otherwise disillusioned with their lot in life, that bit of influence might well push them over the edge. I don't think that basic fact is really even disputable.

The article, or at least some of those interpreting it, seem to "spinning" those basic facts into more of an attack on the administration, than I think is indicated by what has been leaked. Now perhaps the thing is that the admin didn't openly predict this problem at the outset. They certainly didn't, but then again the Admin's apparent lack of foresight on post war Iraq shouldn't really be big news either.

I guess I'm just not certain this is as big or as shocking a development as some seem to be making of it. Partly because the report doesn't exactly quantify the assertion ,from what I understand. In other words, the questions of "how much worse of a problem is terrorism today than before the Invasion of Iraq?", "How much of that change is directly attributable to Iraq?", and "If Iraq hadn't been invaded, would the terror organizations found another pretense to bolster recruiting?" aren't addressed by the report. At least from the reports of leaks that I've seen. I'll note that I don't think the report would address especially the last question, because it is strictly hyperbole. Although, I do think that sentiment has some merit.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect at the White House. Yesterday, Tony Snow admitted during the briefing that the conflict in Iraq is one factor in the spread of Islamic Extemism:

hxp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060925/ts_alt_afp/usattacksiraq_060925193019


Yet today, Bush is denying this.

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afghanistan

Here's a decent editorial piece on this kind of thing.

hxxp://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006609250332

BRIAN DICKERSON: Some material may not be suitable for voters
BY BRIAN DICKERSON
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
September 25, 2006

"We are safer, but we are not yet safe," President George W. Bush told the nation in his televised address from the Oval Office on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Yet the consensus of the president's intelligence advisers -- including John Negroponte, his handpicked director of national intelligence -- is that exactly the opposite is true.

According to news reports published Sunday, a classified National Intelligence Estimate completed in April concludes that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has invigorated Islamic radicalism throughout the world and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since Sept. 11, 2001.

The intelligence assessment, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism," represents the consensus view of 16 intelligence agencies within the federal government. It concludes that the terrorist threat to the United States and its allies is now viral, comprising innumerable self-generating cells that share many of Al Qaeda's objectives but have little or no contact with the organization's leaders.

How can we explain such a fundamental contradiction between what the president's top advisers are telling him and what he is telling us? Or, to put it another way: What did the president know, and when did he decide to disregard it?

It seems to me there are four possible explanations:

1) The president hasn't read the 5-month-old intelligence estimate or
been briefed on its conclusions.

2) The president is familiar with the estimate but disagrees with its conclusions, either because he knows things his advisers don't or has convictions they lack.

3) The president concedes the estimate is accurate but has made a paternalistic decision not to share it with the American people, in the same way that parents of young children sometimes turn off their televisions when the news is upsetting.

4) The president concedes the estimate is accurate but has made a political decision to conceal it from voters who may hold him and his political allies responsible.

In many ways, the last of these explanations is the most reassuring.

Deceitfulness is not an attractive quality, but it is preferable to self-delusion, particularly in a commander in chief.
The conclusion that the president deliberately lied, while uncharitable on its face, is more generous and less alarming than the suspicion that he either doesn't know or doesn't care about his own government's best thinking.

But whether the president's lack of candor is motivated by a benign concern for the nation's morale or a cynical calculation of political advantage, the rest of us have to rise above it. Voters and those who seek to represent them in Congress have to live in the real world, whether or not the president chooses to join them there.

Some Republicans may continue to support the current policy toward Iraq on the grounds that it will eventually produce the desired result. But even they will have to disassociate themselves from Bush.

As long as the president stands behind a lie, no one can afford to stand behind him.

Good to see Bush is declassifying the NIE to get the whole thing out there.. Of course this raises the question of why it wasn't declassified earlier as the only thing changed is politics.

This is the link to the declassified report (or at least its conclusions - I'm not sure if more is being declassified or if this is it):

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/De..._Judgments.pdf

It strikes me as fair, with regard to Iraq and everything else. It really is disappointing things like this can't be declassified more often. I can't imagine how this compromises security, and certainly it would add to our democratic dialogue on terrorism. It is a government "of the people", we have a right to know... Also, am I the only one who's a little creeped out when the federal government refers to the United States as "The Homeland"?

No. No you are not. That has bothered me since the whole "Homeland Security Office" started. It just sounds a bit Nazi-ish, doesn't it?

Considering all of the resources being thrown at Terrorism these days, I'm not sure the above equation holds true. In other words, I'm not sure it holds that because the threat of terrorism is greater, necesitates that we, the American public, aren't as safe or safer than before 9/11. They have taken some of the 9/11 commission's suggestions to heart, and I don't know that that should be simply dismissed.

I do agree with Fozzie that declassifying the NIE is a good thing, and will demystify and clarify some of the second hand accounts we've gotten so far.