US Intel Confirms: Iraq Has Increased Terrorism

[ron28]

New US intelligence report says terror theat worse because of Iraq: reports

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new classified US intelligence report has concluded that the war in Iraq has helped spawn a new wave of Islamic radicalism and made the overall terrorist threat worse, leading US newspapers have reported.


The findings contained in the National Intelligence Estimate appear to be in stark contradiction with recent claims by President George W. Bush and other top administration officials that victory in Iraq is the key to winning the global war on terror.

Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," the intelligence estimate is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by US intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began and represents a consensus view of the 16 different spy services inside the government, The New York Times said citing unnamed officials who have read the report.

Completed in April, the report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," The Times quotes one of the officials as saying.

The newspaper said the report avoids specific judgements about the likelihood that terrorists would once against stage strikes on US soil, but concludes the overall terror threat has increased since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

In a series of recent speeches to mark the fifth anniversary of the attacks, Bush has outlined successes in the US war on terror, and argued that Iraq was key to defeating terrorists around the world.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year, The Times said.

Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to the report.

The newspaper said that previous drafts described actions by the US government that were determined to have stoked the jihadist movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes specific government policies, The Times pointed out, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post noted that although intelligence officials agree that the United States has seriously damaged Al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to plan and direct major operations, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.

Many of the new cells, the estimate concludes, have no connection to any central structure and arose independently, The Post said.

They communicate only among themselves and derive their inspiration, ideology and tactics from the more than 5,000 radical Islamic websites, according to The Post report.

They spread the message that the Iraq war is a Western attempt to conquer Islam by first occupying Iraq and establishing a permanent presence in the Middle East.

The intelligence estimate does not offer policy prescriptions, The Post said.





Why are our own government spy agencies undermining the war on terror? A clear case of appeasement.

[theprophet0]

Hell yeah dawg, that's what I have been telling peeps for a few years.

[UMD TSAR]

Iraq was a gamble. We rolled the dice on shaking up the Middle East. Alot of people under-estimated the risk, and alot of people over-estimated the risk. And alot of the results may or may not be attributed to the decision-making along the way (troops levels, tactics, prisoner abuse, et al).

But what did we have to lose? If we pull out tomorrow, I still don't think we've necessarily made the situation worse, at least in the short-term.

So we took a gamble in the hopes of reforming the root causes of terrorism from the region by injecting liberalism. It's better to take a shot and lose, than not do anything at all and lose anyways.

[gribble]

This is blatantly slanted reporting. No reporter has seen this Classified document, but whoever wrote the article is willing to believe what one random official, who may very well have it out for the bush administration, says about the report going completely against anything Bush has been saying for the past month. Whoever writes this kind of horseshit doesn't remember the first rule of journalism, whoever you're getting answers from is lying, you're supposed to find out why they're lying. Journalism is pathetic in america right now. It's all based on partisan bullshit.

[theprophet0]

Iraq was a gamble. We rolled the dice on shaking up the Middle East. Alot of people under-estimated the risk, and alot of people over-estimated the risk. And alot of the results may or may not be attributed to the decision-making along the way (troops levels, tactics, prisoner abuse, et al).

But what did we have to lose? If we pull out tomorrow, I still don't think we've necessarily made the situation worse, at least in the short-term.

So we took a gamble in the hopes of reforming the root causes of terrorism from the region by injecting liberalism. It's better to take a shot and lose, than not do anything at all and lose anyways.

WTF? Losing a shit load of money and sacraficing thousands of lives was worth the gamble, and in the process a couple of guys more nuttier than Saddam went nuclear? Don't think so!

[UMD TSAR]

WTF? Losing a shit load of money and sacraficing thousands of lives was worth the gamble, and in the process a couple of guys more nuttier than Saddam went nuclear? Don't think so!

Yeah bro, it is. Do the quick math. 9/11 cost us as much as Iraq, and many more lives.

Another 9/11, let alone a nuclear strike, will cost us Iraq tenfold. We took upon a grand campaign to reshape a region the likes of which modern politicians never have the backbone to attempt - but the greats like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were willing to attempt.

That said, I don't think we can exactly throw in the towel on the argument due to what some "annonymous source" says. Don't suppose that "annonymous source" could be a Democrat? This story has been pretty grossly misrepresented, since they sell the point in the headline and only make later reference that it's from "a source who has read the document". Wow. I'm 100% convinced

[WUB]

[Anti_Liberal]

I'd be willing to bet that the war in afghanistan has made terrorism worse too. we probably shouldnt have gone into afghanistan. afghanistan isnt free and our troops are dying.

[Stang76]

Just to make sure the "official" story's on record...

The White House Sunday said a New York Times report on the National Intelligence Estimate document "is not representative of the complete document."

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, in a written statement Sunday, warned that any news report that includes "only a small handful of those judgments distorts the broad strategic framework the NIE is assessing -- in this case, trends in global terrorism."

[ron28]

We took upon a grand campaign to reshape a region the likes of which modern politicians never have the backbone to attempt - but the greats like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were willing to attempt.

C'mon Tsar, you're smarter then that....Is this really a "grand campaign?" Let's look at the facts.
-The president says we are in "the fight for civilization" yet he actually cuts taxes. After 9/11, instead of a Manhattan style project to rid the U.S. of foreign oil he tells us to go buy cars.
-FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln were all willing to risk political power to achieve their goals. By this I mean they were not afraid to institute a draft or ask the American people to actually sacrifice. You can't have a grand campaign and only ask the soldiers and their families to feel discomfort. Where are the war bonds or the ration stamps?
-How do you expect a region with a 14th century mindset and a vast array of religous attitudes (shia vs. sunni for example) to accept democracy by simply overthrowing a despot in one nation.



Prophet is exactly right in terms of letting other nations further their nuke programs while we were drawn down in Iraq.

I'd be willing to bet that the war in afghanistan has made terrorism worse too. we probably shouldnt have gone into afghanistan. afghanistan isnt free and our troops are dying.

Going into aghganistan and overthrowing the taliban was the right call. Entrusting the capture of Bin Laden to the corrupt northern alliance was not. Having only 20000 troops searching for Bin Laden is also wrong. and yes, kids are in school in iraq and aghanistan.....and these are most likely radical islamic organizations where children get a nice 8 hr dose of the quran and jew-hating.

[gribble]

Does anybody read ron's posts anymore? I don't.

[UMD TSAR]

-The president says we are in "the fight for civilization" yet he actually cuts taxes. After 9/11, instead of a Manhattan style project to rid the U.S. of foreign oil he tells us to go buy cars.

I fail to see the connection between Nigerian, Mexican, and Venezuelan oil and terrorism - incidentally, 3/4 of our leading suppliers.

While I'll never be a defender of Bush's fiscal policy, I will say that it was in our long-term interest to use his podium to try to maintain consumer-confidence and prevent a stagnating economy.

-FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln were all willing to risk political power to achieve their goals. By this I mean they were not afraid to institute a draft or ask the American people to actually sacrifice. You can't have a grand campaign and only ask the soldiers and their families to feel discomfort. Where are the war bonds or the ration stamps?

I fail to see the connection between a "grand campaign [to reform a region]" and a requirement to suffer at home.

Also, I think you need to brush up on Lincoln and FDR. The men declared martial law and threatened to pack the Supreme Court, respectively, to consolidate unchallenged power and authority. They weren't "willing to risk political power" - quite the contrary, they took sweeping steps to make sure it could not be jeopardized.

-How do you expect a region with a 14th century mindset and a vast array of religous attitudes (shia vs. sunni for example) to accept democracy by simply overthrowing a despot in one nation.

That is the $1,000,000 question right now, isn't it.

Prophet is exactly right in terms of letting other nations further their nuke programs while we were drawn down in Iraq.

Fallacious. This implies not having troops in Iraq would somehow have changed the Iranian situation. In fact, we are in a better strategic position now to launch a military strike on Iran than ever before. Please tell me how a failure to go into Iraq would have stopped Iranian nuke programs.

[ron28]

Please tell me how a failure to go into Iraq would have stopped Iranian nuke programs.

Iran see's our struggles and incompetency in Iraq and is hence emboldened to taunt us and increase nuclear production. Not going into iraq also keeps the option of a well-equipped and competent military strike on Iran on the table.

FDR and Lincoln almost lost re-election during wartime.


Don't worry gribble, i've never read your posts. I have a backwards uncle who mouths the same ill-thought things you do.

[UMD TSAR]

Please tell me how a failure to go into Iraq would have stopped Iranian nuke programs.

Iran see's our struggles and incompetency in Iraq and is hence emboldened to taunt us and increase nuclear production. Not going into iraq also keeps the option of a well-equipped and competent military strike on Iran on the table.

Respectfully, you're wrong here. We have a massive front with the Iranians now, and 130,000 troops on their doorstep. Our Air Force and Navy (Supercarriers have sick power projection) are fully uncommitted to Iraq. The idea that we are "bogged down" in Iraq is a massive myth perpetuated by politicians who know nothing of the military realities and are simply trying to push an agenda. It is, quite frankly, offensive to the military to presume that something that has not broken us has us unable to respond to another regional threat.

Further, we demonstrated a rapid ability to "dethrone" a government within a matter of a couple short weeks. It is the "nation-building" we are showing problems with - as we have for decades - but the Iranian Mullahs are more concerned about having Saddam's fate rather than finding confidence in the chaos that would ensue after they are put to the gallows.

The notion that Iraq may have demonstrated incompetency to Iran is negated by the notion that it demonstrated our conviction to fight over WMD.

FDR and Lincoln almost lost re-election during wartime.

Check your facts. FDR was re-elected in fall '43, and did not complete his term due to his death in May '45. I am not 100% positive, but I also suspect Lincoln was not defeated in election during the Civil War.

[ron28]

Scratch that, FDR won by plenty.

[UMD TSAR]

Lincoln too.

Defeated McClellan by something like 220-20 in the Electoral College.

[Stang76]

OOC Ron: if the judgments of this report were so damaging to Bush, then why did he have them declassified within days of the leak?

Edit: after reading it just now I sure as hell see a different picture than the NYT source would like us to believe. First of all Iraq was not the main point but instead only mentioned twice, in one paragraph saying it’s a cause of resentment (well duh), and again briefly listed as only one of four factors underlying the recent upsurge in jihadist recruitment. Secondly, lines like “perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhereâ€

[ron28]

I'm fairly sure he is only declassifying portions of this report...and something tells me these will be more "favorable" sections. He's also going to try and muddy the waters and throw up a smokescreen. Look, the fact that our own intel reports are saying that Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism and jihadist movements is absolutely devestating to the administrations "we are fighting them over there, so we aren't fighting them over there" line. Karl Rove surely knows this as well. I would look to the repubs to muddy the waters and try and bring as many terror related bills (some outrageous) to congress as possible to try and force the democrats into a corner.

And i guess i meant that Lincoln may have cruised in the election but faced a stiff challenge earlier due to bloody stalemates in the civil war.

[Stang76]

I'm fairly sure he is only declassifying portions of this report...and something tells me these will be more "favorable" sections.

This isn't a few cherry-picked portions thrown together, it's the general "key judgments" section that appears in every NIE.

Look, the fact that our own intel reports are saying that Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism and jihadist movements is absolutely devestating to the administrations "we are fighting them over there, so we aren't fighting them over there" line.

The key judgments aren't nearly that simplistic; they simply list Iraq as one of a number of factors that would have fostered terrorism anyway. Regardless, you know the spin-machine could easily note that we weren't in Iraq before WTC '93, Kenya & Tanzania, Operation Bojinka, the Cole, the millenium plots, 9/11, Bali, etc., implying jihadists would have exploited whatever excuses they could find whether we had gone into Iraq or not. And that this report is based on outdated intelligence from 7 months ago, and that a short-term uptick in jihadist recruitment does not necessarily preclude long-term strategic success. And so on. No way is this too "devastating" to spin their way out of.

He's also going to try and muddy the waters and throw up a smokescreen.

Karl Rove surely knows this as well. I would look to the repubs to muddy the waters and try and bring as many terror related bills (some outrageous) to congress as possible to try and force the democrats into a corner.

That's not in dispute.

[UMD TSAR]

Look, the fact that our own intel reports are saying that Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism and jihadist movements is absolutely devestating to the administrations...

C'mon bro. You know this article doesn't pass the academic standards to reach the conclusions the NYT did.

Try using a source like this and reaching the same conclusions on a term paper - better yet, a thesis paper. The professor will hack and slash your argument to shit.

I think both sides are so desperate to find evidence that supports their particular agenda that we overlook the standards we're supposedly "educated" about.

[Anti_Liberal]

has anybody actually read the report? its really not as damaging to the administration as some would like. and why arent these leaks prosecuted?