Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Iraq war has worsened terror threat; say US Intelligence Agencies
Topic Started: Sep 23 2006, 02:26 PM (451 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
The New York Times

September 24, 2006
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI

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.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said that its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said that the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says that “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It 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 early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said that the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The New York Times?

:rolleyes2: :lol2: :rolleyes2:

___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Maybe we should give it back.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xenon
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
You either make them stop hating you to a murderous extreme, or you kill them all. Killing them makes others hate you to a murderous extreme.

We're in for a lot of killing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
This is just vindication of what JF and I and others too here have been saying for months. :basketball:
- Ben

"Playing 'bop' is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing." - Duke Ellington

bennieloohoo@gmail.com
Or you can just PM me. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mark
Sep 23 2006, 05:55 PM
The New York Times?

:rolleyes2: :lol2: :rolleyes2:

Well, let's see if W and the W-ettes hurry to say that that's not what the National Intelligence Estimate says. They should deny it, right?

Or you could just believe what you want to believe, and not worry about the facts.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
New York Times <> Facts.

___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ben
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I think you're looking for this:

Posted Image

But that's beside the point. You might try reading Quirt's post again. The issue is not NYT it is the gov't report.
- Ben

"Playing 'bop' is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing." - Duke Ellington

bennieloohoo@gmail.com
Or you can just PM me. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I'm not surprised, nor have I (or anyone in here IIRC) stated that the Iraq War has decreased the overall terrorist activity level. You can say we are now even more threatened yet the very big number of "ZERO" attacks on our country in 5+ years keeps popping up in my mind. We had an attack on the USA basically once every two years for the last 10 years or more and suddenly, despite the increase in threat level, we haven't been touched for 5+ years? Hmmm....perhaps GWB's plan, despite all the kicking and whining from libs and the world, is actually WORKING? Wow. Who would have thought. ;)

During any fight against a particular group of peopel or ideology, you're always going to have that initial flare-up of resistance at first, but in the long run, you are simply setting up your chess pieces and defense strategies so that overall you can better manage and identify threats.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Sep 23 2006, 08:18 PM
We had an attack on the USA basically once every two years for the last 10 years or more and suddenly, despite the increase in threat level, we haven't been touched for 5+ years?

You have been touched. 3000 dead American soldiers touches America a great deal. You should also take note of the bombings in Bali, Spain and London - the supporters of America. Of course, if you think a bombing in London is preferable to one in New York....
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Don't be obtuse, John. The USA hasn't been attacked in 5 years.

If soldiers are killed, that's not an attack on the USA, it's a military battle. If other countries are hit, that's not an attack on the USA, it's an attack on that country.

It's oddly convenient that an attack against london, spain, and india are not really important in the war on terror unless one wants to suddenly include them as indirect attacks against america.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I can't see anything in this "editorial" that would not have happened wherever we attacked them. The same case could be made for Afghanistan. This is a war and has always been considered to be a very long one. Attack the enemy and they fight back. What is so surprising about that?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Sep 23 2006, 08:24 PM
Don't be obtuse, John. The USA hasn't been attacked in 5 years.

If soldiers are killed, that's not an attack on the USA, it's a military battle. If other countries are hit, that's not an attack on the USA, it's an attack on that country.

It's oddly convenient that an attack against london, spain, and india are not really important in the war on terror unless one wants to suddenly include them as indirect attacks against america.

I'm not being obtuse. The war on terror doesn't just involve America, you need to take a larger view. I know it's difficult, but there's a whole world out there. I've heard rumours of countries that don't even serve McDonalds. Lucky bastards.

When did I ever say that the London, Bali, etc. bombings weren't important? Before the Iraq war as far as I know there had never been a significant home-grown Islamic attack on British soil, despite a muslim population of around 2 million. Are you telling me that Britain is a safer place because of Blair's support of Bush's adventure?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
If attacking Iraq (which, as has been endlessly said, had nothing to do with the war on terror) increased terrorist activity then where would you suggest that we attack that would not result in an increase in terrorism? Finland, maybe?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John, just for clarification, I was referring to threats against the USA as cited in the article. The article also talks about threats in general to the world, in which you are right. But what I was referring to were threats and attacks against America, which is what I meant when I said "we".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I suspect that one of the main reasons for the reduction in attacks on mainland America is the extremely heightened awareness of American security services, and the US public in general. I always used to be amazed by how lax security was at American airports compared, for example, to Heathrow. Not any more. In fact, I missed out on some very nice duty free booze since the buggers wouldn't let me bring liquids into the US on a recent trip to London.

I'm not arguing, by the way, that the war on terror is unjustified. Leaving Iraq aside for the moment, I have absolutely no problem with the US and other Western countries taking on Afghanistan, and AQ in general, on a very agressive basis. It needs doing, and we didn't start the war, but to try and claim that it's made the world a safer place is naive in the extreme. Maybe in the long run it will, but my crystal ball is out of calibration, so who knows?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
If we as a nation do not come to grips with the fact that this is really a war and not some PNAC adventure then we are finished. That goes for the rest of the non-Muslim world as well.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John,

Quote:
 
It needs doing, and we didn't start the war, but to try and claim that it's made the world a safer place is naive in the extreme.


I think it's making the world a safe place, but we are certainly not there yet, I agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
What this study, as far as I can tell, does not take into account is what the state of the world today would be had we not gone into Iraq.

Jihadists were recruiting and growing and waxing stronger every day before 9/11 and they had simply continued these efforts. There is nothing surprising about that.

"The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It 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."

These are all ways in which the jihadist movement has expanded.. but what is spoken of here is smaller, disjointed and arguably not nearly so well-financed cells that will be unlikely to be able to carry out major attacks.

The article also speaks of Iraq as a training ground for tomorrow's Islamofascists. Is that surprising? I don't think so.

But the alternative to continuing to fight these enemies is to allow them to continue to grow unabated. And they will. Do you want to fight them now, or to fight them alter when they are stronger?

Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
The article in the Times quotes unnamed sources, not the NIE itself. Let the classified NIE tell us the story.

Ooops! The NIE is classified! My bad....

Edit.....
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/

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.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Wow! The battle of the leaks!
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
It fairly begs the question 'Have you taken a leak? Which one?'
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Why does anyone trust the NYT any more than, say, Kos or Truthout. At this point I might actually trust them more than the NYT.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
There is at least a transparency there, unlike the guise of unbiased journalism.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1