Posted on 09/16/2004 4:44:34 AM PDT by Maceman
WASHINGTON - The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush (news - web sites) this summer with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq (news - web sites), including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.
In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that — at best — stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."
The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.
This latest assessment was performed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials that provides long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community.
Acting CIA (news - web sites) Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved the intelligence document, which runs about 50 pages.
The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.
A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night.
The document was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night.
It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
A scathing review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Disclosure of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq came the same day that Senate Republicans and Democrats denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.
"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing during which State Department officials explained the administration's request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year, mostly for public works projects.
The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections scheduled for January.
"We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. "It's important that you have some flexibility."
Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued — even before the war — that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.
But the criticism from the panel's top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the U.S. presidential election in which Bush's handling of the war is a top issue.
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' — that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."
He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request.
State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.
I guess this is all the Left has left this election: tout their pessimism on Iraq, quoting people with no direct link to the White House or the Pentagon.
What's bad for America is good for the Democrats.
A Dim can dream, can't he?
Here we are fighting a War on Terror, and these guys are worried about the computer chip market!
Uhh, yeah, there's one going on already.
"-In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate-"
From a highly unimpeachable source, no doubt,
It took a long time to put Europe and Japan back together again.
While overly optimistic outlooks can be wrong, so can the pessimists.
I'd have to actually read the 50 page report analyze what it states and then understand it.
No one can take a reporters interpretation of a 50 page report , gleaned down to a soundbite at face value.
Hear that media? We can read it ourselves. After cBS, your trust quotient is garbage.
This guys is nothing more than a constant whiner and self-promoter. His M.O. is just like the RATs' playbook, always criticize, criticize, criticize, and never offer anything intelligent.
My feeling is that Bush is holding back until the election is over, then he's going in to totally clean up the trash that's still hanging around in Iraq. The cockroaches better scatter quick come Nov. 3
Your right, the civil war began about 6-30-04 of this year and is growing. The only unifying factor in Iraq is the desire not to be occupied. Rather than wait for hundreds of more american lives to pass before acknowledging the situation for what it is, like we failed to do this time last year when Rumsfled was denying that an insurgency or guerilla war was developing, we ought to assess the outcomes and our course of action now. If Iraq cannot put together meaningful elections in January then we ought to let the country break up into 3 regional entities and let the oil wealth follow those groups. If the UN wants to step up and preserve Iraq or the Saudi's then they can pony up, otherwise, we should be looking out for our best interests and those of our allies and friends.
Take out Fallujah.... the whole thing. After that, you strike the radical Shiia hard and everything will be much better. Why was al-Sadr not doing some of the same things when the Shiites were oppressed by Saddam Hussein? ....Because he knew that Saddam would take them all out. Once we get serious, we will get respect and there will be "relative" calm.
And typed on a 1972 IBM Selectric, no doubt.
LOL
It's my hope that that's precisely what the administration will do after the election.
The CIA is full of clintonoid stooges, so they may actually be some kind of anonymous source.
But in the first place, this sounds like contingency planning, with worst-case scenarios. And in the second place, you can trust the leaker and the AP to spin the thing so as to do as much damage as possible.
In the end, it means nothing. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that Iraq is a screwed-up place full of rival Arab gangs, and that it will always have political problems. That's not the same as providing terrorists with a safe haven and state funding, as Saddam was doing.
How can pullbacks from Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarri, Najaf, and Baghdad's Sadr City be considered less than a reason for pessimism? We are accomplishing what Saddaam never could accomplish, the uniting of Sunni and Shiites to a common purpose of routing the coalition troops. We should be so lucky if there was a civil war between the different factions.
While we're at it let's let the UN take over LA since our casualties there are higher and prospects for democracy much lower...
To some extent I think you’re right. But I doubt that a partitioned Iraq would be much friendlier or freer. From what I understand, most fighting is between Islamic fundamentalist and pro reformists. Hardly something that could be solved by portioning the Nation. I think ethnic conflict is secondary.
Iraqis of course dislike being occupied, especially occupied incompetently and in doubt of which side will win.
Our victory in the war on terrorism would have been impossible with Saddam in place, and it’s just as impossible with little Islamic city-states left scattered across the Triangle with Iraq partitioned or not. We may lose support of Alawi and Sistani in doing what’s required to defeat them, but we’ll gain back the respect of those who think we lost the will to fight and have become bumbling occupiers.
I don’t believe that the administration is just waiting for the election to end. I think it’s paralyzed from a lack of confidence to take any bold action.
I don’t think Iraq is a lost cause, I think we’ll achieve some kind of victory their. But it’s not going to me a model victory for reform across the ME. It’s going to be tenuous and expensive. And therefore, it’s likely to be our last major battle in this war on terrorism.
This "occupation" carnard is worn out, Arafat has been using it for decades, to excuse his terrorism. He and other Arab "leaders" have been allowing their people to wallow in death camps, and suicide cults, and cast themselves as "victims".
Iraq has been "grim" for 30 years, as has all of the ME where Islamic cults are in charge.
And it will be "grim" until the appeasers, and the world-wide leftists, call a spade a spade.
There are 50 million souls in Iraq and Afganastan, who have chance for economic and political freedom, that they did not have a year ago.
The Islamic cults are not "insurgents" who are upset about being "occupied", because if they stopped their carnage, we would leave.
They have learned well from Arafat, whos goals are NOT nobel.
Unless as on the left, you agree with those goals, which are the defeat of the Jews and US power, democracy, and economic freedom.
This "occupation" carnard is worn out, Arafat has been using it for decades, to excuse his terrorism. He and other Arab "leaders" have been allowing their people to wallow in death camps, and suicide cults, and cast themselves as "victims".
Iraq has been "grim" for 30 years, as has all of the ME where Islamic cults are in charge.
And it will be "grim" until the appeasers, and the world-wide leftists, call a spade a spade.
There are 50 million souls in Iraq and Afganastan, who have chance for economic and political freedom, that they did not have a year ago.
The Islamic cults are not "insurgents" who are upset about being "occupied", because if they stopped their carnage, we would leave.
They have learned well from Arafat, whos goals are NOT nobel.
Unless as on the left, you agree with those goals, which are the defeat of the Jews and US power, democracy, and economic freedom.
Actually, it’s pretty effective. It’s frustrated Israel for 30 years and it’s threatening to do the same to us. That weapon of theirs will be used effectively on us until we overwhelmingly defeat them.
Bush should order his troops to destroy Faluja. He should have snipers sneaking through Baghdad taking out anyone carrying a gun, or suspiciously lurking near good ambush sites.
The Iraqis need to get absolutely ruthless in their hunt for terrorists; house to house searches, torture, you name it. One thing Sadam had going for him was ability to deal with these people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.