Posted on 07/17/2007 6:42:13 PM PDT by neverdem
As usual, there has been considerable fanfare leading up to the release of the new National Intelligence Estimate on "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland." (Or, to be more exact, the release of the NIE summary - the full text remains classified.) Early commentary suggested that this NIE - a consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community - had determined that al Qaeda was just as potent today as it had been on 9/11, and that therefore President Bush's anti-terrorism policies have been a dismal failure. The actual text is more nuanced, providing ammunition for both the President and his critics.
The summary begins with a nod to administration achievements:
We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa'ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.
It goes on to say that al Qaeda remains active in planning to attack the U.S., and that "[a]s a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment." It lists several causes for concern:
We assess that the spread of radical - especially Salafi - Internet sites, increasingly aggressive anti-US rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West's Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States.
None of this is particularly new or surprising. And although it could be used by Democrats as evidence that Bush isn't doing enough to win the war on terrorism, it also helps Republicans who argue, against Democrats like John Edwards, that there really is a war on terrorism.
The NIE's take on Iraq also cuts both ways:
Of note, we assess that al-Qa'ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa'ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.
So much for last Friday's front-page New York Times story, whose headline claimed "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links." (The argument being that the President doesn't acknowledge the differences between al Qaeda in Iraq and the main al Qaeda group.) It turns out, as the NIE notes, that the two are closely linked. To be sure, the fact that Iraq has become a staging ground for such an active al Qaeda franchise is an indictment of U.S. policy to date; if Bush hadn't muffed the post-invasion phase of operations, this might not have happened. But it has happened, and the NIE finding strengthens the case for remaining in Iraq to fight the terrorists.
In another area the NIE delivers a more scathing (if implicit) indictment of Bush policy:
We assess the group [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe-haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.
This shows the bankruptcy of our policy of supporting unreservedly Pervez Musharraf's dictatorship, aimed at increasing Pakistani efforts against extremists. While there have been such efforts, they have been insufficient to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a "safe haven" in Pakistan. The intelligence community would not admit this lightly, as it is sure to aggravate Islamabad.
Eli Lake reports this morning in the New York Sun that another, classified section of the NIE locates an al Qaeda safe haven in eastern Iran. This shows the need for a revised policy not only toward Pakistan, but also toward Iran. The Bush administration has done poorly on both fronts. But there is scant cause to think that a Democrat would have done any better. We know, in fact, that the Clinton administration didn't have any more success in dealing with these breeding grounds of terrorism.
While not particularly revelatory, the NIE performs a valuable service by calling attention to the threat we still face from Islamist terrorists - something that many complacent Americans have been losing sight of in recent years.
*Bump*
Mohammed’s — er, Bush’s fault! ;)
Labor Department Announces It Will Revise Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
If only they were so obvious. If we stopped illegal immigration and the OTMs, and we had only skilled legal immigration, I’d like to give them functional MRI scans after the British “doctors plot.”
Bush interrupted Saddam's comeback on the world stage.
A beneficial side effect was the dismantling of Libya's WMD program.
Containment of Iraq was failing more each day.
1. The oil-for-food program was corrupt
2. The weapons inspections were a farce
3. There are indications that Saddam was co-operating with Qadhafi on programs to develop weapons in Libya
4. US and allied planes were targeted
5. Iraq sent domestic flights into the no fly zones
6. Uninspected flights to Baghdad gutted the sanctions
7. Terrorists were training in Iraq
8. Saddam supported terrorism - paying $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber and $10,000 to the families of other Palestinians killed in the intifadah.
9. Saddam created the Jerusalem Army [the Jaysh al-Quds] to "liberate" Jerusalem
10. Saddam brutalized our fellow human beings
Saddam was thumbing his nose at decent people as he rewarded his collaborators.
Analysis: Saddam steps up defiance BBC article, from January 2000
thanks neverdem.
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.