Webb Correct Again: Intelligence Assessment Says Iraq War Spawned Islamic Radicalism

By: PM
Published On: 9/23/2006 7:52:56 PM

This is breaking news, to be published in tomorrow's New York Times and Washington Post:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 GÇö 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.

[UPDATE by Lowell:  The Washington Post writes that, according to this report, "The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists..."  What a disaster.] 

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 GÇŁTrends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,GÇÖGÇÖ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, GÇŁIndicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,GÇĄ cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report GÇŁsays that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,GÇĄ 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 documentGÇÖs general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

In case your eyes are bleary from seeing so many similar stories on this subject, please pay attention to this:

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.

As RK readers know, this report strongly agrees with Webb's position.  It is totally, diametrically opposed to Allen's position, which is that we need to "fight them in Iraq or we'll be fighting them in America."  According to American intelligence agencies, Allen is as wrong as he can be. Webb is right.


Comments



Here is what Webb said in the Meet the Press debate (PM - 9/23/2006 8:02:45 PM)
We didn’t go into Iraq because of terrorism, we have terrorists in Iraq because we went in there.

http://www.msnbc.msn...



Webb is right once again. (Lowell - 9/23/2006 10:08:47 PM)
Let's face it, Jim Webb is one smart cookie!  George Allen?  Eh, not so much.


Here's Another Validating Source (PM - 9/23/2006 10:40:56 PM)
http://www.harpers.o...

Dr. Emile A. Nakhleh served in the CIA for 15 years and retired in 2006 as the Director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program.  This is the premier group evaluating political Islam. He is heavily "medaled" and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In this interview he said:


We had no evidence that there was a Saddam–bin Laden axis. Saddam was a butcher, but he was a secular butcher, and we knew that. *** Iraq was a secular state; women had more rights than in most places in the region, and Shiites were the backbone of the Baathist and even the Communist Party. It was almost a year after the 2003 invasion before Al Qaeda decided to make Iraq a jihadist cause because [before that] they viewed Iraq as a secular state. People at the CIA didn't believe there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The source for much of the information of that sort was Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, and their positions jibed with the positions of those in the administration who wanted to wage war in Iraq—Wolfowitz, Feith, people in the vice president's office.
***
The main reason for our failure in Iraq was not looking at the “morning after.” It was obvious that the military campaign would succeed, but there was also an ideological view among some administration officials that we would be received as liberators. Those people did not understand that just because the Iraqis hated Saddam, that didn't mean they would like our occupation.

Iraq was more complex than just Saddam. We should have learned from the experience of the British in the 1920s, when modern Iraq was created—namely, that bringing in outside leaders would not work. People expressed views about the need to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, about the potential for sectarian violence and the rise of militias, about the fact that the Shiites would want to rise politically. These were not minority views in the intelligence community, but the administration ended up listening to other voices. The focus was on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, and after that everything would be fine and dandy.
***
3. You traveled to Guantanamo in 2002. Were you surprised by what you saw there?

I spent hours talking with prisoners about why they had become jihadists and how they came to Guantanamo. Some of the detainees participated in jihad in Afghanistan, mostly against the Northern Alliance; others did not but were caught in the dragnet—having been at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Even the command down there knew that probably one-third of the prisoners were neither terrorists nor jihadists, and wouldn't have been there if we weren't paying a bounty to Pakistani security forces for every Middle Eastern-looking person they handed over to us. ***
4. What should the United States do in Iraq now?

I have come to believe that our presence is part of the problem and that we should begin to seriously devise an exit strategy. There's a civil war in Iraq and our presence is contributing to the violence. We've become a lightning rod—we're not restricting the violence, we're contributing to it. Iraq has galvanized jihadists; our presence is what is attracting them. We need to get out of there. The idea of Iraq being a model for the region has also been tossed out the window. ***
5. What is the likely political fallout from the Iraqi debacle and from the failures of the “war on terrorism”?

We've lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world. The President's democratization and reform program for the Middle East has all but disappeared, except for official rhetoric. That was the centerpiece of the President's policies for the region, and now no one is talking about it. We have lost credibility across the Islamic world regarding “democracy” and “representative government” and “justice.” We are devising new rules and regulations for holding people without charge. The FBI has been at Guantanamo for years, and no charges have been brought against anyone. The Islamic world says “you talk about human rights, but you're holding people without charging them.” The Islamic world has always viewed the war on terror as a war on Islam and we have not been able to disabuse them of that notion. Because of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other abuses we have lost on the concepts of justice, fairness and the rule of law, and that's the heart of the American idea. That's very serious, and that's where I see the danger in the years ahead.

6. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from the Islamic world?

No, there's only a threat from those who use Islam for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence. There are 1.4 billion people in the Islamic world and only a tiny minority, maybe 2 or 3 percent, are politically active. Just like Jews and Christians, most have kids to raise and bills to pay. Most view Islam as a personal and societal force, not a political one, and only a tiny minority becomes terrorists. There are hundreds of political parties in the Muslim world, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Those parties and their supporters have participated in many elections, and some times they have won and some times they have lost, but they have largely recognized the results. Not all are necessarily interested in creating Sharia societies. Even Hamas highlighted its opposition to Israel and service to society, not religious issues. Political Islam is not a threat—the threat is if people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence. There is a real danger from a few terrorists and we should go after them, but the longer-term threat is that people opt out of the system. We need to not only speak out in favor of democracy and political reform, but also act on that as well.



the contents of your comment need to be more visible (teacherken - 9/24/2006 8:07:53 AM)
perhaps by doing a separate diary --  give some highlights of what you ahve, some explanation of who he is, and provide a link for the source.  I would be happy to take something like that if properly done and promote it to the front page.  Also, if you have posting rights, it also ought to be over dailykos - it is timely, and on point, about a very key issue.


I wish I knew more about him (PM - 9/24/2006 8:31:21 AM)
I'll check with my friends in the foreign intelligence community -- I suspect from his resume he is held in the highest regard

It's nice to see that Webb is maing a national name for himself.  Marianne Means, writing for the Hearst papers on the torture issue, said this:http://www.projo.com...

James Webb, Democratic Senate nominee in Virginia, as well as another former Navy secretary and Vietnam veteran, vigorously supported Warner's anti-torture position in his Sept. 17 debate with Sen. George Allen, R.-Va., who lusts for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination and remains loyal to Bush on all things Iraq and terrorism. Webb -- who has turned what was expected to be an easy political romp by Allen into a close contest -- contrasted his own military experience in Vietnam, and that of a son now stationed in Iraq, with Allen's failure to serve at any time.



The same BS argument (Eric - 9/24/2006 8:48:43 AM)
is being pushed by Bush/Allen and the Republicans to justify torture and ignore the Geneva convention:  If we don't torture them and get our answers they will attack again and again (i.e. we'll be fighting them on our shores).

Problem is, we'll get the same result as described above. 

The terrorist's strongest weapon is not a bomb or gun, it's recruitment.  If we kill one another will pop up.  If BinLaden dies (rumored recently) another leader will take his place.  Invading a country or breaking a long standing convention is only going to strengthen our enemie's ability to recruit new members.

And this report provides rock solid proof of that.  How much longer are we, as a country, going to stand for brain dead leadership in this critical war of terror?  Bush, Allen, and the Republican supporters in Congress just don't get it.  They hear the word "war" and think only of killing.  Sorry, but killing alone won't win this one. 

The first step toward a victory in the war on terror is up to all of us: replace the leaders who have clearly demonstrated they don't know how to fight this war.



Intelligence reports (libra - 9/24/2006 8:54:03 PM)
do not count for much with our Regal Moron-in-chief, apparently... From today's Carpetbagger Report:

George W. Bush appeared on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" this afternoon and made one of those stunning remarks that could — or rather, should — become a political problem for the White House.

Blitzer asked the president to respond to the nightmare that Iraq has become, but Bush wouldn't hear of it. He dismissed the ongoing crisis as "just a comma."

Update: Here's the transcript:

  BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

  BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, *it will look like just a comma* because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.

A comma!!! All those deaths, all the debt, the world in turmoil and, to him, it's "just a comma"... I hope that, when he dies and goes to hell, he'll spend an eternity with lots of exclamation points and sharp question marks up his colon...



Iraq's tragedy is but a comma of history (libra - 9/25/2006 12:18:21 AM)
Here's the link:
http://www.crooksand...
or:
http://tinyurl.com/p...

And it's avilable for either Media Player or Quick Time, too :)



HAD ENOUGH? VOTE JIM WEBB! (kevinceckowski - 9/25/2006 5:53:54 PM)
Picked up the paper, turned on Yahoo, tuned in the radio, flicked through the TV, and JIM WEBB was right over and over again. 

We did NOT have terrorists in Iraq BEFORE we Invaded.
We HAVE terrorists in Iraq BECAUSE we Invaded.  Paraphrase from Jim Webb at the Torpedo Factory event, Alexandria, Virginia Thursday night, the day before this news broke.

Jim is on the money again.
We need him in the Senate!!
HAD ENOUGH?
VOTE JIM WEBB!!