« Baraka | Main | How Low They've Sunk »
September 24, 2006
The NIE Report
There's not a whole lot to say about the leaked National Intelligence Estimate concluding the war in Iraq has heightened the risk of terror, largely because it basically says it all. The NIE represents the consensus view of 16 spy agencies "are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue." Essentially, there's no more forceful or respectable analysis the US government could generate on the topic. And it has concluded that Iraq has made terrorism in America more, not less, likely.
Said another way, Bush's reaction to 9/11 was to embark on an unrelated war that significantly increased the chances of 9/11. Were the Republican Party a more serious, rather than forthrightly ideological and partisan institution, this would radically upend their support and faith in the mission. Instead, the Bush administration sought to suppress this report, even going so far as to demand it be restructured towards providing solutions for calming the terrorist threat rather than actually explaining what we have done to intensify it. And you can see why. If this document was honestly absorbed -- it is, again, the best product our intelligence community can muster -- this would be the end of the Republican majority in 2006, and Bush's effective authority on terrorism for the remainder of his presidency. It will not be taken so seriously, and that is our loss. The magnitude of the fuck-up we've suspected and it alleges is magnificent, and it's no exaggeration to say it puts the lie to the entirety of the Bush presidency.
September 24, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Any sort of a large protest planned in DC for Oct. 5th Ezra? Its really time and the media won't ignore it if there's enough people.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Sep 24, 2006 1:09:37 PM
Were the Republican Party a more serious, rather than forthrightly ideological and partisan institution, this would radically upend their support and faith in the mission. Instead, the Bush administration sought to suppress this report
You're running together the Republican party and the Administration, which are increasingly different in their perceptions and interests. A fair chunk of the Republican Party has lost a lot of faith in the original justifications of this war, as well as in how it has been carried out. That has been evident from polls and distancing from Bush on this for some time. This report will add to that incrementally.
However, the party, and even the rest of the country, can't just walk away from the war itself. Don't expect Republicans, in particular, to focus much on how bad the war is while we're still trying to fight it. That, as the party in power, probably shouldn't be their main focus for now. For one thing, despite all efforts to support the troops while criticizing the war, which is a valid thing to do, it would still be quite a morale killer to have the government itself wallowing in why the war was stupid and has made things worse. It would make their military task even more difficult, giving red meat to their enemies and hardly making it easier to form some kind of stability. I think it would be irresponsible right now. And of course as a political matter is doesn't make sense either to focus much on the errors. They need to take notice of what went wrong, and maybe acknowledge it more than they have, but with an eye to what can be done rightly looking forward. For now.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 1:45:55 PM
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 10:45:55 AM Don't expect Republicans, in particular, to focus much on how bad the war is while we're still trying to fight it.
Why not? Oversight of the actions of the Executive branch is one of the things they are paid to do. The President chose this war and executes it. Its the job of the Congress to determine whether the funds that they have placed under his control are being used to make the country safer, or less safe.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 24, 2006 5:25:11 PM
Why not?
For the reasons I already gave. Oversight is important, I agree, but even if the Republicans were more inclined to eat their own, they wouldn't be wise to tear into the war effort in a way that would significantly undermine it, unless they had some better idea for how to proceed at this point.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 6:25:15 PM
You're running together the Republican party and the Administration, which are increasingly different in their perceptions and interests.
Don't fall for election-year rhetoric. Any so-called distancing that the Republicans are doing is merely to save their jobs.
However, the party, and even the rest of the country, can't just walk away from the war itself.
End it tomorrow and there will be parties in the streets throughout the red states. Or maybe every poll really is wrong, and all the people with loved ones over there actually want them to stay.
It would make their military task even more difficult, giving red meat to their enemies and hardly making it easier to form some kind of stability. I think it would be irresponsible right now.
This line of thinking is incredibly insensitive to our servicemembers over there. I can't believe that the GOP has been so successful selling it. We have the best-trained, best-equipped and most professional military in the history of the world. Any loss in that status that we have suffered is from the ridiculous lowering of the standards that the fool Rumsfeld has been instituting in order to have enough cannon fodder for Bush's travesty of a war.
To suggest that a little bit of negative press about the war is going to cause our soldiers to fail in their mission is absurd. Did Tokyo Rose succeed? Was her retarded propaganda effective against our grandfathers? And contrary to what the GOP would want us to believe, the country was not completely united during WWII, nor was our press, nor was our Congress.
Could we please stop insulting the men and women who have been through years of training, who have punished their bodies and their minds learning their jobs, and who are over in a difficult situation. They are (with a few exceptions, I am sure) perfectly capable of distinguishing between those who criticize the Bush administration and themselves.
Low morale comes from incompetent leadership, from having to pick up your rifle and get into your Humvee and not knowing why. From having to take and retake and retake the same bit of land, over and over again, because the leadership can't work out a decent plan.
And of course as a political matter is doesn't make sense either to focus much on the errors. They need to take notice of what went wrong, and maybe acknowledge it more than they have, but with an eye to what can be done rightly looking forward.
Huh? How can we know what can be done rightly looking forward if we don't know what was done incorrectly in the past? How can anyone run an effective campaign against a person and party while acknowledging that things are going just fine, no real mistakes are being made. People don't like negative campaigning the way no one reads the Weekly World News and no one cares about Paris Hilton's sex life. Come on.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2006 7:15:01 PM
I just read my comment again after posting it, and I'm not nearly that upset. Nor do I think that Sanpete is deliberately insulting our servicemembers.
And I am quite sure that everyone here really isn't interested in Paris Hilton's sex life.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2006 7:16:37 PM
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 3:25:15 PM
For the reasons I already gave. Oversight is important, I agree, but even if the Republicans were more inclined to eat their own, they wouldn't be wise to tear into the war effort in a way that would significantly undermine it, unless they had some better idea for how to proceed at this point.
We don't have a parliamentary system. I know they won't, because of the political disadvantages, but it is certainly true that they should. Pressing the Executive Branch to come up with a better plan when the current plan is failing is one of the things they are paid to do.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 24, 2006 7:22:20 PM
End it tomorrow and there will be parties in the streets throughout the red states.
The effects here aren't what I had in mind as preventing us from walking away. It's the certain collapse of Iraq into even greater bloodletting and chaos should we just leave. Not only would Iraq be affected, but the entire region would become more volatile. We can't just leave now.
To suggest that a little bit of negative press about the war is going to cause our soldiers to fail in their mission is absurd. Did Tokyo Rose succeed?
It's not a matter of a little press, which is already the situation, and it's not a matter of a Tokyo Rose. I'm talking about the government of the United States undertaking publicly to show that the war it's currently fighting was a big mistake and has made things worse, while the troops are still there, still trying. That would obviously have a very poor effect on morale. Nothing like that happened during WWII. This needs to be handled with some restraint. I agree about whose fault it is, but that doesn't change the need to consider both morale and the effects on the current situation in Iraq.
Huh? How can we know what can be done rightly looking forward if we don't know what was done incorrectly in the past? How can anyone run an effective campaign against a person and party while acknowledging that things are going just fine, no real mistakes are being made.
You quoted me on this, but your response implies that I said something very different than what I did.
And I am quite sure that everyone here really isn't interested in Paris Hilton's sex life.
Who's Paris Hilton?
Bruce, Congress should definitely pressure the administration to come up with a better plan, if there is one possible at this point, but they still need to be careful about how they do this, about its effects on the current efforts. Now isn't the time for the Congress as a body to be loudly savaging the whole point of the war effort.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 8:05:47 PM
Who's Paris Hilton?
Wha? How old are you, Sanpete? Do you not go to a supermarket ever?
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 24, 2006 8:21:17 PM
Oh, and as an aside to Sanpete, exactly how does one gently mention that the party in complete control of the government has created a no-win situation from which we should extricate ourselves without actually saying that?
And does Sanpete really think that the guys in Iraq don't know that they're in a complete clusterfuck where they don't see any victory conditions?
Last, this sounds like one of the Liebermanesque / Tony Snow locutions about the "proper way" to criticize the colonial misadventure in Iraq, lest one demoralize the troops. Of course, once one goes down that path, there IS no way to properly criticize that misadventure, because any questioning of the mission is undermining the troops, and hey presto! Dolchstosslegende!
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 24, 2006 8:24:47 PM
Paperwight, many, probably a large majority of the troops in Iraq believe they're doing good there, and that they will accomplish their mission of establishing a stable democracy, which will in turn be a defeat for terrorism. In a way, they actually are doing good there, to the extent that they're helping to keep the place from totally collapsing. And there is still a small chance that some kind of stable government will be established. (Do you believe in prayer?) And, compared to the alternatives available now, a stable government would be a defeat for terrorism (even if it's worse than where we were four years ago in that regard).
Congress needs to focus on what can be done now in Iraq. To do that properly, they obviously need to take note of what hasn't worked, but the focus still needs to be prospective while the troops are there in danger. The big problem for Congress is that it's far from obvious what should be done now. Whether you opposed the invasion or not, we're there, and things can get far worse if we just leave. I don't pretend to know what the best course is, but it isn't just announcing that it was a big mistake.
There is an important difference between what Congress should say as a body and what individual Americans and congressmen should say. I've strongly criticized the invasion and the way it was carried out, and I respect the members of Congress who have done the same (especially those who did so when it really mattered, before the invasion), but I'd hesitate to try to get the government as a body to wipe our troops' noses in that kind of criticism by trumpeting reports about it. Not everything is black and white. We can and must balance clear-eyed criticism with concern for its effects on the current fighting. Congress needs to tread carefully here in whatever it does.
What do you think Congress should do?
(Just between you and me, I do know who Paris Hilton is.)
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 9:07:37 PM
You quoted me on this, but your response implies that I said something very different than what I did.
Yes, it does. Sorry about that. Certainly for the Republicans what you say is quite correct, politically.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2006 9:59:31 PM
The Judgements section of the NIE report does not say the United States is at greater risk. It also does not prescribe we withdraw from Iraq or that invading it was a mistake. In fact nearly all the prescriptions in the report support what we are doing there, trying to spread democratic values, giving folks in the Middle East political means for dealing with their needs. It also states flatly that losing in Iraq would further embolden our enemy and that defeating them there would decrease the movement. As for inspiring recruiting efforts, it seems that Danish cartoons, the Pope, Africa and many other hot spots are also providing inspiration. These people must be defeated and their more moderate brothers given a voice.
Posted by: Kim | Sep 27, 2006 4:49:32 PM
You're spinning this a bit too optimistically.
The Judgements section of the NIE report does not say the United States is at greater risk.
It doesn't have to. It's implied by the fact that invading Iraq has increased the number and power of anti-US terrorists there (and probably elsewhere) that we're worse off in that regard than we would have been had we not invaded.
In fact nearly all the prescriptions in the report support what we are doing there, trying to spread democratic values, giving folks in the Middle East political means for dealing with their needs.
Of course. The question is whether invading Iraq was the best or even a likely way of doing that.
It also states flatly that losing in Iraq would further embolden our enemy and that defeating them there would decrease the movement.
The first half of that sentence gives a very good reason we shouldn't have invaded, given the great risk known in advance that we wouldn't be able to control the factions there.
The second part is only true relative to the strength of the movement today, not relative to its strength before we invaded. The NIE does find that movement has greatly increased its presence and strength in Iraq.
As for inspiring recruiting efforts, it seems that Danish cartoons, the Pope, Africa and many other hot spots are also providing inspiration.
Yes, but how would this justify our making it worse?
I think we're stuck in Iraq for now, but let's not confuse that with having had a good reason to be there in the first place. If Iraq is turned into a stable democracy, I'll be happy, and will possibly cut Bush some slack on this, for at least having accomplished that goal, if not having been justified in pursuing it by an illegal invasion. Right now it still looks unlikely that Iraq will be able to pull it out. "No nation building" Bush picked one of the worst possible places to contradict himself.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 27, 2006 5:59:11 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
