« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The NIE and Iraq: What's Missing from this Picture?
Tons of intelligence reports exist about the windfall that the Iraq war has given to global Salafist jihad. The National Intelligence Council in 2005, for instance, called Iraq the new "breeding ground" for "professionalized" terror. An April 2006 NIE, which remains classified, plainly said the war "has made the overall terrorism problem worse," as one intelligence official told the New York Times. It's hard to see how this could be controversial: there would be no al-Qaeda in Iraq -- which the National Intelligence Estimate today says "energize(s) the broader Sunni extremist community" -- had there been no invasion.
Yet the declassified key judgments of the NIE don't address Iraq -- except for a few bizarrely constructed sentences. What gives with the NIE's weaselly wording?
Here's the sum total of what today's NIE gives on Iraq's relationship to al-Qaeda:
(W)e 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 attack.
That's some artful phrasing. What does it mean to "leverage the contacts and capabilities" of AQI for attacking the U.S. at home? Presumably, that members of AQI would become recruits for infiltration into the United States. Yet there's not much in the way of evidence that AQI is sending operatives out of Iraq: the only known AQI field trip to date has been into Jordan for attacks, and that was under the helm of the since-killed Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had his own vendettas.
That's not to say it couldn't happen. But when the NIE has to strain to find ways to tie AQI to possible domestic attacks, it's probably a sign that AQI is otherwise preoccupied. The war itself is contributing a base of knowledge to the annals of jihad, spreading from Iraq and outwards, largely through the internet. (There's an online magazine called, no kidding, Technical Mujahid.) That surely contributes to the domestic threat. What's more, the line that AQI is "energizi(ing) the broader Sunni extremist community" isn't really right, according to what we can tell from jihadist message boards. It's the fact of the U.S. presence in Iraq that does that -- AQI is unpopular among Iraqis, and the lionized jihadist in online circles is the Iraqi Sunni fighter who battles the U.S. as opposed to blowing up innocent civilians and Shiite mosques.
Indeed, the focus of the NIE is somewhat questionable. Over the last several years, jihadism has grown increasingly regional: not just with AQI, but with the new jihadist amalgamation in North Africa called al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and (on the less-competent side) the rise of European Muslim jihadists like the ones who attacked in London and Glasgow recently. And there the Iraq war has had a catalytic effect, either on Europeans like 7/7 mastermind Mohammed Sidique Khan, who cited the Iraq war as a pretext for his attacks, or in terms of testing out new jihadist technology like IEDs for application in other theaters.
That's a second-order threat from the perspective of homeland security, but a first-order threat in terms of understanding what al-Qaeda is in 2007 and defeating it. Between the lines here, the NIE appears to diminish the salience of President Bush's argument that AQI will follow U.S. troops home, as opposed to contributing internet-distributed expertise for the next wave of al-Qaeda (or al-Qaeda-inspired) domestic attacks. If the NIE had focused on that broader contribution to terrorism emerging from the war -- as opposed to AQI's distinct role in it -- a clearer picture of al-Qaeda might emerge.
Comments (33)
JEP wrote on July 17, 2007 1:28 PM:These guys are desperate.
Their spin machine has really cleansed the truth from so many documents, we will never b3e able to sort it all out.
When "intelligence" is spun to be used for "propaganda," you get exactly this kind of lawless continuum; a self-fulfilling and self perpetuating entity that must revise history even as it occurs, or they will lose all power..
Anna S. wrote on July 17, 2007 1:37 PM:Let's be fair here: a charitable reading of "leverage the contacts and capabilities" doesn't necessarily indicate that AQ would be using AQI recruits for infiltration. It means just what it says: that the larger al-Qaeda networks are using Iraqi contacts to help their cause. Sending people would be 'leveraging personnel'. Using contacts and capabilities means maybe AQI puts them in touch with more people who know bombmakers, who contribute funds, who can hide fugitives, etc. You're right that ths language is very vague, but it's not necessarily disingenuous.
JEP wrote on July 17, 2007 1:44 PM:"but it's not necessarily disingenuous."
Does "not necessarily" mean you passivbely aknowledge that it may very well BE disingenuous?
At this stage of the game, anyone who gives this rogue administration the benefit of any doubt, is either a hopeless ideologue, an ignorant rednack or a subtle provocatuer. Your command of the language suggests to me it is the first and the last options.
Lets REALLY be fair here...who among us actually believes this anemic assessment and it's doublespeak framing is intended to tell the truth?
How many think it is just another patently disingenuous obfuscation?
Now, who's probably right?
tamiasmin wrote on July 17, 2007 1:54 PM:It still sounds creepy to me when officials call our country "the Homeland." And capitalized yet. Very Germanic.
lmjp1 wrote on July 17, 2007 1:56 PM:Parallel Universe
greggp wrote on July 17, 2007 1:57 PM:Last week in a speech Mr Bush actually got something right, albeit without being cognitive of the reasons his words made so much sense. What was this earth shattering statement? In the speech he warned that the people who were planting bombs against U.S. soldiers in Iraq were the same people who carried out the attacks on the United States on September 11 2001.For the first time since he was elected president, I've found something he said that I agree with 100%.
. The majority of the foreign "terrorists" captured in Iraq are Saudis and all but three of the 911 attackers were Saudi nationals and practitioners of Wahabism. So if you live in a parallel universe it makes perfectly good nonsense to have attacked a secular Islamic nation (Iraq) instead of facing the frightening reality that the attacks were carried out by radicals citizens of one of your staunchest allies.
Too bad this administration is so indebted to big oil that it can't go after the real source of terrorists.
BREAKING: Al Qa'ida of Iraq has announced that it will be making a tender offer of 74.5 virgins per soul to all members of Al Qu'ida in Pakistan. An investor group within AQI headed by "Chainsaw" Moqtada Al Dunlap, has announced a set of proposed sweeping changes and cost-cutting measures, including the elimination of all portable dialysis services to top management. No word is expected from Al Qa'ida in Pakistan, until another major Constituional violation by the Bush Administration comes to light.
Anna S. wrote on July 17, 2007 2:01 PM:I'm not going to defend my liberal credentials here, and my comment was intended to point out that Spencer's analysis didn't hit on the explanation that seemed most likely to me.
You're quiet correct to note that the 'not necessarily' leaves open the possibility that the report *is* being disingenuous (the vagueness of the report's language is suggestive of that fact, I think). Spencer's point, though, was that since there's not much evidence that AQI is looking outside Iraq, the NIE is reaching to find ways to tie them to potential domestic terror at all. I was simply pointing out that maybe the report wasn't making the shaky connection between non-existant AQI foreign operatives and US terror, but instead between AQI assets and al-Qaeda's use of those assets to help them attack the US. If you read the report as I did, the NIE is reaching in another way: they've resorted to listing indirect support of terrorism as a way to rationalize our troop's remaining in Iraq. The report is also curiously worded in the future tense: AQ "will probably seek to leverage". Reading between the lines, this suggests that now (and in the past months) there hasn't been much of this sort of contact at all. The NIE is talking about things that will happen in the future, not about clear and present dangers.
Yes, the report is a lot of spin (I personally think the future "probably" is the biggest spin of all). But it doesn't necessarily have to be read in a way that's uncharitable to the writers for the spin to come through loud and clear.
Anna S. wrote on July 17, 2007 2:03 PM:re: JEP @ 1:44
I'm not going to defend my liberal credentials here, and my comment was intended to point out that Spencer's analysis didn't hit on the explanation that seemed most likely to me.
You're quiet correct to note that the 'not necessarily' leaves open the possibility that the report *is* being disingenuous (the vagueness of the report's language is suggestive of that fact, I think). Spencer's point, though, was that since there's not much evidence that AQI is looking outside Iraq, the NIE is reaching to find ways to tie them to potential domestic terror at all. I was simply pointing out that maybe the report wasn't making the shaky connection between non-existant AQI foreign operatives and US terror, but instead between AQI assets and al-Qaeda's use of those assets to help them attack the US. If you read the report as I did, the NIE is reaching in another way: they've resorted to listing indirect support of terrorism as a way to rationalize our troop's remaining in Iraq. The report is also curiously worded in the future tense: AQ "will probably seek to leverage". Reading between the lines, this suggests that now (and in the past months) there hasn't been much of this sort of contact at all. The NIE is talking about things that will happen in the future, not about clear and present dangers.
Yes, the report is a lot of spin (I personally think the future "probably" is the biggest spin of all). But it doesn't necessarily have to be read in a way that's uncharitable to the writers for the spin to come through loud and clear.
parrot wrote on July 17, 2007 2:07 PM:Or maybe it's just vague to avoid having to draw the conclusion that invading Iraq has made the United States "homeland" less safe? Or...???
drational wrote on July 17, 2007 2:16 PM:regardless of whether the AQI para was written in vagueness for propaganda purposes, that a 7 page report on threats to homeland security contains only 67 words about Iraq is telling. War justification was "to make America safer". 67 words are offered to justify the death of thousands of coalition troops, expenditure of billions of dollars, and wasted diplomatic capital. If Iraq ever had anything to do with improving homeland security, the omissions in this NIE report should speak to what a catastrophic failure the effort has been.
rs wrote on July 17, 2007 2:21 PM:tamiasmin,
"It still sounds creepy to me when officials call our country "the Homeland." And capitalized yet. Very Germanic."
Thanks for mentioning that - Very right-wingish... I hope the term goes bye-bye when Bush, Chaney, and Rove depart the scene.
anon wrote on July 17, 2007 2:27 PM:...the sum total of what today's NIE gives on Iraq's relationship...
What's really neat about that is that CNN and Co. all have big stories with headlines like "AQ to Use Iraq to Strike US". In fact, just based on a glance this morning at the google headlines about the declassified NIE, I assumed the whole thing was about about Iraq and AQ. I guess someone wanted to get a leg up. Nice.
Does the NIE say anything about danger from people in secure and undisclosed locations? How about rogue presidents? If we kick them out of office are they going to follow us home? Is there some way we can make sure they end up in, say, Paraguay and and not, say, the AEI campus?
JayBat wrote on July 17, 2007 2:29 PM:WTF is *this* BS:
"...desire to attack the Homeland."
Capitalized "Homeland"??? Good grief, these people really *are* Nazi wannabes. Our nation has a name. It's The United States of America. Hey, they can even abbreviate it to "USA" if it's too much work to type out.
Code word "crime", yeah ain't that the truth.
mlaw230 wrote on July 17, 2007 2:48 PM:From a legal point of view, the Administration has to conflate Al Queda in Iraq and both Iran and Al Queda proper. The AUMF could conceivably run to Al Queda wherever found, Iraq is done, therefore they MUST pretend that AQ Iraq and AQ Afghanistan are the same thing. From that standpoint an attack on Iran as complicit with the terrorist organization he was deputized to eliminate becomes much, much easier.
T2 wrote on July 17, 2007 3:05 PM:"a clearer picture of al-Qaeda might emerge." And what, I ask, makes you think the Bush Admin wants a "clearer" picture to emerge?
JEP wrote on July 17, 2007 3:14 PM:Anna;
no offense meant, I'm just way past reading them from "the good side" in any perspective.
When they obfuscate like this, I don't consider it lazy wordmanship, I immediately suspect they put a LOT of intellectual energy into their wording, both to avoid the truth and to promote the standard delusion they have been puching all along.
So if I seem impatient with folks who offer any sort of wriggle room or provide options to consider that only defer away from the real meat of the issue, I get a bit reactionary. I guess we disagree about this point in particular; " But it doesn't necessarily have to be read in a way that's uncharitable to the writers..."
If the writers are deliberately avoiding the truth with their word games, then, yes, IT DOES HAVE TO BE READ IN A WAY THAT'S UNCHARITABLE TO THE WRITERS!!!
You may not be able to blame the messengers in most cases, but as for the speechwriters and paper writers, their word-framing manipulationis at the very heart of the subterfuge we now suffer through.
DrBB wrote on July 17, 2007 3:33 PM:"...the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland."
What's up with this capitalized "Homeland" crap? Can't we please just say "the U.S.," as in "attack the U.S.," the way we used to back when we had a Constitution 'n' stuff? I'd like to at least pretend we don't live in a fascist country for a bit longer.
StephenH wrote on July 17, 2007 3:50 PM:What impresses me is how the administration is basically fighting a religious war, but they don't want to call it that. Anyone who opposes the American attack and occupation of Iraq is branded a terrorist who wants to attack the Homeland. But the only thing they really all have in common is their religion. By calling anyone who opposes American foreign policy a terrorist, we are the ones making Bin Laden the spiritual leader over a movement that would otherwise be much more fractured and diverse in terms of ethnicity, sect, nationality, and overall goals. Bush has always been the best that Bin Laden ever could have hoped for.
Anonymous wrote on July 17, 2007 4:12 PM:How come we never hear any stories about "Technical Mujahid" getting hit with the virus' we have to have our computers scanned for constantly.
I mean if you can find it, why the hell isn't the CIA doing some billion dollar hacking and attacking these people with viruses to shut down their cites?????
Steve5117 wrote on July 17, 2007 4:36 PM:anon@4:12
You mean shut down their "sites", to shut their "cites" would require a muzzle for Karl.
TheraP wrote on July 17, 2007 5:01 PM:StephenH:
Your comment just gave me an idea. A scary idea.
Makes you wonder if calling the US a "Homeland" fits with "fighting a religious war."
Let's just turn that around. What if the "religious war" is really occurring here - and this "Homeland" idea is part of the cult, part of the fascist religion. And of course that makes many of us, maybe most of us, potentially in the category where we would be branded a "terrorist" - simply for opposing, not only the attack and occupation of Iraq, but the erosion of liberties, habeas corpus, you name it - for wanting to keep our Constitution and throw away the term "Homeland."
Maybe this is all too obvious. But you clinched it for me.
And yes, I agree with some above who indicate an almost knee-jerk reaction to anything that comes out of the mouths of administration officials or in their written reports - a knee-jerk suspicion and sense that words are being used for nefarious purposes and dark plots are afoot.
Oh, we are living in dark times here.
Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 5:09 PM:Did you guys all miss where the DEMS voted to create the Department of HOMELAND Security? I thought I was the only one not in the reality-based universe?
Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 5:30 PM:The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established DHS on November 25, 2002 -- which was formally activated on January 24, 2003 -- on March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the now defunct United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and assumed its duties. With over 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest cabinet department in the U.S. federal government after the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs. The following DEMOCRATS voted for the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135:
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards (does he regret this vote too?)
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wyden
Allen
DrBB wrote on July 17, 2007 6:06 PM:Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clement
Condit
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Ford
Frost
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Langevin
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Millender-McDonald
Moore
Ortiz
Pascrell
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sanchez
Sandlin
Schiff
Shows
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Turner
Udall (CO)
Wexler
Wu
Big fan of capitalized "H" Homeland, huh Jake? I thought it was weird when they started using it for the proposed Dept of Homeland Security and I still think it's weird. But then I don't seem to score very high on those Bob Altemeyer authoritarianism tests either. Bet you do just fine, though.
Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 6:19 PM:I thought it was a little strange, given we won the Cold War -- doesn't bother me one way or another -- I would have thought socialists like you loved it?
jimbo92107 wrote on July 17, 2007 7:04 PM:Use of the neocon codeword "Homeland" is a signal that loyal Bushies have completely infiltrated the agencies that gather and evaluate foreign intelligence.
This deliberate corruption of America's intelligence community will only get worse until the BushCo cancer is completely removed.
lmjp1 wrote on July 17, 2007 7:11 PM:The cold war never ended, that was just a myth created by the republican spin machine to make another dim president look like he was capable of creating a lasting legacy. The same president that gave us Iran Contra. In case you have forgotten them, the contras were the fine folk who killed countless civilians and who also ran a cocaine smuggling operation with the CIA. Too bad Oliver North shredded the documents, the true scope of the drug operation will never be known.
Rich wrote on July 17, 2007 8:45 PM:Last time I checked China was still run by communists. Hey Jake, remember them? They are the ones that have bought up hundreds of billions in treasury bonds and are running a quarter trillion dollar annual trade surplus with the U.S. I am sure you know the country I'm talking about, it's the same one that got us addicted to cheap stuff. They are enjoying watching Bush bankrupt the country with countless hundreds of billions in debt, wear down the military and destroying America's image throughout the world. Let's not forget the damage done to the democratic process and justice system. It's not like you can claim the moral high ground anymore.
I love the irony, George Bush is going to lose another war. He already lost the Iraq war, he cut and ran rather than finish the job in Afghanistan
and now it looks like he is going to lose the cold war too.
The Chinese can save their money, they don't have to worry about the Unites States as being an imminent threat, since the military is stretched to the breaking point.
Only someone without the courage to think for themselves could continue to support a president so out of touch with the majority of the American people.
Homeland. Goes hand in glove with "Enhanced Interrogation". Its like they dont even do research.
Uncle_Meat wrote on July 17, 2007 10:02 PM:This where Jake works:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/17/9137/01266
Just out of curiosity Jake, how much are they paying you?!?
JEP wrote on July 17, 2007 10:49 PM:"The report is also curiously worded in the future tense: AQ "will probably seek to leverage". Reading between the lines, this suggests that now (and in the past months) there hasn't been much of this sort of contact at all. The NIE is talking about things that will happen in the future, not about clear and present dangers."
Anna, I was a bit slow on the uptake with this one, but I see your perspective, and I agree, it doesn't read like ana ssessment, more like a suggestion. It could almost sound as if they are formulating, what should come, rather than predicting, which was what they were tasked with.
And the Bush admin will make it really easy for AQ to co-opt AQI, at least publicly, regardless of the reality of it all.
This "finally" links Iraq to Al Queda, and regardless of the loss of life and billions of dollars it took to create that link, they will talk as if it is the continuation of one of their primary lies that took us into war in the first place.
The Oracle wrote on July 18, 2007 12:04 AM:It's obvious that the paragraph cited above, as worded and released today, was never part of the original, first-draft of the NIE report. Nor was it in any of the imtermediate drafts. It only appears as spun by neo-cons in today's declassified version of the NIE report.
What? Prove it? Well, the White House can easily settle this by declassifying the original, first-draft NIE report, and then we can compare all these initial intelligence agency-generated paragraphs with the paragraphs, especially any with the word "Homeland" in them, against those that some White House hacks substituted in place of the original, un-corrupted, un-spun paragraphs that appeared in the original NIE report.
The wording of this spun paragraph released today indicates a Republican lawyer wrote it. Maybe David Addington? Or some other White House hack attorney? Or maybe even Dick Cheney had a hand in it? He reportedly likes to doodle, in the margins, beside newspaper articles, per the Libby trial.
As far as "Homeland" security, I still don't understand why we even have a "Homeland" Security Department. I really, really believe the Republican talking point that "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." Logically, this means that as long as we're fighting them over there, then we have nothing to worry about over here, since the Islamic jihadists will be so distracted and so busy fighting us over there that they'll never be interested in, or succeed in, attacking us ever again domestically.
I mean, if we bring our troops home, then the jihadists will follow our troops home. However, as long as our troops stay over there, then the jihadists will have no one they can follow home to our shores. Thus, and based on Republican reasoning, any of our soldiers deployed overseas should stay over there permanently. No more troop rotations. Anyone voluntarily enlisting in today's military, therefore, should expect permanent overseas deployment...but only to protect the "Homeland."
So, no "Homeland" Security Department is even necessary...as long as we're fighting them over there. And all good Republicans should be behind this dismantling of DHS. Besides, it's just a waste of taxpayer money. I mean, why should be spend any money on protecting the "Homeland," since our "Homeland" cannot be in any danger while our troops are fighting them over there. Duh!
Gag. Cough. Spittle.
johnnydoughey wrote on July 18, 2007 12:10 AM:The Saudis attacked NYC! What do we do?
ShorelineCT wrote on July 18, 2007 8:47 AM:We attack Iraq, of course....
Credit Steve Inskeep who has to ask Townsend 3 times whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded. She dogdes the Q, then finally tells Steve - look at X report, I wasn't there for the press - or something to that effect.
Morning Edition, July 18, 2007 ยท The release of the National Intelligence Estimate reconfirmed al-Qaeda's ongoing threat to the United States, and that it has found a strong base in Iraq. Al-Qaeda has been inspiring likeminded affiliates around the world, according to Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Townsend spoke with Steve Inskeep.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12056280&sc=emaf