Flashing back to the massive anti-war protest marches I participated in (one in Madrid and one in New York), I recall thinking at the time that some of the arguments I heard against the invasion struck me as perhaps a bit hyperbolic. More and more, however, it turns out that many of the scariest outcomes some had predicted this misadventure would bring are being surpassed by reality. One was just confirmed yesterday. A report (pdf file) released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank, argues that Iraq is now a breeding ground for new terrorists:
Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
Low’s comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq’s new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.
President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council’s report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.
"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."
Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.
Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."
Not merely harboring terrorists, Iraq is now incubating them. How is this anything other than a catastrophic failure?
"The al-Qa’ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.
Another prediction the anti-war speakers warned us would happen is a civil war that could greatly destabilize the entire region. Pundits are already murmuring that there seems to be no way to prevent that (with Friedman saying it’s already underway). Anyone looking to synthesize all these events into a single theory of intention begins to see a desire to bring about Armageddon as a logical theory. Short of that we’re left comforting ourselves with the explanation that the war is simply being waged incompetently.
Edward,
Well, ofcourse, as far as jihadists are concerned – Iraq is target rich. Hence, it will attract them. Why the surprise?
Stan,
Why the surprise?
Because the President had argued that the reason for invading was to stop Iraq from becoming a terrorist harbor. This is the opposite outcome of why we supposedly invaded.
Edward,
Because the President had argued that the reason for invading was to stop Iraq from becoming a terrorist harbor.
Your point? Are we cutting and running?
It’s always prudent to have a worse case scenario presented. A quick check reminds us that this group performed the same service last September. One wonders if, with the dynamics of the action in Iraq, that these reports at this stage aren’t outdated before they can be published. With reports that more and more Iraqis are aiding local officials with reports of who the troublemakers are and where attacks might occur must post date whatever feedback this report might have been based on. Given the level of ‘intelligence’ until recently, the whole report could be suspect. And it appears less and less that the minority Sunni’s can generate enough support within the country to initiate any form of ‘civil war’. But debate is good and detraction is necessary. We’re just a few short weeks away from the most important report card.
Your point?
To put it bluntly: Bush screwed it up.
I admire Blogbudsman’s take on it, actually. In fact, I have worked hard since the fall of Baghdad to try and maintain that same sense of optimism because since we broke it, we own it, and I want to be a responsible owner. But as each of the dire warnings come true like this, it gets more and more difficult to maintain that faith. I mean there’s still, what?, 15 days for us to round up all the terrorists and make Iraq safe for elections so that it can become “a source of hope for all the Middle East.” Does that really still seem likely?
Meanwhile, Rumsfeld gets praise; Bremer, Tenet, and Franks get medals; 70-year-old reservists get recalled; and we get saddled with a $200 billion price tag.
It’s very hard, having considered the likelihood that what’s now happening was probably impossible to avoid, having marched with millions of people worldwide to try and stop the war, having written my Senators, and written impassioned comments across the blogosphere…it’s very hard to not want to march up to those responsible and shake them silly.
“Are we cutting and running?”
We’ll be withdrawing troops before year-end, I’d wager.
Edward,
You don’t find it interesting that the guy who blew himself up in the mess hall was a Saudi? What? They couldn’t find an Iraqi to do something as big as this?
If you’re imply what I think you’re implying Stan, that the Iraqis may be OK because THEY actually want peace and Democracy, I’ll admit that does provide a glimmer of hope. But I’ve been mulling over the concept lately that national identity means very little in that highly tribal part of the world, and while you may one day see Democracy spread throughout the Middle East it will more likely than not be for many tiny states with one central tribe than anything as complex as Iraq.
It will be very interesting to actually read the report, rather than simply rely on the WaPo’s reporting of it.
It will be very interesting to actually read the report, rather than simply rely on the WaPo’s reporting of it.
The link above points to the actual report.
I did notice while skimming the actual report that one statement in the press is presented as fact when the report actually presents it as speculation, but the rest of what was reported seemed to be accurate.
Good summary here.
Hmm… At least in the part of the country I was in at the time, most of the protesters weren’t thoughtful people making reasonable arguments about the war’s aftermath. Rather, they were loud and annoying communists (and yes, that last term is an umbrella for Greens, Marxist-Leninists, “black block anarchists,” etc. etc.)
Andrew: We had a similar phenomenon here in Madison (which may be “there” for all I know): most of the big protests got infiltrated and then taken over by the hardcore Communists, anti-capitalists, Wobblies and the like. [Sufficient, in fact, that me and a lot of my friends refused to go out on the streets because it meant they’d be lending these morons credence.] This didn’t mean that the protests weren’t numerically dominated by people who weren’t reasonable; it just meant that no-one heard them unless they were listening to alternative news sources (see “MSM, lazy-ass bastards”).
Oh, and btw: the Greens are not, IME, in even approximately the same category as Marxist-Leninists or the anarchists for the simple reason that they haven’t yet given up on the system. YMMV, I suppose, but it would have to vary a lot.
Look, the unfortunate truth for Bush-backers is that it is/will turn out that centrist Dems (and what used to be moderate Republicans) were pretty much right about everything (inc., but not limited to Iraq). Republicans should rationalize that fact however they want, but they need to internalize it to fix whatever idiotic model of the world they’re using to make decisions. It won’t hurt them with the electorate (if the last two national elections have shown anything, it’s that we’re not a very results oriented country) but it will make a large difference in outcomes for the country down the road.
There’s little shame in being wrong; gawd knows we (Dems) have been in the past. The shame is in not correcting it out of ego (which Dems have also done in the past).
Speaking as someone who opposed the war from the get-go: I never in my wildest dreams imagined it would be run as incompetently as it has been. I thought it would be a misguided policy with very bad unintended consequences which would, however, be carried out with some modicum of skill, and which would at least have the good result of consigning Saddam Hussein to the dustbin of history. Right on Saddam, but unbelievably wrong on the skill. I truly cannot imagine how we managed to make the mistakes we did.
Sometimes I’ve heard people say: well, but in war people make mistakes. That is of course true, and if the mistakes in question had been the sort one would expect, I wouldn’t be criticizing e.g. Rumsfeld for them. But not having planned for the aftermath of the fall of Saddam is not one of those normal mistakes. Nor is having sent in too few troops to do basic things like secure large weapons depots that might be used by people who wanted to blow us up, let alone securing order, which would, as best I can tell, have made a huge difference in the Iraqi people’s attitude to us. I never imagined we’d make mistakes of that kind.
And of course Iraq has turned into a training ground for terrorists. For all the many, and completely justified, criticisms one could make of Saddam, you couldn’t say that he didn’t maintain sufficient control over his country. So it could not have served as a base for terrorists without his say-so, and while he did let Abu Nidal retire to Baghdad, he does not seem to have been dumb enough to let them train anywhere. (And don’t bring up Ansar, which was based outside the region he controlled.) We have turned Iraq into a failed state which terrorists can use as a base, and have then provided them with our soldiers to train on. How this is a good thing, I cannot imagine.
And Stan: the problem is not that they have shown up in Iraq; the problem is that they are getting much better at the loathsome things they do. They are practicing, and acquiring skills, and no doubt also doing the terrorist equivalent of networking. If we had been focussed on the war on terror all along, I cannot imagine how putting them in a position to do this could possibly have seemed like a good idea.
Marches attract all kinds of people…for every “professional” marcher there’s usually enough grandmothers, veterans, business owners, and otherwise noncommunists to drown them out with real messages of protest, rather than calls for a Red revolution. It’s democracy at its messiest and most immediate, which is why I love them, but, sigh, yes, the anarchist/communist types do try ones’ patience.
Edward,
But I’ve been mulling over the concept lately that national identity means very little in that highly tribal part of the world
Recall this.
hilzoy,
you [Saddam] couldn’t say that he didn’t maintain sufficient control over his country.
We could very well maintain the same control if we used his methods. Bad comparison.
That supports my belief Stan that tribalism will heavily handicap efforts to spark democracies, no? Or have I misunderstood?
We could very well maintain the same control if we used his methods. Bad comparison.
I don’t think it’s a comparison. I think it’s a remark that illuminates the complexities of the world, especially when viewed through the lens of realpolitik.
Stan: the point of that remark was not to say: he was competent (as far as enforcing order is concerned), we are not. I am quite confident that if we set our minds to it, there are all sorts of things we could achieve. But if one were considering going to war in Iraq, and if one were focussed on the war on terror, I think one would have to ask oneself: given that terrorists are not now training in the parts of Iraq that Saddam Hussein controls, are we prepared to do what’s necessary to keep Iraq from becoming the terrorist training ground that it now (i.e., then) is not? If so, let’s use a lot more troops, for starters. If not, this ought to have been one of the costs that figured into one’s considerations. And I don’t see that it was.
Edward,
I guess I’ve misunderstood what you have been getting at.
I think that due to the actions of foreign suicide bombers/terrorists (and support for them in the Arab media), the Iraqis will grow pretty cold towards Saudis, etc. Which will play into our hands…
Stan: it will only play into our hands if they don’t hate us more. Abu Ghraib did not help us here.
We could very well maintain the same control if we used his methods. Bad comparison.
And to light the strawman on fire: if using his methods is the only way to maintain control, then what have we done?
I think that due to the actions of foreign suicide bombers/terrorists (and support for them in the Arab media), the Iraqis will grow pretty cold towards Saudis, etc. Which will play into our hands…
As very few of the terrorist bombers seem to be foreigners, I’d have to wonder about that conclusion.
The link above points to the actual report.
Sorry, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that you hadn’t read the report in forming your opinions, but rather that I hadn’t read the report yet and felt uncomfortable offering an opinion based upon the WaPo’s reporting.
(I must be in extra-sensitive mode, but, so we’re clear: since you’re not reporting but offering an opinion, the foregoing is no slam on your accuracy or judgment. Only a note that we sometimes reach a different conclusion from the same facts.)
hilzoy,
he was competent (as far as enforcing order is concerned), we are not.
Again. Bad comparison. It’s like comparing a checkers player with a chess player. They are both game players, but they are not playing the same game. Hence, different rules (or no rules, in Saddam’s case). He was competent at being a totalitarian dictator – I’ll give you that.
anarch,
I think it’s a remark that illuminates the complexities of the world, especially when viewed through the lens of realpolitik.
Well, those “complexities” and how they are viewed in the West are rather interesting. On one hand, we have to be sensitive to the culture, etc. On the other hand, we are dealing with them as if they are products of our culture… How do you reconcile that?
Recall the news few days ago, where, supposedly, we are goin to death squads operating in Iraq. There was an uproar, but on the other hand – you can’t fight unconvential forces with a conventional military (effectively, anyway).
jerry,
And to light the strawman on fire: if using his methods is the only way to maintain control, then what have we done?
Come again?
double,
As very few of the terrorist bombers seem to be foreigners,
I haven’t seen a study on that.
Stan,
my comment was more a long-term projection of what it will take to make lasting democracies blossom in the Middle East. Looking to Europe and the way it took breaking former soviet sattelites into tiny countries to stop constant blooshed, I suspect Iraq will need to become three separate countries eventually. And then, hopefully, democracy will work.
Just in reply to the title “Iraq Now considered Terrorist Breeding Ground”, my immediate response is :
“Well, duh.”
Followed by
“I told ya so.”
And biting my lip on any remarks about people voting for Bush because he’s tough on terror.
With a final thought on how it really did suck to be Cassandra during the Trojan War.
double,
“As very few of the terrorist bombers seem to be foreigners,”
I haven’t seen a study on that.
Of the insurgents/terrorists captured in Fallujah, 6% were non-Iraqi, and Fallujah has a high number of non-Iraqi inhabitants anyway.
I hadn’t read the report yet and felt uncomfortable offering an opinion based upon the WaPo’s reporting.
Von,
Yup…totally get that…I’ve learned to at least try to track down the actual report and read through it…the MSM not being as trustworthy as we’d like them to be.
Stan: you write:
“hilzoy,
he was competent (as far as enforcing order is concerned), we are not.
Again. Bad comparison. It’s like comparing a checkers player with a chess player. They are both game players, but they are not playing the same game. Hence, different rules (or no rules, in Saddam’s case). He was competent at being a totalitarian dictator – I’ll give you that.”
What I actually wrote, in context:
“Stan: the point of that remark was not to say: he was competent (as far as enforcing order is concerned), we are not. I am quite confident that if we set our minds to it, there are all sorts of things we could achieve.”
I would have thought that the telltale word “not” might have signalled that I was not making the comparison you think I was, or arguing for the point you’ve put in my mouth. (Spits.)
Stan – the long-winded version of what I meant was that, given the religious, ethnic and tribal tensions within Iraq, one could make an good argument that the easiest way to maintain both the nation’s boudaries and its civil order under a secular government is with a large military force supporting a strong-armed regime.
What if that turns out to be the only practical solution?
Is that situation better or worse than chaos, civil war, or fracturing the country into separate, potentionally theocratic states?
Stan – the long-winded version of what I meant was that, given the religious, ethnic and tribal tensions within Iraq, one could make an good argument that the easiest way to maintain both the nation’s boudaries and its civil order under a secular government is with a large military force supporting a strong-armed regime.
What if that turns out to be the only practical solution?
As this was exactly the reason that George the First gave for not deposing Hussein in Gulf War I, I’d say it has some credibility.
Your point? Are we cutting and running?
http://www.news-record.com/news/local/cobleiraq_010905.htm
When republican congressman start saying we should consider a pullout, something is wrong. Public opinion is shifting. Slowly, but it’s shifting. My mom voted for Bush, and last night we were talking and she said we should pull out. I told her we shouldn’t because we are responsible, but what’s the answer really? She said it was beginning to look more and more like Vietnam, and she lived through that era.
Also, of note in the article, is this excerpt:
“Nevertheless, Coble said a troop withdrawal should be an option if the Iraqi government is unable or unwilling to “shoulder more of the heavy lifting” for its own security.”
Which makies me think that if we do pull out, we’re going to blame it on the Iraqis.
When I hear the arguments about what the “solution” for Saddam woulda/shoulda/coulda been, I get “Final Solution” flashbacks.
The way I see it, the best thing the US shoulda/coulda done was empower the Iraqi people to oust Saddam themselves. Not through a coup or assasination or anything else macho like that, but via the UN, and pushing for human rights … and cracking down on oil-for-food corruption.
Which makies me think that if we do pull out, we’re going to blame it on the Iraqis.
Of course…we invade, destroy their infrastructure, disband their army, open their borders to foreign terrorists, and insist they hurry up and develop a government style they weren’t yet ready to revolt on their own to get…of course it’s their fault we have to pull out.
hilzoy,
I would have thought that the telltale word “not”
My apologies… That’s what happens when you blog from work 🙁
Of course…we invade, destroy their infrastructure, disband their army, open their borders to foreign terrorists, and insist they hurry up and develop a government style they weren’t yet ready to revolt on their own to get…of course it’s their fault we have to pull out.
Right, and when public opinion shifts more, more republicans will start talking like Coble. When Iraq becomes a millstone for 2006, republican congressman will be looking for a way out. They will respond to public sentiment. Couple this with Bush tackling SS…republicans could be vulnerable in 2006…maybe.
For the record, I’m for staying and getting the job done right, but how do you counter the shift in public opinion?
1. Start doing a better job. (and I have no idea what that would entail.)
That’s all the ideas I have…anyone? Leaving Iraq a failed or destabilised state will be leaving it worse than it was before we invaded. That should be unnacceptable, and it is for me (and I’m a D), but not for an increasing number of Americans it seems.
voter,
When I hear the arguments about what the “solution” for Saddam woulda/shoulda/coulda been, I get “Final Solution” flashbacks.
Are you going to explain that?
edward,
..of course it’s their fault we have to pull out.
Looks like you just gave birth to Bill’s strawman’s strawbaby 😛
We should have crushed the rebellion earlier.
Stan,
I was being sardonic.
sorry I forgot the sardonic emoticon ;^&
We should have crushed the rebellion earlier.
That’s what Tacitus had argued. I didn’t feel strongly about it one way or the other back then, seeing some value in not looking too much like Hussein, but we’re certainly in a lose-lose situation now.
Oh, “Final Solution” flashbacks — I think Final Solution was the worst example of government euphemism for causing violent death. Nothing compares to it, and I’m not comparing current events to it. Its just that some things trigger my euphemism hives.
But solution itself — I think/hope that is the US learns anything from the Iraq debacle, it’s that it needs to respect international law, act through the UN, it needs to empower the UN. If the UN is broken, the US needs to fix the broken bits of the UN. The US can’t think of itself as the Dirty Harry of the world.
“But solution itself — I think/hope that is the US learns anything from the Iraq debacle, it’s that it needs to respect international law, act through the UN, it needs to empower the UN. If the UN is broken, the US needs to fix the broken bits of the UN.”
I think this is an odd lesson to learn about an institution that is designed for nearly permanent inaction. International law wouldn’t have helped stop the rebellion and neither would a UN mandate to invade Iraq. What would have stopped the rebellion was forceful and immediate action against it. We fooled around with Sadr for almost a year while he helped things fall apart. Low level losses extending forever is far worse in terms of credibility, rebuilding efforts and PR than one or two ugly but decisive battles. The UN would never have been interested in such action–if anything it would (and does) counsel even more tepid responses than Bush actually took. The UN is not now, and never was, an answer to this problem.
Sebastian,
What’s good UN if they couldn’t stop us from invading? Heh…
The UN is not now, and never was, an answer to this problem.
That’s why we (nations of the free world) need to empower the UN. That’s what I meant by fixing the broken bits.
Saddam wasn’t the US’s problem*; he was the world’s problem.
*Well, except that the US created him, like it created OBL, but that aside, they both turned into monsters on their own.
That’s why we (nations of the free world) need to empower the UN.
You propose kicking Syria, Iran, Sudan from the UN? What do you mean by “empower”? Will members be required to contribute to the UN equally?
Well, except that the US created him, like it created OBL
Created?
re: crushing the rebellion.
How? A minority tribe has held power disproportionate to their numbers. An american-approved democracy will mean the loss of substantial power, but division of the country is worse because the tribe lives in areas without oil. They have no choice but to fight.
We, like all occupiers, have no functional ability to distinguish hard-core resisters from neutrals. So we over-react and create enemies faster, far faster, than we kill them.
yes, the reporting out of Iraq is atrocious. But has anyone seen thoughtful coverage of US attempts to create lasting political bodies? The speed with which various slates are withdrawing from the election indicates to me that the US has, once again, failed in its single most important task: creating a POLITICAL process that will lead to self-governance.
I think that Iraq is having its Revolutionary War and its Civil War at the same time. From the beginning, there was never, in my view, a possibility of building internal coalitions necessary to self-governance. (GW 41, notably, believed the same thing.) But from the reporting in Atlantic Monthly and elsewhere, it’s pretty clear that the US has run the occupation in a way which interfered with that process. (one example — when Bremer left Iraq, he said he was most proud of imposing american-style tax laws. Telling a foreign people how to tax themselves is NOT conducive to building internal coaltions.)
Francis
Because the President had argued that the reason for invading was to stop Iraq from becoming a terrorist harbor.
Did Allawi change his policy? I didn’t know that the interim government agreed to give terrorists safe harbor.
Created?
Ok, trained and supported as an ally?
votermom,
I guess we created Stalin 🙁
Allawi? Let’s be serious here for a minute, please.
You may as well ask if Karzai has promised to stop the opium trade.
Well, those “complexities” and how they are viewed in the West are rather interesting. On one hand, we have to be sensitive to the culture, etc. On the other hand, we are dealing with them as if they are products of our culture… How do you reconcile that?
I’d say that that’s a very interesting question and one entirely unrelated to the point I was making.
Such as it was, the point was that a) Saddam was a brutal and despotic tyrant, but b) was, by force of tyranny, able to control Iraq and prevent it from becoming a terrorist training ground or breeding pit for anti-US guerillas and irregulars. Failure to apprehend b) put us in the present quandary when we removed a).
Bill: For the record, I’m for staying and getting the job done right
If that were possible, so would I be. But as Bush & Co are doing the job, we know it won’t be done right.
The war in Iraq is lost: it’s a matter of how many more people have to die for it.
“That’s why we (nations of the free world) need to empower the UN. That’s what I meant by fixing the broken bits.”
I think we have a fairly large gap in our agreement about how much is broken.
I agree with Anarch’s 2:13 point, though we may have differences in its implications. 🙂
*gasp* Nevah!
I think we have a fairly large gap in our agreement about how much is broken.
Ya think? 🙂
I agree with Anarch’s 2:13 point, though we may have differences in its implications. 🙂
Surely the apocalypse is at hand … heh.
I agree with Anarch’s 2:13 point, though we may have differences in its implications. 🙂
I got to thinking about this and I’m not sure we have that many differences, actually. If one grants the premise that the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action — which, in a shockingly stunning revelation, I don’t; but I’ll take it arguendo — then I think the only vital difference we have is that I think certain malcontents (e.g. Sadr) can be motived, inspired and ultimately tamed by greed; while you seem to think that the appropriate motivating factor should be fear (and, potentially, death).
This isn’t to say that all our differences vis a vis the execution of post-Saddam policies spring from this common well, but I suspect it accounts for a rather large portion of them.
I agree that many malecontents can be bought off, but Sadr was not one of them–at least at the point where he started actively using his militia to foment revolution. I think one of the many problems was the difficulty in keeping a good line drawn between appealing to greed and reinforcing a corrupt culture of bribery. Sadr wanted to be actively bribed for the forseeable future.
I think one of the many problems…
See? Yet another area of agreement! 😉
Charles, Of course Allawi didn’t give permission for the terrorists to operate. The point is that we gave the terrorists the opportunty and the motivation to operate in Iraq by creating chaos there, chaos that the Allawi government so far has not been able to subdue.
“See? Yet another area of agreement! ;)”
Ackk! I’m going to have seriously re-examine my argument. Can’t be agreeing with Anarch. What will “V” say? (Actually he probably won’t say much from behind the mask. Much more likely to drop cryptic notes.)
Ackk! I’m going to have seriously re-examine my argument. Can’t be agreeing with Anarch. What will “V” say? (Actually he probably won’t say much from behind the mask. Much more likely to drop cryptic notes.)
I thought V was totally in support of Anarch (y) , but I can’t recall cryptic notes being dropped. And wasn’t he the insurgent that (in name of anarch and in fight with fate) killed quite a number of people in his fight against the oppressing government? Ah…. graphical novels…… I am developping a taste for them. Sometimes pictures can convey so much more than words ever do.
For instance: We (in the Netherlands) are actually having a discussion again about wether we really should withdraw in March. My centrist christian newspaper run this cartoon this morning. Text means “stay a bit longer in Iraq. We appreciate you contribution”