Plead the First

Key judgements from the “Trends in Global Terrorism” National Intelligence Estimate have been declassified and placed online. At least from this portion of it, the report sounds less damning than the original news articles suggested. Iraq is but one of several reasons listed for the spread of Islamic radicalism:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims – all of which jihadists exploit.

Of course it could be argued that our actions in Iraq are in part responsible for the fourth factor as well (anti-US sentiment among Muslims).

I’d certainly be interested in seeing the remainder of the report (or as much as possible) declassified, and some analysis of the contents. From this, it sounds like the war in Iraq is fueling the motivation and anger of radicals, but the war may not be as large a factor as the initial reports suggested – it’s difficult to tell from just this portion of it. However, I would maintain that this far into it, the fact that it’s even plausible that the Iraq war is setting us back in our war against Islamic terrorism doesn’t speak well for how the administration has handled things.

Robert Dreyfuss has an interesting take on the NIE in an article on TomPaine.com (written before the key judgements were declassified), suggesting that a Democratic embrace of the NIE’s reported conclusions could backfire:

In their eagerness to knock down Bush’s war in Iraq by using reports about the NIE, the Democrats risk giving another boost to the president in the “other� war, namely, the so-called war on terrorism. By embracing the NIE’s reported conclusion that the war in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse, the Democrats play into Bush’s strong suit. While most Americans think that the war in Iraq is wrong and not worth fighting, polls continue to show that support for President Bush as the commander in chief of the Global War on Terror. Ironically, by endorsing the idea that radical Islamist terrorism is a major threat to the United States, the Democrats could end up driving U.S. voters into the arms of the president once again.

Since August, the president and his political team have been trying to “change the subject� from Iraq, where they are weak, to terrorism, where they believe that they are strong. By provoking sharp controversies over issues such as electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency and by aggressively asserting the need to torture terrorist detainees, the White House has sought to put Democrats on the defensive, portraying them as lily-livered vacillators unwilling to take ugly but necessary steps against the terrorist enemy. So far, whether this cynical (and un-American) strategy is working isn’t clear. But the image of the president as terrorist-fighter is a powerful one, still.

I’m not sure I totally agree with this conclusion. The extent of any possible “backfire” would depend on whether people stop at the thought, “Terrorists are a grave threat” or continue on to the conclusion, “and Republicans have increased that threat by mismanaging the war in Iraq.” The whole point of any Democratic emphasis on the NIE would presumably be to point out that conclusion, but I guess voters don’t always see the finer details, and can be slow to change their perceptions, such as the view which regards Bush as a “terrorist-fighter”.

Regarding the reported content of the NIE, Dreyfuss also emphasizes the distinction between “anti-Americanism” and actual “terrorism” and cautions against throwing the terrorism label on anyone and everyone:

My own discussions with top, former U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials do indeed reflect an understanding in the intelligence community that the war in Iraq has inflamed radicalism in the Muslim world. Indeed, that has been widely understood for more than three years, and many of these same officials predicted exactly that before the war in Iraq, when they warned that the looming invasion would generate anti-American anger and bitterness.

But it is a long leap from anti-Americanism to terrorism. Arabs and Muslims seized with hatred or disdain from the United States have many options besides forming a terrorist cell. They can vote for Hamas, if they are in Palestine, and they’ve done that. They can vote for Hezbollah and join its militia, in Lebanon, and they’ve done that. They can join the anti-U.S. Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and they’ve done that. They can oppose moderate, pro-American regimes in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, and Islamabad, and they’ve done that, too. And so on.

That being said, anti-Americanism certainly doesn’t help us any. Some may not care what others think of us, but our goals will be easier to accomplish if people want to work with us rather than against us.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.