On the NIE, the right and the left are both wrong

[dude1394]

I don't agree with this writers assertion that american foreign policy is as nearly as much to blame for islamic terrorism as their own moribund culture. But it does show why the WashingtonPost is the premier liberal newspaper in this country.

Only there can you get some objectivity from the left.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...t_and_the.html

On the NIE, the Right and the Left Are Both Wrong

The National Intelligence Estimate regarding trends in global terrorism, partially released by the administration yesterday in response to weekend news leaks, is not centrally about Iraq, and it is certainly not the final word on the subject.

While the NIE cites the Iraq war as the "cause celebre" for jihadists, what it implies, but doesn't say -- can't say -- is that before and beyond Iraq, a movement grew because of fundamental U.S. policies.

We are not facing an age of terrorism spawned by the Iraq war, nor are we fighting thousands, if not millions, of jihadists because of misunderstandings about the goodness of America.

We are fighting because of America.

The mainstream news media story about the Bush administration's release of portions of the classified NIE on worldwide terrorism is that the movement "is growing and being fueled by the war in Iraq…"

The key sentence in the April, 2006 document (pdf) that we are debating says:

"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

The NIE goes on to say that "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-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims -- all of which jihadists exploit."

Though the two observations (about Iraq and the four underlying factors) are juxtaposed in the four-page "Key Judgments" released by the White House, they are not necessarily related.

Even without the Iraq war, the "grievances" would still exist, and they are not just about domestic Muslim stagnation or some inner-Islamic religious war. Furthermore, the "anger" and "humiliation" rampant in the Muslim and jihadist world do not find their origins in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

If anything, the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein was not a surprise to most Muslims.

What is more, the Iraq war at this point, and the "jihad" fighting America in Iraq, is having the effect of breeding a strange sense of hope: in Iraq, and in Afghanistan where al Qaeda survives, in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden continues to live, in Lebanon where Israel is defeated, the dominant anti-American narrative is that Osama bin Laden and other defenders of Islam were right from the beginning: just as the Soviet Union was "defeated" in Afghanistan, the United States and Israel can also be defeated.

The simplistic story line that the Democrats are pushing is all about and solely about Iraq: withdraw U.S. forces, defeat the Republicans, tidy up foreign policy by giving human rights to prisoners and being nicer in the world, and voila, terror subsides.

President Bush, on the other hand, loves to insist that before we were "in" Iraq, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon anyhow, hence the age of mega-terror is not about the Iraq war.

"My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions," Bush said yesterday. "They kill in order to achieve their objectives."

Both the Democrats and the President are wrong.

[Rhylan]

It's all our fault. Woe is us.

Slightly unrelated, but...

I heard some fool on the radio this morning say the Iraq invasion caused the sectarian infighting. Now we're responsible for hundreds of years of religious bickering between Islamic "denominations." Never mind the pure absurdity of the notion - "Hey neighbor, I'm a Shia, you're a Sunni. The Americans are here. I don't like them, and you don't like them either. Let's hate each other now."

Damn that United States.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

It's all our fault. Woe is us.

Slightly unrelated, but...

I heard some fool on the radio this morning say the Iraq invasion caused the sectarian infighting. Now we're responsible for hundreds of years of religious bickering between Islamic "denominations." Never mind the pure absurdity of the notion - "Hey neighbor, I'm a Shia, you're a Sunni. The Americans are here. I don't like them, and you don't like them either. Let's hate each other now."

Damn that United States.

Were they killing eachother before we invaded? save the smart a$$ remark of they have been fighting for a thousand years. were they killing eachother under saddam hussein?

[Rhylan]

Nah, Hussein ruled as a tyrannical dictator to prevent these very fights - because they threatened his own power.

So what's worse - people killing each other, or people killed by a tyrannical government?

At least in the current scenario, the Kurds get to lead a fairly normal life, rather than live under the threat of extermination.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Nah, Hussein ruled as a tyrannical dictator to prevent these very fights - because they threatened his own power.

So what's worse - people killing each other, or people killed by a tyrannical government?

At least in the current scenario, the Kurds get to lead a fairly normal life, rather than live under the threat of extermination.

Well it does seem that the Kurds are doing quite well at this point.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Were they killing eachother before we invaded? save the smart a$$ remark of they have been fighting for a thousand years. were they killing eachother under saddam hussein?

well, yes, they were in a sense. the sunni were killing the shia, the sunni were killing the kurds.

the difference now is the shia are also killing the sunni....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, yes, they were in a sense. the sunni were killing the shia, the sunni were killing the kurds.

the difference now is the shia are also killing the sunni....

Yes there be some major payback going on. GG..do you forget a little thing like Sunni Sadaam gassing whole villages?