Not Only Do They Blow Secrets, They Get Them Wrong
The New York Times on Sunday supposedly blew the lid on the National Intelligence Estimate report recently issued. The declassified portions are here in a pdf. The Times assessment was completely wrong, and whether that was an assessment of their own reporters (of which I would like to see their national security credentials to make such an assumption) or if it were through their notorious "anonymous" officials.
Yes, the fight is generating a "second generation" of jihadis. HOWEVER, what the Times refuses to acknowledge is that should this generation and the previous one fail, those jihadis will quickly change their minds. In other words, our enemy is banking on the shirt-run; they are hedging bets that we will withdraw from battle before the battle is done. Not only would this reinforce the myth that bin Laden perpetuated in the 1990s, that we were a "paper tiger," but it will also serve as a demoralizing blow to the nation.
The jihadis are betting on a lot. They are betting that the fifth-column in the nation--the "Mother Moonbat" antiwar crowd--will be able to do to America now what the Vietnam protesters did in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They are also watching the politics of today in this nation, and they are hoping that the GOP will lose power, and eventually culminate into a cut-and-run victory in 2008. They need a change in thinking to succeed, and too many within the GOP are hyping the importance of the war.
And they should be. A vote for Democrats is a vote for vulnerability. They are not strong on national defense or security. They have been pushing an agenda of "redeployment" for the Global War On Terror (I state that because if we allow them to leave Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before they reach the same decision for Afghanistan). All in all, their rhetoric points to the simple fact that they utter abhor the moves made by President Bush in this war. (Yet, I would bet that if we were discussing a President Truman, Kennedy, or Roosevelt, and they did exactly the same thing, the Democrats would stand in lock-step behind them.)
The NIE also states that Europe is seen as a very important theater in this war. The jihadists have been gaining in influcence and presence over there. The NIE cites the 3/11 bombings in Spain, and the 7/7 bombings in London. It fails to note the thwarted terror plot by British authorities, or that those collapsed cells are being tracked throughout a large network of jihadists across Europe.
The recent actions from Europe regarding the jihadis has emboldened our enemy. France watched as night after night, riots broke out across the country after an incident involving two Muslim boys where they were killed when hiding from police. Jacques Chirac did not respond too quickly, and he showed Europe an unwavering surrender to something he felt he could not control. The EU is the group who threw the hissy fit over the CIA prisons there; these are places where we are getting a lot of information regarding our enemy's efforts. And no, according to Congress, no torture occurs there. At this point, the Left's idea of torture is an OPINION, and not fact.
The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the
religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. Propaganda
would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a
constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim
communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
This, I feel, is one of the most important aspects of the war that we are frankly getting our @$$ kicked over. The administration has not done a very good job of promoting the war at home--reminding people of what is at stake--and they are not doing a good job of promoting freedom abroad. The propaganda that is emanating from our enemies is beating us at every turn. Part of that comes from the PR groups the jihadis use. Al-Manar is a prime example of this for Hezbollah; Al-Jazeera does it for all ot them.
We can see Iraq as an example of Muslims throwing off the idea of violence. The majority of people in Iraq would love the fighting to end. And they would love it if all the terrorists were dead so they could build their nation in peace. Sadly, the world--now--does not work this way, and this will last a bit longer than expected. People--Americans--must learn to deal with this. If they adopt the same attitude the Democrats have today, we will be fighting this disease for many, many years to come.
Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against
Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global
threat.
This is a portion that I found very interesting. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was brought to room temperature (after reaching approximately 10,000 degrees briefly) a couple of months ago. This estimate was put together BEFORE his death occurred. That means that much of what has happened recently is not even touched. I brought up the fact that the report cites the Spain and London bombings, yet does not address the cells nabbed by the Malaysians, the Brits, and Americans. From June (wehn al-Zarqawi was killed) up until now, none of the successes and none of the setbacks are included.
All in all, based on what is in the NIE, I can only assume that the Times believes itself to be more qualified to analyze the document. Unfortunately like their previous beliefs regarding this war, they are completely and dangerously incorrect. By promoting the idea that we are only making this war worse, which in turn makes people believe this is a losing cause, they are doing a great disservice to this nation. Nothing in the estimate supports this idea other than the paragrpah or two that discuss it. The rest of the time is spent breaking down al-Qaeda's strengths and weaknesses. TIt also points out that even though Iran and Syria are still "primary sponsors" of terrorism, other nations could be infiltrated by jihadis, and pose a danger to their stability.
The Times got it wrong. And their leak chould not excused simply because they were wrong. A leak is a leak, and it is high time that the Justice Department start moving forward against these outlets to keep these leaks from occurring. When the public knows a secret, chances are our enemy does, too.
Marcie
The New York Times on Sunday supposedly blew the lid on the National Intelligence Estimate report recently issued. The declassified portions are here in a pdf. The Times assessment was completely wrong, and whether that was an assessment of their own reporters (of which I would like to see their national security credentials to make such an assumption) or if it were through their notorious "anonymous" officials.
Yes, the fight is generating a "second generation" of jihadis. HOWEVER, what the Times refuses to acknowledge is that should this generation and the previous one fail, those jihadis will quickly change their minds. In other words, our enemy is banking on the shirt-run; they are hedging bets that we will withdraw from battle before the battle is done. Not only would this reinforce the myth that bin Laden perpetuated in the 1990s, that we were a "paper tiger," but it will also serve as a demoralizing blow to the nation.
The jihadis are betting on a lot. They are betting that the fifth-column in the nation--the "Mother Moonbat" antiwar crowd--will be able to do to America now what the Vietnam protesters did in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They are also watching the politics of today in this nation, and they are hoping that the GOP will lose power, and eventually culminate into a cut-and-run victory in 2008. They need a change in thinking to succeed, and too many within the GOP are hyping the importance of the war.
And they should be. A vote for Democrats is a vote for vulnerability. They are not strong on national defense or security. They have been pushing an agenda of "redeployment" for the Global War On Terror (I state that because if we allow them to leave Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before they reach the same decision for Afghanistan). All in all, their rhetoric points to the simple fact that they utter abhor the moves made by President Bush in this war. (Yet, I would bet that if we were discussing a President Truman, Kennedy, or Roosevelt, and they did exactly the same thing, the Democrats would stand in lock-step behind them.)
The NIE also states that Europe is seen as a very important theater in this war. The jihadists have been gaining in influcence and presence over there. The NIE cites the 3/11 bombings in Spain, and the 7/7 bombings in London. It fails to note the thwarted terror plot by British authorities, or that those collapsed cells are being tracked throughout a large network of jihadists across Europe.
The recent actions from Europe regarding the jihadis has emboldened our enemy. France watched as night after night, riots broke out across the country after an incident involving two Muslim boys where they were killed when hiding from police. Jacques Chirac did not respond too quickly, and he showed Europe an unwavering surrender to something he felt he could not control. The EU is the group who threw the hissy fit over the CIA prisons there; these are places where we are getting a lot of information regarding our enemy's efforts. And no, according to Congress, no torture occurs there. At this point, the Left's idea of torture is an OPINION, and not fact.
The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the
religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. Propaganda
would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a
constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim
communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
This, I feel, is one of the most important aspects of the war that we are frankly getting our @$$ kicked over. The administration has not done a very good job of promoting the war at home--reminding people of what is at stake--and they are not doing a good job of promoting freedom abroad. The propaganda that is emanating from our enemies is beating us at every turn. Part of that comes from the PR groups the jihadis use. Al-Manar is a prime example of this for Hezbollah; Al-Jazeera does it for all ot them.
We can see Iraq as an example of Muslims throwing off the idea of violence. The majority of people in Iraq would love the fighting to end. And they would love it if all the terrorists were dead so they could build their nation in peace. Sadly, the world--now--does not work this way, and this will last a bit longer than expected. People--Americans--must learn to deal with this. If they adopt the same attitude the Democrats have today, we will be fighting this disease for many, many years to come.
Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against
Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global
threat.
This is a portion that I found very interesting. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was brought to room temperature (after reaching approximately 10,000 degrees briefly) a couple of months ago. This estimate was put together BEFORE his death occurred. That means that much of what has happened recently is not even touched. I brought up the fact that the report cites the Spain and London bombings, yet does not address the cells nabbed by the Malaysians, the Brits, and Americans. From June (wehn al-Zarqawi was killed) up until now, none of the successes and none of the setbacks are included.
All in all, based on what is in the NIE, I can only assume that the Times believes itself to be more qualified to analyze the document. Unfortunately like their previous beliefs regarding this war, they are completely and dangerously incorrect. By promoting the idea that we are only making this war worse, which in turn makes people believe this is a losing cause, they are doing a great disservice to this nation. Nothing in the estimate supports this idea other than the paragrpah or two that discuss it. The rest of the time is spent breaking down al-Qaeda's strengths and weaknesses. TIt also points out that even though Iran and Syria are still "primary sponsors" of terrorism, other nations could be infiltrated by jihadis, and pose a danger to their stability.
The Times got it wrong. And their leak chould not excused simply because they were wrong. A leak is a leak, and it is high time that the Justice Department start moving forward against these outlets to keep these leaks from occurring. When the public knows a secret, chances are our enemy does, too.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home