It seems the Times recieved leaked information, then twisted it a little bit, then added a few lies, then fed it to other media outlets… or as the Director put it, “distorted” the information.

Going to post his whole statement here, because it directly contradicts what the Times wrote. (Don’t worry, it isn’t long)

Statement by the Director of National Intelligence
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20511
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2006

Statement by the Director of National Intelligence, John D. Negroponte, in response to news reports about the National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism

“A National Intelligence Estimate is a comprehensive assessment comprised of a series of judgments which are based on the best intelligence our government develops. Characterizing only a small handful of those judgments distorts the broad strategic framework the NIE is assessing . in this case, trends in global terrorism.

“Although the NIE on Global Terrorism is still a classified document, I and other senior intelligence officials have spoken publicly, and in a way consistent with the NIE’s comprehensive assessment, about the challenges and successes we have had in the Global War on Terror. What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat.

“We have eliminated much of the leadership that presided over al Qaeda — our top global terror concern . in 2001, and U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts continued to disrupt its operations, remove its leaders and deplete its cadre. The Estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism, judging that should the Iraqi people prevail in establishing a stable political
and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere.

“Those statements do nothing to undermine the assessment that we have an enormous and constantly mutating struggle before us in the long war on terror. They simply demonstrate that the conclusions of the Intelligence Community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create.”

Feel free to let me know if you want the address to the original pdf file release.

In 1861 Winfield Scott proposed a strategy for defeating the South. Essentially the plan involved blockading the South and cutting it in half by controlling the Mississippi. Scott, who was Lincoln’s General-in-Chief thought that such a technique would spare many lives. However, Major General George McClellan sent a letter directly to Lincoln which called for a more aggressive approach. McClellan also received a letter from Scott detailing the plan.

Portions of that letter were “leaked” to the papers. A cartoon was published that showed an Anaconda squeezing the South. Hence it’s popular name, and much ridicule. A direct invasion was thus forced, by the perception of popular demand, on Lincoln. (And just as Scott forecast they were not successful.)

It was done for McClellan’s personal political ambition. In the end Scott’s was essentially the strategy that the North used to defeat the South. Forewarned, the campaign to win the Mississippi was far more difficult than it should have been. Forewarned, the largely undeveloped South began an aggressive program of decentralized, domestic munitions manufacture. Which, alng with other reasons, forced generals such as Grant and Sherman to pursue a scorched earth program.

Athens should have defeated Sparta, for many reasons. But Athens continually purged its military leaders because differing political factions used the war for their own profit. Not to mention that Pericles’ vision of a stalemated Sparta had been fulfilled. The plague then decimated Athens and the “stalemated” Sparta eventually pulled down Athens’ walls.

The point here is that history is important in the same way that we learn that touching a flame burns. Two very different examples of Containment, but the common thread is the danger that democracies have when its political figures use war for their own personal gain.

PS: Victor Davis Hanson has a great book on the Ionic war called “A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War”. The parallels with today’s war are amazing.

INTELLIGENCE EQUALS ????

I have always personally believed that the primary reason that we went into Iraq was to SECURE THE OIL.
WMDs, overthrowing a dictator and trying to establish a democracy and strategic location (between Iran and the rest of the Middle East) were important, but secondary. I’ve never been sure of what role the “Intelligence Community” actually played in the decision to invade Iraq. Either the intelligence community – at the time – was a total failure, or the intelligence was intentionally manipulated to justify the invasion. I now tend to believe the latter. It follows, therefore, that ANY Intelligence Assessments, no matter which “government officials and outside experts” participated, must be taken with several grains of salt. Who knows what anybody’s agenda really is??? For me personally – and I consider myself as an independent thinker – the overriding question at the time was: “Why wasn’t Saddam Hussein – despite twelve years of sanctions and threats – allowing inspectors to verify what he did or did not have in terms of weapons. Logic said “where there’s smoke – there must be fire” That proved to be WRONG! I now believe that there were NO WMDS and NO CONNECTIONS with Al Queda. Of course, “no one can guarantee that Saddam never would have established operational ties with al-Qaeda?, but I do not believe that this would have happened. After 40+ years of total and complete control in Iraq, why would Saddam have wanted to enter into an alliance with Al Queda – or anyone else for that matter??? What did he have to gain?? Rather, Saddam was just being a defiant pain in the ass. Agreed he was a nasty SOB, but he was also his own man and a perfect counter point to Iran.

“”One can argue that the timing was wrong in confronting Iraq. But as something we eventually would have been forced into doing as a result of a general conflict with terror and terror states, it is very difficult to see how we could have avoided it”. I totally agree with this assessment.

Of course, hindsight is always 20-20, but I do now believe that in fact we did have Saddam “in a box”, and he would have stayed that way for as long as he remained in power. After he was out of power is a different story. If Qusay would have replaced him, I believe the status quo would have continued. Uday would have been another story. He was a psychopath, and I believe that with him in power operational ties with Al Queda or other terrorist organizations would have been a given. So I do believe it was just a matter of time before we would have had to go into Iraq.

“Iraq War creates more terrorists and terrorism”
“The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.”

I believe the above statements to be true. There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden and Al Queda were HELPED by our invasion of Iraq. Bin Laden had hoped to draw us into an extended war in Afganistan (as he did with the Soviets) but he failed. Our actions in Afganistan – while being a no brainer – were swift and decisive. This was a big failure for Bin Laden.
He and his ideology were also “in a box”, with no cause to champion. But everything changed – and he got exactly what he had hoped for in Afganistan – when we invaded Iraq and got caught up in the long, protracted war. And the worst part is he didn’t have to do anything – we handed this to him on a silver platter. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the promotion of the IDEOLOGY of groups like Al Queda were helped enormously because of our invasion – and subsequent failures in Iraq. This is what I believe to be the main reason why these independent cells have grown throughout the world. The more DRAMA that we create, the more drama will be created in return. Which leads me to my next point:

DRAMA, ATTENTION & MANIPULATION:

Dealing with leaders of terrorist groups and their blind followers is very much like dealing with my 17 year old daughter.
This is why: She was diagnosed at age 7 with ADHD, which has now progressed to ADHD with mood disorder.
Everything that affects her life – no matter how small – is always blown greatly out of proportion. She thrives on DRAMA, because drama will get her attention that she craves. If this doesn’t happen quickly enough, she DEMANDS attention. Once the drama has been created, and the acting-out behavior has escalated to a fever pitch, comes the MANIPULATION. She will typically say something like: “If I calm down and stop acting-out , what do I get? what’s in it for me? what will YOU do differently??? So how do my wife and I deal with these issues on a daily basis??? The textbooks – and we have read many – are uniform in recommending the correct approach: DOWNPLAY everything as much as possible, BE CONSISTENT, BE FIRM and BE IN AGREEMENT. If we do not follow this advice, our daughter will drive a wedge right through us every time. Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Chavez, they all have this in common. They require DRAMA and ATTENTION to thrive, and we give them plenty of it.
So how have we applied these concepts in Iraq???
DRAMA – we’ve had 3+ years of it - all bad – and it continues.
CONSISTENCY??? FIRMNESS??? AGREEMENT??? Draw your own conclusions…….

RESPECT EQUALS FEAR

I remember seeing Benjamin Netanyahu interviewed during the first week or two of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The question was about why terrorist groups and their leaders do not respect us. His response was very clear:
THEY WILL ONLY RESPECT YOU WHEN THEY FEAR YOU. But how is this accomplished???
Anyone would have to admit that the Israeli’s have been very successful in targeting their enemies for assassination. Why don’t we form a clandestine group that we can call “AMITEF”, ( All Muslim Islamic Terrorist Elimination Force).
This would be a highly trained and highly paid “Muslim Only” group, who believed – as I do – that the ideology, hatred and activities of the Muslim Extremist Groups will eventually have dire consequences for all Muslims around the world, and that they are truly helping all fellow Muslims by eliminating these elements. Let’s do a little “infiltrating” of our own. This force could work both within the USA (like the FBI) and outside of the USA (like the “old” CIA). In other words, DOWNPLAY the rhetoric and the military force, and operate like the Stealth Bomber – quiet, lethal and under the radar.

WHAT DO WE NOW DO IN IRAQ

One of the commenters to your post said,
“Look at Iraq NOW, it is indeed a failed state and I don’t see anything we can do to change that fact. The massive input of troops and material that would be needed to FORCE stabilization of Iraq are simply not available to us. We simply don’t have those resources to ‘’commit’’ to that task”.

I agree with his assessment. If the #1 reason that we went into Iraq was for the OIL – as I believe it was, let’s now make our #1 PRIORITY to SECURE THE OIL FIELDS. (which we are in effect doing already), and start to withdraw our troops.
Why don’t we put some pressure on the current Iraqi government to work out a “business deal” re the oil fields??
The agreement could go something like this:
1. The United States military would provide 100% security for ONLY the Oil Fields throughout the country.
2. The United States would provide technology, equipment, maintenance and training to maximize the oil production.
3. ALL PROFITS from oil sales – which would be substantial - would go to the Iraqi government to use as they wished: to rebuild their country, pay decent wages to their police and army, etc. – with the United States paid only an agreed upon percentage (in oil and/or dollars) for the security, technology, equipment, management of and training at the oil fields.
4. This agreement would remain in effect ONLY if a coalition government remained in power in Iraq. If the coalition government were to collapse – no one in Iraq but the US would have access to the oil. Kind of a political blackmail for the betterment of Iraq. When we were satisfied that Iraq had a stabilized government and stabilized security forces, we would withdraw completely. If the best that we can do for the Iraqis at this point is to “help them to help themselves”, then so be it.
“Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse.””
“If only we had not confronted the jihadists or worked to solve the root causes of terrorism, none of this would be true today.”
“I totally reject that notion. In fact, I believe it delusional thinking to say that we’d be any safer if we hadn’t invaded Iraq or if we had just lobbed a few cruise missiles at Osama Bin Laden following 9/11, or even if we had put enormous pressure on Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. All of this ignores the one overarching truth about the nature of our enemies (and their tens of millions of supporters around the world); what they seek, we cannot give them.”
In summary, I agree with all of these statements. The die had been cast long before 9/11, when the colonial powers withdrew from the Middle East, left a vacuum, and opened up a free-for-all for who ever had “the biggest stick”. There is no going back. With or without our invasion of Iraq, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT with regard to the Israel – Hamas – Hezbollah situations, NOR WOULD ANYTHING HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT with regard to the spread of the Global Jihadist Movement and the diffusion of jihad ideology. And as long as there is DRAMA, LACK OF CONSISTENCY, LACK OF FIRMNESS and LACK OF AGREEMENT in dealing with these movements, nothing will change. The War in Iraq – which has encapsulated all of the above – has only sped up the inevitable.

Does Appeasing Terrorism Destroy One’s Soul?

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House asks:  "Does Confronting Terrorism Make It Worse?"  It’s an interesting and thoughtful read.

But I have another question: 

Does appeasing terrorism destroy one’s soul?

There’s something deeply wrong about appeasing or tolerating any form of tyranny. It rubs me the wrong way, and I am hardly alone in this.  . . . .

Read more . . .