NIE Conclusions: How Much Did This Cost?

Go read it for yourself. Personally, I found nothing here that I haven't read in analysis on the Web or in several of the better books on Al-Qaeda and the Salafi Jihad.

There is one section in particular that stands strongly against the Dems cut-and-run proposals:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• 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. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

This statement is quite clear to me as pointing out that Iraq is in fact drawing in jihadists just as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan did. And that by finishing the effort in Iraq, we could very well have a huge effect of quenching the Jihadist movement. The question is, do we have sufficient nerve to stay in Iraq until the job is done and destroy as many of the Jihadists as we can? For most certainly, if we leave quickly, the dispersion of these Jihadist from Iraq will allow them to focus on attacking US interests in this country and abroad. Iraq, like Afghanistan, was a theater of glory for the Jihadists to fight in. There was no sneaking around waiting and discontent for action. They found an immediate outlet for the agressions they had.

Continuing the fight in Iraq will also allow the US to bolster its defenses in the world. The CIA can hopefully be fixed and be made effective again. The Dept. of Homeland Security can build up and hopefully stabilize in the short term giving us additional protections.

UPDATE:
I found this at QandO:

There's more to the document, of course, most of it written in the same vein: "If we win, they will lose. But, if they win, we will lose", and the like.

Man, I can see why we pay those CIA boys the big money, when they look really deep into a situation like that. Although, the money is irrelevant, really, isn't it? You just can't buy that quality of analysis.

The bottom line is that the crowing over the "increased threat" meme is, where it isn't just garbage generated for political purposes, telling us absolutely nothing we don't already know.

Seems like I wasn't alone in what I saw.

McQ also chimes in with analysis of a WaPo OpEd spin on the NIE.

OpinionJournal addresses this as well.

Also check out Wretchard's analysis.