NIE Report - Heresay on a Grand Scale

I read the NYTimes original article on this and got the usual, no big surprises. Secret classified report with leaked vague information. Not that we'll ever actually see this report, or find out who spilled it to the press. But it certainly makes for perfect political posturing prior to an election.

Today I saw Jay Tea's blog entry at Wizbang and had some additional thoughts.

The first is that it seems that all reports like this all have the same general theme: everything we have done or might do will only make things worse. I never see any reports saying that "this will make things better" or "this will have no real effect." It seems that all roads lead to disaster. If we confront them, we will encourage more to join them. If we ignore them, we will embolden them to strike harder. And if we negotiate or capitulate, we will be seen as week and lead to more demands and threats.

The second is that it (what little is cited) seems to take the position that trends and patterns and actions taken prior to the invasion of Iraq are irrelevant. As I noted above, the preachers of doom and gloom have always said that whatever action is proposed is a recipe for apocalypse. The first President Bush's confronting Iraq would lead to a wave of terrorism. President Clinton's cruise missile attacks would only create new martyrs. The invasion of Afghanistan would lead us to a quagmire just like it did to the Soviet Union. And the invasion of Iraq would spark a new wave of anti-Americanism and waste away all the goodwill we had after 9/11.

I've been an amateur observer of world events for some time, and I've noticed one consistent element: anti-Americanism is always "on the rise." The only time we seem to have much international support is when we're on our knees -- either knocked there by a sucker punch like 9/11, or groveling and begging for forgiveness and help. It seems that only when we're strong and resolute do we find out who our true friends are.

That sounds pretty much spot on to me.

It all reminded me of something I've read about the military and its situational reports. No military agency has anything to gain by painting a pleasant picture of the environment where they will have to work. Gloom and doom tends to get more funding and support from congress. I'm pretty much thinking that the intelligence agencies tend to fall into that same scenario. They do have to report accurately, but they don't have to make the conclusions look rosy.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq caused more terrorists. I'd also state that it has also eliminated a lot. This also raises the question of what would have come to be if Iraq hadn't been invaded. Can anyone honestly state that Saddam wouldn't have become a greater state sponsor of terrorism? I did say 'greater' because, no doubt he had supported Hamas suicide bombings by paying the families money after they occurred. I'd think there are other examples of that out there as well.

You also have to think of any situation where a war didn't increase the risks to the country. Iraq probably increased the risk a lot, but you have to also consider where that action could lead. It may lead to stabilizing a section of an unstable region, though it will take time and effort. It definitely lead to the removal of a brutal dictator who destabilized the region and had set himself against the US. There may be bad consequences to it all, but only if we fail to bring Iraq to a stable conclusion.