Yes. It identifies the main thrust of the document, that being that the Iraq War has made terrorism more widespread and the risks greater.

You’re no doubt fishing for me to say “but it doesn’t mention the hopeful statements about what could happen if we win in Iraq,” which you would view as more balanced. Perhaps fair criticism, but on balance, can you assess that the document really emphasizes that viewpoint in any meaningful way? Those points are practically parenthetical, and are not the central judgements of the NIE, at least as far as we can see.

The main point of the article is to contrast (yet another) official government assessment of the poor situation in Iraq and elsewhere with the president’s insistences that “we are safer” because we went into Iraq.

Should they do nothing when presented with such conflicting information, or is it not their duty to publish it?

Do you see the NY Times article as
a fair objective representation of the
NIE report?

I find Strategy Page dot com as an invaluable source in my understanding of the War in Iraq.

Andrew McCarthy also quotes some of OBL’s fatwa against the US in his thoughtful piece.

What comes out of both pieces is consistent with my own bias: that it is a huge mistake to view the WoT (or whatever you wish to call it) as anything other than a “faith based initiative.” My jumping off point is that the Islamist fascists view themselves first and foremost as God’s sword, and that it is the radical Islamic ideology, not the contrived grievances against the west, that attracts muslims to the cause. As McCarthy (op cit) says:

Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.

Brian

The best case is that we’ve seriously damaged Al Queda’s operations and structure. But we now have many more terrorist and jihadist groups to contend with, and the document emphasizes that these are both homegrown and foreign cells.

Though it’s certainly true that success of our democratization agenda in Iraq would undermine jihadist sentiments and reduce the recruitment lure, it’s not looking like the Iraq situation is playing as a “success” on the Middle Eastern street right now (though the document doesn’t delve into that question). It is certain that it serves as probably THE focal point in the jihadis’ campaign for hearts and minds in the area.

I’m quite amazed that, if this is the entirety of the declassified portion of the NIE, the White House could possibly think of this as a defense of its position. It clearly states that terrorism is a more broadly-based and widespread issue now, clearly states that Iraq is a keystone in this spread, and does nothing to suggest the Iraq war has had any but a negative impact on our goals to quell the terrorist trend worldwide or domestically. While it does offer hope in the form of statements to the effect that “if everything goes right for us from now on, we could see some progress,” it importantly does not offer judgements on the current or future prospects for that success.

I can only imagine that they’re assuming the mere release of the document will seem sufficient defense for their supporters, who in turn will not read the document, or who will only focus on the hopeful possibilities it mentions and ignore the rest. It’s truly remarkable to me. And if this is the best they could come up with, what then is contained in the 90% of the NIE that remains classified?

Claudia right, NYT wrong. Again.

Meanwhile, Phoenician plays the old “Bush is Hitler” card. Um, yeah. Let’s meet for coffee at the crematorium down the street and talk it over. Snore.

3,000 Americans wouldn’t be dead.

30,000 Americans wouldn’t be injured.

Iran wouldn’t have the unprecedented freedom to develop weapons programs that it does now.

The Taliban might have been wiped out in Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden would be dead.

50,000+ Iraqis wouldn’t be dead.

And America might still have a Constitution, not to mention an administration with some credibility. (Not likely, but still…)

So, he acted as a kind of life insurance company?

Why does that affect America?

I hope you’re not suggesting that America needs to spend its treasury and young soldiers lives to benefit Israel. Are you?