Sunday’s lead story in the New York Times (”Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat“) carries the newspaper’s tradition of utilizing anonymous sources to the edge of self-parody. “More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article,” the fifth paragraph begins, “and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document.” [itals. mine, obviously]
Reporter Mark Mazzetti is referring to a National Intelligence Estimate none of whose details are revealed in the story, although the details would seem to be the very devils upon which this analysis depends. Never mind – it appears to be the Times’ practice to present veiled editorials on their front page despite a pledge to be more stringent in the separation of news and opinion (see Byron Calame in their own “Week in Review” section for Sunday). Never mind too that this particular piece, based on an intelligence review from April, suddenly appears at the height of a political season. We have come to expect this. All’s fair in love and war, as they say. But just don’t expect to be considered the newspaper of record or anything close. There’s no such thing and never should be. The Times is just another representative of a specific “class interest,” albeit an especially potent one.
Still the question raised by this April study is an important one, indeed seems to me the heart of the matter. How do we judge our policies and actions in the War on Terror? This is no easy matter. We Westerners live in a McLuhan-Warhol culture that exists for the moment, hurtling into the future in increasingly rapid bursts or bytes. We want answers – now, now, now. Then, on to the next. Our adversaries, most of them anyway, couldn’t be less interested in that. They are living out (”acting out”?) a Seventh Century belief system that, even when appropriating our technology, looks backwards to the imposition of a caliphate with religious law. We are a short haul civilization; they are an ultra long haul one.
The implications of this distinction are, I would think, immense and increase the difficulty in determining just how much the Iraq War fanned the flames of Islamism. The conventional wisdom is that this strain, if it is a strain, of Islam comes in waves. The same CW has it that the current version evolved from the ideas of Sayed Qtub, the Egyptian who spent some time in the United States and didn’t like what he saw. He played on the disaffections of his society, the failures of Nasserism, etc, which gave rise to the Muslim Brotherhood, which in turn metastasized to Al Qaeda and others and so it went.
I imagine this is true to some extent. But I suggest this view is also a Western (short haul) one and ignores the continuing and basically unchallenged doctrines of Islamic jihad referred to recently by Pope Benedict (for which he was attacked in a New York Times editorial). One of the problems here – and I am, like the Times’ Mazetti, at a distinct disadvantage not having read the intelligence report – is that by assuming that we are the ones who most fan the flames of Islamism we do not take the Islamists seriously. We are in a sense solipsistic and racist. Obviously jihad is a very powerful doctrine. It has lasted for fifteen hundred years – the terrorists of the Atocha Station cited the reconquista as their motivation – and is still growing in adherents, a record other extremist doctrines (Marxism-Leninsim, Nazism) should envy.
Looked at from that angle, the Iraq conflict is not more than a blip in a long war. In fact, you could argue that it brought to a head what was already inevitable and that it has hastened the resolution of this hugely difficult historical problem. [To be followed by the next one Herr Hegel?-ed. Of course.] Am I making that argument? Not necessarily. I just don’t know. But what does intrigue me at the moment, far more than the predictable political posturing of our leading newspaper, is the role of the Pope. He has challenged Islam on religious grounds to reform the doctrine of jihad and forever remove its violent component. Interestingly, the reaction on the vaunted Arab Street has been relatively subdued, nothing by comparison into the orgy over a few banal cartoons some months ago. I would suggest to the editors of the Times that they examine this. The Pope’s bold criticism of jihad may not fit their narrative, but it is proving to be one of the more heartening events in some time, ultimately far more “progressive” than anything offered by the newspaper.
UPDATE: PJ has more, including White House reaction to the Times.
MORE form the invaluable Spook86, a blogger you should bookmark, if you haven’t/
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
28 Comments
1. Tom Holsinger:Robert Port at the Say Anything blog got it exactly right on the so-called intelligence report about terrorist support.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/how_a_political_hit_works/
“How A Political Hit Works
By Rob on September 24, 2006 at 02:56 pm
By now I think we all know what the Republican stance is with regard to the war on terror and the war on Iraq for the upcoming elections. The war in Iraq has made us safer because it took down a terror-sponsoring regime that bred terrorism through its oppression and replaced it with a democracy. This, so far, has been a powerful message especially in light of the fact that the left has no rebuttal for it. They have no plans for the war on terror themselves so they can only seek to deride the President?s plans. They say that Iraq?s a quagmire and that the war there has made us less safe. Unfortunately those arguments ring hollow with the American people who have observed steady, if achingly slow, progress in Iraq since our invasion.
So what can the left do to overwhelm the right?s steadfast support of Iraq and the war on terror? Why, run a political hit that makes it seem as though the war in Iraq has actually made us less safe and that the Democrat talking points were right all along.
It all starts with the New York Times. They talk to a bunch of ?government officials? and ?outside experts? who won?t put their names to anything they say but will none-the-less allege that a National Intelligence Estimate memo concludes that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists and generally made us all less safe from terrorism. Of course, Times readers won?t get to actually see the memo in question we?ll just have to rely on these unnamed sources and the Times? own professional objectivity.
If that last statement isn?t enough to give a person pause about buying into this, I don?t know what is.
Regardless, the next step is endless media hype. The claims made in the Times article will be repeated ad nauseum, despite the fact that if this leaked intelligence info had stated that Iraq was having a positive impact in the war on terror it would largely be ignored by these same media types.
The third step is for Democrats to get on board and attack the President over media reporting from journalists who have apparently never seen the memo themselves but are instead relying on statements from unnamed people who aren?t willing to put their names to their words because in talking to the press they are breaking the law.
The fourth step is the media to conclude, after all these other steps, that the leaked information is already having a detrimental impact on Republican political aspirations. Again, despite the fact that the only information we have about this memo comes from unnamed sources interviewed by a publication that clearly has a liberal agenda.
All within about 24 hours. Isn?t that amazing? It is almost like it?s coordinated or something.
I remember another major political story like this breaking in September right before an election. That one had something to do with some forged memos and the President?s military service. Which isn?t, of course, to suggest that I have evidence of fraud in this story we?re hearing about today, I just find it interesting that the media always seems to come up with some major story that meshes perfectly with Democrat talking points right before national elections.”
Sep 24, 2006 - 10:06 pm 2. rickl:Excellent analysis. I hadn’t heard much about it except what was in the MSM today and so I was feeling kind of down about it, but after reading your comment it makes much more sense.
And even if it were true at face value, so what? We’re in a world war. No one ever said it would be easy. Of course the enemy is going to fight back.
By the way, though, I think someone switched the question mark and apostrophe keys on your keyboard.
Sep 24, 2006 - 11:13 pm 3. Lem:Notice how the article doesn’t mention that we have not been hit again (an estimate no one would have dared make immediately following 9/11/01) not only because is obvious but because it does not further the conclusion that the war in Iraq has made us less safe. If anything it does the opposite.
Iraq war critics inevitably put themselves in a box by arguing that if we had responded to 9/11 the way Bill Clinton did somehow Al Qaeda would have stopped or gone away. At least that is the conclusion one is led to. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda’s successful attack after attack during Clinton contradicts the efficacy of that “swatting flies” approach.
Bush’s approach has been called the “big bang”. After the ‘Brief History of Time’ big bang it took a long long while for us to get to were we are, and as regular comets and asteroids remind us we are only relatively safe.
Sep 24, 2006 - 11:25 pm 4. Terrye:Just another political attack against the Bush administration by people who don’t have any problem breaking the law if it works for them.
BTW, the kind of people who become terrorists were not exactly peace loving before the war in Iraq and I have to wonder what would the impact have been if the US and the UN had allowed Saddam Hussein to get away with bloody murder, outright theft, the breaking of the cease fire and noncompliance with a mandatory UN resolution? How weak would that have made the west look? And whenever the west looks weak that also is boon to recruitment.
Sep 25, 2006 - 3:36 am 5. HA:Roger,
“More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article,” the fifth paragraph begins, “and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document.”
I wonder how many of these anonymous officials are aspiring national security appointees in a potential future Democratic administration?
Obviously, we don’t need to ask why the Times didn’t ask – or at least didn’t report on asking – this question.
Sep 25, 2006 - 3:51 am 6. HA:You know, the more I think about it, the more I’ve come to the realization is that the New York Times is like a casting couch for future Democrat national security and foreign policy appointees. If these aspiring appointees spread their legs and agree to be anonymous sources for an October surprise type leak, they will be considered for future Democrat administration positions. They have no chance otherwise.
Sep 25, 2006 - 4:00 am 7. Huan:1. In a long war such as this war, if our actions do not anger those trying to destroy us, we are not doing enough.
2. If in being angered they reveal themselves as the Islamofascist that they are wanting to be, then even better and easier for us to kill them.
Sep 25, 2006 - 4:06 am 8. Rob:Yeah, so suppose it’s true that invading Iraq and Afghanistan encouraged more young men to become jihaddis. So what? Cartoons and papal remarks set them off just as well. Our very existence is an irritant to them.
The real problem is that EVERYTHING encourages them to become jihaddis because their religion is being hijacked by extremists who want it that way.
Sep 25, 2006 - 7:24 am 9. Knucklehead:One can imagine headlines in 1940’s…
US Naval air attacks on Japanese bases in Gilbert and Marshall Islands provoke invasions of Java and Singapore
Axis recruits flocking into service to fight US military aggression.
Threat of Allied cross-channel invasion cause of Wehrmacht buildup on French coast
When an enemy attacks and you respond the enemy will, for a while at least, redouble their efforts. The Islamofascists attack using the tactic we call “terrorism”. They murder as many as possible, willfully and with forethought and malice, as their method of war. “Jihadis” are their soldiers. Murder is their method.
We are at war. Why is anyone surprise that the enemy raises more troops? Why is anyone suprised that wreaking havoc with an existing chain of command will yield a different of modified chain of command? They are losing and they are struggling to adapt and respond. They’ll stop doing so when we defeat them. It has always been so and will always remain so.
Sep 25, 2006 - 7:38 am 10. Lem:Our National Intelligence Assessment says that the war in Iraq is the cause of more terror while the pope’s intelligent assessment points towards an unchallenged inhuman ideology. (btw, never mind how we got to Iraq)
Is it possible that the pope had more courage to tell it like it is than the people whose job it is to do just that? I know, we don’t have the whole report, but if that’s all there is, somebody needs to ultraviolet the PC crime scene that is our Intelligence Services.
Sep 25, 2006 - 7:38 am 11. markus:The best way to figure out what the NIE actually says is to release it to the public, with necessary redactions. As has been done with previous NIE’s.
Sep 25, 2006 - 7:52 am 12. mrbones:Roger,
Anonymous sources may not be ideal, but they’re not an indication of a shaky story. By your rationale, you’d probably have written off My Lai, too, which had a host of anonymice.
Sep 25, 2006 - 8:58 am 13. stu:I’m confused. Wasn’t the liberal mime that we were exaggerating the threat and the only action needed was the cops and robbers approach? Now they say the threat has worsened as a result of our actions. Logic and inconsistentcy do not seem to be their strong points.
Sep 25, 2006 - 9:36 am 14. Knucklehead:Stu,
You gotta admire the doom-mongers strategic agility. Stuff like…
- Terrorism is just an understandable reaction to US support for their malignant and oppressive goverments, but don’t threaten, remove, or attempt to positively modify any of their malignant governments.
- dialogue, not confrontation, is what is necessary. SHHHHH! Don’t say that, it’ll piss ‘em off and get people killed.
Sep 25, 2006 - 10:08 am 15. Mitch:This sounds like the CIA is once again running its own foreign policy initiatives in opposition to the executive, and is using leaks of classified information for the purpose. Am I the only person in the country to find this deeply disturbing?
Sep 25, 2006 - 10:10 am 16. Lem:I’m puzzled myself.
These are probably the very same annalists Bill Clinton threw under the bus on FOX – “…because we could not get the CIA & the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was there”. Jump to 5:07 in the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/jcxpv
And just in case anybody missed it Clinton tivo the charge again at 8:47.
So, if according to Bill Clinton they could not be relied upon then ? what is sooo different this time?
Could the difference possibly be that the new strategy they warned against is working?
Sep 25, 2006 - 12:36 pm 17. Neo:If Iraq engendered so much growth in the number of terrorists, just what got 9/11 and the Bali bombings to happen, since they were both before Iraq ? Perhaps it was the “regime change” resolution that bill Clinton signed in 1998. I showed that the Iraq war was coming.
Sep 25, 2006 - 12:44 pm 18. Terrye:markus:
Releasing the whole report might be a good idea, but the truth is even then you have to wonder. After all these folks do not have a great track record.
The thing I find interesting is the speed with which Democratic handlers had thier press releases ready and waiting…why it was almost as if the whole thing had been planned.
Sep 25, 2006 - 12:58 pm 19. Knucklehead:Mac’s Mind, in Blaming the disease on the cure, puts things in perspective:
Sep 25, 2006 - 2:28 pm 20. Knucklehead:Mac’s Mind, in Blaming the disease on the cure, puts things in perspective:
Sep 25, 2006 - 2:29 pm 21. Knucklehead:Sorry for the multiple post – the thingie said the first had failed.
Sep 25, 2006 - 2:29 pm 22. Captain Hate:Mitch
“This sounds like the CIA is once again running its own foreign policy initiatives in opposition to the executive, and is using leaks of classified information for the purpose. Am I the only person in the country to find this deeply disturbing?”
No, you’re not; other posters have commented on this in the past, some very recently. The Augean stables of the CIA and State Department should be thoroughly cleaned out; their post cold-war value has been minimal and their complicity in activities that seem to be aimed at influencing domestic elections is absolutely disturbing. They must have some extremely compromising items on some pols because otherwise there’s no excuse for many heads not rolling.
Sep 25, 2006 - 4:18 pm 23. PeterUK:The parallels are amazing,after the declaration of war in 1939 German bombing raids on Britain increased dramatically,from none to lots and lots and lots,most uncanny.
Sep 25, 2006 - 4:41 pm 24. Terrye:Peter:
And the Japanese killed a lot more of our guys after Dec 7, 1941 than they did before. Go figure.
Sep 25, 2006 - 5:29 pm 25. HA:Markus,
The best way to figure out what the NIE actually says is to release it to the public, with necessary redactions. As has been done with previous NIE’s.
That’s is a sensible suggestion. These leaks are obviously designed to serve the interest of the Democrats in the upcoming election. However, the full report likely paints a far more balanced perspective, that would be more favorable to the administration. Of course, then the Democrats would smear Bush for releasing classified information for political gain, and the NY Times would ink a finger-waving editorial condemning the release.
Sep 26, 2006 - 3:27 am 26. PeterUK:Terrye,
Sep 26, 2006 - 4:26 am 27. Lem:Intersting,looks like there might be some kind of a pattern,speaking of which,the increase in terrorist attacks prior to the invasion of Iraq do not seem to have been evaluated or factored in.Somewhat like the piecmeal invasions of sovereign states by the Nazis prior to the Declaration of War.
It would be interesting to find out that this was just a cover all the bases paragraph in an otherwise comprehensive analysis of the situation in Iraq.
However, let’s not get in the habit of declassifying stuff in order to demistify leaks. There is a plethora of good reasons why this stuff is secret. The least of witch is the reason why the Supreme Court keeps out the cameras for example. Cameras lend uncertainty.
Sep 26, 2006 - 6:05 am 28. Lem:The report would inevitably become about something other than what it is intended.
BTW – When is the attorney general going to start doing his job?
Sep 26, 2006 - 6:09 am