Slate's Bizbox
war stories: Military analysis.

Read It and WeepEven Bush's intelligence report says the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 6:15 PM ET
Iraq violence. Click image to expand.

The National Intelligence Estimate that was released today—titled "The Terrorist Threat to the Homeland"—amounts to a devastating critique of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, Iran, and the terrorist threat itself.

Its main point is that the threat—after having greatly receded over the past five years—is back in full force. Al-Qaida has "protected or regenerated key elements" of its ability to attack the United States. It has a "safe haven" in Pakistan. Its "top leadership" and "operational lieutenants" are intact. It is cooperating more with "regional terrorist groups."

As a result, the report concludes, "the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years" and is, even now, "in a heightened threat environment."

This is bad enough news for President Bush, who has tried to bank support for his policies on the claim that the terrorist threat has diminished.

Worse news still is the report's further observation—never stated explicitly but clear nonetheless—that the threat has re-emerged as a result of the war in Iraq.

The report—the unclassified version of a consensus product by the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community—also notes that the threat will grow still larger if we appear to threaten Iran.

One major reason for al-Qaida's resurgence, according to the report, is its "association with" al-Qaida in Iraq. (Note, by the way, that these two organizations are said to be "associated" or "affiliated" with each other; contrary to what Bush has said in recent speeches, they are not the same entity.) This affiliation "helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks." (Italics added.)

Al-Qaida in Iraq—or AQI, as the report identifies it—is not merely al-Qaida's "most visible and capable affiliate." More significant, it is "the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." (Italics added.)

Let's put together the syllogism: Al-Qaida is more inclined to attack the United States because of its affiliation with AQI; AQI is the only affiliate that wants to attack the United States; therefore, if there were no AQI, the danger of an attack would be far less severe, if it existed at all.

Let's add one more link to the logical chain (which the NIE leaves out but which is self-evident): If there were no U.S. occupation of Iraq, there would be no AQI. (Certainly the organization didn't exist until well into the occupation. It has gained a foothold in Iraq—energizing "the broader Sunni extremist community"—by playing off their anti-American sentiments.)

Many times, President Bush has said that we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. It is an absurd argument in many ways. But the NIE reveals that the opposite is the case—that because we're fighting them in Iraq, we are more likely to face them here.

Does this mean that we should stop fighting AQI or negotiate some separate peace? No, the organization's presence in Iraq—however exaggerated by some officials—is genuinely dangerous, and there is no negotiating with any al-Qaida affiliate in any event.

But it does mean we should do more to co-opt the Sunnis—even some of the Sunni extremists—that serve as AQI's base of support. (We have started to do just that, with some success, in Anbar province.)

And it also means—for yet one more reason, beyond the many others—that we should start to get out of Iraq. (The question, as always, remains how to do so without unleashing catastrophic chaos. One reasonable inference of the NIE is that we should seek a regional resolution of the crisis as a matter of great urgency to the security not only of the Middle East but also of the United States.)

It's worth recalling that, back in the spring of 2003, as the war was getting under way, Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense (and one of the war's outspoken architects), told Vanity Fair that one reason to invade Iraq was to allow U.S. troops to leave Saudi Arabia. The presence of "infidel" soldiers on holy soil had been "a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida," Wolfowitz said. (Osama Bin Laden had publicly cited their presence as a rationale for the attack on the World Trade Center.) Yet the troops couldn't safely leave Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq. Hence, Saddam had to be removed first. (Though Wolfowitz didn't say so, another element of the plan was to relocate the U.S. bases from Saudi Arabia to the new, presumably pro-Western Iraq.)

Now, in a horrible irony, the troops in Iraq have become no less "a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida." (Some of Wolfowitz's erstwhile comrades insist he never wanted an occupation; perhaps he didn't grasp that occupations often follow the forced toppling of a government, especially when the entire social structure collapses as a result.)

Some hawks and neocons want to deepen the involvement and attack Iran—either simply to destroy its bourgeoning nuclear program or (in a more fantasy-drenched scenario) to overthrow its unfriendly regime, too.

The NIE warns against this adventurism in only the most slightly veiled terms. While discussing other threats besides al-Qaida, the report states that Lebanon's Hezbollah—which, till now, has confined its attacks to targets outside the United States—"may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland … if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran." (Italics added.)

This amounts to a direct warning to the White House: Don't attack Iran, the entire U.S. intelligence community is saying—and, if you do, you should expect to get hit back.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. He can be reached at .
AP photograph from Iraq by U.S. Army Sgt. Rob Summitt.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Rob Tracinski recently wrote that the NIE is "a kind of political Rorschach test: everyone tries to see in it what they want to see." In characterizing the NIE as an intel community warning against attacking Iran, Kaplan forgets to mention a few things, starting with the NIE's confirmation that some al Qaeda leadership is now resident there. Add that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan training and equipping insurgents to kill US troops in Iraq, attempting to build nukes (which used to be considered a capital offense for terror-sponsoring regimes) and you kind of wonder what this fool is talking about when he says 'Don't attack Iran because they will hit back.' Iran is already hitting us directly or through proxies all over the Mideast.

Could the view that Iraq is a regional war that won't be won until regimes are changed in Iran and Syria have been the more "intelligent" idea all along? Or should we wait until we have to fear Iran's "hitting back" with nukes--just to make things more exciting?

--Varian

(To reply, click here.)

I really believe that we can control security at home by reining in the filth that we tolerate and expose our children to every day on tv and internet. If traditional muslims who want to maintain peace and raise their families without war are persuaded to the view of the United States as a out of control society they may be persuaded to join an extremist group. Can't we respect others views enough to lighten up on some of this garbage?

--bluedanube555

(To reply, click here.)

There are good arguments against attacking Iran, but fear of a terrorist retaliatory strike on the Homeland is not one of them. That is just not how a confident superpower behaves.

I believe that the main reason for the notorious appeasement of Germany by France and Britain in the 1930's was the fear in those two countries of enemy strategic bombing of their cities. They had been horrified by such bombing in the Spanish Civil War, and many in the elites predicted that widespread strategic bombing would be the "end of civilization." Hence France and Britain were inhibited from taking any decisive action--even after declaring war, the war remained a tentative "phony war" till Germany launched her invasion of the West. By which time it was too late.

I do not believe military action with Iran is warranted at this time. But if I could be convinced otherwise, I wouldn't want fear of Hezbollah to be the deciding inhibitory factor. The day that the United States starts doing things contrary to its own strategic interest solely to avoid provoking al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, it is on a path to decline, like the French Third Republic in the 1930s.

Instead, if war with Iran should ever come, the U.S. should go ahead with whatever action is needed against Iran, and at the same time raise the Homeland Terrorist Threat Level to Red (Critical) for the duration of the military action. Have the intestinal fortitude to put the country on a war footing here at home, and that should help prevent any blind-siding by Hezbollah.

--sinz52

(To reply, click here.)

Even though the NIE could be seen to repudiate the Bush administration's strategies in the war on terror and in Iraq, at the same time, it's good news for the pro-endless-war faction of the GOP. It's apparent that a cornerstone of their domestic political strategy is to constantly threaten Americans with vague references to terrorist attacks (even those based on "gut feelings"), and using the fear they engender to leverage all manner of innovative approaches to re-configuring the balance of power in our government, undermining constitutional rights, engaging in reckless military adventures and providing endless boondoggle opportunities to their corporate friends. For example, never mind if our invasion of Iraq brought Al Qaida in Mesopotamia into existence; the fact that they're there is the best excuse that our troops can't leave.

Likewise, if it could be said that Republican policies have worsened the problem of international terrorism, the GOP still comes out ahead. In the perennial logical disconnect that seems to be embedded in our body politic, the GOP is still automatically conferred with the mantle of "strong on defense." Even while steadfastly adhering to the currently disastrous anti-terrorist and Iraq war orthodoxy of the Bush administration—and even upping the ante in some cases—candidates like Giuliani, Romney, et al, will automatically be said to hold an edge over their Democratic rivals in the area of national defense. The fact that GOP policies have made us less safe means that we must now live in dire times. And dire times can only mean that we need to elect a strong and resolute Republican to be our president.

It's like the old joke about the definition of chutzpah: A defendant on trial for murdering his parents who begs the court for mercy because he's an orphan.

--fingerpuppet

(To reply, click here.)

I don't understand the idea that we could be less safe now than we were before we went in to Iraq. We aren't suffering more attacks on civilians here, nor on our domestic military bases. For that matter, we aren't even seeing the sorts of attacks on embassies that were commonplace in the 1990s.

I'd argue that, if anything, we've turned what was an asymmetrical threat into a more conventional one that is more likely to engage military targets in a war zone than civilians (or civilian employees of the government) in non-combat areas.

--FaxMeBeer

(To reply, click here.)

(7/19)

Washington Post