Spy report says Iraq War made terrorism worse, Prez pissed, media happy, Dems on attack, ohmigod! fuck me with a liquid gel

1. Big News: The War Failed -- by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

There's an episode of "I Dream of Jeannie" from years ago when Jeannie blinks into existence tomorrow's newspaper. Everyone is amazed and riveted by the implications of knowing tomorrow's headlines today. Many possibilities here!

In the case of the war on terror, we could have known tomorrow's headlines five years ago. In particular, this headline, which is supposed to be shocking and apparently has people in Washington going nuts, seemed positively ho hum: "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: U.S. Intelligence Assessment Is Said to Find a Rise in Global Islamic Radicalism."

Just so that we are clear on this, we should be reminded that the stated policy of the Bush administration, just before bombing Iraq's cities and overthrowing its Sunni government, was to bring freedom, democracy, and pluralistic happiness to the country.

Five years later, the puppet government in Baghdad is still in a bunker, tanks patrol streets, there are curfews and speech controls, major parts of the country have effectively seceded, the water is dirty and disease ridden, electricity is still off, migration out increases exponentially, tribal war is routine, American soldiers' heads are blown off if they so much as poke them out of the foxhole, and religious and ethnic hatreds grow.

We keep hearing that Iraq is "on the brink" of civil war, but how will we know when we move from brink to reality? The Sunnis hate the ruling Shiites, the Kurds hate them both, and everyone hates the Christians and Jews. It's all about a struggle for power: who gets to twist the thumbscrews, and whose thumbs are screwed. If this is the brink, the reality will be unbearable.

Can you imagine that anyone in the US believed that the answer to these problems was to put George Bush in charge?

But it was indeed Bush's idea that he would quell Islamic radicalism by smashing the world that the relative moderates had created, and acting precisely as the fundamentalists always claimed he would act. It's as if the fundies themselves had written the script, and George played the leading role in a play they were directing.

Hence, even by the Bush administration's own standards, the war on terror has increased the problem rather than diminished it.

Students of government can hardly be surprised that a government program ends up creating the very opposite of what it purported to accomplish. Welfare increases poverty, the minimum wage boosts unemployment, prohibition promotes the banned behavior, and, just as we would expect once we understand the logic, the war on terror has created and encouraged the rise of more terrorism and the ideology that backs it.

We hardly need a National Intelligence Estimate to demonstrate it to us. What this intelligence estimate really shows is that the reality has become too obvious for even the government to deny. The report cites gobs of secret data that can't be divulged to the public. Oh sure. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the effects of all government policy, along with a bit of understanding of human nature, would have predicted this very thing.

After all, Iraq was never a hotbed of terror. The Bush administration just pretended that it was because Bush wanted to get Saddam. It wasn't even a campaign theme. But it was first on the agenda when he came into office. 9-11 helped by whipping up the public for war, even though there was no relationship between 9-11 and Iraq. But it does appear that Bush got more than he bargained for. He can't win this war, no matter how many Americans and Iraqis he sends to their deaths.

But who precisely benefits in the end? Fundamentalists, to be sure, but also the federal government, which gets more power and control. There is also a critical financial factor. The tens of billions that have been shoveled out by the public sector to the private sector in this war have gone mainly to Bush-connected corporations and elites. They are the ones who have benefited from the "privatization" of the war, in the name of efficiency.

But what is really puzzling here is the intellectual failure of the conservatives and libertarians who have cheered for this war from the beginning. Why do these people, who otherwise understand the failure of government in all aspects of domestic politics, believe that the government has a Midas touch in dealing with foreign affairs? Here we have a serious and dramatic example of cognitive dissonance.

It's as if a person who is terrified of drinking poison in the morning mistakes it for an aperitif in the evening.

What a poor example these people set for the left! If conservatives and libertarians are not willing to apply their anti-government logic consistently against war, how can they be surprised that the left is not willing to apply its antiwar logic domestically? Combine the two schools of inconsistency and you have the makings of the ever-growing welfare-warfare state.

So you want to know the future? It's not as hard as it seems. Expect every government program to fail to achieve its stated aims – domestic and foreign – and you will hit the mark every time.

(Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [ send him mail ] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com , and author of Speaking of Liberty)


2. Negroponte: Iraq spawning new terror leaders
Intel chief denies U.S. is at greater risk, responds to classified report furor

Senior U.S. officials confirmed Monday that a classified intelligence report does conclude that the Iraq war has worsened the terror threat, though the Bush administration has contended the opposite, even though the report has been available since April. NBC's David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell report.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said Monday the jihad in Iraq is shaping a new generation of terrorist operatives, but rejected assertions, stemming from a leaked intelligence estimate, that the United States is at a greater risk of attack than it was in 2001.

"We are certainly more vigilant. We are better prepared," Negroponte said. "We are safer."

Negroponte's words came at a dinner at Washington's Woodrow Wilson Center after the weekend disclosure of a high-level National Intelligence Estimate. The document gave new fervor to an election-year debate about how the Iraq war has affected national security threats.

The report, Negroponte said, broadly addressed the global terrorist threat, not just the impact of Iraq.

He told the audience that radicalism is being fueled by entrenched grievances in the Arab world, the slow pace of social and political reforms there and anti-U.S. sentiment.

In addition, he said, "The Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

Lawmakers want intel report declassified

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee urged the Bush administration Monday to declassify the intelligence assessment.

Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the American people should be able to see a public version of the report and draw their own conclusions about its contents. So far, he said, the public discussion has given the "false impression" that the National Intelligence Estimate focuses exclusively on Iraq and terrorism.

"That is not true," Roberts said, noting that the committee has had the report since April. "This NIE examines global terrorism in its totality."

In a letter to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's top Democrat, said declassifying the report's conclusions would provide a complete picture of the report and "contribute greatly to the public debate" on counterterrorism policies.

Negroponte said he would consider the proposal in the next several days, given the interest in the document.

The report distills the thinking of senior U.S. intelligence analysts working throughout the nation's 16 spy agencies. Its conclusions are considered to be the voice of the U.S. intelligence community.

Conclusions at odds with Bush’s assertions

The New York Times first reported Saturday that the highly classified assessment finds that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has helped fuel a new generation of extremists and that the overall terror threat has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — a conclusion at odds with President Bush's assertions that the nation is safer.

But Bush administration officials including Negroponte are contesting the media accounts, saying they describe only a portion of the conclusions and therefore distort the analysts' findings on trends in global terrorism.

As the November election approaches, the report has touched off an intense political debate about the impact of Iraq on U.S. security and the Bush administration's ability to go after terrorists.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Osama bin Laden and other Sept. 11 planners have not yet been brought to justice and Bush should read the intelligence carefully "before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism." She and 10 other Democratic leaders asked House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to hold hearings on the document's findings.

At a speech in April, believed to draw from the intelligence assessment, Negroponte's deputy at the time, Gen. Michael Hayden, said the centrality of the fight in Iraq and the diffusion of radical Islamic groups reinforce each other.

"We must understand the deep underlying realities there, and more importantly how it is routinely portrayed in Islamic media, continues to cultivate supporters for the global jihadist movement," he said.

Hayden said the threat from "self-radicalized" cells that are not necessarily tied to al-Qaida or some other central organization will also grow in importance. "The homeland will not be immune to such cells, but the threat will be especially acute abroad," he said.


3. What $300 Billion Bought Us
Torturing the Obvious
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN (from Counterpunch)

The New York Times reports that a National Intelligent Estimate (NIE) from April 2006 concludes the Iraq War has actually increased Islamic radicalism. You don't say! Americans want to know why our bombing, devastating and occupying a country that has done us no harm would inflame its people.

"Common Sense", wrote Einstein, "is prejudice acquired before the age of 18". In science, the obvious is often contrary to the truth, which explains why scientists are sticklers for 'proof'. As Isaac Asimov said, anyone could 'see' that the sun revolved around the earth. Mistrusting the obvious is thus the first attribute of any scientist.

In human affairs, on the other hand, the obvious may be the most important thing. Not for nothing does the Declaration of Independence say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". If instead, Thomas Jefferson were to have set out to prove why Life, Liberty and Happiness are essential commodities for human existence, the British might still be here. As it is, the document calls out to us across the centuries. The great leaps in politics are made by appeals to the heart, not the head.

The great truths ( eternal verities , my dad called them) have no proof, nor are they pious. They are merely based on emprical, societal, experience. In the old saying "Honesty is the best Policy", the use of the word, "Policy" is worth noting. It appeals not to ideology or ethics, but to simple everyday practicality. It says that any temporary gains of dishonesty are bound to evaporate and cause a loss over the long run.

The devotion to such obvious truths was America's salvation. It was a uniter. It was obvious that rules were to be obeyed, that the law was majestic. Even more, it was obvious that the law acquired teeth not by adding provisions, but by first enforcing the ones that existed. Scrapping or changing laws was difficult by design. Even people on the street seemed to have a working understanding of the Constitution and were aware of things like the first or fourth amendments, no mean achievement for a large society.

What should one say when, in a few short decades, a people whose native pragmatism and instinctive linkage of societal and personal self-interest made their country unique, suddenly seem to have reached a stage where the obvious requires a dissertation? We live in a milieu where coffee stores need to put up signs warning patrons that spilling hot coffee on your crotch can be painful.

Whence this sudden descent? Not so sudden, actually, for the signs have been there all along. As Michael Neumann wrote, the onset of Dementia Americana seems to have its origins all the way back in the election of Ronald Reagan. Whether or not Neumann is correct, take a look at this list; blunders that would have been immediately obvious to a previous generations, but which barely trouble the current one:

“The proposition that budget deficits and lowered taxes would together usher in the millenium, an obvious crock, gives the Gipper a 49 state reelection win,

“The notion that shutting down American factories and getting things manufactured abroad, touted and accepted as the way to enduring prosperity,

“NAFTA, whose obvious consequence was described best by Ross Perot's "Giant Sucking Sound" (a prediction realized in greater measure than even Perot might have imagined),

“Attacks on the preservation of the environment, an American ideal dating back to Teddy Roosevelt, steadily under attack begining with James Watt, with state after state voting for the notion that land conservation was inimical to individual prosperity,

“The obvious advantage of having a common language for the country, undermined by a tawdry appeal to multiculturalism and multilingualism (signs in every language, so long as we can sell in one of 'em!),

“Country actually entertains a serious debate about whether illegal immigration is bad,

“President ignores warnings of 'bin Laden determined to strike inside the US', vacations, reads My Pet Goat, and refuses to order an inquiry into 9-11 until over a year later, when forced,

“Responding to 15 hijackers coming from a country which financed madraasas and recognized Osama's hosts, by going to war against a country which had no connection to 9-11,

“Responding to the attack by training our guns on the American Constitution, a la the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, detentions without trial ...,

“Reelecting a President who had not only flubbed 9-11, but was so obviously clueless three years later that he had to explain in the first presidential debate, ‘Of course I know Osama Bin Laden Attacked Us. I know that’.”

Comedy happens when the fool pays inordinate attention to some trifling problem while disaster looms in the background, unknown to him but obvious to the audience. While America gets riled up over gay rights (for or against) and engrossed in who won Survivor last night, state and country totter under a quarter century of determined movement (see James Kurth's excellent essay, The Rich Got Richer ) toward a split society.

Now, three hundred billion dollars (and counting) have bought us, we are told, the spread of Islamic radicalism. The obvious solution? Go after those who leaked the story, of course. Thank God for that brand new torture agreement. Now at least the President is bound (unless he decides otherwise) to permit the Times and the leakers to see the evidence.

(Niranjan Ramakrishnan can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com . His blog is at http://njn-blogogram.blogspot.com)


4. A Broken, De-Humanized Military in Iraq -- by Dahr Jamail

While the deranged chicken-hawks who "lead" the US continue their efforts to wage another unprovoked war of aggression, this time against Iran, what's left of their already overstretched military continues to be bled in Iraq.

When the situation is so critical that even the corporate media is forced to report on it, you know it's bad. Last week on the NBC Nightly News, General Barry McCaffrey, now retired, said of the current state of the US military, "I think, arguably, it's the worst readiness condition the US Army has faced since the end of Vietnam." This isn't a big surprise when we consider the facts that many soldiers are already into their third combat tour, frequent deployments have cut training time at home in half, and two thirds of all Army combat units are rated not ready for combat.

The fact that 60% of National Guard soldiers have already reached their limit for overseas combat is most likely not going to slow down the Cheney administration's lust for more war. Most likely, they'll just have Rummy change the Pentagon's policy that currently limits Guard combat tours to two out of every five years.

This change was apparently already expected by Lieutenant General Steven Blum, of the National Guard, who told NBC, "If you think the National Guard's busy today, I think we're going to look back and say 'these were the good old days' in about three years." A comment to which General McCaffrey responded: "More is being asked of them, particularly the National Guard and reserve components, than they signed up to do. And in the near-term, we think it's going to unravel."

That "near-term" seemed to be about 72 hours away from McCaffrey's comments. On Monday, the Army announced that because it is stretched so thin by the occupation of Iraq, it is once again extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers beyond their promised 12-month tours. It's the second time since August (i.e., last month) that this has occurred. The 1st Brigade Armored Division, which is having its tour extended, just happens to be located in the province of Al-Anbar, which the military has long since lost control of. Between 3,500 and 4,000 soldiers are affected by this decision.

The move prompted defense analyst Loren Thompson to tell reporters: "The Army is coming to the end of its rope in Iraq. It simply does not have enough active-duty military personnel to sustain the current level of effort."

There are currently over 142,000 US soldiers in Iraq. Just last week General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the region, said the military is likely to maintain and possibly even increase its force level in Iraq through next spring.

What does this look like for US troops on the ground in Iraq? Here is an email I received just last week from a mother whose son is serving in the US military in Ramadi:

“My son cannot bear what he is forced to do, and has probably through sheer terror, confusion, and split-second decisions, killed innocent civilians. He is well aware of this, and I have witnessed the consequences first hand. He probably carries innocent blood on his hands. The killing of innocent people is virtually unavoidable. He is in Al-Anbar region. You are the ONLY person in the media who has responded to my emails. The other emails I sent to news organizations questioning why so little news out of Al-Anbar were unanswered. I believe that it is because the US has lost that region, and is suppressing that news to the American public. My son called me last week from Ramadi and said the war is lost - they are just going thru the motions, again, forced to carry out orders and risk their lives for an unobtainable and unjust goal. I continue to read your web site, as well as others, while I pray for my son's safe homecoming in spring.”

Her anguish, the description of her son's mental state, and her son's report of the conditions in Ramadi, tragic as they are, come as no surprise. At the time of this writing, over 2,703 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and over ten times that number wounded. This month, over 61 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. With an average of over 2.5 killed daily this month, at the time of this writing it's already the third bloodiest month this year in Iraq for occupation forces.

Another report released last weekend from the Veterans Health Administration found that over one third of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking medical treatment are reporting symptoms of stress or other metal disorders. This is a tenfold increase in the last 18 months alone. The dramatic jump in cases is attributed to the fact that more troops are facing multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is of course complicated by the fact that veterans' groups claim that the VA is not able to meet the growing demand for services. Already, veterans have had to deal with long waits for doctor appointments (oftentimes over six months), staffing shortages, and lack of equipment at medical centers run by the VA.

The woman who sent me the email about her son gave me permission to publish another email that shows clearly how the over-stretch of the military in Iraq and multiple tours are affecting her son:

“I have established contact with my son, thank God, and he writes to me daily about Iraqi atrocities, and how he wants to wax them all. His morale is low and he has a weak LT who is unable to keep up with the pace required. I would love to share these emails with you, but I am afraid. I'm afraid of the implications should this ever get out. I want to do nothing to endanger my communications with my son. My impression through my readings and contact with soldiers is that the Iraqis are generally good people. The American occupation seems to be only making things that much worse for the average Iraqi. My impression is that Iraq is a country with no hope. No matter what is done, they will never have a stable government, no matter what form it might take. From my son, I'm able to glean the complete CHAOS Ramadi is in. It is hopeless. As a mother, I want him to do whatever is necessary to come home, and will not sugar-coat my thoughts: that he should kill everything and come home. Naturally, not someone who is obviously an innocent civilian, but how do you tell? How do you know who is innocent and who is a threat? Therefore, he feels that daisy-cutting the town is the only option. Of course this will not happen, and he's blowing smoke. However, it is an indication of how bad things are there ... the struggle between the Marines and the insurgents is never ending. The type of bomb now employed by the insurgents (whoever they are) is frightening ... a metal plate on the ground: when the Marine steps on it, it connects the circuit and that boy is blown up. My son is running missions thru back alleys ... and is hauling a machine gun that is destroying his back. He is a slender young man, and the gear he is carrying is affecting his health. He can run for miles, but not with a hundred pounds on him. Already I hear such a hardness in his emails, such low morale, such hopelessness, and he has only just begun this deployment (hopefully his last ... his third).

“America is a great nation, compassionate to many, and is my homeland. I am sickened at what is happening, and what my son is being made to do as a Marine. Ultimately we have morphed into an empire. It breaks my heart that my son may die on foreign soil fighting a useless war that will only lead to more death and destruction ...”

The longer the occupation of Iraq continues, more death and destruction are two things all of us can count on. Along with a broken, bleeding military that is being stretched even further each day, and the anxious families of those serving, whose nerves and hearts are also being stretched further each day.

(Dahr Jamail is an independent journalist who has reported for the Guardian, the Independent, and the Sunday Herald. He now writes regularly for Inter Press Service and Truthout. He maintains a web site at dahrjamailiraq.com)


5. Facing Facts on Iraq (NY Times editorial)

While Iraq is a central issue in this year’s election campaigns, there is very little clear talk about what to do, beyond vague recommendations for staying the course or long-term timetables for withdrawal. That is because politicians running for election want to deliver good news, and there is nothing about Iraq — including withdrawal scenarios — that is anything but ominous.

In the real Iraq, armed Shiite and Kurdish parties have divided up the eastern two-thirds of the country, leaving Sunni insurgents and American marines to fight over the rest. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and his “national unity cabinet” stretch out their arms to like-thinking allies like Iran and Hezbollah, but barely lift a finger to rein in the sectarian militias and death squads spreading terror across Baghdad and the Shiite south.

The civilian death toll is now running at roughly 100 a day, with many of the victims gruesomely tortured with power tools or acid. Over the summer, more Iraqi civilians died violent deaths each month than the number of Americans lost to terrorism on Sept. 11. Meanwhile, the electricity remains off, oil production depressed, unemployment pervasive and basic services hard to find.

Iraq is today a broken, war-torn country. Outside the relatively stable Kurdish northeast, virtually every family — Sunni or Shiite, rich or poor, powerful or powerless — must cope with fear and physical insecurity on an almost daily basis. The courts, when they function at all, are subject to political interference; street-corner justice is filling the vacuum. Religious courts are asserting their power over family life. Women’s rights are in retreat.

Growing violence, not growing democracy, is the dominant feature of Iraqi life. Every Iraqi knows this. Americans need to know it too.

Beyond the futility of simply staying the course lies the impossibility of keeping the bulk of American ground forces stationed in Iraq indefinitely. They have already been there for 42 months, longer than it took the United States to defeat Hitler. The strain is undermining the long-term strength of the Army and Marines, threatening to divert the National Guard from homeland security and emboldening Iran and North Korea. Yet with the military situation deteriorating, the Pentagon has had to give up any idea of significant withdrawals this year, or for that matter anytime in the foreseeable future.

If there is still a constructive way out of this disaster, it has to begin with some truth-telling. Politicians are not going to press for serious solutions when their constituents have not been prepared to understand what the real options are. Republicans will not talk about genuine alternatives as long as their supporters have been primed to believe victory is possible. Few Democrats will advocate anything that might wind up transferring responsibility for this awful mess to them.

Acknowledging the hard facts of today’s Iraq must be more than a political talking point for the president’s opponents. It is the only possible beginning to a serious national discussion about what kind of American policy has the best chance of retrieving whatever can still be retrieved in Iraq and minimizing the damage to wider American interests.