But are top U.S.intelligence officialsdenying the truthabout other matters?
Intel Officials Say U.S. Inclusiveness Dampens TerrorismBy Cliff Montgomery – Jan. 31st, 2007Though the U.S. is hardly immune to the grass-roots religious extremism that has inspired attacks in much of the rest of the world, the relative inclusiveness of American society seems to dampen radical Islam‘s spread here, intelligence officials told the House Intelligence Committee during its annual review of global threats on Jan. 18th.So what kind of of domestic threat are we facing? Philip Mudd, a senior official in the FBI‘s National Security Branch, termed it a “Pepsi jihad”–an outgrowth of extremism Mudd says has spread among young people over the past 15 years, and has been popularized by the Internet.”We see in this country on the East Coast, on the West Coast and the center of this country; kids who have no contact with al-Qaeda but who are radicalized by the ideology,” he said.Dipping into an unusual subject matter for intelligence professionals, CIA Director Michael Hayden agreed with Mudd that America’s relative openness clearly reduces the danger.America’s history as an immigrant nation and its “experience with bringing in various groups and giving them, frankly, more opportunity than they might have elsewhere has helped us immeasurably” in curtailing Islamic extremism, Hayden said flatly.Five top intelligence officials covered issues ranging from Iran and Iraq to domestic spying and al-Qaeda.National Intelligence Director John Negroponte made a promise to lawmakers that the top analysts across the 16 intelligence agencies will finish a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq by month’s end.He however disputed suggestions that it should have been done before Bush unveiled his most recent strategy for Iraq, replying that intelligence agencies have regularly provided Bush and other policy-makers with intelligence assessments and participated in the administration’s strategy sessions on Iraq.Yet this is not the point. For lawmakers to have an informed discussion on Bush’s new Iraq initiatives, they must have a final overview of the intelligence situation here and abroad. A few disconnected papers and meetings just doesn’t cut it.Committee members also raised questions about the consequences if the U.S. “fails” in Iraq.”Number one,” Hayden replied, it would create “a living hell for the Iraqi people, as the forces that are now out of control there, the self-sustaining violence continues to spill over into the region.”It would also give al-Qaeda a safe haven to plot attacks against the West, he added.But there are two problems with Hayden’s analysis.One, the Iraqi people are already in “a living hell”–and if Mr. Hayden doesn’t think so, I’d suggest he go live in Baghdad for a year under the current conditions. These are conditions caused solely by the Bush Administration’s drive to invade a country it did not have to invade, under the pretense of “evidence” no logical person could ever believe. Removing the madman who kept Iraqis in check is precisely what freed these hate-filled ethnic and religious groups to conduct a civil war they’ve been aching to fight for decades–and nothing we do now is going to stop it, short of installing another madman.Two, the administration itself gave safe haven to al-Qaeda the moment the president proclaimed in early 2002 that he wasn’t “interested” in capturing Osama bin Laden any longer, that the al-Qaeda leader had “learned his lesson,” and was “on the run.” Turning our eyes, our attention, and our war machine instead to a country and a person which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks is what has shamefully provided “safe haven” to al-Qaeda.Had we completed the job in Afghanistan, sent Bin Laden to his grave and so broken the financial and military arms of al-Qaeda that it was no longer a threat to the West–which our top experts say we can achieve, if only we keep a constant, unyielding pressure on the main al-Qaeda forces based in Afghanistan–such foolish arguments as Hayden’s would be moot.To destroy an enemy Mr. Hayden, you must destroy his base, where he comes from–not where he isn’t. The majority of attacks in Iraq are not even coming from al-Qaeda, but either from locals engaged in ethnic and religious strife, or Iraqis shamed that non-Muslim forces have invaded and occupied a Muslim country.Lawmakers also pressed Hayden and other intelligence officials on Iranian intentions. Hayden replied that he feels the Iranians want to punish the United States and tie it down in Iraq so its options in the region–including with Iran itself–are limited.But that’s a mere projection of blame. If Bush officials wish to see the faces of those who “tied us down” in the bungle that is Iraq, they need travel no farther than their mirrors.
