War in Iraq helped terrorists Options

[pebkac]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Fuels Terror
The conflict spreads extremism and serves as a laboratory for deadly tactics, says a bleak analysis by 16 U.S. intelligence units.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to other countries, according to a sweeping assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The classified document, which represents a consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, paints a considerably bleaker picture of the impact of the Iraq war than Bush administration or U.S. intelligence officials have acknowledged publicly, according to officials familiar with the assessment.

"They conclude that the Iraq war has made it worse," said a government official familiar with the document who spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney repeatedly have described the war in Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism and argue that Americans are safer as a result of the administration's policies.

The report, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," was completed and described to U.S. government officials in April but not made public. The document is what is known as a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, which is designed to represent the U.S. intelligence community's most comprehensive treatment of a subject.

The 30-page report documents an array of disturbing trends in the war on terrorism and focuses on forces that are contributing to the evolution of Islamic terrorist networks from centralized structures to an increasingly fragmented ideological movement.

"It paints a fairly stark picture of what we all know, and that this is a movement that is spreading and gaining momentum around the world," said the official familiar with the document. "Things like the Iraq war have given the terrorists recruiting tools and places to ply their trade and a training ground."

The official said the estimate touches on a number of factors fueling the jihadist movement, but that "the reference to Iraq was the main one."

A U.S. intelligence official who has seen the document said that many of the report's findings were outlined in a speech in San Antonio in April by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former principal deputy director of national intelligence. Hayden has since become director of the CIA.

Hayden did not single out the Iraq war in the speech as a particularly powerful force shaping terrorist networks. But he did acknowledge "the centrality of Iraq" and said the conflict there and how it is portrayed in Islamic media continue to cultivate support for the global jihadist movement.

In that speech, Hayden said that the global jihadist movement "is spreading and adjusting to our counterterrorism efforts, and it is also exploiting the communications revolution, the Internet."

While describing the Al Qaeda terrorist network as still the most dangerous threat to the United States, Hayden said that Islamic activists were increasingly identifying themselves as jihadists, and that they were "increasing in both their number and in their geographic dispersion."

Hayden went on to say how factors fueling the spread of the movement, including "entrenched grievances — corruption, historic injustice, even fear of Western domination — leave many in parts of the Islamic world with feelings of anger and a sense of powerlessness."

The Bush administration has made the case that a democratic government in the Middle East would serve as a beacon to other nations, providing new hope to populations of disaffected Muslims.

"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power," Bush said in his speech to the nation on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad." He also said that Americans were "safer, but we are not yet safe" from terrorism.

Bush and Cheney frequently have dismissed suggestions that the U.S. presence in Iraq has inflamed anger toward the United States, arguing that U.S. forces were not in Baghdad on Sept. 11, 2001.

In the run-up to November midterm elections, Republicans in Congress have sought to emphasize their credentials on national security and fighting terrorism, uncoupling those issues from the war in Iraq, which is unpopular with voters.

In public testimony and unclassified documents, U.S. intelligence officials have for several years been pointing to the more troubling consequences of the drawn-out conflict in Iraq. In particular, officials have highlighted the anger that Muslim extremists feel about the U.S. presence in the region — which has also been one of Osama bin Laden's rallying cries.

Intelligence officials have also pointed to the flow of Muslims from other countries, including Europe, to Iraq to join the insurgency. Those who survive the fighting often leave and return to their home countries with dangerous new experience in urban fighting, bomb-making and — perhaps most important — credibility with other potential Muslim recruits.

Last week, the House Intelligence Committee warned in a report that the danger from terrorists faced by the U.S. was "more alarming than the threat that existed" before Sept. 11. The document also warned that Iraq had become a breeding ground for terrorists who might target other countries.

The April intelligence estimate was produced under the direction of David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. Its conclusions were first reported by the New York Times on its website on Saturday.

National Intelligence Estimates are produced by the National Intelligence Council, a group of high-level analysts from government and academic institutions. The council was previously based at the CIA. But following intelligence overhauls passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the council was restructured to report to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte.

[Dogmeat]

The way I look at it is this:

If we wouldn't have attacked Iraq, that would have left al queda a lot of resources they could have spent elsewhere that they were forced or whatever to spend in iraq.

So in essense, we sacrificed iraq for the sake of the US. heh

[The Fanatic]

The way I look at it is this:

If we wouldn't have attacked Iraq, that would have left al queda a lot of resources they could have spent elsewhere that they were forced or whatever to spend in iraq.

So in essense, we sacrificed iraq for the sake of the US. heh

Too bad there were no ties between Al Queda and Iraq. The fact remains that Al Queda did not even enter Iraq until US forces intervened, for obvious reasons.

[Timbo]

Dude, fucking duh.

Timbo

[GOB]

an optimist would say that the war helped stimulate the economy in the middle east

[The Fanatic]

an optimist would say that the war helped stimulate the economy in the middle east

War usually stimulates the economy

[pebkac]

War usually stimulates the economy

Just not in the place it destroys.

[The Fanatic]

Just not in the place it destroys.

exactly

Unless of course you rebuild said place, like Japan and europe after ww 2

[GOB]

War usually stimulates the economy

i know. and i was kidding. i meant stimulating the economy in the sense that terrorists are spending more money.

[Testm0nkey]

this isnt a new revelation

[FORSAKENR320]

THE ANSWER:: this isnt a new revelation

THE QUESTION:: cathryns underpants smell like beernuts

[impala454]

it's funny how their main source is:

"They conclude that the Iraq war has made it worse," said a government official familiar with the document who spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature.

I don't really understand why one would think the war in Iraq "fuels the terrorist movement". I thought it was the general position of all the anti-iraq war people that there were no terrorists in Iraq?? So how the hell would the Iraq war affect them?

Does this anonymous "govt official" think that there'd be less terrorism if the war in Iraq had never happened??? There'd be more! You'd have saddam still in power, no doubt still avoiding weapons inspections, and 9-11 still would have happened, along with all the other attacks. I bet if we'd never set foot in Iraq, it'd be a breeding ground for terrorists by now. Especially after we went after their bases in Afghanistan, and given the fact that they've shown what kind of terrible attacks they can concoct and execute given enough time and resources.

If they're simply saying that by us fighting them they're learning how to fight us... give me a break. Better us fighting and killing them than them increasing in numbers and having training camps everywhere.

[Testm0nkey]

destroying the way of life in a country breeds terrorism even when the previous terrorism threat level from that country is low.
iraq didnt have anything to do with 911 so saying that not invading them would change that somehow doesnt make sense to me

[schwab]

I don't really understand why one would think the war in Iraq "fuels the terrorist movement".  I thought it was the general position of all the anti-iraq war people that there were no terrorists in Iraq?? So how the hell would the Iraq war affect them?

there are terrorists there....now

it has been shown in the past that al queda and other terrorist organizations moved people there after the war started to help out with all the chaos

al queda was never tehre before the war

but you knew that already, and im sure you just wanted an argument

[impala454]

there are terrorists there....now

it has been shown in the past that al queda and other terrorist organizations moved people there after the war started to help out with all the chaos

al queda was never tehre before the war

but you knew that already, and im sure you just wanted an argument

I wasn't simply looking to start an argument... I just don't believe this is true. There's two scenarios that happen:

1) We never went to Iraq

Iraq: Saddam still in power, still refuses weapons inspectors by agreement he signed. Iraqi civilians are still being mass murdered & tortued by Saddam, and he's still free to build whatever weapons he can get his hands on.

Al-Qaeda: 9-11 was before Iraq, so obviously that still happened, only now Iraq is a safe zone for them as there's no fighting there. Terrorists leave Afghanistan for safer places to plot from. Obviously the anti-Americans in Iraq have no problem harboring Al-Qaeda as they're there right now. No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

2) We remove Saddam

Iraq: Saddam behind bars, mass murders stopped, weapons inspectors get back in, any threat Saddam posed is neutralized. Safe harbor for Terrorists removed.

Al-Qaeda: There's no direction for them, no place to sit down and make plans, they know that even in Iraq they'd get smart bombed to death. Saddam can't help them, so it's a Afghanistan war simply in a different place, only this time they don't have pre-built bunkers & caves to protect them. They're on the defensive rather than the offensive.

[pebkac]

I wasn't simply looking to start an argument... I just don't believe this is true. There's two scenarios that happen:

1) We never went to Iraq

Iraq: Saddam still in power, still refuses weapons inspectors by agreement he signed. Iraqi civilians are still being mass murdered & tortued by Saddam, and he's still free to build whatever weapons he can get his hands on.

Al-Qaeda: 9-11 was before Iraq, so obviously that still happened, only now Iraq is a safe zone for them as there's no fighting there. Terrorists leave Afghanistan for safer places to plot from. Obviously the anti-Americans in Iraq have no problem harboring Al-Qaeda as they're there right now. No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

2) We remove Saddam

Iraq: Saddam behind bars, mass murders stopped, weapons inspectors get back in, any threat Saddam posed is neutralized. Safe harbor for Terrorists removed.

Al-Qaeda: There's no direction for them, no place to sit down and make plans, they know that even in Iraq they'd get smart bombed to death. Saddam can't help them, so it's a Afghanistan war simply in a different place, only this time they don't have pre-built bunkers & caves to protect them. They're on the defensive rather than the offensive.

I thought we'd already realized the Saddam/Al Qaeda link thing was a myth?

[impala454]

I thought we'd already realized the Saddam/Al Qaeda link thing was a myth?

i didn't say there was a link.

i said

No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

besides, the report that started the thread says the war in Iraq is "helping terrorists". so if there's no link between them how is this possible?

[chook]

The problem is that Saddamn wasn't down with Al Qaeda or any religious extremist .

[schwab]

I wasn't simply looking to start an argument... I just don't believe this is true. There's two scenarios that happen:

1) We never went to Iraq

Iraq: Saddam still in power, still refuses weapons inspectors by agreement he signed. Iraqi civilians are still being mass murdered & tortued by Saddam, and he's still free to build whatever weapons he can get his hands on.

Al-Qaeda: 9-11 was before Iraq, so obviously that still happened, only now Iraq is a safe zone for them as there's no fighting there. Terrorists leave Afghanistan for safer places to plot from. Obviously the anti-Americans in Iraq have no problem harboring Al-Qaeda as they're there right now. No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

2) We remove Saddam

Iraq: Saddam behind bars, mass murders stopped, weapons inspectors get back in, any threat Saddam posed is neutralized. Safe harbor for Terrorists removed.

Al-Qaeda: There's no direction for them, no place to sit down and make plans, they know that even in Iraq they'd get smart bombed to death. Saddam can't help them, so it's a Afghanistan war simply in a different place, only this time they don't have pre-built bunkers & caves to protect them. They're on the defensive rather than the offensive.

your logic is great and all, minus the fact that we were at war in afghanistan for over a year and a half and there were no reports of "terrorists" making mass movements to Iraq during htat time

and hell, maybe if we had focused only on Afghanistan we would have been able to actually complete that job instead of watching that country fall back to the taliban


So, weapon inspectors were not allowed in....but there are no weapons there? But NK is cool without letting them in. Saddam was not a threat to us, he wanted to keep power and he would not do that by attacking an ally of ours.

Either way, it appears most terrorists are going to Pakistan or chilling in the mountains anyways in Afghanistan, most of hte "terrorists" now in Iraq are from syria or neighboring countries, which strangely afghanistan is not.

besides, the report that started the thread says the war in Iraq is "helping terrorists". so if there's no link between them how is this possible?

you have a hard time listening so i will type in caps so its easier to read....BEFORE THE WAR IN IRAQ, NO TERRORISTS GROUPS WERE THERE, NOW THERE ARE. THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QUEDA HOWEVER NOW AL QUEDA IS THERE AFTER WE INVADED. BY INVADING, WE GAVE THE TERRORISTS A NEW FRONT TO ATTACK US ON AND GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO RECRUIT MORE PEOPLE IN IRAQ

[Testm0nkey]

BUT IM FROM TEXAS

[impala454]

So, weapon inspectors were not allowed in....but there are no weapons there?

once again (I dunno why this has to be repeated).. why on earth would saddam have not allowed inspectors in if he had none? he played the UN's pussy leaders and bought himself all the time in the world to get rid of them. It's kinda like dazed n confused when the dudes are smokin pot... dad knocks on the door, they don't let him in until they dump it and clean up the smell.

But NK is cool without letting them in.

I doubt they'll be "cool" for too long.

Saddam was not a threat to us,

this has got to be the most naive common belief on this topic. everybody believes this. why? i have no idea. we ass-raped the man back in the early 90s. then he starts avoiding weapons inspections for WMD. the guy hates us, he kills his own people, whats to stop him from trying to put together some WMD to kill us??

he wanted to keep power and he would not do that by attacking an ally of ours.

what??? he already did this... why would he not ever do it again?

most of hte "terrorists" now in Iraq are from syria or neighboring countries, which strangely afghanistan is not.

NOW AL QUEDA IS THERE AFTER WE INVADED

?? so which is it?

BY INVADING, WE GAVE THE TERRORISTS A NEW FRONT TO ATTACK US ON

Oh that's wonderful... lets avoid all contact with the outside world. If the UK gets invaded lets not go help them, we wouldn't want to put troops closer to the terrorists. WW2 was a huge mistake... we gave germany easier access to kill our troops

AND GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO RECRUIT MORE PEOPLE IN IRAQ

how the hell does us invading Iraq give al-qaeda the ability to recruit in iraq? this makes absolutely no sense.

you have a hard time listening so i will type in caps so its easier to read....

caps are harder to read (and much more annoying). they also don't make you smarter.

[FORSAKENR320]

once again (I dunno why this has to be repeated).. why on earth would saddam have not allowed inspectors in if he had none? he played the UN's pussy leaders and bought himself all the time in the world to get rid of them. It's kinda like dazed n confused when the dudes are smokin pot... dad knocks on the door, they don't let him in until they dump it and clean up the smell.

if a cop wants into your house, do you immediately let him in, even though you have nothing to hide? it's the "you're not the boss of me" idea

does a cop assume that you have something to hide when you DON'T let them in? of course.

[Mommy]

I dont know if this has anything to do with this topic, but ill post it here anyways. I got this CNN breaking news update a couple hours ago

-- Key conclusions of a report assessing the state of global terrorism
are released after President Bush ordered its declassification. One
assessment is Iraq is shaping a new generation of terror leaders.

[The Fanatic]

how the hell does us invading Iraq give al-qaeda the ability to recruit in iraq?  this makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine a scenario. A militant group exists in America that you are fundamentally oppossed to because of their fanatical ideas regarding nationalism and religion. A year later the chinese invade and take over the united states. You join the militant group as an outlet to fight the Chinese, not so much because you support their ideals but you are united in wanting to get the chinese out of america. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. Iraq has been occupied by a foreign imperialistic power (the US) and now the Iraqis want their independence. As A result they join "terrorist" (some may actually be terroristic in nature) organizations to fight the US. Seems logical enough to me. Not to mention, many people in Iraq held contempt for the US before the invasion because of sanctions and general US hostility worldwide. The invasion made targeting the US easier and more rational for these groups.

this has got to be the most naive common belief on this topic. everybody believes this. why? i have no idea. we ass-raped the man back in the early 90s. then he starts avoiding weapons inspections for WMD. the guy hates us, he kills his own people, whats to stop him from trying to put together some WMD to kill us??

Almost ALL of the WMD that he used were supplied by the United States in the 1980's. Let's not forget that the United States has more WMD then any other country in the world and we threaten the world community on an almost daily basis.

Oh that's wonderful... lets avoid all contact with the outside world. If the UK gets invaded lets not go help them, we wouldn't want to put troops closer to the terrorists. WW2 was a huge mistake... we gave germany easier access to kill our troops

Terrorists are fundamentally different then national armies. A nation can be brought down by destroying infastructure, cities, moral etc. A terrorist organization can fundamentally not be defeated, unless every member is killed. What is ironic is that Bush calls this a "War On Terror", however this war which had nothing to do with terror has strengthened and emboldened the terrorists.