"The good news is that Al Qaeda is a less viable network than it was before 9/11"

There is strong evidence to suggest AQ understood this would be the fallout of 9/11 and that diffusion would be their best response to it - therefore it's legitimate to posit that even the 'good news' ain't good news.

The news seems to me to be a coin with two sides (at least). Many diffuse groups are harder to target, collectively, than one organization. However the pre-9/11 al Qaeda was notoriously difficult to penetrate and pursued a disciplined strategy of planning mass-casualty attacks on Americans and American interests. Groups that use al-Qaeda has an inspiration rather than being part of the organization itself ought to present more opportunities for penetration (usually by intelligence services of the states in which they operate), and might be expected to have less of a focus on American targets -- which has actually been the case so far. Obviously whether that is a good thing depends on whether you are an American or not.

This is only a comment on the implications of the NIE's conclusions about terrorist groups, not about its conclusions about Iraq or the political implications thereof. As to the last subject the thought that occurs to me is that the NIE conclusions say nothing that critics of the Bush administration could not have made a case for a year ago or more. I don't mean critics scattered here and there in the blogosphere, but elected Democratic officials in Washington. It is interesting that even now the response of Washington Democrats to the release of an administration document that supports some of the points against the Iraq commitment is not to suggest a different policy course but instead merely to demand release of the rest of the document. In this they resemble less an opposition engaged enough in national security issues to have some hope of winning public confidence than a group of elderly people seeking assurance that it is safe to cross a busy street.

The Iraq invasion was meant to address underlying factor #3. The better #3 becomes, the better factor #1 (and maybe to varying degrees the other two factors). Iraq hasn't paid off yet, but Iraq isn't about short term gain. It is about long term "fundamental" change in the Middle East. If Iraq works out (maybe that's a big if), and #3 bring about change in Iraq and the broader Middle East, then we will see the US become safer.

So, the overall "thrust" is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme. Yes, it would be nice if we were made safer now, but that isn't the most relevant metric (though it is important).

We won't know for years...

You write, "Based on this NIE fragmen ...there is simply no way to claim, ceteris paribus, that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States more secure against terrorist attacks."

There is also no way to prove that the invasion of Iraq has made the trend to increased terrorism any worse than it would have been if we'd invaded only Afghanistan.

Or, if we'd simply cowered within our own shores and invaded nobody.

Terrorism has been increasing in magnitude for the last fifteen or twenty years.

However, since our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been no attacks on American interests outside of those two combatant nations.

ChanRobt..."However, since our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been no attacks on American interests outside of those two combatant nations."

Spain and Great Britain "freed Iraq" and they were attacked only after the invasion so clearly by your logic the invasion of Iraq made those nations less safe. I would certainly consider western europe near the core of US interests.

You also must have forgotten the anthrax attacks that happened post US involvement in Afganistan.

If one views the the threat of terrorism as some function of anti-americanism in the Islamic world it is impossible to argue that the US is safer because of Iraq. People in that part of the world who poll as anti-american has increased from 50-70% to 90%+ pre and post Iraq.
You must take the Bush point of view that there is only a finite number of terrorists and "hey we kill some everyday in Iraq so fewer are alive today..so we are safer"
I love your notion that basically if the US is not out in the world killing SOMEBODY...ANYBODY the US must be "cowering".

Perhaps more important than the document itself is the timing of the leak. The timing - 40 days out from an election and precisely at the moment when Bush appeared to have a chance of regaining his political footing - suggests to me that someone has a major ax to grind.

I feel somewhat conflicted about this whole episode. Leaking classified documents is rarely a good thing and it is not something to be encouraged. On the other hand, I suspect this document would've never seen the light of day had the Bush Administration not been trying so hard to spin Iraq, rather than actually making the tough calls to change the facts on the ground.

Also, I feel this whole episode is allowing the Democrats to remain silent on the detainee issue rather than standing up to the President on principle.

there is simply no way to claim, ceteris paribus, that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States more secure against terrorist attacks

I don't understand this statement, especially the "ceteris paribus" part.

Is it intended to say that if we had not invaded Iraq we would be more secure against terrorist attacks? On basis can you conclude that? I didn't see anything in the declassified NIE that discussed what would have happened absent the Iraq war.

Drezner is getting attacked for claiming that, in light of the declassified NIE report, "there simply is no way to claim that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States more secure against terrorist attacks." Question: for those who dispute Drezner's claim, what evidence would you accept that would change your mind?

1. For those who say "Iraq is a long-term strategic move, so we cannot judge by the short-term results reported in the NIE," clearly *no* evidence will suffice to convince you the War in Iraq was a bad idea. We have to wait. Thus, you can happily *concede* that the invasion of Iraq has made the U.S. less secure in the short term against terrorist attacks, since you can wait for the "long run" -- that happy, far-off day when we bring peace, tranquility and the NFL to the people of the Middle East. Of course, in the long run, we will all be dead.

2. For those who say, "But we don't know how bad things would be if we had refrained from invading Iraq," there can be no debate with you. You are living in the ivory-colored world of the hypothetical, the Donald Rumsfeldian paradise of "unknowable unknowns." For you, the claim that the War in Iraq is helping the War on Terror is literally unfalsifiable.

3. For those who say "Ah, but we've preserved American interests by taking the fight overseas, because thus far we've prevented another attack in the U.S.," the question becomes one of bloody calculation. For you, the *potential* for another catastrophic terrorist attack on the American "homeland" dwarfs the $250 billion spent on the Iraq war, the tying down of the American military, and of course, the 3,000 dead American soldiers (and counting). Moreover, your argument critically depends on there never being another substantial terrorist attack on U.S. soil (unless, of course, you claim that there would have been more such attacks absent invasion of Iraq -- if so, join your friend above in the unknowable unknowns club, please.)

Migrate on over to my blog, the-parallax-view.blogspot.com, and let me know which camp you belong to.

Tom Maguire (and his boisterous crew of commenters)have noticed that there is not one word about Israel in the NIE excerpt. Is it just too impossible -- even in a classified document -- that both the Muslim world's poisonous anti-semitism and Isreal's self-righteous bomb everyone philosophy contribute greatly to the terrorist threat? And how seriously should we take a document that can't address the frickin' obvious?

SteveinVT,

I had a similar reaction with regards to the timing of the leak. Given that the original reporting was sourced from 12 intelligence officials in addition to the document, it appears that the intel community is crying for help.

Isreal's self-righteous bomb everyone philosophy

Wow.

Rick:

Think of Isreal much like the Black Panthers in Oakland in the 60s. One can see why they got that way, living in a neck of the woods that would like to see them dead, or at least in camps. But, nevertheless, they are bit indiscriminate on who they bomb, what property they damage, and the effects all of what they do has. They are also pretty heedless about the effect of their actions on those who would help them.

You don't talk about the Middle East and its pathologies without talking about Isreal. It's part of what has to get resolved before Terrorism goes away. (Presumably, by the Islamic Middle East reconciling itself to its existence.) An NIE that says nothing about that is likely a silly document.

Actually, the Democrats seem to be thinking that the terrorists don't hate America or Americans--just George Bush. Therefore, if they can only get rid of him, the terrorists will melt away like butter on a hot day. Terrorism is George Bush's fault, unemployment is George Bush's fault, my exema is George Bush's fault,...

...good grief.

After the Republicans create a hopeless situation, why *should* the Democrats have a plan to rescue it?

Y'all want to vote for Santa Claus?

Appalled,

I think you've oversimplified the situation, and use the term "Israel" which is an inaccurate term. Just like others criticize the "U.S." for invading Iraq-- it wasn't a group decision, it was Bush's.

Similarly Olmert arguably has overreacted, as did Netanyahu, but unlike, for the most part, Barak, Sharon (as PM), Peres and Rabin.

I'd also suggest being a little careful with your terms-- your follow-up post was signifcantly scaled back to "a bit indiscriminate" from "bomb everyone."

June 18 2004 "Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said. The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday. The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin.."

There are plenty of people who think, "It's better to fight terrorists in Iraq than to fight them at home." Unfortunately for the nearly 3,000 Americans who have died in Iraq, though, there's no way to be sure any of the people fighting against Americans in Iraq would otherwise be fighting us on our own soil.

It seems like the odds are pretty slim.

Dan corroborates Kevin's argument two posts earlier when he writes, "Fareed Zakaria offers some suggestions that I am quite sure will be ignored by the Bush administration."

Frankly, it doesn't matter what any Democratic plan is right now. The Bush administration will ignore any and all of such a plan, as it has done for the last three years, and as it will continue to do until domestic power relations force it to do otherwise. The only way to get anything other than 100 percent obeisance to the current crew is to change who is in charge of at least part of Congress. If you like your democracy with 100 percent obeisance, by all means, vote Republican this fall. If not, not.

This should be the Democrats' moment, if they can translate the national anger over Iraq into a coherent strategy for that country. But with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next. [...]

My general feeling is that the Democrats are in for an unpleasant surprise come November.

A bad plan, or even a good plan that's been poorly executed, is better than no plan.

Where are the Scoop Jackson democrats?

It is, of course, interesting that Al Qaeda itself and terrorists organizations broadly are wildly unpopular in Iraq itself. More unpopular than elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, on the whole.

Of course, terrorism (and war-fighting in general, certainly) is a lot more popular as something "over there" than at home.

There is simply no way to claim, ceteris paribus, that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States more secure against terrorist attacks.

I'll take that challenge, although perhaps somewhat facetiously. Clearly, by the above facts, invading Iraq has made Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups considerably less popular in Iraq. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups remain especially popular in dictatorships and countries that the United States has not invaded. Therefore, the United States should invade all the other dictatorships in the region, overthrowing their leaders. The ensuing civil wars and evil actions by terrorist groups will sour the rest of the populations on terrorism.

The best and in my view, most accurate, commentary on the NIE report was on Thomas Barnett's blog. You can go here and read the whole thing but basically he says if it was not Iraq, then it would be something else that had the jihadists...um...jihading.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003767.html

"A bad plan, or even a good plan that's been poorly executed, is better than no plan."

What a great statement - a bad plan is better than no plan.

Suppose I want to protect my home and family against crime. I decide to grab one of my handguns, go across the street, and shoot my neighbor in the head, figuring that will signal to criminals that I am a bad dude who whould not be messed with.

That's a bad plan. Having no plan at all would be vastly better. And to think that people who disagree run this country is truly terrifying.

Like all too many NIEs I saw in my years in the community, this one deserves a differend title. Something like "Jihadism for Dummies." The IC does have a pretty good grasp of the obvious.

What a great statement - a bad plan is better than no plan.

Suppose I want to protect my home and family against crime. I decide to grab one of my handguns, go across the street, and shoot my neighbor in the head, figuring that will signal to criminals that I am a bad dude who whould not be messed with.

That's a bad plan. Having no plan at all would be vastly better.

Military planners at the squad and platoon level are often taught that a bad plan is better than no plan. Don't just sit there, do something. If you're passive then the enemy gets to scout out your position and take the initiative. If you're active he at least doesn't know as much about where to find you.

But that applies when you know who your enemy is and what he wants, and when you're smart. It implies a minimum level of goodness in the bad plan. So for example, no plan in iraq means at some level we sit around and be targets. No good initiative. A very bad plan in iraq means we shoot lots of civilians. Maybe walk into the iraqi parliament and carry away some of the members, claiming they're Ba'athist sympathisers or Sadrist sympathisers. There's no limit to how bad a bad plan can be. Like, before the enemy shows up we can assume we're surrounded and cut off and so we order all our men to shoot themselves to avoid being captured and tortured. The worst plan has got to be worse than no plan. But no plan is pretty bad.

Actually though we did go in there with some kind of plan. We were going to let Chalabi do the planning and carry out the planning. He probably talked like he could do it.

And the US public also had a plan. We were going to let George do it.

:/

"...and according to Jane Harman, this fragment is "broadly consistent" with the overall thrust of the document -- there is simply no way to claim, ceteris paribus, that the invasion of Iraq has made the United States more secure against terrorist attacks."

A) The link goes off to a MARK MAZZETTI column in the NYT. Anybody who thinks that the NYT is objective about this subject, raise your hand. OK, you can leave, because nothing I post is going to affect your "thinking".

B) Jane Harman, one of the orignal "Blue Dogs" as an impartial source? Why should I trust the word of one of the most partisan members of Congress, one who, obviously, doesn't take her responsiblities to maintain the secrecy of classified documents she's seen as part of the Congress serioulsy?

In short, I am not impressed.

My general feeling is that the Democrats are in for an unpleasant surprise come November.

Well, after the non-filibuster of the torture-yes/habeas-no bill, I hope that Rosignol is right.

Yeah, but "doing something" doesn't mean n00b rushing Iraq.

The "Scoop Jackson" would be appalled at the state of radical conservatism gripping is in this era. As would the AuH20 GOPers.

"Military planners at the squad and platoon level are often taught that a bad plan is better than no plan."

Fine. Going to war against a nation of 25 million people is quantitatively and qualitatively different from charging a hill.

Somehow, I don't think they teach "A bad plan is better than no plan" at the Command & General Staff College.

For Jason: I love Barnett but think he's being flippant on this one. Removing the Taliban made sense to much of the Muslim world and has not been much of a "cause celebre" for Jihadists (although we've complicated things by not finishing the job).

For me, the NIE key judgments merely reaffirmed the intelligence community's firm grasp of the obvious. KJs in nearly all NIEs should be unclassified.