National Intelligence Estimate
The ODNI has released key findings from its National Intelligence Estimate on Al Qaeda and current threats. You can download that document (PDF) here.
Among the findings:
Don't miss the item in bold. Iraq is central to Al Qaeda's war against the US. So how funny is that this very day Senate Democrats are seeking to surrender and flee from Iraq, no matter the consequences?
Captain Ed adds:
This is a war we can't afford to lose.
Among the findings:
The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.
...
We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.
...
Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.
...
We assess that al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population.
...
We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.
...
We assess Lebanese Hizballah, which has conducted anti-US attacks outside the United States in the past, may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran.
...
We assess that the spread of radical—especially Salafi—Internet sites, increasingly aggressive anti-US rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West’s Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States.
Don't miss the item in bold. Iraq is central to Al Qaeda's war against the US. So how funny is that this very day Senate Democrats are seeking to surrender and flee from Iraq, no matter the consequences?
Captain Ed adds:
The NIE specifies that the main threat from AQ comes from Iraq. It calls AQI the most visible and capable unit of AQ, and the intel community believes it will expand its operations as soon as it is able. The other units of AQ have been hamstrung by global cooperation in the war on terror, but the report frets that AQ can outlast that cooperation.
This is a war we can't afford to lose.
Labels: Al Qaeda, Intelligence, Iraq










9 Comments:
At July 18, 2007 10:06 AM, NYkrinDC said…
Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.
Don't miss the item in bold. Iraq is central to Al Qaeda's war against the US. So how funny is that this very day Senate Democrats are seeking to surrender and flee from Iraq, no matter the consequences?
If only it were that simple. Alas it is not. After all, AQI derives its raison d'être from our presence in Iraq. Meaning that the longer we stay (and continue to be bogged down), the longer AQI can use our presence in the country as a recruiting tool for jihad. This argument has been borne out in many studies including one by Peter Bergen which found that many of the foreigners who went to Iraq had no previous record of Islamist leaning, and became radicalized for the most part as a result of our invasion of Iraq. This also fits with the above, that AQI "helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
Iraq is central to Al Qaeda's war against the US.
Is it? Read a different way, it seems like Iraq is a crutch for us and a boon for Al Qaeda. So far, we've spent 5 years in country, and the situation has improved only marginally. Most reports bear this out. While sectarian violence, and cooperation with Sunni Iraqis seems to have improved somewhat, we have of late seen American troops battling Iraqi police allied with Shiite militias and the readiness of Iraqi army brigades decline to the point where only 6 are seen to be battle ready as opposed to the 10 at the beginning of this year.
As for the Dems "surrendering" such language is not helpful to the debate we need to have about the course we are following in Iraq. What many Dems are trying to do, along with few republicans, is to find a responsible way to end out engagement in Iraq which many perceive as not only affecting our readiness to respond to other crises, but also as distracting us from the hunt of the al Qaeda leadership that has by all accounts, reconstituted itself in Pakistan's FATA.
Additionally, it is far from certain, indeed very unlikely that our withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for AQI. It all ultimately depends on the manner in which we leave the country.
Some have argued that AQI's worst nightmare is if the US withdraws from Iraq. The reason, AQI like every Sunni in Iraq would be at the mercy of the Shiite majority population and the Kurds. Even with us present right now, Sunnis disappear and are ethnically cleansed from various cities, regions in Iraq. Imagine how much easier it would be for the Shiite led government to ensure their annihilation once we withdraw. Sunnis know this, and it is one of the reasons they have sought to help us against AQI. AQI, on the other hand is so afraid of the Shiites that it has even recently threatened Iran with holy war for helping them. In short, AQI would not win with out withdrawal, it would be destroyed by the locals. 60% of the population is Shiite, and pissed off at Sunnis, particularly at AQI, 20% is Kurdish and equally willing and able to exact their own vengeance, that leaves a very vulnerable 20% of the population which is Sunni, and of which AQI makes up less than 10%. Those are odds I would not like if I were AQI.
I mentioned the manner in which withdraw earlier. This is what I meant. Imagine, if we make a deal with most of the Sunni groups that have repeatedly stated their willingness to put down their arms so long as the US gives them a timetable for withdrawal. That is, we give them what they want, a timetable for withdrawal but with caveats, the most important of which would be for them to destroy and eliminate every shred of AQI in Iraq. In other words, our timetable would be contingent on AQI being annihilated. If the Sunnis can do that, not only would we pledge to withdraw (initially from Anbar and other Sunni provinces) but also to push harder for the Shiite led government to carry out many of the benchmarks we have tasked them with, de-de-baathification, revising the constitution, provincial elections to allow Sunnis to elect Sunnis in their regions where now there are Shiites running things, etc. If we make our withdrawal contingent on the elimination of AQI, and the Sunnis carry out their end of the deal that would hardly seem like a defeat for us, but a very real defeat for AQI. At the same time, we can use s Sunni success to push the Shiite government to move a little further from Iran and reduce its influence over Iraqi political life, not completely but enough that the Kurds and Sunnis can have a say.
Even if that second endeavor fails, withdrawing after AQI’s destruction would not be seen as a defeat for us. We can then move to contain the sectarian violence in Iraq by placing our forces in Kurdistan, Kuwait, maybe Jordan and over the horizon, not only to prevent AQI from re-establishing itself, but also to ensure that if there is going to be killing and destruction it stays confined to the borders of Iraq. The Dems are right in one thing, we can’t contain an Iraqi civil war, all we can do is let them fight until they exhaust themselves, get our troops out of the way and then come back only when both sides are ready for peace. It isn’t an unreasonable plan.
I mean, one of the main problems we have in Iraq right now is that we are not only fighting AQI, but a myriad of conflicts (sectarian, ethnic, tribal) that have little or nothing to do with our main aim, which as the president has stated is “denying AQ a base of operations.” Even that may be an aim we don’t need to worry about much, since as I have said it, what has driven most foreign jihadists to Iraq has been our presence. Once we are gone, the influx of jihadists is likely to reduce. Not only will they have no reason to go (no Americans to fight and expel) but the climate will also be more dangerous because those that remain behind (even if we can’t get the Sunnis to destroy AQI) would be left fighting an even more fearsome enemy than the US military, native Shiite Arab Iraqis.
At July 18, 2007 1:18 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
My biggest concern about a quick and ignominius exit from Iraq is what that does for Al Qaeda.
Think of the propaganda boost they get from that. How much that would increase their standing in the Islamic world if they can brag they sent US scurrying out of Iraq in defeat.
You suggested having the Sunnis defeat AQ. I don't think they're strong enough. And if the US wasn't there, I'd think the Sunnis would be motivated to use AQ as protection against the Shiites.
Yes, as you say, with the US, fighers are drawn to Iraq. But what they be doing otherwise? AQ must be defeated somewhere.
In his 2005 letter to Zarqawi, Zawahiri said "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq."
AQ believes victory in Iraq is important. We can't give it to them.
At July 18, 2007 3:55 PM, NYkrinDC said…
I understand, that is where I disagree with some of the Democrats. I’m not arguing for a quick exit from Iraq. As you’d note from my comment, I call for a strategy to implement a withdrawal in such a way that it allows the Sunnis to defeat AQI on their own (with American help) and give most of them what they want (a timetable for US withdrawal) but make it contingent on the successful eradication of AQI. Gen. Petraus has been following a similar strategy, except that rather than give Sunnis what they really want (a timeable) we have given them a lot of cash to finance their operations against AQI.
if the US wasn't there, I'd think the Sunnis would be motivated to use AQ as protection against the Shiites.
That is what they are doing now, only instead of against the Shiites, they are using AQI against us. That is why we have to incentivize them to drop AQI like a bad habit. The few cards we have remaining is forcing the Shiite led government to carry out many of the benchmarks we set for them. Without political movement, no amount of military power will allow us to achieve our aims.
Yes, as you say, with the US, fighers are drawn to Iraq. But what they be doing otherwise? AQ must be defeated somewhere…. AQ believes victory in Iraq is important. We can't give it to them.
By doing this, we are allowing them to define the battle space, and that is a sure fire way of loosing. Instead, we need to move beyond Iraq and define the terms of the battle. AQ understands what Iraq is, a hodgepodge of sectarian, ethnic, tribal fizzures, all of which represent their own fires, and more problems than we can deal with on our own. That means, that Iraq allows them to expend little force (AQI makes up less than 15% of the total insurgency, less if you count the quasi-insurgency on the Shiite side) to bog us down in a Muslim country indefinitely, expending blood and treasure for no clearly defined aim. All that does is to erode national will for the fight we must fight. That is part of the reason why I don’t like to conflate Iraq with the larger War on Terror and why I think we need to move beyond Iraq to achieve our long term aims.
Withdrawing does not have to be about winning/loosing, but rather about repositioning and coming up with a better strategy to achieve our long term aims. As noted above, in Iraq we are expending too much force in a myriad of smaller conflicts that have nothing to do with AQ, and as such achieving little in return (for the price paid).
As for the fighters being drawn to Iraq, I argued earlier that one of the surprising things that Peter Bergen found in his study was that many of these had no prior history of Islamist leanings, or participation in these movements, rather it was the Iraq war that incited them to action. While the damage is done on that front, we need to move to change our strategy to address these findings. It is bad enough that we are already dealing with AQ’s ideology, we shouldn’t be giving it wings and helping their recruitment drive.
Will withdrawing from Iraq end the GWOT? No. But it will allow us the space necessary to re-craft our strategy to more successfully attack and destroy the enemy.
At July 18, 2007 10:51 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
I think we need to move beyond Iraq to achieve our long term aims
I do think that's an area where we have a problem. What are our long terms aims?
This radical ideology is popping up from Britain to Spain to France to Germany to Italy to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, to Thailand and Indonesia.
With Saudi financing, Iran's state support, Pakistan's madrassas, there is more to this war than just Iraq.
I think this ideology has to be shown to be bankrupt, and I think if we leave Iraq before we're seen to thoroughly beat AQ, it'll find inspiration.
At July 19, 2007 7:41 AM, NYkrinDC said…
I think this ideology has to be shown to be bankrupt, and I think if we leave Iraq before we're seen to thoroughly beat AQ, it'll find inspiration.
That would depend on the manner in which we withdraw, and on how we re-tool our strategy to address said threat. As I argued before, AQI is very unlikely to be able to take over Iraq, and one of the best ways to ensure that they are destroyed is to either let the Sunnis do it, as out lined above, or let the Shiites do it (far more bloody) for us. Either way, AQI looses. Without us there, they have no reason to exist, and even if used by Sunnis against Shiites, that only speeds the natural progression of the battle forward; to a conflict between Sunni and Shiite Islam.
Further, even if we withdraw from Iraq, that in and of itself won't determine the outcome of the Long War. In the short term, yes, AQ will find inspiration from it, but if we are able to reconnect the region (sans Iraq), resolve other disputes, and essentially address the sources of instability while keeping Iraq's quarantined, then Iraq (much like Vietnam, will be nothing more than a battle lost in a war we ultimately won.
At July 19, 2007 9:05 AM, Jeff Kouba said…
True, AQ might not "take over" Iraq, in the sense that they would govern it, but I sure think they would carve out a safe haven for themselves in the Sunni areas.
They did that now, when the US is there in force. How much easier would it be for them if we were gone.
And if the Shiite death squads kept up their killing, the Sunnis and AQ would respond, perhaps surrounding nations (like Saudi Arabia) would get more involved to protect their fellow Sunnis, Iran helps their fellow Shiites, and who knows where it ends.
Look what happened to Ramadi and Fallujah in miniature when we left AQ alone. Those cities turned into lawless AQ strongholds. Baquba too.
I don't think Iraq can be quarantined. We'd hear from the radicals there sooner or later.
At July 20, 2007 8:06 AM, NYkrinDC said…
They did that now, when the US is there in force. How much easier would it be for them if we were gone.
Yes, because absent engagement with the Sunni insurgency (by us) allowed AQI to use us to legitimize their presence. As recent events have demonstrated, now that we've engaged them and sought to assure them that we are not planning to stay forever, many Sunni tribes and insurgent groups have begun to actively fight against AQI. This doesn't mean they like us any more, simply that removing one of their reasons for fighting us (the perception we wanted to colonize Iraq) did away with their interest in continuing to aid AQI. We need to continue moving in that direction.
As for the Shiite inability to wage war against AQI, that is primarily because we have prevented them from fighting the type of war they would have fought (a similar type to AQI's, bloody and violent). With us out of the picture, they would commit 100% to getting rid of AQI and to push Sunnis out of mixed regions.
While you are right that this would push Saudi and Iran to intervene, this does not mean that AQI would be any safer. Saudi while helping their Sunni brethren in Iraq, would also target AQI because it poses as much of a threat to Saudi as it does to Iran.
As for where this would end, in a proxy war between Iran and Saudi. It's a conflict that will happen regardless.
As for AQI, again, we need a strategy to ensure that we get Sunni cooperation to eliminate AQI, and make our withdrawal contingent on its completion. The best way to do this is to also move now to ensure that Sunnis have their own enclave, with their own governing institutions, security forces etc. in a manner similar to Joe Biden's soft-partition plan.
I don't think Iraq can be quarantined.
When I talk about quarantining Iraq, I mean the violence between Iran and Saudi. AQI, if done right should not be a problem by then. Once that becomes a Sunni v Shiite fight, AQ central is likely to move away from it, because their ultimate aim would be to push the US out of the region. If US forces are no longer in Iraq, the fight with AQ moves to Afghanistan/Pakistan more fully.
At July 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
I do think there is some merit to separate regions, though the Sunni area as it is now doesn't have much oil.
I'm not sure how you'd make them happy with what they have, and I don't what you'd have to give the Shiites and Kurds to get them to give up enough to please the Sunnis if the regions are separate.
At July 21, 2007 12:44 PM, NYkrinDC said…
though the Sunni area as it is now doesn't have much oil.
True, but that would be part of the arrangement, the Sunni region would get 15-30% of oil revenue under a federal Iraqi government. Their region would be separate in terms of having their own army, laws, security forces only.
I'm not sure how you'd make them happy with what they have, and I don't what you'd have to give the Shiites and Kurds to get them to give up enough to please the Sunnis if the regions are separate.
Connectivity. If you can get the Sunnis behind the idea of separate regions/states they get oil revenue and security from Shiite death squads (not to mention American withdrawal). The Shiites get less violence, more security and stability. That allows the economy in the south to benefit from all the players who are going to want to come into the new market. That means not only Iran, but also US, China, India, etc. Same goes for Kurds, who would continue to be under federal Iraqi control, but for all intents and purposes independent.
I don't know how far we can push such a plan, but we should at least explore its possibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home