Spinning the NIE: Deny, Pretend, or Blame Clinton
I'm sorry to keep harping on this issue, but I'm fascinated by how defenders of the Iraq War are reacting to the key judgment in the recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the terrorism threat we face considerably worse.
As a general matter, defenders of Bush's foreign policy react to bad news by doing one of three things: 1) denying it ("there were WMD!"), 2) pretending like it's not bad news but was part of the plan all along ("we're creating a flytrap to lure terrorists out into the open"), or 3) blaming someone else ("it was all Clinton's fault").
The responses to the NIE have predictably followed this same pattern.
By far the most common response is reflexive denial ("that can't be right; the authors of the NIE must not have considered X, Y, and Z"). Robert Kagan provided a perfect example of this sort of response in his maddeningly obtuse op-ed in the Post the other day.
Jonah Goldberg, on the other hand, provided the classic example of the second type of response in this post at The Corner, dismissing the NIE conclusion as obvious and unremarkable ("lots of things go badly until they go well").
Until today, however, I'd yet to see a good example of the third type of response. But then I stumbled across this National Review article by Andrew McCarthy. The title says it all: "Yes, Our Iraq Policy Has Helped al Qaeda Recruit . . . Especially when it was Clinton's Iraq policy."
What's McCarthy talking about? I'll let him explain:
Got that? If we're going to make the "inane" argument that Bush's decision to invade Iraq made the terrorism problem worse, we are logically compelled to condemn Clinton just as much, if not more. Why? Because Osama didn't like his policies either.
Yes, that's what passes for analysis at the National Review. At the risk of giving this dumb argument more attention than it deserves, allow me to make a few observations. First, Clinton inherited his Iraq policy from George H.W. Bush, a policy that was dictated by the way in which Bush had chosen to resolve the first Gulf War. And while that policy--particularly the part that required the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia--likely contributed to the growing al Qaeda threat, the true magnitude of that threat was not at all apparent at the time. Moreover, at the time, our primary policy objective was to contain Saddam Hussein, not to combat terrorism.
After 9/11, however, it became apparent to everyone that our primary foreign policy objective had to be reducing the threat of terrorism. The second Iraq War was launched ostensibly for that purpose. It's one thing when a policy that was never designed with terrorism in mind leads to an increase in terrorism. That's unfortunate, but hardly blameworthy. But when a policy that was designed and sold as a strategy for reducing the threat of terrorism actually results in a dramatic increase in that threat, that's a big deal.
But not in McCarthy's simplistic world. Toward the end of the article, McCarthy writes: "Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq." Now there's some sophisticated analysis. Apparently jihadists are just born instinctively hating us; events in the outside world have no effect whatsoever on their thinking.
If only that were true.
As a general matter, defenders of Bush's foreign policy react to bad news by doing one of three things: 1) denying it ("there were WMD!"), 2) pretending like it's not bad news but was part of the plan all along ("we're creating a flytrap to lure terrorists out into the open"), or 3) blaming someone else ("it was all Clinton's fault").
The responses to the NIE have predictably followed this same pattern.
By far the most common response is reflexive denial ("that can't be right; the authors of the NIE must not have considered X, Y, and Z"). Robert Kagan provided a perfect example of this sort of response in his maddeningly obtuse op-ed in the Post the other day.
Jonah Goldberg, on the other hand, provided the classic example of the second type of response in this post at The Corner, dismissing the NIE conclusion as obvious and unremarkable ("lots of things go badly until they go well").
Until today, however, I'd yet to see a good example of the third type of response. But then I stumbled across this National Review article by Andrew McCarthy. The title says it all: "Yes, Our Iraq Policy Has Helped al Qaeda Recruit . . . Especially when it was Clinton's Iraq policy."
What's McCarthy talking about? I'll let him explain:
It was over eight years ago, in February 1998, that bin Laden issued his infamous fatwa calling for Muslims to murder any and all Americans . . .This instruction section of the fatwa has gotten much attention over the years. Yet, the justification section has hardly been examined at all. To do so, after all, would not just call attention to the Clinton security failures; it would destroy the left's favorite narrative: "Bush's Iraq War Has Caused More Terrorism and Made Us Less Safe.". . .
Osama bin Laden claimed in 1998 that President Clinton's policy was a "continuing aggression against the Iraqi people"; a "devastation" that continued the "horrific massacres" of the 1991 Gulf War. For the world's leading jihadist, Clinton's purported "eagerness to destroy Iraq" was the "best proof" of America's intentions toward the Islamic world. None of it was true, of course, but that didn't stop him from saying it.
Now, did the Clinton Iraq policy endanger the United States by providing bin Laden with a valuable tool for recruitment and incitement? I suppose if I were a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, I'd have to say it did. After all, adopting what passes for this line of reasoning, the 1998 fatwa was followed by the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing well over 200 people. The following year, plots against Los Angeles International Airport and the U.S.S. The Sullivans were thwarted by sheer luck. In October 2000, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked, resulting in the murders of 17 American sailors. And in the run-up to the 9/11 atrocities, Bush did not change Clinton's Iraq policy; he continued it.
If we're to be honest, however, it would be preposterous to claim that anything President Clinton did--in Iraq or anyplace else--"caused" jihadist terrorism. Just as it is inane to argue now that our current Iraq policy is the "cause."
Got that? If we're going to make the "inane" argument that Bush's decision to invade Iraq made the terrorism problem worse, we are logically compelled to condemn Clinton just as much, if not more. Why? Because Osama didn't like his policies either.
Yes, that's what passes for analysis at the National Review. At the risk of giving this dumb argument more attention than it deserves, allow me to make a few observations. First, Clinton inherited his Iraq policy from George H.W. Bush, a policy that was dictated by the way in which Bush had chosen to resolve the first Gulf War. And while that policy--particularly the part that required the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia--likely contributed to the growing al Qaeda threat, the true magnitude of that threat was not at all apparent at the time. Moreover, at the time, our primary policy objective was to contain Saddam Hussein, not to combat terrorism.
After 9/11, however, it became apparent to everyone that our primary foreign policy objective had to be reducing the threat of terrorism. The second Iraq War was launched ostensibly for that purpose. It's one thing when a policy that was never designed with terrorism in mind leads to an increase in terrorism. That's unfortunate, but hardly blameworthy. But when a policy that was designed and sold as a strategy for reducing the threat of terrorism actually results in a dramatic increase in that threat, that's a big deal.
But not in McCarthy's simplistic world. Toward the end of the article, McCarthy writes: "Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq." Now there's some sophisticated analysis. Apparently jihadists are just born instinctively hating us; events in the outside world have no effect whatsoever on their thinking.
If only that were true.
posted by A.L. at 11:42 PM
7 Comments:
Very good points. It brings to mind other examples, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which everything boils down to a simplistic "good" vs "evil" dichotomony. History is irrelevant to this kind of worldview, as are cause and effect. I suppose it's part of people's general reluctance to accept responsibility for their own actions...it's far easier and less guilt-inducing to blame everyone else and hide behind canards like "they hate our freedom."
Not to mention that it relies on a false equivilancy between the amount each President's policy antagonized already radical young men. Sure, none them liked President Clinton's sanctions, but the reaction to a full scale invasion and occupation would naturally be much more severe.
There is no connection between the present war in Iraq and 9/11, except that the latter was used as a false justification for the former.
Now these wingnuts want to say that somehow what Clinton did or didn't do vis a vis Iraq caused 9/11, which presumes again a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
There is no such connection demonstrated. Bin Laden was far more concerned with the fact of the US presence in Saudi Arabia, and he wanted to provoke a fight. And our government wanted him to provoke a fight, too. When both sides want a fight and all that is needed is a provocation, a provocation will occur.
Then they went into Iraq which had nothing to do with anything except that it was what the administration wanted to do in the first place and for which the provocation was wanted.
I used to read The Corner and scan NRO for what the "conservatives" (that term seems less apropos every day, and it took a big hit yesterday for me) thought about current events and issues.
I finally gave it up several months ago, as any pretense to understanding or insights dried up, to be replaced by the pathetic reactionary defense of clearly insane, idiotic, or just plain wrong policies on the part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration.
The only one over there I had any respect for, at the end, was Ponneru, and he lost most of that with his "Party of Death" drive-by-book attack on the Democrats last Spring.
Like you'd see in a giant lizard in its death throes, the last twitches of intellectual activity over on NRO appear to be reflections of mere reflex action, not volitional. But I don't expect it to stop anytime soon -- they get paid for this, remember. It's not in their financial interest to be rational about it.
Frankly, I no longer know where to go to get any sense of the intellectual or moral thinking on the right. I tried another blogger yesterday, but when he proclaimed that Frist and crew "had defeated several amendments that would have gutted the bill" (like allowing the accused to see the evidence against them, and to even be charged or released) -- I'm of the opinion that there's no intellectual activity over there, either.
It's not merely that there's a lack of intellectual honesty, with occasional made-up facts, misleading arguments, and ad hominem innuendos. It's gone beyond that now to a banal assertion of completely unsupported -- and unsupportable -- declarations encompassing the entire past, present, and future. As you've observed in this case, the "arguments" aren't even worthy of the name
The pieces may still be worth reading if you have an interest in seeing how many variations on false dichotomies and strawman arguments they can stuff into them.
I'll pass.
Jihadists hate us because they see us as an obstacle to sharia law. It's true that our invasion of Iraq has turned more people against us, but folks... they were against us before we went into Iraq.
Look at some of the other things the NIE states:
"We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland". In other words, the more we try to stop them, the bigger threat they'll be, INCLUDING HERE IN THE U.S.
"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to struggle elsewhere."
-- and --
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight"
So if we ultimately win in Iraq, the jihadists will suffer a major blow, if we lose then they'll gain even more converts.
Yet some are *still* proposing that we cut-and-run.
That's not only simple-minded, it's dangerous.
Yet some are *still* proposing that we cut-and-run.
That's not only simple-minded, it's dangerous.
TMA, what's simple-minded is simply stating mindlessly that what we need to do is "win" in Iraq. Most people who are proposing withdrawing are offering it as the least bad option because they are convinced that we can't "win" there. You claim the answer is to "win" in Iraq. But what does that mean? I'm not yet convinced that withdrawal is the best option (as opposed to something along the lines of the Galbraith plan), but what we're doing clearly isn't working. You have to tell us what "winning" means before you claim that that is what we should do.
TMA,
You have no idea as to why "jihadists hate us". Why not admit it? Extreme islamists may hate us for many reasons, some of those being things we could do something about, some not.
What's certainly true is that injustice breeds resistance, and extreme injustice produces extreme resistance. If you want to reduce extremism, improve justice. There will always be those who will still chose extremism, but if you reduce those to a small enough group, you can take care of the residual with standard police methods.
What you need to worry about is creating a large enough population of antagonists that the extremists will be able to hide among them. Like has been done so capably in Iraq.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home