What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
How to Spot a Police
Spy
Is it the
guy who asks you after the meeting about how the antiwar movement
needs to get "serious" and asks you lots of questions
about terrorism and "fighting back"? Jennifer Van Bergen
reports, first-hand. Part
2 of our series on what really happened on 9/11/2001: the physics
of collapse, and how not to make a "pancake" by Manuel
Garcia, PLUS Engineer Pierre Sprey on why "controlled demolition"
theories are off target.What
you just missed, but can still get, in our last newsletter: Paul
Craig Roberts on the Collapse of America. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
The recently released staff report on
Iran issued by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee
and the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on global terrorism
conclude that the threats to U.S. national security are grave
and increasing. These reports, which bolster arguments for a
more aggressive "global war on terror," represent the
latest in a long series of documents dating back to the onset
of the Cold War that declare that enemies pose ever-greater risks
to U.S. national security.
The accuracy of NIEs and other
threat assessment reports has always been the subject of sharp
political debate between hawks and moderates.
In the case of the recent assessments,
the House report follows the historical pattern of hardliners
attempting to inflate the prevailing threat assessment, while
the new NIE, parts of which were declassified and released last
week, affirms the deepening public conviction that the Iraq War
is fueling anti-U.S. terrorism. Both documents have been used
to argue the administration's contention that the United States
has no alternative but to stay the course in an offensive, preemptive
war against terrorism. But there's more to the story than that.
The House report sharply chastises
the intelligence community for not providing better threat assessments
on Iran. According to the report, "Intelligence community
managers and analysts must provide their best analytical judgments
about Iranian WMD programs and not shy away from provocative
conclusions or bury disagreements in consensus assessments."
Although the report lacked their full support, the committee's
Democrats did not oppose its release.
But after its release, Democratic
committee members, including top-ranking minority member Rep.
Jane Harman (D-CA), criticized the report for making unsubstantiated
claims about Iran's threat to U.S. national security. The principal
author of the report was Republican staffer Frederick Fleitz,
a former CIA officer who served as special assistant to John
Bolton when he was arms control chief at the State Department.
Democrats weren't the only
ones to find fault with the report. The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) sent a letter to committee chairman Rep.
Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) complaining that the report contained some
"erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated statements,"
including a wildly high estimate of Iran's capability to produce
weapon-grade uranium. "This is like pre-war Iraq all over
again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector
who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science
and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear
threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked,
and a report that trashes the inspectors," Albright told
the Washington Post (September 14, 2006).
The release of the partially
declassified NIE, "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications
for the United States," produced by the National Intelligence
Council, added more fuel to the already fiery debate about the
Iraq War. Though the report concludes that current U.S. actions
are spawning more anti-U.S. terrorism, it also maintains that
this might be reversed, giving both parties ammunition for arguments.
Many Democrats and anti-war activists believe that the intelligence
assessment confirms their critiques of the Iraq War, but Republicans
and Bush administration officials put a different spin on the
report, claiming it supports the need to remain in Iraq and to
step up antiterrorism efforts.
Indeed, the estimate points
to a future of escalating terrorist threats: If current trends
continue, "threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad
will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide."
Furthermore, "We assess that the operational threat from
self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to U.S. counterterrorism
efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland."
Muslim jihadists are "increasing
in both number and geographic dispersion," the NIE states.
While al-Qaida has been "seriously damaged," the intelligence
estimate warns that overall, the jihadist movement is "spreading
and adapting to the counterterrorism effort." According
to the 16 intelligence agencies that produced the report, which
was finished in April 2006 but whose findings were not released
until last month, "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping
a new generation of terrorist leaders and operations."
Although it notes that "the
Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists,"
the estimate does not suggest that withdrawal from Iraq would
reduce global terrorism. Rather, "Perceived jihadist success
[in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle
elsewhere." But "should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive
themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer
fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
In other words, if the U.S.-led
war on terror manages to defeat the jihadists in Iraq, then Islamic
terrorism might subside. But if Washington fails, according to
the NIE, terrorists everywhere will be emboldened.
And there's more to fear than
global jihadism. The NIE also warns: "Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization
sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies.
This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups
to adopt terrorist methods to attack U.S. interests. The radicalization
process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously
in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks
by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult
to pinpoint."
In the absence of a constructive
agenda for U.S. global engagement, the politics of fear continue
to shape U.S. foreign and military policy. With a party and an
administration in power whose political security rests on their
boasts of being the only guarantors of national security, the
pumping up of fear and inflation of threats are electoral strategies.
In his contentious interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News,
former President Bill Clinton said that we hear this political
message every two years. "This is perfectly predictable,"
he told Wallace, "We're going to win a lot of seats if the
American people aren't afraid. If they're afraid and we get divided
again, then we may only win a few seats."
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
