Fisking a Wapo article
Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda
Experts Say Terrorist Operation May Be More Likely to Prove Its Relevance
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 26, 2003;
Initially the article appears to be answering an assertion no one is making. That the capture of Saddam is a death knell for terrorists, or al Qaeda. Also ask yourself why an objective news story is answering a non existent assertion?
President Bush has described the Dec. 13 capture of Saddam Hussein as a victory for the "war on terror," saying that Iraq represented "a visible front" in that war, like Afghanistan, the Philippines and other unnamed countries where U.S. commando teams have been secretly hunting al Qaeda and its affiliates
Really?
I thought Bush said
"Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks."
And
"I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated."
There is no mention of al Qaeda. However, this reporter would rather use short phrases devoid of context. This arouses suspicion.
But the prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture, and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad
2 assertions here
1) There is a prevailing view of Saddam's capture 2 weeks after it has happened, and that is that the affect will be neglible on the War on Terror and the War on Iraq
2) al Qaeda is the biggest threat.
Short time for a prevailing view to coalesce, and what about the other terrorist organizations?
Some terrorism experts, including a few favored by the Bush administration, view Iraq as a key al Qaeda supporter and believe Hussein's capture serves as a deterrent for other terrorist organizations. The more common view, however, is that there was never a strong link or even an ideological bond between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, and that the capture could well push al Qaeda to prove it is still relevant.
Notice that the demarcation of the prevailing view v. the minority view is refashioned to make it the administration view, and the non-Bush administration view.
Al Qaeda "did not consider Saddam a friend, but an enemy, a ruler who did not establish true Islam as a state religion," one of the Pentagon's consultants on terrorism, Michael Pillsbury, has told associates. Bin Laden's capture "will be 10 times more important to reduced recruitment rates of hard-core terrorists like the ones who flew the four planes on 9/11."
Michael Pillsbury is a noted expert on China, whose material is excellent. Thus he has credibility with me. However a blanket statement about al Qaeda and Iraq is premature. I would like to see his reasoning. Withholding judgment. It is however a point in favor of the reporter that she has this man on record.
Terrorism experts and U.S. intelligence officials were interviewed before the terrorism threat level was elevated on Sunday. Two officials said the view was reinforced recently when intelligence sources were reporting that bin Laden was again in communication with his followers. Those reports, one official said, could not be confirmed.
Here we devolve into the ubiquitous terrorism experts and intelligence officials. I understand that reporters must protect their sources, but that means I have to trust the reporter. I am not there yet. I am also admittedly cynical.
"The view that Hussein's capture will not affect the terrorist threat against Americans and U.S. interests is based on the judgment from many in the intelligence community, shared in classified briefings with senior Bush administration officials and members of Congress, that there is no credible proof that Hussein was supporting, directing or financing bin Laden or al Qaeda.
Another strike. Notice the use of the term "credible proof." Information in the intelligence community, which would be allowed exposure to the public that meets the level of "credible proof" about anything is a very rare beast. Most intelligence information might be substantial, or credible, but credible proof. I don't know why the reporter uses the term, but she neither defines it nor notes that using this term allows her to ignore quite a few other items such as the Douglas Feith memo.
"The question has been asked a million times at the CIA," said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst. "The bottom line is, there were little probing attempts [between Iraq and al Qaeda], but neither side saw it in their interest to do anything together."
There are hundreds of counter intelligence analysts, at all levels of analysis. Is this the prevailing view, the minority, or the view of one? The reporter has made an inference earlier in the article, but her unwillingness to make the inference explicit at this point is noteworthy. Another strike.
A defense official with access to daily terrorism reports and analysis said: "It ain't going to change their operations."
Notice the assumptions.
1) This defense official thinks he knows all Qaeda's operations. I far prefer someone who knows that he does not have a clue as to how this will affect al Qaeda's operation.
2) This defense official thinks that he is in al Qaeda's head. If he know so much, why does he not know where bin Laden is?
Conclusion. It is either a misquote, or the guy is talking out of his ass.
Another senior administration seemed baffled by the question itself. "The war on terrorism? Gosh, it's not likely. He's not a poster child for terrorists, unless you believe the Lauri Mylroies of the world."
From which Branch of the Administration? State?
And remember that Saddam gave 25,000 to each suicide bomber. Is it that big of stretch to think that he funnelled money to Hamas et al directly?
Notice the indirect ad hominem with no ability for a rejoinder. It also serves to discredit an opposing point of view, prior to introduction, which is not the mark of an objective reporter.
Mylroie, a longtime Iraq expert and author whose analysis is favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, believes Iraq "is a very central part of the war on terrorism. I believe Iraqi intelligence was involved in 9/11, and you have to mop up all Iraqi intelligence," including Hussein. "The key issue is the infrastructure of skill and expertise is based on Iraqi intelligence."
Thus far we have one quote on the record for, and one quote against, with a whole bunch of off the record stuff.
Some experts believe Hussein's capture could serve as a deterrent for heads of state and individuals who have supported terrorist organizations in the past.
Hmmmm. You don't say. Wouldn't this have an affect?
"The only impact it has is that it demonstrates we are capable of capturing high-value targets," said Matthew Levitt, a former FBI terrorism expert. "Every victory is demoralizing to the enemy."
Another high profile name. And again, if the question was about al Qaeda, then he is answering it correctly.
Hussein's capture, said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, will serve as a notice to other leaders in the region, namely those in Iran and Syria, that "they may be next. Those leaders who are supporting terrorist networks may cut back."
Well Jane thinks there is going to be an affect, and last I checked, she was not a Conservative
But most others said they believe that al Qaeda will survive Hussein's capture largely unaffected.
Most others who? Representative? Senators? People on the Intelligence Committee? Who?
"If you believe Iraq is the root of all evil, then yes, you would believe that Saddam's capture has struck a blow," said Steven Simon, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp., a think tank based in Santa Monica, Calif. "If it's your view that global terrorism originated elsewhere and has metastasized and spread worldwide," then no, there would be no effect."
What if you don't believe that Iraq is the root of all evil, but is instead a substantial component, which is what the Administration believes?
"Al Qaeda planning and operations will continue unless other factors impede them," said Rand Beers, a former counterterrorism expert with the National Security Council and now an adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "In fact, I presume that al Qaeda will now want to prove its independence from Saddam Hussein and its continued vibrancy by conducting more operations."
And to cap it all off, we will go with a quote from a Kerry advisor, who I am sure has no stake. To her credit she does disclose this, but it would have been impossible for her not too.
And the quote is of the basic "no shit" variety.
So my take is that this is basic spin wrapped up in "objective reporting." There are holes big enough to drive Saddam through it. And this is why the media is heading for a trainwreck in this country. I am far from the minority in being able to see through this crap.
 posted by pittspilot at 02:31 PM | Comments (2)
|
blaster
