BCT Editorial – 9/28/06

This page was last updated on October 2, 2006.

Missing in action; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 28, 2006.

As did the PG in similar editorials, it’s clear the Times hopes we won’t read the declassified “Key Judgments of the NIE.” When you read the judgments yourself, you find the editorial cherry picked individual sentences to promote a distorted view of the NIE’s conclusions.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States needs to develop a strategy to deal with terrorism

“Whether reports of Osama bin Laden’s death were accurate or not doesn’t matter because Osama bin Laden no longer matters.

“This is not to downplay bin Laden’s participation in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Nor is it meant to diminish the role he has played in spreading terrorism around the globe.

“But in a strategic sense, what happens to bin Laden is irrelevant in the struggle against terrorism. Killing or capturing him would be great, but it would be a tactical victory only.”

[RWC] Welcome to the party, Times. This is nothing new, though it appears to be a change for the Times.

“What it would not do is put an end to terrorism any more than the capture of Saddam Hussein had any meaningful impact on hostilities in Iraq.”

[RWC] How does the Times know things would not be worse if Saddam Hussein were still on the loose? The editorial appears to support Howard Dean’s 2003 position.

“The latest National Intelligence Estimate backs that up.

“The New York Times reported the NIE report - titled ‘Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States’ - asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note The NY Times stories were based on hearsay from an anonymous “American intelligence official,” not from a reading of the NIE.

Just before this statement, however, the NIE said, “United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.” I wonder why the editorial failed to mention this.

“This conclusion didn’t come from some rogue source. It was the consensus view of the 16 spy services inside government, the paper reported.

“The report’s opening section cited the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology and that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism worse, according to the paper.”

[RWC] Why is the editorial author citing the NY Times article now that the NIE key judgments have been declassified? As a reminder, the key judgments were declassified on Tuesday, September 26^th. This editorial was published two days later on Thursday, September 28^th.

I believe this is no accident. After all, even for the Times if would be difficult to write this editorial if the author used the declassified NIE key judgments as his source. By relying on the NY Times article, the editorial author can claim – though not credibly – ignorance of the declassified conclusions.

“The estimate concluded that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of al-Qaida operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of ‘self-generating cells’ inspired by al-Qaida’s leadership but without any direct connection to bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

“In essence, what bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders did was establish the strategy (set the goals, so to speak) but left the way to get there - the tactics to be used - up to the individual terror cells.”

[RWC] It appears the editorial author wants us to believe this was a choice of “bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.” As noted above, this situation was forced on al-Qaida by “United States-led counterterrorism efforts.”

“So, put aside any thoughts that eliminating bin Laden is going to make a difference one way or the other. Instead, the United States and its few remaining allies need to develop a strategy that deals effectively with the spread of radical Islam. That doesn’t mean capitulating to the extremists. It means fighting smarter and wiser to neutralize their appeal, especially in the Arab world.

“Don’t get your hopes up for the immediate future, though. When it comes to dealing with terrorism, the last couple of years have shown Americans and people around the globe that the Bush administration is incapable of thinking strategically and does a pretty poor job on the tactical front, as well.”

[RWC] Where’s the support for this statement? Remember, the NIE says, “United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations.”

“This White House has sown the wind, we are reaping the whirlwind and its only strategy is to keep sowing the wind. Look where that has gotten us. It’s time for a change.”

[RWC] “The White House has sown the wind?” I’ll need to check, but I believe terrorists began attacking the U.S. long before President Bush took office.

I’ll never accuse the Times of originality. Since August 2004, this is at least the fourth time a Times editorial has used the “reap the whirlwind” statement in this context.

The editorial asserts, “It’s time for a change,” yet makes no recommendations, unless “fighting smarter and wiser” counts. Lest we forget, “fighting smarter” was John Kerry’s terrorism strategy during his 2004 campaign. To date, Mr. Kerry hasn’t told us what that means.