So, accepting for the moment that terrorism has gotten worse, what would you propose be done about it?

As I see it, the report (or at least the parts you've quoted Snow quoting) gives us two options regarding Iraq: win the war or lose it. (I would argue that withdrawing without a clear victory would be the same as a loss, at least as far as the jihadists are concerned.) I assume that most of us would agree that winning is the better option. So what should the U.S. do differently to help ensure its victory?

On a related note:
I find it interesting that many of the people who are loudest in their cries of "Look at the NIE! The war in Iraq made terrorism worse!" are the same people who have long insisted that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. While I suppose it's possible that there were no (or few) terrorists in Iraq before we got there, I find it hard to believe that global terrorism would have escalated as much as the NIE says it has if that were the case.

I assume that most of us would agree that winning is the better option. So what should the U.S. do differently to help ensure its victory?

I have no proposals at the moment. If I knew how to fix the situation we're in, I might have supported the invasion. I don't ... so I didn't.

Just to be clear, this is not a situation nobody anticipated. I cannot prove that I anticipated it because I wasn't blogging before the invasion, but I vaguely recall including this among other arguments against the war. Certainly, other people -- including much more important and knowledgeable people -- did advance this prediction as an argument against invading.

For example, in August 2002, Brent Scowcroft -- who at the time was serving as the chairman of the president's foreign intelligence advisory board! -- wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.[...]

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

So the point of my post is to show that the National Intelligence Estimate, contrary to the Bush administration's mendacious claims, confirms these predictions, which the Bush administration ignored at the time. And the White House is still trying to convince you and me that the report says the opposite of what it says.

many of the people who are loudest in their cries of "Look at the NIE! The war in Iraq made terrorism worse!" are the same people who have long insisted that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

There's no contradiction there. Iraq was not a significant sponsor of terrorism before the invasion, nor was it harboring Al Qaeda. (Scowcroft's article refuted that idea too, by the way.) Now that Iraq is in turmoil, it is turning into a training camp for terrorists -- both foreign and Iraqi, since the borders are porous. And the US invasion is inspiring nonterrorists (again, both Iraqi and foreign) to become terrorists for the first time, because the invasion has entirely confirmed the sort of conspiracy theories Bin Laden was selling. It's not as if the world has a finite number of terrorists who all stay within their own national borders.

"Just to be clear, this is not a situation nobody anticipated."

No it isn't, though to hear some people go on about it, you might think it were. I, for one, am not at all surprised that military action has led to increased violence and hostility; that's the nature of military action.

"It's not as if the world has a finite number of terrorists who all stay within their own national borders."

Of course not; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But it still seems odd to me that the "Global Terrorist Movement" would be so quick to use Iraq that way without any prior connection between them. After all, wasn't Afghanistan crawling with terrorists? Why didn't the GTM rally there? On the other hand, if terrorists are being drawn to a single location (e.g. Iraq), shouldn't that make it easier to find them? Our results haven't borne that theory out (yet), but it still seems odd.

Ultimately, the point of my comment was this: When I see/hear reports about the NIE's "new revelations," they tend to come across as crying over spilled milk. If mistakes were made, then those responsible certainly should be held accountable. But whether the war was a mistake or not, starting it was in the past; we're involved in it now, and I think the question of what to do now is more pressing than the question of whether it was a bad idea in the first place. When the critics start offering suggestions about how to end the war successfully, their criticisms of the war's beginning will be more worth hearing.

In short, I think we should delay writing (and spinning) the history books until we're done with the international conflict...at least as much as any nation is ever done with it.

But it still seems odd to me that the "Global Terrorist Movement" would be so quick to use Iraq that way without any prior connection between them.

They (the most mobile of the terrorists) go where the opportunities are. We created one for them, as I'll explain below.

One of the reasons Iraq is an especially volatile situation is that it contains so many disparate interests. There are still quite few Baathists around; there are Sunnis trying to kill Shiites and Shiites trying to kill Sunnis; there are ordinary Iraqis who believe their country is under evil foreign occupation; there are Iranians trying to establish the power of their own country over the Shiites; there are enemies of the Saddam regime who want to take over the country for themselves.

Each and every one of these groups is an enemy to the United States, and all of them are creating an opportunity for yet another group: al Qaeda members and sympathizers who found a haven in the chaos these other groups are maintaining. Al Qaeda and similar groups have a long history of exploiting failed states -- in Somalia, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan -- and we have created another tottering regime for them. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has found willing recruits among previously uninvolved Iraqis, who are now both free from Saddam's control and angry at the United States for occupying their country. They are also now attracting recruits from other parts of the world, who are convinced that the Iraq invasion proves that the United States is imperialistic and must be stopped. Those new recruits may not join the actual al Qaeda organization or be in Iraq at all, but they are still jihadists campaigning against the United States now.

If mistakes were made, then those responsible certainly should be held accountable.

That's what I want too. Nobody has been held accountable; the people responsible are still in office and still directing our foreign policy.

I think we should delay writing (and spinning) the history books until we're done with the international conflict

Do you really think that's an option?

On the one hand, the invasion of Iraq happened three and a half years ago -- nearly a full presidential term. If we don't start writing the history now, when should we start?

On the other hand, we're not really writing history here. We're still making it. And the White House and the GOP have been using the Iraq war rhetorically all along. Am I not allowed to respond? Am I not allowed to correct them when they distort the findings of our intelligence agencies? Am I to sit back while the GOP tars me and people like me as anti-American, "soft on terror," and the like, while the evidence of our experts demonstrates that I was right all along? And am I to allow such assertions to go uncorrected while supporters of the administration advocate that we repeat the Iraq invasion all over again in Iran?

The first step toward a rational foreign policy is to identify the problems with the old one. The White House is still trying to keep our nation from doing that.

No it isn't, though to hear some people go on about it, you might think it were. I, for one, am not at all surprised that military action has led to increased violence and hostility; that's the nature of military action.

I think the point is, if the current administration in any way anticipated it, they've never let on to anyone else. Certainly some increased violence is a natural consequence of military action . . . however the light in which this invasion was cast to the American people, from the beginning, was one of fast, easy regime change where we would be welcomed as liberators and then sent swiftly on our merry way leaving an at least somewhat stable democracy in our wake.

Now, here we are, three-and-a-half years down the road with literally no end in sight. I think that justifies some surprise from anyone who actually believed the "party line" all this time, as well as some demands from those who didn't for an explanation for Bush's apparent lack of foresight and what, precisely, he intends to do now.

But it still seems odd to me that the "Global Terrorist Movement" would be so quick to use Iraq that way without any prior connection between them.

Three-and-a-half years isn't exactly record-breaking speed. Terrorists are inherently mobile. Their existence in Iraq now does not imply their existence in Iraq then (although other evidence might . . . I don't know).

On the other hand, if terrorists are being drawn to a single location (e.g. Iraq), shouldn't that make it easier to find them?

Okay, first, obviously all terrorists are not being drawn to a single location. The report talks about Iraq being a cause which terrorists are rallying behind, a focal point for generating increased hatred of America, thus creating an increased terror threat worldwide. The "Global Terrorist Movement" (which doesn't technically exist) isn't exactly a single, unified group with a clear set of goals operating with coordinated strategies. It doesn't "rally" anywhere.

Second, as I'm sure you realize, thinking of Iraq as "a single location" isn't the same as thinking of, say, the Glover-Crim building in downtown Longview as "a single location." Iraq is slightly larger than the state of California, with much larger areas of total wilderness. Nor, as I understand it, do we have any kind of really stable control over insurgents in most of the country.

When the critics start offering suggestions about how to end the war successfully, their criticisms of the war's beginning will be more worth hearing.

First of all, just because you don't have any great ideas on how to scoop the milk up off of the floor and back into the glass doesn't mean that you have no right to tell someone they were stupid for pouring your milk out on the floor in the first place.

Second, most of those critics started saying that Bush should keep the milk in the glass as soon as they heard that he was considering pouring it out . . . were their criticisms worth hearing at that point? Their suggestion for ending the war from the beginning was "Don't start it." It seems rather unfair to demand that they now come up with a better plan when they weren't listened to to begin with.

Third, my personal view on the criticism and the critics is this: With every day that goes by, more evidence surfaces to show that it was incompetence and stupidity that got us into the Iraq situation in the first place. Why should we expect that a commander-in-chief who was foolish enough to start this will have the ability to conduct it well and ultimately bring it to a satisfactory conclusion? I believe the number one suggestion of critics of Iraq is "replace that guy with someone who knows what he's doing" . . . It sounds like a good start to me. Meanwhile, until such time as the people of the Bush administration see fit to stop pretending that everything is okay, that they know what they're doing, and that we should just trust their judgment and go about our business, I see no problem with making sure their mistakes are brought swiftly to light and paraded for all to see.

In short, I think we should delay writing (and spinning) the history books until we're done with the international conflict...at least as much as any nation is ever done with it.

Tell that to the Bush administration.

Okay, long comment coming up, but hopefully most of it will be somewhat worthwhile [For the short version, skip to the last italicized paragraph]:

"They (the most mobile of the terrorists) go where the opportunities are. We created one for them, as I'll explain below."--Wilson

Your ensuing explanation is a good one; my impressions of oddity have lessened considerably. Out of curiosity: have you seen such an explanation anywhere in the mainstream news sources? (I'm not suggesting that's where you got it, it's just that all I ever hear is "Iraq had/has nothing to do with terrorism," with no explanation; hence my confusion.)

"Do you really think that [delaying the history]'s an option?" --Wilson

Not really, no. And in retrospect, that was a pretty stupid thing to suggest. I think what I would really like to see (idealist that I am) is a little simultaneity: discussing and writing the problems of history while working on the solutions for the future.

"[T]he light in which this invasion was cast to the American people, from the beginning, was one of fast, easy regime change" etc.--Jared

My memory must be failing, because I remember just the opposite; I remember hearing that it would not be a quick and easy thing. Maybe I was just forcing my own better judgment on the Right-Wing Propaganda (TM); wouldn't be the first time, I'm afraid. But that's not really relevant to my position (see below for more).

"Okay, first, obviously all terrorists are not being drawn to a single location." etc.--Jared

1) I never said all terrorists were being drawn to Iraq, just some.
2) I am well aware that the GTM doesn't exist; hence the "scare quotes" and Intimidating Capitalization in my original use of the term. As far as I'm concerned, it's a synonym for "jihadists," "Islamic fascists," and all the other terms we've heard referring to the terrorists who are focusing their attention on the U.S. and her allies, especially in the Middle East.
3) When, in the original comment, I said, "Our results haven't borne that theory out (yet)," I meant it to show that I didn't put much stock in the idea that terrorists' being drawn to Iraq would make them easier to catch. The "(yet)" is in there because the war isn't over yet, and I've never been one for prognostication.

"First of all, just because you don't have any great ideas on how to scoop the milk up off of the floor and back into the glass doesn't mean that you have no right to tell someone they were stupid for pouring your milk out on the floor in the first place."--Jared

That's true. But once you tell the guy how stupid he is, it accomplishes very little to keep saying "You are such an idiot!" over and over and over again. If you really want to fix the problem, you start by cleaning up the milk; then you get the guy some medication or you have someone else pour the milk from now on. (Aren't analogies fun?)

"most of those critics started[...]as soon as they heard that he was considering pouring it out . . . were their criticisms worth hearing at that point?"--Jared

Absolutely. If Bush had followed their advice, we wouldn't be in this mess (maybe; "What If" is a dangerous game). But since he didn't, we are. Urging "Don't spill the milk!" and telling your neighbors "I warned him about that milk!" don't do much good once the milk is spilled.

"Am I not allowed to respond?" etc.--Wilson

No! Criticize ye not Our Fearless Leader!!!
*ahem*
Joking aside, my problem isn't with response and criticism; my problem is that the dialogue seems to stop there. See the next item:

"I see no problem with making sure [the Bush administration's] mistakes are brought swiftly to light and paraded for all to see."--Jared
"The first step toward a rational foreign policy is to identify the problems with the old one. The White House is still trying to keep our nation from doing that."--Wilson

I agree. History is important for precisely that reason (among others). My problem is that I'm not seeing a "rational foreign policy" suggested, and haven't since the war began. The first step (identifying former problems) has been taken; doesn't that usually mean it's time to move on to the next step? As far as "the number one suggestion of critics" goes, "Replace Bush" doesn't amount to much if none of the potential replacements have any better ideas. And it gets very old hearing variations on "If I/my party were president/in power, I/we wouldn't have let this happen!" ("Oh, really?" I'd like to respond, "How so?")

Maybe I'm being stupid and stubborn; I probably don't know as much as either of you about the whole situation. But we have a guiding principle at RTB: Creationism cannot be taught as science until it has a scientifically viable model to compete with the standard naturalistic ones. I think that reasoning applies in just about every field of study, and I think it applies here. Negative argument (picking apart the opposition) is fine and important, but progress requires positive argument (offering a better option).

It would be nice to pick up a newspaper or turn on the radio and find some suggested alternatives instead of just the same old criticisms again.

I begin to sympathize with your position.

Let me start out by emphasizing (what of course you know) that I am not responsible for the deficiencies of our radio, television, and magazine coverage, nor for the deficiencies of the Democratic Party. If you want interesting and constructive thought, I recommend reading nonpartisan policy journals like Foreign Affairs, which is how I came to oppose the Iraq invasion even as a then-loyal Republican.

For my part, I'm not sure what I could do differently. I feel like the editors of the conservative journal National Review, which launched with the stated purpose of "standing athwart history, yelling Stop!"

I want a government that respects the ancient right of habeas corpus. That repudiates all forms of cruelty, no matter how expedient. That does not invade countries that have not attacked us, no matter how much they dislike us. That works to discredit, not to vindicate, the ideologies and conspiracy theories of our enemies.

But to the Bush administration, that is a "pre-9/11 mindset." And I'm not sure how to answer that; 1787 did indeed come before September 2001. If being the "party of ideas" means rejecting the ideas that made us who we are ... I guess I haven't got any ideas they would listen to.

Finding myself in this position -- that of an obscure Republican forced into principled opposition -- what should I do? On every point at which I disagree with the rulership of the GOP, I find that those leaders cast my positions as those of the enemy. They have already rejected my constructive ideas as unworkable.

As far as I can tell, my modest part in this political struggle is going to have to be making those leaders as unpopular as possible.

My memory must be failing, because I remember just the opposite; I remember hearing that it would not be a quick and easy thing.

They've actually had it both ways. It's kinda funny . . . it's like these guys don't realize that everything they say in public has been recorded, and someone remembers it all and can (and will) bring it back to haunt them. I have seen, in particular, Cheney and Rumsfeld both explicitly state that our stay in Iraq would be extremely short (like, a few months) and then go back more recently and not only reverse their statements, but flatly deny that they ever said otherwise. It's perversely funny.

Regarding the location and eradication of terror:

I assumed that you were aware of all those things, which leads me to believe that I'm still not sure what you were originally talking about when you were discussing terrorists being drawn to Iraq. It seemed to me that you were suggesting a) that the presence of terrorism in Iraq implied that there were already terrorists there before we went in and therefore there was some justification for an invasion, and b) that if the Iraqi invasion had indeed increased the activity of terrorists in Iraq, their "clumping" in that area would make them easier to pick off, thus further justifying an invasion. In other words, I thought you were trying to show that the report could just as easily be spun in the opposite direction, and I was attempting to refute that assertion.

(Aren't analogies fun?)

Oh, yes. We're having far too much fun with this one. Anyway . . . The problem here is, the moron that spilled the milk keeps insisting that it was a great idea . . . and he's so busy dancing in the milk puddle that no one can get near it with a dishtowel. To make matters worse, he's already gotten himself another glass, which he's tipping dangerously towards the immediate west of the first puddle.

I suppose these few observations are irrelevant at this point . . . the discussion moved faster than I was able to while at work. Ditto what Wilson said above. I personally avoid contact with 24-hour news networks and talk radio, so that helps.

First, I'd like to thank you both for your calm and constructive tones in this discussion. It would have been easy (though, frankly, uncharacteristic) for you to rant at me, and I'm grateful that you didn't. I've tried to be similarly non-confrontational, and I hope I haven't pushed too many buttons along the way. I also want to make it clear that I'm not necessarily trying to "convert" you to my way of thinking; I just like swapping theories, and I hope that we can all refine our ideas through the process.

Now then, on with the comments:

"Let me start out by emphasizing (what of course you know) that I am not responsible for the deficiencies" etc.--Wilson

And here I thought you were just holding out on us for the sake of some grad-school case study, or something.

Regarding the government:
I haven't just been spouting ideas in my previous comments, because I try to hold myself to the same standards; I strive for a balance between theory and practice. My idealistic vision of government is much like yours (human rights, no cruelty, etc.), and that's a very troubling matter for me. I know that such a utopian society is impossible, but I'm not sure where I'm comfortable drawing the line.

And if the GOP leaders are ignoring your ideas (among others', I'm sure), that's their loss. And shame on them for it, too.

Regarding the location/eradication of terror (per Jared):
First of all, the whole "terrorists in Iraq" thing is really unrelated to my main point; my bad for dragging it in. *sits in corner for five minutes*
Now, as for my point with it:
I was not trying to justify the war. Suggesting that the "clumping" might make victory easier was just an observation. My aforementioned uncertainties aside, I don't think I would condone "invasion of an otherwise innocent country" as an acceptable war strategy.

The trickier part is what you covered in point (a). I don't think the current presence of terrorists necessarily means there had to have been terrorists there before; I was thinking more that the terrorists (elsewhere) must have had some stake in Iraq (financial, religious, military, or otherwise) to spur them to react to its invasion as they did. (After reading Wilson's explanation of the terrorists' opportunism, this idea is much less strong in my mind, though I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be right.) I presented this idea not to justify the war in Iraq, but as a potential rebuttal of the claim that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism/terrorists/the War on Terror. Which, I suppose, could be taken as an indirect justification for the invasion, though I would argue that the Admin couldn't have had enough foresight for that.

Regarding Milk-Spillers and their Critics:
Your additions to the picture are certainly intriguing (not to mention entertaining). But I stand by my previous assertion: No matter how stupid the Spiller is or how stubborn he's acting, simple verbal chastising isn't going to help the situation; you have to do something about it. If that means physically restraining him until you can lock him away, then so be it. And now I think I'd better not carry that analogy any further, lest I get myself in trouble with the PTBs. ;-p