NationStates Jolt Archive


CIA Report on Iraq Released

Smeagol-Gollum
14-01-2005, 23:12
Iraq biggest base for terrorists: CIA

Chaotic post-war Iraq has become the world's biggest training ground for the next generation of "professionalised" terrorists, says a CIA report.

Awash with weapons and politically unstable, Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the country of choice for al-Qaeda and related terrorists to train, the document said.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills", said the report by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

"There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries," wrote David Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats.

The report, titled Mapping the Global Future, was based on a year-long analysis, including interviews with 1,000 US and foreign experts.

President George Bush has called Iraq the "central front" in the war on terrorism.

But critics argue that the terrorists arrived in Iraq after the US-led invasion.

There is no evidence that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein was ever linked to Osama bin Laden.

According to the report, seen by the Washington Post, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unprotected borders soon after the invasion.

There, they found tonnes of unguarded weapons which they are now using against US troops.

Some of the foreign terrorists have formed loose alliances with Saddam loyalists and other insurgents.

"The al-Qaeda membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

It warns that the Iraq conflict had joined a list of other conflicts - including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya and Kashmir - that had boosted support for radical Islam around the world.

The report also predicts that al-Qaeda will no longer be the top global terror threat by 2020.

Instead, Islamic extremist groups would merge with local separatist movements - and such mergers were already under way.

There would emerge "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters".

And they would use the internet as a way of communicating.

"Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual."

© 2005 AAP

COMMENT.

Coming just days after the US has finally admitted that there are no WMDs to be found in Iraq, this can only be interpreted as a scathing attack on Bush and his policies.

Not only has the Iraq invasion cost lives, tarnished America's reputation, failed to find any WMDs, and served as a means of undermining the UN, it now looks likely to have increased the threat from terrorism.

This apart from the fact that the resources used in Iraq could instead have been used to hunt down bin Laden and his adherents. Anybody out there still remember bin Laden? He's the guy that was, and remains, the threat.

Anybody out there still think that holding an election in Iraq will make all the problems go away?
Skapedroe
15-01-2005, 00:38
maybe turning Iraq into a terrorist haven all along was Bushs aim.Afterall the "war on terror" is very good for business
Smeagol-Gollum
15-01-2005, 08:47
Bump.
In the hope of having some reaction.
Is everyone asleep?
Or does nobody care anymore?
BlatantSillyness
15-01-2005, 08:48
Bump.
In the hope of having some reaction.
Is everyone asleep?
Or does nobody care anymore?
Dude
Anymore?
No one really gave a fuck in the first place, thats how it happened.
Steel Fish
15-01-2005, 10:33
I agree that Iraq was not the central front in the WoT. However, now, it is, and makeing it so was probably part of Bush's plan because the populace is as much an enemy to the terrorists as the US and its allies are. Note how there are at least as many bombings by the insurgents against civilians as there are attacks against US troops.
Volvo Villa Vovve
15-01-2005, 17:51
I agree that Iraq was not the central front in the WoT. However, now, it is, and makeing it so was probably part of Bush's plan because the populace is as much an enemy to the terrorists as the US and its allies are. Note how there are at least as many bombings by the insurgents against civilians as there are attacks against US troops.

Yes but here it's important to distingvice between diffrent kinds of terrorist, diffrent kinds of civilians and diffrent kinds of public opinions. Because some terrorist network group can maybee just focus on atacking american and other foriegners and therefore seen as freedom fighter and other focuse on just polices and govermental personells, ther are think the local is more discriminate then it comes to atacks then the foriegn trops. You also have diffrent civilians and diffrent ways they target, because for example govermentals people, police and policestudents can be seen as traitorts and therefore ok to kill and also it can be accepted with some civial cassuelties then killing targets like american soldiers, just as the Iraqies have to accept civilians killed by american. And finally you got diffrets groups in iraq that can perceive the situations diffrently.

By this I just mean that the situation is more complex then it is american soldiers, coaltion forces, iraq soldiers and innocent civilans and one group of evil terrorists and one opinion in Iraq.
Smeagol-Gollum
15-01-2005, 20:05
I agree that Iraq was not the central front in the WoT. However, now, it is, and makeing it so was probably part of Bush's plan because the populace is as much an enemy to the terrorists as the US and its allies are. Note how there are at least as many bombings by the insurgents against civilians as there are attacks against US troops.

All terrorist activity, by any faction anywhere, is designed to have the populace believe that the government are unable to protect them, and therefore the government does not deserve their support, or should change its policies (for example, Chechen attacks in Russia are designed to undermine support for the Russian government policy).

It is also designed to provoke an extreme reaction from the government, which will in turn lead to increased support for the terrorists (for example, internment without trial by the British in Northern Ireland boosted support for the I.R.A.).

In this instance, the "government" is that installed by the Coalition. And a large number of the attacks are targetted at the police or Iraqi armed forces who support it.

This is not to condone any form of terrorism in any way, just to describe its methodology.

And, as the article makes quite clear, the number of terrorists, and their support and training have all increased since the invasion of Iraq.

And this from a CIA report.

Meanwhile Osama (remember Osama? This is all supposedly about Osama) must be laughing himself sick somewhere as the US does his work for him.

Iraq has been a massive failure of intelligence in every sense of the word.