Report says Iraq problems were expected

AP ^ | 5/25/07 | KATHERINE SHRADER

[TexKat]

WASHINGTON - Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.

The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."

Democrats said the newly declassified documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the very challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.

"Sadly, the administration's refusal to heed these dire warnings — and worse, to plan for them — has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price," said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Some Republicans rejected the committee's work as flawed. The panel's top Republican, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, said the report's conclusions selectively highlight the intelligence agencies' findings that seem to be important now, distorting the picture of what was presented to policy-makers.

He said the committee's work on the Iraq intelligence "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

Publication of the 229-page document was approved by a vote of 10-5, with two Republicans — Sens. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska — voting with Democrats to release it.

Asked about the report at his Thursday news conference, in advance of its release, President Bush stood by his decision to topple the Iraqi regime. He said he firmly believes the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

"Going into Iraq, we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen," he said. "Obviously, as I made a decision ... I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision."

The investigation reviewed assessments from a number of agencies but focused on two January 2003 papers from the National Intelligence Council: "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq" and "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq."

Those papers drew from expertise within a number spy agencies and were distributed to scores of White House, national security, diplomatic and congressional officials — most of whom were listed in 81 pages of the Senate report.

Among other conclusions, the analysts found:

• Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge. They said that contributions could be made by 4 million Iraqi exiles and Iraq's impoverished, underemployed middle class. But they noted that opposition parties would need sustained economic, political and military support.

• Al-Qaida would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaida and other terrorist groups "could become blurred." In a weak spot in the analysis, one paper said that the risk of terror attacks would spike after the invasion and slow over the next three to five years. However, the State Department recently found that attacks last year alone rose sharply.

• Groups in Iraq's deeply divided society would become violent, unless stopped by the occupying force. "Score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it," one report stated.

• Iraq's neighbors would jockey for influence and Iranian leaders would try to shape the post-Saddam era to demonstrate Tehran's importance in the region. The less Tehran felt threatened by U.S. actions, the analysts said, "the better the chance that they could cooperate in the postwar period."

• Postwar Iraq would face significant economic challenges, having few resources beyond oil. Analysts predicted that Iraq's large petroleum resources would make economic reconstruction easier, but they didn't anticipate that continued fighting and sabotage would drag down oil production.

• Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs.

As numerous investigations have found, the intelligence agencies of the United States and its allies were wrong about Iraq's supposed weapons programs.

The report is the latest chapter in the Intelligence Committee's ongoing investigation into the prewar Iraq intelligence. Because committee members couldn't agree on clear conclusions about the postwar predictions, they saved their analyses for appendices attached to the report.

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al-Qaida," wrote four Democratic senators — Rockefeller, Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record) of Indiana and Sheldon Whitehouse (news, bio, voting record) of Rhode Island.

Meanwhile, four Republican senators — Bond, John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) of Utah and Richard Burr (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina — wrote that the report exaggerates the importance of the pre-invasion assessments. They said the reports weren't based on intelligence information, but instead were speculation from experts in and out of government.

"They were no more authoritative than the many other educated opinions that were available in the same time frame," the Republicans wrote.

[TexKat]

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://intelligence.senate.gov/index.html

[Retired Greyhound]

Duh! Of course these things were going to happen. All the more reason to go.

It is a good thing that Al-Qaeda is there getting their butt kicked whenever they try to engage our bravest.

After Afghanistan, the WOT needed a new front. Iraq was the logical choice. Any image of a stable Middle East is one where Saddam Huessein is out of power.

Thank goodness that Bush didn’t shrink at these estimates.

[tobyhill]

We also knew that it was near impossible to fight Al-Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan so what better place to draw them in and fight them than in Iraq. The terrorist are not created from single actions but are drawn to the actions that contradict their ideology.

[citizencon]

Well...better to fight Al Qaeda over there than in our cities...
In any endeavor, you expect the worst and hope for the best...
Those AP reporters, are they serious?

[Perdogg]

Remember it was Jay Rockefeller who said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

ROCKEFELLER: Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most ... I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat

[PISANO]

The report could be said to indicate that an attack on Iran immediately after the fall of Saddam was in order, or maybe a two front war attacking BOTH at the same time?

I am sure the Dims would have been ALL FOR either scenario!!

[CutePuppy]

• Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs.

Tell that to Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi.

[CutePuppy]

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al-Qaida,"

Duh! Take out Saddam and invite al-Qaeda and Iran to the party - several birds with one stone - and that's bad?!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Another attempt by the leftists.....to taint the effort of taking on al-Queda...and all of their supporters....which is what Saddam was.....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From IraqSlogger:

DC Buzz
"Phase 2" Report Embarassing for Bush
Intel Community Warned Invasion Would Work to Al Qaeda Advantage

************************EXCERPT*********************************

Just days after President Bush made a major address arguing that al Qaeda has become the biggest threat facing U.S. goals in Iraq, it has come to light that US intelligence communities warned of the likelihood of that outcome prior to the invasion.

In the majority view of the "Phase Two" report on pre-war intelligence by the Senate intel committee, Democratic senators Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island write:

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al-Qaida.... America's prolonged presence in Iraq, the Intelligence Community correctly assessed, has allowed al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to take advantage of the security vacuum in-country and to increase their attacks against Americans with deadly results."

The issuance of "Phase Two" of the Senate Select Committee on intelligence's inquiry into pre-war intelligence has been highly anticipated since the first report's release prior to mid-term elections in 2004.

The minority view of Republican senators Kit Bond (MO), John Warner (VA), Orrin Hatch (UT), and Richard Burr (NC) did not comment on the substance of the report as much as they defended the release of Phase 1 and argued that Phase 2 had "become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

The investigation reviewed many assessments but primarily focused on two January 2003 papers from the National Intelligence Council: "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq" and "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq," which were both widely circulated to top officials.

Major conclusions cited by the Associated Press:

* Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge. They said that contributions could be made from 4 million Iraqi exiles and Iraq's impoverished, underemployed middle class. But they noted that opposition parties would need sustained economic, political and military support.

* Al-Qaida would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaida and other terrorist groups "could become blurred." In a weak spot in the analysis, one paper said that the risk of terror attacks would spike after the invasion and slow over the next three to five years. However, the State Department recently found that attacks last year alone rose sharply.

* Domestic groups in Iraq's deeply divided society would become violent, unless stopped by the occupying force. "Score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it."

* Iraq's neighbors would jockey for influence and Iranian leaders would try to shape the post-Saddam era to demonstrate Tehran's importance in the region. The more Tehran didn't feel threatened by U.S. actions, the analysts said, "the better the chance that they could cooperate in the postwar period."

* Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs.

ABC's Jonathan Karl printed some key excerpts read to him by US intelligence officials:

* Iraq is unlikely to break apart, but it is "a deeply divided society." There is "a significant chance" that groups would "engage in violent conflict ... unless there is an occupying force to prevent them from doing so."

* Neighboring states could "jockey for position ... fomenting ethnic strife inside Iraq."

* "Iraq's political culture does not foster political liberalism or democracy."

* "A generation of Iraqis" who have been subjected to Saddam's repression are "distrustful of surrendering or sharing power."

* Al Qaeda could operate from the countryside unless there is a strong central power in Baghdad.

* There would be "a heightened terrorist threat" that "after an initial spike would decline after three to five years."

Publication of the 229-page document was approved by a committee vote of 10-5, with two Republicans, Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, voting with the Democrats.

Read the released Phase 2 report on SSCI's homepage.

U.S. Government | Congress | Intelligence      Email This Post

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Dynamite here:

Baghdad Buzz
TNT Found in the Office of Iraqi MP
Secret Dossier Lists 15 MPs Allegedly Guilty of "Ties to Terrorists"

******************************EXCERPT**********************

Partisan politics make for a dirty game, but nowhere more so than in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi in charge of the Baghdad security plan and the Interior Ministry, reportedly presented Prime Minister Maliki with a dossier of 15 parliamentarians who should be stripped of immunity and prosecuted for ties to terrorists last month.

Now the NY Sun's Eli Lake reports that one of the names on that list, Khalaf al-Ayan, is suspected of involvement in the April 12 Parliament bombing.

An American military official this week confirmed to The New York Sun that on April 3, American forces raided Mr. Ayan's house in Yarmouk and found stores of TNT that matched the kind used in the suicide belt that detonated on April 12 at the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria. That blast killed a member of parliament, Mohammed Awad, a Sunni Arab member of Mr. Ayan's Dialogue Front, yet the terrorist who killed him is believed to have been a member of Awad's security detail.

But the background on Mr. Ayan, who has threatened to return to "resistance" if the political process does not yield to the demands of his Sunni constituency, also implicates him in a string of attacks in Mosul on May 17 that detonated bridges and blew up a police station, according to one senior Iraqi Sunni official and an American intelligence officer who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the investigation. A raid last week on his parliamentary offices, in which American forces participated, yielded time-stamped before-and-after photos of the attacks, according to these sources.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Leftist media going to work....CNN here:

Iraq Transition
Report: Intelligence predicted most problems in Iraq

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Comments from the Blogosphere...CQ here:

So Now They Believe Saddamists And Islamists Would Work Together?

**************************EXCERPT********************************

The release of Phase II of the review of pre-war intel has generated some odd comments from war critics. The same people who have told us over and over again that al-Qaeda and other radical Islamists would never have worked with a supposed secularist like Saddam Hussein now say "I told you so" when the pre-war intel warned of post-invasion connections between AQ and the Ba'athists:

*******************************snip*******************************

Jay Rockefeller wants to use the report to show what a folly it was to invade Iraq, but part of the reason we invaded Iraq was precisely to avoid Saddam and his henchmen from partnering with al-Qaeda. These same intel agencies produced this prediction because they also had intelligence that Saddam and AQ had already established contacts with each other. With the Taliban a dead letter, the next obvious choice in the region for AQ was Iraq, which already had a bitter military dispute with the US going for 12 years.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the Powerline Blog:

May 14, 2007
An uncivil war?

******************************

In the Democratic war on the war, a key talking point is the war's status as a civil war. The sectarian fighting between Shiites and Sunnis gives the point substance, but the war also goes well beyond a civil war. In that respect the war indeed resembles the Vietnam War.

As I recall, the Democrats also characterized the Vietnam War as a "civil war" up until the final North Vietnamese offensive that featured tanks from the north rolling into Saigon. Having tied President Ford's hands to keep him from responding, the Democrats didn't much care that their long-standing antiwar argument had been revealed as a joke, or as enemy propaganda. To refresh your memory on the course of events, see, for example, Gabriel Schoenfeld's great essay "Was Kissinger right?"

By the same token, at Back Talk the anonymous proprietor (a professor at a major research university) notes the eerie Democratic mantra on Iraq ("this is not the United States versus al Qaeda"). Ace of Spades notes al Qaeda's reliance on the Democrats to force an American withdrawal. Ace comments:

Notice Al Qaeda is not pressuring us to stay, which is odd, because I keep being told that Al Qaeda loves having American troops in Iraq and Bush is "playing right into their hands."

I don't think this is going to have the effect Al Qaeda seeks. It's getting harder and harder for the media to pretend that Al Qaeda isn't the major source of violence and terrorism in Iraq -- and the biggest cause of US troop deaths -- and they're going to have a hard time avoiding using the words "Al Qaeda" when they run these tapes.

Question: Would these tapes be considered a "coordinated" media buy for the Democrats under McCain-Feingold? Will the FEC investigate?

Maybe that's the way to get the media remotely perturbed at Al Qaeda -- we can sell them on the idea that "Al Qaeda is swift-boating Iraq." They really do seem to despise "swift-boating."

John noted the phenomenon of Democratic denial in "'Sad' Nancy Pelosi" this past November. Michelle Malkin eleaborates in the context of the weekend's news here.

In today's New York Sun, Eli Lake reports that as the surge begins to take hold, tribal leaders are turning on al Qaeda. On the other hand, the Bush administration approach to the foreign elements we are fighting in Iraq also recalls Vietnam:

[Foreign fighters] comprise a relatively small percentage of the overall insurgency, but they account for a very high percentage of the most grotesque attacks--80 to 90 percent of all suicide bombings, according to General Petraeus's briefing with Pentagon reporters on April 26. These jihadists are of many nationalities, but most infiltrate from Syria. The Bush administration has repeatedly vowed that Syria would suffer unspecified consequences if it did not cut off this terrorist pipeline, but so far this has been an empty threat. The administration has refused to authorize Special Operations forces to hit terrorist safe houses and "rat lines" on the Syrian side of the border, even though international law recognizes the right of "hot pursuit" and holds states liable for letting their territory be used to stage attacks on neighbors. It's high time to unleash our covert operators--Delta Force, the SEALs, and other units in the Joint Special Operations Command--to take the fight to the enemy. They can stage low-profile raids with great precision, and Syrian president Bashar Assad would have scant ability to retaliate. We also need to apply greater pressure to Iran, which continues to support both Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq, but that will be harder to do because Tehran is a more formidable adversary than Damascus.

For related considerations, whenever Iran is mentioned -- as it is today -- check in with Michael Ledeen at Faster, Please!

Posted by Scott at 06:12 AM  

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And today from the Powerline Blog:

May 25, 2007
Timeline of defeat

*************************EXCERPT**********************

I passed the pop quiz in the New York Sun editorial "Timeline of defeat," only because a guilty conscience has heightened my memory of the 1974-75 era. It's the editorial of the week, concluding as follows:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the NY Sun Editorial ...

Timeline of Defeat

***************************************EXCERPT*******************************************

So what are the Democrats thinking today? Is this the direction in which they want to go? President Bush's threat of a veto appears to have forced them to abandon a timeline for defeat in Iraq. But Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have made it clear they are going to keep trying. What was it about the Communists that the Democrats wanted to give them Indochina, a region with as many persons as Eastern Europe? And what is it about our Islamist enemies that makes the Democrats so determined to abandon a free Iraq? The tragedy of Vietnam taught that this is the question that needs to be asked and answered and that a default will haunt the politicians now in power for generations, as their own children and the children of our GIs demand to know their motives.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is a book (now available in paperback ):

***********************

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz

********************************************************

And reviews:

****************************************

Editorial Reviews

Rich Lowry, Editor National Review

David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle

An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

***********************************************************

See all Editorial Reviews

Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006

Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews

A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.

The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,

Leftists radicals truly believe the ends justify the means.

***************************************

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I hate the Leftists....

[Darkwolf377]

ABC's Jonathan Karl printed some key excerpts read to him by US intelligence officials:

* Iraq is unlikely to break apart, but it is "a deeply divided society." There is "a significant chance" that groups would "engage in violent conflict ... unless there is an occupying force to prevent them from doing so."

* Neighboring states could "jockey for position ... fomenting ethnic strife inside Iraq."

* "Iraq's political culture does not foster political liberalism or democracy."

* "A generation of Iraqis" who have been subjected to Saddam's repression are "distrustful of surrendering or sharing power."

* Al Qaeda could operate from the countryside unless there is a strong central power in Baghdad.

* There would be "a heightened terrorist threat" that "after an initial spike would decline after three to five years."

Am I just not grasping the point, or does all this seem kinda...tepid?

I mean, "deeply divided society" and "ethnic strife" sound like comments from the Congressional Black Caucus about the USA. None of this stuff mentioned above should be surprising.

Although I do think is is one more brick in the Dems' rationale for impeachment, which I believe will come in 2008. "Bush knew about these problems, but let our soldiers die needlessly..."

[Marine_Uncle]

Will have to bookmark posts for further reading. Have a nice weekend.