NRO contributor and neocon Cliff May has written
a Scripps-Howard column that attempts to refute the case that Iraq has proven to be a boon for the terrorists. But while clever, he is being obtuse when he writes:
There is no such thing as an experienced suicide bomber.
He uses this statement to lambaste a CIA report that Iraq has proven to be a valuable training ground for terrorism:
This insight seems to have eluded the Central Intelligence Agency. A few days ago a classified CIA report was leaked to the media. It put forward the frightening assessment that terrorists in Iraq are developing greater skills than those who learned their trade in Afghanistan under Taliban/al-Qaeda rule in the 1990s.
Think about that: The most effective weapon the terrorists utilize in Iraq is the suicide bomber. Surely it is the rare suicide bomber who improves his performance mission after mission.
The obvious flaw in May's article is that suicide bombers are dupes, tools. They are scarcely more an active agent than the bombs they strap to their chests or transport in their cars. (Read, for example this chilling article in Time.) Indeed, there is evidence that some have been chained to the steering wheel of their car.
It's in fact becoming apparent that terrorist organizations are becoming ever more proficient and efficient in recruiting, indoctrinizing, and deploying naive civilians as suicide bombers. And Iraq provides a rich array of targets for them to continued developing this trade.
May then goes on to say that the opportunity that Iraq provides for developing other types of attacks, especially IEDs is over-rated:
What other abilities are the terrorists mastering in Iraq? They are assembling Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Does anyone seriously believe that the IED learning experience provided in a Fallujah basement is so much richer than what used to be offered in Kandahar in the days when Osama bin Laden was resident there?
This simply flies in the face of facts. It's quite clear--you don't have to read any leaked, classified CIA reports to know--that IEDs are becoming increasingly sophisticated and lethal. With plenty of armored vehicles and a well-equiped enemy available to practice on, they're developing ever better shaped-charges and jamming-proof remote triggering devices.
Apart from waving his hands to defend the administration and the neocons from the charge that the invasion of Iraq has made the world a much more dangerous place, May also makes another point: the CIA is out of control.
That is the most serious issue article raises:
While not ferreting out the secrets of others, the CIA has become adept at letting its own secrets get loose. The motivation behind leaking classified assessments such as this one is obvious: to shape public opinion, influence policy makers and affect domestic politics. These are not the tasks the CIA receives billions of dollars to carry out.
If the new leaders of the intelligence community, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss, mean to fix what's broken, they have their work cut out for them.
The CIA or individuals in the CIA have dared to challenge the administration's preconceived interpretations. They have resisted the "fixing" of evidence around policy. May, neocons and the administration are either in denial about what is really going on in Iraq, (which is actually unlikely), or don't care, (which is possible), but they are certainly lying to the American people.
Preserving the ability to dissemble is May's real point. He is telling the people who have the power to muzzle the CIA: We can't continue to lie and deny if CIA whistleblowers continue to let the truth out. It gets in the way of the master plan: The Project for the New American Century. The question is, who are May and his fellow neocons really fooling? Us, or themselves? Does it really matter whether they are wearing rose-colored glasses while they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes?