I can't wait to hear the pundits on Fox News explain how the
intelligence chiefs of our coalition allies support the terrorists, the Iraqi insurgency, and seek to influence the election in November.
Before the Iraqi war, Europe's principal intelligence services shared the Bush administration's view that Saddam Hussein was hiding his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Today, these same services disagree with the White House on several critical assessments.
Combine this news with the latest revelations that a full year before the invasion of Iraq the British were already planning with us the overthrow of Saddam, and that Blair was more focused on regime change than WMD, and it's going to be hard not to admit the obvious, that Iraq is a disaster, in the days and weeks ahead. Let's move on to those bullet points that the coalition intelligence chiefs have generally come to a consensus to (in opposition to what Bush is saying):
(by the way, I'm not going to subquote the article, or I would subquote the whole thing; so, it is highly suggested you go over to the link, though I paraphrase the items here)
neocon fantasy of Iraq as model of democracy unrealistic
plan for local Iraqi security forces a failure
insurgency exploded to estimated 20,000 members, still growing, targeting Iraqi security forces, gaining defections from them
Iraqi security complaining about equipment and 2nd class status (i.e. morale not good, along with other factors)
to turn back insurgency, coalition needs 10x the numbers of the insurgency, based upon past experience (thus around 200,000 troops).
invasion of Iraq a diversion in war against Al Qaeda and those who are targeting us - Iraq was not connected to these groups
invasion of Iraq is not a solution to overall Mideast crisis, in which a solution is vital for stemming momentum of enemy movement
Iraq has become like flypaper, drawing jihadists from around the globe, and "greatly facilitated transnational terrorism"
to succeed in Iraq would take a sustained commitment at the appropriate level of forces (around 200,000) "through 2010 or longer"
occupation of Iraq in danger of becoming quagmyre, and model of democracy no longer (if ever) feasible
global summit of leading free democracies necessary in order to "map a common strategy to confront a global challenge" - "(1) the defense of Western democracies and (2) the gradual transformation of an Arab world that must be assisted out of poverty, despair and defeat."
without a global strategy, piecemeal unilateral actions may only end up weakening and threatening our own democracies, should our enemies continue to find success striking and destabilizing us
"the 'war on terror' is a misnomer that is tantamount to rhetorical disinformation" - terrorism is a method, a "weapons system", and what drives (causes) the terrorist recruitment and hatred is the problem, not their methods.
"to ignore these causes is to guarantee escalation - to weapons of mass destruction" (which would definitely, in the current environment, put our democratic society, values and traditions at risk)
This is a pretty heady list, and I'm surprised that there is this much of a consensus amongst established intelligence chiefs, and not just those who are opposed to the war who have been saying many of these same things.
Of course, Bush's backers claim that those of us making these warnings are aiding the enemy, or at least not being helpful to the cause, so, if that is the case, what's their spin on these Coalition intelligence chiefs saying largely the same things?
Another interesting aspect of these bullet points is that they are quite similar to Anonymous' arguments in Imperial Hubris. If you have not read that book yet, I suggest you do. It is worth the time, effort, and money.
By the way, I do believe the term many of us used to describe the situation in Iraq last year still applies - clusterfuck.