The National Intelligence Estimate, or: How I Learned to Stop Thinking like W and Start Reading bin Laden

Today, the President, responding to leaks in the New York Times and elsewhere about the findings of an April National Intelligence Estimate, authorized the declassification of that NIE’s key findings. While none of what the NIE suggested shocked or surprised me, some of it may have shocked or surprised people in DC who have been caught up in the “they hate our freedoms” dog and pony show the White House has insisted on parading in front of us.

Among the more entertaining conclusions of the NIE:

• Muslim extremists are increasing in number and geographic dispersion
• Pluralism and reform in Muslim countries may alleviate some of the complaints jihadists exploit
• “Self-radicalized” cells are becoming more important as security threats to the United States and its allies
• Iraq is the “cause celebre” for jihadists, but should jihadists perceive their mission in Iraq as a failure, fewer of them would be inspired to carry on their jihad
• The four factors identified as fuel for the spread of jihadist movements are grievances in their own countries, such as corruption and Western domination, Iraq, the slow pace of real reform in Muslim nations, and pervasive anti-American sentiment
• Should key leaders of al Qaeda be captured or killed, it seems likely, at least in the short term, that the threat from al Qaeda and its splinter groups would be less serious
• Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the US than its smaller affiliated groups with a more regional focus
• Jihadist groups most likely will employs IEDs and suicide attacks, focusing on soft targets (i.e. civilians), wage an asymmetric strategy, and continue urban warfare
• While some states (namely Iran and Syria) are active state sponsors of terrorism, other states are unable to prevent their territory from being exploited by terrorists
• Vulnerabilities that could be exploited to slow the movement of the jihadists include the lack of popularity of their radically conservative ideology with the large majority of Muslims, moderate Muslim clerics are speaking out against their use of violence, and the violent tactics of the jihadists against other Muslims citizens are turning popular Muslim opinion against the jihadists and their tactics

Obviously, one of the first things people ought to notice here is that the prediction that the capture or killing of key leaders of the jihad would cause the movement to weaken has proven somewhat incorrect. This NIE was published several weeks before Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed and the aftermath of that seems to disprove that prediction.

Secondly, the idea that perceived failure of jihadists in Iraq would lead to an abandonment of the movement would be more persuasive if some definition of “failure” was put forth—and not “failure” as we in the West would know it, but “failure” as the jihadists might understand it, because if you look at the peer groups of al Qaeda in Iraq, like Hamas for example, they haven’t yet achieved any of their objectives as laid out in the charter of Hamas, but that hasn’t stopped or even really slowed down that movement.

That Iraq has been identified as the “cause celebre” of jihadists seems a bit self-evident. Anyone surprised by such a conclusion has obviously not been paying the slightest bit of attention to the goings on in the world over the past three years. The problem here is that, in a very real way, the president’s opponents are correct: the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more. That’s frightening and unacceptable.

It’s frightening for obvious reasons—if this war was supposed to make us more safe, it has failed miserably, which leads me to the unacceptable. 2,700 US soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. These are brave men and women with families and friends who now have to face life without their loved ones and for what, exactly? Don’t we owe our service men and women more than that? Don’t they deserve more from us that to continue to send them into such a landscape where they will be returning to their families not with their battalions, but in flag draped coffins?

Finally, this report SCREAMS to me that we still don’t get it. At the highest levels of the political spectrum, our government does not understand the enemy. In his speech to the country in the aftermath of 9-11, President Bush said, “Americans are asking, why do they hate us?...They hate our freedom—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with one another.”

This sentiment has been echoed over and over by the president and the rest of his administration, most recently in Condi Rice’s interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes this weekend. The underlying message of the administration is that our enemy is evil, blinded by irrational hatred, and despises those things that we hold most dear.

This NIE suggests something very different. The suggestion here is that the vitriol with which radical Islam interacts with the US stems from internal corruption, poverty, hopelessness, and the perceived complicity of the United States in those problems. This understanding of the motives of our enemy is much more in keeping with what seems to be the reality of the situation. Osama bin Laden has been remarkably consistent in his critique of the United States and the reasons for which he is angry.

Last November, an edited volume of all of bin Laden’s major statements, translated into English and footnoted to explain some of the more obscure references he makes to Islamic history or the Qu’ran was published. I consider it a must read for anyone who truly wants to have a clue of whom and what we are dealing with (Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, edited by Bruce Lawrence).

Had the president or, apparently, any of his key advisors taken the time to actually listen to what bin Laden has said, they would find that he looks rather derisively on the president’s characterization of the roots of his anger. In a statement released on Valentine’s Day, 2003, bin Laden directly refutes the “hate our freedoms” hypothesis: “Then when they saw the gang of criminals in the White House misrepresenting the truth, whose idiotic leader claims we despise their way of life—although the truth that the Pharaoh of the modern age is hiding is that we strike them because of their injustice toward us in the Islamic world…—the mujahidin decided to overcome this obfuscation and to bring the battle right into their heartland.”

In October, 2004, this claim was repeated by bin Laden: “I speak to you today about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and its consequences. First of all, I tell you that security is one of the pillars of human life. Free men do no underestimate the value of their freedom despite Bush’s claim that we hate freedom….We have been fighting you because we are free men who cannot acquiesce in injustice. We want to restore security to our umma. Just as you violate our security, so we violate yours. Whoever encroaches upon the security of others and imagines that he himself will remain safe is but a foolish criminal….For if you would quit perpetrating these injustices, you Americans would be on the right path towards the security you enjoyed before September 11.”

It’s understandable that the president would be reluctant to acknowledge, at least publicly, that Osama bin Laden has real grievances against the United States, none of them frivolous or fabricated, though perhaps exaggerated. This messes up the idea that America is the best of the best, John Winthrop’s “City upon a hill.” America is good and just and noble, all apple pie and baseball and home cooking, and that couldn’t possibly be harmful or objectionable to anyone. But America is not perfect. It’s just as flawed as any other nation-state and those grievances that others have with us must not be brushed aside or sugar coated; they must be dealt with head-on.

I consider myself a politically incorrect patriot. I don’t place my hand over my heart during the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. I hate the 4th of July. I refuse to say “under God” when saluting the flag. I will unflinchingly critique the president or Congress or anyone else who isn’t looking out for the best interests of Americans. But I love this country, and I consider it my right, indeed my obligation, to point out those instances where this country has gone wrong, has committed injustices, or has turned a blind eye to its complicity in world affairs. Self-examination is a good thing. Self-criticism is a good thing. Confronting the wrongs of America is a just and noble and patriotic thing to do.

We have been approaching the War on Terror in the wrong way. We have approached bin Laden, the threat he poses, and the reasons he’s mad in the wrong way. It’s not too late to fix these things. And I don’t think either party is particularly more equipped or less equipped to deal with these issues. In fact, I think partisanship will continue to be a pox on not only both their houses, but the overall security of the United States as well. Finger pointing, buck passing, and the blame game don’t add anything positive to the political discourse. They divide, bring the already slow moving bureaucracy to a screeching halt, and prevent otherwise concerned citizens from speaking up for fear of being demonized, ridiculed, or treated with scorn.

May this National Intelligence Estimate open the eyes of the people of these United States. There are real problems with the War on Terror and the way we’re fighting it. It’s time for the American people to demand that their leaders, Democrat, Republican, hell even pink and purple polka dotted, stop acting like two year olds and start working together to keep this country safe.

Musings of a Back Row Baptist

Hey, if musicians can have self-titled debut CDs, then my blog can be self-titled as well. Anyhow...

They don’t tell you in orientation or in any of the enrollment garbage you have to wade through when you start school, but there is a great occupational hazard related to being a religion major—you start to have serious issues with organized religion. While I’m not convinced that any of the issues I’m about to enumerate are exclusive to religion majors, they really became striking to me both in my own attitude toward religion and in the attitudes of my classmates while I was working on my M.A. in religion at Wake Forest. Some of these ideas were germinating in my overworked little brain long before Wake, but it was not until then did all of this crystallize into well…this.

Problem #1—There is an overabundance of churches who will tell you what you think and a gross shortage of churches that cater to seekers.

I have a lot of questions—some about the very core of the doctrines of the Baptist church. Why do we do such and such like that? Is there any valid reason for it or is it just because that’s how things have always been done? It’s even worse when you start asking the same questions about other denominations. They get a little mad. This is, of course, an even more dangerous path to tread when dealing with the Southern Baptist Convention because asking such questions can get you labeled a Satan-loving liberal. C’est la vie, I suppose.

Seekers are problematic for churches. I recognize and even appreciate this fact. People who question everything, including the elemental doctrines of a faith, have the potential to throw a local church and, if they’re REALLY good at it, an entire denomination into chaos. Those common beliefs are what bind a church together, so it’s only natural that churches might be a bit scared of people who ask too many questions.

But churches should also recognize that seekers are important, if for no other reason that for accountability. Without those individuals who question everything and hold on to what’s good, as Paul advised the Thessalonians in his second letter to them, denominations can drift toward un-Christ-like behaviors, become to legalistic or exclusive, and lose the very essence of their character (yes, Southern Baptist Convention, I’m talking to you). Seekers don’t ask questions just for the sake of asking questions…much. They want answers. They want to learn. And in so doing, they can also enlighten the rest of the congregation. Seekers are looking for a place where they feel they can safely explore and question and investigate, and churches drop the ball when they do no accommodate such individuals.

Problem #2—Churches that primarily function as a social club wildly miss the point, or: Why Stephanie is not a Calvinist.

The church was never intended to be a social club, yet that’s what it has become and that sickens me. Let me be very clear here: Churches that primarily focus inward are not doing the work of the Lord. One’s congregation is important. People with shared beliefs and experiences are necessary to doing the work of the Lord. But churches that focus inward at the expense of the unchurched, the poor, the downtrodden just don’t get it.

The disciples were not by any stretch of the imagination a social club. They were a support system for each other. They were traveling companions, both of each other and of Jesus. And yes, they gossiped and they competed with one another, but they were Jesus’ helpers first and foremost. I don’t want to say that the church’s focus outside of it’s four walls ought to be to save the world because that’s both far overreaching its grasp and quite maudlin. And I certainly don’t want to say that the church’s focus ought to be winning souls to Christ, anti-evangelical that I am. I find this notion the height of arrogance. Only God can do that. God can harden hearts and he can soften hearts. That’s not my responsibility. My only duty is to behave in a way that reflects Christ, whether with the Word or in my actions.

And that’s really what the church ought to do. If the church is not feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless, serving the community, then it’s not doing what Jesus commanded. Perhaps this is why the times that I have really felt as though I was in church lately have been Thursday nights at FCA in Stillwater, OK, where John Talley frequently reminds us all that FCA is a service organization. People who show up to FCA for the fellowship alone miss the point. Fellowship is important, and good churches have it in spades, but it’s not the end all and be all of church, nor should it be. To serve the community is to serve God. That should be the foundation of any church’s mission. It’s just that simple.

Problem #3—There is a large class of women being overlooked, not just by their churches, but by the rest of society and it’s time for that to stop.

I have a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and I’m currently working on my PhD. And I don’t intend for any of those degrees or the hard work I put in to earning them to be only pretty wall decoration. We’ve heard all of the talk about stay at home versus working mothers. There’s been condemnation of those women who wish to work outside the home. This debate has been going on for several years now. It’s time to stop. Argue all you want about whether women in the workplace is a good idea, but it won’t change the fact that it’s a reality, and one that our society at large has not been confronting as it should.

I have questions about my ability to be both a professional woman and a mother. I recognize that it’s a delicate balancing act, and I want to do both to the best of my ability. But our churches, our schools, our universities have yet to open a dialogue about what women need to be put in a position to succeed in both roles. In discussing this with some of my friends—strong, career minded women all, we have all reached the same conclusion: churches either implicitly or explicitly avoid dealing with these issues, the implication being, or so it seems to us, that we should choose one or the other, because they won’t help us try to figure out how to do both.

I don’t believe that God gave me my intellect and drive and passion for the Middle East and human rights and ethics just so I could sit around coffee shops and discuss these things on weekends. I want to do something about injustices in the world. I want to affect policy and change people’s outlook on issues. I want to use the education I have received. I want that hard work to lead to good things. And yes, at the same time, I want to have kids and be involved in their lives and support their dreams and their ambitions and encourage them in the same way that my parents encouraged and pushed and prodded me to do my best. But I can’t do both by myself. I need a support system, help, advise, and one of the places I will turn for such things is the church. I can only hope the church is equal to the task.