What should trouble us most about the New York Times story is not the dubious proposition it advances that the war in Iraq has made the struggle against Islamic radicalism more difficult. It is that there are people in the intelligence community who use secret intelligence for partisan political purposes.Where better to fight them, and what would be the result if we ran as we did in the 90's, which directly led to the growth of Al Qaeda's confidence and numbers of recruits. It is legitimate and necessary to have debates within the intelligence community, as even best estimates may be wrong, but over time differing views may re-emerge as new pieces of the puzzle are added. The Counterterrorism Blog discusses the track record of the NIE. And of course, if we hadn't stopped Saddam, how far along would he be in getting his nukes?
But as Kelly points out, the scary thought is that some of those who are charged to protect the American people from another 9/11 are consumed with their own partisan agenda, leak valuable information, and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
Perhaps the NY Times and their sources could think about giving a little aid and comfort to the American people. National security begins at home. Homeland Security can't be left to the firefighters and policemen picking up broken bodies after the fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment