HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Every few days, I head over to NRO's Corner to see what the kids are saying about the latest world developments. Most of the time, what I find is a fairly basic and repetitive regurgitation of neo-conservative talking points. But every once in awhile, I come across a post that is so silly that it deserves a response. This morning's post from Cliff May definitely is most certainly one of those:

A new “secret” intelligence report leaked to The New York Times reportedly says that the Iraq war has made the terrorism problem worse.

So let’s understand: Just about everyday in Iraq, al-Qaeda and other Islamist Fascist terrorists murder innocent Iraqis — and rather than enraging Muslims that is inspiring Muslims to sign to themselves become Islamist Fascist terrorists.

And when Muslim extremists kill Muslim civilians in Iraq it just makes people so angry – at Americans.

And had the US not toppled Saddam Hussein, these people now enlisting as terrorists would be doing what right now? Enrolling in law school, watching football games, and investing in 401K’s?

As detailed by yesterday's NYT, we now known that it is the combined judgement of the entire US intelligence apparatus that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism by helping to crate a new generation of radicals. But this apparently confuses May. "How is it possible," he seems to be asking, "that a war that has led to Muslims attacking Muslims has made us less safe?"

Coming from a conservative, this is just baffling. We toppled their government, after which their society descended into chaos. Given that we are the ones who toppled the government, Iraqis naturally hold us responsible for this. Given that their friends and family members are dying because of the chaos, they are understandably angry, and in many cases are seeking revenge - both at other Iraqis and at us. No one, except perhaps for May himself, has claimed that this is an either/or proposition.

As for his second question, its hard to even know where to begin. The finding of the NIE is that the war has helped fuel radicalism, not that it has created it whole cloth. I don't know what they would have been doing had we not toppled Saddam, but whatever it was, if it was less radical and hostile then what they are doing now that would obviously be a good thing. Using May's ridiculous examples, the argument isn't that the war has driven them to choose suicide bombing over football, it is that is has made them more likely to on balance to do so. As always, this isn't about black or white; it is about shades of gray.

More from May:

BTW, CNN says Democrats have “seized on the report” to use as political fodder in this election season. Gee, that couldn’t be why the report was leaked, could it? CIA operatives leaking classified information to the Times to help Democrats win elections? I can’t believe such a thing would occur. Surely, there will be calls for an investigation.

Maybe if May thought about this at more than the surface level he would see what is really going on here. Yes, the report was leaked, and I have no doubt that this happened at least in part for political purposes. But even granting that, you have to ask why? Is electing Democrats to Congress the end goal of the leak, or is it a means to another end? And if it is a means to an end, what end? One possibility May seems unwilling to consider is that the ultimate goal of the leaker is to change policies, not politics.

Elections matter not simply because they decided winners and losers but because they shape policies. That's so basic I shouldn't even need to point it out, but apparently I do. Furthermore, not all leaks occur for partisan political purposes. Sometimes whistle-blowers step up not in defense of a particular party but in defense of the entire nation itself. And yes, of course it is always possible to disagree with such actions because of your partisan affiliations, but that disagreement does not in and of itself mean that action with which you disagree was motivated by partisan concerns. Just because you view the entire world through a partisan lens does not mean everyone else does too.

As for investigation, yes, I agree, let's hold them. Let's find out why the Bush administration sat on this report for so many months. Let's find out why they aren't using it to redirect their policies. Let's find out where - and most importantly why - the administration disagrees with the collective wisdom of our entire intelligence apparatus. Rather than ignoring the report, let's have an open and honest debate. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong - why aren't they?

Anyway, enough beating up on Mr. May. Back to my reading....

UPDATE: Well lookie here... Apparently Matthew Yglesias was annoyed by May as well.