Newspaper logo  
 
 
  US Suppresses Evidence that "War on Terror" Is Increasing Terrorist Threat

COMMENTARY:

US Suppresses Evidence that "War on Terror" Is Increasing Terrorist Threat

by Ivan Eland

The Bush administration is trying to hide important data that might very well lead historians and the American public to conclude that the Global War on Terror has been disastrous for US and global security.
The Bush administration is attempting to suppress key data showing that its Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT as government bureaucrats have dubbed it) likely has been counterproductive. According to Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department terrorism expert who still has many sources within the intelligence community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s office is suppressing data showing that the number of major terrorist attacks worldwide exploded from 175 in 2003 to 625 in 2004, the highest number since the Cold War began to wane in 1985. US officials said that when analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center declined the office of the secretary’s invitation to use a methodology that would reduce the number of terrorist attacks, her office terminated publication of the State Department’s annual “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report.

No matter what else George W. Bush does in office, historians will define his presidency primarily by his GWOT, initiated after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Yet the Bush administration is trying to hide important data that might very well lead historians and the American public to conclude that the GWOT has been disastrous for US and global security.

Already evidence exists—in the form of signature suicide bombings—that foreign jihadists from all over the world have streamed into Iraq to fight the United States, much as they swarmed into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan during the 1980s.

In the aftermath of 9/11, instead of focusing on a vigorous and effective covert war against the perpetrators of the attacks—al Qaeda—the administration manipulated public opinion to launch the much ballyhooed and excessive GWOT against every “terrorist” group on the planet, whether they had ever attacked the United States or not. (The definition of a “terrorist” group seemed to be any armed non-governmental entity that didn’t agree with US policies.) For example, under the guise of fighting the group Abu Sayef, the US government used the 9/11 attacks to renew its moribund security relationship with the Philippine government. The tiny group was not a threat to the Philippine government and certainly not to the US superpower.

To make matters worse, as part of the GWOT, the administration then cynically manufactured an operational link between two unlikely allies—al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein—as an excuse to settle old scores with Saddam. Four years later, because of the administration’s distraction, the dangerous top leadership of al Qaeda remains at large. In fact, perhaps the invasion of Iraq was meant, in part, to distract the American public from the administration’s failure to neutralize the worst threat to the continental United States since the British invaded during the War of 1812.

In addition to distracting from the important task of quietly neutralizing al Qaeda, the Iraq invasion has needlessly killed between 26,000 and 108,000 U.S. and allied troops, US contract forces, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians and overstretched the US military in a seemingly endless Vietnam-style quagmire.

Critics have claimed that invading and occupying Iraq—a Muslim country—would inflame a radical Islamic jihad against the United States similar to that which afflicted another “infidel” nation—the Soviet Union—when it invaded and occupied Islamic Afghanistan in 1979. Already evidence exists—in the form of signature suicide bombings—that foreign jihadists from all over the world have streamed into Iraq to fight the United States, much as they swarmed into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan during the 1980s.

The Bush administration has always maintained that drawing Islamic jihadists into Iraq is actually good because the United States would be better off fighting them there rather than in the American homeland. The president has called Iraq the “central front” in the GWOT. When fighting nation-states, the military’s usual approach of holding the adversary as far away from the homeland as possible makes sense. Unlike large enemy armies, however, small, agile terrorist groups can stealthily infiltrate all layers of defense and surface in the U.S. homeland. So we may very well have to fight them both in Iraq and at home. Also, the “fighting them there so that we don’t have to fight them here” logic assumes that the number of terrorists is constant. Critics have alleged that the invasion of Iraq has swelled the ranks of terrorists by converting many more fundamentalist Islamists into active warriors. The Bush administration is now suppressing government data that give credence to just that allegation.

...the “fighting them there so that we don’t have to fight them here” logic assumes that the number of terrorists is constant. Critics have alleged that the invasion of Iraq has swelled the ranks of terrorists by converting many more fundamentalist Islamists into active warriors.

Since the Iraq war went south, mainstream US media feel safe in prominently displaying some of the unpleasant facts about that conflict—for example, allegations that the Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to exaggerate Iraq’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Yet the searing effect of 9/11 still makes the press leery of criticizing similar administration pressure on intelligence analysts to hide the apparent failure of the GWOT.

Such media skittishness is reminiscent of their behavior prior to the Iraq invasion, when it was impolitic to question the administration’s march to war. The media buried in its back pages a declassified CIA report indicating that Saddam Hussein was unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction against the United States or give them to terrorists unless backed against the wall during a US invasion. Apparently, the nation’s leading intelligence agency destroying the main rationale for its boss’s misguided and aggressive policy wasn’t headline news. Alas, the same is now occurring with data indicating that the administration’s grandiose GWOT may very well be counterproductive.

If the US news media weren’t so timid about covering such explosive facts, perhaps the American public would just say “no” to government policies that endanger Americans and other people everywhere.


Ivan Eland is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, and author of the books The Empire Has No Clothes and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.


Copyright © 2005 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on April 26, 2005.

 
Bookmark and Share
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Local Newsbriefs

Travel
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Open Letters:

03.05 Open Letter to Congressman Bart Stupak

Health & Environment

Video National Health Care Systems In Other Countries

03.18 Pressure Drop: Brave Sir Dennis Ran Away

03.12 Slick Barry and the $100-Billion Medicaid/Medicare Fraud Claim

03.09 Kill Bill: Death to Obamacare!

03.09 Obama’s Rhetoric May Be “Fiery,” But His Health Care Reform Is Still Lukewarm

Media Watching

03.17 CNN Scrapes Bottom of Right-Wing Barrel With Erickson Hire

03.16 WPost Blames Obama First, on Israel

03.16 Letter to the New York Times' Editor: Stovepiping To Persia

03.12 Cud and Complicity: Burying the Alternatives to Empire's Dominion

03.11 NYT and the ACORN Hoax

03.05 Sorry, Rove, Bush Did Lie About Iraq

03.03 It's Snow News

03.03 The Woeful Washington Post

Ref. : The Daily Howler

Legal Matters

02.26 America's Supremes: Court Over Constitution

US Politics, Policy & Culture

03.11 Power Rangers: Policing the System With the "Fightin' Progressives"

03.09 Thinking About Countings

03.07 Unnatural Acts: Breaking the Fever of Militarism

02.25 Future Shock: A Better World Beyond the Imperium

“High Crimes?”

03.18 The Lawfare Project's Anti-Democratic Agenda

03.17 Expecting Gen. McChrystal to Reduce Afghan Civilian Casualties is Like Asking Ted Bundy to Cut Sex Harassment in the Workplace

03.16 America's Secret Prisons

03.13 Palestinian Dispossession in East Jerusalem

03.12 Israeli Settlement Expansions Continue

03.11 Brutalizing Palestinian Children

03.08 The Russell Tribunal on Palestine: Barcelona Session

03.05 Targeting Israeli Apartheid

03.01 America's Permanent War Agenda

02.25 Global Sweatshop Wage Slavery

Economics & Business Non/Mis/Malfeasance

03.14 The Crisis in America's Telecommunications Network

03.09 The Business of Water: Privatizing An Essential Resource

03.05 Is the Recovery Real?

03.04 IMF-Style Austerity Measures come to America: What “Fiscal Responsibility” Means To You

03.04 Barry C. Lynn's "Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and Economics of Destruction"

03.02 Obama's Budget Revealed: Money for Wars and Weapons, While More Americans Face Joblessness and Hunger

03.01 Thinking About Fees

International

03.15 Peace Process Hypocrisy: Stillborn from Inception

03.03 Muslim Disunity

03.02 Funding Israeli Militarism, Belligerence and Occupation

02.26 Iran Captures a 'Good' Terrorist

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.
Google
This site Web

Public Service Ads:
Verifiable Voting in Maryland