The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide

[peezey 0]

By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank

Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C.

"If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist terrorists, the administration’s argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists...and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

Yet administration officials have continued to suggest that there is no evidence any greater jihadist threat exists as a result of the Iraq War. "Are more terrorists being created in the world?" then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rhetorically asked during a press conference in September. "We don’t know. The world doesn’t know. There are not good metrics to determine how many people are being trained in a radical madrasa school in some country." In January 2007 Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte in congressional testimony stated that he was "not certain" that the Iraq War had been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and played down the likely impact of the war on jihadists worldwide: "I wouldn’t say there has been a widespread growth in Islamic extremism beyond Iraq. I really wouldn’t."

Indeed, though what we will call "The Iraq Effect" is a crucial matter for U.S. national security, we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain. In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information from the world’s premier database on global terrorism. The results are being published for the first time by Mother Jones, the news and investigative magazine, as part of a broader "Iraq 101" package in the magazine’s March/April 2007 issue.

Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.

continued

[eric&gen 0]

Send Ric Flair to IRAQ. He will give one huge chop to all the terrorists lol.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What makes me laugh is that some commentators are now blaming the British, the US' biggest ally (who went in on this against massive public opposition) who have just announced troop pull outs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Making assumptions is what kills people.

It's like, I don't know you or saying I think you're bad so I'll kill you.

[GaryC 7]

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

[Jenn! 918]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

[GaryC 7]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

It proves nothing. All slanted assumptions. They got the result they wanted.

[Jenn! 918]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

It proves nothing. All slanted assumptions. They got the result they wanted.

Ok, I'll take that as a no.

[GaryC 7]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

It proves nothing. All slanted assumptions. They got the result they wanted.

Ok, I'll take that as a no.

Jeezz!!! YES I READ IT!!!! It makes assumptions and cherry picks the facts they want! Good Lord!

[Jenn! 918]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

It proves nothing. All slanted assumptions. They got the result they wanted.

Ok, I'll take that as a no.

Jeezz!!! YES I READ IT!!!! It makes assumptions and cherry picks the facts they want! Good Lord!

Maybe you could elaborate a bit then on what those assumptions are. Obviously we are reading it coming from two very different perspectives. I found it to be quite comprehensive, and I'm not sure what assumptions you are referring to.

[GaryC 7]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

It proves nothing. All slanted assumptions. They got the result they wanted.

Ok, I'll take that as a no.

Jeezz!!! YES I READ IT!!!! It makes assumptions and cherry picks the facts they want! Good Lord!

Maybe you could elaborate a bit then on what those assumptions are. Obviously we are reading it coming from two very different perspectives. I found it to be quite comprehensive, and I'm not sure what assumptions you are referring to.

They are assuming that any increase in attacts worldwide is because of their "Iraq effect". I love that, they even made a buzz word for it. We were seeing an increase before the war and there is no reason to think it would not have continued even without the war. They want to pin all this on Iraq and Bush so they framed their facts to fit that assumption. Remember 9/11? Remember the USS Cole? Remember the African embassies? Do you think they had anything to do with the war? Of course not! Those things happend before the war! Who is to say attacks like that would have stopped if we hadn't went into Iraq? They wanted this result and they got it by twisting facts and making assumptions. It's like a poll. I can get any result I want by the way I ask the question, who I ask the question to and where I ask it. This is no different.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... If I were to judge their methodology I would at least look at their objectives, and how they reached those conclusions:

In our study we focusd on the following questions:

* Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?

* What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?

* Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[Jenn! 918]

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

Did you read the study?

It proves nothing. All slanted assumptions. They got the result they wanted.

Ok, I'll take that as a no.

Jeezz!!! YES I READ IT!!!! It makes assumptions and cherry picks the facts they want! Good Lord!

Maybe you could elaborate a bit then on what those assumptions are. Obviously we are reading it coming from two very different perspectives. I found it to be quite comprehensive, and I'm not sure what assumptions you are referring to.

They are assuming that any increase in attacts worldwide is because of their "Iraq effect". I love that, they even made a buzz word for it. We were seeing an increase before the war and there is no reason to think it would not have continued even without the war. They want to pin all this on Iraq and Bush so they framed their facts to fit that assumption. Remember 9/11? Remember the USS Cole? Remember the African embassies? Do you think they had anything to do with the war? Of course not! Those things happend before the war! Who is to say attacks like that would have stopped if we hadn't went into Iraq? They wanted this result and they got it by twisting facts and making assumptions. It's like a poll. I can get any result I want by the way I ask the question, who I ask the question to and where I ask it. This is no different.

"We are not making the argument that without the Iraq War, jihadist terrorism would not exist".

I didn't see them saying that there was no terrorism before Iraq or that there would be no terrorism without Iraq, as you suggested above.

And it's not really like a poll. It's not like they just went around asking "anti-American-looking people" what they thought was the cause of increased terrorist attacks since the Iraq War.

But I do concede that determining the motivation for the increase is subjective. However, I think that they did put forth some convincing arguments. And if not the war in Iraq, then to what else should we attribute the increase in terrorist attacks?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To add to the above, the term "Iraq Effect" was coined in direct reference to quotes from government figures that the Iraq war has reduced extremist terrorism.