a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Thursday, October 23, 2003 Memo to RumsfeldFrom: MSMTo: Sec Def Rummy — If you're wondering why we've had "mixed results with Al-Qaeda" so far, allow me to suggest it's because we expected to find some of them in Iraq. We — you and I — believed Laurie Mylroie when she said Baghdad was an Al-Qaeda state sponsor. Guess what, though? She was wrong! (I know, I know. You've known that for a while.) A few Qaeda members may have trained in Iraq. Some others might have been sent as envoys to Baghdad. Mylroie had a theory that these little links, or crystallizations, were the tip of a deep and treacherous iceberg. But now it's clear that no firm alliance existed between Saddam and bin Laden, at least not before the invasion, and your intelligence agencies should have known as much. In fact, they did know it, and told you so. The trouble was that Mylroie's theory never had a good public shakedown. You guys went on using it (quietly, persuasively) to help justify a pre-emptive war, while in the meantime a Wall Street Journal reporter had his throat cut for exploring a far more treacherous alliance, the one between Al Qaeda and Pakistan. (The one between Al Qaeda and the Saudis I don't even have to mention.) Under the massive-weapons-and/or-links-to-Al-Qaeda rationale we used for Iraq, those two nations should have been invaded instantly. So if you're wondering why our swift and efficient war in Iraq has done so little to undermine Al Qaeda, and in fact gives the enemy a strong reason to recruit, worldwide, try reviewing your own memos from the past six months. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:08 AM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
