ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Rockefeller: Hayden’s ‘Upbeat Assessment’ On Al Qaeda ‘Not Consistent’ With Intel Reports To Capitol Hill

hayden2.jpgDuring a recent interview with the Washington Post, CIA Director Michael Hayden said that al Qaeda is “essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world” including the areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. “On balance, we’re doing pretty well,” Hayden said. The Post even described Hayden’s view as a “strikingly upbeat assessment.”

But Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a letter to Hayden that he is “surprised and troubled” by his comments to the Post, adding that his assessment of al Qaeda’s worldwide strength is at odds with intelligence briefings to Captiol Hill:

The positions attributed to you are not consistent with assessments that have been provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee over the past year. If the Intelligence Community’s assessment of al-Qa’ida has changed, I would expect the Committee to be made aware of these changes immediately. If the assessment has not changed, then I ask that you explain why you would portray the terrorist movement as “on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.” In fact, I have seen nothing, including classified intelligence reporting, that would lead me to this conclusion.

Moreover, in a speech delivered last Thursday, “posited as a presidential intelligence briefing delivered on Jan. 21, 2009,” Principal Director of National Intelligence Donald Kerr’s assessment of al-Qaeda “seemed at odds” with Hayden’s, the Post reports:

Pakistan’s “inward” political focus and failure to control the tribal territories where al-Qaeda maintains a haven, he said, is “the number one thing we worry about” … in response to a question, he said that “we don’t know enough” about what is happening in Pakistan.

“One of the concerns we have is that as Pakistan looks inward,” the western tribal areas “will be more hospitable to those who would strike us and less hospitable to us in trying to root out that problem,” Kerr said.

The Post added that Kerr’s speech “contrasted with more optimistic administration forecasts of rapprochement among Iraq’s political forces and a possible Middle East peace agreement in the next eight months.”

Yglesias

“Soft Power”

Ilan Goldenberg wisely proposes that progressives ditch the term “soft power.” He focuses mainly on the marketing aspects of the particular labels “soft power” versus “hard power” but I would go further and say that the distinction Joseph Nye was trying to draw is a bit ill-conceived. People here those words and they think of two kinds of power — two kinds of means of coercion — some of which might be “hard” and others might be “soft.” In fact, what Nye is trying to draw a distinction between all forms of coercion (including “soft” ones) on the one hand, and then stuff that’s not coercive at all — qualities that make a country likable.

But that stuff — the fact that American political ideals are attractive to people whereas Chinese political ideals aren’t — isn’t really a kind of power at all. It’s important, but if you think of it as a kind of power you’re just going to wind up thinking of it as a kind of really shitty and second rate power, rather than simply as something that’s different and important in its own right.

Yglesias

Comfort Zones

A couple of days ago, Noam Scheiber noted that it seems strange for John McCain to be so eager to talk about Iraq considering that Iraq is a horribly unpopular fiasco, the issue on which he’s most closely associated with the horribly unpopular incumbent Republican administration. Noam thought it might reflect a baseline lack of adequate cynicism on McCain’s part:

My hunch is that McCain really wants to debate Iraq–he really, truly thinks it’s the most important issue facing the country, and thinks he can persuade people on the merits–and so his political advisers are doing the best they can with it. I guess I respect that on some level. And, politically, it does reinforce his truth-teller, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war” image. But, assuming Obama is able to establish a minimum level of national security credibility, which I think he will, McCain may be making a strategic mistake.

I mean, I suppose McCain does think that stuff, but honestly what else is he supposed to talk about? I don’t think it would serve the candidate well to talk about issues he doesn’t care about or doesn’t know anything about. And as best I can tell, that’s, um, all the issues. But even though a clear majority of the American people recognizes that endless war in Iraq is a bad idea, a large swathe of elites agree with McCain’s view that there’s no number of American deaths that would be too many to try to spare elites from the embarrassment of admitting that Iraq’s been a failure. This doesn’t seem all that promising to me as a campaign strategy, but it’s more promising than tired health care mumbo jumbo that McCain himself doesn’t seem interested in.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up