Now that alot of the classified NIE report on terrorism has been released, as opposed to leaked, Republicans and Democrats are scrambling to explain what it all means.  When the original section was leaked by the media, Democrats jumped on it to use it for political gain.  They argue that the document proved that the Iraq war was not diminishing terror threat.  As we read now through the rest of the document, or at least the amount that has been released, we see that that concept is not entirely true.  The problem with this document is that it isn't gospel.  It actually takes a very broad view on the terrorist threat in the world.  We must remember that this is a global war, not a regional war.  We also must remember, as I mentioned in another article, that Iraq and Afghanistan are two theaters in the global war on terror.  The document spells out similar notions as well as a few vague contradictions.  The main issue I have with this document is that when it is 'cherry-picked' as one commentator said, it can be used by either side.  Here is a breakdown of some of the report and the truth behind it in my opinion.

 **Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-United States sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.

 1) Note the overuse of jihadist movement.  One must understand that the jihadist movement only represents a very small percentage of Muslims in the entire world.  The grievances they carry are those placed on them by the imperial regimes which govern them.  Thus democracy and a more free society would potentially rid them of these.

 2) Again democracy, all be it a very slow process, prevails in the end.  Our nation was not built in a year or even 5.  We must find those Muslim nations that can change from within, without force, so that we do not sink as low as the radical ideology that many radical Muslims follow - conversion by force.

 3) The slow pace is brought on due to already established jihadists groups.  This is a catch 22.

 4) The anti-US sentiment has been brought on in part by the Iraq war, but you must remember this sentiment has been around for well over 30 years.  Recall the bombing of the US barracks in Lebanon.

 **Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

 **The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultraconservative interpretation of Shariah-based governance spanning the Muslim world - is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

 Correct) A perfect example of how vulnerable the movement is when presented with a majority of Muslims who outweigh the jihadists beliefs.

 **Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

 Correct again)  Please note the concept here that this is the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.  I noted above about this movement being in the minority.  Although when you have a religion with 1 billion followers world wide, even 5-10% is still a huge group.  Muslim leaders have been silent in their efforts to dismantle the radical clerics, thus the movement persists.

 **Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

 Really?) This passage is perfect for anyone who can’t understand the rest of the document.  Yes, the whole thing isn't an easy read.  Many big words in there.  Not to sound too shrewd, but I think many Democrats and members of certain news media outlets elected to read and discuss the easier passages to understand.  I am not kidding.

 **If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.

 Yes)  Please note the world PROBABLY in there.  As I mentioned above, this document is not gospel.  It is not a plan, it is a report, a mission statement with many too many angles if you will.

 **Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit. Al-Qaida, now merged with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

 Uh oh)  This one the dems will jump all over.  Should they?  Maybe, depends on if they read the rest of the document.  This is a possibility but it is not a proven fact.  So one must take this concept with a grain of salt and be prepared for it.

 **The loss of key leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to United States interests than does al-Qaida.

 Perhaps) Cutting off the head will hinder their cause, will it destroy the whole movement, probably not.  It would be a huge morale boost to the world if we were able to destroy the heads of the leading terrorist groups, and yes it would cut off many of the financial and provisional outlets that they carry with them.  But it is not only Bin Laden, it is the leaders of radical nations, such as Iran, that must be dealt with as well for its funding of radical terrorist groups.

 **Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.

 Remember) - This report was written in April, we all know about Zarqawi's fate.

 **The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qaida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

 They might)  Note the word MIGHT.  Many have forgotten about the North African movement.  I believe the entire US government has, we must remember this is a global war, North Africa is yet another theater where allies must work together to win.

 ** We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qaida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to United States interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.

 Assessment)  The rest of the document deals with homeland threats and ways terrorists will attempt to attack not only us, but other countries allied in this war. 

As you can see this document does provide some information, but it does not tell us much we do not already know.  So using it for political gain was simply impractical and darn right foolish in my opinion.  If anything, this document, again, reminds us of the threats we face all over the world and how broad this war really is.  Once our politicians, other world leaders, and even the old U.N. realize the potential gravity of this situation, then we may see a more belligerent stance.  It may take more terrorist attacks in other countries as well as in the US, unfortunately, for them to understand.  But when we elect our officials this November and forever, let’s be sure those we do elect are ready to avoid any more attacks by striking down terror where it lives.