Why must NY Times readers learn from the op-ed page that top intel officials don't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?
SUMMARY: In a New York Times op-ed, Jeff Stein writes that "most American officials I've interviewed," including, "not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies," "don't have a clue" what the differences are between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. While Stein raises an important question, a more pertinent question is: Why has this critical piece of information gone unreported in the Times' news pages?
In an October 17 New York Times op-ed, Jeff Stein, Congressional Quarterly national security editor, wrote that "most American officials I've interviewed don't have a clue" as to what the differences are between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Stein continued: "That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies." Stein singled out Gary Bald, the former head of the FBI's National Security Branch, which consolidated the FBI's counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and intelligence programs; Rep. Terry Everett (R-AL), the vice-chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence; and Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence. Given that Al Qaeda is predominantly Sunni, and that two of Iraq's most powerful neighbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are predominantly Shiite and Sunni, respectively, Stein asked: "How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?"
While Stein raises an important question, the fact that this information first appeared in the Times on its op-ed page raises another question: How is it that the Times has let this simple, yet critical, piece of information regarding the basic competencies of the Bush administration officials and Republican legislators managing U.S. national security go unreported in its news pages?
From Stein's October 17 Times op-ed:
For the past several months, I've been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?"
A "gotcha" question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don't think it's out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I'm not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who's on what side today, and what does each want?
After all, wouldn't British counterterrorism officials responsible for Northern Ireland know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? In a remotely similar but far more lethal vein, the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq into antagonistic states, one backed by Shiite Iran and the other by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.
A complete collapse in Iraq could provide a haven for Al Qaeda operatives within striking distance of Israel, even Europe. And the nature of the threat from Iran, a potential nuclear power with protégés in the Gulf states, northern Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, is entirely different from that of Al Qaeda. It seems silly to have to argue that officials responsible for counterterrorism should be able to recognize opportunities for pitting these rivals against each other.
But so far, most American officials I've interviewed don't have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?
until Ann Coulter and her ilk start screeching for the heads of the NYT editors, for revealing this bit of information? "Traitors! How dare they reveal that our officials are ignorant and irresponsible!"
"A year after his 'Axis of Evil' speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, [former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter] Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.
"Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, 'I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!'" [link to www.rawstory.com]
Because the New York Times is a liberal, commie, pinko rag that hates George Bush and America and wants to undermine.....oh wait, they neglected to report something NEGATIVE about the Republican executive branch and the Republicans dealing with intelligence in congress? Uhhh, wait, don't know what to do here, brain is inactive. I'll just sit around and produce deafening silence until Bill O'Reilly or Brent Bozell surface on the cable airwaves again and talk about the New York Times helping the terrorists. Also, I'll study my Republican talking points--I'm on page 387, about how the Earth is flat and anybody who disagrees hates America.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Don't you know that it undermines the moral of our troops to point out that the "leadership" at home have no clue what they're doing? I'm glad the NY Times are taking steps to try and avoid embarrassing the US and to better serve the American public's right to now know anything.
Maybe they were in on a meeting like this: [link to time.blogs.com]
more far-left, blame-america-first partisan rhetoric. shiite, sunni, who cares? I mean, is it really that important that the Secretary of Agriculture know the difference between apples and oranges, or barley and durum. Stop blaming the people who are making us safer by taking the fight to the trrorists in Iraq. Damn un-patriotic pacifacistas.
(sarcasm alert)
Sunni. Shiite. Whats the difference?
Are we forgetting that 3000 brave Americans were killed on 9/11? As long as we are fighting them over there and not over here, who cares who "they" really are? If they aren't with us, they're against us, so what difference does it make if they are also against each other.
Whew! That was exhausting. I don't see how the righties can spin all day long like that. I guess it helps to have the talking points all outlined in advance for you.
The difference is that both claim to be part of the "religion of peace" yet neither can live next door to each other without going after each other's throats (literally). They both cannot figure out that they now live in the year 2006 and are not living in the year 657. The funny thing is that everyone sees how well Islam treats it's own membership and everyone sees how Islam treats non-members, yet Christianity seems to be the religion that everyone loves to hate.
The same story I linked to above, but directly from the NY Times: [link to www.nytimes.com]
"The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past."
Wow, if these lackeys are deemed not to be in "lockstep with the White House", no wonder they like to call non-flacks traitors.
I bet Michael Savage (mentioned in the article) is disappointed he wasn't invited...
Because if the Times put this information where it belongs, on the front page, they wouldn't have room for charming articles like the one on today's front page about the 6-year-old girl who loves Dick Cheney.
Seriously, that's on the front page of the Times today. I thought maybe I'd picked up The Onion by mistake.
Do you specify whether they are Catholics, Protestants (or one of their many denominations), or Eastern Orthodox? Or do you just lump them into one category? Sunnis or Shiites, who gives a crap? They are all Muslims. Most are terrorists, and liberals are friggin apologists for the whole motley crew.
If most Muslims (over a billion worldwide) were terrorists, everyone else would be dead right about now.
Do you think would freak out and hurt you in a harmful way if you critisize Mohammed? Or maybe spew hate?
Less than .5 %
Actually, I'd probably think it's closer to none. I don't think anyone would give a moment's thought about the opinions of an obscure midwesterner who isn't in a position of influence.
I had no idea that Donald Rumsfeld reads MMFA. Welcome!
Yes, it matters in conflictes related to christianity too. Ever heard of a little place called Northern Ireland for example?
That your ignorance is apalling. When we pay people to make policy it isnt too much to ask that they have some dim idea of the what they are doing. Some basic knowlege of the people involved in the conflicts they are engaged in. For you ignrance is king. You seem very proud of yours. Thats fine. For professional policy makers its inexcusable. The most Muslims are terrorist comment is so stupid it doesnt deserve a response.
Because I heard on the radio this morning that there are 5 million Muslims in the U.S. I guess a conservative estimate of the number of terrorists in our country would be about 3 million, then.
Yeah Rusty, there are quite a few here. I do believe most of them left for a peacful way of life. Places like Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, are harldey peacful places to live.
If I hadn't made it clear from my many attacks on Christians, I do specify the ones I'm talking about are the radical fundamentalists. Most are terrorists, and Republicans are friggin apologists for the whole motley crew.
Are we over there trying to bring them freedom and democracy? You don't make a whole hellavalotta sense. You're either for bringing democracy to the Iraqis or your against us, our troops and the man hand picked by our risen savior to lead our nation.
Please allow me to introduce a shining example of the 18% who approve of Dick Cheney. He is currently unable to respond because they ran out of fuel for the generators at the Montana Militia headquarters.
"When you boneheads lefties attack Christians"
your ideas intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, where are these attacks on Christians happening, and have you reported them to the ACLU?
"When you boneheads lefties attack Christians" sort of implies that there are frequent attacks on the most dominant religious group in the country.Please fill us in.
Can anyone say "wahabi" ? Like the ruling house of Saudi Arabia?
Don't feed Taz, the troll. Just flag and move on. Eliciting a reaction using the most ridiculous language possible gets him off.
In the palmy days of the British Empire this sort of thing just wouldn't have happened. Would-be civil servants learned oriental languages and studied oriental religions at Oxbridge. Indeed, the contemporary understanding of Islamic, Indian, and Chinese civilization owes a lot to the homework the imperialists were willing to do in order to run the world.
Because it is clear that our top intel officials could not have thought to tell anyone because they did not realize anything was amiss.
And as for Taz we should welcome his comments then correct him. Hopefully one day he'll become a useful member of society because what is a NeoCon -- just an uneducated Progressive.
Give a man a talking point he'll become a Republican. Teach him to think he'll become a Democrat.
very elegant.
You are one of the reasons why many conservatives nowadays are synonomous with ingnorance and laziness.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
If your not Muslim , you don't know Shiite
And they probably don't know the difference between the Catholics and the Protestants. But then those 2 never had issues :) And maybe Bush could have responded to a question about the violence in Northern Iraland by saying " but aren't they both Christian"
Prez didn't know the difference shows that he and his administration cronies had no business invading Iraq. If they had known, then they could have figured out that there would invariably be sectarian strife. The same sectarian strife that's going to make "winning" this quagmire impossible. And the fact is these bozos don't have a clue and don't care that they don't have a clue.....arrogant, retrograde imbeciles.