clothespin iceJonathan Landay is a good reporter and McClatchy is a reputable news organization (there are still a few), but this is a ridiculous story:

As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy.

Got that? Intelligence, diplomatic and military officials think the White House isn’t listening enough to intelligence, diplomatic and military sources! Unpossible!

In just as uncanny a development, the sources interviewed for this story believe pretty much everything that would tend toward an escalation of forces along the line Stanley McChrystal desires–the Taliban is closely tied to Al Qaeda, they would offer the terrorists safe havens if they returned to power, they would help in plotting attacks abroad, etc. Almost all of the sources are anonymous, too, except for this guy:

The White House, as well as Congress and U.S. military, “have got to level with the American people, and they are not doing it,” said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department intelligence analyst now with the Middle East Institute. “They are taking the easy way out by focusing on the narrow interest of protecting the homeland” from al Qaida.

Yeah, that “narrow interest,” protecting people from harm and such. How dare they abandon the much more necessary and realizable goal of turning Afghanistan into a vibrant representative democracy!

The problem with any story about this region that focuses on intelligence reports is that the intelligence can easily offer contradictory information:

Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports.

Some of the major insurgent groups, including one responsible for a spate of recent American casualties, actually opposed the Taliban’s harsh Islamic government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, according to the reports, described by US officials under the condition they not be identified.

“Ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency,” said one US intelligence official in Washington who helped draft the assessments. “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.”

Both of these stories feature advocates for a particular policy using traditional media as a pass-through to leak intelligence favorable to their side. But the McClatchy story is so brazen in a “they’re not listening to our Chicken Little act!” way, that it really shouldn’t have been published by any self-respecting newspaper.

Instead of arguing the intelligence, argue the policy. And in that respect, you have a choice between Dianne “do whatever the general says” Feinstein, or Russ “let’s actually make a decision based on achievable goals” Feingold. Only one perspective gets on the Sunday shows, however.