If you can believe The New York Times, the outlook for Iraq is bleak. The Times's latest salvo of negativism can be found in "U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future." It's hard to pick out the "facts" on which the article is based. If (a big if) the Times's sources are to be believed, here's what I make of the the story:
A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a[n] assessment of prospects for Iraq....So, Saddam may not have had his weapons ready to use, but he had programs in progress for producing weapons that would be ready to use. (UPDATE: For more about Saddam's weapons programs, read this piece* in today's NYT.) The CIA was wrong in detail but right on substance.
The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war....The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.
The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council....
The new estimate is the first on Iraq since the one completed in October 2002 on Iraq's illicit weapons program....
The criticism over the [October 2002] document has left the C.I.A. and other agencies wary of being wrong again in judgments about Iraq....
But, given the "gotcha" mentality of Washington, one can't be wrong about anything more significant than the name of Saddam's dog. The CIA is therefore trying to lower expectations about the future of Iraq. Thus its new -- "pessimistic" -- intelligence estimate.
__________
* The lead sentence: "A new report on Iraq's illicit weapons program is expected to conclude that Saddam Hussein's government had a clear intent to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if United Nations sanctions were lifted...."
