A Debate on The Iraq War & the Ties Between Saddam and al-Qaeda

A few months back there was an excellent discussion between Scott Malensek and a commenter to a post written by Scott.  Regular readers already know that Scott is quite knowledgeable about the the ties between Saddam & al-Qaeda along with the who, what, when, how, and why of both Iraq wars.  The commenter, James, was also quite knowledgeable and what followed was a long discussion on various topics.

I’ve been wanting to parse through the discussion and make them into some posts since anyone reading it will learn quite a bit.  So here goes, the first of a very long discussion.

First up, the post in question was called Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda-Debunked?  In which Scott takes politicians to task for not calling for a complete investigation into the ties between AQ and Saddam.  A paragraph:

The absolute denial of politicians who continue to falsely claim that there was no relationship at all between Al Queda and Saddam’s regime are either inept beyond acceptability if they have not read the reports listed above, or they are flat out liars if they have read those reports and are dismissing the nature of those who seek to kill Americans; our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Politicians who claim the war in Iraq is “separate from the war on terror” (where every single soldier and Marine killed or wounded since 5/1/03 has been killed in an attack using terrorist tactics) are either completely uninformed by the US military (ignoring or turning down military briefings and intelligence reports), or they are acting in direct and deliberate misrepresentation of the conduct of this war for little more than penciled in circles on ballots every other year.

On to the discussion.  It’s a long one so I will break these posts into the many topics they discussed and argued over.  The very first is the definition of who and what are terrorists in Iraq but veers off into other points of disagreement.

James:

"Politicians who claim the war in Iraq is “separate from the war on terror” (where every single soldier and Marine killed or wounded since 5/1/03 has been killed in an attack using terrorist tactics) are either completely uninformed by the US military (ignoring or turning down military briefings and intelligence reports), or they are acting in direct and deliberate misrepresentation of the conduct of this war for little more than penciled in circles on ballots every other year."

Technically the solders have been killed or wounded by insurgent tactics; being in a partisan war does not necessarily mean that all those partisans are terrorists. It’s a semantical difference but an important one.

Scott:

Semantics…are the insurgents who kill Americans part of terrorist groups or partisans seeking political representation equal of others with the same nationality? If they’re seeking greater political representation, and/or fighting on behalf of other nations or and/or if they’re killing in the name of the religion of peace, then their not partisan freedom fighters or even partisan nationals-they’re terrorists seeking demands through the use of terror tactics. I submit that they’re not killing Americans in the name of a free Iraq or an Iraq where their political will is equally represented with the average peaceful Iraqi’s. Nope. They’re terrorists, and dismissing them as anything else is to sympathize with them.

James:

I would say they are fighting to rid their homeland of invaders, and give a group without a political voice and one in danger of being killed through genocide (Sunnis) representation through violence.

Scott:

They have a political voice in their elected Parliamentary representatives and their locally elected representatives who deal with US forces everyday. By every standard of determining if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter seeking equal political representation, they are terrorists.

James:

Obviously the Sunnis don’t agree with your assessment. An insurgency thrives off support of the local population. The Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, had stated several years ago the insurgency itself numbered several hundred thousand (including part-timers) with the nominal support of over 1.2 million Sunnis. There is no reason to believe this number has decreased either. Obviously a sizable number of Sunnis believe that their voice is still not being heard through the political process.

Scott:

Most numbers have put the insurgency in the 10-30,000 range up until 2006 when it almost doubled. Support of community is important, but it doesn’t have to be happy support. It can be terrorized fear-based support. It’s not like the Taliban or Nazis or Stalin held power because people loved them (particularly in conquered areas). People helped or were quiet because they feared them. I agree there’s large support for the insurgency, but 1/26th of the nation (the 1.2million Sunnis you describe) is hardly large scale cooperation. Nope. Ask yourself what a terrorist is, and you’ll see that the insurgents are terrorists.

James:

Terrorism is a tactic it doesn’t describe people or their motivations. Insurgents have political motivations, as the insurgents in Iraq do. I did not say they were “freedom fighters”, you are putting political buzz words into my mouth.

It’s funny that the insurgency has had a static 10,000 man membership for the first 3 years of the war at the same time the US jailed and killed tens of thousands of “insurgents”. So doesn’t that imply that the strength of the insurgency is at least several tens of thousands strong? 1.2 million is a pretty sizable number ; in the US that would equal 12 million people or roughly the size of the Confederacy

Scott:

If terrorism is a tactic, then those who use it are terrorists. People who don’t wear uniforms, use human shields, target civilians deliberately, and so forth are terrorists. Terrorists surely have political motivations, but I say since their motivations are in-equal political representation, that their motivations are conversely in-equal in legitimacy. Isn’t insurgency a strategy or tactic as well?

It’s funny that the insurgency has had a static 10,000 man membership for the first 3 years of the war at the same time the US jailed and killed tens of thousands of "insurgents". So doesn’t that imply that the strength of the insurgency is at least several tens of thousands strong? 1.2 million is a pretty sizable number ; in the US that would equal 12 million people or roughly the size of the Confederacy.

Tens of thousands strong. Sure. But even at 50,000, it’s still a fraction of the population (5 in every 2700 Iraqis take up arms against the U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi Security Forces which compromise approx. 900,000). The bit about the Confederacy is sheer argumentative. You can’t seriously be making a comparison between the hundreds of thousands of Confederates and the tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq.

James:

There is a difference between a domestic internal insurgency and terrorist organizations. There is also a problem with the definition of terrorism. Certainly there are some groups that employ terrorist tactics in Iraq but they are the minority (AQI). What I am referring to is the overall Sunni movement backlash against the US occupation (or liberation whatever you want to call it) and Shiite-led government.

Insurgency defines a political movement, terrorism defines a tactic. As I said before it is a semantic debate, you were using the word “terrorism” to dehumanize and delegitimize the insurgency, though it has legitimate political concerns. I try to stay away from the political buzzwords like “terrorist” or “freedom fighter” and I am merely taking a pure academic approach to the debate. Call them what you will, I care not, however I will continue to refer to the political violence in Iraq as an insurgency

Tens of thousands strong. Sure. But even at 50,000, it’s still a fraction of the population (5 in every 2700 Iraqis take up arms against the U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi Security Forces which compromise approx. 900,000). The bit about the Confederacy is sheer argumentative. You can’t seriously be making a comparison between the hundreds of thousands of Confederates and the tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq.

Of course they’re a minority that’s why they are an insurgency. My point is that they are a very strong and viable insurgency. The IRA tied down 35,000 British troops for 30 years, and it only had 1,000 members 20, 30, 50,000, 250,000, 1.2 million…whatever the number it is significantly stronger than most 20th century insurgencies and thus has a significant amount of support among the population (Most polls show a majority of Iraqis approve of attacks against coalition forces). Sunni Arabs make up 20% of the population; not a majority but a sizable disaffected minority whose grievances haven’t been dealt with.

Scott:

Yet, those grievances have peaceful political means by which they can and are addressed. This is like saying that since Gore lost in 00, his supporters had the right to take up arms and start blowing up grocery stores because they had a political agenda. Let’s also be clear, AQ is only a small percentage of the insurgency, but its actions are the major cause of death among civilians in the insurgency (almost all suicide bombers are AQ, and most deaths come from suicide bombers). Thus, the disgruntled Sunni are a fraction of the insurgency that doesn’t compile even ¼ of the casualties.

Insurgency defines a political movement, terrorism defines a tactic. As I said before it is a semantic debate, you were using the word “terrorism” to de-humanize and de-legitimize the insurgency, though it has legitimate political concerns. I try to stay away from the political buzzwords like “terrorist” or “freedom fighter” and I am merely taking a pure academic approach to the debate. Call them what you will, I care not, however I will continue to refer to the political violence in Iraq as an insurgency

Not one American has been killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 in a legitimate attack from a legitimate enemy. The enemy has political motivations-sure, but if they’re political motivations are a return to tyranny (as is the case with Saddam loyalists, Iranian and Syrian Intelligence, AQ, AQ affiliates, etc) then they are not legitimate enemies, and since they are using terrorist tactics, they are terrorists.

James:

SAF isn’t legitimate? Grenades aren’t legitimate? RPGs aren’t legitimate? Or is it because they don’t wear uniforms? We can get into a debate about partisan warfare, and Geneva Conventions some other time.

“Yet, those grievances have peaceful political means by which they can and are addressed. This is like saying that since Gore lost in 00, his supporters had the right to take up arms and start blowing up grocery stores because they had a political agenda. Let’s also be clear, AQ is only a small percentage of the insurgency, but its actions are the major cause of death among civilians in the insurgency (almost all suicide bombers are AQ, and most deaths come from suicide bombers). Thus, the disgruntled Sunni are a fraction of the insurgency that doesn’t compile even ¼ of the casualties.”

Apparently those peaceful means don’t work though, or the Sunnis (or a minority thereof) don’t believe they will work, or don’t trust the system. There were legitimate elections, and peaceful political means in Northern Ireland as well throughout the “troubles”, yet the IRA still bombed and attacked the British. Dismiss them as terrorists if you will, but their grievances and means to address them have nominal support in the Sunni community.

At which point they decide to close this topic as going nowhere. 

The second discussion was about a "smoking gun" being found that provides definitive proof of the ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda:

James:

Intelligence is and never has been a black and white game where we can reach hard conclusions, and a simple yes and no answer. That’s not the way intelligence works, but if there is no evidence of such a collaboration after four years of owning Iraq, the chances are slim that a smoking gun will be found to "prove" one way or the other this relationship.

Scott:

There’s lots of smoking guns of direct and indirect ties, and those are easy to find despite the pure and simple FACT that no intelligence organization conducted a conclusive pre-war or post-war investigation into the depth of that relationship. Political groups have, and they’ve reached (shockingly) conclusions that were the same as their political objectives. But look around, re-read the article, and one will find that not a single INTELLIGENCE organization has made any conclusions regarding the depth of the relationship.

James:

A "conclusive" pre-war investigation could never be done because we were lacking cooperation from both Iraq and al Qaeda…both entities weren’t exactly on speaking terms with the US. INTELLIGENCE Organizations by and large don’t make conclusions…that’s up to the policy makers, all an INTELLIGENCE agency does is provide INTELLIGENCE, ideally without bias or prejudice (this is what would fall under conclusions). We can make predictions based on facts we have gathered, but predictions can be wrong,and are not the same thing as conclusions.

Scott:

CIA formed conclusive opinions about Cuba during the missile crisis, and about the Soviet Union for 4 decades all while being on the same level of speaking terms. Yes, intelligence is not black and white, and it is not policy, but it is a factual reporting based on likelihoods. The likelihood of Saddam changing his spots after 1998 is minimal at best, while the likelihood of him acting as he had in the 8 yrs previous (denying while hiding and supporting/harboring terrorists of all sorts) IS likely.

James:

The CIA provided evidence of Soviet behavior but policy makers shaped it to fit their policies. Also I don’t really recall Saddam harboring terrorists that he denied being there…Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas both lived openly in Baghdad; and incidentally both were not wanted by the US government

Scott:

Um, yes, both were wanted by the US. Both had killed Americans. Both were harbored by Saddam (as were thousands of others but Saddam denied that, and it was only when US forces entered that these terrorists and terrorist training camps were seen clearly). As for policy makers shifting the evidence, that’s not true either. HOWEVER, the facts and statements made by the administration have been grossly distorted by political opponents for their own political aims.

James:

Abu Nidal was never indicted (wanted) under US law

And neither was Abu Abbas:

So I stand by my original statement.

As for thousands of other terrorists in Iraq at the time of invasion I would ask you to cite a source. The Salman Pak facility has already been discussed in detail and the consensus seems to be that it was a counter-terrorism facility for the IIS.

Scott:

Great finds, but you’re missing the point, they were American killers, and their organizations had killed Americans.

As for thousands of other terrorists in Iraq at the time of invasion I would ask you to cite a source. The Salman Pak facility has already been discussed in detail and the consensus seems to be that it was a counter-terrorism facility for the IIS.

Even the heavily slanted Sen Intel Com Phase II report doesn’t conclude it was an anti-terrorism facility. No. There is no consensus on Salman Pak, and in fact most facts point to a terrorist training camp specifically for the Martyrs of Saddam and there are LOTS of reports of foreign fighters training there.

Re: sourcing for terrorists in Iraq…(a few)

• Thunder Run by David Zucchino – (CLEARLY describes 5000-6000 Syrian mercenaries, foreign fighters, jihadis, and Islamofascists)
• American Soldier by Gen Tommy Franks -(describes thousands to tens of thousands of foreign fighter terrorists from all over the ME)
• The March Up by Maj Gen Ray L Smith – (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists roughly in the neighborhood of 2000-4000 in the various training camps captured by the US Marines (some still occupied by US Marines)
• War Stories by Oliver North – (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists roughly in the neighborhood of 2000-4000 in the various training camps captured by the US Marines (some still occupied by US Marines)
• Shadow War by Richard Miniter – (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists)
• The Secret History of the Iraq War by Yossef Bodansky – (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists)
• Under Fire by various Reuters reporters – (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists)
• Embedded by various reporters – (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists)

and

• Generation Kill by Evan Wright (describes "thousands" of foreign fighters/terrorists)

Estimates at the Pre-Second Battle of Fallujah had the foreign fighter, Islamofascists, Jihadis, around 2000-3000. Fewer seem to have been encountered as many (like AQ’s ZQ and other terrorist leaders) managed to escape. There have been other battles and large fights where there were claims of foreign fighter, Islamofascists, Jihadis numbering as high as a few hundred in each case. Most of the time it seems they’ve been reduced to small groups and pairs.

James:

You’re point was that they were “harbored”, harbored implies they were wanted for something by somebody. ANO was kicked out of Iraq prior to 1982. Between 1977 and 1981 (the time the group was based in Iraq) it did not engage in any terrorism that killed Americans. ANO ceased terrorist functions in the early 1990s (see the MIPT website for details) and its founder Sabri al-Bana (Abu Nidal) was dying of leukemia when he was allowed back into Iraq.

As for Abu Abbas, he actually renounced terrorism, and actively backed the Oslo Accords, his conviction (tried en absentia) was overturned in Italy due to lack of evidence. So neither man was wanted for terrorism by the US, the US never asked for their extradition, thus they weren’t really being “harbored” against US wishes.

sourcing for terrorists in Iraq…(a few)

It depends on when these foreigners arrived, what their intent was, and their reasons for being there. None of them fought for Saddam while the regime was intact….The Peoples’ Army that the Palestinians promised for Saddam failed to deliver. The only “terrorism” that Saddam engaged in to save his regime consisted of two IIS officers (one a pregnant woman) blowing themselves up near US Army checkpoints. If Saddam had these legions at his beck and call, and surely if they were trained in Iraq, and as you state living in Iraq, they would presumably owe some loyalty to Saddam, then why was the first suicide bombing by a foreigner six months after Saddam fled? Sure there were foreigners in Iraq prior to the war, but were they there at the behest of Saddam, or were they there in anticipation of an American invasion, and without the knowledge of the regime? If the regime knew they were there, why weren’t they used?

Scott:

You’re point was that they were “harbored”, harbored implies they were wanted for something by somebody. ANO was kicked out of Iraq prior to 1982. Between 1977 and 1981 (the time the group was based in Iraq) it did not engage in any terrorism that killed Americans. ANO ceased terrorist functions in the early 1990s (see the MIPT website for details) and its founder Sabri al-Bana (Abu Nidal) was dying of leukemia when he was allowed back into Iraq.

Mmmm, yeah, that’s why he committed suicide with 9 bullets to the head.

“As for Abu Abbas, he actually renounced terrorism, and actively backed the Oslo Accords, his conviction (tried en absentia) was overturned in Italy due to lack of evidence. So neither man was wanted for terrorism by the US, the US never asked for their extradition, thus they weren’t really being "harbored" against US wishes.”

They were international terrorists, and they settled in Iraq just as Carlos the Jackal had, as UBL had been offered, and as thousands of others did. I can’t believe you’re marginalizing and legitimatizing these terrorists.

If Saddam had these legions at his beck and call, and surely if they were trained in Iraq, and as you state living in Iraq, they would presumably owe some loyalty to Saddam, then why was the first suicide bombing by a foreigner six months after Saddam fled?

There were attempts to use them, but most were foiled. I can list several examples from around the world. Moreover, most of the terrorists in Iraq fought as terrorists IN Iraq. The first suicide bombing was not weeks after the US was there, but within hours of the US Marines heading up the E bank of the Euphrates. Why were they there? The docs captured with Saddam said that they were there at his behest, and that his loyalists should work on their own and in parallel to the jihadis. Btw, Marines were stationed at various terrorist training camps in Iraq after the fall of the regime. Nasariya, Khifl, Fallujah, and several more. Re Salman Pak, the jury was left out per the Sen Intel Com report, but the claims from UN observers who visited it as late as 98 all said it was obvious and blatant terrorist training-even Scott Ritter’s book, Endgame cites this. Duelfer, Eukeus, Butler, Kay, and others describe it as well. So too do detainee interrogations. Given the dual phenomenology of the reporting (documents aside), we can ask the simple question: when the US invaded Iraq…did Marines who went to Salman Pak face anti-terrorist commandos or foreign fighter terrorists as the intel, eyewitnesses, and detainees had forecast? Answer: 1500-2500 foreign fighter terrorists in the area. No Iraqi anti-terrorism team has ever been encountered, and no documents ever uncovered suggesting one ever existed.

James:

“Mmmm, yeah, that’s why he committed suicide with 9 bullets to the head”

I thought it was four, and where does this story come from anyway? The Iraqis had control of the morgues and would have never presented evidence he shot himself with four bullets. The ANO organization is a bunch of terrorists so their word can never be trusted (unless it proves a Saddam link somewhere). Who else had intimate knowledge of Abu Nidal’s death?

“They were international terrorists, and they settled in Iraq just as Carlos the Jackal had, as UBL had been offered, and as thousands of others did. I can’t believe you’re marginalizing and legitimatizing these terrorists.”

Well Carlos the Jackal actually never went to Iraq, he was refused entry by Saddam in 1985 and went to Syria instead. UBL was never offered sanctuary in Iraq; this story was put out by the Glasgow Herald in 1999 but never substantiated.

There were attempts to use them, but most were foiled.

Not around the world (pre-1991 yes) but in Iraq. Here is the first suicide bombing of the war:

Iraq’s vice president said an Iraqi military officer carried out Saturday’s deadly suicide bomb attack and promised more to come, warning Iraq could send a single "martyr" to kill thousands of Americans.

Four U.S. soldiers with the 3rd Infantry Division were killed Saturday morning when a suicide bomber in a taxi attacked a military checkpoint in the central Iraqi town of Najaf, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said.

The suicide bombing was the first against U.S. and British forces since the invasion of Iraq began.

This was one of two suicide bombings the regime carried out: by an Iraqi military officer and an IIS agent. Neither of them were foreigners. The Marines were stationed in Iraqi Army bases; whether they were used as terrorist training camps is an open question. Regarding Salman Pak the detainees were not considered credible, nor were the “eyewitnesses”:

Scott:

“I thought it was four, and where does this story come from anyway?"

The Iraqis held a press conference, and showed pics of his body. First reports were suicide, then it was claimed he was shot 4 times trying to escape, but pics of the body showed far more than 4 wounds.

“Well Carlos the Jackal actually never went to Iraq, he was refused entry by Saddam in 1985 and went to Syria instead. UBL was never offered sanctuary in Iraq; this story was put out by the Glasgow Herald in 1999 but never substantiated.”

Really? I had Sanchez aka “Carlos” down as having been allowed there until his wife was released, then they went to Syria. After which he bounced around until he was turned over to the French by Sudan in Sudan (Iraq’s ally).

The UBL offer was in a LOT of papers-not just the Glasgo Herald. Hijazi’s post-war debriefings have been a classic case of a man professing his innocence in the face of involvement in the greatest of crimes. There’s flaws in his testimony to the FBI, inconsistencies, and contradictions to authenticated Intelligence docs. Two things are certain: he was at the center of the storm, and he’s lying (even Intelligence officials admit that much-though…not the FBI) . In any event, this is another case of not having any possible way of knowing that before the invasion, and even the CIA (forget Feith) reported in their Iraqi Support for Terrorism reports that the offer had been made, but that it was of typically poor reliability due to the absolute and inexcusable complete lack of intelligence gathering on Iraq from 98-02 (almost 03) and very little on AQ from 98-01.

Regarding Salman Pak the detainees were not considered credible, nor were the “eyewitnesses”:

ok, later on you comment on my sourcing myself (which I only sourced the material and made no suggestion that I was someone special, just the sourced material), and yet here you’re sourcing wikipedia? C’mon man. Not goin’ to buy wiki. Not when there’s so many other examples of IIS working with AQ affiliates and/or prepping for attacks themselves pre-war and during the ignored war period (see also FA post on 1992)

James:

“The Iraqis held a press conference, and showed pics of his body"

Fine and dandy they killed a terrorist. It doesn’t take away from the fact that he did have leukemia, and hadn’t committed a terrorist act in ten years.

“Really? I had Sanchez aka “Carlos” down as having been allowed there until his wife was released, then they went to Syria. After which he bounced around until he was turned over to the French by Sudan in Sudan (Iraq’s ally).”

He was in nearly every country in the Middle East except for Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

He transited through Iraq in 1976 (for three weeks) but otherwise was denied entry to Iraq.

“The UBL offer was in a LOT of papers-not just the Glasgo Herald."

Regardless of how many papers it was in it still isn’t substantiated. It was part of a disinformation campaign by Iraqi regime opposition figures:

There are also inconsistencies in the story:

The story also happened about the same time as this bogus story planted by the Taliban:

Not goin’ to buy wiki.

I have plenty of sources as my links show. All the defectors statements were sourced to their original source on wikipedia. It isn’t a perfect source I admit, and I can get more links for you if that satisfies you.

Scott:

Never heard the leukemia thing, and it’s completely irrelevant. The point here is that Saddam harbored a terrorists. And as to him being a retired terrorist, that’s not true at all as he still lead terrorists, and detainee as well as authenticated captured docs from the IIS say that he and his group were ready and willing to participate in continuing the Mother of all Battles (dated a decade past when you’ve claimed Saddam no longer believed he was at war with the US).

Regardless of how many papers it was in it still isn’t substantiated.

The Guardian stories only adds the INC as one of the many sources confirming the story-others included the Clinton Admin. Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, Tenet, the 911 Commission, and the House/Senate 911 Investigation all cite the meeting as having come from multiple sources, and all put credibility to it. The Free Republic post is great. I’ve got the video if you’d like to see it. I love to point to it when people suggest that the idea of Regime Ties is a Bush lie or a Feith fantasy. It too cites US (Clinton Admin) intelligence officials as well as other sources. So too do Newsweek, Time, US News, and the NYT in their reporting of the meeting. Clarke is perhaps the most specific because he’s the one who blew it in Feb 99. The US had an Afghan group with eyes on target in Feb 99 at UBL’s falcon hunting lodge. The ships and subs were in position to strike, and sat imagery showed a UAE C-130 transport there. Clarke (who was negotiating a multi-billion dollar scheme to sell special F-16 fighters to his friends in the UAE) called his friends, told them that they were looking at the C-130, and the next day, both the plane and UBL were gone. Did UBL go into hiding in Afghanistan, Pakistan or the tribal areas? Probably the tribal areas as it’s where he likes to hide the most (Tora Bora, NW of Wana, etc., Kunar Province in general, Milawa, you name it.).

I can get more links for you if that satisfies you.

Yeah, please if you don’t mind 

James:

Again you’ll have to show me those “authenticated” docs regarding Abu NIdal. One document that turned out to be fraudulent stated that Atta was trained by Nidal in the summer of 2002 before his “death”. The ANO group was dysfunctional after 1991 and had not hit a Western target since the mid-1980s, so I hardly think that Saddam was “harboring” al-Bana in the hopes that he would lead a vanguard of terrorists against his enemies.

Your Richard Clarke story is a nice anecdote but irrelevant as UBL wasn’t falcon hunting with Iraqis, and didn’t go to Iraq when the US had eyes on him. The alleged meeting happened in 1999 when the Clinton Administration thought other things about Iraq that proved to be wrong like WMD. So all that really means is both Clinton and Bush got bad intelligence, or didn’t believe the good intelligence that was given to them.

”Yeah, please if you don’t mind”

Reporting about Activity at Salman Pak

The Salman Pak facility outside Baghdad was an unconventional warfare training facility used by the IIS and Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen troops to train its officers for counterterrorism operations against regime opponents. The facility contained a village mockup for urban combat training and a derelict commercial aircraft.

[…]In Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA provided additional explanation of the sources of the information, noting that, "press and sensitive reporting about al-Qa’ida activity at Salman Pak — ultimately sourced to three Iraqi defectors — surged after 11 September." The CIA determined, "that at least one of these defectors, whose story appeared in Vanity Fair magazine, had embellished and exaggerated his access." Additionally, two other sources only repeated information provided by the [—-] defector, and also lacked first-hand access to the information. Committee staff asked both CIA and DIA analysts whether any al-Qaida operatives or other sources have confirmed Salman Pak training allegations, and the unanimous response was that none have reported knowledge of any training. A DIA analyst told Committee staff, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa’ida

Scott:

I’m referring to the CNS docs again.  I do agree that the doc re Atta was not reliable, but I think the other reports that Nidal was more than just sitting around watching TV for years in Iraq would be equally unreliable. A retired terrorist legend is an oxymoron imo.

5.) “Your Richard Clarke story is a nice anecdote but irrelevant as UBL wasn?t falcon hunting with Iraqis, and didn?t go to Iraq when the US had eyes on him. The alleged meeting happened in 1999 when the Clinton Administration thought other things about Iraq that proved to be wrong like WMD. So all that really means is both Clinton and Bush got bad intelligence, or didn?t believe the good intelligence that was given to them.”

I’m gonna show that one again….

“both Clinton and Bush got bad intelligence, or didn’t believe the good intelligence that was given to them”

This was exactly the point I was trying to make. Glad we can agree here.

Reporting about Activity at Salman Pak

Yeah, the Sen Intel Com Phase II rpt. I don’t even have to look it up to recognize it. My take on the Sen Intel Com Phase II rpt:

re camps Tommy Franks, American Soldier, pg 519

“And they [USMC] had encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya who were being trained in a camp south of Baghdad.”

The only camp on the S side of Baghdad that I know of is Salman Pak (unless there’s others), and Franks says they encountered hundreds of foreign fighters who’d been trained there. Just this week we’ve had fresh reporting on it.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/the_missing_link.php

How did Iraq help?

“We helped them by building military camps in Salman Pak, in Khos, Khalis, Yusafiya. Iraq is expert in chemical weapons. We trained them in chemical weapons. We trained them about ground fighting, too.”

James:

I do agree that the doc re Atta was not reliable

Well the doc comes from 1992 when ANO was still kind of active, but a lot can change in 10 years as both Nidal and his organization suffered terribly in the 1990s. By 2002 he was no longer an active terrorist, you claim to not believe him, that’s your choice. But his actions, or rather inactions, speak louder than your words

“Again, my point is that UBL was po’d about US forces in Saudi that helped wage war on Saddam (a war which some have said was illegal and not sanctioned by the UN).

Well he was po’d about US forces in Saudi Arabia, he’s po’d about US forces in Iraq, po’d about US forces in Afghanistan, po’d about Russians in Chechnya, po’d about Indians in Kashmir, po’d about Serbs in Bosnia, po’d about Israelis in Palestine…. He gets po’d a lot, about one thing in particular; foreign troops in Moslem lands, which leads to perceived mistreatment of Moslems. He’s not doing it because he liked Saddam Hussein he did it because he hated Americans. If Saddam was overthrown in 1991 and there was still a troop presence in the Gulf (as there still is), he would have still called for jihad against the US.

Re the suicide bombings, you cannot possibly be suggesting that there were no VBIED’s in the invasion? Please tell me you’re not going to suggest that every single personal account of the invasion, and all the documentaries showing these suicide attacks are unreal? There are literally THOUSANDS of witnesses to the suicide attacks against US tanks and other vehicles during the invasion, and personal suicide attacks against infantry, checkpoints etc. I’ve even got pictures of one of the suicide vest bomb factories at Baghdad University as well as pics of the hundreds of suicide bomb vests found there.”

I missed that quote by Franks though he could be engaging in propaganda. In the link I provided which you instantly discounted, it cited references from field commanders and embedded reporters (foreign as well as American) and came away with fairly accurate conclusions regarding the level of Iraqi casualties during the invasion; there were almost no foreign fighters in Iraq during that time. Even the Iraqi Perspectives Project, though it claims that Iraq trained non-Iraqi Arab volunteers in Fedayeen “training camps”, starting in 1998, it does not claim that these fighters were involved in the regime fight in early 2003. Brookings only lists 300-400 foreign fighters in Jan. 2004, which also includes Ansar al-Islam, and its 200-300 members. Ansar al-Islam was in Iraq, in the area of Kurdistan, but not at the invitation of the regime, nor did Ansar fight for the regime’s survival.

As for suicide attacks, perhaps we are talking past each other. There have been only two suicide bombings by Iraqi security personnel dressed as civilians, directed by the regime, which took out US troops at checkpoints. A suicide attack on a tank, if that person is a legitimate combatant (Iraqi Army, or irregular) would not constitute terrorism; it would be a military attack on a military target; the Japanese did this sort of thing in WWII as well:

http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

Scott:

By 2002 he was no longer an active terrorist, you claim to not believe him, that’s your choice. But his actions, or rather inactions, speak louder than your words”

Retirement is a good punishment for terrorists?

“Well he was po’d about US forces in Saudi Arabia, he’s po’d about US forces in Iraq, po’d about US forces in Afghanistan, po’d about Russians in Chechnya, po’d about Indians in Kashmir, po’d about Serbs in Bosnia, po’d about Israelis in Palestine.

https://floppingaces.net/2007/06/01/in-lawrence-wrights-book-the/

I missed that quote by Franks though he could be engaging in propaganda.

Why would Franks, retired, need to form propaganda in collusion with embedded reporters, other Marine generals on the scene, other Marine officers, and Marine enlisted personnel on the scene in 2003? That seems like a lotta people on the scene allegedly forming near identical propaganda with no reason to do so. Your comments re the IPP rpt claiming non-Iraqis in Martyrs of Saddam training camps seems at odds with your claim that there were no foreign fighters in Iraq during or before the invasion. Citing the Brookings rpt of what the situation was like in 1/04 is not representative of what the situation was like in 3/03. The claims of Ansar being a tool of Saddam’s are backed by several credible detainees, and the actions of Ansar against Kurdish forces in late 2002 and early 2003 were done in direct support of Saddam’s regime (assassinating generals etc).

As for suicide attacks, perhaps we are talking past each other. There have been only two suicide bombings by Iraqi security personnel dressed as civilians, directed by the regime, which took out US troops at checkpoints. A suicide attack on a tank, if that person is a legitimate combatant (Iraqi Army, or irregular) would not constitute terrorism; it would be a military attack on a military target; the Japanese did this sort of thing in WWII as well:

http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

Spin. I’ve been saying that the suicide attacks were done largely by Fedeyeen and foreign fighters making them terrorists. Did Japanese forces wage suicide attacks in WWII? Sure. Were they doing so in direct support for their ally Italy? Notachance. Were they wearing uniforms? Yep. Were they hiding behind women and children and deliberately targeting civilians (non-uniformed Fedeyeen and foreign fighters did in fact hide behind women and children and target anyone who worked with the Coalition forces-they never ever limited their attacks to just military forces).

I’m getting real REAL curious to hear your definition of terrorism or terrorist as it seems you’re too eager to dismiss any and all aspects of a terrorist. It almost sounds like you’re trying to say a few thousand Iraqis had a right to protect their dictatorial regime against the will of tens of millions of Iraqis.

Me, call me old fashioned, but I think people who never wear uniforms, routinely hide behind their own civilians, wear suicide vests, and drive VBIEDs are terrorists.

James:

Whatever fate befell Nidal (suicide, murder, cancer) he long ago became irrelevant. Some terrorists become politicians (Gerry Adams) others are still alive and were never brought to justice (Chin Peng), still others are very much relevant and active in terrorism (bin Laden), so Nidal’s fate is satisfactory to me.

A Palestinian source in the West Bank city of Ramallah said Iraqi authorities had discovered Abu Nidal had opened channels to Iraqi guerrillas in Syria and Jordan opposed to President Saddam Hussein and wanted to put a stop to the activity before any US military operations against Iraq.
Other sources in Ramallah said Abu Nidal shot himself because he had cancer and was addicted to painkillers.

Why would Franks, retired, need to form propaganda in collusion with embedded reporters, other Marine generals on the scene, other Marine officers, and Marine enlisted personnel on the scene in 2003?

I didn’t see any of those reports about foreign fighters during the invasion. Even if I had I would be dubious of any “initial” reports, seeing as we got burned regarding the WMD issue (barrels of uranium already marked and sealed by the IAEA were unsealed by the US Army and the Army then declared that Iraq had WMD). The IPP report didn’t specify what happened to the non-Iraqi “fighters”, there was no detail as to how many and where they came from and where they went in the IPP report. Indeed it doesn’t say if those fighters swore loyalty oaths to Saddam, given specific orders by Saddam, etc. so it’s mere speculation.

Ansar al-Islam was an Islamist Kurdish group that wanted to overthrow the secular Kurdish leadership, so of course it’s going to assassinate secular Kurdish generals; but they weren’t very good at it, it took them three tries to kill one general. Once the war started they were scattered to the four winds. One detainee stated that Abu Wael was an IIS agent (amazing how you’ll believe detainees when it suits your agenda), but the SSCI states that Iraq was gathering information against Ansar.

I’m getting real REAL curious to hear your definition of terrorism or terrorist as it seems you’re too eager to dismiss any and all aspects of a terrorist. It almost sounds like you’re trying to say a few thousand Iraqis had a right to protect their dictatorial regime against the will of tens of millions of Iraqis.

It seems to me you have trouble distinguishing what a terrorist is. This all goes back to the semantic debate we had earlier regarding insurgents. Bruce Hoffman, perhaps the world’s pre-eminent authority on international terrorism defines it thusly:

• ineluctably political in aims and motives;
• violent — or, equally important, threatens violence;
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia); and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

However odious the tactics of Saddam Fedeyeen and like-minded militia, the tactics themselves were not borne from political motives but military, and the tactics were not perpetrated by a subnational or non-state entity; thus they cannot be terrorists. Like I said this goes back to the argument over what is or isn’t an insurgency. The MRLA was considered a terrorist group by the British Empire, but history remembers it as an insurgent group. Likewise were the PAGIC, MPLA, ZAPA, ANC terrorist groups or insurgencies? All these groups utilized what you would define as “terrorist” tactics yet all are now in power in Africa.

Scott:

Other sources in Ramallah said Abu Nidal shot himself because he had cancer and was addicted to painkillers.

I’m certain I heard something about staying away from unconfirmed single source reports. You’re still sticking to the idea that he shot himself several times to commit suicide?

I didn’t see any of those reports about foreign fighters during the invasion.

If you didn’t see them, it might be because you didn’t want to and were looking for ways to dismiss pre-war claims rather than seeking confirmation of pre-war claims. The fact remains, very credible people who were there saw, fought, and many good men died fighting foreign fighters by the thousands in Saddam’s Iraq. I listed but a few of the sources earlier. Intelligence reporting, detainees, first hand accounts, even video documentaries on The History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, CNN, Fox, etc…all show people on the scene describing how they encountered and fought foreign fighters at terrorist training camps. This is not something hidden, secret, or speculative. Real people died fighting them. Too many people too often clamp their eyes shut rather than being willing to open them and see the reports. If it doesn’t fit an anti-war perspective, then move on and keep looking for something that does or something that can be spun to fit.

It seems to me you have trouble distinguishing what a terrorist is.

The Martyrs of Saddam used terrorist tactics and are by most accounts thus terrorists, but I’ll go further and ask if the definition of a terrorist is one who “ineluctably political in aims and motives” then what are the political motives of Al Queda or the thousands of foreign fighters encountered by the USMC and 3rd ID during the invasion of Iraq? If they had religious objectives instead of political (crying Allah Ahkbar instead of Long live Iraq), then they’re not terrorists? You’ve listed very clearly political terrorist groups to support the theory that all terrorists have political aims, but ignored completely any and all Islamic holy warriors. They’re HOLY warriors-not political warriors. They fight for the misperception of what their religion directs…not for politics.

James never answers that one.  He appeared to quit the discussion on June 6th.

Curt

See author page