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

The second series in the Scott/James debate.  For the low down on this debate please go here. 

To begin this one Scott wrote in the post that the intelligence community was taking a lackadaisical approach to the investigation of whether there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam, basically taking his word for the matter.

Saddam is dead.  He was a criminal.  He was a mass murderer.  He was a tyrant, and he was a liar.  Why take his word?  Americans spend $40 billion to $100billion a year for 16 different intelligence agencies, and yet rather than get a conclusion based on the intelligence collection and analysis from those any of those 15 agencies, the American people are told to believe Saddam because they are afraid of presenting unpleasant conclusions on a matter that is at least 4 yrs old, and more accurately 15years old.

James:

We don’t we just take Saddam’s word for it, he was interrogated throughly by the best in the world, and his statements were cross-checked. But why would he lie? Just saying he is a liar or hates the US is not a good enough reason to justify the belief that he would lie. Saddam is the kind of man who needs to gain something by his lies, and well he didn’t really gain anything by lying about this after he was captured, facing trial, and eventual death.

Scott:

Why take Saddam’s word for it? The only conclusions made regarding regime ties were made by the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staffers, and rather than cite CIA interrogation debriefs of Saddam, or DIA debriefs, or Iraqi intelligence debriefs of him and other regime members, the SSCI staffer chose out of that long list of evidence…to use the FBI interrogation transcript and only portions. Of all the interrogations Saddam underwent, the FBI’s is the only one where he would have had to have had a lawyer, and since this was at a time when he was on trial for his life, hoping the insurgency would drive the US from Iraq, and thus bring about a path to his release…I find it suspect at best. It’s also completely out of pure denial that one would believe the claims of a man who was on trial for his life…where he claimed he was innocent of anything and everything. Now, if we’re to say he had nothing to gain by lying and might as well have told the truth, then why did he lie about all the crimes he committed by claiming he was innocent of those as well…unless, he was just another "innocent man on death row." Nah, I don’t believe his word let alone his word in the context it was cherry picked.

James:

Saddam never said he was innocent of everything and anything (you should read his trial transcripts), but there wasn’t any evidence to contradict what he was saying either. You can scream to the high heavens that Saddam is a liar and cannot be trusted, but you should also be prepared to find the evidence that proves he lied.

Scott:

Sorry, I find death row confession highly suspect, and I find sudden confession from pathological liars even more suspect. Lastly, I find statements from dictators on trial for their lives less than believable. Trust Saddam’s word if you want, but imagine the contrast….many people believe President Bush is a liar, a killer, and should be impeached. Were he impeached, if he said, “no we really believed Iraq was full of WMD and had close ties to Al Queda.” Would you believe him then?

James:

Okay why would Tariq Aziz lie then? He is not on trial for anything, as far as I know, and his main patron and friend Saddam is now dead, so he has no reason to fear reprisals and every reason to please the US. So why does he stick by his story…a simple grant of immunity should have made him sing like a jaybird to all the evil deeds of Saddam.

Scott:

He’d lie because if he popped up and said, “Yeah, I know that Zawahiri guy. We paid him to drive the US from Somalia, to attack Americans, to bomb US embassies, and more” That’d be a confession to death-sentence crimes. Even Ted Bundy played innocent.

James never returns to this specific thread of discussion but in later arguments on different topics this "why would Saddam lie" theme does come up.

Next thread:

James:

The belief that Saddam and Al Qaeda worked together stems from one, rather misguided, belief; that Saddam sought revenge against the US for Gulf War I. Contrary to this misnomer Saddam had always stated in public and private that he was willing to cut a deal with the US. His beef wasn’t with the US but with regional actors. Deterrence worked against Saddam in the first Gulf War and it, and it probably worked during the 1990s to the extent that he did not seek open collaboration with terrorist organizations to attack the US. If that were the case why didn’t he utilize groups more under his control (MeK, Hamas, etc.)?

Scott:

Saddam always said he was still at war with the US, and that the so-called Gulf War I had never ended-it was just the start of the mother of all battles (to use his own words). Only Americans would be so arrogant as to pretend that there was no war waged by the US on Iraq from 91-03. Do people really believe he got bombed daily, had major air campaigns launched upon him every 6 months or less, and was squeezed in by a blockade, and in the face of all that this arrogant dictator just sorta took it with no hard feelings? Yeah, right. "Saddam the forgiving"

James:

Saddam also wrote bad novels and isolated himself for years at a time. His "mother of all wars" assertions was just propaganda so his people would blame the US for their misery instead of Iraq. As for the "blockade" many conservatives claim it was full of swiss cheese and Saddam was getting rich off the deal; so which was it, he was getting squeezed or rich?

Scott:

The CIA and UN say he was getting rich. Neocons only parrot and cite the reports. Democrats refuse to read the intelligence assessments, ignore the briefings (don’t even attend), and when confronted with facts by the UN or generals in the field, they openly declare that they refuse to believe them because the statements will not fit their political agenda. Having said that, it’s important to remember that what Saddam made via oil-for-food was a fraction of what he made without the sanctions. He got about $12-16 billion from the UN program over 4yrs, but he was bringing in $50-75 billion before Operation Desert Storm

James:

It seems like you are still trying to have it both ways here. Either the sanctions were effective in keeping Saddam contained in his box or they were ineffective.

Scott:

I’m saying they had an effect, but-as the Duelfer Report makes abundantly clear-they were breaking, collapsing irrevocably, and the effect in 2003 was not what it was 12yrs previous. Ever read the Duelfer Report? The first few pages make it very clear, but the subsequent 1000 pages (and particularly the pictures) show that he was still successfully hiding stuff and that sanctions were broken and couldn’t be repaired.

This line petered off into other lines of discussion like this one:

James:

If you can think of a good reason why Saddam wanted to attack the US (besides the usual boring claptrap that he was an enemy and must obviously hate the US), then we can go back and re-examine the intelligence and seek links between Saddam and al qaeda.

Scott:

One good reason: he was at war with us. Americans weren’t as a population, but the US military was, the UN was, he was, and as a result or side effect of this Ignored War (often described in PC terms as "containment"), Bin Laden decided to start killing Americans instead of just being another po’d Middle Easterner who was killing everyone and anyone BUT Americans.

Iraq wanted to use Al Queda
Al Queda wanted to use Iraq

That’s been well proven.

James:

Funny I don’t recall any offensive actions the Iraqi Army undertook between the years 1991-2003, I don’t recall the Iraqi Air Force bombing US bases in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, I only recall defensive actions when US planes violated Iraqi airspace. Strange way for him to conduct a war. As for bin Laden, it’s well known why he targeted Americans and did so without any prodding from Saddam (funny how he still exhorts jihad long after his supposed benefactor is dead). No the two entities are separate, and the sooner you come to this realization maybe the sooner we can get back to winning the GWOT.

"Iraq wanted to use Al Queda
Al Queda wanted to use Iraq

That’s been well proven."

Then why are we having this discussion? Proved by whom; Stephen Hayes, Doug Feith, Laurie Mylroie?

Scott:

Yes, he targeted Americans (per 2/98 fatwa)

1) Because the US was attacking Iraq
2) Because the US had forces in Saudi which were there to attack Iraq
3) Because of the US led sanctions on Iraq
4) Because of US support for Israel (amazing since the peace process was well underway at the time)

You’re mistaken if you think that I’m trying to say Saddam loved UBL and UBL loved Saddam and they were in complete coordination. I am not. I am saying (again) that the US war on Saddam in the 1990’s had the collateral effect of driving UBL from just ranting about Americans to going to war with Americans, and the reasons for that were the US/UN war on Iraq (at a time when this ignored war was sanctioned by the UN btw).

Perhaps you’d like a list of Iraqi offensive actions against the US from 1991-2003; the “containment”/Ignored War period? I’ll be MORE than happy to provide it.

"Iraq wanted to use Al Queda
Al Queda wanted to use Iraq That’s been well proven."
Then why are we having this discussion? Proved by whom; Stephen Hayes, Doug Feith, Laurie Mylroie?

It’s been well proven by independent investigations via bi-partisan commissions, by independent international intelligence groups, and even by the bi-partisan political reports. What’s been proven and repeated in every single case, is that Iraq would work with Al Queda if Iraq was at war with the US, and vice versa. The problem is that for political reasons people ignored the fact in Saddam’s eyes, in the eyes of the Middle East, in the eyes of the word, and in the eyes of UBL, the US was at war with Iraq from 3/91-3/03.

James:

"Yes, he targeted Americans (per 2/98 fatwa)
1) Because the US was attacking Iraq
2) Because the US had forces in Saudi which were there to attack Iraq
3) Because of the US led sanctions on Iraq
4) Because of US support for Israel (amazing since the peace process was well underway at the time)"

Well that was Osama bin Laden’s fatwa not Saddam Hussein’s. Osama may have disliked Saddam personally but he was still an Arab Moslem who saw it his duty to defend other Moslem Arabs when they were (perceived) to be under attack or occupation by non-Moslems. Osama’s support for the Iraqi people is not indicative, nor is it compelling evidence, of collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq.

"You’re mistaken if you think that I’m trying to say Saddam loved UBL and UBL loved Saddam and they were in complete coordination. I am not. I am saying (again) that the US war on Saddam in the 1990’s had the collateral effect of driving UBL from just ranting about Americans to going to war with Americans, and the reasons for that were the US/UN war on Iraq (at a time when this ignored war was sanctioned by the UN btw)."

Well it seems just as likely that Osama came to this conclusion on his own, without help from Iraq. He may have seen it as a good recruiting tool as well; the people of Saudi Arabia weren’t really suffering under US “occupation” but the Iraqi people? Boy howdy Osama could sell that real easy. Saddam though cannot be held responsible for the actions of independent actors who initiate strikes against America on their own volition.

"Perhaps you’d like a list of Iraqi offensive actions against the US from 1991-2003; the “containment”/Ignored War period? I’ll be MORE than happy to provide it."

Please provide it, but keep in mind that violations of the no-fly zones or shooting at American aircraft in Iraqi airspace would not count as offensive actions seeing as they were defensive in nature and the Iraqi regime did not recognize the no-fly zones as legitimate.

It’s been well proven by independent investigations via bi-partisan commissions, by independent international intelligence groups, and even by the bi-partisan political reports. What’s been proven and repeated in every single case, is that Iraq would work with Al Queda if Iraq was at war with the US, and vice versa. The problem is that for political reasons people ignored the fact in Saddam’s eyes, in the eyes of the Middle East, in the eyes of the word, and in the eyes of UBL, the US was at war with Iraq from 3/91-3/03."

Now the qualifications come in; Iraq would use terrorism ONLY if the regime was threatened, but not otherwise. That is what the intelligence organizations said before the war and what they affirmed after the war. Given the evidence on hand I would say their assessment was correct.

Scott:

“Well that was Osama bin Laden’s fatwa not Saddam Hussein’s. Osama may have disliked Saddam personally but he was still an Arab Moslem who saw it his duty to defend other Moslem Arabs when they were (perceived) to be under attack or occupation by non-Moslems. Osama’s support for the Iraqi people is not indicative, nor is it compelling evidence, of collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq.”

It’s absolute evidence that the “containment”/Ignored War caused Osama to start killing Americans rather than just ranting and raving about them.

“Well it seems just as likely that Osama came to this conclusion on his own, without help from Iraq. He may have seen it as a good recruiting tool as well; the people of Saudi Arabia weren’t really suffering under US “occupation” but the Iraqi people? Boy howdy Osama could sell that real easy. Saddam though cannot be held responsible for the actions of independent actors who initiate strikes against America on their own volition.”

I fully agree that Osama is just a killer seeking excuses and rallying cries, and that Iraq in the 1990’s was a great rallying cry. Glad you can see that as well. It means you can see that the US “containment” was an Ignored War that had consequences-like the rebirth of Al Queda and UBL’s decision to start killing Americans. Had Saddam been removed in 1991, there’d have been no need for US forces in Saudi etc.. An international force could have replaced Saddam, or the Kurds and Shia who rose up to the tune of 500,000 people could have replaced him. Either way, if the US had removed Saddam, there’d have been no US war with Al Queda which used the excuse of the US Ignored War/containment of Saddam.

“Please provide it, but keep in mind that violations of the no-fly zones or shooting at American aircraft in Iraqi airspace would not count as offensive actions seeing as they were defensive in nature and the Iraqi regime did not recognize the no-fly zones as legitimate.”

Here’s the catch 22 I was talking about earlier. You can say all you want about whether or not the no-fly-zones were illegal, or the 4 major air bombing campaigns, or the intrusive UN inspections, or the US-led blockade. You yourself claim Iraq’s response was defensive=these actions were offensive; the US was waging war on Iraq as perceived by yourself, Saddam, and Bin Laden.

Now:

you’re response is a peaceful discussion.
Saddam, he was being attacked and fought back.
Bin Laden, he used it as an excuse to turn the Muslim world against the US and start killing Americans

I’m trying to say it doesn’t matter if these air campaigns, blockade/sanctions, etc were legitimate or not (it’s irrelevant to this point), they had an effect. They made Saddam feel he was at war and being attacked, and what was it that all the intelligence assessments and political assessments, and your own assessment said?

“Iraq would use terrorism ONLY if the regime was threatened, but not otherwise. That is what the intelligence organizations said before the war and what they affirmed after the war. Given the evidence on hand I would say their assessment was correct.”

Thus, my point is that the assessments ignore that Saddam was threatened and attacked for over a decade, and didn’t just sit there and take it. He was not Saddam the forgiving, or Saddam the peaceful.

Now, earlier, and in the previous discussion I said I’d provide

“a list of Iraqi offensive actions against the US from 1991-2003; the “containment”/Ignored War period? I’ll be MORE than happy to provide it."

You added the condition that I only present actions that were not in defense of no-fly-zones, but the point I’m making is a demonstration of your own point (and that of the various assessments re Saddam): that if attacked or threatened, Saddam responded. To that end, the legality is irrelevant as the question is Saddam’s response: did he sit back and take it, or did he respond and attack? I say he attacked OFTEN.

Link 1

Link 2

Btw, I’ve a great list of the AQ guys who worked with Saddam and Saddam’s guys who worked with AQ as well….actually it’s just a partial list, but a good one at that.

James:

It’s absolute evidence that the “containment”/Ignored War caused Osama to start killing Americans rather than just ranting and raving about them.

I fully agree that Osama is just a killer seeking excuses and rallying cries, and that Iraq in the 1990’s was a great rallying cry. Glad you can see that as well. It means you can see that the US “containment” was an Ignored War that had consequences-like the rebirth of Al Queda and UBL’s decision to start killing Americans. Had Saddam been removed in 1991, there’d have been no need for US forces in Saudi etc.. An international force could have replaced Saddam, or the Kurds and Shia who rose up to the tune of 500,000 people could have replaced him. Either way, if the US had removed Saddam, there’d have been no US war with Al Queda which used the excuse of the US Ignored War/containment of Saddam.

Do you honestly think that the US would remove forces from Saudi Arabia just because Saddam was removed? Iran and Syria would be perceived as the next threats and the Saudis would be ‘persuaded’ to keep American troops in their country. The US has not voluntary removed its troops from a foreign country in at least sixty years, or perhaps more. There certainly would have been a war against al Qaeda if the US had removed Saddam Hussein, given that a Sunni insurgency would have risen up (and most likely more deadly than the one we are facing today) and the ensuing violence would have angered Osama even more. It is the perceived mistreatment (including occupation) of Arabs and Moslems at the hands of non-Moslems that makes Osama angry.

It was perceived mistreatment of Moslems, including the sanctions regime that angered bin Laden, it may have angered Saddam, but Saddam could also be dealt with. We could have cut a deal with Saddam, and in fact he was expecting a deal. He didn’t take the threats of war in 2002 and 2003 credible even up to and through the invasion, thinking all along that the US would stop short and allow him to stay in power. He didn’t even prepare defenses against the Americans, not the kind of actions I would expect from someone who was “waging” a super secret war or whatever you call it. Saddam was a realist and recognized that he should become an ally of the US rather than an enemy; the US just didn’t believe him.

But his regime was never threatened. As I said above he didn’t take the American threat seriously; sure he would go on TV and shout some bluster, but it was apart of his image “Saddam the Strong” and his ego demanded it; but only up to a point. Saddam saw both the intrinsic value of the US as an ally (Duelfer report…yes I have read it) and the folly of attacking the US.

Scott:

Do you honestly think that the US would remove forces from Saudi Arabia just because Saddam was removed? Iran and Syria would be perceived as the next threats and the Saudis would be ?persuaded? to keep American troops in their country. The US has not voluntary removed its troops from a foreign country in at least sixty years, or perhaps more. There certainly would have been a war against al Qaeda if the US had removed Saddam Hussein, given that a Sunni insurgency would have risen up (and most likely more deadly than the one we are facing today) and the ensuing violence would have angered Osama even more. It is the perceived mistreatment (including occupation) of Arabs and Moslems at the hands of non-Moslems that makes Osama angry.

I like this one. Might wanna check. I do believe the US did remove its forces from Saudi. The claim that Iran and Syria would be some sort of new excuse for keeping US forces in Saudi is baseless and sheer speculation particularly since the US hasn’t done so. Would there have been a war with AQ if the US had removed Saddam in 91? Probably, but Osama and other terrorists would have had their 3 core excuses removed, and would have had to find less appealing ones to fill their ranks. Would there have been an insurgency? I don’t think so because the 500,000 Iraqis that rose up would still be alive to keep peace, and the infrastructure in Iraq was a lot better in 1991 than it was in 2003.

Re what ticks off UBL, please read his 2/98 fatwa and take note that your comment is barely correct-not even in a secondary or tertiary manner.

"It was perceived mistreatment of Moslems, including the sanctions regime that angered bin Laden, it may have angered Saddam, but Saddam could also be dealt with. We could have cut a deal with Saddam, and in fact he was expecting a deal."

Catch 22. If the US made a deal with Saddam, then the same rant that opponents of the war claim (that Saddam was some sort of US creation) would be enhanced, and the dangers he posed to the region would have been even MORE an American responsibility-a responsibility to correct poor judgment in backing a dictator.

"He didn’t take the threats of war in 2002 and 2003 credible even up to and through the invasion, thinking all along that the US would stop short and allow him to stay in power. He didn’t even prepare defenses against the Americans, not the kind of actions I would expect from someone who was "waging" a super secret war or whatever you call it. Saddam was a realist and recognized that he should become an ally of the US rather than an enemy; the US just didn’t believe him.

I agree completely on the idea of him not taking the threat seriously, but as to why, I point to the US pattern of not addressing him seriously. A realist? The man had a Mosque built with an island in the shape of his thumbprint and had his name put in to the bricks of ancient Babylon….that’s hardly a realist. He was a psychotic dictator.

But his regime was never threatened. As I said above he didn’t take the American threat seriously; sure he would go on TV and shout some bluster, but it was apart of his image "Saddam the Strong" and his ego demanded it; but only up to a point. Saddam saw both the intrinsic value of the US as an ally (Duelfer report…yes I have read it) and the folly of attacking the US.

You’re arguing with yourself here: “he didn’t take the American threat seriously” vs. “his regime was never threatened”

James:

“I like this one. Might wanna check. I do believe the US did remove its forces from Saudi.”

I did check; both the DOD website and several other sources. US troops are still in Saudi Arabia; several hundred, but several hundred too many.

“A skeletal crew of a few hundred is to remain and U.S. military personnel will continue training with Saudi forces and holding joint exercises, officials said”

Like I said the US will keep troops in Saudi Arabia for a while.

 “Re what ticks off UBL, please read his 2/98 fatwa and take note that your comment is barely correct-not even in a secondary or tertiary manner.”

I don’t know what you are really talking about here since in Osama’s fatwa he clearly states it is the humiliation and mistreatment that Muslims are experiencing (in his mind, which is why I used the qualifier “perceived”) that angers him:

“The Arabian Peninsula has never — since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas — been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.”

“Catch 22. If the US made a deal with Saddam, then the same rant that opponents of the war claim (that Saddam was some sort of US creation) would be enhanced, and the dangers he posed to the region would have been even MORE an American responsibility-a responsibility to correct poor judgment in backing a dictator.”

Hey I was fine keeping him in power to balance Iran.

“I agree completely on the idea of him not taking the threat seriously, but as to why, I point to the US pattern of not addressing him seriously. A realist? The man had a Mosque built with an island in the shape of his thumbprint and had his name put in to the bricks of ancient Babylon….that’s hardly a realist. He was a psychotic dictator.”

Even psychotic dictators utilize realism in foreign policy decision-making.

“You’re arguing with yourself here: “he didn’t take the American threat seriously” vs. “his regime was never threatened”

He didn’t take the threat seriously and his regime was not really threatened. What’s wrong with that argument; it isn’t a false dichotomy. He didn’t expect the US to overthrow him so he didn’t take the US threat seriously.

Scott:

“I did check; both the DOD website and several other sources. US troops are still in Saudi Arabia; several hundred, but several hundred too many."

Great find. Thanks for looking it up. By “a while”….does that mean 4 years? Are they still there today? And are there more embassy personnel and/or more American businessmen in the oil compounds or more troops? Nah, 300 people is nothin. Again, I don’t think they’re even there anymore.

From your link : (ed. Osama fatwa)

FIRST “Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post”

i.e. the continued US bombing and war on Iraq from 91-98+

SECOND “…despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million…”

i.e. the US led sanctions, bombing, and no-fly-zones (that were seen as no threat?)

THIRD “…the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq”

i.e. the US effort to contain and weaken Iraq so that it couldn’t attack its neighbors again. (ed. end quotes from Osama fatwa)

“Hey I was fine keeping him in power to balance Iran.”

By 2003, he was not just a threat to Iran though. He was a threat to Kuwait, Saudi, and had become a rallying cry for Jihad on the US.

 “Even psychotic dictators utilize realism in foreign policy decision-making.”

Oxymoron. Only true on occasion and not in pattern.

 “He didn’t take the threat seriously and his regime was not really threatened. What’s wrong with that argument; it isn’t a false dichotomy. He didn’t expect the US to overthrow him so he didn’t take the US threat seriously.”

Then we agree, the no-fly-zones were irrelevant?

James:

“Great find. Thanks for looking it up. By “a while”….does that mean 4 years? Are they still there today?"

They are still there, 261 Special Forces soldiers are still stationed there, a small contingent but not a complete withdrawal as I inferred.

 “i.e. the US led sanctions, bombing, and no-fly-zones (that were seen as no threat?)”

We are looking at bin Laden’s words in two different ways. I see him angry at the humiliation and mistreatment that Arabs (all Arabs) receive at the hands of “infidels”. It doesn’t matter if it’s a threat or not, it’s the principle of the matter.

 "By 2003, he was not just a threat to Iran though. He was a threat to Kuwait, Saudi, and had become a rallying cry for Jihad on the US."

His main focus was Iran; he didn’t like Kuwait but there has always been an historical animosity between the two countries. Even before the Baathists took power Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait. In his absence former terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran have come to power making Iraq practically a proxy for the Iranians.

 “Oxymoron. Only true on occasion and not in pattern.”

All states are self-interested and this self-interest (survival) drives them; Read Waltz or Mearshimer for a clearer understanding.

Scott:

“They are still there, 261 Special Forces soldiers are still stationed there, a small contingent but not a complete withdrawal as I inferred.”

Again, my bet is there’s thousands of westerners there for business. Perhaps tens of thousands, and hundreds or thousands-maybe tens of thousands there as diplomats etc. 261 special forces is hardly worthy of a fatwa. I can’t possibly see anyone making a case that 261 special forces are more offensive than the tens of thousands of others in the kingdom for business and political reasons. A 261 person occupation?

“We are looking at bin Laden?s words in two different ways. I see him angry at the humiliation and mistreatment that Arabs (all Arabs) receive at the hands of "infidels". It doesn’t matter if it’s a threat or not, it’s the principle of the matter.”

And I see that too, but I also see him specifically (his words) listing 3 reasons to start killing Americans, and all three were the US war on Iraq in the 1990’s (I use the term war, or ignored war, others use containment, earlier you used the words “legitimate concern”)

“His main focus was Iran; he didn’t like Kuwait but there has always been an historical animosity between the two countries. Even before the Baathists took power Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait. In his absence former terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran have come to power making Iraq practically a proxy for the Iranians.”

I agree, but he’d attacked Syria with Islamic extremist terrorists, he’d waged war with Iran, he’d bombed Jordan, invaded Kuwait, invaded Saudi, and threatened all the Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq War with naval and air attacks. He was a threat to the region.

“All states are self-interested and this self-interest (survival) drives them; Read Waltz or Mearshimer for a clearer understanding.”

Yep. All states are self-interested. I agree.

James:

“Again, my bet is there’s thousands of westerners there for business. Perhaps tens of thousands, and hundreds or thousands-maybe tens of thousands there as diplomats etc. 261 special forces is hardly worthy of a fatwa."

Like I said before it’s perception. Those 261 military personnel wear uniforms and stand on sacred ground, and that’s what makes bin Laden mad. 5,000 troops isn’t an occupation either, but it was enough to kickstart Osama, among other issues he had. I don’t think it’s relevant but I’m not the one angry about it.

“And I see that too, but I also see him specifically (his words) listing 3 reasons to start killing Americans, and all three were the US war on Iraq in the 1990’s (I use the term war, or ignored war, others use containment, earlier you used the words “legitimate concern”)”

So are you saying we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein in order to pacify Osama bin Laden? Al Qaeda fought insurgencies elsewhere; Chechnya, and Kashmir, places that had nothing to do with Iraq, and would have fought the US based on its support for Israel and the Saudi regime alone.

“I agree, but he’d attacked Syria with Islamic extremist terrorists, he’d waged war with Iran, he’d bombed Jordan, invaded Kuwait, invaded Saudi, and threatened all the Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq War with naval and air attacks. He was a threat to the region.”

I don’t recall when he ever bombed Jordan (his only ally in the first Gulf War) or attacked Syria, nor did he really “invade” Saudi Arabia (unless you are referring to that feint during Desert Storm, which was meant to attack coalition troops in Saudi Arabia), also he received money from the Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq war.

Scott:

“Like I said before it’s perception. Those 261 military personnel wear uniforms and stand on sacred ground, and that’s what makes bin Laden mad."

And when was the last time UBL raved about the US occupying Saudi? Before or after the US left with all its personnel (I’m sorry, but let’s be clear and agree that 261 people is not a significant military presence, barely mentionable since the embassy staff is probably double that)

“So are you saying we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein in order to pacify Osama bin Laden?"

In a way, yeah, I think that’s part of the reason. And I agree that UBL and AQ fought insurgencies all over, but it was the US war on Iraq (“containment” “legitimate concerns” Ignored War, etc) that started him killing Americans. Seems like AQ’s got a lotta enemies, with a lotta agendas, but the reason he-and Zawahiri-focused and justified killing Americans was because of the US war on Iraq and its effects.

“I don’t recall when he ever bombed Jordan (his only ally in the first Gulf War) or attacked Syria, nor did he really “invade” Saudi Arabia (unless you are referring to that feint during Desert Storm, which was meant to attack coalition troops in Saudi Arabia), also he received money from the Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq war.”

Yeah, he attacked Jordan with IIS attacks before during and after 91, and backed terror attacks there. Jordan was not his ally in 91 either. Only Turabi and Arafat were. Jordan voted for all the UN resolutions and supported them, and aided the US via logistics, intel, etc. Not major contributions, but they didn’t want to be major contributors. Yes, I do refer to Khafji in 91 btw, and 3-5 brigades isn’t a feint. It was an attempt. In later years (not long before Pres Bush took office) the DoD did studies on the matter as they prepared to make a computer sim of the various battles in 91 as a means for training tank crews. They hired a group to go around, get detailed info from every single person involved, and compile it into a scenario (later did the same thing with the battle of 73 Easting and others). In the process, they discovered that the Khafji bit was an attempt to get to the water de-salinization plants and force Saudi to negotiate. They had no idea the power of the US, and grossly overestimated their own forces’ abilities.

James:

And when was the last time UBL raved about the US occupying Saudi?"

From December, 2004:

"As for its interference in the foreign policy, the ruling families have obeyed America and are carrying out their role with their treacheries. Abdallah Bin-al-Sharif Husayn and his father began against Palestine. Here is his son Abdallah II who comes after him on the same path. Here is Muhammad VI in Morocco, walking on the same path of treachery, which his father and grandfather previously treaded.

Their implementation of Crusader colonies continues. There is no room to explore them in this message, but we will remind of some due to their importance.

The government of Riyadh has entered into an international alliance with the infidel Crusaders lead by Bush against Islam and its people. This also took place in Afghanistan. Moreover, these conspiracies in Iraq have begun and not ended yet. They have opened their bases for the US forces so that they can invade Iraq, which assisted them and made it easier for them to occupy it.

On that day, the Saudi foreign minister went out disparaging the religion, blood, and minds of Muslims, admitting that his country has opened its airports for the Americans for humanitarian purposes, as he alleged. Here they are today showing us a new link in the chain of conspiracies with America, which they called the initiative to send Arab and Muslim forces to safeguard security in Iraq. This is a great betrayal.

They were not content with supporting the infidels in their occupation of the lands of Islam, so they came with this initiative to give legitimacy to the US occupation …"

And lest we forget about Paul Johnson and Robert Jacobs among others:

“Yeah, he attacked Jordan with IIS attacks before during and after 91, and backed terror attacks there."

The only IIS attack that I was aware of around the 1991 Gulf War was one in the Philippines that was fairly inept. According to this report Iraq dispatched 30 terror teams though none reached their targets (and none consisted of foreign terrorists).

What agency in DOD did the study on Khafji? Was it CAA (Vandiver’s outfit), Office of Net Assessment (Andy Marshall)? I had always heard it was a feint to test coalition strength or draw ground forces into battle, and considering they used 2-3 battalions, and not brigades I still tend to believe that.

Scott:

From December, 2004:

Good quoting. It seems that after the US pulled out its forces (seriously, 261 is not mentionable as a military force), then UBL started raving about political affiliation with the US rather than direct military aid. Now, true enough he talks about Saudi letting the US use bases to attack Iraq (which I fully agree happened, and have been trying to make the case for since our first discussion), but in the 04 ranting he seems to have shifted his excuse to mere affiliation and conspiracy theories. Kinda ironic that so often we hear the left in this country complain that the Bush Admin is a puppet of the Sauds, and UBL’s complaining that the Sauds are puppets of the Bush Admin. Sorry, ot, but the irony is amazing. 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). In this rant, when he complains about military aid, I think he’s talking in past tense of that aid. That, or he didn’t get the memo that the US only had 261 people in Saudi. Maybe he thinks there’s some Saudi Area 51 where tens of thousands of US troops are controlling the Saudi govt?

Re Paul Jones and other contractors, this seems to back the idea that UBL’s rant shifted from being against inter-operation military support to non-military support once US forces (all but 261) left Saudi…unless Jones and other contractors are military?

“The only IIS attack that I was aware of around the 1991 Gulf War was one in the Philippines that was fairly inept. According to this report Iraq dispatched 30 terror teams though none reached their targets (and none consisted of foreign terrorists).

What agency in DOD did the study on Khafji? Was it CAA (Vandiver?s outfit), Office of Net Assessment (Andy Marshall)? I had always heard it was a feint to test coalition strength or draw ground forces into battle, and considering they used 2-3 battalions, and not brigades I still tend to believe that."

re the terror teams, there’s a lot on the 2003 IIS attacks out there (ironically from Dems like Sen Rockefeller and Levin), and while they were generally solely IIS, the ones in the PI were directly linked to Abu Sayef (sp?), and the PI even expelled the an Iraqi “diplomat” for having made repeated phone calls to AS’s leader on the eve of attacks. Iraqi embassy stuff is predominant in all kinds of ways.

re Khafji, I’d seen Gen Horner’s assessment that it was a feint attack in prep for a real mechanized attack by RG mech forces in Kuwait, and I’ve seen others-none that you’ve mentioned (never one that said it was battalions), but I think the best public account I’ve read of the battle was here

James:

“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 terror teams"

I was referring to the 1991 Gulf war when I stated that Jordan was an ally of the US, I thought that was the war you were also referring to since we were talking about Khafji.

Scott:

“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 was referring to the 1991 Gulf war when I stated that Jordan was an ally of the US, I thought that was the war you were also referring to since we were talking about Khafji.”

Jordan was a HUGE covert ally in the second invasion of Iraq in 2003. They allowed US fighters, bombers, etc to operate out of their bases. They did the same for US special forces, they even rescued US special forces on the eve of the invasion. Gen Franks and others now tell us that the King of Jordan even offered to allow the 4th ID to transit Jordan when it was refused in Turkey.

And as usual, James left us in the lurch and stopped the argument by never returning.

Curt

See author page