03-18-2004, 11:22 PM
Well, let's try digesting that article a little more thoroughly, then.
The first thing to note is the author, and where it appears.
"Jonathan Schanzer is a terrorism analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of the forthcoming book "Al-Qaeda's Armies: Middle East Affiliates and the Next Generation of Terror.""
Well, there's two strikes right there. One: the analysis is from the pro-Israel lobby in washington, and is linked to by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Clearly, we are dealing with an impartial source here. They certainly don't have any vested interest in seeing the evidence tilt one way. :P
Next, moving back up to the top, we find this:
"An Iraqi prisoner details Saddam's links to Osama bin Laden's terror network."
Oh, that's promising. More soft evidence. A confession from a prisoner who might (maybe not, but maybe) say anything to save his skin? Already this is shaping out to be the kind of objective look at the issues we need.
"Al-Shamari's account was compelling and filled with specific information that would either make him a skilled and detailed liar or a man with information that the U.S. public needs to hear."
An intelligence officer for Saddam Hussein? A detailed liar indeed. Skepticism must be applied in hearty doses, although we can't dismiss what he says out of hand.
" My first question to al-Shamari was whether he was involved in the operations of Ansar al Islam. "Yes." Al-Shamari, who appears to be in his late twenties, said that his division of the Mukhabarat provided weapons to Ansar, "mostly mortar rounds.""
So, Saddam, according to this guy, was supporting the Ansar movement. But, as I've said, Saddam has every reason to support an anti-Kurdish force, and that this is perfectly consistent with having no meaningful connection to international terrorism.
"Why, I asked, would Saddam task one of his intelligence agents to work with the Kurds, an ethnic group that was an avowed enemy of the Baath regime, and had clashed with Iraqi forces on several occasions? Al-Shamari said that Saddam wanted to create chaos in the pro-American Kurdish region. In other words, he used Ansar al Islam as a tool against the Kurds."
My point exactly.
"He explained in considerable detail that Saddam actually ordered Abu Wael to organize foreign fighters from outside Iraq to join Ansar. Al-Shamari estimated that some 150 foreign fighters were imported from al Qaeda clusters in Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Lebanon to fight with Ansar al Islam's Kurdish fighters."
So, Saddam asks for support *against the Kurds*, and he doesn't much care who it is. So Ansar calls on their allies in Al-Qaeda. Again, this is just Saddam using the forces available to him to solve his domestic problems. This is in no way evidence of his support for Al-Qaeda or their internationalist terror objectives. If they want to come solve his problems for him, I can't see why he'd object. But that's a very different kind of link than the ones we've been looking for.
The rest of the article is not particularly enlightening past that.
So, here's the link, as I see it.
Saddam is connected to Abu Wael, who does dirty work for him as his head of "special intelligence" in the Mukhabarat. Abu Wael, clearly being well connected with just about every dangerous group in the middle east (I presume that's how you get top intelligence jobs with dictators), deals with Ansar al-Islam at the behest of Saddam as a potential solution to the Kurdish problem. Ansar, and by extension, Zarqawi, then brought on board whomever they could find, and, being an Islamist terror/guerilla network themselves, clearly recruited from other, similar organizations, "al Qaeda affiliates", although that implies a heirarchy that really doesn't seem to exist. Abu Wael is given access to whatever he needs to get these groups on board and fighting the Kurdish: mortar rounds, cash, visas, flights to Tahiti, whatever.
Saddam, through all of this, seems to have one crystal clear motive: kill Kurdish people. I can't see any evidence that he really cared how it was done, or who did it. Now, if the connection you're trying to prove is that terrorists have supported Iraq to further Iraqi objectives, then case closed. But that Saddam was working to support their objectives? No evidence of that whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He was using them as pawns, not supporting their agenda. Has he ever been connected to an event like 9/11, the Madrid bombing, the Bali bombing? Not that we've found. His support seems to be entirely limited to helping them solve his problems, which nearly every government in the world does at one time or another.
So, if we're going to use that kind of a connection to terrorism as a justification for war, we'll need to declare a lot more wars, because nearly every government is connected in that way to terrorism; the US government has been connected in far more tangible ways to such groups all over the world, Al Qaeda not being the least of them.
Nothing so far even resembles the kind of damning evidence we were told we'd find in a heartbeat after the invasion. Only a few whispered rumors, one intercepted document, and the confessions of people who have everything to gain by telling us what we want to hear. And even that points to the connection perfectly backwards: Terrorists helping Saddam, not Saddam helping Terrorists.
Jester
The first thing to note is the author, and where it appears.
"Jonathan Schanzer is a terrorism analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of the forthcoming book "Al-Qaeda's Armies: Middle East Affiliates and the Next Generation of Terror.""
Well, there's two strikes right there. One: the analysis is from the pro-Israel lobby in washington, and is linked to by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Clearly, we are dealing with an impartial source here. They certainly don't have any vested interest in seeing the evidence tilt one way. :P
Next, moving back up to the top, we find this:
"An Iraqi prisoner details Saddam's links to Osama bin Laden's terror network."
Oh, that's promising. More soft evidence. A confession from a prisoner who might (maybe not, but maybe) say anything to save his skin? Already this is shaping out to be the kind of objective look at the issues we need.
"Al-Shamari's account was compelling and filled with specific information that would either make him a skilled and detailed liar or a man with information that the U.S. public needs to hear."
An intelligence officer for Saddam Hussein? A detailed liar indeed. Skepticism must be applied in hearty doses, although we can't dismiss what he says out of hand.
" My first question to al-Shamari was whether he was involved in the operations of Ansar al Islam. "Yes." Al-Shamari, who appears to be in his late twenties, said that his division of the Mukhabarat provided weapons to Ansar, "mostly mortar rounds.""
So, Saddam, according to this guy, was supporting the Ansar movement. But, as I've said, Saddam has every reason to support an anti-Kurdish force, and that this is perfectly consistent with having no meaningful connection to international terrorism.
"Why, I asked, would Saddam task one of his intelligence agents to work with the Kurds, an ethnic group that was an avowed enemy of the Baath regime, and had clashed with Iraqi forces on several occasions? Al-Shamari said that Saddam wanted to create chaos in the pro-American Kurdish region. In other words, he used Ansar al Islam as a tool against the Kurds."
My point exactly.
"He explained in considerable detail that Saddam actually ordered Abu Wael to organize foreign fighters from outside Iraq to join Ansar. Al-Shamari estimated that some 150 foreign fighters were imported from al Qaeda clusters in Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Lebanon to fight with Ansar al Islam's Kurdish fighters."
So, Saddam asks for support *against the Kurds*, and he doesn't much care who it is. So Ansar calls on their allies in Al-Qaeda. Again, this is just Saddam using the forces available to him to solve his domestic problems. This is in no way evidence of his support for Al-Qaeda or their internationalist terror objectives. If they want to come solve his problems for him, I can't see why he'd object. But that's a very different kind of link than the ones we've been looking for.
The rest of the article is not particularly enlightening past that.
So, here's the link, as I see it.
Saddam is connected to Abu Wael, who does dirty work for him as his head of "special intelligence" in the Mukhabarat. Abu Wael, clearly being well connected with just about every dangerous group in the middle east (I presume that's how you get top intelligence jobs with dictators), deals with Ansar al-Islam at the behest of Saddam as a potential solution to the Kurdish problem. Ansar, and by extension, Zarqawi, then brought on board whomever they could find, and, being an Islamist terror/guerilla network themselves, clearly recruited from other, similar organizations, "al Qaeda affiliates", although that implies a heirarchy that really doesn't seem to exist. Abu Wael is given access to whatever he needs to get these groups on board and fighting the Kurdish: mortar rounds, cash, visas, flights to Tahiti, whatever.
Saddam, through all of this, seems to have one crystal clear motive: kill Kurdish people. I can't see any evidence that he really cared how it was done, or who did it. Now, if the connection you're trying to prove is that terrorists have supported Iraq to further Iraqi objectives, then case closed. But that Saddam was working to support their objectives? No evidence of that whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He was using them as pawns, not supporting their agenda. Has he ever been connected to an event like 9/11, the Madrid bombing, the Bali bombing? Not that we've found. His support seems to be entirely limited to helping them solve his problems, which nearly every government in the world does at one time or another.
So, if we're going to use that kind of a connection to terrorism as a justification for war, we'll need to declare a lot more wars, because nearly every government is connected in that way to terrorism; the US government has been connected in far more tangible ways to such groups all over the world, Al Qaeda not being the least of them.
Nothing so far even resembles the kind of damning evidence we were told we'd find in a heartbeat after the invasion. Only a few whispered rumors, one intercepted document, and the confessions of people who have everything to gain by telling us what we want to hear. And even that points to the connection perfectly backwards: Terrorists helping Saddam, not Saddam helping Terrorists.
Jester