| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Baghdad Made Last-Ditch Try to Avoid War |
| 2003-11-06 |
| Just days before U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq, officials claiming to speak for a frantic Iraqi regime made a last-ditch effort to "Sorry, the shot clock just ran out" An influential adviser to the Defense Department received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman indicating that Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal, they said. The chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service and other Iraqi officials had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction and offered to let American troops and experts do an independent search, said officials, who discussed the matter only on condition of anonymity. I guess we took them up on the "American troops doing the independent search" part. The Iraqi officials also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who was being held in Baghdad, they said. "Thanks, but we’ll pick him up when we get there." Iraq said long before the war - and captured officials still maintain - that the country had no unconventional weapons. Though none has been found in seven months of searching, finding the weapons and overthrowing Saddam were the main reasons the Bush administration gave for going to war. You forgot that little part about ignoring UN resolutions. Defense Department officials confirmed some details of the prewar overture, first reported late Wednesday by ABC News and The New York Times. But they dismissed the idea that the offers could have averted war, since numerous other efforts by the United Nations and others had failed. "Iraq and Saddam had ample opportunity through highly credible sources over a period of several years to take action to avoid war and had the means to use highly credible channels to do that," said Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita. "Nobody needed to use questionable channels to convey messages," he said in a statement. Yup, if Sammy wanted to make a deal, he had ambassadors in the UN to talk for him. Messages from Baghdad, first relayed by the businessman in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi officers to persuade the Bush administration to open talks through a clandestine channel, people involved in the discussion told the Times. The attempts were portrayed by Iraqi officials as having Saddam’s endorsement, but it was not clear if American officials viewed them as legitimate. If they did have his endorsement, it was to use them to stall for time. In early March, Richard Perle, an adviser to top Pentagon officials, met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, officials said. According to both men, Hage laid out the Iraqis’ position and pressed the Iraqi request for a direct meeting with Perle or other U.S. representatives. The CIA authorized Perle’s meeting with the Iraqis, but eventually told him they didn’t want to pursue the channel. Hage, speaking to The Associated Press in Beirut Thursday, said he believed the Iraqis he spoke to were desperate to avoid war. "Definitely these people feared for their life and they realized that the threat was real," Hage said. "They were motivated for some deal, that some deal could be achieved ...." Hage told the AP he had six meetings - five in Beirut and one in Baghdad - with senior Iraqi intelligence officials in the last three months before war broke out. He said he was disappointed because he believed an opportunity was missed. He also said he was bringing the matter to public attention now because of what he said were leaks in Washington about his mediation efforts. Or because you have another agenda, perhaps? The Times quoted internal Pentagon e-mails from Mike Maloof, the analyst in Feith’s office, to an aide to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, outlining the Iraqi overtures. It was unclear, however, if top officials at the Pentagon pursued the matter. Maloof, who lost his security clearance over another issue, is on paid administrative leave from the Pentagon. Hage previously lived in suburban Washington, where he started an insurance company. He moved to Lebanon in the 1990s and has been trying for 10 years to break into politics there but so far with little success. Gee, a want-a-be Lebanese politician and a sacked analyst, now those are reliable sources. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #12 The basics of story do sound consistant with Saddam's previous diplomacy.Remember,there have been several posts lately discussing back channel meetings with French and Russians.This attempt would have been a good way to determine American resolve-were the Americans willing to cut a deal or were they determined to oust Saddam.If the Americans indicated a willingness to talk,the back channel could have been used to stall for a while negotiating,and at end Saddam could nix any deal,saying they were not accreddited members of his gov't.At any he could leak fact US and Iraq were negotiating in private thereby undercutting US.As part of a policy of delay,delay,delay and hope US gives up this makes sense. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-11-6 6:48:03 PM |
| #11 All Saddam had to do is have his UN Ambassador stand up in the General Assembly and say we will comply 100% with the inspections regime. No minders, no discussions on the composition of the inspectors and no problems with taking scientists out of the country for talks. One short speech and he would still be in power. This back channel stuff is total crap. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-6 3:15:55 PM |
| #10 I like Stephen ("VodkaPundit") Green's take: The anti-war folks will tell you this story (if true, although I have no reason to doubt it) startles because we rejected such a generous offer. Surely, they'll claim, the chance of inspections led by the US military and the promise of free elections made avoidable (or at least delay-able) the horrors of war. Oh, please. Some back-channel promises made by a guy who knows a guy who knows Saddam weren't going to stop a just and necessary war. And yet I still find this story a bit shocking. Why? Because of how brick-chewingly stupid Saddam was, yet again. Here's a guy with a decade's experience in foiling the US and playing to the world's (admittedly cynical) sympathies. And yet he still offered US weapons inspections and free elections through secret back channels. What if Saddam had made his offer publicly? British public opinion might very well have forced even Tony Blair into abandoning an immediate war -- and Saddam could have gone back to playing hide-and-seek, while the promised elections were quietly rigged (or sadly failed to materialize). And there you have it: the 21st Century's Biggest Political Blunder. Of course, the century is still young. . . |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-11-6 2:22:54 PM |
| #9 Only if he knew the right frequency LOL |
| Posted by: Kenneth 2003-11-6 2:16:08 PM |
| #8 Saddam was interviewed on National TV by Dan Rather. He could have made an offer right there... Only if he knew the right frequency! |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2003-11-6 1:29:07 PM |
| #7 Saddam was interviewed on national TV by Dan Rather. He could have made an offer right there... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2003-11-6 12:17:03 PM |
| #6 Even assuming this story is all true, this is no different from what goes on in any war. For example, minor civilian officials both North and South made independent attempts during the American Civil War to start negotiations about peace terms. They ended up going nowhere for the same reason stated by the unnamed U.S official in Cyber Sarge's snippet from Fox News: the people putting out peace feelers were not in a position to actually deliver. |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2003-11-6 11:58:57 AM |
| #5 Oh, I agree the story is B.S. But you know that the dimocraps and their media wing will play it as another opportunity that Bush passed up because he wanted a war. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-11-6 11:55:02 AM |
| #4 So, if true, Saddam was willing to turn over an AQ member who's been there since 1994? No ties my #)$*#(! |
| Posted by: Anonymous-not above 2003-11-6 11:41:11 AM |
| #3 Bomb-a-rama: what you said. This is just political jimmy-jammy. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-11-6 11:36:32 AM |
| #2 It doesn't matter whether the story is true or not. Saddam's time was simply up, and administration officials acted properly in dismissing the overtures if the story is true. He had his chances, passed them by, and paid the price for his reckless gambling. Game over. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-6 10:51:22 AM |
| #1 Steve, This story is being disputed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102346,00.html This is the money shot from the article:"One U.S. official told Fox News that while there were numerous offers and leads as the war neared, they were all thoroughly investigated and it was determined that they weren't in a position to deliver anything that would have been acceptable to the United States." Sounds like more left wing wishful thinking. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-6 10:51:09 AM |