| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Sammy said to watch those foreign jihadis ... |
| 2004-01-14 |
| Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday. The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials. There are a couple of reasons for doing this, not the least of which being a desire to preserve his own security, preventing sectarian tensions from breaking out (there were Iraqi Christians in Sammy’s ranks), plus a fear that the Fedayeen might decide that it was cooler being Binny’s thugs fighting in the global jihad than setting out to defend the Revolution(TM). It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein’s government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein. Why, since interactions with the foreign jihadis has nothing to do with what Sammy may have done before the war? Of course, far be it from the Times to note that Ibn Shaykh al-Libi says that al-Qaeda did work with Iraq, as have likely Muammar Ahmed Yousef. Khalid said they didn’t after he was captured and Abu Zubaydah’s answer as reported in the Weekly Standard was that Binny was willing to cooperate with anybody who hated the US, which explains his diamond deals with Chuck down in Liberia. Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said. A new, classified intelligence report circulating within the United States government describes the document and its contents, according to administration officials who asked not to be identified. The officials said they had no evidence that the document found with Mr. Hussein was a fabrication. And there does the news end and the Times’s spin begin with this article ... |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #5 Bottom line is that Saddam wanted to limit the number of contacts (and the amount of socializing) between the two sides to operational contacts* because he feared the religious influence of al Qaeda. He was afraid his people would be converted to al Qaeda's way of thinking and cease being his vehicle for regaining power. * for specific missions |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-14 10:51:02 AM |
| #4 So they were reluctant to cooperate. No, they weren't reluctant to cooperate. Saddam was reluctant to get too close because he feared this would result in an al Qaeda takeover of his security apparatus. From the NYT article: Military and intelligence officials say they have detected cooperation at the tactical level, on individual attacks, but have less evidence of any coordination at a broader strategic level. We cooperated in a similar fashion with the Soviets during WWII - even as our strategy differed from Soviet strategy, which was to promote and fund world revolution. James Risen, the NYT reporter is simply drawing invalid conclusions from the data. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-14 10:44:25 AM |
| #3 I guess these guys have never heard of von Ribbentrop, eh? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-14 10:41:28 AM |
| #2 So they were reluctant to cooperate. It's also obvious that there were enough of these cocksuckers crawling around Iraq to make Saddam nervous. Cooperation also means giving them a cozy home to work from. Similar to, oh I don't know, say Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: KofiAnonymous 2004-1-14 9:58:51 AM |
| #1 These days, the NY Times reads a lot like the Nation. The idea that alliances are just temporary arrangements over short-term common interests rather than communal lovefests doesn't seem to have occurred to this NYT analyst. How simplistic can they get? Of course Saddam is going to warn against al Qaeda infiltration - he wants to restore a Baathist state under his rule, whereas al Qaeda wants a theocratic state under some al Qaeda organizer's rule. For now, their common goal is to expel the American presence. Once this is accomplished, they will fight each other for control over Iraq. Saddam wants to keep his security apparatus free of al Qaeda influence because of the dangers of betrayals and assassinations by al Qaeda after the US is expelled. Bottom line: The NYT analyst is either being naive or deceitful when he lays the story out in this manner. Whichever it might be, this analysis is simplistic in the extreme in its denial that rivals for power can ally to achieve intermediate goals. * Even we were worried about subversion during our alliance with the Soviet Union - justifiably so - given that the Soviets were running spy operations against us, the most successful of which was the theft of nuclear secrets via the Rosenbergs. We don't exactly encourage even friendly countries to infiltrate and spy on our government agencies - Jonathan Pollack, who spied for Israel, is serving out a life term as I type this. What Saddam said was just common sense - preserve the integrity of the security apparatus by avoiding infiltration by al Qaeda. Only an NYT journalist would read that as meaning Saddam did not cooperate with al Qaeda. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-14 9:55:41 AM |