Article

2004-01-14 Iraq

Sammy said to watch those foreign jihadis ...

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-01-14 12:15:23 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-1-14 9:55:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-14 9:58:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I guess these guys have never heard of von Ribbentrop, eh?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-14 10:41:28 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-14 10:41:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-14 10:44:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-14 10:51:02 AM|| Front Page Top

23:57 ed
00:28 Lucky
23:33 .com
23:25 Tibor
22:35 Lu Baihu
22:18 Super Hose
22:13 Super Hose
21:51 Anonymous2U
21:46 Anonymous2U
21:42 Super Hose
21:35 Frank G
21:32 tu3031
21:28 Bomb-a-rama
21:27 Frank G
21:27 Anonymous2U
21:10 IceCold
21:10 tu3031
21:03 tu3031
21:02 Ralph
20:57 tu3031
20:55 Val
20:51 tu3031
20:43 tu3031
20:41 CrazyFool