Saddam’s New War

There is growing evidence that the devastating series of terrorist attacks bedeviling U.S. troops in Iraq may have been planned by Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants as part of a well-coordinated guerilla war strategy that was hatched well before the U.S. invasion of Iraq last March, U.S. intelligence sources tell Newsweek.

THE OFFICIAL BUSH administration position is that the attacks on coalition forces inside Iraq are the work of isolated gangs of Saddam loyalists and Baathist die-hards who, in some instances, have teamed up with an assortment of “foreign fighters,” Islamic radicals and even common criminals for individual strikes on U.S. troops. But an alternative view is gaining acceptance within the U.S. intelligence community about the origins of the campaign. Scraps of evidence-most not publicly acknowledged by the administration—suggest that Saddam and some of his top Baath Party lieutenants began detailed logistical planning and purchasing for possible guerilla fighting in the months before the war, officials say.

The most intriguing clues to support this view, officials say, are reports that dozens-and possibly even hundreds-of “suicide vests” rigged with explosives and detonators were discovered in caches by U.S. forces sweeping through Iraq as Saddam’s military and security apparatus crumbled and then melted away.

According to defense intelligence sources, evidence has also been collected indicating that in the weeks before the war, Saddam’s agents made what appear to be concerted efforts to buy materials used to make improvised bombs-detonators, timers, wiring supplies-from neighbors and countries around the Persian Gulf. The belief among officials who are focusing attention on this intelligence is that cells of Saddam loyalists, possibly responding to plans made before the war, first tried out a few improvised, small-scale guerilla attacks on U.S. troops in the weeks after the overthrow of the regime. When they found that these were effective, and not that difficult to carry out successfully, the terrorists’ ambitions grew. Later those latent networks of Baathist guerillas started to team up with Iraqi jihadis and so-called “foreign fighters” who began to flock to Iraq from neighboring Arab countries.

Even some U.S. officials who reject the analysis that the current guerilla campaign was well planned before the war acknowledged last week that there may be some central direction to it. U.S. officials note that while U.S. forces have killed Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay and captured many of his sidekicks, at least one key lieutenant, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, second-in-command of the Baath Party’s ruling revolutionary council under Saddam, is still “at large.” U.S. officials say that while they believe Saddam himself is probably hiding virtually “incommunicado” for his own safety, Izzat Ibrahim may be playing a key role in supporting or even directing some of the recent terror attacks.

The minority view inside the intel world that the campaign against U.S. troops may have been planned much earlier than was previously thought has gained greater acceptance in recent days as a result of the latest round of seemingly coordinated attacks in Baghdad, including four bombings on Monday (and a fifth foiled attempt) and the rocket attack last weekend on the Al Rashid hotel where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying. Officials familiar with intelligence reports say that the fact that the attack on Wolfowitz’ hotel was carried out by a relatively high-tech (for terrorists) homemade multiple rocket launcher also supports this view.

The rocket attack also suggests that the anti-U.S. cells in Baghdad may be getting sophisticated assistance from outside the country, including hard-line factions within the Iranian intelligence service and even Colombian guerilla groups.

Saddam and some of his top Baath Party lieutenants began detailed logistical planning and purchasing for possible guerilla fighting in the months before the war, officials say.

Well, aint that great!?! Had Tom Ratschle, Dick Vermin, and CO. been less worried about politicizing the war prior to elections and more worried about US victory, Bush could have avoided the United Nations and we could have caught Saddam off guard with considerably less casualties. Now I must reinstate my old yet popular tagline in my next post.

Well, duh!

Now, had we support of the Democratic party at the time, Cheney wouldn't have to make the point that electing Republican Senators would help the war effort. Had Tom and the gang supported Bush to begin with, we would have been in Saddam's livng room before he could pick up the phone to Syria.

Thanks Democrats for making the 2003 Iraqi terrorist season all it could be.

Marxist's/Nazi's.......socialism's Absolutist Socialism Doctrine.....

Even some U.S. officials who reject the analysis that the current guerilla campaign was well planned before the war acknowledged last week that there may be some central direction to it.

Central Direction comes right out of The 'Absolute' Doctrine Manual,...of General Gap himself.

A few NUKES would work wonders on mrale all around?

/sarcasm

The sons kept parading the 15,000 strong Fedayeen insane loyalist army clown posse all dressed in their death whites. They were the implied threat that it could be worse if Hussein were gone. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots on this one and Newsweek is certrainly not the rocket science factory. Time is the only solution to this issue and the media won't let the solution happen.

The terrorist infrastructure inside Iraq may be even more complex than pessimists inside the U.S. government fear. According to Mullah Krekar, the now-exiled leader of Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Jihadi group that some U.S. officials have recently blamed for the wave of anti-U.S. attacks in Iraq, and at least four Islamic groups linked by ideology or personnel to the international jihadi movement that includes Al-Qaeda are operating in Iraq, along with at least two Saddam-ite groups and cells from Ansar al-Islam itself.

Newsweek is reporting this. So why aren't all of the other newspapers reporting it? You're right. The press has a non-detachable face plant on the rear of the DNC.

As usual, the lamestream media ignores the obvious. The Nazis in Germany planned for assassinations and sabotage after the fall of Germany, during the expected occupation. Also, a majority of the Germans believed that Hitler was alive, in hiding and directing the resistance to the occupation there until December, 1945.

(Although Hitler killed himself in May, 1945, it was not until December that the Allies captured documents from the Bunker, including Hitler's handwritten Will. Publication of those documents did pursuade the Germans then that Hitler was dead since May.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

I'm highly concerend that the administration isn't being frank on the adequacy of current troop levels. I've read a lot about WWII and the early postwar years, and I hate to burst some people's bubbles here, but the fact that there were 3,000,000 US troops in western Germany in 1945-46 was a major factor in preventing any kind of organized diehard resistance. Yes, Germany was a dangerous place for US troops in the immediate aftermath of war, and many were killed in violent incidents, but such incidents were indeed isolated and there was virtually no possibility of Nazi loyalists coordinating an underground guerilla campaign in any region of the country.

You have your facts wrong. There were 3 million US troops in Europe, not just in Germany, when the war ended in May, 1945. As quickly as possible, meaning transporation could be arranged, on a point system most of those troops were divided into those entitled to demobilization and return to the states, and thos who would be transported to the Pacific Theater to join the war there.

The actual occupation troops in Germany were about 300,000 Americans, roughly equivalent to the US troops in Iraq, and supporting them in the region. I've read the fourth edition of the definitive history of the American occupation of Germany, 1945-46. There WAS organized resistance in 1945. By a year later, that was down to rare and sporatic attacks.

In understanding the present, history is your friend.

John / Billybob

I agree with your assessment of Germany after the war. I also believe the current war strategy of surgical strikes is a bad strategy. Part of the reason we had an easier time in postwar Germany was that the spirit of the German population had been broken.

Our government approached the war in Iraq with the impression removing Saddam and his cronies would change everything. Saddam was in power by the collective will of millions of Iraqi citizens, not a handful. The leadership of every country is reflective of the country itself.

War is akin to a championship fight. The fighters understand they must hit the entire body, not just the head, to defeat their opponent.

Had we bombed Iraq like we hit Germany, and leveled everything in our path before sending in ground troops, the spirit of the Iraqi population would have broken. We would have lost fewer ground troops, encountered less resistance for fear of further all-out bombing, and saved billions by using cheap conventional bombs in place of expensive weaponary. The cost of rebuilding would have been higher, but the overall cost of the entire campaing dramatically less.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.