Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam 'Actively Involved' In Directing Attacks On US Troops (New)
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 12-21-2003 | Philip Sherwell

Posted on 12/20/2003 4:17:40 PM PST by blam

Saddam 'actively involved' in directing attacks on the US forces

By Philip Sherwell in Baghdad
(Filed: 21/12/2003)

Saddam Hussein was personally directing the post-war insurgency inside Iraq, playing a far more active role than previously thought, American intelligence officers have concluded since his capture.

Despite the bewildered appearance of the deposed dictator when he was hauled from his hiding-hole last weekend, he is believed to have been issuing regular instructions on targets and tactics through five trusted lieutenants.

US soldiers arresting former Iraqi officers and Ba'ath party members in Tikrit last month

This conclusion could have serious implications for his status in United States custody. American officials have made clear that he will lose his rights as a prisoner of war if he was involved in the post-war violence.

Documents found in his briefcase when he was caught indicated that he had been kept informed of the progress of the insurgency but they did not suggest he had overall control of operations by former Ba'ath Party loyalists.

However, since the arrest and interrogation of guerrilla leaders named in the paperwork, US investigators believe that Saddam was at the head of an elaborate network of rebel cells.

They have put together a detailed picture of Saddam's support structure while in hiding. This enabled him to issue commands without the use of satellite phones that could be picked up by monitoring devices.

The Telegraph has also learned that millions of dollars to support the insurgency were recovered in raids on other suspected Saddam safe houses. US officials say he was in regular contact with five "enablers" - veterans of his feared security services drawn from his power base of Tikrit.

Each man had his own responsibility: logistics, financing, planning, operations and as chief of staff. It was the last of these, picked up in a swoop in Baghdad nine days ago, who gave away Saddam's hiding place.

"They knew where he was and they were able to travel to him or meet him somewhere," said Major Stan Murphy, the intelligence officer for the 4th Infantry Division's 1st Brigade, which captured the deposed dictator.

The enablers kept Saddam informed and passed his commands to a second layer of subordinates, who headed rebel cells in flashpoint cities such as Samarra and Fallujah and who passed the orders down through several tiers to the lowest level operatives.

"He would give very general guidance like, 'Hey, I'd like to see more attacks,' " the major said. "His enablers would then go out to the various tiers below them and give specific guidance, money and weapons."

By capturing Saddam and several leaders of his Fedayeen fighters, the Americans believe that they have dealt a serious blow to the Ba'athist insurgency.

It is unclear, however, whether the recent breakthroughs will have a significant impact on the home-grown and foreign Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas motivated by religious fervour and hatred of America.

Meanwhile, two more attacks were reported on former senior Ba'athists in the holy city of Najaf, where Shia Islamic leaders have also been targeted. In one incident, the five-year-old son of a former Ba'athist official was shot dead when attackers fired at his mother.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: actively; attacks; directing; forces; guerrillas; insurgents; intelligence; involved; saddam; us; viceisclosed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: basque69
The Democraps have a vested interest in disaster.

The DNC and al-Qaeda are natural allies.

21 posted on 12/20/2003 5:20:18 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: blam
Can't be true. Dean said his capture didn't make America one bit safer.
22 posted on 12/20/2003 5:25:12 PM PST by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cwboelter
Maybe it's my imagination...and wishful thinking, but it seems that since the capture of Saddam, not only do the attacks appear to be down, but US forces seem to be on the offensive. I'm just not hearing the daily barrage of bad news I've become accustomed to from the media. Am I missing these stories or is this the turning point.

This is the turning point. With Saddam's capture, the game is now "turn in the other underground fighters and get rewarded, or wait to be turned in by the other guy and get thoroughly screwed"

23 posted on 12/20/2003 5:27:28 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me, had better run away real fast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam
And the good news keepsonacoming!!!
24 posted on 12/20/2003 5:58:48 PM PST by RoseofTexas (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter
... ping
25 posted on 12/20/2003 6:22:21 PM PST by IncPen ( "Saddam is in our hearts! Saddam is in our hearts!" "Saddam is in our jail!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AF68
But..but, on the Today Show, Qatie al-Qouric grit her teeth and told Lt. Gen. Sanchez that it was obvious that Saddam was in no position to be in command of anything. The farmhouse didn't even have a phone!

Mark Shields also comfirms that Saddam was not directing any attacks...it must be true.

26 posted on 12/20/2003 6:24:39 PM PST by Johnstone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 07055
I believe that most FReepers were opposed to the Kosovo war. However, I can't remember any of us who wished that American solders/airman would die so that we could show that Clinton was wrong in getting us involved in that pointless war.

Precisely. My take on it was that, like him or not, Clinton was the commander-in-chief, elected by due process. We were bound to support the war effort whether we agreed with it or not.

27 posted on 12/20/2003 6:37:23 PM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blam
It can't be true. Katie Couric said Saddam wasn't involved.
28 posted on 12/20/2003 6:52:14 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AF68
" Qatie al-Qouric "

ROTFLMAO!!!!
29 posted on 12/20/2003 7:57:22 PM PST by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cwboelter
I'm just not hearing the daily barrage of bad news I've become accustomed to from the media. Am I missing these stories or is this the turning point.
^^^^


I guess the sounds of silence must signify a turning point. The 'bad news' reporters have had to report on how many servicemen have been injured since hostilies commenced in order to keep up their theme of 'President Bush is Bad." That must mean that there have not been any deaths for a few days - bad news for the anti-Bushes.
30 posted on 12/21/2003 6:28:54 AM PST by maica (Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson