Posted on 08/14/2009 11:44:30 AM PDT by ikez78
Assertions relating to the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda controversy have filled countless news articles and books and cannot be completely recapped and answered in a few articles. But despite all of the ink and bandwidth spent on the topic, there are additional questions yet to be fully explored in the eyes of many.
When one attempts to dig on questions, such as what meetings actually took place between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda members — where they took place and when, and what was discussed — the CIA emerges as one of, if not the major, intelligence players involved in public discussion of the topic.
Two former CIA members with relevant experience go on record below with their analysis of the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda question and the CIA’s role.
Before reengaging this topic it is important to be aware that different interpretations of events, affiliations, and terminology greatly affect the analysis, and are the reason opinions can appear to be so far apart. Some issues:
– Are reports relating to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda being put through a filter of comparisons with what Bush administration officials and others said?
– Are reports being compared with what analysts deemed to be enough to warrant a costly, deadly war?
– Who determines if someone is a member of al-Qaeda and what is the criteria for membership?
– What constitutes a “relationship” between a terrorist group and a state?
– What constitutes an “operational relationship” between a terrorist group and a state? Is something less than an “operational relationship” still worthy of concern? A war?
– Did the CIA have access to all the reports on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and terrorism, or were reports scattered throughout many Department of Defense branches, intelligence agencies, and non-government entities?
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Saddam, al Qaeda question and the CIA PING
Thanks for the ping!
Let me ask an intelligent question-—do you think all of these contacts between Iraq and Obama occurred within a nine month time frame from Jan’ 01 to Sept 01?
Since both the Mujahadeen and Saddam were weapons of the US intelligence community in the early 80s, I would assume the connection and co-operation between the Mujahadeen Sunnis and the Ba’ath party goes back well before Dubya got involved in the family business.
Saddam and his boys sure did seemed to have a very detailed handle on who was in or was not in country.
no prob
WOW! Outstanding preparation, links, additional questions, defining terms AND interview, Mark. Thanks very much for the ping and your work. Fascinating.
Bump for later.
Only problem is that a complete fabrication with no base in fact. The US had ties with Pakistani Intellegence who had ties with the Mujahadeen. The "US intellegence community" had no such ties with either the muhahadeen or Saddam that the Neo-isolations routinely claim. It a completely made up Internet myth or, in short, just another Leftist lie.
P.P.: That’s pretty much my sense. I don’t think there’s anything more to the story.
Only problem is the documents captured during the Liberation prove this claim to be factually incorrect so either the source has NO clue what he is talking about or he is another fraud posting as knowing more about the CIA then he actually does. Members of Saddam's Intellegence agency traveled to meet with Al Qeda respresenatives a number of times. That documented fact. So the whole contention here is either in error or and out and out lie.
In either case that level of factual error in the 1st 2 paragraphs indicates that this source is either wholly ignorant of the facts on Iraq or out and out lying.
Common misconception that the mujaheddin was a “weapon of US intelligence”
First of all, there were lot of disparate groups in the so-called Mujaheddin. Yes they hated the Russians. But they also hated each other and us.
The foreigners led by Osama ALWAYS hated us. He was never a US ally or a CIA tool. Get off the leftist view..
The muj was like an unguided rocket - no big loss if it was aimed at the other guys. But once they were gone that rocket just changed direction.
I briefed a general one day that there was good new and there was bad news. The good news is the muj was winning. The bad news was, the muj was winning.
Courtesy ping.
Thanks for the ping friends. Excellent article Mark.
Thanks for the ping Mark. I have to make time to absorb what is written in your interview with Pillar and Tefft.
Perhaps I should’ve been more clear in my initial statement. I wasn’t endorsing the view that Osama bin Laden himself was a CIA creation (the whole Tim Osman codename thing that even the Washington Post picked up on some years ago). But it isn’t disputed that we funneled weapons and money (along with advisors) through the ISI to the MAK, which was a precursor to Al Quada. Unlike some of his brothers (Salem comes to mind) he was never pro-US in any way.
But this is yet another example of covert interventionism burning us. You can unleash a rabid dog against your enemy, but odds are the dog will end up biting you too.
One enemy at a time. We allied with and armed Stalin's USSR to defeat Nazi Germany.
Should we have done otherwise...???
See my previous post re: the Mujahadeen and bin Laden’s CIA “ties.”
As far as Saddam and the Baathists... CIA veteran Miles Copeland (who organized Operation Ajax) and former NSC staffer Roger Morris have talked extensively about how the Baath Party was a tool in Iraq going back to the late ‘50s with Qasim. And needless to say, the CIA was feeding both sides intel in the Iran-Iraq war from Saudi AWACS. More brilliant interventionism. Here’s a quote from April Glaspie, who was ambassador to Iraq in 1990 during a meeting with Saddam and Tariq Aziz:
“But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ‘60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”
Of course, Saddam was a moron and a glorified hitman and didn’t realize there’s a difference between diplomacy and reality. In any event, here’s some interesting reading for you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/glaspie1-13.pdf?sid=ST2008040203634
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
That’s the trillion dollar question. Are the constant failures of interventionism better than the potential failures of isolationism? As much as I hate being the World’s Policeman (and most of that crap came from Democratic administrations, or neo”conservative” advisers who are glorified militant leftists), that Pandora’s Box was opened years and years ago and there is no closing it. If we must do it, I’d prefer more covert operations rather than massive deployments to the World’s toilets.
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.