Monday, April 17, 2006
Ba'athist Iraq's connections to terrorism
Andrew McCarthy rather neatly summarizes the evidence of Saddam's support for jihadi terrorism against American interests. There is so much there -- much of it having surfaced since the 9/11 Commission completed its work -- that only an anti-Bush partisan would argue with a straight face that no such connection existed.
Of course, one can accept that Saddam slept with jihadis and still not believe that invasion was the best way to deal with it. When John Kerry argued that Iraq distracted us from the more strategically important war in Afghanistan, he was dancing around the edges of this idea. Many opponents of the war, however (including Kerry from time to time), have preferred to argue that the president acted in bad faith than accept his good faith and argue the decision to go to war strictly on the merits. It is, after all, much easier to deny that enemies are dangerous than to choose among the terrible options for neutralizing them.
11 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 18, 10:32:00 AM:
Schochu John - so, after much of your commentary which seemingly dismisses "the connection," you acknowledge the evidence exists to support the removal of Saddam Hussein as an advance on the war on terror? Or did I misread your conclusion?
Overall, this is a funny (strange and ha-ha) discussion. Leaving politics to the side (as good history ultimately requires), of course Saddam supported jihadis, and of course he was happy to have them attack US interests. Why? He was at war with the US. "The mother of all battles" and all that. There's a reason why Saddam had portraits of the burning WTC Towers in offices and buildings in Iraq. And the nature of the cease fire of PG I made it impossible to fight an overt war, so his approach was to fight a covert one -- supporting his intelligence assets and, where suitable, jihadis. Money, training, whatever.
Does anybody seriously believe that had he acquired WMD, he wouldn't have shared them with jihadis? Or used them for some other nefarious purpose detrimental to the US and the region.
Please.
Sort of like when we have the discussion about the war. The current press story line is the war is a quagmire, a mess. Complete BS. The war is over and we've won. Had to get that in too.
Next.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 18, 12:31:00 PM:
As to the last point, I would hardly call them insurgents. They are not in an organized way attacking the government. It is Shiite on Sunni, and Sunni on shiite, gang warfare. As well as plain criminality. It too is declining, both numerically and in effectiveness -- such that American troop deployment levels themselves are declining, as are casualties. When you capture the other team's leader, kill his heirs, and put him on trial for genocide, you have won the war. By any sensible definition. Period. Zarqawi has pulled out. Publicly. And Sistani can shut off Sadr (as long as he stays alive, which matters alot). Politics waged with a few gunshots here and there. We've seen worse.
As for "disinfectant," I would say that the light-of-day and analysis will provide for the materials exactly what you suggest. It will have 2 important and profound effects, I project. The first, it will make obvious that which I already think is plain -- that Saddam had a comfortable relationship -- call it sponsorship of a sort - with al Qaeda and its affiliates like Zarqawi and Abu Sayyaf. You may disagree with me and that is fine. Say you'll keep an open mind at least as the factual information floods you, ok? And remember, the Clinton administration had already figured this out -- so it's not a partisan thing, ok? shake off the BDS which may be blinding you.
By 
, at
Tue Apr 18, 03:06:00 PM:
Can you please show me one terrorist attack that had a connection to Saddam's Iraq? The Cole? Embassies in Africa? 9-11? Bruit? Saudi Arabia? Has any terrorist attack against an American interest ever helped Saddam in his goals?
And we live in a world of 6 degrees of separation, try hard enough with your methodology and you can “connect” the Dayton, Ohio Cub Scout troop to the Tamil Tigers.
Hey, you know who did have a terrorist connection to attacks against the U.S.? Tall fellah? Name sounds like “been forgotten”, got away? Not in Iraq? Killed a few thousand Americans at their office? It was in the newspapers.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 18, 04:28:00 PM:
Schochu John - as to recent casualty reports, I refer you to the most recently published Brookings data which others online have analyzed more effectively than I. The net result, casualties down markedly, particularly Americans; furthermore, American troop levels have been reduced to 138,000 from highs of 165,000 -- and pending current activity (i.e. assuming we don't suffer a new setback, which is certainly possible) are headed towards 100,000 by the fall. I noted you elected not to address this observation or some of the other assertions I offered regarding definitions of "victory" or Zarqawi's withdrawal. My guess is that once a permanent government is in place, and we embed more of our people into the police (as opposed to just the military), we will see further improvements in security. I certainly hope you aren't "rooting" for gun emplacements on rooftops. On the other hand, had the US been in Lebanon, you wouldn't have had any of those for very long.
As for your politics, I am glad to hear you aren't a partisan. It must be some other "issue" which fuels the vigor of your discontent. What might that be I wonder. Hmmm. Pacifism perhaps?
Finally, as to new data, I am delighted to hear of your open mind. There are literally tens of thousands of documents being released as we speak on the subject right now from Iraqi intelligence. These speak to Saddam's sponsorship of terrorism, to speak to the last commenter for a moment. For instance, it is well known and public that Saddam paid families of homicide bombers in Israel, $10,000-$25,000 per family. So Saddam had a hand in lots of terrorism. Osama, the tall fellah, secured agreement from Saddam to carry anti Saudi propaganda on Iraqi television. Shortly thereafter, Al Qaeda took responsibility for the Khobar Towers bombing. The Fedayeen Saddam, which Uday Hussein commanded, trained jihadists from around the region inside of Iraq. This is all reasonably new infomration emerging from the documentary trove from Iraqi Intelligence Services. I would recommend reading today Frontpage interview with Thomas Joscelyn. It is the tip of the iceberg.
An open mind will be valuable indeed.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 19, 09:42:00 AM:
Schochu John - thanks for your extremely thoughtful comment. We disagree in many respects, but I have great respect for your position.
I too supported Desert Storm and believe the current Iraq War is a natural and entirely predictable result of our failure to bring an appopriate conclusion to PG I. You do not make war with a tyrant who oppresses his people, commits genocide, initiates multiple regional wars, uses WMD, seeks more WMD -- and then leave him in power. It was a convenient nicety to argue that we had beaten Saddam in 91 -- but we hadn't. He certainly beleived he had one. He was still in power, and Bush I was gone. He lived to fight another day.
I appreciate your high evidentiary standard for indicting Saddam of mingling, or sponsoring, or training, or financing terrorism directed at the US. That's fine. However, in defense of the country, waiting out proof without doubt, especially after 9/11, strikes me as irresponsible, especially when we have no human intelligence assets within an autarchy. The evidence is emerging to support the intelligence.
As to your final point about Saddam's financing of homicidal terrorism, let me analogize to insurance policies for a moment. Insurance companies don't pay off for suicides. Why? Because it is well understood that insurance does provide financial incentives for rogue behavior -- ironically referred to as moral hazard.
Now you may choose to believe that Saddam's payment to the families of suicide bombers was a moral good. I think it was an incentive to commit an atrocity against innocent civilians. Blood payment for sacrifice of children to kill children. A moral abomination. No justification.
I gather you have a strain of sympathy for the Palestinian situation. Let me make a couple of observations. There are over 1mm Palestinians living in Israel, as citizens. There is a Palestinian judge on the Israeli Supreme Court. Palestinians are represented in the Israeli Knesset, and they vote. There is a reason these 1mm Israeli Arabs (Muslim and Christian) haven't fomented a revolution in Israel. They are better off, more free, more humanely treated by their neighors and their government, than anywhere else in the Middle East. The Palestinian "leadership" -- if one has the freedom to use language so inaccurately -- has since Israel's formation chosen to seek the elimination of Israel and its people. Correction: since before Israel's formation, if you consider the Mufti of Jerusalem was aliied with Hitler. In each conflict in the region, the Palestinian leadership has articulated a policy of genocide against the Jewish people. More recently, the Palestinian people allied with Saddam in PGI and PGII, and celebrated in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank when Al Qaeda attacked the US in 2001. Now they have elected Hamas, which continues to articulate a policy of Jewish genocide and the elimination of Israel. Hamas, in turn, has now allied itself with the Iranian leadership, which has similarly articulated a policy of Jewish genocide and Israeli destruction.
So, I ask you, are you serious in your sympathy for this pathology of the Palestinian people? Egypt abandoned this pathology. Jordan abandoned this pathology. They after all were the original stewards of the land in question and the people as well. Are you serious in supporting the moral abomination of suicide terrorism with a financial incentive provided by a tyrannical genocidal maniac who was fighting the "mother of all battles" against the United States?
I too am sympathetic for the plight of the Palestinians. I do not say that cavalierly, for reasons I won't for now go into. But that plight does not justify Hamas urging the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, any more than Israel threatening the destruction of Germany and its people or any of its collaborators. When in 1948, Ben Gurion was offered a state, he took it without compunction. He did not moan about the disconnectedness of it, or its size, or aything else. He took it. Truman recognized it. And its citizens made the most of it. In successive wars of elimination, Israel survived and defeated its enemies. Israel is perfectly justified in most of its actions. Has it erred in some cases? Yes. Does one make mistakes when in a permanent state of war because your enemies seek your destruction? Yes.
The pathology of the Middle East, and especially the arabs, is not a result of Israel. It was a pathological mess before Israel and remains so. Israel is a cause celebre, but it is piffle as a humanitarian matter compared to so many other problems - in Africa, in Asia, in Latin america and in the rest of the Middle East. No, the pathology of the Middle East relates to tyranny, to islamism, to jihadism -- to archaic and ruinous social and economic culture. Until these disasters are shaken off -- as some small arab societies have begun to do -- the Middle East will remain a cesspool.
So yes, we clearly disagree markedly.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 19, 04:32:00 PM:
SJ - your last response is quite disappointing to me.
On Saddam, you avoided addressing my core claim -- that leaving Saddam in power in 1991 was an error - moral, strategic and tactical -- which led inevitably to a need for further war. Whether it was more or less difficult now or then is largely irrelevant to the core debating point. For what it's worth, it probably was easier in 2003 since Iraqi Kurdistan had already been cleaved away from Saddam and their circumstances developed over the last 12 years in a fashion which perhaps made them more cooperative viz. trying to hold Iraq together vs. outright secession. But that's pure speculation. I repeat my original assertion -- more war with Saddam was inevitable. Leaving him in power having gone to war with him 1991 guaranteed it, and was morally reprehensible. The cost of that decision in dollars and lives is appalling.
On point 2, 9/11 is not an excuse to make "rash or ill considered decision." However, 9/11 is justification for changing a nation's policies regarding its tolerance for terrorism, terrorist support, and nation's which support it. You view the decision to go to war as "rash and ill considered." I think it was very thoughfully considered, debated and even voted upon by Congress, if memory serves me, thru a resolution which gave 16 reasons for doing it. That, SJ, is hardly rash. You may disagree with the decision, but the process took many months, was thoroughly debatred and discussed and very well thought through. No amount of revisionism will alter that. Cassandra wrote extensively on it if you would like us to dredge that up.
On Palestine, my insurance example is exactly on point. Saddam was providing an open invitation for individuals to commit suicide to kill Jews. The open invitation is EXACTLY the point. OPEN INVITATION TO COMMIT TERROR. That is sponsorship of terrorism. Your own argumentation validates it.
You then wander off into notions of collective punishment which have precisely nothing to do with Saddam's payment for suicide bombing. You are arguing that denying the payment is collective punishment? Well nobody has denied the payment, so there has been no collective punishment (by your standard, which I think is nonsensical anyway).
Palestinians living in squalor in Gaza, which is no longer occupied, and in the West Bank, which continues to be, is a tragedy. But frankly their "leadership" left them in this position -- in 1948, in 1967, in 1973, in 1991...and Hamas -- their government in power -- continues to seek, by explicit charter, the destruction of Israel and the Jews. So forgive me if I don't twist my hankie. Remember, also, the captured land in question was not Palestinian land - it was Egypt and Jordan. So the international law question would be relevant if they wanted to claim it -- which they don't. Why? They don't want these people either.
This is a border dispute, not colonialism. Border disputes go on everywhere, all the time. It just so happens that in this case, the Palestinians are irrational disputants. They have little power, little leverage, they are absolutely sado masochistic in their disputation -- but they refuse to reach agreement. So you know what? Tough doodies.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Apr 19, 08:36:00 PM:
Oh my. So Saddam sending money to suicide bombers familes is "helping the needy." Let me suggest that if that was Saddam's intention, there were many needy families in Palestine which Saddam could choose to assist whose children WERE NOT suicide bombers. In fact, I could argue that those families were LESS NEEDY, as they now had one fewer mouth to feed. Your proposition is absurd on its face. The first argument you made was unintentionally correct, and entirely in line with the insurance problem we discussed. Compensation for suicide murder, a dual moral atrocity. Helping the needy. Sheesh.
As for the bit about rashness, let's recall that 9/11/01 was more than a year before launching the Iraq war, there was an arms search launched into Iraq which Saddam resisted and with which he failed to comply (even by Blix weak admission) and on and on. Both house of Congress, intelligence committees, both parties were well informed. And an election took place subsequent to the war, and the WMD issue, etc/ Let's also remember that the administration explicitly refuted any connection between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence (which Czech intelligence claimed and stick to to this day). I think you are simply wrong.
Finally, as to PG II's inevitability, please read my first post. Leave a serialwarmaker, genocidal tyrant in power, count on going back to war.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Apr 20, 10:17:00 AM:
SJ - describing Saddam as a warmaking, genocidal tyrant doesn't precisely say war was inevitable, but it does suggest it was highly likely. Analogies maybe useful to you; when you don't destroy your enemy and follow up victories in war to conclusive and unconditional surrender, you invite further war. McClellan and Burnside learned this in the Civil War. They allowed Lee and his army to survive Antietam, and the war went on for 3 more years. Only when Grant and Sherman pushed deep into the south and forced Lee's unconditional surrender did the war come to its conclusion.
That's my argument about PGI. The war wasn't in fact over. It was subject only to a cease fire, often violated by Saddam's antiaircraft firing on our and British jets. This of course led in 1998 to Operation Desert Fox (pretty lame really) and Congressional legislation which made the official legal policy of the United States regime change in Iraq. Thanks again for unintentionally reinforcing my point that there was nothing rash about the decision to go to war at all -- it was 12 years of obfuscation, UN resolution violations and cease fire breakage that the US had tolerated. By 2003, it was about bloody time to do away with Saddam. Good riddance my friend, good riddance.
As for Blix, what has emerged is that Saddam had no intention of admitting he had no weapons. He continued to play cat and mouse games -- and after 12 years the US had had enough. Let's not forget that he had kicked inspectors out in 1998. He wanted sanctions off and he wanted to get back to business as usual. The Russians and French were delighted to assist. And we were not about to let him out of the box.
You and I have different philosophies clearly about Saddam paying for suicide bombing. As you already acknowledged, Saddam's payment provided "and open invitation" to suicide bomb for money. That makes it blood money, a moral abomination. You frankly have no idea if those families were needy or not. By no means were they deserving. You have invented a fictional storyline to make yourself feel as though Saddam did something good. If Saddam, genocidal tyrant that he was, had established a scholarship program for Palesinian children who worked hard in school, got good grades and behaved themselves well to send them to university in Moscow or Paris, that would have been a moral act. No student of philosophy would call blood money paid for suicide bombers' families a moral good. It is not even an ethical dilemma. It's easy to throw away the claim. Immoral.
I will await your commentary on the rest. Work work work.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Apr 20, 05:47:00 PM:
Yes, we will just have to disagree. I would invite you to find a philosopher of any repute or competence who would ascribe to the notion that Saddam's payment to the families of suicide bombers constituted a moral act under any proper ethical system. Try Hadley Aarkes at Amherst College for one.
He's excellent. And much better than I at the required argumentation.
The question of Israel and Palestine today is a border dispute. The formation of Israel's 1948 borders by the UN was disputed by all the Arab nations of the middle east in 1948, such that they chose to attack Israel in a war intended to eliminate it. Israel won, and still the borders were not accepted. In 1967, again, Egypt and Jordan attempted again to eliminate Israel. Again, they still did not accept the 48 borders, or the 67 borders. No surprise there. Hamas does not accept the creation or existence of Israel. They run Palestine. So what exactly do you mean here precisely by "conquered land?" The 48 bit? The 67 bit? Why is Israel, unlike every other country in the world, including the US, obligated to accept something which other don't, and sit still while others try to eliminate it and its people. Please explain your position on Hamas and Israel. Please do not impose a standard on Israel that is throughly out of balance with its neighbors.
Let me return to my thesis. There seems to be consensus that there should be a Palestine. Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians. Hamas agrees...except, they think there should be no Israel. So I postulate we have a very challenging border dispute, whereby Hamas would like the entirety of Israel, displacing or exterminating the Jews (they are radical Islamists after all and want to impose a muslim theocracy).
Most of the sane world, including Israel, would suggest 2 states. Since Israel has the weight of might on its side, and Hamas makes an absurd and impractical claim, Israel will impose borders without a care for the border dispute, save for its own security. That's what the fence is all about. Is this moral? Is this fair? I won't make that argument. In my judgment, as most matters historical, it is the product of conflict and war. Had things been different in 1948, or 56, or 67, or 73, or 91, or 01, then perhaps the Palestinians could have achieved something modestly better. But they didn't, as TH has astutely and correctly posted.
Now, perhaps you would just as soon see Israel disappear. You are entitled to that opinion of course. But I can say with a high degree of confidence that that ain't happening -- not without them dragging millions of people down with them.
I would further say to you that the nicety you may propose -- that Israel return to its 67 borders, is preposterous. Why? Because in 4 previous acts of war launched against it, Israel defeated those who would destroy them and took from them Gaza, the West Bank, a piece of desert (since returned to Egypt) and the Golan Heights. And save for the inconvenience, even tragedy, of the related displaced populations, this taking was in Israel's fundamental interest of peace and security. The proof of this is in the pudding -- since they did it, nobody has moved against them again. Israel will solve its problems as all nations states do - by focusing on its interests. It will draw borders that suit it. And then Hamas can launch all the wars it likes, but Israel will defend itself to the hilt.
So it is a border dispute pure and simple. Everything is about perspective. To the Palestinians, all of Israel is about European, Jewish, American, colonialism. If you want to assume that silly mantle, be my guest. It's a practical loser. To Israel, it's a border dispute. That is the genius of Ariel Sharon.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Apr 21, 06:09:00 PM:
Hold on their fella. In 67, Nasser amassed his troops in coordinated fashion with Jordan and Israel launched an air strike over their heads. To say that Israel wasn't responding to an impending military threat cheapens your claim and distorts the picture dramatically. Read Michael Oren's Six Day War. Great Book. But it is also covered in detail in numerous other histories. To conclude that Israel launched a war of aggression to seize land from Egypt and Jordan and Syria, is to falsely distort the relaity of the period. Egypt and Jordan were mobilized to attack Israel. Nasser said so repeatedly -- in a fashion eerily similar, by the way, to the current Iranian head of state.
This ultimately is all about perception. I wrote a post awhile ago about a presentation I attended given by Moshe Yaalon, the former Israeli Army Chief of Staff (equal to US JCS chair). He obersvered that Israel has never been as strong and secure as it is today. You don't get the existential threat that Israel faced in 73, 67, 56, or 48. Unless you get that, it's hard to appreciate the fact that -- while terrorism is a disaster -- it pales in comparison to the threats Israel previously faced.
I find it interesting and surprising that you dismiss the Golan, by the way. I wonder why. Whatever.
You have a wonderful soft spot for the Palestinians. Good for you. Give some thought to the history and circumstance of the Israelis, give some thought to Hamas and its intentions. Maybe you'll relax a bit, or maybe not. You perhaps haven't had the experience of somebody trying to exterminate you. It is clear that you don't take Hamas seriously.
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon Apr 24, 11:16:00 AM:
Too bad you don't have a soft spot for people subjected to tyranny:)
I think our debate can rest. veebuzrd
