|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us. |
|
The
following is from an article in the New Yorker 10 Feb. 2003 by Jeffrey
Goldberg, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center
in Washington DC. The New
Yorker is known both for its scrupulous checking of facts and for an editorial
stance on the left of American politics.
It supports the policy of attacking Iraq but is far from an uncritical
supporter of George Bush. Goldberg
begins with a long dissertation on the difficulties of anticipating attacks
from unexpected sources, using the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 as
an example. He then describes how
the CIA, under its Clinton-appointed director George Tenet was initially
skeptical about alleged links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
We join the article as Goldberg describes how even Tenet now believes
there to be a serious threat. Tenet's thinking on the subject was deliberate,
according to several agency sources. Information gleaned from the
interrogations of high-level Al Qaeda prisoners pushed Tenet to rethink the
opinion, advanced by C.I.A. officials such as Paul Pillar, the National
Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, that ideological differences between
the secular Saddam and Islamic radicals, such as Al Qaeda, made it unlikely
that these two enemies of America would form an alliance. Clearly, the
Rumsfeld view, which maintains that the commonly held hatred of the United
States trumps ideology and theology, is ascendant, at the C.I.A. as well as at
the Pentagon. Pillar himself; in a faxed comment, conceded that, "despite
major differences, tactical cooperation is possible," but added that
"the contingency that would be most likely to motivate Saddam to develop
a relationship with radical Islamists that would be deeper than limited
tactical co-operation would be a belief that he was about to lose power"
- such as in a United States-led attack on Iraq.
According to several intelligence officials I spoke to, the relationship
between bin Laden and Saddam's regime was brokered in the early
nineteen-nineties by the then de-facto leader of Sudan, the pan-Islamist
radical Hassan al-Tourabi. Tourabi,
sources say, persuaded the ostensibly secular Saddam to add to the Iraqi flag
the words 'Allahu Akbar," as a concession to Muslim radicals.
In interviews with senior officials, the following
picture emerged: American intelligence believes that Al Qaeda and Saddam
reached a non-aggression agreement in 1993, and that the relationship deepened
further in the mid-nineteen-nineties, when an Al Qaeda operative - a
native-born Iraqi who goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi - was dispatched
by bin Laden to ask the Iraqis for help in poison-gas training. Al-Iraqi's
mission was successful, and an unknown number of trainers from an Iraqi
secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in
Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists. (Training in hijacking techniques
was also provided to foreign Islamist radicals inside Iraq, according to two
Iraqi defectors quoted in a report in the Times in November of 2001.)
Another Al Qaeda operative, the Iraqi-born Mamdouh Salim, who goes by the name
Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, also served as a liaison in the mid-nineteen nineties to
Iraqi intelligence. Salim, according to a recent book, "The Age of
Sacred Terror," by the former N.S.C. officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven
Simon, was bin Laden's chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction, and was
involved in the early nineties in chemical-weapons development in Sudan. Salim
was arrested in Germany in 1998 and was extradited to the United States. He is
awaiting trial in New York on charges related to the 1998 East Africa embassy
bombings; he was convicted last April of stabbing a Manhattan prison guard in
the eye with a sharpened comb. Intelligence officials told me that the agency also
takes seriously reports that an Iraqi known as Abu Wa'el, whose real name is
Saadoun Mahmoud Abdulatif al-Ani, is the liaison of Saddam's intelligence
service to a radical Muslim group called Ansar al-Islam, which controls a
small enclave in northern Iraq; the group is believed by American and Kurdish
intelligence officials to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. I learned of another
possible connection early last year, while I was interviewing Al Qaeda
operatives in a Kurdish prison in Sulaimaniya. There,
a man whom Kurdish intelligence officials identified as a captured Iraqi agent
told me that in 1992 he served as a bodyguard to Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin
Laden's deputy, when Zawahiri secretly visited Baghdad. Ansar al-Islam was created on September 1,2001, when
two Kurdish radical groups merged forces. According to Barham Salih, the Prime
Minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the group seized a chain of
villages in the mountainous region outside the city of Halabja, and made a
safe haven for Al Qaeda fighters. "Our intelligence information confirmed
that the group was declared on September 1st at the behest of bin Laden and Al
Qaeda," Prime Minister Salih told me last week, in a telephone
conversation from Davos, Switzerland. "It was meant to be an alternative
base of operations, since they were apparently anticipating that Afghanistan
was going to become a denied area to them." Salih also said that a month before the September 11th attacks a senior Al Qaeda operative called Abdulrahman al-Shami was dispatched from Afghanistan to the Kurdish mountain town of Biyara, to organize the Ansar al-Islam enclave. Shami was killed in November, 2001, in a battle with the pro-American forces of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The Ansar al-Islam enclave, according to Salih and
American intelligence officials, soon became the base of operations of an Al
Qaeda
subgroup called Jund al-Shams, or Soldiers of the Levant, which operates mainly
in Jordan and Syria. Jund al-Shams is controlled by a man named Mussa'ab al-Zarqawi,
a Jordanian of Palestinian extraction. Zarqawi is believed by European
intelligence agencies to be A1 ~eda's main specialist in chemical and biological
terrorism. Zarqawi is also believed to be behind the assassination, on October
28th, of an American A.I.D. official in Jordan, and also two unsuccessful
assassination attempts: last February 20th, A1i Bourjaq, a Jordanian
secret-police official, escaped injury when a bomb detonated near his home; and
on April 2nd gunmen opened fire on Prime Minister Salih's home in Sulaimaniya.
Salih was unhurt, but five of his bodyguards were killed; two bystanders were
killed in the Bourjaq assassination attempt. The Administration believes that Zarqawi made his way
to Baghdad after the United States' invasion of Afghanistan, when he was wounded.
According to American sources, Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital but
disappeared from Baghdad shortly after the Jordanian government asked Iraq to
extradite him. American intelligence officials believe that Zarqawi was also
among an unknown number of Al Qaeda terrorists who have sought refuge in the
Ansar al-Islam over the past seventeen months. Recently, I asked two former C.I.A. directors,
James Woolsey and Robert Gates, to talk about the problem of
analyzing an incomplete set of evidence - the same challenge that stymied
intelligence analysts in the days before December 7, 1941, and September 11,
2001. Woolsey, who served as President Clinton's first C.I.A.
director, said that it is now illogical to doubt the notion that Saddam
collaborates with Islamist terrorism, and that he would provide chemical or
biological weapons to Al Qaeda. 'At
Salman Pak" - a training camp near Baghdad - "we know there were
Islamist terrorists training to hijack airplanes in groups of four or five with
short knives," Woolsey told me. "I mean, hello? If we had seen after
December 7, 1941, a fake American battleship in a lake in northern Italy, and a
group of Asian pilots training there, would we have said, 'Well, you can't prove
that they were Japanese'? Gates, who was C.I.A. director under George H. W. Bush,
said that the evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda is not irrefutable, but he
noted that ambiguous evidence is an occupational hazard in intelligence work.
Gates suggested that the current debate over Iraq's ties to terrorism is
reminiscent of a debate about the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Then, he said,
"you had analysts in the C.I.A. who said, ‘Absolutely not, it would be
contrary to their interests to support unpredictable, uncontrollable groups.'
There were other analysts who said, 'Baloney.' They had a lot of good history,
and circumstantial reporting on their side, but they didn't have good evidence.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, and we got hold of the East German Stasi
records, we learned, of course, that both the East Germans and the Soviets were
supporting Baader-Meinhof and other terrorist groups." Gates continued, "I have always argued, in light
of my fairly detailed knowledge of the shortcomings of our intelligence
capabilities, that the fact that we don't have reliable human intelligence that
proves something conclusively is happening is no proof at all that nothing is
happening. In these situations, the evidence will almost always be ambiguous. On
capabilities, it's not ambiguous. Can Saddam produce these weapons of mass
destruction? Yes." The ambiguity, Gates said, has to do with "intentions," and he went on, "If the stakes and the consequences are small, you're going to want ninety-per-cent assurance. It's a risk calculus. On the other hand, if your worry is along the lines of what Rumsfeld is saying - another major attack on the U.S., possibly with biological or chemical weapons - and you look at the consequences of September 11th, then the equation of risk changes. You have to be prepared to go forward with a lot lower level of confidence in the evidence you have. A fifty-per-cent chance of such an attack happening is so terrible that it changes the calculation of risk." From
the New Yorker 10 Feb 2003 |
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk
with
questions or comments about this web site.
|