June 21, 2004
Intelligence, Iraq, Al Qaeda and Onions
After reading this article I'm reminded of the movie Shrek. What do ogres, intelligence and onions all have in common? Layers.
John F. Lehman, a Reagan-era GOP defense official told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaida."The Fedayeen were a special unit of volunteers given basic training in irregular warfare. The lieutenant colonel, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, has the same name as an Iraqi thought to have attended a planning meeting for the Sept. 11 attacks in January 2000, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The meeting was also attended by two of the hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hamzi and senior al-Qaida leaders.
I started wondering...would Saddam want a guy inside Al Qaeda? Maybe, they may have the same enemy at the moment, but they aren't exactly on the same side of the coin ideologically speaking. Then I thought, might Al Qaeda want somebody inside the Iraqi regime? Sure, for the same reason. Of course, this is very, very tentative as the article notes,
Lehman said that commission staff members continued to work on the issue and experts cautioned that the connection might be nothing more than coincidence.
So don't get too excited over this.
Posted by Steve at June 21, 2004 07:40 AMSadly, more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that the 9-11 Commission is a jumped-up version of the Cox Commission.
Know what you're going to find, staff the Commission accordingly, often w/ people who are not experts in the area that is being examined, dribble all sorts of comments, innuendo, charges, and gossipy newsflashes. Release the final report w/ a "bang", then watch the dust and fur fly, regardless of how badly you mis-state the truth in the process.
Posted by: Dean on June 21, 2004 08:01 AMThis is information that Stephen Hayes has been reporting on.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on June 21, 2004 08:18 AMDon't get all wrapped around the axle about "ideology". There are many, many examples in history of cooperation between ideologically incompatible entities - e.g. Hitler and Stalin. Usually the issue was whether or not there was someone they hated more than each other. Saddam and AQ certainly both hated the USA more than each other. Ergo, their interests coincided, and they had every reason to cooperate on some level.
Posted by: Lugo on June 21, 2004 10:56 AMThe idea that ideologically incompatible people/groups don't cooperate flies even in the face of the Left's own history of "united front" tactics, as seen in places as wideranging as Nicaragua and China.
What is interesting, however, is that such tactics are apparently the exception, and are often undertaken only under the direction of the "vanguard party" and its leadership. The implication would seem to be that the Left does not, instinctively, accept the ideologically incompatible.
This raises two interesting corollaries:
1. This might explain why they can't see why a Saddam and an Osama might cooperate (any more than they could imagine/remember a Hitler and a Stalin cooperating); and
2. This casts an interesting light on why they are willing to live w/ the likes of ANSWER.
Why is it that people go out of their way to insist because bin Laden is a fundamentist, and Saddam is a secularist, that they would never work together? They both believe in different strains of Islamofacism. Saddam has many more specific reasons to attack the US than al Qaeda--can anyone say 1991 Gulf War? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was already involved in the 1993 WTC bombing, and the 1995 Philippine-based airline bombing plot, before he was involved with bin Laden. It's certainly in Saddam's interest to supply intelligence agents to al Qaeda, as it provides Saddam with a perfect cover while serving his own ends.
Posted by: Forbes on June 21, 2004 08:51 PM