Facing threats in 2001 and 2008
In which i shamelessly link Saddam and al qaeda
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'd like to juxtapose two items in today's news that may seem unrelated except for the fact that they both contain the word "Iraq."
They would be Buried WMD Scoop and Al Qaeda use two 'Down's syndrome' women to blow up 73 people in Baghdad markets.
Oh no, you say. You're trying to link Iraq and al Qaeda. You're going to go all "Office of Special Plans" on us.
That's so 2003.
Don't worry, I'm not--although I would have been proud to be part of that shop.
Read on.
So if I'm not going to argue a case for links between Saddam and al Qaeda, why do I want to juxtapose these two articles? Because they illustrate clearly to me both why we needed to go into Iraq, and why our ongoing struggle there is worth our while.
As the Wall Street Journal article on George Piro, the FBI agent who debriefed Saddam tells us, Saddam was not a repentant, WMD-less former unstable and aggressive dictator in the spring of 2003. He was on the move, looking to play the regional scene with the illusion of WMD. And as Piro notes, there is no doubt that as sanctions lifted and "Oil for Food" profits continued to roll in, that he would have made good on that illusion.
The ramifications of this are horrifying. Given what we know of the Iranian nuclear program in 2003, who can argue with a straight face that Iran and Iraq, if left to their own devices, would have preserved the delicate regional balance so euphemistically praised by pacifists on the left and so-called "realists" on the right? Any who would seem to me woefully ignorant of the Iran-Iraq war of just twenty years ago. And as the article tells us, Saddam did not shy from using WMD. He considered them "necessary."
So for those who now try to evade the question "If you knew then what you know now, would you have gone to Iraq" and prevaricate and say, "Well, we are there so we have to win," I say fie on it. We went to prevent a WMD attack on the United States. And guess what? We may just have prevented one.
You're welcome.
Now for the second article on al Qaeda's use of the mentally disadvantaged to deliver bombs to marketplaces in Baghdad. There are no words to effectively express the living, breathing evil inherent in this act. These women and the innocents like them experienced a violent, painful death at the hands of these barbarians who hate us, and hate the fact that we've taken action to defend ourselves in Iraq. As far as I can tell, they liked things better in the 1990s when they could attack and recede to their remote fastness, pretty much with impunity.
So they grew strong and bold and came after us on 9/11 with that startling combination of high-tech (financing and communications) and low-tech (box cutters) that has made them so effective. The Baghdad bombings demonstrate that they continue to espouse this method.
Ah, you say, but they wouldn't be in Baghdad if we hadn't toppled Saddam. We're complicit in these terrible murders.
The reply is where do you think they would be if they weren't in Baghdad? Would innocents around the globe be safer? I'm not saying they would be running up Park Avenue with a bloody knife, but I remain convinced that they would not be making small-batch organic yak-milk cheese to be marketed at Whole Foods. Seems more likely they would be somewhere, pursuing the same objective using the same means. Manila? Still pretty far away. How about Paris? Or Toronto? Getting a little close to home?
Or, perhaps even more horrifyingly, maybe they would have been in Baghdad on a different errand.
This brings me to my point. As I understand things, we faced two distinct but related threats in 2001. Hate-filled, fanatic terrorists and a dangerous dictator who threatened with WMD. True, they had their differences, but they had much more common ground with each other than they did with us.
Today, we still face the hate-filled, fanatic terrorists and they seem little changed except for a notable thinning of their ranks at the upper echelons. At the very least, they have one less dangerous dictator to apply to for access to WMD and we can say with reasonable certainty that the current government of Iraq is quite unlikely to either develop them or share them with al Qaeda.
Furthermore, al Qaeda is starting to find a less-than-hospitable reception in the populations who used to give them safe haven. Was today a masterstroke of terrorist genius or a vicious Hail Mary? I for one will watch with great interest to see how Iraqis respond to this outrage, which smacks of the sort of activity that got al Qaeda bounced out of Anbar.
So I think we can usefully juxtapose these two stories about Saddam and al Qaeda from today's papers. I for one am grateful that one threat has been vanquished in Iraq while we recognize the horror of the threat we still face, which also happens to be in Iraq. But that horror is materially lessened by what we have done in that country.
It is indeed a long war in which we find ourselves, with shifting fronts and evolving, changing foes. But we should neither belittle ourselves for our successes, nor harbor any illusions about what we face.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Good Morning, Senator Obama. — Comments (76) »
Facing threats in 2001 and 2008 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
They were/are both committed to the destruction of freedom everywhere and specifically to the destruction of the West. I'd really like to know what went over the Syria border just before we invaded if Saddam didn't have any WMD's.
As to the events today involving the two young women who were used as unwitting weapons, this is just the same kind of thing that has revolted the population in general in Iraq and elsewhere. If there is any justice at all, they have overplayed their miserable hands once again and will pay for it by being killed with no more mercy than they showed these two innocents and the other victims of their violence.
that parts of Saddam's nuclear weapons program, along with nuclear material and technologies recently purchased from North Korea, were destroyed by an Israeli air strike on a Syrian facility in the Tal al-Abiad area on 6 September 2007.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
By any and all means the terrorists will force their perverted ideologies upon the innocent. Todays bombing proves our ability to disrupt and damage their ability to bring a fight.
However, I would go as far to say that if they are now (after a very long time) changing tactics we must be even more vigilant to the potential for these Godless acts.
Oh, and I am soooo jealous of your job. the Secretary rocks.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Actually, I've long shared Mark Steyn's view on this - Saddam was pre-9/11 unfinished business that just had to be finished.
You might recall that right up to 9/10/01, our planes patrolling the no-fly zones were being fired upon on an almost-daily basis - in direct defiance of the UN-approved 1991 cease-fire agreement.
Back then, the operational phrase was "Either get him or forget him." Naturally, almost everyone who offered that opinion just wanted to drop it and walk away from it all.
The exception was the incomparable Fouad Ajami; about one year ago, I actually dredged up the transcript of an appearance by Prof. Ajami on "The NewsHour" back in November of 1997 where he discussed this - you can find it here. It still makes very good reading.
Oh, one last thing. I distinctly remember Vice President Cheney being interviewed live by one of the major network news anchors no more than 72 hours after 9/11, and without provocation the anchor person (I don't recall which one) asked, "Are we finally going to DO something about Saddam Hussein?"
He had to go. Period.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
would it have made sense to leave Saddam in power. I have no doubt that the attacks on 9-11 made him smile - & think. The move was on in the UN to get rid of sanctions, & his regime would have undoubtedly gone heavy into supporting islamist terror activities. Also, there was a real possibility that the Iranian regime could have supported a coup to topple Saddam & supplant him with an islamist regime. Both bad news. Taking out the possibility of islamist support &/or control of Iraq was & is the correct strategic decision.
Let me separate the truth from the lie in that article. Wasn't WSJ just bought by Rupert Murdoch of FOX "news" fame?
This is truth:
"Iraq's active WMD program had been destroyed, mostly by U.N. weapons inspectors, sometime in the 1990s, but Saddam told Mr. Piro that he maintained a pretense of having those weapons mainly to keep Iran at bay. This isn't exactly news."
This is bulls**t opinion:
"The key point is Saddam's admission that an Iraqi WMD program remained a threat so long as Saddam remained in power."
Question: Since we invaded to either a) prevent Saddam from having WMD and/or b) liberate the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny... WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?
What is the justification now?
Sig:
Google my name for my (in)famous blog
At least you get your one shot at stupidity.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Hoover Institute: http://husseinandterror.com
good enough there.
links of Saddam to Al-Qaeda are found in the Clinton Justice Dept. federal indictment of Bin Laden in 1996
Fritz Hollins put into the Senate Record on Sept. 12, 2002 an Iraqi State Owned newspaper editorial from July 23, 2001 predicting 9/11 by bin laden and naming all 3 targets.
there are ALOT of links of Saddam to Al-Qaeda, not known links to 9/11, but AL-Qaeda.
Some of this is in the Iraq War Resolution.
The "Debate" this country has had with regards to Iraq the last several years is Insane! Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terrorism for over a decade.
We went to prevent a WMD attack on the United States. And guess what? We may just have prevented one.
[. . .]
I for one am grateful that one threat has been vanquished in Iraq while we recognize the horror of the threat we still face, which also happens to be in Iraq. But that horror is materially lessened by what we have done in that country.
I could not agree more.
Great post. Very well said!
*
A vote for either Hillary or Obama is a vote for the worst animals to ever draw a breath. Both of these two would be leaders wish to sacrifice everything we have done to bring a democracy to Iraq and reward an enemy who actually uses the mentally retarded as human bombs.
*bert
*
They would have to get past me and I don't think that would happen. Consider it my contribution to the GWOT.
Is the situation complex?; absolutely. I just got off an IM with a friend in country who said things have moved to tenuous. But that's the nature of conflict, scum such as AQ always rises to the top. Ask him if it's worth it and you barely get a chance to type before the "yes" reply comes back.
We are not complicit in anything except pursuing a course the most of the free world thought was right. Turns out, they were correct but as usual we get the heavy lifting. Shame on them. The rest is not only academic, but verifiably sagacious.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
n/t