What do we know and when do we know it?
Zarqawi, Al Qaeda, and Saddam
Filed under: General— site admin @ 7:45 am
Austin Bay Blog
I just finished an appearance on a local radio program (KLBJ-AM) and “Hey, is Zarqawi really wounded?” was the question du jour. Of course the real question being asked is “What do we really know about Al Qaeda, and when will we know it?” That’s not as fine a soundbite as “what did he know and when did he know it?” (from the press’ Watergate template), but it is a fundamental question (perhaps the fundamental question) in The Millennium War. (Another candidate for “the fundamental question” is American will to stick out “the long, hard slog” of war, police duty, and nation building.)
Let’s consider Zarqawi’s wound. In late April the rumors began– that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been wounded in a scrape with either US or Iraqi forces. Now a website linked to Al Qeada claims Zarqawi was wounded “for the sake of God.”
This is from the AP, via the Houston Chronicle:
<<<
The statement was posted on a Web site known for carrying prior statements by al-Qaida in Iraq and other militant groups. The Arabic word for injury or wound used in the statement, jarh, could mean that al-Zarqawi suffered either a wound in an attack or an accidental injury. But the context implies that he was wounded in an attack or battle.
“Let the near and far know that the injury of our leader is an honor, and a cause to close in on the enemies of God, and a reason to increase the attacks against them,” said the statement, posted in the name of the group’s media coordinator, Abu Maysarah al-Iraqi.
It ended with prayers for al-Zarqawi, calling on the nation of Islam to “pray for our Sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to recover from an injury he suffered for the sake of God.”
>>>
Sure, spreading the rumor of a wound could be a smokescreen, to try to sidetrack coalition intelligence (ie, direct assets to search for a wounded man). The rumor might also be political preparation on Al Qaeda’s part. Shiek Zarqawi may be in a bad way and Al Qaeda has a “mythic investment” in Z-Man. At some point we’ll know.
As for Saddam and Al Qaeda: terrorists, tyrants, and criminals all inhabit the same sewer of illicit money, covert communications, and blackmarket weapons. Though secular fascists (like Saddam) and theo-fascists (like Osama bin Laden) have very fundamental philosophical differences, they share a common enemy: the US.
As I mentioned in a recent post, Saddam and Zarqawi: Al Qaeda’s Shellgame, Jordan’s King Abdullah and his intelligence services certainly believed Saddam and Zarqawi connected. Now Roger L. Simon points to information that former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has evidence of Saddam-Al Qaeda connections (via Mystery Achievement blog).
Who was Saddam’s visitor in 1999, according to Allawi? : Al Qaeda bigwig Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
The quote is from Italy’s AKI, with Mystery Achievement providing an English translation. Here’s the lede and key information from Allawi:
<<<
Baghdad, 23 May - (Aki) - “Al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to participate in the ‘Ninth Islamic People’s Congress’": revealed former Iraqi Premier, Iyyad Allawi, to the Arab daily, “Al-Hayat". The Shiite political figure supplied to the newspaper certain information discovered by the Iraqi Secret Service in the archives of the previous regime which clarify the ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations. “Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri,” said Allawi, “[who at the time] was vice president of the Council of the Direction of the Revolution, in order to participate in the congress along with 150 Islamic authorities coming from 50 Islamic countries.”
According to Allawi important information was also gathered about the presence of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi[’s presence] in the country. “The Jordanian Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi secretly entered Iraq in the same period,” he affirmed, “and began to form a terrorist cell, although the [Iraqi Secret] Service did not have precise information about his entry into the country.”
These revelations were released only following those made by the Jordanian king, Abdallah II (also to “Al-Hayat,") concerning the refusal on the part of Saddam to transfer Zarqawi to authorities in Amman. Regarding those revelations, Allawi said: “The words of the Jordanian king are precise and important. We have proven [the fact of] the Zawahiri’s visit to Iraq, but we do not have the exact date of Zarqawi’ entry into the country, even though it probably took place during the same period.”
According to the ex-Iraqi premier, Saddam’s government would have thus sponsored the birth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as coordinating other terrorist groups, be they Islamic or Arab. “The Iraqi Secret Service had communications with these groups through someone named Faruq Hajizi,” Allawi continued, “who was the ambassador to Turkey and was then arrested after the fall of Saddam’s regime while trying to sneak into Iraq. The Iraqi Secret Services were helping the terrorists enter Iraq and taking them to the Ansar Al-Islam camps in the Halbija. area.” In sum, the ex-premier maintains that Saddam’s government also tried to involve Abu Nidal in its terrorist network, and his refusal to cooperate with the Islamist groups became his death sentence, which was carried out in the summer of 2002…
>>>
I googled “AKI” and “Allawi” and turned up this link to AKI’s own English-language version (Mystery Achievement did a pretty good job.)
adnki.com
Unless I missed a column, William Safire of the NY Times still insists on an Al Qaeda-Saddam connection. I certainly do and I base my conclusion on the ugly way of the covert world. Saddam was a Middle Eastern tyrant, a terrorist and he employed terrorists. Al Qaeda is terrorist organization with Middle Eastern roots. At some point –a moment of mutual convenience, perhaps– the thugs connect.
Unfortunately a vast swath of the US national media “concluded” in the run up to the 2004 presidential campaign that “Al Qaeda-Saddam connections weren’t proven.” “Not proven” is accurate, at least not proven to support a court case– but we’re in a war and operating inside the fog of war. I use the verb “concluded” instead of “argued": the cynical tone and intensity of the MSM “argument” vis a vis Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections left the impression that these connections didn’t exist at all. The truth is there were numerous indications of connections and possible collaboration, indications that would have raised eyebrows prior to 9/11 but would not have raised alert levels. But “not proven” echoed “no WMD,” and both worked into the 2004 press template “Bush lied, people died.”
A covert, terrorist organization survives via stealth. It has to cover its tracks. Some information about Al Qaeda, its people, its connections, its intentions, will take years to uncover. King Abdullah and former PM Allawi now offer evidence of Saddam-Al Qaeda connections and Allawi’s suggests potential collaboration. Abdullah’s information implies a tangential connection, but Allawi’s indicates direct dealing.
Where’s the front-page reporting and 24/7 cable chitchat?
Newsweek needs to follow this lead. Will Dan Rather –while he’s looking for Lucy Ramirez– try to find Faruq Hajizi, the “former ambassador” Allawi names? That’s a 60 Minutes interview we all need to hear.
UPDATE: Comment 5– Thanks for the comment. I’m sure I’ve read about that case. Al Qaeda’s left a number of “tracks.” What I’m arguing for is follow-up by major news organizations. King Abdullah and former PM Allawi are reputable leaders and a major news organization can contact them quickly. There has been no “tidal wave of interest” in their claims. There hasn’t be a rip tide. Allawi says al-Zawahiri connects to Saddam’s regime, via al-Douri. The “Islamic conference” scenario’s as simple as it is obvious – Zawahiri comes to Iraq and Saddam’s intelligence officers have the chance to chat with him about common issues and common interests. One of their common interests is the Kurds. Heavens, the Kurds had cooperated with the Israelis. Hence the Ansar al-Islam connection in Kurdistan. Saddam gets a “terror force” to fight the Kurds, Al Qaeda gets to either influence or help direct an “operational unit” of Islamist militants that might be of use to it in the future. Sure, that’s a scenario following the “rogue state with tyrant intersects terrorists” schematic. Now add the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s WMD track record– he’d used WMD. Now include 9/11, with aircraft used as ballistic missiles: the next step is a nuclear 9/11. King Abdullah’s and Allawi’s evidence should interest anyone who wants to understand Al Qaeda.
austinbay.net
chron.com
austinbay.net
rogerlsimon.com
mysteryachievement.blogspot.com
adnki.com |
