Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Spinning Saddam's So-Called Links to al-Qaeda

By David Isenberg, CounterPunch. Posted April 24, 2008.


Further evidence that the al-Qaeda/Saddam link was bogus will do little to change the distorted opinions of those who support the Iraq occupation.
Advertisement

After prolonged bureaucratic labor the latest report of the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) finally made it out to the larger world. Its primary conclusion, which has been making headlines since news of it was first reported March 10 by Warren Strobel of McClatchey Newspapers, is that an exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents and several thousand hours of audio and video footage, archived in a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) database called Harmony, that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion, has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

The IPP is a research effort conducted by United States Joint Forces Command (JFC) focusing on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Its latest study, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," was produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally-funded military think tank. The report is actually composed of five volumes: the first volume, 94 pages, lays out the overview and conclusions, and the remaining four volumes include about two thousand pages of captured Iraqi documents, declassified and translated into English.

Although the report was actually completed last November and officially released on March 13, the Pentagon declined to publish it online. Instead the Joint Forces Command said on its website that those interested could contact it for a CD containing the report. The full study is now posted on the Federation of American Scientists website.

Predictably, neoconservative publications such as the Weekly Standard have published selected portions of the report, claiming it reflects "widespread journalistic negligence" and does not reflect "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism." To try and vindicate old Bush administration claims that there were links between Iraq and al-Qaeda the Standard noted, "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." But the study itself is far more nuanced. It says, in the second paragraph of the executive summary:

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

The study does note on page 34 that Saddam Hussein's regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision. The report notes that from the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably toward Iraq. After the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective "motivated Saddam and his regime to increase their cooperation with -- and attempts to manipulate -- Islamic fundamentalists and related terrorist organizations. Documents indicate that the regime's use of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, saddam hussein, al-qaeda, iraqi perspectives projec, federation of american sc

David Isenberg is an adjunct scholar a the CATO Institute, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Did Mr. Isenberg mean Bursa, per chance?
Posted by: Turiye on Apr 25, 2008 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Albeit, Alternet has done a great job of spelling my username incorrectly, they say Turiye it s/b Turkiye for a year. Bursa is the only city in Turkey I know of even close, could be he is using a German manner of spelling it?
Could it be the report "The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistans Federally Administered Tribal Areas". 'Ya Think?
Per chance the 'Message Force Multipliers' weren't available.
WTF, It should never have begun, it has done been over, Gettem' the F$$K OUT NOW!~!~!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spinning Saddam's So-Called Links to al-Qaeda
Posted by: motamanx on Apr 25, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard someone (Cheney?) say that one al-Qaeda guy met in a hotel room (in Berlin?) once with a Saddam guy. Isn't that all the proof you need to bomb the hell out of Iraq for four years?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]