Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-26-2004, 10:15 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Bush Intentionally Refrains From Striking Zarqawi

I had read this MSNBC news item some months ago. I was shocked at how it described the depths this administration had gone to in order to push the Iraq war on all of us. But I heard nothing for months about this story from MSNBC or any other media outlet or any blog linking to any new information on it ... so I could only maintain a belief in it by determining that the media was entirely incompetent for not picking up on this item and following through with it. But that wasn't good enough for me, so I filed this story under "uncorroborated" and kept my eye open for the day that it was either reaffirmed and expanded, or discredited.

Yesterday the story finally crept out of the hole it's been hiding in for 7 months, mostly affirmed, certainly expanded:

Quote:
Questions Mount Over Failure to Hit Zarqawi's Camp

By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.

Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.

But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combatting terrorism at the time, said an NSC working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war."

Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

Still, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush had said he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide. Mr. Bush also had decided upon a policy of pre-emptive strikes, in which the U.S. wouldn't wait to be struck before hitting enemies who posed a threat. An attack on Mr. Zarqawi would have amounted to such a pre-emptive strike. The story of the debate over his camp shows how difficult the policy can be to carry out; Mr. Zarqawi's subsequent resurgence highlights that while pre-emptive strikes entail considerable risks, the risk of not making them can be significant too, a factor that may weigh in future decisions on when to attack terrorist leaders.

Some former officials said the intelligence on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts was sound. In addition, retired Gen. John M. Keane, the U.S. Army's vice chief of staff when the strike was considered, said that because the camp was isolated in the thinly populated, mountainous borderlands of northeastern Iraq, the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Former military officials said that adding to the target's allure was intelligence indicating that Mr. Zarqawi himself was in the camp at the time. A strike at the camp, they believed, meant at least a chance of killing or incapacitating him.

Gen. Keane characterized the camp "as one of the best targets we ever had," and questioned the decision not to attack it. When the U.S. did strike the camp a day after the war started, Mr. Zarqawi, many of his followers and Kurdish extremists belonging to his organization already had fled, people involved with intelligence say.

In recent months, Mr. Zarqawi's group has been blamed for a series of beheadings of foreigners and deadly car bombings in Iraq, as well as the recent kidnapping of Margaret Hassan, the director of CARE International there. According to wire-service reports, Mr. Zarqawi's group, recently renamed the Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, on Sunday claimed responsibility for the massacre of more than 40 Iraqi army recruits in eastern Iraq.

The U.S. military over the weekend announced it arrested what it said was a newly promoted senior leader in Mr. Zarqawi's group. The man's name wasn't released.

Targeting of the camp and Mr. Zarqawi before the war first was reported in an NBC Nightly News item in March, but administration officials subsequently denied it, and the report didn't give details of the planning of the attack and deliberations over it.

According to those who were involved during 2002 in planning an attack, the impetus came from Central Intelligence Agency reports that al Qaeda fighters were in the camp and that preparations and training were under way there for attacks on Western interests. Under the aegis of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tentative plans were drawn up and sent to the White House in the last week of June 2002. Officials involved in planning had expected a swift decision, but they said they were surprised when weeks went by with no response from the White House.

Then, in midsummer, word somehow leaked out in the Turkish press that the U.S. was considering targeting the camp, and intelligence reports showed that Mr. Zarqawi's group had fled the camp. But the CIA reported that around the end of 2002 the group had reoccupied the camp. The military's plans for hitting it quickly were revived.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who was commander of the U.S. Central Command and who lately has been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Bush, suggests in his recently published memoir, "American Soldier," that Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been in the camp during the months before the war. Gen. Franks declined to be interviewed or answer written questions for this article. In referring to several camps in northern Iraq occupied by al Qaeda fighters who had fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, Gen. Franks wrote: "These camps were examples of the terrorist 'harbors' that President Bush had vowed to crush. One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi who had joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- where he specialized in developing chemical and biological weapons -- was now confirmed to operate from one of the camps in Iraq." Gen. Franks's book doesn't mention the plans to target the camp.

Questions about whether the U.S. missed an opportunity to take out Mr. Zarqawi have been enhanced recently by a CIA report on Mr. Zarqawi, commissioned by Vice President Dick Cheney. Individuals who have been briefed on the report's contents say it specifically cites evidence that Mr. Zarqawi was in the camp during those prewar months. They said the CIA's conclusion was based in part on a review of electronic intercepts, which show that Mr. Zarqawi was using a satellite telephone to discuss matters relating to the camp, and that the intercepts indicated the probability that the calls were being made from inside the camp.

The Wallstreet Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...aKmGm4,00.html
bling is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 11:04 PM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
this strikes me as a double-edged sword. If it's true, it gives credence to the "there were terrorists in Iraq, so we had to invade" bit. On the other hand, we didn't kill Zarwhatshisname.
daswig is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 11:10 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
this strikes me as a double-edged sword. If it's true, it gives credence to the "there were terrorists in Iraq, so we had to invade" bit.
Except if you had read either article, you would have noted that Zarqawi's camp was located outside the control of Saddam's gov't - and inside an area controlled to a certain degree (airspace) by the United States.

So it doesn't give a shred of credence to the "there were terrorists in Iraq, so we had to invade" bit.

Last edited by bling; 10-26-2004 at 11:15 PM..
bling is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 12:11 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by bling
Except if you had read either article, you would have noted that Zarqawi's camp was located outside the control of Saddam's gov't - and inside an area controlled to a certain degree (airspace) by the United States.

So it doesn't give a shred of credence to the "there were terrorists in Iraq, so we had to invade" bit.

When, exactly, were the borders of Iraq redrawn to reflect this state of affairs? CERTAINLY not under the 1991 cease fire agreement. Iraq was still Iraq, regardless of who was occupying the territory. Or, if you say that isn't true because possession is 9/10ths of the law, then I guess Israel really DOES own the West Bank and Gaza...
daswig is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 01:02 AM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
And I guess I really DO own the apartment I'm renting. Whatever that means.


Northeastern Iraq was controlled by the Kurds and protected by the U.S., U.K. and French no-fly zone. The camp was located in that area. The no-fly zones (both northern and southern) were ostensibly based on U.N. resolution 688. The legality of the no-fly zone is questionable, as that resolution does not explicity call for a no-fly zone.

Put another way - if Saddam had attempted to either place a camp there, or remove a camp from there, it would have been viewed as a breech of the no-fly zone. Which, in the eyes of the U.S., would have been a violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution.

The camp was located inside Iraq, in an area partially controlled by the United States and not controlled at all by Saddam or his government.
bling is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 01:02 AM   #6 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
If it's true, it gives credence to the "there were terrorists in Iraq, so we had to invade" bit.
No, the "there were terrorists in Iraq, so we had to invade" bit based on the claim that saddam supported the terrorists, not the fact that there were terrorists in a part of iraq where saddam had little power.
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 01:18 AM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Actually Pacifier, this camp WAS alluded to as "evidence" that Saddam was harboring terrorists.

Rumsfeld: There's an organization called Ansar al-Islam, which was in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was there, it was functioning, and Saddam Hussein knew all about it. (This statement implies that Saddam either actively approved or had the ability to do anything about the camp.)

And another Rumsfeld statement:
Quote:
Rumsfeld: Well, we've let them (Iran + Syria) know that we're notably unhappy about the fact that terrorists come across their borders into Iraq and further complicate the problem.

Stephanopoulos: Do we think they're condoning it?

Rumsfeld: Well, we know in some instances they have condoned it. Whether in every instance, I can't say, because the borders are long, the borders are porous. But clearly, take the terrorist organization Ansar al-Islam. It was in Iraq. Saddam Hussein knew it was in Iraq. It was functioning. It left when we invaded Iraq, went to Iran, found a hospitable environment, apparently, and now has returned to Iraq.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0836.html
So not only did this administration make the decision not to take out this known terrorist camp which was manufacturing chemical weapons, but they used its location "in Iraq" as a means of falsely connecting it to Saddam in order to further bolster their argument for going to war.
bling is offline  
 

Tags
bush, intentionally, refrains, striking, zarqawi

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:43 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360