Final: Iraq Had No Links To Al Qaeda
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Iraq, Military, The War On Terrorism, War
They looked through more than 600,000 of the regime’s documents and have found nothing.
I repeat…they have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of operational ties to al Qaeda.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.The new study of the Iraqi regime’s archives found no documents indicating a “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report. [...]
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. “The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” he said.
If we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, it’s hard to continue to make the case that we need to stay there, build bases, etc. And sure, getting rid of tyrants is nice and all, and it makes for a good explanation AFTER the fact, but street-by-street occupation is simply not an acceptable military strategy for an asymmetrical war. And anybody who tells you otherwise has obviously not been paying attention the past 5 years.
Also, let’s also be realistic about expectations. We’re not going to get rid of al Qaeda. It simply isn’t going to happen. In fact, this dumb Neo-Con strategy has lured more al Qaeda into the region and they’ve gotten bigger as a result. Think we may want to try the opposite and see what happens? That’s why I continue to say that we need to get out as soon as we can and as safely as we can. Because only then we can get down to the business of killing al Qaeda when they least expect it, instead of giving them American targets day in and day out.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 11th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Iraq, Military, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Um, respectfully, no it’s not hard at all to make that case. Iraq 2003 is not remotely the same place as Iraq 2008 and just because going in was a mistake doesn’t automatically make leaving a clearly superior choice. There was no Al Qaeda there before, we opened the door and now we can either say “well, I guess they’ll leave once we do” or we can clean up our mess and then leave. The former, in my mind, is as reckless as invading was to begin with. Recklessness cannot be solved by more recklessness.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“Um, respectfully, no it’s not hard at all to make that case. Iraq 2003 is not remotely the same place as Iraq 2008 and just because going in was a mistake doesn’t automatically make leaving a clearly superior choice”
Perhaps but it is the hieght of folly to leave that judgement up the dummies (liars?) who got it so wrong in first place.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Bush wants a slow-burning brushfire war in Iraq to give anti-US extremists an easy target–the path of least resistance, if you will–to strike at. That target in Iraq is our military (oh, and the unarmed populace of Iraq). My sense is that Bush has chosen the path of accepting growth in extremism as long as it smashes up against our military (oh, and the unarmed populace in Iraq), rather than risk a small group of extremists flying planes into buildings on US soil. This policy also gives the military complex a steady stream of revenue. From a Bush point of view, it’s a win-win (except for the unarmed populace of Iraq). The sad thing is, in the absence of the US military, Islamic extremists most likely would strike at undefended civilian targets now. I really don’t envy the next President, whoever she or he is. It’s not going to be pretty.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I didn’t say anything about this being an automatic decision. But it’s clear enough to me that our strategy there has failed and there’s little point in trying to continue it. Because it is the same strategy. Regardless of a small pause in violence provided by the surge, the initial strategy remains: stay in Iraq until the government can get their stuff together. The gains the government has made are small, and the sooner we get out of there, the sooner we can start fighting this war in earnest.
A succinct exit strategy is reckless only if you think al Qaeda will take the country over. We have absolutely ZERO indications that will happen. In fact, Iraqis have been fighting back. Now, every right-wing commentator would have you believe that we would be surrendering to al Qaeda, but both you and I know that isn’t the case. That’s just hawkish spin.
Is it reckless to let people die? Yes, I think so, but there’s absolutely NO evidence to suggest that MORE will die if we leave. That is an assumption, and I continue to believe it’s a false one. And let’s say that the US leaves and al Qaeda steps up attacks….do you think the Iraqis will finally step up and defend themselves with the weapons we’ve given them or will they just throw their hands up and/or allow themselves to be killed? This is what really frustrates me about the hawks in the blogosphere…they’ll say, “Everybody wants to be free,” but they then won’t agree to pull out and let free people defend themselves. What? Again, I call BS on that.
And let’s face facts, we liberated Iraq. We “won.” And since we know we can’t protect everybody in Iraq forever, we have to also realize that if we keep pouring billions of dollars into a reconstruction plan that continues to cripple our ability to stock our military with qualified people and focus on much needed domestic issues, it’s not fair to OUR people. Forget the Iraqis and let’s focus back on the Americans. Yeah, that’s selfish, but I have received ZERO evidence from this administration that pouring hundreds of billions into Iraq makes us ANY safer.
So, my points remain the same. Maybe I should have made these in the post itself, but I figured my positions were well known by now.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I may be guilty of over-rhetorizing my point in order to condensce it into a paragraph form. I’m not trying to regurgitate the rightwing talking points (not that you’re acusing me of such). I’m just arguing that, at this point, it doesn’t matter that Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we got there (except in the way that Tom mentions).
I just don’t buy that because things have gone piss poor while we’re there that the opposite of us being there will make things go well. It’s quite argurable that while it sucks now it will suck worse if we leave. I am not at all convinced that the Iraqis will stand up for themselves once our might and our support are gone. I think it’s equally likely that they fall down — in which case we have even more blood on our hands.
At this point, the “making us safer” argument is only distantly valid but still important. Our immediate national security interests are more affected by terrorists in other locations. However, if Iraq does collapse into a pre-9/11 Afghanistan type nation, then our national security interest becomes extreme. If Iran turns Iraq into a sattelite nation, our national security is significantly affected. You say there is no evidence that Al Qaeda will take over but there is actually more evidence for that than for stability to appear in the vacuum of our absence. Historically, nations that can’t protect themselves fall to the most violent of groups trying to seize power. Iraq could either collapse or turn to Iran for protection. And if Iran gets heavily involved, you have a whole Sunni vs. Shiite conflict that could destabalize the region.
I would love it if I could support withdrawal. I hate that we are losing soldiers, hurting families and spending away our future on a war that may not be winnable in any conventional or even unconventional sense. However, I do think we have a pressing moral obligation not to abandon Iraq to chaos and I do think it’s too risky to withdraw at this point because we may just have to go right back in. I’d rather have permanent bases than have to make repeated invasions or be stuck with Iran as a superpower. Or have to deal with a regional Shiite -Sunni war.
There are no good answers. We have to choose the least bad answer. I support the one that, while costly to us, seems to provide the least possible negative results for America and the world.
That’s not to say your points aren’t very valid. I can only hope the nation can have a reasonable debate on this during the election and not resort to sloganeering. I’m not hopeful — but, hey, at least you and I can keep it civil and sophisticated.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
ASC
We’ve had this discussion before……How do you know Iraq will collapse into chaos if we leave? Vietnam had a “dark” period after we left because the enemy we were fighting finally finished their war after 40 years, we only prolonged things – maybe that’s what we are doing now? How do you know Iran will become a superpower if we leave Iraq? Is Iran a threat to us in that case or are they a greater threat to themselves? Is a Sunni Shiite Kurd division a problem or an inevitable conclusion of racist and arrogant foreign policy of the last century? I’m tired of watching Americans die for no reason, and I am tired of seeing my country rationalize a crime and the indifference of our elected leaders to that endeavor – aren’t you?
March 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I think that’s just where we’re going to have to differ. I’ve seen no evidence that our war there has made us safer, and that’s ultimately my judge of whether or not we should be there. Bush and company have done nothing to prove this “Safety ROI” (if you will), and instead have served us rhetoric sandwiches with a heaping side of fear. (sorry, I had to).
And all their other nightmare scenarios of terrorist groups filling the vacuum are contradicted by the facts on the ground, those being that Iraqis are fighting back against al Qaeda. Iraqis aren’t stupid. They know what’s in their own self interest. That’s why at first they teamed with aQ because they wanted the US out. Now they’ve seen aQ for the lunatics they are and are using the US and our weapons to combat them. I seriously doubt, after they’ve started to fight back against them, that they’ll somehow stop that after the US leaves and embrace aQ. That just seems amazingly unlikely as it belies basic human nature, that being to protect one’s land and family and freedom.
But a couple questions: where’s this evidence that it’s MORE likely that aQ will fill the vacuum? And how will Iran turn Iraq into a satellite nation? Again, these feel like assumptions based on scenarios from foreign policy wonks.
Also, to this point…
I’m sorry Alan, but if that happened it would be none of our business. And frankly we need to stop meddling in regional affairs like this. We’ve consistently done it throughout our history and there’s ALWAYS blowback.
Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t engage when our national security is threatened, but I see nothing to suggest that such a conflict would be a threat to us. A tragedy? Yes. But a threat? Seems highly unlikely.
Maybe we should do a podcast…
March 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Any word on how much this fishing expedition cost the taxpayers?
I’m actually a bit surprised that they didn’t try forging something. I guess there are still some honorable people left in Washington after 7 years of Bushco.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Justin (and Terrence, this touches on your well-put points as well),
I think the war in Iraq has made us much LESS safe — so on that, we agree. But that horse is out of the barn and we can’t close the doors. All we can do is make sure our future actions address the current situation in ways that produce the least worst result for our security and for the region.
I will also readily agree with you that the Iraqi’s are capable of standing up without our help as soon as our military commanders and Iraqi military commanders come to that conclusion. Until they do, I don’t know how you can claim the facts ont the ground are on your side. Things may be progressing there but that doesn’t mean they are there. I’m not saying Iraqis will roll over to Al Qaeda, just that history shows that brutality usually wins in chaotic scenarios. The “good guys” could win, that’s true. But Al Qaeda could win or any number of other brutal regimes could win — and those regimes may be a threat to us or allow threats to us to use their terriroty. You are very optomistic. I wish I could be but I’ve always been more of the stone-cold realist, unloved by the neo-cons, isolationists and modern liberals alike.
As for Iran, if Al Qaeda or other Sunni elements become too hard for Iraqis to defeat and we’re no longer there, the Shiites could very likely look to Iran for assistance. Once Iranians are there, they’re going to have a lot of power. That’s not policy wonk speculation. That’s a pretty obvious possibility.
A regional Sunni/Shiite war would not be beneficial to the world at large. If it errupts, we might have no reason to intervene but we sure as heck have an interest in preventing one to begin with. That has to be a concern.
Maybe we should do a podcast.
A final few comments for Terrence — the boundaries of Iraq are certianly the mistake of colonial fools. The Shiite/Sunni/Kurd divides are partly a product of that and partly a product of things that have since occured between those groups. A three state solution is ok by me if we can figure out how to get Turkey to sign off on it. In fact, I hope we get more regional countries involved in forming a solution. I think a military presence is only a small part of any realistic solution.
As for all the how can I know? questions … I don’t. I know it’s not Vietnam where there was a strong central government just waiting to take over after we left. But do I know if my assumptions are accurate. I could be arguing a very bad course of action. I’m open to that fact and that’s why I appreciate these debates. I’m not likely to change my opinions suddenly but I am open to change if I find ideas or new facts persuasive enough.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I have a radical idea… Why not ask the people of Iraq if they want the u.s. there or not. That is why you are still there huh? To serve the interest of the Iraqi people? Cause the only thing you can figth with an army is another army. Al Qaida has transformed from a small group of people into an idea. A franchise like McDonalds. Anyone at anytime can become Al Qaida, a resister, a terrorist or a freedom fighter. That has been the problem with every occupation since the roman empire. let the Iraqi people succeed or fail by their own accord. It IS thir country still… or is it?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Alright, I’m not going to bother reading past anything but the first few comments. Except Michael’s. I read his. It was stupid. Al Quaida (sp?) is not an idea, or concept, it is a criminal, terror-oriented organization. Jihad would be the idea/franchise you were talking about. And yes, it is still their country, and we’re trying to hand it over to them but their government is fledgling and hasn’t got a whole lot done in the past few years.
With regards to the article itself, I thought so. However, this one part bothered me:
“If we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, it’s hard to continue to make the case that we need to stay there, build bases, etc.”
Who the hell says we shouldn’t have been there in the first place? That is an opinion, my friend, not a fact. Opinions are like belly-buttons, everyone’s got one. If someone were to ask me, I’d say, sure, they had no WMD’s that we could find, but it was a great sacrifice on behalf of American taxpayers and United States soldiers towards the personal freedoms and liberties of the Iraqi people, and hopefully, future stability of the region. Saddam was a goddamned war criminal, and a dictator with generally bad intentions towards the well-being of his nation’s populace. Dictator’s should be taken out of government, forcibly if possible.
Whether or not the United States government’s MAIN/PUBLICIZED justifications for occupying a foreign nation hold or not usually should matter, but you have to look behind what everyone is jammering about, and really think to yourself if it was good for the Area to have a push in the right direction. It certainly wasn’t good for the United States. We are “wasting” billions, and billions, and billions of dollars staying in that country, and as stupid as some collect members of legislature are, it doesn’t make much sense to argue that there aren’t good reasons to be “wasting” that money. Maybe you just haven’t heard them yet.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:36 am
There was no presence of al-Qaida in Iraq before the invasion. In the first year of US led occupation there was no incidence of al-Qaida in Iraq. It should have been a clue that there were some systemic problems with the invasion plans. The fight was in Afghanistan where senior al-Qaida leadership was pinned down and forced into hiding.
Iraq was a reason to spread the war, befor eit was extinguished too quickly. If the same troop strength had been dedicated to the fight in Afghanistan as was dedicated to the invasion of Iraq (troops which the Bush administration claimed “couldn’t” be committed to Afghanistan) the al-Qaida leadership could and would have been found and either killed or brought to justice in the US, using the main court system.
There were two problems with this. First: the socio-economic policy of keeping the US permanently engaged in a war overseas as a means of ensuring a firm economy and controling the populace while expaning executive power and second: there was no cause other than “terrorism” for the invasion of Iraq which was necessary to gain access to oil fields.
Addressing the first: If al-Qaida had been defeated in Afghanistan when it was still possible, there would have been no further war to fight, and no boogy-man to drag out when the executive branch desired to use military power, there would have been no need for an emergency powers act, or expansion of the president’s authority, there would have been no cause to expand the economic interest of persons and corperations close to the administration.
To this day, bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI for any charges connected to 9/11. The FBI has deemed there is no substantial evidence to bring charges against either bin Laden, Zawahiri, or Mullah Omar for any action connected to the 9/11 attacks. Really. Check the FBI most wanted list, he is wanted in connection to the embassy bombings and USS Cole…not 9/11. So, there really is no substantial link between al-Qaida senior leadership and the 9/11 attacks. Not one of them is wanted by the FBI for 9/11 related charges. If they were captured there would be explainations to make, trial to have and the war is over. If they are killed the war is over. Then the explainations begin. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable, so the administration redirected the effort to Iraq.
Which brings us to #2. US Oil companies now own the controlling interest in developing Iraq’s oil reserves. These rights were previously held by French and Russian companies. The biggest thing the administration pushed for out of the Iraqi government was the hydro-carbons law that forked over the right for US Oil companies to sit on the board of directors of the Iraqi state run oil franchise. Not reconcilliation, not a peace deal. Hydro-carbons.
We are not going to leave Iraq, not soon, not ever. It will be like Korea, Germany and Japan. There will be a significant US Military presence there for the next 50 years. Money talks louder than anything else.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
[...] I wrote about this report yesterday and it inspired a good debate on if we should leave Iraq or not. Alan brought up some good points about maintaining stability in the region, but I remained unconvinced that our continued presence there has demonstrated increased safety for our country. In fact, I think the facts prove otherwise. [...]
March 13th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Mark,
I’ve hear that this fiasco will ultimately cost the US $2 to $3 trillion, yes with a T. That’s when you factor in all the veteran services support for that large number of disabled veterans we have from this war.
The Bushies warned us of the social security and Medicare “disasters” looming. For a fraction of the cost of this war both could have been put on stable financial footing for 50 years. Think about it, we are leaving our children those problems along with the debt from this war. Why? Because our leaders lied to us and started a war they chose to start.
And more than likely they will never be punished for their crimes.