Category Archives: Iraq

In light of stories spilling the beans on a British campaign of lying to foreign (mostly third-world) media about the dangerousness of Iraq, Zbig is putting out the meme that the US got duped into the Iraq war by British disinformation. This is not credible, as can be seen from every “insider's” account (e.g. Seymore Hersh's article in the New Yorker last October).

In the Bad Old Days, around the Vietnam War era, the CIA had an ongoing program of putting US reporters on retainer. That got stopped. And it had another program of dropping disinformation into foreign newspapers, often third world. Some of the disinfo may have been for legitimate intelligence purposes (to confuse the Bad Guys), but a fair amount of it was designed in the hopes that the disinfo would find its way back to the US and be picked up by our newspapers. The goal was nothing less than to subtly manipulate the US electorate. That was supposed to have stopped too.

Perhaps now we do it by proxy. This past weekend the world press reported on a campaign by the British CIA-equivalent, MI6, in which it 'misled' media on Iraq.

But wait! The right wing is already spinning the story! Here comes Zbigniew Brzezinski calling for an investigation into how the US was manipulated into the Iraq war. See, it wasn't our fault! Those perfidious British with their media manipulation and unverified intel about irrelevant non-existent yellowcake purchases! They are responsible, not that nice George W. Bush!

I personally find the idea that the US administration—which by all reputable accounts was lusting for this war since at least 9/11 if not since it took office (or in some cases, since the cease-fire in Gulf War One)—could possibly be manipulated into Gulf War Two to be laughable. Will anyone buy into Zbig's weird spin? Probably.

Washington Post, For Vietnam Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory, tells the tale of Gen. Zinni, a reluctant spokesman for the view that the Bush-Cheney people lied to us about WMDs (and/or lied to themselves), and screwed up the occupation. And it was all preventable.

I think Marshall is one of the very best political journalists active in the US today, so I give his views a lot of weight. He's very negative about the Saddam-was-a-prisoner theory. Well, ok, it was just a theory. But someone please explain why he was in a hole that he couldn't get out of on his own. And where all the money went….

DEBKAfile – Indications Saddam Was Not in Hiding But a Captive This is a long article, worth reading. Here's only part of it:

1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks.

2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period

3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed – 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements – a far cry from his opulent palaces.

4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry.

5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.

6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks – it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering.

7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)– but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world.

According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner.

After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25 m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia.

These circumstances would explain the ex-ruler’s docility – described by Lt.Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as “resignation” – in the face of his capture by US forces. He must have regarded them as his rescuers and would have greeted them with relief.

From Gen. Sanchez’s evasive answers to questions on the $25m bounty, it may be inferred that the Americans and Kurds took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account…

It's an intriguing theory.

As for the capture itself, (1) It's good; (2) It is orthagonal to the justice of invading in the first place; (3) Better now than later; (4) In itself this has almost no medium much less long-term political significance…although if it were to change the casualty rate in Iraq, that might matter.

Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil visits Washington D.C. and finds….doom, gloom and a sense that the Iraq invasion is falling apart with appalling consequences: Scotsman.com News – International – Inside story of how Washington is losing its bottle

“In both places it is worse than you think,” I was warned before arriving in the US capital for a series of off-the-record briefings. The warning was accurate.

Take Afghanistan first. You don’t read or see much about it these days. The reality is grim. The Taliban is resurgent; al-Qaeda is there too, but not as relevant as it was. Attacks on aid workers are soaring; many are refusing to leave the urban areas. The warlords are back in control of the countryside, where opium production is already above pre-invasion levels. “Afghanistan is a narco-economy once more,” said one intelligence analyst.

The Taliban regularly mounts attacks in the rural areas and is expected to hit urban centres with greater force. “If they knew how weak we were,” confided one intelligence source, “they would have done it already.” Coalition forces are confined to Vietnam-style strategic hamlets from which they emerge for operations only in great force, before returning to their enclaves. Hamid Karzai’s grip on power is tenuous.

Continue reading →

Another false thing Fred Barnes said the other day was that our troops in Iraq are really happy to be there. The audience found that not credible (“read the letters to Stars and Stripes” I shouted, but couldn't be heard over the other incredulous reactions). Now that low morale is on the front page of the Washington Post, maybe he'll retire that talking point? See Many Troops Dissatisfied, Iraq Poll Finds: “A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist.”

Clinton left Bush a great Army, and Bush is destroying it.