Much of the intelligence used by the Bush Administration in planning
its attack on Iraq came from Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National
Council.
That information was wrong in various ways:
* No nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons readily found during
the most active part of the fighting.
* Failure to estimate accurately the degree to which Iranian
intelligence had organized its Shia co-religionists.
* Failure to estimate accurately the extent of the guerilla war.
Other intelligence was, or should have been, available.
One question is, was the intelligence from Chalabi and the INC crafted
to harm the US? A second question is, did the Bush Administration
come to trust the Chalabi-provided intelligence more than other
intelligence?
If both are true, then (1) Bush Administration policies before and
during the most active part of the fighting make more sense than
otherwise (although I am still bothered by the failure of the US to
search widely for WMD in the latter half of April 2003); (2) the US
government suffered from a classic intelligence operation against it.
Currently, the situation in Iraq is strongly favorable to the Iranian
government. It looks as if the Shia in Iraq will come out on top. It
appears that minorities will lack as much protection from (often
justified) revenge than many in the Bush Administration had said would
be the case a year ago. It seems that schools and legal systems will
be based on Shia policies rather than the those advocated last year by
the Bush Administration. Moreover, since both Iraq and Iran are major
oil producers, the situation gives the impression that Shia ruling
groups in Iran and Iraq will become important in world energy
councils.
All this looks to be the consequence of a deal between the US and Iran
that the US felt forced to accept in November 2003. Rather than fight
a guerilla war against both Sunni and Shia, the US is fighting only
Sunni guerillas.
Put another way, rather than the US acting as it decides, the US is
accepting that in the next generation, Iraq will follow Shi'ite plans.
Chalabi is an Iraqi Shi'ite. Obviously, in years past, he would have
tried to obtain help against Saddam Hussein however he could.
Moreover, I have heard it said that in the recent past, he helped the
US in its negotiations with Iran. This is all fine.
The question is whether a year or more ago, he and/or the Iraqi
National Council provided the US with `intelligence' that was designed
to influence the US to act against Saddam Hussein's government and do
so in a way that benefited Iran more than the US, by causing senior US
officials to misunderstand the situation before the US-Iraqi war
began.
If so, the Bush Administration got suckered.
(Note that many have said that the Bush Administration were eager to
go to war against Iraq; that is not the issue. The issue is the
outcome, whether the outcome favors Iran more than the US government
had planned a year ago. Put another way, over the next generation,
who gains victory?)
Does anyone know more about this than I?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
