|
WHEN MICHAEL SCHEUER, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit,
first emerged into public view almost a year ago,
it was a curiosity how he could appear in the media--time after
time--claiming that there was no evidence of a relationship between
Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. It was curious because, in 2002,
Scheuer wrote the book Through Our Enemies' Eyes, in which he
cited numerous pieces of evidence showing that there was, in fact, a
working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. That evidence
directly contradicted his criticism of the intelligence that led
this nation into the Iraq war, which he called a "Christmas present"
for bin Laden. Yet in that first blush of attention, no interviewer
was willing to question Scheuer about this contraction.
For example, on the November 16, 2004 edition of Hardball,
Chris Matthews gave Scheuer a pass when he said that he had found
"nothing" connecting Iraq and al Qaeda.
Almost one year later, little has changed. Scheuer appeared on
Hardball once again yesterday (November 9, 2005) and had the
following exchange with Matthews concerning the recent
terror attacks in Jordan (emphasis added):
MATTHEWS: Michael, just to think outside the
box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running
tyrannically that country of Iraq, right next door to Jordan?
Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?
SCHEUER: No doubt about it, sir.
MATTHEWS: No doubt?
SCHEUER: There'd be many more dead--many fewer dead
Americans, and we would have many more resources available to
annihilate al Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a
doubt, in the war against al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our
best allies.
MATTHEWS: How so?
SCHEUER: He was not going to permit Iraq to become a
base, as it is today, for Sunni fundamentalists.
MATTHEWS: Why did he let them come in for that
training, that chemical training, whatever the hell they did up
north?
SCHEUER: They didn't control the area, so that was
in the no-fly zone. They were in an area that was in
Kurdistan.
MATTHEWS: OK.
SCHEUER: And they were Shia.
IN THE "war against al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best
allies?" Really? Perhaps Matthews should look at pages 124-125, 184,
188-190, and 192 of Through Our Enemies' Eyes. Does Scheuer's
analysis on those pages suggest that Saddam Hussein was "one of our
best allies" against al Qaeda? Hardly.
Scheuer now, of course, recants his previous testimony. But
Matthews would still be well served to consider passages such as
these, which Scheuer wrote just a few years ago:
Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted was in contact
with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He
reportedly cooperated with it in the area of
chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear (CBRN) weapons and may
have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's
anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK). The first group of
bin Laden's fighters is reported to have been sent to the MEK
camps in June 1998; MEK cadre also were then providing technical
and military training for Taliban forces and running the Taliban's
anti-Iran propaganda.
Other laboratory and production facilities
available to bin Laden are reported in the Khowst and Jalalabad
areas, and in the Khartoum suburb of Kubar. The latter facility is
said to be a "new chemical and bacteriological factory"
cooperatively built by Sudan, bin Laden, and Iraq, and may be one
of several in Sudan. In January 1999, Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported
that by late 1998, "Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating
and coordinating in the field of chemical weapons." The reports
say that several chemical factories were built in Sudan. They were
financed by bin Laden and supervised by Iraqi experts.
In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused
on the FSU [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and
received help from Iraq.
We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking CBRN weapons
. . . and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden
on CBRN weapon acquisition and development. On the last point,
Milan's Corriere della Sera reported that in late 1998 that Iraq's
ambassador to Turkey and former intelligence chief, Faruk Hidjazi,
met bin Laden in Kandahar on 21 December 1998. The daily said
Hidjazi offered bin Laden sanctuary in Iraq, stressing that
Baghdad would not forget bin Laden's protests against U.S.-U.K.
air attacks on Iraq. Whether Hidjazi discussed CBRN issues with
bin Laden is unknown, but is [sic] interesting to note that
Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that in October 1998 the Iraqis
"suggested to bin Laden to involve [in his search for CBRN
weapons] elements from the Russian Mafia who were above
suspicion." It was learned that these trusted elements were Red
Army officers who established ties of friendship and trust with
officers in the Iraqi army in the past when Iraqi army and
intelligence officers used to go to the Soviet Union for training
courses and Moscow sent its military specialists to
Baghdad. There is also abundant evidence
that Scheuer's other claims are meaningless. That the northern part
of Iraq, where hundreds of al Qaeda terrorists took refuge, was not
formally under Saddam's control is a given. But there is still
plenty of evidence that these al Qaeda terrorists, who went after
Saddam's enemies among the Kurds and not Saddam's forces, received
Saddam's support. (See, for example, here.)
Scheuer's claim that the al Qaeda terrorists who relocated to
northern Iraq and received WMD training were "Shia" is also
contradicted by the evidence. One of these terrorists was al Qaeda's
rising star, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who briefly led one of al Qaeda's
camps in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is renowned for his vehement hatred
of the Shia.
One year later Michael Scheuer is still making media appearances.
And one year later interviewers such as Matthews still don't play
hardball with him.
Thomas Joscelyn is an economist and writer living in New
York.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/341eptvh.asp
|
