Posted on 07/15/2007 2:17:12 PM PDT by ikez78
An interview published in Saturday's Washington Post, with a member of the Iraq insurgency, reveals another example of the deadly postwar cooperation between members of Saddam Hussein's former ruling party and al Qaeda in Iraq.
In the piece, written by Joshua Hartlow, the insurgent identifies himself as "Abu Sarhan" and revealed that he "had been an officer in the Fedayeen (pictured right via Answers.com), the black-clad paramilitary force of the ousted government of Saddam Hussein."
"Sarhan" told his interviewers that he had risen to the level of "'general coordinator' between al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Omar Brigade, an insurgent group founded in July 2005 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." When and how "Sarhan" joined al Qaeda was not mentioned in the story.
(Excerpt) Read more at regimeofterror.com ...
PING on Saddam and terrorism. If you’ve been added on accident let me know and I’ll take you off.
Waiting for the knee-jerk Baath-apologists take on this.
Already got one email saying it’s all well and good but he KNOWS that this couldn’t have taken place. I simply asked how many interviews with detainees of Baathists or al Qaeda members he had read or seen to “know” this and of course he didn’t answer.
The partisan and conventional wisdom answer is that they didn’t and couldn’t have worked together pre invasion but those that keep saying this aren’t very willing to confront opposing evidence.
Here’s hoping the U.S. troops can find him as easily as the reporter did. BTT.
Stupid Fedayeen. Apparently Saddam forgot to remind them how much they hate and oppose Al Qaeda on account of them being secular instead of religious like Al Qaeda people are.
We’d better snap the reporters for interrogation. I’m sure there are no terrorists those “journalists” haven’t already met.
ping
Far as I can tell, the conventional wisdom nowadays is that human beings can be compartmentalized into precisely two categories - (1) Secular and (2) Religious - and that cooperation or collaborative actions between people from different categories is absolutely prohibited by the laws of physics.
In other words, it's not merely that they're unwilling to confront opposing evidence, it's that the conventional wisdom is insane.
Funny stuff.
Sorry, please tell me again why I’m supposed to believe a word out of this terrorists mouth? Abu Sarhan, made up name. Sheesh what am I, ten?
mrs
The post interviewed a number of his “associates” and people he knew him who confirmed the story for what its worth.
well, thanks for that ikez, anyhoo
But the Democrats said there was no link between Saddam and al Quaida................
If it were this guy alone then I’d say I don’t buy it but this is a pattern of things that has developed over years and it just seems important that specific incidents and names be documented for later use.
As both the New York Times’ John Burns and Strategy Page analysts have recently written the destination of choice for many al Qaeda members fleeing the U.S. surge in Iraq is areas like Ramadi, Baghdad and Baqouba where Saddam Hussein loyalists continue to still have some sway (though there are also Baathist linked groups who are confronting al Qaeda). The exact origins of this pattern of cooperation between some elements of Saddam Hussein’s
Michael Yon reports from Baquba, Iraq that the surge appears to be working.
The Hugh Hewitt Show
7-12-07
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=ad2ccbe4-c31a-422f-b099-65ba45ec5887
HH: I’m joined now by satellite phone from Baghdad by intrepid reporter Michael Yon. He’s actually in Baquba. Michael, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, always a pleasure to speak with you. How goes the fighting on the ground?
MY: Well, it’s really slowed down here in Baquba, Hugh. I was just in the TOC or the headquarters about fifteen minutes ago before I came on the show, and they were like the Maytag repairmen here. I mean, Baquba has just…you know, it was a very serious fight when it started, Operation Arrowhead Ripper on the 19th of June, I came in with them, but it quickly abated. The people have just turned against al Qaeda here. And so Baquba is really, the big fight now is to get the food distribution working again, which it already is. You know, they’ve got that going. And now, they’re working on fuel, because the fuel relates to electricity and water pumping. So really, they’re working on more civic things now. There’s still some combat to do, but not a lot, actually, because like I said, you know, the people just turned against al Qaeda.
HH: Now Michael Yon, a lot of people don’t know the significance of Baquba. And so can you explain what peace in Baquba means for the larger war effort?
MY: Well, it’s huge, because al Qaeda had claimed Baquba as their capitol, their worldwide capitol. And you might recall one of the things that kind of upsets people about my reporting is I said Iraq was in a civil war, and I said that way back in February of 2005, and I continue to do so. But when I first wrote that, I was in Baquba, in 2005, and I spent two or three months here. And it was just total…you could see it, and you could see al Qaeda was trying to foment that civil war, because that’s their underlying strategy, is to do that. And so getting, fracturing al Qaeda here, and al Qaeda alienating so many Iraqis, it’s helping us to put a damper on the civil war.
(snip)
The partisan and conventional wisdom answer is that they didn’t and couldn’t have worked together pre invasion but those that keep saying this aren’t very willing to confront opposing evidence.
Hope you’re not suprised.
Why am I not surprised?
You missed the message the Post was delivering!
Hell, not just the silly, intellectually empty - non-serious DEMs.....The MSM (The Washington Post itself!!) continually tries and spin/lie that AQ and Iraq had no cooperation and that AQ wasn't in Iraq.
It is mind-numbbing how un-serious the MSM/DEMs both are regarding the WOT/NS.
There is a book (now available in paperback ):
***********************
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz
********************************************************
And reviews:
****************************************
Editorial Reviews
Rich Lowry, Editor National Review
David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
***********************************************************
See all Editorial Reviews
Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006
Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews
A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.
The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,
***************************************
Why do people need smoking guns in order to believe so many things that are only natural.
Why would any difference between “religion” and “secular” outlook be a problem so great as to keep terroristic groups, and or terroristic states, from co-operating against an “enemy” who is defined as such by both the “religious” terrorist, and the Marxist/Fascistic secular terrorist? Answer: no such problem exists; no such problem existed in the 1990s, 2000-2003, since that time or now.
The ancient human fundamentals of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” for now, have not changed; in any theatre or venue of military affairs in the world.
The stupid, ignorant, arrogant western academics keep creating their Middle East myths out of various forms of denials of those fundamentals, as the terrorists laugh all the way to their next target.
Was Saddam ever our “ally”. No, not in the least. But, were we willing to help insure a stalemate, as opposed to an Iranian victory, with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Sure we were. The enemy - Iraq, of my enemy - Iran, was worth helping a bit. We did not side with the USSR in WWII out of any great fundamental political alliance. They were Germany’s enemy on Germany’s eastern front; period - the only reason we needed. They would have been an ally of convenience if the Russian Czar still ruled at the time. Did we hope we were going to create a great USSR victory? No. We sought a German defeat; period - the extent of our own ambition. So, why should anyone else at this time in the world be operating any differently towards us? They wouldn’t and we should not expect that any of our opponents would not ally with each other, in some measure, big or small, if doing so worked to what they saw as a common effort against us; be they religious, secular or simply dictators. Only fools would pretend otherwise.
What the stupid western academics cannot find is a coordinating organization between our enemies; as their required “proof”. None is needed. All that is needed are shared ambitions against a common foe - US.
The “coordination” will be as ephemeral, temporary, expedient and as potent, as our opponents find common interest in achieving, at any time they chose.
They don’t need a communist Commintern or a NATO or any official coordinating body or functions. They know that helping each other, though limited, is possible and desirable at times. They will be always willing to leave any great rivalry they have with each other to another day - just as we have always been willing to do, with our allies of convenience. This is human nature on the world-wide stage, not rocket science.
The fact that this subject gets so much myth-making in academia and the media gives but a hint of the low standards of a western education today.
Of course :) That is similar to what we have discussed earlier. I am just surprised that the liberal media picked it up.
They don’t even realize it because they are racing to promote the “get out of Iraq” angle to every story. If we can continue compiling all these examples it’s going to become large enough that someone says “Hey, maybe this could have begun pre invasion.”
It’s possible the question never even enters their mind, but hey I can dream I guess.
Al Qaeda and its role in the Iraq insurgency
****************************EXCERPT********************************
The attempts to minimize the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq in the larger Sunni insurgency took a significant step over the past week. Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times, claimed that the media had become complicit in the government's attempts to paint the entire Sunni insurgency with an al Qaeda brush. Also this week, Malcolm Nance published an article at the Small Wars Journal claiming al Qaeda is being given too much credit for the violence in Iraq. In the article, titled "Al Qaeda in Iraq--Heroes, Boogeymen or Puppets?," Nance claims al Qaeda is but a bit player in the Iraqi insurgency and is largely controlled by the Baathist remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime. To Nance, al Qaeda is both a U.S. Boogeyman and Baathist Puppet.
If taken seriously, these theories are likely to have a significant impact on the political battle over the war in Iraq as it is played out back here in the States. I took a look at the major points advanced by Nance and found his argument to be unpersuasive. Nance makes several factual errors and contradicts himself on several important points. And he fails to recognize the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq, the continually evolving nature of the Sunni insurgency and our understanding of it.
His theory that the insurgency is dominated by Baathist Former Regime Leaders (FRLs) was popular circa 2003-2004, and has long since been discredited. While Baathists and Former Regime Elements certainly play a role in the insurgency, their influence has diminished over time as al Qaeda and its puppet Islamic State of Iraq have coopted significant elements of the Sunni Insurgency.
Claim: Nance states that for the past four years, the Bush administration and military leaders have touted al Qaeda in Iraq as the only enemy in Iraq:
A better question is whom are we fighting? The response heard most often is that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. In May 2007 the President declared 'Al Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq.' The consensus opinion, from the Pentagon to the PFC, is that America is waging a desperate fight against Al Qaeda both in and out of Iraq and it will directly determine the national security on the streets of Europe and America. Additionally, for four years Abu Musab Zarqawi, AQI’s first leader, was portrayed as the commander of the insurgency. It was an easily consumable media narrative so effective that even the Iraqis believed it until his death.
Fact: While President Bush did indeed say “Al Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq,” he is doing little more than seconding the assessment of General David Petraeus, the Commander of Multinational Forces Iraq. General Petreaus stated on April 26, 2007:
"So this [Al Qaeda in Iraq] is a--you know, it is a very significant enemy. I think it is probably public enemy number one. It is the enemy whose actions sparked the enormous increase in sectarian violence that did so much damage to Iraq in 2006, the bombing of the Al Askaria mosque in Samarra, the gold-domed mosque there, the third holiest Shi'a shrine. And it is the organization that continues to try to reignite not just sectarian violence but ethnic violence, as well, going after Iraqi Kurds in Nineveh province and Kirkuk and areas such as that, as well. So again, I think a very, very significant enemy in that regard."
Note that General Petraeus did not single out al Qaeda in Iraq at the exclusion of other Sunni and insurgent groups. He merely identified al Qaeda as the primary threat. As the commander of MNF-I, General Petraeus's view of the insurgency is informed by the view of U.S. intelligence agencies. Is Nance arguing that politicization is occurring at the senior level of the U.S. military, or that General Petraeus is deliberately misleading the public at the president's behest? No. As Nance states, “The consensus opinion, from the Pentagon to the PFC [Private First Class], is that America is waging a desperate fight against Al Qaeda both in and out of Iraq," and that consensus opinion is based on intelligence gathering and the direct experience of those serving in the theater.
Nance also implies that because the al Qaeda and the insurgency continued the fight after Zarqawi's death, the idea that he was the "commander of the insurgency" must be little more than "an easily consumable media narrative." But that the group has done so is merely evidence of how robust the organization is. In fact, for the first year of the insurgency, Multinational Forces Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority, and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party as the source of the insurgency. We were repeatedly told about how dead-enders, Baathist holdouts, and criminals were at the core of the movement. In 2004, the common narrative was that Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri, the deputy chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council under Saddam’s regime, was leading the insurgency. This was the “easily consumable media narrative” on the nature of the insurgency.
But it should be noted that Nance later points to a statement by the president in November 2005, which he describes as as an accurate assessment of the role of al Qaeda. The president then said al Qaeda was "'the smallest, but the most lethal’ insurgent force.” So which is it? Was the administration hyping the role of AQI or was the president accurately describing it?
Claim: Nance states that the entire military establishment believes al Qaeda is the prime enemy in Iraq.
Also as I mentioned to you earlier, I got some information on a terrorist website that a high ranking officer in Saddam army who was in charge of the Iraqi Army ammunition depots had a long and strong relation with Al Qaeda starting from 2002 and he provided Al Qaeda with a lot of ammunitions and told them about the weapons depot after the fall of Saddam.
If not for AL Qaeda there will be much less secterian violence in Iraq and much less violence period. It is Al Qaeda who caused sectarian violence and still causing a large portion of it. Nance is living in a parallel world because since 2004 Zaraqawi proclaimed Al Qaeda strategy in Iraq to force America to leave which was to cause a civil strife between Sunnis and Shia and Al Qaeda has been doing it since then. Also 90% of the car bombings and suicide bombings in Iraq is done by Al Qaeda terrorists. If not for Al Qaeda the violence level in Iraq will be similar to any large city in the United States.
Actually it reveals "the deadly postwar cooperation between members of Saddam's former ruling party, al Qaeda, AND THE AMERICAN MEDIA.
Thank you!
BTTT!
Thanks E.
Thanks for the ping.
There are several good posts after your ping, my thanks to all who posted them.
Thanks for the ping!
No problem.
I see your info had him being caught 2005?
http://www.scottmalensek.com/SAMPENDER/AQandRegime.htm
Ibrahim (aka Abu Sarhan) Top Zarqawi aide Captured on 18 June 2005 in Mosul
Thanks for that. I’ll have to check Scott’s list but this guy is using a surname. I’ve also seen like four Haydar Shammari’s who were both al Qaeda and Saddamists. There were a few others and I kinda just let those guys go. I’ll look into this though.
Is there any chance Ibrahim (aka Abu Sarhan) maybe the same guy named Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah talked about by Stephen Hayes on Page 36 of 124?
or are we dealing with arabic names equal to English names like Jones and Smith?
Not sure how common these names are but the article said this wasn’t his real name, just something he was calling himself.
Mohammed Thaer Ibrahim (aka Abu
Sarhan)
Captured on 18
June 2005 in
Mosul
Top Zarqawi aide
We should ask Jveritas if he has come across his name in any translations?
Very interesting. Thanks for the PING!
| "Hellfire"... ...is a comin'...! |
He is around. Ever see the name before?
Exactly! Geopolitical, military and economic circumstances, concerns and alliances are always in a state of flux. Which is why Rumsfeld and Rice engineered and formalized the concept of flexible Coalitions Of the Willing - to phase out rigid, slow, bureaucratic and unwieldy structures like NATO (though it still has its place for “legacy” issues and as a regional “carrot”).
Hmm, can’t say that I have. A lot of those names look so similar, that I start to think they are the same, especially when they share the same surname.
Joseph, have you seen it in any of the documents, maybe?
The problem is that he is not using his real name but rather his jihadist nickname as “Abu Sarhan”. In the Saddam documents that I read they rarely used a nickname for a person but rather they used his real name. Saddam thought that his terrorist regime will last forever and the Baathists were not afraid of no one during Saddam reign so they did not use nicknames in their documents to hide their true identities except for the intelligence officers where they used their first and last initials rather than full their names.
Good point
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
