Revisiting the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda Relationship
M.E.: You’ve mentioned that some al-Qaeda members may have received training in Iraq, (including some of the 9-11 hijackers), can you elaborate?
B.T.: There is no way to tell really which al-Qaeda members might have trained in Iraq … but that, again, would have been on an individual, case by case basis … perhaps at the instigation of Zawahiri or Zarqawi (who was directly in charge of an al-Qaeda Afghan training camp. The comment below is erroneous … bin Ladin would not have dispatched anyone to ask for training … Training details are below his pay grade and it would be against his nature and principles … however, Zawahiri might have done so.)
From the February 2003 issue of the New Yorker:
AdvertisementAmerican intelligence believes that Al Qaeda and Saddam reached a non-aggression agreement in 1993, and that the relationship deepened further in the mid-nineteen-nineties, when an Al Qaeda operative — a native-born Iraqi who goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi — was dispatched by bin Laden (which Tefft thinks is false) to ask the Iraqis for help in poison-gas training. Al-Iraqi’s mission was successful, and an unknown number of trainers from an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct al-Qaeda terrorists. (Training in hijacking techniques was also provided to foreign Islamist radicals inside Iraq, according to two Iraqi defectors quoted in a report in the Times in November of 2001.)
Another al-Qaeda operative, the Iraqi-born Mamdouh Salim, who goes by the name Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, also served as a liaison in the mid-nineteen-nineties to Iraqi intelligence. Salim, according to a recent book, The Age of Sacred Terror, by the former N.S.C. officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, was bin Laden’s chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction, and was involved in the early nineties in chemical-weapons development in Sudan. Salim was arrested in Germany in 1998 and was extradited to the United States. He is awaiting trial in New York on charges related to the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings; he was convicted last April of stabbing a Manhattan prison guard in the eye with a sharpened comb.
Intelligence officials told me that the agency also takes seriously reports that an Iraqi known as Abu Wa’el, whose real name is Saadoun Mahmoud Abdulatif al-Ani, is the liaison of Saddam’s intelligence service to a radical Muslim group called Ansar al-Islam, which controls a small enclave in northern Iraq; the group is believed by American and Kurdish intelligence officials to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. I learned of another possible connection early last year, while I was interviewing al-Qaeda operatives in a Kurdish prison in Sulaimaniya. There, a man whom Kurdish intelligence officials identified as a captured Iraqi agent told me that in 1992 he served as a bodyguard to Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy, when Zawahiri secretly visited Baghdad.
M.E.: How big, in terms of number of members, would you say al-Qaeda (and separately including all the al-Qaeda affiliates such as Abu Sayyaf, GIA, Ansar al Islam, etc.) was in years leading up to the invasion of Iraq?
B.T.: All of the Islamic terrorist groups have direct or indirect connections to al-Qaeda. Through doctrine, training, finances, etc. Al-Qaeda proper was and is probably between 5,000 to 15,000 max. Over 100,000 Islamic terrorists were trained in the camps in Afghanistan in the ten years before we invaded. There were only about 3,000 AQ fighters present when we actually arrived … rest had dispersed back to their home countries to pass on the training, etc.
M.E.: Was the previously mentioned al Zawahiri/EIJ relationship with Iraq something the CIA knew before the invasion of Iraq, or was it only learned in hindsight after documents and detainees were exploited?
B.T.: They knew. CIA has always known more about EIJ and Zawahiri on the one hand; and Iraq/Saddam on the other than about al-Qaeda … there was too much going on for them to not know. (Tefft referrs readers to this Stephen Hayes piece for more background on this topic.)
Tefft and Pillar agree that the CIA knew a fair amount about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda but did have limitations. They both agreed that it was basically an agency-wide position that there was mutual dislike and distrust between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda and both agreed that Saddam Hussein was not likely to ever be an ally of the United States vs. al-Qaeda.
Both also agree on the possibility of an Ayman al Zawahiri meeting or meetings with Iraqi officials in the 1990s with Tefft thinking it more likely and Pillar saying it was possible though he was unclear on the details of the 1990s.
Tefft and Pillar disagreed on a number of issues, including whether or not individual members of al-Qaeda represented al-Qaeda the group or their own interests prior to 9/11, wtih Pillar stating that al-Qaeda acted in a top-down fashion and Tefft saying that regional cells could, and did, operate autonomously.
Tefft and Pillar somewhat disagreed on who prevented cooperation between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda with Tefft saying al-Qaeda and bin Laden rebuffed Iraq and Pillar believing that Hussein denied al-Qaeda’s requests for help.
Tefft and Pillar came down differently on the likelihood of Abu Musab al Zarqawi having some kind of relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime with Tefft believing documents showed that there were relations and Pillar saying there were not.
Tefft and Pillar disagreed on whether a secret relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda could have existed pre-invasion. Tefft believes that bin Laden’s hatred of Saddam Hussein was too deep to ever allow al-Qaeda to fully align with Iraq and Pillar argues that it wasn’t unthinkable for the two parties to make secret deals with those they considered the “devil.”
The two analysts also disagreed over the changing size of al-Qaeda with Pillar talking about hundreds of fighters and Tefft talking about thousands or tens of thousands of fighters.
It must be reiterated that the term “operational relationship,” according to Tefft, means that “operations are initialized, planned, financed, supported and executed together.” Almost certainly the incredibly high standard of “operational relationship” has been used when describing the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda question to countless journalists and elected officials who never bothered to ask how extensive cooperation must be to meet such a standard, and likely never bothered to ask if something short of “operational” cooperation took place and what limits there were to the CIA’s knowledge (which was limited due to the wide disbursement of documents and detainee testimony, according to Tefft).
What is to be made, to those outside the intelligence community, of the many other reported meetings that Tefft, Pillar, and perhaps the rest of the CIA don’t provide much comment on? Such as Matthew Degn’s report about detainees discussing a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda cooperation, or the 1992 meeting, the 1993 discussions, the 1994 meetings, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, all the way up to 2003? Were those meetings all aberrations to the “non-relationship” between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda? It continues to be worth asking what to make of all the conflicting evidence if there was really nothing to be concerned about (which is and was certainly not the position of former CIA director George Tenet).
John Lumpkin, who tracks terrorist groups and their connections for Globalsecurity.org, has looked into this topic in the past and also seen large volumes of conflicting evidence. Lumpkin cited the findings of the 9-11 commission, and said by email that “Iraqi intelligence service and al-Qaida had contacts, [but] they never saw evidence that these contacts ‘developed into a collaborative operational relationship.’”
Lumpkin said that while al-Qaeda loathed repressive regimes, like the former Iraqi regime, it was “likely they explored using each other to advance their own ends” and agreed with Tefft’s assertion that individual members of al-Qaeda may have also had relationships with the former Iraqi regime outside of a formal alliance between the group and the former Iraqi regime.
Lumpkin’s description falls short of the “operational relationship” definition, but is the evidence that falls between “no links” and an “operational relationship” not worthy of concern, discussion, and mention? As documents and detainee testimony continues to be released to the public, hopefully the question of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda will be explained through the analysis of as many people as possible, including Tefft and Pillar, and the doors for understanding beyond the “no links” article will be left open.
Revisiting the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda Relationship
Why not? Its apparent the people who read this thing will believe just about anything.
Mr Eichenlaub:
Thank you for a thorough and well researched disquisition on Saddam / Al Quaeda. Anyone who would assert that cooperation between enemies is impossible should consider the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact).
The central and overriding point, however, is that those links, and the presence or absence of WMD, are secondary motivations for our invasion of Iraq. I believe the overriding concern was that the regime of non-proliferation was crumbling, and absent the global community’s willingness to enforce it, we had to step in. Unfortunately it seems we only postponed the day when many of the current players will nuke up. A nuclear-armed Iran will put enormous pressure on the other Middle East countries to protect themselves by acquiring their own nukes. The UN is toothless; if the US will not guarantee the peace then MAD becomes the most rational solution. One of the more vivid descriptions I saw of that Middle Eastern future was “think 1914, only with nuclear weapons”.
It’s still to early to close the case on linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We’re much to close time wise to view any of the information through anything but a political lens and should not base a conclusion on the “findings” of a political party with a known agenda and bent on a witch hunt. Gather information and let history sort it out. That’s what will happen regardless of what we decide at this point in time anyway.
Moho,
What exactly is written that people should not believe?
If all of the evidence of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam can fill book, the evidence of connections between Al Queda and the Saudi royal family will fill library. Why not examine that to expose the past accomplice and potential future supporter of terrorism.
It may be safe to assume that the CIA was in the administrations pocket on the run-up to the war. Look at the preinvasion, slam-dunk evidence presented that was proven false. Chemical weapons vans, trying to procure weapons grade nuclear material from Africa, etc… Administration players touted the AQ/Saddam connections at every turn without presenting much proof while down-playing the mounting case against our Saudi “friends”.
I think you would have a way more compelling, productive and impacting(future)story there.
“The person [being waterboarded] believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866
“Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts.
- Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link. There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/
You folks can continue to do your pathetic little dance to defend the Bush Administration as long as you’d like. It doesn’t matter. History has already been written; the book’s been closed:
We now know for a fact that the Bush Administration, under the direction of Dick Cheney, instructed the CIA to brutally torture Iraqis until they got a forced confession that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda that would provide the Bush admin with a “smoking gun” case for invading Iraq.
The evidence is all there and it’s compelling.
But clearly, if you’re the kind of person who believes that the President was born in Kenya, that FEMA is building concentration camps, or that death panels will be established to turn your granny into Soylent Green, then I’m sure you’ll have no problem believing that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were holding weekly tea parties to gossip, share anthrax recipes, and mastermind the nuclear destruction of the United States.
Bar,
I don’t doubt that the Saudis supported al Qaeda at one time but al Qaeda as actually attacking the Saudis and Saudis were rounding up killing al Qaeda after 9-11, unlike Saddam.
Todd,
I am curious if you even read the piece. I said that examples of limited cooperation, NOT a full blown alliance, were something that was missed by the CIA, which those folks basically admitted.
Why the ad hominem non related comments? Pretty irrelevant to me.
Also, the evidence came from docs, intercepted calls, defections and lots of interrogations, interviews. To claim the only evidence was from “torture” is flat out wrong.
Salman Pak
ME, The Saudis also released 60,000+/- political prisoners(many AQ linked, many Shiite)and gave them a one-way ticket to the Syrian/Iraqi border in the aftermath of the invasion. They fully understood that these would become jihadi against the US. Saudi Foreign Legion?
Bar,
That is interesting. I didn’t know that. This article wasn’t meant to be exclusive as to what states assisted al Qaeda. Thanks for sending that along.
Knowing that Saddam paid the family of Palistinian suicide bombers $25K each, how is a Saddam/Al Qaida connection difficult to contemplate?
Good point Thomas. Knowing a lot of what Saddam and his goons did with the acid baths and whatnot make it hard to disbelieve him capable of any evil.
Todd S, thank you for giving us such ‘great’ information from the Human Rights Watch and ABC.
I hope Human Rights Watch will be available in California when, not if, the state releases tens of thousands of inmates early to society. You know, the same state controlled by progressives and rinos, running the World’s 8th Largest economy into the ground. You think unemployment, crime is high now Californians, wait until thousands of parolees are denied a job, denying visitation rights to the parolee’s children, et al..
As for your reference to Paul Krugman, oh I forgot, ‘Nobel Prize Winning Economist’ – is no different than ‘..spread the wealth around’ Teleprompter Guy’s tactics.
He too is a globalist, defends the use of child labor in 3rd World countries, et al. You can find writers falling over themselves in admiration at counterpunch.org, socialistworker.org, etc., Wow, what an inspiration!
Here’s a great article in the National Review in regards to Krugman’s intentions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406080847.asp
I stopped reading when I saw the name Paul Pillar. He’s the CIA leftist who traveled the country giving “private” talks during the 2004 election to benefit Kerry.
Mark: About Saudi Arabia: Yes, the Saudis carry some baggage. That is a discussion for some other time.
But do note that Saudi Arabia has a common border area with Iraq. I have heard no reports of terrorist support coming from that area. Only from the Syrian and Iranian border areas.
Now that ought to tell you something.
And as a person who successfully interrogated over 200 prisoners in the past, let me tell you that interrogation techniques, both coercive and non-coercive, are N-O-T for the purpose of eliciting “confessions”. They are for the purpose of gleaning information. Said information has to then be refined into intelligence. Interrogation reports are written in a manner that reflects this procedure. Should the interrogator(s) feel the need to venture an opinion, that will be offered as an appendum, not as part of the report itself.
The procedure is such that the very concept of ordering torture to manufacture grounds for a war is preposterous. Doing things that way is tantamount to manufacturing a cast-iron airplane. Within the bounds of theoretical possibility but not exactly a useable product.
Thanks for your write-up. Your interviews with the two show how tricky gaining both accurate information and precise intelligence can be.
Your two subjects are Fine Spooks and Christian Gentlemen! (ahem)
Mark, great work!
Would have been interesting to ask about the meeting in Prague between Atta and Al Ani. Also Salmon Pak as one other commenter mentioned.
Todd S:
Sorry, but anyone who quotes ABC News or Krugman in polite society immediately looses all credibility. I would suggest you please contribute something of substance to the discussion beyond the usual “progressive” talking points, but it appears likely that’s beyond your skill-set.
Thanks,
Occam
What an excelent interview. I would love to talk to these guys, so many questions, what justifies the disapriy between the view-points of these two veterans and so on….
One issue I always wanted elaboration on was regarding a Stephen Hayes article in which he asserts Zawahiri visited Baghdad in 1998 and was given $300,000 by the Iraqi government. Knowing Saddams support of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the association of Zawahiri to that organization and Al Queda it would be intersting to understand how one draws the line between support of one terrorist group from another. Did this $300K pay-off truly occur? Was is to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al Queda or for some other purpose? If you follow up with either of Pillar or Tefft, be sure to ask.
It is very easy to conclude that Langley is monolithic. It isn’t. There are those like Valerie Plame who bedevil, and torment the Joel Mowbray’s in this world (Dangerous Diplomacy is the playbook).
*Sigh* There was no “relationship” — the best intel indicates that there was a few tentative discussions of cooperation back in 90′s between lower level reps, but nothing came of it. And why should it: Hussein was running a secular state and had no use for Islamic fundamentalists like al-Qaeda and their supporters. Bin Laden himself was on record labeling Hussein an infidel, which probably normally translates into a death sentence unless you have an army to protect you. Bush knew all this going in, making all of his and his people’s attempts to tie in Hussein with bin Laden, and therefore 9/11, all big time, lying-ass BS.
Hussein and Reagan, though, now *that* was a relationship.
Dave, Can you please shoot me an email through my website, http://www.regimeofterror.com?
Thanks, Mark
Thank you to all who read and commented…even if you didn’t like it.
Just as money is the mothers milk of politics, so to is it for terror. If Iraq ever handed money to AQ, then that to me is no different than the narrowly defined “operational relationship”. Further, if Iraq funneled money to someone who in tern handed it to AQ, then where is the difference in that? Arbitrary lines, nothing more. Money is money and OBL isn’t going to turn away money just because it’s from an “Apostate”.
Good points Peter. I’ve asked that question to those who argue “no links” and usually am told that “it’s complicated” or doesn’t mean “operational” and won’t really elaborate.
How about Hussein’s links to the US? You know, Rumsfeld and company under Reagan supplying them with chemical weapons.
How about Bin Laden’s links to the US? You know, Cheney and company under Reagan supplying weapons to the Taliban.
Or you could go with the Bush family’s strong ties to Bin Laden’s brother and the Saudi’s. You know, Saudi Arabia where 17 or the 19 highjackers came from.
All you guys know damn well if the ties were to the Democrats you’d be ALL over this. Why the silence now? Is partisan politics above patriotism? Apparantly so. TREASON is a word you guys should be familiar with. You should look up ACCOUNTABILITY as well as JUSTICE.
When you ignore all of these things, it’s hard to take you serious when you whine about Obama. Can you see my point at all?
BC, so why, as his grip on power became more uncertain after the first Gulf War, did Saddam Hussein turn increasingly to displays of religious piety? Because he understood the value of images and symbol in the Muslim mind. Islam is littered with secular rulers who are given wide powers by a cowed religious establishment provided the religious authorities bless the rulers political decisions; the same could be said of the Saudi government and it’s relations with the religious figures there. To say that a “secular” ruler in the Muslim world will not work with religious fanatics is simply wrong; just look at Syria, a regime very similar to Hussein’s, they’ve been using religious thugs to do their dirty work for decades. Actually, history is filled with “allies” who form but have no natural affinity whatsoever.
Part of the point that ME seems to be making is that what you know does not constitute “the best intel”.
usafirst:
I think you make a great point. For decades the world intelignece agencies reported that Iraq possessed various wmds. How did they know? In part because the world supplied Iraq the capability; the United States (my country) in particular had a dubious relation with Iraq regarding Iran. Ishan Barbouti, Walter Bassoon, the Iran/Iraq conflict, Gulf War Syndrome and Amerithrax; there’s a linkage that has been broken by the assertion that Iraq possessed no WMDs. Is that the truth? Iraq possessed no WMDs? If it is then it buries questions of who supplied the non-existant WMDs.
usafirst – I’d like to see the proof of Rumsfeld and the U.S. supplying CHEMICAL weapons to Iraq.
Please, don’t use ‘counterpunch’, ‘greenleft’ or NYT’s infamous, ‘quoting ANONYMOUS Senior military intelligence officers, the NYT revealed’ byline of every , ahem, political fiction newsflash story their infamous for. Total crapola.
BTW, Reagan’s Congress was heavily controlled by Democrats.. how could this happen?
Yeah, I know. We didn’t go to the moon either. I saw the proof in the picture with O.J. Simpson..
Paul:
Ever hear of GOOGLE? Look it up. I assure you I am not making it up. Hell they have videos and picture of them shaking hands. As an envoy under Reagan, Rumsfeld helped shore up Saddam’s arsenal with chemical weapons, including anthrax. It happened, and it was a mistake. As was arming Bin Laden, and trading arms for hostages with Iran. Hell, I liked Reagan, but that didn’t make him infallible. Mistakes were made. Everyone makes them.
The facts behind the invasion of Iraq should be uncovered. Any wrong doing, by anyone regardless of rank or party affiliation should be exposed. Denying and blocking the truth from coming out is not so much being loyal to your ideology or party as much as being unpatriotic and treasonist.
People make mistakes, and can be forgiven.
People break the law, and should be punished.
The truth should be exposed.
Do you disagree?
As an envoy under Reagan, Rumsfeld helped shore up Saddam’s arsenal with chemical weapons, including anthrax.
———————————————-
“chemical weapons, including anthrax”
Links, proof of U.S. sending chem weapons to Saddam?
I stand corrected as anthrax is a biological weapon. Good catch. Of course it doesn’t change the facts that Rumsfeld working under Reagan supplied these nasty little things to Iraq.
Are you saying that it never happened?
USA,
Can you please provide some evidence?
biological weapons had not been used during the iran-iraq war,
United States didn’t give iraq such weapons.
usafirst,you’d better stop talking about Reagan’s links to the Taliban(which didn’t exist prior to 1994 )
why not go to my website and listen to the music instead?
so you guys are saying that when Rumsfeld himself admitted to all of this he was lying, and when even Fox news reported it they were lying because we all know they are the ‘left wing media’
None of this is new. It’s all documented. Why all the denial?
Reagan worked with Saddam because he was at war with Iran
same as why he worked with Bin Laden (Taliban name or not) because they were fighting the Russians. No one knew at the time that it would later bite us in the ass. It was an honest mistake. I said so. But to later pretend that we didn’t make that mistake is dishonest. To torture people to confess to something because it meets your political or financial objectives is evil.
Why would you defend this? It’s not about politics, it’s about right and wrong.
Is there nothing that is more important than political ideology?
PS: you may attack me all you want, but it doesn’t change what happened.
Mark: look it up. Do your own homework. Be objective about it. Don’t just pick my arguments apart, find out the truth, whether you like it or not. Then tell me Rumsfeld had no connection whatsoever to Saddam.
PSS: another thing, why defend Rumsfeld at all? He was terrible at his job. Even by Bush standards he was horrible and was fired. Where exactly do you guys draw the line?
USA”first” still waiting for a single link or piece of evidence.
United States gave saddam the intelligence which saved him.
United States openly condemned the use of CW by Iraq.
Saddam had CW long before Rumsfeld met him.
Saddam did not use BW in any war.
Rumsfeld did not condemn the use of poison gas when he talked to saddam,that’s the only thing he “admitted”.
I haven’t seen any proof “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq chemical or biological weapons. There is definitive evidence that the US Department of Commerce, a cabinet level department under the export authority of the US Senate, provided US suppliers export liscneces to Iraq of of items considered “dual use” that could have been used by the Iraqi Chemical and Biological weapons industry.
This information came out during hearings in 1994 over Gulf-War syndrome (GWS), notably the Riegle Report.
Other countries, most notably Europeans countries which protestsed agaisnt the Iraq War the loudest supplied Iraq much more, even primary items. That effort even continued after the Gulf War as revealed thru investigation into Oil for Food episode.
The only way to truly proove that a US supllier’s items were used to make Iraqi weapons, would be to either find the Iraqi reciepts or to examine the chemical signatures within the weapons themselves. Barring a recorded converstaion or document discussing the intent to provide Iraq WMDs the issue of dual purpose items allows credible doubt. To me there’s more evidence that Saddam was reposnsible for 9-11 than “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq WMDs, there’s evidence but simply “not enough to convince everybody”.