The Missing Link?
PJM's Richard Miniter interviews former "made man" Adullah Rahman al-Shamary - a possible "missing link" between Saddam and al Qaeda.
This is the first of a series of special reports for PJM from Miniter who has recently returned from Iraq.
By Richard Miniter, Pajamas Media Washington Editor
SULAIMANIYA, Iraq–With a purple scrunchie in his pony tail, a black cap, and a platoon of blazing white teeth, Abdullah Rahman al-Shamary looks like a failed rock star. And in a way, he is.
Under Saddam Hussein, al-Shamary could go anywhere and do anything. He was a “made man,” and was an officer in its feared Mukhabarat General, an intelligence service run by Saddam’s son, Qusay. And, Qusay oversaw the Mukhabarat’s relationship with Jund al-Islam, an al Qaeda wing operating in Northern Iraq before the 2003 American invasion.
For the past five years, al-Shamary has languished in a prison outside this provincial Kurdish city. Still he is relaxed and in high spirits today. It makes him feel good to talk about the old days; he smiles as he talks.
So far, he told me, he hasn’t talked to any Americans. No CIA officers, no military intelligence officials, no congressional investigators, no journalists. This is a strange omission because if al-Shamary’s information checks out, he was one of several human links between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. He could be the missing link.
Abdullah Rahman al-Shamary grew up Mosul, a fading industrial melting pot–like Detroit. He was recruited into the intelligence service based on his grades and his size–he still moves with a athlete’s grace. He rose to the rank of lieutenant in the Mukhabarat General and worked as a security officer for Hussein Kamel, the director of the Special Security Apparatus. Not coincidentally, Kamel was also the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein. He first met Qusay, through Kamel, in 1987.
Kamel later defected, revealed that Saddam had violated the Gulf War I cease-fire agreements by restarting his WMD programs, and was subsequently lured back to Iraq with a offer of immunity. Saddam had him executed in 1996, forcing his sister (Kamel’s wife) to watch.
But, in the late 1980s, Kamel, Qusay and Al-Shamary were thick as thieves.
“Mullah Krekar’s relationship started with the Iraqi government in 2001,” al-Shamary said.
Mullah Krekar was the leader of an al Qaeda affiliate that has operated in many names: Jund al Islam, Ansar al Islam, Ansar al Sunnah, and today, Al Qaeda in Kurdistan.
Al-Shamary was emphatic that Saddam’s son ran the local al Qaeda operation. “He directed it, he ran it.” Qusay controlled Jund al Islam, he said, by supplying money, weapons,and providing diplomatic passports and by sending documents via “diplomatic pouches” to Iraq embassies world-wide. From there, the messages would be passed to local cells.
Al-Shamary told me what he saw. I insisted that I only wanted to know what he was an eyewitness to–no hearsay, office gossip or news accounts recirculated as inside information. He understood. That is how you are supposed to operate in intelligence, he told the translator.
“In 2001 I was an information officer, between the leadership of Jund al Islam (which
became Ansar al Islam) and our office. I was the liaison. Just an information officer. Abu Wail was the brigadier general in charge of funding” the group.
Abu Wail is the son-in-law of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam’s handpicked vice president and the highest-ranking Saddam-era official still at large. On very important missions, al-Shamary said, “Abu Wail would go alone.”
Abu Wail himself is still at large. Capturing him might reveal a good deal about Iraq’s pre-war relationship with al Qaeda.
In addition to Abu Wail, three other trusted Mukhabarat officers worked inside the al Qaeda camp, al-Shamary said. They were selected by Qusay, he said. And perhaps by Saddam himself.
Al-Shamary’s role was relatively minor. “I carried orders from Baghdad to Kurdistan” and back. “These were written orders, usually on a computer disc.”
He did not know the contents of the computer disks. It would have been against orders for him to read the disks and might have invited retribution. The disks were described to him as containing orders and reports and he has no reason to doubt that.
No matter what the contents of the disks, the fact that they moved back and forth between Saddam’s intelligence service and Krekar’s terrorist outfit speaks for itself. Intelligence analysts may debate whether it was truly an “operational relationship” (although it certainly looks like one), the fact al-Shamary regularly visited the camp to pick up and drop off computer disks indicates a relationship.
When al-Shamary was supposed to deliver money, he received cash from Qusay. “I gave it to Abu Wail, who was higher in rank,” he said. If any money went missing, he did not want to be faulted. Embezzling officers were often executed. Al-Shamary said that the money passed through Abu Wail to the Kurdish Democratic Party, which then gave it to Mullah Krekar’s al Qaeda offshoot.
“I was captured here in June 2002 in Biara, in Abu Wail’s base,” in Sulaimaniya province, by Kurdish forces.
As U.S. forces moved in 2003, the al Qaeda forces scattered. The able-bodied followed Abu Musab al Zarqawi south into central Iraq.
What about the wounded?
“Iran helped them. When they had injuries, they treated the injuries inside Haraman,” a border city in Iran.
Al-Shamary said that Iranian intelligence had long had officers inside the same terror camp. Sometimes Iraqi officers would see the Iranians at a distance. Iran was working al Qaeda for its own purposes. At the time, they were mostly interested in monitoring Iranian Kurds holed up in Iraqi Kurdistan. “They [Iran] facilitated their travel, they gave them weapons, helped wounded people. Iranian intelligence met with them. They had separate or different interests in the relationship. Yes they would be at the same camp.”
Iran had also facilitated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s flight from Afghanistan, across Iran, and guiding him to the al Qaeda camp in northern Iraq.
Why would avowedly secular Iraq help an affiliate of al Qaeda?
“These relations with al Qaeda started after the Kuwait invasion in 1991 because of special interests between Iraqi and al Qaeda organization.”
By “Kuwaiti invasion,” he does not mean Saddam’s illegal annexation in August 1990, but the American liberation of that oil kingdom in 1991.
His other phrase–”special interests”–lingers in the air. I wonder if it is simply an artifact of translation.
Special interests? I ask.
He smiles, then exhales smoke. “Fighting against Americans.”
How did Iraq help? “We helped them by building military camps in Salman Pak, in Khos, Khalis,
Yusafiya. Iraq is expert in chemical weapons. We trained them in chemical weapons. We trained them about ground fighting, too.”
Apparently, they learned well.
UPDATE: It turns out that the “missing link” has been spotted before, by Jonathan Schanzer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, writing for the Weekly Standard in March 2004. Here’s a link to a copy of the Standard piece: Saddam’s Ambassador to al-Qaeda
I relied on the word of Kurdish prison officials and the prisoner himself that he had not been previously interviewed by an American. And I also googled al-Shamary’s name. I should have tried variant spellings, as Arabic names can be rendered into English in various ways. Spell it “al-Shamari” and you can get plenty of hits.
Thanks to the awesome power of the Internet, the record could be checked and updated correctly. I stand by the rest of the article and, if anything, Schanzer’s piece supports mine. The bigger question: Why wasn’t al-Shamary’s story on the front pages of every major paper?
Johnathan Schanzer interviewed Al-Shamari in the 01 MAR 2004 issue of The Weekly Standard. Which is also very interesting reading because no one picked up on it then, either. Looked at that and a few other things between AQ and Saddam a bit ago.
Awesome job Richard.
I am planning on doing a major piece on the updated list of HUNDREDS of Baathists/Saddam loyalists caught working for al Qaeda since invasion for http://www.regimeofterror.com.
Also wanna post a link to this excellent piece. Keep it up Richard.
Mark of http://www.regimeofterror.com
This does not substantiate any “link.” Rahman does not know what was on the disks so he cannot know that the disks contained “orders.” It is unlikely that Saddam was giving “orders” to Al Qaeda, over which he had no authority, in an area of Iraq over which Saddam did not even have control.
It is well known that Saddam sought to further common aims with various terrorist groups with respect to activities in many countries but no “operational” links to 9/11.
all news there is suspect, being played is a way of life. not richards fault really, no one has a handle on the truth there. i doubt it is available. its like a mega sized onion ….. depends on the side and layer.
none the less interesting but not new.
Richard has it right. Read my new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism.
The secular/Islamic divide theory is a fiction.
Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri was an Islamic militant and Saddam’s RCC number 2 tied to the Wahhabists in al anbar via oil smuggling. Saddam workered with al Qaeda to placate them, just like so many other arab/muslims and even a few western regimes have done. He used them to skirt the sanctions and attack his enemies, just as he used Hamas which has “ISLAMIC” in its’ very name, an obvious violation of the secular/Islamic divide theory.
Richard has it right. Read my new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism.
The secular/Islamic divide theory is a fiction.
Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri was an Islamic militant and Saddam’s RCC number 2 tied to the Wahhabists in al anbar via oil smuggling. Saddam workered with al Qaeda to placate them, just like so many other arab/muslims and even a few western regimes have done. He used them to skirt the sanctions and attack his enemies, just as he used Hamas which has “ISLAMIC” in its’ very name, an obvious violation of the secular/Islamic divide theory.Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri
Richard has it right. Read my new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism.
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2007/04/announcement_a_.html
The secular/Islamic divide theory is a fiction.
Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri was an Islamic militant and Saddam’s RCC number 2 tied to the Wahhabists in al anbar via oil smuggling. Saddam workered with al Qaeda to placate them, just like so many other arab/muslims and even a few western regimes have done. He used them to skirt the sanctions and attack his enemies, just as he used Hamas which has “ISLAMIC” in its’ very name, an obvious violation of the secular/Islamic divide theory.
sorry for the redundant posts, my mouse clicking finger got a little itchy
Great job Richard! Amazing. The lack of msm reporting on this is scary. It shows that we’ve gone from bias to spin to straight up propaganda where incorrect, incomplete, and agenda driven news dominates over the reality of people you yourself have seen, met, talked to, etc.
Thank you SINCERELY for all your research and reporting! It does make a difference.
Best,
Scott
Mr Miniter, you are the best american journalist. Your books are amazing. I translated parts of them for French readers.
We need you during these tough times for truth-tellers.
Keep the good work.
See these two videos :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwD3DCiIpO8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fleblogdrzz%2Eover%2Dblog%2Ecom%2Farticle%2D6373809%2Ehtml
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1sx7x_saddams-secrets
A reader from France
drzz
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com
This whole article makes no sense. Prior to our invasion, Osama Bin Laden had repeatedly and openly called for Saddam’s downfall and hated the secular dictator for not being a religious dictator.
Iran also wanted Saddam’s removal.
American has spent $500 Billion in money borrowed from (totalitarian) China to make Bin Laden and Iran happy. Why conservatives think this is a great idea is a puzzle to me and reflects poorly on classic but now-forgotten conservative philosophies of measured response, intelligent analysis, and fiscal responsibility.
I say ‘borrowed’ because we are running a budget deficit since 2000 when Republicans took total control of the Federal Government, although few posters on this site seem concerned that we’re handing control of our sovreign finances to foreign investors.
JohnJay,
We get it, you oppose the invasion. Understandable but must EVERY single story that implicates Saddam in terrorism be met with such defiance?
You guys make better defenders of this guy than his own lawyers did and it’s based on BS. bin Laden called for Saddam’s removal? After the first Gulf War? Prove it.
It’s not hard to understand why someone like “John Jay” believes the canard about firewall between the secular and the religious in the Islamic world, unsophisticated as that is. That canard is repeated ad nauseum by members of our media who have no knowledge of the subject or wish it to be so. Anyone with the slightest interest could find out this is wrong with ten minutes on Google. But more than that – it belies common sense and the works of anyone knowledgeable in military matters from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli, who constantly instruct us on playing both sides. On top of it all, most of us should recall that the supposedly secular Saddman celebrated his rule by having the Koran written in his blood (supposedly). On the opposite side, does Bin Laden believe a word of his religious rhetoric or is it just for political power or both? I don’t know. I don’t even know if bin Laden knows himself (assuming he’s alive). And I’m sure John Jay doesn’t.
JohnJay, two questions you have to answer to maintain that fiction.
If UBL wanted to depose Saddam, why did al qaeda want UN sanctions on Iraq lifted? If you can tell me how lifting UN sanctions would have hurt Saddam, I would certainly be impressed. The fact is it would only have helped Saddam.
Secondly, if al qaeda can mobilize tens of thousands of jihadists to fight the US and British military in Iraq, why didn’t they just take out the Saddam regime themselves if they wanted him gone? (BTW, before you answer “because they wanted the US to do it” then you have to tell me how fighting a vastly superior multinational force is better than fighting Saddam’s broken military, in other words, it has to be a rational answer)
answer to both questions: they wanted him in power, in fact more powerful (by removing UN sanctions) so he could provide them with more cash.
And for bonus points, identify the al qaeda attacks upon Saddam’s embassies or government offices.
Surely if they wanted to depose Saddam, they were constantly attacking his government, right?
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2007/04/announcement_a_.html
A good CSM article by Scott Peterson in Ex-smuggler describes Iraqi plot to blow up US warship on 03 APR 2002, points to al Qaeda contacts and smuggling routes for materials between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. The smuggler, Mohamed Mansour Shahab, gives plot details and the 9 plans that were being developed, along with cash to fund them, to go after US interests in the Middle East.
In Mr. Schanzer’s blog on 15 JAN 2003 he goes into the ties between Saddam’s regime and the al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, that is operating in the Kurdish regions but getting support from Saddam.
The Pentagon was worried as early as 20 AUG 2002 that there were chemical weapon’s capabilities being handed over to Ansar al-Islam from Saddam’s regime. The Kurds reported that Ansar was testing out CW capabilities on 20 JAN 2003, which was pointing up to the main worry of terrorist organizations getting support from a rogue regime with chemical weapons and being supplied with either arms or technical capability to produce same.
On 25 MAR 2003 a report that multiple terrorist groups are operating with the assent of Saddam against Coalition forces and they do include al Qaeda. The report has this lovely line in it, addressing just that question of Islam and the secular regime of Saddam: “However, it should be noted that the Iraqi government, and specifically President Hussein, has been criticized by Muslim religious leaders for decades for its secular, anti-Islamist stance. Only in recent years has the Iraqi leader attempted to make use of religious rhetoric to appeal to the Iraqi people and Muslims worldwide for support for Iraq.”
A report on 23 MAY 2003 from a member of the Saddamist inner circle, Qassem Hussein Mohamed, also points to contacts between the regime and Ansar as he was the individual doing the contact work between them. He then goes on to identify financial handlers for al Qaeda, that Mohammed Atef visited Ansar, and that ricin had been tested in water, vapor and spray aerosol form on unwitting victims.
So, forgive me for saying so, but this concept of some large amount of hatred between al Qaeda and Saddam, when Saddam was funding al Qaeda groups, supplying them with equipment, and actively cooperating with al Qaeda to go against US interests is a very strange one. Particularly as Saddam was actively wooing radical Islamic groups. I have yet to see the numerous citations of al Qaeda operations against the regime of Saddam Hussein in any way to bring down or even hinder it slightly. While numerous individuals naming names, placing contacts, supplies, money flows, knowledge dissemination and a host of other things have shown up. The proof, it appears, are on those wishing to cite a large and vast wall between al Qaeda and Saddam by giving demonstrable evidence and support of that position by showing how much al Qaeda actually worked *against* Saddam’s regime. Meanwhile we have the 1993 WTC attack, African Embassy Bombings, attempted millenia plot, attempted bombing of USS The Sullivans, bombing of the USS Cole and 9/11 to show that al Qaeda was placing a very high priority on attacking the United States. Plots in Chechnya, establishing ties with organized crime in Eastern Europe and extending outreach to anyone willing to give al Qaeda support is far more evident than this vast separation between al Qaeda and Saddam. al Qaeda wasn’t that picky about Allies in those days and worked hard to get support from anyone that would help them. I just have extreme trouble picturing them turning down aid from a tyrannical and genocidal dictator trying to make amends, even if lip service, so as to cooperate against a mutual foe.
My comment was not ‘defiance’; the world is full of dictators who are not exporters of terrorism. Saddam fell in that category.
JohnJay,
So when Saddam was financially supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, he wasn’t “exporting terrorism”? What was he doing then, helping the “resistance”?
Defiance does seem to be an appropriate word. The reluctance to embrace reality by some when it comes to this issue borders on the pathological.
Great post, Richard. Looking forward to more from your trip.
The Salman Pak terrorist training allegation is complete rubbish (presumably, along with the rest of this man’s tale). Saddam Hussein was impressed by the expert manner in which British Special Forces dispatched Iranian terrorists in London. He immediately called for an elite fighting force of his own – one that specialised in blowing down doors and storming through skylights. This was to include sharpshooting and explosive training. A camp was loosely constructed for this purpose. Iraq released promotional videos from Salman Pak throughout the 1990s. Raw propaganda. Fedayeen in their customary black outfits rapidly descending vertical walls, canines being torn apart, etc. INC are familiar (and still retain) many of these tapes. Indeed, the devil is in the detail. Accounts dovetail nicely with what is depicted in the tapes. Richard Miniter already knows this, yet he persists.
JohnJay,
If the world is full of dictators that don’t export terror, Saddam most certainly doesn’t fall into this category.
Deroy Murdock put together a website that shows the links between Saddam and terror groups. This evidence was good enough to hold up in court, and gain a judgment against Saddam for $104 million in 2003. Even CBS published the headline “Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked.” How times and memories have changed. You may feel free to visit this site and its’ evidence at http://www.husseinandterror.com.
Once again, the question must be posed, and perhaps you can answer it, JohnJay. Why doesn’t the media make a bigger deal of this? Must this only be reported by independents who are treated with disdain by the media?
SMBD,
I think Gen. Vincent Brooks and W. Thomas Smith, both of whom have some first and/or second hand experience with Salman Pak would take issue with you saying no terrorist training took place there. There accounts are worth looking into, just as the accounts of the very valid accounts that counter terrorism training also took place there.
Vincent Brooks’ Salman Pak briefing was later contradicted by CIA and DIA reports (the training camp was abandoned and clean). Salman Pak was, in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “an unconventional warfare training facility used by the IIS and Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen troops to train its officers for counterterrorism operations against regime opponents.” Of the three defectors who reportedly claimed otherwise: one has since been exposed as a fraud; a second was found to have “exaggerated” and “embellished” his story; and the third reversed himself, when questioned by CIA, claiming it wasn’t a terrorist camp at all, but rather a Fedayeen camp.
Good work. Also suggest to read Stephen Hayes book “The Connection” which provides raft-loads of evidence about the on-going relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and OBL.
This topic is going to bubble back up in a few days or weeks if I can get an upcoming interview into the blogosphere and media.
Video- Terrorist video: Salman Pak Al Qaeda training camp, Iraq
This terrorist video includes interviews, photos and evidence of Saddam Hussein’s involvement at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp 15 miles southwest of Baghdad, Iraq.
This video proves that Saddam was cooperating with Al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.