THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Cat fine. Whatever happened to Lev Yashin?

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands
Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping
him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday June 19, 2004
The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter
condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the
west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's
hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next
month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush
administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that
the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as
"Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused
organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would
"inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation
from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and
Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the "war against terror"
yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one
of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.

But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin
Laden, said: "Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes
forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes President Pervez
Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without
endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He walks a very
fine line," he said yesterday.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking
the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however,
were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented
in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience
in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence
establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and
without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing
frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the
administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said:
"His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a
consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and
its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat
but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to
recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the
threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has
been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida
leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of
sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on
surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

"For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was
cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from
American justice".

Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [Bin
Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's
hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch
is that he's fairly comfortable where he is."

The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin
Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity
to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

"What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation," he
said."The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more
professional group.

"They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more
literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more
comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also think they're much less
prone to being the Errol Flynns of al-Qaida. They're just much more
careful across the board in the way they operate."

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not
have them already, it will inevitably acquire them.

The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet
Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could
be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US
and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called
Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another
devastating strike against the US could come during the election
campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was
the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the
one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that
would rally the country around the president."

The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is
due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try
to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.

The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the
stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a
highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA
counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is
very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."


Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin
Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner
of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say
to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

Repost, ci. :wink:

Your article here.

Just received from a writer friend in Georgia. A wee bit late.

Sorry c.i., UNSCR 1284 (NOTE: 8 page PDF file), which authorized UNMOVIC and established its mandate very plainly, unambiguously, and quite particularly called for UNMOVIC to conduct verification and monitoring of Iraqi compliance with numerous relevant previous Security Council Resolutions requiring that Iraq provide full cooperation in the matter of disarming herself of proscribed weapons and capabilities and of providing acceptable evidence of such divestiture. Not one word of UNSCR 1284, or of any related resolution, had anything whatsoever to do with UNMOVIC, or its predecessor, UNSCOM, searching for or destroying any weapons or facilities; UNMOVIC's job was to verify that Iraq fully disclose the existence of anything proscribed and to provide satisfactory evidence of the destruction, divestiture, or disposal of same. This Iraq did not do. UNMOVIC's charter was not to go get or find or destroy a damned thing; UNMOVIC was charged explicitly with, and only with, overseeing Iraq's self-disarmament. After a dozen years of The UN letting Iraq play games, The US got real and called a halt to the gameplaying ... that's what's real.

What's real is that the UN did not authorize the war.

The UN was, and for a dozen years had been, encouraging, abetting, and enabling Iraq's gameplaying. By failing to abide fully with the requirements and responsibilities mandated by Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions dating back to the ceasefire established by the Safwan Accords, Iraq clearly and repeatedly established the conditions mandating the end of the ceasefire and the resumption of hostilities. Iraq chose to pursue war, the UN chose to pursue irrelevance. Iraq got what she was after; it remains to be seen whether the UN will persist in its quest to render itself as consequential as its predecessor, The League of Nations. A parlimentary body unable or unwilling to see to the enforcement of its own demands has no credibility, or legitimate purpose, whatsoever. The UN is apparently committed to becoming little more than a debating society which throws lavish parties and performs occasional charitable acts. If the UN is to survive in, and have any influence upon, The Real World, the UN has to get real, and do so real soon. The time for games is over.

True. Does that fact in some way make what Timber posted false? Or do you simply not process any information that doesn't fit your preconceptions? (shakes head in exasperation)(and wonders for the 10,000th time why he quit smoking)

I can't help exasperation. But you quit smoking because it is making you feel better, taste better, smell better, look better, sexier, more lovable, more intelligent, and wealthier.

And now back to our regular scheduled programming.

The UN can only be as viable with the support of ALL international countries that make it the UN. When the US doesn't get its way, and calls the UN irrelevant, the US destroys the viability of the UN. Now that the US is unable to provide a solution for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, they go crying to the UN to take over. Your argument about the UN's survival is just so much BS. What makes timber's argument false is that this administration went to war on two justifications: 1) Saddam's WMDs (none have been found, so in essence he's followed the mandates of the UN and the US), and 2) because Saddam is a tyrant. Well, we got plenty of tyrants in this world; we don't go on preemptive binges all over the world and go kill over 10,000 innocents of their countrymen/women to accomplish ridding of each tyrant. This administration has not reduced terrorism around the world; they have increased it. It's cost us so far over 800 of our military, injured over 4,000, and almost 200 billion dollars - and it's still going up. I don't know about you, but it's not the way I appreciate our government handling of the terrorist problem; getting our military getting killed and maimed and spending of our treasury.

c.i. , blood and treasure are the cost of war and the price of peace. I for one appreciate very much that we are spending far more treasure than blood either our own or theirs in this war they brought to us.

timber, The only problem with your conclusion is that Osama was responsible for 9-11, not Saddam. Osama is still free, and helping with the growing terrorism problem in the world.

c.i., Saddam was not in compliance and you know it. Everyone knows it. (Timber just gave you a gentle reminder what compliance meant for love of...) Over a decade of crying wolf, made the UN impotent. You do realize that if they had actually enforced their own resolutions, we wouldn't have had to act without them, don't you?

I also second Timber's appreciation of treasure spent for the same reasons... and would further point out that every drop of American blood spilled is further testament to how much we do value "innocent" Iraqi life.

Osama will get his. I assure you; no one forgot about him.

Timber, will you stop it? Iraq had little if anything to do with 9-11.

America attacked Iraq because of 9-11, it is true, but only because they were looking for an excuse to do so. Mr Bush's trifecta.

Sometimes I just cant help but analyse a post:



Just the opposite. Sanctions were imposed in an effort to force compliance.



No they didn't. Iraq's failure to fully comply with the Chapter VII resolution meant that hostilities COULD BE resumed, but after 12 years of sanctions, it was agreed that enforcement "by any means" i.e. war would require further UN resolution explicitly authorising it.

1441 did not authorise war. It specifically excluded war by calling for "severe consequences" for Iraq by its continued non compliance. It was exactly because 1441 did not call for war, that Syria voted for it and it was passed unanimously.



Iraq tried everything to avoid war, short of inviting American forces into the country. Saddam even offered the CIA to inspect the WMD sites that Colin Powell said he knew all about. (This was declined). To say that the UN chose to pursue irrelevance is nonsense. In fact it was the United States that made the UN irrelevant by ignoring its wishes when the UN wanted to pursue a different road other than the US timetable to war.



You mean Saddam wanted the invasion, the loss of his country, the death of his sons, his own capture and humiliation by the Americans? What sort of a devious plan is that?



I think you mean inconsequential. But this won't happen. America has learned its lesson over Iraq. It needs the UN every bit as much as the UN needs active US participation.



This is a gross distortion of the UN position. The demands on Iraq were that it should give up its wmd. The UN inspection teams were back in the field. They were making progress, and destroyed some illegal longer range missiles. NO-ONE not even the French ruled out the possibility of military action if the inspection regime continued to be frustrated in its efforts to disarm Iraq.

But that wasn't happening. Blix only wanted more time to complete the inspections and the opportunity to make a final report to the UN security council. If Blix had reported in July or August of last year that Iraq was still not in compliance on process and/or substance, then the UN really would have had to face the choice of backing down or authorising force. But in February March 2003, we were not at that stage.

Of course in the end the UN inspections were indeed frustrated, but not by Iraq, by the United States which forced its curtailment by its pre emptive strike.



All the more reason for the US to get involved, give it some teeth and sort it out, not walk away. The fact is the US wants it both ways. It wants to do what it wants, if it has UN backing that's fine, it legitimises US action, and if it doesn't have UN backing thats fine as well because the UN is an irrelevance and its view doesnt count.



What this amounts to is that "The Real World" i.e. the rest of the world excluding the United States has to do what the United States wants...or else. The implied threat in the last sentence could not be clearer. Its statements like this which really does divide the world into two camps, the US versus the Rest of the World. Is that what the current US administration is seeking to do? If it is, I cannot think of a greater folly.

Good job, Steve, but for some the supposed irrelevance of the UN is simply an article of belief. And some believe that just by repeating the assertion often enough, it will be considered proven truth rather than an ideologically motivated opinion.

Interestingly enough, the irrelevance of the UN apparently only applies to its decisions that do not line up with American interests. UN Resolutions that do serve the political case the US is making at the moment are repeated endlessly, suggesting that those, apparently, are not irrelevant and insignificant. Odd disconnect, there.

Anyway, the veneer of presenting self-evident fact should be stripped clear for all to see whenever someone writes something like



With a budget smaller than that of NYC, one can only wonder how lavish those parties can be, considering that the "occasional charitable acts" cover everything from providing food and shelter to millions of refugees and IDP's worldwide, providing emergency food relief where hunger looms, stationing peacekeeping troops in a dozen places around the globe, inspecting Iran's nuclear capabilities, waging a worldwide campaign against AIDS, running such institutions and networks as the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and UNESCO ... well, need we go on. No, the UN clearly has no "legitimate purpose, whatsoever" ... to those who never wanted it to yield any power real enough that it could affect US policy-making too, in the first place.

That it nimh. They feel it an impediment or challenge to US global sovereignty. (Which of course is an affront to God)

Yes, very good job, Steve [you should do such more often - instead of getting frenzy about your new He-Roo :wink: ]!







Well, the last time I mentioned the small UN-budget, I got the answer, only lefties could want more.

And I was totally surprised about the gap in some conservative's knowledge regarding the UN and its different agencies/departments/organisations.

To summarise what seem to be the main points: The USA made it plain that it would go ahead and invade Iraq whether or not a resolution supporting that action was forthcoming. It issued ultimatums and threats, as well as insults aimed at the UN.
So, the opinion of the UN was irrelevant.

However, the USA said that it was empowered to invade Iraq because of the previous resolution (1441?) of the UN which threatened "serious consequences".
So, the opinion of the UN was now relevant, and somehow the US and its allies, little Britain and Spain, saw themselves as the executive arm of the UN, the people empowered to carry out the threat of "serious consequences".

No evidence has been put before the British people to show that this invasion was legal. Blair has refused to make his legal advice public.
I believe it to be illegal. Blair and Bush should answer for this in a neutral court.

Sanctions which crushed the Iraqi people, in direct contravention of the intent of those sanctions, while illegally enriching the coffers of not only Saddam and his Ba'athist cronies, but of the very UN administrators of the program and their favorite firms and individuals as well. The Oil-for-Food program already has been shown to have been at the core of one of the largest criminal enterprises of all time, and the investigation into the depradations and perfidy of its supporters and participants is but barely begun.

Sorry, I find that nonsensical on several levels. The repeated violation and defiance of the terms and conditions of a ceasefire by a party to that ceasefire abrogates the agreement, re-establishing hostilities. A ceasefire remains operative only so long as the conditions establishing it are met. UNSCR 1284 and UNSCR 1441 explicity referrenced, as foundation, UNSCR 678, which authorized the 1990 military action, as well as the rest of the pertinent intervening resolutions, and UNSCR 687, which set the conditions for the ceasefire, as being core to the last-and-final opportunity for Iraq to avoid the reopening of hostilities. Given that UNSCR 687 calls, upon pain of military sanction, for Iraq to neet certain and particular requirements. Iraq failed to do so, was found repeatedly and substantially to be in material breach of those hostility-suspending conditions, as well as specifically the conditions set forth by UNSCR 1441 itself, and thus by her own actions triggered the 2003 action. "Last-and-final opportunity" means "Last-and-final" or it means nothing. UNSCR 1331 did not state that Iraq was to "get one more chance to get ome more chance", UNSCR 1441 was Iraq's last chance, a chance Iraq chose to squander.

Poppycock. Iraq continually attempted to manipulate and impose conditions and restrictions upon what unambiguously were requirements for unconditional compliance. Iraq, as had been the case for a dozen years, was playing games, and the UN was going along with it, with Syria having her reasons, and France, Germany, and Russia having theirs. Of the bunch, Syria's reasons at least were political, not pecuniary. In that, perhaps Syria deserves some respect; the rest paint theirt own obscene portraits.

Saddam did not expect The US to have the resolve to carry though with what had been idly threatened for a dozen years. He fully expected the graft and corruption on which he and his regime depended would continue to shield Iraq from the consequences mandated by her breach of the entire string of pertinent resolutions. Saddam missestimated ... or, to employ a recently popular term, "misunderestimatated" US resolve and determination. Saddam's "Plan" was to continue the status quo found by him so very beneficial. In his megalomania, he figured not only would the money continue to flow his way, he would continue to be seen as standing against the arrayed might of The West, and, in his own estimation, remain a hero and a paragon in The Arab Street.

No, I chose the word "consequential" consciously; the failings of The League of Nations led proximately to WWII, the more recent similar failings of the UN the Iraq matter contributed directly to the current war. I will agree that without The US, the UN is a sham. I disagree The US "Needs" the UN if the UN is to be, as was demonstrated repeatedly, a factionalized, dithering, irresolute mockery of itself and its charter.


Nonsense. The "Demand" was not that "Iraq give up WMD", but that she fully and openly confirm she had done so. The job of UNMOVIC was to monitor and verify that compliance, not to enact or enforce it. Iraq continued to act in the manner which had pertained for a dozen years. "More time" clearly was no answer at all, but rather continued capitulation to Iraq's obfuscation, obstructionism, blatant intransigence and open defiance.

The US is under no obligation, moral, ethical, or legal, to subvene matters of domestic and international security to anybody or any body. The fact is, to borrow your phrase, that The US was forced, by the continued failure of the UN to follow through and implement its own demands, to take action apart from the sanction of The Dithering Body. The mandate of UNMOVIC was to determine and report the facts. UNMOVIC determined and reported the fact Iraq was in continued, substantial material breach of the pertinent resolutions. That is the fact.

No, what this says is that "The Rest of the world", as herein exemplified by the UN, must do what it says it will do or what it says means nothing. If there are "two camps", one camp means and does what it says, and the other does not. I can think of no greater folly than to stand by idly debating, dithering, and denying, while allowing a clear threat to global security to gather, coallesce, and come to fruition. The time for games is over, whether you or anyone else recognizes that or not; there's a war on, and The Iraq Matter is but one component of that war. If a thing is to get done, it is done only by doing it, not by talking about how and why and when to do it. "More Time" was precisely Saddam's goal, his only available avoidance of ultimate defeat. It was time, long past time, that Saddam's time was up.