Home >> Middle East >> Iraq

     Email   Print 

Iraq Then and Now - 2006 International Intelligence Summit Speech by Ryan Mauro

Ryan Mauro - 4/7/2006

First, I’d like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone for attending today. I come before you as a critic of the notion that international terrorism is not state sponsored. I do not believe that terrorists would limit their deadly ambitions by refusing an offer of help from a willing and eager state sponsor. Atheist North Korea cooperates with Shiite Iran. Sunni Hamas cooperates with Shiite Hezbollah. And secular Iraq cooperated with Al-Qaeda. After the Soviet Union fell, the idea that countries sponsored terrorists was discarded like yesterday’s trash. The main backer behind terrorists had fallen—but terrorists continued to operate. Analysts refused to see that terrorists had multiple sources of support.

The issue of Iraqi support for terrorists still important today. Until the cloud of deniability that state sponsors use against us is unveiled, attacks will become deadlier and deadlier. If we fight this war believing we’re attacking independent terrorist cells, the state sponsors will grow bold. They will be free to kill as they wish, cooperate with whom they wish, and use the weapons they wish. They facilitate terrorists because they know the clueless West refuses to see their hand, and we shut our eyes in pursuit of comfort. We must recognize the acts of war being committed against us, and Iraq was guilty of committing these acts of war.

There is much debate today regarding the existence of a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda—even though in the late 1990s such a relationship was considered an established fact by the mainstream media and the Clinton Administration. We’ve seen analysts, policy-makers and politicians change their tune on this relationship over the past five years. It is interesting to note that during the race between Bill Clinton and Bush Senior, Al Gore attacked Bush for not removing Saddam. And one of the reasons he bashed Bush was a RAND report saying that 1,400 terrorists were harbored in Iraq. And this was back in 1992. It is easy to dismiss the words of a politician, so let’s examine what the Iraqis, in their own intelligence files and testimony, have revealed to us.

Defectors have informed the CIA that Sudan, specifically Hasan al-Turabi, brought Iraq into the terrorist legion and helped Iraq reach out to Al-Qaeda. Iraq, hoping to be provided with banned weapons and materials, offered Iraqi training and assistance in return. By the end of 2002, the CIA would write nearly 100 reports of contact between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Mr. Shrimpton will discuss these links in-depth so I’ll just focus on one aspect of the relationship and that is what happened in Somalia.

The ambush of U.S. troops at Mogadishu may have been the first act of cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and possibly others. In late January of 1993, Baghdad hosted the Popular Islamic Conference which included representatives from Palestinian, Afghan, Sudanese and Pakistani groups. A document dated January 18, 1993, also signed by Saddam’s secretary, stated that the regime “should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian friends.”

Another document dated January 25, 1993, listed terrorist groups that Iraq could call upon for their operations. Among those listed are “The Afghani Islamist Party”, known to be a current ally of Al-Qaeda. After the groups are listed, it finishes with “Kindly nominate people to contact the mentioned parties to execute the mission.” Iraqi intelligence documents from this time also list Osama Bin Laden as a “collaborator”, so it is only logical to assume that the Iraqis had to at least consider using Bin Laden and/or Zawahiri’s forces for the mission. Another document shows that Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, agreed to help attack the Egyptian government if Iraq supplied training, weapons and financing. We now know Iraq planned to attack our forces in Somalia. The attack on our forces took place only months after this decision was made. We also know that the groups involved in the ambush were considered friends of the Iraqis. It is clear that Iraq had some role in the brutal events in Somalia.

Now it is impossible to discuss intelligence regarding Iraq without mentioning the WMD issue. In my research, I’ve found that the theory that the Saddam’s missing WMD are in Syria is hardly a minority theory—in fact, it is a prevalent and well-founded theory with great traction in the intelligence community.

Some have dismissed reports of large trucks leaving Iraq and going into Syria and Lebanon as urban myths. I’ve spoken to countless people who have seen the satellite photos of such traffic from several countries. We do not know precisely what is inside and no released Iraqi documents shed light as to their contents, but Iraqi detainees have confirmed the shipments. Tankers, eighteen-wheelers and Russian vehicles that reportedly are fit to handle radioactive and hazardous materials were used. Some reporting indicates ambulances were used as well but there has been no multiple-source confirmation of that.

There has been a tremendous amount of testimony confirming the hiding of the WMD. The best source to date is General Georges Sada, the former #2 commander in Saddam Hussein’s Air Force who claims to know pilots that transferred the WMD. He claims there were 56 flights to Syria in the summer of 2002, along with shipments on the ground after a dam broke in Syria. Iraq pledged to, along with others, assist Syria in it’s disaster so the flights didn’t seem suspicious.

Representative Curt Weldon, in his book “Countdown to Terror” writes that his source that provides accurate information from deep inside the Iranian government confirmed that Syria and Iran were harboring Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, along with scientists and regime figures. In the spring of 2003, an Iraqi scientist proved his credibility by leading Coalition forces to hidden stockpiles of precursors that could be used to make chemical weapons, and stated that while some weapons had been destroyed, the others went to Syria. He further stated that weapons were transferred to and from Syria periodically beginning in the mid-1990s. This concurs with what Dr. Richard Spertzel, who used to be a senior UN inspector in Iraq, was quoted as saying in a book where he told of reports back in 1998 of Iraqi WMD going to Syria and Libya.

The Prime Minister of Albania has stated that he’s seen information that the media hasn’t which has led him to not rule out such a transfer. The former head of the Israeli Defense Forces has confirmed that weapons went to Syria six weeks before the war began, and the former second-in-command of CENTCOM has confirmed this as well.

The WMD are said to be in three sites in Syria and also in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. This first became public when an award-winning Syrian journalist defected and revealed descriptions of the three sites in Syria, which would also later be identified by other Syrian defectors, open-source intelligence reporting and Generals Paul Vallely and General Tom McInerney who are speaking at this conference.

A former high-level Iraqi official who claims to have been a personal friend of Saddam Hussein has fingered the same three sites to me personally. He told me that various contacts of his inside Iraq have confirmed the transfers, and he knows personally that deals were being made for either nation to transfer their weapons capabilities to the other should Baghdad or Damascus be threatened. He also confirmed to me that Iraqi nuclear scientists and technology were sent to Libya to continue work in the 1990s.

Satellite photos from the summer of 2002, before and during the time General Sada claims the shipments began, show the al-Safir WMD site in northern Syria being expanded to include a new underground complex. The site is believed to produce chemical weapons as well as Scud-C and Scud-D missiles. The timing is suspicious, so I believe this site should be investigated as well.

We should not be surprised by the lack of a trail to follow to use to track down these WMDs. The Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its WMD stockpiles. Duelfer appears to base his conclusions on three unresolved issues in his investigation:

1) Lack of documentation in regards to WMD. Yet, in the same report, the ISG concluded that the widespread looting that occurred was largely a cover for Iraqi intelligence to destroy documents, computers, and rob sensitive sites. Even the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission told the Security Council in the summer of 2004 that satellite imagery showed the Iraqis dismantling suspected weapons sites before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Destroyed material and metal was then shipped throughout Europe and the Middle East at a rate of 1,000 tons of metal per month. Dismantled missiles and related components, they said, had already been discovered in several countries—some with UN inspection tags still on them.

2) Duelfer also relies upon the interviewing of Iraqi detainees—the same interviewing process he harshly criticizes as deeply flawed in the ISG reports. The ISG noted the detainees had no incentive to cooperate as they feared implicating themselves in crimes and also feared retaliation by Baath Party loyalists. The ISG also confirmed that in early 2002, Qusay Hussein ordered that a list be drawn up of weapons scientists that could be sent to Syria.

3) The inability to find WMD stockpiles. Needless to say, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It should be mentioned that the ISG reported that Iraqi intelligence replaced the guards on the border with Syria in the months before the war. Unlike what the press said, the Duelfer Report did not conclude that Syria was not hiding the weapons. In fact, what it really says is that the ISG was “unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war.” Duelfer says the Sunni insurgency prevented him from finishing his work, which may be resumed at a later time. The ISG even confirmed that a Syrian official had discussed such a transfer with the Iraqis.

Given all this information, one thing is for sure: This warrants further investigation and the case is still open.

I was planning on discussing the media’s coverage of the progress in Iraq, but decided it would be more effective to simply read to you some headlines from major publications during the reconstruction of Germany after World War Two.

New York Times, October 22, 1945: “Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism: U.S. Poll Shows They Oppose Ousting of Party Members and Seek New ‘Hitler’”

New York Times, October 31, 1945: “Germans Reveal Hate of Americans”

New York Times, November 18, 1945: “Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared”

New York Times, December 3, 1945: “Germans Declare Americans Hated: U.S. Investigators Discover Mounting Bitterness Over Our Occupation Practices: Home Looting Claimed, Fraternization, Denazification and Lack of Assistance in Recovery Assailed”

New York Times, December 27, 1945: “Russians Spread Efficiency and Communism in Germany.”

After World War Two, The media was overly pessimistic and defeatist regarding the rebuilding of Germany. Their main concerns were a continuing guerilla war; mass looting; the growth of anti-Americanism in the region; the de-Nazification program; the fear that nearby foreign powers would sweep in and fill a power vacuum; that Germany did not want and was not ready for democracy and there was no plan for peace. The media yelled that we under-estimated how difficult it would be. Does this sound at all familiar? They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. If we choose to give into pessimism and lose this war, it will not be the result of real facts and a real situation but because of a twisted perception of the situation enflamed by political agendas.

Don’t let anybody fool you. The Iraqi people are better off and appreciate it, despite their understandable complaints. If the insurgency really had the support of a majority of the 25 million Iraqis, American casualties would be in the tens of thousands by now. Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq for 24 years, resulting in the deaths of between one and two million Iraqis alone. If we take the lower estimate of one million, that’s an average of 114 per day. Credible estimates indicate that there’s been around 25-30,000 Iraqis killed during the liberation. That’s an average of 27 per day. There’s no way someone can claim Saddam’s reign was better for the Iraqi people. But that doesn’t stop the enemy from creating images of chaos in order to manipulate the Western media’s reporting.

Today there is not a single state sponsor of terrorism, but several. Terrorist organizations would be foolish to rely upon a single state sponsor, which would mean they’d be held hostage to the interests of a single host country. One of the debates I’ve heard lately is whether Iraq sponsored Al-Qaeda, or if Iran sponsored Al-Qaeda or neither. The answer is that state sponsors don’t limit themselves with how they’ll fight. They’ve been at war with us, will continue to be at war with us, and won’t reject an ally that can help them.

Washington apparently doesn’t understand this. In the War on Terror, you can’t pick and choose who you’re going to fight and when—they’re all at war with you and this requires a broad strategy tackling all the state sponsors through various means all at the same time. Our enemies understand this, and this is why you’re seeing Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Libya supporting the insurgency in Iraq that would otherwise not really exist. They’re killing our troops, and getting away with it because Washington refuses to see that we’re not just at war in Iraq, we’re at war in the entire region. It’s all or nothing—you don’t fight one and then move onto the next.

Washington needs to recognize that the insurgency is just a tentacle of the octopus that Syria and Iran have unleashed upon us. The United States has a tremendous opportunity at hand in the region and even worldwide. If we act right, we can help topple the regimes in Syria and Iran, giving us previously non-existent leverage over Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The ripple effect from success in the region would even be felt in Latin America, where Venezuela would be unable to look to Iran as a nuclear partner. It could even help solve the North Korean problem, as 40% of the income the government uses comes from sales of banned materials to Iran, Syria and other rogue states. Without that source of income, the already cash-strapped Stalinist state could be forced into bankruptcy.

Our best allies will not always have a capitol or have borders. Our allies are the oppressed people who want regime change and just need a little help from the West. We need to recognize that the natural human desire for freedom from tyranny is our best weapon and wield it mercilessly. Just like Ronald Reagan helped the Europeans free themselves from Communism, we can help the Syrians and Iranians free themselves from oppression and tyranny. If we don’t, then the enemy will grow stronger, our allies will question our commitment to freedom, and we’ll find ourselves stuck in wars we might have otherwise stopped.

Tony Blair said “The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.” The days where we sacrificed our oppressed allies at the altar of compromise and never-ending diplomacy must come to an end.

Should we refuse to take advantage of the leverage we now have, the families of those who die as a result of our inaction will never forgive us. History will either look at this period as when America stood up and helped topple the regimes responsible for the ongoing turmoil in Iraq and worldwide, or the period of lost opportunity.

Washington must hear the voices of the Iranian and Syrian people today or we’ll find ourselves in an otherwise avoidable military confrontation throughout the entire region.