Robert M. Liu, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by Robert M. Liu
Snippets 9/7/2003 8:39:16 PM
Originally posted at Roundtable, this note touches on a recent Washington Post survey, the guerilla warfare in Iraq, and the folks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Snippets:
(1) Reasonable suspicion:
A recent Washington Post survey shows that 69% of Americans believe Saddam-9/11 linkage likely and that 82% of Americans believe Saddam material support for al-Qaeda likely.
After all, Saddam's own media propaganda made clear that his regime was supportive of the "revolutionary" bin Laden's anti-U.S. plots, hoping they would make "the U.S. Marines go away" from the Gulf region.
Less than two months before 9/11, Saddam's media indicated that it knew bin Laden was "seriously thinking about how to bomb the Pentagon" and "insisting he'd strike America on the arm that was already hurting".
No doubt, Saddam Hussein wanted to take revenge on the U.S. for his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, and Osama bin Laden was doing exactly what Saddam Hussein himself would like to do.
In fact, acts of vengeance began to happen after the 1991 Gulf War, for example: an attempt on the life of former U.S. president George H.W. Bush; the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; a global anti-U.S. agitation campaign that began to intensify after the 1991 Gulf War, fueling global terror recruitment.
While Saddam apologists can say all this was organized and coordinated by Osama bin Laden and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, they cannot eliminate reasonable suspicion in the minds of millions of reasonable people.
If two men have a fight and then the wife and children of one of them are murdered, the police will certainly knock at the other man's door and ask him a few questions, because he is under reasonable suspicion.
That said, there is a difference between reasonable suspicion and solid proof. Reasonable suspicion is a matter of logic, common sense and judgement. Whereas solid proof has to include material evidence and reliable witnesses that a court of law would want to see.
In my opinion, what is available in the case of Saddam Hussein are at least circumstantial indications of a strong possibility that the regime may have provided covert support to al-Qaeda such as intelligence, training, personnel, money, and ammunition.
For ideological reasons, the political left has chosen not to see those indications. Its interest lies in discrediting the Bush administration. So it demands to see solid proof of Saddam-9/11 linkage and Saddam material support for al-Qaeda, as if the intelligence community were a court of law.
(2) The guerilla warfare in Iraq:
While the hit-and-run tactics of the Iraqi insurgents resemble those used in guerilla warfare, evidence of a strong guerilla base capable of providing unlimited supplies of munition and other material support, so far, has not been reported.
History shows such a guerilla base is essential to any successful guerilla movement. For instance, during the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong had a strong guerilla base in North Vietnam, from which, Viet Cong guerillas infiltrated South Vietnam with unlimited supplies of munition.
If the Iraqi insurgents don't have a strong guerilla base plus material support from extraneous sources, there is no reason to believe they can achieve anything more than just a few car bombings and a few assassinations.
(3) The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
But experts may have different opinions. For instance, during a TV interview with Charlie Rose (PBS), Jessica Mattews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, expressed her concerns about the situation in Iraq.
Her "advice": Get out before it's too late. The Iraqi insurgents have yet to show any ability to win any battle and hold any ground. What makes her believe that things can only get worse in Iraq? Is it a coincidence that those opposed to the Iraq War (Jessica Mattews included) tend to have such beliefs?
There is another Carnegie Endowment expert by the name of Joseph Cirincione who also appears to be opposed to the Iraq War because of his doubts about the war's justification. But why isn't Saddam's breach of surrender terms and U.N. resolutions sufficient justification for war?
So my impressions are that Carnegie Endowment experts tend to be anti-war and that in order to maintain "International Peace" they'd rather see tyrants like Saddam Hussein stay in power.
But why is "International Peace" with Saddam mass graves, torture chambers, terror ties and WMD programs such a great ideal for these Carnegie Endowment folks that they find it necessary to appear on national TV attacking those who eliminated Saddam's regime?
