(Updated #1 at bottom)
(Update #2 below)
The recent arrest and confessions of Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi shines an uncomfortable light (uncomfortable for those who warned such cooperation wasn't possible due to ideological differences) on what many observers of the Iraq war warned wasn't possible: Cooperation between Iraqi Baathists loyal to secular Saddam Hussein and religiously fanatic al-Qaeda.
al-Saeedi, also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, told his captors that he has been "'responsible for more attacks than he can remember' and has been involved in the insurgency almost from its beginning three years ago," according to officials. al-Saeedi admitted that "Al Qaeda in Iraq was cooperating with supporters of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 'in the fields of exchanging information and logistic support (as has been documented here and here).'"
Reporters and residents in Baghdad did not need the confessions of al-Saeedi to know who was behind much of the anti-civilian violence, as evidence of the intertwined trail of terror being left by the Saddam loyalists and al-Qaeda was becoming increasingly evident.
IWPR's Zaineb Naji recently wrote from Baghdad that local neighborhoods are reporting that Saddam Hussein loyalists and al-Qaeda/Salafists have been trying to violently implement Islamic law on local communities, to control and intimidate these areas, with the broader hopes of turning Iraq into an Islamic state (similar plans were also mentioned repeatedly by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi just before his death).
Omar, of "Iraq the Model's", recent trip in Baghdad brought him details of what locals have seen in their neighborhoods regarding the violence used on civilians by both al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein loyalists.
Before an attempt to travel home after a funeral, one of Omar's relatives told him and his father of al-Qaeda's growing local presence.
"At this point we began to realize the true identity of those young men and we began to believe that they became part of al-Qaeda" he said while describing the dangers of travelling locally. Omar's relative also relayed that "they belong to a few of the Sunni tribes and their chief is the son of former big head in Saddam's government."
Those who were most "efficient" at terrorizing Iraq for decades (Saddam Hussein's regime) are continuing to do so both directly (IED's, kidnappings, roadblocks, executions, etc) and indirectly via their continued support for al-Qaeda (logistical support, information, money, safehouses, etc.) wishing to set up a new version of fascism in Iraq, a Sunni Islamic state.
(Update #1)The Washington Post is now reporting that al-Saeedi is a former member of Saddam Hussein's Intelligence Services who have, rightfully, gained a reputation for strong links to terrorism pre and post invasion (H/T Laurie Mylroie).
(Update #2) Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told the London Arabic publication Asharq Alawsat that "the country is facing difficult security circumstances due to the acts of terror being carried out by the Al-Qaeda along with Saddam's followers who seek to foment sectarian sedition. There are nearly no dividing lines between the political and field objectives of Al-Qaeda, of which the Arab nationals constitute 20 percent, and Saddam's followers who target government officials, politicians, Iraqi army forces, as well as security forces."
As has been noted on Regimeofterror.com on numerous occasions, al-Qaeda in Iraq and many of the remaining Saddam Hussein loyalists have become indistinguishable from one another in tactics, goals and enemies.
Comments (3)
Only a simpleton or an ardent socialist would still claim that Saddam’s people and Al Qaeda were not and are not partners. Like the USSR and the USA in the fight against the Socialist Labor Party; they (Saddam and Al Qaeda) do/did not share the same belief system. But they did/do consider themselves to be fighting a common enemy.
Posted by: Rodney A Stanton | September 4, 2006 12:14 PM
Posted on: September 4, 2006 12:14
Hamid Mir, a famed Pakistani journalist who obtained the only post-9/11 interviews with OBL and al-Zawahiri, believes a nuclear attack against the United States is on the horizon, to be coordinated by the fascist Theocratic state of Iran and one of its terrorist surrogates, al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. Al-Qaeda and Iran have a long, secret relationship,” Mir says, and they’ve named their plans for a nuclear attack on the U.S.—using nuclear devices that Mir believes they already possess—“American Hiroshima.” And, we know what the relationship is all about between Iran and Hezbollah, as evidenced by the recent attack on Israel.
Wake up! We are fighting the Third World War. It will not bode well for anyone if we fail to acknowledge the seriousness of our continued direct response to this threat. Failure to support our global effort to put this "fanatical religious suicidal jihad" out-of-business will result in a very dark millennium: an end to Western civilization within the next two generations.
What happened to: "We will fight them where-ever they are, in any country that provides them with support, shelter or provides them with arms and ammunition"?
Posted by: Bill | September 4, 2006 2:54 PM
Posted on: September 4, 2006 14:54
Great site, great reading too. This brings to mind recent comments by some military officers that perhaps the thing to do is simply let history take its course, i.e., let the Shiia do what they will to the Sunni and bring an end to the conflict that way.
However, that isn't going to sit well with the world court of opinion as we can all well imagine. My personal thought is that if Iran is going to wage a war in the near future with Western powers/interests (and the signs are pointing that way), it would be better to take the initiative ourselves. Attacking Iran would make Iraqis either unite, or would leave the Shiia who control the majority of the government and the Kurds fighting Iran, and the Sunni in the strange position of either collaborating with the enemy or doing nothing.
When it was all said and done...how do you claim any legitimacy if you did nothing for your country in a war? You can't...and if they failed to serve as conscripts (if that is what the Iraqi government required of them), they would be great candidates for imprisonment, banishment, or if they resisted further the will of the government, they would be seen as legitimate enemies of the state, having already shown themselves not to be merely dissatisfied citizens in fear of persecution---but active traitors and security threats.
And I agree with another commentor on the notion of us fighting WWIII. However, I'm not sure I would say we're actually fighting it now. I do believe we are fighting engagements and battles and wars that are building the conditions for it however. It won't be a world war until an alliance of states actually line up together and take the offensive against us by strictest definition. I think it's about to happen however.
You can see efforts by Iran and Chavez down in Central America and the North Korean regime. While I think the worst thing that could happen to us right now would be to have Iran, North Korea, Syria, Al Qaeda, Chavez, and Hamas/Hezbollah and other terror groups all making a concerted effort and engaging us at once, I think the best thing would be to engage Iran offensively and preemptively.
Sometimes, you can disperse a mob as it's forming if you take out the ringleaders. Once the mob is formed, you're going to have a harder time doing something about it. We're trying to do that...but we're getting bogged down in Iraq, and it's going to bite us in the rear if we don't keep forward drive. Better to take the offensive and let Iraq's government worry about internal control. They will have an easier time of it if we engage Iran and Syria.
Posted by: Sean Wilson | January 16, 2007 8:49 AM
Posted on: January 16, 2007 08:49