Saddam Husayn - Martyr for Palestine?

Capture of Saddam Husayn - DOD Photos

This week, a letter from Saddam Husayn surfaced in Jordan. Here is the translated text of the letter:

My greetings to the Arab people of brotherly Jordan and to whoever asks about us in our dignified and glorified nation; my soul and my existence is to be sacrificed for our precious Palestine and our beloved, patient and suffering Iraq.

Life is meaningless without the considerations of faith, love and inherited history in our nation. It is not much for a man to support his nation with his soul and all he commands because it deserves it since it has given us life in the name of God and allowed us to inherit the best.

My brother, love your people, love Palestine, love your nation, long live Palestine.

Saddam Husayn attempting to invoke the name of God and the Palestinian cause is laughable. Saddam Husayn is the antithesis of religion, despite his repeated attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of Islam. This is not new, nor is his attempt to tie his fate to that of the Palestinians.

Soon after the American response to his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, he changed the Iraqi national flag to include the words "God is Great" (Allahu Akbar). This was a blatant attempt to portray secular, socialist Iraq - a country ruled by the Arab Socialist Renaissance (Ba'th) Party - as an Islamic state. Saddam hoped to rally the Arab and larger Muslim world to his cause. With the exception of Jordan, Yemen and Sudan, it did not work.

Likewise, his commitment to the Palestinian cause is also somewhat suspect. Prior to his invasion of Kuwait, his only commitment to Palestine was a half-hearted and virtually unnoticed contribution to the war effort against Israel. Faced with the American deployment after his invasion of Kuwait, he threatened to launch missile against Israel if he was attacked in Kuwait or Iraq. This he said he would do for the Palestinians. Again, this was an attempt to appeal to the Arab world for support against the American-led coalition.

This attempt, however, it was marginally effective. Jordanians and Palestinians supported Saddam. T-shirts in Jordan showed images of King Husayn, Yasir 'Arafat and Saddam superimposed over an image of the Dome of the Rock, near the site of Islam's third-holiest site, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Other T-shirts were emblazoned with the words, "I am an Arab - my birthday is August 2, 1990." August 2 was the date of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

True to his word, one day after the beginning of air campaign of Operation Desert Storm, Iraqi missiles were launched at Israel. By the end of the war, Saddam had ordered the launch of about 40 missiles at Israel.

Saddam Husayn is committed to the survival of Saddam Husayn. Failing that, he is committed to the legacy of Saddam Husayn. Committed to God and Palestine? Hardly.

Iraq: The Chain of Command

From an interview with an Associated Press reporter as reported in today's Washington Post:

"U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the 'worst case' in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers. Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped."

For those who might be confused as to why the Army's senior officer referred to "commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command," an explanation might be in order. Although Schoomaker is the chief of staff of the Army, he has no command responsibilities. In 1987, the Goldwater-Nichols Act became law and delineated the chain of command for the armed forces.

The President is the commander in chief. He issues orders to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn gives orders to the commander of the combatant command. Most of these commands are organized regionally, although not always (for example, Strategic Command and Transportation Command have worldwide responsibilities). In the case of Iraq, the combatant command is the United States Central Command, or CENTCOM, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida (in Tampa). The commander* of CENTCOM, General John Abizaid is responsible for conducting operations in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility, which includes Iraq. In Iraq, General Abizaid issues orders to General George Casey, commander of the Multinational Force-Iraq. All American military personnel and Defense Department civilians answer to General Casey.

Note the absence of several well-known positions. As we said before, the Army chief of staff is not in the chain of command, nor are the Air Force chief of staff, the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps. Also note that the nation's senior military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is not in the chain of command. The Chairman serves as an advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the President. The four service chiefs are responsible (and have been since 1947) for providing trained and equipped forces to the combatant commanders.

_________
* Up until the current administration, the commanders of the combatant commands were called commander in chief of that command, such as CINCCENT. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld changed this with the remark that there is only one commander in chief, the President.

Gaza Withdrawal: Mahmud 'Abbas Comments

Mahmud 'Abbas

Over the last few days, the media has covered Israel's unilateral withdrawal from its settlements in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon ordered the controversial withdrawal as part of the Middle East peace process, although some skeptics believe he is doing it more to make peace with the United States rather than the Palestinians. The American administration has put pressure on the Israelis to withdraw what many believe are illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

Most Middle East specialists are aware that the Gaza Strip was never intended to be part of Israel. It was part of the League of Nations established Palestinian Mandate established after the end of World War I in which the Ottoman Empire was defeated and dismembered. Palestine was administered by the British until the United Nations partition plan of 1947. According to the plan, two states - one Jewish and one Arab/Palestinian - were to be created in the area of the mandate. Gaza was always envisioned as part of the Arab state. After the fighting (or as the Israelis say, the "War of Independence") in 1948, it came under Egyptian governance. It has been in Israeli hands since they captured it (and the entire Sinai peninsula) in the 1967 Six Day War.

As the final stages of the withdrawal are in progress. Palestinian National Authority President Mahmud 'Abbas made some remarks at the reopening of the Gaza International Airport.

His comments, made in Arabic and obviously for local consumption, are not helpful.

Translated and excerpted:

"Today we come to visit our former president Yasser Arafat, and tomorrow we will came to the airport to travel - this airport which has been closed for years will be open for the world. This airport is the Palestinian window to the world.

This [Israeli] withdrawal is a salute to our martyrs; we are enjoying today. This step will be followed by other steps. This is a first step - we will continue in the West Bank and God willing, in Jerusalem. These steps came with the passion of our people, our martyrs and our prisoners."

It only takes a few minutes of watching news coverage of the withdrawal and Palestinian celebration to understand their perception. The Palestinian militant organizations - Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades - all feel vindicated. They believe that their guerilla and terrorist operations over the last few decades are finally paying off.

Rather than lessening the violence, the withdrawal may lead to increased violence as the Palestinians (including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades) move toward what 'Abbas has declared "the next step" - the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Al-Hadithah - again?

After the loss of two dozen Marines in combat in the Al-Hadithah area, about 1000 Marines and Iraqi special forces supported by airpower are mounting another offensive around the city that straddles the main infiltration route from Syria along the Euphrates River.

This is a necessary action - these pockets of insurgency must be eradicated. The question, though, is why this pocket continues to exist. There was an offensive earlier this year in this region. So what happened? Unfortunately, immediately after successfully conducting the operation, American forces moved to other fights, other areas. When they do this, they cede the territory to the insurgents. Why? Because then, and probably even now, there are not enough American forces to adequately maintain security, nor are there enough trained and capable Iraqi forces to do the job. That day may come, but it does not appear to be imminent.

So, after a few days of searching, arresting and fighting, the Marines will once again withdraw from Al-Hadithah, and the insurgents will return. We have to break this cycle.

A recent AP-Ipsos poll indicates that only about 38 percent of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling the war in Iraq. I am not in that number. While supportive of the effort in Iraq, I think that the President and Secretary of Defense are pursuing it the wrong way. This strategy only confirms my belief.

Saudi Arabia - Ambassador Prince Bandar Resigns

Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud, has submitted his resignation. Bandar is the son of Sultan bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz, the Minister of Defense and Aviation, and grandson of the current king. His father will become the crown pronce when the current king dies.

I have always liked Bandar, and I think overall he has been an effective ambassador for his country, as well providing good counsel to the royal family about things here.

Bandar has been suffering from depression for many years. There has been depression in his branch of the family. One of his half-brothers, Khalid (of Gulf War fame), has also suffered from similar depression.

From what I am told, after 9/11, he got pregressively worse and had wanted to resign and go back home. He wanted to take over as Director of General Intelligence, but for whatever reason did not get the job. He may still get the internal security portfolio.

I will always remember being in Bandar's study in McLean (just down Chain Bridge Road from the CIA back entrance) two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. My boss and I went over at Cheney's direction to Soyster to show Bandar how serious the Iraqis were. So, we took maps and satellite imagery - at the time no one was overly concerned about releasability - of the Iraqi deployments and the information on the continued flow of men and materiel to the border area. We had some large sheets, so he motioned for us to spread them out on the floor.

Here's a picture: The ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and me on our hands and knees crawling around sheets of annotated imagery with magnifying glasses. After about half an hour of this, Bandar, a military man, looked up at my boss and me and said, "This is bad, very bad. I must call His Majesty - shall I tell him they will invade?"

My boss said, "It would appear that way."

Bandar shook his head in disbelief, looked at me and said, "But Saddam said he would not."

I did the Gallic shrug, with the "what can I tell you" look.

Bandar is to be replaced by former Director of General Intelligence Prince Turki bin Faysal, currently the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom. In my opinion, he was the biggest impediment to any meaningful cooperation between American and Saudi intelligence for over 20 years.

During Desert Shield and Desert Storm, when the Saudis had a vested interest in total cooperation with the American intelligence services, the General Intelligence Directorate was evasive and unhelpful, and at times almost to the point of impeding our own efforts - I speak from personal experience. The military intelligence service was much better at working with us - they understood what was at stake. Later, when the United States sought to investigate the series of terrorist attacks against American facilities in the Kingdom, including the attacks on the Al-Khubar Towers in 1996 that killed 19 members of the U.S. Air Force, Turki stymied the investigations at every turn.

When he was appointed to be ambassador in London, many of his "fans" thought Turki had been marginalized and put out to pasture. Garnering the post of ambassador to the United States is not exactly "out to pasture."

Prince Bandar bin Sultan will be missed.

MSNBC - Looking at Saddam's first trial

MSNBC

Looking at Saddam's first trial

On July 18, I spoke with MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing about the upcoming trial, actually the first of a series of trials, of Sadddam Hussein. Here is a summary of that interview and a link to a video.
-------------

MSNBC analyst Francona analyzes the choice for initial case against Hussein

As Saddam Hussein awaits his first trial, many are left scratching their heads about the facts of the first case that will be brought against him. While the former dictator has been accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, prosecutors have decided that his first trial will involve a massacre of about 150 people. MSNBC analyst and retired Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona joined MSNBC Live’s Chris Jansing on Monday to discuss the decision.

The case itself reflects a 1982 assassination attempt that was made on Saddam Hussein’s life in the town of Dujail. “Saddam sends his henchmen to take care of the situation, and immediately, 150 people are arrested, tortured and executed, about 500 go missing and hundreds of others are banished to the Southwest desert.” Francona said describing the details of the case.

What remains in question is why this particular incident was chosen over much more horrendous crimes.

Francona notes that because world leaders have generally claimed exemption from prosecution for things they did as heads of state, this makes the prosecution’s job much harder than one might expect.

“Are you accusing Saddam Hussein, or are you accusing the president of Iraq, because if you’re accusing the president of Iraq he could say he was acting in his official capacity.” Francona said.

This simple reasoning has prosecutors initially starting small, in order to build a workable case against him.

“Why this one when you’ve got all the others, (including) the gassing of the Kurds?” Francona asked. It’s because they think they can prove this one relatively easily. They’ve got the witnesses, they’ve got a lot of documentation, there’s even U.N. documentation on this, so they believe that they can go into a court of law, win this one, and they’ve got to come out first and win, they can’t afford to lose a case.”

Though the first case is very important, this is far from the only case planned against the former dictator. “There are going to be probably 13 or 14 trials involving Saddam Hussein.” Francona said.

To watch the complete interview, go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8618365/

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

CIA Agent? Let's get the terminology straight...

Valerie Plame Wilson - CIA Agent?

How many times in the last few months, years even, have we seen media reports about the revelation of a CIA agent's name? It is against the law to knowingly reveal the name of undercover intelligence personnel and assets, be they CIA, Department of Defense or other intelligence agency. Mrs. Wilson may have fallen into that category, but is she a CIA agent?

No, she is not.

Let's get the terminology straight. Mrs. Wilson is a CIA officer, a civil servant, a civilian employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. She is not an agent.

So what is the difference? An agent is someone, usually a foreign national, recruited by American intelligence officers, sometimes called "case officers," to work on behalf of the United States. These are the true spies, they are most often betraying their own countries for the benefit of the United States.

Once again, Mrs. Wilson is not a CIA agent, she is not a spy - she is an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency.

MSNBC - Francona on Intelligence Sharing

MSNBC

On June 10, I was interviewed by Randy Meier on MSNBC about continuing problems with intelligence sharing. Here is a summary of that interview and a link to a video.
-------------

Intelligence sharing better, but needs improvement MSNBC analyst Francona says changes taking place from bottom up

A newly released Justice Department report says the FBI missed at least five opportunities to uncover vital intelligence that could have helped stop the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The missed opportunities occurred in large parts because of bad information sharing, according to the report, particularly between the FBI and CIA, along with problems within the FBI's own counterterrorism program.

The intelligence community, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have claimed that improvements have been made in this area. Those claims are true, according to MSNBC Military Analyst and Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona, who worked for the Department of Defense as a counter-terrorism official specifically charged with targeting al-Qaida in the late 1990s, but that that doesn't mean the problem has been solved.

"I know at the worker level, it's much more improved," Francona said Friday in an interview with MSNBC's Randy Meier. "People are exchanging the information, but the system hasn't caught up with what is really going on. "

It's at the higher levels of the bureaucracy that the information flow is still not as free as it should be, Francona said.

He noted that while working for the Defense Department in the 90s, that intelligence sharing was practically non-existent.

"I wish there had been some," Francona said. "That's the bottom line. The problem was this wall people keep talking about between the law enforcement community and the intelligence community. But the problem was deeper than that. It was within the intelligence community itself.

"The agencies weren't real good at sharing information that they had gained with the other analytical cells. Then, once you had something within the intelligence community, it was very very difficult to exchange that with the FBI," Francona said. "You could provide it to the FBI, but you never got anything back from the FBI. It was the mindset - the FBI wanted to put people in jail, the intelligence community wanted to stop operations."

Francona admitted that working in this atmosphere was very frustrating, and while improvements have been made, there is still a long way to go. "I think the problem has been recognized and people know it needs to be fixed, but the bureaucratic problems are still there," he said.

To watch the complete interview, go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8171576/

© 2005 MSNBC.com

Iraq: History and the Charges Against Saddam

MSNBC

On June 8, I appeared on MSNBC Live discussing how a past chapter in US-Iraqi relations may have influenced the list of charges levied against Saddam Husayn.

Here are some excepts of the interview:

One of the charges Saddam Hussein will defend himself against in his upcoming trial is the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the village of Halabja back in 1988. However, Hussein's use of gas against Iranian troops, which occurred within months of that incident, was not one of the 12 charges brought against the Iraqi dictator.

According to MSNBC Military analyst Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona, the omission of that incident from the list of charges likely has much to do with the fact that the U.S. was actively advising Hussein in his military effort against Iran.

"This is an interesting omission from that entire list we see," Francona said on MSNBC Live on Wednesday. "I think that they just don't want to raise this issue for the defense team to pick apart. They're going to want to know, 'Why was the United States supporting Saddam Hussein when now you're putting him on trial?'"
Francona, one of only two U.S. military officials present in Iraq at the time, was working in the defense attaché office in the American embassy in Baghdad. But, in an interview with MSNBC's Randy Meier, said he didn't know the gassing of the Kurds had happened until after the fact.

He did, however, learn quickly of the use of gas on Iranian troops, which combined with the news of the Halabja incident, initiated a quick response from Washington.

"The Reagan administration's response was that we were to cease operations inside Iraq immediately, and we all returned home on the next plane."

However, Francona said that once he returned to Washington, he attended a series of meetings to decide whether to abandon the effort and risk letting Iran win the war.

"The decision was taken that we would continue to help the Iraqis and we returned to Baghdad," Francona said.

Returning to Baghdad with the knowledge of what Iraqi troops had done was not easy, Francona said.

"It wasn't pleasant returning in that circumstance. We knew we were working with military people who had given the orders to use chemical weapons - not only on Iranian troops, but against their own people - so it was kind of distasteful," Francona said. "But here, we were dealing with the lesser of two evils. The foreign policy goal was to make sure the Iranians didn't win the war."

Watch the complete interview at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8158515/

© 2005 MSNBC.com

Saudi Arabia: 'Abdullah - The Man Who Will Be King

As the news networks in the United States and the Middle East flash the news that Saudi Arabia's King Fahd has been rushed to the hospital, perhaps we should take a look at who will succeed him on the throne in Riyadh.

For the past few years, because of the king's continuing poor health, much of the day-to-day responsibility for running the affairs of the oil-rich kingdom has been in the hands of the king's half-brother and almost certain successor, Crown Prince 'Abdullah bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz. 'Abdullah, regarded almost as an outsider by many of the senior royal family, may not be as close to the United States as his predecessors, possibly causing difficulties for the United States in defending its interests in the Persian Gulf.

The Saudi ruling family is extremely secretive by nature. Many observers suspect that Fahd's health is much worse than portrayed in Saudi media. The king has been ill for several years. When he suffered a stroke in 1995, the situation was serious enough for 'Abdullah to be appointed regent for several months.

When King Fahd does die, the senior members of the Saudi royal family - the sons of the kingdom's founder 'Abd Al-'Aziz - will meet to choose his successor. Although 'Abdullah is the overwhelming favorite, there have been noises of a challenge, that being Prince Sultan bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz, the minister of defense and aviation. Like King Fahd and five other members of the senior royal family, Sultan is one of the "Sudayri Seven." King Fahd is the eldest brother of the Sudayri Seven. These are seven sons of King 'Abd Al-'Aziz from the same mother, Hasa bint Ahmad Al-Sudayri. Many have assumed powerful positions in the government, based on the full fraternal relationship. In addition to King Fahd and defense chief Sultan, 'Abd Al-Rahman is deputy minister of defense and aviation, Nayif is the minister of the interior, and Salman is the governor of Riyadh province. Turki, 'Abd Al-Rahman and Ahmad also hold positions in the government. These seven brothers - and now their sons - are the power behind the kingdom's future.

Of note is the tribal affiliation of 'Abdullah's mother. She is a member of the largest and most powerful tribe in the region - the Shammar. The Shammar are found in northern Saudi Arabia, eastern Jordan, southeastern Syria and throughout Iraq. Among his Shammar cousins, 'Abdullah counts Shaykh Ghazi Al-Yawar, one of Iraq's recently named vice presidents (and former interim president).

'Abdullah bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz and the United States

Crown Prince and First Deputy Prime Minister 'Abdullah bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud, is half-brother to the king and heir to the throne since 1982, served as regent from 1 January to 22 February 1996. 'Abdullah, 80, has been the commander of the Saudi National Guard since 1963. The Saudi Arabian National Guard is an independent military force made up of descendants of the original armed supporters of King 'Abd Al-'Aziz, and is meant to act as a counter to any possible anti-government activities by the armed forces. In times of national emergency, it is attached to the army, as they were in the Gulf War against the Iraqis in 1991.

Assuming that 'Abdullah is named to succeed King Fahd, the close relationship between Washington and Riyadh may cool a bit. Fahd is the latest in a line of pro-Western Saudi kings who have used the country's immense oil reserves - the largest in the world, over 250 billion barrels - to attempt to maintain stable oil prices. These stable oil prices, and access to the oil, is a key U.S. national interest. For this price stability, Saudi Arabia has been assured that the military power of the United States is available to protect the kingdom.

'Abdullah, however, is much less enamored of the United States than his predecessors. It is believed that 'Abdullah was behind the withdrawal of American forces from the kingdom. He may be less inclined to purchase American or western weapons, and is less likely to use Saudi Arabia's power within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to hold oil prices in check. In obvious preparation for assuming the throne, 'Abdullah has made numerous trips throughout the region as well as a visit to consult with President George Bush.

As events bring the inevitable change of leadership in Riyadh, it will be interesting to watch which way 'Abdullah leads Saudi Arabia.