Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it

[Charean]

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda
By Sebastian Rotella, Times Staff Writer

(2002-11-04) PARIS--As the Bush administration prepares for a possible military attack on Iraq that it describes as the next logical step in its war on terror, some of its strongest front-line allies in that war dispute Washington's allegations that the Baghdad regime has significant ties to Al Qaeda.

In recent interviews, top investigative magistrates, prosecutors, police and intelligence officials who have been fighting Al Qaeda in Europe said they are concerned about attempts by President Bush and his aides to link Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden's terror network.

"We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the French judge who is the dean of the region's investigators after two decades fighting Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists. "And we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever."

Even in Britain, a loyal U.S. partner in the campaign against Iraq, it's hard to find anyone in the government making the case that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime are close allies. In fact, European counter-terrorist veterans who are working with American counterparts worry that an attack on Iraq, especially a unilateral U.S. invasion, would worsen the threat of radical Islamic terrorism worldwide and impede their work.

"A war on Iraq will not diminish the terrorist threat. It will probably increase it," said Baltasar Garzon, Spain's best-known investigative magistrate, who is prosecuting Al Qaeda suspects in Madrid as alleged accomplices in the Sept. 11 attacks. "It could radicalize the situation in the Middle East.... As for the investigations of Sept. 11, doors would close in the Arab world that have helped in the fight against Al Qaeda. And a war would do nothing to bolster the investigation into the attacks in the United States."

The European critics aren't limited to the usual suspects: instinctively anti-American, pro-Arab politicians and pundits whose voices are often the loudest in the Iraq debate here. On the contrary, Bruguiere, Garzon and other investigators have won praise from U.S. officials for their tough tactics and proven willingness to lock up suspected terrorists during the past year.

Even before Sept. 11, long-running cases in Europe were valuable resources for U.S. investigators working to learn more about Islamic networks. Investigations in France, Spain and elsewhere have helped build cases against Zacarias Moussaoui, an alleged accomplice of the hijackers who awaits trial in Virginia, and other suspects.

The criticism in Europe reinforces the misgivings of some U.S. congressional leaders and intelligence officials about hawks in the Bush administration who allege that Iraq could have even played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics say that the evidence is weak and that intelligence agencies are feeling political pressure to implicate Iraq in terrorism.

In the last two months, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have periodically revived and expanded on the allegations.

On Friday, Bush specifically linked Hussein to the terrorist network. "We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda," Bush said during an election rally in New Hampshire. "A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network, where they could attack America and he'd leave no fingerprints behind. He is a problem."

The U.S. leaders have made much of a supposed meeting between Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and an Iraqi spy in Prague, the Czech capital, last year. They have cited "bulletproof evidence," in Rumsfeld's words, of the recent presence of Al Qaeda members in Iraq and of contacts between senior Al Qaeda figures and the Baghdad regime that allegedly go back years. They have accused Iraq of training Al Qaeda terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

Premise Called Flawed

European experts say they haven't seen U.S. proof or been able to confirm the accusations independently. The Europeans say the premise is flawed because Hussein embodies the kind of secular Arab dictators whom Bin Laden has sworn to bring down.

Talk of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection is "nonsense," said a high-ranking source in the German intelligence community. "Not even the Americans believe it anymore."

The German government has resolutely opposed a potential war on Iraq, partly out of domestic electoral calculations. And it has angered Washington in the process. France has pursued a diplomatic offensive to tone down a proposed U.S. resolution at the United Nations mandating aggressive weapons inspections in Iraq, while asserting that it could accept military action approved by the U.N.

In contrast, Britain, Spain and Italy have indicated that they would support a U.S.-led attack even if the U.N. process breaks down.

Yet Spain's Garzon breaks ranks with his government when it comes to Iraq. The famously independent judge considers himself a leftist and has criticized the indefinite imprisonment of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, although his anti-corruption probes and battle against Basque separatist terrorists have made him enemies on the left as well.

"I have seen no link to Al Qaeda. No one has demonstrated it to me," Garzon said. "And therefore we have to be very careful not to confuse the citizens. One thing is that you don't like the Iraqi regime, that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. But there are many terrible dictators. That's not a reason to start a war with all the consequences it could have for millions of innocents."

Of all the intelligence services in the world, British agencies probably work the closest with U.S. spies. The sharing of sensitive information appeared evident in a British government dossier in September that laid out charges about Hussein's program to develop weapons of mass destruction. The report closely resembled Washington's accounts of Iraq's arsenal.

The British have been much quieter when it comes to any alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda, however. Asked about the matter Wednesday, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded diplomatic.

"It could well be the case that there were links, active links, between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime before Sept. 11," Straw said. "What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. And the answer is: I haven't."

No Prague Meeting

Straw said there is some evidence of such links during the past year but did not elaborate. And on a crucial point, he and his aides made it clear that the allegations of a meeting in Prague between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent -- Exhibit A for U.S. hawks who accuse Hussein of having a hand in the Sept. 11 plot -- have been disproved.

In other countries with considerable expertise, investigators said they have come across scattered examples of limited connections: An Iraqi member of Al Qaeda turned up in an Italian case. There are signs of Al Qaeda suspects moving through Iraq en route to other countries before and after Sept. 11, according to Spanish and French law enforcement.

But European investigators said the Al Qaeda presence is stronger in Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran than it is in Iraq. Since the war in Afghanistan, Iran in particular has become a busy refuge for Bin Laden's operatives, according to French investigators.

And Saudi Arabia, officially a U.S. ally, has been deeply involved in the worldwide funding mechanism that helps sustain Al Qaeda operations as well as fundamentalist ideologues active in recruitment of terrorists and the theology of violence, European investigators said.

"If connections to a country are going to be the rationale, the Americans would have to bomb Saudi Arabia," a Spanish official said sarcastically.

Bruguiere, the French judge, took issue with the idea that an invasion of Iraq would make the world safer from terrorism.

The main thing that Iraq and Al Qaeda have in common is enmity toward the United States, according to Bruguiere and others. That is not enough to create an alliance, but it could cause a resurgent Al Qaeda to exploit a U.S. military operation that produced civilian casualties and an extended occupation of Iraq, the same way Al Qaeda uses the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to whip up resentment of the West.

A U.S. military intervention in Iraq could "globalize anti-American and anti-Western sentiment," Bruguiere said. "Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it."

Times staff writer Maura Reynolds in Washington and special correspondent Dirk Laabs in Hamburg, Germany, contributed to this report.
Copyright (c) 2002 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate
© Copyright 2002, Los Angeles Times

[Lord of Alcohol]

I'm not for invading Iraq, yes that may surprise people [img]tongue.gif[/img] Waste of lives,goodwill,time,and resources. There is no real reason other than "what if". If we attack every "what if" country in the world what does that make us?

[True_Moose]

Well, it would certainly give them another "excuse" or "justification" (depending on exactly how warped their words seem to you). Now the US is "attacking 'innocent' Islamic countries without provocation." Now I'm not saying this is what I think at all, just what we're likely to hear in the future if the war goes ahead.

[K T Ong]

It's just so difficult to make out the truth regarding the whole Iraq issue... Apparently every 'authority' reporting on it has an agenda up their sleeve that prompts them to twist the story in favor of their cause... (Just edited it a bit...)

[ 11-04-2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[Lord Lothar]

Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol: I'm not for invading Iraq, yes that may surprise people [img]tongue.gif[/img] Waste of lives,goodwill,time,and resources. There is no real reason other than "what if". If we attack every "what if" country in the world what does that make us?

Paranoid bullies.

[Lord Starshadow]

Too true. I think that Bush just wants to get rid of Hussein and he's using an Al-Quida link to gain support from Americans because of the tensions of 9/11. As pointed out in the article, Bin Laden is against the regime in Iraq. The only reason for the two to be working together is because of their shared anti-US beliefs.

Also true is the fact that the US would have to bomb Saudi Arabia if we were to go on connections. After all, Bin Laden did come from Saudi Arabia.

[antryg]

I worry that Bush's reasons are more personal. One of the biggest criticism of George Sr.'s presidentcy was when he let Sadam go when we had the chance, especially since his words led to an uprising in Iraq against Sadam. When we pulled back the rebels were massacred. Sadam has also stated that he would "get" George Sr. This seems like jr. is just looking for an excuse to "correct" daddy's mistakes.
I believe the majority of Americans are willing to fight and go to war against terrorists and their sponsors. I also believe that most of us don't want to be either the worlds policeman or fight every country which we don't like.

Originally posted by Lord Starshadow: Too true. I think that Bush just wants to get rid of Hussein and he's using an Al-Quida link to gain support from Americans because of the tensions of 9/11. As pointed out in the article, Bin Laden is against the regime in Iraq. The only reason for the two to be working together is because of their shared anti-US beliefs. Also true is the fact that the US would have to bomb Saudi Arabia if we were to go on connections. After all, Bin Laden did come from Saudi Arabia.

I applaud thee, my friend [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I'd write something myself, but a) I'm too lazy and b) You've said it all already.

[Iron_Ranger]

Christ, how many times is the debate going to take place.

Ok, first ff, Iraq is more then just a 'what if' country? Examples:

Iraqs war on Iran that killed millions. (And give me the 'but the US supported Saddam on that war' crap. We gave intel in exchange for a terrorist that Saddam knew, wich, Saddam didnt live up to in the end.)

Saddam killed thousands of kurds.

Saddam has biological and chemical weapons.

Hes murder his own family.

Hes insane.

Now maybe your OK with a mad dicatator with weapons of mass destuction, but I am not! I would rather have some Iraqi militants get killed rather than thousands of innocent Americans or Eroupeans. Call me a paronoid bully if you want.

[antryg]

Now maybe your OK with a mad dicatator with weapons of mass destuction, but I am not! I would rather have some Iraqi militants get killed rather than thousands of innocent Americans or Eroupeans. Call me a paronoid bully if you want.[/QB][/QUOTE]
What if somebody posted: Now maybe your OK with a mad president with weapons of mass destruction, but I am not! I would rather have some American war-mongers get killed rather than thousands of innocent Iraqis or Arabs. Call me a paranoid bully if you want.
There are many in the world community, some of them allies or Americans, who might say this. Your perspective makes a big difference. Even if everything you said is true, (I realize that much of what you say is documented but some of it is debatable.) does that give America the right to invade another country?
Which do you prefer we invade; India or Pakistan? Both of these countries have nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them. If a hard line Israeli (one wanting to use any means necessary to kepp the Arabs in line) becomes Prime Minister do we then invade Israel because of their nuclear capability and their "pattern of aggression" against their neighbors and treatment of Arabs living within their borders?
Personally this is not a role I want the USA to fill. It is not our place to bring all the world together to roast marshmellows and sing Kum-ba-ya. We shouldn't attack people because of what they "might" do. IMHO This isn't an attack against any persons views, just expressing my own.