Saddam turns over Zarqawi in 2002 after the killing of U.S. envoy Laurence Foley

[jmc247]

King Abdullah who has a world class intelligence agency told Saddam many times exactly where Zarqawi in 2002 in Iraq when he was moving around from Anbar to Baghdad to Northern Iraq to set the stage for a post war insurgency, but his regime refused Abdullah's requests.

Saddam 'refused to hand over Zarqawi'

DUBAI: Jordan's King Abdullah has accused jailed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of refusing to turn over wanted extremist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, now head of the Al Qaeda network in Iraq, before the US-led invasion.

"From the time Zarqawi entered Iraq, before the fall of the former regime, we made great efforts to bring him back and try him here, but our requests to the former regime were in vain," Abdullah said in an interview published yesterday in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

The king said Jordanian authorities had intelligence on Zarqawi entering Iraq from a "neighbouring country," and knew where he was and what he was doing.

"We provided the Iraqi authorities with the precise intelligence, but they did not respond favourably" to Amman's requests.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=112592

In 2002 Zarqawi from Iraq sent men to Jordan and they executed the U.S. envoy Laurence Foley (no relation to the Foley that was beheaded first last year) and had his ring brought back to him as a prize.

Jordan Ties Al-Qaeda To Envoy's Slaying

AMMAN, Jordan -- Jordanian officials linked the slaying of an American diplomat to a top al-Qaeda lieutenant Saturday as they announced the arrest of two men -- a Libyan and a Jordanian -- who they say confessed to the killing and to working with the terror group.

Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, one of the most sought-after fugitives tied to al-Qaeda, guided the men in slaying diplomat Laurence Foley and in planning what was supposed to be a killing spree against Americans and Jordanians, including "diplomats, embassies and local police" in Amman, Jordanian officials said.

"Unfortunately, [Foley was] the first and easiest target," Jordanian Information Minister Mohammed Affash Adwan said Saturday night.

Details about the arrests of Salem Saad bin Suweid, a Libyan, and Yasser Fatih Ibrahim, a Jordanian, were sketchy Saturday, and it was unclear how the men were captured. But Adwan emphasized that the men took orders from Zarqawi, who European and American intelligence officials have identified as a key planner and one of the top 25 people in the terror web led by Osama bin Laden.

"He directed [Suweid and Ibrahim] in Jordan. He gave them their tasks and the information. He facilitated their stay in Jordan. He helped provide weapons," Adwan said.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-12-15/news/0212150157_1_jordanian-laurence-foley-diplomat

Before killing Laurence Foley Zarqawi was one of the top 25 most wanted terrorists for the U.S. (towards the middle if I recall) after he was in the top 4. Obviously, it pissed off the public and he ended up in Bush's speeches that Saddam continues to harbor terrorists and Colin Powell's 2003 UN Testimony. Zarqawi later on used his charisma to unite religious Baathists and Jihadists in a common cause and ideology to create AQI now IS.

What would have happened if Saddam turned Zarqawi and his Monotheism and Jiahd supporters over to Jordan in 2002? Might it have made Bush think that Saddam like Gaddafi was actually under pressure altering his policies? Even if in the end war still came which it probably would without some other changes as well what would the post war situation look like without an intelligent and charismatic leader who could unite the hard core Baathists and jihadists as well as to come up with the plan to destroy Iraq and the region by trying to spark a genocidal civil war.

 

[DG Valdron]

Nothing. Assuming Saddam had been able to capture Zarqawi and turn him over to the United States... there wouldn't have been a single difference.

 

[jmc247]

Nothing. Assuming Saddam had been able to capture Zarqawi and turn him over to the United States... there wouldn't have been a single difference.

On the war happening I agree it would take at least two more concessions from Saddam at the time. Like an end to shooting on planes in the No Fly Zone and unrestricted access for the weapons inspectors including to the palaces without any 90s era games. Then the Brits back out and Bush thinks long and hard on the matter and could back down.

As for the post war situation I completely disagree. It would have changed one hell of alot, not that there won't be Baathists there taking pop shots at U.S. troops, not that there won't be jihadists who show up. But, without a grand unifying figure with a strategic vision for the war I don't see it amounting to anything like it did.

Certainly no plan to cause a civil war or to turn Iraqis against each other which was executed brilliantly.

Al-Qaeda could take hold during the Syrian civil war as there would be no IS but I expect a less war weary public to support intervention before things become a nightmare.

 

[spkaca]

On the war happening I agree it would take at least two more concessions from Saddam at the time. Like an end to shooting on planes in the No Fly Zone and unrestricted access for the weapons inspectors including to the palaces without any 90s era games. Then the Brits back out and Bush thinks long and hard on the matter and could back down.

I have sometimes wondered if the death of Abu Nidal was a ploy by Saddam to try to make nice with the US, a sort of concession/ offering - 'look, you Americans are saying you will treat regimes harbouring terrorists the same as terrorists - we won't harbour them anymore, look, bang he's dead'. The Wiki article on the subject doesn't suggest that is likely, however. Also it isn't consistent with other data points - Abu Abbas, for example, was still receiving safe haven in Iraq until the invasion.
If Saddam had handed those two charmers over to Italy (letting him save face by not handing them over to the US) to face justice (for the Rome airport attack and the Achille Lauro respectively), it would have been a smart move on his part - 'look, we are cooperating in the war on terror'.
It probably wouldn't have saved him in the long run though - even without an invasion, a Syria-style uprising seems very likely to have happened at some point.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Saddam apparently was not very rational at the time or at least completely misjudged the situation. 9-11 changed things. America wasn't just woken up it was woken up angry. Libya and Iran and so on were fucking terrified by what Bush was saying and doing and were at pains to play nice for a while so the ten ton gorilla didn't stamp on their balls a few times.

Saddam OTOH did things like this...

What a fucking genius.

 

[Orville_third]

There would still be Mullah Krekar up in Gulp. It may not change the mind of Bush or Clinton, but it may change the minds of some in Congress.

 

[DG Valdron]

On the war happening I agree it would take at least two more concessions from Saddam at the time. Like an end to shooting on planes in the No Fly Zone and unrestricted access for the weapons inspectors including to the palaces without any 90s era games. Then the Brits back out and Bush thinks long and hard on the matter and could back down.

Bush made his decision before he ever took office. Once 9/11 happened, there was nothing that was going to stop him from invading. It was just a matter of ginning up the excuses.

As for the post war situation I completely disagree. It would have changed one hell of alot, not that there won't be Baathists there taking pop shots at U.S. troops, not that there won't be jihadists who show up. But, without a grand unifying figure with a strategic vision for the war I don't see it amounting to anything like it did.

It wouldn't have changed anything. As you said, the Baathists would still be taking their shots, the Jihadists would still be showing up. Zaquari was always mostly a creation of the American need to have a 'big evil nemesis' and to try to reduce complex situations to black and white and cops and robbers. He didn't create or direct the Iraqi resistance, he certainly didn't unify it, his strategic vision was PR. In Zaquari's absence, America would have simply appointed another guy as a 'big evil nemesis.'

Certainly no plan to cause a civil war or to turn Iraqis against each other which was executed brilliantly.

You mean the sectarian divide which had existed for decades or centuries, the civil war that pretty much everyone but the most loonily optimistic predicted before the war even got under way. Hell, Dick Cheney predicted the civil war, back when he was merely a crazy guy in G.H.W. Bush's basement.

Al-Qaeda could take hold during the Syrian civil war as there would be no IS but I expect a less war weary public to support intervention before things become a nightmare.

Good luck with that.

 

[Kung Fucious]

Saddam apparently was not very rational at the time or at least completely misjudged the situation. 9-11 changed things. America wasn't just woken up it was woken up angry. Libya and Iran and so on were fucking terrified by what Bush was saying and doing and were at pains to play nice for a while so the ten ton gorilla didn't stamp on their balls a few times.

Saddam OTOH did things like this...

What a fucking genius.

Yeah, Gaddaffi was a crazy asshole, but he wasn't stupid. He knew it was one thing to talk tough in the 80's when America still had to worry about the Russians rolling through the Fulda gap, but post-9/11 he lived and (ultimately) died at the whim of the US. He was better off playing nice and trying to normalize relations than he was playing the same game.

Saddam was not Gadaffi, and (for the second time) fundamentally misread the situation. Short of a tree branch falling on his head and totally altering his personality this probably isn't going to happen.

 

[Kaiser K]

Saddam had completely lost his mind by the Iraq War, so I don't think this is possible without a little ASB intervention to mess with Saddam's mind.

 

[DG Valdron]

Yeah, Gaddaffi was a crazy asshole, but he wasn't stupid. He knew it was one thing to talk tough in the 80's when America still had to worry about the Russians rolling through the Fulda gap, but post-9/11 he lived and (ultimately) died at the whim of the US. He was better off playing nice and trying to normalize relations than he was playing the same game.

Not to piss in anyone's swimming pool, but Gadaffi had actually been coming in from the cold for quite some time before 9/11. His was actually the first country to issue an arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden. He was one of the first to call out Al Quaeda and the Islamic Fundamentalists. He turned over the Lockerbie bombers in 1998. He started normalizing relations with Britain in 1999.

Basically, he played the Bush administration like a fiddle. I still remember his dramatic announcement that he was coming in from the cold, that he was abandoning his nuclear weapons program. The 'program' was still in its crates.

In the end, Gaddaffi was a game player, a manipulator, a narcissist, always the star of his own show. He wore whatever hat suited him for the moment - revolutionary, visionary, poet, empire builder, pan-Africanist, pan-arabist.

He'd already decided to change his act in the late 90's, and the Bush administration fell for his song and dance act hook line and sinker.

As it turns out, the only people who weren't fooled were the Libyans who finally had enough.

Saddam was not Gadaffi, and (for the second time) fundamentally misread the situation. Short of a tree branch falling on his head and totally altering his personality this probably isn't going to happen.

Nothing for him to misread actually. The sanctions weren't ever going away, the intermittent bombings weren't ever going to really end. The CIA kept hatching plots to overthrow him. He was a thug, but he had no illusions. The US wanted him gone, and sooner or later they were going to get what they wanted.

 

[jmc247]

Bush made his decision before he ever took office. Once 9/11 happened, there was nothing that was going to stop him from invading. It was just a matter of ginning up the excuses.

He wanted Saddam gone before 911 certainly, but so did Clinton and much of the leadership in both parties, but he didn't decide on a non-UN approved invasion and occupation to accomplish that goal until late 2002.

If he wanted to invade and occupy Iraq 110% as much as you seem to think he would have done it right after 911 when 80% of the public supported doing it back in the Fall of 2001 with blood in America's eyes and Saddam the only national leader in the world having the attack celebrated.

Iraq hails attack on US

The entire world - almost - has reacted with horror to the news of Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States - the entire world except for Iraq.

As condolences poured in from everywhere - even from Libya and Iran - Iraq rejoiced, saying the terror attacks were a "lesson for all tyrants and oppressors" and the fruit of American crimes. "America burns," read the headline of the country's official al-Iraq newspaper, which declared: "the myth of America was destroyed with the World Trade Center in New York."

Elsewhere in the Gulf, newspapers were unanimous in their condemnation of the attacks, but al-Iraq wrote: "It is the prestige, arrogance and institutions of America that burn." The paper said it would be difficult for the US to find the perpetrators of the attack, since America has made so many enemies. "Thousands if not a million or billion hands were behind these attacks," it said. "Brutal America, suffering from illusions of grandeur, has inflicted humiliation, famine and terrorism on all of the world's countries and today it reaps the fruits of its arrogant and stupid policy," said an official Iraqi statement.

The official statement, read on television Tuesday night, said: "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity. "The statement said the attack was, among others, a result of America's support of Israel. "The destruction of the centres of American power is the destruction of American policy, which has veered from human values to align itself with the Zionist world, to continue to massacre the Palestinian people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1540216.stm

Bush actually showed too much restraint if he wanted war with Western Europe saying nothing in opposition and the U.S. public being totally behind it. By the time he went in anti-Iraq war sentiment had built in Western Europe and a bit in the U.S. as well. Ironically the war would have probably turned out far better if we went in after 911 as well.

They let our foes prepare the ground for a post war insurgency for many months, we didn't use the time to plan about what comes after and some of our most competent foes at organizing an insurgency in 2001 were in Afghanistan at the time.

Now I fully see the decision to invade and occupy Iraq without UN approval by Bush with a post 911 context that Bush thought he was looking at a terror supporting tyrant who might support the terrorists who would do the next 911, but by waiting a year and a half getting UN resolutions and trying to get full UN approval and letting some of his advisers make the issue so much about Saddam's weapons program instead of the other arguments for war he allowed people to come argue and believe the Iraqi War had nothing to do with his post 911 thinking and it was a revenge oriented thing that he lied to the U.S. public about.

By going through the UN at the request of Blair he also helped to foster the notion unintentionally that going to war was not even legal in the minds of many by giving the UN a vote on the matter instead of saying we hold a cease fire from the first Gulf War and they are violating the cease fire (which they were, but not as much as Bush thought) so we are going to consider it a breach of the cease fire and resume hostilities.