An Invasion Of Iraq – Leaks And The Truth

July 28, 2002
By Martin Dillon

Six months ago, President George Bush told Congress that the United States could not afford delay in confronting the menace Iraq posed to global security. Leaked policy documents policy documents appears to confirm plans are under way to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

But are those leaks deliberate? Are we being told the truth about US strategy and is the US prepared to go it alone?

Information leaking is part of political and military strategy. Governments that engineer “policy” leaks later predictably feign public horror or disapproval that “secrets” have been divulged.

The precursor of any conflict is to use information to create confusion and uncertainty in enemy ranks by suggesting a course of action completely at variance with what is really planned.

Another objective in the case of Iraq is to internally weaken Saddam Hussein’s power base by implying that the US is determined to go it alone and take him down.
Within the Pentagon and State Department the anticipated effect is that those surrounding the Iraqi leader will see the writing of their own demise on the wall and turn against him.

There may be an even more important reason for permitting leaks, especially ones that initially find their way into the hands of European media.

The Bush Administration knows there is a widening gulf between the US and its European allies over its Middle East policy. European leaders and politicians have not shunned opportunities to publicly condemn the failure of US policy vis a vis Israel, citing America’s unqualified support for the Ariel Sharon regime.

Historically, there has always been an underbelly of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli sentiment in European capitals but the prospect of being dragged into a war against Iraq has generated widespread concern in NATO countries – even in Britain, America’s staunchest ally.

Europeans, especially the French, have political and economic self-interest at heart when it comes to dealing with the Middle East. They see Europe being dragged into a war which will not have the support of what might be termed “moderate” Arab regimes.

The French and Germans have privately warned the US that a war against Iraq could fuel an unprecedented response from militant Islam and primary targets for terrorist retaliation would be European capitals.

European governments – notably the French - fear this time, unlike the Gulf War, Saddam will use chemical, biological or battlefield nuclear weapons.

They point to the CIA’s profile of Saddam as a man with a grandiose personality. In the event he knows he is going to be killed, he will want to go down  “in a blaze of glory to be remembered forever as Islam’s greatest leader.”

Europe’s growing disenchantment with US foreign policy has become apparent even within Britain and the British media.  At street level, there is a collective voice opposed to war with Iraq.

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, has faced opposition from within his Cabinet and there have been dissenting voices within the British military. Several British generals have argued civilian casualties could be enormous if British troops and US are forced to take Baghdad and other Iraqi capitals.

The dissenting voices in Europe and Britain have not prevented Tony Blair from privately assuring George Bush that Britain will stand alongside the US whatever it chooses to do militarily.

While Blair’s European counterparts in NATO are concerned about Arab opposition to a war, the US and Britain dismiss the need for Arab support in a war against Iraq.

British and US war planners recognize that the real reason for nervousness in Arab capitals is that the replacement of the Iraqi regime with a democratic one would weaken the Middle East’s autocratic leaders.

The Saudi rulers and their counterparts in Iran and Syria believe a change of regime in Iraq could have a domino effect with their own populations.

Already, there is growing disenchantment within Iran to the clerical leadership and the Saudi Royal family’s hold on power remains tenuous.

Recently, Arab leaders in a disingenuous move secretly assured Saddam they would regard an attack against him as an attack on the Arab world. Their support was not out of a genuine admiration for Saddam but a real fear that his departure will weaken their hold on power. 

His departure could also force them to deal with any subsequent retaliation against the West by terrorist organizations they have continued to secretly finance and support.

One of the interesting facets of the political history of Iraq is that it has traditionally had a more moderate character than its neighbors. Prior to the Gulf War, it had the most sophisticated health and education systems in the Arab world. A democratic Iraq without a strict Islamic leadership would potentially weaken tyrannical rulers in neighboring countries such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The leaking of policy documents about US military plans for an invasion of Iraq is part of a US-British strategy to assess the likely fall-out in Europe and the Arab world when an invasion happens. And happen it will.

President George Bush has publicly committed himself to dealing with Iraq - part of what he calls the “axis of evil.”

Like Tony Blair he knows the removal of Saddam will signal to Iran and others that the US will not sit idly by while dangerous regimes build a nuclear capability to threaten the US or provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

There has been no smoking gun linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks but US, British and Israeli intelligence services are convinced that Al-Qaeda had state-intelligence support in planning the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

For some time, the CIA, MI6 and Mossad have been receiving intelligence reports that Iraq intelligence has been financing and training groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda.

Before the 9/11 attacks spy satellite photos confirmed the presence of a secret base in the Iraqi desert where terrorists were trained to hijack airliners. It is also believed terrorists have been schooled in the techniques for handling and dispersing chemical and biological weapons in western cities should Iraq be invaded.

A secret CIA assessment presented to the US President and the British Prime Minister warns Saddam has a  “doomsday plan.”

In the event his death is imminent, he will issue instructions to terrorist cells already in place to launch chemical attacks in western capitals and in Israel.

Neither Bush nor Blair can leave the task of removing Saddam to future US or British leaders. Five or ten years down the line, it will not be possible to confront Iraq or Iran if both possess the capability to launch missiles at US or British cities.

So far, the leaking of “policy” documents has achieved the objectives set by British and US war planners to assess the likely fall-out from an attack on Iraq before year’s end. 

There has been no significant outcry in Europe or the Middle East – just muted criticisms.  And Arab leaders have avoided publicly confronting the US over the leaked “plans” for an invasion of Iraq.

Nothing the US or Britain has observed from the reaction to the leaks has deterred them from continuing to plan the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But that prospect may still be a long way off. 

British Special Forces and US have been operating in Iraq and the surrounding region for some time and it should have come as no surprise to many that recent leaks from Washington confirmed the presence of members of the British SAS and the US Delta Force in the region.

Special forces units have been in place for five months in Iraq, Turkey and several friendly Arab states. Their task has been to assess Saddam’s military preparedness and to train groups opposed to his regime. They have also been building a target list for British planes and US that will spearhead an invasion.

Deliberate leaks about invasion plans will continue to emanate from Washington and London as real plans are formulated. But the real plans will bear little resemblance to what finds its way into the media in the months to come.

Before President George Bush fulfills his promise to remove Saddam from power he will have to be assured of full congressional support. While there appears to be US public approval for a war against Iraq, there is also a need for a public debate about the reasons for a major military commitment and the plans to rebuild Iraq once the present regime is removed.

When that debate begins, as it may do this week with foreign intelligence committee hearings in Congress, a similar one in Britain will mirror it.

When the invasion of Iraq finally happens, the British will be there alongside the US even if the rest of NATO sits on the sidelines.

Leaks and more leaks will not reveal much. But as the political debate gets under way in the US and Britain, military planners will move closer to launching a full-scale attack on Saddam and his military machine.

Ends

Martin Dillon is a world authority on Russian and East European intelligence and the Ireland conflict. He is also the author of the bestsellers: The Shankill Butchers (Random House); The Dirty War (Random House) and God and the Gun (Orion). This trilogy is also published by Routledge, New York. His books are also available on Amazon.com

http://www.globe-intel.net/