Seeking testimony of those who interviewed Baath or al Qaeda detainees in Iraq

[Mark Eichenlaub]

To some, perhaps those things are fascinating for some odd reason. To most Americans I suspect they'll be of little if any interest. Such knowledge will produce no tangible effect.Highly doubtful.It's not offensive and as you say, it will all come out some day -- about 2025 -2030, I think -- when the relevant stuff is declassified.

Until then you are it seems probably fruitlessly pursuing your agenda as is your right. Here though, agendas and partisanship are not particularly welcome because they interfere with logical discussion and most people here are concerned with the practical and tomorrow -- and with warfighting, not politics or the esoterica of intelligence. Yesterday is of little relevance unless that history affects warfighting. Your stated objective does not address warfighting and the intelligence value has virtually no warfighting implications. The political effort may have value to you and thus, you and your blog can certainly pursue it -- but I doubt it'll get much traction here.

I guess those who sifted through the documents of Stalin and Hitler's regime were just rank partisans trying to secure FDR and Truman's legacy. Right?

Examining how secular states and/or Middle East leaders and dictators could possibly used AGAINST terrorist groups (by looking backward) is of no intelligence or military value? I beg to differ.

[Ken White]

I guess those who sifted through the documents of Stalin and Hitler's regime were just rank partisans trying to secure FDR and Truman's legacy. Right?

Some were, some were truly dispassionate historians, some were intent on disproving those 'legacies.' Some were just dotty. All were involved in a search that changed absolutely nothing that occurred.

Examining how secular states and/or Middle East leaders and dictators could possibly used AGAINST terrorist groups (by looking backward) is of no intelligence or military value? I beg to differ.

Differ merrily onward; Examine prodigously. I defer to your vast experience in these matters.

However, I still suspect my prediction on the traction you achieve here will prove correct...

[bourbon]

Mark,
I have not seen on your site reporting of Saddam's regime and its security apparatus work against AQ, which is something you claim to be examining as well. Are planning on launching regimeofcounterterror.com to balance this out?

You can see how one could get the impression that you are cherry picking information? Going to such a granular level as soliciting raw intelligence from military intelligence personnel who participated in the interrogation of high value detainees and all…

[jmm99]

from ME blog
... more on Farris's [sic ! Faddis - name is correct in other parts of paragraph] thoughts on the topic will be shared in a yet to be published interview with this website....

more than one here will be interested in what Sam Faddis had to say about all of this. Thanks in advance.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

more than one here will be interested in what Sam Faddis had to say about all of this. Thanks in advance.

Very nice and classy guy. He was one of the first into Northern Iraq and said he interviewed dozens of al Qaeda/Ansar detainees. I can spoil the piece for you if you want....

A paranoid psychopathic sadistic one. Anyone trying to replace Saddam with Islamist would've been tortured and killed. To suggest otherwise is to suggest Saddam "wasn't that bad" that he actually believed in a cause and wasn't just out for himself.

I think he attempted build all those mosques and add religious slogans to the Iraqi flag to pre-empt that sort of thing and act like he needn't be a target of the Islamists...though he still was.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

more than one here will be interested in what Sam Faddis had to say about all of this. Thanks in advance.

Here is that Faddis interview for those interested.

Link.

[jmm99]

Way to come through. Good catch.

CF's comments parallel what he stated in his portion of the book Operation Hotel California. For those not familiar with the book, it is really two books in one. The one by Mike Tucker, which is editorializing, etc. The other by Sam Faddis which is basically straight-forward. The portions are in different typefaces. So, you read the book and then re-read Faddis' portion at least once more.

A point not covered in the interview - not a criticism, Mark, since your focus and locus were on-topic (Saddam-AQ ties or not) - was Saddam's possession of WMD. From the book, Faddis' informants (who addressed that topic) were pretty much uniform in their beliefs that Saddam had or was working on WMD; but none had any direct evidence of that. Since you can't prove a negative (Faddis makes that point - still a lawyer, and a prosecutor in a prior life), the intelligence on that topic was ambiguous - as you note in your Analysis.

Good job.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

Way to come through. Good catch.

CF's comments parallel what he stated in his portion of the book Operation Hotel California. For those not familiar with the book, it is really two books in one. The one by Mike Tucker, which is editorializing, etc. The other by Sam Faddis which is basically straight-forward. The portions are in different typefaces. So, you read the book and then re-read Faddis' portion at least once more.

A point not covered in the interview - not a criticism, Mark, since your focus and locus were on-topic (Saddam-AQ ties or not) - was Saddam's possession of WMD. From the book, Faddis' informants (who addressed that topic) were pretty much uniform in their beliefs that Saddam had or was working on WMD; but none had any direct evidence of that. Since you can't prove a negative (Faddis makes that point - still a lawyer, and a prosecutor in a prior life), the intelligence on that topic was ambiguous - as you note in your Analysis.

Good job.

Thanks JM.