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

**bourbon** · 06-08-2009

Hi Mark,
What makes the "no links" position extremist?

Most countries in the West and the Middle East have had at least peripheral links to AQ in the past. It's a matter of significance, degree, and when it occurred is it not? Say such links occurred after the US started woofing about invading Iraq, it is asinine to point to such pact with the devil relationship and then use it as justification for invasion.

**Mark Eichenlaub** · 06-08-2009

It's extremist to say there were "no links" because it is basically saying they never cooperated or discussed cooperation at all.

I didn't bring up the revelance of if the links were significant enough to go to war over and not sure why you did because discussion can be had without retreating into a prowar or antiwar knee jerk position right away. But since you did bring it up was there another state, aside from Iraq, who was openly praising al Qaeda after 2001 when they had just attacked us? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and even Syria and Iran were cooperating with the U.S. then.

**Danny** · 06-08-2009

To find reliable assets who can tell you information in this regard. This kind of information is normally going to be restricted to specific billets such as intelligence, for a multitude of reasons not the least of which no one else would have had time to do this except people to which the task had been assigned.

You will also run into the problem of OPSEC. Not that I would concur in this regard, but I typically see the knee jerk reaction that all information is OPSEC unless and until proven otherwise. It's just the way they work.

I do have some ideas for you, and will communicate off line. But for the most part, this kind of knowledge base on the regime will be restricted to high level individuals, and this will make it almost impossible to develop a comprehensive personal database for an individual like yourself who doesn't run in these circles (e.g., Army intelligence [or perhaps CIA] who actually participated in such work).

As one related subject, I find discussions about the justification for OIF 1 to be wasteful and boring from a military perspective (I am NOT here directing this statement at you or this discussion thread, I guess your post just touched a nerve). Of course, they are not at all wasteful in Polisci classes or policy debates. But for instance, since I also run a web site that is fairly much directed at military issues, I have specifically killed discussion of the justification for OIF 1 every time it comes up. It simply doesn't matter to me. I would rather people have contributed to the success of OIF 3. That's a mistake, BTW, that I have seen almost every day over the past couple of years. One person is debating Iraq in the context of OIF 1, the other person is advocating support for OIF 3, and the two don't even know that they aren't speaking the same language or discussing the same thing.

Now that we are involved in stability OPS in Iraq, I find discussions of troop redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan to be equally monotonous. We do what we must do.

V/r,

H

**Mark Eichenlaub** · 06-10-2009

Originally Posted by bourbon

Hi Mark,
What makes the "no links" position extremist?

Most countries in the West and the Middle East have had at least peripheral links to AQ in the past. It's a matter of significance, degree, and when it occurred is it not? Say such links occurred after the US started woofing about invading Iraq, it is asinine to point to such pact with the devil relationship and then use it as justification for invasion.

It is also an extremist position to hold that they were secretly in cahoots on everything and UBL and Saddam Hussein were close friends. I think the two positions (other being "no links at all") are the opposite extremes.