PDA

View Full Version : Through Hussein's Looking Glass




IJ Reilly
Oct 12, 2004, 10:20 AM
Excerpts from a lengthy and remarkable story.

CIA report says the Iraqi leader assumed the agency knew he didn't have banned weaponry.

WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein was convinced he won the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

And when he destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction after that war, Hussein was sure the CIA knew it.

As a result, he saw 12 years of United Nations resolutions, trade sanctions and threats of war as a charade to humiliate him.

In Hussein's view, Washington and Baghdad should have been close allies. He could have helped curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He offered to become America's "best friend in the region, bar none." He was certain U.S. forces would never invade.

Hussein's looking-glass view of the world is vividly described in the report last week by Charles A. Duelfer, the CIA's chief weapons investigator. The document is based on a variety of sources, including interrogations of Hussein himself. A close reading of the report, along with interviews with intelligence officials and outside experts, sheds new light on Hussein's mind-set leading up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Duelfer argues that for Americans to understand Hussein's baffling decision to defy U.N. resolutions and face disaster they must "see the universe from Saddam's point in space."

Yet the reverse is also true. If Hussein misunderstood the West, it's clear that successive administrations in Washington since 1991 projected their own misconceptions and misjudgments onto Hussein. They also had a looking-glass view.

They saw evidence of banned weapons when none existed. They missed signs that now seem obvious. President Bush, for example, insisted before the war that the failure by U.N. teams to find any evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons despite 731 inspections in the four months before the invasion simply proved that Hussein was hiding them — not that they didn't exist.

"I sometimes wonder, what part of the word 'no' didn't we understand?" mused a Pentagon official who has long studied Hussein's regime.

...

The former official said the CIA never understood that Hussein was bluffing about his long-abandoned weapons chiefly to deter Iran, Iraq's longtime enemy. To Hussein, Tehran's alleged push to gain the nuclear arms that he was denied posed an unacceptable danger to his country and a challenge to his rightful place in history.

CIA officials heard dire threats in Hussein's bombastic speeches. They assumed banned weapons were in trucks and buildings they could not enter. They believed defectors with codenames like "Curveball" and "Red River," who told them what they wanted to hear. They reasoned that Hussein would not endure U.N. sanctions, and lose an estimated $100 billion in trade, if he had nothing to hide.

In the end, Hussein's bluff backfired. Washington's failure to read the bluff would have a huge impact on both countries.

...

Hussein's own view of the United States was conflicted. In his mind, he was a heroic leader who gained prestige in the Arab world for his defiance of the sole superpower. But Hussein told aides it would be equally prestigious to become a U.S. ally. So he used U.N. diplomats, journalists and others to carry back-channel offers to improve relations with Washington.

"They really thought they could cut a deal," said a former CIA officer who was contacted by a senior Iraqi official shortly before the invasion in March 2003. "He thought it was power politics to the end. He really couldn't believe we would eliminate his country from the map. That's the way he looked at it."

All of Hussein's entreaties were rebuffed, and it's impossible to know if he was serious about cooperating with Washington. But he complained to an interrogator that "he was not given a chance because the U.S. refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say."

Dr. Jerrold M. Post, a psychiatrist who has profiled Hussein for the CIA, said Hussein was "not psychotic." But he said the dictator had little recent experience outside Iraq, and had a distorted worldview.

"He thought the real threats from the West were the kind of hyperbole that one often hears in the Arab world," Post said. "And he was surrounded by sycophants who told him what he wanted to hear, not what he needed to know."

...

Ironically, Saddam Hussein misread U.S. intentions in part because he believed the CIA was far better at spying than it turned out to be. Senior aides told interrogators that Hussein was convinced the U.S. intelligence agency knew he had no illicit weapons.

Hussein assumed that the CIA had penetrated his regime, just as his own intelligence services used wiretaps, secret cameras and informants to spy on the U.N. weapons teams.

He was wrong. In July, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that the CIA had no informants or spies inside Iraq for at least five years before the war.

"Saddam believed in the myth of the CIA," said Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who worked in northern Iraq. "He really thought we knew what was going on inside his regime. He couldn't believe that we didn't have any sources."

...

In other cases, U.S. officials simply misunderstood the high-tech intelligence they had.

On Feb. 5, 2003, for example, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appeared at the U.N. Security Council to make the administration's case for war. He played a tape of a phone call that he said was intercepted on Jan. 30 between a Republican Guard officer and an underling in the field. According to Powell, the officer issued orders to "clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure nothing is there."

Powell said the tape proved Hussein was hiding "the presence of weapons of mass destruction." U.S. investigators never found the officers. But they concluded that Powell misinterpreted the tape. The call concerned materials from Iraq's long-defunct, pre-1991 arms program, not new weapons.

In fact, on Jan. 25, five days before the call was taped, a senior regime official met Republican Guard military leaders and warned that "the government would hold them responsible" if U.N. inspectors found any of the old material in their areas "or if there was anything that cast doubt on Iraq's cooperation."

Until the final few months, Hussein was convinced that Bush would not invade. He told aides America still suffered from the "Vietnam syndrome."

"He probably didn't think he'd be alive at this point," said Kay, the former U.S. weapons inspector. "Every day he probably wonders what went wrong."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-saddam12oct12,1,1983638.story



blackfox
Oct 12, 2004, 11:29 AM
There is entirely to much to reply to...

Still, in brief:

- Saddam was a smart man in a difficult environment (or because of one). A ME with competing power-centers, a secular Iraq in the middle of Arab Islam and running (or being part of ) successive tolitarian regimes for 40 years attests to that.

- This intelligence (of one kind) was highlighted against the failure of intelligence (of another kind) by the US in the run-up to the first Gulf War. The monumentally bad policy ( of coddling Saddam) coming from the State Dept. and transmitted by Ms Glaspie, the Ambassador to Iraq at the time, directly contributed to the first Gulf War more than any other factor (imo). Glaspie, while a fine diplomat, was not the kind of one needed in Iraq at that time and her being a woman was not helpful either. Nevertheless, the main fault lie with the policy of the Baker State Dept. and gave the impression to Saddam that he could act with impunity, that the US was his allie, or at least willing to look the other way. Dealing with many of the same people in US Foreign policy circles throughout the 80's on friendly terms, that was probably a reasonable assumption.

- In any case, regardless of motives, the US dropped the ball with Iraq in 89-90 and we went to war. I do not think many people have forgiven Saddam for making them out to look so bad, which seems relevant considering many of the more conservative/hawkish foreign policy wonks are still operating today, some directly with the new Bush Administration.

- So you have partly a revenge thing, partly a refusal to be hoodwinked or taken advantage of again at all costs. The irony was, of course, that by the US being so eager not to be made a fool of, to have good policy and good intelligence, they ignored the plain reality and ended up being embarrassed again. Or they just didn't care and it was all about an axe to grind...

It's all so imbred...so many of the same people...two Iraq wars, two Bush's, it almost seems as if Saddam was irrelevant, as if this has all been some internal politikin', attempts to save face, arrogance and pride.

zimv20
Oct 12, 2004, 11:29 AM
damn. that's just plain ol' fascinating.

solvs
Oct 13, 2004, 02:20 AM
If it wasn't for the oil, I'm still wondering why we invaded Iraq. We had plenty of evidence and people saying there were no WMDs. Links to Al Qaida were tenuous, at best. While Bin Laden, who is Al Qaida, is practically ignored. So no wonder Saddam, who is a bad guy but wasn't responsible for anything recent against us or any of our allies, was a little confused by our invasion.

IJ Reilly
Oct 13, 2004, 10:36 AM
His world-view was warped because he surrounded himself with sycophants who only told him what he wanted to hear.

Pop quiz: To which world leader does the above statement refer?

mischief
Oct 13, 2004, 10:45 AM
His world-view was warped because he surrounded himself with sycophants who only told him what he wanted to hear.

Pop quiz: To which world leader does the above statement refer?


Uhhh.....

George Washington Bush!!!!


No... Uh...

Boris Yeltsin!!!

Erm...


OOh! Gotta be Ariel Sharon!!

Dammit... It applies to all three.... :confused: ;) :D :rolleyes:

skunk
Oct 13, 2004, 10:47 AM
I'd say it applied to just about every leader who ever lived.

mischief
Oct 13, 2004, 10:53 AM
I'd say it applied to just about every leader who ever lived.

Nah... The truly scary time periods under feudalism were good for that one. You could tell who the good leaders were because their sycophants had short careers that often ended in assignments like food tasting or scouting the enemy. :D

Not that I'm advocating a political anachronism.... it was all just a bit easier when you could have someone executed for being too goddamn friendly.

IJ Reilly
Oct 13, 2004, 11:27 AM
I'd say it applied to just about every leader who ever lived.

To a greater or lesser degree. I was just struck by the similarity of the quality of the thinking going on in the White House and in Saddam's bunker.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 13, 2004, 03:13 PM
Uhhh.....

George Washington Bush!!!!


No... Uh...

Boris Yeltsin!!!

Erm...


OOh! Gotta be Ariel Sharon!!

Dammit... It applies to all three.... :confused: ;) :D :rolleyes:

In the geo-political world perception is everything. You don't have to have 1,000 nukes; just say that you do. What is sad that we did not see the truth even with billion of dollars worth of spy gear.

mischief
Oct 13, 2004, 03:15 PM
In the geo-political world perception is everything. You don't have to have 1,000 nukes; just say that you do. What is sad that we did not see the truth even with billion of dollars worth of spy gear.

Intelligence is a misnomer. Perhaps it'd be more effective if we called it contextual recognizance?