Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq
By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 02, 2004With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
advertisement
But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’ — Roger Cressey Terrorism expert.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.
And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
The Zarqawi Rules
By DAVID BROOKS The New York Times
Published: Feb 18, 2004
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi never graduated from high school, and he is one of the world's most brutal mass murderers, but he has written a brilliant guide on how to fight terrorism. It helps that he is a terrorist himself, so he is perfectly placed to know what tactics work against people like him.
He apparently wrote a 17-page planning memo to his al-Qaida colleagues in Iraq that was obtained by U.S. forces and revealed this week in The New York Times. If you read the memo properly, you can extract what might be called Zarqawi's Rules - maxims for winning the war on terror.
* Massive retaliation works. We now know that Saddam Hussein felt free to defy the international community because he thought that casualty-averse Americans would never actually invade his country. At worst, we'd drop a few bombs, which he could survive. Now our enemies know us better and respect us more. ``America, however, has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes,'' Zarqawi warns his colleagues. This shift in perceptions should deter some attacks all by itself.
* Hard power isn't enough. The extensive coalition effort to hunt down terrorists is clearly making progress. ``Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By God, this is suffocation!'' Zarqawi laments.
But he also says only an indigenous Iraqi security force, backed by a legitimate democratic government, can truly put him out of business. Americans are easy targets. But when Iraqis take control, ``you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood and appearance to people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext? This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.''
Going into the war, many American planners assumed that first we would establish stability in Iraq, then introduce democracy. But it's now clear that democracy is the stability. You can't establish order unless locals are invested in their own self-rule and thus are eager to chase bad guys.
The lesson is that the so-called soft-power programs - the democracy-building seminars, the civil society efforts, the town hall meetings - are not the gooey icing on the cake of law and order. They are the substance of law and order itself.
* Soft power isn't enough. Though Zarqawi senses that his time in Iraq is running out, he is already preparing for the next battle: ``If, God forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag or die, if God chooses us.''
Consensus Emerges
There is a lot of talk this year about democratizing the greater Middle East. But wherever democratic reforms are initiated, Zarqawi, or people like him, will be there to kill and disrupt. They understand that democracy is the antithesis of the sort of Islamic totalitarianism they seek to establish. That means the road to democratization is not going to suddenly turn peaceful. The modernizers will always need to be backed by the sword as well as the seminar.
The Zarqawi memo's central message is that there is a symbiotic relationship between hard power - the sort of thing the Pentagon can do - and soft power, the sort of thing the National Endowment for Democracy and the United Nations can do.
We've just endured two years of bitter debate over the U.S. decision to lead a coalition into Iraq. But the post-Saddam world is different from the Saddam world. In this era, most responsible people understand the implications of Zarqawi's memo: The hard-power people and the soft-power people need each other.
That's why you now hear Senate Republicans praising Kofi Annan. That's why a hawkish senior administration official recently insisted, ``I'm not anti-U.N.'' That's why responsible Democrats like Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton and Republicans like George Bush and Dick Cheney echo similar themes when they sketch out the years ahead. That's why Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may joust about who was right in 2003, but they generally agree on how to proceed in 2004. That's why, no matter how much they bicker, there's not a dime's worth of difference between neoliberals and neoconservatives over Iraq.
Despite all the partisan warfare, we're on the verge of a broad foreign policy consensus. Let's all give a shout out to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for clarifying it for us.
Yeah and klinton had his chances to take out hussein and bin laden and didn't have the gonads to do it. Read the exerpts from the Ollie North trials where Goreski questions North about the expensive security system he installed on his house.
North told him it was to protect his family form a terrorist, the most dangerous man in the world.
Goreski asked "and who would that be"
Osama Bin Laden was Ollie's answer. He should be found and annialated with prejudice, he is a threat to our freedom.
Goreski fumbled around trying to pronounce the name and went along with his other ignorant questions.
Do you remember when the North trials were? Don't give me any crap about Bush not taking care of a problem. If Klinton and Goreski had done their jobs years ago there wouldn't be these problems for Bush to have to deal with and for sure Bin laden and hussein would have been more in check rather than running rampant building their strength and support all through the years that Klinton and al were in the Whitehouse.
__________________
The Second Amendment, it ain't about DUCK HUNTING!
I feel more like I do now that I did when I first got here!
Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America
Posts: 6,342
That's exactly what I think ......
Every time I go into a convienace mart or see a person from the sand box......there's a potental Terrorist, or sympathiser! Why are they free? Why are they here, in America! I still think we should tighten up on the problem children rather than do away with the constitution. I don't know, it's just a thought.
__________________
"They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf
Originally posted by Rave I don't know,it seems like if it isn't a straight white christian male it is off limits,can't touch 'em.
I might be wrong,but it just seems that way.
Ever heard of the Guantanamo detainees?
You straight white christian males have it soooooooo bad, don't you?
The CEO of almost every major american company
A high percentage of all governmental positions
The highest salary average of any race/sex combination
Yeah you have it so bad. I really feel sorry for you.
Good point Lenny, but remember in the first Gulf war, the idea was to run the bad guys out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad. I think there were those that wanted to go on in and I agree that it was probably the best idea. Trust me, hussein was watched through cross hairs more than once. Problem was George Senior knew the democraps would shoot him down and run him out of office if he went any further. He thought it was the right thing to do, his generals knew it was the right thing to do too. The dems were hoping he would do it so they could crucify him - so since he didn't do it it left it for Klinton to deal with - and we know he didn't have the balls to deal with it either.
What would John Wayne do?
__________________
The Second Amendment, it ain't about DUCK HUNTING!
I feel more like I do now that I did when I first got here!
terrorists should all be locked up or killed like the dogs they are! but in my opinion they should start getting rid of the terrorists here in the states too! such as greenpeace and all those tree spiking freaks up in the north west! and those tree huggers that boobie trap trails to injur people that enjoy off roading on the weekends!
Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America
Posts: 6,342
Good point....
Quote:
Originally posted by whirlwind terrorists should all be locked up or killed like the dogs they are! but in my opinion they should start getting rid of the terrorists here in the states too! such as greenpeace and all those tree spiking freaks up in the north west! and those tree huggers that boobie trap trails to injur people that enjoy off roading on the weekends!
If we are gona do it, then let's get started. Leave the constitution alone and let's start rounding them up! We have boats leaveing Florida everyday, load them onto the decks or whereever, just get them gone. Problem maybe not totally solved but, i bet we will be going a long way in that direction! Let's give it a try and see if I am not right!
__________________
"They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf
Originally posted by whirlwind terrorists should all be locked up or killed like the dogs they are! but in my opinion they should start getting rid of the terrorists here in the states too! such as greenpeace and all those tree spiking freaks up in the north west! and those tree huggers that boobie trap trails to injur people that enjoy off roading on the weekends!
That's exactly what I think ...... 
Every time I go into a convienace mart or see a person from the sand box......there's a potental Terrorist, or sympathiser! Why are they free? Why are they here, in America! I still think we should tighten up on the problem children rather than do away with the constitution. I don't know, it's just a thought.
Like "Earth First" 
