Israel has been perfecting the art of profiling, and has successfully prevented El Al (national airline) hijackings since 1970. The profilers are trained to look for signs of suspicious behavior (body language), which provides effective clues of whom to question. Barring exceptional con artists, body language is a dead give away of suspicious behavior. In fact, police officers are trained to look for such clues when dealing with everyday criminals.

The results: plenty of Arabs fly El Al, and yet enough people have been turned away to prevent terrorist attacks since 1970.

So why not fly some Israelis to NYC to train New York’s finest on such tactics?

“. . .
EVEN AFTER THE SWIFT DEFEAT of Saddam’s forces Turabi would continue to object to the presence of U.S. forces in the region. Starting in April 1991, only weeks after the conclusion of the Gulf War, Turabi began hosting the Islamic Arab Popular Conference, which was held regularly until the late 1990s. (Saddam began hosting a similar conference in Baghdad.) The purpose of the conference was to unite all Muslims–Shiite and Sunni, “secular” and Islamist–under a single anti-Western banner. Only in this manner could the Islamic community force the foreign “crusaders” off of Muslim soil.

Writing about the first such conference in Foreign Affairs a few years later, Judith Miller [Judith Miller? Judith Miller? The same one cooling her heels over 'plamegate' in da hoosegow? Fancy that!!!] explained its purpose was to aid Turabi’s “long-standing goal of overcoming the historic rift between Sunni Muslim states, like Sudan, and a Shiite state, like Iran.” The conference was also part of Turabi’s attempt to “fuse formerly secular Arab nationalist movements, which have dominated Arab politics . . . with the increasingly more seductive and influential groups espousing the new Islamic rhetoric.”

Ideological boxes, a common fixation within the U.S. intelligence community, were of no concern to Turabi when it came to confronting the West.

The conference ushered in Turabi’s open door policy for all Arabs and Muslims and his Sudan quickly became a terrorist incubator. Representatives from almost every Middle Eastern-based terrorist group took root: Palestinian terrorist groups, Hezbollah, the Abu Nidal Organization, and various Egyptian terrorist groups included. Several of the various constituencies which would become part of what we now know as “al Qaeda,” including bin Laden himself, also set up shop. Importantly, so did Iraqi (as well as Iranian) intelligence operatives.

Turabi’s hospitality to all of these parties earned him the title “The Pope of Terrorism” in the European press and, in short order, his terrorist coalition began to wreak havoc. Governments all over the African continent were invaded. Egypt, Uganda, Eritrea, and Ethiopia as well as several other African nations would routinely complain of Turabi’s influence over Islamist radicals within their borders. Countless bombings and assassination attempts all led back to Khartoum’s conspicuous guests.

Under Turabi’s watchful eye, al Qaeda began to grow and acquire allies. In 1993, at his urging, bin Laden came to an “understanding” with Saddam Hussein that the al Qaeda leader and his followers would not engage in any anti-Hussein activities. The Clinton administration later included this development in its sealed indictment of bin Laden in 1998. According to the indictment: “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

THE POPE OF TERRORISM’S ROLE in forming such alliances drew the Clinton administration’s attention when, . . .
[SNIP]

Turabi’s vision for his native country was coming to fruition.

But, what came of Turabi’s “close” relationship with Saddam? Did it mean anything more by way of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda?

As it turns out, the Clinton administration was about to confront the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in Turabi’s Sudan head on . . . ”

Read it all at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/880qqeoh.asp?pg=1

There was a weak link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Hussein was funneling money to the GIA (Armed Islamic Group) which later became the GSPC (from which the Millennium bomber received his funds and support). Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst for the CIA’s counterterrorism center (until his retirement in 1994), stated that,

“There certainly is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had pretty strong ties to bin Laden while he was in Sudan, whether it was directly or indirectly through Sudanese intermediaries.”

He also stated,

“Osama bin Laden had established contact with the GIA…Saddam was using bin Laden to ship funds to his own contacts through the GIA.”

1) Commentary: The War Against World War IV
By Norman Podhoretz
February 2005
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/special/A11902025_1.html

2) Weekly Standard: Saddam’s Business Partners
From the May 30, 2005 issue: How the Oil-for-Food scandal happened and why it matters.
by Stephen F. Hayes
05/30/2005, Volume 010, Issue 35

3) OpinionJournal: Reviving Mideastern Democracy
We Arabs need the West’s help to usher in a new Liberal Age.
BY SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM
Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

4) Pittsburg post-gazette.com: Headline ruse
The 9/11 commission does see an Iraq link
By Jack Kelly
Sunday, June 20, 2004

5) Center for Contemporary Conflict: The Lessons of a Successful Military Occupation.
Strategic Insights, Volume II, Issue 5 (May 2003)
by guest analyst Michael Bernhard
Lessons learned from occupying post-Nazi Germany applied to Iraq

6) Commentary: The Bush Doctrine’s Next Test
By Victor Davis Hanson
“Has Iraq Weakened Us?” appeared in the February 2005 Commentary

7) Telegraph.co.uk: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)

OpinionJournal: Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam.
The terrorist network may be closer knit than we think.
BY ASLA AYDINTASBAS
Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

9) Townhall.com: Recent Iraq history
Cal Thomas
June 9, 2004

10) A View from the Eye of the Storm
Speech by Haim Harari on War on Terror
Talk delivered by Haim Harari at a meeting of the International Advisory Board of a large multi-national corporation, April, 2004. Central thesis is that Iraq has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with a dysfunctional moslem region

It goes without saying that the bi-partisan 9-11 commision has listed and detailed numerous linkages of support and cooperation between Saddam and Osama. It also covers incidents of CIA & State Dept overt and covert insubordination to the Bush admin. Google, download & read the whole pdf file, which also covers “plamegate” as a rogue attempt to stymie the WOT and discredit the admin with lies, omission of truth, etc.

In the CIA Factbook, there were a couple of pessimistic entries for US economic outlook that didn’t jive with reality for 2003, 2004 and earlier this year. I wish I had cached them, but I didn’t, other than to make a mental note and wonder when Bush was going to get around to instilling an attitude adjustment on the CIA. The gloomy comments in question has since been revised. IIRC, the CIA was predicting a slump in jobs and that all the labor/wage gains were only going to the top 20%. That is patently untrue and I refer you to an article writen by Bill Hobbs:
HobbsOnline A.M.: A Jobs Boom?
10/31/2003

As to the 3/5 issue, if that was an ‘abomination’ (abomination = intense dislike; repugnance; detestation; loathing; abhorrence; or as the Scriptures would put it, the worst of worst), then what would 0/5 be? What would 5/5 be in that day & age?

To my way of thinking, a 3/5 cup is more than 1/2 full, and certainly better than an ‘abomination’ and more like ‘distasteful’ (distasteful = unpleasant; disagreeable; objectionable; offensive). In any case, my point is that there will be compromises that some/many Iraqis will find distasteful but I doubt abominable — at least I hope not.

In case you’re wondering, for the Iraqis, an Islamic Republic with fully embedded sharia would be an abomination as it would enslave all but the diehards. I would think that if it looked like it was going to come to that, Bush would intervene to prevent that.

Take all of the above for what it’s worth, better yet, if you disagree with those authors, by all means shoot them an email and set ‘em straight.

Just so you understand, as much as I would like to engage beyond this point, I don’t expect to have much time to comment over the following days, so don’t expect any follow-up. Sorry.

Even in America, there is a longing to return to pre-9/11 way of life – as if the Islamofascists no longer exist.

>>>”Cobra, you ignore the fact that Saddam and AQ had “diplomatic” relations and that he invited AQ to operate in a Northern corner of Kurdistan in order to wage a proxy war on the Kurds.”

What is the source for this information? You do realize that the northern section of Iraq where the Kurds lived was part of the “no-fly” zone established and enforced after Gulf War I. How can Saddam “invite” Al Qaeda (a sworn enemy) to operate in a part of the country he had no control over?

I echo the questions by Chancelucky on the CIA reports, especially in light of the fact that you seem to trust sources such as the one about some alleged Al Qaeda/Saddam connection, connections not even the Bush Administration will go on record about right now.

Andy writes:

>>>In fact, collateral damage to the innocent civilians as a result of coalition combat operations represent the smallest proportion.”

Again, where is your source for that statement? The sources I read have a decidedly different evaluation.

>>>”Nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died horrible, violent deaths since the U.S. invasion began in 2003. Nine thousand were shot or bombed by U.S. forces, compared to 2,353 who lost their lives as the result insurgent attacks like suicide bombings.

Our troops have killed four times as many civilians as the bad guys.

Those findings came out last week in the first detailed study of noncombatant Iraqi casualties. The Dossier of Civilian Casualties was compiled by Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group, an alliance of academic researchers and peace activists. Their numbers come from media reports and the Iraqi government.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/12269325.htm

And those are the CONSERVATIVE estimates. I won’t bring up the Lancet statistics that tout four times as many deaths.

Andy writes:

>>>YES, because it was worth everything to derail Saddam and terrorism in a stroke while planting the seed of democracy & liberty as opposed to pointless and toothless UN sanctions and statism.”

How is terrorism being derailed? Terrorism is a method. What possible deterrance can one use against a suicide bomber if he or she is determined to die for his or her cause? Second, planting the seed of democracy won’t mean a hill of beans if the only thing we’ve done is create a second Iran, where one was bad enough in the first place. If you don’t believe me:

>>>”Before American forces invaded, some analysts in Washington predicted that Iran would hold little appeal for Iraq’s 17 million Shiites because they are Arabs while most of Iran’s Shiites are Persians, historical enemies of the Arabs. That view failed to anticipate the depth of tension and violence that have now divided Iraq’s Arabs, largely along lines of the two main branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. Still, American officials hold to the belief that, in the end, Iraqi nationalism, which Shiites here share, will keep Iraq from being pulled into Iran’s orbit.

The reality, however, is that Iraqi leaders, with the encouragement of their Iranian counterparts, are trying to forge stronger bonds with Iran in many spheres, from reconstruction to the writing of the constitution.

“We’ve had good relations with the great Islamic Republic for more than two decades,” Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a powerful Shiite politician, said at a recent news conference in Basra.

“Iran opens its doors and receives the Iraqis, and there is a huge number of Iraqis in Iran,” he added.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/weekinreview/31wong.html

Andy writes:

>>>”In any case maybe now you undersand why when forging a constitution, the arrived at compromises may initially be distatesful to one side and/or the other. Much like the 3/5 compromise in our own founding.”

That 3/5ths compromise was more than “distasteful.” It was an abomination to African Americans.

–Cobra

Winning the hearts and minds of the people is only ONE battle tactic. When you have superior firepower and the ability to erase an enemy entirely or at least his ability to continue fighting, you do it!

Then you negotiate what you will LET his future look like after that.

My point is that public perceptions can doom an otherwise noble war effot just a easily as military failure and we are seeing both in Iraq.

Also is there a list somewhere of attempts by the CIA to mislead or make the administration look bad?

I did see the August 6, 2001 intelligence briefing. That seemed to be quite the opposite.

Anyway, I would appreciate the links so I can better understand.

I do have a question about the flypaper theory….What if the flies are breeding faster than your ability to trap them? Do you then need to put out flypaper in more places and allow them to bite more people? If so, would it possibly make sense to understand how they breed and to stop that?

I remember one of the first serious studies of rats came out of Johns Hopkins. The guy found that it really didn’t help to kill rats. As long as there was a food source, the rats would breed at whatever pace it took to take advantage of the food source. The more you killed, the faster they bred as long as they had a reason to breed. You would have to kill them all.

The better strategy turned out to be eliminating their food sources, covering garbage, not leaving food out, etc.

What is your criteria for evaluating the accuracy of CIA reports? How do YOU determine whether a report is factually unbiased or is a partisan attempt to undermine the Bush admin – which has been documented time and time again? Even in their wonderfully comphrensive World Factbook series, I can detect subtle biases against the current admin.

The merits of this report notwithstanding, why should anyone be surprised that Iraq was a training ground for terrorists?

Did you forget that it was part of our strategy to draw would-be terrorists in from all over the world so we can kill them? And killing them we are at a significantly higher rate than they are killing us. Such is war. And when you cite the 10s of thousand Iraqi civilians, be sure to remember that the majority are victims of the terrorists and that a significant proportion represent the terrorists themselves, whether by their own hand or by us killing them. In fact, collateral damage to the innocent civilians as a result of coalition combat operations represent the smallest proportion.

As for democracy, it will be in fits and starts.

One thing is clear, the Kurds who are not Arabs will not tolerate Sharia and they hold significant clout, as well as valuable natural resources and Iraq cannot afford for the Kurds to walk out and secede from the union.

Other secular/moderate groups may have less representation, due to their proportionally smaller blocs, nevertheless, they will find ways to form coalitions to block state-religionism that would undermine their concept of basic freedoms.

Seeing how far we’ve come since our founding, we can only hope they will learn from our lessons and cut the learning curve on an order of magnitude. This is much preferable than leaving Saddam in place and worse calamities bound to follow in that path.

To answer your question, can we justify the costs if we end up with the Islamic Republic at the end of the day? YES, because it was worth everything to derail Saddam and terrorism in a stroke while planting the seed of democracy & liberty as opposed to pointless and toothless UN sanctions and statism.

In any case maybe now you undersand why when forging a constitution, the arrived at compromises may initially be distatesful to one side and/or the other. Much like the 3/5 compromise in our own founding.

I wish all of what you said comes true. I fear that it isn’t. According to the CIA, Iraq is NOW the new breeding ground for terrorism.
>>>A recent classified CIA report came to the gloomy conclusion that Iraq may have become an even more effective terrorist training ground than Afghanistan was under the Taliban, according to a description in the New York Times on June 21. Frighteningly, the report allegedly says that the Iraq war is helping to train terrorists to be more effective in setting off explosive devices — with the potential to disperse these terrorists to other countries.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/26/EDGIRDT76C1.DTL

For all that is despicable about Saddam Hussein, he, like Tito, held an iron boot over distinct rival groups, Shia, Sunni and Kurds, and with his removal, there is no motivation for these factions to cooperate. These fueds stretch back 1300 years. It’s naive of some American planners to believe that in two years, this type of animosity will abate and a peaceful democracy will arise. Second, Saddam Hussein ran a SECULAR government. Osama Bin Laden and Islamofascists HATED Hussein, but with the Shia majority, there are signs of an ominous future within the writing of the “new” Iraqi Constitution:

>>>”Current drafts would limit Iraq’s international human rights obligations to those that do not contradict Islam or Islamic law. They assert that an undefined version of Islamic law, or sharia , is the main source of law. They make no reference to freedom of religion or belief for every Iraqi, and they provide no guarantee of individual freedom of thought and conscience. One clause in the constitution would forbid any law contrary to sharia, leaving the door open for interpretations by unelected Islamic “experts” to be considered sacrosanct. In fact, the drafts authorize many of the constitutional court’s justices to be sharia jurists who may have no education or experience in civil law — placing Iraq’s judiciary in the company of those in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which allow judges without traditional legal training to decide matters pertaining to constitutional law. Basic individual rights, perhaps even the constitution itself, would be protected only if they were not viewed as contrary to judicial interpretations of Islam.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080302035.html

And Women?

>>>According to the draft released by Iraq’s daily Assabah on July 26, the new constitution will stipulate that the state “guarantees the basic rights of women and their equality with men at all levels in accordance with the Islamic Sharia.”
However, it also states that Islam should be its sole source.
Fakhri’s take on the constitution’s blueprint is that the different branches of Islam have different interpretations of the Sharia. “This would put women under the mercy of some male clerics who view women’s rights with disfavor.”
She argued that in areas were the Sharia was implemented, polygamy was rampant, girls were forced into arranged marriages – some as early as at the age of nine – and divorced women couldn’t keep custody of their male children beyond two years of age and female children older than seven.
“Under Islam, males receive twice the share of inheritance as their female siblings,” Fakhri added.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17393

Even worse, look at the argument between the three faction over something simple as a NAME for the new regime:

>>>”Emblematic of the gulf between Iraq’s dominant Shiite Arabs, ethnic Kurds, and the minority Sunni Arabs, has been an inability to agree on a name for the country. Shiite officials have been pushing for the “Islamic Republic of Iraq,” Kurds for the “Federal Republic of Iraq,” and Sunni Arabs for the “Republic of Iraq.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0801/p06s01-woiq.html

For all the vitriol on this site and others against Islam, can any of you justify the THOUSANDS of Casualties sustained by American Troops,TENS OF THOUSANDS of deaths among Iraqi civillians and HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars spent on this war if we wind up with the “ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAQ” at the end of the day?

–Cobra

Maybe we could learn a few lessons from Blair and our cousins across the pond. They were attacked not even four weeks ago, and they’re already working on deportation (in some cases even citizens) and serious immigration reform. Tony Blair…

Sorry for all the goofs. It’s Saturday, and I’d rather be fishing, so I’m in a hurry.

Ravwn, that’s a bit of a stretch, to use that phrase as a negative. Of course the Iraqis want us to leave. It’s their country. Makes perfect sense, and isn’t a reason for despair. And of course we want to leave. And of course neither Iraqis nor Americans us to leave before the job is done. That’s the context of this deal.

Raymond, your assertion that the war in Iraq is lost is just not the right attitude. “Quagmire” is a leftist concept, not one we should be adopting. Following that way of thinking, the Union would have given up during the siege of Petersburg, because it was a quagmire. The Brits would have give3n up during the quagmire of Dunkirk. The Allies would have given up during the Battle of the Bulge, because it was a quagmire as well. I’m not buying that defeatist stuff.