Boogeyman

With Emmanuel Goldstein Abu Musab Zarqawi back in the news for his continuing campaign of terror, and in honor of our newest readers, a reminder of the three discarded opportunities to capture or kill him:

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.

“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.

Comments

  1. Nick in Beantown says:

    Makes you wonder if they were to torture the shit out of a detainee and actually get one of those unlikely leads that could save American lives, would they act on it? The neocon, radical right uses this dream scenario to justify the torture, after all. Exhibit A: http://www.1115.org/2005/11/17/lets-go-to-the-photos/#comment-5078.

    Somehow I don’t think they would act on it. Not acting on Zarqawi when we could clearly demonstrates the administration’s lack of respect for the lives of our soldiers, in favor of a pet policy. Do we call this a culture of life?

    Sounds like another case of misused intelligence.

  2. Shawn says:

    Wait a second – how do I square this with the fact that Iraq didn’t have al Queda connections. If Zaquari had set up shop in ‘northern Iraq’ in October 2002, was it that Saddam and company didn’t know or care they were there?

    “… feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.”

    I don’t see how that could be – why wouldn’t they have used that as the smoking gun so they didn’t have to go on the whole WMD charade?

    I’m confused.

  3. matt says:

    Zarqawi was previously independent of al queda, and he was in territory that was beyond Saddam’s control.

    >why wouldn’t they have used that as the smoking gun so they didn’t have to go on the whole WMD charade?

    because there was no doubt that it was in territory not controlled by Saddam. this has never been disputed.

  4. ice weasel says:

    Oh please. We all know that nothing was more important than invading Iraq. Everything else, everything, was just an excuse to do it. The bush juntas ever shifting rationale, their lies, don’t tell us why they felt they had to be there, but it’s beyond question that the imperative was there.

    Invading Iraq was more important than capturing binladen or zaquawi.

    Whose fucked up priorities were those?