-Caveat Lector-
KNOW THY ENEMY
The Iraq Connection
Attack Saddam? It may be one of the most momentous choices of the 21st
century.
BY R. JAMES WOOLSEY
Wall Street Journal-Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
The professionally prepared and precisely sized anthrax spores that have
infected some 30 congressional staffers and closed down the Capitol and the
office of the governor of New York have made the point forcefully: When you
are at war, the primary task should be to determine whom you are at war
with.
In most wars this is not a problem. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990
the way the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor--with flags flying. Even
in our war two centuries ago with the Barbary Pirates, an enemy with some
loose parallels to al Qaeda, we had no doubt which North African government
sheltered them. Stephen Decatur knew whom to attack.
This time it's different. Although the administration's decision to move
first against the obvious target--the Taliban and their demonic al Qaeda
guests--is sound, there are rising doubts that even a victory in
Afghanistan, and even the capture or death of Osama bin Laden and his
cohorts, will solve the problem. And this is not only because of al Qaeda
operatives and street demonstrations in other countries. Removing bin Laden
and his associates may only amputate one hand of our enemy. There are
substantial and growing indications that a state may, behind the scene, be
involved in the attacks. This is hard for us to deal with because, as Sen.
Dianne Feinstein said recently, It's a very sobering thing for Americans,
who tend to be upfront dealing with everything, to be faced with something
so clandestine and unknown.
When an enemy has a face and a name, this country can be awesome in its
ability to mobilize quickly for war and win, as we did in both world wars.
But we are now facing an enemy from a part of the world where the major
aspects of war, for many centuries, have been clandestine raids,
assassinations, terror against civilians, and deception. In response to the
challenge Come out and fight like a man, we will get only smirks in the
shadows and more anthrax, or worse.
Some hold the view that no degree of sophistication--precisely prepared
anthrax, coordination across continents, sophisticated training,
professionally-stolen identities--is enough to indicate the strong
probability of a state's being involved. Such a position was most
succinctly stated by an unnamed FBI official to Seymour Hersh (in the Oct.
8 New Yorker), speaking of the Sept. 11 attackers: These guys look like a
pickup basketball team. In your wildest dreams, do you think they thought
they'd be able to pull off four hijackings? But for those of a more
suspicious cast of mind, the degree of complexity and the sophistication of
the attacks against us suggest that we have enough indications of possible
state involvement for the government to be carefully and vigorously
investigating.
One central issue is state involvement in what? If we define the problem in
such a way as to require proof (and make it proof beyond a reasonable
doubt) of state involvement in the Sept. 11 attack itself, we will quite
likely define ourselves out of being able to understand who is at war with
us. Instead, we need to look at the pattern of terrorism against us over
the last decade and reach a considered judgment in light of the whole
picture, even if we cannot prove, to the demanding standards of criminal
law, a state's involvement in the Sept. 11 atrocity itself.
The weakest argument against the possibility of state involvement is
usually implicit--that since al Qaeda is clearly involved in the Sept. 11
and other attacks, a state probably is not. But haven't such people heard
of joint ventures? Do they think that international law imposes some sort
of sole-source contracting requirement for terrorism?
But which state? Well, whichever one turns up when you start looking. Iran,
for example, has to be considered a possibility because--in spite of a
rational president, a number of elected reformers, brave newspaper editors,
and an electorate that solidly supports reform--murderous mullahs still run
the country's intelligence services and instruments of state power. Iran
sponsors Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that are targeted principally
against Israel today but that have attacked us in the past, including quite
possibly at Khobar Towers. Iranian involvement with al Qaeda, even across
the bitter divide between extreme Wahhabi Sunnis and extreme Shiites, is
not impossible.
But by far the more likely candidate for involvement with al Qaeda is Iraq,
for several reasons.
Saddam has gone to great lengths to court Sunni Islamists in recent years,
even restructuring the Iraqi flag to put Allahu Akbar (God is great) in
his own handwriting across its face. (Even Saddam's soulmate and fellow
hater of religion, Joseph Stalin, didn't think of courting the Russian
Orthodox Church when he needed it
