Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were not terrorists before Iraq war.
Two new studies, one by the Saudi government and one by an Israeli think tank, which "painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States" have found that most foreign fighters in Iraq were not terrorists before the Iraq war, but were "radicalized by the war itself." The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the studies "cast doubt" on claims by President Bush that terrorists have "seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the 'central front' in a battle against the United States."However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence. A separate Israeli analysis [by
Global Research in International Affairs] of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, 'the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.'
'The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created,' said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.
Columnist Terry Neal of The Washington Post, talked to Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US Coast Guard commander, whose recent book, as well as his articles in the Council's journal Foreign Affairs, argue that Iraq is a "phony war" based on Mr. Bush assertions' that we have to fight the terrorists there rather than here. Mr. Flynn believes that by diverting so many resources to the war in Iraq, we've not only helped to create more terrorists, but that "America remains astonishingly vulnerable to attacks from Al Qaeda, which has morphed under Bush's watch, from an organization to a worldwide movement ..." He says the recent attacks in London show how patient Al Qaeda has become, using the three cell approach: The first cell is the leadership cell, the second cell is the reconnaissance team, and the third is the 'action' team.
Iraq has not changed that equation one bit, Flynn argues. It has only diverted resources from the more pragmatic approach of targeting and hunting down terrorists around the world and, even more important, bolstering domestic security ... The US administration and its hawks are stuck in a 'state-centric perspective, cold war idea that deterrence is about overwhelming power and offense. But that has nothing to do with the overwhelming reality of this threat.'
In the United Kingdom, The Belfast Telegram reports that the respected Royal Ins ute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, and the Economic and Social Research Council, have said that British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan "have put Britain at a greater risk of attack." The Chatham House report, issued Monday, also said that Britain's support for the US did not create an equal partnership, but instead turned Britain into a "passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat".Chatham House warned that Iraq had created difficulties for the UK and the coalition. 'It gave a boost to the Al Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government [in Afghanistan] and bring bin Laden to justice,' it said.
Both British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw reacted strongly to the report by Chatham House. The Guardian reports that Mr. Blair said the recent attack on London was the result of fanatics who subscribed to an "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy and that it would be " 'misunderstanding of a catastrophic' order to think that if we changed our behavior they would change theirs." Mr. Straw also denied that Britain's support for the US made it more of a target for terrorists. "I'm astonished that Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies in the United States," he said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html
Reply With Quote
