Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, was a gang associated with Salman Pak, but there is another reason that this training facility is important.  Satellite photographs taken of the camp revealed that the base contained the fuselage of a passenger aircraft.  According to reports from five separate sources, foreign fighters trained at Salman Pak, using the fuselage to practice hijacking civilian airliners with knives and other edged weapons.  You recall that the vast majority of the 9-11 hijackers were not Iraqis and that naked blades were used in that attack.

Hussein’s regime maintained that the Salman Pak aircraft body was used by Iraqi military forces for anti-hijacking training.  I believe that the dictator’s version was merely a cover for the real purpose of the fuselage, which was terrorist rehearsal.  A former Iraqi officer, Abdullah Rahman al-Shamary claimed that Salman Pak was built as a training camp for al Qaida by the Iraqi military.

There is another wrinkle to the saga of Salman Pak.  A well-known terrorist named Abu Nidal reportedly completed a “work program” associated with Salman Pak and airline hijacker Atta before the 09-11-01 airliner hijackings.  Nidal was efficient enough and a good enough leader to have a terrorist group named after him.  I suppose he could have been teaching trainees how to bake cookies, but I doubt it.  What was Nidal doing around Salman Pak?  He died in Iraq.  Nidal was apparently a very determined suicide.  According to reports, he shot himself four times in the head.  Was he just hard core?  Was Nidal a bad shot?  Was he murdered to silence him forever about his possible role in the 9-11 attacks?  (Please read the above link “Nidal.”  It lays out in graphic detail Saddam Hussein’s terrorist links.  Not for the faint of heart.  This is the Mother Lode.)

In addition to the pre-war reports about Salman Pak as a training facility for foreign fighters and Abu Nidal’s presence at the camp; during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. ground forces encountered non-Iraqi combatants in the vicinity of the installation.

Does the totality of this information “prove” that the hijackers who attacked New York City and the Pentagon were trained in Hussein’s Iraq?  Probably not to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  A U.S. District Judge did rule in favor of plaintiffs claiming damages against Hussein for the 9-11 attacks.  Does the totality of this information, when combined with Hussein’s support for terrorists, including al Qaida, strongly suggest that he was a festering threat to the United States?  (See Posts 1 and 2 under the Category-War on Terror.)

I reject the Left’s assertion that the rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an artifact of the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” or “Blood for Oil” cabal.  It is also doubtful, in my opinion, that disinformation agents working for Saddam’s Iraqi enemies in exile could have put together an incredibly elaborate hoax to deceive U.S. Intelligence.  Unless there is another explanation for the Salman Pak ”trout in the milk,” I believe we must conclude that the circumstantial evidence regarding Hussein’s terrorist collaboration against America is persuasive, if not damning.  Ergo, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was well justified as being in the national interests of the United States of America.  Dare we question the motivation and/or the wisdom of those who continue to bray that Operation Iraqi Freedom began an unnecessary war?  (Stay tuned for Part 4.) 

Def Mech

History is a slippery thing, especially as close as we are to Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, 9-11, and the destruction of the Iraqi dictatorship in 2003.  It will take decades for all the facts to come out and for scholars to form opinions on what actually happened.  We are still experiencing revelations and debate about World War Two, the Cold War, and Vietnam.

Even so, in order to function in the time in which we live, I believe we must try to understand the complex events that brought us to our current situation.  This involves bringing our individual perspectives to the choice of sources that we trust to provide the most objective information possible about the topic at hand.

My own perspective has been shaped as a child of the Cold War and my service as an intelligence officer with the United States Army in Vietnam and Europe.  I also have a liberal arts background and experience and education in the field of counseling and psychology.  Others will bring their own experiences and perspectives to the debate.

Liberals and some conservatives will undoubtedly find fault with my sources and conclusions.  That is a right they have under what I believe to be the best form of government in the best country yet created on our planet.  I do urge everyone that believes that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power to consider the following.  To disagree with him would have meant an ugly appointment with an electrode, an electric drill, and/or a firing squad, followed by a quick drop into an unmarked grave.

It may be useful to remember that Saddam Hussein’s uncle, Khairallah Tulfah,  was a disciple of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a rabid anti-Jewish radical who helped Adolph Hitler organize Muslim brigades to fight against the Allies in World War Two.  Saddam Hussein reportedly modeled the governance of his dictatorship after Hitler’s methods.

Hussein rose to power in Iraq after serving an apprenticeship as an assassin in the Baath Party.  He purged some enemies in party congress meetings or conventions.  The unfortunate victims were dragged from the halls to face torture and death at the hands of their Baath Party comrades.  Hussein used chemical weapons in his war against Iran in the 1980’s.  These weapons included nerve gas.

In 1990, Hussein invaded Kuwait, a small oil-rich nation southeast of Iraq on the Persian Gulf.  His troops raped, burned, pillaged, and killed.  The Iraqi dictator also massed forces on the border of Saudi Arabia.

As U.S.-led coalition moved troops into the region under Operation Desert Shield to defend the Sauidis from a possible attack.  Hussein could simply have retreated from Kuwait with his ill-gotten loot, but he doubted the will of the United States and its Coalition allies to dislodge him from his conquest.

In 1991, U.N.-backed Operation Desert Storm threw Hussein out of Kuwait.  The fighting ended with a cease-fire designed to stop the slaughter of Iraqi troops for humanitarian reasons and to meet the political concerns of the Saudis and other Muslim coalition partners.

The terms of the cease-fire included establishment of a “no-fly” zone for fixed wing aircraft over parts of Iraq.  U.S. military commanders hoped that this restriction would help protect Kurds and Shiites in Iraq who had chafed under Hussein’s harsh rule.  (Helicopters were exempt from the no-fly rule so that they could be used for medical missions and supply distribution to the Iraqi People.  The cease-fire also mandated a limit on the range of Iraqi missiles, and the destruction of Iraq’s WMD capabilities in accordance with UN guidelines.

Following the cease-fire, throughout the 1990’s and up to the U.S.-led coalition invasion of 2003, Hussein’s forces fired on allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, used rotary-winged helicopters to attack Kurds and Shiites, and obstructed and spied on UN Weapons Inspectors attempting to monitor the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam failed to provide required records documenting the destruction of his WMD.  He built up huge stockpiles of conventional weapons by diverting UN Oil for Food Program money that had been destined to feed his people.  Hussein corrupted the UN and bought the support of France, Russia, and several other member countries with kickbacks on Oil for Food contracts.

Hussein ignored 17 UN resolutions regarding his refusal to comply with the conditions of the cease-fire agreement.  (Saddam’s terrorist ties and information regarding the status of his WMD programs will be the topics of future posts.)

The most salient point of this post is that the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was the continuation of a war started by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm ended with a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.  U.S. and Coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003 in response to Hussein’s failure to abide by the cease-fire agreement, UN mandates, and the potential threat that he posed by his support of terrorists, including Al Qaida, and his possession of, capability to develop, use, or export WMD. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in a pre-World War Two Fireside Chat on this date in 1941, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.”  At that point in time, FDR was supporting England with the Lend-Lease Program in the defense of Great Britain against the formidable Nazi War Machine.

In 2003, George W. Bush, virtually every intelligence service in the world, almost every American government official, with the exceptions of State Legislator Barack Obama and other Hard-Left Radicals, saw in Saddam Hussein a coiling snake.  Many high-level officials in Saddam’s own regime believed he had WMD.  (Pages 3 and 13)  In subsequent posts, I will detail why I believe most of the world was right and Obama and the radicals were wrong about Saddam Hussein, his intentions, his ties to terrorists, and his possession/development of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq War is important to me, because I served in Vietnam and do not want another 2.5 million or so deaths to occur because of Liberal perfidy and/or incompetence.  Also, interestingly enough, many of the same people who were against the Vietnam War and are against the Iraq War also seem interested in stripping the American People of their right to self-defense against crime and tyranny.

Def Mech