Sunday, October 01, 2006

Yep, it's all crazy!

What I'm kicking around here is some sort of notion to try to pull all the strings together.

I don't think that it was a plan to plant stuff directly to frame Saddam, but the possibility comes to my mind that a CIA monitored backdoor route, bearing in mind that the smuggling and sanctions-busting were rife, would have been especially useful in proving that Saddam was still engaging in WMD related 'shopping trips'.

Turkey is the one country out of the three (T, S, J,) that was likely to have more problems with the overthrow of Saddam than any of the others, remembering they wanted no part in being a staging post prior to the invasion itself.

They, I think, clearly realised that the Kurds would rise up again after Saddam was gone and once again press for autonomy, and that this would lead to internal dissent close to insurrection inside Turkey's own borders.

So within Turkey there must have been a lot of concern relating to the US' methodology in achieving its aims, with Turkey being stuck in a cleft stick being as it was simultaneously dependent on the US for military aid/technology (witnessed by their need for F-16s today).

Would it really be surprising if the Mýllý Ýstýhbarat Teskýlati and elements of the ATC were not paying attention here?

Back to the WMD smuggling bit, Iraq at some point imported 380 SA-2/Volga liquid-propellant engines from Poland and possibly Russia or Belarus for the Al-Samoud project. The question here is whether these were transported via Turkey and the US (CIA) had a handle on this to prove Saddam's complicity in continuing his illicit activities.

Then back to Cheney and Valerie, did he want her out because her husband had already turned tail (tale?) and his over-riding fear was that she might do likewise?

(Not sure if you were aware of this, but going back a while, there was a situation where US/UK aircraft were operating out of Incerlik Airbase in Turkey to protect the Kurds via patrolling the no-fly zone, whilst Turkish warplanes were operating out of the same base at the same time to bomb them!)

Yep, it's all crazy!


Anonymous said...

it's not crazy at all

lukery said...


Miguel said...

I think Turkey and the ATC were absolutely opposed to the U.S. War in Iraq for the reasons cited- the Kurdish problem. I think Brent Scowcroft's and Joe Wilson's "principled opposition" to the war may in part reflect their closeness to Turkish interests. However, 2 officials aligned with the ATC- Perle and Feith- may have convinced their Turkish friends that the war was a fait accompli, and that Turkey might as well profit from it.

It's a complicated business. Feith and Perle represent Turkey through IAI, yet they supported a war against the Turkish Deep State interests. Who would have believed it?

Simon said...

I went back to the ISG (Rod Barton's) final report again to read about the Iraq regime's smuggling activities - it appears that the Volga engines went to the Syrian port of Tartus. How they got to Iraq after that is not revealed. What is very interesting is this:

(From the section about smuggling by land)

Open sources detail how the Habur bridge or gate near Zakho on the border with Turkey was also a scene of illicit smuggling. The large volume of traffic across Habur bridge (see Figure 65) hindered the adequate monitoring of cargo. Recent open sources point to the fact that UN monitors were able to inspect only one in every 200 trucks that crossed into Iraq via this route.

Other sources suggest that Iraq may have also received goods smuggled in by truck from Dubai via Saudi Arabia. Illicit trade between Iraq and Iran was also problematic. Smuggling occurred on the road linking the Iraqi city of Al-Basrah and the Iranian city of Khorramshahr. Iran exported foodstuffs, luxury goods, and especially cement and asphalt along the 40-kilometer highway. A former employee of the MIC declared that the smuggling was under the protection of both the Iraqi SSO and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

There are a dozen official entry points into Iraq from the neighboring countries (see figure 66) of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, three air entry points at Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul and two main ports at Umm Qasr and Al-Basrah. As indicated on the map, the UN monitored only five border crossings. The primary reason for the UN’s oversight centered on the UN OFF Program. UNSCOM weapons inspectors seldom visited Iraq’s border control points because they were based in Baghdad. The UN contracted two private companies from 1996 to 2003 (Lloyds Register and later a Swiss company called Cotecna) to authenticate and certify the arrival of humanitarian supplies under the UN OFF Program at three land border points. (A fourth was added just prior to OIF and the port of Umm Qasr (see figure 67).

This left at least two major border crossings and Baghdad’s airport completely unmonitored. Even at the monitored crossings, cargo not approved by the UN could freely enter Iraq because UN monitors only dealt with UN OFF cargo. Any non-UN cargo could freely enter Iraq at either monitored or unmonitored entry points.

Clearly Iraq had little problem in moving in or out goods of any kind. Therefore it must have been in BJ's and later JTFI's remit to monitor this activity.

lukery said...

thnx simon.

yeah - they had to follow the actual perpetrators and the networks to have any idea what was going on. of course, there wasnt any activity at all.