Saddam, Sudan, and Osama

Ray Robinson, a former member of the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) presents us with solid evidence of links between Al Quada and Saddam Hussein at the American Thinker.

Here is a point of interest:

The document is from the IIS and details plans to meet with an official from the “Egyptian Al-Jehad” via a Sudanese official named Ali Othman Taha. He is called the Vice Chairman of the Islamic Front in Sudan in the memo.

I looked up Ali Othman Taha on wikipedia and it says that he is the Vice President of Sudan.
Who or what is the Egyptian al-Jehad (jihad)?

Egyptian Islamic extremist group active since the late 1970s. Merged with Bin Ladin’s al-Qaida organization in June 2001, but may retain some capability to conduct independent operations. Continues to suffer setbacks worldwide, especially after 11 September attacks. Primary goals are to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic state and attack US and Israeli interests in Egypt and abroad.

Okay now we know the Egyptian al Jihad is also known as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a name you may have heard in connection to its leader

This is Al-Zawahiri`s group, which merged with Al Quada!

The EIJ is neck deep in al-Qaeda. And this documents shows an EIJ official to be escorted to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1993.

In short, Saddam met with Al Zawahiri back in `93, through the mediation of the Sudanese. (Remember, Bin-Laden was living in the Sudan in `93.)

Interesting, no?

The Sudanese have been in this since the beginning.

A while back, the incomparable Jed Babbin wrote this piece arguing against any U.S. intervention in the Darfur crisis, claiming that we had no national interests in the Sudan. I wrote in response that we shouldn`t miss this opportunity to deal with the Khartoum Jihadists:

Re: Jed Babbin's Carterism, Janjaweed, and Lemonade:

Jeb Babbin is correct about our not having an immediate national interest in the Sudanese genocide, but he is wrong about our not having an interest in intervening in the Sudan. The Sudan holds the southern flank of the Jihadists, and this gives us a perfect opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. I agree, we SHOULD bring the U.N. into the picture (or, better yet, NATO) but we should see that regime change occurs, and that the Arab World understands that this is both an action against genocide AND a part of the War on Terror. The Sudanese couldn't have given us a better chance at a free punch.

The trick is to get in and out quickly. We need to bring the World Community (in the nuanced words of Kerry) in for the occupation. It is about time the U.N. earned the money we have paid them for decades! Maybe we should send Jimmy Carter on a fact-finding mission. We could finally have some use for the old guy! It would be hard for the U.N., or the people from Not In Our Names, to argue against this one.

This is Geopolitics at its finest. Secure the southern front! This is a large part of why we went into Iraq-Mesopotamia is a flat plain bisecting the Arab World. It was the logical spot to attack. A terrorist sponsor with weapons of mass destruction (I know!) and an existing state of war, with flat, easily invaded terrain right through the middle of Jihadistan! The Sudan is more of the same (without the WMD). The terrorist sponsor in East Africa who gives refuge to our enemies (although they offered Clinton Bin-Laden) We now have a chance to secure the southern rim! I say go for it! This will protect the entire region! It will also be a politically viable way to fight the War on Terror with a minimum of U.S. effort. We couldn't have asked for a better opportunity!
-- Timothy Birdnow
St. Louis, Missouri

Mr. Babbin Replied:


Dear Mr. Birdnow: I couldn't disagree more. Secure the southern flank by getting in and getting out quickly? Get NATO and the UN in to help? Both of your fundamental arguments are profoundly wrong. As I said in the article, you can't get in and out quickly and have any hope of imposing any sort of change. Once you leave, things will return to where they are now, albeit with a different bunch of thugs in charge. NATO is fully occupied in Afghanistan and lacks the ability to do more. The UN, if it chooses, can do what needs to be done in Darfur. And one more point: Iran, Syria and - soon - Egypt are and must be our priorities. We can't run down every rabbit trail that opens before us. We need to keep our eye on the main enemy. Sudan just ain't on the list. Best, Jed.

I pointed out to Mr. Babbin that, even if we can`t reform politics in the Sudan, at least we can ensure that the thugs in charge are OUR thugs, and not on the side of the Jihadists. I further pointed out that the African League would be more than willing to act, but that nothing was going to happen without American leadership. The Sudan sits on the Egyptians doorstep, and we can`t hope to secure Egypt without securing her Jihadist neighbor. (Sorry, I can`t find my e-mails.)

Jed responded:

Tim: It's a pleasure to argue with you. But argue I shall.

I still can't agree that we should spend American lives just to replace one bunch of jihadist scum with another. The trust between the soldier and the President is violated by such feckless adventures. Please read the "Defeat of Task Force Ranger" section in my book. I quote a former SEAL, a pal of mine, who landed in Mogadishu the day after "Blackhawk Down." He said it much better than I ever could.

Iran is a tough nut to crack. Air strikes are the beginning, and energetic covert ops at the same time. We can't wait for a rebellion; these guys are on the verge of having nukes.

I'm not interested in securing or stabilizing Syria and Lebanon. They are secure and stable now. What we need to do is to destabilize them, and make sure the terrorists have no sanctuary there. Beyond that, it's not our problem.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Not only do I contest the idea that doing anything in Sudan is going to be productive, you seem to discount the first area of disagreement. You can't get in and out quickly there and hope to have any sort of permanent change. As to Iran, to invade it would be very tough. That's not at all what I propose. I propose to use whatever weapons are necessary -- and I know the ones I'm thinking of are deliverable by the B-2 -- destroy their nuke program, and never let an American boot hit the ground. Let the Iranians sort it out from there. As to Syria, I agree we'd also have to take on Lebanon. Both are a weekend job. As to our being accused for doing it for Israel, who the hell cares? Maybe, on the other hand, we should do it WITH Israel. Cheers, Jed.

Now we know that the Sudanese have had their hands in this from the beginning. President Bashir has always been a would-be Saddam, and he would love to support Jihad. His problem has been the nagging rebellion which tied up his forces and kept him from consolidating his power. I believed then, and I still believe now, that we may regret leaving his junta in power. We had a chance to strike a blow against terrorism, and with popular and international support. We had a ready-made revolution waiting in the wings, we had French troops in Chad, we had the African League. The Sudan does not have Jihad supporting neighbors like Iraq, it is far less developed economically. The U.N. was actually begging us to take the lead; if they then weren`t on board we could have pulled the plug.

Instead, we went on the defensive in Iraq, with the resulting morass. Momentum is important in war, as in many sports, and we gave ours up in the interest of consolidation.

The worst acts in Darfur have quieted, but the problem is far from resolved. We may yet regret our inaction.