BREAKING NEWS

A WORLD THREATS.COM exclusive interview

ANOTHER FORMER HIGH-RANKING IRAQI OFFICIAL CONFIRMS WMD WENT TO SYRIA

The Changed Baathist: Interview with Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti

By: Ryan Mauro
TDCAnalyst@aol.com

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator. Units under his command dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He was known as the “Butcher of Basra” due to his campaigns and defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991. This interview aims to gain some insight into the current situation in Iraq.

RM: Is there a single incident that you can point to that made you regret your actions and turn against the Baath Party?

IT: The single incident was my wife being willing to stand before me, not as my wife but as an Iraqi, and before one of Saddam's most brutal enforcers and question my tactics. This really made me think because no one has ever even considered to question the tactics of myself or any others and lived to tell about it. This courageous move made me think deep and hard.

RM: Do you still maintain good sources inside Iraq to draw information from?

IT: I will maintain very close sources in Iraq and outside of Iraq. Some of Saddam's key scientists are personal friends of mine as well as other key leaders in the former Iraqi military. I have helped draw information since my defecting to the United States government voluntarily and with the permission of these contacts. The only difference between many of them and I, is that I had the opportunity to defect and they didn't.

RM: Many observers say the Syrian and Iraqi Baath Parties did not trust each other and were rivals until around 2000. How serious was the disagreements between Syria and Saddam Hussein?

IT: The disagreements were not as dramatic as many would lead you to believe. Yes they were deep enough that Iraq and Syria could never move in the direction of forming one pan Arab nationalist state but both remained the closest of allies. The ideologies of both were identical in almost every respect but the biggest problem was with the fact that Saddam and Assad were so alike they couldn't bare each other in terms of sharing power.

RM: What can you tell us about Iraqi sponsorship of terrorists, from Palestinian groups to Al-Qaeda?

IT: Iraq had sponsered Palestinian militant organizations for the longest time with logistical and some material support. Most of the material support came around after the first Gulf War in terms of buying munitions for the various terrorist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza. As far as Al-Qaeda is concerned this support was limited for a long time, mainly due to the fact that Al-Qaeda had the hopes of creating an Islamic empire while Saddam wanted a secular Arab nationalist empire. They only really came to terms in the mid 90's due to the fact that both knew they shared the same short term enemy. Once they came to terms on this Saddam provided Al-Qaeda with intelligence support and whatever money or munitions they could provide. Saddam has had very long standing contacts in the black market as well as with Moscow and would provide whatever munitions he could through these contacts.

RM: In your experience, would either side (the Iraqi Baathists or radical Islamists) be able to put aside their differences to cooperate against the United States?

IT: Yes, as I have noted above they did and will continue to strengthen ties until both are defeated. If you look in Iraq today you are witnessing Arab nationalist terrorist organizations and Islamist terrorist organizations working together to fight the United States.

RM: Is it true the United States helped bring Saddam Hussein to power, as some allege, and then arm him with WMDs?

IT: This is absolutely ludacris. I was in the Ba'athist Revolution who receieved support from the Soviet Union because of the socialist ideology behind it. The Soviet Union openly supported and backed the Ba'athist revolution in Iraq at the time and I am sure you can find news articles about it in European press agencies and others at the time. I was there helping with the revolution and worked on two occassions with Soviet KGB officaials to help train us, much like the United States did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. The United States never directly gave us any WMDs but rather ingredients. They were not mixed and these 'ingredients' could have been easily used for commercial use but were rather used to build low life chemical weapons.

RM: Why do you think Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are in Syria? Why didn't he use them or simply destroy them before the war?

IT: I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grduge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a soverign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

RM: What can you tell us about Iraqi and Iranian relations? There have been reports that small amounts of Iraqi WMD went to Iran and that Iran is currently helping the Iraqi insurgency.

IT: The reports on weapons being sent to Iran are absolutely false. They have no basis and are written by people who have no knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs or they are being written by people who are just intellectually dishonest. As far as the support for the insurgency today, there is no doubt in my mind that Tehran is backing the Islamist insurgency of the Shiites. Iran would want nothing more than a destabalized Iraq, not because they want to control Iraq as much as they want something to throw at the United States politically on the international stage.

RM: On what levels did Iraq and Libya cooperate? Some reports indicate Iraq was involved in Libya's nuclear program.

IT: Iraqi scientists were turned over to Libya along with many documents and research from Iraq on nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that Saddam was attempting to use Libya as a labratory to further his nuclear development just like he was attempting to do by sending his weapons to Syria. Saddam knew after the Gulf War he needed to start shipping his weapons and programs outside of his borders to avoid detection which is exactly why Saddam became so emboldened and laughed at the West everytime he stood in front of the camera. If you were to compare him in the 80's and 90's you would see a much more confident and defiant Saddam in the latter due to the fact he knew there was nothing to materially pin him on within the borders of Iraq.

RM: Why do you think the insurgency is still living on in Iraq? What can be done to win the guerilla war there?

IT: The insurgency is still alive and well in Iraq today due to mismanagement and failure on the part of those managing the rebuilding effort. If you want to break the back of the insurgency what is needed is, obviously, to continue the military campaign and train the Iraqi forces BUT you need to rebuild more schools, provide more jobs and increase the standard of living. You can't rely on the Army Corps of Engineers to do most of the civil rebuilding. They are a great company and have done much good but something of this magnitude requires large private companies to be engaged. If you provide the Iraqis with jobs and really show them a better way of life you will win thier hearts and minds which will cripple the insurgencys efforts to find safe haven in Iraq, material support in Iraq and above all, recruits in Iraq.

RM: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the near-term future of Iraq?

IT: There is no doubt that the United States military has learned the mistakes of the past and are really getting on track in terms of the learning curve of the reconstruction of Iraq. My criticism was aimed at the politicans on the Hill who are beginning to run the war from Congress and taking this role from the military. I see this in the very near future. I have a lot of fears that with upcoming elections and poll numbers down for the Iraq war the politicans are sticking their fingers in the air and they are wanting to cut and run essentially and isolate themselves from the war.

I am optimistic that the Iraqis and the U.S. military can salvage whatever damage may be done due to this. There is much more progress in Iraq today than there was in Vietnam when we pulled out than. The biggest hurdle is going to be putting enough pressure on the Hill to just let the Pentagon run the war and allow our military establishment to do what we entrusted them to do. Win the war and reconstruct the country. The day the politicans take that away from the Pentagon is the day I really see a serious escalation in terrorism to continue a propoganda war from Iraq to persuade the politicans to cut and run. Zarqawi and the rest have been attempting to do this from day one and they are getting closer to their goal if you look at the sentiment within the Senate alone.

I am still quite optimistic that the Iraqis will prevail due to the amount of progress and reconstruction the United States military has made in Iraq but there is always that small amount of doubt and fear which I have. I have seen politicans try to rake the reigns of a war from the military and the war is lost almost immediately. The ball though is in the Iraqis court in terms of defending their newfound democracy and being able to energize the public enough to make this work irregardless of what happens in Washington or the number of troops left in Iraq in the near future.

That being said I think the Iraqis have a very good shot of developing a true and vibrant democracy but it really is up to them and how badly the Iraqis public really wants it and if they are up to the sacrifice, both financially and in terms of body count.

RM: Do you support the rumored partial withdrawal of American troops in spring of 2006?

IT: Now of course I would like to see a drawing down of U.S. troops as to have them return back stateside and be with their families. It would also give the Iraqi security forces the opportunity to prove what themselves to the Iraqi people. The problem though is the political climate here in Washington as I explained earlier.

If there is no sight of the political environment changing in the near future than there is no doubt that drawing down U.S. troops will be more disastrous in the long run than just leaving them there until the Administration or the political climate changes here at home. We can not take the chance of allowing another Vietnam to occur because this will be the Mujahadeens victory over the Soviet Union to the 10th power.

Ryan Mauro
Author, "Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq"
Analyst, Northeast Intelligence Network/Tactical Defense Concepts
Head of WorldThreats.com