Here's my response to this controversy about Baghdad blogger "Salam Pax" being a Ba'athist agent, sparked by a David Warren column that also makes some good points about Pax's moral myopia.
I buy the family connections, the moral myopia, and the narcissist streak. I also think there's a kind of mentality at work that likes to be seen as a "bad boy" out there "on the edge," whether he is or not in real life ( bet? Not). But an Iraqi intelligence officer? I'm not exactly naive about intelligence matters, so I understand the theoretical possibility. What I don't see here is the point of the op. A real intelligence op should try to accomplish concrete things, and Pax was too all over the map to fit that profile for any intelligence organization I can think of. He actually undermined the Iraqi story in important ways, and a trained agent wouldn't accidentally reveal the things David Warren cites re: his family connections. Cover is an agent's priority one, and Salam Pax has done a less than stellar job of that throughout.
No, my point of view corresponds to Occasional Reader's instead, not to mention Mike G's. When Saddam's agents wanted to shape opinion, they bought it.
As for the claims that Salam didn't post anything critical of Saddam et. al. before the war, I suggest doing one's research first:
--- UPDATES ---
I agree completely.
I've read his entire blog and the comments sections (which include his own) since well before the battle.
He's confused. He's young. He's a lot of things. But an agent?
I don't think so.
Thanks for the citations. I was tempted to for the LGF comment section but didn't have time.
I'm sure there are many more that can be help up a example.
And of course, the CIA/American plant accusation flew out a loooooong time ago, well before the first shot was fired.
Interesting how some read "anti-American" in his writings, other's read "pro-American" in his writings. "Of course he can't be openly pro-(insert Saddam or American here) or he'll blow his cover."
He's just a young man in an unusual place and at an unusual time.
I wish him well and look forward to reading his future posts.
CBK
Before slipping in the misinformation you have to gain the trust of the reader.
I was always a bit suspicious.
OTOH perhaps I am giving him and his "reputed" intelligence operation too much credit for sophistication.
I do agree that he is/was part of the Baathist family. How else do you get an internet connection without being noticed in a police state?
Ba'athist family - as noted above, we agree. As for gaining the reader's trust - well, yes, but then you have to actually DO something with it.
MB has read Salam since WAY before he became popular, back almost at his few weeks. The key is NAIF beyond belief.
Living in a protected class as he did, he spoke as the usual insulated youth who has yet to confront "real life". This is the only perspective that stands up to scrutiny. Trying to imbue his persona with anything more than that fails the reality test.
If Salam had been a "misinformation op" by the Baathists,wouldn't he have sounded more like Robert Fisk with his "impenetrable defenses" and 100% support for Saddam?Try and remember that the Baathists weren't the most sophisticated bunch in the world.If they had been,they would have given Saddam something like 77% of the votes in his last election,and arranged several fake candidates to "run" against Saddam.Instead,he got every vote of every person in Iraq,with no abstentions.This was widely considered a joke,expect among the ANSWER-crowd.
As always,consider the source.KGB,in its day,was capable of quite sophisticated misinformation operations.For example,they forged a document in the seventies that seemed to connect E. Howard Hunt with Lee Harvey Oswald.The paper, supposedly written by Oswald to a "Mr. Hunt",fueled many a conspiracy theory before it was exposed as a fraud by a former KGB officer.
The Mukhabarat,on the other hand, was almost comically crude in its efforts.Even the North Koreans put up more believable demonstrations in support of their leader than the Iraqis did.Ditto with other media efforts.The millions allegedly bestowed upon Mr.Galloway,the kiss-ass interview of Saddam by that old Marxist,Tony Benn,or falsely claiming that Sean Penn had declared Iraq 'free of weapons of mass destruction' while in Baghdad,these weren't the work of sophisticated pros who understood Western culture.
To summarise,I'll have to vote 'no'.There's no way the Iraqi intelligence could have done this.
Hello; if this is a real person, where is he?
He's in Iraq.
Read a lot of threads on this recently and just a couple of thoughts. When you are trying to evaluate a possible Sov-style disinformation or counterespionage operation one tool is to look at the cost-benefit aspect. What does it cost the opposition to run it vs what they get from it? Cost: chicken feed to run a blog on government controlled time and systems. Benefit: there's the question. What were there possible goals?
Remember that a CE or Disinfo op can have several goals; one might be functioning as a communications channel to influence opponent thinking, another wold be to keep an eye on opponent actions and plans. Of course such a channel would be only one of many. Did it succeed in keeping Saddam in power? No, but neither did Mr Galloway, or TotalFinaElf and the French government.
Why would a defeated but not completely eliminated opponent continue such an operation? Cost/Benefit again. Prevent the complete eradication of your political party and allies. The book and film "The ODESSA file" were based on an actual organization of the defeated Nazi SS types, set up to help them hide out and then prosper in postwar Germany. Maybe there is a similar effort here?
In all the threads on Salam that I've reviewed I keep seeing posts from people who argue he is not an "intel agent" (actually he would probably be an "asset" not an agent) by citing factors that make him seem appealing to them, and thus not an "agent". A good CE or Disinfo op would be designed to have just such traits to get you to buy into it. For Example:
Back in the teens and twenties in the Bolshevik Sov Union, Dzherzhinski's CHEKA ran a fascinating op called the "Trust". The legend was that it was an anti-bolshevik underground, but in reality it was Mr D's thugs. They spun the story to expat Tsarists in the West and to Western governments to keep track of any real anti-Bolshevik efforts. They sold it by using the kind of people they expats and the West WANTED to believe in (right background right social class and education, right sort of former friends, etc)as assets to visit and ask for help, and gave up just enough (info, occasional staged attacks on Bolshie targets) to keep it looking good. Ultimately they got the target audience so sold on the story that the expats and the West used the Trust as "their" primary anti-Bol effort, sending lots of funds and gear back with the periodically visiting Trust reps. The West funded the Bolshies' operation! When the "Trust" needed to lull the audience they would "smuggle" in an expat, give a him a good Potemkin-ing an send him out to describe how hard they were fighting the good fight. When they wanted to neutralize an opponent they would invite him in, but unfortunately the trip would be "discovered" by the Bolshies and he'd be shot at the border or arrested inside. Watch or read "Riley: Ace of Spies" to see how the Trust was finally forced to close shop.
The Mukhabharat was trained by the KGB and SVR, organizational successors of the CHEKA. Very unwise to think they might NOT try such a ruse. Even thugs do smart things once in a while.
Consider using a negative analysis--instead of looking at evidence that supports a hypothesis, look at what evidence shoots it down. The hypothesis with the LEAST number of negative evidences, rather than the one with more positives, could be the correct one. (Look up Dr Richards Heuer on the Center for Studies in Intelligence website, he's published some good material on this, much of it not classified).
Sorry for taking so long to say that. Hope it helps.
How about this theory: hoax
David Warren's column is chock full of lies.
For a detailed debunking of some of them, go here.
Take a peek *HERE* for more background information on Salam which may show more than has been mentioned.
Joe,
I agree with you. Growing up in Baghdad he was bound to get all kinds of nutty ideas about the world. Heck, you can find Westerners who are nuttier on some subjects. Just because some of his views are ridiculous doesn't make him an Iraqi agent.
Why is it so hard to believe that an Iraqi could be anti-Saddam and also anti-war? Some people in many countries believe that Saddam could have been taken out without war.
The same people who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy, I guess.
The US couldn't even assassinate Castro. And lets not go into their track record recently, vs. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. One is freakishly tall (well, for that part of the world, anyway) and the other has one eye.
Salam did not strike me as being anti-war so much as anti-being-bombed.
hello; when I asked where was he, I meant, has anyone actually seen him? Has he shown himself?
Hello, none of us are in Iraq.
"The US couldn't even assassinate Castro."
Or the US didn't want to assassinate Castro.