John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said that Russian special forces assisted Saddam's regime by shipping weapons and materiel to Syria in the weeks leading to the March, 2003 war. The material that went missing at the Al-Qaqaa facility is thought to be a part of this operation.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."On the other side of the accusation, Russian officials are now denying the validity Mr. Shaw's report:Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said. ...
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said. ...
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said. ...
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
Vyacheslav Sedov, the head of the Russian Defence Ministry’s press service, quoted by Interfax news agency, said “one cannot regard such reports as other than far-fetched and ridiculous.” “I state officially that the Russian Defence Ministry and its structural subdivisions cannot have any involvement in the disappearance of the explosives, as Russian troops had left Iraq long before the start of the US-British operation in that country,” he said. Russian Foreign Ministry official in charge of Iraq, Ilya Morgunov, quoted by the agency said these reports “greatly surprised” him. “Let them remain on the conscience of those who circulate them,” he said. He personally had witnessed events that preceded the start of the military operation in Iraq. “I did not hear about any removal of munitions. Moreover, there was no-one here to do it because we had evacuated practically all our personnel,” Morgunov said. In the first days of the war, only a small group of Russians headed by the ambassador remained in Baghdad, and they too soon left the country, he added. “There were no Russian special forces in Iraq. Only civilian experts from Russia and other CIS countries worked there for companies whose names everyone knows,” the agency quoted him as saying.Late 2004 appears to be a momentous period in history. America is conducting a fateful election, choosing between two disparate, irreconcilable views of America's role in the world, in the face of emerging rogue nuclear powers, Iran and North Korea. Yassir Arafat appears to be on his deathbed; Palestinian culture will likely turn on itself when he dies, as civil war that will reverberate across the Middle East. The 'friendship' between Russia and the United States is now edging towards diplomatic confrontation over the Al-Qaqaa affair. The next phase that we can all look forward to will be official accusations and denials from each side. And then perhaps an old familiar freeze might reshape itself.
One thing that is abundantly clear is that the old framework of global alliances---like those countries that compose the UN's Security Council---are out of touch with the political realities of the 21st century. If Russia was literally working with Saddam against the United States in the run-up to war in Iraq, then there must be an accounting. Russia's behavior, if provable, is the cherry on top of the Old European cake that has largely abandoned the United States in a global war. Russian aid to America's enemy may be the most blatant example of a Europe that seeks a divorce from its old ally. Whether or not it's Kerry or Bush for the next four years will make little difference in the fact that Europe and America are drifting apart over fundamentally divergent world views. C'est la Guerre.
Huh?
I hate to be snarky, but what possible universe are you living in? (Actually, that's a lie, I often enjoy snark.)
Russia is Old Europe?
Russia is America's "old ally?"
America has been trying to avoid a "Weimar Russia" scenario since the fall of the Soviet Union, but I don't think you would find anyone who would agree with the thrust of this post.
Although Russia is far closer in many policy areas to France and Germany than to the US, Russia is most definitely NOT "old Europe", a fact which somewhat highlights the absurdity of Rumsfield's analogy.
And, Cicero, I really don't give much credence to Shaw's idea that Russia can spirit weapons out of Iraq. We should probably all just ignore it as the panicked attempt to apportion blame that it really is.
I've posted my own thoughts on the claims themselves over on SiberianLight.
Michelle Malkin is also tracking this story and the issue of Shaw has come up. Some are saying he was on the take and explains why he may be diverting attention from himself.
Michelle links to a DOD Press Release a while back denying that Shaw was under anytype of investigation:
Link Here
This is only the tip of the iceburg check this piece out re all the wheeling and dealing on that may have been going on in the background.
Link Here
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org
As Praktike said, Russia is not a part of "Europe". It's a different world on the edge of Europe.
A diplomatic confrontation over the Al-Qaqaa affair? Over a few hundred tons of conventional explosives? Not unless we're insane. Despite the deranged screeching of the press, we have more important things to worry about - like, for example Russia building a nuclear reactor for Iran. We'd be insane to start a diplomatic confrontation over that too.
We always knew that Iraq was a French/Russian client state. There are ties between them at all levels. Russian companies supplied GPS jammers to Iraq during the war. So what? We should be strengthening our ties with Russia to reduce their paranoia and to make US/Russian relations more economically important than Iranian/Russian relations.
Keep your priorities straight people. Russia has never been an ally in the past, but we're on the way to making them one. We're going to need allies in the years ahead. Especially ones like Russia that are actually willing to fight.
This is normal international relations. Nothing to get upset about.
I called this a year in advance in an April 2002 Strategy Page column which made Taranto's Best of the Web, and said on WOC in March or April of 2003 that the truck convoys going to Syria were taking out Iraqi WMD pursuant to xSoviet SOP as described by a Rommanian spook whose job was to do the same for Libya if necessary.
I mentioned the latter a while later on WOC and some idjit said I was making stuff up.
Tom Holsinger:
Said Romanian spook is Ion Mihai Pacepa.
I'm wondering if this necessarily means the current Putin administration is as set in an anti-US position as may at first appear.
Given the chaotic state of Russia under Yeltsin, I can readily conceive of 'freelancing' intersections of the Army/ex-Army/mafiya/etc essentially carrying out deals with Iraq in their own interest i.e. for the money.
The reference to GRU stuck me. IIRC, under the Soviets KGB and Army/GRU were not always exactly comradely.
Putin became president in 2000; before that, though a leading figure for a few years, he did not have the grip he has now.
As Putin is ex-KGB, maybe he was not in on this if it was an Army/GRU affair under Yeltsin? and was getting GRU to clear up the mess they'd landed him in?
As for Russian motives for diplomacy pre-invasion, I'm still trying to figure.
But I think it comes down to money, and a chance to explore the possibilities of diplomatic alignment with France/Germany.
(BTW, I still think for the main French motivation, you have to look at Berlin, not Baghdad)
I am still not sure if Putin understands the gravity of his situation or how badly Russia needs the US if it is to survive the demographic and geopolitical crisis that is enfolding it.
I thought that after the seige in the moscow theaters in Fall 2002, Yelsin might stop counting nickles and realize where his interests lay, but no.
On the other hand his speeches since Beslan have sounded more like he wants to be aligned with US.
There are issues. Pyutin has not had complete control. There are elements in various parts of the government that march to different drummers and set their own policies for their own reasons. Some of them still think that its 1974.
I think President Bush has been inclined to be patient with Putin and to bring him along slowly in the belief that he will, in the end, see the light. What Kerry would do is a complete mystery to me, and probably to him.
Wouldn't a large convoy like that have been observed? I am very certain that Russia will always remain a foe rather than a friend of the U.S., but I'm doubtful about this particular report. Plus, Wash Times is not the best source of info, imho. And also, what does "spetznaz" have to do with anything here? Just because there's the "spetz" in its name doesn't mean it's a suitable player here; spetznaz, basically, is crack troops whose job usually is expertly to break things and kill people: why they should be tasked with shredding documents and transporting stuff in trucks is thoroughly unclear.
Mark me down with the naysayers. Russia is not the UK, but it never was. It is also not the USSR. It is exactly what George W Bush said it was, out in the cold, and it's going to take about 300 years of hard work to bring them in. After all, it took about 1000 years of hard work to push them away this far.
Mark me down with the naysayers. Russia is not the UK, but it never was. It is also not the USSR. It is exactly what George W Bush said it was, out in the cold, and it's going to take about 300 years of hard work to bring them in. After all, it took about 1000 years of hard work to push them away this far.