Who's the real enemy in Iraq?

A high-ranking intelligence official recently told me something
startling. Our "enemy" in Iraq doesn't consist of just a few
Baathist/Saddam remnants that can be easily rooted out, as Bush and
our defense establishment have been constantly telling us. Rather, we
are facing an actual guerrilla warfare effort being almost openly
orchestrated against us by Syria, and in part by other Arab countries,
including Iran.

Who's the real enemy in Iraq?

Who's the real enemy in Iraq?

Posted: November 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A high-ranking intelligence official recently told me something startling. Our
"enemy" in Iraq doesn't consist of just a few Baathist/Saddam remnants that can
be easily rooted out, as Bush and our defense establishment have been
constantly telling us. Rather, we are facing an actual guerrilla warfare effort
being almost openly orchestrated against us by Syria, and in part by other Arab
countries, including Iran.

This official explained that almost half the guerrillas and terrorists entering
Iraq come from Syria, where they are equipped with weapons and provided with
the latest intelligence information, which is shared with them by Iran. Other
militants are sent from Kuwait, Iran and even Saudi Arabia. There is little
evidence that recent attacks against our troops are being orchestrated by
remaining Saddam loyalists hiding in surrounding areas, he stated.

This is pretty substantial information. It changes everything about what lies
ahead for our soldiers, and highlights a consistent mistake by the Bush
administration of holding important things back from the American people. The
picture being painted by the White House of a final resistance effort on the
part of Saddam's regime may be inaccurate and misleading. And this will likely
haunt President Bush in the very near future.

From the beginning, it seems Bush has divided the war on terrorism into two
categories – what he tells the American public, and what the reality of the
situation is. After September 11, our president declared war against "the
enemy," but he never outright informed us of just who or what this enemy is. We
had to assume and infer. Eventually, we figured it out.

In the weeks leading to the Iraq war, we were told that Saddam must go because
of his weapons program and his possible connection to al-Qaida and September
11. So we attacked. Bush failed to explain that this was actually a war of
choice to demonstrate to Mideast dictators that if they continued to support
terrorism, we could remove their regimes as well. That this was a war to spark
democracy and freedom in a region filled with a very dangerous kind of hate.

Americans now realize all of this, of course, and are spiteful that Bush
characterized Iraq as being on the verge of threatening American security. As
if we could only handle a war if our failure to attack would trigger our
immediate demise.

Now we find ourselves in Iraq facing a guerrilla and terrorist war being
orchestrated against us by Syria, Iran and some other Arab countries because
Syrian President Bashar Assad and his ilk realize that if Iraqis are allowed to
live in freedom, with an open media, local and national elections, a
constitution and a bill of rights, it will be only a matter of time before
their own citizens demand the same.

And yet Bush, ever so fearful of Iraq being seen as a liability in the upcoming
elections, assures voters that our soldiers just need to hunt down the few
remaining Baathist losers who have been attacking us, and we can then send some
more troops home.

There is almost a dynamic of passive cooperation between America and its
enemies. Syria and Iran could never outright declare war against the U.S. It is
strategically imperative for them to orchestrate attacks that appear to be
coming from elsewhere. And the Bush administration, loathe to inform voters
that we are effectively at war with other Arab states, is playing along with
this charade, at least for now.

This is foolish, and if it continues, it could foster a vicious cycle that
grants Syria, Iran and others immunity for their involvement, and no reason for
them to stop.

Maybe all this can be dealt with covertly. I certainly hope Bush has a
behind-the-scenes strategy to frighten off the offending countries. Other
sources reveal that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was recently dispatched to
Syria to warn Assad that if he didn't immediately cease, his actions in Iraq
could expose Syria to the peril of becoming the "Cambodia" of the Iraq War –
a reference to the secret 1973 air blitz the Nixon administration loosed
against Cambodia and Laos.

But dictators view backstage warnings as a major sign of weakness. Assad now
officially knows that Bush won't risk a public confrontation, and he will
continue to use that to Syria's advantage.

If we want to end these deadly attacks against our soldiers, if we want to
succeed in Iraq, we are going to have to act immediately, openly and forcefully
against Syria and possibly others. This may require more troops in the region,
which would obviously be an admission that Bush sent battalions home a bit too
soon – yet another election liability.

But this is the war on terrorism we're talking about. Bush needs to put
politics aside and do what must be done. Better for him to be honest with us
now and prepare Americans for what lies ahead, than to sugarcoat the Iraqi
situation and allow Syria and others to continue their deadly campaign against
us.

Regardless, the reality will be exposed one way or anther, probably before
elections. You can't cover up a war like this for very long. And when it's
discovered that Bush has been hiding important things again, voters are going
to be livid.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Aaron Klein previously conducted interviews with Yasser Arafat, Benjamin
Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami and leaders of the Taliban.