| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| More on the Russians supplying intel to Sammy |
| 2006-03-25 |
| Russian diplomats passed detailed but sometimes inaccurate information about American troop movements to senior Iraqi officials even as U.S. troops closed in on Baghdad during the 2003 invasion, according to a Pentagon study released Friday. The revelations, based on captured Iraqi intelligence documents, could jeopardize U.S.-Russian relations more than any single event since the end of the Cold War, analysts said. Although they cautioned that Moscow might have an explanation, the analysts said some of the details were so sensitive that they would be difficult for the government of President Vladimir V. Putin to justify. One of the documents, which purports to be a summary of a letter sent to Saddam Hussein's office by a Russian official, claimed that Moscow had "sources inside the American Central Command in Doha," the U.S. military's headquarters in Qatar during the war. Russia had well-known and extensive diplomatic and economic ties to Baghdad before the U.S.-led invasion and occasionally clashed with the Bush administration during the international debate over how to deal with Hussein's regime. But the documents, made public in a study of the Iraqi military's decision-making, are the first to assert that Russia actively passed sensitive military intelligence to Baghdad during the war. "This is one step short of firing upon us themselves with Russian equipment," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution. "It's actively aiding and abetting the enemy tactically. It's hard to get more unfriendly than that." Press officials at the Russian Embassy did not return calls seeking comment. An official who answered the phone in the military attache's office at the embassy said he was unfamiliar with the report. One of the most sensitive revelations, which came in a captured letter detailing Russian intelligence on American troop movements, accurately informed Baghdad that U.S. forces were massing south of a narrow passage near the southern city of Karbala. The April 2, 2003, letter, which was reportedly passed through Moscow's ambassador to Baghdad, informed Iraqi leaders that "the heaviest concentration of troops (12,000 troops plus 1,000 vehicles) was in the vicinity of Karbala." The Army's 3rd Infantry Division eventually captured western Baghdad after pushing through the Karbala gap just days later. Marines moved into Baghdad from the east. Other information provided by the Russians, however, was wildly inaccurate. In a document on March 24 and again in the April 2 letter, the Iraqis were told to expect the main U.S. offensive from the western desert, including a major attack from Jordanian soil. Kevin Wood, a retired Army officer who served as the senior researcher and chief author of the study, said he was surprised when he learned of the Russian actions. Although there was little corroboration of the contacts beyond the documents themselves, his team had no reason to doubt their authenticity, Wood said. But Frederick Kagan, a Russia and defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said the actions would not be out of keeping with other efforts by Moscow to advance Iraq's cause internationally. "We knew the Russians were opposed to the sanctions; we knew they opposed the war," Kagan said. "I'm not terribly surprised." Analysts also said it would be important to learn whether upper levels of the Russian government were involved, adding that the signals were more likely to have come from diplomatic and intelligence agents in the region rather than from Moscow. It also was unclear how much of the information was genuine intelligence and how much was educated guesswork. Regardless, the revelations could undermine efforts to forge a united front against Iran's nuclear program. "I think we have to assume that we can't trust the Russians to be impartial or even honest with us," Kagan said. "The Russians have ties with the Iranians that are also very worrying." The 210-page report, compiled by staff at the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command after interviewing more than 100 former Iraqi officials and sifting through half a million documents, contains the most detailed accounts to date of Hussein's thinking as U.S. and coalition troops massed on his border and eventually pushed into Iraq. It is unclear whether the Iraqi leader, who was not interviewed for the report, acted on any of the Russian information. The authors depict Hussein as more worried about an internal coup or a repeat of the 1991 Shiite uprising in the south than he was about the coalition forces, even when they were on the outskirts of Baghdad. He continued to make tactical military decisions based on that fear until the last days of his regime. Senior military commanders were ordered not to blow up bridges connecting Baghdad to southern Iraq so that Hussein could send loyal troops to quell any domestic opposition, even though the bridges made it easier for the Americans to advance. The report also said Hussein frequently pointed to the failed American operation in Somalia and Washington's reluctance to introduce ground forces in the Balkans as proof the U.S. would not long tolerate bloody ground warfare. And although Hussein had established loyal paramilitaries to suppress any uprisings and scattered them throughout Iraq, the report casts doubt on the idea that his regime made preparations to launch an insurgency if the Iraqi army met with defeat. "There were no national plans to transition to a guerrilla war in the event of a military defeat," the report found. "Nor, as their world crumbled around them, did the regime appear to cobble together such plans." The report's authors found Hussein and his top commanders to be badly out of touch with reality, both before and during the war. Hussein and his inner circle were fed a steady diet of lies, mainly overly optimistic assessments about Iraq's military capabilities, from subordinates who feared they would pay with their lives for speaking the truth. Misinformation also flowed down through the ranks. The report cited an April 6 memo from the Defense Ministry telling subordinate units that "we are doing great" and reminding officers to "avoid exaggerating the enemy's abilities." But as the scope of the defeat dawned on him, Hussein's tone was that of a man "who had lost his will to resist," and "knew the regime was coming to an end," said Tarik Aziz, the former deputy prime minister who was one of 23 senior officials interviewed by U.S. military researchers. Hussein was moving from one safe house to another every three to six hours. During a late-night meeting with his sons and members of his inner circle April 6, Hussein issued orders to defend Baghdad to the death and prepare for urban warfare. By then, however, "an American armored brigade already held Baghdad's airport," the report said, and American armor "was busily chewing up the manicured lawn in front of his palace in the center of the city." The United States also made miscalculations, including devoting significant resources to preventing the destruction of Iraqi oil fields. The report indicates that regional Iraqi commanders had made plans to destroy the northern and southern oil fields, and there are accounts that demolition charges and other equipment were moved into place. The report quoted a senior Republican Guard officer as saying Hussein blocked those plans because he believed that destroying the oil fields would damage the morale of soldiers and the Iraqi people. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #21 isn't McCain going to be 70 next presidential election? I see a George Allen-type as young blood in the next WH (if Condi won't run) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-25 19:38 |
| #20 LOL AP! 'sic 'em lotp! |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-25 19:36 |
| #19 Hey, lets all go to the Sinktrap and mudwrestle. It's a good day to |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-03-25 17:36 |
| #18 Hi gang, I heard on the radio today that Senator John McCain thanked the MSM for the great job they are doing reporting from Iraq. Don't bother running for pres Johnboy, can you spell loser ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-25 16:20 |
| #17 Yes and I found it useful at work as well as thought-provoking. I'm not a patient person by nature ... ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-25 15:11 |
| #16 lotp, have you read Generations? It will make you feel more confident about the challenge we face. While there is risk, I have absolute confidence we will overcome it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-25 14:57 |
| #15 Next stop, Iran. One would hope better safeguards will be in place. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-25 14:52 |
| #14 lotp thinks that we are facing the most serious global crisis since the early 1940s. Reasonable, sober and thoughtful people might disagree on how to deal with it. But I take exception to idiots who cannot see past their partisan or other shallowness and who delight in disrupting those who have to deal with it. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-25 14:50 |
| #13 I take it I should stay quiet today. lotp is in a bad mood. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-25 14:32 |
| #12 me too, lotp our collective sq is way past full up. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-25 13:46 |
| #11 Hell, I liked it. On-target. |
| Posted by: Grim Grin 2006-03-25 13:36 |
| #10 I AM SCHOCKED..lotp :) |
| Posted by: /shrinking violet 2006-03-25 13:32 |
| #9 Apologies for the crude language. I'm pretty fed up with idiots today. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-25 13:19 |
| #8 wow! lotp! You sound like me |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-25 12:35 |
| #7 Up your ass, along with your brain? |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-25 11:54 |
| #6 This is disgraceful. Surely its only us, the USA who should be allowed to support Saddam? I'm proud as an American than Donald Rumsfeld met him only a short time after we found out he'd been gassing his own people to sell him guns and buy his oil. Saddam was our man. We backed him and armed him. How dare those pinko Ruskies get involved!!! Nuke them ALL I say!!! Now where did I put my donut??? |
| Posted by: Jeagum Slailing6882 2006-03-25 11:51 |
| #5 heh |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-25 08:49 |
| #4 Somalia and the oil fields are two reasons why the Democrats never should run wars. Protect what little infrastructure remains and get ready for a long slog. I know that, most Americans know that. Geez... This is great a psyop intel goldmine on how to confuse the hell out of our enemies. Both foreign and domestic. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-03-25 08:02 |
| #3 The United States also made miscalculations, including devoting significant resources to preventing the destruction of Iraqi oil fields. Well, they weren't destroyed now, were they? God damn fuckin' Monday morning quarterbacks, like I was expecting more from the LA Times (NYT, West Coast version). I want to bitchslap some of these pricks... |
| Posted by: Raj 2006-03-25 07:32 |
| #2 The report also said Hussein frequently pointed to the failed American operation in Somalia and Washington's reluctance to introduce ground forces in the Balkans as proof the U.S. would not long tolerate bloody ground warfare. Keep that in mind when Maddsy Albright lectures the Bush administration on how to manage conflict. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-25 07:31 |
| #1 fuck the russians when ppl gonna figure out they are not our allies now just like the cold war? |
| Posted by: Ebbineque Gletle8901 2006-03-25 03:09 |