Saddam Hussein’s CIA Interrogator: ‘I’m Convinced He Should Have Been Left in Power’

[TomSea]

Saddam Hussein’s CIA Interrogator: ‘I’m Convinced He Should Have Been Left in Power’
December 20, 2016 | Zero Hedge | www.zerohedge.com

In a new book due to hit shelves later this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who was responsible for interrogating Saddam Hussein after he was captured in 2003, admits being convinced by the fallen dictator that he was best suited to rule Iraq. Per an excerpt published in Time Magazine, Nixon recalls an encounter with Hussein in which he warned that America would fail in Iraq because “you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”

    When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”

While Nixon found Hussein “thoroughly unlikeable,” he admits to walking away with a “grudging respect” for the fallen dictator’s ability maintain the Iraqi nation through forced consensus.

    Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”

    Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow...

Continued: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/saddam-husseins-cia-interrogator-admits-being-convinced-he-should-have-been-left-in-power_122016

[DB]

Slavery is never the right answer.

[TomSea]

It's easier to say this a bit in hindsight; I know many of us thought, "yeah, sounds like a good idea".

[Frank Cannon]

This article is glossed over garbage. If you dig deeper, Nixon was THE authority on Hussein. He was the one developing the information on him that ended up being wrong by Nixons own admission. He also says in the book that Saddam admitted that he set up the groundwork for the US believing he was doing dangerous stuff. How are you supposed to make decisions with bad intel?

[Free Vulcan]

There was that one little problem of Saddam pursuing and building WMD tech, including nukes. If it were just a matter of staying in his borders, like Assad in Syria, he might have been more palatable for keeping Iraq stable.

Problem was at some point he was going to start and/or resume fights with some of his neighbors, particularly Iran for territory and revenge, with the US being included in that list. A fistful of newly minted WMD's would have given him the chutzpah to try something.

[goatprairie]

Hussein started two wars, invaded one country (Kuwait), helped abet terrorism by sending money to foreign terrorists, set up terrorist training camps in Iraq, harbored terrorists,  stored WMD materials, created WMDS,  and slaughtered his enemies and the Kurds at times using WMDS. He murdered approx. million of his own citizens, and tried to have the first Bush prez assassinated. But he deserved to stay in power says Nixon.
Here is another thing people don't talk much about. If not deposed, Hussein would be turning 80 next year. Maybe he's healthy, but maybe he's dead from natural causes or too sick to assume power. His murderous sons would probably be in charge, and they're more in cahoots with Al Qaeda than his pappy.  Al Qaeda would have a gigantic terrorist base from which to launch operations and vast oil wealth with which to do it. Just like Saddam Hussein did.

[TomSea]

General Shinseki wanted from the beginning a much larger troop pleasure.  So, I don't know if all of a sudden it becomes better to pursue noble values if one makes a mish-mash out of the war. I'd like to see Dubya defend it more. He doesn't.

[r9etb]

  Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”

"Agreement," Saddam style:

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The truth is that the U.S. did succeed.  With the surge/Anbar Awakening (managed by culturally-astute generals), that country was well on its way to be a real success.  Then Obama pulled everyone out before the reforms were culturally ingrained, and it all went to shit.

[r9etb]

The truth is that the U.S. did succeed.  With the surge/Anbar Awakening (managed by culturally-astute generals), that country was well on its way to be a real success.  Then Obama pulled everyone out before the reforms were culturally ingrained, and it all went to shit.

That will be the verdict of history, as will Obama's more general responsibility for surrendering US influence around the world, leading to chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

Between now and then, however, we'll have to put up with nitwits like this Nixon guy, whose main purpose seems to be to sell his book.

[TomSea]

For Christians, it must be a bit like with Assad in Syria, Assad seems sort of good for Christians per the point of view of many but in the big picture, Syria has suffered great destruction.

Iraqi Christians, Assyrians clearly point that the start of major persecution of Christians in Iraq began with the overthrow of Saddam. Articles have been posted, their persecution begins in 2003 or 2004.

Two weeks after the Bush-Laghi meeting, on March 19, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced. Shortly after combat operations concluded on May 1, the real conflict began. Amid the chaos and sectarian violence that followed, Iraq’s Christians suffered severe persecution. Neither the military nor the State Department took action to protect them. In October 2003, human rights expert Nina Shea noted that religious freedom and a pluralistic Iraq were not high priorities for the administration, concluding that its “diffidence on religious freedom suggests Washington’s relative indifference to this basic human right.” Shea added, “Washington’s refusal to insist on guarantees of religious freedom threatens to undermine its already difficult task of securing a fully democratic government in Iraq”—more prescience that would be likewise disregarded.

Iraq’s diaspora Christian community in America had also foreseen the danger, and quickly took action, helping thousands of refugees with humanitarian assistance. The Chaldean Federation’s Joseph Kassab, himself a refugee from Baathist Iraq decades before, advocated zealously for their protection. Kassab’s brother, Jabrail, a Chaldean archbishop, helped organize relief in Iraq during the sanctions from 1991-2003, doing “all that he could to help the Iraqi people—Christians and Muslims together.” His brother remained at his post until October 2006, when a Syrian Orthodox priest, Fr. Paulos Eskander, was abducted and beheaded, after which Pope Benedict ordered him to leave Iraq. Fr. Eskander’s murder was part of a campaign that targeted the most conspicuous of Christians—the clergy.

Continued: http://ocl.org/how-the-iraq-war-became-a-war-on-christians/

In Iraq, Christians numbered about 1,500,000 in 2003, representing just over 6% of the population of the country down from 12% on 1947 in a population of 4.7 million.[citation needed] They numbered over 1.4 million in 1987 or 8% of the population.[1] After the Iraq War, it was estimated that the number of Christians in Iraq had dropped to as low as 450,000 by 2013[2] — with estimates as low as 200,000.[3] The most widely followed denomination among Iraq Christians is the Chaldean Catholic Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iraq

One can research source after source on this. I think the war was mismanaged, this Christian persecution can not all be blamed on Obama since so much happened prior to his presidency. If one wants to excuse this sectarian mayhem, then maybe the bigger picture is better and clearly, Obama fouled things up when he made the major withdrawals of troops.

Even without any Iraq invasion, the Christians of the Middle East suffer from persecution, it's just the way it is. But it does appear to have accelerated with the war.

[Cripplecreek]

That will be the verdict of history, as will Obama's more general responsibility for surrendering US influence around the world, leading to chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

Between now and then, however, we'll have to put up with nitwits like this Nixon guy, whose main purpose seems to be to sell his book.

Saddam had several interrogators. Just yesterday I watched a show on National Geographic channel with an interview with an Iraqi interrogator (I think he was Kurdish). He definitely was glad to see Hussein dead and gone.

[skeeter]

The truth is that the U.S. did succeed.  With the surge/Anbar Awakening (managed by culturally-astute generals), that country was well on its way to be a real success.  Then Obama pulled everyone out before the reforms were culturally ingrained, and it all went to shit.

The lesson may also be drawn here (as it should have been after Vietnam) that perhaps political conditions at home should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to intervene militarily and upset another country's system so thoroughly.

We have an utterly irresponsible political party representing about half the population who's single imperative is political power and who will stop at absolutely nothing - including taking any position, no matter how strategically dangerous and harmful to US interests, as long as it provides an advantage over their political opposition - to attain it.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Hussein started two wars, invaded one country (Kuwait), helped abet terrorism by sending money to foreign terrorists, set up terrorist training camps in Iraq, harbored terrorists,  stored WMD materials, created WMDS,  and slaughtered his enemies and the Kurds at times using WMDS. He murdered approx. million of his own citizens, and tried to have the first Bush prez assassinated. But he deserved to stay in power says Nixon.
Here is another thing people don't talk much about. If not deposed, Hussein would be turning 80 next year. Maybe he's healthy, but maybe he's dead from natural causes or too sick to assume power. His murderous sons would probably be in charge, and they're more in cahoots with Al Qaeda than his pappy.  Al Qaeda would have a gigantic terrorist base from which to launch operations and vast oil wealth with which to do it. Just like Saddam Hussein did.

Yeah, the bustard needed to go. The fact Obama bungled it is another matter. Seems the whole darn country was for it before they were against it. I guess you can file me under the five people left who think it was a good idea.

It's not like we didn't find WMD. That was fake news, before people knew that fake news existed:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

[r9etb]

I guess you can file me under the five people left who think it was a good idea.

We should get together with the other three and have a beer with them.

Hell, a quick look at the map shows why an American presence in Iraq was a good idea if you're trying to root out the sources of terrorism.

[TomSea]

Unfortunately, even if we call that deteriorated in most cases weapons stock, WMDs; by gosh, it's shocking to find out who sold that to Iraq; we did, during the Iraq/Iran war or some time in the '80s; I get left-leaning websites that illustrate that but nonetheless, whatever is the truth is the truth.  http://www.vox.com/2014/10/15/6981493/iraq-wmd-saddam-chemical-weapons-new-york-times

But that is besides the point, there were plenty of reason to believe Saddam had WMDs, he may have moved them out of the country too, to Syria.  He didn't let the nuclear inspectors in, there were plenty of reasons to still want to go in. Everyone said he had them and there probably was a program that they could start building WMDs at any time. NRO covers this.  National Review defends this whole matter.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/164923/did-iraqi-wmd-go-syria-less-definitive-no-douglas-j-feith  Not sure if this is the right essay but they may have others.

All the same, severe persecution of Christians started under Bush and well before ISIS, if that is okay with one, then so be it but that seems undeniable for apologists.

This is why I think Gen. Shinseki is right, we needed a large presence to secure the whole area.

And for all we know, it makes sense to me, that Syria probably helped Jihadists against us so we would not turn sites then on Damascus.

[r9etb]

All the same, severe persecution of Christians started under Bush and well before ISIS, if that is okay with one, then so be it but that seems undeniable for apologists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.  You seem to be judging the entire Iraq thing based on Christian persecution.

[TomSea]

Thank goodness, Bush was so firm in his criticism of the Obama administration to draw down troops in Iraq.


And I'm sorry, the situation with Christians was made a mess of in Iraq; we can be for the invasion but not in the way it was mismanaged.

[r9etb]

Thank goodness, Bush was so firm in his criticism of the Obama administration to draw down troops in Iraq.

Ah.  Bush hater.  Never mind.

[TomSea]

Guess I'm one of the five people in the US who objected to Christians being slaughtered because of the negligent planning of the war by Bush.

Oh well, as long as one can go speak to persecuted Middle Eastern Christians with visions of the rapture and Armageddon by a 19th century version of Christianity (vs. oldest Christian faiths in the world) and be booed off the stage speaking up for Israel, what me worry.

[r9etb]

Guess I'm one of the five people in the US who objected to Christians being slaughtered because of the negligent planning of the war by Bush.

Well, good for you, Tom.  You're very noble.  None of the rest of us are thoughtful enough to object to a bit of Christian slaughtering.

[goatprairie]

Yeah, the bustard needed to go. The fact Obama bungled it is another matter. Seems the whole darn country was for it before they were against it. I guess you can file me under the five people left who think it was a good idea.

It's not like we didn't find WMD. That was fake news, before people knew that fake news existed:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Hussein certainly deserved to go. That does not necessarily mean Iraq should have been invaded. I know there are international laws against assassinating foreign leaders, but it's too bad they couldn't have declared war and simply targeted him with drones.
Oh, I and forgot to add among Hussein's crimes was violating the no-fly zone agreement. The guy was definitely one of the worst humans ever.  But if we got to Bin Laden (and we could have taken him out with a drone), why couldn't we have done in Hussein similarly?
The unfortunate thing that even with him dead, his idiot kids take over, and Al Qaeda might actually have been more powerful than before. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[geronl]

Nope.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

  But if we got to Bin Laden (and we could have taken him out with a drone), why couldn't we have done in Hussein similarly?

It took us more than a decade to get bin Laden, and he was sitting there without any external protection at all.  Saddam was in the middle of his capital city, surrounded by heavily armed loyalists at all times.  We tried multiple times to get him directly during both wars, and failed.

[r9etb]

Hussein certainly deserved to go. That does not necessarily mean Iraq should have been invaded.

If you limit your view of the situation to whether or not Saddam needed to go, then the argument for invasion is indeed slim.  However, if you look at the situation strategically, in the context of trying to come to grips with terrorism at its sources in the Middle East, then the value of having a significant American military presence in the very heart of the region makes a great deal of sense. 



In that view, Saddam's misdeeds are essentially a pretext for an invasion undertaken for different strategic reasons.  The Bush administration misjudged the situation after the fall of Saddam, which led to the rise of the insurgency, and of course the Democrats did their damnedest to make us lose.  But that does not alter the strategic value of the invasion itself.

The surge stabilized things to a large extent, and may have resulted in self-sustaining stability in Iraq had Obama not pulled the US forces out. 

Obama never understood the broader strategic value of American forces in the region, and thus never understood that even stability "artificially" sustained by an American military presence was secondary to the military advantages of having a fixed base of operations in the region.