.....Series on the Conspiracy Theories on the Conquest of Baghdad
Reasons for Baghdad’s fall
Michael Young
THE DAILY STAR
The most disheartening scenes last Wednesday, when Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, occurred in Arab living rooms. It was there that satellite stations tried wretchedly to come to grips with the collapse of a tyranny they had somehow associated with Arab pride. And when no explanation came, some stations ignored the event altogether.
It was only a matter of time before conspiratorial explanations were advanced to justify the debacle. Several theories have been floating around for days, and four in particular come to mind. All have one thing in common: they affirm that Baghdad fell so easily because the US cut a deal with its defenders.
Lebanon’s Parliament speaker, Nabih Birri, was behind an early theory arguing that Saddam had been spirited out of Iraq thanks to a US-Russian quid pro quo, whereby the Iraqi leader saved his neck in exchange for neutralizing Republican Guard resistance in Baghdad. At around the same time the daily Al-Hayat peddled a slightly different story line, saying senior Iraqi officers gave Baghdad up, not Saddam.
On Monday, Beirut’s daily Al-Mustaqbal interviewed an Iraqi major who offered yet another explanation. Major Amer Ahmad explained that the absence of any central coordination over Iraqi forces suggested to him that a deal had been cut by Saddam and the Republican Guard behind the army’s back. Ahmad pointed to army accounts that a Saddam aide, General Sufyan Jgheib, had “used an American Apache helicopter to visit units of the Republican Guard in Baghdad and ask them not to fight.”
A fourth theory, advanced by the commercial intelligence company Stratfor, cited German intelligence sources as speculating that senior Iraqi officers and intelligence chiefs handed over much of Iraq, including Baghdad, to the US. The story is that Saddam and his son Qusay were killed in the initial “decapitation attack” opening the war. Two officials, Taha Yassin Ramadan and Tareq Aziz, then led resistance efforts, but were later killed by the military chiefs who were paid off and allowed to escape.
Stratfor did not confirm the story and even listed problems with it. However, two questions the skeptics have been unable to answer are: Why did Iraq fall so easily? And, where did all the Iraqi soldiers and elite units go? To date, no clear answers have been provided, although this need not prove a conspiracy. It is conceivable that Saddam’s system was so geared against internal threats that it simply broke down when confronted with powerful modern armies.
The truth may take much time before emerging. Already, the US military is stamping its interpretation on the war, partly in an effort to make sure it fits in with the Pentagon’s agenda. Two recent examples of this were General Tommy Franks’ interview with CNN Sunday evening, and an extended article in the New York Times, also on Sunday, which largely regurgitated American officers’ readings of the war.
One problem with conspiracy theories is that their contradictions make them more credible to believers, and are held up as confirmation of an intricate plot. While no source has cited evidence for the contention that the US transacted with Iraqi officials, many will respond this merely attested to a cover-up, validating their suspicions.
Still, the unconfirmed accounts of Baghdad’s fall should not be dismissed out of hand. If the Iraqi capital surrendered through negotiations, it wouldn’t have been the first to do so. Nor would the US necessarily want to publicize this just yet: by admitting it encouraged senior officers to commit treason, the US might anger many Iraqis and discredit local allies who helped it turn the armed forces around.
One can’t help but feel these theories will serve another, less worthy purpose. They will detract from the fact that last Wednesday Iraqis were delighted to be rid of a despot. If it was all a farce, many will argue, then maybe the celebrations were a fabrication too.
Michael Young writes a regular column for THE DAILY STAR. His weblog is www.beirutcalling.blogspot.com
.....Series on the Conspiracy Theories on the Conquest of Baghdad
Reasons for Baghdad’s fall
Michael Young
THE DAILY STAR
The most disheartening scenes last Wednesday, when Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, occurred in Arab living rooms. It was there that satellite stations tried wretchedly to come to grips with the collapse of a tyranny they had somehow associated with Arab pride. And when no explanation came, some stations ignored the event altogether.
It was only a matter of time before conspiratorial explanations were advanced to justify the debacle. Several theories have been floating around for days, and four in particular come to mind. All have one thing in common: they affirm that Baghdad fell so easily because the US cut a deal with its defenders.
Lebanon’s Parliament speaker, Nabih Birri, was behind an early theory arguing that Saddam had been spirited out of Iraq thanks to a US-Russian quid pro quo, whereby the Iraqi leader saved his neck in exchange for neutralizing Republican Guard resistance in Baghdad. At around the same time the daily Al-Hayat peddled a slightly different story line, saying senior Iraqi officers gave Baghdad up, not Saddam.
On Monday, Beirut’s daily Al-Mustaqbal interviewed an Iraqi major who offered yet another explanation. Major Amer Ahmad explained that the absence of any central coordination over Iraqi forces suggested to him that a deal had been cut by Saddam and the Republican Guard behind the army’s back. Ahmad pointed to army accounts that a Saddam aide, General Sufyan Jgheib, had “used an American Apache helicopter to visit units of the Republican Guard in Baghdad and ask them not to fight.”
A fourth theory, advanced by the commercial intelligence company Stratfor, cited German intelligence sources as speculating that senior Iraqi officers and intelligence chiefs handed over much of Iraq, including Baghdad, to the US. The story is that Saddam and his son Qusay were killed in the initial “decapitation attack” opening the war. Two officials, Taha Yassin Ramadan and Tareq Aziz, then led resistance efforts, but were later killed by the military chiefs who were paid off and allowed to escape.
Stratfor did not confirm the story and even listed problems with it. However, two questions the skeptics have been unable to answer are: Why did Iraq fall so easily? And, where did all the Iraqi soldiers and elite units go? To date, no clear answers have been provided, although this need not prove a conspiracy. It is conceivable that Saddam’s system was so geared against internal threats that it simply broke down when confronted with powerful modern armies.
The truth may take much time before emerging. Already, the US military is stamping its interpretation on the war, partly in an effort to make sure it fits in with the Pentagon’s agenda. Two recent examples of this were General Tommy Franks’ interview with CNN Sunday evening, and an extended article in the New York Times, also on Sunday, which largely regurgitated American officers’ readings of the war.
One problem with conspiracy theories is that their contradictions make them more credible to believers, and are held up as confirmation of an intricate plot. While no source has cited evidence for the contention that the US transacted with Iraqi officials, many will respond this merely attested to a cover-up, validating their suspicions.
Still, the unconfirmed accounts of Baghdad’s fall should not be dismissed out of hand. If the Iraqi capital surrendered through negotiations, it wouldn’t have been the first to do so. Nor would the US necessarily want to publicize this just yet: by admitting it encouraged senior officers to commit treason, the US might anger many Iraqis and discredit local allies who helped it turn the armed forces around.
One can’t help but feel these theories will serve another, less worthy purpose. They will detract from the fact that last Wednesday Iraqis were delighted to be rid of a despot. If it was all a farce, many will argue, then maybe the celebrations were a fabrication too.
Michael Young writes a regular column for THE DAILY STAR. His weblog is www.beirutcalling.blogspot.com
