Iraq Study Group: Saudi citizens funding Sunni insurgents (and this is a Baker-led commission)

[ftr23532]

This probably falls under the "boy, I didn't see that one coming", but it's still interesting to see the Saudis directly fingered by a James Baker-led commission since the extensive financial support the Saudi monarchy has extended to Islamist militant over the decades has been one of the biggest dirty lil' post-9/11 open secrets. James Baker's law firm, Baker-Botts, http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1043457916323">has been one of the Saudi monarchy's top lobbying/legal firms in the US since the 70's, so one can imagine that he. Here's the http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency_saudi">story from AP:

Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis

By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 53 minutes ago

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.
...

<blogwhoring>
For some more on how Saudi-financed charities have been used to finance militant groups as a part of the monarchy's foreign policy to gain influence over the Muslim World and legitimize their rule (and often with Western complicity), along with former Soviet/Eastern Bloc weapons trafficking, check out Parts http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364">4, http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-8-charitable-brotherhood_11.html">8, and http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-9-former-soviet-repub_116329179859796154.html">9 of my blog.

And for a bit more on the lobbying power of the Saudis in this country, check out http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-12-slick-powerful-brotherhood_11.html">Part 12 along with Sibel Edmonds's http://www.nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/Op-ed-Part1-Nov15-06.htm">recent piece on their lobbying power in the US.
</blogwhoring>

As the article says at the end, this kind of public assertion of Saudi support for the insurgency could become an increasingly important in shaping our policies in Iraq...

...
The issue of Saudi funding for the insurgency could gain new prominence as the Bush administration reviews its Iraq policy, especially if it seeks to engage Iran and Syria in peace efforts.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, wrote in a recent leaked memo that Washington should "step up efforts to get Saudi Arabia to take a leadership role in supporting Iraq, by using its influence to move Sunni populations out of violence into politics."

Last week, a Saudi who headed a security consulting group close to the Saudi government, Nawaf Obaid, wrote in the Washington Post that Saudi Arabia would use money, oil and support for Sunnis to thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq if American troops pulled out. The Saudi government denied the report and fired Obaid.

It could also impact our relations with one of the closest US allies (if you ignore all the crazy shit they do that's totally not in our interest) in the region.

[Kagemusha]

1. Are you reading this as "Saudis", citizens of Saudi Arabia, or "The Sauds"?

There's a big difference, that's why I mention it...

[ftr23532]

2. good point. I forgot to mention...

...that, at least when I've looked into terror financing, lots of the money came from private Saudi citizens that are closely connected to the royal family via organizations set up by these same folks. Khalid bin Mahfouz (whose http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/27/james_bath/index1.html?pn=1">connections to the Bush family are rather notorious), and the al-Rahji family are both Saudi banking dynasties. The article doesn't point out what, if any, of the money might come from prominent Saudi citizens like the bin Mahfouzes of al-Rajhis, but if history is a guide, there's a decent chance it could involve a similar group of wealthy Saudi citizens. And other wealthy citizens from around the region, for that matter. But yeah, it's unclear. My guess is it would be a mix between random Saudis and the uber-wealthy citizens.

[Kagemusha]

4. Yeah, fair analysis there.

It's a weird country with such a vast gray zone between 'the government' and 'the private sector'. That's part of what happens when you have a huge number of people technically in the royal family and lots more closely linked.

[ftr23532]

8. The bin Ladens/bin Mahfouzes are like proxy clans...

...for the big daddy royal clan. The monarchy grants another family a monopoly, and it becomes immensly wealthy and powerful, but still remains beholden to their royal benefactors. That way most of the royal "business" remains in the "family", but when it's dirty "business" it can be easily "outsourced" to a trusted ally. It's like a privatized intelligence service bonded by blood. :yoiks:

[dailykoff]

3. Didn't the 9/11 commission also finger Saudis?

They're probably just laundering Pentagon payola. This war is our idea, not theirs.

[ftr23532]

6. Yep, and Baker Botts even defended the Saudi government

in the http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067906/">$1 trillion lawsuit filed by the 9/11 victims' families. And yeah, given how http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067906/">obscenely easy it is to launder money and traffic weapons, who knows how many different actors are quietly throwing fuel on the Iraqi fire. Just about any government or faction within a government could get away with it.

[dailykoff]

7. Yes, so it's unlikely that this isn't carefully negotiated BS.

There are a lot of puppets in the ME, but most seem to be on Pentagon / CIA strings. I'm not at all convinced that this Baker report is anything but another high-end snow job.

[ftr23532]

10. that I can easily imagine.

And if its carefully orchestrated it could accomplish quite a bit. It deflect blame away from this Administration for the way the war is going onto country that we can really spew rhetoric toward. And if they go into much more detail on the nature of the financial funneling into Iraq via Saudi charities, but end up primarily fingering the random Saudi citizens as the source of the funding, will also have the effect of obscuring past(and probably current) higher-level financing of a money-landering/arms-trafficking apparatus that has been operating around the world with the knowledge of US intelligence and the military (at least parts of it), for decades. A lot of the charities that were busted after 9/11 were direct offshoots of the organizations that helped supply the Afghan Mujahedeen, and that, uh, wasn't exactly a secret to our government over the years. :eyes:

This will definitely be an interest story to watch unfold if they keep hammering away at it.

[Yukari Yakumo]

5. In short, Iraq is becoming a proxy war between Iran and SA. {nt}

uguu

[ftr23532]

11. and god knows who else :-(

In this era of advanced proxy warfare, the killing fields of Iraq can become a free-for-all, with our troops and the Iraqi people playing the part of expendable pawns. Check out this 2002 Guardian article about revelations regarding all the outside forces http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,688310,00.html">playing a role in the Bosnian civil war:

...
The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Wiebes reveals that the British intelligence services obtained documents early on in the Bosnian war proving that Iran was making direct deliveries.

Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.

Light weapons are the familiar currency of secret services seeking to influence such conflicts. The volume of weapons flown into Croatia was enormous, partly because of a steep Croatian "transit tax". Croatian forces creamed off between 20% and 50% of the arms. The report stresses that this entire trade was clearly illicit. The Croats themselves also obtained massive quantities of illegal weapons from Germany, Belgium and Argentina - again in contravention of the UN arms embargo. The German secret services were fully aware of the trade.

...

Meanwhile, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs. Mossad was especially active and concluded a deal with the Bosnian Serbs at Pale involving a substantial supply of artillery shells and mortar bombs. In return they secured safe passage for the Jewish population out of the besieged town of Sarajevo. Subsequently, the remaining population was perplexed to find that unexploded mortar bombs landing in Sarajevo sometimes had Hebrew markings.
....

We're now over a decade into the evolution of these kinds of clandestine channels for moving weapons and other forms of aid into hostile terroritories, except now it's even more privatized. Imagine the kind Sunni vs Shia response Iraq is going to illicit from their theological brethren around the world and then factor in Iraq's incredible oil wealth and geo-political value. It's a chilling thought to imagine how many countries are playing a quiet role in this war.

And then there's Afghanistan... :cry:

[bridgit]

9. figures, though i would think that Baker with all ten fingers in anyone's...

pie, he would be recused from any & all considerations in any region but that's just me, or more to the point: why doesn't he suggest to his clients, the Saudis, that they maybe cease & desist, stop tampering with potential witnesses or whatever

[ftr23532]

14. he could ask his Baker Botts colleague..

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jordan_(lawyer)">Robert W. Jordon, the http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/newsroom/detail.aspx?id=e0effafe-005d-41cc-8b64-f8ab40e58d04">former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to pass the message along, since he's apparently http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/12/INGHIH5NF51.DTL">back to lobbying for the kingdom.

And here's an oldie but a goodie: Jordan was W's Lawyer when he was http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020211/floyd20020130">probed by the SEC for insider trading with Harken energy, and former Baker Botts attorney Richard Breeden was the head of the SEC. In addition, the SEC's general council, Richard Doty, was W's lawyer for the purchase of the Texas Rangers and a Baker Botts boy himself. One wonders why they dropped the case without even interviewing Bush. :shrug:

(edited for typos)

[bridgit]

15. i'm say'n...

x(

[shance]

12. Why would someone believe information coming from this group?

They have a vested interest and profitable agenda in remaining and taking over the natural resources of Iraq.

I think it seems quite evident who is really running our US foreign policy: James Baker, George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney.

The same cast from the same past.

[ftr23532]

16. that's what makes it so hard to interpret

It's entirely possible there's Saudi money flowing in there via charities because that's an M.O. for the Saudi government. Hell, I'd say it's likely, and Saudi Arabia would be just one of many sources probable source. But why would that country get the blame? And from these guys of all?

And speaking of cast from the past, check out what I just noticed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15674304/site/newsweek/">Robert Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group:

The New Face: A Spy With Fresh Eyes
Bob Gates understands loyalty, but he's closely reviewed Rumsfeld's course in Iraq—and his conclusions aren't glowing.
By Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Nov. 20, 2006 issue - How does the incoming Defense secretary really feel about the war in Iraq? At sessions of the Iraq Study Group over the past months, Robert Gates was careful not to show his cards. But on the commission's long flight home from a fact-finding mission to Baghdad in September, after several drinks had been poured, the Republican panelist let loose on the Bush team. "He said they really screwed up Iraq and, to a large extent, he couldn't figure out why it happened," a source close to Gates who was on the plane told NEWSWEEK. Particularly foolish, Gates thought, were the decisions to occupy Iraq with a relatively small force and to purge the Iraqi civil service of Baath Party members. "He couldn't believe there was such a degree of incompetence," said the source, who did not want to be named because panelists were trying to keep their discussions out of the media.

...

So which side will he show President Bush? Gates owes a debt to Bush Senior. The former president helped erase the Iran-contra stain on Gates's record from the 1980s (when he was alleged to have been less than candid about when he learned of the illegal transfer of funds to Nicaraguan rebels from profits on arms sales to Iran) by picking him to head the CIA in 1991. Last week, four days before his appointment as secretary of Defense, Gates dined with Bush and wife Barbara at a football dinner at Texas A&M University, where Gates has served as president since 2002. He did not bite as readily when the son came calling. Twice, Gates turned down job offers from the younger Bush, first to be the National Intelligence director and later to serve as deputy secretary of State. And then there's Iraq. Though the panel Gates sat on until last week will probably stop short of calling for a troop withdrawal, it will certainly urge Bush to change course.

If anyone would understand a Saudis funded proxy war it would be Gates (don't forget that the Saudis were major financiers of the Contra effort too). It's amazing to watch the theatrics.

[nam78_two]

13. K&R/nt

[bridgit]

17. k&r'd...

:kick:

[IndyBob]

18. In Bushthink,

this means we may have another target. Perhaps this is what the WH means by "incorporating some of the recommendations of the ISG".

[ftr23532]

19. Today's post from Palast adds some new twists

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-baker-boys-stay-half-the-course#more-1549">Check it out:

The Baker Boys: Stay Half the Course
Iraq Study Group or Saudi Protection League?
by Greg Palast

They’re kidding, right?

James Baker III and the seven dwarfs of the “Iraq Study Group” have come up with some simply brilliant recommendations. Not.

Baker’s Two Big Ideas are:

1. Stay half the course. Keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq is a disaster getting more disastrous. The Baker Boys’ idea: cut the disaster in half — leave 70,000 troops there.

But here’s where dumb gets dumber: the Bakerites want to “embed” US forces in Iraqi Army units. Question one, Mr. Baker: What Iraqi Army? This so-called “army” is a rough confederation of Shia death squads. We can tell our troops to get “embedded” with them, but the Americans won’t get much sleep.

...

2. “Engage” Iran. This is a good one. How can we get engaged when George Bush hasn’t even asked them out for a date? What will induce the shy mullahs of Iran to accept our engagement proposal? Answer: The Bomb.

Let me explain. To get the Iranians to end their subsidizing the Mahdi Army and other Shia cut-throats, the Baker bunch suggest we let the permanent members of the UN Security Council — plus, Germany — decide the issue of Iran’s nukes. Attaching Germany is the signal. These signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agree that Iran should be allowed a “peaceful” nuclear power program.

...

Here’s the problem with Baker’s weird combo of embedding our boys with Iraq’s scary army while sucking up to the Iranians: it won’t work. The mayhem will continue, with Americans in the middle, because the Baker brigade dares not mention two words: “Saudi” and “Arabia.”

Saudi Arabia is the elephant in the room (camel in the tent?) that can’t be acknowledged — and the reason Baker is so desperately anxious to sell America on keeping half our soldiers in harm’s way.

James III wants to seduce or bully Iran into stopping their funding of the murderous Shia militias. But the Shias only shifted into mass killing mode in response to the murder spree by Sunni “insurgents.”

Where do the Sunnis get their money for mayhem? According to a seething memo by the National Security Agency (November 8, 2006), the Saudis control the, “public or private funding provided to the insurgents or death squads.” Nice.
...

curiouser and curiouser...