Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2001

"[T]here's a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp,” said Sabah Khodada, a former captain who defected from Saddam Hussein’s army after 10 years of service. The camp, said Khodada, was at a location called Salman Pak about 20 miles southeast of the Iraqi capital.

According to Khodada, who came to the U.S. in May of this year, the terror training at Salman Pak included hijacking airplanes, trains, public buses, as well as planting explosives, sabotage, assassinations and suicide operations.

"On January 1, 1996, we all met with Saddam personally. And he told us we have to take revenge on America. Our duty is to attack and hit American targets in the Gulf, in the Arab world, and all over the world. He said that openly ... That's how Saddam was able to attract those Arabs and Muslims who came to train, because that's exactly what they want to do,” Khodada said.

Another former Iraqi officer, also a defector, corroborated Khodada’s descriptions. Both men were associated with Iraqi National Congress (INC), which seeks to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Referring to the Sept. 11 attacks, Khodada opined, "How could Osama bin Laden – who's hiding in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan in small caves and valleys – train people and gather information and send people to do such high-level operation? This cannot be done by a person who does not even own a plane in Afghanistan – someone who cannot offer such training in Afghanistan.”

According to PBS, U.S. authorities doubt if the camp was used as a training ground for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. However, the tale of Salman Pak fuels the arguments of those who want to target and take out Saddam as soon as possible.

Saddam Too Dangerous to Touch?

One of the more vociferous Saddam opponents is Richard Perle, chairman of Defense Policy Board and Ronald Reagan’s former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. He told PBS that the Iraqi dictator "is probably the most dangerous individual in the world today.”

Saddam is "capable of anything,” Perle added. "Capable of using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, capable of launching other military maneuvers as soon as he thinks he can get away with it.”

Perle pointed to a rift between his thinking and that of Secretary of State Colin Powell on the importance of the coalition’s role in fighting terrorism. "First of all, I have serious doubts about the extent to which we need a coalition ...

"I think Colin Powell is simply wrong about this, just as I think he was wrong about the end of the Gulf War. He was in favor of leaving Saddam standing, and we now know that that was a very costly mistake.

"Tens of thousands of people have died since, and Americans are exposed to an unprecedented danger. I think he's wrong now in believing that the coalition is more important than effectively going after those states that sponsor terrorism. If the coalition is going to protect a terrorist state like Saddam, then to hell with the coalition.”

At Polar Opposites From Powell

Perle explained further that he was at polar opposites from Powell on providing support for the Iraqi opposition. "They're eager; they're ready to go. I believe they can do it. We haven't done that until now, and the State Department opposes doing it.”

The former assistant secretary of defense thinks that the regime of Saddam Hussein is relatively weak and that bringing it down would require less effort than that expended to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.

In the go-slow Powell camp is former Secretary of State James Baker (G.H.W. Bush, 1989-92), who believes that the coalition should be carefully safeguarded and the Afghanistan campaign completed before any move against Saddam.

Baker, however, did admit to PBS that he and others in the elder Bush’s administration unwittingly failed to protect the rebelling Shiites and Kurds by being too soft on Saddam at a critical time.

"We let Saddam fly his helicopters in the aftermath of the surrender. He said he needed them to reposition his forces, or to provide relief to people. He actually used them to put down those rebellions.”

Also in retrospect, Baker acknowledged that the administration made a mistake in not requiring Saddam to attend the formal surrender at Safwan. He should have been made to acknowledge defeat by signing the surrender documents, he said.

Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, is also a coalition man. "We cannot win this war without the coalition. Why? Because fundamentally, for our side, this is a war of intelligence.”

Unlike Perle, Scrowcroft does not see the Saddam opposition (INC) as a viable means to eject Saddam. "It is weak, disparate, riven with disputes – probably unattractive to almost anyone inside or out.”

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today