Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, Yemen, Canada, America, Germany, the Philippines, Africa... but never in Iraq?

Answer 1

Their training camps where in Iraq. Oh I guess they didn't use them for training.

Answer 2

Elements of al-Qaeda are all over the globe. Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were elements of the organization in Iraq but not organized into cells with specific missions. And there were no training camps. Reasons: No cells because there weren't any important targets within Iraq at that time. No camps because Saddam would not have allowed it. Remember he was a control freak. Something like that, particularly considering his governement was primarily secular, would have undermined his authority albeit on a low level.

However, you must remember that the reason for our invasion was not because al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq. It was because of the repeated violations of the accords put into place after the 1991 Gulf War. Weapons inspectors were rejected and global intelligence indicated we was mass producing weapons of mass destruction (or at least attempting to do so).

The Bush Administration was tired of the U.N. blowing off this blatant disregard for international law and acted, not in a vaccuum, but with a "coalition of the willing".

Granted, there are far reaching ideals and reasoning he supported an invasion in Iraq aside from the accord violations, such as relieving an oppressed country from tyrannical dictatorship (a historically weak argument), instituting a government more friendly to the U.S. in order to better control oil prices (economically savvy but not popular abroad), and also influencing the mid-East community from a social stand-point by instituting a democratic society. The latter, I believe, is the most significant reason and probably the REAL reason for the invasion (the violations were the ostensible reason that gave the U.S. legal authority).

If you understand the geopolitical sphere, and the near-history behind it, you will find that the largest threat to the U.S. is (was) not Iraq, but Iran. Ever since the theocratic-coup that toppled the Shah's regime in the late 70s, our influence in the Middle East has been diminished and the continuing rhetoric of those in power in Iran continue to spread hate. Granted, the Shah was little better than Saddam's regime in Iraq, but that's for another discussion. The point is that 25+ years later, the situation has worsened when it probably should have gotten better, especially since the collapse of the Soviet empire.

The bottom line is that the U.S. wants desperately to change the regime in Iran from an extreme-right wing theocracy to a more democratic republic similar to what they're trying to pull off in Iraq. The problem is that there is no legal authority to do so. The situation with Saddam Hussein allowed the U.S. to make a move, but not without considerable criticism.

The hope was that there would be a warm welcome (which there was), and a quick move to democracy (which there was, but with expected political issues), and a relatively quick show-of-example that would encourage the Iranian youth to rise up across the border and incite another revolution back to Western ideals. (It was the youth that were the catalyst for the regime change in the Islamic Revolution, evidenced by the Embassy takeover in 1979, effectively legitimizing the true power of the Ayatollah).

What the U.S. was not counting on was the interference of pro-Iran and/or pro-Sharia clerics, the inability to control the borders to prevent al-Qaeda from quickly influencing the situation to create an insurgency, and certainly not the Shia-Sunni civil clash that is predominant.

What remains is an out-of-control situation that COULD be brought back into control with proper international assistance (that the U.S. is not getting) and more troops (which is becoming more and more unpopular at home). I'm afraid that the administration's inability to forecast and mitigate the current situation has caused a failure in the Iraq policy. There is no good answer now. Pulling out will make the dead and wounded's sacrifices made in vain and will tarnish the already-darkened reputation of the United States in the international community. Staying on without help from the populace at home (and abroad for that matter) and from the international community will not be effective and will only lead to more casualties without a positive goal in sight.

The ONLY way tor the U.S. to claim victory is to convince the international community and the home constituency that the goal can be reached with: (1) BORDER CONTROL, (2) ADDITIONAL MANPOWER TO PROPERLY TRAIN THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES, and (3) A MORE ROBUST TRAINING PROGRAM.

Anthing else (stay or leave) means failure. Unfortunately it seems victory is not going to happen.

Answer 3

It is extremely ironic. And how gullible Americans can be to believe the Liberal Media who kept stating that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq.

I know I read one of Bush's speeches that stated they did find Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq and that Saddam or one of Saddams close cabinet members had close connections to Al Qaeda. (It was a while ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I find it better to read the political speeches, because you catch more of what the President and his speech writer is trying to convey and tell the American public. Like I said before we aren't entitled to know everything so stop whining that you deserve to know everything that's going on. You shouldn't forget that everyone in the world is privy to what happens here in America through our media and what's put on the Internet.)

Answer 4

Are you sure that real Al Qaeda existed in those countries or just a group claim to be ?

Answer 5

Of course they have been in Iraq. For goodness sake, they tried to set up training camps in Arizona...and even if it is hard for some to believe, they had friends in Iraq as well as every ME country run by radical Islamics as well as other countries who won't want to publicly admit it. Egad...I read somewhere that it is likely that upwards of 88-90% of the Mosques in America are teaching radical hatred doctrines...what's wrong with this picture? Classic case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Western civilization was a much bigger threat to Saddam.

Answer 6

I'm assuming you have proof of this assumption? You are privy to classified information that the rest of us are not privy to? Or is this a legitimate question? You know terrorists don't operate like the military. We even have Al Qaeda in the US.

Answer 7

You forget that Al-Qaida also has splinter groups which were reported in other countries. Especially Iraq. It wasn't mentioned because it wasn't one of the major cells or Al-Qaida itself.

even though Hussein wasn't a practicing muslim and he was oppurtunistic asshole who manipulated the religious types in his country,its not to say al-qaida wasnt in Iraq.

What, you think they'd announce their presence? No of course. They lay low and wait for the right time.

Answer 8

Yeah, that's true. You see, Saddam Hussein hated Al Qaeda and they hated him. Saddam had an iron fisted security operation that kept Al Qaeda out of his country and OBL was affraid of the guy.

Kinda ironic, isn't it...

Answer 9

Al-Qaeda doesn't exist, it hasn't ever existed. the call became made up by the CIA because they needed a acceptance to provide the "enemy" so as that the generic public ought to certainly be brainwashed into concern and hatred on the very aspect out of it.

Answer 10

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq because they didn't want to end up in one of Saddam's torture rooms.

Answer 11

"the base" was in Iraq before the invasion, and is there now. Saddam had ties established with the organization, and they had a working relationship.

Look to the evindence from the declassified information of Iraq, and here the admission in the words of Saddam, his ministers, and his sons.