Chirac (Le Worm) Attempts to Derail U.S. Offensive plans for Fallujah

Chirac Plants Hurdle on US Road to Fallujah

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

October 3, 2004, 10:25 PM (GMT+02:00)

-------

Immediately after Malbrunot and Chesnot were abducted, President Jacques Chirac launched an intense effort to secure their freedom. At the same time, he saw a chance not only of circumventing the US authorities in Baghdad, but torpedoing a potential Washington-Damascus rapprochement over joint military border action. To this end he took three steps:

1. He formed a special panel at the Elysee Palace of French intelligence officers and diplomatic advisers with good connections in Arab countries, such as the former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is well remembered in Washington for his contribution to the 1993 American military debacle in Somalia and the 1995 disruptions he staged in Bosnia with French intelligence.

A second panel went up in the French foreign ministry.

Both panels were mandated to explore every channel and connection for securing the two journalists� release with the exception of American officials in Washington or Baghdad and circles identified with the Iyad Allawi government.

2. On August 31, Chirac flew to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to bid for help from Russian president Vladimir Putin and visiting German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He left empty-handed. Nonetheless, he never once appealed to the US president, or turned to American diplomats, military or intelligence for assistance.

3. The French government tried broadcasting an appeal for help throughout its extensive web of connections in Arab countries, Iran and the extremist Muslim world, including the Hizballah terrorist group. When this appeal failed to bring any response, Paris established a semi-official forward rescue command in Damascus hoping to reach the hostage-takers through Syrian military intelligence�s close links with the Baath guerrilla officers and al Qaeda operatives organizing the clandestine transfer of fighters and arms into Iraq.

This command was staffed by Didier Julia, Philippe Brett and Philippe Evanno.

They got as far as buying the release of the two Frenchmen with a hefty payout to a Baath guerrilla group fighting in Fallujah. According to our sources, the deal was a package that also covered running the men out to Syria through one of the guerrillas� smuggling routes.

However, when the American air force put paid to the scheme by raiding the departing convoy on its way to Syria, Paris disowned the Damascus forward command and accused the �unofficial negotiators� of doing more harm than good.

Had they brought it off, they would have delivered to Chirac four impressive objectives in his dispute with Bush over Iraq.

A. France would have shown the world it can outdo the Americans and the Allawi government in settling crises in Iraq by negotiating with insurgents instead of waging bloody war against them. This demonstration was intended to discredit Bush�s Iraq policies and hurt his re-election prospects.

B. Paris would not only have granted the Iraqi Baath guerrillas and their al Qaeda allies recognition as legitimate negotiating partners but also granted legitimacy to the illicit Syria-Iraq-Syria smuggling routes bringing men and arms to bolster the anti-US warfront in Iraq.

C. The purported transfer of the French hostages across the Iraqi-Syrian border was timed to coincide with the most promising US-Iraqi initiative thus far to co-opt Syria to a joint military effort for sealing that border to illegal and hostile infiltrations. This setback to Washington�s plans would have seriously delayed the final offensive to recover Fallujah from insurgent-terrorist control.

D. It would also have delivered a setback to US-Syrian relations as a whole, showing up factions of Syrian military intelligence as more than willing to pitch in on any anti-American actions. Washington would have had to accept that any deal with Damascus was full of dangerous holes.

By bombing the French-sponsored Baath guerrilla convoy on its way to Syria, American warplanes whipped these assets out of the French president�s grasp. But still up in the air is the fate of the two French hostages, as is also the date of the US-Iraq Fallujah offensive. The two issues however are no longer intertwined.

www.debka.com...

Why does our government, and especially our state department, constantly insist that these turds are our allies and that there is something positive to be gained from their worthless friendship? I think it is about time to realize that we are better off working against them than with them. About all that they are good for now is funneling bad intel and weaponry to our enemies.






[edit on 3-10-2004 by Crazyhorse]

They were trying to secure the release of the French hostages.
Everything else is just a guess made by anti-French commentators at ulterior motives the French probably did not have in mind.

We can take guesses at Reagan's ulterior motives when he gave arms to the Iranians to secure the release of US hostages but they'd probably be just as wrong as Debka's.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

WHILE all eyes are on the US presidential election on November 2, the White House is also concerned with another poll planned for January.

Iraq�s first free and democratic elections early next year drive US military policy in the region and the war on terror as much as President George Bush�s battle against Senator John Kerry next month.

As the insurgency in Iraq intensifies and the conflict dominates the political agenda, US military strategists aim to have quelled all rebel controlled parts of the country before the January election.

At the US presidential election voters will choose between Bush and his unilateral militarist approach, and Kerry who blames the president for the current crisis and has vowed to seek international co-operation before the White House embarks on any further armed adventures.

Faced with the most ferocious fighting since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Bush faces a tricky strategical balancing act in the run-up to the election.

On the one hand, he must be seen to be asserting some control over the Iraqi and foreign al-Qaeda-backed militants attacking US forces.

But he also knows he cannot risk incurring high US casualties because the sight of large numbers of American troops coming home in body bags would benefit the Kerry campaign.

But after November 2, the gloves can come off, allowing Bush the chance to launch a no-holds barred blitz on the insurgents in the two month window until the January elections.

And if some reports from the intelligence community are correct, Bush is planning an all-out crackdown with some suggesting it would involve practically flattening Falluja, the base of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

US military officials have signalled they plan to increase incursions into key Iraqi cities this autumn, partly as a way for the United States to try to pressure insurgents into negotiations with Iraqi officials.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to this last week when he said insurgencies in Falluja and the city of Ramadi can be solved either diplomatically through negotiations or through force.

Analysts in the United States said an offensive into Samarra was also a way to give Iraqi forces some needed combat experience training before they consider taking on Falluja, which Secretary of State Colin Powell last week called "the tough one".

But Pentagon officials and defence analysts have also said a US military offensive into difficult-to-capture cities, such as Ramadi and Falluja, might still be delayed, or even avoided, if the United States and Iraq decide to settle for partial participation in elections in January.

Also on the hit list for US military commanders is the vast Baghdad slum of Sadr City, scene of almost daily clashes and US airstrikes against armed followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

While Sadr City remains a bastion of Iraq�s majority Shiite Muslims, Ramadi, Samarra and Falluja form part of the Sunni heartland, where resistance to the US-backed government has been the fiercest. It is feared that inability to stage balloting in the so-called Sunni Triangle would severely mar, or even invalidate, election results.

King Abdullah of Jordan last night warned it will be impossible to hold elections in Iraq in what he called the current state of chaos there. He told a French newspaper that only extremists would gain if voting went ahead without an improvement in the security situation.

Strategy in Iraq dominated the first television debate between Bush and Kerry in Florida on Thursday night with opinion polls and pundits declaring that the Democratic challenger came off best.

A confident Kerry accused Bush of taking his eye off American�s enemy number one, Osama bin Laden, in his drive to oust Saddam.

"This president made a mistake to rush America to war without a plan to win the peace, and now we�re carrying 90% of the cost; 90% of the coalition casualties are American," Kerry said of a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 US troops.

Trying to seize on Kerry�s "confusing contradictions", Bush said his opponent had "voted against supplying our troops after voting for putting them in harm�s way".

There have been further signs that, should Bush retain the White House, the stakes in the Gulf and Middle East are set to get even higher, with a suggestion Washington would welcome Israeli attacks on the up to 15 nuclear facilities being developed in Iran.

The Iranian president Muhammad Khatami has told the International Atomic Energy Authority: "We will continue along our path of uranium enrichment even if it leads to an end to international supervision."

US and European sources who have been monitoring the progress of Iran�s nuclear programme believe it is four to six months away from nuclear "break-out" capacity, meaning the nuclear fuel cycle will be complete and it will be able to build nuclear weapons.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Washington has ruled out military strikes on Iranian nuclear plants, and because it is bogged down in Iraq, it cannot push for regime change in Tehran.

Instead a "middle road" policy is emerging which could influence the White House.

A new study by the respected Non-Proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, partly funded by the Pentagon, calls for the US to involve Russia in checking Iran�s nuclear ambitions by offering Moscow a nuclear co-operation deal.

More controversially, given Washington�s almost blanket support for Israel, it calls on the Israelis to mothball their weapons-usable nuclear materials and place the Dimona reactor under the IAEA monitoring.

The report was rubbished by Caroline Blick of the Jerusalem Post, who writes: "Given the hostility and radicalism of the Iranian regime, the report provides no real new option.

"A more formidable middle road that could be used to develop options for either regime change or engagement must be predicated on a comprehensive military option supporting limited air or commando strikes at Iran�s nuclear facilities."

news.scotsman.com...

=======
Comment:

Will the world allow such Liberation and Freedom made in USA?

Originally posted by zcheng
WHILE all eyes are on the US presidential election on November 2, the White House is also concerned with another poll planned for January.

Iraq�s first free and democratic elections early next year drive US military policy in the region and the war on terror as much as President George Bush�s battle against Senator John Kerry next month.

As the insurgency in Iraq intensifies and the conflict dominates the political agenda, US military strategists aim to have quelled all rebel controlled parts of the country before the January election.

At the US presidential election voters will choose between Bush and his unilateral militarist approach, and Kerry who blames the president for the current crisis and has vowed to seek international co-operation before the White House embarks on any further armed adventures.

Faced with the most ferocious fighting since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Bush faces a tricky strategical balancing act in the run-up to the election.

On the one hand, he must be seen to be asserting some control over the Iraqi and foreign al-Qaeda-backed militants attacking US forces.

But he also knows he cannot risk incurring high US casualties because the sight of large numbers of American troops coming home in body bags would benefit the Kerry campaign.

But after November 2, the gloves can come off, allowing Bush the chance to launch a no-holds barred blitz on the insurgents in the two month window until the January elections.

And if some reports from the intelligence community are correct, Bush is planning an all-out crackdown with some suggesting it would involve practically flattening Falluja, the base of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

US military officials have signalled they plan to increase incursions into key Iraqi cities this autumn, partly as a way for the United States to try to pressure insurgents into negotiations with Iraqi officials.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to this last week when he said insurgencies in Falluja and the city of Ramadi can be solved either diplomatically through negotiations or through force.

Analysts in the United States said an offensive into Samarra was also a way to give Iraqi forces some needed combat experience training before they consider taking on Falluja, which Secretary of State Colin Powell last week called "the tough one".

But Pentagon officials and defence analysts have also said a US military offensive into difficult-to-capture cities, such as Ramadi and Falluja, might still be delayed, or even avoided, if the United States and Iraq decide to settle for partial participation in elections in January.

Also on the hit list for US military commanders is the vast Baghdad slum of Sadr City, scene of almost daily clashes and US airstrikes against armed followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

While Sadr City remains a bastion of Iraq�s majority Shiite Muslims, Ramadi, Samarra and Falluja form part of the Sunni heartland, where resistance to the US-backed government has been the fiercest. It is feared that inability to stage balloting in the so-called Sunni Triangle would severely mar, or even invalidate, election results.

King Abdullah of Jordan last night warned it will be impossible to hold elections in Iraq in what he called the current state of chaos there. He told a French newspaper that only extremists would gain if voting went ahead without an improvement in the security situation.

Strategy in Iraq dominated the first television debate between Bush and Kerry in Florida on Thursday night with opinion polls and pundits declaring that the Democratic challenger came off best.

A confident Kerry accused Bush of taking his eye off American�s enemy number one, Osama bin Laden, in his drive to oust Saddam.

"This president made a mistake to rush America to war without a plan to win the peace, and now we�re carrying 90% of the cost; 90% of the coalition casualties are American," Kerry said of a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 US troops.

Trying to seize on Kerry�s "confusing contradictions", Bush said his opponent had "voted against supplying our troops after voting for putting them in harm�s way".

There have been further signs that, should Bush retain the White House, the stakes in the Gulf and Middle East are set to get even higher, with a suggestion Washington would welcome Israeli attacks on the up to 15 nuclear facilities being developed in Iran.

The Iranian president Muhammad Khatami has told the International Atomic Energy Authority: "We will continue along our path of uranium enrichment even if it leads to an end to international supervision."

US and European sources who have been monitoring the progress of Iran�s nuclear programme believe it is four to six months away from nuclear "break-out" capacity, meaning the nuclear fuel cycle will be complete and it will be able to build nuclear weapons.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Washington has ruled out military strikes on Iranian nuclear plants, and because it is bogged down in Iraq, it cannot push for regime change in Tehran.

Instead a "middle road" policy is emerging which could influence the White House.

A new study by the respected Non-Proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, partly funded by the Pentagon, calls for the US to involve Russia in checking Iran�s nuclear ambitions by offering Moscow a nuclear co-operation deal.

More controversially, given Washington�s almost blanket support for Israel, it calls on the Israelis to mothball their weapons-usable nuclear materials and place the Dimona reactor under the IAEA monitoring.

The report was rubbished by Caroline Blick of the Jerusalem Post, who writes: "Given the hostility and radicalism of the Iranian regime, the report provides no real new option.

"A more formidable middle road that could be used to develop options for either regime change or engagement must be predicated on a comprehensive military option supporting limited air or commando strikes at Iran�s nuclear facilities."

news.scotsman.com...

=======
Comment:

Will the world allow such Liberation and Freedom made in USA?

ALL I CAN SAY IS IT'S ABOUT TIME! HOOAH!

The US would of done the same if in France's position