The King of Clubs speaks

Or to be more specific, writes:

Izzat al-Douri said the Ba'ath Party will continue "to mobilize and bring together the energies of the people for the fight to expel the occupation."

Surely some Americans might be saying, Izzat al-who? But Iraq seems to know--he's number one on their list of 41 most-wanted terrorists.

His lack of name recognition in America comes from a Coalition effort to keep his Ba'athist profile low at the expense of AQ thugs like Zarqawi. But Izzat showed some love for Z-man's patriotic ways:

Al-Douri praises the Qaeda man's "courage, the strength of his faith, and the sacrifices of his fighters," but rebukes Zarqawi's advocacy of mass sectarian killing of innocents.

Such flattering praise serves as yet another example of the ease with which secular Ba'athists could join forces with fundie al-Qaeda types if necessary. By the way, that last disclaimer was probably thrown in to cover his butt on possible complicity in the Golden Dome bombing and other collateral damage. Not good PR when trying to foment a "revolutionary, struggle-oriented" organization and create unity.

It will be interesting to see if Saddam releases another "letter" refuting Izzat's interview. They've been known to play good cop, bad cop before. Especially after al-Douri made some rather bold claims about Saddam's military prowess by referring to his pre-war strategy as a 'blunder'. He now claims:

...that Saddam's military bounced back, suggesting that elements of the old army are responsible for 95% of insurgent operations against coalition forces.

From what I've read Iraqis didn't always have the highest opinion of ole Izzat, therefore this might represent a softball toss to his ex-dictator boss to swat another one into the grandstands. We'll see.

As to pre-war WMDs, apparently he denied Iraq had such stuff in the print version (ht Hatfill Deception). Perhaps he forgot the 500 shells. And of course, if he's not to be believed on anything else he says, why believe him on this?

Perhaps we should ask the question--how much impact, if any, do the former regime elements have on our regional strategy at the moment? Any attempt to answer that must include the following bit of information:

(al Douri)...is among several Ba'athist leaders believed to be hiding in Syria, under the protection of the regime of President Bashar Assad.

If true, that means Syria is playing both sides against the middle by harboring ex-regime Ba'athists while simultaneously playing ball with Iran by helping sponsor Hizballah's operations in Lebanon. Without 'protection', ie, a deterrent, that seems a pretty dangerous game to play. We already know they maintain stocks of WMDs, it's the type, quantity and location that remain a mystery. If Assad is hiding al-Douri with some risk, how did the Saddamists repay him?

All of this makes an analysis of the current middle east crisis a scosh more difficult. But one thing it illustrates with clarity--we're already involved in a regional war, and Syria is in the middle of everything.

ADDENDUM 7/27/06

A perusal through the specific questions asked by Time and al-Douri's subsequent replies displays a BS mastermind at work. Freedom, democracy and the Iraqi way, high hopes for Bush in 2001, and so on. But notice the shortest and most terse reply was to the question about WMDs.