Michel Chossudovsky
Deaths of Saddam's Sons "Wags the Dog"
Sat Jul 26 15:51:52 2003
208.152.73.187

Official Story on Deaths of Saddam's Sons "Wags the Dog"
by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca  26 July 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307E.html
The deaths of the sons of Saddam Hussein in a high profile "shoot-out" in the northern city of Mosul arrive at a most opportune moment for President Bush and his entourage.

Political assassination is tied into the logic of war propaganda. The killings were designed by the Pentagon to uphold the shaky legitimacy of the Anglo-American military axis in the face of Iraqi armed resistance to occupation forces. In the words of President Bush: "their deaths show that the former Iraqi regime will not be coming back."

By mobilizing media attention Worldwide on Saddam's two sons, the Mosul event has served to distract Western public opinion from the broader issue of war crimes committed by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally, not to mention the mysterious death of David Kelly, the senior MI6 official who "pulled the plug" on Tony Blair.

Meanwhile, the fake Niger uranium dossier, used in Bush's State of the Union address has been quietly sent to the news archives.

The Mosul shoot-out serves to "reduce the heat" and conceal the lies: "The death of the two sons was greeted with jubilation in Washington, where President George Bush has been under growing political pressure..." (Washington Post, 24 July 2003)

While the entire Western news chain is inundated with the same unsavory (syndicated) stories on Saddam's derelict son Uday, the more substantive issue of phony intelligence and WMDs is relegated to the inner pages of the tabloids.

The fact, amply documented, that the war was based on a fabricated pretext is now regarded as a mere technical detail: a 16 words "error" which inadvertently slipped into the President's State of the Union address.
The Mosul Shoot-out

There are a number of "holes" in the official story. According to the New York Times (23/0703), it was a "walk-in informer" who contacted Coalition forces. The media described this as an "unexpected tip-off".

"Neighbors saw the owner of the house, Nawaf al-Zaydan, and his son Shahlan sitting in American vehicles. People asked him what had happened and he told them that Uday and Qusay Hussein were inside the house. He had gone to bring breakfast for them, he said, when the Americans arrested him." (NYT, 23/07/03)

In fact, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in Mosul, on the very day this "walk in informer" first contacted Coalition forces:

Mr. Secretary, Monday, you walked the streets of Mosul meeting people and it turned out that that was just a few miles from this house where Uday and Qusay were hiding. And after you left this informant came forward with this information.

(...)

WOLFOWITZ: Well, actually, I think it was while we were meeting with the town council in Mosul the first informant came forward, I believe. I may be wrong. I'd love to be able say it was because we were there and, of course, it had nothing to do with our being there. (Pentagon Briefing, CNN, 23 July 2003, bold italics added, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030723-depsecdef0441.html  )

Al Jazeera's correspondent in Mosul, describes the events otherwise:

"Nawwaf al-Zaydan. Al-Zaydan used to tell the neighbours that he was one of the cousins of the former Iraqi president Saddam Husayn, while some of his neighbours say that he is from another area and has nothing to do with the president, but he only claimed this. At any rate, those who attended the interrogation - since he and his son Sha'lan were arrested before entering the house - said that the interrogation took place at gun point. At first, he was silent, but he then collapsed and told the US soldiers that the two sons of the Iraqi president, Uday and Qusay, and his grandson Mustafa were inside the house, in addition to a member of security, whose name is Abd-al-Samad. (See Al-Jazeera Report casts doubt on Official Story concerning alleged Deaths of Umay and Qusay Al Jazeera, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ALJ307A.html  , 24 July 2003)
"Fortified Site" defended by Three Adults and a Teenager

Confirmed by the news reports, there were three adults and a teenager inside the building: Uday, Qusay, Qusay's 14 year old teenage son, and a bodyguard .(AFP, 23/07/03). Nobody else? no servants, no other armed men, only one body guard.

The official communiqué confirms that there was a 4-6 hour shoot out involving a massive mobilization of Coalition troops and military hardware. Troops of the 101 Airborne division entered the building. Attack Helicopters were used with 2.75 inch rockets, Humvees were used with TOW antitank systems, mounted with M-19 and 50-caliber machine guns:

"We fired 10 missiles into the house. We believe the missile attack was what ended up killing Uday and Qusay." ((Pentagon Briefing, CNN, 23 July 2003, italics added, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030723-depsecdef0441.html  )

The US Command claimed to have been under fire from inside the house, and, to defend themselves, they were "compelled to call in helicopters and tanks to shell the house." (Al-Safir, Beirut, 24 July 2003). According to an Al Jazeera TV report, the US military "received the information the night before and preparations had begun since the evening of 21 July and from the early morning until nearly 2200 when the storming operation began, and which lasted, as I heard, for four hours" (Interview with Dr Subhi Nazim Tawfiq, strategic and military expert, Centre for International Studies, Baghdad University, Al-Jazeera TV 23 July 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ALJ307A.html  )

" I was surprised at such preparations for killing only four people seeking refuge in an unprotected house. These preparations included armoured vehicles, helicopters, fighter jets, medium machine guns and tanks. A siege could have been imposed on the house using much smaller numbers and weapons and they could have forced them to surrender without killing them. ( Ibid)

The official statement and the reports suggest that there was fierce resistance. An entire platoon was effectively held at bay, Reinforcements were called in

More than 200 US Airborne troops (according to the reports) equipped with TOW missiles and Attack helicopters were pushed back two times in the course of this six hour period. According to the reports, the building was defended by three adult AK-47 gunmen plus a 14 year old teenager.

The operation also included the use of Special forces, the so-called "Task Force 20". The latter also included a so-called PSYOPS team from the CIA. (Robert Fisk, The Guardian, 23/0703).

Following its initial setback:

"coalition forces requested additional assets, to include a ground -- a quick reaction force and heavy weaponry, given that we knew that we had a fortified site that we were going to have to assault." (Pentagon Briefing, CNN, 23 July 2003, italics added, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030723-depsecdef0441.html  )

The official narrative conveys the impression that the assault on the building was being effectively repealed by more than three adults and a teenager, in other words by a number of armed guards.

Two American soldiers were killed in ambushes in Iraq Wednesday, dashing any U.S. hopes that the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, would snuff out a guerrilla insurgency against occupying forces. A U.S. military spokesman said one soldier was killed and six wounded when their vehicle hit a mine or home-made bomb in the northern town of Mosul, where the brothers were killed in a six-hour gunbattle with about 200 U.S. troops Tuesday. (U.S. Army) (Photo: U.S. Army)



There was a second attack on the building, which was again effectively repealed, despite the use of OH Helicopters firing rockets into the building.

At 1122 hours the second brigade combat team began movement of additional ground forces that included an additional antitank platoon to reinforce the elements that were already on the ground.

At 1145, during this period the commander had decided that he wanted to bring additional assets and we began to employ our OH-58 D helicopters with their rocket systems -- 2.75-inch rockets -- and 50- caliber machine guns to once again continue the prep on the target.

At 1150 hours, we had added an antitank platoon, we had a PSYOPS team on the ground, and all were on station ready for us to continue the assault.

At 1155, the Kiowas completed their preparatory fires.

At this point the commander decided that he would make a second attempt to get inside of the house.

At 1200 hours, we attempted to reenter the house. Once again, we received fire from the second floor as we attempted to move -- after we had secured the first floor -- to move up to the reinforced part of the building.

At this stage, as described in the official statement, the operation called for more reinforcements, essentially to enable the attack to proceed from the the first to the second floor of the building.

At this point, we knew that we had a barricaded site at the top of the stairs and the elements -- the subjects were fairly well barricaded on that second floor. We decided to continue the preparatory fires.

At 1300 hours, we continued the preparation using our 50-caliber machine guns, using our M-19s, and at this point we began to employ Humvee-mounted TOW missiles. We fired 10 TOW missiles into the house.

During this period, we considered employing our Apache helicopters and A-10s to come in and finish the preparation and the neutralization of the target. However, the decision was made not to employ the air power, because of the high risk of collateral damage given the neighborhood density that we were faced with.

At the end of this preparation, we believe that it is likely that the TOW missile attack was what wound up killing three of the adults.

Twenty-one minutes later. at 1321 hours, we entered the building for the third time. At this point, we received no fire as we moved up the stairs.

As we got up to the second floor, the assaulting elements continued to receive fire and they killed the remaining individual that was in the second floor. At this point, the enemy had been eliminated and the building was cleared in its entirety. We completed securing the building at about 1400 hours yesterday afternoon. (Lt. Gen. Sanchez Briefing on the Confirmation of the Deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030723-0443.html  , 23 July 2003, bold added)

"Three of the adults" were killed in the second assault, according to the official statement. And who was this lone remaining gunman defending the bunker, against several hundred Coalition forces.? According to the news reports, an innocent 14 year old teenager was shot down during the third assault on the building.

They [US forces] hit back with least ten anti-tank missiles and another hail of machine gun bullets. Apache attack helicopters and even A-10 'tankbuster' Warthog planes were called up, with their air-to-ground missiles, rockets and deadly chain guns.

But they were not needed. When the last anti-tank blast died away, there was silence. 'Even the wind stilled,' said Arif. The gathering crowd had yet to realise it, but three of the four men inside were dead. Only one - believed to be Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha - was still alive. As American troops pounded up the stairs, the teenager loosed off a final shot before he was cut down. (Daily Mail, 24 July 2003)
Political Assassination: No Attempt to Capture

From the outset, there was no attempt to capture the Saddam sons alive.: "TV images of the house did not suggest that it was a formidable fortress that could be easily defended from all sides - which would force Uday and Qusay to surrender to the Americans after a few hours" (Al-Safir, Beirut, in Arabic 24 July 2003, translation BBC Monitoring).

Despite the generally supportive tone of the US media, The Boston Globe, nonetheless acknowledged that:

"the "killings of the sons looks more like a zealous political assassination than a noble act. In 1976, President Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. This was after the CIA was exposed and embarrassed by schemes to kill world leaders in developing countries. (Boston Globe, 25/07/03)

In the words of South Africa's Mail and Guardian (25/0703) the killings constitute:

"thinly veiled extra-judicial executions, [which] are part of a growing pattern of American lawlessness in dealings with the world since 9/11".

Why was there no attempt to capture Uday and Qusay, who could have provided intelligence on the whereabouts of Saddam? During the official press briefing (23/0703), the issue of "capture" and "arrest" was casually dismissed by Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez. It would appear that the decision to "kill" rather than "capture" was taken at the highest levels of the US military:

QUESTION: General, I'd like to try and see if you could address more of the first question which we had from our colleague up front. The Americans are specialists at surrounding places, keeping people in them, holding up for a week, if necessary, to make them surrender.

QUESTION: These guys only had, it appears, AK-47s and you had an immense amount of firepower.

Surely, the possibility of the immense amount of information they could have given coalition forces, not to mention the trials that they could be put on for war crimes, held out a much greater possibility of victory for you, if you could have surrounded that house and just sat there until they came out, even if they were prepared to keep shooting.

SANCHEZ: Sir, that is speculation.

QUESTION: No, sir, it's an operational question. Surely, you must have considered this much more seriously than you're suggesting.

SANCHEZ: Yes. It was considered and we chose the course of action that we took.

QUESTION: Why, sir?

SANCHEZ: Next question, please.

(Lt. Gen. Sanchez Briefing on the Confirmation of the Deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030723-0443.html  , 23 July 2003)
The Official Body Count

The official report confirmed that there were only four bodies:

SANCHEZ: "Once we cleared the building, we found we had four bodies that were extracted and the bodies were evacuated and moved for positive identification.

We removed the bodies. We brought them to Bayap (ph), where we then proceeded to work on identification. We believe that we have positive identification and that we, in fact, have Uday and Qusay.

The identification was done through multiple means. We had senior former regime members do visual identification of the bodies. We had four individuals that independently verified that we had both of Saddam Hussein's sons.

We also compared X-rays and verified that the injuries on one of the bodies were consistent with the injuries that had been suffered by this individual during a previous assassination attempt.

Also, we used dental records to identify the bodies, and for Uday the match was 90 percent and this was limited only because injuries to the teeth made a perfect match impossible. For Qusay the dental match was a 100 percent certainty.

Autopsies will follow, but we have no doubt that we have the bodies of Uday and Qusay." (Lt. Gen. Sanchez Briefing on the Confirmation of the Deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030723-0443.html  , 23 July 2003)

The press reports confirmed that the bodies were "charred", as a result of the missile attacks: "four charred bodies were removed and two of them positively identified as Uday and Qusay," (AFP, 23 July 2003)

Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez stated that they were able to identify the bodies of Uday and Qusay, but not those of the other two, which included the teenager. Why this discrepancy?

If indeed the teenage son of Qusay was the last to die in a shoot-out, as suggested by the news reports, one would e