此報導(英文）涉及去年伊拉克當局逮捕了兩名化妝為阿拉伯人的英國情報人員。該兩人為制造恐怖事件，駕駛壹輛滿載火藥的汽車，前往巴斯拉市市中心試圖引爆。被捕後，英國當局竟派裝甲部隊前往警察局進行搭救...。此事件或說明，究竟誰在幕後挑起內戰。此文作者為倫敦政策研究所執行主任。
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
當場被抓：英國在伊拉克的秘密行動 |
|
|
|
納弗斯•莫薩德克•艾哈默德/著 吳萬偉/譯
|
| 光明觀察刊發時間： 2006-8-21 http://guancha.gmw.cn |
|
|
摘要：兩名英國化裝成阿拉伯人的SAS士兵在進行秘密行動時被捕，車上裝有炸彈和反坦克武器[5]，在例行的檢查站拒絕接受檢查，當警察走上前去的時候還開火。這顯然不是“友軍”之間的誤會。秘密行動讓人懷疑，挑釁味道強烈。
如果不懷疑紮卡維的存在，確實很難避免得出解釋總體上可信的結論。不知道英美在伊拉克的隱蔽策略和秘密行動的人好像只有我們西方的人民。到了我們了解事實真相的時候了。
紮卡維把妳的心挖出來吃掉
如果和暴力活動猖獗，平民和聯盟軍隊沖突成為家常便飯的伊拉克中部相比的話，巴士拉（Basra）相對平靜。該城市很少成為叛亂分子和聯盟軍隊沖突的場所，也不是經常性的恐怖分子襲擊的地方。但是這個星期，情況發生了變化。不過不是因為紮卡維或者基地分子之類。
星期壹，巴士拉的伊拉克警察抓住並逮捕了兩個英軍士兵。幾個小時之內，英國軍隊做出強烈反應。盡管後來國防部否認，聲稱這兩個人只是通過“友好協商”後歸還給英軍，英國軍事官員，包括約翰•羅瑞莫準將（John Lorimer）告訴英國廣播公司（BBC News (20/9/05)[1]說英軍襲擊了伊拉克警察局以解救被捕人員。國防部也證實了這個說法。“英國軍車”試圖在警察局周圍“維持保衛圈”。在英國坦克“推平了警察局的圍墻”後，英國軍隊“沖進警察局證實他們不在那裏”然後“在巴士拉的壹所房子內展開營救行動”。按照熟悉這次活動的指揮官的話說。英國國防部告訴英國廣播公司駐巴格達記者理查德•加爾頻（Richard Galpin）說這兩個士兵是“特別空勤團（SAS）特種部隊的成員”。被捕之後，他們被移交給當地民兵組織。
是什麼原因導致事件讓人奇怪的轉折呢？為什麼平常和聯盟軍隊密切合作的伊拉克警察逮捕兩名SAS英軍士兵，然後移交給當地民兵組織呢？如果考察壹下最初的地下活動報告就能清楚了解事件的輪廓了。
按照BBC加爾頻的說法，BBC Radio 4(19/9/05， 18)在“漂亮的服裝和長槍不能攪和”（Fancy Dress and Big Guns Don’t Mix）為題的報道中說，巴士拉伊拉克警察告訴BBC說“那兩名士兵是在沖過檢查站阻攔住後才被捕的。當時雙方發生交火，他們穿著傳統的阿拉伯人服裝。警察最終攔住他們後說在車裏發現了炸彈和武器。人們普遍相信這兩名士兵是在執行地下任務。”秘密行動？穿阿拉伯人服裝？他們試圖要幹什麼？要引起英軍的註意還是伊拉克警察的註意？
《華盛頓郵報》（20/9/05）[2]說“伊拉克安全官員星期壹譴責他們抓住的英國士兵襲擊伊拉克軍隊，或者試圖安放炸彈。”路透社(19/9/05) [3]引用警察，當地官員和其他證人證實“兩個秘密行動的士兵朝向他們走近的伊拉克警察開火後被逮捕。”官員說“這兩個人戴著傳統的阿拉伯人頭巾，坐在沒有標誌的汽車裏。”巴士拉政府官員莫罕默德•阿巴迪（Mohammed al-Abadi）說，“警察走上前去，其中壹人朝警察射擊，警察采取行動抓住了他們。”
設置陷阱的英國人？在接受“半島電視臺”（Al Jazeerah TV）[4]采訪時，受人歡迎的伊拉克領袖法塔赫•錫克（Fattah al-Sheikh），伊拉克國民大會（Iraqi National Assembly）成員和巴士拉政府代表說警察“抓住了兩個非伊拉克人，好像是英國人，在克裏斯達（Cressida）型汽車裏。這是壹輛作為誘餌的車，裏面裝有彈藥，打算在巴士拉人口稠密的市中心爆炸。”和英國當局的士兵被馬上移交給當地民兵組織的說法相反，錫克（al-Sheikh）證實他們“在巴士拉的情報部門，在國民警衛隊手裏，但是英國占領軍仍然圍困這個情報部門試圖赦免他們的罪孽。”
難怪伊拉克當局對此感到惱火。兩名英國化裝成阿拉伯人的SAS士兵在進行秘密行動時被捕，車上裝有炸彈和反坦克武器[5]，在例行的檢查站拒絕接受檢查，當警察走上前去的時候還開火。這顯然不是“友軍”之間的誤會。秘密行動讓人懷疑，挑釁味道強烈。當英國軍隊準備使用強大武力營救士兵變得清晰的時候，伊拉克警察不願意輕易放棄，試圖審問他們了解到底發生了什麼事就沒有什麼讓人意外的了。
英國國防部告訴蘇格蘭人(20/9/05) [6]說“特別偵察軍團”（The Special Reconnaissance Regiment）和“英國秘密行動組”（British Covert Operations）說這兩名士兵是今年建立起來的“秘密特別行動小分隊”的成員，要在巴士拉“填補情報真空”。該組織在北愛爾蘭和亞丁灣（Aden）獲得“特別行動”的經驗，英軍秘密活動深入當地社區試圖打破對外來力量的沈默態勢。”這些精幹的小分隊在去年由當時的國防大臣傑夫•胡恩（Geoff Hoon）成立的特別偵察軍團領導下“在反恐任務中收集所謂的人員情報。”當然，問題是穿著阿拉伯服裝，攜帶炸彈對伊拉克警察開槍怎麼構成“反恐”或者“收集情報”呢？
英國國防部官員的承認是非常說明問題的。稍微看壹下特別偵察軍團就非常清楚這兩名士兵在從事什麼樣的行動了。白廳消息來源說最近成立的特別偵察軍團是“根據在北愛爾蘭從事秘密活動的單位建立的。”[7] 特別偵察軍團“吸收了所謂的“14 Int ”第14情報處，壹個在北愛爾蘭成立的隱蔽搜集被懷疑的恐怖分子情報的便衣單位。招收的人員接受SAS的培訓。”7月22日卷入非法處決無辜巴西人梅內塞斯（Jean Charles de Menezes）事件的正是這個特別偵察軍團。此人在斯塔克威爾（Stockwell）車站登上地鐵列車後被人亂槍射殺。
根據刑警隊長尼古拉斯•本威爾（Nicholas Benwell）所說，壹直在調查英國軍方情報單位極端秘密組織“軍力研究小分隊”（the Force Research Unit (FRU)的活動的蘇格蘭場（Scotland Yard）小組的成員說，該小組發現“軍事情報人員勾結恐怖分子幫助他們處決所謂的”合法目標”比如共和軍積極分子。政府支持的襲擊行動的受害者中許多都是無辜平民。”
本威爾揭露的情況在細節上與英國雙料間諜凱文•富爾頓（Kevin Fulton）的說法吻合。這個人在1981年被FRU招募進來，他開始滲透到愛爾蘭共和軍（IRA）的各級別。在他在IRA內作為英國FRU間諜的時候，軍方情報單位人員告訴他可以做任何事情只要能贏得恐怖分子團體的信任。
他告訴蘇格蘭《星期日先驅報》（Sunday Herald (23/6/02) [8]說“我放置炸彈，幫助研制新型炸藥。我使用武器，如果妳問我在搞情報的時候是否殺人，我必須說我幫助研制的東西肯定殺人了，我的聯絡員知道我做的壹切。從來沒有人告訴我別做什麼事。妳怎麼能假裝是恐怖分子而不像恐怖分子那樣做呢？根本做不到。人家做什麼，妳就做什麼。他們進行過多次謀殺行動，我壹周七天都要幹違法的事情，我的聯絡員都知道。他們知道我在制造炸彈，交給IRA的其他成員，他們並沒有阻攔我。道理很簡單，打敗敵人的唯壹方法就是打入敵人內部，成為敵人。”
最讓人震驚的是，富爾頓說他的聯絡員告訴他其行動“直接受最高層的批準，也就是說首相都知道妳做的事情。”
在紮卡維、復興社會黨成員中間撒播不和的種子。根據特別偵察軍團的方法，兩名英國SAS成員在伊拉克“打入敵人內部，成為敵人”當然是為了“戰勝敵人”。但是，沒能打敗敵人，他們挑起巨大風波，殺害無辜。這是壹個非常熟悉的模式，批評的學生所說的英國在北愛爾蘭沖突中扮演的角色。
2004年11月[9]，幾家伊斯蘭分子網站上發布了聯合聲明，代表在伊拉克的基地組織人員紮卡維，薩達姆侯賽因的復興社會黨成員。紮卡維的網絡“加入了其他極端主義伊斯蘭分子和薩達姆的復興黨員來威脅日益增加的對美國領導的力量的襲擊。”紮卡維的組織說他們簽署了“伊拉克復興社會黨的聲明，不是因為我們支持薩達姆的政黨，而是因為它表達了伊拉克抵抗組織的要求。”這個聲明證實了壹年來壹直被作為後薩達姆時代伊拉克情報機關和美國軍官告訴倫敦泰晤士報的話。(9/8/2003) [10]“從沙特阿拉伯和其他阿拉伯國家進入伊拉克的基地組織恐怖分子已經與薩達姆的前情報間諜分子組成了聯盟對付美國兵這個共同的敵人。”基地組織領導人從薩達姆從前的“安全和情報官員裏招募人員，他們失去了工作，對地位的喪失感到怨憤。”經過審查後，“他們就接受基地組織的訓練，比如怎樣制作遙控炸彈。”
但是巴基斯坦軍方[11]2005年2月披露美國已經“決心武裝壹批美軍支持的民兵，混入由復興社會黨前成員組成的人中間”。這些人已經與紮卡維的基地組織網絡相連。在非常隱蔽的行動中，美國獲得“巴基斯坦制造的武器，包括來復槍，火箭推進的榴彈發射器（rocket-propelled grenade launchers）彈藥，火箭筒，以及其他輕型武器。”巴基斯坦軍方分析家註意到“武器不是被用來對付使用美國武器的伊拉克安全部隊的”。相反，美國是在玩雙重遊戲，來消除“什葉派推動的宗教運動的威脅”。換句話說，加劇惡化的安全形勢，滲透，操縱和武裝恐怖主義叛亂分子。
這樣的秘密策略的結果會如何呢？伊拉克本土的觀點[12]不管是遜尼派還是什葉派是值得關註的。巴格達卡齊邁因大清真寺（the al-Kadhimiyah mosque）的什葉派領袖錫克•賈瓦德•卡拉斯（Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi）告訴法國《世界報》（Le Monde）說“我不相信紮卡維還活著的說法。他只不過是占領者分化人民而創造出來的人物。”伊拉克最強大的遜尼派宗教權威“穆斯林學者聯盟”（Association of Muslim Scholars）也同意這個觀點，他們譴責號召人們武裝起來反抗什葉派的呼籲是非常危險的舉動，落入企圖分化伊拉克人民，挑動內戰的占領者的陷阱。“用殖民主義者的術語，這個策略就是“分而治之。”
如果不懷疑紮卡維的存在，確實很難避免得出解釋總體上可信的結論。不知道英美在伊拉克的隱蔽策略和秘密行動的人好像只有我們西方的人民。到了我們了解事實真相的時候了。
譯自：Caught red-handed :: British Undercover Operatives in Iraq :by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/caught_red_handed_british_undercover_operatives_in_iraq
原文註釋：
[1]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
[2]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900572.html?nav=rss_world
[3]. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?
type=worldNews&storyID=2005-09-19T210030Z
_01_SPI946735_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-BRITONS.xml%20
[4]. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=983
[5]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
[6]. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1964592005%20
[7]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0，3604，
1542080，00.html
[8]. http://www.sundayherald.com/25646
[9]. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/
story_page/0，5744，11488568%255E1702，00.html
[10]. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961268/posts
[11]. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html
[12]. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73570F02-
EA07-492F-9E04-C080950DF180.htm：
文本已被閱讀 27 次
文章來源： 光明觀察
|
Caught red-handed :: British Undercover Operatives in Iraq ::
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
(Sunday September 25 2005)
來源http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/20220
________________________________________
"Regardless of doubts about Zarqawi’s existence, it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that this overall interpretation is plausible. It seems the only ones who don’t understand the clandestine dynamics of Anglo-American covert strategy in Iraq are we, the people, in the west."
________________________________________
Zarqawi Eat Your Heart Out
Basra is relatively stable compared to central Iraq where violence involving insurgents, civilians and coalition forces is a daily routine. The city has rarely been a site of clashes between insurgents and coalition troops, nor is it a victim of regular terrorist attacks. This week, however, things changed. But not thanks to Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda ilk.
On Monday, two British soldiers were arrested and detained by Iraqi police in Basra. Within a matter of hours, the British military responded with overwhelming force. Despite subsequent Ministry of Defence denials, insisting that the two men had been retrieved solely through “negotiations”, British military officials, including Brigadier John Lorimer, told BBC News (20/9/05) [1] that the British Army had stormed an Iraqi police station to locate the detainees. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed that “British vehicles” had attempted to “maintain a cordon” outside the police station. After British Army tanks “flattened the wall” of the station, UK troops “broke into the police station to confirm the men were not there” and then “staged a rescue from a house in Basra”, according a commanding officer familiar with the operation. Both men, British defence sources told the BBC’s Richard Galpin in Baghdad, were “members of the SAS elite special forces.” After arrest, they had been handed over to local militia.
What had prompted this bizarre turn of events? Why had the Iraqi police forces, which normally work in close cooperation with coalition military forces, arrested two British SAS soldiers, and then handed them over to militia? A review of the initial on-the-ground reports leads to a clearer picture.
Fancy Dress and Big Guns Don’t Mix
According to the BBC’s Galpin, reporting for BBC Radio 4 (19/9/05, 18 hrs news script), Iraqi police sources in Basra “told the BBC the two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint. There was an exchange of gunfire. The men were wearing traditional Arab clothing, and when the police eventually stopped them, they said they found explosives and weapons in their car… It’s widely believed the two British servicemen were operating undercover.” Undercover? Dressed as Arabs? What were they trying to do that had caught the attention of their colleagues, the Iraqi police?
According to the Washington Post (20/9/05) [2], “Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives.” Reuters (19/9/05) [3] cited police, local officials and other witnesses who confirmed that “the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them.” Officials said that “the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car.” According to Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, “A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them.”
Boobytrapped Brits?
In an interview with Al Jazeerah TV [4], the popular Iraqi leader Fattah al-Sheikh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly and deputy official in the Basra governorate, said that police had “caught two non-Iraqis, who seem to be Britons and were in a car of the Cressida type. It was a booby-trapped car laden with ammunition and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market.” Contrary to British authorities’ claims that the soldiers had been immediately handed to local militia, al-Sheikh confirmed that they were “at the Intelligence Department in Basra, and they were held by the National Guard force, but the British occupation forces are still surrounding this department in an attempt to absolve them of the crime.”
No wonder the Iraqi authorities were annoyed. Two British SAS soldiers had been caught undercover dressed as Arabs, loaded with explosives and anti-tank weaponry [5], acting uncooperatively at a routine checkpoint, and opening fire on police when approached. This is hardly a mistaken case of ‘friendly fire.’ The undercover operatives had conducted themselves suspiciously and aggressively. When it became clear that the British Army was about to use overwhelming force to rescue the operatives, it is hardly surprising that Iraqi police were reluctant to give them up, preferring to interrogate them to find out precisely what they had been doing.
The Special Reconnaissance Regiment and British Covert Operations
British defence sources told the Scotsman (20/9/05) [6] that the soldiers were part of an “undercover special forces detachment” set up this year to “bridge the intelligence void” in Basra, drawing on “special forces’ experience in Northern Ireland and Aden, where British troops went ‘deep’ undercover in local communities to try to break the code of silence against foreign forces.” These elite forces operate under the Special Reconnaissance Regiment formed last year by then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, “to gather so-called human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions.” The question, of course, is how does firing at Iraqi police while dressed as Arabs and carrying explosives constitute “countering terrorism” or even gathering “intelligence”?
The admission by British defence officials is revealing. A glance at the Special Reconnaissance Regiment gives a more concrete idea of the sort of operations these two British soldiers were involved in. The Regiment, formed recently, is “modelled on an undercover unit that operated in Northern Ireland” according to Whitehall sources.[7] The Regiment had “absorbed 14th Intelligence Company, known as ‘14 Int’, a plainclothes unit set up to gather intelligence covertly on suspect terrorists in Northern Ireland. Its recruits are trained by the SAS.” This is the same Regiment that was involved in the unlawful 22nd July execution - by multiple head-shots - of the innocent Brazilian, Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, after he boarded a tube train in Stockwell Underground station.
According to Detective Sergeant Nicholas Benwell, member of the Scotland Yard team that had been investigating the activities of an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence, the Force Research Unit (FRU), the team found that “military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called ‘legitimate targets’ such as active republicans... many of the victims of these government-backed hit squads were innocent civilians.” Benwell’s revelations were corroborated in detail by British double agent Kevin Fulton, who was recruited to the FRU in 1981, when he began to infiltrate the ranks of IRA. In his role as a British FRU agent inside the IRA, he was told by his military intelligence handlers to “do anything” to win the confidence of the terrorist group.
“I mixed explosive and I helped develop new types of bombs”, he told Scotland’s Sunday Herald (23/6/02) [8]. “I moved weapons… if you ask me if the materials I handled killed anyone, then I will have to say that some of the things I helped develop did kill… my handlers knew everything I did. I was never told not to do something that was discussed. How can you pretend to be a terrorist and not act like one? You can’t. You’ve got to do what they do… They did a lot of murders… I broke the law seven days a week and my handlers knew that. They knew that I was making bombs and giving them to other members of the IRA and they did nothing about it… The idea was that the only way to beat the enemy was to penetrate the enemy and be the enemy.” Most startlingly, Fulton said that his handlers told him his operations were “sanctioned right at the top… this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing.”
Zarqawi, Ba’athists and the Seeds of Discord
So, based on the methodology of their Regiment, the two British SAS operatives were in Iraq to “penetrate the enemy and be the enemy,” in order of course to “beat the enemy.” Instead of beating the enemy, however, they ended up fomenting massive chaos and killing innocent people, a familiar pattern for critical students of the British role in the Northern Ireland conflict.
In November 2004 [9], a joint statement was released on several Islamist websites on behalf of al-Qaeda’s man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Saddam Hussein’s old Ba’ath Party loyalists. Zarqawi’s network had “joined other extremist Islamists and Saddam Hussein’s old Baath party to threaten increased attacks on US-led forces.” Zarqawi’s group said they signed “the statement written by the Iraqi Baath party, not because we support the party or Saddam, but because it expresses the demands of resistance groups in Iraq.” The statement formalized what had been known for a year already – that, as post-Saddam Iraqi intelligence and US military officials told the London Times (9/8/2003) [10], “Al Qaeda terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have formed an alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the American forces.” Al Qaeda leaders “recruit from the pool” of Saddam’s former “security and intelligence officers who are unemployed and embittered by their loss of status.” After vetting, “they begin Al-Qaeda-style training, such as how to make remote-controlled bombs.”
Yet Pakistani military sources [11] revealed in February 2005 that the US has “resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population”, consisting of “former members of the Ba’ath Party” – the same people already teamed up with Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda network. In a highly clandestine operation, the US procured “Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry.” A Pakistani military analyst noted that the “arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.” Rather, the US is playing a double-game to “head off” the threat of a “Shi’ite clergy-driven religious movement” – in other words, to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating and arming the terrorist insurgency.
What could be the end-game of such a covert strategy? The view on-the-ground [12] in Iraq, among both Sunnis and Shi’ites, is worth noting. Sheikh Jawad al-Kalesi, the Shi’ite Imam of the al-Kadhimiyah mosque in Baghdad, told Le Monde: “I don’t think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exists as such. He’s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people.” Iraq’s most powerful Sunni Arab religious authority, the Association of Muslim Scholars, concurs, condemning the call to arms against Shi’ites as a “very dangerous” phenomenon that “plays into the hands of the occupier who wants to split up the country and spark a sectarian war.” In colonial terms, the strategy is known as “divide and rule.”
Regardless of doubts about Zarqawi’s existence, it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that this overall interpretation is plausible. It seems the only ones who don’t understand the clandestine dynamics of Anglo-American covert strategy in Iraq are we, the people, in the west. It’s high time we got informed.
Notes:
[1]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
[2]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900572.html?nav=rss_world
[3]. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?
type=worldNews&storyID=2005-09-19T210030Z
_01_SPI946735_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-BRITONS.xml%20
[4]. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=983
[5]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
[6]. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1964592005%20
[7]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,
1542080,00.html
[8]. http://www.sundayherald.com/25646
[9]. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/
story_page/0,5744,11488568%255E1702,00.html
[10]. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961268/posts
[11]. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html
[12]. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73570F02-
EA07-492F-9E04-C080950DF180.htm
Source:
by courtesy & © 2005 Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
|
![[ads_url_inside]](http://pub.creaders.net/html/site_ad_images/2006101818055593.gif)
