Bowden and Zarqawi: what about Jordan?

Mark Bowden's piece on the hunt for Zarqawi in the current Atlantic tells a riveting story which seems to show that interrogation can work in the hunt for terrorists, even if it doesn't solve the larger picture.   But one thing puzzled me.  I remember well that Jordanian officials at the time made every effort to claim credit for finding Zarqawi.  In June 2006 the LA Times reported: "Maj. Gen. Mohammed Dahabi, director of Jordan's General Intelligence Department, and Col. Ali Burjaq, his counterterrorism chief, said in a rare interview that a splashy videotape Zarqawi released this spring helped Jordanian officials determine his approximate location at the time, a key lead that ultimately resulted in Zarqawi's slaying last week in a U.S. aerial bombing."

That report went into a lot more detail about Jordan's role in getting to its hated enemy: 

"With the permission of Iraq's fledgling government, Jordanian operatives flooded   the war-torn country, cultivating informants and working the periphery of the   Zarqawi network to find ways into the organization, a Jordanian official and intelligence experts said. Jordan's GID set up spy bureaus in Iraq and began working with the Dulaimis, a large, mostly Sunni Arab tribe, some of whose members are closely tied to the insurgency, to gather information about anyone associating with Zarqawi or others in militant groups.... Jordan also played a key role in ferreting out the militant, U.S. and Jordanian   officials have said, providing crucial intelligence that apparently corroborated   information the Americans were getting from within the insurgency.  Jordanian security and intelligence authorities were involved in the hunt from the start, helping trace locations at which Zarqawi and his group frequently stayed, Jordanian government spokesman Nasser Joudeh said."

Jordanians appear nowhere in Bowden's narrative, which instead presents the hit on Zarqawi as the result of the determined efforts of American interrogators of Task Force 145.  So what's the deal?  Were the Jordanians lying?  Did Bowden not get the whole story?  Did he choose not tell it because it would complicate his story of heroic Americans and the value of interrogation?   The two versions - that presented by Jordanian intelligence to the LA Times and that presented by Bowden - seem irreconciliable on the face of it.   I don't know which version is right, but something here is clearly not right.

Comments

[Chuck]

If you haven't considered doing so already, write a letter to the editor. IIRC, Bowden has been pretty good about responding to substantive questions in such situations in past Atlantic articles of his. Responses are typically printed in issues about two months out from the date of original publication.

[aardvark]

A good idea. I've always seen Bowden as a good reporter and straight shooter, even when we disagree, so I'm genuinely curious about this.

[Hemlock for Gadflies]

It could have been a matter of letting the Jordanians claim credit for it, to boost the king's reputation (perhaps even within Iraq) and to make the "global war on terror" look slightly less American.

[Kurzleg]

To paraphrase "Resevoir Dogs", either the Jordanians brought about Zarquawi's capture/killing. Or they didn't. Or Task Force 145 brought about Zarquawi's capture/killing. Or they didn't.

[anonymous]

So what’s the deal with Mr. Sulieman visit to Israel, the Syrian foreign ministry has denied any connection with him in the timely way after he completed his visit. And his visit took very small space in Syrian media. In Syria-news the visit post took small section for short time and their comment section only couples of comments were printed, which is weird, where some of them call him a traitor and ask for his head. The visit in my view is one of the main events in the history of the conflict, and even the commentators on Syria comments pass it very lightly. It is on all levels, diplomacy, psychologically and mentally is a gigantic step at least from the Syrian side which should be emphasized to promote a change in course of conflict. Commentators, observers should use this visit to promote peace agenda and even opposition figures should used it to promote negotiations principals with enemy and dissents as a new tools to force an alternate way to solve conflict. In Syria, since 1948, any association with a Jew has been considered treason and it is part of the psychos of the government. Regime was and still using the no contact tool as one of their legitimacy for governing and protecting the country. It seems that time has change. Question to Joshua: How can the opposition use this visit to their advantage?