Thread: 37% of Americans still believe Iraq had WMDs

I hate having Astralis knock-in the runs but that's what happens when you disappear for the bathroom in the middle of an at-bat.

No. I wasn't there for five hours either.

OTOH, a couple of points-

well said on the deterrance thingy, Astralis. There was more though. WMD and the past consequences were emblamatic of a larger problem which included irridentist ambitions extending to regional hegemony...and Saddam didn't work the edges.

There were multiple clear violations of the cease-fire agreements, any of which were sufficient justification to call for it's elimination.

There is the small matter of all those Iraqis who died at the hands of the Iraqi government by means other than chemicals.

Herodotus, I'll put my assumptions about what I once thought I read in Duelfer aside and go back for a re-visit. You may be right that the programs were already fractured and it deserves another look. You seem to think that's what it says, that's for sure.

I can't believe that it boiled down to Saddam drunkenly wandering the halls of his palaces late at night mumbling to the portraits on the walls...

Originally Posted by astralis

hero,



wtf? it is stretching it, to say the least, to call the halabja chemical attack "defensive in nature".

and it is nonsense to compare saddam's direct massacre of innocent civilians to sadrists, AQI, and other insurgent groups taking advantage of a lack of central authority to kill fellow iraqis. the level of responsibility is different.

The Kurds were in rebellion though and had allied with Iran during a war with Iran. Saddam's attacks may have been an overreaction, but he didn't start the fight. The seeds of that conflict stem to well before the Baathists were in power.

considering saddam's reactions in both the gulf war and the buildup to the iraq war, i think it's safe to say that saddam was amazingly stupid to the point where deterrence no longer worked. he did not know when to stop playing, and he had his bluff called not once but twice.

He didn't use chemical weapons in Gulf War I though did he? Per his quote in the Dulfuer Report when asked about this: (Paraphrasing) "Are you flipping crazy I wouldn't use chemical weapons against the US".

as for containable, the containment scheme was breaking down by 2002. the ironic thing here is that if the containment scheme were MORE strictly held, even more iraqis would have died via malnutrition and lack of medicine. that would have been a cost to count if one were to hold to the containment scheme.

That's a moral argument though. I was referring moreso to the US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc. I don't see Saddam being resurgent even with sanctions lifted. How good was his army in 2003?

"I was referring moreso to the US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc."

There are difficulties with projecting a permanent presence in these two nations. The cost in political capital is somewhat high and I don't really enjoy the high visibility.

We need to leave until it's time for their overt conquest.)

hero,

The Kurds were in rebellion though and had allied with Iran during a war with Iran. Saddam's attacks may have been an overreaction, but he didn't start the fight. The seeds of that conflict stem to well before the Baathists were in power.

regardless, use of WMD here was not "defensive", it was to slaughter as many kurds as gruesomely as possible to make a point. saddam's back was not against the wall, which is the decision point often implicitly or sometimes even explicitly stated by most nuclear/WMD-holding powers.

He didn't use chemical weapons in Gulf War I though did he? Per his quote in the Dulfuer Report when asked about this: (Paraphrasing) "Are you flipping crazy I wouldn't use chemical weapons against the US".

one exclamation vs his actual use of WMDs, his poor assessment of the geostrategic situation prior to the gulf war, and his obvious desire to create a Greater Iraq with a huge oil monopoly.

I was referring moreso to the US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc. I don't see Saddam being resurgent even with sanctions lifted. How good was his army in 2003?

that he was playing hide and seek with the IAEA demonstrates that he was trying to play up the possibility of him having WMDs as a deterrent, and was also interested in re-building once the IAEA stopped keeping a sharp eye on him. given the way the containment scheme was falling apart, i fail to see why saddam could NOT begin rebuilding, just as he rebuilt his armies following the bloody iran-iraq war.

Originally Posted by astralis

hero,



regardless, use of WMD here was not "defensive", it was to slaughter as many kurds as gruesomely as possible to make a point. saddam's back was not against the wall, which is the decision point often implicitly or sometimes even explicitly stated by most nuclear/WMD-holding powers.

So one instance out of his actual use of WMD is indicative of a pattern? He utilized most of his chemical weapons against Iran, Iranian troops, during the Iran-Iraq war and after he had already sued for peace (rejected by Khomeini).

one exclamation vs his actual use of WMDs, his poor assessment of the geostrategic situation prior to the gulf war, and his obvious desire to create a Greater Iraq with a huge oil monopoly.

I don't know that his "obvious desire" was to create a "Greater Iraq" in invading Kuwait. Iraq faced real economic crises, perpretrated in no small part by Kuwait. I agree that Saddam exhibited poor judgment in his decision, however I think the notion that he was planning on becoming the next "Saladin" as some have argued is overplayed.

that he was playing hide and seek with the IAEA demonstrates that he was trying to play up the possibility of him having WMDs as a deterrent, and was also interested in re-building once the IAEA stopped keeping a sharp eye on him. given the way the containment scheme was falling apart, i fail to see why saddam could NOT begin rebuilding, just as he rebuilt his armies following the bloody iran-iraq war

Hide and seek with the IAEA? Maybe you mean UNSCOM, or UNMOVIC, but the IAEA had the nucelar program pretty much locked down:

Where did Iraq's nuclear-weapons programme stand when inspections stopped in 1998?

The IAEA had removed all known weapon-grade nuclear material, i.e. highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Additionally, it had taken custody of all known remaining uranium compounds; destroyed all known dedicated facilities and associated equipment; and monitored all known "dual-use" equipment that could be associated with nuclear-weapons development.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/q&a.shtml

Nope Saddam in his declarations stated that he had unilaterally destroyed many chemical shells, those that were not used or destroyed in the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War I. The rest were destroyed by UNSCOM by 1995. The only outstanding issues were Saddam's bio program (also destroyed per Kamel's testimony) which he came clean with in 1995, and whether or not Saddam had told the truth about how many shells/chemicals he had unilateraly destroyed or were otherwise destroyed in the wars. Also whether he would re-constitute.

Iraq's declarations were clear we (the US, the West, etc.) just didn't want to believe them. I understand you are an FSO and so have to support US foreign policy decisions, and maybe you truly believe the war was a good thing and just, etc. But when it comes to Iraq's WMD as a justification for the war, there's just no smoke or fire there.

Originally Posted by S-2

"I was referring moreso to the US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc."

There are difficulties with projecting a permanent presence in these two nations. The cost in political capital is somewhat high and I don't really enjoy the high visibility.

We need to leave until it's time for their overt conquest.)

But hey an even larger presence in Iraq should solve that problem eh.

hero,

So one instance out of his actual use of WMD is indicative of a pattern? He utilized most of his chemical weapons against Iran, Iranian troops, during the Iran-Iraq war and after he had already sued for peace (rejected by Khomeini).

that doesn't help your argument any. it just goes further to show that saddam was quite willing to use WMDs, even on a tactical level.

I don't know that his "obvious desire" was to create a "Greater Iraq" in invading Kuwait. Iraq faced real economic crises, perpretrated in no small part by Kuwait. I agree that Saddam exhibited poor judgment in his decision, however I think the notion that he was planning on becoming the next "Saladin" as some have argued is overplayed.

i see...so why did saddam invade saudi arabia?

Hide and seek with the IAEA? Maybe you mean UNSCOM, or UNMOVIC, but the IAEA had the nucelar program pretty much locked down:
Quote:
Where did Iraq's nuclear-weapons programme stand when inspections stopped in 1998?

The IAEA had removed all known weapon-grade nuclear material, i.e. highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Additionally, it had taken custody of all known remaining uranium compounds; destroyed all known dedicated facilities and associated equipment; and monitored all known "dual-use" equipment that could be associated with nuclear-weapons development.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/q&a.shtml

Nope Saddam in his declarations stated that he had unilaterally destroyed many chemical shells, those that were not used or destroyed in the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War I. The rest were destroyed by UNSCOM by 1995. The only outstanding issues were Saddam's bio program (also destroyed per Kamel's testimony) which he came clean with in 1995, and whether or not Saddam had told the truth about how many shells/chemicals he had unilateraly destroyed or were otherwise destroyed in the wars. Also whether he would re-constitute.

Iraq's declarations were clear we (the US, the West, etc.) just didn't want to believe them.

okay, so why did saddam kick out inspectors, and why did he purposefully try to obfuscate the UN when they started demanding evidence of de-arming? furthermore, why did he tell his own military commanders that he would issue chems?

I understand you are an FSO and so have to support US foreign policy decisions, and maybe you truly believe the war was a good thing and just, etc. But when it comes to Iraq's WMD as a justification for the war, there's just no smoke or fire there.

i'm not a FSO. i'm what they used to call a FAS, now IAS.

in any case, i believe the war was a good thing, and just, with my one regret being that it was so costly.

the war was justified on multiple grounds, the belief in WMDs being one of them. saddam had many chances to come clean- he didn't want to.

Originally Posted by S-2

I hate having Astralis knock-in the runs but that's what happens when you disappear for the bathroom in the middle of an at-bat.

No. I wasn't there for five hours either.

Well that's good to know. I would worry about you if you stayed in the bathroom for five hours.

OTOH, a couple of points-

well said on the deterrance thingy, Astralis. There was more though. WMD and the past consequences were emblamatic of a larger problem which included irridentist ambitions extending to regional hegemony...and Saddam didn't work the edges.

No, I think that Saddam did not have ambitions for regional hegemony. In the first place his invasion of Iran was tempered. It was to resolve a long-standing border dispute and a preemptive move to stall the forthcoming Shiite revolution. After all Iraq has a large population of Shias, and revolutionary groups had been formed in Iraq that recieved direction, money and resources from Iran. The invasion of Iran was tentative at first, Saddam sued for peace soon afterward.

It was Khomeini who continued to press the attacks against Iran calling for Saddam's head on a silver platter. Saddam exhibited perhaps poor judgment but he also felt as if he had no choice but to invade Iran or be toppled from power. The US didn't seem to mind the Iran-Iraq war, supporting Iraq since it knew the dangers if Iran won. Imagine in 1982: A Shiite Iran, with Khomeini in charge, its puppet regime in Iraq also Shiite, Lebanon, also Shiite, the civil war rapidly coming to an end due to an influx of Iranian "volunteers", Asad's Syria throwing in with the Ayatollah...

Kuwait also was a long-standing border dispute, and not the first time Iraq had tried to invade. Saddam's invasion though was also borne out of desperation: economically. I would argue that the invasion was out of weakness and not of one attempting regional hegemony. Saddam had poor judgment no doubt, though perhaps a different selections of words by April Glaspie at the time US Ambassador to Iraq and the whole situation could have been averted; at least so goes the urban legend.

There were multiple clear violations of the cease-fire agreements, any of which were sufficient justification to call for it's elimination.

What cease-fire? The UN cease-fire? The last violation (material breach) was in June 1993: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31641.pdf There were only 7 total, and a long period of uninterrupted inspections: '93-'97.

There is the small matter of all those Iraqis who died at the hands of the Iraqi government by means other than chemicals.

You want to make that argument then turn around and say that the deaths of Iraqis at the hands of the post-Saddam government are no big deal: A civil war that needed to happen? Which at times I think you have been saying on this board. Moral arguments are very, very, sticky S-2.

Herodotus, I'll put my assumptions about what I once thought I read in Duelfer aside and go back for a re-visit. You may be right that the programs were already fractured and it deserves another look. You seem to think that's what it says, that's for sure.

All I know is what I have read in the Duelfer report: no written plans to re-start production, even though inspections had not occurred for 4 years.

I can't believe that it boiled down to Saddam drunkenly wandering the halls of his palaces late at night mumbling to the portraits on the walls...

He wasn't drunk, I don't think he drank, but the report does say he was isolated, alone, and we know that he wrote bad novels and poetry. The Quartet, Saddam's senior leadership, believed that Saddam's desire was to one day re-create his WMD deterrent, but when that day was no one could say. Saddam's musings about it were infrequent. But even then his main concern was Iran, and not Kuwait, or the US.

So I don't know how Saddam got to be a threat to the US, let alone Public Enemy no. 1 because of the possibility that some day in the future he may have re-established WWI technology with highly suspect delivery means. That's what this boils down to basically, nuclear and bio weapons aside; though Iraq never had provable stores of either. Also the possibility that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons with no one knowing about it was extremely remote. For bio weapons you still have the delivery problem. Anyway just my thoughts on the subject.

Originally Posted by astralis

hero,



that doesn't help your argument any. it just goes further to show that saddam was quite willing to use WMDs, even on a tactical level.

CIA reports have stated that Saddam would only use WMD if he felt the regime was threatened. Perhaps he felt threatened by butterflies and would use WMD on anything. Halabja could have been used as a demonstration to deter Kurdish rebels, still a defensive tactic. I could have argued as Pelletierre did that Halabja was an Iranian attack, but I didn't think it would hold water. The initial justification for the development and use of Iraqi chemical weapons was to stop the Iranian human wave attacks, i.e. defense: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/w.../3203/appb.pdf

i see...so why did saddam invade saudi arabia?

Yes he invaded with a few divisions (Divisions true but they were severly degraded) because he was planning on taking and holding a country one-fifth the land area of the US and the population of CA with those three divisions. Oh yeah he was also facing 600,000 troops and the air war had already started. It was a feint and nothing more. I've seen the whole "Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia" argument from the denizens of stratpage and other right-wing sites, not real impressed with it as an argument that this battle demonstrated Saddam's intent to dominate the region. https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1996/ari/titusj.pdf

okay, so why did saddam kick out inspectors, and why did he purposefully try to obfuscate the UN when they started demanding evidence of de-arming? furthermore, why did he tell his own military commanders that he would issue chems?

In my response to S-2 I've already linked to the Iraqi violations, and what the whole kerkuffle was about in '97-'98. Saddam didn't "kick them out", he asked that British and American inspectors be removed if they were going to inspect his palaces; his fear of assassination not unfounded. The US refused and asked UN inspectors to be removed so Iraq could be bombed.

There is also conflicting evidence on what Saddam said, or believed. On one hand as you say it is believed he told his commanders he would issue chems, though none of them ever had any as is obvious now. On the other hand he was also convinced that the CIA had infiltrated his intelligence services, and thus figured that the US knew he didn't have WMD. I don't know, Saddam was an engima, difficult to figure out, and there was certainly a break-down in communications of intent between the US and Iraq. Saddam misread the US and paid with his life.

i'm not a FSO. i'm what they used to call a FAS, now IAS.

in any case, i believe the war was a good thing, and just, with my one regret being that it was so costly.

the war was justified on multiple grounds, the belief in WMDs being one of them. saddam had many chances to come clean- he didn't want to.

I don't know what an FAS or IAS is, unless it is the Foreign Agricultural Service. Well anyway I didn't mean to disparage you by calling you an FSO. ) Also I don't mean to be obtuse, I agree that there were certainly other justifications for the war. It is just that WMD was the main justification, the one the American people were rallied around; the others being too complex or uninteresting for Americans to grasp. So if a policy-maker sets a policy they better make sure the evidence is there to back up their claims; otherwise their popularity will plummet. )