January 9th, 2004

Filed under:
Politics
12 Comments »

Wrapping Up WMD

The Marines may turn over some rock in the Iraqi desert and find a chemical plant and a hundred surprised scientists in chem suits. That scenario, however, is growing increasingly unlikely.

It looks like there are no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. As this lengthy and informative Washington Post article puts it, ‘Iraq’s arsenal was only on paper’.

We all know that the Bush administration used the WMD as a principal argument for invasion. There were other major reasons–the war on terror, capturing Osama Bin Laden–but there’s no denying that WMD were critical to their effort. In particular, the Brits and other allies seemed to be enamoured of this anti-WMD approach.

From these facts, we can draw one of two conclusions about the American government:

1. They lied to their people and allies about the WMD.
2. They were mistaken about he WMD.

#1 isn’t all that shocking. Governments of all shapes and sizes lie, embellish, play-down and spin all the time. Not, perhaps, on such critical or life-imperiling issues, but everybody does it.

#2 is far more worrying. How did the most vaunted intelligence organization on the planet get things so dreadfully wrong? It’s no wonder they couldn’t prevent the September 11th bombings. With all of the expertise, technology and air superiority they had, with all of the eyes watching Iraq over the past decade, they weren’t even remotely accurate. They weren’t even in the same ballpark.

If I were an American citizen, that might keep me up at night.

Comments: 12 Responses so far

d
January 9th, 2004
11:07 am

I’m not an American citizen, and it still keeps me up at night.

[Reply]

Arcterex
January 9th, 2004
1:07 pm

I’d say both. I’d guess that there were signs pointing both directions that were looked at (the invoices for the WMDs that the US sold in the 90’s and 80’s were probably a pretty big clue :), but I’d say most of it was #1, simply because there was an axe that needed grinding and GWB found a way of convincing the world to let him grind it. Keeping the US citizens scared all the time helped as well I’m sure. I think “Dude Where’s my Country” has some good things to say on this subject as well :)

[Reply]

Debbye
January 10th, 2004
7:07 am

The grounds for believing Saddam has WMD were that he had used them and that the list of WMD he provided at the end of GWI contained WMD that remained unaccounted for on the eve of GWII.

A bigger concern might be that every intelligence agency in the world might have been fooled, including UN inspectors, but ours? Please. Any six-year can fool them.

You still don’t get Americans. The only people we distrust less than politicans are bureaucrats. We can’t boot them out of office because they are protected as civil servants, after all.

Maybe that is an attitude we share with Canadians?

If Saddam did run a convincing shell game, I’m willing to give him credit for it and admit that the President and I were fooled. Give credit where credit is due and all that.

But the truly funny part in all this is that Americans seem to be the only ones who don’t consider any of our intelligence agencies to be worth a damn — never have, never will.

The CIA had its website hacked into by a Swede and the name changed to Central Stupidity Agency, for heaven’s sake, and Americans throughout the political spectrum laughed long and hard because we agreed with that assessment.

There’s a long-running joke left over from pre-CIA days that “army intelligence” is an oxymoron, and it pretty much sums up our attitude toward all intelligence agencies — long on paperwork, short on actual intelligence.

How much do you trust CSIS and the RCMP?

[Reply]

Darren
January 10th, 2004
12:06 pm

“The grounds for believing Saddam has WMD were that he had used them and that the list of WMD he provided at the end of GWI contained WMD that remained unaccounted for on the eve of GWII.”

What about all that evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN (http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/)? There was a heck of a lot more than a list there, wasn’t there? He had tapes, satellite photography and a host of other intelligence information. Doesn’t this count as evidence?

If US citizens are highly skeptical of their intelligence services, why are many Americans so ready to support their leader’s decisions? After all, if it’s apparent that their President (not just Bush…any leader, really) is making judgements based on faulty or inaccurate information, why the lack of skepticism?

In short, I’m going to be extra-critical the next time the American government makes a major policy decision that results in thousands of deaths. Shouldn’t most Americans feel the same way?

As for your comparison to CSIS and the RCMP, I’m more apt to rely upon the CIA…they’re got a bigger budget. Fortunately, the Canadian government rarely chooses to invade other countries. As such, our intelligence community has less at stake.

[Reply]

Jay Currie
January 10th, 2004
5:24 pm

First, I am not at all convinced we have the final word on the WMDs. They may be out in the desert, they may be in Syria, they could be a lot of places.

Second, while I agree with Debbye re American intelligence, I am also inclined towards a precautionary principle when it comes to WMDs. The possibility that they were there and the silly bugger that the Iraqis played with the UN was sufficient to justify invasion - even if there had not been lots of other good reasons, which there were.

Third, I agree that everyone should be extra cautious when assessing the claims of any government seeking to invade another nation. This has been axiomatic since the first Belgian baby met its theoretical end on a Hun bayonet. But, I am also going to ask the question, will the proposed war advance the cause of human rights, the reduction of terrorist potential, and the overall cause of peace.

While I think Saddam likely had or was trying to build WMDs I have never thought that this should have been the only issue justifying the invasion of Iraq. Saddam’s regime was a homicidal thugocracy which terrorized its own population and the populations of its neighbours. It directly contributed to the homicide bombings which have done so much to derail efforts to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians. Who needs WMDs with reasons like that?

[Reply]

Rog
January 10th, 2004
6:49 pm

The real issue to me, is what the intent of the U.S. gov’t was in making WMDs a justification for invasion. The fact that they didn’t have matching evidence to their intelligence says a great deal and it matters little at this point even if they find WMDs per se.

They have to find more than just WMDs in the broad reaching categories. They have to find WMDs to match their claim.

But I’m sure they’ll collect enough situations like the recent find to appease the U.S. population, because every citizen that supported Bush in the invasion has a vested interest in feeling better about themselves over the whole thing. It’ll be a whitewash.

The update is that they’ve found “blister agents” on mortar shells, that are over a decade old. So have they found their WMDs? I don’t think so.

I think it’s a BIG mistake to lump chemical, biological & nuclear weapons into one category, because they are/were bound to find some leftover evidence from previous chemical weapons that were used in the late 80’s/early 90’s. Weapons that were not a recent threat and frankly were provided to them by the western world in the first place.

To find evidence that Saddam had a restricted weapons program, they would have to find materials that aren’t leftover from those past conflicts. Kind of like a statute of limitations, since Iraq has already spend a decade under western scrutiny for those particular weapons. I’m not saying they’re justified for having used them, but I am saying that some of the finger pointing is conveniently misdirected.

That’s not the stuff they were looking for and if/when they compare their intelligence notes and the notes of the U.N. weapons inspectors, I’m certain that will be obvious. Whether or not the public/media/etc. percieves it so is another matter.

[Reply]

Jay Currie
January 10th, 2004
7:23 pm

I agree with Rog re the blister gas but I think it suggests that there is a lot more looking to do before WMDs are to be ruled out entirely.

And I certainly agree that if the intent was to deceive then the US and British governments should be held accountable. However, if there was no intent to deceive and the intelligence was suggestive but not conclusive then, so what? Intelligence is rarely 100%. However, when the stakes are this high I would hope governments would act in a precautionary manner.

(I also agree that it is likely a mistake to put blister and mustard gas into the same category as nerve gas, biologicals and nukes. It is rather like saying a dirty bomb in Times Square is just a larger version of 9/11 which is just a larger verision of a homicide bombing attack. They are obviously different in kind rather than mere degree.)

[Reply]

Darren
January 10th, 2004
8:16 pm

Good points all around. If the evidence was suggestive and not conclusive, the Americans should have said that. That’s clearly not what they did. Both their actual quotes and their intent were emphatic, and they showed 100% confidence in their intelligence.

[Reply]

Mark
January 10th, 2004
9:05 pm

Darren,

There was a great article in the New Yorker that describes nicely how the American administration got its information on the WMDs. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

It’s called THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

- Mark

[Reply]

Carmen
January 12th, 2004
9:28 am

Though I agree with Jay, I feel there might be a third conclusion we haven’t considered. Could it be that we have found something but the government hasn’t released the information to the public? I pretty sure the American government has kept various information regarding Saddam and WMD from its citizens for reasons of national security. Everyone is basing their opinion on the information presented in the media. The only institution I mistrust more than the CIA is the media. There is so much information we don’t see that it’s impossible to make any type of informed opinion on Iraq and the supposed WMD. I believe we’ll see a lot more in the not-to-distant future about this, and our government may or may not come looking like they were right. Somebody once said, “…be patient and wait for the truth…” I think that’s the problem. We”re just to impatient. We as intelligent people (well, most of us anyway) want the information now so we can form our opinion, make our decision, and move on. It’s human nature. This thing isn’t over yet. It’ll be interesting to see what everyone has to say when and if they find the big underground checmical processing facility and storage area.
“C”

[Reply]

Darren
January 12th, 2004
9:43 am

An interesting scenario, Carmen, but an unlikely one. Given the pressure on the American government for WMD, I’m pretty certain they would release them if they found them. I mean, what’s the down-side?

There is a slight possibility that they’re holding onto some WMD because of an ongoing investigation, but it’s doubtful. I’m afraid the most likely current scenario is that they haven’t found any yet (excepting those 15-year-old mortar shells).

[Reply]

Todd
March 20th, 2004
7:32 am

> However, if there was no intent to deceive and the intelligence was suggestive but not conclusive then, so what?

So what? So 10,000+ people are dead over this. That’s so what. Christ.

[Reply]

Add a comment