YEARS LATER, US MEDIA STILL CAN’T GET IRAQI WMD STORY RIGHT

The Intercept ^ | 04/2015 | Jon Schwarz

[SeekAndFind]

I personally think that this is the best explanation of the reasons why we went to war to depose Saddam Hussein

[angcat]

We should never have went to war and lost thousands of fine men and women. It was not necessary. Who was in charge of the war after 9/11 what General? A big failure. Who planned it. Troops killed by IED’s everyday.

[SeekAndFind]

I remember very clearly in 2003 though, the overwhelming sentiment in this FR forum was SUPPORTING the war to depose Saddam.

The overwhelming sentiment was that Saddam was conceiling his WMD’s.

[rjsimmon]

We should never have went to war and lost thousands of fine men and women. It was not necessary.

I disagree. The Iraqi people were living under a murderous regime. Our primary mistake in prosecuting the war was that we did not do so as conquerors. We tried to paint ourselves as liberators but did a horrible job at it. We further failed to recognize the importance of local tribal affiliations and chieftains. By the time we did this, the dye was caste.

[Leep]

When your job is to distort the facts and or outright lie..the web can get kind of tangled.

[angcat]

That was me but I regret all that now. I see the dead faces on the facebook thread everyday beautiful faces and I have changed my mind. What kind of strategy was planned for that war? Probably none we just send them over to get blown up and die.

[JonPreston]

Thank you for this. The war was, and continues to be a multi $$$ trillion dollar mistake, not to mention an unnecessary bloodbath. My heart goes out to our brave kids who fought and were killed and injured there. In the future let people free themselves from tyrannical governments, rather than the US poking it’s nose in where it doesn’t belong. Trump’s instincts are right about foreign military intervention.

[Manly Warrior]

Hans Blix is on record regarding the extent of the post 1991 IRQ WMD capability. That’s not classified. The myriads of mobile “insecticide” plants and thousands of tank trailers found by the coalition during the early months of OIF tell a different story- that part is not being discussed. I am not sure why everyone who thinks WMD is given to the idea that such weapons require military platform delivery systems ( rockets/artillery tubes). Why did IRQ under Saddam have hundreds of crop dusting equipped small aircraft? hmm, not like they have millions of hectares of wheat growing other than in the far northern area not really much of anything else ag related other than along the rivers.

AFA the 5k plus miscellaneous arty shells and other chem ordnance, If you dig a bit, you will find reports of warehouses filled , that is not something that goes unnoticed by the Saddam govt. Too much is classified and unfortunately, the narrative is there for some reason.

There are other players involved and in my opinion, the reason why there are no “WMD capability” in IRQ, even though the record of the UN inspection program up till 2002ish tells a different story. Shrug. ISG data and official reports are available in part.

Wonder why the 20mt of yellow cake gets no traction? What purpose does Uranium ore have in a country with no nuke generation plants? I don’t know, but it sorta speaks to me, just a little bit. Same with the centrifuges and precision tubing (sound familiar-IRN?).

Anyway. The world system trundles onward towards the great and terrible of the LORD. Amen.

[Manly Warrior]

We all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Trump is an islationist? why are we in Sudan/HOA? Why are we in SYR/IRQ/AFG etc? Hmm, not fitting that narrative very well, espc with his NOK and KSA and RUS and IRN and … stances.

All wars are the result of mistakes in diplomacy, but often diplomacy only is one sided. Perhaps we should have done more diplomacy, perhaps not. Regarding the “bloodbath” part, why s it that now the story line misses the fact that the world’s jihadis’ found it easier to attack armed troops in IRQ than in say, Los Angeles? Think about it, some 10k know and identified foreign fighters from all over the Muslim world came to IRQ to die, where we were rather free and able to help them meet their end. Glad they did and didn’t decide to come to the US and seek their revenge.

AQI was a threat, Saddam invited them to IRQ, they were involved in 9/11 etc.

To me, the horror was not OIF 03-14, but the abandonment of the fledgling Representative Republic by Obama and congress in 14-16. It took nearly 40 years post WWII to see Germany stable and safe, why only 6-8 for IRQ?

Don’t get too committed to Trumps “nonintervention” policy-one day someone may just decide to test his resolve regarding his forceful diplomacy. Sooner than later I think.

Trumps’ policy is speak loudly and carry a big stick. I like it, but it works only as long as the opponent has something to lose.

Overall, MAGA is the key- all the parts- economically, militarily and diplomatically. Be too strong in all the above for any other state actor to risk it all.

As one of those who was there multiple times, thanks for your condolences, but our hearts ( as a whole) were in it to win it. Blame Obama for the wasted part. ISIS is Obamas ME legacy, along with failed states like Libya and Sudan and SYR etc.

[D Rider]

The author forgot to touch on the all the bodies of the Indian scientists we found dead in the chemical facility. Sadam had them all gassed.

[siberianheat]

As one of those who was there multiple times, thanks for your condolences, but our hearts ( as a whole) were in it to win it. Blame Obama for the wasted part. ISIS is Obamas ME legacy, along with failed states like Libya and Sudan and SYR etc.

Thanks for being over there and explaining the necessity of it. If I were in charge I would have put a price on Saddam's head of one billion dollars, then upped it a hundred million per day until he was dead. When the new leader took over, we'd put one billion in escrow with the warning they'd have to do better than Saddam. I'd much prefer that than losing even one American life.

That said, my feelings on the fight over there is that it did draw the crazy foreign fighters into a bloodbath, so that is a huge positive. It is also hard for people to remember the national sentiment post 9/11. We went into Afghanistan and knocked over a few mud huts and took over the government with almost no effort, but the Taliban just faded away. It's wasn't very satisfying, if that is the proper way to explain it. In Iraq, we saw a legit government with actual infrastructure. The planners (on television) explained how it was going to be a "proper" war with divisions of armor sweeping over the desert and engaging with the vaunted Republican Guard forces of the Iraqi army. People of all political stripes wanted to take the fight to Saddam because there was a hint of him supporting the 9/11 attackers, and of course his WMD's. It was only after the invasion was a total success, but the peace became messy, that Democrats begged off and started dumping on our effort. Obama was the ultimate fruition of that losing mindset.

[JonPreston]

Trump is an islationist?

Show me where I said that and I'll take the time to read the rest of your post.

[NativeSon]

Buried components for gas centrifuges. Saddam had stashed plans, parts and scientists needed to make weapons grade nuclear material.

Didn't he use nerve agents on the ethnic Kurds in the north?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Didn’t he use nerve agents on the ethnic Kurds in the north?

Yes he did. At issue is were those nerve agents still active? Or dormant?

I think looking back, the questions are:

1) Did Bush LIE about WMD’s?

I think he sincerely believed there were WMD’s. His intent was not to lie, however, intelligence given to him ( CIA Chief George Tenant’s “Slam Dunk” ) was INACCURATE.

He could only act on the intelligence provided for him.

2) Were there WMD’s?

Of course there were. As per the article, they discovered them. However, most of them were old and dormant and it is uncertain whether they could be reactivated usefully.

Saddam could not account for them because there was not an orderly system of accounting for them.

3) Was it worth invading Iraq because of this?

To answer the question, we have to ask ourselves how many lives were lost in this war to depose a dictator who is admittedly evil but who at least maintained order among the warring factions in that sorry country.

Was it worth sacrificing these American lives ( including the thousands of civilian deaths ) to depose this dictator under the uncertain possibility that he might have been lying about his WMD’s only to discover later that they were not as potent as we thought they were?

I think the answer, now that we have the benefit of hindsight, is NO.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong though. So give me your best refutation. I’m all ears.

[Political Junkie Too]

I personally think that this is the best explanation of the reasons why we went to war to depose Saddam Hussein

I personally think (and I posted it at the time) that the reason we went to war was to follow the Bush Doctrine of "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

It wasn't just that Hussein was accused of having a WMD program. It was also that Hussein was giving safe passage to terrorists inside of Iraq; that there were terrorist training camps inside Iraq (some with airline fuselages to train in).

The stategery was to make Iraq "ground zero" for the war, and have it become a magnet for the al Qaeda forces to concentrate.

-PJ

[nonsporting]

We should never have went to war and lost thousands of fine men and women.

Really?

Junior High School English (7th grade) teaches the English verb system.

Today I go
Yesterday I went
I have gone many times

[NativeSon]

Over time, what I reviewed and the information made available showed that Saddam was in the market for and developing, weapons classed as "WMD's".

Iraq violated multiple U.N. sanctions and with that alone, was enough to invade.

Personally, I could not care less about the entire Middle East and would prefer to turn it all to glass rather than one American soldier risk their life.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Over time, what I reviewed and the information made available showed that Saddam was in the market for and developing, weapons classed as “WMD’s”.

The reason why we invaded, if I am not mistaken is because we suspected that Saddam HAD WMD’s and was not cooperating with inspectors in showing and dismantling them.

Whether he was developing them or not, I am not sure of. His ability to develop them is not in question, but did he have the materials to develop them when we were inspecting? Or will he have the materials to develop them if we stopped inspecting?

Let’s say the answer is “Yes”, would that have been sufficient reason to invade? I thought the reason was because he HAD them and is HIDING THEM.

Finally, even the White House admitted errors in intelligence.

See here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-admits-wmd-error/

[minnesota_bound]

Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction.
We should be bombing Iran for supplying IEDs.

[EarlyBird]

Uh, oh. Is this going to be like another Civil War thread on FR?

But we don’t have 150 years of historical analysis on this issue. All we have is what we’ve heard from the IC and the media - both of which we distrust.

So as you debate, it might be good to keep this in mind, and realize that all of the facts about this episode will not become public for a very long time.