Posted on 06/17/2003 7:18:03 AM PDT by dead
Iraq's WMD inventory was - and still is - alarming, and justified Australia's decision to enter the war, writes Alexander Downer.
The former intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie has accused the Government of peddling untruths about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. But his views do not reflect the views of the Office of National Assessments (ONA), where he worked on people smuggling issues - not on WMDs.
Of course, in making our case against the Iraqi regime, the Government relied not just on intelligence assessments. We placed a great deal of emphasis on the reports of the United Nations inspection teams and on Saddam Hussein's record of using these appalling weapons against his own people and his neighbours.
Iraq did have a case to answer on WMDs, as Wilkie has previously noted. For decades Iraq pursued a deliberate program in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Some of this capability was reduced through the Gulf War in 1991 and through the subsequent efforts by UN weapons inspectors.
But last year, after 12 years, Iraq had still not accounted fully for its WMD programs.
The inventory was alarming. It included, at least, up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical weapons agent, 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; growth media for biological agent production; 30,000 special munitions; 550 shells filled with mustard gas, 500 R-400 aerial bombs possibly filled with chemical or biological weapons, 15 biological weapons warheads, and 50 Al-Hussein warheads.
The Government drew heavily on this information in making its case. This information did not come from intelligence analysis. Rather, it came from assessments made in 1998 by the United Nations' own weapons inspection agency, UNSCOM.
This inventory says nothing about what Iraq did in the four years after 1998 when there were no inspections. Four years in which intelligence showed Iraq was continuing to work on WMDs - some of which has already been borne out.
Anyone who thinks this does not amount to much should place him/herself in the position of an Iraqi citizen or an Iraqi neighbour, against whom Saddam had previously used weapons like these, killing thousands of men, women and children.
Much has been made of the fact that an intelligence claim about Iraq's effort to acquire uranium from Africa proved to be erroneous. But few people seem to have noticed when the intelligence was correct.
Last September the British WMD dossier pointed to the fact that Iraq was producing missiles beyond range limits imposed by the UN.
That was validated in March by UNMOVIC, the UN's monitoring, verification and inspection commission when it declared that Iraq's Al-Samoud missiles to be proscribed.
A trailer found since the conflict has been assessed by US and British specialists to be a mobile biological weapons laboratory. This matches intelligence provided by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to the UN in December.
It would be a mistake to draw detailed conclusions about Iraq's WMD programs at this stage.
Iraq is a large country and the comprehensive search for WMDs is just beginning. This effort will take time.
The former Iraqi regime never co-operated completely with weapons inspectors. After a succession of Security Council resolutions Iraq was a given a final opportunity in UNSCR 1441. Saddam knew this but he still didn't co-operate.
It was this failure that formed the basis of the Government's decision to participate in military action.
If Saddam really had nothing to hide, it was illogical for him to thumb his nose at the will of the international community.
We are now more likely to get to the bottom of the WMD story. And we will be led there through comprehensive interviews of Iraqi scientists and engineers. This is why, apart from a few cursory interviews, Saddam never allowed inspectors to interview these scientists in a comprehensive way.
These people can now talk without obstruction from Saddam's regime. But to date only a small number of interviews have been completed.
Wilkie has also charged the Government with overstating the terrorist threat posed by Iraq. The Government never said Iraq and al-Qaeda were in close collusion. Our concerns about connections to al-Qaeda were related not just to their presence in northern Iraq, as he mentions in the article, but also the presence of elements in Baghdad.
We never said Iraq had passed WMDs to terrorists. We did say that Saddam supported terrorist groups and that terrorist groups had pursued and are still pursuing WMDs. This nexus between support for terrorism and pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons remains a critical area of concern for the international community.
The debate about the threat posed by al-Qaeda was settled unequivocally by events of September 11, 2001. As we argued before the Iraqi action, we could not afford for the debate about whether Iraq might pass WMDs to terrorists to be settled in the same way.
Alexander Downer is the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The debate about the threat posed by al-Qaeda was settled unequivocally by events of September 11, 2001. As we argued before the Iraqi action, we could not afford for the debate about whether Iraq might pass WMDs to terrorists to be settled in the same way.
Very well put.
If the Dems win back the White House, House or Senate then it will all have been worth it - no matter how much damage is done to our troops and/or country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.