Saddam's WMD Have Been Found

Insight Magazine ^ | 26 April 2004 | Kenneth R. Timmerman

[Turbo Pig]

Have you considered that we may not be announcing the finding of WMDs because we haven't found them ALL. At least some are likely to be in the hands of the "Insurgents." Not making the announcement deters the bad guys from using them against us and the Iraqi population in general. If we "find" WMDs, they can use them.

Sounds good on the surface. I can't agree with it, though. Simple reason being that the "insurgents" have no problems using women and children as human sheilds. They have no problem with blowing themselves up and killing innocent Iraqis. Finally, it was stated a long time ago, by the Al Queda crew, that they wanted to get WMDs. I think that if they had them, they would have used them by now.

[spaceman spiff]

I am not talking strictly Al Quada. The Iraqi "insurgents" just want us out of Iraq so they can take over. Using WMD would prove Saddam had them and that we are justified in staying. If they just wanted to kill innocents, chemical weapons are ideal.

[Turbo Pig]

I know you didn't mean soley Al Queda. I just think human sheilds and homicide bombings are the fashionalbe things to do amongst ALL the hip "insurgents" in Iraq this seaon.

[Milligan]

I quess Bush is a good poker player.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Turbo, I hear what you're saying. All the factors you cite are in play.

I think it's important to keep in mind though that not all "insurgents" are created equal. At risk of oversimplifying, we know about at least 3 main factions: Baathist Creep Heavies (BCHs), Shiite Hateful Theocrats (SHTs), and Foreign Al Qaeda Instigator-Ringleaders (FAQIRs). (There's probably also a good number of just run-of-the-mill street-running thugs/losers, who may migrate amongst the 3 and do some looting along the way etc, but they're not worth mention.)

What spiff's theory is suggesting, I think, is that, from the point of view of our military strategists, publicizing and officially declaring "WMD Found!", even if they *have been*, may backfire in that it removes a potential disincentive for certain of the "insurgents" who may (for all we know) have some of the war-dislocated "WMD", to use them. Since we can't (according to this theory) assume that this faction doesn't have them, we're going to keep the deterrent in place by holding the "WMD" question at Not Found status for now.

Two factors need to be present for this theory to hold water:

1. One or more of the "insurgent" factions must actually have some war-dislocated "WMD", or more to the point, there must be a good reason to suspect/fear that this is the case.

2. That faction or factions which (we believe) might *have* those "WMD", must *currently* believe that "because it would prove the US was right to invade, and grant more political legitimacy to the occupation, making it harder to force them out" is a sufficient disincentive not to use them. In other words, they must be deter-able, by this kind of geopolitical motive.

I do agree with you that that rules out "Al Qaeda". What you're saying, I think, is that *some* of the "insurgents" have so far displayed no compunction of any sort about killing anybody for any reason, and have shown no signs that such considerations as politics (which is what the "WMD" issue is now about) would deter them. That is correct, but it seems to be correctly mostly of the FAQIR faction, since (according to reports) they seem to be behind all the actual *terrorism*, i.e. killing Iraqis in a market trying for no real reason other than to foment "instability" and possibly to instigate a Sunni-Shiite civil war, according to the strategy laid out by Zarqawi in his memo.

But the faction that seems to be assembled around the BCHs and based in Fallujah - which is the faction you'd actually expect to have inherited some of the WMDs from Saddam's regime - has also committed what is technically terrorism, but (if I understand events correctly) it is usually against us Occupiers, and/or those who "collaborate" with us by e.g. lining up to apply for a job with the new Iraqi police force. It is less clear that this faction is just interested in killing innocents, fomenting "instability", etc. More likely that what they want is their Power back. And (it's not much of a leap to think) whatever leaders they have probably perceive reasonably accurately the political ramifications of the "WMD" question.

In other words: since they want the Americans out and their cushy lifestyle and Power back, they ARE subject to deterrence (according to this theory). Proving the US's "WMD" line and validating Bush/Cheney would go against what they are trying to accomplish, which is not primarily to kill lots of people, but to get power back.

Again, it's true that the FAQIRs are just there to (according to their typical brilliant strategizing) cause death, death, and more death till the Crusaders leave. But one (hopefully) wouldn't expect them, or their friends the SHTs, to have gotten their hands on the "WMD" in the first place (the foiled Jordan attack notwithstanding; of course, presumably those CWs were funneled to AQ from Syria).

One would expect Saddam's old "WMD", if there really were any, to have fallen into the hands of his trusted deputies and underlings upon his fall - and thus to be controlled by someone of the "BCH" faction. The Baathists want the Americans out every bit as much as the FAQIRs do, of course, but they certainly know that's not going to happen if Bush gets handed "Saddam had WMD after all!" on a silver platter. (Meanwhile the FAQIRs wouldn't care much, because they're just there to kill people until Iraq is integrated into the Caliphate one way or another....)

At any rate, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for the American powers that be to *assume* all of this. (That 1. some of the "WMDs" fell into the hands of some "insurgent" faction and 2. that faction is currently deterred from using them for the political reason that they'd hate to prove the US was Right To Invade.) Which would be, therefore, a plausible motive for the Americans to intentionally disavow and back away from any and all definitive "WMD Found!" announcements.

Of course, as it stands it's still only a theory, I'm not here saying I think it's definitely true. But it *is* something I'd never considered before and I don't think it can be easily dismissed - and as of now it does seem to fit all the facts as we know them (or at least as *I* know them, from my shallow analysis and sporadic reading on the subject :). Obviously, the jury's still out and we may not really get these matters cleared up in any satisfactory way for many years, if ever. But I do welcome and appreciate little flashes of insight such as spiff's, which may make these issues at least a bit more understandable.

[Lady In Blue]

bump for later read.

[Milligan]

But they did not have enough translators to go through all the documents and then the scientist....

[Milligan]

I know I haven't cleaned out my frig for awhile and I have many moldy things, but how many people have strains of bottled botulism, brucella, congo-crimean hemorrhagie fever lurking in their frig? Starter kits for disaster? Just start off with a tablespoon.

[clyde260]

Mark for later

[RetiredArmy]

And Wolf said, and Peter said, and Dan Blather said, and Aaron said, and Diane Sawyer said, and Opra said, and Algore said, and JFK said, and and and and and, oh it is such a mess!

[PattonReincarnated]

It would be criminally negligent to let the 'where are the WMDs?' line go unanswered for a *year*.

The situation seems to be that WMDs are addressed all the time, but the media doesn't seem to care to make this a major story. I can think of a number of reasons why the Bush administration has not pushed the issue, however they have provided as much information as possible all along. So they are not criminally negligent in their disclosure. Apparently there is much more investigation require - perhaps ties to the oil-for-food program, a Syrian connection, etc. There are a lot of loose ends. Plus, and I hate to say this, we may not be equipped to handle the situation if the WMDs when to Syria or Iran. The latter I would consider potentially negligent if anything comes of the WMDs or we do not ultimately resolve the problem.

[TXFireman]

ping

[spaceman spiff]

Thank you for fleshing out my thoughts. That is exactly what I had in mind. Actually since my boy got back from there I have had a bit more info that what is publicly known. However, it is mostly from what he doesn't say or won't talk about.

The best data to date is that Bush won't say they have not been found, only that we may yet find them. He won't lie but he will certainly NOT risk soldiers or innocents to make a political point.

[narses]

War JUSTIFIED. Will the press report this?

[nopardons]

bttt

[Wolfstar]

I firmly believe that if the "Oil for Food" scandal is investigated to its complete conclusion, it will reveal that the UN weapons inspections were also compromised by payoffs.

I have no doubt about this whatsoever. The answer to what happened to the WMD is inextricably tied to the oil-for-food scam. At least one of three things happened (if not a combination):

• Hussein moved his WMD out of the country while Annan, Chirac, Putin and Shroeder helped him stall for time.
• Hussen had the WMD buried in backyards, remoted desert areas and/or equally remote mountainous regions while Annan, Chirac, Putin and Shroeder helped him stall for time.
• The weapons had actually been found and destroyed by the UN in the mid-1990's, but Hussein, Annan, Chirac, Putin, and corrupt UN weapons inspectors colluded to keep the fiction going that Iraq still had WMD. Reason: All corrupted parties found it lucrative to maintain the fiction because it kept the oil-for-food scam going.

If the latter is true — and I suspect it may be — it is by far the worst of the three scenarios. If true, they knowingly allowed the Iraqi people to suffer, starve, and be bombed almost daily in the no-fly zones — and they knowingly fed false intelligence to the U.S., Great Britain and others in order to keep up the oil-for-food rationale.

This third scenario fully explains the apparant desperation on the part of Annan, Chirac, and Putin to try to prevent our invasion, and it explains why Hussein seemed to entirely misread the resolve of Bush and Blair. It also explains how someone like Scott Ritter could vehemently insist that Iraq had WMD one day, then turn on a dime and insist they didn't — too late for anyone to believe him.

[narses]

bttta

[Wolfstar]

Nevertheless, it leaves me wondering: why the heck isn't the Bush admin out there making this point?

Good question. Of course, we can only speculate as to the answer. My take is that there already is an awful lot on the administration's plate. Right now, the UN is a useful tool for legitimizing the new Iraqi government and upcoming elections. I think the President is trying to focus on the sovereignty hand-over in Juse, and is trying to keep a lid on the whole mess until after our own election. If my speculation is accurate, I don't agree with this approach. Better to let the whole putrid mess blow sky high.

[Helms]

If the latter is true — and I suspect it may be — it is by far the worst of the three scenarios. If true, they knowingly allowed the Iraqi people to suffer, starve, and be bombed almost daily in the no-fly zones — and they knowingly fed false intelligence to the U.S., Great Britain and others in order to keep up the oil-for-food rationale. This third scenario fully explains the apparent desperation on the part of Annan, Chirac, and Putin to try to prevent our invasion, and it explains why Hussein seemed to entirely misread the resolve of Bush and Blair.

I believe there will be WMD's found as if that were the only rational to go to war with a totally rougue regime.

This is great stuff and explains Hans Blix and his book tour and mouthing off, but very similar to the Dick Clarke phenomenon.

[My2Cents]

WS, this is an excellent rundown of possibilities. Frankly, this is the most plausible explanation I've yet read about what happened to the WMDs and why. It makes perfect sense -- the UN dragging its feet, the almost insane resistence of France and Germany to our move toward war, Scott Ritter's hysteria, the "here-one-day/gone-the-next" nature of the WMDs themselves. It all fits your scenario.

It would be delicious to be able to finally conclude that Saddam's WMDs were a ploy in the Oil-for-Food scam, as it would humiliate the European apologists of Saddam (and probably bring down Schroeder's and Chirac's governments), and it could mean the end of the UN.