Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About Those Iraqi WMDs
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | April 26, 2006 | Daniel Pipes

Posted on 04/26/2006 5:48:20 AM PDT by SJackson

 

The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq - “What about the WMD?” has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein’s persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction.

In a riveting book-length report issued by the Pentagon’s Joint Forces Command, Iraqi Perspectives Project, American researchers have produced the results of a systematic two-year study of the forces and motivations shaping Saddam Hussein and his regime. Well written, historically contexted, and replete with revealing details, it ranks with Kanan Makiya’s Republic of Fear as the masterly description of that regime. (For a condensed version, see the May-June issue of Foreign Affairs.)

It shows how, like Hitlerian Germany or Stalinist Russia, Saddamite Iraq was a place of unpredictably distorted reality. In particular, Saddam underwent a change in the mid-1990s, developing a delusional sense of his own military genius, indeed his infallibility. In this fantasy land, soldiers’ faith and bravura count far more than technology or matériel. Disdaining the U.S. military performance from Vietnam to Desert Storm, and from Somalia to the Balkans, the tyrant deemed Americans a cowardly and unworthy enemy.

Also about this same time, Saddam began insisting on only good news, further isolating himself from often harsh realities. As ever-fewer underlings dared contradict the boss’s perceptions, his determined self-deception wreaked havoc outward from the presidential palace to the entire Iraqi government and beyond. The lead author of Iraqi Perspectives Project, Kevin M. Woods, and his four co-authors note that, “By the mid-1990s, most of those near the regime inner circle recognized that everyone was lying to everyone else.” Deceits were reinforced and elaborated; in the words of an air defense officer, “One [officer] lied to another from the first lieutenant up, until it reached Saddam.”

That no one really knew what was going on was symbolized by the widespread credence in the wartime nonsense spouted by the Iraqi minister of information (mockingly dubbed Baghdad Bob by Western reporters) as he regaled the world with glowing accounts of Iraqi victories; “from the point of view of Iraq’s leaders, Baghdad Bob was largely reporting what they were hearing from the front.” A militia commander confessed to being “absolutely astonished” on encountering an American tank in Baghdad.

The same situation extended to the military-industrial infrastructure. First, the report states, for Saddam, “the mere issuing of a decree was sufficient to make the plan work.” Second, fearful for their lives, everyone involved provided glowing progress bulletins. In particular, “scientists always reported the next wonder weapon was right around the corner.” In such an environment, who knew the actual state of the WMD? Even for Saddam, “when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth.”

Iraq’s strategic dilemma further complicated matters. Realizing that perceptions of Iraqi weakness could invite attack, from Iran in particular, Saddam wanted the world to think he possessed WMD. But eventually he realized that to fend off the coalition, he needed to convince Western states that his regime no longer possessed those very weapons. As coalition forces geared up for war in late 2002, Saddam decided to cooperate with the United Nations to establish that his country was clean of WMD, as he put it, so as “not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war.”

This lucid moment, ironically, fell victim to his long history of deceiving the U.N.; Iraqi steps to comply with the inspections regime had the paradoxical effect of confirming Western doubts that the cooperation was a ruse. For example, intercepted orders “to remove all traces of previous WMD programs” were misinterpreted as yet another ploy, and not the genuine effort they really were.

Saddam's belated attempts at transparency backfired, leading to what the report authors call “a diplomatic and propaganda Catch-22.” Monumental confusion followed. Captured senior Iraqi officials continued for many months after the 2003 war “to believe it possible … that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere.” Coalition intelligence agencies, not surprisingly, missed the final and unexpected twist in a long-running drama. Neither those agencies nor Western politicians lied; Saddam was the evil impostor whose deceptions in the end confused and endangered everyone, including himself.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; prewardocs; saddam; waronterror; wmd; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2006 5:48:23 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

http://www.therant.us/daily_columns/in_serach_of_saddam_husseins_wmd.htm


2 posted on 04/26/2006 5:49:28 AM PDT by Andy from Beaverton (I only vote Republican to stop the Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The problem with this interpretation is that the Pentagon's declassified documents now have HUNDREDS of reports of "special weapons" handling; that HUNDREDS of people saw them, in one form or another; and that EVERY intelligence agency on the planet was "fooled" if this interpretation is right. I don't buy it. Lincoln said you can fool all the people some of the time . . . but not for 10 years.


3 posted on 04/26/2006 5:50:36 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

It is slightly counterintuitive to assume the premise of this article against the great lengths that the Iraqis went to to infiltrate the UN inspection teams to learn their agendas in advance. What was so important then?


4 posted on 04/26/2006 5:54:10 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Dogs are from Mars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Then why has the White House been saying for a couple of years now that their WMD intel was botched? Why do they apparantly believe there were no WMD after all? They went from saying there was WMD stockpiles, to saying there were WMD programs, to saying there were WMD capabilities, to working on getting the capability, and finally, to democracy democracy democracy blah blah, the intel was wrong. If the WH doesn't even believe it, why should I? That's what I don't get.


5 posted on 04/26/2006 5:58:06 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Saddam's belated attempts at transparency backfired

This all seems wrong-headed. Saddam wasn't trying to be transparent at all. He blocked all efforts to find out the truth.

6 posted on 04/26/2006 6:00:32 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

This sounds like the establishment,s 'Warren Report'. There has been a lot of effort to convince everyone that WMD's never existed. I believe that they did, however.


7 posted on 04/26/2006 6:01:45 AM PDT by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Well written, historically contexted, and replete with revealing details...

Unless the "revealing details" include all the data from the released and unreleased Iraqi memos, it's incomplete.

8 posted on 04/26/2006 6:01:49 AM PDT by MortMan (Trains stop at train stations. On my desk is a workstation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

As Robert Novak said last week..."President Bush is not a skilled politician."


9 posted on 04/26/2006 6:01:49 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

reference bump.


10 posted on 04/26/2006 6:06:55 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Too soon to remember??? How about TOO SOON TO FORGET!" from Mr. Silverback)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

"Then why has the White House been saying for a couple of years now that their WMD intel was botched? Why do they apparantly believe there were no WMD after all? They went from saying there was WMD stockpiles, to saying there were WMD programs, to saying there were WMD capabilities, to working on getting the capability, and finally, to democracy democracy democracy blah blah, the intel was wrong. If the WH doesn't even believe it, why should I? That's what I don't get."

Very simple answer. Be a RAT politician for a moment. If we found WMD you would run to the NY Times and say, "How do we know that we found them all? How do we know Al Queada also found WMD and are planning to move it through our porous borders and ports? George Bush allowed terrorists to have WMD and based on that he cannot protect us."

Ok, that's a stretch. However, if you were the President, would you want that on your head or, "There are no WMD in Iraq." Bush IMHO knows what the polls really say and isn't playing to public opinion like his predecessor. He is trying to protect us from terrorists.

Now we need to look at what Colin Powell did at the UN, the Duelfer reports and Intelligence from around the world. Did everyone lie? I don't think so. I think the Russians actually took the stuff out of there because that crap could very easily wind up in Chechens hands and it would be embarrassing to find out it was produced in Russia.


11 posted on 04/26/2006 6:08:12 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (To Serve Man......It's a cookbook!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LS
I tend to believe Richard Clarke knew more than he is telling.

www.9-11commission.gov
Page 128

The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.111
12 posted on 04/26/2006 6:10:24 AM PDT by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I think this is the only rational explanation for the (lack of) WMD in Iraq.

Saddam was part delusional, part still wanting everyone to think he was still a bad ass with WMD. He did this to keep his own people in check, he did it to keep Iran and the Kurds at bay, he did it so that the US military would think twice about invading.

But he didn't want to get caught with actual WMD by the weapon's inspectors because he ultimate aim was to (first to stay in power as all dictators do) but also get the UN sanctions lifted so that could rebuild his military and WMD.

The Iraqi generals were shocked when told at a meeting just before the start of the war, that there wasn't any WMD to throw back at the US.

So maybe Saddam didn't have any WMD. But then who would let a complete nutjob dictator with 100 billion barrels of oil under his control have WMD in the first place. Last time he had it, he used it. He would have used it again if given the chance.


13 posted on 04/26/2006 6:12:00 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The article is correct but incomplete. Iraq did certainly at one time have WMD's and used them. Iraq did have a nuclear program, etc. The same Sadaam who was giving delusional orders and being lied to later on was also causing some programs to be hidden. The clearest example that comes to mind is when one of Sadaam's sons gave a nuclear scientist materials to hide so the nuclear program could be resuscitated when the UN inspectors left.

I've read a lot of the report and two things are clear: That Sadaam was a real threat and that he respected only the use of overwhelming force. He considered all diplomatic and even military maneuvering short of all-out war, to be a sign of weakness. So much for the idea of using diplomacy and sanctions on these types.

14 posted on 04/26/2006 6:15:13 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I suspected this years ago. Saddam was sure he had WMDs and/or the capability to mass produce them in short order. And why not? His sons were told by scientists that they were there and ready. The scientists could have shown Uday a jar of flour and told him it was weapons grade anthrax. Mix in some cyanaide and let Uday test the anthrax on some political prisoner and tell his Daddy, "This stuff works great. We must not let the UN find it." The scientist puts the unused flour back in his pantry and uses it to bake a cake the next day.

If the scientist had said anything different, Uday would have had him beaten, imprisoned, hand removed and wife raped. Now apply this little antedote across the country.


15 posted on 04/26/2006 6:15:47 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (Not today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

tag for later


16 posted on 04/26/2006 6:16:13 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

ping


17 posted on 04/26/2006 6:18:58 AM PDT by SittinYonder (That's how I saw it, and see it still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

Assuming Saddam did not have WMD, the fact that Saddam's generals thought they did have them makes it preposterous to expect that our intelligence services could get behind that and determine the truth of the matter before hand.


18 posted on 04/26/2006 6:20:50 AM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; dennisw; monkeyshine; ...

Interesting!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

19 posted on 04/26/2006 6:23:17 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Saddam's weapons are in Syria. We have photos of large convoys moving from Iraq into Syria before we went in. You do the math.


20 posted on 04/26/2006 6:26:49 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson