Iraq War Reports 'No Suprise'

Iraq's reported preparations for a chemical war would fit with Saddam Hussein's efforts to hide weapons of mass destruction, Downing Street has said. Iraqi documents obtained by BBC Radio 4's Today programme suggest Baghdad is equipping key military units with protection against chemical weapons.

Tony Blair's official spokesman said he could not confirm the reports, but the findings would be no surprise.

There are growing signs of increasing opposition within the United Nations Security Council to possible war - but Number 10 is urging people "not to jump to conclusions".

The spokesman was asked whether the prime minister was less confident of getting a second UN resolution backing military action.

He said everybody should wait to see what happened when the UN weapons inspectors reported on Monday.

The reports that Iraq could be preparing to use chemical weapons if it comes under attack stem from papers smuggled out by Iraqi opposition figures.

Mr Blair's spokesman said: "What is emerging is a clear pattern which suggests not only that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction but that he is also continuing to try and conceal it.

"Therefore, he is not complying with UN resolution 1441 because he is not proactively engaging with the weapons inspectors to reveal what weapons of mass destruction he has he has and help them disarm them."

But anti-war Labour MP Tam Dalyell warned that the documents could be propaganda.

Or Iraq might be trying to protect its troops against a chemical attack, he argued.

Mr Dalyell said the surest way of ensuring any chemical weapons were used was by attacking Iraq.

"What it does indicate is that fighting in the streets of Baghdad might be a very messy business and then the temptation might be for the Americans to flatten the city."

A group of 100 UK peace protesters were preparing on Friday to travel by bus to Iraq, drumming up anti-war support on route.

The group says it is prepared to act as a "human shield" should war start when it is in Iraq.

Suggestions of chemical warfare will stoke fears for British troops heading towards the Gulf.

On Friday, a defence minister rejected claims that troops had been asked to sign disclaimers over vaccines being offered to the military.

Anna Vizor, of St Edmunds, Suffolk, said her husband, who is in the RAF, had rejected offers of various jabs, including anthrax.

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, Ms Vizor said: "He was told if he wanted to have these jabs, he had to sign a disclaimer saying that if he was ill in the future, he couldn't claim any compensation."

The claims will add to those concerned the vaccines have caused so-called Gulf War Syndrome in troops.

But Defence Minister Lewis Moonie told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "They are not being asked to sign waivers. Categorically not. It is the exact opposite."

Dr Moonie continued: "When somebody refuses a vaccination - not when they take it - a record is kept, signed by the doctor and the person, saying that they understand that they have been offered the vaccination and have refused it.

"We have very good public health reasons for wanting our people to take all the vaccinations, not just anthrax.

Earlier, former Tory leadership contender Kenneth Clarke said he was "not persuaded" about the case for war with Iraq.

Mr Clarke said he was worried Washington had taken the decision to go to war months ago.

The comments came as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw returned from talks in Washington about the crisis, saying war could be avoided if Iraq proved it did not have weapons of mass destruction.

However, Mr Clarke, told BBC One's Question Time "Hundreds of thousands of people" were being put in position for a war and it was not likely they would just be brought back.

Despite his scepticism, the former chancellor said he was "open to persuasion" about the case for military action.

British troops lining up for anthrax jabs

12:55 24 January 03
NewScientist.com news service
Debora McKenzie

British troops on their way to the Gulf are rolling up their sleeves for the controversial anthrax vaccine.

With the likelihood of a war with Iraq rising, the number of infantry soldiers opting for the voluntary vaccination has nearly doubled in the past few weeks, according to the UK's Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Only about half of infantry troops opted for the anthrax vaccine when the programme was revived in May 2002. But in the past few weeks those numbers have climbed to 80 or 90 per cent, says the MoD. Royal Navy sailors, in contrast, consider themselves safe offshore - uptake has remained at about 15 per cent.

Military analysts have warned that in a war Iraq is likely to use its chemical and biological weapons. The possibility of attacks against ships in the Gulf gained some support on Friday, after the BBC reported receiving Iraqi military documents detailing naval attacks.

The BBC says the documents were smuggled out of Iraq by opposition activists. They reportedly also refer to chemical warfare suits to protect Iraqi soldiers and distribution of the drug atropine to counter the effects of nerve gas.

Gulf War Syndrome

The acceleration of the MoD's programme of anthrax and other vaccinations has led veterans' associations to warn that many soldiers could suffer adverse effects in the long term. The associations point to the thousands of soldiers who developed a range of illnesses that has come to be called Gulf War Syndrome, after the last Gulf conflict in 1991.

Then British and US troops received a cocktail of vaccines against Iraq's suspected biological weapons, such as bubonic plague and anthrax. Ever since, some have blamed the vaccines for a range of ailments from muscle aches and depression to severe auto-immune disorders.

British Gulf veterans reporting illnesses are significantly more likely than healthy veterans to have had either the bioweapons vaccines, or a cocktail of seven or more conventional vaccines, according to a 1999 study by the Gulf War Illness Research Unit in London, UK.

Another study at the University of Manchester in 2001 found that the more inoculations soldiers received, the more severe symptoms they reported.

10-day window

But the British and US authorities insist there is no evidence of a specific syndrome related to service in the Gulf. The MoD insists the anthrax vaccine is safe, and that "there is no evidence that giving other vaccines alongside anthrax causes more adverse reactions than giving them separately".

Yet ever since the mid-1990s its policy has been not to give live vaccines or gamma globulins - antibodies that confer passive immunity - in the five days before or after giving anthrax vaccine. In practice, no other vaccines are given.

This is "just to give the benefit of the doubt to people who believe this causes difficulties", the MoD told New Scientist.

The 10-day "window" appears to be unique to the British military. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has ruled that it is safe to combine anthrax vaccine with any number of other inoculations. Unlike British soldiers, US soldiers are not given a choice - anthrax vaccination is mandatory, and several have faced court martial rather than take it.

Debora MacKenzie

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.