Posted on 06/09/2003 12:42:54 PM PDT by hchutch
The United States has discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know this because I read it on the front page of the very liberal New York Times. Of course, the Times was only trying to hurt the administration. In the rush to Baghdad during the war, our troops bypassed and failed to secure one of Saddam's key nuclear facilities. That facility was looted by local villagers, who ransacked vaults and warehouses looking for anything of value. Many of the villagers took home radioactive barrels, and are now suffering from radiation poisoning. According to the Times, the looted nuclear facility, "contained ample radioactive poisons that could be used to manufacture an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs."
So in the course of trying to embarrass the administration, the Times has inadvertently raised a very important point in the administration's defense. Saddam's nuclear-weapons program contained sufficient material to pose a serious threat to the United States. In the hands of terrorists, nuclear dirty bombs supplied by Saddam could have rendered landmarks and key sites in American cities uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
And why did Saddam have a nuclear facility in the first place? It was, of course, part of his effort to produce a nuclear bomb. In fact, the nuclear site reported on by the Times was connected to the facility bombed years before by the Israelis, who had become convinced that Saddam was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Thank goodness the Israelis acted. Thank goodness we did too.
Now it's true that this was a site that the inspectors knew about. That, however, might not have prevented Saddam from transferring the small amount of nuclear material necessary for a dirty bomb to terrorists. And the Iraqis may well have been carrying out other critical tasks in pursuit of a nuclear bomb at secret facilities. And there was always the danger that, in the absence of regime change, the Europeans would have tired of sanctions and inspections — as they'd done before — and let Saddam complete his nuclear work. The Europeans' renewed interest in sanctions was only prompted by America's preparations to invade, and we could not have kept our troops at the ready forever.
Another serious danger was the possibility that, at a propitious moment some time down the road, Saddam might simply have kicked the inspectors out. After all, that's what the North Koreans did. They waited till we were tied down by our struggle with Iraq, booted the inspectors out, and powered up their nuclear program. Had we failed to invade, Saddam could have waited until a weaker president was in power, and/or until the U.S. was tied down in a war (perhaps with Korea), and simply thrown the inspectors out. After all, he'd done it before.
Prior to the war, it was impossible to tell how close Saddam was to building a nuclear bomb. We hoped and believed that he was still at least a year or two away from success, although the possibility that he might be even closer than that had to be reckoned with. After all, our intelligence had once before proven wrong. We had underestimated the progress of Saddam's nuclear program, as we eventually learned from defectors. But even if Saddam was a couple of years away from a bomb, the need to invade was urgent. The point was precisely to stop Saddam before he got close enough to a bomb to exploit our uncertainty about his capacity and blackmail us. That, after all, is exactly what the North Koreans have been doing for some time.
All of this was publicly discussed before the war. Opponents of invasion emphasized that Saddam was probably at least a couple of years away from building a bomb. And they argued that conventional deterrence could in any case keep a nuclear-armed Saddam under control. Proponents of the war argued that Saddam might be closer to a bomb than we realized, and that, in any case, it was necessary to strike him quickly, when he was (we hoped) too far from a bomb to blackmail us.
Drawing on Kenneth Pollack's powerful case for invasion, proponents of the war argued that, once in possession of a bomb, Saddam could not be deterred in the way the Soviets once were. Opponents of war asked why we were not invading North Korea, which was so obviously close to having a bomb. Proponents of the war countered that we were invading Iraq to prevent it from becoming a North Korea — which was, by all accounts, far too close to having a bomb to safely invade.
In two pieces published in the run-up to the war, "Brave New World" and "Why Invade," I explained that the administration had not been able to fully and frankly emphasize the connection between Saddam's nuclear ambitions and the war. Both the president and the vice president did, of course, talk about the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam. But to emphasize that, and especially to spell out the danger scenarios outlined explicitly by Kenneth Pollack, would have been difficult and awkward. It would have harmed American power to note in too much detail just how vulnerable we were to nuclear blackmail. The same dynamic helps explain the administration's relative silence about the barrel over which the North Koreans now have us. We do our best to pretend that Kim Jong Il has not got us in as difficult a situation as he in fact does.
But, again, this dynamic was by no means a complete secret before the war. The administration did include the danger of nuclear blackmail from Iraq in its publicly stated reasons for the war. And pundits did argue about all this. In particular, the war's proponents made the point that, Saddam's being perhaps a year or two away from a nuclear weapon (if we were lucky) made this exactly the moment to strike.
So the failure of the administration to turn up any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq is, from my perspective, not the key point. As I said repeatedly at the time, we were going to war to prevent Saddam from eventually producing nuclear weapons. That fact was known and even announced by the administration, but for reasons inherent to the nuclear game, could not be fully emphasized and spelled out.
Did the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons? No one doubts that they did. Did they destroy or move them out of the country prior to the inspectors' arrival to prevent their discovery from justifying an invasion? Quite possibly. If so, in an effort to preserve the deterrent effect of our belief that he still possessed chemical and biological weapons, Saddam evidently decided not to give us evidence of their destruction. That was a very dangerous game to play — a game Saddam lost.
But the New York Times report on Iraq's pillaged nuclear facility reminds us that Saddam did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction — nuclear materials that could easily have supplied terrorists with "an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs." And that very real danger was only the promise of a full-fledged nuclear bomb a few years down the road. We are all in debt to President Bush for acting, while there was still time, to prevent that disastrous outcome.
Perhaps by people like the President? Note in his SOTU address he pointed out the atrocities going on in Iraq on the Iraqi people, however the only reason for war given was if Hussein did not disarm. Or do you doubt the President?
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.-- President Bush 1/28/03Note he does not say the Armed For will go to free the Iraqi people, nor does he say to establish a democracy in Iraq, nor does he say to occupy territory in the Middle East to be a 'stabilizing' force. What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem. Well not we necessarily, I know what I believe. But are you supposed to believe this statement from the President of these United States? Or the National Review?
LO f-ing L! Well, Dr, you missed the key word explaning the motivating factor. The complete and total delusion of the author. "Half" he says,
Half!That's hilarious, that made my day. Talk about misrepresenting the facts to suit an agenda; that word! These empty cans rattling the most, the Paleocon internet heros get 1, O-N-E so called Paleocon elected, and maybe I'll buy say... 0.5% of the GOP is "under the bus" whatever that means. Probably a common phrase used in the fantasy world billbears has contructed for himself.
P.S. hchutch, are you intentionally pinging these goofballs, or do they follow you around?
Except that the whole point of Stanley Kurtz's article was to attempt to use the existence of radioactive materials which could possibly be incorporated into a dirty bomb as legalistic evidence that Saddam did in fact possess WMDs.
If you want to argue that there were other valid and sufficient reasons to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, that's fine. Do it. But if you are being defensive about the lack (so far) of any smoking-gun evidence that Saddam possessed WMDs, this argument just ain't gonna fly. No one who isn't already convinced on other grounds that the Iraqi war was justified is going to be convinced by the fact that some radiactive materials were uncovered and that such materials could conceivably have been inserted in radiological bombs. That simply doesn't translate into a Weapon of Mass Destruction by any meaningful interpretation of that phrase.
Frankly, most biological and chemical weapons also make lousy weapons of mass destruction, as we saw with the anthrax-in-envelopes attacks. The anthrax killed several people because we were caught by surprise. For anthrax or some other pathogen to truly cause mass destruction would require an extremely virulent and weaponized version along with an effective delivery system. The same is true of chemical weapons. But at least the potential is there. Natural smallpox has killed millions of people in the past. Chemical weapons have been used in past wars and have killed thousands. There's a modicum of plausibility in including them under the rubric of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
The real WMDs remain explosive nuclear devices. A suitcase nuke going off near a crowded sports stadium could instantly kill tens of thousands. That kind of threat is worth seriously worrying about. Reliable intelligence that such weapons were in the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes would be an excellent argument for pre-emptive action.
Any amount found is not SUBSTANTIVE. There will always be a higher bar to hurdle, won't there?
Liar? I don't understand. This is serious stuff, and needs to be dealt with seriously. Not with 'Rat style finger pointing.
Who's right? What are the facts? These are the relevant questions. Did Saddam destroy his chem/bio weapons, allow them to degrade, hide them or transfer them, or some combination? Over what period of time? What about the nuclear program? What point was it at?
These questions will be answered. I'll remind you that the full inspections teams only arrived in Iraq last week.
Personally, I'm inclined to the view that Saddam decided on a strategy to hide and preserve his WMD programs when the run-up to Iraq began over a year ago. It might not have been intended, particulary, to involve the destruction, semi-permanent interning, or transfer of chem and bio weapons, but could have evolved in that direction as Saddam's lieutenants assessed the difficulties of hiding weapons and the risks of their being discovered.
This is purely a guess, and I'm perfectly willing to wait on the result of the investigations recently begun, but such a scenario is plausible so long as it is born in mind that the programs to produce the weapons are much more important than the weapons themselves.
The programs would be difficult, time-consuming and costly to reconstitute, but not so the weapons provided the programs have been preserved, or moth-balled in such a way that they could be rapidly restarted.
OK, suppose they did just that.
Just out of curiousity, how would you deal with the terrorist problem AFTER that? You'd have to have the government go on a hiring binge, get lots of people through security clearance requirements in record time, and get them familiar with their new jobs--and hope that the terrorists didn't take advantage of the chaos your idea would unleash...
The borders should have been sealed and every questionable character sent back to their home country.
Small problem--you just fired everyone in the INS and the Border Patrol, and a large chunk of the military as well. How do you seal the borders?
The FAA should have repealed their own law barring firearm possession on airplanes and let individual commercial lines set their own carry-on weapons policy.
And when a disciplined group of terrorists takes over another airplane with the guns your favorite airline would let them tote on board, and flies it into the Sears Tower...what would you do then?
BTW, if you say "Oh, but the people on the plane would pull out their guns, and shoot the terrorists," you're forgetting that firearms favor the few and the organized over the many and unorganized.
No I don't doubt the President. Saddam didn't "fully disarm", and we went to war.
He didn't "fully disarm" because - just as one example - Blix found a drone (banned by the UN resolution) which wasn't accounted for in Iraq's report (required by the UN resolution).
What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem.
Says who? Saddam didn't "disarm", and we went. What's the problem?
Apparently the only people that are becoming acceptable are those that are willing to follow the government blindly as long as they get a few dollars thrown their way with 'tax cuts'
Well but he and you are obviously using two different definitions of the term. His includes dirty nukes and yours doesn't. Why do you think this makes an interesting point?
No one who isn't already convinced on other grounds that the Iraqi war was justified is going to be convinced by the fact that some radiactive materials were uncovered and that such materials could conceivably have been inserted in radiological bombs.
I agree with that. 99% of people who aren't already convinced on other grounds that the Iraq war was justified probably never will be. I can live with that.
[dirty nuke] That simply doesn't translate into a Weapon of Mass Destruction by any meaningful interpretation of that phrase.
I disagree, but then again, I don't care. Call it a flibbertigibbit for all I care. It is what it is, and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. No?
Frankly, most biological and chemical weapons also make lousy weapons of mass destruction,
... another point I don't care about. Seriously, what's your point here, that it's ok to let all sortsa creeps have this stuff, therefore? If not that, then what?
A suitcase nuke going off near a crowded sports stadium could instantly kill tens of thousands. That kind of threat is worth seriously worrying about. Reliable intelligence that such weapons were in the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes would be an excellent argument for pre-emptive action.
no argument there
You're trying to argue with the same greate thinkers who said we shoulda had thirty thousand U.S. troops surrounding Tora Bora. (Never mind that this presupposed a build-up that couldn't of had them in place until months later.)
Bill was hoping the NK's would mistake Hillary for a meal?
dp, you may be joshing, but do you realize how much financial destruction a dirty would do if it went off in the US, or anywhere?
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.