Posted on 03/07/2003 3:16:39 PM PST by MadIvan
A REPORT declassified yesterday by UN weapons inspectors gives a shocking account of the possible chemical and biological arsenal British and US forces could face in an invasion of Iraq.
The 167-page paper, obtained by The Times, suggests that Iraq has huge remaining stockpiles of anthrax, may be developing new long-range missiles, and could still possess chemical and biological R-400 aerial bombs and Scud missiles, and even smallpox.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council foreign ministers that the document was a chilling read. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, read passages from the paper out loud in the council chamber.
He said that it chronicled nearly 30 occasions when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims.
The decision by Hans Blix, the chief inspector, to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraqs banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. The report provides a particularly disturbing account of Iraqs suspected stockpiles of anthrax and other germ warfare agents.
It said that the UN monitoring commission had credible information that the total quantity of BW (biological warfare) agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax.
It says that there is credible information indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed. It seems improbably that the bulk agent that had been deployed out in the field would have been returned to Al Hakam for destruction in July 1991, it said, making it highly probable that it had not been destroyed.
The report also concludes that the inspection commission could not discount the possibility that some chemical warfare and BW-filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq.
Iraq claimed in 1992 to have 1,200 R-400 bombs, but three years later raised that to 1,550. Furthermore, the so-called Air Force Document given to inspectors last November reveals a discrepancy of about 6,500 R-400 and other types of non-conventional bombs. The report says: It has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs.
The paper, a collection of 29 clusters of questions for Iraq, offers some reassurance about Iraqs missing botulinum toxin, a deadly germ agent, saying that any stockpiles, whether in bulk storage or in weapons that remained in 1991, would not be active today.
But there is cause for concern about other bio-weapons, including smallpox. While no substantial evidence was found that agents other than those disclosed by Iraq had been part of the BW programme, there were some indications suggesting an interest in other agents. One of these concerns has been addressed in the virus research assessment, namely smallpox, it says.
The report says that Iraq had failed to account for its stocks of precursor chemicals for VX nerve agent. Nor had it explained its indigenous Scud/Al Hussein production and 50 Scud-B warheads, which suggested that they may have been retained for a proscribed missile force.Iraq might still be secretly developing new missiles that fly beyond the UN-permitted range, it said.
Although we can also potentially spin it as sweet reasonableness and long-sufferingness, just as we successfuly did last September. Again, most people (outside of FR) aren't foaming at the mouth to attack Iraq this minute, and, given that we still haven't pointed the finger at Saddam for 9/11, the matter doesn't appear that urgent to most people. Again, as the whole thing creeps towards April, the "blazing heat of the Iraqi summer" provides an increasingly convenient excuse for saying, "well, let's just table this for now." So, yeah, I think it could easily go that way. I really think only Team Bush understands the Grand Strategy. The only thing I'm really confident of is that we aren't about to attack Iraq. That one's a no-brainer, just based on consideration of the weaponry at the disposal of our adversary and our level of preparedness to counter it.
Good conversation. Now, I'm going to call it a night.
And you're right, it's getting late -- good night.
It has been on Fox News and it has been in the Wall Street Journal. Likewise parts for French Gazelle attack Helicopters and Mirage F1's seem to have made it to Iraq per Fox News. As to why Peter, Dan and Tom have not mentioned it, I can only speculate that it is information that shows those who hate America in a bad light.
How could the headlines speak of cooperation from Iraq? The UN has become an instrument for proliferation of Socialist political bureaucratic horse trading.
Why would we allow Britain to tack on a deadline that makes an already unpopular resolution even more unpalatable -- unless we wanted it to fail?
Why do people like Laurie Mylroie, Woolsey and others present such a credible argument for Iraqi backing (or control) of al Quaeda, while the administration frets that it doesn't have "evidence," even when the evidence already out there would bolster its case for war?
Why did we totally drop the ball on the Turkish vote, when I believe one call from Rumsfeld to the head of the Turkish military -- which rendered a "no decision" before the parliamentary vote -- would have sealed a positive outcome? I read that the pro-Islamist party voted 3 to 1 in favor of the resolution; how odd.
Why are the Dems and Dem hacks who are totally opposed to war -- judging from comments by Ellen Ratner (ugh) this AM on FNC, and another hack last night -- now beginning to say that we must get this over with "for the sake of our troops?" and that we are now putting our troops in harm's way by making them wait? Are they perhaps correctly guessing that we are not going into Iraq right now, and that advocating war is now a safe gamble?
Your theory covers all of the above. If you are not correct, then the only alternative scenario is that Bush and his advisors are blithering idiots, and I'm not ready to believe that.
We face a serious danger, and the stakes couldn't be higher in your "chess game" scenario.
Of course. We have to pay the troops anyway. The extra cost for gas, etc. is peanuts to the US, and can only be properly evaluated in light of the full context of the situation and the alternatives available to us. This is a hostage situation. We are the hostages. The sheriff has stationed all his cruisers around the hostage taker's hideout, but all the squad cars and snipers and SWAT teams in the world aren't going to resolve the crisis by themselves. That doesn't mean they are going to go away, of course. They'll be there for the duration.
Thanks for the ping.
An utter defeat of Iraq, with its biological weapons threat, is the best way of neutralizing the risk from North Korea, Iran, etc.
The reason there is a risk at all is that the world thinks that the U.S. is a paper tiger, that we do not have the political will to respond appropriately to threats of weapons of mass destruction until it is too late.
The only way to deal with this issue is to prove that we do have the requisite political will, via action.
Would you propose proving this via a war with a nuclear power? I submit that Iraq is a far safer choice, and just as effective (in fact, more effective, because there's less that can go wrong).
Everything is on hold until the US takes care of Iraq.
Waiting a year or two
until the US has adequate safeguards
against an attack on its own territory
(if that ever would be possible, which I doubt)
would have disastrous results.
I do not believe that that is what we are waiting for. Civil defense is a nice plus, and I guess it's part of it, but it's not really the point.
Right now, public support for the war within the U.S. is insufficient for the level of action that is needed. All one can say right now is that the public is willing to go along with war as long as the fortunes of war don't turn against us at all. But it would be considered Bush's war.
The U.S. government is waiting for tension and fear to escalate to the point where the American public demands war.
Keep in mind that the purpose of the war is not merely the defeat of Iraq; it is to put all other states on notice as to what kind of response they can expect from us if they so much as think of threatening the U.S. with WMD.
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.