Posted on 03/11/2003 2:52:00 PM PST by Wallaby
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
WASHINGTON
SADDAM'S WEAPONS
A U.S. attack on Iraq may well cause the very event it aims to avert: the use of weapons of mass destruction against Americans or U.S. allies, or the arming of terrorists with those weapons.
|
"Maybe he has stuff in the United States right now, ready to go. Who knows what his capabilities are?" |
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Friday that "it's a concern" that a war could spark Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction, but added: "Ultimately, the risks of waiting outweigh the risks of action."
The concern is that Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein could unleash chemical or biological weapons against U.S. troops, against neighboring Persian Gulf nations or Israel, against Iraqi civilians or even -- using terrorists -- on American soil.
"The probability of his use of weapons of mass destruction would go up significantly if his regime were threatened with extinction," said retired Army Gen. William L. Nash.
Saddam would likely use "all means at his disposal" to defend himself or, if he is doomed, to "go down in a blaze of glory," said Nash, now an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President George W. Bush said that given the danger that Saddam would use or share his weapons of mass destruction, he must disarm or be removed.
But Jim Lindsay, who directs the Brookings Institution's terrorism project, said that U.S. plans to topple Iraq's leaders produce "the situation in which they have the greatest incentive to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists."
"Are we ready for that possibility? The president never talked about the price tag, and whether it's acceptable. That's the part of the debate that's been left out," said Lindsay, a former National Security Council official.
In a letter to the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence in October, Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin wrote that Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short" of using chemical or biological terrorism against the United States. But, he said, "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."
In closed-door Senate testimony, a senior CIA official rated as "low" the odds of Saddam launching a chemical or biological attack against the United States in the near future, but as "pretty high" if the United States initiated an assault.
A high-ranking CIA official said late last week that this remains the agency's position.
Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that Saddam may "use or try to use whatever he's got," if attacked. But better to end Saddam's threat now before it increases, Talent said.
The White House official said the biggest long-term threat would be Iraq's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. And, the official said, the CIA analysis of Saddam's outlook may be true right now, but at any time he could "massively miscalculate," as he did by invading Kuwait in 1990.
DANGERS
The administration contends that Saddam has failed to account for large quantities of anthrax, sarin, VX and other chemical or biological agents.
The use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops would slow down military action while decontamination took place, but would be unlikely to cause mass casualties, because of training and equipment, said Jack Spencer, a military expert at the Heritage Foundation.
The biggest danger, he said, is that Saddam will use biological, chemical or perhaps radiological weapons against an "unprotected population" in Iraq or the United States.
"If he uses it against a civilian population, that would be extremely serious," Spencer said. "Maybe he has stuff in the United States right now, ready to go. Who knows what his capabilities are?"
Also, a vial of smallpox or other such agents could unintentionally get in the wrong hands in the chaos of war or its aftermath, analysts say. The very factors recited by the president - hidden weapons, mobile biological labs - make this possible, Lindsay said.
A nightmare scenario, he said, would be the smuggling into the United States of a small, easily hidden amount of a communicable biological agent that has been genetically altered so inoculations wouldn't combat it, causing "staggering death tolls."
The likelihood that Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, absent a U.S. attack on him, depends in part on his links with terrorists such as al-Qaida.
The White House has argued that such ties exist, while some analysts have been skeptical, noting the differing agendas of Saddam and al-Qaida. In an exchange with administration officials Thursday, Sen. Joe Biden, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Saddam and al-Qaida would more likely cooperate in a crisis - such as war.
WORTHWHILE RISK
Heritage's Spencer agrees a war would increase the chances in the short term that Saddam would use so-called weapons of mass destruction. But that prospect is precisely what makes U.S. action urgent, Spencer said.
Left to his own devices, Saddam will eventually employ his weapons to achieve his twin foreign policy objectives, destruction of Israel and domination of the region, Spencer said. "It's for that reason that we need to address the threat right now, to confront it head on - to minimize what might be a devastating future attack," Spencer said.
|
"The probability of his use of weapons of mass destruction would go up significantly if his regime were threatened with extinction," said retired Army Gen. William L. Nash. |
Lindsay suggests that containment might better prevent Saddam from using or sharing his weapons. When faced with a credible deterrence, such as during the Persian Gulf War, he has refrained from their use.
Lindsay said he understands why the administration hasn't discussed the risk of sparking the use of weapons of mass destruction as it tries to sell the public on the possible need for war with Iraq.
"What I hope is that the people in the White House don't believe their own sales job," he said, "and that they are just as attentive to the costs of acting as to the costs of not acting."
THE NEWS: Analysts, lawmakers and other officials say attacking Iraq could spur Saddam Hussein to use weapons of mass destruction.
THE ANALYSIS: Members of the Bush administration are pushing for action, saying the reward outweighs the risk. But some analysts say the risk has not gotten a proper public airing at all and should be discussed.
IRAQ'S WEAPONS
(Each separate category of weapons has a specific logo.)
Ballistic Missiles - Iraq has tested a missile that goes beyond theU.N-allowed 93-mile limit.
Biological weapons - Iraq has not accounted for at least 2.4 tons ofgrowth material, enough to produce 6,890 gallons of anthrax.
Chemical weapons - Iraq has not accounted for 1.5 tons of nerve agent VX.
Iraq has not provided credible evidence that it destroyed 550 mustardgas-filled artillery shells and 400 biological-capable aerial bombs.
Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors,nearly 30,000 empty shells and rockets that could be filled withchemical agents.
Nuclear Weapons - Iraq has repeatedly attempted to buy uranium from abroad.
The only articles anyone reads in the Post are the Bra ads for Dillards.
Of course I meant Iraq
For some reason, they don't improve their argument in that way.
Moreover, Saddam apparently believes that WMD have already saved his regime from overthrow by foreign forces. UNSCOM inspectors discovered that the Iraqis were convinced that WMD had saved the regime on two occasions: during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq used chemical warfare to turn back Khomeini's hordes; and in 1991, to deter a U.S. drive on Baghdad. "Whether the Iraqi leadership believes this was the only reason the United States did not go to Baghdad is unknown. However, clearly they are convinced that the possession of WMD contributed to keeping the Americans away and thus was vital to their survival."
I think this might explain bush's willingness to blink on the date for going in... and the "weeks not months" he has been using since last year, in september...
To quote the President in September of 2002 (link)--- THE PRESIDENT:"Well, there will be deadlines within the resolution. Our chief negotiator for the United States, our Secretary of State, understands that we must have deadlines. And we're talking days and weeks, not months and years. And that's essential for the security of the world. This man has had 11 years to comply. For 11 long years, he's ignored world opinion. And he's put the credibility of the United Nations on line. "
What has happened to weeks or days, not months and years?
This is clearly way past months and we are in the next year...
Clearly the president has backed down from this BIG TIME for some reason other than the resolution... perhaps TGS has some further insight to offer... but things are definitely NOT as bush indicated...
In other words... something is up...
For some reason, they don't improve their argument in that way.
Those who think Saddam does not have WMDs but soon will, would reject the first horn of that dilemma. Those who think he has WMDs, but think the costs will only escalate, should reject the second. Those who think he has WMDs but that the costs of attacking will soon go down for a little while after we have produced sufficient quantities of vaccine and detectors, should slip through the horns -- endorsing an attack, but not quite yet and not too much later.
The passage you quote by Pollock is indeed an interesting one. It looks to me from what you select that Pollack is alleging that Saddam credits his chemical weapons with deterring the drive to Baghdad. This is doubtful. He knew that his CWs did not deter the ground assault of Kuwait, after all. Of course we now know Saddam had BWs at the time, but did he then have assurance that we believed he had them? I haven't seen any conclusive reason to think he had this assurance, though he must have known that his firing of the Al-Hijarah missile with the capacity to protect biologicals provided a strong reason for us to believe he had BWs, and that was almost certainly his intention for firing the missile in the first place. So, I would agree that he probably believes it was his possession of WMDs (but BWs, not CWs) in '91 that saved him, and if he believes this, he is probably right.
Saddam will probably try to pull out all of the stops (WMD) here if we give him the chance. Hopefully Saddam and Company will be blasted to Kingdom Come before they can unleash anything against us. God Willing!
Regardless what this Satan does he'll be history shortly. :)
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.