In threads such as this some posters make the assertion that we will find WMD whether they are there or not.
The implication is that, in the absence of legitimate discovery of such weapons, the US would conspire to fake it. Obviously, the whirlwind of scorn and distrust that the discovery of such a deception would cause would make the current backlash look like the reaction to an elevator fart.
First: is it a legitimate possibility that the US and the media, presumably working in concert, could and would fake the discovery of WMD?
Second: if you believe that the US could and would do such a thing, what proof would be sufficient that WMD were indeed legitimately discovered in Saddam’s posession?
This is strictly a WAG (so anyone definitive please chime in), but I have to believe it would be EXTREMELY hard to fake this plausibly IF they were going to let folks (i.e. UN inspectors) come in and take a look.
If I see 50 shiny new barrels of nastiness buried in the desert, or if we find some stuff, but are only willing to issue video and not let impartial folks come check it out, THEN I’ll be quite suspicious of the validity.
But if we find some nastiness and say “Here, come take a look for yourself Mr. Blix” then I have to suspect we couldn’t have faked it realistically.
As cynical and leftie as I am, I don’t honestly think that the US would plant WMDs in Iraq. I do, however, think (as I said in a similar thread) that they might find a factory or facility that seems ambiguous enough that they could demagogue it as a “suspected” chem/bio/nuclear lab. It’s not like they would really have to prove it. All they’d have to do is “suspect” it, and that would be good enough for the Bush supporters back home. I’m betting that this will be their strategy if they don’t find any real WMDs. It’s easy enough to do, and hard to disprove. It’s not like any anti-war people are going to be allowed to inspect such a facility for themselves. I’m sure a bleach factory would do just fine as a hypothetical chem lab.
The scenario I can picture is a lot like the fake documents the US gave the IAEA. We don’t fake it ourselves, but we offer large sums of money for the evidence in the intelligence community. Then, when someone fakes the evidence for the money, we simply just don’t look at it too closely before we present it to the world as rock solid.
I can see the US doing this, but I’m not aware of how hard it will be to fake the WMD. On top of that it may not be necessary.
You can forget about trying to fake biological weapons. The UN has DNA records of anthrax strain as well as other biologicals. The DNA id has to match perfectly to prove it came from Iraq.
Diogenes: I tend to think the same thing, but still think it would be hard to fake if subjected to scrutiny.
Take your example. If they find a “suspicious” facility and not one iota of even trace amounts of nasty substances is found there, I think it’s bunkum.
What I suspect is they’ll find a suspicious facility with a few cans of bad stuff, and various trace amounts of bad stuff on the machinery, etc… And then some experts (Blix) will say “yeah, but that could be left over from years ago” while other experts will say “no, the stuff degrades in 90 days, so it was here no more than that long ago” and it will descend into yet another circle-jerk of he-said-she-said.
For the record, the second scenario cited above WOULD be good enough for me.
I think the United States would resort to planting evidence only as a last resort. If the Administration can get away with pointing at two hundred empty rusty barrels with trace amounts of whatever, they’d use that instead.
Of course, I also think Saddam does have some chemical weapons stocked away somewhere; I just don’t think what he has is worth going to war for.
Considering that we gave falsified documents to the UN as proof of WMD, I would not be surprised in the least if we planted some. After all, it would not be hard for us to do, considering that we now control most of Iraq.
Hell, if Powell showing some satellite pictures of trucks parked by a building is good enough for the bush supporters, anything that the government tosses out will be swallowed.
Of course, the real questions is, will we have to fake it?
My fear is that we wont find hard evidence or actual weapons. Instead we might provide more of the circumstial type evidence that we had before the invasion, then our leaders can blow it out of proportion however they like. Or who knows? maybe there are some people who might have the balls to actually try to plant evidence…
If we dont find these weapons or the proof isnt very high quality, Im not sure what would happen, but I know what certainly wont happen: We wont say “OOPS” or “WHOOPS” or “UH OH” or “guess we made a mistake”. We wont accept any blame or acknowledge that we messed up, that just wont happen. Im willing to bet we already have a strategy laid out as to how we will politically justify what has been done.
While I did not participate in that thread, I have made such an assertion in other threads.
Yes, I believe the US government would plant WoMD if none were found. I don’t think it would be any big government/media partnership conspiracy, more along the lines of an intelligence operation.
And what, pretell, would be the reation if none were found? IOW, what risk would the US really be taking? Seems to me that having the fake discovered would be equally bad as not having found any in the first place.
But I will address your second question, as I think it is perceptive to ask it.
For me, the most compelling and irrefutable evidence would be if, immediately after the regime falls, a third party (such as UNMOVIC) were to independently interview their list of Iraqi scientists, and if those interviews produced consistent, reliable, and verifiable accounts of WoMD, I’d be satisfied.
Well, that, or finding a 100 acre chemical weapons factory would do it as well.
Here, and only here, I disagree with you. As others have mentioned, if we don’t find anything the outcome is still uncertain, a case could be made that there is evidence the we haven’t found or which was eradicated.
If it comes to light that representatives of the US planted evidence of WMD where there was none, not only would the entire civilized world be outraged (as opposed to the significant percentage that is outraged as we speak), but domestically, there would be hell to pay.
Such potential damage outweighs any gain to be had by planting evidence. This is especially true if you believe, as the GWB administration seems to, that evidence is there to be found.
The potential damage is the same. Whether that damage is actualized has more to do with how the war goes, and what is happening after the war. If the Iraqis feel liberated, and are dancing in the streets, nobody is going to care, whether WoMD were found or not, planted or otherwise.
If, on the other hand, something close to worst case scenario is actualized, there will be hell to pay, whether a plant was exposed or not.
Plus, as an intelligence operation, the POTUS will always have a fall guy, and plausible deniability. Anyone remember John Poindexter? An exposed plant will be big story, and there would be outrage, but the end result isn’t much different.
If evidence of WMD’s is there and the US supposedly knows where they are, the US would have long ago gave the information to UNSCOM. After all of the lies, half truths, bogus documents, plagerized reports, I’d say they would go as far as planting it for the news story even if the find was to be de-bunked later.
The trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan.
I think it is entirely possible, as Saddam said, that he actually destoyed his ugly toys. This is further testified by his son-in-law, during his brief term as our favorite defector, before he improved the gene pool by rushing back to his father-in-laws arms. Do I mean to suggest Saddam is kindly soul? No, Saddam is an evil old bugger. More importantly, he is a cunning evil old bugger.
Think about it. These weapons are almost more trouble than they are worth. (And remember, the Iraqis have admitted trying and failing to make nerve gas.) They have terror value, but no strategic value. If he used them on Israel, Baghdad would be a smoking hole in the Godforsaken Desert in about twenty minutes. If anybody used them on the US, he would be blamed. Same result, maybe forty minutes. (Frankly, I’m happily surprised none of his numerous enemies thought of this: let’s you and him fight, and I win.)
If he destroyed them, he could allow the inspectors back in, which he did, without worrying. The fact that no one believes him works in his favor, to a certain degree, because he still retains thier power for bluffing: a “Quaker cannon” if you will.
I have, all along, tended to believe that he had them. But I have to admit to myself my main reason is because hes an evil old bugger. But if its plausible that an EOB would destroy his WMD’s for evil and cunning motives, he very well may have.
I have been listening to BBC 4/5 today and I heard a report by Andrew North that stated that he saw containers in a hospital in Nasiriya labled “Chemical and Biological Survival Suits” or something the like. Here , in the only print version I can find of the story, he omits the part about the crates being labled. In English.
Not sure what to make of it, but I can’t help but scratch my head when I hear of a journalist being guided through a hospital and having “Chemical and Biological Suits” in one room, discarded uniforms in another and a third room (also not mentioned in the article) where there were a handfull of Iraqi soldiers with bullet holes in the their heads. I can’t imagine that it would take a lot to pull the wool over the eyes of journalists who aren’t trained to identify this sort of stuff. And if a regime were trying to find a way to justify, say, 75 billion dollars, it wouldn’t be a stretch to have somebody plant some suspicious looking stuff around what ever site these journalists are taken on during the next ‘milk run’ they get to cover.
Any further info from British dopers who can corraborate this report would be appreciated.
Iraq does not manufacture any of its weapons, armaments, munitions or war supplies. You will find that they will have crates with labels in English, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and even Hebrew. It does not prove that they were planted.
BTW, these suits were found in a building that was designated as a Hospital by its Red Crescent Flag on the roof. Coalition soldiers were shot at from that building and a Russian Tank was found in the compound. Were those planted as well?
