So What was Saddam Up To?

[Mtgman]

According to a Frontline interview with Dr. Hans Blix(underlining mine, the bolding is the interviewer).

So no one can say, "Well, there definitely weren’t weapons."

I think so. Controversy will be preferable to a judgment.

What’s your view of that?

I think that, again, I’d like to get to the truth – what is the reality, and looking at the evidence. It may take time, but I think we’ll get there. Maybe the historians will have to do it. Politicians will prefer to retreat under a cloud of dust or mist, but we ordinary people would like to have some clear clarity.

**Your remarks apply to WMD overall, not just the tubes? **

I think the missiles is in a category by itself. We ordered the Iraqis to destroy Al-Samoud missiles, and we ordered them to destroy some other items as well. They were clearly trespassing there, and I think David Kay may find more evidence of it. We have heard now about a contract they tried to conclude with the North Koreans. It’s quite possible. There has also been a statement by Tariq Aziz to the effect that Saddam felt that missiles were not prohibited unless they were to carry weapons of mass destruction. That’s a separate area, and the conclusion may well be that they violated their [Resolution] 687 there.

On the other areas, I think that the nuclear is probably the dossier that was the most securely empty, and we said so at the IAEA. I said it in 1997 when I was still there. Muhammed said it in 1998 when he was there, and I think that still remains. They had had defectors subsequently who said they are reconstituting their teams, etcetera, and they had some evidence. But I doubt that it was very good evidence.

Then the pieces we have heard now about Niger and the yellowcake and these tubes. They had, I think, largely fallen apart; on bio and on chemical; they hadn’t found any. I don’t think it’s so improbable that Kamal, who defected in 1995 to Jordan, was telling the truth when he said that he had ordered the destruction of all this in 1991. This is also what Amer Al Sa’adi said to us – that it was destroyed in 1991.

Amer Al Sa’adi said also that regrettably it was destroyed in the absence of inspectors. He said that was a great mistake. Now I didn’t take any statement from that guy, who is a high-caliber individual, as evidence. But it could also be true, or it could not be true. I don’t know. But in retrospect, when nothing is found, it seems not unlikely that this is what they did.

At least two of Saddam’s top people were saying there was nothing going on. One who defected in 1995 and Amer Al Sa’adi, Saddam’s chief scientific advisor. Also, from the intro to the Frontline program cited above.

But some Iraqi military leaders and scientists continue to strongly deny that Iraq was working on weapons of mass destruction. Corbin speaks with the wife of Iraqi scientist and presidential adviser Amer Al Sa’adi, who says that her husband repeatedly denied the existence of any such weapons. General Sa’adi is currently in U.S. custody.

“He was so convinced about what he had always said, and up to half an hour before he left and went to the Americans, he said that, ‘I know there is nothing to be found, and I’ve always said that, and I’m repeating it again and time will bear me out,’” Helma Al Sa’adi says. “Those were his last words.”

So, why didn’t Saddam cooperate more fully with weapons inspectors if his country had no weapons of mass destruction? It’s become one of the most frequently asked questions. Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix suspects it was merely a miscalculated bluff.

“It’s like putting up the sign on the door, ‘Beware of the Dog,’” Blix says. “And you don’t have a dog.”

Enjoy,
Steven

[rjung]

@rbroome

The US trusted the CIA when we were told the Iraq had WMD.

Just to nitpick, but the evidence appears to be that the CIA was telling the Executive Branch that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, but the Executive didn’t want to listen. Blaming the intelligence agencies for the Iraq WMD fiasco seems to be a disingenious way to pass the blame.

[Squink]

@rbroome

The US trusted the CIA when we were told the Iraq had WMD.

Just who is “the US” in that sentence? Many of us citizens were not suckered by the WMD rhetoric, whether it came from the CIA, as you suggest, or the white house.

Princhester gives a very human explanation for Saddam’s behavior. What’s the point of raising the dictator onto a pedestal of rationality, if doing so only creates mystery as to the reasons for his actions?

[Dag_Otto]

@scm1001

Are you using Bush’s line that if you repeat an mistatement often enough it becomes true? Let me restate - Saddam never claimed directly or indirectly to have WMDS after 91. [sigh]

Excuse me. I guess I cannot back up the claim that Saddam claimed to have WMD after 91 (actually, I’m not going to bother looking it up). My point was that Saddam didn’t exactly mind that some countries thought that he had them because he was worried about Iran at least as much as he was worried about the US. Read my entire post. Do you think it was in Iraq’s best interest to announce to the entire world that they were impotent? The UN (and the US) were a big concern for Iraq, but they were not the only concern.

[DrDeth]

Well, to be honest- I *did *think Saddam had WMD:

1 He had them before.
2 Even Blix said that he thought SH had them.
3 There was also the missing 10% from after Operation Desert Storm.
4 Also- Saddam was clearly buying (normal) weapons illegally. Those aluminum tubes that some thought were for a reactor- but it turns out they were only for motars? Saddam wasn’t supposed to be buying materials for motars, either. A lot of dudes forget that.
5. SH had illegal Al-Samoud missiles which could be used to carry WMD- but in any case were illegal under the treaty all by themselves.
6. SH was acting like he had WMD, and bragging about them.
7. Saddam was an evil bastard.
8. Saddam was a crazy bastard.
9. He used WMD against his own people!

All of these were excellent reasons of why the USA needed to threaten SH in order to let Blix and his Inspectors back in. That’s something that even Blix admitted- that the US threats of military action were the only thing that got Saddam to let Blix & co back in.

OK, so I bought into and fully supported GWB making *threats *in oder to get the Inspectors back in.

But-whyohwhy- did GWB need to invade with the Inspections going on? That’s what I don’t understand. We had “probable cause” for a “search”. No doubt in my mind. But why start shooting after they let you in and let you do your search?

[rjung]

@DrDeth

But-whyohwhy- did GWB need to invade with the Inspections going on? That’s what I don’t understand. We had “probable cause” for a “search”. No doubt in my mind. But why start shooting after they let you in and let you do your search?

The answer to that lies in Great Debates.

[DrDeth]

@rjung

The answer to that lies in Great Debates.

True.

[rbroome]

@Squink

Just who is “the US” in that sentence? Many of us citizens were not suckered by the WMD rhetoric, whether it came from the CIA, as you suggest, or the white house.

Princhester gives a very human explanation for Saddam’s behavior. What’s the point of raising the dictator onto a pedestal of rationality, if doing so only creates mystery as to the reasons for his actions?

Hmm.
Just to start this reply, a couple of personal points. I am on record (with my friends, I don’t have a public record) as publicly stating before the GW II started solely on the basis of common sense and public records that Iraq had no WMDs. I am convinced that well before the American buildup and well before GW II various factors resulted in the loss of all WMDs in Iraq. Irag didn’t have any when the war started. It is a guess, an unproven and unprovable assertion, but that is what I said.

However, at the start of the war, the majority of the United States public, based on multiple public opinion polls, believed that the war was necessary and just. I am going out on a limb here and believing that the reason the majority of the American people supported the war was they were convinced that the WMD existed and were a threat to the United States. So, when I said US I meant the majority of the population of the nation. Not all, certainly not me, but a majority.

I don’t think it is a nitpick to say that it was the position of the CIA was that Iraq had WMDs. The evidence, ranging from the perhaps misquoted “slam-dunk” to the official report of the agency published after the WMDs were not found to the fact that virtually the entire top layer of leadership at the CIA was fired, indicates that the CIA as an agency was on record that the WMDs existed. Certainly there were analysts who disagreed with that analysis. But the position of the Agency was clear.

I read, no cite available, that one of Saddam’s generals stated that he heard Saddam reassure his generals before the GW II started that the United States would not invade because the CIA knew the truth. I can’t say (wasn’t there fortunately) whether he actually said that.

All that said, I am an American and while I am very disappointed in President Bush and am sorry that he was re-elected, I am completely proud of the United States of America and the American people.

We as a people and a nation made a mistake. We invaded another country for the wrong reason (I am convinced, see above). But we did. And we are staying and trying to make amends. We are trying to leave Iraq a better place than we found it. We are spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives in the effort. And the American people are supporting the effort and our military. Making a mistake is bad. But making a mistake and then walking away from it is worse and all too common a reaction in people and nations. We aren’t doing that. We are trying to do the right thing. I am and always will be proud of that.

There may be real advantages to our actions. The Iraqi people may learn democracy and freedom. That freedom may leak over into other Arab nations. We deposed a terrible viscous dictator. We are fighting terrorists in a foreign land rather than in the United States. We are learning much more about the Arab world and they are learning more about the United States. I am sure there are others. I don’t know that those advantages will come to pass and I certainly don’t know that the invasion was worth those advantages. But we are taking responsibility for our actions. And the United States is trying to make things better.

But Bush/Cheney, the CIA, and much of the power elite in the United States was wrong about Iraq having WMDs. One can never prove a negative, so that statement can’t be completely proven. But I believed that before GW II and I believe that now.

[Johanna]

@rbroome

We deposed a terrible viscous dictator.

Yeah, he was all gooey and gloppy and icky. Eeeewwwww.

[rbroome]

@Johanna

Yeah, he was all gooey and gloppy and icky. Eeeewwwww.

Oops! :smack:

well you know what I mean…
sorry about that.

[scm1001]

@Dag Otto

Excuse me. I guess I cannot back up the claim that Saddam claimed to have WMD after 91 (actually, I’m not going to bother looking it up). My point was that Saddam didn’t exactly mind that some countries thought that he had them because he was worried about Iran at least as much as he was worried about the US. Read my entire post. Do you think it was in Iraq’s best interest to announce to the entire world that they were impotent? The UN (and the US) were a big concern for Iraq, but they were not the only concern.

The reason that I am concentrating on this point is that the prowars excuse seems to be from this thread for the invasion is that it is now Saddams fault* - “gee we wouldn’t have invaded if Saddam wasn’t so shifty and still pretended to have weapons -why wasn’t he just more open?”. Thus it takes responsibility off the invaders for their actions. Of course nothing Saddam could have done could have stopped the invasion, it was predecided by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld just after 9/11. The OP asked why Saddam appeared to act so strangely - my point is that he never did - it was just your paranoia that made him appear so (label a neighbour as a thief and everything they do from then on appears suspicious)

*ignoring GWI and Saddams cruelty which are separate issues

[Futile_Gesture]

@DrDeth

But-whyohwhy- did GWB need to invade with the Inspections going on? That’s what I don’t understand. We had “probable cause” for a “search”. No doubt in my mind. But why start shooting after they let you in and let you do your search?

Because it was looking very much like the inspections were going to give Mr Bush the wrong answer; nothing here, no need for action. Bush was therefore forced into action. If he wanted his invasion he had to do it before his excuse for it evaporated.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

I disagree. Saddam could have, should have, done everything in his power to prove he did not have WMDs. He did not (for reasons beyond me) and allowed the war to start.

While claiming to have WMDs might have been good for deterring Iran (Syria? Give me a break!), that would be using a long-range strategy that invited short-term disaster. If it was an intellectual decision, he certainly jumped the wrong way.

I suppose his emotions (mostly pride) were in the way of his intellect. It is right to say George Bush started this way, no doubt. But then again Saddam managed to play right into the President’s hands.

Saddam could have played his card much better.

[Princhester]

@Paul in Saudi

I disagree. Saddam could have, should have, done everything in his power to prove he did not have WMDs. He did not (for reasons beyond me) and allowed the war to start.

What didn’t he do, exactly? Feel free to be specific. And before you suggest anything, have a really really good check around that he didn’t do what you suggest he should have done.

Because we’ve had debate after debate on this topic and it always comes up the same: immediately pre-war SH was bent over holding his cheeks apart with both hands (sorry about that particular mental image ;)) saying “search me” and it did him no good.

[scm1001]

@Princhester

What didn’t he do, exactly? Feel free to be specific. And before you suggest anything, have a really really good check around that he didn’t do what you suggest he should have done.

I agree. Again this is a case of an agressor blaming the “victim” (if a monster like Saddam could ever be called a victim). Saddam at the time of GWII was giving complete freedom to the inspectors, had handed over a very large report on the state of his weaponry and decommissioning of his former WMDs which turned to be completely accurate. What more did you want?

[rbroome]

@Paul in Saudi

I disagree. Saddam could have, should have, done everything in his power to prove he did not have WMDs. He did not (for reasons beyond me) and allowed the war to start.

While claiming to have WMDs might have been good for deterring Iran (Syria? Give me a break!), that would be using a long-range strategy that invited short-term disaster. If it was an intellectual decision, he certainly jumped the wrong way.

I suppose his emotions (mostly pride) were in the way of his intellect. It is right to say George Bush started this way, no doubt. But then again Saddam managed to play right into the President’s hands.

Saddam could have played his card much better.

Saddam led his country on an unbroken 30 year path from defeat and embarrassment to disaster and humiliation. The man was an incompentent ruler. Far worse, the people of Iraq put up with him far too long. I know he had the security forces and that his forces killed thousands of opponents, but he should have be deposed decades ago. The fact that Saddam let people believe he still had WMDs was predictable and fit his pattern of mistakes and failure. Some people realized it, more should have.

[vibrotronica]

@DrDeth

Umm, no. It has NOT been proven that SH didn’t have WMD. What has been shown is that we can’t find any. Which is not quite that same thing, you know. If he had a few, but they were moved out of Iraq, then- we wouldn’t be able to find those, right?

What a lovely, circular, unprovable assertion you’ve set up there! Here’s some more for you:

“If we really landed on the moon in 1969, why haven’t we been back?”

“The Illuminati rule the world. The fact that you can’t see them PROVES they’re the secret rulers of the world! If you could see them they wouldn’t be secret! That’s how good they are!”

[samclem]

Moved to Great Debates from GQ.

samclem GQ moderator.

[Mtgman]

@Paul in Saudi

I disagree. Saddam could have, should have, done everything in his power to prove he did not have WMDs. He did not (for reasons beyond me) and allowed the war to start.

From Hans Blix’s address to the UN on March 7 2003.

There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.

Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced.

With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has also recently informed us that, following the adoption of the presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from engaging in work related to WMD, further legislation on the subject is to be enacted. This appears to be in response to a letter from UNMOVIC requesting clarification of the issue.

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

      The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.  Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights.  If it did, we would report it.

      It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.  Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.  They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

…
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.

I’m wondering what Saddam/Iraq(since the two are so often used interchangably) could have done to meet your standard of “everything in his power”? Turning over non-existant weapons is obviously outside of the realm of possibility. Blix reported on a number of initiatives, some even proactive, from Iraq regarding WMD. The idea that they were being uncooperative seems to be contradicted by the chief weapons inspector himself. So what do you think they could have done?

Enjoy,
Steven

[DrDeth]

You need to read your own cites. Clearly SH was dragging his feet. "
The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation."

But I am already here on record with "
OK, so I bought into and fully supported GWB making threats in oder to get the Inspectors back in.

But-whyohwhy- did GWB need to invade with the Inspections going on? That’s what I don’t understand. We had “probable cause” for a “search”. No doubt in my mind. But why start shooting after they let you in and let you do your search?"

Don’t try and make SH out as some sort of blameless heroic figure just becuase GWB made (IMHO) a huge error in invading Iraq. SH was- and remains- a lying evil sociopath.