Speculation II: When Iraqi WMD are found, how will war opponents explain them away?

Great Debates
1

In this thread, RickJay postulates some likely excuses to be used by war proponents if, as he apparently sees likely, no proof is found of Iraqi WMDs.

Since Saddam’s lust for possession and use of such weaponry has been amply demonstrated in recent years, I find it very hard to believe no such armament will be turned up*. When it is found, I suggest one or more of the following excuses will be heard:

  1. The weapons in question are not really WMD. Such-and-such a missile, while maybe technically illegal for Iraq to have, is not really a WMD. Weaponry X is really for self-defense, and there’s no proof that Saddam would have used it on other nations. Poison gas? Crowd control. Bacteriologic warfare stocks? Vaccine research.

  2. The most popular option - the weapons were planted by the U.S. armed forces/CIA/Kurdish separatists/little green men. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day speculating about how discoveries of forbidden weaponry are proof of the evil machinations of the Bushite hegemonists.
    A poll taken of Guardian readers after the fact will reveal 83% of those surveyed believe the WMD were planted.

  3. The WMD would never have been used on coalition forces or stockpiled were it not for the invasion/continual outside threats on Iraq - the “you made me do it” theory. Supporters of this idea will claim that Iraq sought and made WMD to protect itself, or at the worst to compel the rest of the world to end sanctions on its starving citizenry, not as part of any hostile intent against neighbors or internal dissidents.

Which of these (or other options) do you think will be the most popularly employed to deny upcoming revelations?

*the OP should not be construed as an alteration of my conviction that this war was a mistake and that any putative benefits will be far outweighed by negative consequences.

2

I beat you by 7 minutes. In the interests of consolidating the two threads, I will repeat my speculation here:
– Apologize, and give Bush and Blair credit for doing the right thing, even in the face of their opposition.
– Allege that the WMD could have been eliminated without military action.
– Deny that the WMD finds are genuine.
– Deny that the WMD finds are significant.
– Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news.
– Change the subject; explain that Bush is an evil fascist for some other reason.

3

One.

4

Well, since most of the war opponents (at least on this board) have never denied the possibility that Saddam has WMDs, I don’t think any explanation will be required. So, thank you for not smoking near that straw man.

5

I agree with Emilio. IMHO the prevailing belief among opponents of the war is that the charges of WMD were not proven, not necessarily unjustified. It’s akin to a criminal trial where circumstantial evidence (past activity, suspicious behavior) points to a “guilty” verdict, but there is significant reasonable doubt, and certainly no incontrovertable evidence.

As many in the other thread have noted, most opponents of the war believe that WMDs were merely an excuse for actions that the US wanted to undertake. If it wasn’t WMD that proved the trigger, something else would have been found.

So, no explanation necessary.

6

I, for one, will be overjoyed, and relieved.

The pain of not finding them is not something I look forward to.

And I will stand behind my criticisms of this administration’s handling of events leading to war.

7

Sr. Lizardo is correct. War opponents will say it doesn’t matter that WMDs were found, that doesn’t justify going against the UN. And that’s the most convenient argument, because it doesn’t require any concessions at all. Saddam had 10,000 tons of VX? Who cares? Shoulda gone through the UN. Enough small pox to infect the entire eastern seaboard? Shoulda gone through the UN. 50 nukes, each painted with “Destination: US”? Can we say “UN”, boys and girls? However big a threat we later find Saddam to have been, and however imminent the threat was, it’s all irrelevant, because you don’t violate the wishes of the Church of the Holy UN.

Alternately:

  • WMDs are irrelevant because war is always bad (for the Hollywood set)
  • WMDs are irrelevant because we gave them to him and it would serve us right to get nuked/gassed/infected (for the college intelligentsia)
  • WMDs are irrelevant because Bush is a Nazi, or because “No war for oil!” (for those who don’t pretend to be logical)
  • WMDs are irrelevant because, while the war is a good idea, Bush is a tool, therefore anything he does is bad, and he was selected-not-elected (for the truly partisan)
    I expect to see all these and more after we find Saddam’s stash. A grand time will be had by all.
    Jeff
8

Out of December’s choices I would pick:
“Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news.”
I have always believed that Saddam does have some biological and chemical weapons. However
a)Many countries possses such weapons including other nasty, dictatorships.
b)Saddam has possessed such weapons for more than 20 years and there was no evidence that they were a significant strategic threat to the US. They didn’t stop the US from evicting Iraq from Kuwait.
c) Invasion makes it MORE likely that these weapons will land in the hands of terrorists when the regime reaches the points where it thinks it has nothing to lose. People are being highly naive when they seem to excpect that the weapons will be just lying there for American troops to find. Chances are many of them will be distributed to the die-hard supporters of the regime who will likely sell or give them to terrorists.

The bottom line is that the war will damage American security ,maybe seriously, for this and other reasons.

9

Can I go for all of the above, or do I have to pick one? I’m posting in this thread. I did not see yours. Moreover, seven minutes is de minimis. :wink:

10

You really should read this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=172697

to see why it won’t change Arab opinion of the US whether weapons are found or not.
Pay particular attention to the Baghdad resident who remarks (on seeing the massive effects of US bombing) something like 'why are these guys searching for weapons of mass destruction?"

As for December’s possible strategies:

  1. Apologize, and give Bush and Blair credit for doing the right thing, even in the face of their opposition.

Why would we need to apologise? Surely you don’t think the anti-war movement is all about not expecting to find WOMD? Did you ever think some of us care about civilians (and friendly fire)?

Why didn’t Bush + Blair get a second UN resolution?
How much resentment is Bush causing all around the world? Would you describe him as a master diplomat?

Why is the US making alliances with countries that don’t respect human rights? Didn’t they learn from promoting Sadam as the ‘answer’ to Iran?

  1. Allege that the WMD could have been eliminated without military action.

As indeed they were being.
I accept that the threat of invasion helped enforce the weapons inspection.
But why did the US go in, just when the inspectors were making progress?

  1. Deny that the WMD finds are genuine.

Truth is the first casualty of war.
I personally don’t think Bush would plant WOMD.
But since he went in without the UN, how will he defend himself from this accusation?
Do you think terrorist groups (and hostile Governments) will be able to persuade their followers easily enough?

  1. Deny that the WMD finds are significant.

Well we know the US (and others) sold Sadam this stuff.
Of course he hasn’t used it for over a decade, and the weapons inspectors were making progress…
5. Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news.

See above.

  1. Change the subject; explain that Bush is an evil fascist for some other reason.

I think Bush has squandered the natural world-wide sympathy for the US after the 9/11 atrocity.
When Bush offers Turkey billions of dollars and they turn him down, you just know something is wrong.

When polls all over the world say Bush should have got a second UN resolution, you know something is wrong.

Do you really think this was a timely decision?

11

Jackmannii, I understand the reason for this thread, but I have to wonder who you’re talking about in the subject line? According to your footnote, you yourself believe the war is a mistake; wouldn’t that make you a “war opponent”? And I’m sure you know how you’ll respond when/if WMD’s are found. I suspect it won’t be one of the three options outlined, but rather something along the lines of Cyber Pundit’s last sentence.

As far as which of your listed stories will be most popular, I think we all expect that many people around the world are now deeply distrustful of the US; #2 will be frequently floated, it’s a given. But your #'s 1 and 3 seem extremely unlikely to be popularly believed (poison gas for “crowd control”?!).

Although I’m absolutely certain the US government will be held to very high standards of proof when they attempt to label various medical facilities as “biological weapons laboratories”, I find it difficult to believe the existence of VX, sarin, smallpox or anthrax strains, or other real WMD’s (as opposed to missiles capable of carrying chemicals) would be defended so sanguinely by any appreciable percentage of war opponents.

(Of course, we’ve seen sillier beliefs catch on

12

…so it wouldn’t be out of the question that “the US made him do it” gets bandied about.)

13

The WMD’s are a red herring. The oppostion to the invasion is about the unilateral attack of another much weaker country and doing so outside of the framework of the United Nations and without popular support for the invasion.

14

I took that as a bit of hyperbole, xen. We’ve already heard people say, “Sure, that stuff is illegal according to resolutions, but it isn’t like an active nuke or anything.” They find VX? “Well, sure, that’s technically WMD, but it wasn’t deliverable or anything…” yawn

We all know people disagreed with this war. Two things are important now: rebuilding Iraq properly, and holding the US accountable for any crimes it committed or treaties it violated.

No points for being right or wrong.

15

Actually, Jackmannii, I do NOT consider it likely that no WMDs will be found. I think it likelier than not that some will in fact be found. Kindly don’t assume facts not in evidence. After all, that’s why I called it “Speculation Thread,” not “Pretty Fairly Likely Outcome Thread.”

As to this OP, I think it’ll be 50% of your options 1, 2, and 3, with serious people leaning towards 1 and 3 while Michael Moore and the people who think the moon landings were a hoax and believe that “Hunt the Boeing” site will opt for Option 2. However, 50% will choose an option you didn’t even mention:

Option 4: The Big Lie, War-Opposition-Version - People will simply ignore that WMD were ever an issue, will deny that they ever denied their existence, and in fact will ignore their current existence in favour of other, unrelated arguments. When the WMDs come up, they’ll simply change the subject.

Over time, the more virulent partisans,conspiracy theorists and campus communists will graduate to a new option, the most bizarre option of them all, Option 5:

Option 5: Apologism - They’ll just argue Saddam Hussein was a good guy after all. Amazing as this may sound, I absolutely, 100% guarantee that in 15 years, millions of Americans will believe this. Millions. They’ll say that, sure, he was a little rough around the edges, but he built up Iraq until the nasty Americans blew it up in 1991 and starved 500,000 children (an urban myth that is now accepted as fact - in fact, the number is now being magnified to 1 million in some sources) and he was really a hero for the poor oppressed Muslims. The fact that he was a brutal, secular fascist won’t slow down the campus leftists at all. If you don’t believe me, look how many people are big fans of Fidel Castro, Lenin, and, to throw in a right-wing favourite, Pinochet.

16

[Hijack]

What if the Elite Republican Guard, upon seeing the First Marine Expidition within Baghdad city limits fires a missile that contains VX or Serin and it only kills Iraqi Civilians (by the hundreds)? Whose fault is that gonna be?

[/Hijack]

17

About right.

Having various warring factions getting access to such weapons following the breakup of the current regime will quite likely be a worse nightmare than having a tyrant like Saddam in charge of the nasties. Not to mention all those anti-U.S. recruits who’ll be willing to deploy them as a result of the war.

I was getting tired of the “Two weeks and no proof of WMDs yet! See, Bush made it all up!” threads. I have not leaped on any premature bandwagons of certain prowar posters (i.e. the “Look, WMDs!!!” threads). But the triumphant “Look Ma, no WMDs” threads are just a tad premature.

I don’t think thoughtful opposition to the war will necessarily undergo a major revision when WMDs are found*. I’m thinking of the shrill anti-American/anti-Bush component of the antiwar effort which’ll make every effort to explain away a major rationale for the war. One or more of the above excuses will come into play.

I will withhold embarassed apologies for having allowed december to beat me by SEVEN minutes, at least until the Hungarian judge has made his ruling.

*assuming, of course, that a Baghdad basement full of dirty bombs with maps of N.Y., Chicago and San Francisco, instructions to operatives and confessions by the Iraqi terror masters involved don’t come to light. I don’t think this is terribly likely, though.

18

There’s nothing to explain, since most war opponents acknowledged the strong possibility of their existence.

For most war opponents WMD was not a casus belli anyway.

OTOH, the aministration and the US is going to be in a big heap of crap if they don’t find any.

19

Wake me up when the Bush Administration finds the UN resolution authorizing the United States to use military action as a result of resolution of 1441. Until then, all this talk about anti-war protesters “changing their tune” is a straw man from the pro-war folks.

20

The results in this thread simply go to show what I have been arguing all along - finding WMDs or not finding WMDs will not make any difference. Generally, those opposed to the war will still be opposed if they are found; those in favour will still be in favour if they are not found.

And, quite frankly, this is how it ought to be.

An analogy for one aspect of this war is that of a policeman conducting a violent, warrantless search of a suspect in which the suspect is killed making a suspicious move. Those in favour of this proceeding will argue that the suspect was dangerous and the Judge so corrupted with self-interest and irrelevant motivations that obtaining a warrant was impossible, and so that the search was necessary, because the suspect was not co-operating and behaving in a dangerous manner. Those against will deny this, saying that the proper legal methods ought to have been employed, that the search was in effect illegal and improper and amounts to an abuse of power.

Logically, the finding of WMDs cannot retroactively render an improper search proper; the not-finding of WMDs cannot retroactively prove the search improper, if it was proper to begin with.