Was Saddam bluffing about weapons

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

Now the papers are reporting that Iraq actually got rid off its weapons of mass destruction after the first gulf war, but Saddam Hussein pretended to have them:

By SLOBODAN LEKIC
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.

I’m not sure I buy this. On one hand, I remember, prior to the latest war, that Iraq had been thwarting weapons inspectors from the United Nations for years. That’s according to U.N. officials themselves.

On the other hand, this strategy of bluffing seems counterproductive, to say the least:

The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while countries such as France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack. At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.

So, given that Iraq was thwarting inspectors for years, and given the fact that no WMDs have been found, this does add up. However, this is coming from an unnamed Saddam aide – a source who can’t be checked.

The idea of complying with the orders to get rid of WMDs, then interfering with inspectors to pretend you have weapons that you don’t have – hardly seems like a brilliant strategy. In the meantime, Saddam’s country was under harsh, crippling U.N. sanctions, which could have been lightened had he cooperated with inspectors.

If this is true, then Saddam so craved the appearance of strength, and was so afraid of not looking strong, that he let it overrule all sense. I will give you this – that often is the way that strongmen dictators think. Still …

[Marley23]

So, given that Iraq was thwarting inspectors for years, and given the fact that no WMDs have been found, this does add up. However, this is coming from an unnamed Saddam aide – a source who can’t be checked.

True, although I think other aides are telling a similar story (I’ve heard things like this before).

The idea of complying with the orders to get rid of WMDs, then interfering with inspectors to pretend you have weapons that you don’t have – hardly seems like a brilliant strategy. In the meantime, Saddam’s country was under harsh, crippling U.N. sanctions, which could have been lightened had he cooperated with inspectors.

True, but Saddam and the people closest to him were doing just fine, so perhaps he didn’t feel so much pressure to comply? And how brilliant are we expecting him to be?

If this is true, then Saddam so craved the appearance of strength, and was so afraid of not looking strong, that he let it overrule all sense. I will give you this – that often is the way that strongmen dictators think.

Yeah, whether or not this is true, I can buy the thinking. Saddam did indeed crave that appearance of strength, and likewise, he always thought the Arab world would rise up in support of him. He was, of course, very wrong about this.

[rjung]

There’s also the very real possibility that Saddam believed that if he showed a sign of weakness (not having WMDs), then Iraq would soon find itself being attacked by its hostile neighbors. Despite the spin from the Bush White House, Syria, Iran, etc. were not close buddies with Iraq, and might have leaped at an opportunity to invade Iraq – if not for the uncertain fear that Saddam might gas 'em in defense.

I get the feeling (with hindsight) that Saddam was trying to have his cake and eat it, too – give the ambiguity that he might have WMDs to stave off his neighbors, but cooperate with the inspectors so they’d hold back the United States. Unfortunately, it seems he didn’t account for George W. Bush’s bull-headed determination to have a war regardless of the (lack of) evidence.

[Latro]

*Originally posted by Marley23 *
Saddam did indeed crave that appearance of strength, and likewise, he always thought the Arab world would rise up in support of him. He was, of course, very wrong about this.

He might also have counted on the UN/International community playing by the rules. Meaning that, if he stayed within the rules himself, if only just, he was playing the game well.

He obviously didn’t count on the US flaunting the rules and that the international community would just let that slide.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
I’m not sure I buy this. On one hand, I remember, prior to the latest war, that Iraq had been thwarting weapons inspectors from the United Nations for years. That’s according to U.N. officials themselves.

Well, the thing is, some would claim the US wanted the weapons inspectors to be “thwarted” and so manufactured confrontations during the process.

(Just) one obvious example of Clinton’s strategy was when he ordered his (US), and by default, the UN Inspectors out of Iraq the day before his impeachment hearing so he could start a bombardment that ended the day after his impeachment hearing ended.

Saddam was always, from 1958 until the end, a tool of US foreign policy.

[John_Mace]

Latro wrote:
He obviously didn’t count on the US flaunting the rules and that the international community would just let that slide.

Better to flaunt the rules than to flout them.

[Latro]

:smack: well that too…

[XT]

Well, no surprise to me. This has long been my theory (though as I said in previous threads I had nothing but speculation and WAG’s to back it up) on what happened. I think it was a combination of saving face, standing up to the Americans (and being a semi-hero of the region for doing it), and having the threat of the big stick that had SH keep the IMPRESSION of WMD, even though he had gotten rid of them (I think shortly after the first GW). It probably seemed like the best of both worlds to him (didn’t have the cost of maintaining them, but the threat of having them kept his ‘enemies’ at bay)…and it turned out to be a serious miscalculation on his part. In the end, when it came down to it, he couldn’t give up the IDEA that he had them, and chose to save face and go down swinging…over nothing.

The guy was obviously no rocket scientist (though I conceed he’s pretty cany about keeping himself alive)…and I think he was also a few bricks short of a load to boot. I think most people in his place would be reclining in a palace somewhere, still fully in control of his country and having fun, smirking at having cut the Americans legs out from under them BEFORE the war, when it was PROVED that there were no WMD at all.

I can just hear his joyful shouts of “Now peal me another grape! We have some enemies of the people to kill! Oh, and line up a few women for my son to rape later.”

-XT

[Latro]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
I think most people in his place would be reclining in a palace somewhere, still fully in control of his country and having fun, smirking at having cut the Americans legs out from under them BEFORE the war, when it was PROVED that there were no WMD at all.

I think not. He did try that. Remember that the inspectors were given full access and cooperation and the ‘too little too late’ excuse from the US?
There was no escaping this and some of us knew it ever since the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. The Us government had set its eye on Iraq and was prepared to bend and break every rule to get its war.
We still haven’t been given a satisfactory reason why this war was necessary. Unless there really is an elephant in the room.

[XT]

From Latro

I think not. He did try that. Remember that the inspectors were given full access and cooperation and the ‘too little too late’ excuse from the US?
There was no escaping this and some of us knew it ever since the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. The Us government had set its eye on Iraq and was prepared to bend and break every rule to get its war.
We still haven’t been given a satisfactory reason why this war was necessary. Unless there really is an elephant in the room.

Bullshit. He hemed and hawed, and resisted where he could. If it had of been anyone sane, they would have thrown open the gates and said to the UN do anything you want (while telling the US to kiss his ass). Want to interview the scientists alone? No problemo. Want to fly them and their families to somewhere totally secure? Ok, can do. Need access to everything? Come and get it, boys. Descrepancies in the documentation? Here is literally everything we have. We are willing to bend over backwards to do whatever it takes to play ball WITH THE UN. ANYTHING the UN wants, we can do, and WILL do yesterday if not sooner. To avoid war and stay in power, that would have been the smart play, and he COULD have done it…but he didn’t.

I’m sorry to say, but that would have taken the wind out of the US’s sails and cut the legs out from under Bush…if he’d have been smart enough to do it. He didn’t, and SH takes as much of the blame for the recent stupidity as Bush does. Trying to put ALL of this on Bush is just partisan bullshit IMO…there is plenty of blame on the other side too.

-XT

[John_Mace]

BTW, this thread of several pages in length is on the identical subject. Started by Elucidator several days ago.

[Latro]

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp

Inspectors also conducted 14 private interviews with Iraqi scientists, out of 54 that they had requested, between January and March 2003. Iraq provided 31 lists of Iraqi scientists to UNMOVIC, five of which contained the names of experts involved in the handling and destruction of prohibited weapons materials. Some of these scientists were involved in destroying anthrax—one of the most important outstanding disarmament issues—but inspectors were withdrawn before those scientists could be interviewed. UNMOVIC considered such interviews to be a critical source of information, especially when, as Iraq claimed, documentation did not exist to support Baghdad’s assertion that it had destroyed its prohibited weapons.

Originally posted by xtisme

I’m sorry to say, but that would have taken the wind out of the US’s sails and cut the legs out from under Bush…

Which is precisely why we couldn’t wait any longer. Must… invade… NOW! coughbefore they finish interviewing those scientists cough
We couldn’t wait for the inspectors to finish because they would have proven the war unecessary.
Remember how we wondered what the rush was in getting this war started?
Well, the inspectors were endangering the war. Suppose they had had one or two weeks more to establish what we know now.
That there were no WMD.
Think Wolfy and Rummy would have been happy?

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by Latro *
**We still haven’t been given a satisfactory reason why this war was necessary. Unless there really is an elephant in the room. **

I think I see an elephant.

They were all together on this: Bush, Blair, Chirac, Shroeder, Kofi, Blix, even Putin. Saddam was a marked man at least since Clinton said so in 1998. The only question always was, who is going to kill him. And the only answer always was: US. The rest was a circus.

Seriously, what was more dangerous for Saddam: UN or US invasion? When he was facing a greater chance to be killed: by UN or US invading troops?

The reason for the political circus was to place all the players in positions of advantage. It was done to perfection. Now Saddam is gone and everybody is a political winner: Bush’s and Chirac’s ratings by electorate went up about equal amount. So did Blair and Shroeder.

Every time the West was speaking in unison, Iraqis made concessions. Every time Iraqis made concessions, the West was suddenly getting divided with the result that Iraqis were starting playing games again.

For example, when Powell spoke to UN about the “evidence” against Iraqis (which evidence would not be admitted to any court of law), they got scared and conceded to practically all the UN demands. Validity of Powells claims wasn’t an issue; the resoluteness was. Immediately, there were disagreements between Western powers and soon Iraqis started getting more difficult again. Things were ratcheted to the point that sometimes it wasn’t clear whether US is going to attack Iraq or France and Germany. So Iraqis were never sure when to stop or start playing games.

The West didn’t want Saddam to surrender, it wanted him out and dead. Being united, the West would only force him to comply. Concilliatory Saddam would still hold to some kind of power in Iraq. So the West was divided for the time being.

How did Saddam fell for this? He wouldn’t, in his good days. He was out of it for quite some time by then. He didn’t look too good on his last videos. Iraq was being increasingly run in his name by his sons and other people. Maybe that’s why the West decided it was necessary to take over.

It is all over now. The only remnant is US yahoos’ animosity to French. Those yahoos don’t understand that invasion was announced not by Bush, but by Chirac. When Chirac finally said that France is going to veto UN intervention no matter what, it was a cue for Bush to say that US is going in no matter what. The rest is history (sorry, just had to say it).

[stick_monkey]

If this is true, then Saddam so craved the appearance of strength, and was so afraid of not looking strong, that he let it overrule all sense. I will give you this – that often is the way that strongmen dictators think. Still …

To the OP, I was watching a special on SH the other day (on the history channel I think). Included in all the talk about everything were several internal iraqi videos from the early '80s on up. One of them was a video of a ‘congressional’ meeting where SH had like 15 of his closest supporters killed over some perceived slight. (there were rumors about a couple of them not being totally loyal) By the end of the video as these men got called out and shot behind the building, the rest of the congress were crying and shouting praises to saddam’s strength.

Yeah, I have no doubts he would do ANYTHING to make himself look strong.

[elucidator]

…When Chirac finally said that France is going to veto UN intervention no matter what…

Cite? I am well aware that it is a dearly held conviction amongst the Bushiviks that this is the case, but I don’t recall him actually saying any such thing. Operative words being “no matter what”.

Cite, or retract, please.

[ElvisL1ves]

clairobscur did a very patient job debunking that on several times. The French government wasn’t going to vote “yes” that particular night, but was going to wait for the inspections to be complete, in just a few more weeks, before deciding anything irrevocable.

Now, Bush & Co. are insisting on, guess what, the inspections to be completed.

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Cite? … Operative words being “no matter what”.

Cite, or retract, please. **

Here. Particularly the last three paragraphs.

I think “no matter what” is not an exaggeration on “whatever the circumstances”.

[kikkapoo_joy_juice]

Clearly (now) he was bluffing.
We thought he would never do it since simple cooperation would end the sanctions. But he didn’t care at all about his people, he just wanted to look like he never gave in. And perhaps some of the bluff was to keep the Kurds in line with fear of more gas, and Iran in line since they are pursuing atomic power.

100% bluff, and he fooled the US and Brits (and France and Germany, too actually) and lost.

[Latro]

posted by clairobscur
For the umpteenth time :

Chirac publically stated that whatever the circumstances (refering to the position and votes of the other members of the security council) France would veto the resolution the US wanted to propose at this time. Because this resolution meant “in so many days, we’ll wage war” (so many days was a week or so). The “circumstances” refered to the vote (will there be a majority for or against the US resolution, will Russia veto the resolution or not, etc…). It had nothing to do with the results of the inspections or the vidences found or not in Irak.
France was utterly opposed to this last resolution because :

-It gave too short a delay to Irak to be able to prove anything that was requested from it, let alone to peursue the inspections

-It would have given to any country (in this case the US, of course) the right to state “Irak isn’t complying, so we’re allowed to go to war”, as opposed to a vote by the UNSC noting that Irak isn’t complying and allowing the war. Given that the US had already obviously decided that there will be a war, allowing this country to decide by themselve whether Irak was complying or not would have meant that in any case, it would habe decide that Irak wasn’t complying.
And France never stated it was opposed to war in all cases. It was even ready to participate in such war if and only if :

1. The inspections could have been carried on during at least a reasonnable period of time (one month or two has been mentionned)

2. The inspections showed that there was WMD and Irak wa refusing to destroy them OR Irak wouldn’t allow the inspection team to do its job

3. The war would be allowed by the UNSC on the basis of 2)

Chirac never ruled out a french military involvment in Irak, and even warned the french population about it during a TV speech.
All these things have been staten dozens of times, by dozens of posters on this board, but still, France’s position is still completely misrepresented again and over again, on the basis of out of context bits of quote. I know that not living in France you didn’t read about the government positions in all the newspapers/ heard it on all TVs and radios, but for pity’s sake, from time to time, check the facts…

And by the way, the German governement did state it would never be involved in the war. So you got everything wrong. (But germany is a particular case when it comes to military actions in a foreign territory…)

[New_Iskander]

Latro,

Like I said, it was a circus.