I believe we are going to link the Anthrax back to Iraq. Based on what I’ve read, some strains were highly advanced and Iraq’s name has been mentioned, but not by officials…not yet… until they have solid evidence.
How muddy do the waters get now? This (War on Terrorism) gets mind boggingly complicated. My understanding is that if we take action on Iraq, we risk having the coalition falling apart.
Take a look at Iran’s sudden turn-around after the Anthrax assault: They will search and rescue downed pilots? Why the sudden kindness to the US? Is it that they smell Iraq’a involvement?
And, since our weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq, and since they knew Husein was hiding his biological program, what are we left for choices?
We have the Afgahn issue, most likely an Iraq issue, and some reports are that we will find an Iran issue. Volatile does not begin to describe the mess that this is becoming.
The title of your post is revealing. As you say, you are already pretty close to convinced that the trail will lead back to Iraq. Of course, we don’t have any evidence, but it will take very little evidence to convince us.
Since the collapse of the USSR, there is a distinct possibility that “weapons-grade” anthrax is available to lots of potential enemies, who, unlike Iraq, don’t have the technological means to produce it themselves. If it turns out that the strain of anthrax can be linked to Soviet sources, that will tell us almost nothing, except, perhaps, that Iraq may not be involved.
The last thing we need right now is an expanded war. The thing we need most is a healthy dose of skepticism. Unfortunately, in todays some hysterical emotional climate, this is in very short supply.
Elucidator, and all the other folks who do not want the US to defend itself, right now, the anxiety and hysteria are far greater than the handful of cases of anthrax, and I’ll agree that, at the moment, an expanded war is not justified. But I wish to pose a hypothetical case to you.
What if, in the next month or so, the hospitals become flooded with thousands of victims(including some of your family members and friends) of a mass outbreak of anthrax and smallpox, and the strain responsible is demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt to have come from Iraqi labs. What would be your response?
But the OP asks what happens WHEN we do, not IF we do. So hypothetically, if we have definately linked Iraq as the source and provider of the anthrax that’s being spread here, what do we do?
Personally, I’d like to see Ford’s executive order abolishing targeting another leader for assisination rescinded. Quietly. When we know exactly where Sadam is going to be, go in with a FAE or tomahawk and get rid of this recurring problem once and for all.
There will undoubtably be some collateral damage. That’s fine. He only allows those around him that we’d like to also see removed anyway. After he’s hit, quickly make our case to the international community as to why we had to do it and start negotiations to end that conflict before it can escalate. But let’s get rid of Sadam now because if we dick around and let that pus sore fester, we’re in for a very unpleasant and lengthy operation that he will try and exploit at any cost.
Well I think a healthy dose of skepticism may be good, I also think that this war is going to inevitably get larger and have a broader scope. It has to. I think we and others in the world are just itching to have Iraq be implecated in all this. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Bush has already said that the tactics of human baracades around missle silo’s will not work. I think uncle Bush is pretty pissed about all the civilian losses we the USA has had and simply doesn’t put to much stock into hillbilly war tactics, like that camel fu*ker in Iraq likes to use. [Excuse the rhetoric] .
Inevitably it makes sense Iraq is involved, they think we are weakened, which of course is not true. But as I watch CNN and local news Iraq is brought up more and more. Personally I think its on in the Middle east. There’s going to be some construction going on, in the form of a parking lot in Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel for the civilians that may be involved.
Despite protestations to the contrary by politicians, I think there are already “Coalition Issues”. As in: (apart from public acknowledgements of, and declarations of support for, the US right to seek out the perpetrators) Where is it ?
Smoke and mirrors, diplomacy and spin. There’s some hard headed stuff going on from all sides.
IMHO, it’s beginning to look like the most effective ‘Coalition’ at the moment is that part of the international community (Islamic and European) requiring of the US some movement from Israel.
If we find that Iraq had something to do with the Anthrax then Iraq will definitely be pulled into the war. US doctrine is that nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks constitute weapons of mass destruction. Granted we don’t have mass destruction from anthrax just yet but I doubt the US would tolerate quibbling on that point. In such attacks the US has maintained the right to respond with any means at its disposal including nuclear reprisals. I’m not suggesting that the US nuke anyone…I think that would be a very bad choice. I just mention it to show the level of seriousness the US places on such attacks. Bombing Saddam Hussein would certainly be considered ok by the US if Iraq is identified as a supplier of the anthrax.
That said bombing Saddam Hussein is not necessarily a good option. At least it isn’t a good option if that is all we do. I’m not certain who would rise to power if Saddam was removed but one possibility is his son who, by accounts I’ve read, is worse than his dad (I know that’s hard to imagine).
We’ll have to see how this goes after the assassination today of the Israeli Cabinet Minister. The US has been making noises at Israel to get going with a peace process including our own President stating he would accept a Palestinian state (which, IIRC, he said he wouldn’t do during his campaign but I’m not sure on that). As if there isn’t enough problems the Palestinians (at least a group of them) picks this time to stir the pot and make it that much harder for Israel to do anything peaceful in this regard.
I’m implicating Iraq. This is Debates and we have to consider the fact that Iraq and the Soviet Union were the only one with the literal machinery to create the specific types of Anthrax that are most deadly.
Al Quada members met with bogus Iraqi officials operating under paper titles.
Now we have Iraq involved as a user of a weapon of mass destruction. Whack-a-Mole hit on something I was unsure of, and that is bilogical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.
We are left to commit to an operation whose magnitude most are not prepared for in the US, or 'round the globe. I think we felt some relief that we could escape a large scale issue by flying sorties and sending in Special Forces.
Nothing is happening on any front to make a case that anyone can siot back and be passive, or settle for small confrontations. Isreal and Palestine…India and Pakistan…Iraq and the U.S…Taliban and the US…and Iran fits where? Do they still position themselves as enemies of Iraq?
And, we don’t want to nation build, but how in the hell do we get Iraq and Afghanistan to be civil states on this globe? Countries that consist of ignorant stone age (barbarian) mentalities are a threat to everyone.
And I am not afraid of nukes. We have used them succesfully before, and if we are going to do things on a huge scale, nukes, like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, might prove to be the most fruitful weapon.
At the risk of being a doubting Thomas, I would point out that you don’t know what types of anthrax are most deadly, whether or not they’ve been sent through the mail, or where they can be applied. What’s coming out of the media is supposition and hysteria. These anthrax mailings might not even be the work of Islamic terrorists.
The same media that’s telling you these “high quality spores” came from Iraq are the same sources that told you about bombings on Capitol Hill, new hijackings, and various other panic reports.
Anthrax is a naturally occurring bacteria and it’s foolish to think only the Iraqis and Soviets have it.
IF, in fact, Iraq was shown to have been behind this, it’s an act of war and the U.S. should move to defend itself (although I fail to see why it could not do so with conventional weapons.) But Iraq has not been shown to be behind this. So let’s reserve judgement.
FWIW, it may be possible to use genetic fingerprinting to identify the origin of the bacteria. I would hope that the CDC has a database of known strains to compare against, possibly including some belonging to foreign labs.
Granted the media tends to be a little quick to pick up on hype but usually the hype is put to rest not long after the initial scare (ala new hijackings, etc.). So far the repeated reports of “high quality” anthrax sent to Sen. Daschle’s office haven’t been debunked by the CDC or anyone else. It still might I suppose but it hasn’t yet.
It is true that anthrax is naturally occurring and not all that hard to come across with a little effort (especially in third world countries). What is hard, however, is weaponizing it. Getting and growing anthrax is relatively simple and within the capabilities of most anyone with a bit of high school biology under their belt. From there however things get more complex. To get the anthrax into spore form it needs to be freeze dried or spun out in a centrifuge and then ground-up. The grinding is particularly difficult to get right and requires special machinery that isn’t terribly common (mostly found in some labs and a very few industries). The idea is to get an ideally sized spore that will easily fit in a human lung (ok…they all technically fit but certain sizes are much better at infecting than other sizes).
If you want to go even further you can genetically modify the anthrax spores to give them greater infecting power, greater resistance to antibiotics and the ability to survive longer in a broader range of environments than might otherwise be normal. Supposedly Russia has done this with anthrax and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the US has done so as well. This sort of mucking around with anthrax is probably restricted to all but a few very technically savvy governments and probably (hopefully) beyond the capabilities of Iraq.
It is hard to credit even well-funded terrorist organizations to be able to do all this on their own…especially if they are producing the stuff on anything approaching a mass scale. Having a government’s backing is almost necessary if you want to produce high quality anthrax and not merely spread whatever you can scrape off of some carcass.
This is just a gut check but right now I’m giving the current anthrax scare a 50-50 chance between Islamic terrorists and homegrown US terrorists (or perhaps both working independently for their own reasons). The attack on America Media was just weird for an Islamic terrorist to do when one would think they’d have a list a mile long of better targets they’d rather hit (especially before letting the cat out of the bag). I don’t know…maybe they think the National Enquirer is a serious newspaper but I still don’t get it.
Mind you…that’s just a guess on my part. I have absolutely zero evidence to back either up. I agree that final judgement should be reserved till the evidence comes in. Fortunately it seems our government (the US) feels the same)
I resent that implication. Nonesense spewing from the mouth of a man wrapped head to toe in red-white-blue bunting is still nonsense. Shame on you.
Why, I would call for an international group hug, maybe see if Saddam wants to sing on stage with Michael Jackson. Of course, this is after I do everything in my power to undermine the security of my country, maybe go spit on a couple of firemen. That what you’re looking for?
Your premise is an absurdity. Bio-warfare leaves no fingerprints, only corpses. Indeed, it is likely that the strains of anthrax in the hands of the various bad-guy players in this morass of shifting alliances all came from the same vats, located in the former USSR. What are you going to say to the glowing corpses of Baghdad if we pull the trigger too soon? “Oops, my bad! Never mind!”
Has it occured to you that it might very well suit the interests of another player, say Iran, or perhaps Israel, to manufacture such evidence? Why not? To date, we have ten megatons of hysteria and about three micograms of anthrax. Get a grip, gobear! You are off-handedly discounting the lives of thousands of innocents who’s only crime is to be in the grip of a monster.
One of the world’s biggest experts on Iraq, Prof. Amatzia Bar-Am was on Israeli TV a couple of nights ago. Earlier in the day the head of Israeli military intelligence told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence committee that it is likely that Iraq is behind the anthrax attacks. Prof Bar-Am was asked what he thought about this.
He said that it was likely that Iraq was behind the anthrax attack, and additionally that Saddam was likely behind the WTC bombing, or at least knew about it in advance.
He used an Arabic term that I can’t remember, but the meaning was basically this – Saddam wants to show the US govt that he can hurt the US, but to do it in such a way that it can’t be traced to him, even though the US govt will know it’s him. Without obvious proof, the world, and the other Arab countries in particular, won’t support an attack on Iraq, therefore leaving Saddam smiling. Prof Bar-Am said that this is a tactic Saddam learned from the East German Stasi, who also wouldn’t leave tracks from their terrorist involvement.