There are many interesting and heated discussions going on both on and off this board concerning whether or not the Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time the Americans (and others) invaded Iraq this spring.
I’d like to ask a hypothetical question. Suppose the Iraqis did indeed have WMD-- why didn’t they use them against the invading infidels? Was Saddam saving them for a rainy day? Was/is Saddam a misunderstood guy who is just too nice to spray VX on U.S. Marines?
For what possible reason would the Iraqis refrain from using their most powerful and deadly weapons against a millitarily superior invading force?
I honestly can’t think of even a way-out-guess about this (the notions above are sarcastic ones, obviously). Why even have the weapons if you aren’t going to use them when you need them most?
Because then all the people rallying against us would have immediately said “oh wow, the US was right all along. Down with Saddam!” Saddam is a madman, but he’s no fool. Using WMD’s against us in the invasion would have been the last thing he’d have done. (Note: that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them hidden somewhere in Iraq or a neighboring country.)
I’ve speculated that if he had them, he might not have used them because he might have felt that all he had going for them was world opinion against the US. If he used them, he’d still have lost the war, but also lost world opinion. So, he would have gained nothing.
Or, he didn’t have any WMDs.
Or, he felt they’d be better used in terrorist acts, so he slipped them to Al-Qaeda or whoever.
Aside from solidifying world opinion against him, there are problems in deploying them and in their actual usefulness. The only options for delivery for Iraq would have been long range missiles or artillery shells. Long range missiles are pretty much out as there were no scuds to use as a delivery platform. Iraqi artillery was not very effective in either the recent war or in 1991. Effective use of artillery requires a fairly decent command and control system to allow targets for artillery to be identified and the information passed to the guns in a timely manner. Iraqi command and control was never very effective in either of the wars with the US, in the war with Iran, or amongst Iraqi forces sent against Israel in any of the Arab-Israeli wars.
The actual usefulness of chemical weapons also isn’t as great as the general impression of them is. Against those without proper protective gear or with limited protective gear it can be very deadly, but even then its dispersal is somewhat at the mercy of the wind. Against troops with full protective gear on, its ability to inflict casualties in rather limited. Its primary effect is to slow down the troops wearing the gear due to the fatigue of wearing the gear and decontamination. The threat of use can do that almost as well as actual use would. Another danger is that it places both parties in a war at risk since the wind could very well blow chemicals back on the side that used them, particularly if they are used close to the front lines. The chemical defense gear available to Iraqi forces was much less substantial that that available to US and British forces, and the Iraqi civilian population essentially had none. If chemical weapons had been used, casualties from them would likely largely have fallen on Iraqi civilians.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Publius *
**Then why on earth would he even bother building them in the first place, if he wasn’t prepared to use them to ensure his own most basic survival? **
[/QUOTE]
Saddam wanted to dominate the region. The only thing keeping that event from taking place was the presence of the United States. Using a WMD in combat against the US would be suicide because such a weapon has a return address.
However, there is no return address from a WMD in a terrorist attack unless it is on the end of a missle. The object, in this case, is not to conquer but to neutralize. This is what made Al Qada so dangerous. Bin Laden demonstrated his ability to accept help from his enemies if it suited his purposes. It is very likely that OBL would have (may already have) accepted WMD’s from Saddam.
If you look at 9/11, the WTC attack was symbolic window dressing. The real threat was a hit against the legislative and military nerve centers. Through bravery and pure dumb luck, those parts of the plan failed. The threat still exists.
That, and $124.98 worth of plastic and activated carbon. CW’s are great against civilians or soldiers from 1915, but entirely useless against anybody who’s eveb halfway prepared.
Not too long ago, (1998, IIRC), the US accused al Qaeda of supplying Iraq with the precursor of VX, empta. I really wish that we’d get our story straight as to who it is that actually has the stuff and who’s giving it to whom.
If AQ has them to give to Hussein, then why’s Hussein trying to give them to AQ?
If Hussein has banned WMD to give to AQ, then why’d AQ try to give them to Hussein?
It seems to me that Saddam would also have been prevented from dominating the region in the event that his government was destroyed, as was certain to happen as the result of a US attack. Again, if Saddam was unwilling to use NBC weapons to ensure his own survival - a necessary component of regional domination - what precise set of circumstances would have compelled him to do so?
I have heard it said that Saddam refrained from using WMD because doing so would have swung world opinion towards the side of the US. What of it? World opinion is of little use to a dead man. Or, as the song goes, “freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.”
**
However, not using them was obviously suicide as well. The best that Saddam could have hoped for would have been to cause enough suffering amongst his attackers that their civilian populations have pressed for a political solution. Why didn’t he?
**
I strongly believe that the anonymous nature of terrorist attacks is overrated. Even amidst the chaos of September 11, we were able to trace the attacks to their source within hours. This pattern has held true for terrorist acts from Lockerbie to the bombing of USS Cole. We have also been able to uncover - and either confirm or dismiss - the possibility of links between al-Qaa:ada and foreign states in the past. Why would we not be able to do so in the future?
Out of curiosity, are you thinking of any time in particular that Bin Ladin demonstrated his willingness to work with would-be enemies?
Many pro-war people that I have spoken to have been of the opinion that Saddam and Bin Ladin certainly would have cooperated in delivering nonconventional weapons to the United States. Their opinion was not shared, however, by Kenneth Pollack, a former high-ranking Mideast analyst for the CIA and one of the strongest proponents of the war. While in his book (The Threatening Storm) Pollack did identify the issue as the “$64,000 question,” he went on to dismiss the possibility of an such cooperation as remote.
If even Kenneth Pollack could not bring himself around to the idea that Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin were itching to cooperate on the issue of WMD, I have a hard time bringing myself to that conclusion. For one thing, even if Bin Ladin was willing to cooperate with his longtime Ba’athist enemies, why on earth would famously-paranoid Saddam give all sorts of nasty weapons to well-known Islamist enemies who might very well turn around and overthrow his government? Keep in mind that this is the same Saddam who had been known in years past to arrest, torture, and execute Iraqis who committed the crime of going to mosque too often.
It does indeed. Ironically, if weapons of mass destruction did exist in Iraq, the war has probably only made the situation more dangerous. The fact that the Iraqi government did not use such weapons even when faced with its own destruction belies the claim that it would have used them to launch an unprovoked, suicidal attack on the United States, and demonstrates it could in fact have been deterred (or, of course did not possess WMD at all). Now, however, any weapons of mass destruction that did exist in Iraq have almost certainly fallen into the hands of foreign agents and terrorists. We had Iraq contained rather nicely; the same isn’t true about al-Qaa:ada or Iran.
Why are missiles and artillery the only options for delivery? What about delivering the weapons up close in a suicide attack? Or by mortar? What about the anthrax spraying MiGs that Powell said the Iraqis had? And what is so difficult about using artillery? Yes, you need a spotter, but the war was fought in their backyard. Many spotters around, I’d think.
If the usefulness of chemical weapons isn’t so great then what in the HELL did we go to war for? You can’t have it both ways. Either these are horrible weapons that are so deadly that we simply MUST rush off and invade Iraq, or they are overrated and pose little problem to a modern army. Which is it?
I tend to agree with Publius. If you don’t use these weapons when your very existence is at stake, when would you ever use them? Does anyone really think the only reason Saddam had WMD was to give them away to others? Especially to potential enemies (OBL)?
And, “World opinion”? What is “world opinion” going to get Saddam if he’s dead or deposed? I thought the intel on Saddam was that he was a survivor, not a statesman. Survivors do what they must do to survive.
Ummm … you do remember that the first thing we tried to do in the war is kill him, right? You think we would have tried harder if he had used them?
Oh, and about them not being ready - the attack was not exactly a big surprise. That explanation is a nonstarter also. They did manage to shoot off the few SCUDs they had left, remember.
If WMDs are not useful in fighting wars, then they were no threat to us, even if they did exist, and we had no justification for starting the war. That explanation doesn’t work too well either.
I like one someone used at the time of the war - by not using WMDs Saddam embarrassed us. He might have lost power, he might be in hiding, but we’re sure embarrassed, and he’s having the last laugh.
The only logical reason for him to not use them was that he didn’t have them.
Another question (a bit more obscure). Saddam did hire the late Canadian expert (Dr. Gerald Bull) to design high-velocity artillery howitzers. Supposedly, these guns had a range and accuracy far beyond any howitzers in the US Army (i believe the 155 mm gun is the one we have).
Anyway, before the last Gulf war, I recall seeeing an engineer from VOEST-ALPINE (Austian arms mfg. who made the gun barrrells for Bull).
Were these guns actually built? And, were that all that Dr, Bull made them out to be?
Mortars are artillery, and there are two major problems with the spray tank fitted drones that Powell talked about. The big one is that they didn’t in fact exist, and the other reason is that like airplanes they could be intercepted and shot down. Aircraft, either using bombs or spray tanks, are very effective delivery platforms for chemical weapons, but in the face of US aerial domination they weren’t an option for Iraq.
The difficulty in effectively using artillery is in doing the spotting and ensuring that the guns fire on targets in a timely manner. Iraq was unable to do this very well. During the war with Iran Iraqi artillery was more effective (though not incredibly so) for several reasons. The tempo of operations was much slower than it was against the US, they did not have to worry as much about counter-battery fire and air strikes against the guns, and jamming of radio communications was much less. Further, since the war was largely static, they were able to fire on trenches where they knew the Iranians were. The speed of the American and British advance prevented this.
A suicide attack has it’s own problems with dispersal of the agent and the danger to the user that he will kill himself before killing anyone else .
I never made any claim to use WMDs to justify the war. You placed the hypothetical that these weapons existed and asked if that was the case why weren’t they used. I explained their limitations. Against a properly protected military thery are of little use on the battlefield, especially when it would have endangered the Iraqi military as much if not more than Americans and British. Personally, I found the WMD excuse to be bogus as a justification at the time, and I actually expected that some stocks of chemical weapons would be found.
Well, I haven’t heard anyone claim the man is dead – he seems to have done a pretty good job of surviving so far.
I don’t think Sadam had any illusions about the American ability to respond with severity to any use of WMDs against American forces. He does believe that America though rich and powerful is decadent and soft, and that the American resolve can be overcome by a steady war of attrition. Lesson from Vietnam.
Israel however is a different matter. Israel has proved that it can stay the course through decades of terrorism. But it is still a small and vulnerable nation that could be destroyed. Sadam would secure his place in Arab history alongside Saladin if he could deliver the definitive blow to Israel on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I’m sure this nightmare figures heavily in the thinking of top US adminstration officials, because the US would have to respond to an ally and answer for its consistant attempts to restrain Israeli governments in self preservation operations.
There is also the posibility that the command and control was severey restricted very early in the war. The final decision might have been with commanders who were not getting much if any formal direction from the top and therefore were not going to use the WMD on their own initiative.
So where are these WMD which were ready to be used but were not used due lack of command and control? You’d think with the Iraqi army crumbling like that they would have been easy to find. And yet. . .
Gangster, that scenario assumes that the alleged weapons were in the hands of battlefield commanders, meaning they were spread out all over the battlefield–like artillery shells or grenades–ready to be used. In that case, we would have found one or two laying around, or one of the surrendering officers would have told us where to find them. This has not happened.
All this theorizing is well and good, but have you all forgot about Occam’s Razor? The most simple theory is the one that is most likely to be right. The most simple theory is that he didn’t use them because he didn’t have them.
So where are these WMD which were ready to be used but were not used due lack of command and control? You’d think with the Iraqi army crumbling like that they would have been easy to find. And yet. . .