IIRC they were being touted as effective. Particularly to keep the Israelis out of the fight. Reasoning being, I guess, that while you are being attacked we have you covered so there is nothing to worry about. The reality though was the Patrioy system was largely ineffective. I do not think though the general populace realized just how ineffective they were (they knew they were not 100% but thought they were better than they were).
That said may as well try. If it only stops 1 out of 100 why not? Anything is better than nothing.
He used some of the remaining ones in his arsenal (not getting into whether we sold them to Iraq or not) on the Kurd’s and his own people AFTER the first Gulf War…which is what this thread is about. He also destroyed many of his stock piles after the first GW as well, as part of the cease fire (though IIRC they were still finding old artillery shells for chemical weapons even after the second GW).
No. The last of the chemical weapons (Artillery delivered nerve gas) were dismantled in the late '80s, by order of Pres. Reagan. Their sole purpose was to enable a “reply in kind” response to chemical attack. However, since they had been designed in the '70s, by the time they were dismantled, they were all but useless, tactically. As far as bio-weapons, no-one has ever bothered to weaponize them, because they are only useful on a strategic basis (attacking populations). They affect the targets too slowly to have any viable use against combat troops. Their utility (or lack of same) is widely known by experts in military affairs, from every political perspective. In fact, it was found even in WW I that chemical weapons were largely useless, militarily. The only time they had ANY tactical benefit, was the first time they were used, when the novelty had a profound morale effect on the targets. Even then, they only led to a brief tactical advantage, which was rapidly neutralized by maneuver of reserves to contain the enemy advance, resulting in no more than a couple of kilometer’s change in lines. They actually NEVER EVEN achieved the casualty rates of conventional artillery. Essentially, the only reason the Geneva Protocol of 1925 was signed, prohibiting chemical weapons, was that all sides recognized that they WERE militarily useless, but wanted to avoid the horror of the results on the casualties and medical personnel. Why NOT outlaw something that gives no decisive advantage? Since the decommisioning of the last of the US chemical weapons, the US has relied entirely, and exclusively, on the threat of retaliation by nuke to any NBC attack as a deterrent to “WMDs”. The stated policy, since at least Pres. Truman, has been (as someone stated earlier in this thread) one of ambiguity, “we reserve the right to” reply in kind. Leaving an enemy to wonder “will they or won’t they?” Now, only nukes are available to reply in kind WITH, so the question boils down to “if we gas 'em, will they nuke us?” I wrote a paper on this back in '85 for a political science class (which I got an A for), when the dismantling was just getting underway. I’ve never seen anything occur since, to contradict what I wrote then.
That’s true, but the idea was not for the Corps on the left flank to invade Iraq, so much as to act as an anvil on the north side of Kuwait that the other 2 Corps could hammer against. That Corps (VIIth?) wasn’t even supposed to run into any Iraqis until they were all across their rear. Their job was not actually to occupy and administer territory, which invasion implies.
Saddam did NOT have chemical warhead tipped SCUDs. These would be very advanced and complicated (and expensive) weapons to design and build. Its not a matter of simply putting a big container of poison gas at the top of a missile.
But even if he had, he would have to have been a madman to attack Israel with one. Because if the Jewish State had a large number of its citizens killed with poison gas, let me emphasize JEWS KILLED WITH POISON GAS!, there is a 110% chance (i.e. an absolute certainty) that Israel would have responded with at least one nuclear weapon.
That’s not to say that that’s exactly what a madman would want, to plunge the Mid-East (and perhaps the world) into nuclear-enabled war. But thankfully Saddam wasn’t a total madman. Rather, he was too selfish to not want to survive his actions.
Fair 'nuf, I reckon. The way BG phrased it, coupled with his senior moment about SCUDS over Tel Aviv, I wasn’t too sure if he understood that yes, we put “boots on ground” in Iraq in Desert Follies I, even if it wasn’t to “occupy.”
Although, immediately after the cease-fire (hours, really), but before we pulled back to Saudi, were told “We ain’t goin’ nowhere 'til that camel-humping sonofabitch signs everything put in front of it to Bush’s satisfaction. And if he even breathes wrong, it’s back on!” And we did stay in Iraq for the better part of a week.
Most likely a buncha military hoo-rah meant to keep us “sharp” until the cease-fire was recognized as legitimate.
Or until somebody made arrangements to pull us all back to Saudi in a manner resembling something less than a clusterfuck.
You mentioned being part of 2nd ACR. Was that the one in VII Corps (and did I get the Corps right)? If so, I remember that some ACR Captain, leading the battalion (don’t remember which one) at the front was the instigator of “Battle of 25 Easting”. Were you there? I want to hear about THAT ONE from someone who was there. THAT battle is a CLASSIC for the military history books.
No, I was with 1st Cav, playing “Hey diddle-diddle, right up the middle” to fake-out the Iraqis. Then came the punt, and we swung west and spent the next 3 days playing catch-up with VII Corps.
On the 4th day, we were to conduct forward passage of lines to take over the VII Corps lead from the 2nd ACR. The move-out order never came.
ETA: Yeah, 2nd ACR was assigned to VII Corps. It was my old unit in Germany before going to Ft. Hood and 1st Cav.
Oh, good, I’m glad I remembered right. I assume that means VII Corps was the one on the left. I hate it when I misremember history. BTW, thanks for serving. Even if the politidiots frequently misuse and abuse the military, we still rely on you guys to keep us free.
Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, in his 2002 work The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq touches on this subject. I should caution the reader that Pollack later maintained that the title was chosen by the publisher and that he actually wanted to provide a balanced treatment of the subject. But when I read the book, I thought that he was advocating invasion, albeit in a balanced way. Anyway, I’m condensing Pollack’s argument and probably missed the all-important codicils.
Iraqi sources claim that Saddam chose not to arm his missiles with WMDs due to fears of an Israeli nuclear response. But it may have actually been due to “Technical incapacity”: Saddam apparently lacked proximity fuses, methods to spray the chemicals and they weren’t even sure whether the chemicals would degrade in flight.
As for coalition forces, Saddam may have been unable to assemble the weapons during the rout: apparently chemicals degrade fairly quickly once they are loaded into missiles. The process would have taken several days to execute in militarily significant ways, time the Iraqis didn’t have.
Bush the First and James Baker also delivered a letter to the Iraqi foreign minister in Jan 1991, threatening severest consequences if WMDs were used.