[Peace-discuss] still no WMDs

[Ken Urban]

This can be said succinctly:

Inspections worked.

Bush and Co. knew there were no WMDs and didn't need to bother to look
for them.

Ken


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ken Urban
Assoc. Prof. in Computer Science

B129A
(217)-353-2246
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>> patton paul <ppatton at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 04/22/03 06:30PM >>>
 Where Have All the WMD-Hunters Gone?
by David Corn


The obvious question is, where are the weapons of mass destruction
that
supposedly prompted the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz quartet to
invade
Iraq?

The less obvious one is, where's the massive search-and-secure
operation
that should be scouring Iraq to locate and control those stocks of
chemical and biological weapons and WMD-related materials, technology
and
records?

The US military certainly has been looking for chemical and biological
weapons as well as evidence of a nuclear bomb program (Iraq was never
said
to be in possession of nuclear weapons). But what is surprising--if
not
scandalous--is that two weeks after US troops moved into Baghdad the
Bush
Pentagon has not yet mounted a full sweep of Iraq for WMD, or even
dispatched a sufficient amount of trained troops and specialists to
conduct such a mission. It's as if the Bush administration and the
Pentagon had not bothered to listen to their own rhetoric about Iraq's
purported weapons of mass destruction while planning the invasion and
occupation. Shouldn't a mess of these units have been scrambling
across
Iraq--using all that prewar intelligence that allowed administration
officials to declare without pause that Saddam Hussein controlled
enough
of these dangerous weapons to be a direct threat to the United
States--within days, if not hours, of the collapse of Hussein's
murderous
regime? Perhaps they should even have been among the forward-deployed
troops. Yet while some US WMD-hunters are hard at work, the Pentagon
acknowledges that nothing close to a full detachment has been sent to
Iraq. As The Los Angeles Times reported on April 20, the Defense
Department is still preparing to send "hundreds of additional
investigators to speed up the search" for WMD and remains in the
process
of "assembling a 'survey group' with more than 1,000 experts to
interrogate Iraqi scientists and sift through recovered documents to
broaden the search for weapons of mass destruction."

Is it dumb to ask, why wasn't all this ready to go when the war
started?

It's not as if the invasion came as a shock. The Pentagon had
months--actually, over a year--to ready WMD teams for Iraq. As early
as
November 2001, Bush warned Hussein that trouble would be coming unless
he
opened up Iraq to international weapons inspectors. That was two
months
before he designated Iraq an original member of his axis of evil. With
so
much lead time, why did the Pentagon not arrange for a force of
specialists who could immediately be dropped into Iraq to find and
control
the weapons that were the reason for the war?

On March 20, the day after the bombing began, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld noted, "We have a serious task before us, and it is to remove
that regime and find the weapons of mass destruction." The following
day,
he identified several "specific objectives." Number one was smashing
the
regime and its military. The second item on his to-do list was, "to
identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery systems, production, capabilities, and
distribution networks." (After that came driving out terrorists,
delivering humanitarian relief, securing oil fields, creating
conditions
that would allow a transition to a new, representative government.) He
noted that "we will...ensure their weapons of mass destruction will
not
fall into the hands of terrorists." Days later, he remarked, "we're
there
to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction in that country."

But the available public evidence suggests Rumsfeld had no plan for
quickly and fully addressing this priority. Or for preventing that
much-discussed nightmare scenario: in the chaos caused by war,
chemical
and biological weapons and WMD-related materials (if any did exist in
Iraq) are grabbed by terrorists, crooks, former officials, or
whomever,
and spirited out of Iraq. At a press conference on April 9--the day US
forces took Baghdad--Rumsfeld said, "We are in the process of trying
to
liberate that country. And at the moment where the war ends and the
coalition forces occupy the areas where those capabilities--chemical
and
biological weapons--are likely to be, to the extent they haven't been
moved out of the country, it obviously is important to find them." To
the
extent they haven't been moved out of the country? Was the Pentagon
not
taking deliberate action to try to stop that from occurring? Two days
later, Rumsfeld again made it seem as if dealing with possible WMD was
a
secondary mission: "When there happens to be a weapon of mass
destruction
suspect site in an area that we occupy and if people have time,
they'll
look at it." If people have time? Indeed, the task of military units is
to
win the battle of the moment. But the Marines could have been
accompanied
by the WMD-seekers assigned to examine suspected sites.

The point of this war was to make sure Hussein could not hand off
nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons to terrorists who would use them
against
the United States. (It was uncertain whether Hussein had such
weaponry,
whether--if he did--he had the inclination to share them with
terrorist
groups, and whether he maintained any operational links to such
outfits.)
And before the war, an obvious possibility loomed: a US invasion would
cause the collapse of the central government, which presumably would
lead
to a breakdown of the command and control system in charge of Iraq's
purported WMD arsenal. All that dangerous stuff would then be up for
grabs. As Rumsfeld said on April 9, "the thought that as part of this
process, some of that--those materials could leave the country and in
the
hands of terrorists networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it
is
important to us to see that that doesn't happen." Yet this "unhappy
prospect" was most likely to occur during the turmoil of war or in the
first chaotic days and weeks following its conclusion. Rumsfeld and
the
Pentagon offered no indication they had prepared thoroughly for that
contingency.

On April 17, Rumsfeld noted that the Pentagon's WMD teams "for the
first
time in the last few days" had been able to start looking at suspected
sites. But, he added, "I don't think we'll discover anything, myself.
I
think what will happen is we'll discover people who will tell us where
to
go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around
looking everywhere hoping you find something. I just don't think
that's
going to happen. The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that
we
will. What we will do is find the people who will tell us."

Imagine if Rumsfeld had said that before the war: We're invading
another
country to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction, but I doubt
we'll
find them unless people there tell us where they are.

As of this writing, there have been no confirmed sightings of WMD in
Iraq.
On Monday, The New York Times, in a story reviewed by military
censors,
reported that an American military squad hunting for WMD--the Mobile
Exploitation Team Alpha--had found an Iraqi scientist who claimed to
have
worked in a chemical weapons program. He reportedly told his American
handlers that Hussein's government destroyed chemical weapons and
biological warfare equipment days prior to the US invasion. This
scientist, according to MET Alpha, led the Americans to a spot where
illegal weapons-related material had been buried. (Judith Miller, the
Times reporter embedded with this MET, was not allowed to interview
the
scientist.) The day the story ran, Rumsfeld refused to comment on it.

Perhaps the MET Alpha discovery will be the WMD prize the Bush
administration has been seeking. But until now the WMD indicators have
not
been encouraging for the White House. A front-page story in today's
Washington Post begins, "With little to show after 30 days, the Bush
administration is losing confidence in its prewar belief that it had
strong clues pointing to the whereabouts of weapons of mass
destruction
concealed in Iraq, according to planners and participants in the hunt.
After testing some--though by no means all--of their best leads,
analysts
here and in Washington are increasingly doubtful that they will find
what
they are looking for in the places described on a five-tiered target
list
drawn up before the fighting began. Their strategy is shifting from
the
rapid 'exploitation' of known suspect sites to a vast survey that will
rely on unexpected discoveries and leads."

In other words, whoops. Or would that be, never mind? More the
former--if
the Bushies were right and there were WMD in Iraq before the war. As
the
Post noted, "If such weapons or the means of making them have been
removed
from the centralized control of former Iraqi officials, high-ranking
US
officials acknowledged, then the war may prove to aggravate the
proliferation threat that President Bush said he fought to forestall."
And
as of April 21, the Pentagon had yet to examine tens of the 100 or so
top-priority targets.

It could be that tomorrow incriminating weaponry is discovered or the
MET
Alpha find turns out to be the WMD equivalent of King Tut's tomb. But
in
the Post piece, one can discern the rapid construction of a fallback
position. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy,
raised
the possibility that some of the postwar looting was conducted by
Iraqi
insiders who swiped files, electronic data, and equipment from WMD
programs to conceal their involvement or make off with technology and
information they can sell. Consequently, the US WMD-hunters have had a
tougher time.

It's worth remembering that the Bush administration, in its go-to-war
push, did not say that Hussein--who was not cooperating fully with
inspections-- might possess biological and chemical weapons and a
program
to develop nuclear weapons. They maintained there was no question he
had
awful weapons and a nuclear program. "If there are no weapons of mass
destruction, I'll be mad as hell," David Albright, a former UN weapons
inspector told The Los Angeles Times. "I certainly accepted the
administration claims on chemical and biological weapons. I figured
they
were telling the truth. If there is no [WMD program], I will feel
taken,
because they asserted these things with such assurance."

Whether biological and chemical weapons and the remnants of an active
nuclear program are found or not, Bush and his national security team
have
already violated their prewar commitment to the United States and the
world. They claimed that finding and eliminating WMD in Iraq was the
prime
reason for the war. Yet they--of all people--do not seem to have taken
the
threat seriously, for they failed to draw up adequate plans to deal
with
it. Even if the MET teams and the come-lately reinforcements uncover
WMD
caches, they will likely never know what they missed--and where and
with
whom it might be today.

Copyright  2003 The Nation


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com 
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss