You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
ISG says: No WMD (yet)
2003-10-03
Britain and America insisted last night that it was right to go to war against Saddam Hussein despite the failure to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In his long-awaited interim report, David Kay, the head of the 1,200-strong CIA-led team of inspectors in Iraq, told Congress yesterday that after four months they had not found any [sic] evidence of the banned weaponry. The former UN inspector said that Iraq had civilian technology that could have been swiftly converted to weapons programmes. He also said Saddam pursued an elaborate programme of deception to trick inspectors in the countdown to the war. But he said that since they started in June, his team had not found any sign of the WMD cited by America and Britain as a key element of their case for war. "We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone."

With criticism mounting over the apparent failure to find WMD, officials in London and Washington called for patience, saying it was only an interim report and that the hunt would continue. Ministers sought to bolster any findings in the report that might lessen the damage to the Government. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: "I believed then and I believe now the action we took is fully justified and fully justifiable." Before hostilities there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons programmes. Downing Street officials said the report contained substantial amounts of material which had not emerged before, showing Iraq had breached UN resolutions.
The way I see it, the absence of discoveries is puzzling, but not overly worrying. If someone indicates he’s armed and a threat to you, you can’t afford to call his bluff (this is assuming the western intelligence wasn’t actively "sexing-up" the threat - I think that’s safe to assume given that no one, not even the French, seriously doubted the WMDs were there). So this does not constitute a rejection of the war-of-self-defence argument, which stands beside the plethora of other justifications for the war, not least of which is the humanitarian argument.
Posted by:Bulldog

#11  I'm w/SOG475 -Great point about the quagmire analogy. Same about the press. Many are ajenda driven. Mainly the ajenda is ratings. Bad news makes for good ratings. They often fail to mention the schools we've helped get back up, the roads we've worked on, and the infrastructure we're fixing. It's going to be a challenge to fix 30 yrs of Sammie rule in a yr, much less 6 mos. Seems obvious to most logical folks but I guess the press just doesn't get that part. Trying to hurt President Bush's re-election is also a bonus for many of them.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-10-3 10:42:19 AM  

#10  Not to depreciate the deaths of the soldiers but I think statistically they are safer in Iraq than they are in the US.

I read somewhere that the US military loses about that many soldiers in automobile accidents and training accidents every week.

Anyway, 6 a week is not a quagmire. 600 a week is a quagmire....I was there and it was. Our hands were tied we couldn't engage the enemy with any kind of initiative and we had no clue what we were fighting for.

At least in Iraq we have some goal. Clean up the mess from Saddam, out the deadenders, get a new government up and running and get out.

The press and all of the naysayers don't care about the soldiers, all they want to do is discredit Bush and get a leftist wacko democrat elected President. They want to destroy the morale of our military and deplete the support of us at home with all of the negative crap they can dig up.
Posted by: SOG475   2003-10-3 10:11:43 AM  

#9  The report is here.

Sullivan does a nice job summarizing, but read the report. It is so far different than the headlines in most media that it makes you wonder if they saw the same report.


1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.

2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.

3. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2003-10-3 10:02:00 AM  

#8  UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw, per BBC:

'Mr Straw said the survey group's report provided "further conclusive and incontrovertible evidence" Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN resolutions, said Mr Straw.

"Kay's report confirms how dangerous and deceitful the regime was, and how the military action was indeed both justified and essential to remove the dangers," he said. '

Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-10-3 9:07:15 AM  

#7  John,
- some of the countries I heard about involved w/Sammie were obviously France, Russia, Syria & even Jordan. The Iraqis were using Russian made Kornet anti-tank missiles which I heard actually mobility-killed a few of our M-1 Tanks. Something I've never heard of being done before. Apparently the Frenchies had helped him w/his anti-air defense network. Some claim even after 91'. We found cases of ammo w/Syrian & Jordanian military markings on them as recent as 2000 or 2001 I believe. I think a lot of this even maybe on the web so any of you can double-check my assertions for accuracy.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-10-3 9:01:48 AM  

#6  Wow. The whole report is worth reading. In three months, Kay has found new programs that Han Blix and the UN never discovered. Saddam had motive and intent. He was waiting for the sanctions to collapse. What were we waiting for?

Be interesting to find out who all those foreign companies were signing contracts for his missile programs.
Posted by: john   2003-10-3 8:50:18 AM  

#5  WMD's or not; if one violates a UN mandate that was written in the blood of American GI's 17 different times - then one needs to be removed. Case closed.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-10-3 8:31:41 AM  

#4  If someone tells me repeatedly he has a gun and is going to kill me,then I'm going to tend to belive that person and react accordingly.
Posted by: Raptor   2003-10-3 7:56:10 AM  

#3  Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com) has links to David Kay's report, and a good analysis. Summary: the idea, widely reported, that we "haven't found anything" is an absolute, utter crock. And he's right- go read the report.
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-10-3 7:29:18 AM  

#2  By the same logic the anti war crowd is using, Saddam did not exist either.

And I don't think you are going to find them until and unless Saddam's head is on a pike. If people are afraid he is alive, they will keep quiet.
Posted by: Ben   2003-10-3 6:16:30 AM  

#1  I must've said this a multitude of times before, but the WMDs were thrown at the UN (not literally of course)for public consumption. It was a tool used to put together a case for going into Iraq. I bet the backroom conversations at the UN were about something else entirely.
Mind you, I do believe that Saddam would have had to been dealt with anyway precisely because of his fondness for WMDs. So the WMD argument is valid even if none will ever be found.
Posted by: Rafael   2003-10-3 6:07:59 AM  

00:00