| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Calling Iraq’s Bluff |
| 2004-01-30 |
| By Charles Krauthammer EFL Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let’s look at what David Kay has actually said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. First, and most trumpeted, he did not find "large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction." He did find, as he reported last October, WMD-related activities, from a very active illegal missile program to research and development ("right up until the end") on weaponizing the deadly poison ricin (the stuff London police found on terrorists last year). He discovered "hundreds of cases" of U.N.-prohibited and illegally concealed activities. Significant findings, but still a far cry from what the administration had claimed last March. Kay has now offered the most novel and convincing explanation for why U.S. intelligence — and, for that matter, U.N. inspectors and the intelligence agencies of every country that mattered — misjudged what Iraq possessed. It was a combination of Iraqi bluff, deceit and corruption far more bizarre than heretofore suspected. Kay discovered that an increasingly erratic Saddam Hussein had taken over personal direction of WMD programs. But because there was no real oversight, the scientists would go to Hussein, exaggerate or invent their activities, then pocket the funds. Scientists were bluffing Hussein. Hussein was bluffing the world. The Iraqis were all bluffing each other. Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure other guard units did. It was this internal disinformation that the whole outside world missed. Congress needs to find out why, with all our resources, we had not a clue that this was going on. But Kay makes clear that President Bush was relying on what the intelligence agencies were telling him. Kay contradicts the reckless Democratic charges that Bush cooked the books. "All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD." That includes the Clinton administration. There’s more at the link. |
| Posted by:Gasse Katze |
| #13 FWIW, last night I wrote the following: http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com/nfff/2004/02/yet_more_iraq_w.html. Other than that, I'm still mulling things over. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-2-3 10:02:19 AM |
| #12 Sammy had all the time in the world to hide or destroy the evidence of his WMD programs. Even immediately after the Talibanies in Afghanistan were routed, he must have known that he would be next. Nonetheless, that the White House didn't prepare for the eventuality that the WMD wouldn't be found seems astounding to me. At the very least it gives fuel for all the America bashers and loons out there. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-1-30 2:12:44 PM |
| #11 Chuck, your last statement is what it all boiled down to for me. Ceasefire violations; concrete reason to resume hostilities. Enough said. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-1-30 1:57:01 PM |
| #10 What amounts of WMD would satisfy the critics? As I read the reports, about 3,000 liters of anthrax are unaccounted for. That works out to 937.5 gallons, or 17 55 gallon drums. I would hardly define this as a "vast" quantity, which is the term the lefty loons are using, yet it is sufficient ot kill a whole lot of folks. And I can hide 17 drums really well in a country the size of California. As I said on my blog "The lack of WMD findings to date do not prove that there were no WMD's. Stay the course. Patience." I cite the Blix report to the UN of January 2003 and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report from August 2002. I have also repeatedly cited the Kay report in defense of this issue. Kay contradicts himself repeatedly in the last two weeks, and I view him as no more reliable at this point than Scott "She Swore She Was Fourteen" Ritter. The simple answer is that Saddam repeatedly violated the ceasefire. Under the laws of war we are entitled to resume hostilities. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-1-30 11:56:17 AM |
| #9 Rantburg U at it's finest. I am reminded of Hitler in closing days of WWII, ordering about fictitious armies. Noone dared inform him of the truth. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-1-30 11:28:13 AM |
| #8 OS, thanks for that. Just the kind of analysis we needed more of before the war. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-1-30 10:23:22 AM |
| #7 OS, good class on systemic intel analysis. Thanks. I'm going to cut & paste that for future on a word doc. Good explanation for the reality behind the hoopla. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-1-30 10:03:27 AM |
| #6 He definitely had ricin, which is no play toy. I can't rule out the possibility of stuff finding its way to Syria, etc. One truck load of Sarin could put the hurting on that whole area and wouldn't of been hard to bury or hide it over the border. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-1-30 9:38:39 AM |
| #5 Its fairly simple: the CIA decided to err on the side of caution. Its risk management at its finest, and they backed themselves into a corner. Below is a my bet on how some of the decision-making was done, based on my experience. Of course, they would have better evidence from which to develop the scenarios and probabilities. Scenarios were probably laid out along these lines: (in no particular order - you will have to rank them yourself later) a) Low WMD capability. And they are all lying about them. b) They have robust WMD capability. And are covering them up. c) They had WMD capability but destroyed them, and are trying to regain that capability. d) They had no WMD and are bluffing us and themselves. Cross that with consequences: 1) They use the WMD regionally. 2) They use the WMD world wide. 3) They do no use the WMD (Possibly due to fearing the consequences or lacking the weapons). 4) They distribute the WMD but do not direct their use (i.e. they have WMD and it gets away from them). Simple 4x4 matrix. Apply a "severity" based on the impact of each of the numbered items. Apply probability to each of the lettered items. Rank the "lettered" cases from lowest probability on the left column to highest probability on the right column, and rank the "numbered" outcomes from highest impact on the top row to lowest impact on the bottom row (4 rows of impact, 4 columns of probability). For now, use Extreme, Hi, Med, Low for probability and severity ratings, assign a value of 10 for extreme, 7 for hi, 4 for Med and 1 for low. Whichever cells in the matrix come out with the 3-4 highest scores (the ones in the upper right corner of the matrix) are the cases you concern your self with, and are the ones you concentrate your main efforts at mitigation. Since you have limited resources (eventually you run out of budget, agents and analysts, especially ones that are specialists in that region), you spread them very thinly on low scoring cells (lower-left fo the matrix), and give most of your resources to the upper-right, high-score cases. The high score cases are actively worked, getting money, people, time and internal attention (i.e. they are the ones the President hears about the most). The medium-score cases you keep an eye on by periodically reviewing the evidence to see if the probabilities have changed, or the impact has changed - but use hard facts only to decrease impact or probability. The low-score cases get reviewed less often, and by less people, and the less competent people. So, based on history and precedent (Saddam's prior use of gas on the Kurds and Iranians, nearly a decade of UN and US inspector's evidence of the hiding of programs for WMD), its no wonder they got the probabilities wrong. Cell b-2 was probably rated a 10x10=100 case (The highest score possible), and thus required urgent and drastic action in light of 9/11. Cells a-3 and d-3 were probably at the lower-left in terms of score, with d-3 (what we are seeing now) likely being a 1x1 = 1 score (ceratinly a score less than 20). This means it didnt draw much attention nor was given many resources for investigating and proving the case, nor was it briefed often or reviewed often. This analyst outcome is natural, and a result of the mindset we have had since 9/11 and the previous Gulf war: Would you want to be the analyst who marked a low probability to Saddam invading Kuwait (and live with the consequences of that)? Would you want to be the analyst who decided that terrorists flying hijacked planes into multiple targets at the same time was "low" probability (and live with the consequences of that)? Or, in this case, be the analyst who failed to elevate an "extreme" impact item to a higher probability based on (at the time) "sketchy" evidence? Bottom-line is that they didn't have much in the way of "hard evidence" to reduce probability of the given scenarios. And a lot of incentive to go with the more dire scenarios that would require the President to act. Do the math for yourself with a post-9/11 mindset. And see why President Bush was given the advice he got from the Intel community and CIA. Advice from "experts" whom he had to trust implicitly. That the actions also had potential long-term desirable geopolitical consequences (democracy in the region, at eye opener for Khadaffi and Kim and other despots) is just icing on the cake. So now you know why any honest person, in his position (sworn to defend this nation and its people), would feel compelled to take the actions that the President did, in the face of that threat matrix. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-30 9:37:34 AM |
| #4 I still think we will find WMD's. It seems almost incomprehensible to me that we will not. There were too many GI's at the beginning of the war that said they found what appeared to be the goods, but then we were quickly told..don't get excited, wait and see. All of the information about labs and contaminated sites quickly seemed to go into a black hole of silence with lame excuses about ...well..it wasn't much really...go away and we'll let you know. While I don't doubt that there is truth to the fact that perhaps Sadaam was bragging to look bigger in his britches..I think that if you step back and ignore all of the hype, it's clear Sadaam had to goods. |
| Posted by: B 2004-1-30 9:30:10 AM |
| #3 I pondered this possibility a while back. I wasn't sure that Hussein was being hood-winked by his own folks, but I was sure he was talking a bigger game then he had. He simply wanted to maintain the image of the big dog on the block w/the wmd boasts. Unfortunately for him, & after 9/11 we took it serious. The WMD angle was never a big player w/me. I thought that after he violated 17 resolutions in 12 years why the hell was he still in power. He should've been handled 5 years ago. Imagine the Japanese or Germans trying to start up some nonsense in 1947, pretty sure they would've got a third bomb from ole Harry. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-1-30 7:18:49 AM |
| #2 If title link does not work, try this or this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61949-2004Jan29.html |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-1-30 6:02:41 AM |
| #1 And maybe that's why Bill has never said anything publicly about "Bush cooking the Books". Of course the Dems always want to gut the intel agencies. As you sow, so shall you reap |
| Posted by: Cheddarhead 2004-1-30 6:01:15 AM |