Keith Devens .com

WMD

I've been meaning to write about Iraq's WMD's. Given the knowledge that Saddam did have them at some point, I see only three possibilities:

They were moved before the war, most probably to Syria
They're still in Iraq but we haven't found them yet
They were destroyed by Saddam but he didn't tell anybody or keep any documentation of their destruction

Option three, I believe, contradicts good sense, for many reasons I think it would be tedious to enumerate. Option 1 seems most likely, given that we know there was activity over the Syrian border around the start of the war, and seems extra-likely given the recently thwarted chemical mega-attack in Jordan for which there is reason to believe some of the chemicals involved came from Iraq. (I still wonder, however, why they would be transferred to Syria rather than used in the war, though it seems easier to think of more plausible explanations for this than it is for option 3.) It may still be a combination of 1+2.

What it comes down to, as I see it, is that the only reasonable course to take is to withhold judgement and be patient to see what is revealed over time. It seems that to hold the opinion that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war requires that you hold to number 3, but again, that doesn't seem reasonable. By modus tollens, it has to be one or a combination of the first two. It may take a long time to discover what actually happened to Saddam's WMDs. I hope we find out before they're actually successfully used somewhere (as they might have been in Jordan), and I'm still waiting for more information about the planned attack in Jordan, which I've heard essentially nothing about recently. What the heck do reporters do all day?

Update: Ned Batchelder responded on his site:

Look at it this way: our side was announcing every chance they got that Saddam was a mad man, he was crazy, etc. So why rule out option 3 just because it doesn't make sense? Madmen do things that don't make sense.

That's exactly my point. Saying "oh, he's crazy, his actions must not have made sense" is itself a cop out, at least at this point. While option 3 is still a possibility, you have to go with the rational explanations before you jump to the irrational ones.

Ned also presents an option four:

option 4: the Iraqis were basically incompetent at keeping their weapons programs going, and they all fell into disuse or were used up.

That seems like a possibility. Part of the reason options 3 and 4 don't seem plausible to me is that they don't serve to explain the actions of the other side. If Saddam had nothing to hide, why was he still being obstructionist until the very end? Why during the war did we find a whole cache of chemical protective equiment ready to be used by Iraqi soldiers? In addition, that they were all used up doesn't seem plausible on the face of it, and even less so given that we've now had mustard-gas and sarin nerve agent shells used against us. There's probably more where they came from.

While I was typing this Ian left a comment with his own option four, which I'll rename option 5:

[5.] The UN program to dismantle WMDs in Iraq worked.

I don't think that's an opinion anyone at the U.N. would even hold. Certainly in 1998 they didn't think their job was done when the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq. Then, before the war, everyone in the security council voted to continue the inspections to give Saddam a final chance to prove that he disarmed, yet he was obstructionist then too.

For reference, here's Hans Blix report to the U.N. on January 27, 2003.

My whole point in this is that it's more reasonable to believe that options 1 or 2 or a combination are true, and that options 3, 4, and 5 require that there ultimately is no rational explanation that explains A. what happened to the weapons, and B. Iraq's behavior over the past 12 years or so before the war. One of the irrational explanations may be true, and they may start to seem more likely to me over time if the more reasonable explanations don't pan out, but I think it's still too soon to think we've exhausted the possibility of those explanations. To argue that there were no weapons there, I think, is premature.

Ned also wrote:

What amazes me is how far people like Keith will stretch their logic to continue to follow the party line that Saddam was a threat because of WMD.

Like I wrote above, I think it's a stretch of logic to conclude differently. I don't appreciate being accused of following the "party line" (I take that to mean that I'm being intellectually dishonest, which I don't think I am), and in addition, my reasons for supporting the war were only partially based on the WMD argument.

However, I still think that's an important consideration. Given the recent knowledge we've acquired of the extensive weapons proliferation among North Korea, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, (completely thanks to Libya's capitulation because of what happened in Iraq), I'm glad that two or three of those five or six rogue nations are no longer a threat to us. I'm not sure what to say about Pakistan, given that they were a large proliferator going back years, but are now ostensibly an ally. They have a lot of internal problems, but Musharraf seems to be on our side, though I'm really not sure how much of a threat to consider Pakistan. That's part of the reason I'm glad I'm not in Bush's place. It's a hard job.

Permalink | 9 Comments | Tags: Opinions/Politics | id 4912

02:28 (utc-4)
edited: 14:49 (utc-4)

Comments

"Why during the war did we find a whole cache of chemical protective equipment ready to be used by Iraqi soldiers?"

Yeah, why might the Iraqi army have had chemical gear?
It's not like their hostile neighbour Iran, a country they fought using horrific chemical & biological weapons in the 80's, also has chem/bio weapons or anything.

This whole WMD thing was a stupid way to sell the war, I supported the war just to oust Saddam. If it were about WMD then the US should have gone after North Korea, but then we know North Korea has WMD & Nukes and would use them.

"Given the recent knowledge we've acquired of the extensive weapons proliferation among North Korea, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, (completely thanks to Libya's capitulation because of what happened in Iraq)"

That's not true.
People have known that North Korea has had chem/bio programs since the 80's and a nuke program from the 90's. Pakistan went nuclear years ago and Syria has been red flagged time and time again. The only thing Libya did was get Fox News talking about it, give them some time and they might "uncover" the fact that Israel has the bomb (And lots of them), or that the Saudi's want the bomb.

If Saddam had nothing to hide, why was he still being obstructionist until the very end?

Imagine this nightmare scenario: China decides that the US-superpower era must end. The Chinese government reveals that they have the capability to poison the water supply of every major and minor US city, and are willing to accept any kind of retaliation the US could deal out. They demand that the US unilaterally dismantle their WMD program, and further demand that the US accept disarmament inspectors who have the right to go absolutely anywhere in the US, without restraint.

OK, that is a far-fetched scenario, but how would the US react to the disarmament inspectors? Let's say the US accepts the inspectors because the consequences otherwise are unthinkable. But even after accepting the inspectors. the government would be very reluctant to let those inspectors go anywhere. In particular, their would be a great reluctance concerning inspections of the most secret military bases, which are - ironically - the very ones that the inspectors will be most keen to see. A game of brinksmanship would rapidly ensue, with the US only ever conceding enough at any point in time to stop the Chinese carrying out their ultimate threat.

I believe something similar happenned in Iraq.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

WMD

Comments

Recent comments