An editorial from MILNET: IRAQ: The WMD Threat in 2001 Iraq continues to give non-proliferation groups ulcers. Simply put, no one has any illusion that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq has put any limits on their development and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Given production rates of a decade ago, and the fact that there have not been on the ground inspectors since December of 1998, it is pretty well assured Iraq is only a few years from completing the development and fueling of a nuclear weapon. Moreover the Iraqi biological and chemical weapons programs are most likely in full production today, producing toxins and agents for sale to anyone with the right targets in mind -- in essence, anyone who would like to deploy these weapons against what Iraq's Suddam Hussein feels are the evils of the world -- U.S. and U.K. come to mind, but also any other non Islamic state that Iraq feels it has a grudge with. This report provides details on the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical capabilities of Iraq, extrapolated from December 1998, using tidbits of information declassified and found in open source locations worldwide. The Logic Former CIA Chief, James Woolsey, on December 13, 2001, in a speech at a conference on Iraq and Terrorism, put forth the supposition that World leaders have no choice but to go after Iraq and to do it very soon. His rationale was based upon at least seven factors point to the necessity of not only taking on Iraq to prevent the spread of WMD but applying a number of reasons that the need is one of great urgency. Woolsey's position supports MILNET's proposition even before 9/11, that Iraq is a festering danger to world peace and must be removed as quickly as the civilized world can muster the energy and courage to do so. Below we cite the specific threats in the WMD arena, based on verified data prior to December 1998 as well as subsequent overt and covert methods employed by the U.N.'s UNSCOM replacement UNMOVIC. Nuclear "...as noted by the Security Council in resolution 1284 (1999), there remain unresolved disarmament issues, including issues of key importance. Moreover, the absence of inspectors, and the lack of continuity of knowledge since 1998, raises the question whether additional issues have arisen that must also be resolved." United Nations Security Council Report, S2001/833, "Sixth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission under paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999). [UNMOVIC-S-2001-833.pdf] In non-proliferation speak, this simply means - No inspectors, no confidence. Or even more simple -- "We have no idea what Iraq is up to". UNMOVIC is the agency within the U.N. infrastructure now responsible for verification of treaty conditions. The sixth report from the organization makes it quite clear that the U.N. doesn't have a clue as to Iraq's compliance with the treaty obligations agreed to by Iraq in 1992. UNMOVIC reports that they are now relying on commercial overhead imagery (satellite photos for the un-initiated) to try to scope out activity around suspected manufacturing sites. More interesting however is that UNMOVIC believes Iran capable of constructing a nuclear weapon in weeks if fissile material were available. Iraq Watch, a non governmental watchdog group says Iraq was on the verge of building a weapon nearly a decade ago, and that the Clinton administration not only knew of this readiness to construct, but took no action to intercept components in route. Biological Iraq Watch also lists the documents from UNMOVIC that detail the dual use items imported into Iraq that are critical in the development of biological weapons. MILNET also features a complete collection of U.S. Nonproliferation reports that also clearly cite Iraq's continued WMD programs and unused dual use equipment purchase. The lists contains such items as glove boxes, centrifuges, HEPA containment systems, anaerobic, dry boxes and growth systems such as fermenters, bioreactors, chemostats, continuous flow fermatation systems and others. When checking for dual use systems usage, non-proliferation experts look to see if purchases are accompanied by activities that demonstrate a remarked increase in non-weapons production. In the case of Iraq, purchases of the equipment has had little or zero effect on the production of medicines or medical agents stockpiled or made available in commercial quantities. In other words, the equipment, while clearly in use due to maintenance parts being requested and accompanied by "core" replacement material that indicates heavy use, has not been used to produce medicines or other dual use, non-weapons related products. Simply put, the only use identifiable would be for weapons research or production. Given the three years since 1998's cessation of inspections, UNMOVIC has determined that in all likelihood, Iraq has a major biological program underway and has had sufficient time to stockpile battlefield quality and battlefield quantities. Chemical Similar in nature to the investigations (non inspection regime) being conducted in the area of biological weapons research and production, Iraq's chemical weapons program appears to also be blooming. In nearly identical fashion to the logical approach taken to unmask Iraq's bio program, UNMOVIC now believes Iraq's chemical program is in full production of several agents that are battlefield ready and deliverable. Dual use equipment purchases and installations, like that in the bio-weapons field, have not been followed by a marked increase in available non-weapons products. In fact, recent requests for agricultural agents such as fertilizers and insecticides have continued to be denied by the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, leading investigators to believe that component agents are being exhausted by weapons manufacturing. And like the biological investigation, overhead imagery indicates heavy staffing and traffic at suspected facilities. All these indicators point to not only a well developed weapons program, but a highly active production program as well. One investigator, wishing to remain anonymous, has said, "...well if I needed to find a site to produce chemical or biological weapons in a pinch, I'd go to Iraq -- I could start manufacturing in hours." Conclusions The MILNET report, compiling various open source intelligence, interviews with leading non-proliferation experts, as well as sources within the U.N. UNMOVIC organization, paints a distressing picture of the current capabilities of the Iraqi NBC weapons programs, and then goes on to speculate on the obvious threat of proliferation from Iraq to nations and terrorist groups with agendas that align with those of Iraq's Suddam Hussein. Military action to eliminate production facilities and destroy stockpiles seems imminent given the current state of affairs. http://www.milnet.com/milnet/afi/AFI-Research-1218c.htm You know what I think…
About a week ago I saw the ex CIA guy Woolsie on Hardball with Chris Matthews. He was almost laughable when challenged as to why we have to invade Iraq. First he said their WMD were a threat to the US and Europe. When questioned about the range of their weapons he had to admit the range was a bout 150 miles and could not reach the US or Europe. When questioned about other threats all he could say was that the weapons inspectors hadn't found much left but they could be doing something. He was very weak. He had to admit that during the Gulg War our nukes had deterred Husein from using his WMD when he was attacked before. He was reduced to saying that maybe he would act different next time. To be fair he probably expected softball questions and the enthusiatic unquestioned agreement the US press usually gives these guys.
Chris Matthews has an agenda. He is on record as being against any action against Saddam. He also has a nasty habit of interrupting and lambasting any guest who doesn't agree with him on any subject... Guess that's why he calls his show "Hardball". It's actually usually pretty good, though. When he agrees with the guest. Woolsey knows his stuff, BTW. He's the former DCI, which means he knows alot more than you, I, or Chris Matthews about the subject of terrorism and Iraq. A fauxed interview on Hardball hardly makes the case for not going to Iraq, at any rate. I'm guessing you're not an O'Reilly viewer? C'mon, glynch. Argue the merits, not the source. Ideas, not perceptions...
treeman, you're right I'm not an O'reilly viewer. Never seen him. Is he like Rush Limbaugh? Should have seen Woolsie on Hardball. Maybe he is like Bush without his notes. You for instance would have done a much better job. Maybe he should restrict himself to appearance on "Softball" a soft hitting news program on Fox. As far as Iraq I don't devote my whole life to the issue, but I don't believe we accomplished any thing with the gulf War except getting Hussein out of Kuwait (only important from an oil stand point) and turning a some what ally into someone who has a legitimate reason for hating the people who tried to kill him. The horrible stain to worldwide public perception of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's killed will not go away despite a realtively successful attempts to convince you and many Americans that we're still pure innocents. Of course I saw a report that said 3/4 of Americans could not name the ocean off the east coast of the US. Explain to me why our policy in Iran which actually directly provoked the US by killing Americans and capturing our embassy has not been at least as effective in promoting US interests as the US invasion of Iraq you propose . Explain also to me if your viewpoint is so self evident why none of the Europeans, Russia , China or essentially anyone but Israel, Kuwait? and a few other countries worldwide are supporting your proposed Iraqi invasion?
There you go again, glynch. Those thousands of Iraqis who have died did so because of the evil US... Saddam had nothing to do with it, naw... I swear, your inability/unwillingness to fault Saddam for anything perplexes me. Who do you work for? It is this simple: Saddam give up WMD, sanctions go bye-bye. No matter how you try and twist things, that is the bottom line. Anyone with a brain can see it. OK, I've read this line over three times, and I still cannot figure out WTF it means. I mean, it really makes no sense at all; all I can make out is something about US policy being responsible for something bad... Please rephrase this, because it really, truly, makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, that one's easy. They want to do business with Saddam. Particularly the Russians and Chinese (who want to sell them weapons), the French (who want to sell them weapons and rebuild their oil infrastructure), and the Germans (who want to build them a nuclear reactor). Oh, and the Russians and Chinese cannot side with us for political reasons, which I doubt you'd understand... But mostly $. They want to do business with Saddam. Not just Iraq, but Saddam. I swear, one of these days I'm gonna get you to say something bad about Saddam. One of these days...
Treeman - I basically agree about Iraq. I do wonder, however, what we would do better *this* time than last by focusing on them? If we are going after WMD, then we most certainly should consider overthrowing the regime as well. Otherwise, every few years we're going back in there.
BlastOff: Actually, I'd concentrate our efforts more on overthrowing Saddam than searching for his WMD. Once Saddam is gone, the WMD problem will fix itself. A new, presumably friendlier, regime would have turning over the WMD as the #1 priority, as that is the only way sanctions can be lifted. Operationally, if we were to try to find and destroy his WMD programs without trying to topple the regime, it would be a disaster. It would take forever, and he would have plenty of time to actually use them while we were searching for them. If we try to topple Saddam from the get-go - and actually make it known that that is our goal, we are serious about it, and intend to do it right - Saddam ccould fall in a matter of weeks. Maybe even a week. He might not have time to use WMD if we act quickly...
Treeman, I confess. I work for bin Laden, but Sadam cuts my checks. Can't blame a person for supporting their employer , even if it falls upon hard times. Can you imagine what this whole affair has done to my retirment accounts? Working for a non-profit, off the books, we don't get 401(k)'s are anything. In addition they are trying to freeze our accounts and I'm afraid my paycheck will bounce.
Makes sense to me, tree. It would mean a ground presence, right? You and I both know that won't be popular in America. If Saddam is overthrown, wouldn't it further destabilize the region? I'm assuming that is why overthrowing him was NOT a goal the first time.
Blastoff, you've got it right. That's why he can't refute that only the Israeli's and Kuwait type country or two support this. Even the British are very agisnt it. Unfortunately don't underestimate the poularity of ground troops among the American public if you can limit casaualites a hundre or two. Pat Buchanan makes a good case of why we might not invade Iraq.http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25354
BlastOff: Yes, it would mean a ground presence. But no where near what we had last time. Maybe an armored division or two - but no need for a half million troops. Iraq's army ain't what it used to be (it probably couldn't take on even a single US armored division now), and quite a few of them would likely defect when they saw that we were serious about taking out Saddam and the Baathists. They fear him, they do not like him... If Saddam isn't overthrown, then it will further destabilize the region. No one wants Saddam to get nukes. Overthrowing him, and supporting a democratic government in Iraq, would immensely stabilize the region. We could leave Saudi, the Saudis could relax, the Kuwaitis could relax, Turkey could relax (and recover the billions of $ it has lost due to the sanctions). Even Iran could relax. Saddam's history in the region is one of continually threatening his neighbors, and invading them from time to time. Everyone in the region would be ectatic to see him gone, although they might publicly decry it (to placate their masses). The argument that overthrowing Saddam would destabilize the region is one of the more ridiculous ones put forth by pro-Saddam elements. It doesn't hold up when the alternatives - particularly a democratic govt in Iraq - are considered.
I'm hearing ya, tree. Weighing both options, the choice is crystal clear. I was more or less wondering in my earlier post why it was that we did not consider that option the first time we engaged them.
To borrow a phrase from RM95, but can you read? I just did refute it. Twice. Every single government over there wants us to do it. They simply cannot say that out loud because Saddam is very popular in the Arab world. But behind the scenes, they would love it if we would remove that a*hole next door who is continually threatening to invade them. Fact: Turkey has recently told us that they would not oppose an action against Saddam as long as Iraq's territorial integrity is maintained. Fact: Kuwait has told us that they would support an attack. They have even allowed us to quietly send over the forces to do it, which has been going on for a couple of months. We have quietly shipped at least an armored division over there in that time. Fact: The Saudis have also recently changed their tune. According to them, "We're open to suggestions". Fact: Even the Iranians are going along. They have recently announced that they would allow the INC to operate out of their territory against Saddam and the Baathists. Fact: Jordan's King Abdullah has also told us that he would not oppose such an operation, as long as Iraq's territorial integrity was maintained. So far, only the Egyptians remain off-board. And frankly, we don't need their permission. In addition, the Brits aren't as opposed as you appear to think. They are on the fence, but will follow our lead. That I guarantee. I really, really, must ask this again: Why do you want Saddam to remain in control of Iraq? And why do you want to allow him to develop WMD? Since you want to lift the sanctions without removing Saddam, I can only conclude that you want him to remain in power and retain his WMD. Why?
glynch -- taking out hussein is gaining bipartisan support...it's not as "out there" of an idea as you might think. lieberman said the other day that he thought hussein was such a threat to the US that we should take him out, even if we have to do it alone.
Its extremely naive to suggest that countries like China and Russia, which are in a constant struggle to assume or reassert 'Superpower' status, are objective when evaluating expansions in US influence (as would come in the region if a US friendly government took over in Iraq) and US power projection (which they lack the ability to do). As for the UK, I can positively say that the only rhetoric coming out of the Brits is that they want Blair to focus more on their trains running on time, and less on foreign issues, which is what is driving your impression that they don't want more involvement like an invasion of Iraq.
They're going to "do some crazy crap" anyway, if they can. That's not exactly the best argument I've heard against taking out Saddam... BTW, exactly what is cool about that? (your smilie?)
