1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Where are the WMD? US changes its strategy

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by underoverup, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    I hope something is found in large quantities soon, not just of trace of some agent which really proves nothing. Invading nations on a hunch is a very bad policy.

    By Barton Gellman
    THE WASHINGTON POST

    CAMP DOHA, Kuwait, April 22 — 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 that they will find what they are looking for in the places described on a five-tiered target list drawn up before 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.
    Late last week, the U.S. Central Command began moving urgently to expand security around a wider range of facilities in an effort to preserve evidence that defense officials fear is melting away. That imperative grew from intelligence suggesting that Iraqi insiders have stolen files, electronic data and equipment from nonconventional arms programs under the cover of recent looting. Analysts said they believe that former Iraqi officials hope to conceal their culpability, barter for status with the U.S. military government or sell the technology for private gain.
    If such weapons or the means of making them have indeed been removed from the centralized control of former Iraqi officials, high-ranking U.S. officials acknowledged, then the war may prove to aggravate the proliferation threat that President Bush said he fought to forestall.
    “It’s a danger,” Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a telephone interview. There are signs, he said, “that some of the looting is actually strategic.” Former Baath Party and Iraqi government officials appear to be “doing at least some of the looting” of government facilities, he said, “including those that might have records or materials” relating to weapons of mass destruction.”
    Bush launched and justified the war with a flat declaration of knowledge “that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who took the lead public role in defending that proposition, said, among other particulars, that “our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.”

    EVENTUALLY, MAYBE
    Political appointees and career analysts alike, including some who were privately skeptical of the need for war, continue to express confidence that U.S. forces eventually will find stocks of chemical and biological arms, ballistic missile components and equipment and plans for uranium enrichment. A top planner said they have many leads left to pursue, including “tens” of the roughly 100 targets on the U.S. government’s top tier of a five-tiered list. But arms hunters now pin their best hopes on what they call “ad hoc sites,” to be discovered by happenstance or with help of Iraqis who volunteer information or divulge it under interrogation.
    One such example came over the weekend, officials here said, when investigators interviewed an Iraqi scientist south of Baghdad. They said the scientist told them he took part in chemical weapons development and that Iraq had destroyed some weapons only days before the war began. He led them to samples of chemicals that the U.S. search team described as ingredients for lethal agents. But military officials would not identify the scientist, the lethal agents or the ingredients that were found. They did not permit a New York Times reporter, who was accompanying the search team and was the first to report the discovery, to interview the scientist.
    Without further details of the find, experts said, its significance cannot be assessed. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was careful yesterday to draw no conclusion about it, saying he had “nothing to add” to the field report and that investigators have an “obligation of analyzing things and doing it in an orderly, disciplined way.” Experts said nearly any ingredient for a chemical weapon can also be used for civilian purposes.

    SCRAMBLING TO SECURE
    ‘Because of all the looting ... we’ve got to get these other sites secured. They can’t afford to have stuff walking off because the clues we have right now are not leading us anywhere.’
    — A MILITARY OFFICER INVOLVED IN THE SEARCH FOR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    Because ad hoc discoveries might occur anywhere, the U.S. military is racing belatedly to lock down files and equipment at scores of potentially sensitive facilities in Baghdad that went unguarded in the chaotic days immediately after the fall of President Saddam Hussein. Beginning late last week, U.S. combat forces in the Iraqi capital moved to take custody of all 23 government ministries and more than two dozen other locations they said may yield valuable intelligence.
    Senior U.S. officials with responsibility over postwar Iraq were highly critical of the delay in securing those facilities. One official interviewed in Kuwait described it as “the barn-door phenomenon.” He said retired Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, the occupation governor of Iraq, sought special protection for 10 Iraqi ministries, identifying them as potential repositories of weapons data, but that only the Oil Ministry remained intact after U.S. ground forces took possession of Baghdad. Combat commanders, the official said, gave “insufficient priority to getting into these places,” and “there wasn’t enough force to accomplish that initial sequestering of buildings and records.”
    Defense Department planners, meanwhile, are diverting some of their best investigative resources away from the target sites they came to Iraq to explore. Two of the four mobile exploitation teams, or METs, have been removed from the hunt for weapons of mass destruction and been assigned instead to the laborious task of screening what officials call “non-WMD sites.” These are facilities with voluminous records that might prove enlightening on such issues as terrorism and prisoners of war. Because there are so many such sites, the teams are engaged in what one knowledgeable officer described as triage, trying to decide which ones are worth more thorough inspection. “The focus of main effort has changed,” said a military officer who works directly in the arms hunt. “Because of all the looting, coupled with [the fact that] they’re not coming up with anything on weapons, we’ve got to get these other sites secured. They can’t afford to have stuff walking off because the clues we have right now are not leading us anywhere.”

    CHANGING FOCUS
    Now that U.S. forces control Baghdad, the nucleus of Iraq’s arms industry, some leading team members have expressed frustration about the shift of focus. As recently as last Wednesday, Defense Department officials were predicting that the war’s end would permit the teams to intensify their work and to reach high-priority weapons sites in significant numbers.
    Wing Cmdr. Sebastian Kendall, a British Royal Air Force officer who leads the site exploitation planning center at Camp Doha, said “there has been no conscious decision to reduce the number of teams devoted to weapons of mass destruction.” But, he added, “it’s true to say that the environment is changing based on reality.”
    “We are now in and around Baghdad and there is an imperative to contain the situation as much as possible,” he said. Ground forces have been ordered “to secure more sites, but also to exploit them quicker so we can release those forces.
    “We will be methodically working our way through the list from top to bottom,” he said. And though many of the additional sites have no known relationship to concealed arms programs, he said, some of them “could be WMD-related because the intellectual knowledge may be there or the documents may be there.”
    The mobile exploitation teams were staffed and equipped to provide more sophisticated analysis after others had identified and surveyed a weapons facility. They carry complex field equipment — including gas chromatographs, mass spectrometers and portable isotopic neutron spectroscopes — and are the only investigators in Iraq trained to safely transport samples of lethal material.
    Army Lt. Col. Michael Slifka, an experienced arms inspector who directs night operations at the planning center, said “there’s not much just now for the METs to do” with those capabilities. Most of the weapons work at present, he said, is sifting unevaluated clues.
    Tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines in Iraq have a copy of the pocket-sized “WMD Facility, Equipment and Munitions Identification Handbook.” The troops have made hundreds of excited reports. It falls to one of four “site survey teams,” two each assigned to the Army and Marines, to assess those tips. None, as yet, has led to a confirmed finding.

    NEEDLE AND HAYSTACKS
    With intelligence less productive than hoped, U.S. officials have concluded that the weapons hunt needs help. That will come from deployment of analysts under the auspices of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
    Even the estimated 50 facilities now being protected by U.S. forces represent a tiny fraction of the many thousands of government and Baath Party offices, state enterprises, prisons, barracks, camps and private homes of senior Iraqi officials — all of them types of places where Iraq has a history of concealing evidence of nonconventional arms. The ministry of industry and minerals, for example, oversaw more than 600 Iraqi state enterprises and 100,000 employees. U.N. arms inspectors once found more than a million pages of weapons documents on a chicken farm.
    “There’s a common assumption that if you know they have chemical or biological weapons, then your intelligence should be good enough to know where they are,” said Feith. “But you may hear people talking, referring to specific substances or items, so you know from that that they have those substances or items” but may not know where the items are.
    With site-specific intelligence less productive than hoped, Defense Department officials have concluded that the weapons hunt needs substantial reinforcement. That will come from the eventual deployment of more than 1,000 military and civilian analysts under the auspices of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
    The Iraq Survey Group, to be commanded by the DIA’s deputy director for intelligence operations, plans an immense catalog of Iraqi government records — an intelligence task rivaled in recent times only by the joint U.S.-German effort in the former East German archives in Berlin. Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, a career Russian specialist, will supervise the screening of Iraqi records.
    Weapons of mass destruction will be a part, though not predominant share of Dayton’s responsibilities. Even so, officials said, the number of arms investigators in Iraq should triple or quadruple by the time the DIA group is fully in place in about three months.
    Kendall, the British officer who now directs planning for the arms hunt, said a search even on the present scale is without precedent.
    “It’s very young,” he said. “It’s in its infancy.”
    “Tomorrow will be one month into the campaign,” he added, “and we’ve got some way to go, is what I’d say.”
     
  2. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,777
    Likes Received:
    20,431
    I was not in favor of this war the way it was carried out, but I won't declare that Iraq was WMD free just yet. I will admit that there isn't any proof of it so far, but the jury is still out.

    What happens if we don't find them?

    Whether we are going to force a U.S. friendly govt. down the throats of Iraqis whether a majority want it or not, or if we are going to truly let the Iraqis govern themselves also is up in the air.

    If both of those conditions aren't met, then this war would be a total failure.
     
  3. A-Train

    A-Train Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    39
    If no weapons of Mass Destruction are found, then the United States is forbidden from invading anybody for 10 years
     
  4. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,752
    Likes Received:
    20,509
    If no weapons of Mass Destruction are found, then the United States is forbidden from invading anybody for 10 years

    And GHWB will give GWB a stern talking to, no doubt.
     
  5. Woofer

    Woofer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's hard to take serious their initial charges that these WMD were distributed to their troops, ready to be fired at American troops and distributed to terrorists given how poorly we secured these sites. If they thought these were widely distributed, their effort to contain the *sensitive* sites was an abject failure. Unless they really didn't think they had them to begin with. :)
     
  6. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1

    Not only that but how did we not accidentally blow some of it up if it was really distributed? All the bombing runs we've done and not a single incident of WMD being released.
     
  7. JohnnyBlaze

    JohnnyBlaze Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2000
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whats pretty obvious though is that their WMD capabilities and intentions to use them were grossly exagerated.
     
  8. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    According to last night's Nightline, administration officials are saying that WMD was never the primary reason for this war. That they didn't lie about the weapons...just over-emphasized them.

    The reasoning was that this was a response to 9-11, that Iraq was to be an example of a newly active US and (they hope) that the subsequent positive changes in the ountry will not only make Iraqis happier and decrease their dislike for the US, but to show the Middle East as a whole that democracy is better and they can all be happy and not hate the US. Most importantly, Iraq is in between Syria and Iran.

    This, apprently, was from more than one official.

    Who knows.
     
  9. rezdawg

    rezdawg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Messages:
    18,351
    Likes Received:
    1,149
    Its interesting to see how the US keeps changing its story.

    *cough* oil *cough*

    I hope they do find WMD because this WAS the reason they went to war. The fact that they denied this on Nightline last night is ridiculous.
     
  10. CndDrr

    CndDrr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rumsfield sucks. Where is johnheath?
     
  11. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    Heh-heh. He's calling John Ashcroft about you as we speak.

    Pack your bags, Ahmed. Yer goin' to Gitmo!!!;)
     
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,752
    Likes Received:
    20,509
    I hope they find the OIL because this was the REAL reason for the war :) :) :)

    Years from now, historians ponder and debate the question on why this war was fought. My best guess is that the war was fought for many reasons:

    The Noriega factor. Any news headline with Saddam's name in it reminds us that we f*cked up.

    The NeoCon factor. We must show the world, in particular the Middle East, that the US is the lone super power that must be respected or face the consequences.

    The OIL factor. Iraq has lots of oil from which Iraq derives a great deal of wealth. This wealth in "the wrong hands" can lead to great mischief.

    The OBL factor. No matter how unlikely, the US must remove the possibility that Iraq can support radical Islamic groups with a jones for the US.
     
  13. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,752
    Likes Received:
    20,509
    According to last night's Nightline, administration officials are saying that WMD was never the primary reason for this war. That they didn't lie about the weapons...just over-emphasized them.

    Does anybody have a link to this story on-line? johnheath?
     
  14. F.D. Khan

    F.D. Khan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    11
    A bit reminiscient of the 1991 Gulf War. At first it was desert shield, in which we were there to protect the Saudi's. Then it suddenly changed to Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait.

    This is just sad if the administration officials are now saying it is about the WMD and the threat of them. As 'mad' and 'insane' and we all felt Saddam to be, why didn't he use any of these weapons on us even though we bombed the hell out of him and probably killed his son as well??

    1) Either we demonized this guy into thinking he was satan, and we were wrong because he refused to use Chemical/Bio or other WMD against us. We felt he would attack us with WMD, but never even used them on us when we invaded his country.

    2) There was no threat and there were no WMD.


    Either way, our administration looks pretty foolish.
     
  15. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,050
    Likes Received:
    3,578
    F.D. Khan, you forgot that in Gulf War I we at first we were pretty straight forward that the war was because we were concerned that Sadam would control too much oil. Then we suddenly switched to weapons of mass destruction and that he was some sort of military threat to the United States. That is when the pr guys coined the phrase referring to the weapons we have built for years. Later we had the phony satellite photos and the supposed threat to Saudi Arabia to justify putting troops in Saudi and launching our attack from there. Unfortuantely that move along with additional blowback from our Afghanistan financing of the Taliban predecessors and Bin Laden led to 9/11.

    You are right the reasons kept changing. Don't forget how we managed to snatch a ground war in Gulf War I from the threat posed by Sadam withdrawing from Kuwait at the last moment, after some bombing.

    It is sort of sad to see the old wmd gambit abandoned largely as we try to liberate those little Iraqis that we just love to death.
     
  16. Vengeance

    Vengeance Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2000
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    23
    Maybe we just need to give the U.S. more time . . .

    wait, isn't that what the inspectors said?
     
  17. cson

    cson Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2000
    Messages:
    3,797
    Likes Received:
    29
    Where are all the johnheaths now?
     
  18. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1


    Wow, anyone ever heard of 1441? Incredible...
     
  19. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Is the Washington Post to liberal and obscure a source to receive intelligent discussion? :) Why is that when something is posted that deviates from the Bush agenda his supporters run and hide or begin bashing do to lack of a solid arguement? Our administration seems to be coming closer and closer to outright lying, and no one who supports them has a good answer why that is happening.
     
  20. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,132
    If the oil theory is the substitute theory to be offerred., then I am pretty confident the Republicans won't be hurt too much by this.
     

Share This Page