A Quick Thought on Iraq, WMDs, and Deterrence[Editor's Note: In my most recent article, I stated that I intended to stop writing about the Iraq War, due to lack of time, difficulties in remaining civil about our "splendid little war", and the desire to avoid being a "Johnny-One-Note". I also tend to start rambling when an article gets too long. I've decided that one of the best solutions to this problem is to just write brief "call 'em as I see 'em" articles that just cover my thoughts on one small topic at a time, like what is often done on weblogs. With that introduction, here is my first attempt.] 10 April 2003, In the long diplomatic push building up to the current invasion of Iraq, one of the key arguments for invasion (in fact, the key argument) revolved around Weapons of Mass Destruction (or WMDs). WMDs usually refers to Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weaponry, and is called such due to the typically large-scale and indiscriminate amount of damage that such weapons can do. When boiled down to its basics, the administration argument boils down to these two key allegations:
The first allegation is still just that, an allegation. I find it rather amusing that most times reporters talk about Iraqi WMDs, they speak as though it was a proven fact that Iraq possesses them, and that the lack of evidence is just because Iraq is really good at hiding them. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq still possesses some of the WMDs that we helped and encouraged him to develop back in the '80s, but even that isn't certain. There is the nonzero possibility that he really doesn't have any more militarily usable WMDs. The fact that they haven't been used yet, and that none of them have been seen yet by the invading forces is rather peculiar. Hopefully we'll eventually find out the truth one way or another. However, the far more important question isn't if Iraq has WMDs, but if the Iraqi regime really couldn't be deterred from using them. If it turns out that they could be deterred, then that undermines the whole case for a preemptive strike. One shouldn't be surprised then at how hard the US tried to show that Saddam was "a madman", and was unstable enough to launch such an attack on us if we don't take him out first. Or maybe he'd give them to Al Queda and let them do the dirty work, or so the logic goes. Warning flags about the validity of these allegations should have risen in the minds of anyone who has been paying close attention to the invasion. A day or so into the war, a short ranged artillery rocket was launched into Kuwait. Everyone thought it was a gas attack, but it wasn't. A bunch of drums of chemicals were found in one small village, and claims immediately flew that the "smoking gun" had been found. Once again, false alarm. Some powder was found in one building that was thought to be components for a chemical weapon, turns out it was actually pesticide or fertilizer. When troops neared Baghdad, there were tons of articles in the newspapers with several red circles around the city. We were told that when US forces crossed those lines, that we would likely be attacked by chemical or biological weapons. Except, the attack never came. Just earlier there was a report of a discovery of "weapons grade plutonium" in an underground facility south of Baghdad. While they still aren't totally certain, IAEA is claiming that is in fact a site they've inspected many times, and that the radioactive material is low-grade uranium waste (not much different to the Depleted Uranium found in the 120mm shells our M1A1s use) that had been duly recorded by the IAEA during their inspections. So where's the gas? There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from these results. Either Iraq doesn't have any more WMDs, or if they do have them they have chosen not to use them. The Whitehouse will probably claim (as has been said by many news articles) that they haven't been using them because they don't want the international community to turn on them. But this doesn't really stand up too well to criticism. They can't realistically expect that anything short of Saddam's head on a platter is going to appease the bloodlust of the neocons in the War Party. Well, maybe the officers in charge were afraid of being indicted for war crimes, or killed for using WMDs against the US. Or maybe they were afraid that using WMDs against the US or Israel would bring nuclear retaliation. In other words, if Iraq does have WMDs, they were deterred from using them, even in the defense of their homeland. I guess they weren't so mad and undeterrable after all. So what was this war all about again? ~Jonathan A. Goff Return to my Home Page | Return to my Musings Page |