WMDs? I’ll give you some WMDs!

One of the cherished, oft-repeated mantras of the left over the last two years of post-war Iraq* has been that Bush took us to war for nefarious reasons — Halliburton! Halliburton! No Blood for Oil! — and that he lied about Saddam’s WMDs — Bush Lied! People Died! I’ve had countless arguments with left-leaning folks about this and have given up trying to instill even a wood splinter-sized sliver of common sense into them. Talking to my dog is more more productive and, quite frankly, more satisfying.

One of the salient facts in the whole WMD mess that has always bothered me is that just about every intelligence agency in the world had an analysis that Saddam had them. Now I can see one or two getting facts wrong, where group-think can take hold in any of those agencies. What I can’t wrap my brain around is that ALL of them got it wrong. Even Mossad. Mossad, Israel’s principal foreign intelligence agency is not inefficient. They have protected Israel against a cadre of concerted, determined, murderous enemies for over a half-century. If they get stuff wrong, Israel ceases to exist. So I take their word fairly seriously when they say Saddam had WMDs. But it just wasn’t Mossad that said this: CIA, MI5, the French and Germans, the Russians, even the freakin’ UN said it! More recenttly, news came out that maybe our Russian “allies” helped Saddam move the WMDs into safe territory across the border in Syria, another gem of a nation. No matter, though; none of this fits the left’s template so it is, of course, filtered out.

In today’s FrontPage Magazine there’s an interview with a former US Federal agent who, having been there at the start of the war, claims to have directed several teams to sites where Saddam was hiding some of these weapons. Here is a short excerpt:

Iraqis from backgrounds such as Iraqi Police officers, Doctors, Engineers, Iraqi Govt. officials, farmers, tribesmen, etc. identified sites that contained WMDs. They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the U.S. to remove the WMDs. Much of the WMDs had been buried in rivers (within concrete bunkers), and in the sewage pipe system. There were signs of chemical activity in the area (missile imprints, gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles, etc.) The Iraqis and my team had no doubt WMDs were hidden in these areas.

The Agents and I knew we had found what we had been looking for. We immediately wrote our reports, which included all the source names, their credibility, their contact information, grid coordinates of the sites, and photographs. The reports were then sent to the U.S. Weapons Inspectors (in northern Iraq). This was mid April 2003. We were initially told by the Inspectors that their team was not organized at this point to conduct exploitations of sites. The sites we had identified would require an extensive amount of excavation. The actual ISG was not formed until a couple of months after the war. Not only did ISG not have the people and proper equipment, they advised Iraq was still a combat zone and very dangerous. ISG members further told us that WMD searches were being concentrated in northern Iraq, and not southern Iraq.

This was the first and largest mistake by ISG. During my intelligence gathering the Iraqis had told us that Saddam concentrated on hiding the WMDs in the southern region because the history of prior UN Weapons Inspections had always concentrated in searches of northern faculties. Searches in southern Iraq had primarily been helicopter flyovers. I have respect for every U.S. member of ISG who served in Iraq, but as an organization, the management was poor. They were not organized nor prepared for this type operation. I compare them to FEMA during Hurricane Katrina. Good people, but poor management. Poor management results in disaster and failure.

Read the article and judge for yourself. I didn’t need convincing that Saddam was a danger. I’m glad we took him out.

(May we finish what Iran started in 1979, please?)

* * *

*The “Iraq War” was over in less than a month and we won. Yes, we won the war. You know how I know that? The guy that was running the country we beat is in custody and on trial for war crimes. (That was pretty easy to figure out, wasn’t it?) What we have in Iraq today is analogous to a post-1945 Germany where armed bands of ex-SS soldiers and sympathizers would have terrorized the country. We are not in a war. Reading a little history could clear that confusion up for the libs, but unfortunately most history books aren’t written with big letters in crayon…

8 thoughts on “WMDs? I’ll give you some WMDs!”

  1. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He used them against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. I don’t get why some people question whether Saddam had WMDs. And yes, intelligence agencies all over the world had evidence that Saddam still had WMDs. The British parliament conducted an inquiry over this question and concluded that Blair had enough evidence to reasonably conclude that Saddam had WMDs before the war. But I’ll go further: Let’s assume that Saddam definitely did not have WMDs. Was it wrong to eliminate a dictator and give the Iraqi people the opportunity to elect their own government. Doesn’t every people have a right to determine their own government, their own destiny? The war was won in days. The Iraqis had their first free elections soon after that. What’s happened in Iraq is truly amazing. How long did it take the Allies to democratize Germany and Japan? Look at what the kind of nations they are today. Another reader commented today that the elimination of WMDs was “a ploy” to democratize Iraq. That’s a strange choice of words, unless you think democracy is a bad thing. But I’ll play along. Here’s another “ploy,” this time courtesy of the Founding Fathers. It’s called the U.S. Constitution and it will force you to enjoy freedom and liberty, including the right to free expression, whether you like it or not. How’s them apples?

  2. “Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He used them against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. I don’t get why some people question whether Saddam had WMDs.”

    Don’t forget to mention that the US increased business with Saddam AFTER knowing he used these chemical weapons. That is a fact too. Yes, I’m bringing up the past, but I’m just curious what the change of heart is now?

    Sure there were some WMDs, but the point of the invasion was that (and some people bought into this, probably the same people that worried about Sandinista tanks driving up to Texas) Iraq was a somewhat immediate threat to the US. As George contradicts this argument, the war was only a month (at the least phase one. George, to bring you up to date, the US just did an offensive that was the biggest since the start). The war is far from over. The international threat, however small, was easily defeated, but the insurgency proves that the country isn’t embracing the invasion quite like the pundits predicted.

    The resident intellectual De La Cova should be stepping in here and giving a lecture on state formation. The US is going about it poorly. They still don’t have control of the state. You can’t have elections in a country that is in chaos, which it still is. I’m not saying that eventually things won’t be brought under control, but the idea of forcing elections and forcing the “idea” that you are forming a government (see Condi Rice) doesn’t mean the population is participating in it. It’s all for show, unfortunately some people buy into it. Hopefully it gets sorted out soon, but the war definitely isn’t over and as usual, the ethnocentric methods and inherint superiority complex of the people running the show are doing (again) a poor job of trying to instill democracy.

    For the umpteenth time, I support preemptive actions if the stated objectives are both clear and genuine. Genuine is the key word.

  3. Fielding,

    Point 1: what George Bush said in the famous State of the Union speech was that he wanted to eliminate Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. Check the transcript. That, to me, is the definition of pre-emption.

    Point 2: the war with Iraq as it was planned is over. We won. An insurgency, active or not, does not a war make. If that were true then any insurgency anywhere would be considered a “war.” Maybe we’re playing semantics, but I do not see what we have in Iraq today as a war. Now, if you take it and place it in the context of the global war on islamo-fascim, then we have a “war” per se.

    Point 3: As for your comments on our “ethnocentric” management of the war, I’ll try to write as I LMAO at your PCness.

  4. time out. can we go back to talking about cuba? this can be discussed about a bazillion other places on the ‘net. thanks.

  5. The “insurgency” proves only that there are interests opposed to those of the U.S. The “insurgents” are either pro-Saddam interests, now displaced thanks to the invasion, or agents of Iran and Syria. All of them gain politically by destabilizing Iraq. To claim that the insurgency is proof that Iraqis are not embracing democracy is overreaching. I appreciate Fielding’s argument and his clarification. Still, it worries me that he places the threshold for action way too high.

  6. Pkrupa, did you just land the Editor job here at Babalu? No? Well then don’t tell me what to write about, OK?

  7. Great post George, and it’s relevant to Cuba- since fidel has been playing footsie with Middle Eastern terrorists and thugs like himself for decades.

  8. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

    As I said, I don’t see anywhere that the administration stated the war as the first battle against islamo-fascism. Anyone that thinks Iraq was going to be a threat to the US is perhaps a bit paranoid. Like I said, probably the same people that thought Sandinista tanks would drive up to Texas, or better yet, Sandinista MIGs were going to attack the US.

    On your second response, insurgencies are often considered wars. When you have an average of a few bombers a week now attacking citizens, not to mention (since you choose to ignore) that the US just did its largest offense a few weeks ago since the start of the war, I would call that war. Just because the US is the most effective and dominant force in Iraq right now doesn’t mean they have control. They may in the future, and I hope they do, but that process is still a WIP.

    Point three: Nothing to do with being PC. It is a valid term used to describe the poor education and training of the troops and the very myopic visions of those coordinating the invasion. They know nothing about winning the hearts and minds of the people. That is very important in an invasion like this. So much of the rhetoric was based on “operation Iraqui freedom”, something that would logically sound like it was being done for the benefit of the Iraqis. Yet, the army and the administration has little clue how to win the confidence of the people. They just figure the solution is to make Iraquis like Americas. In a war like this you need charisma to overcome cultural hurdles. They don’t have it, hence the process is prolonged as well as the chaos. The solution in NOT to build Mcdonalds in Iraq and “the people will be happy.” But that is ethnocentrism at its finest. Hence, chaos.

Comments are closed.