In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD: Saddam’s “Special Weapons”

Saddam's "Special Weapons" went by air to Syria, Belarus, and possibly Russia and Libya as well. They went by ground to Syria, and they went by sea to points unreported. The plan was called "Sarindar" ("Emergency Exit"), and it wasn't much different in general strategic terms from the American flight from South Vietnam. Just as U.S. embassy officials shredded and burned documents when Saigon fell, and again in Tehran, Kabul, and a dozen other fallen nations, the Russians and others did what they could to move, hide, and/or destroy their sensitive documents, equipment that they'd provided to Saddam's Regime, as well as (allegedly) his WMD and WMD equipment as well. "By air, by land, and by sea" That is the claim made by Gen. Sada, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Shaw, Gen. Ibrahim, Ariel Sharon, Israeli intelligence, and many more.

Clandestine movements by air and land have been discussed. The story of "Sarindar" by sea follows. Allegedly two Russian ships left the Umm Qasr port in the months before the war and went to the Indian Ocean. On board were supposedly some of Saddam's WMD chemical precursors. According to the "Sarindar" plan, they were to be taken to a deep part of the ocean and dumped.

It is completely impossible to fathom that Russian ships could enter the Persian Gulf, dock in Iraq, load up and pass through the Persian Gulf again, then into the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean all within 100 miles of 1 to3 entire American aircraft carrier battlegroups as well as two Marine Amphibious Assault task forces. There is no way that those two ships were not monitored by dozens-perhaps even hundreds-of American and Coalition warships.

Article Continues:............... What is known for certain is that just before the war, mainstream media reported that two Russian warships and a tanker were positioned off the Persian Gulf allegedly to monitor the situation. More likely they were there to ensure that none of the Coalition naval forces threatened to board the Russian ships. In fact, from March 20 onward the Coalition stopped and seized all ships bound for Iraq (often under the disguise of being part of the Oil-For-Food program). Those that were in fact found to be carrying humanitarian supplies had their cargos delivered by the US military instead. Others were seized, and their contents never revealed. Russian ships were apparently permitted to dock, load up with clandestine materials, and pass right through the U.S. Navy.

Now, opponents of the war often like to parse words and rhetorically argue that the war was about WMD and not WMD precursor chemicals. Compare Saddam to the late Timothy McVeigh. Both committed mass murder, both belonged in prison. Had Timothy McVeigh worked in the prison autoshop and been caught with a gallon of gasoline in his locker as well as a few pounds of fertilizer, would that have been a threat? Absolutely! He used those chemicals to make the bomb that used to commit mass murder, and similarly Saddam used different combinations of different chemicals to commit mass murder.

The Duelfer Report, after action reports from US Forces, and even mainstream media have all shown photos and video of the thousands and thousands of empty artillery shells positioned at chlorine plants, pesticide plants, and "former" chemical weapons manufacturing plants. While empty artillery shells are not an imminent threat, they could be filled in hours and turned into WMD. Most of Saddam's program had been redesigned to make fresh, potent chemical and biological weapons in hours in some cases, and so the issue becomes his intent.

Did he intend to make fresh WMD with chemical precursors-like those allegedly dumped by Russian ships? The Duelfer Report says absolutely yes, and it makes that claim based on interviews with regime leaders as well as Saddam and his history of doing so. Having said all that, some chemicals-like chlorine and concentrated pesticides-are dual use and do have non-military uses, but other chemicals do not. The ISG shows pictures of a large can of rare New Zealand opossum pesticide that is as almost as toxic as anthrax (true, no New Zealand opossums have been seen in Iraq so either the pesticide worked, or it was to be used as a weapon as the ISG report claims). Another example: SCUD missile fuel is unique to SCUD missiles. Even Hans Blix' UNMOVIC couldn't explain why Saddam's regime making SCUD missile fuel. When the war started, this chemical was gone. Perhaps deep-sixed in the Indian Ocean? Or was it poured into the Euphrates River like the massive amounts of cyanide and other toxins that US Marines discovered and CNN reported?

Missing also are the binary chemical agents that Saddam could only have used to combine and make fresh nerve agent before loading into empty artillery shells and rockets. Where are the large, illegal missiles Saddam was found to have by post-war investigations (at least 22 of these illegal missiles were fired at Coalition forces. None had chemical warheads, but post-war investigations did find that the missiles had been widened to fit SCUD warheads of which there remain several missing chemical warheads, and some had been illegally modified to carry cluster munitions as seen in the Duelfer Report).

By air, by land, and by sea, Saddam paid the Russians and Syrians to get rid of his illegal WMD, WMD equipment, documents, and people. That Saddam once had horrific weapons is not in debate. Many were destroyed or decayed, and the Duelfer Report lists them in great detail, but it also lists many Remaining Unresolved Disarmament Issues. For someone to claim that all of Saddam's weapons were destroyed and not moved out of Iraq in the 15-month "rush-to-war", then that someone must be able to present greater evidence of the destruction of those remaining Unresolved Disarmament Issues-evidence greater than the mounting pile that suggests they were removed from Iraq.

When someone claims that Saddam destroyed all his anthrax and other chemical and biological agents, and the war was one big "Bush lie" about WMD, they need only be asked to provide some evidence of its destruction: contaminated sand, witnesses, documentation, photos, any evidence. Fact is, for thousands of liters, there is no evidence of destruction by Saddam, but there is evidence it was moved. These terrible weapons do not simply vanish, and given that a tablespoon of some can kill hundreds of thousands. It seems to many that they should be accounted for rather than dismissed as magically destroyed to fit a political agenda. Can we really believe that no one in Iraq witnessed their destruction, or do these Remaining Unresolved Disarmament Issues demand resolution; proof of destruction?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.