Replies

The latest Hosenball article in Newsweek says much the same thing as this Post story. Given that the only biological weapon we know for sure Saddam has is anthrax, it is comical how Hosenball struggles to avoid using the "A" word in his piece:

As the Bush administration prepares to oust Saddam, one way or another, senior administration officials are very worried that Saddam will try to use his WMD arsenal. Intelligence experts have warned that Saddam may be “flushing” his small, easy-to-conceal biological agents, trying to get them out of the country before an American invasion. A vial of bugs or toxins that could kill thousands could fit in a suitcase—or a diplomatic pouch. There are any number of grim end-game scenarios. Saddam could try blackmail, threatening to unleash smallpox or some other grotesque virus in an American city if U.S. forces invaded. Or, like a cornered dog, he could lash out in a final spasm of violence, raining chemical weapons down on U.S. troops, handing out his bioweapons to terrorists. “That’s the single biggest worry in all this,” says a senior administration official. “We are spending a lot of time on this,” said another top official.
Some administration critics have said, in effect, let sleeping dogs lie. Don’t provoke Saddam by threatening his life; there is no evidence that he has the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. [Then why wory about provoking him?] Countered White House national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice, “Do we wait until he’s better at it?” Several administration officials indicated that an intense effort is underway, covert as well as overt, to warn Saddam’s lieutenants to save themselves by breaking from the dictator before it’s too late. “Don’t be the fool who follows the last order” is the way one senior administration official puts it.

It's like Basil Fawlty: "Don't mention the [anthrax]. Whatever you do, don't mention the [anthrax]!" Some "grotesque virus" indeed! LOL! The code words are flying thick and fast.

Oh, well, some truths are better left unspoken, some ideas better left just out of focus. There's more comfort in looking through the glass darkly than in facing reality head on, is there not?

Oh, well, some truths are better left unspoken, some ideas better left just out of focus. There's more comfort in looking through the glass darkly than in facing reality head on, is there not?

It looks like the public is being prepared for the possibility of a bio-attack, without mentioning how likely that attack is.

The truth is, the probability is very high. The question is when?

One view holds that Saddam has used the threat of a biological attack as a deterent against attack by the United States. I suspect that has been the case in the past. However, regardless of whether this has been the case in the past or not, it is clear that we are currently getting ready to attack. We are not currently deterred, and Saddam must certainly realize this.

Which raises the question: Given the inevitability of a U.S. attack, will Saddam wait until we attack him, or will he strike us first?

If he decides to wait he runs the risk that we will be able to kill him at the start of the attack. He is quite interested in his own survival (evidently his 72 virgins and 3 young boys can wait). So he may conclude that a first strike is his best shot.

A first strike is certain to result in the retaliatory destruction of Iraq, but not necessarily in Saddam's personal destruction. If he can make his blow strong enough, he may believe he can weaken us enough to prevent us from being able to physically root him out of whatever shelter he is hiding in.

If he thinks he is cooked either way, then I suspect he will strike first in an attempt to bring as many of us down with him as possible.

Ultimately, I believe Saddam will do whatever he thinks optimizes his chances for long-term survival.