Posted on 09/23/2002 9:51:37 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON (AP) - Worried that a cornered and desperate Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) might order his military to strike pre-emptively with biological or chemical weapons, the Bush administration is beginning to deliver a stark message to those who would pull the trigger: Save yourselves and disobey his orders. "The people (to whom) he says, `Go do it,' better think very carefully about whether that's how they want to handle their lives," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Senate panel Thursday. Administration officials have not suggested — publicly, at least — granting amnesty to those in Saddam's military chain of command who refused to carry out orders for a final act of desperation. Rumsfeld in particular has focused on what they have to lose, rather than what they might gain. "Clearly, people who would use those weapons are not going to have a happy future if, in fact, they do use them," the defense secretary said on PBS' "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." Rumsfeld had noted repeatedly that Saddam could not launch such an attack himself. He would have to count on the loyalty of lower-level field commanders and soldiers. "They would be nominating themselves as part of the regime that ought to get special attention," he told reporters Sept. 16. Asked about the specific chain of command for Iraq's weapons arsenal, Rumsfeld said he could not talk about it publicly. But he said the final responsibilities are at a level well below the Iraqi leader, and that U.S. officials believe they include people who "aren't very pleased" with Saddam's rule. "We would have to make very clear to them that what we're concerned about in Iraq is the Saddam Hussein regime," and not the lower-level military officers or the civilian population, Rumsfeld said. "They ought to be very careful about functioning in that chain of command for weapons of mass destruction." In calculating the risks of a military attack to topple Saddam, the administration is confident it can overwhelm Iraqi forces in relatively short order. But the prospect of encountering a chemical or biological attack either before or during the war presents an entirely different challenge. Saddam did not use the chemical or biological weapons he had at hand during the 1991 Persian Gulf War ( news - web sites), but those were different circumstances. Saddam could safely assume that the U.S.-led coalition's objective was limited to expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. He could live to fight another day. This time, however, President Bush ( news - web sites) has made plain that Saddam and his regime are the primary target. Thus, officials say it's more likely he would opt to use — or at least order used — internationally banned weapons, such as mustard gas, nerve gas and biological toxins like anthrax or botulinum. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked Thursday at a Senate Armed Services Committee ( news - web sites) hearing whether Saddam, seeing his regime about to fall, would use weapons of mass destruction. "You'd have to assume they would be used," but impossible to know for sure, Myers replied. Thomas D. Grant, a research fellow at England's Oxford University, said the United States must aggressively press what he called a simple message inside Iraq: "After regime change, there shall be no retribution." That would greatly increase the odds that those upon whom Saddam must rely to carry out an order to use a chemical or biological weapon would refuse, Grant said in a Washington Post opinion piece. "In Iraq the case for an amnesty pledge, communicated loud and clear, is infinitely stronger than anywhere else in the past," he wrote. Rumsfeld seems to hold out some hope that Saddam will give up without resorting to an act of national suicide. "Now, if Saddam Hussein and his family decided that the game was up, and we'll go live in some foreign country like other leaders have done, ... that could happen," as it did with the Shah of Iran and others, the defense secretary said. But if Saddam stays, he said, there's no telling what he might do when a U.S.-led attack appears imminent. Asked whether those who now profess complete loyalty to Saddam will stick with him and help launch an attack with a weapon of mass destruction, Rumsfeld replied: "One will not know until one gets to that moment."
I love that turn of phrase... "special attention." Heh heh heh. Special attention from the United States is likely to be very unhealthy for the recipients...
Translation: "Goombahs, y'all can kiss your Biblical Beasts of Burden g'bye if y'all try anything silly."
The only serious concern we should have in this operation is Saddam's use of CBW, in three very different contexts:
1. On the battlefield, where it's effectiveness would be very problematic and would involve very nasty -- and very certain -- consequences for the perpetrators. Rumsfeld's message to them is very clear, indeed. When the time comes, I'll be surprised if actual CBW use on the battlefield doesn't turn out to be somewhere between slim-and-none.
2. An attack on Israel, probably employing Scuds or drones. Again, the success of such an attack would be, at best, limited. And it might be completely forestalled by air defense systems and on-the-ground surveillance. Rumsfeld's message is aimed at these low level commanders, too. And, again, I'll be surprised if any real damage is done to Israel.
3. An attack inside the U.S., by "sleeper" agents. If Saddam and his al-Qaeda surrogates have a network inside the U.S. and they have both the CBW and the means and knowledge to deliver them effectively -- all likely circumstances -- it is going to be very difficult to restrain them. They need not necessarily reveal their presence to deploy their weapons. And these are likely to be the most ideologically-driven "troops" in the chain-of-command.
Effective counter-terrorism action, plus counter-CBW measures, are our only defenses in this regard. "Amnesty" isn't going to be an attraction, I don't think. In my view, a citizen of Chicago is more likely to suffer a CBW attack in this war than an American soldier on the outskirts of Tikrit.
That is an unacceptable answer to an unacceptable possibility. Sending our troops into combat against someone who may use weapons of mass destruction on them. Not an option we should even consider. We have tatical nukes that can take Saddam out of power immediately with no risk to our people.
"Effective counter-terrorism action, plus counter-CBW measures, are our only defenses in this regard. "Amnesty" isn't going to be an attraction, I don't think. In my view, a citizen of Chicago is more likely to suffer a CBW attack in this war than an American soldier on the outskirts of Tikrit."
To continue. Thus...
4. Giving Saddam the out. Safety in exile. Maybe, it will keep him from pulling the plug. Maybe, it won't. But it costs nothing to try...
Didn't we already do that during the Gulf War?
Or deaths, as the case may be.
Maybe you do. I traded mine in for downpayment on a red Dodge Durango.
Not a problem. A simple dual-key solution will suffice. Pre-place the anthrax in undisclosed locations and e-mail the martyrdom boys the locations, locker combinations, etc. when the time comes. These martyrdom boys are attack dogs straining at the leash. When the time comes, they won't need persuading. From Saddam's point of view, this al-Qaeda partnership thing is absolutely golden.
Building a doomsday deterrent using low-tech pieces like al-Qaeda wackos and aerosolized anthrax isn't that different from building one based on ICBMs and thermonuclear bombs. The control problems are pretty similar, and as readily solved.
I don't know that we can discount the terrorist surrogates so quickly. There may well be more terrorists and more anthrax already in place. And it could well be in reserve until it can be employed in a devastating attack -- and it may not necessarily be connected with Saddam's downfall.
As you note, though, Saddam's agents are subject to the same temptations that Rumsfeld is putting out there for the battlefield soldiers. It is conceivable, in fact, that an agent of Saddam, with sufficient cover, might just walk away and make for himself a new life in the land of capitalist plenty.
There is also a possibility that the people chosen for this particular task are among the most devoted and fanatic.
While I believe the CBW threat can be defused at home and abroad by the dialogue Rumsfeld is offering, I still believe it likely that the home front will suffer more casualties via CBW than the battlefield.
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.