Anthrax: The Elephant in the Room

Opinion Journal ^ | 10/29/2001 | ROBERT L. BARTLEY

[Pokey78]

It's fatuous not to regard Saddam as the chief anthrax suspect.

Despite the earlier official denials, the anthrax in the mail turns out to be weapons-grade, finely ground and with electrostatic charges eliminated to facilitate aerial spread. After weeks of official denials, similarly, the Czech interior minister confirms that Mohamed Atta met with a ranking Iraqi spy on his route to the United States.

[real saxophonist]

Who gives a f*** about that, when elephants are being killed!

[gonzo]

"... leaking that the FBI and CIA suspect domestic cranks ..."

I laugh my ass off every time I see someone trying to fly this dead bird!

No matter how hard 'they' try, this turkey just ain't gonna get any traction - it's frozen hard as the hobs-of-hell!

Even the stoopid people are figuring out that this stuff came from Iraq. Stay well and vigilant, guys....FRegards

[Clinton's a rapist]

This article does a good job of summarizing the reasons for concluding Saddam is behind the anthrax. Where it falls down is in failing to think through the significance of the letter campaign. It's really not complicated, however. In fact, the letters themselves spell it out:

Analysis of the sample of anthrax included with this letter tell us that the sender can mass disperse the spores easily, potentially causing massive casualties. They have the keys to the kingdom.

Now, once this has sunk in, how safe do you feel hitting Iraq? The fact is, this is a credible deterrent. The huge problems inherent in any attempt to remove Saddam from power -- both military and domestic -- are now compounded by the prospect that he may be able to retaliate by inflicting huge civilian casualties here in the United States.

Saddam has had ten years to dream up a strategy to hit back at the United States and regain regional superpower status. This is it, folks.

[Travis McGee]

Another important one.

[rebdov]

"Now, once this has sunk in, how safe do you feel hitting Iraq? The fact is, this is a credible deterrent. The huge problems inherent in any attempt to remove Saddam from power -- both military and domestic -- are now compounded by the prospect that he may be able to retaliate by inflicting huge civilian casualties here in the United States. "

What would you think is a fitting alternative to hitting Iraq?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Smaq Iraq.

[Clinton's a rapist]

I'm for nuking Iraq and putting the USA under martial law to minimize the impact of any retaliation. I'm not a dove on this. I'm just trying to get people to see what is really happening here, and why we can't simply laugh off Saddam's rhetoric this time. This may be the gravest threat the United States has ever faced, but publicly, most people are nit-picking over the side show in Afghanistan. That is changing, however. The real nature of the conflict is starting to surface. Friday, the New York Times reported, "We may be at war at Iraq without even knowing it." The elephant won't stay unnoticed much longer.

[rebdov]

Good, I wasn't clear where you were going.

I think that even if rightwing whackos are somehow implicated, I still think they probably acquired their stock from Iraq. I really enjoy Prof. Laurie Mylorie's articles. She insists that John Doe#2 was a middle eastern gentleman probably connected to Saddam.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The moment it's clear Iraq is behind the menace, is the moment Baghdad becomes a vapor. That clowder of cowards has yet to claim responsibility. A menace with no claim to control it does not a "deterrent" make, and Iraq knows it. If Iraq did produce this anthrax, it is now desperately trying to cling to the tail of an angry tiger.

[Travis McGee]

I agree. Saddam has had a decade to put his own "MAD" policy into effect, on a smaller scale of course than our thousands of H-bombs, but none the less effective.

I look at the anthrax letters sent to date as only a demo run. There is no reason to believe that there are not hundreds of kilos of the weapons grade anthrax already in place in the USA. Certainly, it would be no harder to smuggle in than cocaine.

One hundred one kilo jars of anthrax would be enough to mail thousands of leaky letters, effectively shutting down our postal system for months or longer. One hundred glass jars of anthrax would be enough to attack every subway system and sports arena and many key office buildings with devestating effect. With swift and massive application of Cipro, the fatalities might be kept to the low thousands, but the required decontamination and denial of use of subways and buildings for extended periods would do vast damage to our economy.

I operate on the assumption that our enemies have already moved their bio weapons into place, and proven this to the NSC, and that this may be already serving as a deterrant to US action, at least for the present.

[seeker41]

I can't disagree with your logic, as a matter of fact I believe it is a likely scenerio, but we can not let ourselves be bribed by Saddam Insane or any other terrorists. Bring on WWIII and lets get this over with pronto or our country may not survive if too much time passes.

[Clinton's a rapist]

A menace with no claim to control it does not a "deterrent" make, and Iraq knows it.

You're wrong about that. The veneer of deniability is tremendously powerful. First, it gives Bush cover if he elects not to strike, improving the cost/benefit ratio of succumbing to the intimidation. As a bonus, the deniability makes it harder for Bush to justify any pre-emptive measures that might reduce the effectiveness of the threat, e.g. a crackdown on Arab aliens. Think about an alternative scenario in which Hussein went on TV and issued a statement, "If Bush attempts to remove me from power, I will order my agents to unleash massive anthrax attacks against the American people." That would also be an effective threat, but, if you think through all the consequences, the veiled approach he's actually taking is far more likely to produce the outcome he wants.

One limitation of Saddam's biowar blackmail strategy is that an ordely, verifiable retreat is not possible, at least so far as I can see: we could never be sure that his agents have been withdrawn completely, or that all his anthrax has been destroyed. Unfortunately, that isn't good news for us. It means that he's backed himself into a corner, and it's not likely that we can simply intimidate him into a withdrawal, like we did after his invasion of Kuwait. So far as I can see, we either have to give in to the blackmail, or attack him and take the consequences.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The government's responsibility here is not to make a criminal case beyond any reasonable (let alone any conceivable) doubt. It is to protect American lives, some 5,000 of which have just been lost in an act of war. Saddam Hussein has the motive, means and opportunity to mount terrorism, and the anthrax attacks fit his modus operandi. There is plenty of reason to presume he's behind the current attacks, with bin Laden and his al Qaeda network as a front or ally. In any event, given his capabilities and intentions, he remains a threat to American lives as long as he's at large.

Agreed. Thanks for the flag, Travis.

[rainingred]

Do you think bin Laden is Saddam's boy, or was this just a case of Saddam taking advantage of circumstances?

[Clinton's a rapist]

My guess is that bin Laden is quite a bit more than a front for Saddam. I think it's an alliance based on mutual convenience, complementarity, and shared enemies, rather than strong ideological kinship (Iraq is more secular/socialist than Islamicist). The closest analogy I can think of would be Hitler and Tojo in World War II. Saddam provides money, intelligence and weapons. What OBL brings to the party is deniability, ideological fervor, and shock troops. If everything goes according to plan, OBL will get his Islamic fundamentalists in power in Pakistan and Saudi; possibly, at that point, Saddam would move in on Kuwait and the other sheikdoms. Together, they hope to assemble a pan-Arab, pan-Islamic axis that will bring about a major geopolitical realignment, leveraging Pakistan's nuclear capability and the Gulf's oil wealth. There goals most likely include the ejection of the United States from the Arab peninsula, monopolization of the world's oil supply, and the destruction of Israel. Of course, it's also quite possible that they will end up fighting each other, if in fact this plan comes to fruition, but that is a problem for another day.

[rainingred]

Thanks for explaining. What you're saying makes a lot of sense, unfortunately. I hope Bush and company are up to the challenge. Truth be told, so far, I'm not overly impressed.

[Skywalk]

All this means to me is that many MANY nukes are going to have to be delivered at some point. Why wait until we are even more vulnerable to a massive attack on our soil?

[ambrose]

We need another Iran-Iraq War to keep those scumbags busy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Either there is a demonstrable link to Iraq, or else there is not. You cannot proceed logically assuming yes for the question in part of your argument, and no in the rest. As it stands, the threat is only nebulously tied to al-Qaeda. I notice that, however, we still have a presence in Afghanistan, the heart of this viper nest.

[Clinton's a rapist]

The deniability exists at the level of US public perception, not at the level of decision-makers. The beauty of it is that Bush can know the true origin of the anthrax with a high degree of certainty, based on forensic evidence, intelligence intercepts, and even possibly private diplomatic communications from Iraq, but that fact can be kept from the public. That is, I believe, the situation at present. Whether it is because Bush is stalling for time (which he certainly should do), or because he has actually decided to cave, we don't know. If we do cave, then expect the anthrax attacks to fizzle out, Saddam to get a token spanking, and the official line on the origin of the anthrax to remain that we don't know for certain, but "strongly suspect" right-wing militia types, or "strongly suspect" al-Qaeda (but not specifically Iraq).

[ThePythonicCow]

Why wait until we are even more vulnerable to a massive attack on our soil?

We can't get much more vunerable than we are now. The readings on smallpox here are unsettling, to say the least. See for example Post # 9 in the Article 'Scourge': Killing the Disease - The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox.

I think that our "Homeland Security" has shown itself to be a graver joke than our military.

If I were Bush, I would:

1. soft pedal the Iraqi connection to anthrax, while
2. working feverishly to get more vaccine shots ready, and
3. trying to use every power, including the new ones, to crack any hidden terrorists in America with smallpox.

Then, when I thought I had better odds, in perhaps a year, go after Saddam.

If we go after him know, and his minions are able to let lose with smallpox, then America could receive the greatest blow in its history.

[Skywalk]

Would a secularist like Saddam really want to unleash smallpox, considering that our response would be not the destruction of Baghdad, but of the entire landmass known as Iraq?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent thoughts.

I would like to see us hit Saddam, but there are real dangers as you point out!

Guess we are back to the Cold War Doctrine -- MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction .

[ThePythonicCow]

Would a secularist like Saddam really want to unleash smallpox, considering that our response would be not the destruction of Baghdad, but of the entire landmass known as Iraq?

If we trapped him in a corner with no other alternatives, then I think he (or his minions, in his name) would.

Barring that, yes I am hopeful that Saddam is as susceptible to the preasures of Mutually Assured Destruction as the Russians were.

[Clinton's a rapist]

Although the thought of dragging this out for a year with that kind of threat hanging over our heads is quite depressing, it may be a tenable strategy. In essence, it means that Saddam has succeeded in putting us in the same kind of standoff we had with the Soviets. Since kamikaze sleepers with weaponized anthrax are militarily pretty much equivalent to ICBMs with nuclear warheads, that's not an unreasonable model. Actually, I think this is what Saddam expected from the plan. Arguably, at least, the sleeper deterrent has a limited shelf life because we would eventually take the appropriate steps to flush them out of the system. I think Saddam's gamble is that he can hold us off long enough for his other war aims to be achieved -- e.g. flipping Pakistan and Saudi. If so, then by the time the sleeper threat is neutralized, he would be able to use the threat of nuclear war in the Middle East and/or an oil embargo to fend off any US attempt to topple him from power. Also, by that time, 9/11 would be "old news" and the US government would have spent the last year telling the public that they had no evidence linking Saddam to the attacks. In that context, the enormous military and geopolitical problems that a conquest of Iraq presents could be sufficient in themselves to incentivize Bush to leave Saddam in power.

[ThePythonicCow]

So maybe this plays out like the last round with MAD. We never actually strike the first blow, but rather the enemy is slowly strangled by their own moral and economic weakness. That which we feared most, Nuclear Winter, or smallpox sending Western Civilization back to the Dark Ages, never materializes.

God, I hope so.

[Clinton's a rapist]

It doesn't sound like a very satisfactory outcome to me, but it may be just the stupidity tax we get for eight years of clinton: living under the constant threat of biowar, plus an oil embargo and possibly the destruction of Israel.

[Skywalk]

"I have seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark. Rome is the light.

I feel the same way about the US. Sadly, the nation not only needs to destroy the Muslim fanatics, but we need a Maximus to depose the traitors in office.

Start from zero with the Constitution, add one-term limits, decrease pay by half, make govt employee unions illegal, update the second amendment's language so the morons can never misinterpret it again, ban organized activity to enslave other humans(one would still be free to think what they would) and delete the "general welfare" clause.

[vrwc54]

bump

[demdesur]

Who sent the anthrax letters and are there more on the way? - Good article

[aristeides]

Mass vaccination would cripple that possible Saddam strategy, and the Russians have offered us anthrax vaccine.

[aristeides]

We don't have to use any of our ground troops to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We don't even have to use nuclear weapons (although myself I would use a couple of tacnukes on Iraqi weapons facilities to maintain MAD deterrence.) All that has to happen is for the Turkish and Iranian armies to conquer Iraq, with U.S. support, and for the Turks to then establish a trusteeship in the Sunni north and for the Iranian to establish a trusteeship in the Shiite south.

[aristeides]

The Russians have also offered us smallpox vaccine, I believe. I wonder what the holdup is.

[aristeides]

Indexing.

[AndyJackson]

"... leaking that the FBI and CIA suspect domestic cranks ..."

There are two problems: one - at best you conclude that "they" think that we are stupid and they are clever. At best that proves them arrogant bastards. More likely, however, we just conclude that they are stupid - dumb arrogant bastards and haven't learned a thing from your favorite list of headline f'ups.

[Francohio]

The USAF and RAF bomb Iraq nearly every day and have done so for 7 years. Is it still possible we do not know where this biological weapons factory is?
I doubt it. One more question: and I will ask it every day. Why are any Muslim illegal aliens still here?

[Sabertooth]

"Why are any Muslim illegal aliens still here?"

I hope there's a good surveillance reason, but I can't think of one that wouldn't be premised on a kid-glove approach to the electoral politics surrounding the colonistas in general.

For that matter, why are any LEGAL Moslem or Arab non-citizens still here?

[Travis McGee]

What difference will bombing Iraq now make if drums of anthrax are already secreted in the USA?

[packrat01]

and the Russians have offered us anthrax vaccine.

Beware dead horses bearing gifts; or something like that. Sure, a vaccination against every strain but THEIRS! False security in accepting that offer.

[packrat01]

an elephant rifle BUMP!

[harpseal]

I'm for nuking Iraq and putting the USA under martial law to minimize the impact of any retaliation. I'm not a dove on this. I'm just trying to get people to see what is really happening here, and why we can't simply laugh off Saddam's rhetoric this time. This may be the gravest threat the United States has ever faced, but publicly, most people are nit-picking over the side show in Afghanistan. That is changing, however. The real nature of the conflict is starting to surface. Friday, the New York Times reported, "We may be at war at Iraq without even knowing it." The elephant won't stay unnoticed much longer.

I for one am of the opinion that we should use nuclear weapons on Iraq and we should use enough so that there is no longer an Iraq left period. There should be no building left standing and absolutely not a shred of the Iraqi government left. American and british occupation of the oil fields should immediately follow with no indigenous population allowed to stay in the area. If we do not include the Kurdish population of Iraq iin this operation we could allow an Idependant Kerdistan to evolve in the North. We could even allow for the Norther oil fields to provide an economic base for that new nation.

This may not entirely solve the problem but it will work towards tyat end.

Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Kermit]

"Mr. Woolsey cites the work of Laurie Mylroie, author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America." She's assembled evidence that Saddam was behind the original bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993."

One, I now understand why Clinton got rid of Woolsey as CIA Director, he's a stand up guy. Two, this is a very interesting book. Mylroie points out that the US Government does NOT know who Ramzi Yusuf is. He's the ringleader of the 93 WTC bombing. Three, Woolsey has gone to England to track down a lead on the identity of Ramzi Yusuf. A la Drudge: 'developing'.

[rebdov]

No,I in NO way sought to rule out left wing whackos. I think there are more of them than right wing whackos. But I do believe that there are rightwing whackos. McVeigh and friends for example.

[AndyJackson]

R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intellegence, 1993-1995 "In this ... Laurie Mylroie shows that a thorough, incisive, solitary scholar can be worth far more than battalions of bureaucrats."

So Woolsey has little regard for the investigative bureaucracies we know as the CIA and FBI. McFarlane also has expressed low regard - rather telling, I think.

See also Laurie Mylroie's article in National Review Online. The enormous folly of the Clinton White House was to believe that Saddam would be so impressed by that one cruise-missile strike [on the Iraqi intelligence HQs] that he would undertake no further attacks on the U.S. ... Clinton dealt surreptitiously with the national-security issue of state involvement and very publicly with the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individuals — through trials. Predictably, more terrorism followed...

[AndyJackson]

an opportunity for your warmth and light.

[summer]

And, another opportunity shot to hell. :)