INTELLIGENCE: Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret

Strategy Page ^ | 2006 Jun 23 | Harold C. Hutchison

[Wiz]

June 23, 2006: The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this. The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

[SandRat]

Interesting view

[sam_paine]

Well this could certainly explain it. Or maybe not.

[Izzy Dunne]

I have no problem with this. But once it was declassified - they apparently thought there was no more risk to the troops.

So Bush should have been out front, ramming it down Howard the Dean's throat.

[Pete]

I heard a guy on Fox give the following explanation. Prior to the US invasion in 2003, the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq were China, Russia and France. That may have include components for WMD. It is likely that traces on the weapons would lead back to these countries. Right now, the administration does not feel it is in our best interests to rock that boat by making such information public.

[processing please hold]

There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

I don't remember that story. Would you happen to have a link to it?

[Stallone]

F- the French.

Often, especially the young (legal) cute gals.

[Irish Eyes]

I heard a guy on Fox give the following explanation. Prior to the US invasion in 2003, the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq were China, Russia and France. That may have include components for WMD. It is likely that traces on the weapons would lead back to these countries. Right now, the administration does not feel it is in our best interests to rock that boat by making such information public.

I think that is closer to the truth.

[plain talk]

This theory doesn't make sense to me. Finding and reporting WMDs doesn't help the terrorists too much since they won't know if there are any more and, if so, where they are.

The WH should never have allowed the dems to say over and over again "there were no WMDs" without challenging it. The WH could have always placed caveats on its claims but should never have allowed its political enemies to say there NO WMDs.

[Gordongekko909]

I ain't buying it. This explanation assumes that the US intended to not reveal WMD finds all along. I find it hard to believe that any administration would go into Iraq with that intention, especially after giving the WMD threat as much airplay as it did.

No, something else is going on here.

[The_Media_never_lie]

The mainstream media would have kept this quiet so as not to endanger our troops, right?

[RandallFlagg]

Reference point: Iraq WMDs

[mgstarr]

This reeks of spin to me. I also think the definition of WMD has gotten stretched a bit over the past few years.

[operation clinton cleanup]

That may have include components for WMD. It is likely that traces on the weapons would lead back to these countries. Right now, the administration does not feel it is in our best interests to rock that boat by making such information public.

Most realistic explanation.

[ncountylee]

The WH should never have allowed the dems to say over and over again "there were no WMDs" without challenging it.

Every time the no WMD claim was shrieked the picture of the dead Iraqi civilians gassed by Saddam should have been shown with a deriding comment such as...these folks might disagree.

[RandallFlagg]

Can I sue for them stealing my ideas?

RandallFlagg: WMDs = Cheese ^

[SandRat]

I don't have that link but yes I do recall it.

[Bob]

The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents.

I don't see any point in making a distinction between "the press" and "political opponents". They certainly don't.

[processing please hold]

Ok, thanks.

[pookie18]

Yes, that was Col. Tom McIninerny.