Posted on 06/09/2003 12:42:54 PM PDT by hchutch
The United States has discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know this because I read it on the front page of the very liberal New York Times. Of course, the Times was only trying to hurt the administration. In the rush to Baghdad during the war, our troops bypassed and failed to secure one of Saddam's key nuclear facilities. That facility was looted by local villagers, who ransacked vaults and warehouses looking for anything of value. Many of the villagers took home radioactive barrels, and are now suffering from radiation poisoning. According to the Times, the looted nuclear facility, "contained ample radioactive poisons that could be used to manufacture an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs."
So in the course of trying to embarrass the administration, the Times has inadvertently raised a very important point in the administration's defense. Saddam's nuclear-weapons program contained sufficient material to pose a serious threat to the United States. In the hands of terrorists, nuclear dirty bombs supplied by Saddam could have rendered landmarks and key sites in American cities uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
And why did Saddam have a nuclear facility in the first place? It was, of course, part of his effort to produce a nuclear bomb. In fact, the nuclear site reported on by the Times was connected to the facility bombed years before by the Israelis, who had become convinced that Saddam was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Thank goodness the Israelis acted. Thank goodness we did too.
Now it's true that this was a site that the inspectors knew about. That, however, might not have prevented Saddam from transferring the small amount of nuclear material necessary for a dirty bomb to terrorists. And the Iraqis may well have been carrying out other critical tasks in pursuit of a nuclear bomb at secret facilities. And there was always the danger that, in the absence of regime change, the Europeans would have tired of sanctions and inspections — as they'd done before — and let Saddam complete his nuclear work. The Europeans' renewed interest in sanctions was only prompted by America's preparations to invade, and we could not have kept our troops at the ready forever.
Another serious danger was the possibility that, at a propitious moment some time down the road, Saddam might simply have kicked the inspectors out. After all, that's what the North Koreans did. They waited till we were tied down by our struggle with Iraq, booted the inspectors out, and powered up their nuclear program. Had we failed to invade, Saddam could have waited until a weaker president was in power, and/or until the U.S. was tied down in a war (perhaps with Korea), and simply thrown the inspectors out. After all, he'd done it before.
Prior to the war, it was impossible to tell how close Saddam was to building a nuclear bomb. We hoped and believed that he was still at least a year or two away from success, although the possibility that he might be even closer than that had to be reckoned with. After all, our intelligence had once before proven wrong. We had underestimated the progress of Saddam's nuclear program, as we eventually learned from defectors. But even if Saddam was a couple of years away from a bomb, the need to invade was urgent. The point was precisely to stop Saddam before he got close enough to a bomb to exploit our uncertainty about his capacity and blackmail us. That, after all, is exactly what the North Koreans have been doing for some time.
All of this was publicly discussed before the war. Opponents of invasion emphasized that Saddam was probably at least a couple of years away from building a bomb. And they argued that conventional deterrence could in any case keep a nuclear-armed Saddam under control. Proponents of the war argued that Saddam might be closer to a bomb than we realized, and that, in any case, it was necessary to strike him quickly, when he was (we hoped) too far from a bomb to blackmail us.
Drawing on Kenneth Pollack's powerful case for invasion, proponents of the war argued that, once in possession of a bomb, Saddam could not be deterred in the way the Soviets once were. Opponents of war asked why we were not invading North Korea, which was so obviously close to having a bomb. Proponents of the war countered that we were invading Iraq to prevent it from becoming a North Korea — which was, by all accounts, far too close to having a bomb to safely invade.
In two pieces published in the run-up to the war, "Brave New World" and "Why Invade," I explained that the administration had not been able to fully and frankly emphasize the connection between Saddam's nuclear ambitions and the war. Both the president and the vice president did, of course, talk about the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam. But to emphasize that, and especially to spell out the danger scenarios outlined explicitly by Kenneth Pollack, would have been difficult and awkward. It would have harmed American power to note in too much detail just how vulnerable we were to nuclear blackmail. The same dynamic helps explain the administration's relative silence about the barrel over which the North Koreans now have us. We do our best to pretend that Kim Jong Il has not got us in as difficult a situation as he in fact does.
But, again, this dynamic was by no means a complete secret before the war. The administration did include the danger of nuclear blackmail from Iraq in its publicly stated reasons for the war. And pundits did argue about all this. In particular, the war's proponents made the point that, Saddam's being perhaps a year or two away from a nuclear weapon (if we were lucky) made this exactly the moment to strike.
So the failure of the administration to turn up any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq is, from my perspective, not the key point. As I said repeatedly at the time, we were going to war to prevent Saddam from eventually producing nuclear weapons. That fact was known and even announced by the administration, but for reasons inherent to the nuclear game, could not be fully emphasized and spelled out.
Did the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons? No one doubts that they did. Did they destroy or move them out of the country prior to the inspectors' arrival to prevent their discovery from justifying an invasion? Quite possibly. If so, in an effort to preserve the deterrent effect of our belief that he still possessed chemical and biological weapons, Saddam evidently decided not to give us evidence of their destruction. That was a very dangerous game to play — a game Saddam lost.
But the New York Times report on Iraq's pillaged nuclear facility reminds us that Saddam did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction — nuclear materials that could easily have supplied terrorists with "an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs." And that very real danger was only the promise of a full-fledged nuclear bomb a few years down the road. We are all in debt to President Bush for acting, while there was still time, to prevent that disastrous outcome.
Well we could go to the PNAC of which it seems half this administration came from. You know Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Cheney, and pals? Oh, I'm sorry, Kristol heads that up too!!
So to summarize, to accept this administration's explanation of WMDs, we have to deny the PNAC (of which many in the administration belonged to under the same leadership of Kristol, throw the CIA under the bus, along with even more intelligence reports from Great Britain, and take the administration's word and National Review's word for it?
Perhaps you missed the word of Frum throwing half the conservative party under the bus for not falling lockstep behind President Bush's every word
Didn't the Clintons visit N. Korea just before he/they left the White House just so they could have one more trip in AFO? Was that business or just a junket, what did they promise at that time for NK?
By invading Iraq, the coalition stopped Saddam and his machine from further development of WMD...North Korea on the other hand is more of China's problem, it's their neighborhood and in their interests to stop NK's nuclear buildup and as cooler non-liberal heads prevailed, Kim Jong Il apparently thought better of it all and quit his whining and blackmail of the US.
What on earth were the Clintons really doing in North Korea...??
Airplanes killed three thousand people on 9/11, and could have killed a lot more if the towers had fallen sooner before most people were evacuated. The effects of the 9/11 attacks were likened in their consequences to (very small) tactical nukes. But I don't class airplanes as Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor do I consider the fact that Saddam possessed airplanes as proof that he possessed WMDs.
Unless a radiological bomb contains large quantities of highly radioactive substances (which means they have very short half-lives and can't be stored for long periods after their production and prior to their use), and unless the wind patterns and weather conditions are just right, and unless countermeasures are not promptly undertaken, very few if any people will die immediately from the radioactivity. And by the time anyone gets around to developing cancer many years from now, we could easily have a cure for cancer.
I'd be far more afraid of an ammonia nitrate truck bomb set off in front of a crowded office building to kill a couple of hundred people than I would a "dirty bomb". Just because a weapon contains some radioactive substances doesn't automatically make it a WMD. And trying to pretend otherwise is not a very persuasive method of convincing people that Saddam really, really did have WMDs.
Grasping at an impolitic comment from Kristol, apparently exaggerated by Newsmax, isn't really the best foundation for your argument, but do go right ahead.
You are asking us all to believe that the intelligence services of many nations, including those not friendly to us such as Germany and France, along with their governments, actively engaged in a conspiracy, without one leak ,prior to the war. If so, this was an amazing exercise of American power, dwarfing the Iraqi invasion by a long shot.
Go right out there on that limb, billbears. President Bush already has a chainsaw.
And you're asking us to deny the statements of our own intelligence (CIA) just to support the logic forwarded by the President. Never mind the fact that British intelligence is now in question as well
France had a concerted interest in stopping the war. If they had disagreed with the possibility of WMD they would have said so. Instead, what they said was that their way of containing them was better.
Events will prove who is correct. I don't think you will be satisfied with the outcome.
I don't think that answers my quesiton. I don't think it answers any questions.
For what it's worth, you're correct that I missed "the word" of Frum "throwing half the conservative party under the bus" whatever that means (what "bus"?). You seem a little obsessed with Mr. Frum however. Are you aware that there are other people besides Mr. Frum who work for National Review?
As a terror weapon, radiological bombs are pretty terrifying, mostly because the general public has been fed decades of over-hyped phobic reporting on the dangers of radioactivity. This is the same misinformation that has caused hysteria over depleted uranium weapons, or has blocked or slowed the use of irradiation on food to kill bacteria. Most people have no conception of the significance of various types or levels of radiation.
So yes, a dirty bomb will terrify a lot of people, and it will force huge evacuations, and it will destroy property values in affected cities to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars even if the reality is that the radiation levels are so low as to be almost indistinguishable from background levels. More people will die of heart attacks than get sick from radiation exposure.
If terrorist want to push the U.S. economy into a recession, a dirty bomb exploded in a major city would be a great way to accomplish that. If terrorists want to kill a lot of people, then they should instead use true Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Which happens to be entirely correct. Chem and bio weapons are somewhat ephemeral. They degrade and must be periodically or continually produced. The programs to produce the weapons were the key point, and they were what Saddam was trying to preserve above all.
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.