Iraq disarmament crisis: Encyclopedia II - Iraq disarmament crisis - Issues of Concern

Iraq disarmament crisis - Issues of Concern

Iraq disarmament crisis - Missing WMD stockpiles

After the invasion of Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay was formed to find WMD in Iraq. No stockpiles of WMD have yet been found in Iraq, although limited quantities have been found. Iraq had destroyed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons (but discoveries made by the ISG include a "clandestine network of laboratories ... that contained equipment ... suitable for continuing chemical biological weapons research"). Artillery shells containing sarin were discovered, and one was used as an improvised explosive device (IED), probably without the attacker's knowledge. Weapons marked for destruction by U.N. inspectors have also been discovered. Also, mobile laboratories, alleged at the time to be used to create chemical or biological weapons, were discovered shortly after the invasion, but subsequent testing of the mobile labs did not provide direct proof that they had anything to do with weapons production [1] [2].

Some equipment used to refine uranium was discovered buried at a nuclear scientist's house in Baghdad. There was "no indication [Iraq had] resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991" (though there was extensive amount of "documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation"[3] and a "number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted". [4]).

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have both admitted that the stockpiles of WMD have not been found, and that the intelligence was flawed. These are some of the theories that people have put forward to explain the situation. These include:

• Saddam Hussein buried the weapons and the equipment throughout Iraq. Finding them is going to be practically impossible. Supporters of the explanation say this claim is supported by the fact that several fighter jets were found buried in the sand and that equipment was found buried at a nuclear scientist's house. These supporters claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• Saddam Hussein moved the equipment and materials into foreign countries that are neutral or friendly towards Iraq or openly aggressive towards the United States, such as Syria. Some proponents of this theory claim that the nuclear program surrendered by Libya was actually Saddam's program until Saddam moved it into Libya. Supporters of the explanation say this explanation is also supported by the fact that several key Iraqi officials fled to Syria and were later extradited. This theory does not have much support among the intelligence community or political communities. A recent book by a former top military advisor of Saddam Hussein alleges that Saddam did have chemical weapons, and that they were flown to Damascus in modified commercial aircraft before the war.[5]
• Saddam Hussein was lied to by his advisors and generals. They reported that he had weapons and programs in operation, but in fact, there were none due to lack of funding and the embargo. This is a possibility given Saddam's brutal nature and stories told by Iraqi scientists about falsifying results.
• President Bush and Prime Minister Blair lied about the continued existence of weapons at the time and used it to fool people into advocating a war with Iraq. They knew beforehand that Saddam no longer possessed such weapons, but persuaded their intelligence agencies to support the claim that he still had WMDs, and fabricated evidence that caused people to believe such. Prior to the invasion of Iraq the United States refused to supply UN weapons inspectors with intelligence showing the locations of said WMD (which the US claimed to be in possession of) arguing that it was necessary to keep that information secret, amid increasing skepticism toward the administration's assertions that they were only pursuing war as a last resort. Supporters of this theory point to the false claims made by Lyndon Johnson, in support of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as precedent. Opponents of this theory point out that before the war, Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet on the WMD-in-Iraq issue, wanting to be sure Saddam actually had them; Bob Woodward reported in Plan of Attack that Tenet assured Bush that WMDs in Iraq were "a slam dunk."
• The intelligence was faulty, and because the various countries shared information, they encouraged the myth of Saddam's WMD stores. Saddam played along with this myth and actively encouraged it, in the hopes that it would prevent an invasion. This theory is the theory that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are supporting, and the one presented by the Iraq Survey Group. A report by The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction concluded that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "dead wrong." Furthermore, "the commission has found no evidence of 'politicization' of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs." Another conclusion stated in the report stated that the Bush administration fostered an "environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom." The British government came to a similar conclusion in their report, Intelligence and Security Committee 2004-2005 Annual Report, published on April 4, 2005. [6]

The perceived U.S. position to the WMD investigation was later illustrated in an unverified document "Downing Street memo". In it, the British Head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C') said:

On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war [7]. This should be read in light of the fact that regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the US government since 1998.[8]

Iraq disarmament crisis - Oil For Food Scandal

Members of France, Russia, and China's political establishment, along with some reporters, have been accused to have ties to the Oil for Food scandal by the Duelfer Report of the Iraq Survey Group. Saddam was said to have effectively bought their support against an invasion of Iraq, and bypassed key sanctions imposed by the U.N. in doing so.

The serious concerns of the war opponents arose in part from a fear of US hegemony (NATO nations with proportionately larger Muslim populations, e.g. France, Canada, disproportionately seem to have this view). However, most governments and US sympathizers state that their concern rises from the estimation that a military way of solving will foment more radical Islamism and terrorism, and question all borders in that region (especially in Kurdistan, a disputed region that demographically includes areas in Turkey, Iran and Syria as well as Iraq - see also the frequent wars between Arab nations in Middle East conflict). Perhaps most importantly it is thought to jeopardize all efforts of supporting nonviolent democratic Islam, led by moderates who are themselves generally against a war. For most war opponents, the American intention largely exceeded the fate of Iraqi disarmament. The relationship between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden appeared forged for hiding other goals. Beyond disarmament, it was in Saudi Arabia that Bush is interested. It is in Riyadh that are the financial and strategic keys of the Middle-East.

These allies and movements preferred a diplomatic solution to disarm Iraq and supported democratization in the region (similar to Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970s which finally led to the peaceful revolutions in the Eastern Bloc in 1989).

Iraq disarmament crisis - Criticism of U.S. policy

Other opponents of the American invasion plan argued that the US's reasons were selective and ultimately insufficient, pointing out that states that the US regards as friendly to it share some of these attributes. Many states have weapons of mass destruction, the US more than any other, and the US itself has not only supported terrorist operations and groups, but also engaged in terrorism itself.

Although it received only mild press attention, a March 6, 2003 report by the UN nuclear inspectors cast serious doubt of the existent and extent of a then current Iraqi nuclear program. Invasion opponents find the fact that the incriminating documents were forged particularly concerning acquisition of uranium (see Yellowcake Forgery).

Many opponents of the plan also claimed that some or all of the above claims were vastly misrepresented by the Bush administration, especially in the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. Fundamentalist Muslim groups, at the time generally did not support Iraq, as it was a secular nation that did not enforce what they perceive as Muslim law dictated by the Qur'an - in a tape reputedly released by Osama bin Laden in February 2003 Saddam Hussein is referred to as an 'ignorant infidel' and placed only second on the list of evils, after an invasion by the United States. Some argue that of course that collaboration between them would likely result in just such a tape and it is impossible to verify that such tapes do not come from the CIA, as is widely believed about all such evidence in the Arab world. In February of 1999, the Guardian newspaper detailed historical connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. [9]

Although George W. Bush originally stated that existing resolutions were sufficient to justify the US launching a war, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had insisted that the UN must be involved, and it was widely believed that Colin Powell, US secretary of state, agreed strongly with this view, and that a new resolution was required.

The United States led the tumultuous effort within the United Nations to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for sweeping new powers for weapons inspectors within Iraq and threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with the resolution. This measure had been successful, according to the peace faction, as Iraq had allowed inspections to continue (after a four-year hiatus) soon after the measure passed, and had responded in a timely fashion to concerns raised about it.

The head of the UN weapons inspectors team, Hans Blix, expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."

In February 2003 the effort to draft an 18th resolution in the UN Security Council was underway. It was influenced at least in part by a near-revolt inside the UK Labour Party, which has the power to remove Tony Blair as PM of the UK, and which had made clear that without another resolution, Blair would be proceeding without the support of most of the UK's voting population, which was strongly against a war including only US and UK forces.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Issues of Concern", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki