About those WMDs...

[old_goat_23]

NY Times is finally starting to share some of the info on chemical weapons stockpiles we found in Iraq. This is a pretty tame version of what I've been told over the years regarding chemical and biological stockpiles. While we didn't find any active programs, we did find a lot of stockpiles with tons of viable weapons. I never understood why the DoD wouldn't release the information (fully understood why State kept it under wraps given their political orientation) but guess they finally either had to disclose or lose the scoop.

Given the somewhat left leaning orientation of the Times, you can probably imagine that this is a highly sanitized version of what we really encountered. One thing that I found really interesting is that they discuss binary chemical weapons as being found without reviewing why one might use that approach to munitions (binary weapons make is easier to handle the weapon and greatly extends the shelf life of same). Another thing is that now we are supposed to be worried about ISIS digging up and using weapons that supposedly never existed. Should be interesting as more guys start disclosing what they saw and had to deal with.

Enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3

 

[aTUfan]

GWB was right.

someone owes him and his adninistration an APOLOGY!
This post was edited on 10/16 11:01 AM by aTUfan

 

[WATU2]

Maybe the NYTimes "sanitized" its report in more ways than one. Rummy was a big backer of Iraq and Saddam when it was at war with Iran.

US helps Iraq with chemical weapons

 

[lawpoke87]

Would explain why we were so confident about those WMDs.

 

[old_goat_23]

I've seen that "Rumsfeld did it" stuff before. While it is fun fodder for Liberals, there isn't anything to support the theory and it runs contrary to the facts. I suppose when one is faced with the death of a major talking point (no WMDs in Iraq) one has no choice other than to fall back on the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld BAD" line.

This article substantiates nothing beyond the well known concerns we had about Iran rolling up Iraq in the mid 1980s. The whole Iranian hostage gig was still fresh in everyone's minds and nobody wanted Iran to make any more progress ..... especially since they were using the weapons we had sold them under Nixon and Carter. We didn't like Saddam but we liked the Iranian Theological gig even less. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine in action.

I could go really slow and explain the difference between "biological agents" that could be used for vaccination development and "weaponized biological agents" which are modified forms of standard diseases intended to be used against military and civilian personnel. Suffice it to say that getting a shipment of biological agents suitable for making vaccines is a far cry from receiving biological weapons. The only viable stocks we had by the mid 1980s were kept at USAMRIID and the CDC. Those were base pathogens intended to produce vaccines against potential Soviet weapons. That being said ......

Iraq was a Soviet client when it came to weapons. Tanks, aircraft, bombs, artillery shells ..... you name it, they bought it from Mother Russia and her children. By the time frame noted, Russia was head and shoulders above us when it came to biological weapons. We had ended our biological weapons programs by 1973 (about 10 years before Rumsfeld supposedly delivered this stuff to Iraq) per decisions made during the Nixon administration (we chose to rely upon a nuclear response to a biological attack instead of a direct response). Russia, conversely, had fired up Biopreparat in 1973 to avoid compliance with agreements and treaties (Biopreparat was supposedly a civilian organization but was actually the Soviet biological warfare program with a different name). They had a full fledged bio-war program up and running through the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. Heck,we still haven't found all of those scientists and associated testing facilities (a lot of which were in Africa ..... yeah, big fun).

So.... Occam's Razor in action. Which is more likely? Iraq got biological weapons and assistance from their primary benefactor (Soviet Union) who already had all the skills and materials OR Iraq got their biological warfare capability based on a 90 minute talk with Rumsfeld and biological stocks that were intended to produce vaccines? It is possible that we provided some type of stock for vaccines to Iraq but extremely unlikely that we gave them weapons or the basis for same. Regardless, they had tons of biological and chemical weapons on hand when we invaded and it is kind of fun to have that particular cat out of the bag.

Thanks!