The Armchair Politician

Since Sunday, critics of the Bush administration have been attacking him based on the statement of David Kay, the former United States Chief Weapons Inspector: “I don’t think [the weapons of mass destruction] exist.” Of course, according to many Democrats, it’s proof that Bush lied to us. However, all evidence points the other way.

Let’s start with a little bit of history. Since the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted between 1980-1988, there has been documented evidence of an Iraqi chemical weapons program, and usage of those weapons in violation of the Geneva Protocol, to which both Iran and Iraq are subservient. And of course, there’s the infamous incident in Halabja. The point that Iraq has had these types of weapons and has used them in the past is not in contention.

In August of 1990, Iraq proceeded with an invasion of Kuwait. Within days, the United States began Operation Desert Shield, with the intention of driving Iraq back into its own borders. While inspecting enemy-controlled bunkers on the Iraq-Kuwait border, PFC David A. Fisher became ill after having been exposed to a substance believed to be mustard gas. Since Kuwait is not under suspicion of having such a chemical weapons programme, it is largely believed to be of Iraqi origin. This is only one documented instance of evidence of an active Iraqi chemical/biological weapons programme at the time. Other examples can be found here.

At the conclusion of the military action, the United Nations passed Resolution 687 (among others), which orders Iraq to “unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above.” And, of course, statements eight and nine cover nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, certain types of ballistic missiles, and other tools of war. In addition to these bans, it also imposes an inspection regime upon Iraq, headed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Thanks to this resolution, President George H.W. Bush pulled American troops out of Iraq, satisfied that the world community had addressed the threat Iraq posed.

Until 1998, UNSCOM inspectors were present in Iraq. Although they discovered and dismantled the majority of Iraq’s weapons stock, Scott Ritter, the head of the inspection regime, stated, “Although Iraq today possesses only a fraction of its WMD stock of 1991, chemical and biological weapons capabilities can be reconstituted with relative ease. Iraq has maintained components of a nuclear bomb, and it could receive fissile material to enable it to build a nuclear weapon” (source). In the same report, he states that, “The inspection process disintegrated once the international community failed to oppose resolutely the Iraqi regime’s efforts at preventing from entering suspected WMD facilities.”

Let me clear this up for you folks, in case there’s any ambiguity: when the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had the strong belief that Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programmes were a) not completely disarmed, and b) could restarted quickly and easily. Even more incriminating, the eventual disintegration of the weapons regime was caused by Iraqi obstruction. There would have been little reason for Iraq to obstruct weapons inspectors had their goal of disarmament already been achieved. Through this evidence, we can be confident that Iraq, in 1998, had remaining chemical and biological weapons, and the facilities to restart their production.

Now we get to the (relative) present: 2002. George W. Bush has turned America’s sights toward Iraq, and has begun espousing the belief that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons, as well as the capability to create a crude nuclear weapon within a short period of time. Disregarding the latter part of his statement, there is a veritable mountain of circumstancial evidence that it was true. As we have covered earlier, Iraq is known to have had active weapons programmes in violation of Resolution 687 up until 1998, which was four years prior. There is little reason to believe that Iraq voluntarily, and even more perplexingly, secretly disarmed itself in the time period since. Even more confusing would be why, when given the opportunity to announce to the world its initiative in promoting regional peace through self-disarmament, it sent the United Nations a 12,000 page document containing little more than rehashed information, primarily meant as a delaying tactic.

Also incriminating was the discovery of a new Iraqi missile, the Al-Samoud II, of which at least 50 are believed to have been produced. Not only does this missile exceed the 150km range limit imposed upon Iraq by the United Nations, but it has a far more interesting aspect (at least, militarily speaking): its “accuracy is measured in thousands of meters” (source). What’s the significance of this, you ask? It means that the weapon is nearly useless in conventional attacks. This is not the missile you want to fire in order to destroy intelligence buildings, troop formations, or other strategic targets. It is a missile you lob in the direction of the nearest city, and don’t care what it specifically hits. And of course, we all know that when you’re firing a missile with those intentions, you’re trying to create chaos and disarray amongst civilians, not the military. When it comes down to it, these missiles have nearly no military value when used with conventional warheads.

As it stands, Saddam Hussein has ended up losing both his power and his freedom over these weapons. Had Iraq not been in posession of them, and had their weapons programmes been halted, Iraq and Hussein would have acted far differently. Instead of obstructing inspections, they would have been tripping over themselves to comply. Rather than spend millions on developing a delivery mechanism for chemical and biological weapons, they would have funded other programs. To insist that Hussein remained steadfast to the end rather than prove to the world his innocence is just ludicrous.