February 17, 2004
Why Didn't the U.S. Seize the WMD Sites?
Chief weapons inspector David A. Kay’s recent testimony that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should again focus attention on what was one of the most baffling aspects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq – our failure to immediately seize and secure the sites where weapons of mass destruction were believed to be stored. If there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and al Qaeda was present as well, then the first priority of the U.S. military in Iraq could only have been to seize those weapons to make sure they did not fall into the hands of terrorists. Instead, the weapons of mass destruction sites were treated largely as an afterthought to the invasion plan, with virtually no U.S. troops directed toward immediately securing the sites.
Most of the sites which were believed to contain deadly biological and chemical weapons were not even visited by the military for at least a month after the end of the invasion, and by that time both the weapons and al Qaeda were gone. Unfortunately, either the Secretary of Defense was frighteningly negligent in formulating a war plan which would have allowed those weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists, or it is hard to imagine anything other than that Secretary of Defense knew prior to the invasion that the weapons didn’t exist, and so there was no need to secure the sites.
The Administration says it believed it had credible proof of ongoing Iraq weapons programs and stores of ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons. The list of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. believed Iraq had was truly frightening – tons of biological and chemical agents that would cause painful and near instant death. The Administration further believed that there was credible evidence that Iraq had supported al Qaeda in 9/11, and continued to support and offer haven to al Qaeda terrorists. This was the only reason for invading Iraq – to keep the weapons of mass destruction out of al Qaeda hands.
In pre-war assessments by our intelligence agencies, the agencies believed it was unlikely that Hussein had passed on the weapons to al Qaeda, because of the danger of Iraq being blamed for any terrorist attack using the weapons. However the intelligence agencies believed that in the event of a war, this caution on the part of Hussein would be gone – Hussein was more likely to give the weapons to al Qaeda in the event of a U.S. invasion, because he would have nothing to lose.
This frightening possibility should have dictated our war plan. The greatest danger to our country was not that it might take three months to defeat Iraq instead of one and a half, but that as soon as we invaded the weapons of mass destruction would fall into al Qaeda hands. Given the extreme danger to our country, it is hard to contemplate having our military do anything other than seizing the weapons of mass destruction sites immediately, before anything else.
Instead, the war plan that the Secretary of Defense formulated for all practical purposes ignored the weapons of mass destruction sites. We didn’t immediately seize them – in most cases, our troops didn’t even visit the sites for a month after the end of the invasion, and in some cases three months after the end of the invasion. If there had been weapons of mass destruction, the weapons would have surely fallen into the hands of al Qaeda.
The casualness with which the U.S. war plan dealt with the weapons was truly frightening. If the weapons were there, this would have been one of the great disasters in the war against terrorism – we will have to live in fear of them for years to come. And we would have had only ourselves to blame for allowing them to fall into the hands of terrorists. The other possibility, unfortunately, is that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, or al Qaeda operatives, in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is hard not to conclude that the reason Secretary Rumsfeld didn’t bother targeting the weapons of mass destruction sites is because he knew, as Dr. Kay has now confirmed, that there would be nothing there.
I do not know which thought is more disturbing – that the weapons of mass destruction existed and fell into al Qaeda hands because of the casualness of the Secretary of Defense, or that the Secretary of Defense was misleading the President about their existence. Regardless, our nation deserves an answer.
There were a lot of high-prioty missions when the war began, and as I recall that was one of them. In addition to making swift work of disabling the Iraqi military defense, locating Military leaders, and protecting oil fields from terrorist/vandal sabotoges.
I’m not sure its fair to say WMD’s are more important than the safety of our troops. And they were onto the WMD sites pretty fast, but as I recall they came up with some old rockets, an empty trailer that was used as some sort of research/science facility (believed by some to be chemical weapons related), and not a heck of a lot else. And another thought- If they really believed the iminent threat of WMDs, then the Pentagon also should have expected they would be used to defeat the US invasion, no? If this is the case then it makes more sense to secure military victory/ stability first and foremost..
So, you’re saying because they didn’t find anything means that really they weren’t looking fast enough.. hmm, might be a tough sell, but I guess they don’t have much else to tell the public at this point..
Posted by: peezee at February 17, 2004 01:11 PMI’m certainly not a military expert, but I would surmise that much of what the military does is not made public. For effectiveness and security, it seems that any operation involving the alleged sites of WMD would be kept out of the public as long as possible.
Better to go in and find nothing, than sit back and always wonder if another 9/11 scenario is right around the corner.
You fail to mention the most likely answer!
The quantities of WMDs that the Bush administration claimed existed were pretty extensive—not the amounts you’d just throw in the trunk of a Datsun and drive off into Syria. To transport the supposed quantities would have required huge convoys of trucks, which intelligence satallites would have been able to spot.
I also don’t believe that the Secretary of Defense was misleading the President.
I believe that the Bush administration knews pretty damn well after UN inspections that the WMDs didn’t exist and that was just the excuse presented to the American people to justify the war. So the only people misled were the citizens of the U.S. in order to gain their support for the war.
Posted by: blipsman at February 17, 2004 01:41 PMIf this article is the case, that Rumsfeld dileberately sent a minimal number of troops (barely enough to cover each other) and WMDs were not used in the invasion, which is what many expected, then would it be Rumsfeld’s fault that WMDs were in the hands of terrorists groups? I think not. Someone in the administration knows the truth, but refuses to step up. With President Bush previously being in the military, one would think that if he wants the proof of WMDs, that he would make sure those sites are secure to prove to the world that Iraq was definitely a threat. I recall a press conference Rumsfeld gave stating directly “We know where the weapons of mass destruction are.” If that is true why not secure those sites? It did, and still does, frighten me that in this country, where the burden of proof is supposed to lie on the accuser, in this case it was placed on the accused. The evidence presented could not and would not stand up in a court of law. That means there is no doubt about the evidence. Showing a building and labeling it nuclear site is not enough evidence. A piture of a truck with two trailer is not evidence enough to say that it is a biochemical mobile weapons lab. The evidence presented before the war was sketchy at best and now the outlook on the war is sketchy at best. The administration has no one to blame but itself for the outcome and duration of this war.
Posted by: Zamal at February 17, 2004 01:55 PMGood question. If our evidence was in fact strong enough to justify a pre-emptive invasion, why was it not strong enough to actually find and sieze the WMD sites?
I can only think of three possible excuses that make any sense:
1) The administration knew *where* the WMDs were but our military strategy didn’t include a plan to sieze those sites (for whatever reason). This raises serious questions about the competance of our military leadership, and quite honestly I doubt that this option is even remotely possible… unless our military commanders’ strategies were deliberately undermined by their civilian bosses (Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney)… this, too, I doubt could be possible.
2) The administration was convinced that there *were* WMDs, but we had no idea at all about *where* they were. This seems possible, but it is nonetheless disturbing: if we didn’t know where they were, how could we be sure they existed at all? Was the invasion based on a hunch? Was it, in essence, a bold political gamble?
3) The administration’s evidence about the existence of WMDs was either (a) pathetically weak and largely speculative, (b) made up from scratch by Chalabi and other opportunist Iraqi exile con artists, or (c) made up from scratch by the Bush administration. In any of these cases, this would be evidence of truly massive incompetance or even corruption throughout the entire Bush administration.
The administration recognizes that these three options are the only possible ways they can spin this story. Clearly they’ve chosen to use excuse #2, because excuse #2 might allow them to pin the blame on lower-level intelligence gatherers instead of taking the blame for their own egregious misjudgement of intelligence and their wanton disregard for prudent foreign policy.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at February 17, 2004 02:10 PMre:2nd paragraph
Finally. I’ve looked for this statement as this whole thing has played out. The Buck must stop somewhere. It looks like it should be with the Administration.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at February 17, 2004 10:01 PMAs I recall when asked why precautions against biologic or chemical agents were not being taken during the invasion, the response fom the military spokesmen were that they did not anticipate a chemical or biological attack. There was no explanation given to that answer which I found to be telling.
I presume our soldiers did have sealed suits to put on as they did in Gulf WarI, but it was noted by a few reporters that there didn’t appear to be much concern on the part of military leadership.
Bravado?
Well, if it looks like a duck…. This was the implementation of a policy that believes this is the path to reordering the middle east. They’ve told us that along with a load of BS about WMD. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Unless your head is in the sand, the administration has admitted to the deception.. calling it bad intelligence. This is Teddy Roosevelt/ Andy Jackson leadership…it’s what a minority of the electorate voted for and was elected/appointed/stolen deepending upon your opinion.
If you want this policy to continue vote for Bush, If you don’t …well we’ll, I’m not sure a Democratic president will take another course..we’re kinda stuck with it now. Vietnam II.
Soon to follow…Columbia/Venezula II
Greg, your’re right, we sure are stuck with Iraq now. But we’re not stuck with Bush. Chances are that a Democratic President wont start another war on false pretenses. It seems possible, however, that Bush will want to do it again.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at February 18, 2004 04:26 PMBUSH found WMD on Sept 11th when we as americans were in shock!
Weapons of Mass Distraction, can see the (gollam bush) wringing his hands saying “I know Iraq is about as incongruent as a country can be to Osama’s message but i WILL tie them together, i see victory! We’ll let someone else find Sadaam if we can’t and claim/by insinuation (we’re pro’s at that) that WE found him.
WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRACTION, and why? “CUZ THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE JUST THAT DUMB!”
Meanwhile Madeleine Albright made a very educated and insightful speculation that Bush ALREADY has Osama and is waiting for the most opportune time to claim it.
That my friends would explain his constant Cat ate the canary grin.
Now i’m going to send this to the Republican sites as they are beginning to wake up and i don’t want them going back to sleep.
Time to UNITE go Independent and show BOTH parties Americans are NOT as dumb as they would believe or hope!
