The US, UN & Iraq III

Unanswered question: Where are Iraq's WMD?
Commentary by Kathleen Parker
June 02, 2003

So where are those weapons of mass destruction?

Anyone who went on record in support of the war has been asked that question a hundred or so times in recent weeks. President Bush's opponents, it seems, won't be satisfied until Geraldo is standing astride 5,000 drums of liquid anthrax in front of a nuclear silo. Wouldn't that be lovely?

I confess to disappointment that there isn't some clearer evidence of WMD. Certainly those of us who wandered out onto the pro-war limb believed in the case presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell. We believed that Saddam Hussein needed to be ousted for all the right reasons, including his clear commitment to the development of WMD.

And it was a clear commitment. Saddam had developed such weapons in the past and used them against Iran as well as Iraqi Kurds. He failed to produce evidence that he had destroyed vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons. And he did nothing to convince the "international community" that he had rid his country of all vestiges of WMD.

Still, the question that won't go away chaps at the conscience of any thinking person: So where are they?

The bad news is that we may never find them, according to military and intelligence people I've talked to. Does that mean WMD were never there? No. Does it mean we were wrong? No.

The truth is, we don't know where the weapons are at the moment, other than the two mobile bio labs, but a number of plausible theories could help explain why not. The most obvious explanation is that Saddam simply destroyed the weapons or shipped them elsewhere. He may have ordered his men to destroy them in the vast Iraqi desert and then killed them as the only witnesses.

Or he may have dispersed and concealed various elements of his WMD production capacity, figuring he could regroup after the war.

The two mobile labs recently investigated were thoroughly scrubbed down. Although a variety of inspectors have not been able to say with certitude what the labs were used for, the consensus is that they make sense for no other purpose than creation of biological weapons. Why carefully scrub a lab unless you're trying to hide something?

The fact that the weapons were never used against our troops may suggest that Saddam hoped that by destroying the bulk of his WMD stocks and dispersing or concealing his WMD production capacity, he could prevent indictment by U.N. inspectors.

Then he could reliably count on France, Germany and Russia to forestall war because of a lack of credible evidence of the existence of WMD. Once the pesky inspectors left, all he needed to do was obtain the necessary chemicals and materiel for production of WMD.

That's the theory of Peter Brookes, senior fellow for National Security Affairs and Director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. It makes as much sense as anything else, though admittedly it's difficult to read the mind of a maniac. Saddam's, that is.

Whatever the case, we might have been wiser never to entertain hopes of a smoking gun. We entered Iraq with Oz-like expectations, wide-eyed in search of a yellow-brick road lined with happy Iraqis pointing to the brightly colored arrows: "Weapons of Mass Destruction Here!" The WMD weren't likely to be neatly stacked and labeled in warehouses along Frontage Road.

Nevertheless, we still need closure and an answer to the question: Where are they? The fact of their absence in Iraq could predict a scarier scenario still. If they weren't destroyed, they're somewhere else potentially far more dangerous to us now.

I predict that regardless of what the investigation finds, Democrats will attempt to ride this issue for political advantage. If they find that someone lies, they'll be filled with glee, but if they don't, they'll simply feign outrage that they "weren't allowed to get to the bottom of this important question..."

.

Good summation

The resolution, number 1441, establishes an enhanced inspection regime for Iraq's disarmament, which will be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

All 15 council members voted for the resolution: permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and non-permanent members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria.

The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days.

Finally, it warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution.

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Scrat wrote:

I predict that regardless of what the investigation finds, Democrats will attempt to ride this issue for political advantage. If they find that someone lies, they'll be filled with glee, but if they don't, they'll simply feign outrage that they "weren't allowed to get to the bottom of this important question..."

.

The great thing about the Right, of course, is that it never rides issues for political advantage or suffers outrage. Nevvah.

Happy you got a chuckle. You aren't a bad sort, you are just far too willing to trust people who frankly do not give a **** about you or yours. These guys are not out for your best interests, and you let them off the hook with the ease of a follower.

The entire world agreed that Iraq had WMD's before the war or 1441 would never have passed. The U.N. KNEW Iraq had WMD's, so now it is just a matter of finding out what happened to them. No one knows if they were destroyed, hidden, or moved.

I don't understand what the problem is. They are there somewhere and evidence to that will eventually show up. Either that or they have been moved. No one is disagreeing that Iraq had them, right? So where they are is the question.