FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Saddam Didn’t Come Clean

Information emerging from the intelligence community indicates that the Iraq Survey Team looking for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq is coming up empty.

Although the so-called “progress report” is still be written, CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow conceded that former UN inspector David Kay will be unable to “rule anything in or out” despite four months of intensive searching by his 1,400-strong survey group. This hedge moves the U.S. position closer to that of Dr. Hans Blix, whose UN Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no weapons during its four months of inspections in 2002-2003. In fact, Blix now believes that Saddam probably destroyed his WMD stocks shortly after the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 (BBC, September 18).

Yet the White House continues to try to keep alive the idea that Saddam had these weapons, was intent on using them, and thus posed an “imminent threat” to the United States. Last October, unclassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate stated that “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons” and “if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” As recently as September 14th on Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney referred to “mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted….” On September 22nd, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice stated that when the shooting started March 20th, “nobody who knew anything about Iraq believed that Saddam Hussein had destroyed all of his weapons of mass destruction.” The next day before the UN General Assembly, President Bush asserted: “The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world.”

While the Vice President’s statement has been undercut by technical weapons experts in both the U.S. and UK, Rice’s observation is accurate, as is the President’s point about mass murder and the lack of accountability. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in trying to understand why the Iraqis resisted disclosure of what happened to their WMD–after all, UN inspectors had found documents describing quantities of chemicals and “bugs” produced in the 1980s–or why everyone was fooled into the belief that Saddam still had weapons in 2002-2003.

The most probable reason why Saddam didn’t “come clean” with the world about his holdings of chemical and biological weapons was his reluctance to reveal the extent of Iraq’s military weakness after the 1991 Gulf War.

Consider the facts and the psychology.

The Persian Gulf is a rough neighborhood, much of it due to Saddam’s war against Iran (1980-88) and the first Gulf War. By comparison with Iraq, Iran is a powerhouse. Its population is double Iraq’s. Its regular military and Revolutionary Guards were more potent forces than Iraq’s military, which had been under fire since the Gulf War and which was starved of new equipment and repair parts. Many of the clerics who, in the 1980 when Saddam attacked, were trying to re-energize and redirect a post-Shah Iran were in positions of power in Iran in the 1990s. Saddam may have reasoned in a classic “mirror-image” fashion that if the Iranians knew the full extent of Iraq’s military weakness, they might seek revenge by attacking Iraq.

Saddam’s Trump Card

Saddam’s trump card was the world’s (and especially western) knowledge that he had possessed and used chemical weapons and that he had had a biological and nuclear weapons development program. All he had to do was ensure no one outside a tight inner circle found out that Iraq had no remaining weapons or materials that inspectors could uncover. (After all, as long as he had the scientists and the knowledge base, he could restart the programs when the inspectors left.)

Key to making this grand deception work was destroying any paper trail about weapons numbers and disposition. The absence of paperwork would itself send up a big red flag for UN inspectors and intelligence analysts worldwide who knew that everything in Iraq was always meticulously documented. If successful, the end result would be inertia; the absence of contradictory information would induce intelligence analysts to maintain their presumption that Saddam still had weapons. And in this inertia lay the greatest chance that Saddam could outlast the West and, once again, come out a survivor.

What Saddam hadn’t foreseen was that the man who ran the special weapons program, his son-in-law General Hussein Kamel, would defect to Jordon and talk. But when he told CIA and UN interrogators that he had ordered the destruction of all stocks of chemical and biological weapons and agents, Hussein Kamel’s statements were discounted. And undoubtedly to prevent continued interrogations during which some bright intelligence analyst might begin to believe the destruction of weapons actually happened, Saddam lured hi son-in-law back to Baghdad–where he was killed.

Why did Saddam’s ploy work? Because western analysts succumbed to their own mirror imaging. The only possible motive they could imagine that explained why Saddam would endure harsh UN sanctions and scores of foreigners running around his country was that he had something to hide. He could also appeal to Iraqi nationalism by blaming outsiders for the ills in Iraqi society.

The moral is simple. If one believes in witches and warlocks, one will be able to find evidence they exist and eventually the actual beings. The administration and the world believed Saddam had weapons, and he obliged by dropping hints and acting as if he were hiding something. The White House “saw” these hints and actions as the equivalent of the real thing and went to war.

Now the issue is not WMD but the U.S. presence in Iraq, which the administration calls “liberation.” What counts more is what the Iraqis call this presence, what they see, and what they believe.

Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus is a retired U.S. army colonel and Senior Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. He can be reached at: dan@fcnl.org.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Justin Anderson
Don’t Count the Left Out Just Yet
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail