Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The author clearly points out these were unusable munitions as as was already made clear in every investigation in Iraq. We've known this since 2007.
The redacted intelligence documents that the author cites states that some of the munitions were still usable in the manner for which they were produced. Of the 420 CW munitions found from April 2009 to March 2011, 27 were still viable. Since about 5000 to date have now been found, if the ratio of usable to unusable of the above numbers applied, then over 300 would be viable.
But whether they were viable in the way they were intended to function or not, they were viable as sources of chemicals to be used in other destructive ways. The author clearly admits that. He says "old Iraq chemical munitions often remained dangerous when repurposed for local attacks in makeshift bombs as insurgents did starting by 2004. And, as he says, "These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, control much of the territory where the weapons were found."
And, if they had been found at the outset of the search by the military and before that by the UN inspectors, would the corrosion have been even less and the number of "viable" weapons even greater? Saddam did not reveal, as required, their existence or whereabouts. Weren't "stockpiles" whether of old or active production one of the reasons for invasion? The author brushes aside any intention to hide the stockpiles by suggesting that Saddam's regime had misplaced or forgotten them. But, if true, is that less of a danger? A mad, quixotic, erratic monster forgetfully and callously losing horrific weapons strewn about his land? Should such a man be allowed to rule a country and in a manner which not only threatened his own people, but his neighbors, and ultimately the safety of the US? Or was he not so erratic, and knew his weapons were hidden and where they were, and, as "everybody" surmised, that when he survived scrutiny, he would resume his ways and continue with new or revived programs of WMDs?
If those weapons had been found at the outset, before the narrative that there were no WMDs had been thoroughly implanted, would the invasion have been justified?
The author also specifically mentions a reason to keep chemical related injuries and the number of old rounds quiet was to minimize the spotlight on a lack of justification.
That is a seemingly plausible conjecture. But a conjecture none-the-less. It does not take into account the "context," as you like to say, of the time. The narrative that there were no WMDs, and that supposedly being the only reason for the invasion, was firmly implanted in the minds of the majority of the people. And it was the narrative which the left, and the mostly leftist mainstream media, were counting on for victory in coming elections. It was a narrative which could absolve the Democrats who initially supported the war (and who had an opposite narrative before the war, and before Bush had said anything, that there WERE WMDs) by claiming that Bush misled them and thereby hanging the albatross totally around the neck of Bush and his administration. It was a heavy albatross, and, according to party operatives such as, and mainly, Karl Rove, it was more expedient to "let sleeping dogs lie" and "move forward." It was, probably rightly, perceived that the Democrat reversal narrative of no WMDs was too important to them and the majority of the mainstream press to let go, and the fight would be a losing one since minds were made up and spin would rule the day. That spin is and was supported by NY Times articles, even such as the one in question here. There were other, even more important reasons, right or wrong, for the invasion. But those are assiduously avoided in leftist and its mainstream discussions. It is only to be accepted, in their view, that an active weapons program would have been the only reason for the war--not even an interrupted program to be resumed when the dust settled.
And the "keeping quiet" stuff--is that supposed to imply a cover-up?
The finds were not covered up. They were known, and neither the Bush administration nor the Democrats talked about it. Both had reasons not to do so. Bush didn't want to spit into the wind, and the Dems didn't want any possibility of a crack in their hopefully winning narrative.
That's actually the enlightening part of the story. Our people were getting hurt from old WMD we helped Saddam produce and they didn't get proper treatment because it would have embarrassed our government.
|
It is a little enlightening, in that respect. But it could have been more so if written in a different way. In a way of placing the spotlight directly on our injured troops not getting the proper medical treatment rather than going on about implied cover-ups and whether the WMDs were the ones that were being searched for, or the cause of the war being solely a search for an active weapons program, and so on.
As far as embarrassing our government--if an active weapons program had been found, wouldn't our government have been as embarrassed? Wouldn't it have been just as culpable in the first instance of supposedly providing Saddam stuff he needed?
That's more of the shifty "journalism" or, more aptly, rhetorical method of implication without substantiation. The reasons for aid to Saddam were in the category of realpolitik, which, I assume, both the "left" and the "right" in our political spectrum embrace. And even at that, the aid was far more minimal than is being suggested here. And the shiftiness is enhanced by interchanging the words "government, military, the West." One is never really sure to whom the author of the Times article is exactly referring when he uses those words. He doesn't give exact names and definitions. The pentagon is part of the government, but it is not THE government. The United States is part of The West, but The West is not the United States, nor the United States Government.
All were, presumably, giving aid to Saddam, as all give aid to those who may be opposed to their current enemies. And in the murky world of changing alliances, one who was recently an ally or an enemy of my enemy, is now my enemy.
I really, didn't want to continue this discussion--it takes too much effort and too much of my time which I could spend on necessary and pleasurable things. But some little annoying bug kept worrying at my peace of mind. What is the connection between this piece of pie discussion and the fundamental reason for it?
Bush, Obama, the Dems and the Repubs, left and right, conservative and liberal--they all are part of the same yin and yang, and its hard to separate responsibility for this or that. They often, if not usually, both contribute to a problem in their separate way, and exacerbate it when they "bi-partisanly" cooperate to "solve" it.
What we have here is not only "the failure to communicate" portrayed in the movie Cool Hand Luke, but the failure to even realize what it all is really about.
What we wind up discussing and criticizing or supporting are various "narratives." Which narrative on Benghazi, or the IRS gate, or this or that "gate" do you support or contradict? Each narrative purports to claim a truth. Maybe, from a relativistic point of view, each rightly has that claim. But that would be, relativistic as Spence is, not pragmatic, as I'm sure, Spence would like it to be.
What is the "pragmatic" and true war that is being fought, in our country and in the rest of the world? In all instances, from my perspective (another Spencist conditional prerogative), it is the eternal war between the collective and the individual.
Where does truth reside in its clearest form--in the individual or the collective? Where is communication most precise, between individuals or within a collective? Where are truths, communication, meaning, most muddied and rendered moot--in the individual interactions or in the dictates of the collective?
In the unsullied and, to some, naïve view of my youth, there should be no government secrets. There should be no fear that if what the government does is exposed, it could have dire consequences in terms of national security or otherwise. I was convinced later (never entirely) that some things needed to be secret, or they would not be effective, that our security would be threatened. I am becoming less convinced and more than wary that such is so. I am more of the mind that we should be totally open and powerful enough to protect that honesty and uphold our free and honest way of life. If we are threatened we should be ready and strong enough to destroy those who threaten us, and not indulge in secret maneuvers, but let it be known by action that we will not tolerate threats or attacks. That we will summarily repel them with whatever violence, or open diplomacy, that is required.
The most pragmatic way to achieve such an open, honest state with the necessary power to protect itself, is to be peopled by strong, productive individuals who believe in such a state.
If not, if we must be clandestine, if there must be levels of bureaucracy, each with their private missions and secret or unknown ways, and separate from the people and their planned class structures, and an overriding command and control system of governance, then, of course it requires a bee hive, collective mentality and system.
And we must be educated into believing in such a system. And we will be forever, or as long as we exist as such a system, embroiled in confused international as well as national escapades which must be justified or covered up with narratives. And "journalists" of various stripes will dissect those narratives with further slanted narratives which hope to uphold or destroy opposing narratives.
Groups, parties, even individuals, have always disagreed and argued. The arguments can lead to agreements if honesty is employed, and there is a common basis for existence and government.
But within the eternal war between the collective and the individual there can either be no common ground, or the common ground must provide each with the space to exist. Between the two, the individual is potentially the weakest and most in need of protection from the other.
How does this relate to the found WMDs? Go back to the events and arguments before and see what "narratives" are spun and must be protected. What are the truths? What are the secrets? What do those narratives and secrets mean to us, as individuals, or as a collective society?
If we cannot have an agreement on something as simple as whether something exists or not, if we must spin narratives about what something is--why is that so? Is it that we are so caught up in tangled systems, various group thinks and agendas, that we have lost sight of who we are as individuals and are no longer capable of seeing through the fustercluck? That we need guidance through the maze of competing narratives? That we need "experts" appointed by those who know better than us what is necessary, and we are too insignificant and weak to matter or even have an unschooled opinion?
It seems that the battle between collectivism and the individual has certainly gone toward the victory of the former.