
The Day I Realized I Would Never Find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq - deathwarmedover
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/magazine/iraq-weapons-mass-destruction.html
======
kyuudou
Audience Member : Negrodamus, why is President Bush convinced there are
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Negrodamus : Because he has the receipt.

\- from Paul Moody's "Negrodamus" skit on Chappelle's Show

More seriously, Western countries sold Saddam plenty of chemical weapons which
were used to kill lots of Iranians during the particularly brutal Iraq-Iran
war during the 1980s.

The whole situation is complete madness from the average individual's
perspective. Technically there were still WMDs in Iraq (because "we" sold them
to them so of course we knew) but it was probably covered up or obfuscated.

~~~
acqq
> Technically there were still WMDs in Iraq

No:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

"Iraq actively researched and later employed weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
from 1962 to 1991, when _it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile and
halted its biological and nuclear weapon programs as required by the United
Nations Security Council._ [1]"

What's sure is that at the time of 9/11, the U.S. had still significant
quantities of chemical weapons that they just started to destroy a few years
before:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2013/09/23/destroying-chemical-
weapons-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2013/09/23/destroying-chemical-weapons-
easier-said-than-done.html)

"After the U.S. formally agreed in 1997 to destroy its 30,000-ton chemical
arsenal, Newport's mission changed again" ... "Not until 2008 — 11 years after
our visit and U.S. ratification of the chemical weapons ban—was the last of
the VX eliminated."

------
smileypete
Destroying Iraq was a part of the 'neocon revolution' which really got it's
legs after 9/11.

This podcast helps give some insight:

[https://cafe.com/stay-tuned-the-paradox-of-dick-cheney-
with-...](https://cafe.com/stay-tuned-the-paradox-of-dick-cheney-with-adam-
mckay/)

~~~
acqq
If you really want to learn more than from a single podcast, read slowly
about:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

and check what were the functions before, then and after of the people who
wrote the documents or were involved and also what they wrote. Especially a
document:

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New
Century," September 2000.

With the famous quote:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary
change, _is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event_ – like a new Pearl Harbor."

And exactly a year later, 9/11, conveniently for the writers, happened.

If I remember correctly everything was on their internet site, available even
before 9/11 for everybody to read and think about it. Just checked: the
Internet Archive has a first capture from one month _after_ 9/11\. Still, the
document was made _before_.

~~~
pier25
We will probably never know what really happened in 9/11 but boy did Bush et
al profit from the situation.

~~~
ta999999171
Anyone shaking their head in disbelief only need look at Cheney corp
involvement/ownership.

------
ncmncm
It was obvious to anybody who cared, before the invasion, that there were no
WMDs. Hans Blix inspected every place suspected, and reported not only
nothing, but not even a trace of anything, in the daily newspapers.

I suspect Maddox was misled, like Powell, by relying only on classified
material that amounted to summaries produced with deliberate bias.

It is a fundamental problem: there is a thousand times as much classified
material as you can afford to read. Who can justify reading outside it, where
the writer might not have access to the whole story? But because there is so
much, you are obliged to rely on summaries, and the sound judgment and the
scruples of those in charge of what goes into them.

~~~
lowdose
I think part of doubt has been caused by the blind spot we had on the Soviets.
Gorbachov was the first to admit there were large biochemical facilities in
the USSR with the ability to manufacture advanced weapons. This miscalculation
by Western governments has not been advertised while having a significant
effect on their confidence to judge adversaries.

------
MockObject
Between the absence of WMDs (I'd never believed they were there) and the
disinterest in stabilizing the country after the invasion, it became clear
that the goal was to destroy a nation that had the recent history and
continued potential to be a threat to our interests and allies in the region.

~~~
toyg
... ironically ending up bolstering an already-active adversary in the region,
Iran, by removing its “natural predator”.

Foreign-policy circles are full of people who think they are the smartest guys
in the room, when they are anything but. Dr.Strangelove is alive and well.

~~~
MockObject
That's correct! On the other hand, I remember Scott Ritter predicting that
2003 would bring an invasion of Iran as well, so the extended remix of the
plan was supposed to handle Tehran, too.

~~~
Gibbon1
After the invasion of Iraq US Army was barely able to keep their supply lines
open and that was without the Iranians being overtly hostile. It's no wonder
they weren't able to even consider invading Iran.

------
ghostoftiber
OK well I am sorry he missed finding WMDs in iraq. I hope he enjoyed his time
there.

------
LatteLazy
I don't understand why he went in the first place. It was clear to everyone it
was BS. It should have been triply clear to someone in the DoE whose job
includes knowing these things!?

Based on this, the guy is either an idiot (unlikely) or just wilfully
ignorant.

Once he was in Iraq, and after he returned, he knew. That's be his own
admission. So he spent his time running around and interrogating old men until
they cried, blocking streets, disrupting commerce etc.

Then when he came back, instead of telling the truth, he covered for the whole
enterprise.

This guy is telling a sob story and acting like he is the victim. But he's
not. He's part of the problem. Without people like him, wars like Iraq 2
wouldn't happen.

~~~
toyg
You have a career, a family, a nice house, and you want to keep all that. You
want that promotion, that niche holiday, and you know how fragile all this
lifestyle is - if you sound “confrontational”, “rocking the boat”, you’ll get
freezed out. Your boss tells you his boss wants you to go and find something,
anything, maybe with a bit of spiel about duty to the country and all that.
Your whole community is so proud: contributing to the war effort! Proving
Americans are just!

Would you _really_ say no, even when you have a hunch that it’s all just song
& dance...?

~~~
LatteLazy
I don't know if I'd say yes or no. But if I said yes, I'd know the whole thing
was BS (just like he did) and go knowing that. Unlike him, I wouldn't
interrogate any old men until they cried (especially if I could avoid doing so
by just not bribing people!?). And I would not come back and decades later,
long after anyone stopped giving a shit, write a long article where I
pretended going made me the good guy and I was duped. I'd slink off and be
ashamed while I bought my new jetski or whatever.

