Category: Politics

Still no chemical weapons. Maybe some will turn up tomorrow.

On February 5^th, Colin Powell talked about Iraqi chemical weapons.

And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them. He wouldn’t be passing out the orders if he didn’t have the weapons or the intent to use them.

Iraqi field commanders have been willing to commit war crimes. We’ve seen suicide bombers. We’ve seen Iraqi troops dressed in civilian clothing. We’ve seen false surrenders. The US has made no secret of its intent to prosecute these as war crimes. Yet… none of these field commanders, who Powell said were authorized to use chemical weapons, have done so. Why not? Why would they commit the crimes they committed, but no others?

Iraq has not used its drones, which Powell claimed had a 500 kilometer range. It has not used the sprayers which Powell warned against. It has not launched chemical warfare strikes on the US bases in Kuwait, or against Israel. A government on the verge of collapse, with nothing to lose, has not used these dire weapons.

Further, there have been no terrorist attacks using chemical weapons. One common claim was that Saddam would give his chemical weapons to terrorists. The US defeated al-Ansar in Northern Iraq, and found no chemical weapons there. There is no evidence that Saddam exported chemical weapons capabilities to terrorists.

I can’t honestly say I think Saddam has absolutely no chemical weapons. I won’t be surprised if we turn up a couple of caches. However, I can say that his failure to use them demonstrates conclusively that any chemical weapons Saddam possessed were no threat to the world. He’s at the end of his rope. American tanks are in the streets of Baghdad. He has to know that the US would just as soon kill him as capture him.

Where are Iraq’s chemical weapons? Nowhere threatening, if they’re anywhere at all. That leg of the invasion justification is teetering on the verge of collapse.

So, what’s up in Iraq?

I’m not even pretending to keep track of the reputed chemical weapon finds, but MSNBC is. As of now the only recent discovery confirmed by the military turned out to be pesticides. There are two or three other rumored finds out there, but the key word there is “rumored.”

We may or may not have killed Saddam in a recent bombing run.

Stratfor claims that there’s still fighting going on in Umm Qasr. The British are holding down that entire area, which I mention mostly for the sake of noting yet again that Rumsfeld said we wouldn’t need the Brits. Ahem. Anyhow, this is a problem because it hampers naval access to Iraq.

The Kurds are pushing towards Mosul and Kirkuk alongside US troops. Turkey continues to threaten to intervene if those cities come under Kurdish control. I’d been thinking that Powell’s visit to Turkey patched up those problems, but evidently not. So, that continues to be something worth watching.

The US is continuing to have all kinds of friendly fire problems. One has to expect some of this in a war, but the Brits don’t seem to make these mistakes as often, and the British friendly fire incidents to date have been in the heat of ground battle. Conversely, it’s the US planes hitting the wrong targets. Well, and most recently a US tank fired into a hotel. Two journalists dead so far from that one.

The 4^th Infantry Division finally landed in Kuwait. Obviously, the 3^rd wasn’t waiting for them before taking on Baghdad, contrary to some reports. (My guesses included.) Will they be more occupying forces? Will they go for Tikrut in case Saddam makes a last stand there? Are they just insurance? Damned if I know.

And, finally, the invasion itself is probably just about complete. Which does not mean they’re done fighting — just that the organized opposition is very close to wrapped up. What we’ll see from here on in is unorganized opposition. Welcome to the occupation.

NPR reports that chemical weapon loaded missiles have been found in Iraq. The NPR story attributes the news to an officer in the 101^st Airborne Division, but a Yahoo story says NPR attributed it to an officer in the 1^st Marine Division. The latter attribution matches my memory of what I heard on NPR while driving into work this morning.

That division’s commander, Joe Dowdy, was relieved of his post on Saturday. There’s been no explanation of why yet, which is not necessarily alarming, but man. Part of me wonders whether the two stories could be linked. Part of me says “That’s silly; if he was relieved of duty for refusing to report fake WMD evidence, the truth would come out pretty quickly.” The second part wins after a short battle, but the story bears watching.

Update: Reuters says the missiles were found by Marines travelling with the 101^st, which clears that up a little. This is not the same find as the barrels of possible sarin found at an agricultural facility. Busy day.

CBS has a live Baghdad webcam running. I’m sure everyone else in the world but me knows this. So surreal. Stratfor pointed out recently that all this embedded exposure is a great way to pull attention from units without embedded reporting, which is utterly true.

Right now, on CBS’ webcam, someone’s talking in Arabic from off-screen. I can see a tripod to the right of the picture, and that might be the talker just barely visible next to it. I hear the other Baghdad webcams are also set up on top of this building, whatever it is.

Strange times.

Condoleezza Rice says the coalition gets the leading role in rebuilding Iraq:

“It would only be natural to expect that … having given life and blood to liberate Iraq, the coalition would have the leading role. I don’t think anybody is surprised by that,” President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told reporters.

Well, sure, if we were doing for the reward. I was under the impression we were doing it a) to protect the West from terrorism and b) to give the Iraqis a better government. Rice makes it sound like we should get to rebuild Iraq… as a reward. Shouldn’t we be selecting the rebuilders with an eye towards who will best help reach those two goals?

I mean, hell. Let’s say (it’s a hypothetical, breathe easy) that France is the country which can do the best job of keeping Iraq from turning into a haven for terrorists. Wouldn’t it in fact be utterly wrong of Bush to do anything other than hand it to France? I think he’s obliged to continue planning with our established and public reasons for invading Iraq at the forefront of his selection criteria. Reward should be at best a distant third.

Machiavelli had this great trick for conquering nations. You put a harsh ruler in to really piss everyone off; then you bring in a nice guy and they’re so grateful they forget they were conquered. Through no real fault of our own other than being there, we’re doing a solid job of pissing people off. It’s unavoidable in a war. I’m thinking we should give the Arab world something they can perceive as a victory by reluctantly handing over the post-war reconstruction to the UN.

Women don’t belong among front-line troops? Yeah, right. My thoughts: I’m anti-this war, and I’m glad US soldiers are this brave. I think the article pretty much speaks for itself.

Bush approved use of tear gas in Iraq today. This pretty much validates the possession of chem warfare suits by the Iraqis. Turns out that when the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention way back when, they added language permitting battlefield use of riot-control agents with presidental approval.

The CWC defines toxic chemicals as “Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.” So tear gas definitely qualifies. It also mentions (in the same article) that domestic riot control is not prohibited. Iraq’s hardly domestic, of course.

And, just to round things out, these two quotes — “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances… To use chemical weapons,” and “Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.” There you go.

The Pentagon is arguing that the CWC doesn’t prohibit using the agents for defensive purposes, but that’s fairly obviously untrue. Well, no; it’s true given the way in which we modified it. A while back I was arguing about the legal validity of treaties, such as the UN Charter, and I mentioned that if Congress had an obligation to take treaties seriously; this kind of modification is what I was talking about. We’re clear on this from a legal point of view. How our allies will react, I dunno. Britain isn’t going to use them, and won’t even allow troops to be in operations where they’re used.

The reason the un-modified CWC prohibits riot control chemical weapons is pretty simple, by the by. The four previous major uses of chemical weapons on the battlefield in the past (including the Iraq/Iran war) all started with non-lethal agents. It’s not namby-pambyness, it’s practicality and an awareness of history.

Thanks to gwen for the news.

Admire the conviction and dedication to free, independent press displayed by Al-Jazeera. When Baghdad questioned and expelled two of their reporters, they decided that they couldn’t keep correspondents in Iraq any more. So they aren’t. Their offices in the country will remain open. Beats Reuters.

I was reminded tonight to post a link to Jerry Pournelle’s comments on Empire. He was against this war, for reasons quite different than most; he’s fond of the Republic, and he believes that the war puts us firmly on the path to Empire. Here’s a little more.

I think it’s worth the time to read the thoughts of a military-minded man who has thought deeply about the politics of this matter. I don’t think Pournelle’s views on Republic and Empire are proof positive of anything; I just think they’re interesting. It’s good insight into the nature of aggressive wars such as the ones the neocons desire.

Josh Marshall discusses victory conditions today. I have a simple victory condition; the day Bush announces we’ve won the war, I’m gonna call the State Department and ask about getting a visa to travel to Iraq. If they recommend against it, I don’t think we’ve won.

This sets the war in the appropriate context, that of the War on Terrorism. As a standard, it willfully ignores the question of military victory, which will come far earlier — but since Bush has set the bar at a stable democracy in Iraq, I feel OK about waiting till it’s safe to travel there until I declare victory.