I've long suspected Saddam has held back some chemicals, but only a quantity sufficient to defend Baghdad. As I understand it, his past history of use has come when his defensive positions have been overrun during warring actions with both the Kurds and Iranians. He didn't use them when he invaded Kuwait, and he didn't use them in the Gulf War, probably because he was the aggressor and was still considered one even though retreating from the US coalition.
What's really sad about what's happening is that the UN inspectors were in the midst of examining and analyzing the site where Saddam's son-in-law claimed Saddam had buried the WDM. This son-in-law claimed two things to British and US intelligence: a) the Saddam was close to a nuclear bomb, but this plan got foiled; and, b) that he dumped large quantities of chemical and biologic materials in 1991.
Unfortunately, opportunism such as it is, both the the US and the Brits chose only to emphasize the nuclear side of the son-in-law's statement and the burying of the WDM didn't get disclosed until about a month ago. Before this claim could be verified, Bush started the war. I'm surprised the pro-war advocates don't find trouble with this fact of reality.
Thus, we're now facing a scenario where Saddam will have his back against the wall, his defensive positions overrun and he's right smack dab in the history of his use of such weapons and America's sons and daughters who need not have become victimized, might in fact become so. This is a tragedy that clearly seems will dwarf what happened on 9/11.
Here's some interesting questions which everyone should have asked before this war began:
Would you prefer 1,000 dead Iraqi civilians and 100 dead American soldiers; or,
1,000 dead American soldiers and 100 dead Iraqi civilians?
I won't even pose this question involving Iraqi soldiers because the answer is an obvious one. |
