We were specifically and repeatedly told that US officials knew what weapons existed and where they were. The quantities were alleged to be large.
I don't know about us knowing where they were located, or else it would have been a simple matter of mandating that UNMOVIC inspectors pay a trip to those locations over the winter. Thus, that's not the impression I've had.
What has been clear, as I've been discussing, is that two sets of books have been kept. That's what got UNSCOM "kicked-out" after Saddam announced he would no longer cooperate. It was the fact that UNSCOM was getting too close to knowing the truth and that Saddam's people hadn't covered their tracks as thoroughly as they had thought.
But the intelligence we've had, HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT, obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. With HUMINT, we have seen that the US has major deficiencies throughout the world. Rather than having our own long-term "assets" in place, we rely upon paying for information and then attempting to obtain confirmation through other means.
And there's always the possibility that Iraqi intelligence was engaged in a massive counter-intelligence operation, spreading disinformation.. etc, to make the US and UNSCOM believe they still held chemical weapons. But I just don't see the benefit from this kind of operation. It would not be in Saddam's interest to continue to have sanctions exist against Iraq.. So if he was going to destroy all of his WMDs, then why not just do so and find other ways to exact his revenge against the West (because revenge is/was a major motivator in Saddam's psychological profil, I've read).
Thus, I have a hard time in accepting that that Iraqi Air Force document discovered in July, 1998 was a deliberate plant. All CI operations have to have a goal, and nothing positive for Iraq would be gained by creating the impression that two sets of "books" were being kept relating to chemical weapons.
And btw, were this Clinton or Gore in office engaging in this invasion (I don't think we'd be doing it, under those circumstances), I wouldn't be criticizing either of them. It anything, I criticized Clinton's timing for Operation Desert Fox because it appeared to be a "wag the dog" scenario that would not end the ongoing intransgence by Saddam. The only thing that could accomplish that was regime change, intiated externally as Bush has done, or internally, as Clinton refused to permit (see Robert Bauer).
Hawk |
