SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (64882)10/31/2004 11:03:29 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Missing prewar stockpiles
may total 250,000 tons

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2004VIENNA, Austria - From the deserts of the south and west to the outskirts of Baghdad, Iraq is awash in weapons sites — some large, others small; some guarded, others not. Even after the U.S. military secured some 400,000 tons of munitions, as many as 250,000 tons remain unaccounted for.

Attention has focused on the al-Qaqaa site south of Baghdad, where 377 tons of explosives are believed to have gone missing — becoming a heated issue in the final days of the U.S. presidential campaign.

But with the names of other sites popping up everywhere — al-Mahaweel, Baqouba, Ukhaider, Qaim — experts say the al-Qaqaa stash is only a tiny fraction of what’s buried in the sands of Iraq.

“There is something truly absurd about focusing on 377 tons,” said Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst and Iraq expert with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He contends Iraq’s prewar stockpiles “were probably in excess of 650,000 tons.”

Underscoring the depth of Iraq’s militarization before the March 2003 invasion, the Pentagon says U.S.-led forces have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions and have secured another 160,000 tons that is awaiting destruction.

A nation ‘awash in weapons’
Through mid-September, coalition forces inspected and cleared more than 10,000 caches of weapons, U.S. arms hunter Charles Duelfer said in a recent report. But up to 250,000 tons remain unaccounted for, according to military estimates, much of it in small stashes scattered around the country.

“I caution that there is a lot that we probably don’t know about, because this was a country, as the inspectors acknowledged, that was awash in weapons,” Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Friday in Washington.

The 377 tons that Iraq says vanished from Al-Qaqaa sometime after the April 9, 2003 fall of Baghdad represents just “one 1,000th of the material that we are aware of,” Di Rita said.

The Bush administration has touted the thousands of tons of explosives it did find after the March 2003 invasion as a sign of success, and officials argue that U.S. forces pushing to Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein could not stop to secure every cache.

Critics, however, say war planners should have committed more troops to the task of securing sites or let U.N. inspectors back to help.

In insurgents’ hands?
The debate is sharpened by the possibility that whatever munitions unsecured may since have fallen into the hands of Iraqi insurgents leading a bloody campaign of bombings and attacks on U.S. forces since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Among the sites that don’t appear to have been secured was a cache of hundreds of surface-to-surface warheads at the 2nd Military College in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. Each warhead is believed to have contained 57 pounds of high explosives.

Peter Bouckaert, who heads the emergency team for New York-based Human Rights Watch, told The Associated Press he was shown a room “stacked to the roof” with the warheads on May 9, 2003. He said he gave U.S. officials in Baghdad the exact GPS coordinates for the site, but that it was still not secured when he left the area 10 days later.

“Looting was taking place by a lot of armed men with Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades,” Bouckaert said Saturday in a telephone interview from South Africa.

“Everyone’s focused on Al-Qaqaa, when what was at the military college could keep a guerrilla group in business for a long time creating the kinds of bombs that are being used in suicide attacks every day,” he said.

What about Ukhaider?
Another prominent site is an ammunition storage area at Ukhaider, 75 miles south of Baghdad, where U.N. inspectors found 11 empty chemical warheads in “excellent” condition in January 2003.

Two U.S. aid workers reported looting at Ukhaider in October 2003, but were told the U.S. military didn’t have enough troops to seal the site, The Oregonian reported Friday.

David Albright, a former U.N. inspector, said the sheer volume of weapons stored across Iraq should have prompted the United States to invite inspectors back to check on key sites such as Al-Qaqaa.

Instead, he told the AP, “there was a lot of arrogance” on the part of U.S. officials who rebuffed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s repeated requests to resume general inspections.

IAEA inspectors pulled out of Iraq on March 16, 2003, a few days before the invasion. They since have been allowed to return only twice, both times to check on the Tuwaitha nuclear complex, the U.N. agency’s main concern in Iraq. They have not been back to Al-Qaqaa.

Focus on HMX
The IAEA, which informed the U.N. Security Council about the missing explosives last week, says Al-Qaqaa is important because it was the main storage site for HMX, which can be used in plastic explosives but also in ignitors for a nuclear weapon.

Al-Qaqaa also contained large stores of RDX and PETN, but the U.N. nuclear agency’s main concern was the HMX. Although the IAEA said Saddam’s nuclear program was in disarray before the war and there was no evidence that Iraq had revived efforts to build atomic weaponry, the agency placed the material under seal as a precaution.

It remains unclear whether U.S.-led forces attempted to secure the vast site, which the Iraqis say was looted “due to a lack of security” after Saddam’s fall. The White House contends the material may have been removed before American troops arrived in the area.

Army Maj. Austin Pearson said his team removed 250 tons of munitions, including plastic explosives, from Al-Qaqaa on April 13, 2003. But those munitions were not under IAEA seal as the missing high-grade explosives were, and the Pentagon was unable to say definitively that they were part of the missing 377 tons.

Cordesman thinks the Pentagon is taking a bad rap on Al-Qaqaa. U.S. forces’ main task at the time, he contends, was to advance swiftly on Baghdad.

“There was little military point in securing this particular site during a period the U.S. was rushing forward with limited forward-deployed strength to seize Baghdad before Saddam’s forces had any chance to regroup,” he said.

msnbc.msn.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (64882)11/1/2004 6:37:41 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
It's the war, stupid
By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor

A broad majority of people around the globe share the same feeling about next week's American elections: Better the devil you don't know than the one you do.

The George Bush-Dick Cheney partnership has been the most radical presidency in memory. Their re-election in next week's tight election will likely produce an even more aggressive U.S. foreign policy driven by religious fundamentalists and the military-petroleum interests.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, humiliated and sidelined, is expected to resign and be replaced by one of Bush's neocons.



Scott McConnell, editor of American Conservative magazine, accurately sums up the Bush Doctrine: "His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies -- a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft."

Recently, former U.S. National Security chief Brent Scowcroft, the dean of Republican foreign policy experts and adviser to Bush's father, warned of the baleful influence of Israel's far right over Bush. "(Ariel) Sharon has got him wrapped around his little finger," said Gen. Scowcroft.

A second Bush term could bring U.S. attacks on Iran and Syria, as Israel's PM Sharon has urged, and widening Mideast conflict. More troops and money will be poured into the Iraq quagmire. A military draft will almost certainly become necessary.

Neither Bush nor his opponent, John Kerry, are telling Americans two hard truths: First, the principal cause of anti-American terrorism is the oppression of Palestinians, and U.S. support for dictatorial regimes across the Muslim World.

Second, Bush's wars in Iraq -- which has caused 100,000 civilian deaths, according to a Johns Hopkins University study -- and Afghanistan are already lost. Not on the battlefield, but on the strategic level.

War is the extension of politics by other means, as Karl von Clausewitz postulated. Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be judged defeats because no viable solution is remotely in sight in either nation now run by unpopular U.S.-imposed puppet regimes. Soviet-style rigged elections will not legitimize them.

Kerry's plans for Iraq are specious, too: No important nations are likely to help the U.S. colonize Iraq. Kerry's biggest failings have been his spineless support for war in Iraq, and his pandering to special interests over the Mideast.

The best President Kerry could do is talk tough while finding a way out of Iraq. But he will be harassed by Republicans and neocons crying "treason," and forced to wrestle the huge budget mess Bush left behind.

In Asia, Bush is on a collision course with nuclear-armed North Korea. His neocons are pressing for a confrontation that could ignite a major war. Kerry will be far likelier to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Korean crisis.

The pro-war neocons around Bush are also pressing a hard line against China that risks a clash over Taiwan. China will not allow itself to be bullied by anyone. Kerry has rightly called for co-operation rather than ideological antagonism towards China.

Europeans are dismayed and frightened by Bush and his aggressive polices. If Bush wins, Europe, led by France and Germany, will speed up its growing alliance with China, an entente that can quickly become an anti-U.S. pact.

Kerry would quickly restore relations with Europe and return America to its former course of internationalism.

Bush's entente with Russia's Vladimir Putin has tacitly encouraged restoration of dictatorship in Russia. It will be too late for Kerry to do anything about this grave development.

Unless the next U.S. administration imposes a just peace on Israelis and Palestinians and ends the occupation of Iraq, anti-U.S. terrorism will intensify.

Bush has debauched America's finances by his $290-billion US wars and $521-billion deficit. Whoever wins, the global economy will be hit by waves of inflation caused by Bush's ruinous spending.

Kerry is a weak candidate with a lacklustre record. But at least he is a sensible, educated man who will bring in a team of moderate advisers that do not want to launch catastrophic foreign crusades or spend like drunken sailors. Kerry is a cautious internationalist; Bush an unapologetic Bible-belt imperialist.

Most non-Americans believe the U.S. under Bush has become a dangerous rogue state that threatens world stability and peace. For them, anyone is better than George W. Bush.