Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Part III - The Colossal Screw Up

[JEDIYoda]

How is this supporting GWB?

did you read anything in this thread or are you just commenting to comment without any understanding??

 

[bradley]

And now Bush has the US involved once again in Iraq and also Syria under Operation Incoherent Resolve without ever having to declare WMD. Can't wait till his term is finally over.

Too bad ISIS has grabbed hold of those US-manufactured chemical weapons to be used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Mission Accomplished?

 

[blankslate]

This must be the proof that it was right to go into Iraq to destroy Saddam's Nuclea.... oh chemical weapons... hmmm oh my... some dating from the 80's....



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

well now that's embarrassing....

It's a good thing that there's a strong dictator in Iraq, who while being a total asshole at least has an extreme dislike of religious groups and won't let ISIS anywhere near any stockpil.... oh yeah. well ain't that a bit of a giant fuck up.


....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, it's going to be difficult to simultaneously argue that Iraq had no WMDs and accuse Bush and/or the military of covering up all the people harmed by them.

We had inspectors who found old chemical weapons. No one who had any idea said that there were never any ever. This stuff breaks down over time and isn't suitable for military purposes. That does not mean that it's not harmful by any means. That's where Bush and Co. deceived us, well one way at least. There was no program. Saddam wasn't processing uranium. Nope.

 

[Jhhnn]

still in denial I see....
You never read THE article or you would have seen that this just was not a chemical weapon here and there...it was a massive amount of chemical weapons being stumbled upon after the fact!!

In fact a retired General in the Yahoo article I read about this said that he was instructed what to say in his report on this matter. He went on to say that basically he was told to say there is nothing of significance.....

Heh. Still serving the Hasbara agenda, I see.

 

[Jhhnn]

And now Bush has the US involved once again in Iraq and also Syria under Operation Incoherent Resolve without ever having to declare WMD. Can't wait till his term is finally over.

Too bad ISIS has grabbed hold of those US-manufactured chemical weapons to be used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Mission Accomplished?

Never pass up the opportunity to embellish a story for fear mongering & Obama bashing, huh?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

still in denial I see....
You never read THE article or you would have seen that this just was not a chemical weapon here and there...it was a massive amount of chemical weapons being stumbled upon after the fact!!

In fact a retired General in the Yahoo article I read about this said that he was instructed what to say in his report on this matter. He went on to say that basically he was told to say there is nothing of significance.....

There was nothing of military significance. I think that's what some are missing here. That does not mean that old stuff kicking around is not hazardous material. That there was a lot of old useless stuff doesn't change things, but it did create a threat for those who stumbled upon them and that's the problem.

The difference between what was found and what is a weapon is this

Old stockpile- "Something smells funny"
Military spec- "S" <thud when body hits floor>

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Heh. Still serving the Hasbara agenda, I see.

You aren't following along either. There were significant amounts of material found, not a random shell here and there. Lots and lots of stuff.

The problem is about people exposed to this material then and now, and of course groups like ISIS getting significant quantities isn't a good thing. That they can't launch it in a shell and do much harm doesn't mean they can't use large quantities for considerable mayhem.

Why isn't this known before? It's ridiculous to argue it's not important.

 

[Jhhnn]

There was nothing of military significance. I think that's what some are missing here. That does not mean that old stuff kicking around is not hazardous material. That there was a lot of old useless stuff doesn't change things, but it did create a threat for those who stumbled upon them and that's the problem.

The difference between what was found and what is a weapon is this

Old stockpile- "Something smells funny"
Military spec- "S" <thud when body hits floor>

You aren't following along either. There were significant amounts of material found, not a random shell here and there. Lots and lots of stuff.

The problem is about people exposed to this material then and now, and of course groups like ISIS getting significant quantities isn't a good thing. That they can't launch it in a shell and do much harm doesn't mean they can't use large quantities for considerable mayhem.

Why isn't this known before? It's ridiculous to argue it's not important.

I'm following along just fine. You had it right in the first quote, backpedaled into fear mongering in the second.

 

[werepossum]

Hogwash. What chemical weapons that were found existed as random artifacts of poor inventorying & accounting by the Iraqi military. That, & caches lost & buried in the back & forth trench warfare that the Iraq-Iran conflict became. It's not like they were hiding any by design at the time of the invasion.

There are places in France where they're still finding unexploded ordnance of all sorts from WW1.

Literally everybody with a brain knew that the case for the invasion of Iraq was trumped up bullshit created by the Bush Admin & their sycophants.

2,400 sarin gas rockets in just one cache is "random artifacts of poor inventorying & accounting by the Iraqi military"? You'd have to be a complete moron to, um . . . Never mind. I forgot to whom I was speaking.

The weird part is later on Bush said it himself they were wrong and there were no chemical weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

Did he know about these? Not that they represent a reason we should go to war. But I would of assumed they would of tried to use these as a reason?

Very strange.

Everyone knew Iraq retained WMDs in violation of the cease fire agreement terms. Bush however staked his reputation on Iraq continuing to violate the conditions of the cease fire by continuing to manufacture and stockpile WMDs. While I don't think he knew about these when he made that comment, I don't think they would have materially helped him.

We had inspectors who found old chemical weapons. No one who had any idea said that there were never any ever. This stuff breaks down over time and isn't suitable for military purposes. That does not mean that it's not harmful by any means. That's where Bush and Co. deceived us, well one way at least. There was no program. Saddam wasn't processing uranium. Nope.

"Old" is highly relative in WMD. We just finished a couple years ago destroying stockpiled weapons dating from before the Great War (mustard gas) and in the decade after the other Great War (sarin and similar nerve agents.) These were our chemical weapon attack deterrents (cached to allow us the option of responding in kind if necessary) and still very much viable. Iraq's stockpile could be similarly viable, unless you believe that Iraqi technology (largely imported from Germany in the 80s) was significantly less advanced than America's from those periods.

One thing often missed in this discussion is that while these shells and chemicals were manufactured in (or with equipment manufactured in and specialists from) Belgium, France and Germany, the processes were developed in America. One foolish thing we do when licensing military technology is refuse the licensee a license to compete with us.

 

[werepossum]

And now Bush has the US involved once again in Iraq and also Syria under Operation Incoherent Resolve without ever having to declare WMD. Can't wait till his term is finally over.

Too bad ISIS has grabbed hold of those US-manufactured chemical weapons to be used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Mission Accomplished?

Frankly, that might be the best possible solution for us from a completely cold-blooded perspective. Iraq had poor (relative to America and Europe) quality control and virtually non-existent on-going monitoring. No matter how good is one's manufacturing, some portion of every weapon will degrade during storage, and chemical weapons in particular require very sophisticated techniques to identify failure before breaching. Thus, some portion of the stockpile will likely fail catastrophically when fired, especially the rockets which are Soviet designs Iraqi-manufactured on Soviet equipment with American-designed and German-improved warheads. Chemical weapons aren't that much danger to us in wartime, but one or two shells or rockets rupturing during launch would likely kill a lot of them and render their base unusable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm following along just fine. You had it right in the first quote, backpedaled into fear mongering in the second.

So you think if our soldiers or others were exposed to toxic substances we should ignore it? Maybe it's politically inconvenient so they need to deal with reality and tough luck?

If you had bothered to read up on this there is a problem where this stuff has been used for improvised weapons. It's not going to kill millions but spread it around and you can make people pretty sick. Either you find that acceptable or no. Me? No.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

These were our chemical weapon attack deterrents (cached to allow us the option of responding in kind if necessary) and still very much viable. Iraq's stockpile could be similarly viable, unless you believe that Iraqi technology (largely imported from Germany in the 80s) was significantly less advanced than America's from those periods.

The west sells to anyone who can pay. Oh, not everyone all at once, but give have a reason and it's a done deal. As far as I can determine this material is of the same vintage that had been destroyed, and not from some new project only known to Rumsfeld et al. Dangerous? Sure, but the stuff actually isn't suitable for it's original purpose.

 

[cyclohexane]

So, should someone go to prison for getting these soldiers exposed to chemical weapons? For getting 4000+ troops killed in Iraq for a bullshit war that they knew was bullshit?

Anyone?

 

[K1052]

Frankly, that might be the best possible solution for us from a completely cold-blooded perspective. Iraq had poor (relative to America and Europe) quality control and virtually non-existent on-going monitoring. No matter how good is one's manufacturing, some portion of every weapon will degrade during storage, and chemical weapons in particular require very sophisticated techniques to identify failure before breaching. Thus, some portion of the stockpile will likely fail catastrophically when fired, especially the rockets which are Soviet designs Iraqi-manufactured on Soviet equipment with American-designed and German-improved warheads. Chemical weapons aren't that much danger to us in wartime, but one or two shells or rockets rupturing during launch would likely kill a lot of them and render their base unusable.

Improperly stored, handled, and used chemical weapons are just as dangerous to the people using them as their intended targets. Who wants to volunteer to load this decades old corroded mustard gas shell into an artillery piece and yank the cord? Any takers?

 

[moonbogg]

No one in government ever gave a shit about chemical weapons, and no one cares about who lied, or when. They all fucking lie. Washington DC should be converted into a parking lot. More useful that way. It would serve the people.

 

[Brainonska511]

Frankly, that might be the best possible solution for us from a completely cold-blooded perspective. Iraq had poor (relative to America and Europe) quality control and virtually non-existent on-going monitoring. No matter how good is one's manufacturing, some portion of every weapon will degrade during storage, and chemical weapons in particular require very sophisticated techniques to identify failure before breaching. Thus, some portion of the stockpile will likely fail catastrophically when fired, especially the rockets which are Soviet designs Iraqi-manufactured on Soviet equipment with American-designed and German-improved warheads. Chemical weapons aren't that much danger to us in wartime, but one or two shells or rockets rupturing during launch would likely kill a lot of them and render their base unusable.

The weapon components might degrade, even the chemicals may break down, but the Iraqi's were pretty good at making pure chemicals for their weapons, which greatly improves their longevity.

By 2006, the American military had found dozens of these blister-agent shells in Iraq, and had reports of others circulating on black markets, several techs said. Tests determined that many still contained mustard agent, some at a purity level of 84 percent, officials said.

And:

By then the Pentagon had test results showing that the sarin shell could have been deadly. American chemical warfare specialists also knew, disposal technicians and analysts said, that in the 1980s Iraq had mastered mustard agent production in its Western-built plant. Its output had been as pure as 95 percent and stable, meaning that the remaining stock was dangerous.

I would guess the worry isn't so much that someone in ISIS would use the weapons they find 'as-is', but that they would recognize chemical weapons and potentially extract the lethal chemicals inside for use elsewhere.

And then there is the whole how to properly dispose of stuff without exposing people to highly toxic chemical weapons problem...

 

[werepossum]

The west sells to anyone who can pay. Oh, not everyone all at once, but give have a reason and it's a done deal. As far as I can determine this material is of the same vintage that had been destroyed, and not from some new project only known to Rumsfeld et al. Dangerous? Sure, but the stuff actually isn't suitable for it's original purpose.

Actually the US is pretty selective. Iraq was always a Soviet client state (well, after we deposed the pro-Hitler regime) and thus its equipment was all Soviet. However, after Iran flipped to the dark side, Iraq became a lot more palatable to the West. We never sold them chemical weapons, although we did relax our dual use technology restrictions greatly, and gave them enough satellite intel to keep Iran contained. That was also when Europe began selling chemical weapons components to Iraq, as militant Islam is a lot more threatening than your run of the mill genocidal dictator.

As far as being suitable for it's original purpose, some is and some ain't. The trick is in telling them apart, and that's in what I doubt ISIS has sufficient capability. Just running triage can kill you, and assuming they can get them separated into usable and scrap, sooner or later they'll miscalculate and gas themselves. But let's not forget that these were Saddam's strategic deterrent and have been preserved as well as he could get away with.

Improperly stored, handled, and used chemical weapons are just as dangerous to the people using them as their intended targets. Who wants to volunteer to load this decades old corroded mustard gas shell into an artillery piece and yank the cord? Any takers?

Exactly. Sooner or later a shell or rocket that looks fine will rupture upon being fired - or just handled. Same with extracting the agents. Our chemical deterrent included mustard gas shells from the first Word War era, but they have always been stored in more or less climate-controlled (or at least stable) conditions, examined every decade or so, and at least a representative sample subjected to very intensive scrutiny by highly trained technicians using very advanced equipment. Some of these were stored properly, concealed among other shells or in non-military caches, but some were actually buried.

The weapon components might degrade, even the chemicals may break down, but the Iraqi's were pretty good at making pure chemicals for their weapons, which greatly improves their longevity.

And:

I would guess the worry isn't so much that someone in ISIS would use the weapons they find 'as-is', but that they would recognize chemical weapons and potentially extract the lethal chemicals inside for use elsewhere.

And then there is the whole how to properly dispose of stuff without exposing people to highly toxic chemical weapons problem...

I would guess the latter is our biggest concern - it could easily be a human and environmental disaster. I have zero doubt that the weapons are largely still viable, but it's like anything else - if a few percent of artillery shells are likely to kill the canoneer we'd have damned few redlegs. Same with ammo handlers; HE shells are not likely to blow up while you're just looking at them, but chemical shells improperly stored may well have a leaker that will kill or severely incapacitate a person who goes into the bunker. Saddam's Iraq could go to them and separate them out; I highly doubt that ISIS has that same capability.

I may be wrong since Iraq's Sunnis were the core of his WMD program, but this is where one step gone wrong can make chemical weapons more dangerous to you than to your foe.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you think if our soldiers or others were exposed to toxic substances we should ignore it? Maybe it's politically inconvenient so they need to deal with reality and tough luck?

If you had bothered to read up on this there is a problem where this stuff has been used for improvised weapons. It's not going to kill millions but spread it around and you can make people pretty sick. Either you find that acceptable or no. Me? No.

Can you give us a little more false attribution? Perhaps put more words in my mouth?

Of course people tasked with disposal of unidentifiable ordnance need protection.

Which has Jack & Shit to do with ISIS & the WMD boogeyman you dragged out earlier.

The use of chemical ordnance in IED's was a mistake on the part of the makers- they couldn't tell what kind of shell it was, either. They wanted HE. They got a dud.

But, of course, fear monger on...

 

[MongGrel]

Never pass up the opportunity to embellish a story for fear mongering & Obama bashing, huh?

It appears so.

Governments take advantage of what they can sometimes I guess.

Turkey is having a good time having their tanks parked on the border wanting a no fly zone while doing nothing, deny use of the airfield there to do it even if the US did, while eating popcorn watching the Kurds getting shwacked.

Even bombed a few Kurds it looked.

Kinda reminds me a bit of the US civil war where a few times people packed up picnics, and sat on a hill in the grass to watch the big slaughter.

Go figure.

 

[Jhhnn]

But let's not forget that these were Saddam's strategic deterrent and have been preserved as well as he could get away with.

Embellish often? Engaging in a little story telling? Perhaps for the purposes of revisionist history?

The rest?

More fear mongering speculation, as usual.

 

[werepossum]

The weapon components might degrade, even the chemicals may break down, but the Iraqi's were pretty good at making pure chemicals for their weapons, which greatly improves their longevity.

And:

I would guess the worry isn't so much that someone in ISIS would use the weapons they find 'as-is', but that they would recognize chemical weapons and potentially extract the lethal chemicals inside for use elsewhere.

And then there is the whole how to properly dispose of stuff without exposing people to highly toxic chemical weapons problem...

I forgot to acknowledge your correction to my quality control comment; I stand corrected. I wonder if CIA estimates to the contrary were honest incompetence or intentional.

Either way though, these chemical weapons are not going to be high on my list of concerns unless and until ISIS shows some ability to use them in some form. I'm still going with more dangerous to them than to us. Hopefully that's not just wishful thinking.

 

[werepossum]

It appears so.

Governments take advantage of what they can sometimes I guess.

Turkey is having a good time having their tanks parked on the border wanting a no fly zone while doing nothing, deny use of the airfield there to do it even if the US did, while eating popcorn watching the Kurds getting shwacked.

Even bombed a few Kurds it looked.

Kinda reminds me a bit of the US civil war where a few times people packed up picnics, and sat on a hill in the grass to watch the big slaughter.

Go figure.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case for most of our coalition - they want to be part of it, but mainly to steer it toward their goals which are not necessarily ours. Nature of coalitions I suppose.

Embellish often? Engaging in a little story telling? Perhaps for the purposes of revisionist history?

The rest?

More fear mongering speculation, as usual.

Pet Partners, dude. Training an animal to read, comprehend and respond for you could do wonders for your reputation.

Actually, having mold respond for you could do wonders for your reputation. No training necessary,

 

[Fern]

It appears so.

Governments take advantage of what they can sometimes I guess.

Turkey is having a good time having their tanks parked on the border wanting a no fly zone while doing nothing, deny use of the airfield there to do it even if the US did, while eating popcorn watching the Kurds getting shwacked.

Even bombed a few Kurds it looked.

Kinda reminds me a bit of the US civil war where a few times people packed up picnics, and sat on a hill in the grass to watch the big slaughter.

Go figure.

I think it goes beyond popcorn and lawn chairs for Turkey.

I think they are delighted with the current situation in Syria. They hate Assad and they hate Kurds. Never get in the way when your two enemies are killing each other.

And they certainly don't want to impede ISIS, who is busy fighting Assad and killing his troops. Thus we aren't going to be using their airbase to attack ISIS.

Obligatory remark on the amateurish move, yet again, by Obama's foreign policy team. Susan Rice is fail. She announces an agreement we don't have and get's smacked down by the Turks.

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

Actually the US is pretty selective. Iraq was always a Soviet client state (well, after we deposed the pro-Hitler regime) and thus its equipment was all Soviet. However, after Iran flipped to the dark side, Iraq became a lot more palatable to the West. We never sold them chemical weapons, although we did relax our dual use technology restrictions greatly, and gave them enough satellite intel to keep Iran contained. That was also when Europe began selling chemical weapons components to Iraq, as militant Islam is a lot more threatening than your run of the mill genocidal dictator.

As far as being suitable for it's original purpose, some is and some ain't. The trick is in telling them apart, and that's in what I doubt ISIS has sufficient capability. Just running triage can kill you, and assuming they can get them separated into usable and scrap, sooner or later they'll miscalculate and gas themselves. But let's not forget that these were Saddam's strategic deterrent and have been preserved as well as he could get away with.


Exactly. Sooner or later a shell or rocket that looks fine will rupture upon being fired - or just handled. Same with extracting the agents. Our chemical deterrent included mustard gas shells from the first Word War era, but they have always been stored in more or less climate-controlled (or at least stable) conditions, examined every decade or so, and at least a representative sample subjected to very intensive scrutiny by highly trained technicians using very advanced equipment. Some of these were stored properly, concealed among other shells or in non-military caches, but some were actually buried.


I would guess the latter is our biggest concern - it could easily be a human and environmental disaster. I have zero doubt that the weapons are largely still viable, but it's like anything else - if a few percent of artillery shells are likely to kill the canoneer we'd have damned few redlegs. Same with ammo handlers; HE shells are not likely to blow up while you're just looking at them, but chemical shells improperly stored may well have a leaker that will kill or severely incapacitate a person who goes into the bunker. Saddam's Iraq could go to them and separate them out; I highly doubt that ISIS has that same capability.

I may be wrong since Iraq's Sunnis were the core of his WMD program, but this is where one step gone wrong can make chemical weapons more dangerous to you than to your foe.

Yes, we did. The active chemical they used in the mustard gas came to Iraq from a chemical company in Charleston, SC.