Would it have mattered if here had been Iraqi WMD?

[desura]

hypothetically, if US troops had found warehouses full of WMD shortly after invading Iraq, would it have mattered? They still would have faced the insurgency which killed roughly 5k soldiers and injured tens of thousands.

 

[Jaskalas]

If Saddam had WMDs, wouldn't they have been used on the battlefield?
Seems like it would have mattered then.

As to the rest, it was the justification for preemptive war against a nation that did not attack us.
It matters in a moral sense. We killed those people (our soldiers included) for nothing good.
We replaced murderous Saddam with one half genocidal ISIS and another half Iranian puppet.

The future of Iraq is surely anything but bright in the wake of our destruction, but time will tell if they can beat the odds.

 

[fskimospy]

hypothetically, if US troops had found warehouses full of WMD shortly after invading Iraq, would it have mattered? They still would have faced the insurgency which killed roughly 5k soldiers and injured tens of thousands.

I think it would have mattered more if Iraq's WMD programs were the actual motivation behind our invasion, which I do not believe they were as most evidence shows that the decision to invade was made before any determination on the status of WMD programs was made.

To me I guess it matters some from a US international credibility standpoint but other than that not really.

 

[Commodus]

I think it would have influenced perception of the war... but of course, even at the time it was patently obvious that the Bush Jr. administration was just looking for an excuse to invade.

I still remember the obvious lies, the rush to get in, and the sudden change of tone the moment they realized they'd gotten away with the lies. "We need inspectors, now now now! But don't let them finish! We have to attack now now now! Oh, we're in? Yeah, let's forget about WMDs and pretend it was actually about freedom."

 

[fskimospy]

I think it would have influenced perception of the war... but of course, even at the time it was patently obvious that the Bush Jr. administration was just looking for an excuse to invade.

I still remember the obvious lies, the rush to get in, and the sudden change of tone the moment they realized they'd gotten away with the lies. "We need inspectors, now now now! But don't let them finish! We have to attack now now now! Oh, we're in? Yeah, let's forget about WMDs and pretend it was actually about freedom."

The most obvious indication that Iraqi WMD programs were not the reason to invade is the infamous Iraq NIE that got things so wrong about the status of WMD programs. Political pressure on the intelligence community aside, two things stand out about that NIE. First is that it wasn't completed until October 2002, which is long after preparations for the Iraq War had begun.

Second and far more damning, the Iraq NIE came as the result of a request by the Senate, not the White House. That means not only did the White House not have the authoritative judgment of the intelligence community on WMD in Iraq before deciding to go to war, they didn't even care enough to ask. That should tell you everything you need to know about how relevant WMD programs were to the invasion.

 

[zinfamous]

It would have mattered in terms of the legitimacy of the invasion which, we all know, was completely fabricated. It would not have changed the outcome, but there would be a very real difference in the public perception of what is the wholly-incompetent, duplicitous, and treasonous actions of the Bush administration.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think that if they'd had real WMDs and we knew that they could deploy them we probably wouldn't have attacked.

 

[Genx87]

It would had helped with their BS justification for invasion. Iraq not having any meaningful stockpiles of WMD has helped eliminate the argument the invasion was justified because of WMD.

 

[Commodus]

This reminds me, does anyone else recall Fox News posting a story in 2003 that claimed troops had found some WMDs in Iraq? I forget the exact nature of the story (possibly chemical weapons buried in a field), but I distinctly remember seeing it. Mysteriously, absolutely nothing came from it -- I think Fox may have even pulled it. The impression I got was that Fox either rushed to trust dodgy sources or simply made up the story to toe the Republican line.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This reminds me, does anyone else recall Fox News posting a story in 2003 that claimed troops had found some WMDs in Iraq? I forget the exact nature of the story (possibly chemical weapons buried in a field), but I distinctly remember seeing it. Mysteriously, absolutely nothing came from it -- I think Fox may have even pulled it. The impression I got was that Fox either rushed to trust dodgy sources or simply made up the story to toe the Republican line.

Maybe this?
https://mediamatters.org/research/2006/06/23/fox-news-hosts-and-guests-touted-discredited-re/136028

 

[local]

This reminds me, does anyone else recall Fox News posting a story in 2003 that claimed troops had found some WMDs in Iraq? I forget the exact nature of the story (possibly chemical weapons buried in a field), but I distinctly remember seeing it. Mysteriously, absolutely nothing came from it -- I think Fox may have even pulled it. The impression I got was that Fox either rushed to trust dodgy sources or simply made up the story to toe the Republican line.

Yeah I remember something about some trucks they found that they claimed were mobile chemical weapon labs and that they found things that maybe, possibly, could be, weapon canisters so obviously they had to be weapons. Just looked like empty trucks and scrap metal to me.

Saddam never struck me as the sneaky terroristy type person. I don't think he would have ever used any WMDs against us, unless we invaded of course, but instead may have used them to get even with Iran. What he did do was stabilize his corner of the desert and didn't tolerate terrorists. Thanks US we really fucked that one up. I have believed for a long time now that it was a mistake to go in there but being a dumb 20 year old I didn't oppose it in 2003. Even then I didn't believe the WMD thing I just thought Bush wanted to finish his daddy's war.

 

[Commodus]

Yeah I remember something about some trucks they found that they claimed were mobile chemical weapon labs and that they found things that maybe, possibly, could be, weapon canisters so obviously they had to be weapons. Just looked like empty trucks and scrap metal to me.

Saddam never struck me as the sneaky terroristy type person. I don't think he would have ever used any WMDs against us, unless we invaded of course, but instead may have used them to get even with Iran. What he did do was stabilize his corner of the desert and didn't tolerate terrorists. Thanks US we really fucked that one up. I have believed for a long time now that it was a mistake to go in there but being a dumb 20 year old I didn't oppose it in 2003. Even then I didn't believe the WMD thing I just thought Bush wanted to finish his daddy's war.

I suspect Saddam might have used WMDs... if he had them. He was the sort who was determined to hold on to power until it was absolutely clear he wasn't going to last. After all, if he can gas civilians, he certainly wouldn't have compunctions about gassing invading troops. With that said, he likely knew that this last war only had one possible outcome. Gassing soldiers would have just increased the odds of being killed before he even reached a prison cell.

 

[Jaskalas]

I made a topic for the "found" WMDs back in the day. Other posters quickly pointed out how foolishly stupid it was to tout old, dilapidated weapon stockpiles. A functional weapons program, they were not. Iraq simply did not clean up all traces of its previous effort.

 

[Amused]

I know the party line is "Bush lied" about WMDs but that is far from being factual. Every major country's intelligence came to the same conclusion, including France and Russia who opposed the call to oust Hussein. As well as the British.

So to overly simplify it as a politically motivated lie is rather contrary to the far more complicated facts in this case.

It really looks like Hussein wanted to make intelligence agencies believe he had WMDs as a sign of strength and a middle finger to U.N. resolution 1441.

 

[Maxima1]

I know the party line is "Bush lied" about WMDs but that is far from being factual. Every major country's intelligence came to the same conclusion, including France and Russia who opposed the call to oust Hussein. As well as the British.

So to overly simplify it as a politically motivated lie is rather contrary to the far more complicated facts in this case.

It really looks like Hussein wanted to make intelligence agencies believe he had WMDs as a sign of strength and a middle finger to U.N. resolution 1441.

Dumb***, who cares if he had chemical weapons. Not to mention we already knew two nations that had nuclear facilities, but Bush administration did nothing, which shows it was just an excuse full of lies. Moreover, just like Iran and North Korea, a WMD program would have taken years to pose a credible threat.

They were lying obviously. Here's something stupid that Rice said, for instance.

Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

 

[sandorski]

It would have mattered somewhat, especially to those of us that doubted it and believed the UN Inspectors saying otherwise. There was still good reason to oppose the war though.

 

[Maxima1]

It would have mattered somewhat, especially to those of us that doubted it and believed the UN Inspectors saying otherwise. There was still good reason to oppose the war though.

What mattered most was the outcome of the war. Saddam was **** undoubtedly, and the Bush administration thought it would be much less costly and that oil production could be ramped up with the US having a nice foothold in the region, especially as leverage against Iran. Of course, that's not how it worked out.

 

[manly]

hypothetically, if US troops had found warehouses full of WMD shortly after invading Iraq, would it have mattered? They still would have faced the insurgency which killed roughly 5k soldiers and injured tens of thousands.

Those are 2 different questions. Yes it would have mattered in the sense that the invasion could've been legally justified. At best, we invaded Iraq based on faulty intelligence. At worst, it was a hyped-up spin job by the Cheney administration.

As for the other question, legal justification to go to war does not change the fact that Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and Co. had a piss-poor occupation plan. Arguably, they had no occupation plan since the Iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms.

 

[desura]

Now with North Korea making noises, I really wonder what if we switched the two? Had invaded NK in 2003? Also assume that casualty rates had been roughly the same and China did not intervene.

 

[ivwshane]

I know the party line is "Bush lied" about WMDs but that is far from being factual. Every major country's intelligence came to the same conclusion, including France and Russia who opposed the call to oust Hussein. As well as the British.

So to overly simplify it as a politically motivated lie is rather contrary to the far more complicated facts in this case.

It really looks like Hussein wanted to make intelligence agencies believe he had WMDs as a sign of strength and a middle finger to U.N. resolution 1441.

Lol, yes because we gave them the faulty intelligence.

 

[Amused]

Lol, yes because we gave them the faulty intelligence.

Actually, it was the other way around. In one major part of it, the Brits gave us faulty intelligence. The Brits, French, Israelis, and Russians have intelligence agencies just as capable as our own.

This is what I was talking about. It is a long, convoluted story of multiple intelligence agencies that makes a simplistic line like "Bush lied" simply impossible.

 

[pauldun170]

hypothetically, if US troops had found warehouses full of WMD shortly after invading Iraq, would it have mattered? They still would have faced the insurgency which killed roughly 5k soldiers and injured tens of thousands.

So lets ignore the facts that Iraq chemical and biological warfare programs were effectively neutered (complete with Intelligence reports that stated as such) prior to Bush and co gunning for Hussein

Let's look at several scenarios. Each unique and has very important differences.
1. Iraq was actively producing, storing and maintaining chemical and biological weapons under the noses of everyone
Nope...no difference.
2. Iraq was actively storing and maintaining chemical and biological weapons under the noses of everyone
Nope..no difference.
3. Iraq was actively storing chemical and biological weapons under the noses of everyone
Nope..no difference.
4. Iraq, due to administrative clusterfuck of Hussein's regime had unaccounted for stockpiles hidden away under the nose of watchdogs and unknown to Iraqi's. (the II don't know what that box is for but I'm not reporting it because Baathist will shoot me for being incompetent if I report it after so many years)
Nope no difference.
5. Small stockpile buried years ago during Dessert Storm and follow up inspections, not maintained and pretty much useless from military value are unearthed after years in some field. the people that buried it dead or in prison for years.
Nope...no difference.

Think Tanks boys used chemical weapons as a boogey man to scare up support. It doesn't matter what they had. Wouldn't matter if we found nuclear weapons that rained mini Hitlers on the world. We would still have the same clusterfuck we have today.

Military operations against the Iraqi government had been ongoing since 1991.
Cheney and Rumsfeld felt we should stop beating around the Bush and just get it over with.
Instead of useless containment nonsense and the cost associated with it, they said
"We are a gatdamn superpower and we should show this little weasel whose boss so that the whole world knows we have a huge e-penis"

In their defense, what else were we supposed to do? Another decade of sanctions, enforcing air superiority, inspections and attacking military sites while Hussein stayed in power?
Not many graceful options left and it was getting t othe point of shit or get off the pot.

The problem was that the entire thing was planned by idiots who live in a Republican think tank bubble.
Winning a war against some shitsville state that spent a decade under sanctions and military action from the worlds leading super power, a shitsville state that just prior to being on our shitlist came out of another long conflict with its Neighbor, is easy.

The idiots in the Bush administration thought 0 percent of what happens afterword. Something that they were warned of big time before the invasion.

 

[manly]

Lol, yes because we gave them the faulty intelligence.

IIRC the warhawks in the Cheney cabal did not like the lukewarm intel from the CIA so they went over to the DIA to "make sure" they got what the needed. Yes the CIA under George Tenet played a role putting lipstick on that pig publicly, but they weren't banging the war drums loudly. That's my recollection, at least.

I wouldn't dispute that Saddam Hussein wanted his closest neighbors/enemies to think he had WMDs, but I also wouldn't say everybody got the intelligence wrong. It was clearly hyped up massively by the Bush administration to spin that we had NO CHOICE left but war; everybody remembers the presentation Secretary Colin Powell gave before the U.N. that was later debunked. At the time though, media reports made it sound like he gave a solid performance; and if the considerate Powell of all people was lending his weight to the WMDs allegations, they were probably true.

 

[ivwshane]

IIRC the warhawks in the Cheney cabal did not like the lukewarm intel from the CIA so they went over to the DIA to "make sure" they got what the needed. Yes the CIA under George Tenet played a role putting lipstick on that pig publicly, but they weren't banging the war drums loudly. That's my recollection, at least.

I wouldn't dispute that Saddam Hussein wanted his closest neighbors/enemies to think he had WMDs, but I also wouldn't say everybody got the intelligence wrong. It was clearly hyped up massively by the Bush administration to spin that we had NO CHOICE left but war; everybody remembers the presentation Secretary Colin Powell gave before the U.N. that was later debunked. At the time though, media reports made it sound like he gave a solid performance; and if the considerate Powell of all people was lending his weight to the WMDs allegations, they were probably true.

Yeah, it was the Bush admin pushing faulty Intel to other countries.

 

[manly]

Oops not the DIA but a new office that was run by a political hack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Basically if the pros aren't telling you what you want to hear, start up your own firm.

Apparently there were some old WMDs hidden in Iraq, I missed this report 2 years ago:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/...ght-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html