Iraq: 

Iraq is working steadily to rebuild its stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, so U.S policy should focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power, either through military force or a long-term solution, according to experts who testified yesterday before the U.S. House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

Even after the Gulf War, sanctions and inspections, Iraq still places a high value on weapons of mass destruction, said Charles Duelfer, former deputy executive chairman of UNSCOM, the special U.N. commission to dismantle Iraq’s weapon programs.  Duelfer said the Iraqi military still values such weapons for two main reasons.  First, Iraq believes that its use of chemical weapons the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s saved Iraq from defeat.  Second, Duelfer said, Iraqi officials believe Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction kept the United States from advancing all the way to Baghdad during the Gulf War.

Despite relinquishing many of its weapons of mass destruction to UNSCOM after the Gulf War, Iraq retains the capabilities to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction programs, Duelfer said.  Remaining in Iraq are the production equipment and intellectual capital needed to resume work, according to Duelfer.  “From what we are able to gather from many Iraqis who have left Iraq, these programs are still underway,” said Duelfer.  “One can only assume that they continue to harbor ambitions of having a fill array of these weapons, including nuclear,” Duelfer said.

Iraq has a strong start in programs to build nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, according to Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.  Iraq is self-sufficient in its biological program, according to Milhollin, meaning it has the strains, equipment and knowledge needed to make a biological weapon.  “It is pretty much independent now of imports,” said Milhollin. 

There are still supplies of chemical weapons in Iraq, according to Milhollin, including VX, the most lethal nerve agent.  The exact quantities are unknown, but Iraq is capable now of producing more VX, said Milhollin, adding, “we don’t know what Iraq might be doing with respect to VX because we don’t have any inspectors in the country.” 

Iraq also has a workable nuclear weapon design, which was discovered during inspections.  The only missing component is 15 to 16 kilograms of high-enriched uranium, according to Milhollin.  “If Iraq could acquire that somehow on the international black market, I think we’d have to assume that Iraq could make a bomb within weeks, months at the most,” said Milhollin.

Iraq has shown remarkable ingenuity in adopting dual-use equipment, such as medical equipment that is allowed under U.N. sanctions, for use in weapons of mass destruction programs, Milhollin testified.  He cited the example of the German firm Siemens selling Iraq six medical machines in 1998 that are used to pulverize kidney stones.  Inside each machine, according to Milhollin, is a high-precision switch that can also be used to detonate nuclear weapons.  Iraq ordered 120 such switches as spare parts for the machines, but Siemens said they only supplied eight.  “The State Department seems to think that Iraq got even more than that, and the last time I talked to the United Nations, they seemed to think there was a risk that the number was even higher,” Milhollin said.

The rise in Iraq’s nuclear capabilities may be spurring a similar increase in Iran, according to Geoffrey Kemp, director of regional strategic programs at the Nixon Center.  Asked if Iran’s nuclear program was motivated by Iraq’s, Kemp replied, “Absolutely, and their chemical program and their biological program and their missile program.  After all, Iran suffered from major chemical attacks from Iraq.”  The dismantling of Iraq’s program would slow down Iran’s nuclear weapons development, according to Kemp.

“He Doesn’t Appear to be Suicidal … ”

While Iraq may be working to build weapons of mass destruction, their desires to use them seem to be lower, according to Duelfer.  “One good thing about Saddam Hussein is that he doesn’t appear to be suicidal.  And therefore, deterrence seems to work,” Duelfer said.  The possibility of Iraq using chemical or biological weapons is not out of the question, however.  Iraq’s biological warfare program and some research activities Iraqi scientists were involved indicated that Iraq was looking at ways to strike without having it traced back to them, according to Duelfer.     

“I’ll just ask you to envision,” Duelfer told the committee, “If you went up to Saddam Hussein and said ‘Hey, boss, I’ve got a way of responding to the economic hardships that have been imposed on us by the United States; we can cause them some damage, and they will never be able to connect that to you,’ what would you do?”  

No Option But To Prepare

All three experts agreed the best course for the United States was to actively pursue the overthrow of Hussein.  “If there is substantial and persuasive evidence that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, the president has no option but to prepare for a major offensive against Iraq, including the use of military force,” Kemp said.  “It’s purpose would be the removal of the regime in Baghdad.”

Whether done through direct military intervention, or through a long-range strategy, the committee was warned that any attempt to remove Hussein would be difficult.  Bombings, while able to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military, would not be assured to overthrow the regime, Kemp said, and there was also no assurance that any overthrow form within Hussein’s regime would result in someone better.

All-out military action, such as an invasion, would be likely to prompt heavy backlash from other Muslims throughout the Middle East, and, “would reinforce Muslim radical basic tenets that we are intent on waging a war against Islam,” Kemp said.  Guerrilla campaigns, as well, would run into difficulties with Iraq’s neighbors being unwilling to provide bases or support from behind their borders, according to Kemp. 

Members of the committee voiced their support for removing Hussein from power.  “Indeed, under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, it is official declared U.S. policy to change Iraq’s regime,” said subcommittee Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.  “We do not of course want to unnecessarily complicate the struggle we are currently undertaking against Osama bin Laden and terrorists of his ilk, but our nation should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time”  (Federal News Service transcript, Oct. 5).

Back to top

U.S. Response: Pentagon Mismanaged Protective Suit Inventory, GAO Says

The U.S. Defense Department has inaccurately reported the risk posed by a biological or chemical attack to its personnel in relation to available chemical suit protection, according to a General Accounting Office report released yesterday. The Pentagon’s reports of low risk are inaccurate because it includes erroneous data and wartime requirements, according to the GAO report. 

The process for determining risk was “fundamentally flawed,” according to the report, because the Defense Department determines requirements by individual pieces of protective equipment rather than complete ensembles and the risk-determining process, by combining general data, masks specific shortages affecting individual service readiness.  “Had the department assessed the risk on the basis of the number of complete ensembles it had available, by service, the risk would rise to ‘high’ in all cases,” said the report.

The chemical suit inventory management system also came under heavy criticism.  The system constituted another risk, according to the report, because the inventory management practices could “prevent an accurate accounting of the availability or adequacy of [the Defense Department’s] protective equipment.”  Defense cannot monitor the inventory of protective equipment because nine different inventory systems are in use among the services.  Inventory systems lack data on suit expiration dates and contract and lot numbers, which are needed to track and locate defective suits.  Defense has also miscalculated the number of suits available, according to the report.  In one case, suits that had been ordered and not yet delivered were counted as being on hand.  “We are making recommendations to assist [Defense] in better assessing risk and improving oversight of the inventory of chemical protective equipment,” the GAO said in the report (GAO report, Sept. 2001).

Back to top

Iraq: Defector Says Hussein Focusing on Biochemical Weapons

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has directed his top scientists to focus on expanding Iraq’s arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, according to an Iraqi scientist who worked at Iraq’s Atomic Energy Organization before defecting.  The scientist, known by the alias al-Sabiri, said Hussein shelved the nuclear weapons program because it was too expensive.

Al-Sabiri said the Iraqi program has developed nerve gas, botulism and anthrax.  “I was asked to examine hundreds of complicated and dangerous toxins.  They were very easy to use to create germs.  You could put them in water or steam, throw them in the air or use them in the soil,” he said. 

Iraq tested toxins and germs on prisoners, mostly Kurds and Shiites in Radwania jail.  Western intelligence sources confirmed that around 30 prisoners died after such experiments between April and May of 2001.

Al-Sabiri said Hussein has around 3,000 physicists and chemists working to create biochemical weapons (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Sept. 30).  He said scientists are also designing ways to deliver biochemical agents, such as ballistic missiles and pilotless aircraft (Herald Sun, Oct. 1).

Back to top

United Nations: Dhanapala Values ABM Treaty

U.N. Undersecretary General Jayantha Dhanapala warned that a U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty could “seriously upset the current strategic balance,” in a Sept. 14 interview with U.N. television’s “World Chronicle.” Dhanapala discussed the current state of disarmament affairs after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Dhanapala said the ABM Treaty was “by common consent, regarded as underpinning the current strategic stability” and U.S. plans to withdraw would disrupt other treaties.

In the last two U.N. General Assembly sessions, the overwhelming majority of nations wanted the treaty kept intact, according to Dhanapala.  “It is very clear that the overwhelming trend in world opinion is against” some missile defense plans, Dhanapala said, “because they do not see firstly, the technology has been proven, secondly, that the threat is as imminent as some say it is and thirdly, because of its overall impact on the entire fabric of disarmament treaties and conventions.”  Dhanapala doubted that the Sept. 11 attacks would shift world opinion against disarmament, because “the situation could have been much worse than it has been.  Consider for example if weapons of mass destruction were used by these terrorists.”

The Cold War’s end has reduced the possibility of nuclear weapons use, Dhanapala said, but with 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence, there were still fears that one could be used by accident or design.  Dhanapala also said use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists could not be ruled out, although there had been an explosion in the proliferation of small arms.  Over 550 million such weapons are circulating in over 85 countries, according to Dhanapala, showing the importance of a recent U.N. conference on small arms.

There are also signs of missile proliferation -- “an area where there are no norms,”  -- Dhanapala warned.  A study was began as a result of a U.N. resolution earlier this year that Dhanapala hoped would lead to “a kind of normative process, if not a kind of nuclear restraint regime because this is another very serious delivery vehicle for both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.” 

The process has begun to prepare for the 2005 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference next year, according to Dhanapala, and at these preparatory meeting, non-nuclear-weapon states are going to ask the nuclear-weapon states  -- “all of them” – what their stance is and what they have done to implement the decisions of the 2000 review conference.  “I think it’s premature at this stage to make judgments as to how these 13 steps have been achieved but as you know, there have been a number of countries certainly who have tried to make some steps with regard to unilateral reductions,” Dhanapala said.  “And the Bush administration itself has indicated that it would be ready to have unilateral reduction of its nuclear weapons arsenal” (Mike Nartker, GSN, Sept. 14).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP