U.S. Response:  U.S. Takes Targeting Precautions to Avoid Chemical, Biological Release

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. forces have been taking precautions to avoid a devastating release of suspected Iraqi chemical and biological agents during U.S. air strikes over the past three weeks of conflict, according a senior military official.

Army Lt. Col. Thomas Woloszyn, who is in charge of chemical and biological defense for the U.S. Central Command at its Joint Operations Center in Qatar, said in an interview Friday that U.S. forces have sought to incorporate factors such as wind direction into bombing decisions to try to minimize the potential for casualties resulting from a chemical or biological release.

“A lot of emphasis is placed on minimizing collateral damage and if we can check the weather reports, and get the most accurate [reports] as possible prior to a strike, we’ll do that,” Woloszyn said.

“There have been times when we have not struck targets based upon that wind, and based upon those decisions, and that’s all part of the targeting process,” he said.

As for where suspected stocks might be located, “We don’t know what’s there or where it’s at.  So a lot of times we have to project the worst case,” he said.

Another approach to minimizing casualties, he said, is to consider the use of so-called “agent-defeat” weapons, which can minimize the dispersal of targeted WMD agents by incinerating them (see GSN, July 24).  He would not say whether such weapons have been used in the last three weeks.

Woloszyn said U.S. forces would seek to destroy weaponized agents that could be used against U.S. forces, but might generally avoid striking a known production facility of chemical or biological weapons.

“What we want to do is limit the enemy use of those weapons on the battlefield.  So if he’s got a production plant, we may not need to destroy it.  [As a] matter of fact, we probably don’t want to destroy it, we can just limit his access” to those sites, he said, by perhaps destroying a bridge, cutting off power, or laying mines.

No Evidence of a Release

Woloszyn said so far, there has been no evidence that the thousands of bombing and cruise missiles strikes against Iraqi government and military infrastructure during the conflict have struck any chemical or biological agents.

“There have been no releases that we can detect, or any casualties that we can see that were inflicted that could result from chem or bio,” he said.

He said an agent release could be detected by ground forces with special equipment, if nearby, or by unique signs of casualties that might result.

“Generally speaking, you have to have forces on the ground,” to determine that WMD agents have been released, he said, but other indicators are also used.  “For example, if you see there are a lot of casualties or you hear from enemy news organizations that a lot of casualties are there,” he said.

“Chemical and biological weapons both offer a unique signature [of casualties] that we can attribute to them,” he said, which are distinct from broken bones and other injuries typical from a conventional weapons blast.

The absence of such evidence, he said, could mean U.S. and allied forces so far have not struck such weapons, or that the attacks were made at a time when wind conditions favored minimal casualties and U.S. or allied forces were not positioned to detect a release. 

Woloszyn said forces have equipment capable of detecting a release up to five kilometers away.  With U.S. forces rapidly gaining ground, however, they have only in the last few days massed on the outskirts of Baghdad, the capital city where chemical and biological weapons are believed hidden and so until lately have not been well positioned for detection there.

Still, Dexter Ingram, a nuclear, biological and chemical warfare scenario expert at the Heritage Foundation, said, “I think we would hear about it if they did hit a target,” citing reporters in Baghdad and embedded with U.S. forces.  

“If there was any kind of sign of chemical depot hit by either our artillery or their artillery you’d hear about it,” he said.

Searching for Evidence

U.S. officials have alleged Iraq has been concealing chemical and biological weapons, in violation of U.N. requirements to disarm and have made that a central reason for the current military action to end Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Officials have conceded, however, they do not know specifically where Iraq’s suspected chemical and biological weapons might be hidden, but expect to find evidence of them as forces move closer to Baghdad.

“I think we can certainly be sure that this regime has been skillful at hiding the things they have,” said Central Command Deputy Director of Operations Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks in a press briefing Sunday.

“While we can’t say where they may have been moved to, we certainly anticipate that there have been deliberate efforts to bury, hide, move, disperse — all these efforts that were part of the denial and deception campaign,” he said.

The U.S. Army currently is testing, however, to see whether drums of chemical agents ground forces recently discovered in Iraq contained weapons agents (see related GSN story, today).

Senior military officials have indicated U.S. and allied forces have conducted thousands of bombing sorties and cruise missile strikes since the beginning of the conflict nearly three weeks ago, striking “regime leadership targets,” military forces, command centers, communications nodes and aircraft.

Predictions Tool

U.S. forces have been using specially designed computer software, called hazard prediction and assessment capability or HPAC, to predict the potential effects of an agent release that might result from targeting or from an Iraqi attack (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2002).

That approach is distinctly different from that of the 1991 Gulf War.  Although there was significant concern at the time that a WMD release could harm coalition forces, U.S. military forces had no software to provide decision makers with timely estimates about the impact of targeting, according to an investigation performed by a Defense Department-sponsored task force in response to concerns from Gulf War veterans.

Instead, they relied upon “the opinions of chemical and biological experts,” that chemical warfare agents would be contained within the confines of any targeted production or storage facilities, according to the investigation report.

The experts said biological warfare agents released from bombed facilities could pose risks to coalition forces, but “advised that any biological release would degrade upon release to minimize the risk to coalition service members,” the report said.

Using the HPAC software with Pentagon approval, the Natural Resources Defense Council recently calculated that even a fairly small release of certain agents, such as anthrax, could devastate an urban population under certain wind conditions (see GSN, March 14).

In another estimate, the Heritage Foundation calculated the potential impact of an Iraqi nerve gas attack within 10 miles of Baghdad “under current weather conditions,” finding it would have little impact on U.S. forces equipped with gas masks, suits and antidotes, but could kill up to 2,200 unprotected civilians, injure 33,000 more, and possibly harm unprotected Iraqi forces.

In addition to HPAC’s impact on targeting, U.S. ground forces in Iraq can gain access to a secure Web site to check for the likelihood of encountering chemical or biological agents upon entering a location near a destroyed facility, said Woloszyn.

“We’ll offer that to the unit so that when they are going through that area they can actually check the Web to see whether any targets have been taken out in that area that may have a chemical or biological fill,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Airstrike Targets Hussein

A U.S. B-1 bomber attacked a Baghdad building yesterday where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons were thought to have met with other officials, a U.S. official said (see GSN, April 7).

U.S. military commanders do “not know for certain” if Hussein or his two sons — Uday and Qusay — were in the bombed building, the official said.  The CIA, however, was confident in information indicating that they had earlier met there with members of the Iraqi intelligence service, the official added.

“This was the first (tip) that was fairly specific” about the location of Hussein and his sons since the war began, the official said, adding that the attack might have killed Hussein.

“If he was in that facility, he would most likely be dead,” the official said (Los Angeles Times, April 8).

U.S. troops yesterday advanced farther into Baghdad, capturing two of Hussein’s presidential palaces, according to the Washington Post.  U.S. forces moved into a section of Baghdad that contains a number of important government facilities, including Hussein’s official quarters.  The advance also resulted in the capture of the Republican Palace, the official seat of the Iraqi government, and the Sijood Palace, both located on the west bank of the Tigris River (Shadid/Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, April 8).

After starting the war with more than 800 tanks, Iraq now has fewer than two dozen, the U.S. Defense Department said.  In addition, the Iraqi leadership is becoming increasingly isolated, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

“The circle is closing and their options are running out,” Rumsfeld said.

A coalition victory is not dependent, however, on the capture or death of Hussein, Rumsfeld said.  “At that point where he is not running his country … the regime has been changed,” he said (Los Angeles Times).

Rice Meets With Putin

Meanwhile, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow yesterday in an attempt, as one senior U.S. diplomat said, to repair relations damaged by the two countries’ differing stance on Iraq.

In addition to meeting with Putin, Rice also met his chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, and national security adviser Vladimir Rushailo, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, according the New York Times.  The meetings covered a number of issues, including terrorism and nuclear weapons efforts in Iran and North Korea. 

In each meeting “the important thing was the signal we sent was that we’re interested in engaging with the Russians, and that time is of the essence to begin the dialogue,” the senior U.S. diplomat said.  “Her message was from the president, stressing the importance of working to keep the relationship on track, to contain the disagreement,” the diplomat added (Michael Wines, New York Times, April 8).

Blair Calls for U.N. Role in Post-Hussein Iraq

British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday to allow the United Nations to create an interim Iraqi-led government in Iraq once the war is over, according to the London Independent.

Bush arrived in Belfast yesterday for a two-day meeting to discuss Iraq.  Blair has proposed a plan to allow a U.N-created Iraqi interim authority to work next to the U.S. administration after two months.  The authority would then take full control of Iraq after six months after the end of the war until elections could be held, the Independent reported (Paul Waugh, London Independent, April 8).

The United States has already begun installing a civil administration in the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Officials from the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, headed by retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, could begin operating at the port today.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that while the United Nations could add legitimacy to any new Iraqi government, the United States and the United Kingdom must be allowed to take the lead.

“The coalition, having taken the political risk and having paid the cost in lives, must have a leading role,” Powell said (Don Melvin, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 8).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Bush Reasserts Pre-Emptive Doctrine in Face of Domestic, International Criticism

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Arguing the necessity for attacking Iraq, President George W. Bush last week continued to invoke his doctrine of using pre-emptive military force to prevent certain countries from accumulating weapons of mass destruction and possibly sharing them with terrorists.

The Bush administration has persistently pushed the policy despite recent international criticism that the policy is destabilizing and undermines the rule of law, as well as domestic concern that the administration is considering applying the doctrine beyond Iraq.

Bush restated the policy Thursday in a speech before families of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, in North Carolina.

“By our actions, we serve a great and just cause.  We will remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of mass murderers.  Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another September the 11th, this time perhaps with chemical or biological or nuclear terror,” he said.

Bush also argued the approach in a major address just prior to the war, saying, “The danger is clear:  using chemical, biological, or one day nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

“The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat.  But we will do everything to defeat it,” he said.

Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as such states, and labeled them an “axis of evil.”  A senior administration official in May last year also identified Cuba, Libya and Syria as “other rogue states,” and alleged they also support terrorism and are developing weapons of mass destruction, though he did not directly threaten them (see related GSN story, today).

International Protest

A number of countries directly and indirectly criticized the U.S. approach at a meeting of the U.N. Disarmament Commission last week in New York.

“We stress the special importance of refraining from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” Indonesian Ambassador Mochammad Hidayat said, speaking on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement.

Countries that appear to believe they could be targets of the doctrine levied the most direct criticism.  Cuba and North Korea, for instance, criticized the United States by name, with North Korea saying it fears a pending attack by the United States, calling the war on Iraq “arrogant and outrageous” behavior and the aim to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “typical state terrorism.”

Iran did not identify the United States directly, according to a U.N. summary of the speech, but instead criticized the “unilateral” policies of “one powerful state,” which it said would undermine nonproliferation efforts such as multilateral agreements.

“Despite achievements in disarmament, the emergence of unilateralism had reversed the hopes such achievements had encouraged.  Setbacks began when one nuclear-weapon state questioned many previous undertakings and issued a new doctrine on the first use of nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attacks,” the U.N. summary said, describing Iran’s statement.

The Russian representative called the attack on Iraq a political mistake and said the unilateral use of military force in contravention of the U.N. Charter and in violation of the principle of international law could undermine the system of international security and encourage individual countries to possess weapons of mass destruction, according to a U.N. summary.

Leaders from France and Germany also have criticized the approach, arguing for nonmilitary strategies for dealing with proliferant states.

“I can’t and don’t want to imagine that we are facing a series of disarmament wars.  Rather we should be making sure that the instruments for peaceful solutions, above all the U.N., are developed further,” German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said in a March 23 interview.

Domestic Criticism of the Doctrine

Recent criticism of the doctrine in the United States has come from Democratic presidential candidates Senator John Kerry (Mass.) and New Hampshire Governor Howard Dean, as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

“I believe the Bush administration’s blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.  In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world,” Kerry said in a January speech.

Kerry drew fire from U.S. conservatives last week after calling for “a regime change in the United States,” while criticizing the administration for going to war without explicit U.N. Security Council approval.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently called for a congressional review of the doctrine after the conflict with Iraq is ended.

The doctrine has lately received significant Republican support by such leaders as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

“We’re talking about a concept of eliminating threats, threats that we know are real, that are increasing over time, that apply throughout the world,” said Frist, Bush’s reputed top advocate on the Hill, in a recent interview with the BBC.

However, while Bush and others in the administration have frequently evoked the Bush Doctrine, suggesting it might guide U.S. policy, some conservatives have argued that applying the doctrine to justify using force beyond Iraq might be impractical.

“Yes, they have a broad doctrine. … Whether or not and how far one would carry this doctrine to other examples is unclear,” according to Henry Sokolski, a former nonproliferation official with the first Bush administration.

He said it is unlikely preventive force would be used on North Korea, which the administration believes to have nuclear weapons.

“I don’t think at the end of the day you are going to see more fighting than you have already seen.  I think that has to do with both the logic and logistics of what they’re up against.  When a country gets as far along [in developing nuclear weapons] as Iran and North Korea have, your choices are much, much less.  The reason we went into Iraq is because we could,” he said.

Sokolski said administration officials might be divided over applying the doctrine to North Korea, saying, “there are just as many [administration] speeches where they have said this case is different, we are not going to use military force in this case, and they have said it explicitly, at the level of [national security adviser] Condoleezza Rice, in print and on TV.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell also has disputed the notion the administration is aiming to apply the doctrine to North Korea.

“I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say that now this one’s pocketed, on to the next place,” he said, as reported in a recent New York Times article.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, considered a leading advocate of the doctrine, said yesterday the Bush administration would like to bring change to a number of other countries, but said military action would not necessarily be the primary tool in future cases.

“We’d like to see change in a lot of places, but it’s going to come about by different means in different places,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“The circumstances in North Korea are very, very different from the circumstances in Iraq.  In even Iran, which is a next-door neighbor, the circumstances are different,” Wolfowitz said.

To sustain international cooperation for U.S. efforts to combat terrorists, “it’s important ... that we make it clear that the military is not the only instrument — it isn’t even necessarily the main instrument,” he said.

Threatened Force

Sokolski said that by continuing to invoke the doctrine without specifying future targets, the administration may be hoping to discourage countries from pursuing weapons of mass destruction and aligning with terrorists, while not necessarily obligating a U.S. attack.

“They want people who are supporting terrorism and who are building weapons of mass destruction that are hostile to think twice about whether or not that is a smart security move,” he said.

Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, however, contends that policy will only drive declared rogue countries and others to accelerate their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

“The idea is that now North Korea and Iran have a greater interest in acquiring nuclear weapons to deter us, as do other countries, so that they can then implement their national security objectives independent of the United States,” he said.

“That includes not just rogue nations, but allies, such as Japan or Brazil,” Cirincione said, adding that Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said he wants to reconsider his country’s position relative to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

North Korea, in a statement yesterday reported in the Washington Post, said it needs a “tremendous military deterrent force” to prevent what it believes is an eventual U.S. attack (see related GSN story, today).

Wolfowitz Sunday argued the potential for U.S. intervention could have the opposite effect on global proliferation.

“A lot of countries, including Syria, will eventually get the message from this [the Iraq conflict] that it’s much better to come to terms peacefully with the international community, to not acquire these weapons of mass destruction, to not use terrorism as an instrument of national policy, and to take care of your own people,” he said.

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton echoed Wolfowitz’s statements over the weekend.

“We are hoping that the elimination of the dictatorial regime of [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein and the elimination of all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would be important lessons to other countries in the region, particularly Syria, Libya and Iran, that the cost of their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially quite high,” Bolton said in an interview with U.S.-funded Radio Sawa, according to United Press International.

Back to top

Iraq:  U.S. Forces Capture Presidential Palace in Baghdad

U.S. troops expanded their control of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad today, capturing one of President Saddam Hussein’s palaces and firing on another, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, April 4).

“Saddam Hussein says he owns Baghdad,” said Col. David Perkins, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division.  “Wrong.  We own Baghdad,” he said.

The raid is the second conducted in three days, according to the Times.  Such raids will continue daily until Baghdad is sectioned into safe areas controlled by U.S. and British troops, U.S. military forces said.

A number of high-ranking officials from the ruling Baath Party have tried to escape the city, according to intelligence reports.  Hussein is steadily losing control of Baghdad and his regime is likely to collapse soon, the reports said.

“Regime collapse is a matter of days, not weeks,” one report said (Los Angeles Times, April 7).

U.S. troops yesterday captured the center of the Iraqi city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, according to the Associated Press (Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 7).

The U.S. Air Force has recently transported about 700 Iraqi National Congress opposition fighters, along with INC leader Ahmed Chalabi, into the southern city of Nasiriya, according to the U.S. military and INC.

“It was the mistake of the coalition forces not to integrate the Iraqi forces from the beginning,” said INC spokesman Feisal Chalabi.  “You cannot have Iraqi liberation without Iraqis, so this is a great day for us,” he added.

The opposition fighters will be called the 1st Battalion Free Iraqi Forces and will serve under U.S. command, according to an INC statement.

U.S. General Peter Pace denied that the opposition group will gain an advantage in post-Hussein politics by being on the ground.

“I’m comfortable that once we free Iraq and give it to the people in Iraq, that they will be able to decide for themselves who should be their leaders and who should not,” Pace said (Marcella Bombardieri, Boston Globe, April 7).

British forces fighting in Basra today began a major assault to capture the old portion of the city, which still has lingering pockets of resistance, according to the Associated Press (see related GSN story, today).  Yesterday, British forces advanced into the center of Basra.  British officials said they had established a base at a former college within the city, but did not yet control all of Basra (Tini Tran, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 7).

In northern Iraq, fighters with the military Islamic group Ansar al-Islam have begun surrendering to Kurdish fighters allied with U.S forces, according to the Los Angeles Times.  More than 300 soldiers from the group, suspected by the United States of being linked to al-Qaeda, have agreed to surrender, according to Kurdish officials (Los Angeles Times).

Annan Requests U.N. Security Council Meeting

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has requested a U.N. Security Council meeting today to discuss the situation in Iraq, according to the Associated Press.  The request came after Annan met with each of the 191 U.N. members last week to discuss the humanitarian situation in Iraq and a future U.N. role in the country’s reconstruction (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 7).

Rice Travels to Moscow

U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice traveled to Moscow yesterday to have a “frank exchange of views” with Russian officials over the status of the U.S.-Russian relationship.  Rice was expected to meet with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, and other officials to discuss U.S.-Russian relations, which have been damaged, in part, by allegations of Russian military sales to Iraq, according to the Financial Times.

“These are turbulent times for the relationship,” a White House official said yesterday (Harding/Behr, Financial Times, April 7).

Back to top

Libya:  U.S. Official Says Libya Pursues Weapons of Mass Destruction

Libya intensified development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons after the United Nations suspended sanctions against Tripoli in 1999, a top U.S. official said this weekend (see GSN, April 1).

Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi extradited two suspects in the bombing of a Pan Am jetliner in 1999 and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan responded by recommending removal of sanctions.

“Our evidence is very convincing that since the Security Council suspended sanctions because of Pan Am 103, that the government of Libya has substantially increased it efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction,” U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said.  Specifically, Bolton said, “Libya’s procurement activities and a lot of its activities in the nuclear program have been increased.”

U.S. oil companies are currently prohibited from doing business in Libya.

“We are hoping that the elimination of the dictatorial regime of [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein and the elimination of all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would be important lessons to other countries in the region, particularly Syria, Libya and Iran, that the cost of their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially quite high,” Bolton said (Eli Lake, United Press International, April 6).

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.S. Forces Intercept Increased Iraqi “Chatter” on Possible WMD Use

U.S. forces in Iraq have recently intercepted increasing amounts of Iraqi communications that appear to allude to the use of weapons of mass destruction, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

Over the last several days, intercepted Iraqi radio communications and other “chatter” have appeared to use “euphemisms or code words” to refer to the use of WMD, a U.S. official said.

“There are allusions to using special weapons,” the U.S. official said.  “There seem to be a lot more now,” the official added.

Concerns have increased about possible Iraqi chemical or biological weapons attacks as U.S. forces move ever closer to the heart of Baghdad (see related GSN story, today).  Some experts believe, however, that threat of biological warfare is now greatly reduced because such weapons need long periods of time to take full effect.

“Any biological attack would take too long now to have a useful military effect,” an official said.

U.S. military officials now have focused their concern on the possibility of an Iraqi chemical weapons attack, the Times reported.  U.S. intelligence indicates that chemical munitions may be stockpiled in and around Baghdad, and may be in the custody of Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units. 

As U.S. troops move deeper into Baghdad, however, the threat of a chemical weapons attack might be reduced since such an attack would also endanger Iraqi forces and civilians within the city, some officials said.

“Once you’re mixed up with them, it doesn't make any tactical sense" to use chemical weapons “unless they’re just reaching out in some irrational act,” a second U.S. official said (Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, April 4).

Some experts have said Iraq might use chemical weapons defensively, rather than offensively.

One tactic could be the use of chemical weapons agents to contaminate terrain, Elisa Harris of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland and Jonathan Tucker of the U.S. Institute of Peace told a congressional staff briefing last week.  While the nerve agent sarin evaporates quickly, other chemical agents such as VX and mustard gas can linger for long periods of time, Tucker said.

“These persistent agents can remain toxic for weeks, so that could have a significant effect,” Tucker said.

Another possible Iraqi tactic would be to use persistent chemical agents to block lines of advance and force U.S. troops into pre-set kill zones, said Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Center for Near East Policy.  Iraq used such a tactic during the late stage of its war with Iran in the 1980s, analysts said.  Iraq fired mustard gas behind Iranian troops and then fired sarin onto the front-line forces, forcing them back into the mustard gas-contaminated area (William Broad, New York Times, April 4).

WMD Hunt

Meanwhile, U.S. troops have found boxes of suspicious white powder and Arabic documents on chemical warfare at the Latifiyah industrial complex, 25 miles south of Baghdad, Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division, said today. 

“It is clearly a suspicious site,” Peabody said.

U.S. troops found thousands of boxes at the site, each containing three vials of white powder, Peabody said.  They also found documents in Arabic providing instructions on chemical warfare and supplies of the nerve gas antidote atropine, he said. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency had previously identified the Latifiyah facility as a potential WMD site, according to the Associated Press.  U.N. inspectors visited the site at least 12 times (Associated Press/New York Times, April 4).

Initial testing of the white powder found at the complex indicates the material might be explosives, a senior U.S. official said (CNN.com, April 4).

U.S. “mobile exploitation” teams, consisting of intelligence officials and WMD experts, have searched at least six suspect Iraqi sites, but have so far found no evidence of Iraqi WMD, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

The teams have been unable to conduct interviews with Iraqi WMD scientists and technicians, officials said yesterday.  “A lot of people of interest in weapons of mass destruction are in Baghdad and really aren’t accessible,” a military intelligence official said. 

The teams have also had little success in examining WMD-related documents and materials captured inside Iraq, according to the Times.  “The process is just starting,” a second intelligence official said (Drogin, Los Angeles Times).

False Alarm

U.S. troops stationed at Camp Udairi in Kuwait yesterday suffered a chemical attack scare that was later revealed to be a false alarm, according to the Washington Times.

A basic chemical agent detector on the perimeter of the camp indicated the presence of blister agent, said Staff Sgt. Daniel Benner, member of the 19th Material Logistics Support Unit.  The alarm prompted thousands of soldiers to don chemical protective gear in 85-degree heat for about 50 minutes, the Times reported.  Further tests conducted with more sophisticated equipment, however, were negative, Benner said (Guy Taylor, Washington Times, April 4).

Back to top

Iraq II:  U.S. Troops Capture Baghdad Airport, Begin Encircling City

U.S. troops yesterday captured the Saddam International Airport on the outskirts of Baghdad, beginning the encirclement of the city, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, April 3).

During the battle for the airport, U.S. troops moved building-by-building, killing more than 300 Iraqi soldiers, the Times reported.  While there are reports of continued fighting today at the airport, U.S. forces are believed to be in control of most of the site.

The capture of the airport will allow coalition commanders to begin flying in troops and supplies near Baghdad, U.S. officials said.  It will also help prevent members of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s regime from escaping (Perry/Mohan, Los Angeles Times, April 4).

Coalition forces now plan to begin encircling Baghdad and to use airstrikes, special forces raids and probing missions by ground troops to cause the collapse of Hussein’s regime, military officials said. 

U.S. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the coalition forces, wants to avoid launching an all-out assault on Baghdad, which could result in high casualties, U.S. officials said.  Planners are also not preparing for a full siege operation, which would cut Baghdad off entirely from the rest of Iraq and choke the population inside, according to the Washington Times.  Instead, the encirclement operation will use a network of “strong points.”

“I think they will not put a siege on Baghdad, but an encirclement and then use a combination of special operations, covert action, precision air power, and heavy and light forces, to take parts of the city down,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.  “Just like the Brits are doing in Basra,” he added.

With the encirclement of Baghdad, Hussein will lose control of the rest of Iraq, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said.

“When you get to the point where Baghdad is basically isolated, then what is the situation you have in the country?” Myers said.  “You have a country that Baghdad no longer controls, that whatever’s happening inside Baghdad is almost irrelevant compared to what’s going on in the rest of the country,” he added (Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, April 4).

U.S. President George W. Bush, speaking yesterday at Camp Lejeune, a Marine base in North Carolina, said the encirclement of Baghdad spelled the end of the Hussein regime.

“A vise is closing, and the days of a brutal regime are coming to an end,” Bush said (White House release, April 4).

In southern Iraq, British troops advanced deeper into Basra, moving to within four miles of the center of the city, according to the London Guardian (Nicholas Watt, London Guardian, April 4).  In the north, Kurdish militiamen last night captured an important bridge near the town of Bardarash, about 10 miles northeast of the city of Mosul, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  U.S. airstrikes assisted the Kurdish advance (Mike Williams, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 4).

“We Can’t Tell Who’s in Charge”

Meanwhile, even though the Iraqi government still appears to be maintaining control of Baghdad, it is unknown if the government is still headed by Hussein or someone else, U.S. officials said yesterday.  Outside of Baghdad, however, Iraq’s control of the rest of the country appeared close to collapse, according to military and intelligence officials.

“We can’t tell who’s in charge,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said.  “I don’t think the Iraqi people can tell who’s in charge, either.  And we have indications that the Iraqi forces don’t know who’s in charge,” he added.

While a number of Republican Guard and other military commanders have recently surrendered or defected, similar actions have not occurred among Iraqi officials in Baghdad or other important cities, according to the Washington Post.  In addition, none of the top dozen officials closest to Hussein have been killed or captured, U.S. officials said yesterday.

There are still covert communications occurring with Iraqi commanders, conducted through third parties, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

“There are still contacts,” Rumsfeld said.  “And you never know,” he added.

Some foreign governments might be encouraging Iraqi officials to hold out for a deal that could include the offer of exile for Hussein, Rumsfeld said.  “Some governments are discussing, from time to time, some sort of a … cutting a deal,” he said.

These efforts “give hope and comfort to the Saddam Hussein regime” and provide hope “that one more time maybe he’ll survive,” Rumsfeld said.

The hope of a deal could also be a reason why Iraq has so far not chosen to launch chemical or biological attacks, Rumsfeld said (see related GSN story, today).  “They are holding out hope with their people that there might be a deal cut — the use of chemical weapons would certainly end that prospect,” he said (Priest/Pincus, Washington Post, April 4).

Annan Says Cease-fire Unlikely for Now

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday he did not see any prospect for an immediate cease-fire in Iraq.

“I wish I could say there is an immediate prospect for a cease-fire, and that an appeal from the Security Council will lead to a cease-fire,” Annan said.  “I don’t think that is that case,” he added (U.N. release, April 3).

Back to top

Iraq I:  Wary of Chemical Attacks, U.S. Troops Approach Baghdad

Senior U.S. military officers have said U.S. troops are preparing for the increasing likelihood of Iraqi chemical weapons attacks as they draw closer to Baghdad, the Financial Times reported today (see GSN, April 2).

U.S. troops have already crossed the “red line” around Baghdad, which could prompt a chemical or biological attack, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said.

“If (chemical weapons are) used, we’ll be prepared for it being used,” Brooks said.  “It causes us to maintain protective postures of our forces as they approach this area but it doesn’t make us stop,” he added (Mark Hubband, Financial Times, April 3).

The red line is thought to stretch from the city of Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, to the city of Kut, southeast of Baghdad on the Tigris River, a U.S. Central Command officer said (Nessman/Knickmeyer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 3).

Some U.S. commanders have spread out their troops to make them less vulnerable to a chemical weapons attack, according to USA Today.  Other U.S. troops have already begun wearing chemical protective gear as they operated in 90-plus-degree heat (USA Today, April 3).

Coalition airstrikes have focused on Iraqi command-and-control centers, in part, to prevent Iraqi officers from ordering the use of chemical weapons, Brooks said.

“If we’re successful, they will never be used, and this red line will have been something that we just conceived and it was not real,” Brooks said.  “And that’s fine,” he added (Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, April 3).

Some U.S. intelligence officers have said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would need to feel more pressure, both militarily and psychologically, before he would resort to using chemical weapons.

“Saddam Hussein has two qualities:  one is as a gambler and the other is as a survivor,” a U.S. security official said.  “His assessment of his situation is along the lines that if he can survive around four weeks of this pressure, then he could re-emerge as a survivor and he won’t have to gamble by using his chemical weapons,” the official added (Hubband, Financial Times).

Hussein has too much to lose in terms of international opinion to use a weapon that would likely be ineffective against U.S. troops, according to some experts.

“(Chemical weapons) are of limited military utility and carry a very high political and diplomatic cost,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “They wouldn’t stop the advance.  They probably wouldn’t kill many troops.  But they could hurt Saddam’s now-flourishing image as an Arab hero, of a man of honor willing to die in his country rather than surrender,” he said.

Other experts, however, have said that Hussein would probably launch chemical attacks if he felt hope was lost.

“I do think we have to worry a great deal about this,” said Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.  “To my mind, the admittedly circumstantial case is still a very strong case for Saddam having these weapons,” he said (Jessica Guynn, Philadelphia Inquirer, April 3).

Scientist Interviews Best Chance to Find WMD

Meanwhile, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Monday that the best chance to find any Iraqi WMD stockpiles could come through interviews with liberated Iraqi scientists and technicians.

“There is one factor that makes it less difficult for the U.S. to find them than it was for us.  And that is that as the country becomes liberated from the secret police, people may not fear speaking,” Blix said.  “Now if they don’t feel that there’s such risk, then they may speak more freely.  That might lead them, the Americans and British, to any secret storages, if there are any,” he added.

It is still unknown, however, if Iraq even still possess any weapons of mass destruction, Blix said.  “The $64 billion question — that’s what the war is costing at the moment I’m told — that question is: are there any weapons of mass destruction?” he said (U.N. release, April 2).

White House Emphasis Shifting From WMD

The Bush administration has begun playing down the disarmament of Iraq as a rationale for the war in favor of emphasizing liberation of the Iraqi people in preparation for the possibility that it long periods of time could be needed to determine if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, according to the Boston Globe.

It is also important for Bush “not to talk up the biological and chemical weapons thing while troops are in the field” because of concerns that such talk could give the impression that U.S. troops are afraid of such an attack and thus increase the chance one would occur, an administration official said.

If the United States finds no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or if some WMD stockpiles are found after a long period of time, increasing speculation they were planted, it could embarrass the White House, several Republican advisers said.  The United States could also suffer diplomatically, according to some congressional Democrats.

“There were many rationales for this war, but the one that was most consistent and compelling was that we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein before he could use his weapons of mass destruction,” said Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.).  “If weapons of mass destruction are not found, it will further damage the U.S. reputation in the international community,” he said.

U.S. officials, however, said the focus now is more on capturing Baghdad and that the WMD hunt “is not what the troops are there to do now.”

“You talk about the thing that’s on people’s minds, and what’s on people’s minds is defeating the regime,” the administration official said.  “Would we want to find them (the weapons of mass destruction) right now?  Of course.  But we’re not counting on it,” the official added (Kornblut/Milligan, Boston Globe, April 3).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Iraqi Forces Expected to “Soon Collapse,” U.S. Officer Says

There are strong indications that the Iraqi military is close to collapse, a U.S. military spokesman said today as U.S. troops moved to within 10 miles of Baghdad (see GSN, April 2).

U.S. forces are seeing “strong and credible signs that the Iraqi forces are being overwhelmed and will soon collapse,” said U.S. Central Command spokesman Navy Lt. Mark Kitchens.

U.S. military units have moved to within 10 miles of Baghdad, closing in on the Saddam International Airport, according to the Associated Press.  The United States is using a two-pronged approach to capture the city:  with Army troops moving in from the southwest and Marine units moving in from the southeast along the Tigris River.  In addition, special forces units infiltrated Baghdad last night to obtain strategic information and to secure bridges and dams in the area to prevent sabotage, according to Central Command.

“We are getting closer and closer,” said Central Command spokesman Navy Capt. Frank Thorp.  “We will be in Baghdad within a matter of hours from when we decide to go,” he added (David Crary, Associated Press/Newsday, April 3).

The United States is still preparing for a tough fight to capture the Iraqi capital, said Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  “We are planning for a very difficult fight ahead in Baghdad,” he said.

Remaining Iraqi Republican Guard forces are “arrayed for a defense on the southern side of Baghdad ... and on the flanks as well,” McChrystal said.  “Whether they intend to defend in place or just delay is just not clear,” he added.

It is still unknown if the Iraqi troops defending Baghdad possess chemical or biological weapons, McChrystal said (see related GSN story, today). 

“Their ability to use chemical and biological weapons — they’ve proven it historically,” McChrystal said.  “We believe they have the capability now.  Clearly, as we threaten the core of the regime ... we believe that the likelihood of using those weapons goes up,” he added.

U.S. forces will now probably attempt to capture Baghdad through a siege operation, according to a U.S. Defense Department official.  Unlike historical sieges, however, this operation would be designed to break the will of the Iraqi regime, and not the general population of the city.

“This will not be Vicksburg,” the official said, referring to a nearly two-month siege of the city in Mississippi during the U.S. Civil War.

 “We do not want to destroy the people’s resources, and we don’t want to break their will,” the Pentagon official said (Mohan/Perry, Los Angeles Times, April 3).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Common Items Can Produce Weapons, FBI Warns

The FBI warned state and local law enforcement agencies yesterday that terrorists could attempt to improvise chemical or biological weapons by using commonly available items (see GSN, March 27).

Terrorists could develop weapons such as cyanide compounds, ricin, salmonella bacterium and botulinum toxin using materials that can be purchased at stores or online, the FBI said in its weekly bulletin.  Terrorists could also build a laboratory using widely available items, such as infant formula, sugar, cheesecloth and blenders, to produce biological and chemical weapons, the bureau said.

One crucial item in any makeshift laboratory is an agar plate, which scientists use to culture bacteria, the FBI said.

“Large numbers of agar plates can be inoculated and harvested by an individual possessing minimal training,” the FBI bulletin said.  “These agar plates could produce sufficient quantities of bacteria to sicken or kill large numbers of people,” it said (Curt Anderson, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 3).

The FBI bulletin was prompted, in part, by the discovery of crude biological toxins at an Islamic militant base in northern Iraq that was recently captured by U.S. and Kurdish forces, according to Time (see GSN, April 2).

“Recent events, including the January 2003 arrests in the United Kingdom of Algerian extremists apparently attempting to produce ricin toxin in their residences, indicate an ongoing interest among terrorists in developing improvised weapons of mass destruction,” the bulletin said (see GSN, Feb. 6; Elaine Shannon, Time, April 3).

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.S. Forces Find WMD Evidence, But No Smoking Gun Yet

U.S. special forces and Kurdish militiamen have captured a base in northern Iraq belonging to the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam, where they found evidence that the group attempted to develop biological and chemical weapons, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, March 31).  Meanwhile, U.S. military experts operating in southern Iraq have so far found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, according to the New York Times.

U.S. officials have said they found evidence of Ansar al-Islam’s attempts to develop unconventional weapons when they captured the group’s main base, located near the city of Sarjat. 

“We have found various documents, equipment, and evidence that would indicate a presence of chemical or biological weapons.  It has been flown back to the United States,” a special forces company commander said yesterday.  “At this point, (exploration) of the site is ongoing,” the commander added (Ilene Prusher, Christian Science Monitor, April 2).

Also found at the base were instructions on how to produce three types of chlorine gas and ricin, U.S. intelligence officials said.  U.S. chemical experts that began searching the site Saturday detected traces of ricin, a senior Kurdish security official said (Jonathan Landay, Knight Ridder/Miami Herald, April 2).

During a search of an airbase in southern Iraq, however, U.S. military experts found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, according to the New York Times (see GSN, March 24).

Mobile Exploitation Team Bravo, one of the teams that searches suspect Iraqi sites, returned to its base in northern Kuwait last night after finding nothing during its first mission into Iraq.  The team spent three days searching bunkers at captured air base at Talil, but only found a large number of conventional weapons and ammunition.

“Of course I’m disappointed,” said the team leader.  “But the size of the site and the amount of ordnance Iraq had amassed there was sobering,” the team leader added (Judith Miller, New York Times, April 2).

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said yesterday that U.S. and British troops might attempt to plant WMD evidence at captured Iraqi sites in order to justify the war.

They “might bring any prohibited materials to the land of Iraq,” Ramadan said.  “We warn of this (possibility) ... Iraq is cleaner (than) any country in the world of weapons of mass destruction,” he added (Ghassan al-Kadi, United Press International, April 1).

Jordan Prevents Iraqi Agents from Poisoning Water Supply

Meanwhile, Jordanian authorities have arrested several Iraqi agents in connection with a plot to poison a water supply that serves U.S. troops in eastern Jordan, officials said yesterday.  The men are suspected of trying to poison a water tank that serves U.S. troops at a military base in Khao, according to the New York Times.  It is still unknown how close the Iraqi agents were to succeeding before they were captured, but no one has reported sick or injured, officials said (Alan Feuer, New York Times, April 2).

Annan Hopeful Inspectors Can Return

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said yesterday that he hoped U.N. inspectors could someday return to Iraq to resume their mission.

‘I hope the time will come when they will be able to do that,” Annan said.

The United Nations is focusing now on the humanitarian situation in Iraq, Annan said.  The U.N. Security Council is expected to discuss the future involvement of the United Nations in Iraq and might request that it assume a larger role, he said.

“It is not excluded that the U.N. will play an important role but that is a question that the council will have to deal with,” Annan said (U.N. release, April 1).

Back to top

Iraq II:  U.S. Forces “Destroy” Iraqi Republican Guard Division

U.S. troops have captured a key Iraqi town on the route to Baghdad, “destroying” the elite Republican Guard division that was deployed in its defense, the U.S. Central Command said today (see GSN, April 1).

U.S. troops have captured the city of al-Kut, located southeast of Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said.  During the assault, U.S. forces routed the Baghdad Republican Guard division defending the city, he said.

“The Baghdad Division has been destroyed,” Brooks said.

U.S. forces have also begun an assault on the two Republican Guard divisions defending the city of Karbala, southwest of Baghdad, Brooks said.  Iraqi forces are “in serious trouble, and they remain in contact now with the most powerful force on Earth,” he said.

With the latest victory, U.S. forces have entered what some military commanders have called the “red zone” around Baghdad — an area where Iraq might consider using biological or chemical weapons, according to the Associated Press (see related GSN story, today).

“There may be a trigger line where the regime deems (there is a) sufficient threat to use weapons of mass destruction,” Brooks said.  “It’s a conceptual line across which there may be a decision made by regime leaders,” he added (Nicole Winfield, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, April 2).

To ward off such attacks, the U.S. military has begun issuing radio broadcasts to Iraqi troops warning them that they will be held accountable for the use of weapons of mass destruction.  The broadcasts also tell the Iraqi soldiers that the United States and the United Kingdom have no plans to use weapons of mass destruction on them.

“[Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein and his family cannot execute a weapons of mass destruction attack by themselves,” a U.S. broadcast said.  “It is the duty of every Iraqi who has the means to stop a nuclear, biological or chemical attack to do so,” it said (Michael Gordon, New York Times, April 2).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  House Rejects Bush Cooperative Threat Reduction Request

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The House Appropriations Committee yesterday rejected a White House request for authority to extend U.S. threat reduction efforts to nations outside the former Soviet Union (see GSN, March 26).

The request, contained in the Bush administration’s $75 billion fiscal 2003 supplemental appropriations request, was not included in the marked-up version of the bill approved by the Republican-controlled committee yesterday.

The requested authority would allow the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, to spend up to $50 million in fiscal 2003 and 2004 to secure WMD materials outside the former Soviet Union, including in Iraq.

The authority would enable the administration to carry out a plan for securing, perhaps by purchasing, poorly secured enriched uranium and plutonium at sites around the globe (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2002).

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the expanded authority yesterday, with some modification.  It would limit the authority to fiscal 2003, which ends Sept. 30, and adds a 15-day requirement for congressional notification prior to expenditure of funds.

In the past, House Republicans have criticized the U.S. threat reduction programs for failing to obtain full Russian cooperation and for expanding their activities beyond their initial mandate.  Last year, the House successfully prevented passage of a similar White House authority request.

“It means that it will be a conferenced item, unless it is amended on the House floor, with the Senate and Bush administration on one side and the House on the other,” said Andy Fisher, press secretary for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

The Senate bill also includes $55 million for Energy Department nonproliferation programs outside the former Soviet Union.

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP