On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Chris Doss wrote:
> Anybody know background data (ideology, funding) on the UK-based
> International Inst. for Strategic Funding cited in today's NYT as arguing
> for the presence of Iraqi WMD? Thanks.
If it's this article you mean (which ran in today's Times although it's an AP article):
September 9, 2002
Report Says Iraq Could Assemble Nukes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:43 p.m. ET
LONDON (AP) -- Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in a few months if it
obtained radioactive material, and its arsenal contains powerful
chemical and biological weapons that can be quickly mass produced,
according to a report Monday.
Developing weapons of mass destruction is one of Iraq's top
priorities, and Saddam Hussein devotes enormous resources to such
weapons, the report by the International Institute for Strategic
Studies said.
<end excerpt>
It's actually the "International Institute for Strategic Studies" rather than "Strategic Funding." But that was probably a parapraxis, right? You were already rushing ahead in your mind to the funding question.
AFAIK, the IISS is a very well-established mainstream British think-tank full of British defense establishment characters, both academics and politicians. Their views are generally fairly well respected.
On the Iraq issue, however, they seem to be a house divided, since the President of the Institute, Sir Michael Howard, wrote a very long piece in the weekend Financial Times arguing against military intervention in Iraq and saying quite clearly that Iraq there is no evidence that Iraq is any more of a risk now than at any other time in the last 10 years.
His op-ed was called "Smoke on the Horizon" and can be found at:
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=020906003308&query=sir+howard+ir aq&vsc_appId=powerSearch&offset=0&resultsToShow=10&vsc_subjectConcept=&vsc_c ompanyConcept=&state=More&vsc_publicationGroups=FTFT&searchCat=-1
Although actually, looking at the AP article, the IISS report seems to be straining to produce a gnat. The most it can make a case for is that we're not certain Saddam doesn't have large chemical and biological stocks (which are not WMD -- at least not that the world's ever seen yet.) The report says it is sure Saddam doesn't have nukes, and after an intensive effort to produce them in the 80s under much more favorable conditions, was clearly unable to. But they say, who knows, it could happen all of sudden someday, differently than it's ever happened before. Hard to argue with that.
As for his large stocks of biological weapons, I feel the need to add that Scott Ritter says that all known biological agents degrade within a couple of years. So if Saddam had stocks of anthrax and botulism that Ritter hadn't found by 1998, they'd all be useless now. Ritter and the IAEC also agree that the nuclear part of Iraq's program is the part they were most certain of having found and destroyed.
Lastly, according ot the AP article, the IISS report points out that Iraq is sorely lacking in delivery system -- to wit, it is believed to own 12 missiles that can go as far as 400 miles.
In short, most of the case is in the headline. It was more a press conference than a report.
Michael