[lbo-talk] Re: I don't get it

Brian Siano siano at mail.med.upenn.edu
Thu Jul 17 12:20:15 PDT 2003


On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:57:16 -0400 (EDT), Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:


>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Dennis Perrin wrote:
>
>> As I said. But the thread wasn't about an Iraqi "threat" to our very
>> existence, but whether or not he had weapons.
>
> The distinction is jesuitical. War opponents said the evidence was that
> he had too few weapons to be a serious threat. This was true. If it
> turns out he had no weapons at all, it makes it more true, not less.
>
>> Saddam had plenty of weapons in 1990-91, and the US still attacked him.
>
> It attacked Kuwait, but famously stopped short of advancing on Baghdad.
> His possession of chemical weapons might have been part of the reason.

Ah, here's the article. It's by Rolf Ekeus, former chairman of UNSCOM on Iraq until 1997: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp- dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43468-2003Jun27&notFound=true

"In sum, all four components of Iraq's prohibited and secret WMD program were motivated and inspired by its structural enmity and rivalry with Iran. Thus, during the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq did not use its readily available chemical weapons, stored in considerable quantities in southern Iraq, against the U.S.-led forces. The Iraqi leadership made clear to me that there would have been no military sense in using chemical weapons on such a fast-developing battlefield, where the enemy was highly mobile, well trained and well equipped for chemical warfare. In addition, the Iraqi willingness to use chemical weapons had been tempered by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's promise to Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that such a contingency would change the U.S. war aim from the liberation of Kuwait to regime change in Iraq."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list