The mother of misjudgements
If Saddam destroyed his WMD, why did he engage in deception for 12 years?
"...If Saddam had decided to scrap his chemical and biological weapons in 1991, he would have had nothing to hide. So why the deception?
"Moreover, Iraq never satisfied UN inspectors that this disarmament had taken place. Documents and witnesses were mysteriously unavailable. As late as March 7, less than a fortnight before the war began, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said: 'Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.'
"And yet the evidence increasingly suggests that Gen Saadi really was speaking the truth. But if Saddam did destroy his banned arsenal after losing the 1991 Kuwait war, why not come clean? If he was going to scrap the weapons anyway, why not do so under UN supervision?"
"...If the dictator had wanted to guarantee his own downfall, he could scarcely have worked more effectively. He was surely guilty of the mother of all misjudgments.
"How could this have happened? Trying to answer this question requires delving into his mindset. He clearly felt that the unmistakable removal of all his WMD would have damaged his regime."
"...The Kurdish and Shia revolts in 1991 came within an ace of overthrowing him. He had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds - killing 5,000 at Halabja in 1988. He did not unleash the same horrors against the 1991 risings, but sent in soldiers in chemical-warfare suits to maintain his bizarre bluff.
"In the end, there is no rational explanation for his apparent decision to disarm in secret. Instead of deterring attack, it did the opposite."
If Saddam destroyed his WMD, why did he engage in deception for 12 years?
"...If Saddam had decided to scrap his chemical and biological weapons in 1991, he would have had nothing to hide. So why the deception?
"Moreover, Iraq never satisfied UN inspectors that this disarmament had taken place. Documents and witnesses were mysteriously unavailable. As late as March 7, less than a fortnight before the war began, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said: 'Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.'
"And yet the evidence increasingly suggests that Gen Saadi really was speaking the truth. But if Saddam did destroy his banned arsenal after losing the 1991 Kuwait war, why not come clean? If he was going to scrap the weapons anyway, why not do so under UN supervision?"
"...If the dictator had wanted to guarantee his own downfall, he could scarcely have worked more effectively. He was surely guilty of the mother of all misjudgments.
"How could this have happened? Trying to answer this question requires delving into his mindset. He clearly felt that the unmistakable removal of all his WMD would have damaged his regime."
"...The Kurdish and Shia revolts in 1991 came within an ace of overthrowing him. He had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds - killing 5,000 at Halabja in 1988. He did not unleash the same horrors against the 1991 risings, but sent in soldiers in chemical-warfare suits to maintain his bizarre bluff.
"In the end, there is no rational explanation for his apparent decision to disarm in secret. Instead of deterring attack, it did the opposite."
Comments
Post a Comment