Whoa There, Let’s Investigate All Reasonable Leads on Iraq’s Arsenal

Willing as we are to accept that major intelligence services were deceived about the scope of Saddam’s active WMD capabilities – though not his program or his desire to attain them – it is premature to write off the exercise of trying to answer the question, “What happened to the tons of materiel UNSCOM believed was there as late as 1998?” It is appalling to see who doesn’t want to pursue potential avenues. No, not the Democratic candidates, the CIA and NSC Directors, and Secretary of State.

Willing as we are to accept that major intelligence services were deceived about the scope of Saddam’s active WMD capabilities – though not his program or his desire to attain them – it is premature to write off the exercise of trying to answer the question, “What happened to the tons of materiel UNSCOM believed was there as late as 1998?” It is appalling to see who doesn’t want to pursue potential avenues. No, not the Democratic candidates, the CIA and NSC Directors, and Secretary of State.

According Geostrategy-Direct, an intelligence news service, there are “satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer.” This squares with what JINSA was told by Israeli intelligence sources right after the war. Of course, under current circumstances, one can have only limited confidence in any intelligence information, and apparently some parts of the U.S. establishment don’t think this is sufficient to “press the issue” with the Syrian government. Mr. Tenet appears to be in this group.

According to a news report, Dr. Rice and Mr. Powell “rejected the prospect … (echoing other assessments) that Saddam would not have trusted Assad with Iraq’s missile and WMD assets.” Powell said, “I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria. I don’t know why the Syrians would do that, frankly, why it would be in their interest. They didn’t have that kind of relationship with Iraq.”

Egad. That’s an awfully flat statement to make about the relationship between one leg of the Axis of Evil and a U.S.-designated state sponsor of terrorism. Just for starters:

• a) No one said “weapons.” The volume of chemicals and precursors sufficient to be worrisome would fit in a convoy of trucks;
• b) In 1991, Saddam sent his entire fighter airplane fleet to IRAN, a country with which he had just concluded a massive, bloody war; and
• c) Iraq was pumping large quantities of oil through Syria, which the regime was selling at a tremendous profit.

Saddam couldn’t beg a favor from Junior Assad? Or threaten him? Or just send his trucks across the unguarded border?

It wouldn’t be easy to find the trucks or the chemicals – try finding a couple of trucks in a country the size of South Dakota. In the hunt for the sniper suspects, Washingtonians well remember the frantic efforts of hundreds of police and FBI agents to find a “white panel truck,” in the nation’s capital – and then the suspects were found in a blue Chevy sedan.

The question of chemicals is important not least because if they were moved, someone else has access to the potential for massive destruction. While the Administration should certainly be careful right now NOT to inflate expectations based on intelligence information, it should be equally wary of NOT investigating all reasonable leads.