At the Time of the 2003 Invasion, Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction

I am happy to debate you on this topic. I agree to your classifications of WMDs: nuclear, radiological, chemical, and/or biological. Any one of these constitutes a WMD, although for my purposes I will group nuclear and radiological together, because essentially they're the same. I will even concede that Iraq had used chemical weapons during the 1980-1988 war with Iran. And we won't even discuss that the U.S. supplied Iraq with those chemical weapons to ensure Saddam's victory. I take issue with the logic (and especially the broadness) presented in your challenge. It is invalid to debate whether or not "Iraq was known to have (or have had previously) possession of weapons of mass destruction." Previous possession of WMDs is irrelevant with regard to the 2003 decision to invade Iraq, and I will gladly and easily demonstrate that at the time of that invasion, Iraq did not possess WMDs. After the Iran-Iraq war, in August of 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army invaded Kuwait. During that short 6 month war, the U.N. authorized military action against Iraq and the U.S. supported Kuwait in its Operation Desert Shield / Storm (there were two individual and separate elements of America's support). During the military operation, the U.S. had used depleted uranium shells (munitions which could arguably be considered WMDs), however, the Department of Defense and the CIA have stated that Iraq did not use chemical or biological weapons during the First Gulf War. On May 25, 1994, Defense Secretary William J. Perry and General John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a letter to veterans of the Gulf War, stated, "There is no evidence, classified or unclassified, that indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf."(1) Additionally, in an article dated January 5, 1995, David Brown at the Washington Post reported on the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine's finding that "there is no evidence that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf War, and that rumors they were should be put to rest."(2) This begs the question, if Iraq had WMDs, why were they not used during the ground invasion of Iraq? A more complicated issue is cutting through the rhetoric used leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It's been reported numerous times that George W. Bush wished to use the attacks of 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq and that he also selectively used reports and evidence to justify his invasion, cherry picking "evidence" to prove that Saddam possessed WMDs. All of that has been debunked, most concisely in a report written by Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Study Group released in October of 2004 (3). The report reads, "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program. Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years." While Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons, as do most dictators, a desire to possess does not equate to possession. Moreover, your claim that Iraq had the "technology at the time to produce a nuclear weapon" because of the removal of two tons of low-enriched uranium is false. First of all the majority of the uranium removed from Iraq was unprocessed ore, radioactive yea, but completely benign with regard to weaponization. The mere possession of low-grade uranium is equally as useless because it needs to be processed. Iraq had no centrifuges for uranium processing, therefore the raw material was useless for a nuclear weapon. Equally, even if the desire existed to convert the raw material into a dirty bomb, it would have been ineffective. In order for the uranium to be dangerous, it would need to be processed to isotope U235, then burnt using something like magnesium to create an inhalable powder. However, due to the weight of uranium (heavier than lead), dispersal is difficult. Low-grade uranium is completely useless in terms of weaponization. As for chemical weapons, the Deulfer report reads, "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." The sanctions imposed on Iraq after they invaded Iran crippled their chemical weapons program. And to respond to your claim that a mustard gas casing was found and that two soldiers were tested for minor exposure to a nerve agent in Iraq in 2004, who cares? Mustard gas and sarin gas have short shelf lives, like other forms of chemical weapons, of about 5 years. While an older weapon might make you sick (sort of like old milk), the chemical toxins that make chemical weapons effective on a battlefield expire. And once they expire, they can't be considered chemical weapons anymore because their effects are no longer the same. As for biological weapons, the Deulfer report reads, "With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad's ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes." No further discussion is needed on this topic. And lastly, after almost 6 full years of occupying Iraq, why were no WMDs found? Because Iraq didn't have any. (1) Brow, David, "No Evidence Chemical Weapons Used in Gulf War, Panel Says," Washington Post, January 5, 1995. (2) William J. Perry and General John Shalikashvili, "Memorandum for Persian Gulf Veterans, Subject: Persian Gulf War Health Issues," May 25, 1995. (3) http://www.lib.umich.edu...