Tom Nichols: The Clinton Administration and Iraqi WMD Intel in 1998
Tom Nichols teaches at the Naval War College. He is also a senior associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. Tom is no stranger to this website; last year I posted three of his articles. (”How does freedom spread?” This link takes you to Part 3 in that series.)
In mid-August I read a series of email list “give and take” exchanges on the subject of the Clinton Administration’s conclusions about Saddam Hussein’s WMD stockpiles. The discussion stirred several memories, among them a commentary I recorded for NPR’s Morning Edition urging the Clinton Administration to take action against Saddam. I recorded that commentary in late 1998.
Tom participated in that email discussion and agreed to organize his comments into a short historical essay. (He notes that his thoughts are his own and do not represent the position of any organization.)
Here is Professor Nichols’ essay in its entirety.
All this talk about “deception” regarding the question of WMD in Iraq has really turned into Monday-morning quarterbacking of the very worst kind. The issue–from the point of view of political decisionmaking and any putative “deception”–is not whether there were WMD in Iraq before the war, or whether we’ll ever find any, but rather whether any reasonable person could have believed that Saddam was hiding WMD and WMD programs in Iraq as late as 2003. The answer to that should be obvious.
First, let’s start with the one thing on which everyone–and this means everyone, including the UN, the French, and even the most angry critics of George Bush–can agree: the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction at some point. We know this because they used them in battle, and by their own admission, they copped to owning thousands of liters of all kinds of nasty stuff. We also know that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program, delayed but not destroyed by an Israeli strike in 1981.
Second, let’s proceed to the next thing almost everyone can agree upon, at least in 2003: no one knows where all those poisonous weapons went. Critics of the war could argue at the time that they were destroyed, but they couldn’t have known that with any more certainty than those arguing they might be buried in the desert somewhere. (This was a bizarre regime, let us recall, that buried MiGs in the sand, successfully rendering them hidden, but also permanently useless.) It’s important to remember that by 2003, the UN inspectors were really trying to prove a negative–that is, that Saddam didn’t have WMD–and Saddam was of no mind to help them get to that conclusion. Imagine trying to execute a domestic search warrant as though it were a UN inspection. “Hi, we’re here to make sure you don’t have any illegal drugs in the house any more. We know you claim to have thrown them away, but we’d like to come in and look around.” “Well, ok, but don’t look in the kitchen.” “But we have to look in the kitchen.” “Hmm. Ok, just don’t look in the refrigerator, we promise there’s nothing in there, either.” And on and on. Put another way, the single most important reason in 2003 to believe that Saddam had WMD is that he acted as though he did. (If I recall, there were reports that even some Iraqi generals were surprised to hear that there weren’t actually any stocks of chemical arms.) Saddam could have ruined both Bush and Blair, and made them look like fools, by cooperating fully and conspicuously at the last minute, even before Resolution 1441 (which really sealed his fate).
But there’s no reason to take George Bush’s or Tony Blair’s word on the WMD issue. That noted warmonger Bill Clinton gave a speech at the Pentagon in 1998 that could have as easily been given by Bush in 2002, and I think it’s worth reading some of that at length, especially given the sanctimoniousness of critics who claimed that 2003 was a “rush” to war:President Clinton:
“It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of [Saddam’s] capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.”
Clinton then added:
“Now, let’s imagine the future. What if [Saddam] fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. [emphasis added] If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
It could be argued that Clinton was acting on what was known in 1998, but that by 2003 anyone who would take the same line was either a liar or a fool. Then Clinton must be both, because in early 2003, the issue came up in a discussion with Larry King, and Clinton–actually defending Bush–held firm on the idea that it would have been dangerous to assume that there were no longer in WMD in Iraq even at the end:
(President Clinton quote from Larry King):
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for [President Bush] to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.”
For what it’s worth, John Kerry (among others) called for Iraq to be “disarmed” right into 2003–if there were no WMD there, what exactly would we be “disarming?”–and there are plenty of statements from Democrats and others who could hardly be counted either as Bush supporters or part of some neo-con cabal that indicate a belief in active WMD programs in Iraq right through 2002.
That’s because, regardless of party affiliation, there are a lot of reasonable people in politics, and a reasonable person would not assume, without hard proof, that someone acting like they had something to hide did not in fact have something to hide. Why Saddam chose a path that ensured his downfall–pride? stupidity? arrogance?–is a question for psychologists, not policy analysts.
The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent–and just plain dumb–to take on faith Saddam Hussein’s assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn’t allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.(copyright Tom Nichols)
I completely agree. It’s always a pleasure to publish Tom Nichols.
NOTE ON COMMENTS: The site has had spam filter problems for two months. I note that about half of the legitimate comments are now getting through the filter. Sorry about the filter problem but the spambots need to be put out of business.
UPDATE: Another inconvenient historical fact. It even helps explain why Clinton thought Saddam had WMD.
The NY Times lede:
The trial of Saddam Hussein on charges of genocide moved into its second day on Tuesday with testimony from two Iraqi Kurds who described military bombing campaigns and poison gas attacks in 1987 that killed families, wiped out livestock and razed mountain villages.
Their stories began what is expected to be a lengthy series of first-hand accounts by dozens of Kurdish victims of the Iraqi government attacks in 1987 and 1988.
In addition to the conventional bombs and fiery napalm canisters dropped on villages from Iraqi military jets and helicopters, the witnesses also described watching other, quieter bombs explode well above the ground and spew green or black smoke that smelled of garlic or spoiled fruit.
“Just as if you put an apple in a plastic bag for a long time,” said the day’s first witness, Ali Mostafa Hama, from the Kurdish village of Balasan.
The story may be behind TimesSelect, but it recounts the gas attack on Kurd villages in 1987.
Someone should reprint this article and have it sent to Howard Dean, Pelosi and Reid and each and every Democratic office holder.
Comment by TedM — 8/26/2006 @ 6:55 am
The problem with arguments such as above is that weapons inspectors were in Iraq and clearly stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction. So a partisan such as Mr. Bay reveals his partisanship by his very argument. He needs to quote Clinton from 1998 because the evidence available at the time of the invasion based on direct observation made it absolutely clear WMD was not a threat. {In fact, the evidence for such was so weak it had to be fabricated.} So spare us talk of “reasonable” people. There were many such reasonable people speaking out before the invasion and they were treated with derision. I “reasonably” assumed that the Bush administration would never attack without clear and convincing evidence of such weaponry and that the first attacks would seal in the evidence {i.e. the weapons] instead, oil fields were seized and the killing began. A sad chapter in American history.
Comment by Norm Russell — 8/26/2006 @ 8:43 am
Grammar point: Quotation marks re Clinton’s Larry King comments appear to be missing.
Comment by Annie C. — 8/26/2006 @ 8:52 am
I’ll concur with TedM’s suggestion, and recommend adding “every single day” to the end.
Comment by MattChis — 8/26/2006 @ 9:04 am
In addition to this, it is always worth pointing out that the documents discovered in Iraq and the Kay and Duelfer reports clearly indicate that Saddam had every intention of getting right back into the WMD business one he had escaped the UN sanctions, and we know how he was doing that. Finally, I would point out the we have found about 500 chemical rounds in Iraq. While many would dismiss them as old, I would say that there are old, but these munitions were supposed to have been destroyed by the stipluations of the Safwan Armisitice and subsequent agreements entered into by Iraq and the UN. So if he did not destroy the old stuff, what did he do with the new stuff? I hope this does not get caught by the spam filter.
Comment by Rich DiNardo — 8/26/2006 @ 9:29 am
When he says “there were reports that even some Iraqi generals were surprised”, he’s probably referring to David Kay’s Senate testimony which is online at kaytestimony.pdf; you want the bottom of page 24 (of 51):
I had a few comments on this and the earlier intel, but basically Nichols has it.
Comment by Tom Myers — 8/26/2006 @ 9:55 am
How naive do you have to be, to assume that Dean, Pelosi and Reid aren’t already aware of this?
Comment by ZF — 8/26/2006 @ 10:01 am
[…] Austin Bay has an excellent post (quoting Tom Nichols) debunking the “Bush lied about Iraqi WMD” slander once again. […]
Pingback by The Unalienable Right » Debunking the "Bush lied us into war" slander once again — 8/26/2006 @ 10:07 am
[…] A look at the Clinton Administration’s intelligence on Saddam’s WMD. […]
Pingback by Clinton WMD « SSBG — 8/26/2006 @ 10:08 am
[…] The amount of irrational writings trying to justify Bush’s disastrous policies in Iraq is amazing. Some Bush apologists, such as here, quote from Tom Nichols of the Naval War College. I wouldn’t attempt to rehash all the reasons going into Iraq at the time and in the manner which George Bush did was a huge mistake, but there are a few quick points I can’t resist commenting on. […]
Pingback by Absurdities In Defending A Failed Iraq Policy - Liberal Values - Stressing The Origins of Liberalism in Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought — 8/26/2006 @ 10:12 am
The Democrats are poll whores, coordinating strategy with a mainstream media far to the Left of the American people, internationalists, and disbelievers in the use of military power, most particularly by America. After three years of outrageous “selection” of facts on the ground to present to the American people, toward the greater good of discrediting our military and our leadership, the polls have solidified around an antiwar position based on false premises. The Democrats smell an opportunity for victory so they’ll proclaim the disgrace of America to win a few extra votes. The lust for a majority is one of the most sickening perversions of American politics in the last hundred years.
Comment by Fletcher — 8/26/2006 @ 10:53 am
Sadaam should have been removed for making war on Kuwait. That in itself justifies the invasion of Iraq. With respect to WMD read the first hand accounts of the soldiers and Marines who invaded Iraq. What they found were Iraqi chemical protective suits and nerve gas antidote syringes. Since then >500 chemical weapons shells (some with active chemicals inside) have been found in Iraq. One shell is enough to prove noncompliance, and is therefore causus belli (without icluding other warlike acts such as shooting at US military airplanes). Given the proven history of the Bathist regimes use of mustard gas on their own Kurdish citizens and Sadaam’s intransigence with inspection, it is reasonable to believe reports of other more lethal chemical weapons stocks. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. ED NOTE: Here’s a column from early 2003 that makes that precise point. The Saddam War never stopped. It went on for over 12 years, from August 1990 to April 2003.
Comment by RKV — 8/26/2006 @ 11:13 am
A little parable: Report of shots fired. Cops arrive to a crazed maniac standing over bleeding bodies in the street. The maniac hides h his hand in his coat pocket and makes pointing gestures at the cops with it. Guns drawn, they shout, “Show us your hands! Show us your hands!” But the maniac yells back, “I don’t have a gun! I don’t have a gun! I ain’t showing you nothin’.” How does this story end?
Comment by Garth Farkley — 8/26/2006 @ 11:15 am
Actually, Norm, the inspectors, who had only briefily been allowed in after a 4 year hiatus when Saddam saw troops massing at his border, stated that the Iraqi government was being uncooperative and that they could not verify that previously cataloged stocks of chemical weapons materials had been destroyed. You have rewritten history to confirm your prejudices.
Comment by Reid — 8/26/2006 @ 11:15 am
What is Norm (8:43 a.m.) talking about? Which weapons inspectors were in Iraq in 2003 saying that they had no WMD? The only weapons inspectors in Iraq prior to the invasion were the crew led by Hans Blix. But in 2003 Mr. Blix never said that Iraq had no WMD. And his attempt to investigate was still being limited by Saddam. Mr. Blix didn’t support an invasion, not because he believed Iraq had no WMD, but because he thought that the inspections should be allowed to continue, even though many sensible people realized that the inspections game was something that Saddam never took seriously. The only people bold enough to assert in 2003 that Saddam possessed no WMD and that he represented no threat were those of the sort who are impressionable enough to believe that Fidel Castro (and his ilk) are champions of human rights.
Comment by Kurt — 8/26/2006 @ 11:33 am
These facts are frightening. Essentially, the point here is that US Middle East intel and intel operations are completely unreliable, borderline useless, and US policy makers from both parties have and continue to make poor policy decisions on attendent intel. This should be a big heads up as rhetorical spin on Iran begins. Sure let’s cook the books on Iran…..too… Explain how the fact that Clinton had Iraq wrong too, in anyway diminishes the unintended consequences of the Bush administration’s, disasterous Iraq policy. After 3 years, 1/2 Trillion dollars later, 3000 US casualties, Iraq verges on civil war, lower than prewar levels of oil production and power generation, the US still has no long term policy or strategy in Iraq. Other than “stay”. Meanwhile Iran and Korea (pakistan, india, china, etc) realizing the US is pinned down in Iraq are hurriedly working on producing nuclear weapons, because the US forgoes regime change for Nuclear states. maybe lincoln had it right. “The president’s strategy affirms that the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy.” - Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser, reported by AP, March 16, 2006 “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose, and you allow him to make war at his pleasure. [This logic] places our President where kings have always stood.” — Abraham Lincoln, in response to Polk’s invasion of Mexico, 1848 Â
Comment by blognround — 8/26/2006 @ 12:08 pm
“how the fact that Clinton had Iraq wrong too, in anyway diminishes the unintended consequences of the Bush administration’s, disasterous Iraq policy.” That is not, of course, the topic being discussed. The issue is whether the Clinton Administration too thought that Iraq continued to have WMD. If the claim is that Bush “lied”, one has to answer as to why the Clinton national security team - Pollack and Berger and Cohen et al. - also believed that he had WMDs. You can try and change the subject as to whether it was wise or not wise to remove Saddam. But that doesn’t address the question: Did the Clinton Administration or didn’t the Clinton Administration claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? The answer is: They too thought he had WMDs. And so this nonsense about Bush lying is just that, nonsense.
Comment by SteveMG — 8/26/2006 @ 2:22 pm
The UN went to much effort and seventeen Resolutions in a twelve year period to get Saddam to comply with the terms of the Armistice he signed at the end of Gulf I. One of the recurring requirements, as expressed in all the Resolution, on Saddam was that he not only destroy his WMD, but that he ONLY move or destroy WMD under UN supervision, for obvious reasons. The fact that the whereabouts of the WMD cannot be determined is proof positive that Saddam remains in violation of the UN. Being in violation of the terms of the Armistice is sufficient cause to revoke the Armistice and force Iraq into compliance. The UN was unanimous on these requirements for twelve long years, until DeVillepin lied to Powell at the UN, and France and Germany abandoned the long-standing UN position. Russia, China, and others, under the cover of the French/German position, gleefully dissolved the product of much UN effort, leaving the Coalition to back the UN’s position.
Comment by Iago — 8/26/2006 @ 2:25 pm
blognround: Are you an intelligence professional? This is not a rhetorical question or a challenge, I’m simply curious. I myself have only the vaguest layman’s smattering of how intel is produced. But I have to imagine it’s difficult to peer inside a hostile dictatorship with a ruthless and pervasive counterintelligence apparatus sharpened by years of vigilance against internal unrest. So whenever I’m tempted to scorn our intelligence agencies as useless, or write something like ” US Middle East intel and intel operations are completely unreliable, borderline useless…”, I stop and remind myself that it’s awfully easy for me to say. “Explain how the fact that Clinton had Iraq wrong too, in anyway diminishes the unintended consequences of the Bush administration’s, disasterous Iraq policy.” You’re begging the question, but we can agree to disagree on whether it is in fact a disaster. My own position, not that it matters, is that it shows disturbing signs of becoming a disaster; it may yet, or it may not. And that anyone who thinks the situation is anywhere near as bad as it can get is suffering from a massive failure of imagination. (Not sure if you’re one of them.) The answer is no, it doesn’t in any way diminish the unintended consequences. But it does go to illustrate that the idea that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. exaggerated the threat because they’re conservatives (or in thrall to the dread neocons) is a convenient fiction spun for partisan reasons. They have cited the same threat the Clinton administration cited while firing off the odd cruise missile, and maintaining sanctions that hurt the Baathist dictatorship least among Iraq’s people. We agreed on the threat, Dems and Repubs, once upon a time; we disagreed on what to do about it. I submit that this would have been the case even if we’d had perfect intelligence. I read the Duelfer report–based as it is on much more thorough investigation than would ever have been allowed with Saddam Hussein still in place–and I think that if the decision had been mine, I’d have been unwilling to let this threat reach fruition. You read it and (I guess; don’t mean to put words in your mouth) see vindication of your position that the war was obviously unnecessary.
Comment by JPS — 8/26/2006 @ 3:32 pm
The problem here is the whole premise. The litmus test is not a “resonable person”. People get paid a lot of money and are supposed experts in this field. There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding people accountable for actions that were wrong. If you don’t believe me then next time at work why don’t you try the “reasonable person” line see how long your job lasts. If the only litmus test is “reasonable people” then why have a CIA to begin with?
Comment by Rubyeyes — 8/26/2006 @ 3:42 pm
Iraq in Retrospect… Austin Bay Blog is reminding us of the obvious: The Clinton Administration was worried about Iraqi WMDs long before the Bush administration even existed. Clinton lied! But not about Iraq. Meanwhile, here’s an article that points out the amusing s…
Trackback by Tai-Chi Policy — 8/27/2006 @ 8:41 am
[…] The story may be behind TimesSelect, but it recounts the gas attack on Kurd villages in 1987. the link is here. […]
Pingback by The Baltimore Reporter — 8/27/2006 @ 8:55 pm
[…] LOOKING BACK: The Clinton Administration and Iraqi WMD Intel in 1998 …. (austinbay) […]
Pingback by CaNN :: We started it. — 8/28/2006 @ 6:06 pm
What We Knew about Saddam… I hate, I hate, I hate having to make the same argument over and over again, but certain members of the Brainless-American community keep saying that Bush lied us into war in Iraq, so we have to keep pointing out the facts….
Trackback by jaceonline — 8/28/2006 @ 9:12 pm
[…] UPDATE 3, August 26: The following comments (here and here) at this Austin Bay post are salient – (first comment linked) I would point out the we have found about 500 chemical rounds in Iraq. While many would dismiss them as old, I would say that there are old, but these munitions were supposed to have been destroyed by the stipluations of the Safwan Armisitice and subsequent agreements entered into by Iraq and the UN. So if he did not destroy the old stuff, what did he do with the new stuff? […]
Pingback by Bizzyblog » The “No WMD” Lie (with Linked Proof) — The Sequel — 9/1/2006 @ 9:50 pm