Failure to find the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) does not prove
deception

First, the formal, legal definition of deception:

Deception is intentional misleading by falsehood spoken or acted. More
fully: Knowingly and willfully making a false statement or
representation, express or implied, pertaining to a present or past
existing fact. [Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition, 1979, page 366]

So, deception requires both a false statement and that it be made with
intent to mislead. It isn't sufficient that a statement be false;
intent to mislead is also required, so to prove that someone lied one
must prove both that the statement was false, and also that the speaker
knew it to be false. Simply being wrong isn't enough.


Some history is in order:

Before the second invasion of Iraq, the UN and every intelligence agency
in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. Why? Recall the following:

1. Saddam possessed and had used mustard gas and nerve gas on the
Iranians (in 1984-1988) and Kurds (in 1988).
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

2. Saddam had been trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. The
Israelis prevented success some years before Desert Storm, when in 1981
they destroyed the "research" reactor at Osirak.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/41osi.html

3. Saddam had already invaded two of his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait,
within ten years of each other, and had been threatening Saudi Arabia,
by word and deed.

4. Saddam acted like he had something to hide, playing endless games
with the UN and the UN Inspectors.

5. Saddam refused to honor his agreements, or to follow something like
sixteen UN Resolutions over the ten years since the liberation of Kuwait.

All in all, based on past behavior and the continuing threats made by
Saddam, the intelligence world did believe that Saddam was at the very
least pursuing WMDs, or already had them; the argument was only over how
long it would be until Saddam used or could use a nuclear weapon on
somebody. Israel seemed the most likely first victim, but one fears that
New York City would have been high in the target list.

Actually, with this kind of a record, it would have been gross
malpractice to assume the absence of WMDs. Consider the consequences of
being wrong: If one assumes WMDs exist, but they do not, the only
consequence is some wasted motion and political embarassment. But if
one assumes that the WMDs do not exist, but they do exist, the
consequence is a destroyed city and a million dead.

The net effect was that Iraq was deemed a clear and present danger, and
so was invaded, to preempt this horror scenario.


As is well known, after Iraq was occupied, no such weapons were ever
found. There are three theories on why, and all three may at the same
time be true, at least to some degree.

First, the WMDs (and/or the engineering documents) were taken out into
the desert and buried somewhere. Iraq is about the same land area as
California, but with about two thirds the population of California.
Most of Iraq is empty desert, so it's quite unlikely that that such
buried caches would ever be found, unless someone tipped the authorities
off. On the other hand, one would think someone would have talked by
now.

Second, the WMDs were handed over to Syria for safekeeping. During the
first invasion of Iraq, Saddam did send some part of his air force to
Iran to protect it from destruction by the US Air Force, so there is
precedent. (The Iranians never returned Saddam's airplanes.) Some
major part of the current insurgency in Iraq is based in Syria, so it's
plausible that Syria may be storing some or all of the WMDs for Saddam.
Most commonly mentioned are chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas.

Third, the WMDs never existed in the first place, the UN Inspection
regime plus sanctions having destroyed what had existed, and prevented
their replacement. The problem with this was that based on past
history, it was to be expected that Saddam would reconstitute his WMD
projects the minute the sanctions were lifted and the UN Inspectors were
withdrawn. Saddam had ignored all previous UN resolutions and
agreements, so there was no reason to believe that this time would be
any different.

At present, despite all the posturing and loud arguments, nobody has a
clue (never mind proof) as to which of these possibilities are true.


All in all, it appears that Saddam led the world to believe that he had
WMDs, on the theory that this would scare the world off, thus averting
the threatened invasion.

So, Saddam was the deceiver. But he outfoxed himself.


Joe Gwinn