Syria's chemical weapons: How Saddam Hussein let the genie out

09 August 2012

Anthony Tucker-Jones warns that the precedent for chemical warfare, with appalling results, was set by Saddam Hussein

While some have dismissed the potential threat posed by Syria's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), they have very short memories when it comes to the dangerous precedent set by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

History now widely accepts that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on a blatant lie; Saddam Hussein had no residual WMD - contrary to claims made by 'sexed up' British intelligence dossiers.

This is not quite true; Saddam Hussein held a major stockpile of biological and chemical weapons up to and even after the 2003 invasion.

The reality is that thousands of chemical weapons were discovered in Iraq post-2003. Some escaped detection and were transported through Iran and Pakistan into Afghanistan and used against NATO forces.

Such was the legacy of Saddam's WMD that on 16 May 2004, in the al Baya neighbourhood of western Baghdad, two American bomb disposal experts were poisoned by an al-Qaida IED consisting of a 155mm shell containing up to four litres of deadly Sarin gas. Luckily they escaped with their lives and prevented the shell from exploding, otherwise the gas could have covered a dozen blocks, killing hundreds if not thousands.

Alarm bells should have rung around the world that here was clear evidence that there were still WMD in Iraq and that Osama bin Laden's acolytes had almost successfully deployed them against US troops. It should have been a landmark event, but instead it became a historical footnote, as it did not fit the conventional wisdom of the western liberal media.

This was the first time a non-state group had used chemical weapons on the battlefield and will not be the last. By 2010 it was reported that al-Qaida had conducted at least 100 chemical attacks on coalition forces in Iraq using mainly nerve and mustard agents.

Since 2003, Coalition forces have located and destroyed over 500 chemical weapons, many of which were 155mm shells. In contrast, Saddam's intelligence apparatus is believed to have buried up to 10,000 chemical warheads.

It is now very convenient to forget that Saddam had absolutely enormous chemical and biological weapon stockpiles that were only partially destroyed under UN auspices at Al Muthanna during the 1990s.

A decade earlier he had systematically used these against the Iranian Army and the rebellious Kurds. Upward of 100,000 Iranians were exposed to chemical weapons with 44,000 fatalities; the Kurds suffered 20,000 casualties.

After the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam still held 21,000 chemical warheads. In 1991, after the first Gulf War, he declared less than half this number to the UN. It later emerged that Iraq had stockpiled 100,000 'special munitions' during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

The UN completed the destruction of 15,000 chemical munitions (in fact it destroyed double this number of munitions and related components) in 1994.

Two years later the UN oversaw the destruction of the Al Hakim biological weapons production facility, however it claimed that there were another 30,000 chemical/biological shells still unaccounted for.

Ironically the invasion of Iraq in 2003 far from preventing Saddam's WMD from falling into terrorist hands actually accelerated the process. This lesson should be ignored at our peril.

Today all eyes are on troubled Syria, which has the largest WMD stockpile in the Middle East. No one in their right mind wants them used or dispersed as a result of the chaos engulfing the country.

Behind the scenes, contingency planners must be hoping for the best and fearing the worst.

HAVE YOUR SAY

09 August 2012

There must be some kind of time slip here to allow an article like this to cross ovet from some parallel universe.

Saddam Hussein had a "major stockpile" of viable (implied) WMD in 2003 after all. And they were smuggled out and used against NATO in afghanistan.

Sources?

And I don't mean saying "was reported", or "is believed".

In this universe there is the odd forgotten leftover shell that you mention but rather than narrowly wiping out whole blocks killing thousands...

"The reality is, they'd have to have a whole bunch of these things," he added, "have to find some way of blowing them with a large charge to even create a cloud."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

(BTW Israel has the largest WMD stockpile in the Middle East. But again, that's this universe.)
Jeremy - Newcastle

09 August 2012

That shell was unmarked so we don't even know that it was an intential use of a chemical weapon. And it did actually explode - the consequence being the slight poisoning of two soldiers. Not hundreds if not thousands of deaths.

Alarm bells didn't ring round the world because the account you give is so far from what happened. Even Rumsfeld didn't jump up and down about those couple of old shells.
Jeremy - Newcastle

09 August 2012

Jeremy - Newcastle

It is true, I was involved with the destruction of Iraqi Nerve agent in May 2007.
Rob - Telford

10 August 2012

There's no doubt Saddam Hussein had large amounts of WMDs. He used them to gas entire towns of his own people. However, the ineffective and vacillating UN allowed him to get most of them over the border to neighbouring countries before the end of the 1991-2003 war, the US/UK invasion. His sons (and some of his generals) were slain trying to escape similarly taking the country's wealth with them. This is old news. Aside from Asshad now using some of them, and Iran having otyher - who cares? They pale into insignificance compared to Iran's nuclear ambitions - Scuds filled with nerve gas are hardly state of the art now, however much "Gulf War Syndrome" was inflicted.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

10 August 2012

I struggle with the debate..
It seems to me history and current events reveal correctness of the Invasion of Iraq.

History Saddam Hussein was himself a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" . He was prepared to use whatever means to destroy opposition and keep his power base. Chemical Weapons were created, used and hidden.

Today we see a "Son" of another dictator handing out violence to opposition in exactly the same manner as Hussein did.

Therefore it seems to me, we did the right thing to remove Hussein and his hiearchy (Family). We now need to be prepared to put our resources (Whetever they may be) to work to assist the opposition to establish a new Syria, and then remove the stockpiles of chemicals that will be used at some point by this maniac.
Degradable - UK

10 August 2012

AlMiles - Bristol, UK

I have to agree, the amount of munitions required to get down the required amount of agent is quite large, especially in the climatic conditions found in the Middle East at this time of year, one Scud warhead would have a so little effect it isn't worth the press, you would need batteries of artillery to deliver enough to be of real concern.
Rob - Telford

14 August 2012

"Today all eyes are on troubled Syria, which has the largest WMD stockpile in the Middle East. No one in their right mind wants them used or dispersed as a result of the chaos engulfing the country."

Military action against the Assad regime in Syria remains a poosibility, I suppose, although not very likely.

If, however, the UK were eventually to join a coalition to fight in Syria, have we done the right thing by depleting our CBRN capabilities (i.e. by withdrawing 1 Tank Regiment and the excellent Fuchs vehicle?)
Mike - UK

14 August 2012

Mike - UK

Hasn't the RAF Regiment taken on the CBRN role full time now, they were part of joint force CBRN before?
Rob - Telford

15 August 2012

Rob

Yes,you are right, Rob. They are now solely responsible for the role. However, what they are left with is essentially what is called the Light Role Team (LRT). They operate from specially modified Pinzgauer vehicles. They are not the vehicles the Fuchs are and bascally our CBRN capability has been severely reduced.
Mike - UK

16 August 2012

I meant to add, Rob, that the Army will now lack the ability to carry out an effective NBC (or CBRN) role with the reconnaissance/manoeuvre element removed.
Mike - UK

16 August 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The Wikipeadia link is informative on this one. I think you are greatly overstating the case for Iraq's chemical weapons capacity at the time of the 2003 invasion and the ISG findings afterwards.

You fail to mention that Bush and Blair failed to notice the real WMD potential threat posed by Syria while concocting a largely fictional case against Iraq.
Chris Lamb - Bristol

17 August 2012

Chris Lamb - Bristol

"Largely Fictional case against Iraq", agreed with regards ability to deliver beyond Scud Range (and maybe not even with that weapon system), however its stockpiles of Artillery and Rocket weapons was very large, I was involved in the British Armies 18th disposal operation under that code name, so how many did our coalition partners (mainly the Americans) didpose of, how many dumps have not been found yet?
Rob - Telford

22 September 2012

Having just reviewed this article re CBRN/WMD, I remember back to the early phases of the US incursion into Iraq, of reports of large transports departing Iraq into Syria and Iran. Very little ever reported regarding those transports. I have always been curious as to what was on those convoys of semi-trucks?
Banshee - US

01 October 2012

I met a Christian Iraqi in Hong Kong many years ago who said she had left Iraq because she worked in a chemical weapons factory & the weapons were very volatile. She said not matter what these weapons would go off on there own within 20 years & the intention was to fire them at Israel & as a Christian she was totally against this.
Sue rat - Australia