Why didn't Saddam use WMDs?

[Tricky]

To keep from derailing other threads, let me propose the question here.

Did he not think the Americans were serious? Hard to believe.

Did he want to protect innocent civilians? Also hard to believe.

Was he concerned that he didn't want history to remember him as a mass murderer? A little late for that.

Was the attack so surprising and complete that he didn't have time to prepare them? Slightly easier to believe, but Saddam was probably the world's most paranoid person.

Did he give them away to terrorists? What terrorists? He executed anyone not in lock step with him. To think he would give WMDs to any group that might possibly use them against him strains credulity.

Did he move them to Syria? If so, either US intellegence is extremely bad, or there weren't enough of them to be noticed.

Did he destroy them at the last minute? Why? It wouldn't have saved him. It would have prevented a "final gesture of defiance". It would be completely uncharacteristic of everything we know about him.

Were they ready to be used, but when Saddam was taken out, there was nobody left to give the order? If so, then we ought to have found tons of them by now, all on standby.

Did he destroy the WMDs in concordance with the UN resolution, but keep an "in your face" attitude to inspire the loyalty of his people? Um.... dunno.

 

[corplinx]

Logistics.


The weapon inspectors scrutiny kept him from getting any such munitions ready in time for the war. I guess the largest problem is he had very few long range rockets ready to be deployed. If he had the WMD near baghdad, and his readily deployed rockets were in southern iraq, then obviously he had a problem. As such, none of the long range rockets (which Iraq wasnt supposed to have as i remember) which struck Kuwait had any chemical agents or bio agents (assuming these agents exist).


Of course, there could be many reasons he didnt use them (assuming he had them).

Tricky, he might have given them to people in the palestinian supply chain. So terrorists could be an option. However, I sincerely doubt it. If that was his only alternative, my guess is he would bury them and go into hiding. Control freaks are touchy.

The thing that keeps coming back to me was the propaganda we were putting out about how our troops had their masks and their anti-toxins. Perhaps he thought using them would be useless. Why not bury them and save them for after the dust settles.

If there were indeed WMD in Iraq, our most imperative mission should be finding them since they could be used in a baathist terror insurgency.

 

[davefoc]

I'm not quite sure what your point here was Tricky. Are you saying ah ha, he must not have had them or he would have used them?

Personally, I thought it was more likely than not that he had chemical weapons (mostly because I trusted the administration), but I also did not expect Saddam to use them for the reasons put forth by corplinx and a few more:

1. It would eliminate a great deal of pro Saddam international sympathy.
2. It would have sealed his own death warrant. The Coalition would certainly have given up on the surgical, lets save as much civilian property and as many civilians as possible to let's kill the SOB's before they kill us.
3. Chemical weapons look to be much better at killing civilians than a mobile military force bearing down on you. With the military bearing down on you, you have to deploy them, hope the wind is blowing the right way, fire them and hope the wind doesn't blow the stuff back at you. And oh, by the way the military bearing down on you is equipped with the latest in chemical protection gear, so if everything goes just right it still might not work. Killing civilians is a lot easier, you deploy them when you want, wait for the wind to be blowing just right, fire them when you want and from where you want so the wind has no chance to blow the stuff back at you.
4. Saddam may not have felt completely comfortable that he could give such an order and expect to have it obeyed. I suspect quite a few folks in that command chain might have looked at the situation and thought better of it.

So my question to you is why would he?

 

[Doubt]

Other reasons why Iraq did not use WMD:

1.) Unable to use enough launch platforms to make them effective. The air force was grounded, his artillery did not see much action, and he only got the chance to fire a few shorter ranged missiles. What were they going to do, walk up to US forces and open a bottle?

2.) Collation forces moved so fast he could not get them out of hiding in time. First they would have to get them out of hiding, then get them to a launch platform, then get orders to attack a target.

3.) Iraqi communications were inadequate to mount a sustained effort.

4.) The troops with the launch platforms were not trusted by the security forces who may have held the weapons.

So far this thread is all speculation and serves no real informative purpose as far as I can tell. Any question about using WMD must be view in the context of the other things that we know the Iraqi military did not do:

1.) The Iraqi military failed to mount a serious challenge to Collation aircraft.

2.) The Iraqi military failed to mount a coordinated defense where the irregular units could have supported the armor formations.

3.) The Iraqi military failed to destroy all of the bridges across the two major rivers in the country.

We still have not seen any proof of the existence or destruction of Iraqi WMD. The failure of an overmatched and incompetent military organization is not much of an indicator as to their status.

 

[Tricky]

Logistics.

The weapon inspectors scrutiny kept him from getting any such munitions ready in time for the war.

Exactly the reason why the inspectors should have been allowed to complete their task.

I guess the largest problem is he had very few long range rockets ready to be deployed. If he had the WMD near baghdad, and his readily deployed rockets were in southern iraq, then obviously he had a problem. As such, none of the long range rockets (which Iraq wasnt supposed to have as i remember) which struck Kuwait had any chemical agents or bio agents (assuming these agents exist).

If any. One rocket struck Kuwait at a glancing blow (because it flew low over the water and under the radar) and it caused one injury and no deaths. Besides, Kuwait borders Iraq. You could hardly call that "long range". No chem/bio/nuke weapons in evidence on any of the rockets we shot down. If there had been, there would be telltale disease, chemicals or radiation in the area. Nope.

Of course, there could be many reasons he didnt use them (assuming he had them).

Thank you for including the hypothetical "assuming he had them".

He might have given them to people in the palestinian supply chain. So terrorists could be an option. However, I sincerely doubt it. If that was his only alternative, my guess is he would bury them and go into hiding. Control freaks are touchy.

I doubt it too. Control freaks don't give their toys away either. If they are buried, then we should find them. But it is odd that this quick and massive burying operation would escape notice at a time when the US was watching Iraq with the intensity of a peeping tom trying to see into the window of the cute girl across the alley. Is our intelligence really that bad?

The thing that keeps coming back to me was the propaganda we were putting out about how our troops had their masks and their anti-toxins. Perhaps he thought using them would be useless. Why not bury them and save them for after the dust settles.

Maybe he thought the dust would settle. Megalomaniacs are known to have such delusions. If so, we should find them rather quickly. Again, the question of how he managed this rapid and secret burial rears it's ugly head.

If there were indeed WMD in Iraq, our most imperative mission should be finding them since they could be used in a baathist terror insurgency.

I'm a little more worried about a Shiite takover of the government. They aren't noted for their moderation either. But if the massive US technology machine with it's incredible intelligence gathering capability is unable to find them, then I don't worry too much about other people finding them either.

However, I predict a few movies in the future about bad guys who find the "buried WMDs" and threaten the world. James Bond will stop them though.

 

[peptoabysmal]

What did he have? Some nerve gas and some rockets? Previously, Iraq had used jets and helicopters as the delivery system for nerve gas. The coalition has the capability to shoot down SCUD missiles, perhaps even right over the Iraqi army who launched it. That would sort of backfire.

I think he simply knew it wasn't a viable enough strategy to save his butt, so instead he hid the evidence with the hope that it will take long enough to find the evidence that world opinion will be tilted in his favor in the meantime. Saddam may have been evil, but he wasn't stupid.

His followers could still have biological weapons waiting to be unleashed on the world.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not quite sure what your point here was Tricky. Are you saying ah ha, he must not have had them or he would have used them?

No, in fact I've stated many times that I thought he had them, at least at some point. My question is why didn't he use them. You have given a few answers. Let's look at them.

Personally, I thought it was more likely than not that he had chemical weapons (mostly because I trusted the administration), but I also did not expect Saddam to use them for the reasons put forth by corplinx and a few more:

1. It would eliminate a great deal of pro Saddam international sympathy.

Any use of them after the brou-ha-ha about them would have had the same result. Why keep them if you can never use them? And if you intend to use them, then why not against an invading army. You could at least justify it by saying "All's fair in war". Certainly the US has used that excuse.

2. It would have sealed his own death warrant. The Coalition would certainly have given up on the surgical, lets save as much civilian property and as many civilians as possible to let's kill the SOB's before they kill us.

Again, if he used them in defense of his country (and he miraculously survived) then he could claim justification, much as the US claimed justification for nuking Japan. Once the war was on, then few would have blamed him for repelling the invasion with whatever he had. In fact, many would have said he was justified in keeping them, because they proved to be necessary. In fact, many of his "sympathizers" are wondering why he didn't use them even now.

3. Chemical weapons look to be much better at killing civilians than a mobile military force bearing down on you. With the military bearing down on you, you have to deploy them, hope the wind is blowing the right way, fire them and hope the wind doesn't blow the stuff back at you. And oh, by the way the military bearing down on you is equipped with the latest in chemical protection gear, so if everything goes just right it still might not work. Killing civilians is a lot easier, you deploy them when you want, wait for the wind to be blowing just right, fire them when you want and from where you want so the wind has no chance to blow the stuff back at you.

Then why not fire them at the coalition forces when they were a long way from Bagdhad? Oh right. No delivery systems. It's hardly fair to call them WMDs when they are just as likely to kill the person who fires them as they are the enemy.

4. Saddam may not have felt completely comfortable that he could give such an order and expect to have it obeyed. I suspect quite a few folks in that command chain might have looked at the situation and thought better of it.

Now that one makes sense. However, it paints Saddam as a rational person, something that most folks don't do. But even so, he must have had this thought long before the war started, or else the WMDs would be there, primed and ready for the order. If he did have this idea long before the war started, then the war was unnecessary.

So my question to you is why would he?

1) Being a megalomaniac, he might have had the insane delusion that he could win the war.

2) Realizing that he was dead meat anyway, he could have used them as a final act of defiance.

3) He might have hoped the "liberal media" would blame the US for the weapons.

4) He is/was a homicidal assh*le.

After all, if there was no reason why he would use them, then why was it important to take him out?

 

[MRC_Hans]

He didn't use them because he didn't have them. He surely had chemicals and facilities to produce nerve gas (that can be produced in a standard lab facility from chemicals for agricultural use), and he had some rockets, but no ready to use weapons.

In fact, as it turned out, he had very little to defend himself with; most of his forces were shadow forces, none of them were anywhere near the strength he boasted.

Why did it go like this? Well, I think the Iraqi Minister of Information is a good clue: Saddam Hussein was commanding make-belive armies with make-belive weapons; he was living in a make-belive world. Maybe he knew, maybe not. He was far from harmless, but he was not the monster he tried to look like. I suspect the US command knew that, or at least soon found out. The sudden quick offensive at Bagdad when everybody expected them to wait for reinforcements makes me think they realized that the emperor was not wearing any clothes anymore.

Unfortunately, it seems that the peace is going to be at least as nasty business as the war.

Hans

 

[davefoc]

Well Tricky, I think we'll agree to disagree here. It looks like lots of people have put together some pretty good reasons to me as to why Hussein wouldn't have used chemical weapons. So I don't see any mystery here.

We'll probably get a little more insight into this issue as time goes on, but in the end the answer will still be based on conjecture.

 

[LW]

One thing to remember about chemical weapons is that their effect is mostly psychological. As early as in WWI it was found out that poison gases caused only little casualties against protected soldiers. The fear of gas caused more distruption than the gas itself, with more men fleeing the area when threatened by gas than were lost as gas casualties.

I own several military manuals written between the world wars (earliest in 1919, latest in 1939, with a nice section from in-between years) by WWI veterans. I don't have them available just now so I can't give direct quotes, but the general view was that combat gases are mainly useful for two purposes:

1) to prevent enemy from moving into an area (or slowing his advance through) by contaminating it with long-lasting agents (mustard gas)

2) to silence enemy artillery since it is (or was) almost impossible to lay accurate and rapid fire while under gas attack. (For starters, it was rather difficult to relay firing values by phone while wearing a gas mask).

My view why Iraqis didn't use chemical weapons (or haven't used, yet) is that they simply weren't in position to use them with any noticeable effect.

 

[Crossbow]

Prior to GW I, it was made very clear (although unoffical) that if Saddam used WMDs then Iraq would be nuked.

I expect that a similar warning was issued prior to GW II as well and that is why, in both cases, Saddam did not use his WMDs.