A link containing some good info can be found here:
http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#000819

It appears that this shell was post GWI, and thus a clear violation of various UN resolutions. But then, we already knew that. The question is, are there others, and where?

Come on MT, admit it, you're the illegitimate son of the late great Scoop Jackson aren't you? Your last two posts have been stellar. We might not agree on much domestically (I loathe big government), but in time like these politics really should stop at the water's edge and your sensible attitudes internationally are much more reasonable than the isolationist tendencies of some of my fellow right wingers.

Strange how political alliances shift sometimes.

The question is, are there others, and where?

Yeah, my fear is Zarqawi is asking the guys who set it off where they got it, and he's going to comb through the inventory of wherever that was. UGH.

spc67: Come on MT, admit it, you're the illegitimate son of the late great Scoop Jackson aren't you?

Well, he and I are from the same part of the country. More than half my friends are Scoop Jackson Democrats. Maybe it's in the water out here or something. It might also be a generational thing. I was three years old when the Vietnam War ended.

And of course there's all the herbicide they found in most of the Iraqi ammo dumps, mostly places where it's too dry for a vegetation problem. Let's just ignore the fact that chemically, herbicide and nerve agent are rather similar...both would do evil things to the human body.

To be fair to the more sane side of the anti-war debate, this actually seems to validate one of their arguments against the invasion: there was no evidence that Saddam had distributed his WMD to terrorists yet, but if we attacked, they suggested, he'd have nothing to lose, and start handing them out to terrorists as a kind of final, Ricardo Montalban-in-a-mullet death blow.

Saddam didn't use WMD on us during the war, but it looks like terrorists who may or may not have been affiliated with him before it are. Not a comforting thought, because if the sarin canister is in fact part of a larger stockpile, who the fuck has the rest of it? Not much comfort to put the "Bush lied about WMD" canard to bed when that scary ass hypothetical is still prowling around.

A question: if the Bush Administration had sought to justify the invasion on the basis that Iraq had sarin artillery shells, would the American public have bought it?

"You may already know a shell containing three or four liters of sarin was found in Iraq."

No, I know that something slightly different happened, and you can actually tell if you read the entire Fox story, despite the misleading leding claim you are referring to.

What actually happened is that a shell containing three or four liters of precursor chemicals, more or less harmless in binary form until mixed, was used as an IED. Which makes it pretty harmless to anyone not standing right over it. As witness that no one was actually harmed.

The shells mix the precursors upon impact after being launched from a cannon. When simply set off by explosive, very little of the chemicals are mixed, and on traces of sarin are created; further, depending upon the strength of the explosion, much or most of the chemicals will simply be incinerated, as well, yet further lessening the danger.

This isn't to minimize that these aren't shells you'd want sitting around in the living room, nor would you want to walk over to the explosion and start breathing deeply.

But your above statement simply isn't true, any more than my saying that my possessing a container of separate sub-containers of sodium and chloride means I have a container of table salt. Or that I'm going to douse you with some hydrogen and oxygen so you can enjoy your shower of water.

FH says: "It appears that this shell was post GWI, and thus a clear violation of various UN resolutions."

Could we have a cite, of some sort, for this, please? Beyond "I always knew this."

Thanks. Because it goes against what every expert in every story I've seen so far has said, though everyone appears to be speculating so far.

But your above statement simply isn't true, any more than my saying that my possessing a container of separate sub-containers of sodium and chloride means I have a container of table salt. Or that I'm going to douse you with some hydrogen and oxygen so you can enjoy your shower of water.
Posted by Gary Farber at May 19, 2004 03:09 A
****************************************************
Rather lame analogies. More like finding a military grade rifle with a full clip not loaded than, chlorine and sodium or hydrogen and oxygen, btw if you did get doused by raw hydrogen and oxygen the reaction would do a bit more harm than getting you wet.

What actually happened is that a shell containing three or four liters of precursor chemicals, more or less harmless in binary form until mixed, was used as an IED.

Does it hurt when your head strikes the sand with that much force?

Semper Fi

Mork,

A question: if the Bush Administration had sought to justify the invasion on the basis that Iraq had sarin artillery shells, would the American public have bought it?

So even if invading Iraq is the right thing to do, we should only do it if Bush sells it for the right reasons? What kind of argument is that?

Two different questions, HA.

Invading Iraq may or may not have been the right thing to do ... time will tell, but the "yes" case has a hell of a lot of ground to make up.

As a completely separate matter, should Bush be held accountable for misleading the American public about the reasons for war and booted from office? Absolutely.

You know,I can already hear the counterargument:"Do you mean we went to war because of a couple of old shells,which when detonated,didn't even kill anybody?"

The US government has now had a full year's time to interrogate the scientists,the top Baathists (including "Dr. Germ"),the secret police of the former regime.Saddam himself is in US custody,reportedly fearful of what his former victims will do to him when he is turned over to the Iraqis.

Yet despite whatever methods,lures and threats have been turned on the detainees by the CIA,not one of them has come forward claiming knowledge about WMD programs or hidden stockpiles.

You can't run a weapons program,or deliberately conceal large amounts of the stuff,without a lot of people being in the loop.Surely,someone from inside the Saddam regime would have spilled the beans by now.

Which leaves us where,exactly?Well,the Bush administration sold the war on basis of Saddam Hussein's ongoing threat to the US and the world in general.There was no such threat,and the people who peddled it shoud take responsibility for their claims.

The remaining justification for the war is the one this administration could have taken from the beginning:that the ousting of Saddam was the right thing to do on behalf of the Iraqis themselves,especially concerning the despicable failures of the first Bush administration during the 1991 uprising.

Which was the main reason I supported the war,BTW.I hope I wasn't fooled on that,either.

"Does it hurt when your head strikes the sand with that much force?"

It's always revealing when someone posts with no informational content, but simply with ad hominem.

Do you have any sort of policy on acceptable and unacceptable commenting practices, Michael?

Damn!Not "either",but "too".My English!I hope there will be a free Iraq in the near future,but I wouldn't put it past Bush that he might start to define down democracy soon,as George Will suggested recently.

Farber-

Stop whining.

You expect what when you get caught carrying water for the D.U.?

"What actually happened is that a shell containing three or four liters of precursor chemicals, more or less harmless in binary form until mixed, was used as an IED. Which makes it pretty harmless to anyone not standing right over it. As witness that no one was actually harmed."

NBC weapons, with emphasis on the C in this case are created, shipped, and loaded in binary form. The two chemicals seperately will not outright kill you (although they can cause caustic burns & mild flu like symptoms in inhaled). This is done so that the muntion is relatively safe for transport & storage. It doesnt become a true nerve/blister/blood agent until its fired.

Upon firing (be it released from an aircraft or fired in shell form) the plastic bladders break and the chemical uses the momentum from either the freefall bomb/art. shell to mix the two chemicals (binary form here) and now becomes the agent in question.

So just because the idiot terrorist didnt know how to properly use the munition, doesnt change the fact that it is a chemical weapon.

I usually dont pick someones post apart, but you either have zero clue as how most nerve agents work or you are flat out lying. Stick to subject you know Farber...

I love how the immediate reaction of the right-wingers is to start imagining how left-wingers must be acting. And vice-versa.

I guess the blogosphere is not the place for a serious analysis of whether Saddam posed a "grave and growing" threat to the United States that made invading and occupying Iraq the best response.

Gary,

What is the purpose of this statement?

>>"You may already know a shell containing three >>or four liters of sarin was found in Iraq."

"No, I know that something slightly different happened, and you can actually tell if you read the entire Fox story, despite the misleading leding claim you are referring to."

Are you somehow claiming that the fact this was a binary shell somehow makes this any less a WMD?

Quoth Michael on Hitch:

"But he doesn't quite say it all."

And as we now see above with Gary's dismissal of binary ordnance...

What would the point be? For those who grasp the issue, the "all" isn't necessary. For those who must dismiss it at all costs, no "all" in the world would be enough.

It will take about a month more of "Bush Lied" before everyone on the left gets the memo. Even then, the justifications will change. See Binary exposive boy above. The left is always very good at coming up with a new reason why the current state of the world isn't good enough for them. The question is how many times can they do it before everyone except the most partisian in America gets sick of it.

I think that line got crossed several months ago. From this point it, its all entertainment.

ya know you're reaching when ya hear quotes like this from a person who would love to be able to find out 'he was right' , but still says:
"It was probably just scavenged from one of the 125-plus ammunition storage points that still remain," David Kay said.

I also find it interesting that Rummy is saying the test could well be a mistake (as all others have been in the past when blogistan went wild about the latest 'find'). Give up the WMD search guys, deal with it, like the Gulf of Tonkin ya been snagged.

I would have thought it would have been difficult to tell how old this shell was. It detonated and got scattered across a wide area as shrapnel, how could someone tell if the shell was made before or after GW1? This is not an attempt to score a point, but a serious question.

It is an important distinction as it is possible that the Iraqis buried this shell after GW1 in an attempt to keep some of their chemical weapons stocks. They could have then forgotten about the existence of that particular cache till it got dug up by some insurgents who thought it was just a normal artillery shell. Saddam's regime was not the most efficient place on earth, so losing the records of something like this is a possibility.

The main questions for me are, how many other shells like this are out there and do the terrorists know what they've got now?

how could someone tell if the shell was made before or after GW1? This is not an attempt to score a point, but a serious question.

--stop asking serious questions, the only important thing is to score points for the salespitch. stick to the line, "saddam placed sarin bombs in the gulf of tonkin and nearly killed millions of our boys as a result!".

They could have then forgotten about the existence of that particular cache till it got dug up by some insurgents who thought it was just a normal artillery shell.

--even more interesting is how the war lobby goes wild over such a 'find' and ignores the complicity of our 'friends of democracy' like pakistan who ship out god knows how much wmd related materials to terrorists and governments that are our official enemies of the day. no end to that irony.

Huh?

So what's your point? Do you know something Kimmit doesn't?

If so, out with it!

Wagner:

To be fair to the more sane side of the anti-war debate, this actually seems to validate one of their arguments against the invasion: there was no evidence that Saddam had distributed his WMD to terrorists yet, but if we attacked, they suggested, he'd have nothing to lose, and start handing them out to terrorists as a kind of final, Ricardo Montalban-in-a-mullet death blow.

Gary Farber:

What actually happened is that a shell containing three or four liters of precursor chemicals, more or less harmless in binary form until mixed, was used as an IED. Which makes it pretty harmless to anyone not standing right over it. As witness that no one was actually harmed.

I started giggling when I read Wagner's comment, and actually laughed when I read Mr. Farber's.

Wagner's position is at least defensible. I don't agree with it, but it's internally consistent, even if it isn't consistent with scads of UN Resolutioins.

But the idea that the shell didn't really contain a WMD because the bozos who used it didn't shake it up is simply hilarious. By that logic, the United States doesn't have any nuclear weapons because none of them are currently exploding.

Get a grip guys. There are much better anti-war arguments than these.

It might also be a generational thing. I was three years old when the Vietnam War ended.

Michael, I think that statement right there could be the key to a lot of the division in this country.

And it's not just young/old, but how you or your family related to Vietnam that tells a lot about your political views.

When did the war end, '71? I was 4. I know what you mean.

Regarding the binary shell itself, that actually can help tell us something about the shells origin.

Sarin has a very short shelf life once it is actually mixed up, only lasting a few weeks. Thats assuming that there were no errors in the mixing process and it actually is Sarin and not just a bunch of random chemicals. The precursor chemicals last a lot longer and are fairly stable though. These binary shells are designed to spin in flight, mixing the precursor agents and forming sarin. This avoids the problem of the short lifespan as it only has to last until it hits the target. If the shell had actually contained mixed sarin, it could only have been made a few weeks ago. The fact that it was a binary shell means it could have been manufactured before GW1 and lasted until now.

I do not know if this is the case, but it does mean that the shell could have been made before GW1. I'm hoping that this actually was the case, as it means that the insurgents in Iraq will only have a very limited supply of these shells to use against coalition forces. If it was made post GW1 then there could be a lot more of these shells out there, ready to be used against us.

Yay, finally after a year and some months we found a WMD. Of course, we found said WMD after it exploded. Do we know that this was one of Saddam', or was it from another country? Do we know if insurgents or terrorists used it? If the insurgents used it, where the f*** did they get it?

If the terrorists used it, then you can bet that they have more (they wouldn't waste a sarin device as an IED). In fact, if the terrorists in Iraq now are Al Qedea, finding only one shell, would havge resulted in it being slipped out and sent to a more destructive position.

If the insurgents used it, where the helll did they get it from? Is there a hidden cache of WMD's? If so, why haven't they used several of them? I think that 5 sarin canisters of this size, fired into the right US millitary camps would decimate our forces and demoralize the US War effort. I know that, you know that and so do the Insurgents and Terrorists.

This find, if it's factual (which I'm sure we'll know soon) leaves a myrriad of very scary questions. Scary for the troops in Iraq and even more scary for any potential targets of Bin Laden and company.

Ick

Ratatosk

Gary, you were asking for a cite about why the shell was produced post Iran/Iraq war:

Binary munitions undeclared

Iraq never declared any binary 155mm artillery shells. In fact, they never claimed any filled with sarin at all in the UNSCOM Final report (Find on "Munitions declared by Iraq as remaining"). Not declared as existing at the end of the Gulf War, not having been destroyed in the Gulf War, not having been destroyed unilaterally. The only binary munitions claimed by the Iraqis were aerial bombs and missile warheads. Not in an artillery shell.

Could this be an Iranian dud from the Iran-Iraq War?

According to this source, Iran did use chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War. However, they are not suspected of production of G-nerve agent (sarin or tabun) until 1993, and not suspected of binary chemical capability until 1995.

So this is definitely not an Iranian dud. It has to be a post Iran-Iraq War, post Desert Storm product.

(Too many links in the original posts to rebuild here. I Highly recommend you check them out.)

Mark,
Now that is some very interesting information, particularly the part about the non-declaration of binary artillery shells to the UN. If this really did come from a post GW1 weapons program is there any way to find out how long that program ran for.

Did it putter out after a couple of years due to lack of resources or was it still going right up until the war? If we can find that out, we might be able to make better estimates of how many of these shells might be out there.

I think that 5 sarin canisters of this size, fired into the right US millitary camps would decimate our forces and demoralize the US War effort.

--not very likely, it really takes a lot of hard work to make it work under very precise circumstances. blowing it up in a subway is one thing, throwing it into an armed camp is quite a nother.

So what's your point? Do you know something Kimmit doesn't?

--i didn't know kimmit knew much of anything. you'd not know it from his press conferences.

This find, if it's factual (which I'm sure we'll know soon) leaves a myrriad of very scary questions. Scary for the troops in Iraq and even more scary for any potential targets of Bin Laden and company.

--nota bene the troops on the ground aren't doing anything differently now than they were doing a few days ago. much like their march to baghdad when they were not all that concerned about chemcial warfare either, even in the fake 'red zone'.

uh-oh, call in damage control, NOW!!

That's right calibar, when the going gets tough change the topic.

going gets tought, you gotta be kidding. this shell from a decade ago is 'going gets tough'? i don't quite think so. then again we've heard this rhetoric everytime a big 'find' was reported by the stenographers known as the media.

I like this comment from Juan Cole:

"Another bombing in Baghdad near US troops on Saturday had involved the use of sarin gas. Two US soldiers suffered slight reactions to the gas. This was probably just an old 1980s shell of the sort used against the Kurds and Iranians, and nothing suggests many of these remain or are still operative. The insurgents who used it may not even have known what it was. (It was not marked). A couple left-over stray such shells does not prove that there were WMD in Iraq in any signifcant sense. No doubt it will set off a frenzy among the latter-day Juan Ponce de Leones looking vainly for the Fountain of WMDs. It is virtually a non-story."

Big 'find', nothing changes in soldiers' precautions for 'chemcal weapons', ho hum

http://www.w3schools.com/Visit W3Schools

I think this is a non-story. One chemical weapon albiet used improperly does not constitute a WMD. Actually, the thousands of AK-47s, armed Iraqis and roadside bombs would more properly be considered WMD. Then again, the US army is the largest WMD in the world.

My point is that the administration's WMD argument was always placed in the context of it being a grave threat to Americans. This point should not be lost amidst the details. Should we actually find large stockpiles of WMDs in a form that would really be a grave threat to Americans, then the administration can say "we told you so".

I'm still waiting.

Well, at least you're back on topic, calibar.

Sam, the number of these things that turn up will be important to the folks in Iraq, but strategically it doesn't make much difference. From my reading it seems these shells are really dangerous only when fired from an artillery piece. I've not heard of the resistance using anything bigger than mortars, so the shells they do get will be about as potent as this one. (Doesn't mean that the shells might not be disassembled for the binary agents, but that strikes me as both technically challenging and extremely dangerous.)

And as for Juan, I'm sure Saddam only made two or three of these things. As lawn ornaments or something.

And as for Juan, I'm sure Saddam only made two or three of these things. As lawn ornaments or something.

--I seem to remember you guys saying that a few months back when the last big 'find' occurred that later turned out to be nothing, and the one before that and before that ad infinitum.
It's amazing how David Kay didn't find these things while he was there, and he really had motivation to find them, [i.e. stockpiles, not a stray bomb here or there produced over a decade ago and ineffective].
btw ,speaking of ignoring the topic. i notice you guys ignore your friends in pakistan's role in the distribution of wmds to official enemies of the day. how is that, yet you are up in arms about the significance of a fluke ied in Iraq.

Mark,

I was thinking more about these shells being used against the troops on the ground than targets outside Iraq. But, if we're thinking about possible effects of these shells outside Iraq, then they could fall into the hands of other groups which have access to artillary pieces. For example, Syria would probably like to get hold of a few of these things. Hell, Hamas could really do some damage with some binary shells.

Actually, Marc, the administration's argument was that we did not know what Saddam's WMD capabilities were, and that the risks of not knowing were too great to ignore. That's one part of the Bush Doctrine: we will not wait for a threat to be imminent before acting on it.

The fact that Iraq never declared this type of weapon supports rather nicely the idea that we couldn't trust Uncle Saddam very far, now doesn't it?

"The fact that Iraq never declared this type of weapon supports rather nicely the idea that we couldn't trust Uncle Saddam very far, now doesn't it?"

No, but then trusting any government is a fools bet, including our own.

But don't mind me, I'm just a whacko.

Tosk

Sam, assuming this isn't bogus (give calibar his due, this is a single isolated incident with a small number of players, sort of like Abu Ghraib back in January) you're right about the danger of the shells getting outside Iraq. For the soldiers and civilians inside Iraq I hope it isn't as much of a problem (the lack of artilery pieces on the side of the insurgents makes the shells much less usable, I think).

But Juan Cole's dismissive "fountain of death hunt" notwithstanding, this probably went way up on everyone's priority list. If they're around to be found, I think we stand a good chance of finding them now.

If there's a cache, chances are it's not too far from where the roadside bomb was set up. But since the shells are unmarked, how do you tell what's a normal round and what's a sarin round? There's got to be a lot of chatter about this among the insurgents, and a lot of intelligence resources assigned to tracking it.

As the resident spambot says, time will tell.

Hey Rat, moving to Montana soon? I hear there's good money in raising dental floss.

:)

Mark

Mark,

Well, probably not Montana. I hear scary things about the experiments they do on people out there. Maybe I should move to New Mexico and publish a newsletter that details all the conspiracies I know about.

;-)

Ratatosk

Mark Poling writes: "The fact that Iraq never declared this type of weapon supports rather nicely the idea that we couldn't trust Uncle Saddam very far, now doesn't it?"

The fact that they never declared this kind of weapon and the U.N. inspectors couldn't find it in two separate tries (the first 'try' being several years in length), and despite finding lots of other WMD, suggests that it has some other source than Saddam.

Everything is pretty speculative at this point, so forgive me for a little speculation.

We've had al-Zarqawi taking (or being given) credit for an appalling execution of an American, with the transcript of the speech translated as "al Qaeda" where the voice is actually saying "al qaed" - "those who sit around and do nothing."

We now have traces of sarin precursor found in the process of trying to dispose of an artillery shell. Al Zarqawi's group operated in the Kurdish north to a great degree, where gas was used against the Kurds.

Some terrorists in Iraq want us to stay. They need propaganda victories, and without American targets, they can't get them. Al Zarqawi's group may be one such terror group - Al Zarqawi is a Jordanian - he's not into Iraq for the sake of Iraq, he's into it for the sake of jihadi street cred, so the more Americans the merrier as far as he's concerned. If his group had their hands on a captive like Nick Berg, what better use for him for getting Americans to stay than to execute him in a very public, very disgusting way, when there's a scandal throwing the whole adventure into doubt? And if they had a nerve gas shell on their hands, wouldn't they love to vindicate the American invasion by planting it? Anything to keep Iraq a target-rich zone for themselves.

A nerve gas shell from ... where? Well, maybe it's just an unspent shell left over from Saddam's retribution against the Kurds, or from when Iran marched into Halabja escorting Kurdish separatists, sparking the battle using gas that killed 5,000 or so civilians? Does it count as Saddam hidden WMD if someone else, like Zarqawi's group, scooped it up and held onto it?

As for the investigation: we should understand what the early release of incomplete information means in wars like this. The point is to leave a big impression on page one, and any retractions and corrrections on page 5. After all, for about a month after the invasion, many Americans (around 30%) remained convinced that Iraq had used WMD against American troops, and probably only because they caught a glimpse of Ted Koppel talking through a gas mask.

If I'm right, score one for a terrorist: al Zarqawi.

Anyway, by all means, let's do Monday-morning quarterbacking on the moral/immoral case for invasion. By all means, let's bicker over ambiguous evidence of vestigial WMD. Let's do anything but squarely face the only issue that matters now: whether or not we had a moral case for going in, we have a moral case for staying at least as long as it takes to make sure that we don't leave Iraq on the precipice of civil war. No moral case for going in will mean anything now if the upshot is millions of dead Iraqis, even if by their own hands.

So the only real question is whether we've got people we can trust on that job. Wolfowitz sounds like he's being honest, at least. Powell sounds like he'd be even more honest if they'd let him. And I'm thinking: over the side with the rest of them, Bush included. If Rumsfeld would trust someone like Cambone - who sounds weirder than even Richard Clarke in a bad dream - with the fate of prisoners in Iraq, then I don't trust Rummy farther than I can throw a nerve gas shell. And I don't trust the judgment of the guy who entrusted Rummy with so much.

Just want to say that the Lileks quote is pretty stupid. This is the fifth or sixth time there has been a breathless announcement that they finally found the WMD. Why shouldn't reasonable people be a little skeptical at this point? Why would Totten think that such a bloated and obvious attempt at sarcasm has any relevance? Wow, Lileks can poke fun at a straw man. That's very insightful.

As for stockpiles,

Can someone explain to me why there were huge quantities of 55 gallon drums filled with insecticide buried in bunkers? Did Saddam really have THAT bad a problem with cockroaches? Or does Occam's razor suggest another explanation for all those neuro-toxic chemicals.

PS a google search on "insecticide precursors" provides some interesting links. . .

http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/sodium.bifluoride-page.htm

Michael Turner,

I would like you to explain what the huge quantities of insecticide in 55 gallon drums we have found all over Iraq in weapons depots was for.

Micheal,

Well said and nicely written post.

Matthew,

I dunno, you dunno... but I bet you have a guess that fits with your view of reality.

Tosk

From my expericence in the field of NBC weapons, sarin gas is an insecticide derivative. But I am not going to go as far as to say a 55gal drum of insectiside is evidence of anything other then a bug problem.

The spiders and roaches over their do get quite large though...

That rascally Zarquawi, using reverse reverse psychology. Thank you Mike Turner for the heads up.

Peace.

Ratatosk,

In re pesticide, nerve agents and insecticides are classes of organophosphate compounds that generally work by inhibiting autonomic nerve signals that control stuff like breathing. The very strong similarities between the two is a major problem in stopping the proliferation of chemical weapons, as there is not a lot of work involved in converting otherwise legal pesticides into chemical weapons. For my money, I would be willing to speculate that the insecticides found in bunkers were supposed to be nerve agents, but the Iraqis muffed up the processing.

BRD,

I would speculate that you may be right. But its only speculation. We don't know the full story, we know what the Administration decides to declassify and usually only how the media reports what the Administration decides to declassify. We see through a glass, darkly.

Tosk

Depending on which "insecticides" have been found, they could well be 1/2 of a binary nerve agent, the other half of which is an alcohol compound. Like the binary agent in the IED 155mm shell, for instance.

Certainly it seems beyond obvious that these chemical stockpiles were not used for locust control in hardened bunkers.

DISCLAIMER: Don't quote me on this, because this is off the top of my head and I don't feel like doing substantiating research. This is purely background information for y'all.

In general, nerve agents are classed as either persistent or non-persistent, based on, well, whether or not they persist for long periods of time as effective chemical weapons. Factors that affect persistence include wind, evaporation and sunlight. Mostly what happens is that the agent dissapates (through over-rapid evaporation) to non-lethal concentrations in sun, etc. Little of the loss of effectiveness is due to direct breakdown of the chemicals themselves (although sunlight is a factor in this). Thus, it is possible to store nerve agents for substantial periods of time in shells.

However, nerve agents also tend to corrode their holding containers (the manufacture of some types of agents require the use of glass-lined reaction vessels due to their corrosive character). Thus, when large amounts are stored in weaponized form in a stockpile, there is a substantial chance that leakeage could contaminate your entire stockpile. Additionally, live nerve agents are a bit of a pain to move around, since the hazards of mishandling are so high.

These two factors prompted the development of binary nerve agents. As mentioned in an above post by Ham On Rye, the binary chemicals are no picnic either and are toxic, but, they aren't as nastily lethal and don't tend to chew up their containers as much.

So, the consequences for storage, and so on, make binary munitions the preferred chemical weapons choice.

Trying to argue that something is or isn't a chemical weapon based on whether it's a unitary or binary munition is, frankly, asinine. Rather like discussing whether or not an artillery shell is really an artillery shell based on whether or not it has a contact fuze or a proximity fuze.

Some of the reports that have been circulating about suggest that the shell wasn't marked differently from a normal high explosive round (as is practice pretty much everywhere else) has some interesting implications. Among them would be the notion that there could be large numbers of them mixed in existing stockpiles of artillery shells. This would makes sense from the standpoint of trying to conceal them from inspectors while still having rapid access to them.

In any case, it is extraordinarily unlikely that either Syria or Iran (or anyone else) would release a chemical artillery shell to terrorists simply because it would have a huge political cost plus leaving behind a possibly massive amount of forensic evidence. Also, if they were releasing something, it would be utterly bizzare to give them a binary munition, since you want to avoid complex systems in that kind of operating environment. Finally, it would make a lot more sense to kit them out with a non-lethal unitary agent like a blistering agent, simply by virtue of the fact that it is much more graphic without quite the political cost of nerve agents.

Finally, Iran and Syria both possess large stockpiles of chemical munitions. In particular, Syria has a rather advanced chemical weapons program to serve as a strategic counterbalance to Israel's nuclear program. In fact, they are currently thought to possess cluster warheads for their SCUD missiles filled with VX. VX is a persistent third-generation nerve agent which is part of the US arsenal. (NB: fourth generation agents are not confirmed to exist and only fragementary rumors support their existence at all).

Why are you still talking about sarin? Who cares? The real issue on Iraq now is the unspeakable war crimes, atrocities, and genocides committed by American warmongers at Abu Grahib. Your attempts to side track the important issues with some blurb about sarin will not work with the free press and the American people.

Calibar-

1) Aside from the fact that inspections are difficult precisely because the other guy is trying to hide stuff, the Kay report demonstrated violations of disarmament conditions, in that he retained latent production capabilities.

2) No one has disregarded A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan. It simply stands that Pakistan and nuclear weapons are entirely, profoundly irrelevant to a discussion of Iraq and non-persistent nerve agents.

3) Juan Cole's post which you quote above elides over the fundamental critical point. Disarmament does not mean mostly, sort of. Failure to disarm is failure to disarm. If I have a loaded revolver and take out five bullets, I still have a loaded gun, regardless of whether or not I still retain a "significant amount" of bullets.

4) Your assertion that shooting five shells into a camp is a "it really takes a lot of hard work to make it work under very precise circumstances." is incorrect. Essentially, given the shells (and proximity fuzes) one need wait only for the right weather conditions (night, no wind, moderate temperatures) and simply fire the shells as one would any other sort of shells. Conversely, the statement that "lowing it up in a subway is one thing" is also wrong, in that the big thing on use of chemical weapons is dispersal - concentrated enough to kill while maximizing coverage. Artillery airbursts are good at this, if nothing else, because they are designed for that purpose. Subways are not designed for nerve gas dispersal nor are there a lot of systems built for that purpose. The fact that the Ayum Shinrikio attack in subway didn't kill thousands is a testament to the difficulties in using chemicals in a terrorist attack.

5) Where on God's green earth did you come up with the notion that the troops on the way to Baghdad weren't concerned about chemical weapons and took no precautions. How would that even make sense on any level? Even if I go so far to assume that administration knew that there were no WMD, why not tell the troops that WMD are present anyways, simply as part of the ruse? You've made an unsubtantiated claim here that doesn't even stand under the weight of its own logic.

So the questions still remain:

Was this from an Iraqi stockpile?

If yes, then it's likely that whoever used this one has others. If no, then its likely that whoever got this one from 'outside' has more.

Who set it off?

If it was true insurgents, Iraqis trying to chase off the Americans, then they may have found it, used it and had no idea what it really was.

If it was terrorists (those who have an agenda beyond Iraq) did they waste their only precious WMD on a roadside bomb, or because they have more that are already being passed throught their organization?

These are the questions we should be worried about now. It doesn't matter why Bush went in, what he's doing there, how he plans to get out, of if he made the whole thing up.

Sarin gas munitions have been found. Are there more, who has them and what the fuck are they gonna do with them?

Of course, if this was a plant by forces eager to support the WMD theory, then who knows what we'll see next (just thrown in for good Paranoia).

Certainly it seems beyond obvious that these chemical stockpiles were not used for locust control in hardened bunkers.

I thought in Saddam's dictionary, locusts/cockroaches/other pests = Kurds. In fact, there's probably plenty of others in the Middle East who believe in that little mathematical theorem.

The fact that Iraq never declared this type of weapon supports rather nicely the idea that we couldn't trust Uncle Saddam very far, now doesn't it?

--uhm, gee, it's just absolutely impossible that there were shells that were not accounted for due to a decade of something called the chaos of war? I mean that kind of possibility just doesn't enter into the imagination at all, eh? It's just impossible, so so so difficult to entertain as a possibility. The only possible answer is an evil horrible super powerful monster that was about to take over the world with his powerful army [that none of his neighbors demonstrated that high a concern about, but let's forget about little matters like that]

Calibar,

Did you trust Saddam? I'm not baiting you, I'm just asking. You sneered when someone said we couldn't trust him, and I just find that rather odd. Maybe you're just too eager to be contrary?

Actually, Marc, the administration's argument was that we did not know what Saddam's WMD capabilities were, and that the risks of not knowing were too great to ignore.

--pretty lame, what it does is cause one to ignore real threats in the nations that are our 'friends' like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Real good strategy there.
----------------------------
Aside from the fact that inspections are difficult precisely because the other guy is trying to hide stuff, the Kay report demonstrated violations of disarmament conditions, in that he retained latent production capabilities.

--actually you're in the realm of speculation. they tried to interrogate, threaten, and pay off every scientist they picked up along the way in the process of the "WMD" hunt. and they've come up with nada.
----------------------------------
No one has disregarded A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan. It simply stands that Pakistan and nuclear weapons are entirely, profoundly irrelevant to a discussion of Iraq and non-persistent nerve agents.

--au contraire, they're far more relevant i'm afraid. in this case you have rummy and kimmit both being far more conservative than you about the implications [outside the usual excited rhetoric about how this 'find' 'proves' saddam was in violation of something or other,which justifies the occupation of Iraq]. i'd be mighty careful there mark, you've been wrong in the past when there were 'discoveries' made. more than likely this time you're exaggarating the significance again. you're not gonna recover from the leading prowar weapons inspector leaving Iraq and saying that nothing significant in the way of stockpiles or wmd finds remains worth pursuing. you just might as well deal with it, there's not gonna be a big hooplah about 'wmds' in Iraq again, especially after what Powell has said on the Russert show, Kay's comments after leaving Iraq, etc. It's no more likely than great excitement about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident".
---------------------------
The fact that the Ayum Shinrikio attack in subway didn't kill thousands is a testament to the difficulties in using chemicals in a terrorist attack.

--be careful, you're contradicting WOT dogma.
--------------------------
Where on God's green earth did you come up with the notion that the troops on the way to Baghdad weren't concerned about chemical weapons and took no precautions. How would that even make sense on any level?

--you tell me, they marched to baghdad in regular outfits, even in the fake "Red Zone". unless you didn't know that elementary fact of the official invasion.

Did you trust Saddam? I'm not baiting you, I'm just asking. You sneered when someone said we couldn't trust him, and I just find that rather odd. Maybe you're just too eager to be contrary?

--not at all am i 'just trying to be contrary'. do you trust Sadr? Or the Fallujah fighters [I mean the real fighters, not the fantasized 'foreign fighters' that haunt Dan Senor's mind]. In case you haven't noticed we've been in active negotiations with them for the past several weeks. I'm not sure what it means to say 'trust' Saddam, but as far as being a negotiating possibility, we've negotiated and cooperated with people who were as or more vicious than him in the last two decades.
Do you trust Qaddhafi?

"uhm, gee, it's just absolutely impossible that there were shells that were not accounted for due to a decade of something called the chaos of war?"

If by that you mean the Iran/Iraq war yest that is just absolutely impossible because Iraq did not gain binary chemical shell capability until AFTER that war.

You will notice that calibar did not actually answer MJT's question. Not that he's under any obligation to, of course.

You will notice that calibar did not actually answer MJT's question. Not that he's under any obligation to, of course.

--au contraire, i answered it, in fact far better than you guys in the case of why you ignore the role of the US's 'friends in the WOT" in disseminating WMDs around the world to the US' enemies of the day.

If by that you mean the Iran/Iraq war yest that is just absolutely impossible because Iraq did not gain binary chemical shell capability until AFTER that war.

--these couldn't have come from Iran you mean?

raq declared that between 1984 and 1990, it produced 795 tons of Sarin-type agents. About 732 tons were put in bombs, rockets and missile warheads. Iraq further declared that about 650 tons were consumed during the period 1985 to 1988, which included the Iran-Iraq war, and 35 tons were destroyed through aerial bombardment during the Gulf war in 1991.

Iraq destroyed 127 tons of Sarin-type agents under U.N. supervision, including 76 tons in bulk and 51 tons from munitions.

boy oh boy am i ever convinced by the war lobby's salespitch now

Aside from the fact that inspections are difficult precisely because the other guy is trying to hide stuff, the Kay report demonstrated violations of disarmament conditions, in that he retained latent production capabilities.

--actually you're in the realm of speculation. they tried to interrogate, threaten, and pay off every scientist they picked up along the way in the process of the "WMD" hunt. and they've come up with nada.

No, I'm not in the realm of speculation. You seem to be firmly ensconsed in the realm of assertion, but, for starters, you may wish to recall that even the one centrifuge that was discovered is a flat out violation of disrmament conditions. You may wish to read the Kay Report for a good background on what, exactly, was found.

----------------------------------
No one has disregarded A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan. It simply stands that Pakistan and nuclear weapons are entirely, profoundly irrelevant to a discussion of Iraq and non-persistent nerve agents.

--au contraire, they're far more relevant i'm afraid. in this case you have rummy and kimmit both being far more conservative than you about the implications [outside the usual excited rhetoric about how this 'find' 'proves' saddam was in violation of something or other,which justifies the occupation of Iraq]. i'd be mighty careful there mark, you've been wrong in the past when there were 'discoveries' made. more than likely this time you're exaggarating the significance again. you're not gonna recover from the leading prowar weapons inspector leaving Iraq and saying that nothing significant in the way of stockpiles or wmd finds remains worth pursuing. you just might as well deal with it, there's not gonna be a big hooplah about 'wmds' in Iraq again, especially after what Powell has said on the Russert show, Kay's comments after leaving Iraq, etc. It's no more likely than great excitement about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident".

First of all, you directed the above reply at Mark, buy he was not the one who asked the questin. Given that, you may wish to rephrase your response, as much of it is structured around Mark's writings.

---------------------------
The fact that the Ayum Shinrikio attack in subway didn't kill thousands is a testament to the difficulties in using chemicals in a terrorist attack.

--be careful, you're contradicting WOT dogma.

That is a complete nonanswer and is profoundly unrelated to the original point that I was addressing. I therefore, can only imagine you're wrong, you know it, and have no response.

--------------------------
Where on God's green earth did you come up with the notion that the troops on the way to Baghdad weren't concerned about chemical weapons and took no precautions. How would that even make sense on any level?

--you tell me, they marched to baghdad in regular outfits, even in the fake "Red Zone". unless you didn't know that elementary fact of the official invasion.

Basically, I guess you're not familiar with activites related to warfighting in a chemical weapons environment. You don't wear the suit and mask the entire time for two reasons - one is that American suits have an activated charcoal liner which gets worn out over a period of time. Secondly the outfits are incredibly hot, such that people don't like to tromp around in the desert with them day in and day out. You might want to check out some of the literature on MOPP levels (for good background check here and here or for decision making in re MOPP status, click this).

Secondly, how on earth do you decide that the Red Zone is "fake"? It's an imaginary zone to begin with. Calling an imaginary, abstract thing "fake" is just bizzare. It's like calling a Cartesian-coordinate system fake. Abjectly goofy.

----------------------------------

You also wrote:

raq declared that between 1984 and 1990, it produced 795 tons of Sarin-type agents. About 732 tons were put in bombs, rockets and missile warheads. Iraq further declared that about 650 tons were consumed during the period 1985 to 1988, which included the Iran-Iraq war, and 35 tons were destroyed through aerial bombardment during the Gulf war in 1991.

Iraq destroyed 127 tons of Sarin-type agents under U.N. supervision, including 76 tons in bulk and 51 tons from munitions.

Which brings to mind two points: according to your data, they destroyed 812 tons of sarin-type agents, yet produced 795 tons. Explain.

Secondly, the quote you provide explicitly does not mention artillery shells. In the above posts, that exactly the point that the poster made - that they had declared warheads, bombs, and rockets, but no artillery shells.

Tosk --

In re the provenance, I would guess that they're Iraqi, simply because they weren't marked. Neither Iran nor Syria would have any reason to conceal or mis-mark their chemical weapons. The only reason I can really imagine someone doing something like that is for purposes of concealment through confusion. Which would, thus, tend to suggest Iraq.

Given the nature of the bursting charge, there may be enough of the shell to conduct some sort of forensic analysis to make some good guesses about the shell's provenance.

With regards to your other points, they are well taken and really the items that should be the focus of this discussion.

You don't wear the suit and mask the entire time for two reasons - one is that American suits have an activated charcoal liner which gets worn out over a period of time. Secondly the outfits are incredibly hot, such that people don't like to tromp around in the desert with them day in and day out.

--actually it went beyond that, they didn't really take the 'threat' that seriously. many of the soldiers didn't even have the equipment needed to fend off such an attack in the first place. the whole 'red zone' business was just psyops hype that CNN/FOX happily regurgitated to their viewers.

Which brings to mind two points: according to your data, they destroyed 812 tons of sarin-type agents, yet produced 795 tons. Explain.

--I don't see what I have to explain, you're the one who suggested that it was impossible for them to come from a previous war era.
saddam didn't do nearly the damage to us that our good friends in pakistan and saudi arabia did to americans, of course, even when he all of a sudden became the "world's greatest monster since hitler'. i heard that one used today by Sanchez. wow, what a remarkable sense of history on the part of the general!

Calibar,

You will notice that calibar did not actually answer MJT's question. Not that he's under any obligation to, of course.

--au contraire, i answered it, in fact far better than you guys in the case of why you ignore the role of the US's 'friends in the WOT" in disseminating WMDs around the world to the US' enemies of the day.

No, Calibar, you did not answer Michael's question. Let me restate his question, so you can take another swing:

Did you trust Saddam?

Did you trust Saddam?

--i've already answered the question, i would trust saddam no more than others that the US has negotiated with during the last two decades, or been friends with. thus my support for the US if the US had decided to break down and negotiate with him instead of subjecting the Iraqi people to pointless war.
do you trust Sadr? The Fallujah fighters? if not, why aren't you calling Bush and telling him to call off all negotiations immediately and demanding that he refuse to negotiate anything with the evildoers?

now, bravo, do you still trust the pakistani military? the saudi monarchy? Qadaffi? if not, i expect you to get on the phone right away and demand an end to all and any negotiations based on their records of support for terrorism against US citizens.

BRD,

Tis folly to think that we'd discuss reasonable points that don't permit us to poke fingers and rant at one another.

Thank you for the nice posts today.

You don't wear the suit and mask the entire time for two reasons - one is that American suits have an activated charcoal liner which gets worn out over a period of time. Secondly the outfits are incredibly hot, such that people don't like to tromp around in the desert with them day in and day out.

--actually it went beyond that, they didn't really take the 'threat' that seriously. many of the soldiers didn't even have the equipment needed to fend off such an attack in the first place. the whole 'red zone' business was just psyops hype that CNN/FOX happily regurgitated to their viewers.

You've now countered by making the following three assertions:

1) "they didn't really take the 'threat' that seriously" - which has what to do with anything? First of all, do you have any support for this assertion? Secondly, even if the soldiers didn't take it seriously, doesn't mean its not a threat. Ask pretty much any military doctor about treating cases of venereal disease and he'll tell you the same.

2) "many of the soldiers didn't even have the equipment needed to fend off such an attack in the first place" Do you have a source for this? Moreover, equipment is allocated to those most likely to expereience a threat (at least in theory) - so the odds that supply clerks in Kuwait were as thoroughly equipped as units in direct assault means little, and says less about your assertion that the whole Red Zone thing was, as you call it, "fake."

3) "the whole 'red zone' business was just psyops hype that CNN/FOX happily regurgitated to their viewers" Again, something other than just flat assertion would be nice. Secondly, hyped by who, for whom, and to what purpose. Going back to the original point, which is that I asserted that they took the threat seriously, while you assert they did not, I am a bit lost as to how this allegation of 'psyops' has anything to do with the original point.

---------------------------

Which brings to mind two points: according to your data, they destroyed 812 tons of sarin-type agents, yet produced 795 tons. Explain.

--I don't see what I have to explain, you're the one who suggested that it was impossible for them to come from a previous war era.
saddam didn't do nearly the damage to us that our good friends in pakistan and saudi arabia did to americans, of course, even when he all of a sudden became the "world's greatest monster since hitler'. i heard that one used today by Sanchez. wow, what a remarkable sense of history on the part of the general!

What I am doing is asking you a question about your source. Your source asserts that while they declared production of 795 tons of agents, they delared they had destroyed 812 tons. This is a discrepancy of 17 tons. Thus, there is, according to your source, something that doesn't ring true about their declarations.

Moreover, you still have failed to address the point I made about declaration of artillery shells.

Third, the amount they declared that they had produced is 795 tons. That wasn't 795 tons over a given period of time. That was just flat out 795 tons -- according to your own source. When it was produced is utterly irrelevant. Moreover, I don't recall any statement in my discussion with you about production dates, and am a bit baffled about what that has to do with anything.

Fourth, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are other conversations. Today, we are discussing chemical weapons in Iraq. Pakistan might be standing behind me with a gun, and Saudi Arabia may be stealing my car, but that still doesn't have to do with the subject at hand. Along similar lines, what Sanchez did or didn't say, still has no bearing on the material you quote as a source.

Bush didn't lie about WMDs. Chalabi, Hamsa, and the rest of INC lied to Bush.

Yes Saddam violated U.N. resolutions. Yes he had some chemical weapons despite the inspectors. No he was not a grave and gathering threat to the U.S.

Fourth, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are other conversations. Today, we are discussing chemical weapons in Iraq. Pakistan might be standing behind me with a gun, and Saudi Arabia may be stealing my car, but that still doesn't have to do with the subject at hand.

--well, if pakistan were standing behind you with a gun, SA were stealing your car, and Iraq was disarmed and not bothering you in any threatening manner [comparatively], and all you could do was find the energy to attack Iraq...there's an issue of judgement here that is pretty heavy and not one that i'm qualified to treat.

Calibar,

Did you trust Saddam?

--i've already answered the question, i would trust saddam no more than others that the US has negotiated with during the last two decades, or been friends with. thus my support for the US if the US had decided to break down and negotiate with him instead of subjecting the Iraqi people to pointless war.
do you trust Sadr? The Fallujah fighters? if not, why aren't you calling Bush and telling him to call off all negotiations immediately and demanding that he refuse to negotiate anything with the evildoers?

Regardless of what you think you may have implied, you had not, in fact, answered the simple question - you replied straight away with another string of questions.

Getting to your actual point, now again meandering off to Sadr and Fallujah still has nothing whatsoever do with anything tied to chemical weapons, declarations, inspection regimes, or Saddam.

If I may be gratiuitously generous, I think you might be getting to the shred of a glimpse of a statement that simply isn't another string of questions which have little bearing on the issue at hand.

You seem to be asserting that Saddam was not sufficiently more dangerous than other extant threats so as to justify the use of force.

Is this your argument?

Moreover, you still have failed to address the point I made about declaration of artillery shells.

--i don't find it terribly relevant, i can't find any experts out there in the field that are up in arms about this latest 'find', that's enough for me. i'd really be careful getting to excited about this find, don't you get tired of being disappointed time and time again after these 'finds' turn out to be insignificant or false alarms?

Getting to your actual point, now again meandering off to Sadr and Fallujah still has nothing whatsoever do with anything tied to chemical weapons, declarations, inspection regimes, or Saddam.

--yes, in a nutshell if Israel wasn't concerned about Saddam as a "wmd" threat, i'd say americans that were caught up in the hype were not that different from those that got into a frenzy over the gulf of tonkin 'incident'.

Calibar, what on earth does your response:

have to do with the original assertion you made about the soldiers in the field not taking the chemical weapons threat seriously and how that ties into whether or not planning elements planned based on the assumption that chemical weapons could be used by Iraq?

Calibar,

You did not answer my question. Just a simple yes/no answer. Did you or did you not trust Saddam? You sneered at someone who said he wasn't trustworthy, so at this point I am going to assume you did trust him since you cannot bring yourself to tell me that you didn't.

Asking me if I trust Qaddafi is NOT an answer to that question. I'm dealing with the Libyan government right now trying to get a visa for my tentative trip in July. It's a huge pain in the ass. I have to lie to them to get the visa. They are going to follow me around inside the country (assuming they will even let me in) and they certainly will bug my hotel room. That's just how it goes in that country. NO I don't trust Qaddafi.

Did you trust Saddam? No one else in here would have a hard time answering that question, and I'm pretty sure that includes every other anti-war person who leaves comments. You're special for whatever reason. I gave you an "out" and you didn't take it. Let me give you another one...maybe I really AM just misunderstanding you and you're offended by the question. Just clarify for the sake of your own credibility...did you trust Saddam? And (since you're being a pain about it I'm adding another question) why did you sneer at another commentator for saying Saddam was untrustworthy?

Moreover, you still have failed to address the point I made about declaration of artillery shells.

--i don't find it terribly relevant, i can't find any experts out there in the field that are up in arms about this latest 'find', that's enough for me. i'd really be careful getting to excited about this find, don't you get tired of being disappointed time and time again after these 'finds' turn out to be insignificant or false alarms?

The reason that it matters is that it provides evidence of a specific inaccuracy in the declaration. In other words, it is can be assumed that his declarations to the UN were untruthful. I don't find this particularly exciting one way or the other. This is not the end of the world. I imagine the shell to be from undeclared Iraqi stockpiles. It is, still, about a 155 mm shell. I also know that it is too soon to make much determination of the origins of that shell.

And whether or not I'm particularly excited, I am still asking you about your source data on the 795 tons produced and 812 tons destroyed. I am also quite interested in the notion that the original quote was supposed to be, evidently, some ravishing attack or profound statement, but is just plain silly. Do you even remember where you thought you were going with it when you linked it? Is the original point still worth defending, or have you ceeded the argument?

Calibar,

The fact that you can't seem to give a straight answer, and use that same breath which should've been drawn to answer the said question to instead ask another round of queries confounds me.

Here's an easy one;

Coke or Pepsi?

Just for the record, I didn't trust Saddam. There's something about those beady, shifty eyes.

I heard he cheated at Scrabble, too. If you went to the bathroom, he'd peak at your tiles. And maybe feed you to a wood-chipper.

MJT, what's up this Libya trip?

Oberon: MJT, what's up this Libya trip?

I need a break and Cancun isn't for everybody. Besides, I've never visited a country run by a lunatic before.

I talked my wife into going, if you can believe that.

You did not answer my question. Just a simple yes/no answer. Did you or did you not trust Saddam?

--actually you distort the record i'm afraid. i said i did trust him enough to negotiate with. i wouldn't trust him to become a liberal democrat, but that has nothing to do with whether the US would negotiate with him or not.
--------------------
Asking me if I trust Qaddafi is NOT an answer to that question.

--a asked that at the end, not as an answer to your question, which you surely know.
----------------------
I'm dealing with the Libyan government right now trying to get a visa for my tentative trip in July. It's a huge pain in the ass. I have to lie to them to get the visa. They are going to follow me around inside the country (assuming they will even let me in) and they certainly will bug my hotel room. That's just how it goes in that country. NO I don't trust Qaddafi.

--doesn't sound that much different from a number of countries we have close relations with, who cares if one has a hard time getting a visa. and if you think the libyans are going to bug your rorom, you are suffering from delusions of self grandeur. i met many americans and europeans who walked around china with those kinds of bizarre worries, even though nothing they did was anything the Chinese government was concerned about or had reason to be concerned about. to hear some tourists and students, you'd think they were the most important foreigner in China at the time.
-----------------------------
NO I don't trust Qaddafi.

--well, your president does. enough to negotiate with him at least. which is the only thing that matters in the world of international affairs.
--------------------------------
Let me give you another one...maybe I really AM just misunderstanding you and you're offended by the question. Just clarify for the sake of your own credibility...did you trust Saddam?

--trust him to do what? that might be a more serious question. some things i would trust it him in, others i wouldn't. not much different from other dictators we negotiate and maintain close ties to.
----------------------------------------

why did you sneer at another commentator for saying Saddam was untrustworthy?

--because i find it a terribly inconsistent position that bears little relation to on the ground realities. and i've explained why i hold that position.

Bravo asked me: You seem to be asserting that Saddam was not sufficiently more dangerous than other extant threats so as to justify the use of force.

--yes, i am making that argument, you are correct.

This is not the end of the world. I imagine the shell to be from undeclared Iraqi stockpiles.

--and it's a miracle that all the scientists that we've threatened and then attempted to bribe with fortunes and US passports, done under the guidance of a most motivated prowar inspector, Dr. Kay, has revealed none of these. a true miracle, enough to make one believe in angels and devils.

"they destroyed 812 tons of sarin-type agents, yet produced 795 tons"

Why's this important? Maybe they bought (or traded some oil-for-bribes oil for) some. But why is this viewed as much of a descrepancy?

Do you even remember where you thought you were going with it when you linked it? Is the original point still worth defending, or have you ceeded the argument?

--yes, i do remember. no relevant experts agree with you and the remarks of dr. kay and mr. powell should make you wary of the continued excitement you have about so-called 'wmds' in iraq. it's kind of like watching someone get excited about new 'evidence' that the gulf of tonkin incident occurred or that incubator babies were really killed by iraqi soldiers in kuwait. ya'd think at some point the salespitch would end. believe me, if the bush administration thought, for even one minute, that it still had a case to make about 'wmds' in Iraq, Powell never would have said what he said to Russert and Bush would still be bringing up the "WMD" matter and exploiting it for all it was worth.
you still hear people defend the US war against Vietnam, but you rarely hear them citing the Gulf of Tonkin incident as rationale, or 'incubator baby atrocities' to defend Gulf War 1.

speaking of unanswered questions, michael, how about addressing your misrepresentation of Savoy's article as being against third party interventions?

I need a break and Cancun isn't for everybody. Besides, I've never visited a country run by a lunatic before.

--i went to indonesia when suharto ran the country. the most beautiful scenery i've ever seen outside the US.

actually to be honest, i think michael, you're right the first time i didn't answer your question clearly enough. i hope this recent answer at least does a little better at answering it, in part at least.

Calibar: if you think the libyans are going to bug your room, you are suffering from delusions of self grandeur\

They aren't going to bug MY room. They bug the rooms of foreigners all the time and have for years. Plainclothes police officers may also keep an eye on me. Not because they care about me personally, but because that's just what Libya does. You think I would visit a country like that and not look into this? I'm not a spy, but what do you think I'm going to do when I'm there? Just look at Roman ruins and enjoy the "cuisine?" I'm a writer and Libya is a police state. Read the State Department's consular sheet.

Thanks for finally answering my question, though. You trust Saddam enough to negotiate with him. Okay. Most of us don't, and we have plenty of good reasons not to.

...or 'incubator baby atrocities' to defend Gulf War 1

Don't forget the real stories like those from Eason Jordan of CNN fame.

The money quote being:

"A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes" including speaking with CNN on the phone.

"They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull, ripped out her brains and put them in a jar, and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home."

Or this one about Sarin, tons of it found near Iraq in Jordan.

Marc,

"they destroyed 812 tons of sarin-type agents, yet produced 795 tons"

Why's this important? Maybe they bought (or traded some oil-for-bribes oil for) some. But why is this viewed as much of a descrepancy?

This goes back to a quote that Calibar cited supporting arguments against the war. In the original quote, it notes something to the effect that Iraq declared X many tons of Sarin, and destroyed Y many. I disputed the validity of his source (and still am not sure where he's going with it) but he has failed to respond.

As of April 2003, Iraq, as may be demonstrated in the case of this binary munition, was untruthful in its weapons declaration to the UN in that it declared no Sarin on-hand, absolutely no binary munitions capability, and no (current or past) loading of artillery shells with Sarin.

The further point, is that if the article is correct, than the original declarations to the UN were prima facie inaccurate.

This goes back to the further discussion of the utility of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspections.

As far as general points go, nerve agents aren't something that are sold. Much like nuclear weapons, there is a trade in ingredients and manufacturing capabilities, but that stuff is seldom put on the market. Additionally, 17 tons of nerve agent is a lot, considering that a dose of 35 micrograms per kilogram of body weight is considered lethal in humans.

Calibar,

This is not the end of the world. I imagine the shell to be from undeclared Iraqi stockpiles.

--and it's a miracle that all the scientists that we've threatened and then attempted to bribe with fortunes and US passports, done under the guidance of a most motivated prowar inspector, Dr. Kay, has revealed none of these. a true miracle, enough to make one believe in angels and devils.

And later...

yes, i do remember. no relevant experts agree with you and the remarks of dr. kay and mr. powell should make you wary of the continued excitement you have about so-called 'wmds' in iraq.

I take it you have not read the Kay Report. At any rate, I must confess honest confusion at the fact that you've stated, on the one hand, that my remarks are not consonant with the feelings of Dr. Kay, yet in this same comments thread, you note:

ya know you're reaching when ya hear quotes like this from a person who would love to be able to find out 'he was right' , but still says:
"It was probably just scavenged from one of the 125-plus ammunition storage points that still remain," David Kay said.

It is this very point that I am making and I've stated before - I think that this shell may be from Iraqi stockpiles. Full stop.

On a more general note, I think you may be reading a tone of excitement into my posts that simply isn't there. When I tell you that I am not that wound up about this, its true. I am not running around yammering to people that this validates the was, et cetera, et cetera.

For that matter, I was never of the opinion that large stockpiles of WMD remained in Iraq at the outset of hostilities. I was, and remained convinced, though that Iraq was in substantial and material breach of its obligation to disarm.

Calibar,

Bravo asked me: You seem to be asserting that Saddam was not sufficiently more dangerous than other extant threats so as to justify the use of force.

--yes, i am making that argument, you are correct.

Thank you for clarifying that. All in all, you seem to be sufficiently comfortable with your worldview and arguments that those who don't know you or haven't conversed with you before are subjected to a seeming cloud of questions and allusions that your original argument becomes a bit obscured. It's understandable, because a lot of folks do it, and I just wanted a better feel for where you were coming from.

Some interesting comments. Here's a rather intriguing perspective concerning the binary sarin shell itself, from a blogger who is apparently a former ordinance disposal officer.

I originally discounted much importance associated with this shell per se, though reports like this make it rather more intriguing. Further, he effectively fisks some reportage on this (e.g., from the L.A. Times) that has attempted to marginalize its significance. And the 20 tons recently found in Jordan, in the possession of al Queda, has yet to be reported on as well.

So, is there an attempted media cover-up (attempt at marginalization) going on in addition to the sarin itself?

Bravo Romeo Delta, I just want to say that you have singlehandedly made this one of the most fascinating and informative comment threads I have read on any blog in a long while. MJT: Archive this sucker for a rainy day, and in the meantime you ought to update your post with a reference to this comment thread.

calibar, you make a serviceable foil at the very least.

Michael, for some reason I feel uneasy about you travelling to Libya. But I trust it will work out fine in the end.

Jeff: Michael, for some reason I feel uneasy about you travelling to Libya.

I appreciate the concern, but there isn't much to worry about. Crime is lower in Tripoli than it is in Portland, and I'm more likely to get hit by a terrorist in New York than on this trip. It isn't a dangerous place to visit as a tourist. The only real danger is the government itself, but I am not an idiot. If they find out I'm a writer they will deny me a visa. Otherwise they will let me in and not care any more about me than they will any other "tourist" as long as I don't takes notes in tea houses.

So just because the idiot terrorist didnt know how to properly use the munition, doesnt change the fact that it is a chemical weapon.

Yes, of course it was. I discussed precisely that it was a binary chemical weapons shell.

What is the purpose of this statement?

The purpose was to make the point I made. That's typically the purpose of what I write. Since the point seems unclear to you, I will clarify that it was to correct a factual misstatement.

Are you somehow claiming that the fact this was a binary shell somehow makes this any less a WMD?

No. I would suggest using less imagination in attempting to deduce Hidden Purposes.

I realize this is difficult for some to understand, but some people can actually discuss something without having a Hidden (or overt) Partisan Point.

In this case, I have no interest whatever in WMDs in a partisan context. Believe me or not. I have some partisan opinions, to be sure, but they're entirely issue-specific, and WMDs isn't one of them.

Although I'm pretty pessimistic, and disappointed, now, I've been a supporter of the war, sirs.

And as we now see above with Gary's dismissal of binary ordnance... What would the point be?

But the idea that the shell didn't really contain a WMD because the bozos who used it didn't shake it up is simply hilarious.

I said no such thing.

Gary, you were asking for a cite about why the shell was produced post Iran/Iraq war....

Yes, I subsequently saw that. Thanks for making the first rational, substantive, response to what I wrote. It will be interesting to see what develops on this story.

It's odd that people don't realize that they are not actually lending support to their position, whatever it may be, when they respond subliterately, with incorrect readings, and ad hominems.

On that topic, speaking to Michael, I don't expect you to particularly weigh my opinion on this heavily, but I'll note that the comments sections of blogs that have postings on what is and isn't acceptable, meaning ruling out personal attacks and abuse, at pain of deletion or banning, are pretty much the only readable ones in the blogosphere once a blog becomes sufficiently popular, as you have so become.

In my opinion, of course, on the basis that I'm interested in substantive, courteous, exchange; some people desire chest-beating superiority demonstrations, and the like, instead.

I'd offer Tacitus and Obsidian Wings as example, for instance.

Again, I offer this purely as a data point, but I find myself uninterested in posting to blogs that don't have such policies.

Do you have any thoughts on such policies?

Secondly, how on earth do you decide that the Red Zone is "fake"? It's an imaginary zone to begin with. Calling an imaginary, abstract thing "fake" is just bizzare. It's like calling a Cartesian-coordinate system fake. Abjectly goofy.

--fake as in no reference to reality, made up to scare americans into believing that chemical warfare was around the corner.

It is this very point that I am making and I've stated before - I think that this shell may be from Iraqi stockpiles. Full stop.

--and yet Kay couldn't find one stockpile, despite the best attempts to interrogate, threaten, bribe, offer US passports and the like to any scientists who came forward with information on the location of these 'stockpiles'. like i said, it's enough to make one believe in angels and devils.

They aren't going to bug MY room. They bug the rooms of foreigners all the time and have for years. Plainclothes police officers may also keep an eye on me. Not because they care about me personally, but because that's just what Libya does.

--ah yes, the famous state dept. counsular sheets. i was in china in sept. 1989 at a time when the state dept. was still warning foreigners to not to go because of Tiananmen. utter nonsense. i ignored the warnings and was treated like a king by ordinary chinese because i was american. i bet the same exact thing will happen to you in Libya, it'll be quite upsetting.
if you have plans to go and do interviews with dissidents in libya, visit prisons, activists, ok, maybe you'll have reason to be concerned. otherwise, i wouldn't count on police visits or bugging, or the like. those things take up a lot of time and resources, not something a country looking for foreign investment is inclined to desire to waste.

And the 20 tons recently found in Jordan, in the possession of al Queda, has yet to be reported on as well.

--wow, now there is a conspiracy theory for ya. FOX News isn't pushing this bigtime? or the Bush administration? how odd. maybe they've gone over to the evildoers' side?

calibar, you make a serviceable foil at the very least.

--i take it you were one of those who got excited about the last great 'find' in Iraq, and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that ad infinitum.
I know where you're coming from my friend, I'm a redsox fan, i feel your pain.

For that matter, I was never of the opinion that large stockpiles of WMD remained in Iraq at the outset of hostilities.

--this is rational and confirmed by the record.

-------------------------
I was, and remained convinced, though that Iraq was in substantial and material breach of its obligation to disarm.

---this is not confirmed by the record, not even close. in fact they probably disarmed in proportion to the amount that chalabi et al lied through their teeth about the amounts of so-called "WMDs" existed in Iraq.

Michael, for some reason I feel uneasy about you travelling to Libya. But I trust it will work out fine in the end.

--he'll be just fine. he'll go to libya, chat with locals, be treated like royalty as an american tourist and will come back to the United States refreshed from a vacation.
good luck with the unease.

The only real danger is the government itself, but I am not an idiot. If they find out I'm a writer they will deny me a visa.

--heck, that's nothing unusual. we've put british and australian journalists in the brig for declaring their journalist status, in some cases for almost a full day and then deported them. if they'd come in as tourists and not been honest about their journalist credentials, it woulda been 'welcome to america my foreign friend!".

Calibar: if they'd come in as tourists and not been honest about their journalist credentials, it woulda been 'welcome to america my foreign friend!".

Yeah, and that's pretty stupid, obviously. It's on a whole different level in Libya, though. For one thing, I'm only allowed to even apply for a visa if I first submit a "letter of invitation" to visit from someone who lives in the country. You just can't visit Libya without being invited by a Libyan national. So companies have opened up to fill precisely this function. And even they are a pain in the ass to deal with. They're incredibly non-responsive as if they really aren't interested in getting my money.

Calibar:

It's a WMD. As in, it has the potential to kill lots and lots of people. It's an "entry level" WMD, to be sure. They get a lot lot nastier. Now we know two critical things:

1. From David Kay's research we know that Saddam had ongoing WMD programs revealing an intent that would only have resulted in a growing threat.

2. And we now know that he actually had developed and manufactured some binary WMD.

Given that we, essentially, found this by accident, I think you have to conclude that the decision to invade was probably prudent, and may have saved us some untold grief.

But even without that, we know that the invasion has allowed us do eliminate a WMD threat in Libya. Bottom line, it was either a responsible decision, or a very lucky one.

It is this very point that I am making and I've stated before - I think that this shell may be from Iraqi stockpiles. Full stop. --and yet Kay couldn't find one stockpile, despite the best attempts to interrogate, threaten, bribe, offer US passports and the like to any scientists who came forward with information on the location of these 'stockpiles'. like i said, it's enough to make one believe in angels and devils.

Now this is just delicious, isn't it? It has been suggested that since the United Nations has refused to provide an assurance of amnesty to any Iraqi scientist who may have participated in a WMD that such a scientist might be reluctant to incriminate himself. But if this shell came from a stockpile, as it almost certainly did, then either a few people have amnesia, or they aren't telling the truth. And if they aren't telling the truth about this, then...

I figured prior to the war that Saddam had not yet developed a true strategic WMD capability, because if he had he'd have used it to deter an attack. I never dreamt that he hadn't developed tactical WMD, or that he wasn't actively seeking a strategic capability. And knowing what we know now, little as it is, I see no reason to revise my original estimation.

It was very fortunate that we didn't wait any longer.

And the 20 tons recently found in Jordan, in the possession of al Queda, has yet to be reported on as well.

"--wow, now there is a conspiracy theory for ya ..." calibar

Well, instead of simply replying in smirk-for-smirk fashion, in fact I'm merely asking for some research and reporting on an apparently bona fide 20 ton supply, in al Queda's hands, in Jordan. So if the results of the research and reportage ends up with the finding that the provenance is not from Saddam Hussein era Iraq, that's fine. Maybe it's a local blend, maybe from al Queda itself somewhere, maybe from Syria, perhaps imported from outside the region. The question is, as it pretty much has been confirmed after the Jordanian intelligence service uncovered it, along with the plot, why would the Western press virtually ignore it?

However, since you like "wow" in lieu of an actual response that addresses the problem stated, I'll remind you of this, from another post: Eason Jordan, of CNN renown. Somehow, you forgot to reply. Sometimes, such forgetfulness, appears to be a little too studied and a little too convenient.

1. From David Kay's research we know that Saddam had ongoing WMD programs revealing an intent that would only have resulted in a growing threat.

--ah yes, it was such a big threat that he couldn't find it! outstanding

Now this is just delicious, isn't it? It has been suggested that since the United Nations has refused to provide an assurance of amnesty to any Iraqi scientist who may have participated in a WMD that such a scientist might be reluctant to incriminate himself.

--uhm hate to break it to ya, the US runs Iraq, not the UN

Well, Michael, David Kay -- yes, that David Kay -- was quoted as saying that the discovery of exactly one very elderly shell left over from Saddam's unquestionable pre-Gulf war chemical arsenal is "no big deal":

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040517_1116.html :

"U.S. officials believe, based on evidence, that the shell was an experimental munition produced before the 1991 Gulf War, called a 'binary type'...

"Kay... said it appears that the shell was one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam was supposed to destroy or turn over to the United Nations. In many cases, he said, Iraq did comply.

" 'It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked and there were always some that were overlooked -- we knew that -- or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile,' Kay said. 'I rather doubt that, because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round.' [The shell, by the way, wasn't marked as containing chemical agents.]

"While Saturday's explosion does demonstrate that Saddam hadn't complied fully with U.N. resolutions, Kay also said, 'It doesn't strike me as a big deal.' "

But then, what does he know compared with an intellectual titan like Lileks (who, incidentally, should definitely stick to reviewing cookbooks and Star Trek episodes)?

Well, Michael, David Kay -- yes, that David Kay -- was quoted as saying that the discovery of exactly one very elderly shell left over from Saddam's unquestionable pre-Gulf war chemical arsenal is "no big deal":

--but you forget, he's on the other side now, he's a bonafide evildoer.

Once again Juan Cole provides clear information on a complex situation

Wow BDR, the tenacity to argue meaningfully with such a character. You answered his smiky, illogical ad hom's with cool purposeful points.

Gary, the most ad hom generation was from calibar so you should direct your disdain their.

Michael, you need to put up your anti DU garlic.

You answered his smiky, illogical ad hom's with cool purposeful points.

--it's funny to listen to how the war lobby just makes stuff up when they have no arguments, thus the 'ad hominem' accusation with no evidence.

Officials have repeated to Fox News that throughout the late 1980s and early in the 1990s, Iraq manufactured 155-mm artillery and mortar shells containing chemicals that, when mixed, create sarin, as well as similar shells containing mustard gas and ricin, all with standard capacities of two to five liters.

BDR, Joe, eat your hearts out!

It is this very point that I am making and I've stated before - I think that this shell may be from Iraqi stockpiles. Full stop.

--and yet Kay couldn't find one stockpile, despite the best attempts to interrogate, threaten, bribe, offer US passports and the like to any scientists who came forward with information on the location of these 'stockpiles'. like i said, it's enough to make one believe in angels and devils.

And yet you directly quote Kay as stating that he believes that it comes from Iraqi stockpiles.

Secondly, I am a bit confused on why it is that you think that the mysterious scientists would have information about storage facilites for weaponized agents. That's not their purview. Their area of expertise is in development, not storage.

Third, I see you still haven't read the Kay Report, because you seem bound and determined to draw conclusions from it that simply aren't merited in the document itself. Given that, I've excerpted some text, given below:

Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous. While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin.

These findings support the statement that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations.
----------------------
From David Kay's research we know that Saddam had ongoing WMD programs revealing an intent that would only have resulted in a growing threat.

--ah yes, it was such a big threat that he couldn't find it! outstanding

This comment is also inaccurate. As you no doubt recall, the Kay Report is an interim report to congress on findings thus far. And he had found Iraq to be in material violation of the conditions imposed by the UN. Rather than reading the recycled reports, I beg you to read, at a minimum, the UNMOVIC Clusters Document (to ascertain UN findings prior to the war), the pertinent UN resolutions (to see what their obligations were), and the Kay Report (to see what has been found to date).
----------------------------
Now this is just delicious, isn't it? It has been suggested that since the United Nations has refused to provide an assurance of amnesty to any Iraqi scientist who may have participated in a WMD that such a scientist might be reluctant to incriminate himself.

--uhm hate to break it to ya, the US runs Iraq, not the UN

At the risk of reading into another commenter's post, I think he might be referring to the refusal of the UN to act in this fashion during the pre-war period in which the UN was in charge of the inspection process.
-------------------------
Well, Michael, David Kay -- yes, that David Kay -- was quoted as saying that the discovery of exactly one very elderly shell left over from Saddam's unquestionable pre-Gulf war chemical arsenal is "no big deal":

--but you forget, he's on the other side now, he's a bonafide evildoer.

Do you have an actual point with this comment?
-----------------
Officials have repeated to Fox News that throughout the late 1980s and early in the 1990s, Iraq manufactured 155-mm artillery and mortar shells containing chemicals that, when mixed, create sarin, as well as similar shells containing mustard gas and ricin, all with standard capacities of two to five liters.

Calibar, I am absolutely unclear why on earth that I am supposed to be 'eating my heart out' over this. Hell, if you'd asked me I would have told you the same and given you a better set of references than Fox News.

The point in fact that we return to yet again, is the Iraqi declaration to the UN, in which no declarations were made about either binary munitions or artillery shells filled with Sarin. The officials your article cites are the same guys who were making allegations about chemical weapons prior to the war - folks that you've implied have been lying all along. Now if their statement is supposed to lend some support to your argument I would appreciate it if you could spell it out a bit more clearly, and explain how it is that citing people you claim to have manufactured the entire chemical weapons threat.
---------------------
I was, and remained convinced, though that Iraq was in substantial and material breach of its obligation to disarm.

---this is not confirmed by the record, not even close. in fact they probably disarmed in proportion to the amount that chalabi et al lied through their teeth about the amounts of so-called "WMDs" existed in Iraq.

One thing to keep in mind is that their obligation to disarm goes beyond simply turning over stockpiles, but extends to all aspects of thier WMD programs, including production facilities. Part of UN Resolution 1441 is quoted below:

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop w