Yesterday, CNN reported that, based on interviews with Saddam Hussein after his capture, he did not have any “weapons of mass destruction” before the US invasion, but was just bluffing (” Agent: Saddam was surprised U.S. invaded“).
“For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” said Piro.
During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.
“He told me he initially miscalculated … President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 … a four-day aerial attack,” Piro said. “He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack.”
I was against the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. The major reason was that I could see no reason why the United States or any other nation should have the right to tell Iraq or any other nation what kind of weapons it could have (nuclear or otherwise), and I still firmly believe that.
Of course, at that point, the main justification for invading Iraq was the supposed “weapons of mass destruction” that Hussein had.
My theory was that Hussein had no such weapons, but he was bluffing and acting like he did because he needed to look powerful. He essentially ruled by fear, like his hero Stalin, and by admitting that he didn’t have the weapons, and/or actually letting UN teams inspect the country looking for them, he would appear less powerful, and risk a revolt. Essentially, he was gambling that we wouldn’t invade and he could save face. Remember, Hussein never claimed he had the weapons outright … he just did things like move equipment around and refused UN inspectors access to certain areas (enought to look suspicious).
I remember quite well discussing this theory with somebody at The Corner in Wake Forest at least a few months before we actually invaded (if you are the person I was discussing this with, please let me know).
As you can see, I was mostly correct. I was wrong about the ultimate motivation (fear of Iran vs. fear of unhappy Iraqis) but I was close.
Your theory that Saddam was bluffing in order to project power has some merit, however, Iraqi governmental officials repeatedly denied that Iraq possessed WMD prior to the war. I have clear memories that Hussein consistently denied possessing WMD, which was in accord with the intermittent inspection reports, and a quick search of the news archives between January and March of 2003 yield articles in which Tariq Aziz and Taha Yasin Ramadan say things such as “It is an accurate statement to say that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.”
Given that the head of inspections until 1998, Scott Ritter, repeatedly said Iraq had no WMD, and that subsequent inspectors, while less categorical than Ritter, also produced no evidence of WMD, given that US intelligence reports from 16 agencies expressed many doubts and caveats (notable is the October 2002 NIE), none of which found their way into administration pronouncements, my question is this: How plausible is it to accept that Bush believed Iraq had WMD?