aljazeerah.info  Opinion Editorials     

 

الجزيرة

News Archives 

Arab Cartoonists

Columnists

Documents

Editorials 

Opinion Editorials

letters to the editor

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people 

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

Peace Activists

Poetry

Book reviews

Public Announcements 

   Public Activities 

Women in News

Cities, localities, and tourist attractions

 

 

 

 

Elusive WMDs

 Arab News, 6 April 2003

American military spokesmen are mangling the English language every bit as badly as American bombs are wrecking Iraq’s armed forces. The hacking of a verb “attrit” from the noun “attrition” has produced smiles among educated listeners. More serious however is the definition of “weapons of mass destruction” and, crucially for the US/UK forces, where Iraq is keeping those it is supposed to possess.

WMDs as they have become known are described as nerve gas or biological agents which will act indiscriminately upon anyone who runs into them, be they soldier or civilian. The Americans and the British want us to believe that WMDs are something completely different from any other sort of weapon. They acknowledge no equivalence with their own fearsome and hugely destructive weaponry, such as the cluster bombs and the Mothers of All Bombs (MOABs), which have been used with such devastating effect against the Republican Guards and any civilians unfortunate enough to be near them.

We have to believe that the US/UK forces have been trying to avoid civilian casualties, not necessarily because they care, but because they have already experienced the international uproar caused by TV pictures of slaughtered innocents. Bush is on a mission to make the world what he considers a better place, and civilian corpses eviscerated and torn to bits by US weaponry cloud the message that he and Prime Minister Tony Blair are the good guys.

Time and again, as Washington and its allies limbered up to strike at Iraq, the core reason behind their planned assault was said to be the need to find and render harmless Saddam’s massive nerve and biological warfare weaponry.

Washington said early in the conflict that there were 40 WMD sites in Iraq. Seven of those sites are now in coalition hands, yet so far there has been no physical evidence to demonstrate that the program was still running.

Protective clothing and training facilities designed to help Iraqi troops defend themselves from chemical attack does not prove that Iraq still has its deadly chemical and biological arsenal.

White powder discovered at the Latifiya military complex does not appear to be a chemical agent, as a US engineer officer, Col. John Peabody, frankly admitted to journalists. Peabody’s career path may have just ended. The Pentagon and the White House desperately need to find something, the so-called “smoking gun”, but they have yet to come close. The rumor from Israel that perhaps Iraq had shipped its WMD stockpile to Syria for safe keeping is not simply outrageous. It also smacks of the Bush administration spin doctors desperately setting up a fallback excuse in case no WMDs are ever found inside Iraq in the days and weeks ahead.

If the coalition cannot produce any WMDs, they will have lost their main reason for attacking Saddam in the first place. This could prove a crucial turning point for world opinion, because Washington will discover more and more people dubious of the US-UK claim that they have acted disinterestedly. Indeed that claim — already highly suspect — will be even further undermined, or should that be “attrited”?

 


http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.