The race (and the need) to uncover Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons

Carpetbagger’s only Republican friend in DC, let’s call him Anakin, said a couple of months ago, “Saddam claims not to have biological or chemical weapons, but we consistently hear veiled threats that if there’s war, he’ll use the weapons he says he doesn’t have.” Anakin’s right, of course, and it’s been a persuasive argument. Saddam probably has lied about his weapons program. We know from Powell’s presentation to the U.N. in February that Iraq can’t account for bio/chem weapons Hussein claims to have destroyed in 1991. The U.S. can’t, the argument goes, let this madman threaten stability in the Middle East with these weapons or make them available to terrorists who might try and use them against us.

This is exactly why, as strange as this might sound, the U.S. could face a new round of political difficulties if our military forces fail to uncover evidence of Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons.

To be sure, no one in the civilized world could possibly want to see Iraq use these weapons. Not now, not ever. The existence of this weapons program, however, is one of the reasons the Bush administration used in justifying the invasion in the first place. In the president’s press conference on March 6, Bush said, “Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents,” when listing the reasons Hussein represents a serious threat. Last week, as Bush gave Hussein an ultimatum to leave Iraq, he urged the Iraqi military to resist orders to use these weapons once the invasion began. “Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people,” Bush said.

What happens, exactly, if Iraq doesn’t have biological and chemical weapons, or more specifically, our military can’t find any evidence of their existence? Doesn’t this undermine a key reason the administration has used to substantiate the need for overwhelming military force?

Last week, Colin Powell said, “I’m quite confident they will find evidence of the presence of chemical and biological weapons and some elements of a nuclear infrastructure and I think that that’s, there’s no question about that in my mind.” This prompted Slate’s resident blogger, Mickey Kaus, to raise an interesting argument on March 18.

“If Saddam was smart, and was really concerned with making himself look good and the U.S. look bad after he’s deposed, then his strategy wouldn’t be to use his chemical weapons,” Kaus said. “It would be to destroy his chemical weapons, and the evidence of their existence, wouldn’t it?”

With this clever point in mind, it seems there are four things that could happen now that war has begun and U.S. forces are actively searching for these dangerous weapons. From a political/diplomatic perspective, some of these possibilities would clearly be better than others.

First, Hussein, a despicable liar, may actually have been telling the truth about the absence of these weapons programs. If so, the U.S. won’t be able to find the evidence we’re looking for because it doesn’t exist. This will cause political difficulties (or I should say, more political difficulties) for the Bush administration, because we waged war, at least in part, over the threat these weapons posed.

Another option, as Kaus noted, is Hussein has bio/chem weapons but realizes that if the U.S. can’t find them, he’d look a whole lot better in the world community and the war would look a lot worse. This would be a fairly strong incentive for Hussein to destroy the weapons immediately, in the hopes that unsuccessful searches by the U.S. military might generate some sympathy at the U.N., which in turn could try and slow down the war (though it might not matter).

Possibility number three: Hussein has bio/chem weapons, sees he has nothing to lose because the U.S. is going to kill him and destroy his government, and he starts using the weapons against the U.S./U.K./Australian military forces, and possibly against Israel. Obviously, this would be the most serious and tragic of the scenarios. It would, however, help justify the U.S. need for the invasion, though at a terribly high price.

And lastly, Hussein has bio/chem weapons, but we uncover them and seize control of the program before Iraq has a chance to use them. This would be the best of the possibilities for the U.S. because it would save countless lives and provide a validation for the invasion.

An article in Sunday’s Washington Post highlights the potential trouble surrounding this issue for the Bush administration.

As the Post put it, “Bush administration officials were peppered [Saturday] with questions about why allied forces in Iraq have not found any of the chemical or biological weapons that were President Bush’s central justification for forcibly disarming Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s government.” The article noted that Iraq has already launched missiles into Kuwait, where our forces are located, and could have used bio or chem weapons, but didn’t.

The administration’s answer: We’re still looking, but don’t worry, the weapons really do exist.

The administration remains confident this will all work out. Ari Fleischer, for example, said “one of the reasons that there are so many reporters present with the military” is to document the discovery of said biological and chemical weapons.

Every time I hear an administration official guarantee the weapons’ existence, I think of Mickey Kaus’ argument. I wonder if Saddam Hussein does too.