In 2003, the second U.S. led invasion of Iraq took place. In the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush argued that in light of Iraq's support for terrorist groups and alleged continued possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) after the First Persian Gulf War, disarming Iraq should once again become a priority. The invasion of Iraq and capture of Baghdad went fairly smoothly, with minimal Allied casualties. However, over the course of the conflict and extended occupation no weapons of mass destruction or facilities capable of producing these weapons had been found. This frustrated many and caused people to feel that it was wrong to have invaded Iraq in the first place, encouraging people to believe that the war had really only been about oil.
Out of the lack of WMD's found in Iraq sprouted the theory that Saddam Hussein had in fact possessed stockpiles of weapons, but in the time leading up to the US invasion he had them transferred over into Syria. And there are those that believe that the chemical weapons Syria has today actually came from Saddam those many years ago.
People who adhere to this theory point to the the buildup of traffic between Iraq and Syria before the conflict as proof of weapons being transferred. Another common thing pointed out is the statement of George Sadda, a former Iraqi general and adviser to Saddam, that he made to Fox News in 2006 stating that weapons had been moved by air and land into Syria.
There is still much confusion about this theory however. There has been no definitive proof that the build up in traffic was in fact weapons being moved. To further complicate it, most people believe that the transfer happened in 2003 right before the invasion, but Sadda claimed that the weapons were moved in 2002. Many also believe that the theory is just illogical. If Saddam truly did have WMD's why would he get rid of them when they were the only thing that could actually be used to deter US forces. Secondly, it would make no sense for Iraq to give Syria their weapons when Syria is Iran's ally and Iraqi and Iran are enemies.
As of now there is no way to truly know what happened to Saddam Hussein's WMD's. They were definitely there at one point, but most people believe that they were destroyed when the UN mandated Saddam to get rid of them after the Gulf War. However, it cannot be denied that there is the possibility that Syria actually has them now. But who knows, if Assad is ousted in Syria at the conclusion of their civil war, the world might finally find out if his chemical weapons were actually Saddam's. Until then, it is up to you to decide what you believe on your own.
Bibliography:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/01/17/saddam-may-not-have-moved-wmd.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/325348/
Great post Ari! After reading this I wanted to find out more about some of these kinds of weapons and decided to research a bit about it and found that today, chemical weapons are slowly starting to be considered a bigger threat. Right now the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war appears to be more occasional. In a conflict responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people, most of them civilians, the casualties from chemical weapons probably number in the 100's. However the issue is that whenever there are discussions on limiting the use of WMD, chemical weapons are rarely brought up or limited so they start to slowly become more prevalent.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/25/chemical-weapons-mass-destruction-syria-nuclear
This was a great post and I learned a lot about the situation surrounding the Iraq War. It's fascinating how much mystery surrounds the event. Furthermore, the controversy could have been avoided if America and Great Britian had complied with the decisions of the U.N Security Council. The U.N refused to pass a second resolution regarding Iraq and so the two nations forged on without it. Ultimately, the situation could have been avoided if the United States and Great Britian hadn't been so adamant about pursuing the issue.
ReplyDeleteSOURCE : https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/