Good Chemical Weapons vs. Evil Chemical Weapons
In the current debate over an attack on Syria, revelations by Foreign Policy magazine provide a certain poignancy. They show that in the first Gulf War, America knew that Saddam Hussein's forces used both mustard and sarin gases.
The U.S. government is considering a military attack against Syrian President Assad because he is alleged to have used chemical weapons against his own people near the city of Damascus. While it's no longer uncertain that chemical weapons were really used, it's still unclear who was responsible for their use. The opposition is also known to possess them as well.
Meanwhile, an article in Foreign Policy claims that according to CIA files, the United States knew Saddam Hussein's forces used both mustard and sarin gas during the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988) — and in one instance, Americans were even indirectly involved:
“In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.” It also added, “[…] the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.”
Reagan: “An Iranian Victory Is Unacceptable!”
Thus the United States helped Iraq break international law with its attack on Iran. But worse was still to come, as revealed by CIA files and interviews with intelligence agents arising out the Foreign Policy article. When the U.S. saw via satellite photos that Iran was preparing a spring offensive near Basra, the photos also revealed a weak point in the Iraqi defenses. That bit of intelligence was passed on to Saddam Hussein's regime. After all, Reagan did say, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable!”
The U.S. helped Iraq although it knew with certainty at the time that the Iraqi army was employing sarin gas on the battlefield to repel an Iranian attack. According to CIA files, two-thirds of Iraq’s chemical weapons stockpile was used in the last 18 months of the war. The victims included not only Iranian soldiers, but also native ethnic Kurds. In the northern city of Halabja, a gas attack on March 16, 1988 killed more than 5,000 people and wounded more than 7,000.
Foreign Policy ended its article laconically, saying, “The level of insight into Iraq's chemical weapons program stands in marked contrast to the flawed assessments, provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies about Iraq's program prior to the United States' invasion in 2003. Back then, American intelligence had better access to the region and could send officials out to assess the damage.”
Today, one must nervously ask how reliable America's intelligence about Syria's chemical weapons really is.
The U.S. government is considering a military attack against Syrian President Assad because he is alleged to have used chemical weapons against his own people near the city of Damascus. While it's no longer uncertain that chemical weapons were really used, it's still unclear who was responsible for their use. The opposition is also known to possess them as well.
Meanwhile, an article in Foreign Policy claims that according to CIA files, the United States knew Saddam Hussein's forces used both mustard and sarin gas during the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988) — and in one instance, Americans were even indirectly involved:
“In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.” It also added, “[…] the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.”
Reagan: “An Iranian Victory Is Unacceptable!”
Thus the United States helped Iraq break international law with its attack on Iran. But worse was still to come, as revealed by CIA files and interviews with intelligence agents arising out the Foreign Policy article. When the U.S. saw via satellite photos that Iran was preparing a spring offensive near Basra, the photos also revealed a weak point in the Iraqi defenses. That bit of intelligence was passed on to Saddam Hussein's regime. After all, Reagan did say, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable!”
The U.S. helped Iraq although it knew with certainty at the time that the Iraqi army was employing sarin gas on the battlefield to repel an Iranian attack. According to CIA files, two-thirds of Iraq’s chemical weapons stockpile was used in the last 18 months of the war. The victims included not only Iranian soldiers, but also native ethnic Kurds. In the northern city of Halabja, a gas attack on March 16, 1988 killed more than 5,000 people and wounded more than 7,000.
Foreign Policy ended its article laconically, saying, “The level of insight into Iraq's chemical weapons program stands in marked contrast to the flawed assessments, provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies about Iraq's program prior to the United States' invasion in 2003. Back then, American intelligence had better access to the region and could send officials out to assess the damage.”
Today, one must nervously ask how reliable America's intelligence about Syria's chemical weapons really is.