A War on Terrorism

Author: Richard R. Tryon

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ?
by Richard R. Tryon

Considerable media attention is being focused on the reports that no WMD have been found in Iraq since the U.S. lead coalition attacked the regime of Saddam Hussein. Therefore we were wrong in attacking Iraq! Why is this conclusion wrong?

A reading of the Meckler story below is followed by my commentary.


Questioning Reveals Saddam Motivated by Prestige, Iran
By LAURA MECKLER, AP


WASHINGTON (Oct. 7) -- Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.
AP file
Saddam Hussein envied archrival Iran's emerging nuclear program.

That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.

The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower.

It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq.

And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy, making sure bricks were molded with his name in hopes people would admire them for centuries to come.

Weapons hunter Charles Duelfer had access to information from U.S. interrogations of Saddam over several months. The former Iraqi dictator apparently talked not because he wanted to help the United States, but because he was concerned with his legacy, the report says.

Much of his motivation in the quest for weapons of mass destruction came from neighboring Iran and the two countries' ''long-standing rivalry over the centuries,'' including the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

''From Saddam's viewpoint, the Persian menace loomed large and was a challenge to his place in history,'' the report says.

''This was an important motivation in his views on WMD - especially as it became obvious that Iran was pursuing the very capabilities he was denied,'' said the report, which found no evidence that Iraq had produced any such weapons after 1991.

Saddam has been out of sight since his capture from a spider hole near Tikrit last December, except for an appearance in July at a preliminary hearing in Baghdad. Then, he defiantly scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings and said the charges had been engineered by President Bush ''to help him with his campaign.''

Officials have said that interrogations of Saddam, first by the CIA and then by the FBI, have yielded little helpful information about weapons programs and the insurgency in Iraq. But Tuesday's report shows they have provided new insight into his thinking.

Saddam was angry that other Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, enjoyed good standing in the West.
More News on Iraq
· Inspector's Report Undercuts Rationale for War
· Security Raised in Baghdad's Green Zone
· AOL Search: News From Iraq

''His regime views the Gulf Arabs as undeserving,'' the report said. ''They did not earn respect; the West simply wanted their oil.''

Iran, as much if not more than the United States, motivated his interest in nuclear weapons.

''Nuclear programs were seen by Saddam as both a powerful lever and symbol of prestige,'' the report. ''He also did not want to be second to the Persians.''

Despite years of hostility with the United States, Saddam had mixed feelings about the Americans and through the 1990s tested U.S. willingness to open a dialogue, the report said. He sent ''very senior Iraqis'' to make various proposals, such as assistance with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working through intermediaries including Duelfer - the report's author.

At the same time, Saddam got a boost from America's hostility.

''He accrued power and prestige far beyond his inherent weight by positioning himself as the only leader to stand up to the last superpower,'' the report said.

At a Senate hearing, Duelfer was asked why - if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion - he did not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war. Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate - to seek something in return before giving something up.

''He had not realized the nature of the ground shift in the international community,'' after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer said.

Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation, the report says. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, ''Made in the era of Saddam Hussein,'' mimicking the ancient bricks there.

''This narcissism characterizes his actions,'' the report says. ''And while it is not always visible, it is always there.''

10/06/04 01:11 EDT

Commentary by Richard Tryon

This story greatly confirms what I believe I understood from the start of the time when President Bush identified Iraq's dictator as one of the three major sources for global terrorist concerns having an ability to attack the U.S. again as was done on 9-11.

Here we see the litany of the inner workings of a dictator's mind, so distorted by his power trip and convictions about the need for the Muslim world to have a super hero that could rise to great power and bring forth for the Muslim world the kind of global prominence it experienced 1200 years ago. In working to achieve this most noble goal in his mind, Saddam needed to:
a. Rule with an iron fist and put down all opposition. Does anyone think he failed to do this? That record book is not disputed.

b. He needed to acquire almost godly appearance by building great palaces and strut around before a nation of men who would kiss him and beg his indulgence in exchange for their loyalty to serve only him. Does anyone think he failed to accomplish this task?

c. He needed to prove to the Muslim world that his earlier effort to conquer the dreaded Persian threat from the East in Iran could be accomplished in spite of the failures in the 80s when Kuwait fell, but Iran was able to avoid conquest, in part because the cold war let us help Iran defend itself. Does anyone think this did not happen? Does anyone think that Saddam did not intend to use his long campaign to get the U.N. to relax its sanctions to permit him to sell oil for reasons other than the so-called humanitarian ones that the U.N. accepted as a way to capture fraudulently many hundreds of millions of dollars for its leaders. Does anyone think that this corruption in the U.N. did not happen? Does anyone doubt that Saddam played this game to be able to buy what he needed to maintain his image and acquire new weapons and the chance to rebuild his program for WMD?

d. He needed to prove to the world that he was a most devout Muslim, seen on TV almost every day praying to Allah in a mosque. Does anyone think that this man did this for only religious reasons and not as part of a PR campaign to burnish his image as a man of God only interested in doing God's will?

e. He needed to be ready to use any and all other nations and their terrorists to keep his enemies focused elsewhere. Does this explain why he gave $25,000, veritable fortune to any Palestinian family, as a sign of his support for the war against Israel, his most feared nearby adversary. Does anyone think that his hate for the Saudi royal family, with its own string of great palaces, would not let him use the Al Quaida terrorists to further his ends by encouraging attacks on not just Saudi Arabia, but U.S. ships, embassies and oh yes, even buildings in NYC and Washington where his enemy leaders worked. Does anyone think that Saddam grieved over any of those attacks?

The inescapable conclusion is that Saddam was and is a very evil man. His sons added heroic dimensions to his claim as one more evil than Hitler. One wonders what sons of Hitler might have done had they existed! It is clear that his megalomania distorted his thinking to the point that he failed to see the resolve in the mind of George W. Bush and millions of Americans not afraid to fight back.

Of course, Saddam had and still has many millions of Americans who can't abide use of military power to defend themselves until they see the whites of the enemies charging soldiers. Today they are very well lead by Sen. Kerry, a man whose life has shown his aversion to resistance against tyranny, as long as it seems to be coming from a remote source or is somehow connected to those who enjoy less affluence than he does.

He seems to fail to understand that men like Saddam laugh at his stupidity in failing to see what the major goal is all about. He fails to see that his flip-flopping on action to defend America encourages Saddam's remnant insurgents to explode as many road side bombs as possible before our national election in hopes that the TV showing will tell U.S. voters to change our leadership so that he can negotiate the way he watched and encouraged the Paris peace process over the Vietnam conflict. Like Chamberlain, Kerry wants peace in our time via a surrender to dictators, while his opponent is working to let free elections convert the progress to date in Iraq into the start of a new era in the middle east that can help us win the war on terror.