Pentagon Reportedly Hushed Up Chemical Weapons Finds In Iraq

mr_mischief writes "Multiple sources report that the US found remnants of WMD programs, namely chemical weapons, in Iraq after all. Many US soldiers were injured by them, in fact. The Times reports: "From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."

Comments

Designed in US, Built in EU, Filled in Iraq

[eldavojohn]

The summary seems to have left out the most interesting tidbit:

According to the Times, the reports were embarrassing for the Pentagon because, in five of the six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been "designed in the US, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies".

Where were they found? Next to the plants set up by Western companies that filled them in Iraq, of course. Who has control of those plants now? Why, ISIS of course. Don't worry, though, the people who thought it was better we didn't know about these things are assuring us that all those weapons were hurriedly destroyed.

Re:Designed in US, Built in EU, Filled in Iraq

[tomhath]

The article makes it clear that about half of the ~5000 warheads were left behind when the Iraqi army ran away from ISIS. It's not clear if the contents of those weapons is still usable or whether ISIS has the technology to deploy them. I suppose if they can use them they will.

Iraq got some help from Western countries (mostly illegal exports from Germany) but most of it came from India, Egypt, and China.

Re:So confused

[kokibill]

They were left over munitions from the Iraq v. Iran war of the 80's. It wasn't new munitions being made since Desert Storm '91. That too would have embarrassed the administration.

The hushing wasn't very effective

[jfengel]

I heard frequently during the war itself that we HAD found chemical weapons, mostly from pro-war proponents. I gather that it was talked about all the time on Fox News and right-wing talk radio.

And the reply, even at the time, was that these were weapons from the first Gulf War, mostly inoperable or unreliable due to age, and likely forgotten about. They weren't part of an ongoing production effort, which is what we'd been told. There was widespread support for the war, at the beginning, based on that, which faded as we realized that the danger had been badly overstated.

So I'm trying to figure out what's new here. I had the impression that this was well known. Is it that it wasn't more widely, discussed because the Pentagon wanted it not to be?

Re:WMDs? Chemical weapons? Wait, what?

[afterthought]

Not sure where you get your definition of WMD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

To help you out:

As defined by 18 USC Â2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

        (a) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
        (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
        (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
        (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;