Were the objectives of the Iraq war met?

[Mr. Invisible]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

I would say the fundamental objective was to create a democracy. There are both strong indicators that his was accomplished:
- Parliament
- coalition government
- operating ministries
- military
- police
- regulatory framework
- provential elections
- local government

and strong indicators that there are difficulties:
- failure to build effective bridges between ethnic groups
- funding difficulties
- corruption

On balance though, it seems to be working.

Well short term yes, our two main objectives were to overthrow Saddam (check), create and Iraqi democracy (check) and get oil (check)

 

[RoccoR]

Mr. Invisible, et al,

Yes...

Well short term yes, our two main objectives were to overthrow Saddam (check), create and Iraqi democracy (check) and get oil (check)

(QUESTIONs)

Well, I'm not sure that we created a "democracy." My understanding is that Ayad Allawi, who won a total of 91 seats, and has no real office; while, Nouri Al-Maliki, won 89 seats, but stole the Prime Ministership through the help of Moqtada al-Sadr (the terrorist anti-American Cleric); arranged by the Iranian Government (a member of the Axis of Evil).

But, as I believe that the Iraqis should be able to choose their own destiny, I'll give you that one - "Democracy." OK! So, the new government is in the pocket of the Iranians.

• Having said that: Shouldn't we just throw the Iraqis a cell phone and leave? (They can call one of their Arab Neighbors when Iran takes-over.)
  
  
• With the Iranians holding the advantage, should we stay? We are taking a great economic beating.
  
  
• What is our return on our investment? (4K+ War Dead, A Trillion Dollars.)

I'm just a simple man. Where are we going with this and why?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Mr. Invisible, et al,

Yes...

​

(QUESTIONs)

Well, I'm not sure that we created a "democracy." My understanding is that Ayad Allawi, who won a total of 91 seats, and has no real office; while, Nouri Al-Maliki, won 89 seats, but stole the Prime Ministership through the help of Moqtada al-Sadr (the terrorist anti-American Cleric); arranged by the Iranian Government (a member of the Axis of Evil).

But, as I believe that the Iraqis should be able to choose their own destiny, I'll give you that one - "Democracy." OK! So, the new government is in the pocket of the Iranians.

• Having said that: Shouldn't we just throw the Iraqis a cell phone and leave? (They can call one of their Arab Neighbors when Iran takes-over.)
  
  
• With the Iranians holding the advantage, should we stay? We are taking a great economic beating.
  
  
• What is our return on our investment? (4K+ War Dead, A Trillion Dollars.)

I'm just a simple man. Where are we going with this and why?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well I should have put democracy in quotes, seeing as how Iraq really isn't that much a democracy.

But to answer your other questions, I personally think that we should just leave Iraq 100% and never come back, let the Iraqis decide their own destiny.

 

[RoccoR]

Mr. Invisible, et al,

Yes, well there is alot going on there.

Well I should have put democracy in quotes, seeing as how Iraq really isn't that much a democracy.

But to answer your other questions, I personally think that we should just leave Iraq 100% and never come back, let the Iraqis decide their own destiny.

(COMMENT)

Ref Links:

• 
  
  Secularists, Islamists Clash In Iraqi Culture War : NPR​

  The fight is between religious political parties — the Islamists — against secular Iraqis, long part of the country's social fabric. It is a struggle to define the country's identity.

• 
  
  Iraq: Preparing for the Return of Moqtada al-Sadr - TIME​

When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unveiled his new cabinet on Dec. 21, Sadr's lieutenants were awarded eight of the 29 positions announced — a reflection of the fact that Maliki would not be premier without Sadr's support.

Like I said before, individually, just as Washington often depicts, none of the problems I have cited about Iraq are fatal. But the accumulative effect continues and is unmistakeable; having a great chance of creating a cascade effect.

The latest exodus follows a massacre led by al-Qaida at a Chaldean Catholic church in central Baghdad on 31 October, which left about 60 people dead, almost 100 maimed and an already apprehensive community terrified. Since then, the terrorist group has targeted Christians in their homes, including family members of those who survived the attack.

SOURCE:

• Christian exodus from Iraq gathers pace | World news | The Guardian
• ADLERSTEIN & MOELLER: Iraq's Christian 'religicide' - Washington Times

Others see a slightly different or more likely case as an indicator.

-- Iran's "Special Groups," Tehran's paramilitary proxies in Iraq, are likely to flourish under the new Shiite-dominated coalition government being formed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iran's choice to rule in Baghdad.

SOURCE:

• In Iraq, Iran's Special Groups to flourish - UPI.com

More and more, people are beginning to be concerned about the very open influence both Moqtadar al-Sadr and the Iranians have and projected to get.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[American]

Mr. Invisible, et al,

Yes, well there is alot going on there.

​

(COMMENT)

Ref Links:

• 
  
  Secularists, Islamists Clash In Iraqi Culture War : NPR​
  ​
• 
  
  Iraq: Preparing for the Return of Moqtada al-Sadr - TIME​

​

Like I said before, individually, just as Washington often depicts, none of the problems I have cited about Iraq are fatal. But the accumulative effect continues and is unmistakeable; having a great chance of creating a cascade effect.

​

Others see a slightly different or more likely case as an indicator.

​

More and more, people are beginning to be concerned about the very open influence both Moqtadar al-Sadr and the Iranians have and projected to get.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't worry we have a man on point to handle this through negotiations without pre-conditions.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

I would say the fundamental objective was to create a democracy. There are both strong indicators that his was accomplished:
- Parliament
- coalition government
- operating ministries
- military
- police
- regulatory framework
- provential elections
- local government

and strong indicators that there are difficulties:
- failure to build effective bridges between ethnic groups
- funding difficulties
- corruption

On balance though, it seems to be working.

The Second Iraq War was a pyrrhic victory. In the process of winning America threw away its empire and permanently divided its people.

 

[RoccoR]

American, et al,

Yes, I have heard that before.

Don't worry we have a man on point to handle this through negotiations without pre-conditions.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are talking about the Military side or the Diplomatic side, I still don't have much faith in them. They are, if you ignore the arrogance, good people at heart, but ineffective. They want a honorable outcome, but simply don't have the ability to get the job done. And the system, being the way it is, will allow an endless parade of these leaders to pompously strut around and allow the situation to unfold until time and money run-out, or we luck into a favorable window of opportunity. (I personally don't believe the "luck" is with us on this one.)

• I use to sit and talk with the various staffs, mostly listening. Trying to understand their perspective. Whether it was GEN Casey, Petraeus, or Odierno, they all suggested that we were on track and making progress.
  
• And I was never impressed with the caliber of the Foreign Service leadership, whether you were with Ambassador Negroponte, Khalilzad, Crocker, Hill, or Jeffrey (formerly the DCM in 04-05).

I have watched them all, on-site, deny, dismiss, and distort the ground truth to present a rosey picture that best advances their position. I can understand one or two major failures, a setback or two, but I (personal opinion) have never seen so many leaders foul-up so much and come-out with a straight face and tell the American People about our success.

Please excuse my negative attitude, but I wouldn't put your faith in with this basket. While they may be much more intellectually superior to some one like me (and they will tell you how smart they are), eminent Generals and Senior FSOs tend to be more arrogant and confident than other serving officers, analyst and the genral hired help. As a consequence they are especially vulnerable to confirmation bias and faulty conclusions; and are anything but perpetually vigilant of the political operational picture. Mounting pressures on these personalities (military & diplomatic) to conduct single-agenda driven operations and diplomacy is a ready made recipe for unexpected consequences and unintended outcomes that were nothing close to the expectation; held at the beginning.

No, I appreciate your positive attitude and sincerely hope that I am wrong. But I have lost my faith and confidence in this generation of leaders.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[American]

American, et al,

Yes, I have heard that before.

​

(COMMENT)

Whether you are talking about the Military side or the Diplomatic side, I still don't have much faith in them. They are, if you ignore the arrogance, good people at heart, but ineffective. They want a honorable outcome, but simply don't have the ability to get the job done. And the system, being the way it is, will allow an endless parade of these leaders to pompously strut around and allow the situation to unfold until time and money run-out, or we luck into a favorable window of opportunity. (I personally don't believe the "luck" is with us on this one.)

• I use to sit and talk with the various staffs, mostly listening. Trying to understand their perspective. Whether it was GEN Casey, Petraeus, or Odierno, they all suggested that we were on track and making progress.
  
• And I was never impressed with the caliber of the Foreign Service leadership, whether you were with Ambassador Negroponte, Khalilzad, Crocker, Hill, or Jeffrey (formerly the DCM in 04-05).

I have watched them all, on-site, deny, dismiss, and distort the ground truth to present a rosey picture that best advances their position. I can understand one or two major failures, a setback or two, but I (personal opinion) have never seen so many leaders foul-up so much and come-out with a straight face and tell the American People about our success.

Please excuse my negative attitude, but I wouldn't put your faith in with this basket. While they may be much more intellectually superior to some one like me (and they will tell you how smart they are), eminent Generals and Senior FSOs tend to be more arrogant and confident than other serving officers, analyst and the genral hired help. As a consequence they are especially vulnerable to confirmation bias and faulty conclusions; and are anything but perpetually vigilant of the political operational picture. Mounting pressures on these personalities (military & diplomatic) to conduct single-agenda driven operations and diplomacy is a ready made recipe for unexpected consequences and unintended outcomes that were nothing close to the expectation; held at the beginning.

No, I appreciate your positive attitude and sincerely hope that I am wrong. But I have lost my faith and confidence in this generation of leaders.

Most Respectfully,
R

You completely misunderstood me. Read it again, think about it a bit differently this time.

 

[Paschendale]

The only objectives I was informed of at the time were the WMDs, which didn't exist, and the need to eliminate Saddam, which was fabricated. If the objective was to get Cheney richer and get Bush Sr the revenge he wanted, then yes. Otherwise, there's just been a lot of death and suffering and greater animosity towards the US.

 

[Bodi]

The only objectives I was informed of at the time were the WMDs, which didn't exist, and the need to eliminate Saddam, which was fabricated. If the objective was to get Cheney richer and get Bush Sr the revenge he wanted, then yes. Otherwise, there's just been a lot of death and suffering and greater animosity towards the US.

Agreed... and what is the deal with those WMD's anyway. They were the reason, and then when they did not exist and people started complaining about being lied to, the right steps in and says that that was never the reason, that the left is making that up. But I remember the news conferences quite clearly and all the talk about the WMD's being such an important reason to invade. Whatever...

 

[RoccoR]

Paschendale, Bodhisattva, et al,

Yes, you have to remember the definition of a Politician.

The only objectives I was informed of at the time were the WMDs, which didn't exist, and the need to eliminate Saddam, which was fabricated. If the objective was to get Cheney richer and get Bush Sr the revenge he wanted, then yes. Otherwise, there's just been a lot of death and suffering and greater animosity towards the US.

Agreed... and what is the deal with those WMD's anyway. They were the reason, and then when they did not exist and people started complaining about being lied to, the right steps in and says that that was never the reason, that the left is making that up. But I remember the news conferences quite clearly and all the talk about the WMD's being such an important reason to invade. Whatever...

(COMMENT)

Your memory is not faulty.

But then, politicians always have to keep there options open.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Catawba]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

Lets see...........

The government that blocked foreign investors in Iraqi oil were removed.

The Iraqi resistance was beaten back (for now).

We aided in setting up a new government that would allow US oil back into Iraq for the first time in 35 years.

We have protected that government now for 8 years and counting with the most powerful military on the planet.

Yep, it looks like our goals were met, I guess we can unfurl that flag again and declare Mission Accomplished, even though we still have thousands of US troops and weaponry there still propping up the corrupt but US friendly government we helped set up there.

 

[dadrone]

Of course, didn't you see the Mission Accomplished speech?

 

[RoccoR]

Catawba, reefedjib, et al,

The answer to the question is mixed; depending on the criteria you use. Some might say: "NO!"

BLUF: After eight (8) years (4000+ KIA, 32,000+ WIA, and $750B+) , the outcomes are undecided. It could be argued that we are close to the end of "Short Term" objectives and entering "Medium Term" objectives; but that is very debatable.

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

Lets see...........

The government that blocked foreign investors in Iraqi oil were removed.

The Iraqi resistance was beaten back (for now).

We aided in setting up a new government that would allow US oil back into Iraq for the first time in 35 years.

We have protected that government now for 8 years and counting with the most powerful military on the planet.

Yep, it looks like our goals were met, I guess we can unfurl that flag again and declare Mission Accomplished, even though we still have thousands of US troops and weaponry there still propping up the corrupt but US friendly government we helped set up there.

(COMMENT)

The original version of the National Strategy for Victory in Iraqmay be found at the following DOD site: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/iraq_national_strategy_20051130[1].pdf

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

We could write an entire volume set on this subject. At the end-of-the-day, the outcomes determine where we are - and - how we got here:

Short term: "Making progress" is a performance measure. There is a world of difference in making progress by inches, or making progress in light-years. After eight (8) years, what we see (objectively):

• Fighting terrorist: Yes, Iraq is fighting terrorism; every day:
  
  

  Tikrit (Iraq), Feb 21 (IANS) At least 12 people were killed and 18 injured Monday in a suicide car bomb attack targeting security forces in Iraq, Xinhua reported.

• Meeting Political Milestones: Prime Minister (PM) Nouri al-Maliki is still PM after Iran, through the cooperation the anti-American Cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr and after al-Sadr embraced him.
  
  

  Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution:
  

  First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of
  legislation:
  

  A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam
  B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.
  C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms​

  stipulated in this Constitution.

  
  This is an implanted timebomb. All that is required is for a anti-American Cleric, under the influence of Iran (of Axil of Evil fame) to gain power. And that is an undeniable possibility; as al-Sadr moves through the chairs in government.
  
  
• Building Democratic Institutions: This is a "feel good" objective. The DPRK [Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (AKA; North Korea)] has such institutions and matching names; but doesn't meet the intent. So it is, that Iraq has institutions that have "democratic" sounding names, but questionable accomplishments.
  
  

  Iraq’s Last Patriot: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06ALLAWI-t.html
  When the results were finally tallied, Allawi’s list won 91 seats, the most in Parliament. Maliki came in a close second, with 89 seats. Frustrated and angry, Maliki set about trying to reduce Allawi’s edge. “No way we will accept the results,” he vowed. He demanded a recount. He called some of the winners on Allawi’s list “terrorists held in Iraqi prisons.” Over the next two months, with his consent, a government body of dubious legality looked for candidates — disproportionately, those on Allawi’s list — to disqualify on the basis of their supposed ties to the Baath Party.

• Standing Up Security Forces:
  
  

  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0204/Pentagon-fears-Iraq-is-becoming-forgotten-war
  
  Iraq is showing "both a resurgence of Al Qaeda and the empowering of problematic regional players,” said Ambassador Jeffrey.
  
  Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of US Forces in Iraq, likewise warned that “Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda will continue to target the government of Iraq, the Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians in order to garner media attention, and to attempt to demonstrate that the government cannot provide security for the Iraqi people.” What’s more, the city of Kirkuk in the oil-rich north is still in dispute between southern Arabs and the northern Kurds.
  
  For these reasons, Austin said, “the threats to Iraq’s stability will remain in 2011.”

  
  

  McCain Questions Stability Of Iraq After Troop Withdrawal - News - Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media
  “I have real concerns about whether the proposed civilian-led mission that will take the lead once our troops are gone is sufficient to support Iraqi needs of U.S. interest,” said McCain.

I will not bore you with my analysis of the Medium or Long Term prospects, but needless to say, this topic often becomes charged emotionally. There is very little question that the US Military won every major engagement and soundly defeated the conventional forces of Iraq. But as we have learned (or not), military victorys alone do not constitute a "win."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Catawba]

Catawba, reefedjib, et al,

The answer to the question is mixed; depending on the criteria you use. Some might say: "NO!"

BLUF: After eight (8) years (4000+ KIA, 32,000+ WIA, and $750B+) , the outcomes are undecided. It could be argued that we are close to the end of "Short Term" objectives and entering "Medium Term" objectives; but that is very debatable.

​

(COMMENT)

The original version of the National Strategy for Victory in Iraqmay be found at the following DOD site: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/iraq_national_strategy_20051130[1].pdf

​

We could write an entire volume set on this subject. At the end-of-the-day, the outcomes determine where we are - and - how we got here:

Short term: "Making progress" is a performance measure. There is a world of difference in making progress by inches, or making progress in light-years. After eight (8) years, what we see (objectively):

• Fighting terrorist: Yes, Iraq is fighting terrorism; every day:
  
  
  ​
• Meeting Political Milestones: Prime Minister (PM) Nouri al-Maliki is still PM after Iran, through the cooperation the anti-American Cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr and after al-Sadr embraced him.
  
  
  ​
  
  This is an implanted timebomb. All that is required is for a anti-American Cleric, under the influence of Iran (of Axil of Evil fame) to gain power. And that is an undeniable possibility; as al-Sadr moves through the chairs in government.
  
  
• Building Democratic Institutions: This is a "feel good" objective. The DPRK [Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (AKA; North Korea)] has such institutions and matching names; but doesn't meet the intent. So it is, that Iraq has institutions that have "democratic" sounding names, but questionable accomplishments.
  
  
  ​
• Standing Up Security Forces:
  
  
  ​
  
  
  ​

I will not bore you with my analysis of the Medium or Long Term prospects, but needless to say, this topic often becomes charged emotionally. There is very little question that the US Military won every major engagement and soundly defeated the conventional forces of Iraq. But as we have learned (or not), military victorys alone do not constitute a "win."

Most Respectfully,
R

Excellent post! Thanks!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Uhhh no. Of course not.

 

[cpwill]

AND FIALS!!! hows'a that "SMART POWR' working for ya'?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

AFAICT, the main objective was to keep Hussein from launching an improbable attack on the US.

 

[RoccoR]

Simon W. Moon, et al,

Yes, this is the "Smoking Gun as a Mushroom Cloud" defense. As Dr Rice said, the decision process (meaning the National Security Decision Making Process) was valid. But as any college Freshman knows, an argument must be equally judged on its soundness.

The intend is judged by the "actions."

AFAICT, the main objective was to keep Hussein from launching an improbable attack on the US.

(COMMENT)

If this objective was even remotely true, it is not supported by the actual actions taken by the USG. If it were true, then the objective would have been fulfilled on the Final Report made by the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) in December 2004. I was in Iraq at the time. The Senior Leadership did not want to believe it. But the very same people that made the intelligence case and assessment for the War (Dr Rice's Mushroom Cloud) had reversed themselves after they had total control of the Iraq theater and unrestricted access to all the key players and personalities.

"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong..."

Upon hearing this, Congress and the Administration actually changed the objectives to fit the reality.

If the objective was fulfilled, then the US Force should have withdrawn. But it didn't. Five years later, while being asked to leave, we are still there and trying to stay.

No, I respectfully disagree. While the "improbably attack" may have been projected, it was a smoke screen for the real agenda.

Regards,
R

 

[StillBallin75]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

I would say the fundamental objective was to create a democracy. There are both strong indicators that his was accomplished:

I would hesitate to say that that was the primary objective, and that if it indeed WAS the primary objective, it represents an even more severe failure in decision-making all the way to the top.

- Parliament
- coalition government
- operating ministries
- military
- police
- regulatory framework
- provential elections
- local government

and strong indicators that there are difficulties:
- failure to build effective bridges between ethnic groups
- funding difficulties
- corruption

On balance though, it seems to be working.

I'm not entirely optimistic. The existence of such institutions is an improvement on dictatorship, but democracy is worthless if it is nominal and not functional.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

I would say the fundamental objective was to create a democracy. There are both strong indicators that his was accomplished:
- Parliament
- coalition government
- operating ministries
- military
- police
- regulatory framework
- provential elections
- local government

and strong indicators that there are difficulties:
- failure to build effective bridges between ethnic groups
- funding difficulties
- corruption

On balance though, it seems to be working.

None of those things were an objective when we first went.

The real object that time has forgotten: uphold our end of our deal with Iraq per our proliferation agreement to which they agreed to permit inspectors to enter and determine there were no WMD's. If they failed to do this - we would enter by force.

They failed to do this
We entered by force.
We failed to scour every inch of their occupied territory to uphold our end of the treaty.
Mission failed.

Everything else you listed - and then some - was conveniently conceived over time - later - based on various developments politically but none of those things were our initial goal.

Remember: plans to enter Iraq per this treaty were already under way before 9/11 even happened.

 

[Boo Radley]

None of those things were an objective when we first went.

The real object that time has forgotten: uphold our end of our deal with Iraq per our proliferation agreement to which they agreed to permit inspectors to enter and determine there were no WMD's. If they failed to do this - we would enter by force.

They failed to do this
We entered by force.
We failed to scour every inch of their occupied territory to uphold our end of the treaty.
Mission failed.

Everything else you listed - and then some - was conveniently conceived over time - later - based on various developments politically but none of those things were our initial goal.

Remember: plans to enter Iraq per this treaty were already under way before 9/11 even happened.

I think you're streaching there. First, Iraq was a UN operation and ONLY the UN can enforce UN conditions. We went outside the UN. Secondly, the public argument was much more about wmds. Later it went from wmds to wmd programs to wmd program related activety. Iraq was not proliferating weapons that we were concerned about. Nor was it our place to step outside the UN and enforce anything.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Remember: plans to enter Iraq per this treaty were already under way before 9/11 even happened.

I am sorry, I seem to have completely missed something here.

What treaty was signed prior to 9/11 that obligated us to go into Iraq? And when did Congress ratify it?

As far a "plans", that is a no-brainer. Of course we had plans to invade Iraq. Just like we had plans to invade Canada until the end of WWII (we may still have them, but they are not publicly recognized). After all, that is what we pay all the folks with big foreheads in the Pentagon to do. When they are not fighting wars, they are making plans on how to fight the next wars. And these plans are routinely pulled off the shelf and updated.

If there were no plans to invade Iraq in 2001, some people should have been court martialed. And if there are no plans there now for us to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and Argentina, then some more generals should be put on trial.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The only objectives I was informed of at the time were the WMDs, which didn't exist, and the need to eliminate Saddam, which was fabricated. If the objective was to get Cheney richer and get Bush Sr the revenge he wanted, then yes. Otherwise, there's just been a lot of death and suffering and greater animosity towards the US.

Why do people continue to spread around that lie?

During the invasion, over 500 munitions with mustard and sarin gas were discovered.

In 2009 when Iraq signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, they turned over 2 bunkers filled with chemical weapons, munitions, and precursors. They also turned over 5 chemical weapons production facilities.

NTI: Global Security Newswire - India Completes Chemical Weapons Disposal; Iraq Declares Stockpile

There have also been more documents released in the last year about weapons and stockpiles that have been released by WikiLeaks. I always find it amazing that people take everything released as gospel, yet when they release classified documents about the locations of chemical weapons, nobody says anything about it.

And of course, WMDs are more then just the warheads, it is also the delivery systems. The UN had already classified the Al-Samoud 2 Ballistic Missle to be a WMD, and ordered Iraq to destroy all of them. Iraq claimed that they were all destroyed, yet somehow they were able to fire many of them at Kuwait.

Iraqi missile targeted coalition HQ during war - CNN

So continue to tell yourself that they did not exist. Maybe someday others with common sense will believe it. Because those that know and recognize the truth know that is a lie.

 

[Catawba]

Why do people continue to spread around that lie?

During the invasion, over 500 munitions with mustard and sarin gas were discovered.

In 2009 when Iraq signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, they turned over 2 bunkers filled with chemical weapons, munitions, and precursors. They also turned over 5 chemical weapons production facilities.

NTI: Global Security Newswire - India Completes Chemical Weapons Disposal; Iraq Declares Stockpile

There have also been more documents released in the last year about weapons and stockpiles that have been released by WikiLeaks. I always find it amazing that people take everything released as gospel, yet when they release classified documents about the locations of chemical weapons, nobody says anything about it.

And of course, WMDs are more then just the warheads, it is also the delivery systems. The UN had already classified the Al-Samoud 2 Ballistic Missle to be a WMD, and ordered Iraq to destroy all of them. Iraq claimed that they were all destroyed, yet somehow they were able to fire many of them at Kuwait.

Iraqi missile targeted coalition HQ during war - CNN

So continue to tell yourself that they did not exist. Maybe someday others with common sense will believe it. Because those that know and recognize the truth know that is a lie.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, they were nothing the ISG judged to be a threat.

"In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."
CIA

Even Cheney finally admitted it ~

"Subsequent investigations concluded that he did not have such weapons, and in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney acknowledged that, “clearly, the intelligence that said he did was wrong.”
Cheney: Iraq war right, WMD or not - Meet the Press - msnbc.com