Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction - Research Paper Example

of the Journalism, Mass Media and Communication of the Concerned 16 November Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction- An Investigation There is no denying the fact that the justification of the invasion of Iraq was to a great extent largely based on the oft repeated and bolstered allied premise that not only Iraq had amassed a significant stock of the weapons of mass destruction, but, Iraq also intended to use this weapons of mass destruction against neighbours to whom it was averse to, and also aspired to unleash these weapons on coveted Western enemies, if the need be. The intelligence agencies of most of the allied nations furnished detailed reports ascribing to Iraq the possession of weapons of mass destruction and the governments of these nations used these reports as a premise to ratify and support the invasion of Iraq. In that context it will be really valid to mention a CIA report as per which Iraq maintained and retained weapons of mass destruction program irrespective of the varied prohibitive UN resolutions (CIA 1). This report elaborated in detail that Iraq had a clandestine weapons of mass destruction program and was amassing biological and chemical weapons which if not checked and restrained could spell disaster for the friendly neighbouring countries and the associated Western nations (CIA 1). This CIA report also stressed that Iraq also had a hidden nuclear weapons program and if a military operation is not initiated against Iraq in the near future, Iraq will be very soon be in possession of a viable nuclear weapon and hence will be in a position to intimidate and blackmail the averse neighbouring nations and their Western allies and friends. Varied media reports concertedly backed such claims expressed and supported by the US and the UK, which started to appear concocted and non-corroborated in the later media publications. On 17 March 2003, the war drums were already beating when The Washington Post published the full text of the speech given by President Bush unravelling in detail the frustration of the allied nations over the diplomatic efforts being pursued by the allied nations to convince Iraq regarding giving up its weapons of mass destruction program (Reuters 1). In this speech President Bush reiterated the US pledge to divest Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and to annihilate its nuclear weapons program, whatever it takes (Reuters 1). President Bush also mentioned more than dozen resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council urging and mandating Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction program and to comply with the conditions laid down by the international community. In this publication President Bush alluded to the failure of the hundreds of weapons inspectors sent to Iraq who had to return empty handed after much non-cooperation and a lack of compliance on the part of the Iraqi regime. Bush ascribed the diplomatic efforts being engaged in by Iraq as a ploy on the part of this declared rogue nation to gain time so as to successfully culminate its varied weapons programs. The crux of this speech was that all the peaceful efforts initiated to make Iraq fall in line had already been exhausted and there was no other option left, but to militarily disarm Iraq. The impact of this published speech and the other affiliated publications was such that it in a way succeeded in convincing the masses into believing that Iraq does had weapons of mass destruction at its disposal and attacking Iraq was a justified and only way out left. It would not be wrong to say that the allied justification of the invasion of Iraq to a large extent rested on the belief that Iraq was in possession of lethal biological, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons. Many of the supportive media reports during that time in a way went out of their way to bolster and build on the supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. However, even at this time there was no dearth of media concerns, which though did not directly deny the much publicized Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, still considered the step of invading war to be too impulsive and not required. Many contemporary media reports in the period 2002-2003 tried to bring forth the point that even if Iraq was in possession of the weapons of mass destruction, the allies should not invade Iraq as there was very little possibility that Iraq will ever use these weapons against its Western detractors. In the news report published in The New York Times on 2 February 2003, John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt systematically refuted and set aside the justifications being given by the Bush administration in favour of its proposed invasion of Iraq, citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to be a real and imminent threat. This report in a way set aside the belief being propagated that Saddam Hussein was reckless and unreliable by explaining that Hussein started a war with Iran only after Iran indulged in repeated border raids in the Iraqi territory and his attack on Kuwait was also backed by an inability of the Kuwaiti government to settle the pending disputes over the oil resources (Mearsheimer & Walt 1). This report though did not strongly deny the fact that perhaps Iraq had biological, chemical and nuclear weapons at its disposal, yet it analytically set aside the possibility that Iraq will ever use these weapons against any Western nation (Mearsheimer & Walt 1). As per this report, there do existed instances when Iraq used chemical weapons against rebels and the Kurds, because Saddam Hussein well knew that these groups were not in a position to retaliate against these attacks (Mearsheimer & Walt 1). However, Iraq well knew that if it used these weapons against any unfriendly Western nation like the US or the UK; it will have to bear with an unmanageable and strong retaliation (Mearsheimer & Walt 1). This report also well explained that considering the aversion between Saddam Hussein and the fundamentalist forces in the Middle East there was a miniscule chance that Saddam Hussein will ever pass on the nuclear weapons to the terrorist groups like Al Qaeda (Mearsheimer & Walt 1). The overall crux of this report was that even if Iraq had the much vaunted weapons of mass destruction, there existed no valid justification for invading Iraq by highlighting the weapons of mass destruction it was supposed to have, Meanwhile the allied nations and particularly the US and the UK were gearing up their populace and the political class for an imminent war with Iraq, time and again brandishing the idea of divesting Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. A methodical and detailed groundwork was being prepared for this invasion. As per a news report published in USA Today on 17 March 2003, the US strongly advised the international arms inspectors deployed in Iraq to withdraw as soon as possible (Salem 1). However, the fact that the arms inspectors deployed in Iraq over a concerted period of time had not been able to unearth any weapons of mass destruction or were unable to trace a program aimed at manufacturing and amassing weapons of mass destruction, was downplayed by saying that Iraqi’s had indeed been successful in concealing these weapons and they were scarcely cooperating with the arms inspectors (Salem 1). Even concerns were expressed that the Iraqi’s may not allow these inspectors to pull out and may actually detain them to be used as human shields (Salem 1). In retrospect, as the things are quiet clear now, it is not difficult to guess that in preparation for the imminent Iraqi invasion, forces were at play to portray Iraq as a thoroughly rogue state, which could go to any length to protect and sustain it s weapons program. In the meantime the invasion of Iraq was initiated and much attention pertaining to the authentic credentials of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was lost in the hype created over war. A large section of the populace in a way perhaps felt that challenging the reasons supporting the war may be deemed to be unpatriotic. However, once the Saddam regime was displaced, the prolonged allied presence in Iraqi, the concomitant allied causalities and the gargantuan cost of invading and holding Iraq diverted the media attention to the possible veracity of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly there got published a plethora of media reports that starting questioning the credibility of the intelligence estimates regarding the Iraqi weapons program. A report by Warren Mass published in The New American on 7 July 2008, asked the American citizens as to whether the Bush administration has cheated them into waging a war with Iraq (Mass 23)? This report blatantly challenged the so called concerted intelligence inputs blaming Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction. This report in a way directly blamed President Bush and the Vice President Dick Cheney of creating a false fear psychosis over the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the emotionally charged aftermath of the 9/11 attacks (Mass 23). To support its claims this news report cited the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee meticulously gathered and compiled over a period of 5 years. As per this report, the post war research and findings clearly indicated that Iraq had in its possession pragmatically no weapons which could be ascribed to be weapons of mass destruction (Mass 23). Whatever chemical arsenal that Iraq had at its disposal was meant to be used against the native rebel elements and was totally insufficient to initiate an attack against any Western nation (Mass 24). The conclusions of this report were validated and supported by many contemporary media reports. Though the fixing of the blame for plotting the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Iraq possessing the weapons of mass destruction is something that is still to be grappled with, in the UK the political and public response was more intense and Tony Blair was in fact directly indicted by media reports of practically plotting and stage managing the invasion of Iraq. As per a media report published in The Mirror on 25 November 2005, the public inquiry on Iraq war had come to the conclusion that Britain had been envisaging the toppling of the Saddam regime much before 2003 and that the ascription of the weapons of mass destruction to Saddam regime was a viably emotive ploy to make the people and the political class stand behind the invasion of Iraq (Beattie 12). In fact the report went as far as to mention that as per the Whitehall officials, the invasion of Iraq was actually methodically concocted and was totally illegal in its scope and intentions (Beattie 12). The report mentioned that PM Tony Blair had started conniving with George Bush regarding the invasion of Iraq as far back as in 2001 and the so called weapons of mass destruction hoax was a ploy to support and justify this invasion (Beattie 12). As per the news report published in The Mirror, the weapons of mass destruction excuse was really unverified till the very first day of the war and that allies had many other options at their disposal like economic sanctions, soft containment, regime change and hard containment, to tame and contain the Iraq crises (Beattie 12). Many news reports emerging in the print and digital media to this day are decrying the weapons of mass destruction hoax, which was actually the very excuse that was used to invade Iraq. Iraq invasion is something that has claimed thousands of lives on both sides and is practically speaking still far from being over. No doubt, many associated politicians do need to be questioned regarding the weapons of mass destruction premise exploited by them to initiate this war. However, contemporary media also has a measure of responsibility to be shared in this tragedy. Had the media been more proactive and unbiased in the aftermath of 9/11 tragedy, many lives and much resources could have been saved that were heedlessly spent on derailing the elusive Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Works Cited Beattie, Jason. “Drums of War; Iraq Inquiry Day One”. The Mirror 25 November 2009: 12. Print. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. CIA 24 April 2007. Web. 14 November 2012. Mass, Warren. “Did we Get Lied into War? Did the Bush Administration use Deliberate Deception to Bring America into War with Iraq? The Senate Intelligence Committee’s June 2008 Report May get us Closer to the Truth”. The New American 7 July 2008: 23. Print. Mearsheimer, John J & Walt, Stephen M. “Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box”. The New York Times 2 February 2003. Web. 14 November 2012. Reuters. “Text: Bush on Iraq”. The Washington Post 17 March 2003. Web. 14 November 2012. Salem, Suhaib. “US Advises Weapons Inspectors to Leave Iraq”. USA Today 17 March 2003. Web, 14 November 2012. Read More