An April 22 Salon article discussing the disappearance of the Iraqi army, concluded with the following paragraph:
Wamid Nathmi, a political scientist who used to be regarded as something as close to an opposition figure as one could get in Iraq, has made a 180-degree turn and now subscribes to paranoid theories about how Baghdad could have fallen. At first, he says, he blamed "traitors," but now he hints that Americans used some new and terrible weapon, "maybe a limited-scale nuclear device," against the soldiers defending the International Airport. "Go to the airport," he urges. "The Americans keep it closed to everybody, and I have heard there are hundreds or thousands of dead Iraqi soldiers there who have been burned all over, not shot. That is how they were able to defeat us."
This is the one and only time (to this blogger's knowledge) that such a claim has been adduced. Yet, two months later, the airport remains closed to civilian traffic. The reason, stated over the "coalition"'s Baghdad radio station on the weekend, is that planes trying to land are coming under fire from "members of the former regime who want to undermine the rebuilding campaign." The "coalition", rather than using the massive military and reconaissance capabilities at its disposal is asking for members of the general public to come forward with any information about the alleged shooting at of planes!
Totally preposterous. Also at odds with other reasons given: the "antiquated electronics": are not up to "international standards", and "U.S. military and business contractors are filling bomb craters on the main runways and bringing the airport up to international standards". Neither does it take into account that the "coalition" is operating a "fortress-style" detention center at the airport.
The suggestion of a "new and terrible weapon" doesn't seem very credible, if only because eyewitness survivors ought to have surfaced before now. But it would seem that something fishy is going on there. Any ideas?
You don't have to have a nuclear weapon to burn thousands and thousands of troops. A fuel-air weapson will do just that, as would a good spread of napalm. Radaition would be the telltale sign of a nuke and it would not go away but I doubt that even the Bush administration is that stupid - especially since he has so many alternatives, almost as terrible.
Posted by: Rachel Corrie on June 3, 2003 08:09 AMOut of all the conspiracy theories I have heard, this one does sound the least credible. I either believe or am leaning towards believeing the following conspiracies:
1) We bought off a lot of the leadership with money and amnesty. Particularly around Baghdad. We admit this.
2) There is a tunnel to the airprot that an Iraqi told us about and we slaughtered the Iraqis as they came through the tunnel.
3) I think we used an e-bomb to cut off the power when we took the airport.
4) While we probably did use some new and terrible weapons a small nuc is unilikely. The airport is within eyesight of Baghdad and if we caused even a limited nuclear explosion everyone would have known. Also, if we already have small nuc capabilities why does the pentagon want to pull out of the treaties to develop the capablity?
As for the airport being closed, it was taken and retaken several times with US forces pulling out and cluster bombing inbetween. The remaining bomblets could be the reason the airport is still closed. After Myers made his wild assertion about cluster bombs being safe, reopening the airport might be a PR disaster. Maybe they actually are worried about a plane being shot down with a shoulder launched anti-tank weapon.
As for the "burned ... not shot" Iraqis, we have a lot of ways of accomplishing this, some of which we still admit to using, others not. The effects of napalm and fuel-air bombs sound similar to the (limited) descriptions of the bodies.
Posted by: Anon on June 3, 2003 08:12 AMThe really sad thing about all this, is the horrible callousness and disrespect the U.S. has toward the dead Iraqi soldiers. They will not even count them. This is a delibrate effort to try to sanitize this war, to pretend that there hands are not dripping in blood. And the inbedded "journalists" are all going along with. Hell, even the British took time out during the Falkland war to honor the bravery of their enemy! No such consideration from the U.S. And as much as I hate violence, you have to realize that many of the Iraqi felt that they were defending their home from an invading enemy of a devils. And the U.S. is seems determined to prove them right.
COUNT THE DEAD! AT LEAST PAY THEM THIS SMALL HONOR!
SHAME ON AMERICA!
Posted by: Rachel Corrie on June 3, 2003 08:18 AMWhy would we have needed to use a visible weapon, like the MOAB? I'm sure we have some B or C stores that'd do that kind of damage without leaving much of a trace outside of the kill zone, something like VX or GB. Right?
Or maybe Rumsfeld found a way to get out of the "straightjacket" (source: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/5300556.htm) and do some illegal R&D with so-called 'non-lethal' riot control agents like the one used in Moscow during the hostage crisis--the same 'non-lethal' agent that killed more than 120 hostages. (source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html)
I don't know, nothing would surprise me at this point--nothing.
Posted by: TL on June 3, 2003 02:55 PM