Centerfield

Marc, you are no centrist. You are on a crusade.

This is exactly the sort of rhetoric I've come here to get away from. Geez.

NO ONE KNOWS YET WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

Anonymous,

I'm confused. This post is a quotation from a newspaper. It contains no rhetoric. In other posts, I have provided links to both pro-Bush and anti-Bush sources. A crusader wouldn't do that; he would provide links to only those sources that support his point of view. I have not demonized anyone. A crusader would.

But I do have opinions. I think that the NYT has a partisan agenda that has infiltrated what it considers to be news, how it reports the news, and when it reports the news.

In your comment, you said "NO ONE KNOWS YET WHAT REALLY HAPPENED." I agree. But Senator Kerry's words are those of someone who thinks he does know what happened. Using your terms, its Senator Kerry, not me, that's the crusader. All I've done is to present some information that suggests that his certitude is misplaced.

Would someone who planned to vote for Senator Kerry do what I have done? Probably not, as it would raise questions about the candidate he favored. Does not bringing such information to the attention of others make him a centrist, or is he not a crusader for not bringing to light information unfavorable to his cause?

True enough that no one knows for sure what has really happened regarding these missing weapons and the post-inspection timeline of their disappearance.

But isn't that all the more reason to criticize John Kerry for opportunistically jumping to conclusions? I think it's pretty ugly for Kerry to suggest that the President didn't care about keeping weapons out of terrorist hands when it hasn't even been establsihed whether or not we had a good chance to secure these weapons.

I've tried to be balanced here. Not having a dog in this fight as someone who finds both Bush and Kerry inadequate to the task of leading us in these times, I nevertheless have to say that Kerry should be ashamed of the way he's demagogued this thin gruel.

bk,

Thank you.

You seem to have the mistaken idea that posters on a centrist blog will not have opinions, or care about the issues. That we should be huddling quietly in the middle on all things. T'ain't so, Magee. We have primary and commentary posters from all areas of the political spectrum. We are not a Cone of Silence(tm) for the mushy middle. We are for the most part people that believe that despite our differing opinions and politics that there's a heck of a lot of middle ground between the extremes, that most practical solutions probably lie there, and enjoy discussing it. Even when we totally disagree.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I find it a wee bit annoying for an anonymous poster to show up and immediately start complaining that we aren't fulfilling their personal pre-conceived expectations, and have failed to provide their desired shelter from controversy.

Centrism does not equal vacuum. Or vacuity.

What Brian and Tully said, times two.

Deep into the fourth day of this story, my impressions are:

*Both candidates are handling this matter as they have other issues in the campaign.

*While a few reporters have stepped up to investigate what really happened, the media, on the whole, seems content to let this play out as an episode of "Jerry Springer". I consider this to be a true disservice to Jim and Jane Q. Public.

*This story does not make me feel safer.

*The answer to what happened to the explosives could be of vital importance to the US as it may indicate where our real threat with regard to securing Iraq lies.

We've discussed the exit strategy for Iraq elsewhere. I believe these explosives and the looting of other sites in Iraq should have an impact on the final course of action.

Are the insurgents Saddam loyalists, other Iraqi factions, outside terrorists, or a combination of all three? Are they using these weapons?

Has this story served to foreshadow the countries we'll need to attack next?

Does the war on terror require the US to attack other countries in the near future?

I don't feel comfortable telling people what their political orientation is. So I stay away from the "you're not a centrist stuff".

I also agree that having strong opinions, or pointing out facts that lead clearly in one direction, does not make you any more or less of a centrist. The best centrists have strong opinions and would lead the country in a distinct direction, if given the reigns of government.

That said, I agree on the substance with "anonymous" above. I don't think Marc is looking at anything roughly approximating a full set of the facts. He's not linking, for example, to the new KSTB news report which has footage of large stores of explosives at the Al Qaqaa complex. That footage was taken April 18, which is 9 days after Saddam fell. Nor has he mentioned the looting at the site that's been documented by a few sources.

Kerry's rhetoric on this is over the top -- probably way over the top. But there's a very significant -- possibly critical -- underlying issue. Namely, we overthrew a government of a large country without adequate forces to provide security or protect sensitive weapons facilities.

David Kay has been talking in interviews about the Iraqis he saw leaving the most sensitive sites with nuclear materials. The Tuwaitha nuclear complex was apparently thoroughly looted. Stuff that could presumably be used in some pretty nasty attacks.

That's an issue. Proliferation is an issue. And overthrowing a government with grossly inadequate security forces is a proliferation threat.

Of course, no force can expect to prevent all looting, or to protect every sensitive site. But a larger force would tend to prevent more looting than a smaller one. Not sending in such a force has real world consequences that terrorists can take advantage of.

For those who thought the WMD threat from Iraq was serious enough to overthrow Saddam, I don't see how you can come down so forcefully on the other side of it now.

The explosives in question weren't really explosives yet, but the primary raw plastics for making plastic explosives. To be turned into plastic explosives from the raw material requires them to be combined with other chemical compounds, fillers, stabilizers, etc., and then coupled with the appropriate detonators. At which time you would have Semtex or C4 or some other variant in between, with an explosive force from 20 to 50 % stronger than straight TNT. Both of these things and TNT are already widely available in the Middle East, and almost everywhere there's a heavy construction industry.

Another civilian use for these raw materials is in making heating blocks, the very same ones used in GI ration kits and sold at Walmart.

The hundreds of thousands of tons of other munitions that Saddam distributed around Iraq are a greater threat. They're the very same explosives, only they're already made into a usable form. Artillery shells are a good example. An artillery shell will contain several to several dozen pounds of plastic explosive, and the appropriate detonator is already included. No muss, no fuss, disassemble and use. No messy labwork. Less chance of screwing up the recombinant techniques and blowing yourself up.

In their raw form these things aren't all that explosive, though they are flammable and burn very hot when ignited. They have to be confined and properly detonated to explode. Dropping a 2000 lb JDAM through the roof of one of those bunkers would probably do the trick....

William, there's no question that there were explosives at Al QaQaa. There were (and still are) explosives all over Iraq. In that TV clip I saw only one thing that could conceivably have been RDX or HMX, and that was in the barrels. And they weren't labelled in any definitive way, and could have been a few dozen more mundane things like smokeless powder components. Everything else was conventional munitions, with which Iraq was already swamped. Iraq had 10,000 munitions dumps, and as much as a million tons or more of munitions. (Most of it helpfully supplied by our buddies on the UNSC, the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese.)

The 3ID commander stated that looting began before they came in and kicked the Fedayeen RG out. Even the Fedayeen RG couldn't stop it. When the Fedayeen withdrew and the 3ID came in the complex was already damaged from air and artillery strikes and looting had already taken place. And this was a BIG complex. Was there more to loot? You betcha. All kinds of stuff. It was everywhere, all over the country.

Frankly, the raw explosive materials aren't as dangerous as the assembled stuff, and there was no shortage of that. The main reason they were being monitored was that the HMX can be used to make fission trigger casings. But that requires some pretty impressive manufacturing and engineering talent and facilities, and HMX isn't even close to being the only thing that can be used for that. And the new reports indicate that pretty much everything BUT the HMX was already gone in January when the IAEA last inventoried.

The only way to have secured all the munitions in Iraq would have been to send about ten or more times as many troops, somthing on the order of the Allied invasion of Europe. And even then it would've been pretty tough, it was too widely dispersed.

So what we seem to have is a large horde of raw plastic explosive materials that might have been sitting in a massive ranch-sized complex chock-full of other munitions. All of them dangerous. Most of them already loaded with the finished forms of plastic explosives, and complete with detonators. And we're supposed to get worked up about the raw stuff when so far there's no solid evidence it was even there when we first came through on April 3rd. Just the word of a UN bureaucrat fighting to keep his job over US objections, and dropping very questionable reports on the public right before an election that might decide if he gets to keep that job or not.

Boy, William, I really don't see what that link adds. Doesn't it boil down to "we were there after the invasion started, and we definitely saw some boxes that were explosives of some type" ? What am I missing?

I think Tully points out some really important bottom lines. One of the most important is that it seems likely that the military had to look at the existence of various known explosives sites, do a risk assessment, and use that as part of an effort to prioritize a variety of short-term and long-term military objectives.

I really think that any assessment of the significance of these missing explosives without a detailed understanding of this context is just a waste of time, and fosters heat over light. With being privy to the facts and the evaluation process of the risk assessment done, I'm left with choosing to either withhold judgement or begin the crucifixion by coinvicting on the basis of proof for less than 100% success? That's not right.

Undeniably, the true story, whatever it is, could have wide implications. However, despite the possibility that the truth on this matter is of extreme significance, I'm not willing to rush to some judgement just because the election is in 5 days. I'm willing to make my judgement when I have enough available facts to do so, and if that means I can't factor a judgement on this story into my mosaic of opinions about the performance of the current administration, I'm willing to live with that.

I know we've already hashed out the "what a centrist is" thing in this post, but I'm so busy lately, I can't always post when I want to.

Anyway, Marc, you're fine. Don't worry about how people try to label you. I don't always agree with your posts, but I respect your opinions and am glad that you post here.

Regarding this story, does anyone think the average voter is really paying much attention to it? Many people have already voted, many others are already firmly decided--I don't know that it's going to really sway anyone one way or another. Anyone who needs proof that Bush didn't plan this war well has any number of examples that precede this one. Anyone who doesn't like Kerry is just going to see this as more Kerry complaining. Kerry's latching on to this issue doesn't seem particularly effective to me--how many people are really still listening to these guys at this stage in the game? But as I've said, I've been busy and haven't been as up-to-date as I usually like to be.... This story could be making people foam at the mouth for all I know. :-)

I agree with what I take as the general tenor of your comment, Tully, that whether the explosives in the video are the RDX or HMX isn't critical. Al Qaqaa is vast and had who knows how many different types of munitions?

I guess I draw different overall conclusions, though.

It seems clear that there were explosive stores there after the fall of the regime, and they were looted.

It's also true that there are explosive stores all over the country. There's no shortage of these weapons among the insurgents these days, but that's probably partly due to the fact of poor security at ammo dumps.

I don't think that your attitude about this -- that it basically doesn't matter -- is one that would be adopted by anyone with responsibility or a job to do in that arena.

To illustrate my point, I offer an analogy.

Suppose I were to tell you that today -- right now -- the city of Columbus, where I live, is awash with illegal drugs.

That statement is easly supported by facts. I could get in my car and go to certain parts of town to buy drugs. There's probably someone with a little coke in his pocket somewhere in my office building today. If I knew the guy, and had the same habit, I could probably score some.

Now, suppose I were to tell you that in addition to that "normal" state of affairs, there's a warehouse somewhere in town with a stack of hundreds of bags of cocaine. The warehouse is unguarded, and the police are clearly busy doing other things. Word is getting out around town about the warehouse.

Here's the question. How much drugs do you think would be used in Columbus today in scenario #2 (with the warehouse) as compared to scenario #1 (no warehouse)?

I think a lot more coke is going up people's noses in scenario #2 than #1.

It's not because drugs aren't available in scenario #1. They're pretty easy to get, in both scenarios. Yet you've got a lot more drug use in scenario #2.

I suspect something like that is happening in Iraq today. Namely, there are more actual bombings of actual soldiers, police, and civilians than there would be, say, if we had gone in with twice the troop levels and guarded, say, 50% more ammo dumps.

Weapons dumps are truly a key security concern. The fact that some will inevitably go unguarded does not suggest that guarding others is irrelevant. The amount of that stuff you dump out into the public will have an effect on how many nasty incidents your soldiers have to face.

Of course, it's been said many times that we don't have more soldiers to put in Iraq. But that's a known factor before you go in. You have to ask if it's ok to go forward with an invasion plan if you don't have the normal contingent of forces you would need for a subsequent nation-building exercise.

The person who made that decision is responsible for it. And this incident -- the weapons at Al Qaqaa -- is a fairly clear example of that overall issue.

AmyE, I do not think the average American has any idea what the issue is about. If they were trying to listen at the beginning of the week, they probably aren't now.

This is some of what I heard:

Monday: It's a big deal. Silence. No, it's not. We found way more than that.
Tuesday: It's a big deal. Silence. I just found out about it 15 days ago. I'm going to tell you I'm going to investigate. NBC said it wasn't there.
Wednesday: It's a big deal. We've known it's been gone since May 2003. We don't have all the facts. You're jumping to conclusions. You're a liberal, flip flopper, who can not keep America safe. ABC said it wasn't there. (The Russians did it.)
Thursday: It's a big deal. We don't have all the facts. But, if you reelect me, I'll get you the facts. I'll keep you safe.

I'm not indifferent, William, just somewhat aware of the practicalities and relative danger involved. And I think this story, even if it were true, is overblown and overhyped, being stretched entirely out of proportion in the election run-up for strictly political purposes.

Let me put it this way. The very same people that want me to obsess and get hysterical about the missing raw materials that might have been there on April 3rd (but probably weren't), material that is, for all the big numbers involved, a comparitive drop in the ocean of 10,000 assorted ammo dumps of readily usable and more immediately dangerous munitions scattered all over Iraq, are the very same people that want me to not obsess over or worry about the tons of missing chemical and biological weapons that Saddam was known to have a decade ago, that we have not found, and that are still not accounted for.

So I refuse to be stampeded, especially by the media in the all-spin zone of election season. There is nothing about the story that changes any of my fundamental assesments of our current situation in Iraq, or my personal assessment of either of the candidates.

Yeah. I can agree with that, Tully. Kerry is overhyping the issue.

I think the Al Qaqaa stuff is an issue, but not a huge issue. I think Tuwaitha is more significant.

It's weird that it's become polarized to this extent -- it's either huge or it's nothing -- when in fact it's neither.

Small technical note. Stills from the videos from the Minnesota TV crew clearly show the hazard labeling on the large fiber barrels as class 1.1 explosives, or mass detonating explosive, a description that does match military explosives such as RDX and HMX but not many commercial explosives.

And yes, while white crystalline RDX is not in itself the most useful explosive material, a small amount of some platicizer, such as stearic acid (a fatty acid avaiable from any soap or some meat processing plants) or other easily availabe waxes or oils will quickly and easily give you a good working version of something like Composition A5. While not as easy to use as Comp A or B or C4, it is still more than half again as powerful as TNT while being easier to detonate -- with PETN to throw in as a booster, it can be as sensitive as you like.

Whoever arranged to move several hundred tons of materials without our noticing are probably smart enough to make fast use of these explosives -- it would not surprise me if they were ex-Iraqi military, who would have known of the facility, and might have the resources at hand to move the explosives. The form that they were stored in is no real barrier.

Long post, skip if it bores you, but I got interested. The last coupla paragraphs have some relevant questions, the rest is rambling.

This whole flap has actually led me into finding out more about high explosives than I really wanted to, but hey, all knowledge is fascinating. Not that I'll ever have any need for more than stump-blasting, and that doesn't require HMX. I didn't even realize it until now, but I watched HMX used many times when I worked around oil rigs. Turns out it's frequently used as a case burster charge, and I saw a lot of that.

A class 1.1 label does NOT mean a "mass detonating explosive," but is the shipping label required for "mass explosion hazard" materials. This includes just about everything used as an explosive or solid propellant that is not completely inert, for either military or civilian purposes, including black powder and TNT. The label is hardly exclusive to RDX or HMX, or military items. It's also used on a lot of things that aren't strictly used for explosives but still have mass explosion capabilities, such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The 1.1 labels on barrels (in an ammo plant!) are not definitive of RDX or HMX by any stretch.

Now the problem with even worrying about the RDX (Royal Demolition eXplosive) is that according to the IAEA's own internal reports, there was only three tons of RDX left at Al QaQaa in January, not the 141 tons reported in the times and to the UN. Making it suddenly no more than 1/47th as relevant as it was puffed up to be. (Side note: Why go for CompA5 when you can get CompA with just wax, and CompA is more stable? Not that I have any desire to find out firsthand!)

The HMX (aka Octogen) is another matter. We're talking about 194 tons, which is a lot of boom, even if no more than the amount used for a few day's blasting in a large strip-mine. And yeah, we'd like to know where it went, but I still don't see how it's any more dangerous than the hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions already scattered all over the countryside, which contain the already-formed compounds in stable states with detonators included.

Small technical note: both RDX and HMX are used in many commercial applications as formed compounds, particularly in mining, construction, and oil drilling. The form of storage at Al QaQaa is mostly notable for the sheer volume of material that would have to be moved, and the fact that any white powders our troops stumbled across at the time would have been suspicious. AND because....

The whole time I've been looking over this story something's been niggling at the back of my mind. Not that a couple o' hundred tons of plastique is anything to sneeze at, but it's a very small fraction of the amount in Iraq, and second choice when the formed stuff is widely available, with detonators built in. So why was the raw material important to the IAEA, but the formed stuff wasn't? Why was it a "big deal" that needed to be tracked in the first place?

The answer lies in the "dual use" nature of the raw materials, a nature the formed stuff doesn't have. This is because the formed stuff can't be used for nuclear trigger casings, or shaped-burn long-distance rocket motors. These require special formulation and precision manufacture, and the pure materials as a base. IOW, the materials were being watched because they had banned WMD capabilities. (D'oh!) And, given the major surplus of explosives in the region, their only real significance in raw form is as those WMD components.

The terrorists don't have the capabilities to turn those raw materials into the WMD components. Governments do. And that's why we should find out where the explosives went. Because the odds are excellent that any missing WMD's went the same direction, and Syria may now have the lot.

As I predicted this morning, the Pentagon has released a satellite photo from 17 March 2003 that clearly shows some trucks loading up at bunkers at Al QaQaa. What a shocker, no?