Protecting Intelligence Sources...

Aside from the obvious that you are placing informant lives in jeopardy (satellite images cannot possibly be definitive proof wrt VX and anthrax), if you show the inspectors where these weapons are hidden and they tell Saddam (they have to, how else could they get admittance to the facilities), then Saddam will just move them again, and now you might lose track of them.

If you know where they are, make sure they stay there, and if Saddam continues lying and not telling you where they are, go destroy them. That is exactly what the UN Resolution states that the international community should do, afterall.

Now, waging this war is not necessarily my take, but this makes perfect military sense to me. Blix says Saddam is lying, so why tell Saddam exactly where you know he is hiding weapons, if you do know. The shell game continues, and you might lose track of where they are.

The only good reason I can think of why to reveal evidence is if you are ready to attack that day, and you want the release of information to get the weapons on the move. Then take them out as they are moving them.

The endpoint is to destroy the weapons. The endpoint is not to show the world you were right that Saddam was lying. If he is still lying to this day, he ain't ever going to allow you near those weapons. And I don't really need my President to prove anything to me, if they know.

 

I don't understand why anyone would think that the White House would EVER share information that could compromise our position, or more importantly, compromise the lives of our soldiers that you (you being those of you complaining that they want hard evidence) are so against risking in battle.

Do you think that if they broadcast something on national TV that Saddam won't get wind of it? It makes more sense to me that they would put out false information.

 

Major,

Did you see the satellite photos from construction of one of the palaces? They built an entire facility under the ground, then covered it with a lake.

IMHO, I think that they are concerned that the materials will be moved before the US can destroy them. It appears that this administration has little confidence in the inpectors.

My hope is that if we go to war, they can at least share all of the intel after the war starts.

 

Because world opinion can be as 'real' and 'important' as just about anything else.

 

The reason we've been reluctant to give the intel on the whereabouts of Saddam's WMD is that we do not trust the UN. For good reason - in past inspections regimes, information given to UNSCOM had a way of leaking to Iraqi Intelligence. This time, the weapons in question are far more mobile, and if the information is leaked then the weapons will just be moved. We know where most of them are, and we want to keep it that way - so that we can quickly neutralize them when the war breaks out.

If we tell the UN inspectors, and the Iraqis find out their positions are compromised, then they will move the weapons. And then we will not be able to capture/destroy them. It has little to do with protecting info sources.

The administration rightly has no confidence in the inspections process and the inspectors. Seeing as they report to the UN - an organization whose members (particularly France, Russia, China, and Germany) have a large economic stake in keeping the current Iraqi government in power - they have no interest in actually finding anything. They cannot be trusted to do an honest job. The whole thing is just for show.

 

interesting stuff Treeman

 

Alas, this is one of those unfortunate situations in which both sides are absolutely correct.

1. There is absolutely no reason why anybody else should believe the US without proof. We're not precisely credible.
2. Releasing sensitive intelligence data would, at best, endanger the mission of locating WMD. At worst, it would endanger lives.

Both are true. Which makes it annoying when either "side" trumpets their position self-righteously, since it's not like there's direct logical conflict between the two positions. The arguments are separate.

 

The whole idea of protecting intelligence sources is usually bogus.

Almost every time in the past when the govt. has decided to not release sensitive information it wasn't to protect intelligence sources as they've claimed. Thanks to the freedom of information act, it's been shown that they usually just didn't want people to know what they were doing, or how they were doing things. Obviously that was previous administrations and this time this administration might be telling the truth. But this administration has already fudged facts about evidence against Iraq, and so I'm doubtful.

I know that real evidence would mean a world of difference in terms of international support, and the UN. If they do have informers that they are protecting the informers don't have to be ratted out just to get the evidence in the public. The U.S. only has to suggest locations disclosed by the informers to the weapons inspectors, and voila...! the Iraqis are busted.

Also as was mentioned in the original post, photos from satellites don't have anything to do with informers or putting anyone at risk.

Blix has already painted the Iraqis as uncooperative, and the setup, and finding one solid piece of evidence might be all it would take to sway the world toward a favorable opinion of military action in Iraq.

 

An interesting thought, but in the past the weapons inspectors destroyed far more Iraqi chemical weapons and weapons stockpiles than all the U.S. bombs and gulf war action. It seems that working with the UN would still be more effective than not doing it.

As far as trusting the UN, companies with govt. ties such as Haliburton would profit from having to rebuild the oil fields their and equipping the govt. with equipment etc. So as much as the case can be made for the U.N. not to be trusted the same can be made for the U.S. not to be trusted. Though I'm not as cynical towards either.

 

Cool.......Haven is back to be the Voice of Reason.

 

In addition to the reasons already mentioned, any satellite surveillance is the property of the US military. Once gathered, military officials review it extensively and devise many contingency plans in the event of a conflict. Once that process is complete and all preparations are made to carry out the plans, the information is declassified.

Nobody should expect the military to broadcast classified information.

 

Pole:

I'm always the voice of reason. Your disagreements with me just show that you are not . Don't worry though, you show promise. And with time, you might even make as much sense as me.

 

When I posted that, I thought I might be throwing you a slow pitch. I knew I had opened myself up for exactly such a comment.

Bully for you for knocking it out of the park.

 

<blockquote><hr>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
An interesting thought, but in the past the weapons inspectors destroyed far more Iraqi chemical weapons and weapons stockpiles than all the U.S. bombs and gulf war action. <hr></blockquote>
Completely irrelevant. Blix said there is literally tons of stuff than Iraq disclosed, but is yet to provide evidence of its destruction.

where is it???

I don't see how you can believe the intel is solely satellite images of trucks and people on the move, as if you'd consider that definitive. The intel has to include data gathered on foot by most likely recruited informants inside Iraq. If you don't believe their life is in jeopardy and that it is very important that they continue providing us with up to date information, then what does the CIA do? If you release data, you have to get those informants out of there. Why would you want to move your informants out, until you are ready to strike.

 

Why would anyone think they'd share information? How bout cause they said they would.

Silly me. I was just believing them when they said they were going to present incontrovertible evidence of a nukes program and a direct link to 9/11. I didn't know that they were lying to the American people as a matter of national security.

 

It's about time you caught on. Actually, I've never heard "incontrovertible" until just now. They've always been a little cagey about releasing evidence. Given the circumstances, that isn't surprising to some of us.

 

I dont know what to tell ya Batman...if you are looking for the White House to tell you everything they know just to appease the public...it aint gonna happen. Have you ever heard of a Need To Know Basis?

 

NJ: I hardly expect the number one, undisputed champ of secretive White Houses to tell us everything they know. Nor do I expect them to compromise sensitive intelligence or operatives. What I expect them to do is deliver the evidence they have been promising for months. They say time's running out for Saddam to do what he's said he would do. I say it's running out for them, too. And the polls and the UN Security Council back me up.

This whole PR campaign has been based on this idea of, well, if you knew what we know, you'd understand how urgent this is. That's always been backed up with 'and we'll show you the proof real soon.'

We had months of them promising to prove a direct link to 9/11. That went away. Then we had them promising to prove a nuclear program and that went away. Now we have them jumping up and down screaming 'smoking gun' over some cannisters (whose significance has been roundly dismissed) and showing up on the Sunday talk shows to say they "probably" have WMD. What happened to "definitely?" What happened to the proof of same?

It's just stupid to turn this around on people who question the war as demanding too much evidence of a threat when this White House promised definitive evidence and has presented approximately NONE to date.

They say one thing and do another. They have reneged on the promise which was the key to this PR campaign. And WE'RE the ones being unreasonable? Give me a break.

 

You are sort of contradicting yourself here, no? You don;t want to compromise sensitive intelligence etc ...but you want them to deliver on their promise.