If you were concerned that the Syria WMD stories didn’t already feel enough like the Iraq WMD reports, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had one just for you (12/19/12). Ignatius reports that according to a Syrian defector, the Assad government’s chemical weapons are indeed on the move. Ignatius tells readers that, according to his source,
technicians constructed a mobile lab that could combine and activate so-called “binary” chemical weapons agents. These mobile mixers were constructed inside Mercedes or Volvo trucks that appeared, from the outside, to be similar to refrigerator trucks. Inside were storage tanks, pipes and a motor to drive the mixing machinery, the defector said.
The defector estimated that 10 to 15 of these mobile laboratories had been constructed. An independent source said these numbers were high, but he confirmed that the Syrians do have mobile labs.
Now it’s not that Ignatius doesn’t know that this story sounds, well, familiar. He places that giant caveat right near the beginning of his piece:
For some historical context, readers should recall the Iraqi defector known as “Curveball,” who made allegations about Iraqi chemical weapons a decade ago that bolstered the case for war—but turned out to be fabrications.
So there’s reason to be skeptical. But evidently not too skeptical. Ignatius goes on:
Seeking corroboration for the Syrian report, I checked it with knowledgeable, independent sources, who confirmed some of the details. With that support, I want to share it with readers.
Ignatius has confidence in at least some of this story, as evinced by his lead:
Reports from inside two Syrian chemical weapons facilities offer chilling new evidence that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime developed special vehicles last year for moving and mixing the weapons—and an unconfirmed allegation that Lebanese allies of the regime, presumably in Hezbollah, may have been trained 11 months ago in the weapons’ use.
What he’s saying, in other words, is that the mobile labs exist; the more frightening allegation—that the labs might be headed to Lebanon for use by Hezbollah—is “unconfirmed.” How solid is the sourcing? He writes:
A Syrian source provided a detailed account in a telephone conversation over the weekend, drawing on intelligence provided to him by a Syrian defector who worked inside the chemical weapons network.
So we have what would appear to be a secondhand account, delivered by phone, thanks to arrangements made by a Syrian opposition group. And how do we know the weapons were headed for Hezbollah? Ignatius tells us that his source says, “The officers placed the chemicals in a civilian vehicle and were seen driving across a bridge in the direction of the highway toward Lebanon.”
David Ignatius
What does all of this mean? That’s impossible to say—though the idea that mobile chemical weapons labs were put together last year, after the revolt started, in order to coordinate transfer of the weapons to Hezbollah is, on its face, a little far-fetched.
Ignatius gives the Iraq stories all but one paragraph, but it’s important to recall more of the journalism from that period. As Seth Ackerman wrote in Extra! (7–8/03), one of the most embarrassing—and largely forgotten—episodes of the Iraq War came when NBC breathlessly reported the discovery of Iraq’s feared mobile bio-weapons labs:
On May 12, NBC News correspondent Jim Avila, reporting from Baghdad, declared that the labs “may be the most significant WMD findings of the war.” Joining him was hawkish former U.N. nuclear inspector David Kay (now an “NBC News analyst”), who was flown to Iraq to perform an impromptu inspection for the cameras. Armed with a pointer, he rattled off the trailer ‘s parts: “This is a compressor. You want to keep the fermentation process under pressure so it goes faster. This vessel is the fermenter….”
Kay’s explanation—”think of it as sort of the chicken soup for biological weapons. You mixed it with the seed stock, which came from this gravity flow tank up here into the fermenter. And under pressure with heat, it fermented”—was convincing enough for television news. Kay stated: “Literally, there’s nothing else you would do this way on a mobile facility. It is it.”
Well, except for one problem: What they found was actually equipment to make hydrogen for weather balloons. But what they were looking for was what defectors told various officials they would find—and part of what Colin Powell told the world about Iraq’s WMD program on February 5, 2003. The old saying that when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail comes to mind.
Is “intelligence” on Syria any better? It’s unclear why we should think so. But for columnists like Ignatius, what someone told him on the phone based on what someone else may have seen is apparently good enough. And maybe it doesn’t really matter. As Ignatius once explained (Washington Post, 4/25/03):
Personally, I don’t much care if the U.S. reports about weapons of mass destruction prove to be imaginary. Toppling Hussein’s regime was still right.
Does he care this time whether or not the WMD stories he’s reporting as fact are imaginary or not? Or would toppling Assad’s regime be right no matter what?
It’s amazing how this type of journalism works.
They start with a premise which fits the standard dialogue on the Middle East, Arab dictators, and the ‘war on terror’ and work from there to fill in the gaps of evidence. All it takes are a few vague claims about possible chemical weapons use to start the rumor mill, and immediately the beltway types are falling over themselves to find scoops.
And what is the logic we’re given on why we should trust them this time? “Oh, don’t worry guys, my sources are totally more accurate than ‘Curveball’ was.”
Good game.
Its the old What If game; “What if it is right this time?” These major news media people are nothing more than the Charactor Tommy Smothers played when they would sing about the “Puu -mans crav-acies”. He would get all worked up about invisible pumas in crevices and everything ended up being about that.
They want to show their “power” to control the American Public, they will say what they have to, in order to get what they want. There used to be an old joke, “Little boys and Girls who tell lies, grow up to be weather men”. The Corollary to that seems to be, “and the pathological liars end up as Media Execs, coming up through the ranks”.
So, does Ignatius receive a set salary from the CIA
Or is he compensated for his services on a per piece basis?
Yes, I’m being facetious.
But the effect of his duplicity is the same, regardless, isn’t it?
How stupid are they to fall for more stories from CurveBall?
How stupid do they think we are that we would fall for those who have fallen for CurveBall again?
These people have got to get new copy writers; their stuff is way beyond stale.
Come on! Let’s begin by asking whether this even makes sense. Iraq used chemical weapons against civilians in a mountainous area hostile toward the government where such weapons could be easily contained and kept away from hurting the regime’s supporters and out of the eye of the public.
Even if the Syrian government wanted to use chemical weapons against its people, there would be very little practical way to do so without killing their own supporters.
Look up binary chemical weapons. They need no equipment: they work by reacting two components to form a lethal agent. As far as the trailers in Iraq are concerned, they weren’t claimed to be chemical but biological. As a chemist I could recognize from the CIA/DIA White Paper that purported to conclude they were mobile biological WMD laboratories that they were for hydrogen manufacture. Aluminum and “caustic” were found. React those with water and you get hydrogen – and heat. The Duelfer report contained an Annex that discussed the trailers which properly concluded they were for hydrogen manufacture. The Annex was largely based on the still/classified report from a team of scientific experts sent to Iraq to examine the trailers. There are multiple WTF aspects to this entire episode which, because they are technical and therefore outside the competency of nearly every reporter or journalist do not get proper attention.
Dear reporters and journalists: much of what you ultimately write and report arises from your asking those who know about something about that something. You should ask chemists and biologists about chemical and biological matters. You could, for example, ask what the “caustic” in the White Paper is and then ask why, when it has a more recognizable common name, was it identified as “caustic”? You could ask about every technical sentence in the white paper. Even now. You have the skill of taking such answers and reporting them in an intelligible way. Use that skill.