Final Thoughts on al-Qaqaa

Simon X in commenting on this post refers to this ABC News report from Thursday night:

Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003 — nine days after Baghdad fell.

Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear.

Bush critics have seized on this report as "smoking gun" evidence that the missing explosives were taken after US forces arrived on the scene, and thus prove the case that the Bush Administration is horribly incompetent. Unfortunately, matters aren't quite so simple. Before I move on from the aptly-named al-Qaqaa "controversy", here's a final roundup.

-Paul at Wizbang is less than impressed with the KSTP video. Jim Geraghty at the Kerry Spot has questions as well.

-According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there were 194 tons of HMX at al-Qaqaa. Even if you assume that it is HMX in the video, the amount shown is merely a fraction of what has been alleged to have been there originally.

-The IAEA has also stated that there are 377 total tons of missing explosives from al-Qaqaa. Yet in January 2003, the agency reported that there were only 221 tons of explosive materials at the site. The IAEA claims that the other 150 tons were stored at a satellite location. So even the IAEA isn't completely sure of how many explosives there were, and where they were located.

-Fox News reported today that the Pentagon has satellite photos from March and early April 2003 showing large trucks near the bunkers where the explosives were stored. This raises the possibility that the material was removed before or during the war.

-The bunkers containing the explosives were sealed by the IAEA. Yet the IAEA admitted in a January 2003 report that the seals were rather less than secure:

Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the front door locked.

In other words, the Iraqis could have removed material from the bunkers while leaving the seals intact. Some safeguard.

-Power Line links to this Associated Press interview with Colonel David Perkins, commander of the brigade that first seized al-Qaqaa:

The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is "very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.

Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. David Perkins. He commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad.

Perkins and others in the military acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place. But he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using trucks almost certainly would have been detected.

-The Pentagon revealed today that a team from the 3rd Infantry Division removed and destroyed 250 tons of explosives and munitions from al-Qaqaa, starting on April 13. Some of the material may have been RDX, which is part of the alleged 377 tons.

-As Jim Geraghty has noted, "none of this explosive has to date shown up in any Iraqi insurgent attack."

-For the sake of argument, however, assume that all 377 tons of explosives were at al-Qaqaa, and were taken after we overthrew Saddam. These explosives are a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 650,000 tons of munitions and explosives that Saddam had dispersed throughout Iraq. So far, we have secured 400,000 tons of this material. BTW, please spare me the ridiculous "we didn't have enough troops" argument. We could have sent the entire Army and Marine Corps to Iraq, and it wouldn't have been enough to find and secure all of these munitions. If we had stopped to gather and secure all this material as our first priority, Saddam and his forces would still be in Baghdad awaiting our eventual arrival.

-Finally, if the HMX and RDX held at al-Qaqaa was so much more dangerous than "ordinary explosives", then why was Saddam allowed to retain them? The New York Sun reported on Wednesday that then-UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer urged the IAEA in 1995 to remove the al-Qaqaa explosives, but the agency refused.


In short, even if the KSTP video has been accurately reported, it is not the definitive evidence that has been claimed. There are substantial questions as to just how much material was at al-Qaqaa, and how much of it was still there when our troops arrived. By the testimony of a senior officer who was in the area, it is "highly improbable" that the explosives could have been taken after our forces captured the complex, at least in any large quantity. We don't know exactly what happened to the material, as Kerry's own foreign policy advisor, Richard Holbrooke, has admitted. To use this issue as the Kerry campaign has done is highly disingenuous.


Update: Simon X has posted some interesting additional information about al-Qaqaa in the comments section.