Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

Kerry Spot reader R.L. points to the January 27, 2003 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency to the U.N. Security Council.

Way down at point 53 and 54, we read:

53. The relocation and consumption of HMX (a high explosive of potential use in nuclear weapons), as described in Iraq's backlog of semi-annual declarations, has been investigated by the IAEA. In those declarations, Iraq stated that, between 1998 and 2002, it had transferred 32 of the 228 tonnes of HMX which had been under IAEA seal as of December 1998 to other locations. In addition, Iraq stated that a very small quantity (46 kg) of HMX had been used at munitions factories for research and development. At the request of the IAEA, Iraq has provided further clarification on the movement and use of the HMX. In that clarification, Iraq indicated that the 32 tonnes of HMX had been blended with sulphur to produce industrial explosives and provided mainly to cement plants for quarrying, and that the research and development using the small quantity of HMX had been in the areas of personnel mines, explosives in civilian use, missile warhead filling and research on tanks.

54. IAEA inspectors have been able to verify and re-seal the remaining balance of approximately 196 tonnes of HMX, most of which has remained at the original storage location. The movement of the blended HMX and the other small quantity of HMX has also been documented by Iraq. However, it has not been possible to verify the use of those materials, as all of it is said to have been consumed through explosions and there are no immediately available technical means for verifying such uses. The IAEA will continue to investigate means of verifying the Iraqi statements about the use of the HMX and blended HMX.

So the IAEA, who in the Times story comes across as the noble international bureaucracy warning those cowboy Americans, couldn't really verify that Iraq was using the HMX the way they said they were. And they counted 228 [UPDATE: tonnes, originally wrote tons], not the 380 tons that the Times article references. Where did that additional 150 tons go? Or come from?

Say, this article with the Times wouldn't be an effort by the IAEA to cover its flank by putting the blame on American troops instead of their own inspectors, now would it?

UPDATE: A Kerry Spot reader notes that perhaps the discrepancy is a result of the New York Times using tons (2,000 lbs) and the report using metric tonnes (1,000 kilograms). Doh!

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Kerry Spot reader Todd points out, “A metric ton (“tonne”) is 1000 kg, or 2200 lbs. – not quite enough to deal with the discrepancy in question – of course you gotta realize you may be dealing with the same accounting system that was tracking Oil for Food money.”

Let’s go through this again. Before the war, IAEA says Iraq has 196 tonnes of HMX.

According to the Times article, Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology calculates the “vanished stockpile as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX” - which is pretty darn close to the IAEA estimate. But Abbas also lists 141.2 metric tons of RDX, which stands for "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, which stands for “pentaerythritol tetranitrate.”

But there’s a problem. If RDX and PETN are as dangerous as HMX, why did the IAEA report not mention them? Were they aware of Iraq’s possession of these additional explosives? If they did, why didn’t they mention it in the report to the U.N. Security Council? And if they didn’t know about them, how can one contend that the IAEA was doing a good job of keeping track of these explosives?

And if there are large numbers of explosives in Iraq that the IAEA didn't account for, and men like Abu Zarqawi are on the prowl, isn't it more important than ever that the Coalition finish the job in Iraq instead of pulling out at the first opportunity?

[Posted 10/25 12:56 PM]