Unused tools and convincing skeptics

[vakkotaur]

The Iraqi government claims they have no banned weapons or programs to make them.

The Iraqi government also claims they never did.

Evidence clearly existed to prove the second statement false.

Inspectors now are trying to determine if the first statement is true or false.

Many seem to want to believe that it is true. The lack of the inspectors finding anything other than some omissions and less than incredible cooperation, like Iraq pointing out anything it might rather hide, makes this easier.

I, however, am a skeptic. That the Iraqi nuclear program was not uncovered until a defector pointed it out indicates there is within Iraq an incredible capability to hide things. When someone blows up your first attempt, you learn to hide the second. And the third. And do so very well. My doubt, however, does not automatically mean that Iraq is lying.

The US government claims they have proof of current Iraqi weapons and programs. But so far this proof has not been made public. And just a couple weeks ago the UN inspectors had stated if such proof exist, why not at least guide them so they know where to look? This hardly helps the US government's case, to put it mildly. This reluctance to reveal the evidence behind the claims, even indirectly, helps makes the Iraqi case.

Now I said I was a skeptic regarding Iraqi claims of having no banned weapons or programs. Logically there must be a way to convince me, or this skepticism is mere superstitious belief. Proving my suspicion is right is theoretically, if not realistically, easier than proving it wrong. A single instance is all it would take. One solid piece of evidence. A use of something nasty. (Let us hope that is not how any such discovery is made for it won't do anyone any good.) But to convince me that maybe, somehow, the Iraqi claim is valid would take more effort.

That effort is going on, some say. Almost. While the US isn't revealing anything that supports the claim that Iraq is outright lying, the inspection is likewise committing an omission. The inspectors are not using what may be the most powerfully convincing tool they have: the out-of-country with-family interview.

The ability to take Iraqi scientists, along with their families, out of Iraq for interviewing is provided by the most recent UN resolution. So far it has not been exercised. What has happened has been interviews in country, and not alone. Those interviewed have insisted that government representatives be present. This indicates fear. This indicates also that there is something to hide. Now, if you could take a few (not one at a time, a few at once) people out of country, with family, where they knew they were safe from possible Iraqi retribution, the result would be more useful and more believable.

But what if they still said, to a person, that there wasn't anything to find. That would be convincing. They have no reason, or very little, not be truthful. I won't say I'd be endorsing the Iraqi government's statement from the rooftops if this happened, but it would place the problem back with those who would like to convince me, and others, that Iraq was lying. Consider it international chess. It'd get folks to look to the other side of the board for the next move.

What makes me wonder is, why hasn't this tool be used? Are the inspectors fearing the result and preventing it? Do they not want to find anything? Is this their way of preventing, or trying to prevent, any military actions? Perhaps not, but it sure seems suspicious. If you went to a doctor because of chest pain, and the hospital and insurance company said "An EKG is fine with us" and there was a ready EKG machine in the examination room and the doctor refused to take an EKG of you, wouldn't you find that to be rather odd behavior? The permission is there. The tool is there. Using the tool could give a quick result and show the real situation. Why not use it?