Police Maj. Mohammed Mahmoud al Nattah, member of the Anbar Salvation council, told state-run Iraqiya television the bomber hit a residential complex and dozens of wounded were taken to the Ramadi hospital.
Police opened fire as the suicide car bomber sped toward a checkpoint, three miles west of the city, according to police Col. Tariq al-Dulaimi. Nearby buildings were heavily damaged and police were searching the rubble for more victims.
Twenty-seven were killed in what appears to be a continuation of the jihadi effort to terrorize the Anbar Sunni Arabs into detaching themselves from the new alliance between the Coalition and the Anbar tribes.
The reported blast effect shows that this was a conventional explosives bombing with gas as an added terror effect rather than an explosion designed to disperse gas as the primary weapon. It is nonetheless a horrific weapon and our press just doesn't get it or doesn't care.
I don't understand how the members of the press can be so confused over the enemy's chlorine gas attacks. I noted earlier that they are terror weapons and indicative of the monstrous nature of our enemies, but that in the end chlorine won't kill as many people in the open as high explosives will. The use of gas inside buildings as another matter altogether in regard to lethality. Luckily we haven't seen it used that way.
Yet the press seems mighty confused on the poison gas issue by two different press conferences. The first had Major General Gaskin state:
Okay, first on the chlorine bombs, we have seen that as a technique by the al Qaeda. What you have to understand is that the chlorine bombs have more of a psychological effect than they do a killing effect, but it will definitely -- the type of IEDs that will allow them to scare and intimidate the Anbaris. And I think you see that those attacks have been mainly aimed at the IP, which they consider their greatest threat, in order to intimidate them not to come to work, intimidate them not to continue the good work they're doing as far as bringing peace and stability within the city. You know, I think the fact that they are staying on the job, I think the fact that they have allowed the al Qaeda to be pushed out of the cities because of their work is a good thing. So although they're using the chlorine bombs, it has more of a psychological impact than a death and destruction type of impact.
The second conference, with Major General Barbero, led some reporters to display great confusion looking for apparent contradictions in the above statements about chlorine gas attacks. Said MG Barbero:
I strongly believe this use of chlorine should not be dismissed merely as a new tactic or an emerging trend. Chlorine is a poison gas. It is a poison gas being used on the Iraqi people. Before these attacks, the last time poison gas was used on the Iraqi people was by Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda in Iraq and other related Sunni extremists are employing this weapon against the Sunni population of Al Anbar province, so we have Sunni extremists attacking innocent Sunnis with a poison gas. We assess this escalation of AQI's murder and intimidation campaign as a reaction to the growing anti-AQI resistance that we see in Al Anbar province.
Then the press returned to this later, confused that the general mentioned as a historical comparison that Saddam's regime used gas on Iraqi civilians, too. And confused that one general noted it was lethal and another noted that it was not as lethal as high explosives:
Q We're hearing different things on the severity of this threat. This morning a major general from Anbar province said that these weapons have more of a psychological effect than a lethal effect. So it seems like on the one hand, the Defense Department is downplaying these weapons, and on the other hand, as you mentioned, these are the first poison gas attacks since Saddam Hussein.
GEN. BARBERO: I agree with him on the effects. I'm not -- he's talking about the effects, I'm talking about this as a weapon and what it really means, being an attack with poison gas. So I think we're talking different things here.
The effect is less lethal. That is a fact. yet if we started using poison gas I don't think the press would rush to write stories that we had decided to be more concerned about our enemies by using a weapon that has less lethality. But the fact that the evil Saddam regime used chemicals to kill and terrorize Kurds and Shias; and today al Qaeda in Iraq is using chemicals to kill and terrorize Sunni Arabs. Heck, we are shifting to smaller high explosive bombs but nobody gives us credit for an effort that really is about reducing casualties to innocent nearby civilians.
And again the press is confused:
Q I'm still a little confused about the way you characterized the chlorine attack. You said it was the first since Saddam had used poison gas, but the general earlier talked about it as more along the lines of intimidation. You seem to be suggesting that it's in a totally different category than just a psychological intimidation technique, that it is something that the Sunnis are trying to do like they did under Saddam. Are you saying that you see signs that they want to restart that, that chlorine gas isn't their ultimate goal and that they are trying to acquire other weapons?
GEN. BARBERO: No, absolutely I did not mean to imply that. What I'm saying is the use of chlorine gas is not just -- should not be dismissed as just another tactic or an emerging TTP. It is a different type of weapon. And the fact that poison gas is being employed by Sunnis -- extremists against a Sunni population I think is significant. And the fact that this is the first time we've seen this used against Iraqis -- the last time it was used against the Iraqi people was by Saddam Hussein. I think that's significant also. So I'm not in contradiction with -- I hear the reporting but I don't think I'm contradicting that. I'm just telling you that in our view, this is significant.
Q I guess what I'm trying to draw you out on is you seem to say that it's much more dangerous than has been previously described --
GEN. BARBERO: No --
Q -- by the military and perhaps portends that the Sunnis want to do something again like they did under Saddam, with a weapon more lethal.
GEN. BARBERO: No, I never made any implication of that.
Q But --
GEN. BARBERO: And -- but if I -- and -- but let me clarify. I did not say this is a much more dangerous -- or they're achieving greater effects with this. It is largely a psychological weapon. The injuries that we're experiencing from the chlorine gas are being treated, and so it's not significant as far as casualty-producing. It is significant as a new level of weapon that these extremists are resorting to against their own people.
And so I'm not saying that this is leading to their attempts to attempt other type weapons, either. I'm just saying, for this, it's a poison gas.
Q I understand. But how concerned are you that they do want to acquire the types of weapons that Saddam used again --
GEN. BARBERO: If they'll resort to this, they'll resort to anything.
And one more time with feeling:
Q Well, your use of the term "poison gas" is going to ricochet in the blogosphere in the next three or four hours among a lot of the supporters of going into Iraq, saying, "Oh, the Pentagon is now admitting poison gas, weapons of mass destruction; they had stockpiles." It's going to happen.
GEN. BARBERO: Chlorine gas is used in water purification and a lot of other industrial uses, everywhere around the world, in Iraq. And I made no mention or -- nor am I drawing any links to weapons of mass destruction or anything like that.
Q But wait a second --
GEN. BARBERO: I just said this weapon should not be reported just as another new tactic, and that's what I said.
Q Just a second, sir. You mentioned that Saddam's use of poison gas against -- (off mike) --
GEN. BARBERO: Okay, right.
Q -- weapon of mass destruction example given by this administration before the war began. So you seem to be insinuating or suggesting that there is a connection of an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
GEN. BARBERO: If I did, then I was mistaken.
Q Well, what is the connection between this and --
GEN. BARBERO: The connection is just what I said. The last time poison gas was used against the Iraqi people, but -- was by Saddam Hussein.
I'm sorry, but this line of questioning is stone cold stupid. A "little confused" is an understatement. What is it about WMD topics that send the press into brain lock?
It is ok for the press to believe Saddam had no WMD programs in 2003. They can ignore that we have dug up rounds, that Saddam had enough raw materials to restart mustard gas production at a whim and nerve gas production in weeks or months. He had the technical people ready and just needed the international community to look away for a few months. He was poised to restart production and I don't assume we know what happened to the chemical weapons we assumed he had prior to the war.
But regardless, admitting that an evil enemy uses poison gas now in Iraq does not require you all to give up your progressive credentials and renounce your views on Saddam. Poison gas is in fact prohibited by that international law that these types worship and you'd think that alone might draw a little outrage. The press went into full gotcha mode alleging that white phosphorous rounds represented chemical warfare by the United States. But actual chemical weapons use by the enemy is a yawner. No story there!
What is really important for our reporters is trying to nail down a plastic turkey moment by trying to show two of our generals contradicting each other on the chlorine weapons. There was no contradiction. And our enemies continue to use chemical weapons.
So remember, the fact that poison gas is not as lethal as conventional bombs (and chemcicals don't, obviously, knock down structures as high explosive attacks will do) does not mean the enemy is more humane because they use a weapon that inspires more fear than it does cause death. This is indeed considered an escalation by the very fear and terror it inspires. It is a crueler form of warfare.
And let us all be thankful that Saddam is not around to pass along more advanced forms of poison gas to the jihadis. As the MG noted, the enemy has shown no limits to what they will resort to in order to kill civilians.
Oh, and it really is ok for our reporters to be outraged by what the enemy does. Or it should be, anyway.
