The World This Week: Chemical Weapons

This is a big one.
Remember when Bush launched Iraq War Two (the 2003 invasion, with Iraq War One being the Persian Gulf War) on the grounds that there were active weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how it all blew up in his face when there were no weapons of mass destruction there?
Well, as the world learned this week, that second part of that equation is a bit flawed. Because there evidently were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And there were a hell of a lot of them at that.

This first link goes to a version of the actual document. The second link goes to an article on the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

So Bush was right! Well...no, he wasn't. Not from what we know at this point, at any rate. The key word, as the Times points out, is active. The chemical shells mentioned in the article, and the several thousand like them, were not being used actively by the Iraqi military. The overwhelming majority of them were buried in various sites around Iraq, relics from old battles. The far right, as one would expect, is having a field day nonetheless. The far left jumps on the word active, undercutting the significance of this discovery - something the Times does not do.

I said earlier that from what we know at this point, Bush's claims about active chemical weapons were unfounded. But the fact that inactive chemical weapons were discovered -  in the thousands, no less - during America's time in Iraq makes it far more likely that active chemical weapons did exist, and may still exist, in the region. That second bit is the most frightening part, because the section of Iraq where most of the inactive chemical shells were uncovered is currently in the grips of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Assuming there were, or are, active chemical weapons in Iraq, it would stand to reason that they'd be in this same area. If ISIS were to get its hands on chemical weapons...that story wouldn't have a happy ending. In all honesty, we'd probably be looking at Iraq War Three. That wouldn't end well - certainly not for ISIS, and certainly not for us. One only has to look at the last two Iraq wars  to understand why we'd feel the bite in the end. Is there a long-term answer? Can America do anything to help in the end? Or will we only make things worse for everybody by involving ourselves? Your guess is as good as mine.