PERSPECTIVE ON THE PERSIAN GULF : Chemical Threat Is Real, but We’re Ready

American forces in the Persian Gulf face the most serious chemical weapons threat since World War II. Iraq possesses thousands of tons of mustard gas, a blistering agent, and of Sarin and Tabun, two lethal nerve agents. These are loaded into artillery shells, rockets and bombs. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq repeatedly used these weapons against Iranian forces and even against its own Kurds.

Iraq clearly has the capacity, and may indeed be willing, to employ chemical weapons against U.S. forces in the gulf.

But contrary to the claims of some commentators, U.S. forces are well-prepared to operate in a chemically contaminated environment and can respond effectively.

Iraq could use chemical weapons defensively, in response to an effort to dislodge its forces from Kuwait, or offensively, in support of an assault against Saudi Arabia. The chief objectives in either case would be to cause casualties, make operations more difficult by contaminating materiel and lines of communication, and harm troop morale.

There are three ways in which U.S. commanders could respond, should an Iraqi chemical attack appear imminent or actually occur.

The first is active defense. This might involve intercepting attacking aircraft, air strikes against Iraqi airfields, or targeting Iraqi artillery and rocket launchers. The United States could also attack Iraq’s weapons stockpiles, stores of protective equipment and decontamination and reconnaissance forces.

Second is passive defense. U.S. forces have never been better-trained or equipped to fight in a chemical environment. Their sensors can detect and warn of the presence of both mustard and nerve agents. They possess masks, charcoal-impregnated protective suits, gloves, booties and overboots, all of which provide full protection against all known chemical agents. These troops have worn their chemical protective gear and practiced using detection and decontamination equipment in training exercises, including in desert conditions.

This is not to say that fighting in a chemically contaminated environment would be easy. The protective gear reduces visibility, interferes with communication and dexterity and is extremely hot to wear.

But the need to operate in protective equipment can be reduced by tactical measures. U.S. forces can be dispersed to reduce their vulnerability. Supplies and equipment reserves can be covered to protect them from contamination. Reconnaissance and detection equipment can be shifted to provide early warning of an attack.

The final response is retaliation. Saddam Hussein must be conscious of the fact that, unlike Iran and the Kurds, the United States holds a wide variety of retaliatory options, including massive conventional strikes against Iraq. No one should doubt, least of all Saddam Hussein, that if chemical weapons are used, U.S. forces can and will respond “very, very severely,” as President Bush himself has warned.