ShareThis Page
ISIS lacks deadly chemical munitions in Iraq, Syria, Pentagon claims |

ISIS lacks deadly chemical munitions in Iraq, Syria, Pentagon claims

Islamic State terrorists do not appear to have seized any chemical weapons as they have rolled across Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon said Wednesday, as reports of U.S. troops’ exposure to similar weapons during Washington’s last conflict in Iraq raised questions about the extremist group’s access to similar deadly agents.

“We have no indications right now that they have possession of those kinds of munitions,” said Rear Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman.

The United States destroyed 4,530 chemical munitions during its 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was motivated in part by the Bush administration’s belief that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein harbored a large-scale, secret weapons program. The chemical munitions that U.S. troops later found, however, were mostly decaying remnants of a much earlier weapon program.

While American troops may have destroyed most of those weapons, U.S. officials acknowledge that at least some chemical materials may remain in Iraq, including at a Hussein-era chemical weapon site that extremists seized in June.

The New York Times on Wednesday reported that at least 17 U.S. service members had been exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq during the invasion. In some cases, The Times said, military physicians failed to provide proper care to the troops, some of whom have reported lasting health problems.

Although military officials do not have a tally for all of the service members exposed to those weapons from 2003 to 2011, when President Obama withdrew forces from Iraq, a Department of Defense official said about 20 had been exposed to chemicals from 2006 to 2008. Two troops were exposed to a nerve agent in 2004, the official said.

The renewed reports about Iraq’s lingering chemical stockpile may intensify anxiety in Congress about Obama’s Islamic State strategy, which now is centered upon airstrikes on militant positions in Iraq and parts of Syria. Some lawmakers are pushing for more direct military involvement in the fight against the group, which has beheaded hostages — including Westerners — and threatened to initiate further attacks against the West.

“There are caches of this stuff clearly out there — it would be folly just to assume there aren’t,” an aide to the House Armed Services Committee said, referring to the possibility of the Islamic State seizing chemical materials in Iraq or Syria. “It’s a contingency you have to be prepared for.” The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

Senior U.S. officials show few signs that they support sending troops into ground combat in what has become a messy, multisided war.

Speaking Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ruled out a new ground war in Iraq.

“Our strategy in Iraq and Syria does require forces on the ground, but they must be local forces,” Hagel said during an address at an Army conference.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.