DOCSLIB.ORG

The Bush Administration's Decision to Invade Iraq: Did They Fall Victim to Groupthink?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Bush Administration's Decision to Invade Iraq: Did They Fall Victim to Groupthink? University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2009 The Bush Administration's Decision To Invade Iraq: Did They Fall Victim To Groupthink? Joel Nantais University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Nantais, Joel, "The Bush Administration's Decision To Invade Iraq: Did They Fall Victim To Groupthink?" (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 4118. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/4118 THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION‟S DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ: DID THEY FALL VICTIM TO GROUPTHINK? by JOEL DAVID NANTAIS B.S. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2006 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sciences in the department of Political Science in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2009 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the George W. Bush administration became victims of groupthink when they made the policy decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Groupthink is a policy-making model which was first put forward by Irving Janis which attempts to explain how experienced and elite policy-makers can make decisions which lead to disastrous outcomes due to conditions which cause defective decision-making. Research was conducted through a qualitative, within case study which was made possible through the inherent process tracing method of the groupthink model. Mainly secondary sources which detailed the historical case of the decision to invade Iraq via journalists, outside researchers, and even the members of the administration were utilized in this investigation. The principle conclusion was that groupthink appeared to exist in the policy-making process of the Bush administration. This was reached after finding many of the antecedent conditions as well as the symptoms of groupthink in the Bush administration. Especially prominent were the occurrence of structural faults of the administration, mindguarding, self-censorship, and collective rationalizations. However, it is important to note that these results are sensitive to the discovery or release of new or contradictory evidence. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE THEORY ....................................................................... 17 Groupthink ................................................................................................................................ 17 Reviews of Groupthink ............................................................................................................. 27 Case Studies ........................................................................................................................... 27 Laboratory Studies ................................................................................................................. 35 Reformations of Groupthink ..................................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 55 My Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................... 55 My Model .................................................................................................................................. 55 My Research Methods ............................................................................................................... 60 CHAPTER 4: THE ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS OF GROUPTHINK .......................... 67 Decision Makers Have a High level of Collective Efficacy ..................................................... 67 Structural Faults of the Organization ........................................................................................ 69 Isolation of the group ............................................................................................................. 70 Lack of procedural policy debate .......................................................................................... 74 iii Lack of an Impartial Leader .................................................................................................. 80 The Policy Group Perceives a High Likelihood of Success...................................................... 81 Summary of Antecedent Conditions ......................................................................................... 83 CHAPTER 5: THE OBSERVABLE SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK ............................. 85 Type1- Illusion of invulnerability ............................................................................................. 85 Type1-Belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group ................................................................. 87 Type2-Collective Rationalizations ............................................................................................ 89 Type2-Sterotypes of Out-Groups .............................................................................................. 92 Type3-Self-Censorship.............................................................................................................. 94 Type3-Illusion of Unanimity ..................................................................................................... 98 Type3-Direct Pressure on Dissenters ........................................................................................ 99 Type3-Self-Appointed Mindguards ........................................................................................ 101 Summary of Groupthink Symptoms ....................................................................................... 103 CHAPTER 6: THE SYMPTOMS OF DEFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING ..................... 105 Incomplete Survey of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 105 Incomplete Survey of Objectives ............................................................................................ 107 Failure to Examine Risks of the Preferred Choice .................................................................. 108 Failure to Reappraise Initially Rejected Alternatives ............................................................. 111 Poor Information Search ......................................................................................................... 112 iv Selective Bias in Processing Information at Hand .................................................................. 114 Failure to Workout Contingency Plans ................................................................................... 115 CHAPTER 7: ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS ............................................................. 118 Standard Groupthink Model .................................................................................................... 118 Organizational Process Model ................................................................................................ 123 Analogical Reasoning ............................................................................................................. 129 President Bush as Sole Decider ............................................................................................... 136 Summary of Alternative Explanations .................................................................................... 141 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 142 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 147 v TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Janis's Groupthink Model ______________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 2: Neck and Moorhead's Groupthink Model __________________________________________________ 40 Figure 3: Glenn Whyte's Groupthink Model _______________________________________________________ 44 Figure 4: Paul 't Hart's Groupthink Model ________________________________________________________ 53 Figure 5: Combined Groupthink Model ___________________________________________________________ 58 vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In March of 2003 the United States of America along with the United Kingdom, Australia, and the rest of the “Coalition of the willing” began the invasion of Iraq with the intended goal of overthrowing the existing regime headed by Saddam Hussain and setting up a democracy in one of the most important countries in the Middle East. The fact that this was done is obvious to all, the reason why it was done is almost completely unknown. In a now famous quote by Richard Haass, then director of Policy Planning at the State Department, he states that he will “go to my grave not knowing that. I can‟t answer it. I can‟t explain the strategic obsession with Iraq and why it rose to the top of people‟s priority list” (Lemann, 2004). Although it is hoped that this is not true, many researchers and journalists have worked to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “New” Vs. “Old” Terrorism*
    The Debate over “New” vs. “Old” Terrorism* Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 30-September 2, 2007 Martha Crenshaw Center for International Security and Cooperation Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6165 [email protected] Since 9/11, many policy makers, journalists, consultants, and scholars have become convinced that the world confronts a “new” terrorism unlike the terrorism of the past.1 Thus the government and policy elites have been blamed for not recognizing the danger of the “new” terrorism in the 1990s and therefore failing to prevent the disaster of 9/11.2 Knowledge of the “old” or traditional terrorism is sometimes considered irrelevant at best, and obsolete and anachronistic, even harmful, at worst. Some of those who argue 1 Examples include Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), although Hoffman is sometimes ambivalent; Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam’s War Against America (New York Random House, 2003); Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); and Ian O. Lesser, et al., Countering the New Terrorism (Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 1999). Ambassador L. Paul Bremer contributed “A New Strategy for the New Face of Terrorism” to a special issue of The National Interest (Thanksgiving 2001), pp. 23-30. A recent post 9/11 overview is Matthew J. Morgan, “The Origins of the New Terrorism,” Parameters (the journal of the U.S. Army War College), 34, 1 (Spring 2004), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2002 National Security Strategy: the Foundation Of
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Summer 2013 The 2002 aN tional Security Strategy: The Foundation of a Doctrine of Preemption, Prevention, or Anticipatory Action Troy Lorenzo Ewing Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the American Politics Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, International Law Commons, Terrorism Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ewing, Troy L.. "The 2002 aN tional Security Strategy: The oundF ation of a Doctrine of Preemption, Prevention, or Anticipatory Action" (2013). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/ 8f8q-9g35 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/46 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: THE FOUNDATION OF A DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTION, PREVENTION, OR ANTICIPATORY ACTION by Troy Lorenzo Ewing B.A. May 1992, Rutgers University M.B.A. May 2001, Webster University M.S.S.I. May 2007, National Intelligence University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2013 ABSTRACT THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: THE FOUNDATION OF A DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTION, PREVENTION, OR ANTICIPATORY ACTION Troy Lorenzo Ewing Old Dominion University, 2013 Director: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory Two Cheers for David A
    Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory Two Cheers for David A. Lake Bargaining Theory Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War The Iraq War has been one of the most signiªcant events in world politics since the end of the Cold War. One of the ªrst preventive wars in history, it cost trillions of dollars, re- sulted in more than 4,500 U.S. and coalition casualties (to date), caused enor- mous suffering in Iraq, and may have spurred greater anti-Americanism in the Middle East even while reducing potential threats to the United States and its allies. Yet, despite its profound importance, the causes of the war have re- ceived little sustained analysis from scholars of international relations.1 Al- though there have been many descriptions of the lead-up to the war, the ªghting, and the occupation, these largely journalistic accounts explain how but not why the war occurred.2 In this article, I assess a leading academic theory of conºict—the rationalist approach to war or, simply, bargaining theory—as one possible explanation of the Iraq War.3 Bargaining theory is currently the dominant approach in conºict David A. Lake is Jerri-Ann and Gary E. Jacobs Professor of Social Sciences, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, and Associate Dean of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego. He is the author, most recently, of Hierarchy in International Relations (Cornell University Press, 2009). The author is indebted to Peter Gourevitch, Stephan Haggard, Miles Kahler, James Long, Rose McDermott, Etel Solingen, and Barbara Walter for helpful discussions on Iraq or comments on this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons
    VERSION: Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, eds., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 193-238. c h a p t e r 8 Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons Charles P. Blair CONTENTS Introduction 193 Improvised Nuclear Devices (INDs) 195 Fissile Materials 198 Weapons-Grade Uranium and Plutonium 199 Likely IND Construction 203 External Procurement of Intact Nuclear Weapons 204 State Acquisition of an Intact Nuclear Weapon 204 Nuclear Black Market 212 Incidents of Jihadist Interest in Nuclear Weapons and Weapons-Grade Nuclear Materials 213 Al-Qa‘ida 213 Russia’s Chechen-Led Jihadists 214 Nuclear-Related Threats and Attacks in India and Pakistan 215 Overall Likelihood of Jihadists Obtaining Nuclear Capability 215 Notes 216 Appendix: Toward a Nuclear Weapon: Principles of Nuclear Energy 232 Discovery of Radioactive Materials 232 Divisibility of the Atom 232 Atomic Nucleus 233 Discovery of Neutrons: A Pathway to the Nucleus 233 Fission 234 Chain Reactions 235 Notes 236 INTRODUCTION On December 1, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet made a hastily planned, clandestine trip to Pakistan. Tenet arrived in Islamabad deeply shaken by the news that less than three months earlier—just weeks before the attacks of September 11, 2001—al-Qa‘ida and Taliban leaders had met with two former Pakistani nuclear weapon scientists in a joint quest to acquire nuclear weapons. Captured documents the scientists abandoned as 193 AU6964.indb 193 12/16/08 5:44:39 PM 194 Charles P. Blair they fled Kabul from advancing anti-Taliban forces were evidence, in the minds of top U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Al-Qaeda's Chemical Threat
    ISSN 1988-5237 AthenaIntelligence.org Assessing al-Qaeda’s Chemical T hreat René Pita Athena Paper, Vol. 2, No 2 Article 3/5 April 17, 2007 www.athenaintelligence.org 27 ISSN 1988-5237 AthenaIntelligence.org Introduction After the 11 September 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks in the United States, there is a high perception of risk of possible attacks with chemical weapons (CW ), especially by groups affiliated or associated with the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Earlier, in 1994 and 1995, Aum Shinrikyo, a religious organization in Japan, used sarin, a nerve chemical warfare agent, in attacks in Matsumoto City and on the Tokyo subway, causing a large number of casualties. These terrorist attacks had a big impact on the chemical defence and intelligence communities but not on other circles, perhaps because a chemical attack by a religious organization in Japan seemed something far removed from the reality of the rest of the world. But this changed after 9/11 when the mailing of letters containing anthrax spores, accompanied by images of the attacks on the W orld Trade Center towers, increased the concern about weapons of mass destruction (W MD) attacks, including by CW . As a religious terrorist group, al-Qaeda does not fit the assumption made by Brian Jenkins in 1975 that “terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people listening, and not a lot of people dead.”1 This statement fits better with secular terrorist groups. But for religious terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, “divine duty” results in disappearance of moral restraints that would justify “a lot of people dead” in their terrorist attacks,2 such as the 9/11 ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing the War on Terror the Internalization of Policy in the US Press
    Journalism Copyright © The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Vol. 10(6): 777–797 DOI: 10.1177/1464884909344480 ARTICLE Framing the War on Terror The internalization of policy in the US press Stephen D. Reese and Seth C. Lewis University of Texas, USA ABSTRACT The War on Terror was the label assigned by the Bush administration to its national security policy, launched in response to the attacks of 9/11. The cultural construction and political rationale supporting this slogan represent a powerful organizing prin- ciple that has become a widely accepted framing, laying the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq. We examine this framing where its sponsors intersect with US jour- nalism, as illustrated by news texts. Broadly, we examine trends in how news reports refer to the War on Terror and provide an interpretive analysis of stories in USA Today. From the period of September 2001 to early 2006, these news texts suggest that the frame was internalized by the US press. News and editorial reports went beyond ‘transmitting’ the label as shorthand for administration policy, to ‘reify’ the policy as uncontested, and ‘naturalize’ it as a taken-for-granted common-sense notion. KEY WORDS 9/11 framing ideology news routines news texts war on terror The challenge of political violence has grown with new means of global co- ordination and access to weapons of mass destruction. The Bush admini- stration’s response to this threat, following the now iconic policy reference point of 11 September 2001, has had far-ranging implications for national security strategy, relations with the world community, and civil liberties.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructivism, Strategic Culture, and the Iraq War
    ASPJ Africa & Francophonie - 4th Quarter 2011 Constructivism, Strategic Culture, and the Iraq War TOBY LAUTERBACH* ccording to constructivists, the United States went to war in Iraq because the dominant strategic cultural norm, that of seeking geopolitical stability through multilateral deterrence, appeared bankrupt to the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (9/11). This led elites in the administration to view Ademocratic regime change in Iraq as imposing an international norm of hegemonic global policing through unilateral preventive war. Given short- comings in the existing literature, this article makes the constructivist case for explaining the Iraq War. For constructivists, a proposed normative shift in American strategic cultural ideas played a causal role in the US invasion of Iraq. For those constructivists who take an ambitious perspective, the attempt to shift the norms of America’s strategic culture—and thus its national security policy—precipitated that invasion. A more cautious analyst would contend that the normative shift advocated by the Bush administra- tion worked in tandem with interest-based calculations, such as geopolitical logic, in leading to that military action. The Iraq War was supposed to prove the viability of a new norm—unilateral preventive war—advocated by neo- conservative norm entrepreneurs and traditional conservative converts as well as sympathizers in the Bush administration. This was part of a larger strategic cultural vision advocating the hegemonic promotion of democracy through force. Advocates intended that a new perspective on war, the hege- * Theauthor is a PhD candidate and former instructor at Purdue University. His research interests include the role of strategic culture in the Iraq War, the theory and practice of counterinsurgency, the study of realist theories such as Power Transition and Offshore Balancing, the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion and the Western European Union, the rise of China as a peer competitor, and Pacific Rim security concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Carnage Interrupted: an Analysis of Fifteen Terrorist Plots Against Public Surface Transportation
    MTI Carnage Interrupted: Plots An Analysis Against Fifteen of Public Surface Terrorist Transportation Carnage Interrupted: An Analysis of Fifteen Terrorist Plots Against Funded by U.S. Department of Transportation and California Department of Transportation Public Surface Transportation MTI ReportMTI 11-20 MTI Report 11-20 April 2012 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies was established by Congress in the MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The Institute’s Board of Trustees revised the name to Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) in 1996. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation Honorary Chairman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) John Horsley Michael S. Townes (TE 2011) through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Congress through the John L. Mica (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer (Ex-Officio)* President/CEO (ret.) Amtrak Transportation District Commision of United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the California Legislature Chair Executive Director House Transportation and American Association of State Hampton Roads through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Infrastructure Committee Donald H. Camph (TE 2012) Highway and Transportation Officials House of Representatives President (AASHTO) David L. Turney* (TE 2012) California Institute for Technology Chairman, President & CEO The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Honorary Co-Chair, Honorable Exchange Will Kempton (TE 2012) Digital Recorders, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 20 the Role of Intelligence in the Prevention of Terrorism (Early
    Chapter 20 The Role of Intelligence in the Prevention of Terrorism (Early Warning – Early Response) Kenneth A. Duncan This chapter outlines how intelligence has adapted to the ever-changing threat of terrorism, and the crucial role “warning” has played and will continue to play in countering and mitigating this threat. To better understand warning’s capabilities and limitations, it also explores the nature of intelligence as well as the factors underlying warning’s collection, analysis, production, dissemination, and reception. It traces the relationship between intelligence and law enforcement agencies as it evolved as part of the US government’s organizational response to terrorism from the late 1960s onward, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, it discusses problems arising from the often-troubled relationship between intelligence producers and consumers – from policymakers to the general public – which can lead to obstacles in turning an early warning into an early response. Keywords: 9/11, early warning, homeland security, intelligence, prevention, public warning, TIPOFF, United States. HANDBOOK OF TERRORISM PREVENTON AND PREPAREDNESS 645 “The terrorism threat is constantly evolving in response to social, political, and technological change, as well as adapting in response to counterterrorism pressure’. Daniel Byman 1 Introduction: Understanding Intelligence At the main entrance to CIA’s headquarters building in Langley, Virginia. is an inscription from the Gospel of St. John: “The truth shall make you free,” which reflects Intelligence Officers’ belief that their role is to “speak truth to power.” But contrary to this common view regarding intelligence assessments, nothing could be further from the truth. Intelligence and warning are not about the objective truth at all.
    [Show full text]
  • The One Hundred Percent Solution to Preventing Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism
    Threat Convergence: New Pathways to Proliferation? Expert Series The One Hundred Percent Solution to Preventing Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism Charles D. Ferguson Fellow for Science and Technology Council on Foreign Relations The Mantra is the Message During the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, President George W. Bush and Democratic contender Senator John F. Kerry remarkably agreed that their highest security priority was to deter terrorist use of nuclear weapons. Kerry’s mantra—no material, no bomb, no nuclear terrorism—captures the essence of the supply-side solution. Backing up the mantra, Kerry’s campaign published a four-point plan for nuclear terrorism prevention: (1) ensure high security for all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials; (2) ban the production of new weapons-usable materials including plutonium and highly enriched uranium; (3) reduce excess stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials; and (4) redouble efforts to stop additional countries from acquiring nuclear weapons or the capabilities to make those weapons. The first three points focus on the supply side of the problem. Only the fourth point addresses how the demand among nation-states can increase the peril of nuclear terror. But Kerry’s plan did not go far enough to counter the demand for nuclear weapons, especially among the existing nuclear-armed countries. The Bush administration’s efforts have also fallen short in halting the demand. Witness North Korea’s October 2006 nuclear test and growing nuclear arsenal and Iran’s increasing nuclear capability. A one hundred percent solution to preventing nuclear terrorism would eliminate the supply of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials and counter the nation-state demand for these weapons and materials.
    [Show full text]
  • THESIS-20-12-2007-FINAL2.Pdf (1.187Mb)
    Al-Qaeda’s Quest for Non-Conventional Weapons, 1996-2006 The history behind the hype by Anne Stenersen Master’s Thesis in Arabic Spring 2008 Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages University of Oslo Summary The aim of the thesis has been to describe the nature of al-Qaeda’s interest in non- conventional weapons, as reflected by the network’s own statements and activities in the period from 1996-2006. The analysis has been divided into two parts: First, I have critically examined primary and secondary source material in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the history of al-Qaeda’s pursuit for non-conventional weapons. Second, I have discussed why there is a lack of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) innovation within the al-Qaeda network. The conclusion to the first part is that the al-Qaeda network’s interest in using unconventional means appears much lower than commonly anticipated. Al-Qaeda’s efforts have been concentrated on crude and easily obtainable CBRN materials, not on developing actual warfare agents. Also, a preference for conventional weapons and tactics is evident on all levels within the network. There are no strong indications that al-Qaeda’s interest for non- conventional weapons has increased after 2001. With regards to the lack of CBRN innovation, I conclude that the al-Qaeda network clearly lacks some of the characteristics typical of past ‘CBRN terrorists’, such as a millenarian ideology or an ‘expressive attachment’ to this particular type of weapon. In addition, however, I argue that al-Qaeda’s networked structure itself prevents innovation, rather than promoting it.
    [Show full text]
  • OP#13: Trafficking Networks for Chemical Weapons Precursors
    Tracking Networks for CNS Chemical Weapons Precursors: OCCASIONAL PAPER #13 NOVEMBER 2008 Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s Jonathan B. Tucker JAMES MARTIN CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES Th e James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) strives to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis. A research center at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (an affi liate of Middlebury College), CNS is the largest nongovernmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation issues. For more information about CNS, see cns.miis.edu. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies 460 Pierce St., Monterey, CA 93940, U.S.A. Tel. +1 (831) 647-4154; Fax +1 (831) 647-3519; E-mail: [email protected] Senior Editor Sarah Diehl Production Editor Catherine Auer Policy recommendations, statements of fact, and opinions expressed in this Occasional Paper are the responsibility of the author alone and do not imply the endorsement of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies or the Monterey Institute of International Studies, nor do they necessarily represent either the offi cial position or policy or bear the endorsement of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the Defense Th reat Reduction Agency, or any other entity of the U.S. Government. ISBN 978-0-9798703-1-6 (PDF) © Monterey Institute of International Studies, November 2008 Cover photo: © Mike Martin Wong, fl ickr.com/photos/squeakymarmot, Creative Commons Attribution License. Traffi cking Networks for Chemical Weapons Precursors: Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s Jonathan B.
    [Show full text]