The Islamic State Has Chemical Weapons OH NOOOOO!!!!

In the past few days there have been a multitude of articles reporting that insurgents with the Islamic State have acquired and probably used chemical weapons, primarily against the Kurdish militia YPG in Syria. Many analysts and writers are claiming that ISIS must have gotten the chemical weapons (most likely artillery rounds) from leftover Saddam-era Iraqi stockpiles. There are now many bloggers and pundits getting on their soap boxes stating the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration was the correct course of action because it's now obvious that these chemical weapons are a clear indicator that Saddam had and was hiding a WMD program.

People need to calm the fuck down.

ISIS having and using chemical munitions does not mean Saddam Hussein had a chemical weapons program after 1991. Syria has had a chemical weapons program for some time now and only in the past year have they allowed those weapons to be destroyed. ISIS cells could have acquired Syrian munitions prior to those munitions being collected and destroyed.

However, there's an even more likely explanation, one I've made off handed comments about in the past. See the third paragraph in this post from February 2011. If you don't want to click, here's the statement:

During a short stretch of 2007 patrols in northern Baghdad were being hit by IEDs made from artillery shells containing chemical agents. Those artillery shells were believed to have come from a bunker complex that had once housed chemical rounds that had not yet been destroyed by inspectors; it was unlikely the insurgents making the IEDs had any idea the rounds were chemical munitions.

Or check out this post from August 2011 where I'm griping about stupid questions I got during my various times as a battalion intelligence officer. Check out #7 from that post:

7. *Battalion update brief some time in 2007 in Baghdad after one of the brigade Stryker patrols had been hit with an IED which consisted of a chemical weapon artillery shell.* "Why isn't the media reporting on the chemical weapon attacks? Doesn't this prove Saddam had WMD?!" -BSB command sergeant major 
- This was just part of the rant the CSM launched at me after I briefed this particular attack. The artillery shell likely came from a stockpile of chemical weapons that the old Iraqi Army had but hadn't destroyed yet, or forgot about. These stockpiles were known to the UN and the US and were not part of the WMD reasoning when Iraq was invaded/liberated. The insurgents who used this round likely didn't even know the shell had chemical weapons in it. 

If my statements are not convincing enough here's a CIA assessment of the Al Muthanna Chemical Weapons Complex, the facility where Saddam's chemical weapons were stored. Three paragraphs stood out to me (ISG is the Iraq Survey Group, the guys looking for WMD):

ISG conducted multiple exploitations of the Al Muthanna site to determine whether old chemical weapons, equipment, or toxic chemicals had been looted or tampered with since the last UN visit to the site. ISG is unable to unambiguously determine the complete fate of old munitions, materials, and chemicals produced and stored there.The matter is further complicated by the looting and razing done by the Iraqis. 

An exploitation of the facility reconfirmed previous imagery analysis that the site remained inoperable from bombings and UNSCOM compliance, including destruction of equipment and resources, and no significant production capabilities existed. Facilities and bunkers revealed no evidence of production since UNSCOM departed. 

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers. 

So even the CIA states that chemical weapon manufacturing was not being conducted and Iraq was complying with UN demands regarding previous chemical weapons sites. But what about the rounds that were stored there that had not yet been destroyed? Well, as I mentioned above, insurgent groups managed to get a few of those rounds and used them against US forces. Whether the IED cells knew they were chemical weapons or not can be debated but my analysis is the insurgents were unaware, or at the very least did not know how to properly use them.

However, why weren't these cases of chemical munitions use reported? Probably multiple reasons. US forces likely didn't want the information getting out that there were all these chemical rounds that were found and not yet destroyed...that just looks bad; not to mention the egg of the face of insurgents getting weapons that were supposedly secured . Also, higher echelons probably didn't want to spread panic among the troops that insurgents possibly had chemical weapons. Lets not even discuss the fact that these were rounds the US allowed Saddam to have and the 1980s when using chemical weapons was OK as long as it was against Iran.

Except then Wikileaks happened and all those reports of chemical munitions being used as IEDs were released to media...and reported. But nobody cared because it was 2010 and people didn't want to think about Iraq anymore. Which brings us to today and some insurgent bastards have those chemical munitions again. Suddenly, people care again and are claiming Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were correct all along.

Those people haven't been paying attention.