CNN International Q&A WITH ZAIN VERJEE
Nov. 12, 2002 / 12:30 PM PM ET
A look at possible United States war plans against Iraq
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Iraq's parliament rejects a new U.N. resolution calling on Baghdad to disarm. It was a unanimous vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We think that this is a preparation for war and a pretext to wage war against us.
JIM CLANCY, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): A top U.S. official is calling it pure theater since ultimately President Saddam Hussein will be the only one to decide.
Despite sometimes vitriolic language, the parliamentary decision is just a recommendation. Baghdad has until Friday to give its answer, an answer some Western leaders describe as a barometer for war. TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MIN.: Saddam now has to decide. He can either disarm voluntarily, accepting the unanimous of the United Nations Security Council, or he can defy the world, in which he will be disarmed by force.
VERJEE: U.S. officials predict force will come into play. In fact, they're planning for it.
CLANCY: Today on Q&A, what is the plan? When does it begin? And how would it alter Iraq's future?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VERJEE: Welcome to Q&A.
Even if Saddam Hussein announces on Friday that he accepts the United Nations resolution, maybe believe war is inevitable.
CLANCY: In fact, the plans have already been drawn up in large part, some officials even confirm reports of details. As many as 250,000 troops might be needed, a force so large it could take two or three more months to even put in place.
VERJEE: And now officials tell CNN Iraq has been placing orders for huge amounts of nerve gas and chemical weapons antidotes.
Joining us with a little more on that is Pentagon correspondent David Ensor.
David, what can you tell us?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zain, Bush administration officials are telling us that Iraq has ordered as many as 1 million doses of the drug Atropine, a drug used to counter the effects of nerve gas.
The orders were received, we're told, by Turkish companies starting early this year, and a senior Turkish official is also confirming that.
The officials say they do not know whether any of the Atropine was delivered to the Iraqis, though Turkish officials have told CNN there have been no exports of the antidote drug to Iraq.
Administration officials are asking the Turkish government to make sure the orders are not filled, although Atropine and another drug that has also been ordered to counter the effects of chemical weapons are not on the United Nations list of items that Iraq may not import.
Now key question obvious is why is Iraq seeking to acquire such a huge stockpile of nerve gas antidote. Of course, it may be to use nerve gas against the United States forces if they invade and yet protect the Iraqi forces, and that possibility worries U.S. officials.
But they also see additional possibilities. Iraq may want the antidote in case the United States bombs a major supply of Iraqi nerve gas, to protect its own people in that case. Or, as one official suggested to me, Iraq may have placed the orders simply to raise concern in the West that it may plan to use chemical weapons in the event of an invasion -- Zain.
VERJEE: David, why would Iraq seek this from Turkey?
ENSOR: Well, it's a nearby country. It's a country that does produce this particular chemical compound, so it's a handy place to go for it, and there is no prohibition under the United Nations rules from ordering it.
What's interesting to United States officials is the size of the order -- up to 1 million doses of this antidote, and in large quantities. And also asking for the special needles to inject the substance.
This is a substance that's also used against heart attacks, but in that case it's administered intravenously. So U.S. officials say they're satisfied that that is not why the Iraqis ordered it -- Zain.
VERJEE: OK. David Ensor, thanks a lot.
Joining us now from London, to look at war plans, is Mustafa Alani. He is an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.
Thanks a lot for joining us.
First, let's get your reaction to what we were hearing a moment ago from David Ensor.
MUSTAFA ALANI, ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE: Well, there is possibility it is part of the psychological war.
The Iraqis are well-aware that any commercial activities in Turkey will be reported to the United States. There is no secret about it. I believe it is part of a psychological war to send a message to the United States that there is a possibility that the Iraqis will use weapons of mass destruction, especially this nerve gas.
So this is part of psychological war. I don't think that Turkish government will agree to supply this, and the Iraqis are well-aware of this fact, that the Turks will not supply this sort of antidote.
CLANCY: All right, Mustafa Alani, let me ask you this question, and that is, directly relating to the war plans that have been public, leaked, rather public, top secret -- whatever they may have been, what do you see in the U.S. plans and what don't you see, perhaps, that the United States is not anticipating?
ALANI: Well, basically, the United States has three options of action to topple the regime. Either they have to attack Baghdad and then topple the regime, and they don't need to control the entire country. Or they have to conduct classic operation, multi-fronted, from north, south, toward Baghdad, and it has to be a massive military operation.
Or the third option, which I've seen some of the newspapers have published, that it is a staged military operation -- that the American forces will occupy part of the country, waiting for the army officers to take the initiative in Baghdad and topple the regime, and the American forces will not enter the cities, basically Baghdad, without these officers will secure the cities.
So there is basically three options. I think what we see so far, it is an idea, not a plan. It is visions of plans, but I don't think matured to military plan.
VERJEE: Patrick Garrett joins us in this conversation, from Washington.
Patrick, what do you think of these leaked war plans? Do you think it's a good idea?
PATRICK GARRETT, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Well, as far as a good idea for a 250,000-person force, it really depends on how much time the United States has before it initiates the attack against Iraq.
But really, I think that it doesn't matter if you have a large force or a smaller force, because at any point in the process over the next two months or three months or so, the United States will have an adequate force in the region. Or if the president decides to attack Iraq about 7 to 10 days after that decision is made, he'll have a pretty significant force in the area that would be enough to initiate the attacks against Iraq.
CLANCY: Pretty significant, but you know, I want to go back over to Mr. Alani, in London. By no means is he going to have 250,000 troops there in that time frame, is he?
GARRETT: No, he won't, but what he will have is the beginning, the groundwork for the attack.
CLANCY: All right.
VERJEE: So what kind of timetable are we looking at here, if we're to believe what was leaked out?
GARRETT: Well, it's going to take a significant period of time to get all these forces in the region, including the equipment that they would use in an attack on Iraq.
Additionally, you have a number of aircraft carriers that are in route. If you're talking about a 250,000-person force, then you're definitely looking at the conflict starting sometime in the late-January to February time period.
But if you're looking at something significantly smaller, it could happen very quickly.
CLANCY: All right. Mustafa Alani, in London, weigh in here a little bit. Obviously, they're not going to have 250,000 troops in there in any immediate future, and the question really has to be, where are you going to put them? Some people are even saying, well, you stake out a part of Iraq and you use that.
ALANI: Yes, basically we have now three or four countries already secured to participate or to offer their facilities. We have Kuwait and Qatar in the south, southern front. We have Turkey in the north, and Israel a possible partnership.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia already declare they will not allow the United States forces to use their territory so far, but their position might change later. The Iraqis refused or rejected the United Nations Security Council resolution. I think this will encourage the Arab government to take the initiative and help the American forces and offer facilities.
VERJEE: To get those troops in, though, Mustafa Alani -- to get those troops in, as Jim was saying a minute ago, it's my understanding that the war plan says, you know, send in some troops, get them to capture to some land, really fast. Make that a forward base, and then when you get that, start funneling in more troops after that, to follow.
CLANCY: There's a lot of "ifs" in all of this plan.
VERJEE: Assuming it goes according to plan. I mean, what about that -- Mustafa.
ALANI: Yes, well this is possible. It is possible, basically using Kuwait as a corridor to Iraq and occupying part of Iraq, and using Turkey as a corridor for the northern part of Iraq, to occupy part of the northern part of the country, and use it as a base. This is possible.
But we're talking about, this is a very long campaign, if we're talking about a staged campaign. The objective of this sort of campaign is not actually that the American forces will be involved in Baghdad. This is a psychology campaign to put military pressure on the army officers and the general in Baghdad to take the initiative in coordination with American forces. This is the idea.
But if we're talking about 200,000, 250,000 troops, certainly we will not be able to basically conduct this sort of operation this month. Possibly, we're talking about February, January. And we're talking about the other option is a small operation, to encourage internal revolt.
CLANCY: All right, Patrick Garrett, you're an associate there at GlobalSecurity.org, and what are the people there really believe is going to be the scenario for the United States in all of this?
Now, earlier, Mustafa laid out sort of a three-prong plan, a large force, a much smaller force, or something in between. How do you see it there?
GARRETT: I think that we're probably going to be seeing something that will be very middle of the road. You can see a very middle-weight force that's going to have about four to six carrier battle groups in the region, a number of aircraft, fighter-wings and bomber-wings and B-2 bombers, based out of Diego Garcia.
I also think that you're going to see between two to four divisions worth of troops based solely out of Kuwait, mainly, that would be taking the tanks up north, or through Iraq.
You're going to see some units, like the 101st Airborne Division, who will parachute in to Iraq and setup forward operating bases, but I think that you're really looking at a medium force, and not something that's going to be as large as the 1/4-million number that's been quoted recently in the press.
CLANCY: All right, Patrick Garrett and Mustafa Alani, our thanks to both of you gentlemen for being with us and sharing your ideas with us, here on Q&A.
VERJEE: Well, after the break, it's a war many say is likely to happen. What will it mean for Iraq, and how exactly is it going to unfold?
We discussed that a little just now, but we'll have more on these questions when Q&A returns, so stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECT. OF DEF.: Inspectors can only work in a country that wants to cooperate with them, and they've decided they want the international community to come in, and then they can prove to the world that they're honest, open and exactly what they say.
You know, you say what if he would decide to do that. That's like saying what if were to decide to jump over the moon. The likelihood of him doing that is so small.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CLANCY: Welcome back to Q&A.
We've been looking at what the war with Iraq might look like if the United States mobilizes its forces and begins a conflict.
Now we're asking what happens after the war. Are there plans to fill the void if and win Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, is removed?
VERJEE: Joining us now from New York is the head of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, Gary Sick. Mr. Sick was a member of the United States National Security Council under three U.S. presidents.
CLANCY: While in Washington we have Laith Kubba. He's a member of the Opposition Iraqi National Congress, also a senior program officer at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.
I want to begin with you, Mr. Sick, and just ask you whether you think -- you've heard all the plans, you've seen them, read them, in "The Washington Post." I'm wondering whether you believe that right now that the United States is thinking far enough down the line, whether the military and the administration have really considered what effect, what kind of an Iraq they're going to see, if they succeed in toppling President Saddam Hussein.
GARY SICK, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: My impression is that they have recently started that process. I don't think they're very far along yet, but they do understand that this is going to be a requirement, that you've got to deal with the issue afterwards. And I think they're beginning to make some progress.
The problem is that -- the United States has a series of problems. First of all, it has to establish from the outset that it is not an imperialist power coming in to dominate, take advantage, to take over the oil, and so forth. And the burden of proof will be on the United States to do that.
It also, in order to do that, has to come up with something like a political solution, and that is really proving very difficult, because the parties themselves, the Iraqis, who need to cooperate for this, are not cooperating at this time, and I think that's a sign of the kinds of problems the United States is going to face if and when it gets to that point.
VERJEE: Laith, is that true? The Iraqi parties are not cooperating?
LAITH KUBBA, IRAQI NATL. CONGRESS: Well, unfortunately, it's not a question of not cooperating, but they're not up to receiving the country so to speak and running it.
Looking at how things are amongst Iraqis, I think in the interim period, Iraqi will need a strong government of technocrats to run it while the political parties and community leaders need to negotiate the rules of the game and what an election law will be like, what constitutional amendments are like. And during that critical period, the country's security, territorial integrity, must also be maintained.
So I think it's a very tough call ahead of us all.
VERJEE: Territorial integrity must be maintained, you say, but in these war plans, apparently, there is something that says, you know, there will be a military occupation of Iraq. How is that going to play out?
KUBBA: I -- this military occupation statements that come about, I think part of it is psychological war maybe. But if you really, really look at can it be done, can the United States run Iraq as a colony, the answer in my opinion is a big no.
CLANCY: Well, the big question, though, Mr. Kubba, has to be, is the United States, when it goes in and tries to bring in some stability, and its allies, go in there and do it, is it going to face an uprising by the Kurds demanding independence? Is it.
VERJEE: And many Iraqis are suspicious. Why are you here? Why are the troops here? They.
CLANCY: . an uprising by the Shia Muslims.
KUBBA: Well, in the first, I guess, month, maybe the U.S. troops will be welcome as liberators, but soon enough Iraqis will forget that and the real issues will surface, such as divisions over power, mistrusting the other community, so to speak, and yes, the risks are very, very real that the United States will be involved and it can be picked up as the bad guy.
We must not forget that the United States throughout the 80's helped Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis have not forgotten that, and throughout the 90's it maintained sanctions over Iraq, and Iraqis believe that the United States is responsible for all of that.
So there is -- a lot of goodwill must be demonstrated from the United States in helping Iraqis rebuild their country, but not occupying it.
CLANCY: Gary Sick, weigh in here, and just tell us, as you weigh all of the risks yourself, and you look at them, what do you see as the greatest problem that the administration faces? It says we've got to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but somewhere, in any plan, there are risks.
SICK: Actually, it's a three-pronged problem. First of all, the United States has got to think, initially, about how do you deliver food? How do you have medical care? How does the transportation system work? And all of those kinds of things, which you're suddenly responsible for afterwards.
Actually, that probably is not a huge problem, because Iraq has a very well organized infrastructure that is really nonpolitical, and you can use that to your benefit, especially if you bring in technicians from outside, and there are lots of smart, capable Iraqis all over the world who are anxious to go back and help their country.
More difficult is the question of the security services, who really are Saddam's forces. And they are the ones who -- how do you maintain a police force, for instance? What do you do with the army?
That is going to be very complicated and it's going to be much more difficult.
The third part is even more difficult yet, and that is, where do you find the political leadership to come in and represent the country and represent the interests of the various parties so that they feel that they're getting an equal shake.
And so I think you have to take into account, will the Shia in the south feel that they're properly represented in this government? How about the Kurds? What kind of a role are they going to get? They want to go for some kind of an autonomous state in the north, and if they do, they're going to have trouble with Turkey and also with the rest of the country.
So the political part is the hardest to solve, and I think that's where we've only begun to deal with that issue.
VERJEE: Laith, Gary's talking about the issue of leadership. Is there nobody, nobody, who can replace Saddam Hussein?
KUBBA: Well, I don't think there is one person who can replace Saddam Hussein, because we all are inheriting a very polarized situation, and Saddam Hussein made sure that all institutions in the country, that is political parties, dignitaries, as well as the army, is not in a position to run the country.
So the only way is to have -- is to diffuse power maybe through a few structures, and allow the country a breathing space, and meanwhile maintain a good, strong government of technocrats to run the country.
I cannot agree more with all the points that Gary made, especially the need for political stability, which will define whether Iraq is going to survive as one state or break down.
CLANCY: But, Mr. Kubba, after the last Gulf conflict, we saw the situation where Baath Party were officials dragged out into the streets, ripped apart limb from limb. There's going to be some payback, isn't there? That's a risk, isn't it?
KUBBA: Well, it is, but it is minor. We must forget that many members of the Baath Party, many members of the Iraqi army, they've all joined the uprising, and from 1991 till now, most of Iraqis, I think the absolutely majority, including officials inside Saddam's cabinet, are absolutely fed up with his rule, and they want to see change.
The real question is, we -- many people in the Iraqi opposition must give assuring messages that there will not be retaliation, that it has to be a collective effort to put the country back on its feet.
VERJEE: OK. All right. Gary Sick, you get the last word on this.
SICK: One thing that we haven't discussed is the possible role that the United Nations or other institutions might play in this process, and there I think the United States has been very wise in going to the United Nations Security Council, getting United Nations support, and I would very much hope that that would pay off in the day-after problem, when the United Nations and its agencies may be very much necessary to maintain that kind of stability that Laith is talking about, while there is a momentary lapse in political leadership.
VERJEE: Gary Sick, Laith Kubba, thanks a lot for talking to Jim and I on Q&A.
CLANCY: All right, interesting point. I haven't heard the United States bring up the United Nations thus far in the plan, but Mr. Sick makes a great point.
VERJEE: Not there.
CLANCY: Those are out questions on this edition of Q&A.
VERJEE: We know that a few of you have a lot of your own. We're going to be back shortly with what you're thinking, so stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CLANCY: All right, just back with your views. That'll be in just one moment.
VERJEE: First, though, let's check in with Michael Holmes and Daljit Dhaliwal for a preview of what's coming up.
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, guys.
DALJIT DHALIWAL, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, guys. Thanks a lot.
HOLMES: Yes.
DHALIWAL: What have you got up today -- Michael.
HOLMES: I'm going to be doing an interview with somebody who thinks the trade embargo on Cuba by the United States is a good idea. There are many others -- it's a growing opposition to this. And of course, we've been discussing this on Jim and Zain's show. We're going to take it a little bit further on our program. What have you got?
DHALIWAL: And it's something that the United Nations makes a habit of voting -- opposing every year.
HOLMES: 11 years in a row.
DHALIWAL: Amazing.
HOLMES: That's right.
DHALIWAL: And of course, we're going to be following the Iraqi story. The clock, of course, is ticking away to that Friday deadline that Saddam Hussein has to meet, and of course the Iraqi parliament has recommended that they reject the resolution. And we're going to be talking live to one of the parliamentarians from Baghdad.
And we're also going to have German reaction to the United Nations resolution on Iraq.
HOLMES: Exactly. I was going to say too, and the royal story that won't go away. There could be developments coming up. Stay tuned.
DHALIWAL: Yes, absolutely. Very tentacled, isn't it?
HOLMES: OK. Jim and Zain, I know that you'll be watching the royal developments.
VERJEE: OK.
CLANCY: All right, thanks a lot. Michael, good to have you as a viewer of this show. Wrong topic today, but good to have you.
Before we go now, the views of -- those of you who were watching.
VERJEE: Mbho from Swaziland writes that "The U.S. must not angrily rush into World War III. We need rational dialogue and negotiation. The U.N. must create the final disarmament of all nations, including the U.S. and Iraq."
CLANCY: Groeties from Denmark says, "The United Nations and Security Council are structured for the option of the right of veto. This voting process is totally undemocratic and unfair to the citizens of the world."
VERJEE: Oki from Germany writes in and says, "The U.S. and Britain have more weapons than most countries. The money for war should be diverted to other things so they will not regret fighting another war, like Vietnam."
CLANCY: And Joe from Israel weighs in with, "Has anyone thought that Iraq may have moved the sought-after material to friendly countries? Just because something isn't found doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
VERJEE: All right, that's Q&A. I'm Zain Verjee.
CLANCY: And I'm Jim Clancy.
copyright 2002 Cable News Network
