Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=08/09/02

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=MICHAEL O'HANLON, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

NUMBER=3-286

BYLINE=SARAH WILLIAMS

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

/// Editors: This interview is available in Dalet under SOD/English News Now Interviews in the folder for today or yesterday ///

INTRO: In a televised address marking the anniversary of the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said an attack against his nation would fail. The United States has said Iraq is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. On Wednesday, President Bush said Iraq is a real threat, and he will explore all options, including diplomacy, to try to deal with Baghdad. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here in Washington. V-O-A's Sarah Williams asked him whether he thinks the United States is preparing to attack Iraq.

MR. O'HANLON: No, I don't think the United States is yet preparing an attack, in the sense of any kind of actual military preparations of any scale going forward. The United States is certainly doing harder thinking, however, about what an attack would entail. And there are certain minimal sorts of advance preparations occurring just in case as a contingency. But the President certainly has not, in my judgment, resolved to do this. He hasn't agreed to any basic concept of operations, much less a specific war plan. And he certainly has not begun to order large numbers of American forces to the region in preparation for an attack, nor has he consulted with regional countries to access their military bases and territory for any such deployment. So we are a long ways away from this being, in a real immediate or imminent sense, a major military operation.

MS. WILLIAMS: The fact, however, that Iraqi President Saddam decided to go ahead and make a statement like this indicates, though, that he is certainly concerned about such a possibility.

MR. O'HANLON: Well, there is no doubt. And the word "possibility" is exactly right. I think that this is a distinct possibility, but far from a certainty, and perhaps not even a probability at this time. And I think President Bush went out of his way yesterday to indicate that he was considering a number of ways of putting pressure on Saddam. And any time a President says that, I think he is pretty far removed from a decision to send many hundreds or thousands, or at least many tens of thousands, of American troops into combat and risk their lives for the interests of the United States and its allies. I just don't think that the President conveys the sense of gravity, imminence, seriousness of purpose, or decision and resolve that you would expect from a President who really had resolved to take his country to war. We're just not there yet.

MS. WILLIAMS: The United States' European allies, as well as other countries in the Middle East, particularly say Jordan -- and I believe the King of Jordan just met recently with President Bush about this -- are less than enthusiastic, if not opposed, to such an attack. How does the United States work to build up any kind of coalition with these other countries about this? Or does it? Or does the United States just decide to proceed in whatever direction it wants to go in?

MR. O'HANLON: No, I think it would be a major mistake for the United States to go off on its own. For one thing, it needs military bases. And you certainly would like to get help from countries like Saudi Arabia at a minimum. And the Saudis are a long ways from being willing to support us right now. It's possible to do this war with just Kuwait and Turkey giving us access to their territories and bases, but it's highly undesirable. It's like fighting with one arm tied behind your back and with your political support much weaker than it needs to be. So I think the answer to your question is that we need to give Saddam a very clear ultimatum. He has to allow a serious weapons inspection and disarmament process to occur or we go to war. And that serious inspection process probably has to be a bit tougher than now exists in the U.N. proposals that have been offered to Baghdad. We probably need to find new ways of searching out for Saddam's weaponry; for example, being able to interview any of his weapons scientists we want to and then give them asylum, along with asylum for their families, immediately should they provide us information that we need and that Saddam would want to take vengeance on them for having given. So, with those sorts of added tough steps into an inspection process, I believe the United States could be comfortable with either outcome, either a yes or a no from Saddam. If he says yes, we can really be pretty confident we are getting rid of most or all of his dangerous weapons. If he says no, he will have been the one to pass up the one clear last chance to avoid war. And he will have flouted U.N. Security Council resolutions and the will of the international community.

I think at that time countries like Saudi Arabia will support us. Because right now the Saudis say that Saddam is moving towards compliance with his U.N. obligations, and let's not go to war with him at a time when he is doing that. But if Saddam ultimately refuses to comply with those resolutions and requirements, I think the Saudis may change their tune, as will many other countries in the world.

(End of interview.)

VNN/DAB/TW