Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=10/12/2002

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01208

TITLE=THE DEBATE OVER THE IRAQI THREAT

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0037

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: The debate over Iraq heats up. Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: As the United States Congress debates a resolution supporting the use of military force against Iraq and the United Nations negotiates with Iraq over the return of U-N weapons inspectors, President George W. Bush delivered a speech outlining the reasons for confronting Saddam Hussein.

Bush [SOT]: First, I'm asked why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. The same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Host: How persuasive is this case to the congress, to U-S allies and to the U-N? Joining me to talk about the debate over Iraq are Robert Hunter, former ambassador to NATO and now a senior advisor at the RAND Corporation; Reginald Dale, editor-in-chief of European Affairs Magazine; and Mark Mazzetti, national defense correspondent for U-S News and World Report. Welcome, Thanks for joining us today.

Hunter: Good to be here.

Host: Robert Hunter, where stands the debate at the U-N right now?

Hunter: I think there is a common understanding that there's going to have to be a new U-N resolution authorizing, mandating inspectors to go back into Iraq with more powers and more capacity than we have seen heretofore. Now, whether there will be one resolution that is very tough, to be followed possibly in the future with a second resolution authorizing the use of force -- if indeed the regime of Saddam Hussein doesn't comply -- or whether it will be wrapped into one resolution, that's really what the debate is about right now. And it has some days yet until there's a resolution.

Host: Reggie Dale, who's on which side of the issue here for one resolution or two resolutions.

Dale: The United States wants one resolution because it doesn't want to have to go back again when the inspectors -- if and when the inspectors have failed in their task because of frustrating tactics by Saddam Hussein -- to go back all over again for another resolution to persuade these somewhat reluctant allies that now's the time for use of force. They'd rather get it all tied up now. On the other side, you have France in particular, which first proposed the two-step resolution which says that that would be a better way of gathering a coalition, if you wait and have a period between the two resolutions. China will probably abstain. Russia is, I think, in the camp of France at the moment. And Britain is trying to build Prime Minister Tony Blair's famous "bridge across the Atlantic," to try and bring the other members closer to the United States.

Host: Mark Mazzetti, do you think it's going to be one resolution or two resolutions at this point?

Mazzetti: It's hard to say. Certainly the numbers right now stack up against what the United States wants to do. As Reggie said, with China abstaining, there's really two against one and then the question is with Britain, Britain will probably side with the United States. But right now, it's a question of what incentives may be offered to these other countries to come along with the United States' position.

Host: Robert Hunter, is it just a matter of various countries looking for incentives at this point and looking for what they can get out of the U-S perhaps in exchange for going along?

Hunter: Well obviously there's some of this horse-trading. The Russians are for sale. If they can get a free hand in Chechnya, if they can get some help with what they want to do in Georgia and particularly if they can get a guarantee of oil money out of a liberated Iraq at some point, the Russians will at least abstain, they might even go forward.

Host: How does that work? How does a guarantee of oil money work? Who's making that guarantee?

Hunter: It will be a gentleman's agreement but it will be done behind closed doors. Now, I think the thing is this: The United States needs to calculate, do we want the toughest possible resolution we can [have] authorizing force? And hence, we may have to water down some of the criteria and that sort of thing because people are very goosey about having a single resolution. Or, by accepting the idea of two resolutions, get something really strong so that inspectors, inspections if they were not interfered with, would actually do the job of disarmament. That's the choice. Frankly, I think the United States -- and here I am not with the administration I think the United States would do much better to have the strongest possible resolution for inspections. And then if it fails, the case will be made, then [they can] come back and they'll have a better chance for getting a good strong resolution for using force.

Host: Reggie Dale, do you agree that that's the right decision to make given that choice?

Dale: Well I think the problem with that is you then open up a big debate over whether inspections have failed or not, with some people saying they should be given another chance, this takes time. I think that that is the danger of the two resolutions.

Host: And is there any way of writing the resolution, even if it's a two-step resolution where it would make it very clear what counts as compliance and noncompliance.

Dale: I think that would be harder. I think what you're trying to do, or the United States is trying to do is make very clear what the consequences of noncompliance are. I'm not sure it can go into the details of what constitutes noncompliance although it would have to contain very specific statements as to what the inspectors could do and where they could go without conditions.

Host: Mark, isn't this also being debated between the U-N right now and Iraq itself, conditions for the return of inspectors? Where is that debate right now?

Mazzetti: Both the UNMOVIC, which is the group of inspectors led by Hans Blix, and the International Atomic Energy association, there are sort of two tracks of what the inspectors are sort of working out the negotiation. So they're in the process now of working out the agreement. And basically, what Saddam Hussein did was something that was very clever. Four days after President Bush spoke to the U-N, September 12th, where he got a lot of international support, Saddam Hussein offered to let the inspectors back in. You had Kofi Annan accept that offer and it pulled a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Bush administration's case. And it got the United States wrapped up in these negotiations that really, the Bush administration didn't want to be involved in. And so you saw Saddam Hussein be much stronger than it was certainly when the president gave his speech.

Host: Robert, here we are a month after Saddam Hussein offered unfettered access for U-N inspectors. Why aren't they in already?

Hunter: I think the Bush administration, along with a lot of the allies would like to have as much international support as possible through the validating agency of the United Nations. Now, let's look at something else. The president of the United States has made clear that within a finite period of time, there will be no weapons of mass destruction usable by Iraq in that country. That is going to happen. The pressure by the Bush administration to get the U-N as far as it is has certainly been a major factor in that. In some ways we're talking about details -- about how we do it or it's done, rather, how the international community will look afterwards, how we collectively build something for the future in the Middle East. But there's no doubt about it, weapons of mass destruction and Iraq won't go together.

Host: How realistic is it, Reggie Dale, for the U-S to say there's just not going to be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as of a certain period of time.

Dale: Well, it's realistic if you're on the way to wage war against Saddam Hussein. At least, you've got the best chance of eliminating them all. I don't think anyone really believes that you can do it through an inspection regime. But the give and take of the moment, as was mentioned, is partly to allow various countries to take positions on the world stage so that they can show that they're not totally dominated by the United States. In the case of France, for example, it likes to show an independent role. It's got a lot of Muslim voters in France. It wants to preserve some kind of privileged relationship with Iraq even if there has to be war. It wants to come out with its interests protected as best it can. There are all these factors in play and there's a certain amount of posturing. In the end I think there will be a resolution and in the end I personally think there will be a war. And that's how you'll get rid of most of the weapons.

Host: Do you agree Mark?

Mazzetti: Yes, because you're hearing some interesting things coming out of the Bush administration. On one hand, Colin Powell has said things to the effect of it, is possible to disarm Saddam Hussein, get rid of his weapons and possibly keep him in power. But certainly President Bush on Monday night and most of the people in the administration say while Saddam Hussein is in power it will be impossible to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. So they really go hand in glove. Getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction and getting rid of him is the stated goal of regime change. So, I agree that I think ultimately a war will happen.

Host: Let's look at a bit more of that speech where President Bush was talking in Cincinnati and making the case for why weapons of mass destruction have to be eliminated from Iraq.

Bush [SOT]: Some citizens wonder: after eleven years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the eleventh. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact they would be eager to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon. Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Host: Is this case persuasive to U-S allies, Robert?

Hunter: I don't think it's that persuasive yet to all the allies the United States wants to bring along in terms of timing. I think most people do accept that unfettered, at some point, Saddam Hussein will get nuclear weapons. And let's make no bones about it, that would change the dynamics of security in the Middle East, even if he never used these things, even if he never gave them to anybody, which, of course itself really rather unlikely. But [there is] the question of timing. Right now we're seized with the issue of terrorism, the president has gotten to the point of defining it this way, it would be very difficult to deflect that and to go on to another direction. Now, at the very least by setting his perspective this way, the president has served notice that things are going to happen. And he's already had a response from some allies, he's had a response from the United Nations. So, the issue of whether everybody agrees with all of the intelligence information put out is somewhat moot. We now have an issue seized. This is the time its going to happen. That's what people have to decide upon. Are they prepared to move forward with, let's say an inspection regime as opposed to see the United States and some countries go to war?

Host: Reggie, what do you think?

Dale: Yes, I think that's right and I think that the clearer it becomes that the United States really is going to act and that it is going to depose Saddam Hussein, the more people will come on the bandwagon. The Arab countries in the past have been really frightened that the United States would take half-hearted measures, as you could argue they did in 1991, which provoked a great deal of hostility [and] confusion in the area and forced people to take sides and then didn't finish the job by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. If it's clear that's going to happen, I think that will make it easier for some other countries to rally to the U-S cause.

Host: Mark, do you agree that it's more the statement of resolve than the particular reasons that's going to drive the coalition here?

Mazzetti: I think so and you may see support for the U-S by silence. Countries in the Middle East may not come out and say "we support the United States," but they would tacitly give the approval, for instance for the U-S to use bases in the region that the U-S military is desperate to use, not only in Saudi Arabia, but in Qatar, in Bahrain and in Turkey. These are essential for any kind of war in Iraq. And I think that at, least from the Bush administration's perspective, they wouldn't necessarily need the Middle East to come out and openly support regime change, but if they just don't come out openly against it and they let the U-S military use its bases, I think the Bush administration would be fairly happy with that.

Host: Robert is that all that the U-S needs from Middle East allies is just silence at this point?

Hunter: What I think the administration needs most right now is what I think George H.W. Bush managed to do ten years ago, is to get some people supporting him who clearly are Muslim -- preferably also some Arab states -- to try to confound an argument that Saddam Hussein is making and will make somehow "I, Saddam am the representative of the little guy against the -- to use a phrase he used ten years ago -- against the Zionists and the Imperialists. This is very important for the future to show that there really is a collectivity. In order to pick up on something that Reggie said, people are also looking [to see], are the American's serious? Are we going to be left holding the baby here, whatever it is with uprisings in the street, an Arab-Israeli peace process that goes nowhere and maybe somebody else misbehaving [or] an Afghanistan situation repeated in Iraq where the fighting is over and then there's no rebuilding, there's no further effort or not enough. If the United States shows real resolve for today and for tomorrow, as my friend here says, we're going to have a lot more support than you can read about in the newspapers.

Host: Reggie is the U-S going to get any vocal support in the Middle East?

Dale: Well, I think probably not a great deal of vocal support, but I do think that Robert's point is very important, not only for the reasons he said, but also to make clear that this is not a war between the West and Islam. And I think that's why the president the other night was stressing that the United States is a friend of the Iraqi people. It's another reason why the administration's now stressing the human rights of the Iraqi people. It's trying to isolate Saddam Hussein from his own people. It's also saying this is not a war of the West against Islam. Therefore, Islamic countries can support it.

Mazzetti: And the one thing we haven't stated yet and which is the big wild card is where Israel fits into this and should Saddam Hussein try to attack Israel with chemical and biological weapons, at least the stated claim by Ariel Sharon is that they would respond, unlike the last time during the Gulf War. And if they responded that certainly would add an element to the mix that could make it very volatile. And I think that is the real worst-case scenario for the war planners and the diplomats.

Hunter: See this is not just a case of will the United States prevail at the U-N in getting a particular thing that will at some point license war? People in this country, in the government and elsewhere, are calculating all the prices, the potential costs of war: casualties to Americans, casualties to civilians, casualties in Israel. After all Saddam Hussein will do everything he possibly can to drag Israel into that war and to kill as many Israelis as possible. That's why, one reason in addition to international solidarity I believe, that the President has gone to the U-N, to see, is it possible at all to get an inspection regime that can really do the job. I think he would probably prefer not to have a war if that could happen, but there's not a lot of confidence right now that it could happen.

Host: Robert, let's talk a little bit about efforts not just at the U-N but with traditional allies of the United States, in particular, NATO. You were an ambassador to NATO. At this point is there a role in any war in Iraq for NATO to play and how does the U-S get NATO to play that role?

Hunter: Well, no direct role. The United States will not go to the NATO council and say "please make this a NATO action," just as it did not do so ten years ago. But it will need basing* rights, over-flight rights, automatically it gets the kind of cohesion militarily that's been developed over fifty years, for example, if the United States were there with Britain. The manners of working together that have been developed are very important. Also, it will be important, whatever happens, crisis or war, for NATO and the European Union [and] everybody else, I believe, to take on the Middle East as a real project for as long as is necessary.

Host: Reggie, there were a lot of complaints during the war in Afghanistan from NATO allies that they weren't getting enough of a role to play. Is the U-S providing an opportunity for them to be in the mix here?

Dale: They can if they want to be. The United States has made it clear it would like to go in with a coalition. And therefore, the Europeans can decide to join that coalition. Some of them are much more likely to Britain. And Germany has made clear that it probably won't in any circumstances. And as a well-known American commentator said the other day, "A war without Germany I can be comfortable with," particularly as Germany these days is not a very pro-American country.

Host: Mark Mazzetti, over at the Pentagon, what kind of planning is going on with regard to a possible war with Iraq and planning for U-S allies to participate.

Mazzetti: I think they're trying to plan for all contingencies right now. The planning really started in early summer. I mean, the rhetoric really got way ahead of the military planning in terms of how to carry out an invasion of Iraq. But at this point they're sort of fine-tuning a couple of different scenarios. And the scenarios will still be based on which countries will allow U-S forces to be based out of them and so they're trying to work out different ways to possibly do it. President Bush has been presented with a series of plans. And it's a question of what they decide to do based on how they think they'll have, you know, the minimum impact on the region but also will be able to certainly get Saddam Hussein and his regime out of power. And taking into account all these factors that we've been talking about. So the level of planning is actually pretty far along.

Host: Reggie mentioned that Germany was not too enthusiastic about war plans and that Gerhard Schroeder had made this a big part of his reelection campaign. How has that played out now that that election is over, Robert?

Hunter: Here Germany will be kind of ignored for the immediate future as irrelevant to the Iraqi question. In Germany, I think there is an effort to try to repair relations with the United States. But I don't think we should just dismiss it that easily. What happened in Germany does indicate that there are misgivings in Europe about the course the United States, at least at that point, seemed to be on. That's one reason the president's speech the other night, to the American people but also to the world and the allies was so important. That's why working with all allies is so important. In fact, in the final analysis, if there is a war that does have strong international support, I would expect the Germans perhaps just to keep their mouths shut, if not, even to be somewhat supportive. It was a signal to the administration: "You've got to make a better case." Well, they are now making a better case, We'll see if it's enough.

Host: Well I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word because we're out of time, but I'd like to thank my guests for joining me today. Robert Hunter of the RAND Corporation, Reginald Dale of European Affairs Magazine and Mark Mazzetti of U-S News and World Report. For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.