17 January 2003
U.S. Expert Points to Danger of Nuclear-Armed Iraq
(Pollack says post-war Iraqi reconstruction effort will be crucial) (940) By Jacquelyn S. Porth Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- A U.S. expert on Iraq says that Saddam Hussein has sought to acquire nuclear weapons for both defensive and offensive purposes -- "an extraordinarily dangerous way to think about nuclear weapons." Ken Pollack told audiences in Pakistan and Canada January 16 that the Iraqi leader envisions possessing nuclear weapons as a means to deter future international intervention. Speaking during a State Department-sponsored digital video conference (DVC), Pollack said it is "only a matter of time" before the Iraqi leader has nuclear weapons, and that is what is driving the move toward war. He described Saddam Hussein as "a foolish man who has made one horrible miscalculation after another." Pollack has written a 400-page best-selling book - "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" - and has studied Iraq for 15 years from the vantage point of the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and currently as a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. He estimates that Iraq could have nuclear weapons in four to six years, and even sooner with access to black market fissile material. For this reason, he says, "the world has no more than four years to deal with this problem of Saddam Hussein." But given how far the Bush administration has moved in the political, diplomatic and military process, Pollack said "it's going to be extraordinarily difficult for the United States to think about going to war any other year but this one." Asked during the DVC why the United States is so concerned about Iraqi nuclear weapons and not those of India, Israel or Pakistan, Pollack pointed out that Saddam Hussein is "an extremely dangerous character" and also a leader who has consistently behaved in a way that is unmatched by others. The Iraqi leader "has no regard for human life," he said, and has launched attacks on five of his neighbors and threatened three others. The Brookings scholar said he had long supported a policy of containment of Iraq, but that policy failed miserably in the late 1990s. Alternatives to war such as sanctions and a coup d'etat have also not proven viable, Pollack said. There is no realistic alternative to removing Saddam Hussein from power because it is "too dangerous" to allow him to acquire nuclear weapons, he said. The United Nations weapons inspections have been a "sham," according to Pollack. He said he thinks it highly unlikely the inspectors will find "a smoking gun" pointing to Iraq's violation of U.N. resolutions because Iraq has become so adept at hiding its weapons activities. If either the U.S. or British governments has additional information to aid inspectors or persuade other governments about existing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, he urged them to release it promptly. And if chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix must request additional time for Iraqi inspections, he must provide "a compelling reason," according to Pollack, because so far the Iraqis have not provided the inspectors with the information they need to disarm the country. With the existing backing of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Turkey, there is now a sufficient coalition to launch the war, Pollack said, although he indicated that a broader coalition would be much better for such a potentially costly and risky operation. He also noted that there is no reason that coalition forces can't fight in the summer heat, if they must. At the appropriate time, he favors a second U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing military force. As far as post-war Iraq is concerned, Pollack advocates involvement of as broad a coalition as possible, and a coalition-based occupation carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. U.N. leadership of the occupation and rebuilding effort will dispel the notion that the United States might be trying to colonize Iraq or make a grab for oil reserves. This is not a war about oil, he said. The United States wants to see future oil revenues enrich the Iraqi people and not American oil companies, he added. Reconstruction of Iraq is crucial, Pollack said, and it will require a long-term multi-national security presence "with a U.S. backbone," as well as a U.N. effort to build a pluralistic Iraq. The U.N. must also lead the effort to stabilize the humanitarian effort in Iraq, he added. The more Muslim states that participate in Iraqi reconstruction efforts the better, he said, since it will help reassure the Iraqis and others that the end game of war is to liberate and rebuild Iraq so that it can become "stable and prosperous." Pressed on his own timeframe preference for launching an offensive to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Pollack said he would rather see conflict put off for another year or two while efforts are undertaken to minimize existing regional and near-regional problems. He said he would like to avoid a potential "spill-over effect" into Jordan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Pakistan. He also pointed to the simultaneous challenge of trying to confront Iraq and wage a global war against terrorists. At the moment, there is still "so much unfinished business," Pollack noted. There is a great deal of work to be accomplished in Afghanistan, for example, and a well-rebuilt Afghanistan will provide "a good example" for what will be required in a future Iraq, he said. Such a "demonstration effect" in Afghanistan will generate receptivity for a similar endeavor in Iraq, he added. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
