Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=01/24/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01266

TITLE=WILL SADDAM GO?

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0037

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: Can Arab leaders convince Saddam Hussein call it quits? Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: This is On the Line and I'm Eric Felten. Regional leaders are reported to be trying to convince Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to go into exile. According to news reports, officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey hope that Saddam Hussein will step down if he is offered immunity from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. U-S officials have voiced support for the effort. "To avoid war," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "I would personally recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in Iraq and their families could be provided haven in some other country." Can Saddam Hussein's neighbors persuade him to step down? I'll ask my guests, Robert Hunter, former ambassador to NATO and now a senior advisor at the RAND corporation; author and defense analyst David Isby, and Marius Deeb, professor of Middle East studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Welcome and thanks for joining us today.

Hunter: Good to be with you.

Host: Robert Hunter, who is pushing for Saddam Hussein to go into exile?

Hunter: I think most of the neighbors would just as soon that he disappeared in order to take away at least the overt reasoning of the United States to go to war against Iraq because they don't want to run the risks of war. They don't want to see an Iraq breaking up. Turkey, for example, seeing an independent Kurdish state that would draw on their Kurds. They don't want to see some of their countries being next. They don't want to see the stimulation of nationalism and Islamism. They don't want to go through the uncertainties of a conflict and they think if they could deliver this man -- deliver his head on a platter like [Salome] did with John the Baptist, that might be a way to mollify the United States.

Host: David Isby, is this something new that they're not just hoping for Saddam Hussein to leave, but rather making a concerted effort to promote exile?

Isby: Certainly it's very late in the day and I think people now are grasping at straws. Certainly in previous years, Saddam has shown no inclination to leave power no matter how high the pile of bodies or economic damage has been. So, I think it's very much they realize they don't have an independent military capability, but think one last appeal -- they're the people who have his cell phone number, and also that of his opposition if there is any.

Host: Is this a real effort, Marius Deeb, or is this just something being done for domestic political consumption within the Arab world?

Deeb: I think primarily for domestic consumption and for the fear that -- they want to be on record that they're not really for war. You know they tried everything and it didn't work. But of course, there's also something difficult about Saddam getting immunity somewhere in the Arab world, because he could be troublesome there. Even if he goes to Saudi Arabia, he could start a revolt or overthrow the regime. So, because they're the same culture, the same language and he thinks of the Arab nation as one nation, he could do anything he wants. It's not like [Haile Mariam] Mengista [of Ethiopia] going to another African country where he can't do anything. So, unless he goes to a non-Arab country, or a non-Muslim country particularly, then I think he would be a threat to the country where he winds up in exile. So I think one should take seriously this offer, but I don't see which country would accept him because there are consequences for that.

Host: Robert Hunter, is there any country that would be willing to accept Saddam Hussein?

Hunter: I think a lot will. I respect Marius' judgement on this, but I suspect if you get Saddam out of there there's not going to be any love lost at all. In fact it's not so much finding a country that would accept him. It's finding a country he would accept. He could consider that as soon as he left power he'd be a marked man and he wouldn't be able to buy a life insurance policy anywhere. I don't think he's going to do it. If he were to do it, it would be with America knocking on the gates of Baghdad as a last event. He figures he's going to get killed anyway, but he wants to see the color of the American uniforms and at the same time he might like to set up a little bit of martyrdom in the long term. It's going to come to that to try to rally the forces against what he called twelve years ago, Zionism and imperialism. This guy is a survivor. And going off to the Riviera or some place like that is not part of his survival strategy.

Host: David Isby, what would have to happen for this to even be a possibility? Who is in a position to offer immunity from prosecution or some kind of haven to Saddam Hussein?

Isby: Well, a number of countries have been suggested: Saudi Arabia, Belarus has been suggested. No one has come up with a precise commitment. I think that's part of it. But the basic thing is if he did want to leave, certainly it would happen. There are enough people who desperately [want him out]. The neighbors, the Saudis would throw enough money at whoever would arrange this -- because no one there really wants to see a war -- to make it happen. And the thing which it's not going to happen is Saddam [will leave]. And right now I'm afraid all the signs are that he's going to push things to its limit, hope the coalition will break. Hope there will be a veto. Hope there may be a domestic or international crisis come up to let him off the hook. Whenever he's bet over his head, he doubles the money. And he's survived using that risky strategy for all these years.

Host: Marius Deeb, how, if there were someplace willing to take Saddam Hussein, how is immunity arranged? There is always this tricky question when you have a ruthless bloody dictator who's looking to get out. How does he avoid becoming the next Slobodan Milosevic on trial in the Hague, which would tend to discourage one from giving up power?

Deeb: I think I agree with Bob. I mean, Saddam would not go anywhere in my opinion. He would refuse to go into exile. He's not going to stay somewhere and ponder about things and write novels, as he writes novels on the side. So what he wants to do is -- he has options. I mean, one of the options is to give everything to the inspectors. Show everything and he can survive. He has an option. If he thinks he can get away with some hiding of these biological and chemical weapons in particular, then this is dangerous because we will go after him. I think he'd rather stay defanged in Iraq than stay elsewhere in exile, if it's a choice there.

Isby: But he hasn't shown this so far. I mean, if he was really going to cooperate this time, I mean, probably the crown jewels, most sources agree, there are probably one or two dozen Scud-type missiles still hidden in Iraq and if he would just put a large flag on them, "Scud here, please inspect. We forgot about them, we hid them so well." That's probably the decisive point. If he's not willing to do that, then the Americans can say, "Look, we can't play the cat and mouse game." The deal was full disclosure. Several dozen inspectors in a country that size will never find two dozen buried Scuds.

Hunter: Well, you know, one of the things about this idea of his going somewhere else, endorsed by the secretaries of state and defense of the United States. We look to Saddam Hussein like a weakening of American resolve, whereas I think what it is, is to show others who are skeptical about war that we have gone the extra mile. And I agree with David. I don't think that Saddam is anywhere near caving in. And one calculation one has to think about is twelve years ago, he could have probably avoided war if he had just pulled out of Kuwait and sat on the border, you know, right on the border and then it would have been much harder to make war. I suspect he would wait right until the end. Now, he might have been calculating: "If I give up everything -- a thousand inspectors come here, they find something, they don't find something. If that's a pretext not to make war and I survive, you know, I'm still a pretty potent force. I've taken on America. America talked about war and it didn't do it." So this is a guy, either we're going to disarm him through inspections or he's going to be removed through war.

Host: Now, does he think that this deal would still be on the table once bombs have started falling?

Hunter: Who knows what he thinks? It probably would be if indeed that's a way of stopping people getting killed. I don't think the United States wants to kill people out there. Certainly the allies don't want themselves or Israelis or Americans or anybody else to get killed. If the United States showed it was serious on the gates of Baghdad and he says, "Fine, how about if I go off to the Riviera," somebody will say, "Fine, let's call it off." Nobody wants wanton or irrational or irrelevant human tragedy here.

Host: Marius Deeb, it's been reported that Saudi Arabia and Egypt and some of the other regional powers, in making these overtures for exile, are backing up that overture with the threat of seeking a coup from Saddam's generals and offering to them instead the immunity from prosecution. How real is that threat -- the effort to get Saddam's generals to mount a coup against him?

Deeb: It's highly unlikely because of the way he runs the country. He knows Iraq inside out. I've always suggested that we should get him to Brookings or somewhere and let him give us lectures on Iraq. He knows all the tribes. He knows all the regions. He knows who's with him and who's against him and he has an incredible intelligence service, which keeps the country under control. He's like Stalin. I mean, he will come to his deathbed unless we overthrow him in this war. But I want to make a point about what Bob said. There's a difference between the war, the Gulf war of 1991, and this one. In that one, he knew what the U-S was doing. It was going to kick him out from Kuwait. Fine, so I go to war. I win. Politically, I win by surviving. If I lose military it doesn't matter." But this one is a different war. It's a war after him and therefore, he might give in on inspections, I have a feeling, and therefore try to survive. Now of course, he could have a streak, Samson-like, that he wants to bring the temple down. Who cares? Especially there would be a lot of people against the war. You see, you have to think from the Muslim point of view, which is very difficult to see, looking at it from Washington. But the Muslims think that to go to war against Iraq after twelve years of sanctions, which led to many, many deaths -- malnutrition and lack of medicine -- is something unacceptable and therefore outrageous. And therefore there is sympathy, unfortunately, for him. So you never know. He has options. He has the option to give in completely and stay in power and he has an option, you know, martyrhood yes. But so you never know. He might reshuffle the whole cause, create some appeal in the region as a result of the war. So it depends how he thinks. I'm sure he has all the facts. People around him give him all the facts. It was his own decision not to get out of Kuwait. He wanted war. There's no doubt about it. But this time I'm not so sure.

Isby: I don't know if you really would say -- he may understand it. He does know Iraq in tremendously small fine detail, of his own country, but he doesn't understand the United States or the border areas. I think he very much has overestimated consistently his support in what is often called the Arab street. There may indeed be support for the Iraqi population, Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurd. There's very little for Saddam himself. No one likes to see foreign armed forces in the region, especially in a region that is associated with imperialism and also it shows by having the United States do it, that the people in the region couldn't do it themselves. And to a large extent, this is a last ditch attempt by the people in the region to show that they are relevant to dealing with a regional problem regionally.

Hunter: I think it is very clear that if the United States feels it has to go to war, then Saddam Hussein dies sometime in that war. He's finished. He's obliterated. And I don't think he believes he can go anywhere in the world and survive. He's got enough people who would make sure that he didn't get very far. So he will either have to decide, does he want to do things to make it unnecessary for war, in which the world is a much safer place, or to go for broke and run his risks, fail to understand the outside world and see what happens. So it may be that the United States gave a yellow light about Kuwait in 1990. You can debate what was said diplomatically, but he totally miscalculated what the United States would do. I can't believe he would have gone into Kuwait if he had known that he was going to suffer the way he did afterwards. So he's got a record of getting it wrong and that's one reason it's so dangerous.

Host: David Isby?

Isby: No. Certainly he has it. And I think this may be, he may think they can't get [Osama] bin Laden, you know, they couldn't get Mullah Omar, they can't get me -- especially if I shave off my mustache.

Hunter: Living in a cave somewhere? I wonder if that's the alternative he wants?

Host: Robert Hunter, let me ask whether you agree with Marius Deeb on the idea that pressure from regional players could help produce a coup in the Iraqi regime is a non-starter.

Hunter: Well, you know, the theory is if you say to people around him, well you get a free pass. And somehow we can make this credible to you. I don't know how you'd do that, because we are now in an era in which courts spring up everywhere, even after the fact. But then, it's the devil you know versus the devil you don't know. You're sitting there in Baghdad, this guy is running sting operations to find out who the coup plotters might be. And to go from there, organizing something that can get the guy on a date certain where one security service doesn't know what the other security service is doing. To go from point A to point B to get it done, that's extremely risky for people and very likely most of them will pay for it with their lives. So you're asking an awful lot.

Isby: You'd have to be desperate, again, if the U-S military is poised and the generals say, "We are all going to die under American bombs and take our country with us, let's take this risk." And also they would need, by the way, the American forces on board to say if something goes wrong and the Republican Guard stays with him or he's in a bodyguard, there are armed forces that can come to our aid. So, that's one thing about having lots of tanks lined up on the desert next to the Iraqi border. If anyone is going to take such a desperate move, and I wouldn't bet a whole lot of money that there are such people, I hope there are -- that would encourage them.

Host: Marius Deeb, what's the difference in the interests of the regional players. There's this effort being made by not just Saudi Arabia but Egypt and Turkey. Do Turkey and Saudi Arabia have very different reasons for wanting this to happen, or do they have the same sort of reasons for wanting this to happen?

Deeb: Yes. I think Turkey really doesn't want war because it makes a lot of money by having trade and has the pipeline and all that and doesn't want the uncertainty, as Bob mentioned earlier, of what's going to happen to the Kurds in the north. Are they going to establish a state? Are they going to drag in the large Kurdish minority in Turkey? It's a big problem. Saudi Arabia's afraid. Let me talk about two other countries we should not really be talking about giving him exile [haven] -- Iran and Syria. And these countries, despite what they say publicly, they are for the war because they benefit from the war. See, the Shiite fundamentalist opposition group, which is beholden to Damascus and to Iran, goes to the American embassy, it comes here. You know, they will be part of it, so Iran and Syria will have a piece of the pie. And therefore, that's what Saudi Arabia is worried about, Iran's expansion in southern Iraq, which is Shiite, which has the holiest sites of the Shiites, Islam. Which is major.

Host: And Saudi Arabia is Sunni?

Deeb: Sunni, yes. And it could link Syria to Iran directly, and Syria and Iran have been in alliance for the last fifty-two years. So, you know, we think of Syria as Bathist* or some sort of thing. Not really, it's Alawite*. It's a Shiite sect, heterodox sect which controls Syria. And therefore, sees eye to eye with the Shiite ayatollahs in Iran. That's why Syria and Iran are not part of it.

Hunter: I think the Iranians are probably ambivalent. Marius puts one half of the case, I think, very effectively. The other half is that the Iranians have to worry that if the United States goes to war, occupies Iraq, who's next? Now, some people in the administration have made very clear over years and years that Iran is next. One way or another there have been calls for revolution from below, there's been calls about if we're going to be hanged for a lamb, let's get hanged for a sheep. Which is to go after the Iranian nuclear reactors. If I were Iran, I would like to see Saddam contained, disarmed, but no pretext for Iran to be next.

Isby: I think certainly one thing would be if you do have a war in which Saddam goes and there is a reconstruction and a U-S-backed democratic regime. Now that is a threat first to Iran, but also to people in Saudi Arabia and the area. No one has ever had a good answer to the question, "How come those guys on the other side of the border get to vote and we don't?"

Hunter: I would argue though that, under the right circumstances, the right guy in Iran would come around and say, "We're going to make nice with you." Just as they helped us in the 1991 war, just as they helped us in Afghanistan. If the mullahs at the top and the supreme council are outfoxed by the, you might say secular leaders, who are actually religious as well, then you might be able to have something positive with Iran, but there's nobody in Iran who can bet on that. Now with regard to Saudi Arabia, one of the things they have to worry about with the conflict is the rise of fundamentalism. Ironically, in the most fundamentalist country against their regime, remembering that one reason for the sixteen or so or of the twenty hijackers coming out if Saudi Arabia, the Saudis would argue, was the fact that the United States had troops fighting from Saudi soil. So they would worry: "Are we the losers in any event if there's a war?"

Host: Marius Deeb, does this effort to try to push Saddam out give Saudi Arabia the kind of cover with their domestic constituencies? I'm afraid we have a little less than a minute left.

Deeb: Yes, sure, I mean, this is no Arab leader would say I'm against another Arab leader.

[crosstalk]

No Arab country would say I want to go and fight with the West against another Arab country. This is part and parcel of the rhetoric. They have to say that. Even if they believe that Saddam should be removed quickly.

Host: Having said that, if they do then provide a base from which U-S forces fight in Iraq, will that have satisfied the domestic constituency?

Deeb: Yes, I mean they tried to play the double game. The game, you know, which is here. It's the same thing: "We are against the war. We are with the Iraqis. We are with the Iraqi regime." But they're against the Iraqi regime. You know it's the same story. It's a kind of duplicity which is very well known. Because you have to satisfy domestic and Arab public opinion.

Host: Well, I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word for today, I'm afraid we're out of time. I'd like to thank my guests: Robert Hunter of the Rand corporation, defense analyst David Isby, and Marius Deeb of Johns Hopkins University. Before we go, I'd like to invite our audience to send us your questions or comments. You can e-mail them to Ontheline@ibb.gov For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.