Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=APRIL 10, 2003

TYPE=DATELINE

NUMBER= 37360

TITLE=U-S STRATEGY IN IRAQ

BYLINE=JUDITH LATHAM

TELEPHONE=202-619-3464

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=CAROL CASTIEL

CONTENT=9:40 V/O; 12:27 M/O

DISK: DATELINE THEME [PLAYED IN STUDIO, FADED UNDER DATELINE HOST VOICE OR PROGRAMMING MATERIAL]

HOST: On Wednesday, the enormous hollow statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in the square of central Baghdad amongst televised images of jubilant crowds in the streets. It seemed to symbolize the end of an era in Iraq and the beginning of something new. For some members of the U-S administration, it represented the culmination of their predictions, and for others a question mark. That controversy is also reflected in the views of U-S political analysts. Today's Dateline considers the diversity of opinion regarding U-S strategy in Iraq. Here's Judith Latham.

JL: Leading U-S newspapers, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, have reported a significant divergence of opinion within the Bush administration on U-S political strategy in Iraq. And these differences have been mirrored in the analysis of regional specialists before and during the military campaign.

Critics suggest that civilian leaders in the Defense Department, particularly Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, have had a pivotal role in shaping U-S political and military strategy for Iraq. And from the September 11th terrorist attacks onward the goal of "regime change" in Iraq has played a significant role in U-S strategy. But Robert Lieber, professor of government and international relations at Georgetown University in Washington, says that view is a serious misreading of the actual situation.

TAPE: CUT #1: LIEBER [FM LATHAM]

"The leaders of the Defense Department have played an important role in policy making, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that they have somehow imposed their views on the rest of the government. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Council have had important input. What is really driving so much of American foreign policy is the impact of September 11, 2001, with the conclusion that policymakers have arrived at. That is, a combination of terrorism plus weapons of mass destruction means that as President Bush has said we cannot allow the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

JL: On the other hand, the director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Thomas Carothers, says the civilian leaders at the Defense Department have exerted a major influence on U-S-Iraqi policy.

TAPE: CUT #2: CAROTHERS [FM LATHAM]

"Certainly Paul Wolfowitz has had a fundamental impact on U-S policy toward Iraq from after September 11 when he and some others pushed President Bush to put Iraq high up on the target list for U-S security policy. I think that he and Secretary Rumsfeld probably have somewhat different points of view. In that Wolfowitz has been more interested in the whole question of political change in Iraq, not just as a security issue but really as a way of reconstructing Iraq politically and having influence on the Middle East. I suspect Secretary Rumsfeld from what I've heard from good sources is in some ways less interested in the political project. And he views this more as a traditional military campaign."

JL: To his supporters, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz is viewed as a "visionary thinker," while critics call him a "dangerous ideologue." The New York Times and the Washington Post, for example, reported a "split" between civilian and military leaders at the Defense Department on U-S strategy toward Iraq. For instance, the Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, estimated that hundreds of thousands of troops might be needed to occupy Iraq after Saddam Hussein's overthrow, which the Deputy Secretary called "wildly off the mark." And Mr. Wolfowitz has been consistently optimistic about the entire enterprise. Professor Lieber says that events seem to justify that optimism.

TAPE: CUT #3: LIEBER [FM LATHAM]

"I think there are two things to be said about this issue of different forecasts for Iraq once the war began. First, it's not unusual for the uniformed military officers to be very cautious, and because they know the costs of war, they tend to be cautious about the use of force. But it would be a mistake to see this as a real rupture. There's a difference of emphasis, but in the case of the Iraqi conflict right now, it is striking that many of the expectations of the civilian defense department leadership, under Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and the expectations of President Bush have by and large been borne out. That is, in less than three weeks, Saddam's regime is on its last legs, the American forces are in and around Baghdad, weapons of mass destruction have not been used against them, and the southern oil fields have been saved for the Iraqi people. And many of the Iraqi people have been liberated from Saddam's murderous regime. That's a pretty substantial accomplishment in just a few weeks time. And it also suggests that General Shinseki, who made that prediction about hundreds of thousands of troops having to be used to occupy Iraq after the war was making a generalization, which looks as though it was way off the mark."

JL: But Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says the real challenge facing the administration is about to begin as the U-S military embarks on establishing a security apparatus that is expected to lead to a democratic government in Iraq.

TAPE: CUT #4: CAROTHERS [FM LATHAM]

"I think the more ambitious plans for rapidly transforming Iraqi politics into something that is highly representative, works very smoothly, and is relatively benign is probably overly ambitious and unrealistic. The United States is going to find a lot of political problems in Iraq trying to reconstruct it politically. On the other hand, we have taken on the responsibility of trying to help determine that country's future and, having invaded the country, we now have a serious responsibility to try to help the outcome turn out as well as possible. But without dictating to the Iraqis what they need to do politically. And without looking to install some kind of compliant pro-U-S government. (OPT) And instead look to facilitate the process in which the Iraqis themselves can begin to make some political choices and for them to create political institutions that really reflect Iraqi interests." (END OPT)

JL: Among the concerns that regional analysts and Arab leaders often mention in the wake of regime change in Iraq, is the possibility of an "upsurge in anti-Americanism" around the world and a "flood of recruits for Osama bin Laden." For example, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak recently warned against that prospect. But such fears may be groundless, says Professor Lieber.

TAPE: CUT #5: LIEBER [FM LATHAM]

"Let me say that some of the very same fears were expressed in 1990 and 1991 in the run-up to the Gulf War and also during the campaign in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, which ultimately brought down the Taleban dictatorship. I have a hunch that, with the defeat of Saddam and the liberation of the Iraqi people, and as more and more Iraqis step forward to tell their stories of how awful their life has been under Saddam, voices in the Arab world will be less critical."

JL: But Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace believes that the Bush administration is underestimating the problem the United States will face during the reconstruction period.

TAPE: CUT #6: CAROTHERS [FM LATHAM]

"We have a very serious problem of credibility in the Arab world with respect to the United States as a pro-democratic actor in the Middle East in that Arabs are un-persuaded that our interests in Iraq are really about democracy. And if anything this war has enflamed many anti-American sentiments in the Arab world and probably fueled some of the more extreme opposition, both to the United States as a society and to our government. So, we can expect that there will be a difficult period ahead with respect to U-S-Arab relations."

JL: There is considerable controversy, particularly between Americans and Europeans, over the respective post-war roles to be played by the United States and the United Nations. U-S officials argue that the major responsibility should be that of the coalition rather than the U-N. Professor Lieber agrees.

TAPE: CUT #7: LIEBER [FM LATHAM]

(OPT) "The administration's position frankly makes sense. You had a situation where, at the United Nations Security Council, even after the Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 1441, France and Russia and Syria and other countries refused to do what they had to do. (END OPT) One can appreciate why the Bush administration would be reluctant to get into a situation where France or Russia or Syria, for example, could derail or block necessary steps. And especially so, now that the U-S, Britain, and the coalition countries have done so much to end this tyranny in Iraq. The tricky part will be to get them all to cooperate in a federal Iraq that meets the needs of the different regions and ethnic groups."

JL: "Tricky" is an understatement, says Thomas Carothers. He told me that there are even basic disagreements within the U-S administration.

TAPE: CUT #8: CAROTHERS/LATHAM Q&A

TC: "Some, particularly in the Pentagon, want to give a leading role to Iraqi exile figures, people they have known and grown to trust over the last year or two.

JL: "People like Ahmed Chalabi, for example."

TC: "Yes, and the Iraqi National Congress, generally. I think others in the State Department and elsewhere feel that we have to be very careful about anointing certain people, particularly exile figures in advance and giving Iraqis the impression that the future of their government is already determined before the representative process has even started. (OPT) So, there have been some different points of view. It will be very tempting for some people in the U-S government to give a privileged position to people they know well. I think there's a tendency to favor those who clearly are willing to work on behalf of the United States." (END OPT)

JL: Most analysts in the United States, including Professor Lieber and Mr. Carothers, agree that like it or not the Pentagon will play the determining role in the days ahead.

TAPE: CUT #9: CAROTHERS [FM LATHAM]

"I think the Europeans are still being a little bit unrealistic in hoping that the United Nations can suddenly play a primary role in the occupation. It's going to be a U-S, and to a lesser extent British, military occupation and even civilian administration at least for the first three to twelve months. (OPT) The United States feels it has done the hard work in driving out Saddam Hussein and the United States should therefore have a primary role in determining the shape of the future of Iraq politically as well as economically." (END OPT)

JL: Professor Robert Lieber of Georgetown University concurs.

TAPE: CUT #10: LIEBER [FM LATHAM]

"Obviously, the United States will need to take a leading role, along with other coalition countries. And to some extent the United Nations is likely to be involved, particularly in delivering certain types of aid, but not at least at the start in running the transitional arrangements."

JL: But Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace worries that U-S dominance in Iraq without concomitant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, could further undermine U-S Arab relations.

TAPE: CUT #11: CAROTHERS [FM LATHAM]

"I think the whole question of America's relationship to the Arab world is in a very difficult and worrisome period. And unless the United States really does its work seriously and well in Iraq, and unless we engage seriously in a different and better way with the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. If that doesn't occur, we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult and unproductive relationship with the Arab world for years to come."

TAPE: CUT #12: ARABIC MUSIC

JL: The task ahead is enormous. About that there is no disagreement. But, the way post-war reconstruction of Iraq is managed may influence stability and the future of democracy in the region.

For Dateline, I'm Judith Latham.