Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Interview with Iraq Expert Sandra Mackey
Aired May 29, 2002 - 14:35 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: U.S. leaders have been talking for some time now about a regime change in Iraq. And Pentagon sources say while there's no plan to attack, there has been some military planning. Well, what are the implications if the U.S. should try to take out Saddam Hussein? Sandra Mackey is here to talk about that. She's the author of "The Reckoning: Iraq and the legacy of Saddam Hussein."
Thank you very much, Sandra, for joining us today.
SANDRA MACKEY, AUTHOR, "THE RECKONING": Pleasure to be here.
LIN: What are the implications of striking against Iraq at this point?
MACKEY: Well, there are two arguments that are going on. Do we wait until he has a nuclear weapon, or do we go in now and take him out? I think what we really need to concentrate on is that there are no easy answers in Iraq, because there are two problems. One is Saddam Hussein and the other is Iraq itself.
And with Saddam Hussein, you have one set of problems. With Iraq you have another set of problems.
LIN: What do you mean?
MACKEY: It's the problem that the country is a contrived country. It only has 80 years of history. And it is really divided between ethnic and communal groups, and sectarian groups. And they have never been able to develop a sense of nationhood in Iraq because they have so little in common and no sense of nationality.
And so when you start, you know, pulling the plug in Iraq, so to speak, you just don't know what the unintended consequences...
LIN: What that could unleash in terms of public opinion there.
MACKEY: Yes.
LIN: Well, Saddam Hussein seems to be taking advantage of the tribal politics. My understanding is there is still oil smuggling going on. He is still able to raise some cash reserves, which allegedly have been used for a weapons program. But there is word out of Baghdad now that he's been funneling that cash more to public service projects, to try to build his own image.
MACKEY: Saddam Hussein is not sitting very firmly in the seat of control in Iraq. I think we assume he is because he runs such a police state. And obviously, you don't know -- you know, you couldn't say at this point he's going to fall anytime soon. But he's got a number of problems.
And one is that there is the conflict between the tribes in Iraq, that he really only controls Baghdad securely. The rest of the country, he holds through tribal alliances. If those alliances start unraveling, he is in trouble.
There are conflicts within his family. There is the rumor that he may be suffering from lymphoma, which could or could not be fatal. And so Saddam Hussein is needing to repair his own political base. And so I think that you really do need to look at not only money he might be spending on weapons, but what is he doing to shore up his popular support?
LIN: We're hearing actually buying cars for army officers and funneling more money suddenly to build up local hospitals -- part of a public relations campaign. But it seems to me, Sandra, that the picture that you paint, perhaps some shaky ground that Saddam Hussein is standing on now. Is that much more incentive for the United States to strike now, if it wants new leadership?
MACKEY: Yes. And the question is, I think, you know, how you get the regime change. It isn't that you just get a regime change, because certainly the military moves against Saddam Hussein by the United States are complicated. They're difficult. They're expensive. But, the ultimate outcome, there is no question that we could topple Saddam Hussein.
It's what do you do with Iraq after you've got it? Because somebody is going to have to stay there. And while the Iraqis try to reach some sort of accommodation with each other, in a society that really has been stripped of its humanity, you know, these people have lived for 20 years under an unbelievable regime. And they have to have time to try to find whether or not they can live together.
LIN: But what could be worse than Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
MACKEY: What could be worse, at least for U.S. interests are concerned, is the fact that the country because chaotic. And anytime you have chaos in the Persian Gulf, you get right back to our basic problem of what's going to happen to oil prices? And U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf, since the time of the oil embargo in 1973, has been to keep the Persian Gulf stable and oil flowing at reasonable prices.
If Iraq were in the geographic location that Afghanistan is in, the problems or the risk would be much less, than the fact that we're looking at a country that's on the Persian Gulf and is laying just south of all those pipelines that are coming out of Central Asia. And we cannot afford chaos in that area.
LIN: And at the same time, Israel waging its own battle in its own territory. And the fear is that if the United States strikes Iraq, Iraq retaliates by striking at Israel.
MACKEY: That's right. Then Israel retaliates against Iraq. Because as much as we talk about weapons of mass destruction in the region, we only talk about Saddam Hussein. We never mention the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. It has biological and chemical weapons. And so you really have potential of unleashing a nuclear war at the very heart of U.S. vital interests.
LIN: Well, Sandra Mackey, you've painted a very dark picture indeed, but an interesting one, in terms of what Saddam Hussein's incentives might be when the foreign minister of Iraq and the United Nations meet in Vienna to find out whether weapons inspectors will be allowed into that country in the summer.
MACKEY: It's going to be interesting.
LIN: We'll see what happens. Thank you very much. Looking forward to reading more of your book.
MACKEY: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
