Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Michael O'Hanlon

Aired August 21, 2002 - 08:15   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush meets today with top aides for what's being called a routine annual military meeting. Officials have gone out of their way, frankly, to say the group will not talk about Iraq. But can they avoid it? It seems every day rumblings again from the topic of Iraq all the way to Baghdad and back.
From Washington now, our expert, Michael O'Hanlon, of Brookings Institution, is back with us today.

Michael, good to have you.

Good morning to you.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, TERRORISM EXPERT: Good morning.

HEMMER: This seems like the elephant in the corner, almost impossible to mention and I don't think we should give our viewers the impression that it's not going to come up at all. It's just the White House has gone out of its way to say that it is not Topic A in Crawford.

Your take on that?

O'HANLON: Well, I think the White House is probably telling the truth because there are a lot of things to discuss within defense, a huge budget increase that's still ahead, for example, and this will take a lot of the remaining fiscal resources President Bush has to think about using in the rest of his presidency. On the other hand, there's no doubt that this is Issue A and this is a war we're considering launching. It would be the largest preemptive war in the history of the United States. It would be the biggest war since Desert Storm. If this is going to happen, there's no way that the president can avoid thinking about it almost on a daily basis. And if he has Rumsfeld and Meyers and others there, they will talk about it.

HEMMER: Michael, we have not spoken in about two weeks. But since that time you've said a few things that really piqued my interest here. Why do you think the administration right now is back pedaling on this issue?

O'HANLON: Well, I think President Bush last winter felt a little differently than he does now. I think back then we had had a relatively quick victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It seemed that American high technology weaponry was going to make warfare much different in the future than it had been in the past. It was only a few months after 9/11 and his resolve was very firm. And then it was easy to say I'm going to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It was almost a visceral, emotional thing and it seemed consistent with this recent overwhelming success in Afghanistan.

HEMMER: So then what changed?

O'HANLON: Well, in the course of the spring a lot of things changed. Of course, the Mideast blew up. In addition to that, a lot of our Arab allies then said listen, we're not going to war against Saddam and we're not going to help you do it. And perhaps most of all, the military, I think, told Mr. Bush listen, this is not going to be a cake walk. And people like Richard Pearl, who had been out there saying it would be easy, ultimately, you know, their crystal ball may be right. Maybe if we build up a big force and go to war we will win easily, but you can't assume that as a responsible military planner. You have to assume this will be a big, difficult, bloody effort.

And I think the president was sobered by some of the military advice he received in the course of the spring. He realizes now if he does this, this will be the dominant event in the rest of his first term and I'm not sure he's...

HEMMER: You can underline that.

O'HANLON: Yes.

HEMMER: Listen, Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector, almost seems like he's on his own personal crusade to caution not to do it right now. Listen to what he had to say yesterday.

Here's Scott Ritter now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We cannot go to war based upon rumor. We cannot go to war based upon speculation. Before we send tens of thousands of American troops off to fight, kill and be killed in our name, we have to be absolutely certain that there is a threat there worthy of war, worthy of the sacrifice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: A whole lot there, Michael. I want to get your impression now, the concern you have dovetailing off of what Scott Ritter has to say, as you don't see the strategy being formulated almost in a way that's not cohesive just yet. If that's the case, size it up for us. From the U.S. perspective, what now is the strategy regarding Baghdad?

O'HANLON: Well, I think Scott sets the threshold a little too high. It's not going to be easy to get definitive proof. We may have to act before we do. But right now the overall evidence we have is that Saddam has been contained pretty well for the last 12 years and I think we have a good argument that perhaps it will continue, or the last 11 years, ever since Desert Storm. But the U.S. strategy right now seems to oscillate. On the one hand it's lets get rid of Saddam. We all know he's a bad guy. The world would be a lot better off if he's not there. We all agree with that. But that may not be a basis for policy and for a huge war.

On the other hand, Mr. Bush sometimes says it's the weapons of mass destruction which are the problem. And then sometimes you have people like Mr. Rumsfeld going out and saying it's the link to al Qaeda that's the problem. They haven't really put all this together.

I think what you need to do is to come up with an overall strategy that integrates these different concerns and brings your allies on board.

Present one final ultimatum to Saddam -- if you don't let a rigorous inspections process to disarm your country go forth, then we will have to go to war. Give him the ultimatum. Make him have the final choice. And then I think a lot of our allies would support us if we have to go to war.

HEMMER: Listen, I want to get to two more things. We only have a minute left here. Yesterday, Easton Jordan, a CNN executive, reporting on the streets of Baghdad, in fact, on this program for the first time, essential the Iraqi officials daring the U.S. to come in on the ground, not by airplanes, but on the ground, and go one-on-one with the Iraqi soldiers there.

What's the Iraqi strategy in all this right now publicly?

O'HANLON: Well, the Iraqi strategy publicly changes. One day they want to be nice, one day they want to be tough and conjure up this image of a bloody war. It is true that an urban warfare situation is more difficult for us. But it's also true we would win. We're very good at this kind of warfare, as well. We showed it in Panama in 1989. Even in the Mogadishu firefighter of 1993 we actually, I think, were winning those battles, although the cost was ultimately judged to be too high for the benefit.

If Iraq wants to fight us, they will lose. There is no doubt we can win this war and win it decisively. But we have to be ready for possibly a couple thousand Americans killed in action. It's not going to be Vietnam or Korea, but it will be harder than Desert Storm if Iraq chooses to fight hard in the cities.

HEMMER: I'm out of time.

Come on back, OK?

Michael O'Hanlon with the Brookings Institution down there in D.C.

Good to see you again, Michael.

O'HANLON: Likewise.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com