Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Michael O'Hanlon

Aired September 23, 2002 - 07:16   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: As President Bush tries to rally world support for the use of force against Baghdad, Saddam Hussein says Iraq will not abide by any new U.N. Security Council resolutions. What, then, does it mean for the U.N.? And more importantly, if the U.S. says it will act unilaterally against Baghdad, what would a military strike look like?
Back with us, Michael O'Hanlon of The Brookings Institution live in D.C. this morning.

Michael, good to see you again -- good morning to you.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Nice to be here. Thank you.

HEMMER: Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this battle, if indeed it takes place, will look nothing like it did back in 1991. How, then, does it shape up?

O'HANLON: Well, I'm actually struck by how many parallels there would be with 1991, even though the secretary is, of course, correct in one sense. This would be smaller, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand American forces as opposed to 550,000.

We'd have to fight, perhaps, in the streets of Baghdad as opposed to the desert of southern Iraq and Kuwait. We'd try to hit Iraq hard early on, not just with air power, but with Special Forces and various kinds of strikes against key facilities, like command and control, and really try to divide the country in two, try to tell Saddam and his top loyalist forces that we're coming after you. And tell everyone else, please change sides, because if you do, we'll consider you allies.

And so, you try to encourage that splintering in the ranks. That's the key difference.

HEMMER: Michael, take us north of the 36th Parallel. The Kurds apparently have, by some estimates, a pretty formidable military force right now. Do you see them being used as some sort of vanguard, like the Northern Alliance was used in Afghanistan? Is that a possibility?

O'HANLON: Well, we may try to do that in certain places, but I wouldn't use the word "formidable" to describe the Kurdish military capabilities. They may be reasonably good at defending their own territory, especially if we give them more weaponry and provide air cover. I don't see the Kurds coming down south towards Baghdad and trying to set up in positions and helping us get Special Forces close enough to attack the Iraqis. I think the Kurds will get slaughtered before that happens.

So, there's one thing the Iraqi Republican Guard knows, it's that any Kurdish-led government would certainly come after them and seek retributions. So they're not going to be intimidated by that. They're going to be more afraid of losing power than of fighting the Kurds.

And moreover, they can hunker down in a city, and in a city, our air power is not going to be nearly as effective. We can't just stand off, figure out where the Iraqis are by some distant reconnaissance, and then attack with impunity. We're going to have to put American forces into those cities, because the Kurds just aren't strong enough to do the job on their own. And it may be a force of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 against a Republican Guard of 100,000 and a total Iraqi military of 400,000. The numbers just don't shape up, especially in that urban environment.

HEMMER: Michael, move out of Baghdad to the west. Apparently, these missile locations apparently set up to strike Israel, within striking distance of Tel Aviv, et cetera -- Haifa. We have been told that special commando units essentially will be sent into the western part of the country to take out these locations.

Is that difficult? Is that easy? How do you measure it in terms of whether or not the U.S. forces could be successful in that area?

O'HANLON: Well, it's very hard. We didn't get any of these in Desert Storm, as you know, and that was 10 years ago. Technology has improved since then, but not astronomically. It would still be hard.

The good news is the Iraqis may only have a dozen SCUDs. And as you'll also recall, these SCUDs are not that good. They break up in flight. Even if Iraq tries to put chemical or biological agents on top of them, those agents may be released at the wrong altitude when the warhead breaks up.

Frankly, I don't think the problem is as much of a political -- excuse me -- not as much of a military problem as a political problem. This sort of attack might very well lead to Israeli retaliation and all of the threats to the coalition that would ensue. But I don't believe that that many Israelis would lose their lives, and I don't believe it's that much of a trump card in military terms for Saddam Hussein.

HEMMER: Quickly, Michael, in the short time we have left here, there's a report in "The New York Times" front page today that says that Special Op forces right now are working in with CIA units. What does that indicate to you?

O'HANLON: What it indicates to me is prudent planning. There has been no formal decision to go to war, and there may very well still not be a war. But when you can start to infiltrate, get better reconnaissance, set up your logistics, start to do some of the preparatory movements that you might need to do with just a few thousand people, it's not great stress on your military, and it's simply a matter of prudence. So, this is a long ways away from the big deployment decision, but it's still a useful preparation.

HEMMER: Michael, thanks. We'll talk again, OK?

O'HANLON: Thanks.

HEMMER: Always appreciate having you on -- Michael O'Hanlon down there in D.C.

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







Aired September 23, 2002 - 07:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: As President Bush tries to rally world support for the use of force against Baghdad, Saddam Hussein says Iraq will not abide by any new U.N. Security Council resolutions. What, then, does it mean for the U.N.? And more importantly, if the U.S. says it will act unilaterally against Baghdad, what would a military strike look like?
Back with us, Michael O'Hanlon of The Brookings Institution live in D.C. this morning.

Michael, good to see you again -- good morning to you.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Nice to be here. Thank you.

HEMMER: Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this battle, if indeed it takes place, will look nothing like it did back in 1991. How, then, does it shape up?

O'HANLON: Well, I'm actually struck by how many parallels there would be with 1991, even though the secretary is, of course, correct in one sense. This would be smaller, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand American forces as opposed to 550,000.

We'd have to fight, perhaps, in the streets of Baghdad as opposed to the desert of southern Iraq and Kuwait. We'd try to hit Iraq hard early on, not just with air power, but with Special Forces and various kinds of strikes against key facilities, like command and control, and really try to divide the country in two, try to tell Saddam and his top loyalist forces that we're coming after you. And tell everyone else, please change sides, because if you do, we'll consider you allies.

And so, you try to encourage that splintering in the ranks. That's the key difference.

HEMMER: Michael, take us north of the 36th Parallel. The Kurds apparently have, by some estimates, a pretty formidable military force right now. Do you see them being used as some sort of vanguard, like the Northern Alliance was used in Afghanistan? Is that a possibility?

O'HANLON: Well, we may try to do that in certain places, but I wouldn't use the word "formidable" to describe the Kurdish military capabilities. They may be reasonably good at defending their own territory, especially if we give them more weaponry and provide air cover. I don't see the Kurds coming down south towards Baghdad and trying to set up in positions and helping us get Special Forces close enough to attack the Iraqis. I think the Kurds will get slaughtered before that happens.

So, there's one thing the Iraqi Republican Guard knows, it's that any Kurdish-led government would certainly come after them and seek retributions. So they're not going to be intimidated by that. They're going to be more afraid of losing power than of fighting the Kurds.

And moreover, they can hunker down in a city, and in a city, our air power is not going to be nearly as effective. We can't just stand off, figure out where the Iraqis are by some distant reconnaissance, and then attack with impunity. We're going to have to put American forces into those cities, because the Kurds just aren't strong enough to do the job on their own. And it may be a force of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 against a Republican Guard of 100,000 and a total Iraqi military of 400,000. The numbers just don't shape up, especially in that urban environment.

HEMMER: Michael, move out of Baghdad to the west. Apparently, these missile locations apparently set up to strike Israel, within striking distance of Tel Aviv, et cetera -- Haifa. We have been told that special commando units essentially will be sent into the western part of the country to take out these locations.

Is that difficult? Is that easy? How do you measure it in terms of whether or not the U.S. forces could be successful in that area?

O'HANLON: Well, it's very hard. We didn't get any of these in Desert Storm, as you know, and that was 10 years ago. Technology has improved since then, but not astronomically. It would still be hard.

The good news is the Iraqis may only have a dozen SCUDs. And as you'll also recall, these SCUDs are not that good. They break up in flight. Even if Iraq tries to put chemical or biological agents on top of them, those agents may be released at the wrong altitude when the warhead breaks up.

Frankly, I don't think the problem is as much of a political -- excuse me -- not as much of a military problem as a political problem. This sort of attack might very well lead to Israeli retaliation and all of the threats to the coalition that would ensue. But I don't believe that that many Israelis would lose their lives, and I don't believe it's that much of a trump card in military terms for Saddam Hussein.

HEMMER: Quickly, Michael, in the short time we have left here, there's a report in "The New York Times" front page today that says that Special Op forces right now are working in with CIA units. What does that indicate to you?

O'HANLON: What it indicates to me is prudent planning. There has been no formal decision to go to war, and there may very well still not be a war. But when you can start to infiltrate, get better reconnaissance, set up your logistics, start to do some of the preparatory movements that you might need to do with just a few thousand people, it's not great stress on your military, and it's simply a matter of prudence. So, this is a long ways away from the big deployment decision, but it's still a useful preparation.

HEMMER: Michael, thanks. We'll talk again, OK?

O'HANLON: Thanks.

HEMMER: Always appreciate having you on -- Michael O'Hanlon down there in D.C.

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