Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Michael O'Hanlon
Aired December 19, 2002 - 09:02 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Showdown with Saddam Hussein could escalate today when Colin Powell issues a formal response from the White House to Iraq's weapons disclosure.
Suzanne Malveaux is standing by with the White House for a little bit of a preview -- good morning, Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula. Here is what we expect from the day. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix to go before the U.N. Security Council saying that Iraq has not provided a full, complete, accurate account of its alleged weapons program.
We then expect to hear from Secretary of State Colin Powell at the State Department later, giving the administration's view, again giving more details, saying that Iraq has failed to give the kind of information, biological, chemical, nuclear components of its weapons program, that it is not in compliance with U.N. Security Council resolution.
MALVEAUX: We also expect to hear from the president, perhaps as early as tomorrow. He is going to be meeting with the Middle East quartet. That is Russia, the European Union, as well as the United Nations and he could actually spell out the Iraqi declaration and what he believes is non-compliant.
MALVEAUX: Now, as you know, we have mentioned before, there is really kind of a critical time table when the administration is going to be collecting as much evidence as possible, assessing that, and then making the decision, the determination whether or not to use military action, whether or not the United States is going to go to war.
A senior administration official telling us that could come late January, early February. A couple of key points in looking at that time table. First of all, look at January 27. That is the scheduled date that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix will go before the U.N. Security Council with his initial assessment, talking about the Iraqi declaration as well as the state of inspections.
Also we are told that this will give time the United States needs for more coalition building to convince U.S. allies that the United States is going in the right direction.
It will allow for the weapons inspections process to be intensified. It will give more time to establish this system to get those Iraqi scientists out of Iraq, to give information, interviews to those weapon inspectors and finally, Paula, we are told that this time frame will allow for the United States really to build up its troops, to amass the personnel, the kind of equipment that it needs in case military action is necessary.
But yesterday, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer again reiterating the president's position that for Saddam Hussein, the end game is near, that this is no bluff -- Paula.
ZAHN: Now, there was some debate among members of the administration about how to use intelligence, and how much of it to hand over to the inspectors. Any conclusions been drawn?
MALVEAUX: No conclusions at this time. It is still up for debate. As you know, really there is one camp that is saying, go ahead and give as much as possible to the inspectors.
There is another camp that says let's hold off a bit on that in the event that we do go to war, the United States doesn't want to tip its hand to Iraq in terms of all of the information that it has for those critical sites.
Those may be sites that are targets for the United States. So that is one way of thinking about this. The other thing, of course, is the debate, how much U.S. -- to rely on U.S. intelligence as opposed to what the inspectors come up with. There are some who believe that they already have the information that is necessary, to go in and get the job done.
There are others who say, Let's step back, let's wait, see what the inspectors get, let's let the process play out and build up as much international support as we can.
ZAHN: And there's been a lot of analysis about exactly what Colin Powell needs to say to perhaps ratchet up pressure on the inspectors. Have you been given a better idea of how -- what the tone of the statement will be?
MALVEAUX: Well, Colin Powell's -- his tone has been rather consistent. That has been, Yes, get tough on the inspections, to go in there, to be aggressive, but also very much in a diplomatic fashion to a lot of behind-the scenes discussions with the allies, assuring them that no, the administration is not eager to go to war. That is something that they have been trying to counter that appearance, and that there is a lot of kind of back-door discussions that will be taking place in the next month or so. But we expect that the tone is going to be somewhat conciliatory, but also pretty tough as well.
ZAHN: Suzanne Malveaux, thanks for the update. Appreciate it.
So will the president now take a go-slow approach towards war with Iraq? Joining us now from Washington, defense analyst Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Welcome back. Good to see you.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you. Nice to be here.
ZAHN: So Michael, is war all but inevitable, based on what we are learning about how Hans Blix is likely to react to the declaration, and what we know Colin Powell will say?
O'HANLON: I am afraid that it is just about inevitable that war is now going to occur. I have been an opponent of rushing to war, and hopeful that inspections could succeed, but I am becoming very dubious.
I think Saddam's last real chance was the December 8 declaration, and by refusing to admit to any elicit activity or weapons holdings, I think he has pretty much sealed his fate.
There is, I think, a debate in the administration as to whether to use the declaration alone as the major pretext or argument for war. I think they have concluded they will get even more evidence. Saddam will block our access to his weapons scientists, or do something else along those lines.
So I think it's now just a question of tactics, of putting together the coalition, making the case as strong as possible, but I am afraid the decision is all but made at this point.
ZAHN: And then when you hear Barbara Starr's report early this morning, the Pentagon is confirming that there is going to be an obvious build up of U.S. forces, perhaps even a doubling of U.S. forces on the ground in the Persian Gulf, that also is another sign, isn't it?
O'HANLON: That's right. I think that once you get much beyond the size of the (ph) climate we're at right now, it begins to become, again, almost inevitable. You can still pull those forces home, but the last thing we want to do is move 100,000 people here and there around the world as part of our coercive diplomacy.
Once you start getting into those kinds of numbers, and we already have 50,000 to 60,000 forces in the region, and as you suggest, heading perhaps up by another few tens of thousands, again, this is not the sort of thing the Pentagon can do easily, and probably can't do more than once. So I really do now expect war some time this upcoming winter.
ZAHN: Well, let me ask you this. Let's go back to that key early December date of the declaration which you said the administration might not necessarily use for a pretext of war, because they're probably counting on a lack of cooperation with Saddam Hussein and his giving the inspectors access to Iraqi scientists. You don't think there is any way he'll come through with that?
O'HANLON: Well, I don't know what Saddam could do at this point that would satisfy our concerns, because even if he makes those weapons scientists available, he still has lied to us, and he still has weapons that he is trying to hold on to that he should not have.
And so those weapons scientists will presumably tell us about such holdings. Now, the administration could get itself into a pickle if it assumes the scientists will tell us something, and then ultimately they don't, and we have passed up this chance to use the declaration itself as the cause for war.
In that situation, the administration may be sort of looking for the final straw that breaks the camel's back, and may never get it.
It may have to go through a long process of inspections to get to that point. So that's the hardest situation for the administration, and the one thing that could salvage Saddam's hold on power. But again, he has already made the inspections process virtually certain to fail by denying holding these stocks of weaponry. So unless he just does an about face, and admits to holding things that he so far has denied, I just don't see how anything can play out here in a way that will keep him in power.
ZAHN: Mike, we have just got 10 seconds left. Assuming that everything comes through that we just talked about, in the end will the Security Council be with the United States?
O'HANLON: I think a large number of our coalition partners will be with the U.S. Whether it is the Security Council or not, I am not sure. But we'll have a number of countries part of this coalition.
ZAHN: We always appreciate your time and should explain why you look like Maxwell Smarts (ph). He's holding up that little ear piece into his ear so he can hear everything I am asking.
O'HANLON: I want to tell you, I look like I am in Baghdad or somewhere, but I am really just here in Washington.
ZAHN: Agent 89, you did a great job.
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 December 19, 2002 - 09:02 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Showdown with Saddam Hussein could escalate today when Colin Powell issues a formal response from the White House to Iraq's weapons disclosure.
Suzanne Malveaux is standing by with the White House for a little bit of a preview -- good morning, Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula. Here is what we expect from the day. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix to go before the U.N. Security Council saying that Iraq has not provided a full, complete, accurate account of its alleged weapons program.
We then expect to hear from Secretary of State Colin Powell at the State Department later, giving the administration's view, again giving more details, saying that Iraq has failed to give the kind of information, biological, chemical, nuclear components of its weapons program, that it is not in compliance with U.N. Security Council resolution.
MALVEAUX: We also expect to hear from the president, perhaps as early as tomorrow. He is going to be meeting with the Middle East quartet. That is Russia, the European Union, as well as the United Nations and he could actually spell out the Iraqi declaration and what he believes is non-compliant.
MALVEAUX: Now, as you know, we have mentioned before, there is really kind of a critical time table when the administration is going to be collecting as much evidence as possible, assessing that, and then making the decision, the determination whether or not to use military action, whether or not the United States is going to go to war.
A senior administration official telling us that could come late January, early February. A couple of key points in looking at that time table. First of all, look at January 27. That is the scheduled date that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix will go before the U.N. Security Council with his initial assessment, talking about the Iraqi declaration as well as the state of inspections.
Also we are told that this will give time the United States needs for more coalition building to convince U.S. allies that the United States is going in the right direction.
It will allow for the weapons inspections process to be intensified. It will give more time to establish this system to get those Iraqi scientists out of Iraq, to give information, interviews to those weapon inspectors and finally, Paula, we are told that this time frame will allow for the United States really to build up its troops, to amass the personnel, the kind of equipment that it needs in case military action is necessary.
But yesterday, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer again reiterating the president's position that for Saddam Hussein, the end game is near, that this is no bluff -- Paula.
ZAHN: Now, there was some debate among members of the administration about how to use intelligence, and how much of it to hand over to the inspectors. Any conclusions been drawn?
MALVEAUX: No conclusions at this time. It is still up for debate. As you know, really there is one camp that is saying, go ahead and give as much as possible to the inspectors.
There is another camp that says let's hold off a bit on that in the event that we do go to war, the United States doesn't want to tip its hand to Iraq in terms of all of the information that it has for those critical sites.
Those may be sites that are targets for the United States. So that is one way of thinking about this. The other thing, of course, is the debate, how much U.S. -- to rely on U.S. intelligence as opposed to what the inspectors come up with. There are some who believe that they already have the information that is necessary, to go in and get the job done.
There are others who say, Let's step back, let's wait, see what the inspectors get, let's let the process play out and build up as much international support as we can.
ZAHN: And there's been a lot of analysis about exactly what Colin Powell needs to say to perhaps ratchet up pressure on the inspectors. Have you been given a better idea of how -- what the tone of the statement will be?
MALVEAUX: Well, Colin Powell's -- his tone has been rather consistent. That has been, Yes, get tough on the inspections, to go in there, to be aggressive, but also very much in a diplomatic fashion to a lot of behind-the scenes discussions with the allies, assuring them that no, the administration is not eager to go to war. That is something that they have been trying to counter that appearance, and that there is a lot of kind of back-door discussions that will be taking place in the next month or so. But we expect that the tone is going to be somewhat conciliatory, but also pretty tough as well.
ZAHN: Suzanne Malveaux, thanks for the update. Appreciate it.
So will the president now take a go-slow approach towards war with Iraq? Joining us now from Washington, defense analyst Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Welcome back. Good to see you.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you. Nice to be here.
ZAHN: So Michael, is war all but inevitable, based on what we are learning about how Hans Blix is likely to react to the declaration, and what we know Colin Powell will say?
O'HANLON: I am afraid that it is just about inevitable that war is now going to occur. I have been an opponent of rushing to war, and hopeful that inspections could succeed, but I am becoming very dubious.
I think Saddam's last real chance was the December 8 declaration, and by refusing to admit to any elicit activity or weapons holdings, I think he has pretty much sealed his fate.
There is, I think, a debate in the administration as to whether to use the declaration alone as the major pretext or argument for war. I think they have concluded they will get even more evidence. Saddam will block our access to his weapons scientists, or do something else along those lines.
So I think it's now just a question of tactics, of putting together the coalition, making the case as strong as possible, but I am afraid the decision is all but made at this point.
ZAHN: And then when you hear Barbara Starr's report early this morning, the Pentagon is confirming that there is going to be an obvious build up of U.S. forces, perhaps even a doubling of U.S. forces on the ground in the Persian Gulf, that also is another sign, isn't it?
O'HANLON: That's right. I think that once you get much beyond the size of the (ph) climate we're at right now, it begins to become, again, almost inevitable. You can still pull those forces home, but the last thing we want to do is move 100,000 people here and there around the world as part of our coercive diplomacy.
Once you start getting into those kinds of numbers, and we already have 50,000 to 60,000 forces in the region, and as you suggest, heading perhaps up by another few tens of thousands, again, this is not the sort of thing the Pentagon can do easily, and probably can't do more than once. So I really do now expect war some time this upcoming winter.
ZAHN: Well, let me ask you this. Let's go back to that key early December date of the declaration which you said the administration might not necessarily use for a pretext of war, because they're probably counting on a lack of cooperation with Saddam Hussein and his giving the inspectors access to Iraqi scientists. You don't think there is any way he'll come through with that?
O'HANLON: Well, I don't know what Saddam could do at this point that would satisfy our concerns, because even if he makes those weapons scientists available, he still has lied to us, and he still has weapons that he is trying to hold on to that he should not have.
And so those weapons scientists will presumably tell us about such holdings. Now, the administration could get itself into a pickle if it assumes the scientists will tell us something, and then ultimately they don't, and we have passed up this chance to use the declaration itself as the cause for war.
In that situation, the administration may be sort of looking for the final straw that breaks the camel's back, and may never get it.
It may have to go through a long process of inspections to get to that point. So that's the hardest situation for the administration, and the one thing that could salvage Saddam's hold on power. But again, he has already made the inspections process virtually certain to fail by denying holding these stocks of weaponry. So unless he just does an about face, and admits to holding things that he so far has denied, I just don't see how anything can play out here in a way that will keep him in power.
ZAHN: Mike, we have just got 10 seconds left. Assuming that everything comes through that we just talked about, in the end will the Security Council be with the United States?
O'HANLON: I think a large number of our coalition partners will be with the U.S. Whether it is the Security Council or not, I am not sure. But we'll have a number of countries part of this coalition.
ZAHN: We always appreciate your time and should explain why you look like Maxwell Smarts (ph). He's holding up that little ear piece into his ear so he can hear everything I am asking.
O'HANLON: I want to tell you, I look like I am in Baghdad or somewhere, but I am really just here in Washington.
ZAHN: Agent 89, you did a great job.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
