Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Interview With Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings Institution
Aired March 18, 2003 - 11:14 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.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: As you know, this is something of a byproduct of President Bush's speech of the night declaring war -- or about to -- or, at least, putting us on the brink of declaring war against Iraq, I should say.
And President Bush is saying that the security of the world requires that Saddam Hussein be disarmed right now, perhaps forcibly.
But world opinion on military action in Iraq is deeply divided and the stakes are high for the U.S. And joining us from Washington to talk about what is at stake is Michael O'Hanlon. He is a senior fellow for foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and he is an expert on Iraq policy. Thank you very much for your time today, Michael. Appreciate you coming in today.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: My pleasure.
HARRIS: Let me bounce something off of you that I found very interesting. I heard another discussion someplace else, and they were talking about how it seems rather ironic that the Bush administration has been saying that Saddam Hussein must be -- he must learn that he can't ignore the will of the international community, and now it seems as though the Bush administration is ignoring the will of the international community by going around the U.N. to go ahead and assert its policy right now.
Is there any consequence -- or is it possible to tell right now if there will be consequences to be paid later on for that?
O'HANLON: Well, two points. First, I don't think that's a fair critique of President Bush. I'm not one of his biggest defenders, but he does have U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, as well as 16 previous resolutions on his side, demanding the disarmament of Iraq. That's the basic deal we struck with Iraq to end the previous war between the United States-led coalition and Saddam Hussein's forces, and Iraq has violated it continuously for twelve years.
On the other hand, that may be the way I see it, that is not the way much of the rest of the world sees it, and you are right on to ask the question because people will think we are taking the law into our own hands, even if that's not a fair critique, and they will, in many ways, say that we are acting just as badly as Saddam, or perhaps more to the point, that we are too close to Israel, and that we are indifferent to the suffering of Arab peoples in the same way that Saddam Hussein is...
HARRIS: To the point though, are there consequences to be paid for that later on down the road, do you think?
O'HANLON: Well, the simple way to say it is bin Laden's recruiting is going to become easier, and I think al Qaeda will grow in strength, and many of its followers will be inspired to attempt attacks. They would have, of course, in many cases anyway. But I think you're going to have to assume that al Qaeda may be a larger organization and may direct its anger even more at the United States than it was before. In the last year, they've attacked French, German, Australian targets. I think it may be about time, unfortunately, they started going back towards their original focus on the United States and Israel.
HARRIS: How big a problem do you think the coalition is going to have with the situation right now that seems to be festering in northern Iraq?
O'HANLON: Well, I think what will happen -- first of all, the problem there is serious, but it's not going to help Saddam Hussein stay in power. The battle for Baghdad will be largely independent of the problems up north, but it's still a real problem for us because, of course, we could see one of our treaty allies, Turkey, fighting against long-standing friends, the Iraqi Kurds.
I expect there will be some fighting between those two groups, but I also don't think it will last that long. I think it will be serious at times, but it will not be on the scale of mass slaughter or large-scale warfare, and Turkey is not going to think that it can really stay inside of Iraq indefinitely with its armed forces. So it is going to be a serious problem, but I believe a containable problem.
HARRIS: All right. I don't know how closely you are watching -- let me ask you, how closely are you watching the situation in the U.K. with Tony Blair now facing fire, seems like every hour or so with his House of Commons there, and with the public there in London as well -- shouldn't say just in London, but throughout the U.K., they're lining up against this war. Do you think that could end up paying a consequence -- or too high a price here for the leader of the U.K., and therefore with this coalition?
O'HANLON: Well, that's a tough question. Mr. Blair seems prepared to pay that price, so I guess, in that sense, he's prepared to use his political capital and his prime ministership for this particular effort. He believes deeply in it. He does not think the price is too high in that sense. On the other hand, I think we have to take note of the fact that even the Brits are deeply skeptical about the need for this imminent war. Leaving aside the debate as to whether we have to have the war right now, what that should tell us is we have to have a certain amount of humility. The case is not as clear cut as Mr. Bush said last night. Saddam Hussein is not the equivalent of Hitler. He's a major problem. I support the war at this point, but it's a tougher call, and we shouldn't be too bitter towards our European allies just because they disagree with us on this specific issue.
HARRIS: All right. When this is all said and done and it is over, how long do you think before the relationships get back to normal, if I can use that word?
O'HANLON: Until the Bush, Chirac, and Schroeder administrations leave office, and not before. I think this bitterness between those three governments will last for a long time. I think the U.S.-U.K. relationship will survive just fine, the same U.S.-Italy, U.S.-Spain, many others. But I think Chirac, Schroeder, and Bush will never be able to cooperate that well. They will put their differences aside on some issues where they simply have to, but these are not going to be groups or individuals who ever really trust each other again.
HARRIS: Time will tell. Michael O'Hanlon, appreciate your insight this afternoon, or this morning -- take care.
O'HANLON: 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
Aired March 18, 2003 - 11:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: As you know, this is something of a byproduct of President Bush's speech of the night declaring war -- or about to -- or, at least, putting us on the brink of declaring war against Iraq, I should say.
And President Bush is saying that the security of the world requires that Saddam Hussein be disarmed right now, perhaps forcibly.
But world opinion on military action in Iraq is deeply divided and the stakes are high for the U.S. And joining us from Washington to talk about what is at stake is Michael O'Hanlon. He is a senior fellow for foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and he is an expert on Iraq policy. Thank you very much for your time today, Michael. Appreciate you coming in today.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: My pleasure.
HARRIS: Let me bounce something off of you that I found very interesting. I heard another discussion someplace else, and they were talking about how it seems rather ironic that the Bush administration has been saying that Saddam Hussein must be -- he must learn that he can't ignore the will of the international community, and now it seems as though the Bush administration is ignoring the will of the international community by going around the U.N. to go ahead and assert its policy right now.
Is there any consequence -- or is it possible to tell right now if there will be consequences to be paid later on for that?
O'HANLON: Well, two points. First, I don't think that's a fair critique of President Bush. I'm not one of his biggest defenders, but he does have U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, as well as 16 previous resolutions on his side, demanding the disarmament of Iraq. That's the basic deal we struck with Iraq to end the previous war between the United States-led coalition and Saddam Hussein's forces, and Iraq has violated it continuously for twelve years.
On the other hand, that may be the way I see it, that is not the way much of the rest of the world sees it, and you are right on to ask the question because people will think we are taking the law into our own hands, even if that's not a fair critique, and they will, in many ways, say that we are acting just as badly as Saddam, or perhaps more to the point, that we are too close to Israel, and that we are indifferent to the suffering of Arab peoples in the same way that Saddam Hussein is...
HARRIS: To the point though, are there consequences to be paid for that later on down the road, do you think?
O'HANLON: Well, the simple way to say it is bin Laden's recruiting is going to become easier, and I think al Qaeda will grow in strength, and many of its followers will be inspired to attempt attacks. They would have, of course, in many cases anyway. But I think you're going to have to assume that al Qaeda may be a larger organization and may direct its anger even more at the United States than it was before. In the last year, they've attacked French, German, Australian targets. I think it may be about time, unfortunately, they started going back towards their original focus on the United States and Israel.
HARRIS: How big a problem do you think the coalition is going to have with the situation right now that seems to be festering in northern Iraq?
O'HANLON: Well, I think what will happen -- first of all, the problem there is serious, but it's not going to help Saddam Hussein stay in power. The battle for Baghdad will be largely independent of the problems up north, but it's still a real problem for us because, of course, we could see one of our treaty allies, Turkey, fighting against long-standing friends, the Iraqi Kurds.
I expect there will be some fighting between those two groups, but I also don't think it will last that long. I think it will be serious at times, but it will not be on the scale of mass slaughter or large-scale warfare, and Turkey is not going to think that it can really stay inside of Iraq indefinitely with its armed forces. So it is going to be a serious problem, but I believe a containable problem.
HARRIS: All right. I don't know how closely you are watching -- let me ask you, how closely are you watching the situation in the U.K. with Tony Blair now facing fire, seems like every hour or so with his House of Commons there, and with the public there in London as well -- shouldn't say just in London, but throughout the U.K., they're lining up against this war. Do you think that could end up paying a consequence -- or too high a price here for the leader of the U.K., and therefore with this coalition?
O'HANLON: Well, that's a tough question. Mr. Blair seems prepared to pay that price, so I guess, in that sense, he's prepared to use his political capital and his prime ministership for this particular effort. He believes deeply in it. He does not think the price is too high in that sense. On the other hand, I think we have to take note of the fact that even the Brits are deeply skeptical about the need for this imminent war. Leaving aside the debate as to whether we have to have the war right now, what that should tell us is we have to have a certain amount of humility. The case is not as clear cut as Mr. Bush said last night. Saddam Hussein is not the equivalent of Hitler. He's a major problem. I support the war at this point, but it's a tougher call, and we shouldn't be too bitter towards our European allies just because they disagree with us on this specific issue.
HARRIS: All right. When this is all said and done and it is over, how long do you think before the relationships get back to normal, if I can use that word?
O'HANLON: Until the Bush, Chirac, and Schroeder administrations leave office, and not before. I think this bitterness between those three governments will last for a long time. I think the U.S.-U.K. relationship will survive just fine, the same U.S.-Italy, U.S.-Spain, many others. But I think Chirac, Schroeder, and Bush will never be able to cooperate that well. They will put their differences aside on some issues where they simply have to, but these are not going to be groups or individuals who ever really trust each other again.
HARRIS: Time will tell. Michael O'Hanlon, appreciate your insight this afternoon, or this morning -- take care.
O'HANLON: 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
