Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Robert Gallucci
Aired July 31, 2002 - 08:24 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: Is the U.S. getting ready to attack Iraq? Well, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden, says he doesn't think the Bush administration would be ready to move much before the end of the year. This morning, his committee begins hearings on the subject only a day after two Democratic senators introduced a resolution which would require the administration to get a green light from Congress before taking action.
Joining me now from Washington, Ambassador Robert Gallucci. He served on the U.N. special commission to disarm Iraq and he is now the dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
Good to see you, sir.
Thanks for joining us this morning.
ROBERT GALLUCCI, DEAN, GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE: A pleasure.
ZAHN: Where do you stand on the issue of a potential U.S. invasion of Iraq?
GALLUCCI: I think we start addressing that question by asking what the threat is. And I think the threat is real. But it is not one that I think presses itself upon us in an immediate way. It seems to me that there is another way to deal with the threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction and that would be a very effective -- and I emphasize effective inspection regime. If such a regime could be constructed and disarm Iraq of those weapons, I think that would be a preferable way of dealing with the threat.
ZAHN: I know that the former chief U.N. weapons inspector was a guest in our last hour and he agrees with you heartily, but he also conceded that he didn't have much faith that Saddam would take rigid requirements seriously. Do you share that skepticism?
GALLUCCI: Yes, I think it's really more than skepticism. I cannot imagine why we would want a regime that would not work and I cannot imagine why Saddam would accept a regime that would work unless we posed to the Iraqis the alternative, the very real alternative that we would, indeed, invade if they did not accept a very intrusive inspection regime.
So that has to be, I think, the premise on which one really talks about inspections.
ZAHN: What are the chances of a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein's part? We had a guest on the air yesterday who basically said if that happened it would make September 11, in his words, "look like a picnic."
GALLUCCI: I think we all ought to look a little more closely at what we're saying when we say something like that. Even Iraq armed with biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons, I do not believe in and of itself poses an overwhelming threat to the United States or its allies in the region because we can deter. We can promise overwhelming catastrophic retaliation and be very credible about it.
The risk to us and to our allies comes from the possibility that Iraq would transfer those weapons or the weapons capability to a terrorist group or that they would use those weapons in the midst of an American attempt to overturn the Iraqi regime. In those two scenarios, those two circumstances, we should not expect deterrence to work.
We cannot, I do not think, deter an al Qaeda type terrorist group or an Iraq that has nothing to lose. But simply the acquisition of the weapons by Iraq does not immediately pose a threat that we cannot deal with through deterrence.
ZAHN: Based on the leaks that we've seen come out of the Pentagon, stories appeared on the front page of the "New York Times," among others, about the discord among top Pentagon leaders, where do you think the debate goes from here and how torn is the administration at this juncture?
GALLUCCI: Well, I am, like everybody else, listening and reading about the internal discussions in the administration or the reflection of those discussions that we get to hear and see. And I think there is a lot of concern, as there ought to be, with what would be involved in an invasion and what would be involved following an invasion to stabilize Iraq and ensure that there was a regime in place that would be far better than the one that is there.
This is a very high risk operation, maybe one that we could be certain ultimately to win, but not at anything less than significant cost. If we can find an alternative, it makes very good sense for us to pursue an alternative option.
ZAHN: A quick yes or no, Mr. Ambassador. What are the chances, do you think, that Saddam Hussein ultimately accepts a legitimate inspections process?
GALLUCCI: That's a tough one to say yes or no to.
ZAHN: Yes, that was actually -- you actually need 10 seconds to answer that.
GALLUCCI: I think that...
ZAHN: There is no yes or no. Sorry. GALLUCCI: I think that if we can pose the credible option of invasion, and we can, and we're willing to accept the regime in place, because that, Hussein would have to understand that a regime, an inspection regime would allow him to stay there without his weapons. So we would not achieve regime change, but we could disarm him. I think it's possible. I don't think it's highly likely.
ZAHN: The dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, Robert Gallucci.
Thanks for your time this morning.
GALLUCCI: Thank you.
ZAHN: Glad to have you on AMERICAN MORNING.
GALLUCCI: 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
