Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Goals of Iraq War

Aired April 29, 2003 - 08:09   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: During a speech Thursday on the aircraft carrier the Abraham Lincoln, President Bush is expected to announce that the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom is now over. But there is still a lot of unfinished business, as we can see again today. No weapons of mass destruction have been located yet. And what happened to Saddam Hussein? His fate is still not known.
So then, should the operation be declared a success? Good question for Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst for the Brookings Institution, live in D.C.

Good to have you back here on AMERICAN MORNING, Michael. Good morning to you.

First things first, are Americans, do you believe, any safer now prior to the 19th of March?

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, I supported the war, but did not think there was a big tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So I don't think the answer to your question is all that big of a yes.

However, over time, Saddam certainly posed a threat. If he had continued to develop weapons without inspectors present to stop him, he could have some day gotten nuclear arms. That would have posed a fundamental challenge to the region, because I think he could have been more aggressive at this point towards his neighbors, not so much trying to detonate a bomb in New York City harbor, but maybe invading Kuwait again, or that sort of thing. So in a broader, long-term sense, it was worth doing, even if Saddam may not have posed quite the acute threat to U.S. security that the Bush administration sometimes claimed.

HEMMER: Michael, what about this argument, if you do not find the weapons of mass destruction, can you still declare the fact that you have rid Iraq of the WMD, that that is, in effect a success on its own?

O'HANLON: Well, first of all, it would be a major embarrassment and, everyone I think everyone recognizes that. Secondly, though, it's almost sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, at least right up until the verge of the war. Maybe he destroyed a lot of them on his own. But he just imported too many things in the 1980s that have no other plausible use except to make chemical and biological arms, and he could not account for those precursor chemicals or growth media in any other plausible way. He almost certainly had these weapons. I think that because he wouldn't let inspectors do their job for so long in the 1990s and into the early part of this decade, and could not account for all these precursors, he was in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. And because of his brutality as well, I think the war was justified. But it's an embarrassment if we don't find them.

HEMMER: Michael, I take from your answer here, though, that you tend to buy into the reports we're getting from Tariq Aziz, who indicates possibly that the Iraqis destroyed these weapons, either prior to the very opening days of the war or in the opening days of the war. Do you buy that?

O'HANLON: Well, Tariq Aziz isn't the greatest source, but he's not the only one who said this sort of thing. And frankly, you have to find some kind of explanation. I don't see any other explanation. I don't think all of these weapons could have been smuggled out to Syria, and I certainly think they exist by the tens of thousands of gallons. There's just no other explanation for all of the things that Iraq imported, in the '80s in particular. So I think they probably did destroy them in the last six to 12 months. I also think we will find some before it's all said and done.

HEMMER: Back to issue, Michael, quickly on Saddam Hussein. You believe he's irrelevant, whether he's alive or dead. You, however, on the other hand, do not believe Osama bin Laden is irrelevant. What's the distinction?

O'HANLON: Saddam only ruled by fear, and he needed to have thousands of people working for him to create that climate of fear. He doesn't have that control anymore. Osama bin Laden, by contrast, was partly an organizer, but also partly a charismatic figure and inspirer. And he can inspire terrorists from wherever he is, and even if he's only speak out every six months from some cave who knows where. So Saddam doesn't that have that kind of ideological, or personal or charismatic appeal. He simply was a henchman, a thug, and without the ability to seek revenge and punish people who disobey him, he done have any real importance in this situation anymore.

HEMMER: Powerless. Michael O'Hanlon, thanks. Good to talk to you as always.

O'HANLON: Thanks, Bill.

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 April 29, 2003 - 08:09   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: During a speech Thursday on the aircraft carrier the Abraham Lincoln, President Bush is expected to announce that the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom is now over. But there is still a lot of unfinished business, as we can see again today. No weapons of mass destruction have been located yet. And what happened to Saddam Hussein? His fate is still not known.
So then, should the operation be declared a success? Good question for Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst for the Brookings Institution, live in D.C.

Good to have you back here on AMERICAN MORNING, Michael. Good morning to you.

First things first, are Americans, do you believe, any safer now prior to the 19th of March?

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, I supported the war, but did not think there was a big tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So I don't think the answer to your question is all that big of a yes.

However, over time, Saddam certainly posed a threat. If he had continued to develop weapons without inspectors present to stop him, he could have some day gotten nuclear arms. That would have posed a fundamental challenge to the region, because I think he could have been more aggressive at this point towards his neighbors, not so much trying to detonate a bomb in New York City harbor, but maybe invading Kuwait again, or that sort of thing. So in a broader, long-term sense, it was worth doing, even if Saddam may not have posed quite the acute threat to U.S. security that the Bush administration sometimes claimed.

HEMMER: Michael, what about this argument, if you do not find the weapons of mass destruction, can you still declare the fact that you have rid Iraq of the WMD, that that is, in effect a success on its own?

O'HANLON: Well, first of all, it would be a major embarrassment and, everyone I think everyone recognizes that. Secondly, though, it's almost sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, at least right up until the verge of the war. Maybe he destroyed a lot of them on his own. But he just imported too many things in the 1980s that have no other plausible use except to make chemical and biological arms, and he could not account for those precursor chemicals or growth media in any other plausible way. He almost certainly had these weapons. I think that because he wouldn't let inspectors do their job for so long in the 1990s and into the early part of this decade, and could not account for all these precursors, he was in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. And because of his brutality as well, I think the war was justified. But it's an embarrassment if we don't find them.

HEMMER: Michael, I take from your answer here, though, that you tend to buy into the reports we're getting from Tariq Aziz, who indicates possibly that the Iraqis destroyed these weapons, either prior to the very opening days of the war or in the opening days of the war. Do you buy that?

O'HANLON: Well, Tariq Aziz isn't the greatest source, but he's not the only one who said this sort of thing. And frankly, you have to find some kind of explanation. I don't see any other explanation. I don't think all of these weapons could have been smuggled out to Syria, and I certainly think they exist by the tens of thousands of gallons. There's just no other explanation for all of the things that Iraq imported, in the '80s in particular. So I think they probably did destroy them in the last six to 12 months. I also think we will find some before it's all said and done.

HEMMER: Back to issue, Michael, quickly on Saddam Hussein. You believe he's irrelevant, whether he's alive or dead. You, however, on the other hand, do not believe Osama bin Laden is irrelevant. What's the distinction?

O'HANLON: Saddam only ruled by fear, and he needed to have thousands of people working for him to create that climate of fear. He doesn't have that control anymore. Osama bin Laden, by contrast, was partly an organizer, but also partly a charismatic figure and inspirer. And he can inspire terrorists from wherever he is, and even if he's only speak out every six months from some cave who knows where. So Saddam doesn't that have that kind of ideological, or personal or charismatic appeal. He simply was a henchman, a thug, and without the ability to seek revenge and punish people who disobey him, he done have any real importance in this situation anymore.

HEMMER: Powerless. Michael O'Hanlon, thanks. Good to talk to you as always.

O'HANLON: Thanks, Bill.

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