Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with David Grange

Aired November 16, 2002 - 07:06   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.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: When Iraq said it would allow those U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country, it did so reluctantly, to say the least. The showdown, of course, far from over, really just beginning in many senses.
Joining us this morning to discuss the situation, CNN military analyst David Grange, retired Army general.

General Grange, good to see you again, sir.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), U.S. ARMY, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, how are you?

O'BRIEN: I'm well, sir.

How does it look so far? The showdown is in one sense averted, and yet it just takes on, perhaps, a different tone and shape, doesn't it?

GRANGE: It does. Saddam has bought 60 days or so, but then so has the United States of America and any coalition partners of possible war. But what this does is, it sets up the ability for our armed forces to be deployed in case they have to act, in case there's a U.N. resolution to attack. But it gives us really kind of a green light to position all around the -- Iraq for possible war.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk for a moment about what sort of happened while we all were sleeping, the no-fly zone incident. Just the latest in a series of incidents, sort of been a low-grade war going on there, really since the Gulf War, in these no-fly zones, a bombing campaign, anyhow.

Should any sort of activity like we just saw, with Iraqi surface- to-air missiles locking onto U.S. or coalition jets, should that be an immediate trigger for something larger, perhaps an invasion?

GRANGE: Well, you know, the United States looks at that as a violation of the most recent resolution and the old resolutions. I don't think the rest of the U.N. Security Council looks at it that way. If you're a pilot in one of those aircraft, and a air defense missile's fired at you, it's obviously combat.

So it's -- you know, it depends on where you sit and how you interpret the violation. I think it's a violation. I think it's going to take more than that to trigger the war, however. O'BRIEN: Yes, I mean, do you think that perhaps the no-fly zone issue should be kept separate from the weapons of mass destruction inspection issue?

GRANGE: Well, since we have ignored it -- and I say we, the world, the rest of the world -- since '91, or at least since '95, it appears that's the case.

O'BRIEN: All right. Yes, so why change now on that regard?

GRANGE: Well, it -- you know, it's hard to say. I think it's a violation, and you just can't say, Well, we're going to enforce part of the resolution and not other parts of it. I think it's a violation, and I think it should trigger action, or some type of retaliatory action, or preventive action, really, for any future attacks.

O'BRIEN: All right. I want to give you -- we have a couple of poll questions I just want to run by you, see what your thoughts are on this one. Here's the first question. If Saddam Hussein does not comply with U.N. resolutions requiring inspections, more Americans, 47 percent, say the U.S. should invade only with U.N. authorization. And then invade without authorization, 28 percent, no invasion at all, 18 percent.

You know, you're a general, you don't pay attention to polls, I know, you're -- you answer orders. But do you think that the American public is right there?

GRANGE: Well, now that I'm retired, I do pay attention to the polls. However, I think that, like the rest of the Americans, I would like to see a U.N. authorization to go in. However, the United States must maintain its position, at -- if -- without a violation -- without a U.N. resolution to attack, and we feel that we are being threatened, we unilaterally should be able to do that.

I mean, I think that's our self-right as a nation for self- defense. And, you know, Hans Blix, the comments, Well, if there's a serious violation -- what does a serious violation mean? You know, there's so much vagueness in this situation. So, you know, it depends on where you sit, who you -- who interprets that violation.

O'BRIEN: Don't you think, though, that however you interpret all this, what is going to happen now is, you enter a stage where Saddam Hussein, who is an expert at these cat-and-mouse, 11th-hour games, is going to play this brinksmanship game as he has done in the past with these inspectors, and he's just playing for time? So do you perceive this extending out well into the spring?

GRANGE: He's going to try to do that, obviously. I mean, he's a -- just like you said, he's an expert at denial, at deception, at dislocation, at disruption. So he's going to continue to do that. And I -- you know, the -- for him to declare on the 8th of December that he has no weapons of mass destruction, when there's clear evidence that he does, I mean, there's a violation right there. I mean, he's already violated it. O'BRIEN: We're -- I'll tell you what, General Grange, I just want to bring a picture up while we're talking to you. He hasn't begun speaking yet, but Hans Blix at the French foreign ministry in Paris being introduced. As soon as he begins speaking, we're going to bring him in. That should happen very shortly.

I want to throw one more poll question at you while the introduction continues there. About 88 percent of Americans predict Saddam Hussein will prevent inspections from -- inspectors, I should say, from going to some sites. Only 8 percent say no. Is that in the category of, you know, duh, of course?

GRANGE: Yes, I think so. I mean, he's going to -- if not, he's going to stall, he's going to relocate things. So yes, he's going to do it. It's just the way he is.

O'BRIEN: All right. There's one thing this -- that hasn't been talked about a lot -- and they're still introducing Hans Blix, don't worry, we're not going to talk over that, I may have to interrupt you, General Grange...

GRANGE: No problem.

O'BRIEN: ... one thing that hasn't been talked about much is this team of U.N. inspectors. A lot of the are rookies, quite frankly, because the U.N. did not want to draw upon the United States for its expertise because of the concern that might be answering to the United States government as opposed to the United Nations.

Are you concerned that this U.N. team is up to snuff and able to do the job?

GRANGE: I am concerned, 270 or so representatives, many from countries that have close economic ties to Iraq, that with the food- for-oil program, there's been several violations with some of the countries that are even represented in this inspection team. So yes, I am concerned.

O'BRIEN: Well, now, a lot has been made this past week about the technology that they possess. When you start look -- talk about needle in a haystack missions, even with the best technology in the world, this task is a very challenging one, isn't it?

GRANGE: It is. And again, the technology, though it -- better than it was before in previous inspections, it depends on a type of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, radiological, et cetera. So yes, like biological, as an example, is very difficult to find. You have to be right on top of it.

O'BRIEN: Yes, tell me a little bit about that. I mean, if your task is to go into a country the size of Iraq and find biological weapons, you're really relying on your hosts to point you in the right direction. Seems to be a bit of a catch-22 there.

GRANGE: You rely on your host, and you're relying on other intelligence reports, and it depends on the accuracy of those intelligence reports. And many of them are old. They're -- it's -- you must have current, up-to-date intelligence constantly to find something like that. And where do you get it from? Very difficult.

O'BRIEN: What about the human intelligence aspect, and, you know, getting hard and good data from these scientists who are, after all, operating under the oppression of Saddam Hussein? Much has been made about this controversial decision to allow the team to take these scientists outside of Iraq, if necessary, in order to question them.

Concern, of course, is that that might in fact limit their access to them, because out of the concern they might ultimately defect. Walk us through that little scenario, if you could.

GRANGE: Well, in country, I'm sure they're not going to be forthcoming. If you take them out of country, it depends how much of their family still remains in Iraq. So they're held hostage in that case. So you're not going to get very good information from them as long as they're indirectly threatened. And I -- they will be.

O'BRIEN: "Free and unfettered" is the term we've heard. Is that a joke?

GRANGE: Well, I kind of think it is. Do you -- I just can't imagine people just going into any military...

O'BRIEN: All right. General Grange...

GRANGE: ... compound...

O'BRIEN: ... General Grange, time to interrupt you now.

GRANGE: All right.

O'BRIEN: Hans Blix from Paris. Let's listen.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

O'BRIEN: My goodness gracious. All right, well, after that very long-winded French question, we provide you from Paris, black. We apologize for that. We're going to try to reestablish our communication lines with that, and if we can get it back in house, we'll bring it to you.

Let's see. Let's get back to General Grange.

General Grange, we still have communication with you.

GRANGE: We do. I'm here to back you up.

O'BRIEN: We're glad to have you backing us up, that's a very strong backup indeed, good to have you there, sir.

It's funny that he hit on just about every point we were talking about, addressing this concern about the American flavor, if you will, if there is an American flavor to this team. Said 30 members are American, all of them U.N. staffers. Do you suppose, is the Bush administration is comfortable with this team, its level of expertise, and the lines of communication and reporting and the lines of authority?

GRANGE: I think every country is going to end up having their own lines of communication to report back to their particular government, just like in any operation like the peacekeeping operation. You have a U.N. or a NATO chain of command, but everybody also has their other channels to report back. And that'll happen as well with the U.S. inspectors.

And even though they may not be technical expertise, have the expertise, they will report back if they detect a disruption or denial or deception or those type of things, which is very important information, obviously.

O'BRIEN: All right. General Grange, put you on hold there for another moment, have another sip of coffee or two. Let's go back to Hans Blix. We've reestablished communication with Paris.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

O'BRIEN: All right that'll end that news conference. Hans Blix live Paris, France. The French Foreign Ministry.

Let's get back to General Grange, if we could for just a moment. I wanted to ask him about one poingt.

Back in '98, the last time that inspectors were there -- UNSCOM we called it then -- there was a tremendous flurry of allegations about espionage.

Do you anticipate we're going to get that kind of -- those accusations -- and how does the U.N., how does the U.S., handle those sorts of things?

GRANGE: Well, we're going to get blamed, no matter what, for espionage and some of the other nations will, as well. There is some British representatives that -- they'll get the same rap, whether guilty or not. See, what Saddam and his people are going to do is play the different nationalities -- the different inspectors -- to their advantages. Some they know are very lenient; some they can be manipulated; some they cannot manipulate. And then they're going to play the cat and mouse game of shifting in different regions throughout the country as the inspectors move around.

So, the inspections are good, but the inspections -- it's going to be very difficult to be successful the way at least we, the Americans, interpret how this should be run.

O'BRIEN: Let's bring up two points that Mr. Blix brought up. Which are of great interest. The possibility of weapons being stored under ground, first of all. That's a very, very difficult thing to root out, isn't it?

GRANGE: Very difficult, and he has become quite the advocate of underground activity, just like the North Koreans. And so, yes, I would say that a lot of the stuff is underground, and moves underground, throughout different regions in Iraq.

O'BRIEN: So gaining access to these sites is very problematic.

GRANGE: Well, just think if -- if -- we had inspections in this country, and someone wanted to go to our -- some of our facilities, a military facilities, our testing facilities, governmental facilities throughout the United States. I mean, you just don't really let people have unfettered access to all the White House, Congress. I mean, it's just not going to happen that way.

O'BRIEN: One other question for you, though. What about mobile facilities? For instance, there are U.N. resolutions, which are very specific on the length that a Iraqi missile can fly, out of concern that Scuds might be lobbed into Israel, for example. A lot of these, though -- they're mobile capabilities. Very difficult to track those down, as well.

GRANGE: The -- yes. He has really moved to a lot of mobile systems, whether it be air defense, whether it be some of his missiles, whether it be some of his weapons of mass destruction -- storage facilities. Yes.

He's in a mobile mode, and that's what I'm saying. As inspectors move to one region, if you don't totally saturate the country -- which it's almost impossible with that number of inspectors, then he just -- he just leaps in front of you from one area to another with his mobile means. So that's very difficult.

O'BRIEN: I'm curious -- a lot of the real hawks are against these inspections -- they'd like to see the U.S. take action immediately, because they see these inspections as a sham. But to the extent that they sort of bottle up Saddam Hussein's capability to prepare for any sort of action and does not similarly encumber coalition forces, perhaps it helps, strategically, doesn't it?

GRANGE: Yes, I believe so, Miles. It goes back to what we talked about earlier on the program. It kind of gives us a green light to position forces because no one says in the resolution -- you know -- the thing is just don't attack until you go back to the U.N. It doesn't mean you can't get ready to attack. And so we're going to position our forces so we don't have a one-month or two-month lag when someone says, yes, you have authority to go. Or we decide to go on our own anyway.

And keep in mind; something else could trigger a fight. It doesn't have to have anything to do with WMD inspections. Something else can happen in the region. Another country, whether it be with Iran or Turkey -- other incidents with terrorists -- that can trigger a regional conflict. It doesn't have to be WMD inspections.

O'BRIEN: And we shouldn't underestimate the power of Saddam Hussein to miscalculate and blunder into something himself.

GRANGE: Exactly. He has a vote they gave, even if it's a stupid vote, and so he may trigger a fight.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's leave it at that. General Grange, always a pleasure to have you with us. We invite you to come back in just a little bit, as a matter of fact. Will you do that for us?

GRANGE: Sure, thank you.

O'BRIEN: We'd like you to be a part of our Reporter's Notebook this morning as a matter of fact.

Along with General David Grange, we'll be joined by Rym Brahimi and Richard Roth, both of them able and competent reporters on our team. Rym is in Baghdad; Richard Roth is covering the United Nations for us. He happens to be with Mr. Blix in Paris; he'll be joining us out of Paris.

If you have any questions for this excellent panel, we invite you to send them to us now to wam -- wam@cnn.com. We will do the best to get as many e-mails on the air as we can. We'll give you a phone number in just a little bit in case you prefer to communicate with us telephonically.

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 November 16, 2002 - 07:06   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: When Iraq said it would allow those U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country, it did so reluctantly, to say the least. The showdown, of course, far from over, really just beginning in many senses.
Joining us this morning to discuss the situation, CNN military analyst David Grange, retired Army general.

General Grange, good to see you again, sir.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), U.S. ARMY, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, how are you?

O'BRIEN: I'm well, sir.

How does it look so far? The showdown is in one sense averted, and yet it just takes on, perhaps, a different tone and shape, doesn't it?

GRANGE: It does. Saddam has bought 60 days or so, but then so has the United States of America and any coalition partners of possible war. But what this does is, it sets up the ability for our armed forces to be deployed in case they have to act, in case there's a U.N. resolution to attack. But it gives us really kind of a green light to position all around the -- Iraq for possible war.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk for a moment about what sort of happened while we all were sleeping, the no-fly zone incident. Just the latest in a series of incidents, sort of been a low-grade war going on there, really since the Gulf War, in these no-fly zones, a bombing campaign, anyhow.

Should any sort of activity like we just saw, with Iraqi surface- to-air missiles locking onto U.S. or coalition jets, should that be an immediate trigger for something larger, perhaps an invasion?

GRANGE: Well, you know, the United States looks at that as a violation of the most recent resolution and the old resolutions. I don't think the rest of the U.N. Security Council looks at it that way. If you're a pilot in one of those aircraft, and a air defense missile's fired at you, it's obviously combat.

So it's -- you know, it depends on where you sit and how you interpret the violation. I think it's a violation. I think it's going to take more than that to trigger the war, however. O'BRIEN: Yes, I mean, do you think that perhaps the no-fly zone issue should be kept separate from the weapons of mass destruction inspection issue?

GRANGE: Well, since we have ignored it -- and I say we, the world, the rest of the world -- since '91, or at least since '95, it appears that's the case.

O'BRIEN: All right. Yes, so why change now on that regard?

GRANGE: Well, it -- you know, it's hard to say. I think it's a violation, and you just can't say, Well, we're going to enforce part of the resolution and not other parts of it. I think it's a violation, and I think it should trigger action, or some type of retaliatory action, or preventive action, really, for any future attacks.

O'BRIEN: All right. I want to give you -- we have a couple of poll questions I just want to run by you, see what your thoughts are on this one. Here's the first question. If Saddam Hussein does not comply with U.N. resolutions requiring inspections, more Americans, 47 percent, say the U.S. should invade only with U.N. authorization. And then invade without authorization, 28 percent, no invasion at all, 18 percent.

You know, you're a general, you don't pay attention to polls, I know, you're -- you answer orders. But do you think that the American public is right there?

GRANGE: Well, now that I'm retired, I do pay attention to the polls. However, I think that, like the rest of the Americans, I would like to see a U.N. authorization to go in. However, the United States must maintain its position, at -- if -- without a violation -- without a U.N. resolution to attack, and we feel that we are being threatened, we unilaterally should be able to do that.

I mean, I think that's our self-right as a nation for self- defense. And, you know, Hans Blix, the comments, Well, if there's a serious violation -- what does a serious violation mean? You know, there's so much vagueness in this situation. So, you know, it depends on where you sit, who you -- who interprets that violation.

O'BRIEN: Don't you think, though, that however you interpret all this, what is going to happen now is, you enter a stage where Saddam Hussein, who is an expert at these cat-and-mouse, 11th-hour games, is going to play this brinksmanship game as he has done in the past with these inspectors, and he's just playing for time? So do you perceive this extending out well into the spring?

GRANGE: He's going to try to do that, obviously. I mean, he's a -- just like you said, he's an expert at denial, at deception, at dislocation, at disruption. So he's going to continue to do that. And I -- you know, the -- for him to declare on the 8th of December that he has no weapons of mass destruction, when there's clear evidence that he does, I mean, there's a violation right there. I mean, he's already violated it. O'BRIEN: We're -- I'll tell you what, General Grange, I just want to bring a picture up while we're talking to you. He hasn't begun speaking yet, but Hans Blix at the French foreign ministry in Paris being introduced. As soon as he begins speaking, we're going to bring him in. That should happen very shortly.

I want to throw one more poll question at you while the introduction continues there. About 88 percent of Americans predict Saddam Hussein will prevent inspections from -- inspectors, I should say, from going to some sites. Only 8 percent say no. Is that in the category of, you know, duh, of course?

GRANGE: Yes, I think so. I mean, he's going to -- if not, he's going to stall, he's going to relocate things. So yes, he's going to do it. It's just the way he is.

O'BRIEN: All right. There's one thing this -- that hasn't been talked about a lot -- and they're still introducing Hans Blix, don't worry, we're not going to talk over that, I may have to interrupt you, General Grange...

GRANGE: No problem.

O'BRIEN: ... one thing that hasn't been talked about much is this team of U.N. inspectors. A lot of the are rookies, quite frankly, because the U.N. did not want to draw upon the United States for its expertise because of the concern that might be answering to the United States government as opposed to the United Nations.

Are you concerned that this U.N. team is up to snuff and able to do the job?

GRANGE: I am concerned, 270 or so representatives, many from countries that have close economic ties to Iraq, that with the food- for-oil program, there's been several violations with some of the countries that are even represented in this inspection team. So yes, I am concerned.

O'BRIEN: Well, now, a lot has been made this past week about the technology that they possess. When you start look -- talk about needle in a haystack missions, even with the best technology in the world, this task is a very challenging one, isn't it?

GRANGE: It is. And again, the technology, though it -- better than it was before in previous inspections, it depends on a type of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, radiological, et cetera. So yes, like biological, as an example, is very difficult to find. You have to be right on top of it.

O'BRIEN: Yes, tell me a little bit about that. I mean, if your task is to go into a country the size of Iraq and find biological weapons, you're really relying on your hosts to point you in the right direction. Seems to be a bit of a catch-22 there.

GRANGE: You rely on your host, and you're relying on other intelligence reports, and it depends on the accuracy of those intelligence reports. And many of them are old. They're -- it's -- you must have current, up-to-date intelligence constantly to find something like that. And where do you get it from? Very difficult.

O'BRIEN: What about the human intelligence aspect, and, you know, getting hard and good data from these scientists who are, after all, operating under the oppression of Saddam Hussein? Much has been made about this controversial decision to allow the team to take these scientists outside of Iraq, if necessary, in order to question them.

Concern, of course, is that that might in fact limit their access to them, because out of the concern they might ultimately defect. Walk us through that little scenario, if you could.

GRANGE: Well, in country, I'm sure they're not going to be forthcoming. If you take them out of country, it depends how much of their family still remains in Iraq. So they're held hostage in that case. So you're not going to get very good information from them as long as they're indirectly threatened. And I -- they will be.

O'BRIEN: "Free and unfettered" is the term we've heard. Is that a joke?

GRANGE: Well, I kind of think it is. Do you -- I just can't imagine people just going into any military...

O'BRIEN: All right. General Grange...

GRANGE: ... compound...

O'BRIEN: ... General Grange, time to interrupt you now.

GRANGE: All right.

O'BRIEN: Hans Blix from Paris. Let's listen.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

O'BRIEN: My goodness gracious. All right, well, after that very long-winded French question, we provide you from Paris, black. We apologize for that. We're going to try to reestablish our communication lines with that, and if we can get it back in house, we'll bring it to you.

Let's see. Let's get back to General Grange.

General Grange, we still have communication with you.

GRANGE: We do. I'm here to back you up.

O'BRIEN: We're glad to have you backing us up, that's a very strong backup indeed, good to have you there, sir.

It's funny that he hit on just about every point we were talking about, addressing this concern about the American flavor, if you will, if there is an American flavor to this team. Said 30 members are American, all of them U.N. staffers. Do you suppose, is the Bush administration is comfortable with this team, its level of expertise, and the lines of communication and reporting and the lines of authority?

GRANGE: I think every country is going to end up having their own lines of communication to report back to their particular government, just like in any operation like the peacekeeping operation. You have a U.N. or a NATO chain of command, but everybody also has their other channels to report back. And that'll happen as well with the U.S. inspectors.

And even though they may not be technical expertise, have the expertise, they will report back if they detect a disruption or denial or deception or those type of things, which is very important information, obviously.

O'BRIEN: All right. General Grange, put you on hold there for another moment, have another sip of coffee or two. Let's go back to Hans Blix. We've reestablished communication with Paris.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

O'BRIEN: All right that'll end that news conference. Hans Blix live Paris, France. The French Foreign Ministry.

Let's get back to General Grange, if we could for just a moment. I wanted to ask him about one poingt.

Back in '98, the last time that inspectors were there -- UNSCOM we called it then -- there was a tremendous flurry of allegations about espionage.

Do you anticipate we're going to get that kind of -- those accusations -- and how does the U.N., how does the U.S., handle those sorts of things?

GRANGE: Well, we're going to get blamed, no matter what, for espionage and some of the other nations will, as well. There is some British representatives that -- they'll get the same rap, whether guilty or not. See, what Saddam and his people are going to do is play the different nationalities -- the different inspectors -- to their advantages. Some they know are very lenient; some they can be manipulated; some they cannot manipulate. And then they're going to play the cat and mouse game of shifting in different regions throughout the country as the inspectors move around.

So, the inspections are good, but the inspections -- it's going to be very difficult to be successful the way at least we, the Americans, interpret how this should be run.

O'BRIEN: Let's bring up two points that Mr. Blix brought up. Which are of great interest. The possibility of weapons being stored under ground, first of all. That's a very, very difficult thing to root out, isn't it?

GRANGE: Very difficult, and he has become quite the advocate of underground activity, just like the North Koreans. And so, yes, I would say that a lot of the stuff is underground, and moves underground, throughout different regions in Iraq.

O'BRIEN: So gaining access to these sites is very problematic.

GRANGE: Well, just think if -- if -- we had inspections in this country, and someone wanted to go to our -- some of our facilities, a military facilities, our testing facilities, governmental facilities throughout the United States. I mean, you just don't really let people have unfettered access to all the White House, Congress. I mean, it's just not going to happen that way.

O'BRIEN: One other question for you, though. What about mobile facilities? For instance, there are U.N. resolutions, which are very specific on the length that a Iraqi missile can fly, out of concern that Scuds might be lobbed into Israel, for example. A lot of these, though -- they're mobile capabilities. Very difficult to track those down, as well.

GRANGE: The -- yes. He has really moved to a lot of mobile systems, whether it be air defense, whether it be some of his missiles, whether it be some of his weapons of mass destruction -- storage facilities. Yes.

He's in a mobile mode, and that's what I'm saying. As inspectors move to one region, if you don't totally saturate the country -- which it's almost impossible with that number of inspectors, then he just -- he just leaps in front of you from one area to another with his mobile means. So that's very difficult.

O'BRIEN: I'm curious -- a lot of the real hawks are against these inspections -- they'd like to see the U.S. take action immediately, because they see these inspections as a sham. But to the extent that they sort of bottle up Saddam Hussein's capability to prepare for any sort of action and does not similarly encumber coalition forces, perhaps it helps, strategically, doesn't it?

GRANGE: Yes, I believe so, Miles. It goes back to what we talked about earlier on the program. It kind of gives us a green light to position forces because no one says in the resolution -- you know -- the thing is just don't attack until you go back to the U.N. It doesn't mean you can't get ready to attack. And so we're going to position our forces so we don't have a one-month or two-month lag when someone says, yes, you have authority to go. Or we decide to go on our own anyway.

And keep in mind; something else could trigger a fight. It doesn't have to have anything to do with WMD inspections. Something else can happen in the region. Another country, whether it be with Iran or Turkey -- other incidents with terrorists -- that can trigger a regional conflict. It doesn't have to be WMD inspections.

O'BRIEN: And we shouldn't underestimate the power of Saddam Hussein to miscalculate and blunder into something himself.

GRANGE: Exactly. He has a vote they gave, even if it's a stupid vote, and so he may trigger a fight.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's leave it at that. General Grange, always a pleasure to have you with us. We invite you to come back in just a little bit, as a matter of fact. Will you do that for us?

GRANGE: Sure, thank you.

O'BRIEN: We'd like you to be a part of our Reporter's Notebook this morning as a matter of fact.

Along with General David Grange, we'll be joined by Rym Brahimi and Richard Roth, both of them able and competent reporters on our team. Rym is in Baghdad; Richard Roth is covering the United Nations for us. He happens to be with Mr. Blix in Paris; he'll be joining us out of Paris.

If you have any questions for this excellent panel, we invite you to send them to us now to wam -- wam@cnn.com. We will do the best to get as many e-mails on the air as we can. We'll give you a phone number in just a little bit in case you prefer to communicate with us telephonically.

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