Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Sunday

Interview With Ken Pollack, Michael O'Hanlon

Aired March 10, 2002 - 18:13   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.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Iraq's hard-line stance places the United Nations in the middle of a longstanding debate, trapped between Baghdad and Washington. With me now with more on the Iraq situation are Michael O'Hanlon from the Brookings Institute and Ken Pollack from the Council on Foreign Relations. Good evening, gentlemen. Good to see you.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE: Good evening, Carol.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Good to be here.

LIN: Let me start with my own correction here. When we listed several countries where Vice President Dick Cheney was going, he is certainly not going to Iraq as we had stated. Certainly that would be making news tonight.

But let me begin with you on the subject of Saddam Hussein. What do you know at this point is actually in his weapons arsenal? Michael, let me start with you.

O'HANLON: What we know for a fact is that Saddam has leftover -- well actually, there aren't too many things we know for a fact. What we're almost sure of is that Saddam probably has a dozen or more scud missiles, that he certainly has some kind of a biological weapons program, because it's so easy to retain some of that in your basement. And there are also certain kinds of technologies he's purchased in the past that we can't account for that would have no other purpose that's plausible except to support a biological program, and undoubtedly a similar kind of thing with chemicals.

We don't know exactly how much. We don't know exactly how many and where, of course. But there's almost complete certainly that something's going on. The big question, I think, and Ken will talk about this more, I'm sure, is the nuclear weapons issue. We are quite confident that he has not acquired a weapon in the past, but will he be in a position to get a nuclear weapon in the future? I think the whole debate about Iraq may turn ultimately on that question.

LIN: Ken, do you agree?

POLLACK: Yes, I think Michael's characterized it perfectly. Just to pick up on his point about the nuclear, because that is obviously the one of greatest concern. As far as we can tell, the indigenous Iraqi program, which was very close to succeeding and developing a nuclear weapon before the Gulf War, has been mostly dormant.

What we do know is two things. One, the Iraqis are trying on the gray market to purchase fissile material, and circumvent the fact that we've been keeping a close eye on their indigenous program.

And then they've also, they kept together all of the scientists and all of the technical expertise that they were using before the Gulf War. They've kept all of those people and all of that information together, and it's very clear that Saddam's intention is the moment he thinks the coast is clear, he is going to put them back to work on a crash program to get a nuclear weapon.

Because again, one of the things that we have a pretty good feel for is Saddam's own conclusion from the Gulf War was not that it was a mistake to invade Kuwait, but that it was a mistake to invade Kuwait before he had a nuclear weapon.

LIN: Well, it sounds like both of you gentlemen are making a case that Saddam Hussein needs to go.

O'HANLON: Well, Ken why don't you go ahead. I'm not of that opinion, but I'll see how he feels.

LIN: Fire away.

POLLACK: I'll start. I think Mike has a good rejoinder though, but yes my own personal opinion is that given how far the sanctions regime has eroded and how difficult it is becoming for us to keep some kind of a grip on Saddam's nuclear weapons program, I think that at some point in the next two, three, four years, the United States is going to have to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Obviously, the sooner the better but first things first, we need to take care of the unfinished business in Afghanistan. We need to deal with the immediate threat from al Qaeda. But once we've got those things well in hand, I think we are going to need to remove Saddam Hussein before he can develop a nuclear weapon.

LIN: Michael, how do you argue against that?

O'HANLON: Well, my response is twofold. One, the costs and difficulties of overthrowing Saddam are a lot greater than many people in Washington have been arguing, and Ken's not guilty of this. But many people have been saying it would be a cakewalk to overthrow Saddam. That's not true.

We could even see weapons of mass destruction being used against Israel, Saudi Arabia, even the United States by Iraqi terrorist agents who might infiltrate here. It would not be a monumental level of damage, but it would be serious. We could lose hundreds or even a few thousand Americans in the process.

Secondly, I really think that Saddam can be deterred. I think he can be prevented from taking actions that would threaten our vital interests, because in the past he knows we will come after him if he crosses lines and if he goes too far. And I'm not so worried about the nuclear weapons issue. It is a concern, but I don't see evidence that Saddam is making progress, but I acknowledge that is the big uncertainty. That is the big question.

LIN: Well, it can be deterred, how?

O'HANLON: Well, we've done it very well in the past, the same way we deterred the Soviet Union, the same way we deterred North Korea. We've got military forces around his borders, a clear commitment to defend his neighbors. We've got a track record of doing so, as we have in the past and we've threatened force each and every time he's tried to go over a line in terms of moving forces towards Kuwait or something since Desert Storm.

So I think the record is very clear. Saddam knows he can't push us too far. He tries to push up to a certain point, but he knows if he goes over that line, we will retaliate. We have a proven track record of doing so, and we would do so again.

LIN: Ken, you were a military analyst during the Persian Gulf War for the CIA. Do you think the Bush Administration is going to attack Iraq?

POLLACK: Honestly, Carol, I think the jury is still out on that. I think that the administration is looking hard at its options and the first thing I'd say is, I don't think they're nearly as far along as a lot of people in the press have been making it out.

As far as I can gather, they are still at the beginning stages, and I actually think that Mr. Cheney's trip to the Middle East is going to be a very important element in that process of making a decision. The Vice President knows the leaders in the Arab world very well. He's one of the few people who can really sit down with someone like Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and have a heart-to-heart talk about what the Saudis would really be comfortable with, where they would be willing to help us and what things are actually going to be beyond the (inaudible) for them.

When Mr. Cheney comes back, my guess is that that will become an input into the administration's decision making, and I think based on what the administration feels it needs to do, what it feels it can do politically, and what it feels that the Arabs in the region are going to be willing to do, it will make a decision about whether or not it should go ahead and launch some kind of a military operation against Iraq.

LIN: So in the seconds that we have left, Ken and Michael, do you see Dick Cheney's trip as something just beyond just good will with good neighbors in the Middle East, that you see it as an intelligence-gathering mission in order to create a plan for action against Iraq?

O'HANLON: I would say yes, but I think Cheney's in sort of a funny position because he doesn't seem, as Ken says, we don't seem to have a plan yet, so it's hard to go and say, "I need your support for my plan." But if you go over and just ask for people's opinions, then you're going to convey a lack of conviction and a lack of resoluteness yourself. So Cheney's in a bit of a tough position. I'm not sure what this trip is really going to accomplish in the end.

LIN: Ken, quick last word.

POLLACK: If I can follow up on that, Carol. Yes, I think that Michael's right and what my hope is and my expectation is that the Vice President's going to go over there and say, "look, here are two or three different options that we are considering. We're considering a diplomatic option that would look like this. We're considering a military option that would look like this." Maybe he'll lay out a third one, an opposition option or a covert action option.

And he will say to them, "how would you respond if this were what we wanted to do? How much help could we expect from you? How hard would it be for you to help us on this?" Like I said, hopefully that will become an important input into the administration's own decision making.

LIN: We'll see. We'll see. He begins his trip today. Thank you very much gentlemen, Ken Pollack, Michael O'Hanlon, good to see you.

O'HANLON: Thanks, Carol.

POLLACK: 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