|
National Defense
With Vernon Loeb
Washington Post National Security Reporter
Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2002; 1 p.m. ET
If the U.S. invades Iraq, military strategies will be quite different from the Persian Gulf War. The battlefield would not be in the desert but in the city of Baghdad. "Iraqi officials have indicated that they would fight a very different war by shielding their soldiers in cities and trying to draw U.S. forces into high-risk urban warfare." Read the full story, Baghdad Is Planning For Urban Warfare (Post. Sept. 27).
How will U.S. troops properly target Iraqi soldiers from civilians and in a capital of 4.8 million people? What military lessons from Israel can the U.S. learn in fighting in an urban battlefield?
Post staff writer Vernon Loeb will be online Oct. 2 at 1 p.m. ET, to discuss military defense and changes in national security issues during the war on terrorism.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Vernon Loeb: Greetings all. It's a busy time, and there should be lots to talk about.
Washington, D.C.:
Wouldn't an attack on Iraq further enrage some Arabs and Muslims against the U.S. and ultimately please Osama bin Laden if he's still alive?
Vernon Loeb: I agree with you that a war in Iraq would do great things for al Qaeda recruiting. Many opponents of the war have argued that they do not think it would be helpful for the war on terrorism.
Washington, D.C.:
Doesn't our impending attack on Iraq seem strange given that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and the Saudi government is extremely oppressive?
Vernon Loeb: That's an interesting point you make. It's also worth noting that the State Department considers Iran, not Iraq, to be the number one state sponsor of terrorism, so one might ask, why isn't the administration contemplating attacking Iran. While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush have both recently linked Iraq with al Qaeda by saying that al Qaeda leaders are being harbored by Iraq, the primary justification for attacking Iraq seems to be its development of weapons of mass destruction, not necessarily its links to terrorism.
Tokyo, Japan:
How long would a nuke take to go from Iraq to the U.S.? Wouldn`t the US have the capability to shoot it down?
Vernon Loeb: I don't believe anybody thinks Iraq has the capability to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon. In fact, it's not even clear Iraq has nuclear weapons, though the regime certainly seems to desire them.
Alexandria, Va.:
It seems to me that the twin claims by war opponents asserting that:
(1) Nuclear Saddam only threatens Israel; and
(2) Nuclear Saddam will only attack America if he is being destroyed;
lead to the conclusion that Nuclear Saddam is a threat to America.
If Nuclear Saddam heaven forbid did attack Israel with nuclear weapons and Israel responded in kind destroying Baghdad and much of Iraq what would Nuclear Saddam do to America then?
Wouldn't Nuclear Saddam be angry and try to do anything he could to America through orders to his terrorist surrogates?
Vernon Loeb: I think "Nuclear Saddam," as you put it, would be a threat to America, Israel and others. Nuclear Saddam is a scary prospect, indeed, which is clearly one reason why the Bush administration is pushing to preemptively strike before Saddam becomes Nuclear Saddam. I think if it could be shown now that Saddam is in fact Nuclear Saddam, it would be a lot easier to garner support for a preemptive strike on Baghdad. I guess the Bush administration's take is, we can't afford to wait for that to happen.
Washington, D.C.:
What do you think of the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Hearing? Pretty damaging.
Vernon Loeb: I agree with you that some of the revelations have been pretty damaging, or worse. I think yesterday's revelation, in todays paper, that is, that neither the INS or aviation officials were ever told of a CIA alert in August 2001 on two of the hijackers, is incredible. These two hijackers, in turns out, bought tickets in their own names on the flight they crashed into the Pentagon. I also find revelations about the FBI in a new book by Daniel Benjamin and Steve Simon, two former Clinton NSC officials, to be very, very damaging. Simon and Benjamin write that while the CIA gave the NSC reports on al Qaeda daily, the FBI never did anything to help the White House understand the al Qaeda threat. Part of the reason for this, they contend, was FBI Director Louis Freeh's "animus" toward Clinton.
Centreville, Va.:
Isn't this "American blood will run in the streets" rhetoric just another example of bluff tactics used by the Iraqi regime?
Vernon Loeb: I'm sure, as you suggest, there's much bluster in that claim. It remains to be seen how hard, and how well, the Iraqi military will fight. I've talked to experts who say the Iraqis have shown in the past that they can fight in the city. Others, including washingtonpost.com columnist Bill Arkin, argue that recent claims by the Iraqis that they are preparing to fight block to block in Baghdad are pure propoganda. Either way, the U.S. military is getting ready to fight block to block in Baghdad, if it comes to that. There could be lots of casualities. One thing I feel pretty confident in saying is that the U.S. military will fight harder, and better, than the Iraqis.
Oxford, UK:
I would have thought that the main danger of Iraq's possession of WMD isn't that they would be used by the state of Iraq against another state, but that they would be given to terrorists. This way, Iraq could maintain "denialability". What do you think?
Vernon Loeb: Absolutely, and the Bush administration makes that case by arguing that, since Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and since Iraq supports terrorists, then one must assume he would give WMD to the terrorists. So yes, that is a primary fear.
Washington, D.C.:
How confident are we in our knowledge of how the citizens of Iraq will respond to an invasion/liberation? Also, do we think Sadam will use the human shield as a defense tactic? And, how effective will his use of chem/bio weapons be against our troops?
Vernon Loeb: 1. I don't think anybody in the government really knows how the Iraqi people will react. Some will probably dance in the streets once Saddam goes down, and others will undoutbtedly fight, because, while they probably don't like Saddam much, they hate America even more. I don't think we should necessarily asume that the U.S. is wildly popular in Iraq, given the sanctions we have clamped on that nation since the end of the Gulf War. 2. I would absolutely xpect Saddam to use human shields. 3. This is much harder to answer. Aside from how effective they might or might not be, the big fear at the Pentagon is that they will use them at all.
Arlington, Va.:
President Bush has previously mocked the idea that the US would be involved in nation-building. That being the case, abd presuming that we do get rid of Saddam, don't we have an interest in what replaces him, particularly if it could be cohorts of the theocracy of Iran next door?
Vernon Loeb: If the Bush administration topples Saddam, I think it's safe to say it will be heavily involved in nation building and peacekeeping in Iraq for years with large numbers of troops, just as it now is in Afghanistan, President Bush's mocking of nation building notwithstanding. You may have noticed a story we had on the front page yesterday saying that the U.S. military in Afghanistan is shifting its focus to--you got it--nation building. Bush may not lik to engage in nation building, but I think his administration clearly recognizes that when you take a nation's government down, you have an obligation to help build a new one.
Montreal, Canada:
Why is the US government pushing for regime change? Why are they not satisfied with a strict, regulated and enforced disarmament regime?
Vernon Loeb: To answer your second question first, there is not a strict, regulated and enforced disarmanent regime, and it's doubtful that there can ever be one, given Saddam's penchant for lying and cheating. Having said that, I personally think trying to create one is worth one more try before any invasion, as the U.N. is now seeking to do. If I were Saddam, I'd let the inspectors in, and I'd let them go whereever they want. Because if he continues playing games, I have no doubt that the Bush administration will go in and take him out. Now, your first question: why are they pushing for regime change? Well, after Sept. 11, the administration decided that it was time to act preemptively against states and group that are avowedly hostile to the U.S. and have the propensity to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Oakland, Calif.:
What signs do you see that the administration truly is grappling with the future of an Iraq, post-Saddam?
Vernon Loeb: I'm not sure the "grappling" has yet begun. I think they have their hands full now "grappling" with pre-invasion diplomacy, and the invasion plan itself. I think they're probably "thinking" about post-invasion Iraq, but I have certainly seen nothing definitive yet.
Montreal, Canada:
Knowing that a government elected by the people of Iraq will have little chance of being on the US side, will nation building in Iraq have any chance to result in a democratic government ?
Vernon Loeb: Ah, interesting question, from Canada, no less. We Americans love to think that the Iraqis will elect a friendly, pro-Washington government. As you suggest, the odds of that aren't good. In fact, the odds of there being democratic elections in Iraq after the fall of Saddam are not good. I think the Bush administration would settle for a new dictator that is at least not avowedly hostile toward the U.S. But it's not hard to conjure up some nightmare scenarios when it comes to the next Iraqi regime. What if th majority Shiites elect a fundamentalist Shiite regime that aligns itself with Iran. What if Turkey and the Kurds in the north go to war...
Athens, Ga.:
There appears to be growing evidence that the United States, at the very least, inadvertently facilitated the development of Saddam's biological weapons program in the 1980s. Who do you think will be our Iraq of the future, and when will the conflict between us and them likely arise?
Vernon Loeb: Well, having listened to Rumsfeld recently on the subject of harboring terrorists, I think I would have to nominate Iran. So when does the war with Iran start? That's a scary question. How about, after the war with Iraq is over.
Dallas, Tex.:
Why does the Administration insist that previous Congressional and UN Security Council Resolutions have already authorized the use of force against Iraq, when the texts in question refer explicitly to UNSCR 660 (removing Iraq from Kuwait) or bar the use of force outright (the Iraqi Liberation Act). Moreover, Rumsfeld's recent claim that the no-fly zones are "aerial weapons inspections" seems to be yet another distortion of the truth, in that no UNSCR has ever authorized the zones, and they are not conducted under UNSCOM/UNMOVIC auspices.
Vernon Loeb: I basically agree with your interpretations of the relevant UN rsolutions, and you are right that most member nations of the UN do not recognize U.S. and British enforcement of the no-fly zones as legitimate or authorized by the U.N. Congress, in the Iraqi Liberation Act, is on record as supporting regime change in Iraq, by not an armed overthrow of the government.
Oakland, Calif.:
Every nation faces the inherent uncertainty of intelligence. Other than the devastating consequences of a WMD attack, has the United States supplied a rationale for countering those uncertainties with military force?
Vernon Loeb: I don't want to give you my opinion. Suffice it to say that that the Bush administration believes it has, a majority of the members of both parties in Congress seem to believe that it has, some Democrats say it definitely has not, and the international community says it has not. (And, interestingly, I think many inside the U.S. military believe it has not).
Oakland, Calif.:
Has anyone stated a coherent theory for Hussein's apparent reticence to use biological weapons? Is he self-deterred or is something more at work?
Vernon Loeb: I've never seen one. My guess is that he's probably self-deterred by the feeling that a bio attack would trigger massive retaliation from the U.S. or Israel, or by the belief that a bio attack would probably kill lots of people on the Iraqi side, including the scientists cooking it up. It's just not clear how good he is at bio, if he's got bio at all to any degree.
Vernon Loeb: Well, I'm past the appointed hour of 2 p.m. Thanks for all those great questions. My apologies to those of you who sent questions in and didn't get them answered. I tend to be a little long-winded at the typewriter, and I can only type so fast. But I think the plan is for me to start doing these chats regularly once or twice a month, so keep those questions coming. Cheers.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
