The Case Against Attacking Iraq
With Melvin Goodman
Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy
Monday, Jan. 28, 2002; 2 p.m. EST

Senior officials of the Bush administration have talked about attacking Sadaam Hussein's government in Iraq as "Phase 2" of the U.S. war on terrorism. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and former CIA director James Woolsey have endorsed the idea. But last week former CIA official Melvin Goodman and a group of military officers, diplomats and scholars urged President Bush not to attack Iraq saying such a move would be "counterproductive" and would "increase instability."

Dr. Melvin Goodman, professor of International Studies at the National War College and and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, will be online Monday, Jan. 28 at 2 p.m. EST, to discuss whether Iraq should be included as a target in the war on terror.

Prior to teaching, Goodman was a Senior Analyst in Soviet Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. He has recently published two books, "The Phantom Defense: The Case Against NMD" and "The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze" in 2001. He has contributed to numerous books and periodicals on Russian policy. He has testified to numerous Congressional Committees; including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has appeared on ABC's "Nightline," PBS' "MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour," and CNN.

A 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.

Bethesda, Md.: Dr. Goodman - Who do you feel are the hardliners (or hawks) pushing for military involvement?

Melvin Goodman: It is obvious that the hardliners include Paul Wolfowitz at Defense and Lewis Libby in the office of the vice president

Alexandria, Va.: You state that an attack on Iraq would destabilize the region.

If Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and planning to attack America do we really want to stabilize such a situation? What is wrong with destabilizing Saddam Hussein? He certainly destabilizes the U.S. and other countries.

Melvin Goodman: The use of miliary force would create even greater instability in the region, fragmenting Iraq into several parts and worsening the security situation in Saudi Arabia and Syria and perhaps Iran. US national security would be more difficult.

Melbourne Australia: I realize that it is difficult for Americans to imagine how they are percieved by the world, but "arrogant" is one adjective which immediately comes to mind. The reason Americans suffered on 9/11 is because of their attitude of "Nuke it-pave it-put a McDonald on it". This mindset of course incites hatred, especially in the Arab world, and America's allies are forced to abide by her often misguided campaigns. Before America yet again enters into a Vietnam scenario, please consider alternate means to a solution. Perhaps food parcels should be dropped in place of bombs, and sanctions that affect only innocent Iraqi citizens should be lifted. Try killing with kindness.

Melvin Goodman: It is certain that US acts of unilateralism have created a great deal of anti-Americanism around the world. The US should be careful to have an international coalition before using force in Iraq and, right now, there is no such support.

Tulsa, Okla.: Who would head the government if Saddam or his party is removed from control?

Melvin Goodman: The problem of a successor is part of the overall problem of using force. There is no likely successor to Saddam and it is possible that the situation would be even worse. Remember the CIA helped to overthrow Saddam's predecessor and certainly the situation became worse. The same thing happened in the Congo with Tshombe.

San Francisco, Calif.: I object to the way the question is posed. Shouldn't we talk not about attacking Iraq, but about attacking and removing Saddam? The ultimate goal being to help Iraq while at the same time furthering our own interests (and humanitarian interests) in stability and non-beligerence in the region.

Melvin Goodman: It is not going to be possible to remove Saddam without an effective opposition in Iraq. Presently there is none. The Kurds are divided and many work with Saddam. The Sunni oppositon is pathetic, and the Shiias are also divided.

Harrisburg, Pa.: While considering our reactions towards Iraq, what actions do you think the United States should take towards Iran? Are there steps the United States should be taking to appeal to broader segment of the Arab and Muslim communities? If so, what would you recommend?

Melvin Goodman: Clearly the US has not done enough to improve our relations with Iran and have even missed some opportunities. It would not be easy to improve bilaterals with Iran but we don't even try. We should also do a better job of getting our message to the Moslem countries. Abolishing USIA several years ago was an absurd idea....thank Sen. Helms for that one.

Virginia: During the 1980-1988 wars between Iraq and Iran, the U.S. and most western countries supported Iraq. However, Israel supported Iran because there are more Jews living in Iran. What is the role today of Iran towards Iraq?

Melvin Goodman: Iran and Iraq have decent state relations right now but over the long term, they will be enemies. And since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then we should be improving relations with Iran. The State Dept. needs to get its act together on that one.

Oil City, Pa.: President Bush and the American people have seemingly expressed the desire to combat terrorism and to put an end to countries that enable terrorists. We know that Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists and wishes to destroy America. Wouldn't a "smart, targeted" attack disrupting the infrastructure of Saddam's government actually increase stability in the Middle East by lessening the ability of terrorists to find and dominate governments?

Melvin Goodman: Saddam controls his country, unlike the Taliban experience with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Destroying or targetting the infrastructure in Iraq would require a massive bombing campaign that would not be supported internationally.

Bethesda, Md.: You stated that military action would further destabilize. Do you mean the reemergence of the tribal entities as we see in Afganistan?

Melvin Goodman: No, I mean breaking up Iraq into at least three conclaves: Kurd, Sunni, Shiite....with Iran exploiting the Shiite section, the Turks exploiting the Kurds, and the Saudis trying to influence the Sunnis....it could become an international security mess.....

Greenbelt, Md.: Hi --

I have two questions:

1. Do you think Iraq presently has the ability to launch an intercontinental missile? In other words, do they have a missile with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead that could reach 600-800 miles away and strike Europe? In other words, how much of a threat do they pose to regional stability?

2. Some analysts believe that Sadaam's secularism in a region dominated by radical islamic fundamentalists is perhaps the one good thing about his regime. Do you think it's likely that if Saddam were toppled that Iraq could be run by a radical theocracy in a fashion similar to Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Melvin Goodman: Iraq does not have the missile capability that you refer to...in fact, we have Saddam contained in a military fashion and we should just try to keep it that way and emphasize getting a resumption of international inspections. And yes, it is possible that we could see a radical religious group emerge in Iraq after the wide use of military force. It is not likely, but certainly possible....thus making the situation worse and not better.

Vienna, Va.: Mr. Goodman, seems to me that similiar cases were made 10 years ago about "not attacking" Iraq, following the UN mandate to just liberate Kuwait and nothing else, and not to indulge in excessive "war-mongering". Today many have acknowledged that to not have removed Saddam from power was a mistake (yes, even some left-wing anti-war Democrats).
Why now make the same mistake twice? In 1938 another mistake was made at Munich, but at least America and Britain (and much of the civilized world) learned from that error....let's learn from what happened in 1991.

Melvin Goodman: We achieved our goals in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991. The problem was that the Bush administration had no policy toward a defeated Saddam Hussein. As long as he remains contained, however, US security interests are being served.

London, U.K.: Dr. Goodman: with my full respect, don’t you think that your request is (immoral)? By focusing only on the political consequences and ignoring the suffering of the Iraqi people, isn’t that against the basic principles of the new world order?
Finally, on the bases of some political consequences (which obviously I don’t agree with), many Arab governments shouldn’t have supported the American campaign against terrorism because of the delicate situation in the Middle East.

Melvin Goodman: The US cannot be responsible for the suffering all over the globe. The people of Iraq are suffering because of Saddam Hussein and eventually there will be some resistance to Saddam in Iraq itself. He is a tryrant but the US does not have the power to deal with every tyranny the world over.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Assuming there is no real 'terrorist' threat emerging from Iraq, to what extent do you believe that extending the war on 'terrorism' to Iraq has more to do more with the Administration's interest in maintaining its foothold in the region, and less to do with a 'terrorist' threat? Keeping in mind that Saudi officials have recently shown interest in minimizing US military presence.

Melvin Goodman: It is possible that the US is indeed looking for a way to extend its military presence in the region. But we should be preparing for the day when we have less,and not more, military forces in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. We are already overcommited there.

Fostoria, Ohio: I do not believe that the Middle East is currently suffering "stability." Removing Hussein in Iraq would only lead to one less irrational (unstable) influence. My question: Given the past history of the region, how can you justify not acting to actually increase the stability of the region?

Melvin Goodman: There is no reason to believe that military force would enhance stability in Iraq. Did Israeli military force in Lebanon enhance stability in Lebanon or the region? Was Israel better off after the use of force in Lebanon?

Toronto, Canada: If the U.S. attacks Iraq and brings down Saddam, are there any provisions for dealing with the spinoff effects on Turkey? Specifically, I mean the danger to Turkey of an irredentist Kurdish nation or autonomous region on its border after the collapse of the Iraqi state.
Also, the Jerusalem Post reported recently that Israeli military analysts believe that Saddam might launch a non-conventional attack on Israel if he felt his regime to be in danger. Can the US protect Israel in such a circumstance?

Melvin Goodman: I agree that military force would create greater problems in the region, especially in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Iraq used the 1991 war to target Israel and he probably would do so again. We kept Israel out of the war before but Sharon is totally unpredictable and would probably get involved. A greater disaster would be created.

Nova Scotia, Canada: If Iraq were to launch a nuclear missile at U.S. forces in the East, or at Israel, what would be your response?
And then how do you figure Russia/China might respond?

Melvin Goodman: Iraq has no such nuclear capabilities. But if he had them and he did such an act, it would be suicidal. But I don't think Saddam is suicidal. Strategically stupid, but not suicidal.

Toronto, Canada: With the increase of Muslim converts in the United States and the world as whole, shouldn't the White House come up with a better strategy of intergrating the western world political concepts with that of Islam, and thereby show that what Saddam is doing is totally wrong according to both sides views/believes?

Melvin Goodman: Totally agree, but the US has been incompetent at getting its message across internationally, particularly to the Islamic world.

Falls Church, Va.: One of the many anti-American statements from muslim radicals goes something like this: over a million Iraqi children have died because of US led sanctions against Iraq.
First of all, is there any independent evidence that any children in Iraq have died as a direct result of UN sanctions? If so, what would be the actual number? Finally, isn't true that even since 1991, Iraq has had enough money to feed its population, but the Bagdad government has instead diverted money to buy and produce weapons?

Melvin Goodman: There have been international organizations that have examined this issue and have confirmed that there have been tens of thousands and maybe several hundred thousand deaths, but not over a million. It is a terrible problem and the current sanctions program needs to be redeveloped. Children should not suffer....although Saddam is responsible for a great deal of this suffering. He is an international criminal.

Alexandria, Va.: If Saddam Hussein develops small portable nuclear weapons are we here in Washington, D.C. doomed?

Melvin Goodman: Relax in Alexandria....we are not doomed.

Oakton, Va.: Mr. Goodman. The Sept. 11 attacks, especially if any of the Al-Qaeda money or planning came from Iraq, show that Saddam may not be so "contained" as you make him out to be. I hope it doesn't take another terrorist attack to prove once and for all that we are going to have to fight the entire radical Moslem world (including Saddam) sooner or later (notice I said the RADICAL Muslims, not the peace-loving ones).

Melvin Goodman: We cannot enter a global conflict with any radical Muslim movement or movements. We need better diplomatic and active declarative policy to get our message across. Military force will not solve all of our problems. Look at the Israeli experience.

Tudor City, N.Y.: As it seems that sanctions have not been effective in Iraq, what specifically can you suggest we do to achieve our goals in the Middle East?

Melvin Goodman: The major goal should be getting a return of international inspections to Iraq as soon as possible. It has been three years since inspections have taken place. This should be our first priority.

Bethesda, Md.: If an attack on Iran was proceeding sucessfully and it looked like it might topple Sadaam's regime, wouldn't he almost certainly fling whatever he had at Tel Aviv in hopes of triggering sympathy from other nations?

Melvin Goodman: An Iraqi attack against Israel would be suicidal. Again, I don't think Saddam is suicidal but he would try to get a wider war to make US decisionmaking more difficult.

Arlington, Va.: Dr. Goodman,

What do we know about the public mood in Iraq? We always see images of huge rallies in support of Saddam Hussein, but assume that they are staged for affect. What are the best intelligence assessments for how the Iraqi people would respond if the US were to mount some kind of broad assault?

Melvin Goodman: Don't expect anything in the way of a genuine opposition or resistance movement. But if the US was militarily successful, then Saddam would be strung up like the Ceausescus in Romania in 1989. He is hated.

Springfield, Va.: Do you believe most of the motivation of supporters of an attack on Iraq is an unspoken desire to make the Middle East more safe for Israel?

Melvin Goodman: There is definitely support for the use of military force against Iraq coming from the Israeli lobby, people like Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer who identify with Israeli interests as much as they do US interests.

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Goodman you state that to attack Iraq would "increase instability" in the area. I would like to point out that it is the excessive amount of stability in Saddam's regime that keeps him in power, there is currently not enough opposition to topple him. Perhaps that might change if we, the British, and some other supporting countries go in there, attack, and create some "instability" - perhaps enough to topple his regime. The status quo with this man is simply unacceptable and something WILL have to be done about him sooner or later, preferably sooner. If you oppose a military attack, then just how do you propose to topple his regime?

Melvin Goodman: I propose to contain his regime and not to topple it. The People of Iraq will have to achieve the latter. We can do the former...and have done so.

Daytona, Fla.: Saddam may not be our favorite person, but he has been contained, and he has done a good job of keeping Islamic fundamantalism in check in country as he sees this as a threat to himself as well. Due to a lack of strong opposition in Iraq, if Saddam is overthrown, do you see a probability that Iraq may eventually end up turning into an Islamic state and end up becoming even a bigger problem in the long run?

Melvin Goodman: I totally agree with your point and do worry that the use of military force would increase the opportunities for radical Islam in Iraq and elsewhere, particularly Saudi Arabia. That would worsen US national security.

San Francisco, Calif.: Thank you for being here today.

After reading your answer about there being no effective opposition in Iraq to replace Saddam, I wonder: Was there an effective opposition in Japan at the end of World War II? Was there an effective opposition in Germany? I don't think so. So why can't we do in Iraq what we did there? Is it just Bush's vaguely justified opposition to nation building, and shouldn't that change given the magnitude of the potential thread?

Melvin Goodman: There was no effective opposition groups in Germany and Japan but there was a four-year war effort, an occupation force, and groups that could run democratic governments and a free market system. Do we really want an occupation force in Iraq? I don't think so.

Palo Alto, Calif.: If the current sanctions program needs to be redeveloped, what's the holdup?

Melvin Goodman: The differences between the US and Britain, on the one hand, and France, Russia, and China on the other.

Los Angeles, Calif.: Is there is evidence of advanced chemical weapons production in Iraq and if so do you feel that warrants military action? -Sam

Melvin Goodman: It is difficult to gather intelligence on chemical weapons programs without inspection teams...and even difficult with inspection teams. But the emphasis should be on getting a return to international inspection and making Iraq transparent.

Lincoln, Neb.: As an Iraqi who witnessed the uprising in 1991 at the aftermath of the Gulf War, I can say that the Iraqi people are ready to jump on the regime to eradicate it completely once they feel there is a chance that they could win the game with the regime.

Do you think that chances are better now that an uprising could eradicate the regime if there is a support by the U.S.?

Melvin Goodman: I have very little confidence in the Iraqi resistance movement. The Iraqi National Congress is particularly pathetic and the State Dept has withheld aid from them because of the fraudulent use of previous monies. But if we attack effectively and Saddam is losing palpably, then we will see some resistance.

Arlington, Va.: All efforts to contain Saddam have failed miserably. Sanctions are in tatters and challenged every day through oil smuggling and 10 percent cash kickbacks to Saddam on UN contracts, and UNSCOM was kicked out three years ago and its successor, UNMOVIC, has its hands tied by Saddam's trading partners, France, Russia and China. Saddam's propaganda is again dominant in the Middle East and most of his neighbors are terrified of inviting his wrath upon them.

So the policy in place since 1991 has not worked. Now Powell and the CIA want to modify the same failed policy with Smart Sanctions and Inspections-Lite.

Is this all that you and your fellow signatories have to offer to keep the American people and America's national security safe?

Melvin Goodman: Saddam is not dominate in the region and his propaganda fools no one. We have him contained in a strategic box. He is no threat to us at this time...or to anyone else outside of Iraq. that is enough for now. We have a campaign against terrorism to wage that is far more important.

Alexandria, Va.: Some analysts say that an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague met with Mohammad Atta before 9-11 to plan attacks on America.

Why were they meeting?

Melvin Goodman: There is no evidence that we have on what transpired in the meeting you refer to.

Iowa City, Iowa: You wrote, "Do we really want an occupation force in Iraq? I don't think
so." This is mildly amusing considering neo-cons like William Kristol and
Robert Kagan have been advocating exactly that. Suppose the US government
and people expressed strong support for such a position. Would you be
less opposed to intervention?

Melvin Goodman: I am opposed to the idea of an occupation force...and am opposed to the ideas of Kristol and Kagan.

Plano, Tex.: Is the Adminstration ever going to release the evidence they claim to have that Iraq is sponsering terrorism directly against the USA? The evidence of the few meetings between Iraq intelligence and the members of al Qaeda are pretty little to go on, since I sure they met with lots of intelligence organizations that were friend and foe if the normal course of events occurred. It seems that it is extremely unlikely that the world would take Bush's word for it, hell most the USA wouldn't take his word for it without some proof.

Melvin Goodman: there is no good evidence regarding such meetings and, at the very least, Iraqi security and intelligence forces must have requirements about the activities of the Al Qaeda cells. After all, Saddam and Osama are not best friends.

Arlington, Va.: There's a line in the current movie Black Hawk Down that Somalia isn't easy like Iraq. Is it easy or is the fact that it isn't the reason we basically have done nothing since the Gulf War and was that really a war? Thanks.

Melvin Goodman: Desert Storm certainly was an effective use of military force. In fact, the war was over with the use of air power and ground forces were not needed for our initial goals. But if we want to topple Saddam then we are talking about ground forces and occupation forces. Bad idea.

Alexandria, Va.: You say, "The use of miliary force would create even greater instability in the region, fragmenting Iraq into several parts"?

What is wrong with Iraq becoming a Kurdish state, a Shiite state and a Sunni state? Assuming that Saddam only rules the Sunni state, why is that a bad result?

Melvin Goodman: You mean we are going to use military power only to see Saddam in power at the end of the day. What a bad idea!!!!

Somewhere, USA: Since we seem to have missed our target on the first attempt to dispose of the second largest thorn in our side, why should we stop short and allow this mad man to continue with his program to develop weapons to destroy or damage the fiber of our country? Should we allow this country to be looked upon as a group of people with no conviction when someone does not agree with us? Or are we winning a war to maintain our freedom and rights? God help us all, if we take our lives too lightly.

Melvin Goodman: We are winning the battle of containment, which is a major priority. Now we must concentrate on the problem of terrorism, which would be compromised by going to war with Saddam. Finally we need to get inspections back into Iraq.

Oakton, Va.: Israel is indeed better off today after using force both in Lebanon and on the West Bank. Why? Because it still exists, even though there are more or less constant terrorist attacks. And if those attacks do not cease very soon, there will not be many (if any) Palestinians left to do any attacking, because Israel is not going to put up with this forever. The Palestinians are shortly going to pay a terrible price if they do not make real peace. We, in turn, should not have to put with Saddam forever. It is time for HIM (Saddam) to make real peace or expect the same treatment the Palestinians are going to get.

Melvin Goodman: The Israeli invasion of Lebanon has significantly worsened the security position of Israel. There is far more difficulty with terrorism today than at any time in the past twenty years. Talk Talk is better than Fight Fight in the Middle East.

Alexandria, Va.: You wrote "You mean we are going to use military power only to see Saddam in power at the end of the day. What a bad idea! "

Saddam in a rump state around Baghdad without oil revenues or a coastal port is better than the current situation, do you not think? He will be like Arafat in Ramallah!

Melvin Goodman: Saddam would not be like Arafat. He has an army, with serious numbers of Republican Guards and Security Services. He could still make trouble in a Kurdish state and a Shiite state. What would be gained?

Plano, Tex.: Wouldn't breaking Iraq into 3 seperate countries enhance long term stability in the area? It would divide the possibly incompatible enthic groups, and perhaps convince Turkey and Iran to Let the Kurds have their own country. Forcing groups longing for independence never enhances stability when their is a clear reason for their division. It just forces the seperatists into greater extremes. So why not let the people search for their own seperate futures? It would at least remove a large unstable country and replace it with 3 small countries.

Melvin Goodman: It would replace one unstable country with three unstable countries. Look at the former Soviet Union, with bankrupt states in Central Asia and the Caucasus; a mess in Ukraine, and dictatorship in Belarus. Not promising.

Alexandria, Va.: You wrote "the Israeli lobby, people like Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer who identify with Israeli interests as much as they do US interests."

Is it fair to ask whether you are part of the Iraqi lobby then?

Do you identify with the interests of Iraq as much as you do with US interests?

Why is it fair for you to impugn the patriotism of Richard Perle but wrong for others to impugn you in the same way?

Melvin Goodman: I lobby for no one.

Fairfax, Va.: Can't agree with your answer to Oakton. Israel is in fact better off today after having used force than by not using force. In fact, look at what happened to the leader (Rabin) of the party (Labor) that advocated NOT using force.....he was assasinated. Your theories of not using force are OK for many parts of the world, but in the Middle East (with rare exceptions) they just don't hold water.

Melvin Goodman: Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli and not be an Arab. The invasion of Lebanon was unnecessary and has created more security problems for Israel. It also created the most difficult organization that Israel has to deal with--the Hezbollah.

Alexandria, Va.: You wrote "Talk Talk is better than Fight Fight in the Middle East." Using this logic the US would never have counter-attacked the Taliban.

At what point does one say no more "talk talk" it is time for "action action"?

Melvin Goodman: The Taliban is not in the Middle East. And we were attacked at home, which is always a reason to go to war. The fighting between Israelis and Arabs for the past 45 years has gained nothing for the Arabs and for the past twenty years has gained nothing for the Israelis.

New York, NY: You said we should improve our relations with Iran. Should we do that even if they financially support Hezbollahs attacks on Israel and Hamas and Islamic Jihad?Is Iran as a result not good for stability in the Mideast?

Melvin Goodman: We would have far more influence over Iran if we had diplomatic relations with Tehran and better direct communications. The situation over the past twenty years has been helpful to no one except the opponents to stability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

Silver Spring, Md.: Melvin, you are correct in stating that terrorism is more of a problem today than 20 years ago. But WHY is it a problem? Because it has not been attacked and wiped out with military force. Even the Israelis have not used enough military force, that is why they still have terrorist attacks.

Melvin Goodman: the problem is worse because of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and Gaza....when Israel deals with that problems there will be a basis for peace and stability in the region...and even the Arabs will have incentive to move against the terrorists.

Gullsgate, Minn.: Melvin Goodman: To say that we bear no responsibility for the plight of the Iraqi people is not that a bit myopic? And is that not at the heart of the hate that escalates like a fungus when we do not take responsibility for our actions?
We have indescriminately bombed the heavens out of nations with blatant disregard for the innocents in those nations.
At some point isn't it wise to stop and look in the mirror and admit-- we may have the power, but have not always considered the consequences;or the global perspective on our acts toward others?

Melvin Goodman: You are not reading what I am saying. I am against the use of military force in Iraq and I believe that the sanctions policy does have something to do with the plight of the people. I have stated that many, many times.

Brooklyn, N.Y.: You say 'talk talk" is better than 'fight fight'.
Should we have talked to Osama instead of bombard Afghanistan?

Melvin Goodman: Of course not. We were attacked. That is a cause for war.

San Francisco, Calif.: I would agree that we don't want an occupation force in Iraq. On the other hand, we also don't want a nuclear event in one of our major cities. Sometimes we have to make tough choices, even with imperfect information. Certainly changing Iraq for the better will not eliminate all our enemies, only one. Our leaders have touch choices to make. I'm full of opinions, but am reminded of a great line from the new movie, Black Hawk Down... something along the lines of "Conviction is a luxury of those on the sidelines." But as a plain, (perhaps idealistic) simple citizen, I would urge our leaders to think creatively, not use words like "impossible" and find solutions. Maybe build an indigenous occupying force from the ground up, if we don't want to be the occupying force. Your thoughts?

Melvin Goodman: There is no basis for such an indigenous force in Iraq. The Iraqi opposition is bankrupt and Iraq's neighbors are not on our side on this one. Containment works and it will stop Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons.

Vienna, Va.: Where would we be today if the Israelis had not used force by bombing the Tammuz reactor in 1981? (A raid that was foolishly criticized by many). Saddam would have had a nuclear bomb years ago.

Melvin Goodman: Good point!!! I agreed with the decision to bomb the reactor in 1981, although it did drive the strategic program underground where US intelligence totally missed the extent of the strategic activities taking place.

Austin, Tex.: Isn't it true that Saddam Hussein is murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and we are doing little to stop it?

Melvin Goodman: Not true!

New York, N.Y.: You say Israels incursion into Lebanon to route out terrorist attacks against Northern Israel 'created Hezbollha'.
Didn't they bomb US marine barracks in Lebanon and kidnap many Westerners before then?

Melvin Goodman: No...the Israeli invasion came first...and radicalized the entire Palestinian movement. The invasion was a strategic and military disaster....Sharon lied to his Prime Minister about his military objectives....Begun left the government and had a nervous breakdown. The entire thing was a disaster.

Bethesda, Md.: "the problem is worse because of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and Gaza....when Israel deals with that problems there will be a basis for peace and stability in the region...and even the Arabs will have incentive to move against the terrorists."

Yet we have heard PLO leaders indicate that even if the occupied territories were surrendered by Israel, they will not stop their campaign until every Israeli is obliterated from the land. How do you respond to that?

Melvin Goodman: My response is that, until the settlements are removed from the territories, there will not be peace and stability in the region.

Chicago, Ill.: Since we can't bomb them without international outrage, that doesn't leave us a real alternative other than to starve them through sanctions. I know what I've heard re: the sanctions aren't hurting Saddam, but maybe we just need to apply them longer till people are good and outraged and then decide to overthrow Saddam themselves. What do you think? And if not sanctions, then WHAT?

Melvin Goodman: It would be immoral to do what you suggest: starve the people into overthrowing Saddam. And it wouldn't work. We need smarter, more effective sanctions, and INSPECTIONS.

Gullsgate, Minn.: Melvin Goodman: My apologies...came in late and tried to absorb one good discussion in too short a time. I hear you loud and clear as I very very slooowly, perused again. Thank you for some substantive words. I salute you.

Melvin Goodman: Thank you......

Washington, D.C.: Goodman--isn't that a Jewish name? Your opinions lean in a very pro-Arab direction. Incredibly so, in fact. What is the basis for your strong favor towards Arabs?

Melvin Goodman: Goodman is an American name. Again, I lobby for no one.

Coronado, Calif.: Inspections? How is that possible when inspectors are impeded by Saddam and his thugs? I worry that you are not seeing this issue clearly. Military officers attend your lectures to complete Air War College? That concerns me.

Melvin Goodman: Relax there in Coronado...I teach at the National War College and not the Air War College.....

Faifax, Va.: Why such emphasis on "inspections?" We had them (under Clinton) several years ago and all Saddam did was make a mockery of them. He stalled the UN and American inspectors at each point while he "convienently' moved the sensitive hardware and data to another site. To say that those were inspections would be an insult to even Clinton's low intelligence.

Melvin Goodman: I know that it is difficult to keep Saddam's feet to the fire on inspections but he must be made to realize that the successful containment policy will not end until inspections resume.

Austin, Texas: If it isn't true that Saddam is murdering Iraqis, then, Time and Vanity Fair owe Saddam a lot of money for libel and slander, don't they?

Melvin Goodman: I don't read Time and Vanity Fair. I am not aware of any evidence that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are currently being murdered.

New York, N.Y.: Why is there peace and stability in the US even though we still occupy Mexico's Texas and New Mexico even though we never took it in a war of self defense and had no deep roots in the land - as was the case by Israel and the West Bank?

Melvin Goodman: The difference is that Palestinians and Arabs have legitimate claims to the occupied territories and have indicated that these claims will continue to be pursued.

Mudrich, Miss.: Maybe we could send Jesse Jackson to Iraq and try to win his friendship and cooperation that way?

Melvin Goodman: I prefer to send international inspection teams.

Gaithersburg, Md.: Dr. Goodman, thanks for your insight. I am not an expert on policy and don't agree with your viewpoint--mostly out of anger at every opponent of the US, right now--but appreciate the insight and will do my utmost to view this with an open mind.

Melvin Goodman: thank you for your kind remarks and with that let me thank everyone for participating in this interesting dialogue.....I learned a great deal....thanks again.,

Fairfax, Va.: Dr. Goodman,

It seems you fall in line in regards to Iraq with all the other naysayers who thought taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan would lead us into another quagmire, much like what happened to the soviets in Afghanistan, and that Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world would rise up against the US. As it turns out, Pakistan did not spiral into chaos and the islamic world did not rise up in Jihad like Osama wanted. I do not understand this thinking that Saddam Hussein can be contained, and that our problems will be solved by allowing inspectors in. Saddam Hussein is a cancer and must be removed before he causes more mischief. If we can cobble together Afghanistan from the 20+ years of war why can't we do the same for Iraq? Once Saddam is removed, we can remove our forces from the Persian Gulf thus eliminating one of OBL's main reasons for hating the US.

Melvin Goodman: We needed an occupation force of 50,000 in Bosnia after the war there....what kind of occupation force are you willing to accept in Iraq.....

Confused in Florida: "The difference is that Palestinians and Arabs have legitimate claims to the occupied territories and have indicated that these claims will continue to be pursued."

I'm certain the Mexican peoples and government will be relieved to know that they never had a 'legitimate' claim on Texas and New Mexico. What a relief that will be for them.

Melvin Goodman: I never said "never." I said that the Mexicans have not pursued these claims and that there is no indication that the Palestinians will ever stop.

Melvin Goodman: once again, thanks for all of the comments and the questions....I learned a great deal .....

Mudrich, Miss and Dr. Goodman: Sending Jesse Jackson would solve the problem in short order. Look what it did for our hostage air crew in China? They heard Jesse was coming and they couldn't release those hostages fast enough! That may well be the answer to our policy in Iraq...

Melvin Goodman: Jesse had as much to do with getting that crew out of China as Madonna did.....

Melvin Goodman: That's it....bye for now.....thanks again.....

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Advice: Carolyn Hax at 3 p.m. EST
Astrology: Charlene Lichtenstein at 6 p.m. EST

Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |