|
National Defense
With Vernon Loeb
Washington Post National Security Reporter
Thursday, Jan. 30, 2003; 1 p.m. ET
As the U.S. is sending over troops to the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein is urging the Iraqi people to resist the U.S. invasion. The discovery of
11 empty chemical warheads by U.N. weapons inspectors may offer enough evidence for the U.S. to go to war. Iraq claims the warhead remnants were listed in earlier disclosures of the previous Gulf War. The White House called the weapons a breach of an anti-arms U.N. resolution and adds that Hussein is in violation of several U.N. rules.
Post staff writer Vernon Loeb was online Wednesday, Jan. 30 at 1 p.m. ET, to discuss military defense and changes in national security issues for 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 everyone. This has been an incredible news week, so let's get going.
Harlingen, Baja Texas:
Now that Colin Powell has been given his chance at an Adlai Stevenson moment,
what is the threshold of convincing evidence that he needs to lay out to the UN next Wednesday to sway rational opinion?
It's easy to see what an inadequate case
would be, and easy to imagine what would
constitute overwhelming proof of Iraqi transgression of the weapons controls.
But where do things cross from "not
proven" to "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Is perhaps "preponderance of the evidence"
the right level? washingtonpost.com:
Making The Case Against Baghdad (Post, Jan. 30, 2003)
Vernon Loeb: You pose a very thoughtful question. I personally feel the administration can make a "preponderance of evidence" case now, although it is based, not on new intelligence or what the inspectors have recently found, but on how Iraq has failed to account for large quantities of chemical and biological weapons known by UN inspectors to have existed in the late 1990s. So I think, to gain a greater level of international support, the administration is going to have to go beyond this and present some fresh intelligence that demonstrates current Iraqi deception, or even better, the actual existence of weapons on mass destruction.
Folsom, Calif.:
Given US representative to the United Nations and Iran-Contra figure John Negraponte’s espionage history, as well as the intelligence connections of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, do you think that it’s within the realm of possibility that these three may have concocted a nefarious plan to divert a not so small portion of Iraq’s oil sales profits, after an occupation, to subsequently destabilize Iran - another member of the so-called "Axis of Evil"? If so, has the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then been mislead in any by Mr. Negraponte this morning about the Bush Administration's true intent without "undeniable proof", as Mr. Lavrov, the Russian Ambassador to the UN has requested, as did Senator Dodd as well?
Vernon Loeb: I do not find that within the realm of possibility.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
Government leaders have claimed state Saddam Hussein has "gassed his own people." I know he's gassed the Iranians and the Kurds. My reading of the situation indicates that neither the Kurds nor the Iranians consider themselves "his own people." The Kurds are insisting on sovereignty something we should be supporting since we "believe in the right to self determination for all peoples." So which of his own people did he gas [chemical/nerve agents] and when did this occur? And where are the figures to support the numbers of persons affected/wounded/killed by these agents. They haven't been widely dessiminated so far as I recall. Thanks much.
Vernon Loeb: The Bush administration considers the Kurds very much "Saddam's own people" and has told the Turks in no uncertain terms that the U.S. will not support any kind of independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. As for documentation, Saddam Hussein's gas attacks on the Kurds, Iraqi citizens all, have been very thoroughly documented, and they are truly gruesome.
Wheaton, Md.:
If we don't deal with Saddam Hussein now, isn't it only a matter of time before we confront him with nuclear weapons?
Vernon Loeb: That is precisely the Bush administration's rationale, and we have seen from the North Korea crisis how everything changes once a nation is known to possess nuclear weapons.
Bothell, Wash.:
When the war with Iraq starts, will Saddam Hussein attack our Israeli allies again? If so, shouldn't we encourage Israel to defend herself? Protecting our only democratic ally should be a high priority
Vernon Loeb: The U.S. is doing everything it can to prevent Saddam from attacking Israel once the war begins, and it is doing everything it can to convince Israel not to become involved, were Saddam to attack Israel again. The Israelis, however, have made it pretty clear that this time, they will respond. Since an Israeli response holds the very real potential of widening the conflict and bringing other Arab nations in to support Iraq, I would argue in this case it is very much in the U.S.'s interest to convince its ally Israel not to defend itself, and allow the U.S. to shoulder its defense, both through taking the so-called "Scud box" launching zone in western Iraq, and augmenting Israel's own missile defense with the best of U.S. missile defense capabilities.
Indianaplis, Ind.:
What kind of information do you think Secy. Powell will present to connect al-Qeada to Iraq and if it the evidence is as clear cut as it is being portrayed what on earth could be the reasons for waiting so long to present it? washingtonpost.com:
Making The Case Against Baghdad (Post, Jan. 30, 2003)
Vernon Loeb: My guess, from what the President intimated in his State of the Union Address, is that Powell will present evidence showing that Iraq has harbored and had meetings with members of al Qaeda--not that Iraq was in any way behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. I think most of Powell's evidence, however, will be focused on Iraq's efforts to deceive U.N. inspectors and keep them from finding its weapons on mass destruction. You need to understand that the Bush administration does not believe that a clear Iraq-al Qaeda nexus is necessary to justify its position on disarming Iraq, by force, is necessary. Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, plus its dealings with other terrorist organizations, makes the possibility of Iraq arming al Qaeda at some point in the future too great a threat to ignore, the administration believes.
Washington, D.C.:
Lost in the "compassion" angle of the AIDs in Africa relief proposal is a very real international security issue, the destabilization of economies and populations. This is not new and was something the Clinton Administration tried unsuccessfully to move higher up the international policy agenda. Why the sudden (and no less welcome) interest now?
Vernon Loeb: I don't know exactly, but you make a good point. My guess is that for an administration on the verge of going to war with Iraq, it's not a bad idea to show some compassion and some interest in this huge humanitarian issue facing--and as you note, destabilizing--many African nations.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Is there anyway Bush could back down now, no matter what happens? Is not part of this a warning to the other Arab nations that unmitigated anti-American attitudes will be punished?
Vernon Loeb: I don't know if there are ways he could back down, but there are a number of things that might happen to avert a war: Saddam going into exile, an internal coup of some sort, or (least likely)an Iraqi admission that, yes, indeed, it has WMD, and here those weapons are for the inspectors to impound. Having said all that, I think it is very likely that there will be a war. As for punishing uncooperative Arab nations, there will undoubtedly be some of that, but I think in the aftermath of the war, the U.S. is going to need all the Arab support it can muster.
Burke, Va.:
Wouldn't the "Terrorist Threat Integration Center" proposed in the State of the Union Tuesday overlap significantly with the CIA's pre-existing Counter Terroism Center? The CTC is primarily a CIA group but it has representatives from about any federal law enforcement organization one can think of especially the FBI. What benefits would a new organization bring?
Vernon Loeb: Yes, there will be some overlap. But this new threat center the President has created is an analytic center, while the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, while fusing analysis and oeprations, is primarily an operations entity. I could see benefits accruing from the new center, in that it could finally end the "intelligence hoarding" that I wrote about in this week's IntelligenCIA column. The center also highlights the growing importance of analysis, vis a vis operations, in the terrorism arena: since it is very hard for the operators to penetrate terrorist cells, analysts must play a key role in preempting terrorist attacks by connecting up hundreds of dots in a timely fashion in a way that lets them indentify, in advance, an impending terrorist attack.
Clarksville, Tenn.:
Are there ANY plans being worked on for what happens after the battles end?
Vernon Loeb: Yes, I think both the State Dept. and the Pentagon are working on this issue. Both invision a long U.S. military presence in Iraq, and at least an interim period of several months in which the U.S. military will be ruling Iraq, prior to establishing some kind of elections mechanism.
Washington, D.C.:
So why aren't we invading North Korea?
Or why didn't we invade them earlier, if we knew they were developing nuclear weapons?
Vernon Loeb: We're not invading North Korea because they have too much artillery, and too many troops, within striking distance of Seoul, and North Korea's ability to retaliate against any U.S. attack (unlike Iraq's)could have catastrophic consequences for South Korea. The U.S. is proposing to invade Iraq because it can (the Bush administration thinks)without overly dire consequences, while it is not invading North Korea, because it can't.
Chicago, Ill.:
Hi Vernon,
People often say that the US has to find a diplomatic solution in NK because they have the bomb. It seems to me that the real issue is the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ and the NK army's artillery right behind it. I'm going to ask you to speculate, now: given what you know about this administration's view of the situation, what are the chances that we would have hit NK by now if Seuol were a few hundred km to the south?
Vernon Loeb: You're making, more eloquently, the point I just made to the last questioner. Certainly, the farther you can move Seoul away from the DMZ (and NK artillery), the more likely the U.S. might be to attack. But remember, North Korea has chemically armed missiles that can hit all areas of South Korea (and Japan, for that matter), and, most importantly, North Korea also now has nuclear weapons. So even a couple of hundred mile difference probably wouldn't greatly increase the likelihood of a U.S. attack. North Korea is just a very difficult and very dangerous adversary.
Arlington, Va.:
Rumors have it that the Defense Security Service will cease to exist and OPM will absorb its functions. Thought it took a long time to get a security clearance now just wait and waiting during the trnasitional period. Rumor is they will 86 DSS employees
in favor of contractors. DOD alreay has big problems with contractor scams and problems when they do contracting investigations. They claim they did the leads but they don't.
A DOD adjudicator.
Vernon Loeb: I hadn't heard those rumors, so I should thank you for the tip, and I agree with you that any transition period could be difficult, indeed.
Somewhere, USA:
I've heard nothing from the administration regarding the possibility of increased terrorism against the U.S. (here and abroad) in case of a unilateral invasion of Iraq (of course, I also haven't heard much about the realistic financial costs entailed during and after a war and how that will affect our economy). What do you hear?
Vernon Loeb: I think the administration is clearly worried about the possibility of renewed terrorist attacks here and abroad. Administration officials essentially acknowledge that that is part of the risk of going to war with Iraq, but a risk they feel it is justified to take. As for the costs of the war, I think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Co. basically believe that it will cost whatever it costs, and that the security of America shouldn't be a matter of dollars and cents.
Washington, D.C.:
Why don't France and Germany think Saddam Hussein should be ousted? These are serious countries, with serious intelligence operations and military specialists. Still, they don't support us.
Vernon Loeb: I think they just believe that there is no need right now to invade Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction or delivering them to terrorists. France and Germany believe that U.N. inspections should be given much more time to work, and that while the inspectors are in Baghdad, Saddam is being effectively contained.
Conway, Ark.:
So what is going on in Afghanistan, exactly? Apart from reporting a firefight earlier this week, there seems to be scant news and even very little inthe way of the human interst stories of nation building (remember the one-eyed lion at the Kabul zoo?).
Vernon Loeb: I think things are still pretty dicey in Afghanistan. Most of the country is fairly secure (though desperately, incredibly poor), and U.S. military teams are setting up kind of nation-building bases in those areas. But in eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border, there are still a lot of Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers moving around in small numbers and attacking U.S. forces. Just yesterday, U.S. forces found 80 of them massed together, and called in major airstrikes, killing 18. It was the biggest battle since Operation Anaconda a year ago. The U.S. military is going to be in Afghanistan for the forseeable future.
Washington, D.C.:
Regarding the timetable for war, do you think we are now "weeks" away?
Vernon Loeb: I think we are probably a month away, or more, from the major ground invasion.
San Diego, Calif.:
The CIA just advertised for Arab speaking
agents. Do you think this is for an intelligence network in a Post-Saddam Iraq?
Vernon Loeb: Not immediately, because it would take probably two years to get any new Arab-speaking officers screened, trained and into the field. Some of them might ultimately end up in Iraq, whenever they are ready. But even if there is no post-war occupation of Iraq, the CIA has a HUGE need for Arab-speaking officers, and analysts. (Agents are basically foreigners they have on their payroll, and they need Arab-speaking agents, too).
Houston, Tex.:
In the event that the war goes forward without the support of France and Germany (with France vetoing or abstaining from a Sec. Council vote, for instance) what would be the impact on NATO and how isolated would France and Germany be? Who would it hurt more, us or them?
Vernon Loeb: Good question. You saw that eight other NATO members have now signed a letter backing the U.S. in Iraq, so France and Germany have some risk of themselves being isolated, or losing their clout within NATO. At the same time, the U.S. should never forget, the more support it has for a war in Iraq, the better, and France and Germany, in my opinion, are not insignificant players, isolated or not.
New York, N.Y.:
I noticed in a recent article of yours that you say that the 101st Airborne Division is likely to be very important in the coming Iraq war and yet it has not received orders to go to the theater. Have you gotten any indication since that article as to the apparent discrepancy (i.e., gearing up for war in mid-Febuary without sending a crucial component)? washingtonpost.com:
Invasion Forces Assemble Slowly (Post, Jan. 25, 2003)
Vernon Loeb: I still believe the 101st will be the key unit. But I think there is great political sensitivity in deploying the 101st--once that happens, it appears to the world as a virtual certainty that the war is on. So I think the administration is being very careful with the timing of this deployment, not wanting to preempt the Powell peresentation next week, or perhaps even Hans Blix's next report on Feb. 14. But sooner or later, the 101st is going to have to be deployed. My bet is it happens within the next two weeks.
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Loeb:
Can we just be blunt and to the point please!
This is a personal matter with Mr. Bush?
Does anybody remember what happen with Bush senior and Sadam faced off?
Or the question is...how much of this is personal?
Vernon Loeb: I really don't think it is personal, in the sense that Bush 43 is getting even for Bush 41. I think this is driven by Bush 43's reaction to Sept. 11, and a personal commitment that strong resolve must be shown by the U.S. to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Vernon Loeb: Well, that hour went by fast. Maybe next week we can talk about Colin Powell's Feb. 4 intel briefing to the U.N. Security Council. Thanks for all the questions. Sorry I couldn't answer them all.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Dirda
on Books, 2 p.m. ET
Debut!
Apartment Life, 2 p.m. ET
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
