washingtonpost.com

Will the U.S.-led war in Iraq help make the United States safer from terrorist threats such as al Qaeda? How does the Arab word view the toppling of Saddam Hussein by coalition forces? How will the United States' post-war reconstruction efforts affect the Arab and Muslim opposition?

Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and former director of communications for the RNC, will be online Thursday, April 3, at 3 p.m. ET to discuss the war in Iraq.

Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

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.

New York, N.Y.: Mr. May

There has been no documented link (and even the CIA has said there is no link) between Hussein, 9/11 and al-Qaeda. What makes us think that bringing down a brutal, yet stable regime in Iraq is going to make things more peaceful.

Clifford May: I think it's clear that Saddam has conspired with terrorists for years -- including al-Qaeda. The most recent evidence is the Ansar al-Aslam camp in northern Iraq that was just raided by American troops and Kurdish partisans. There were al-Qaeda documents everywhere. That camp could not have existed without Saddam's support -- and we have reliable reports that he had high-ranking officers stationed there. What's more,the CIA has documented Saddam�s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad, complete with an airplane fuselage in which hijackers learn their trade. Terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal called Baghdad home for years. Saddam has been a generous investor in Hamas and similar organizations. And in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet stated plainly: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to Al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two Al Qaeda associates.�

Boston, Mass.: Mr. May,

What happens if we find no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Clifford May: I am confident we will find evidence of WMD. It won't be easy because they are no doubt well hidden. But there are scientists and others who know where they are some are likely to survive and will cooperate with us -- once Saddam has been toppled. Also, we have already found huge supplies of chemical suits and gas masks and antidotes. Saddam did not stockpile those items because he was expecting Americans to use chemical weapons to attack him. Had Saddam not been attempting for the past 12 years to develop WMD, it would have been very easy for him to demonstrate that. He did not do so -- and he gave up hundreds of millions of dollars in oil revenue as a consequence. Why would he forego all that wealth unless it was because he understood, after 1991, that he would need WMD to fulfill his ambitions?

Seattle, Wash.: Re Ansar al-Islam: it is arguable that had the U.S. allowed Saddam Hussein unbridled control of Northern Iraq all these years, he would have suppressed Ansar al-Islam as a rival to his power.

Clifford May: Sure you can make that case. I think it is possible to see Saddam and Osama bin Laden as strategic rivals -- even thought they are tactical allies, that is to say they have enemies in common. But had Saddam had control of northern Iraq, had there not been the no-fly zones, tens of thousands more Kurds would have been slaughtered. And the flowering of freedom and prosperity that has taken place in the Kurdish areas would not have occurred. So I see no argument to be made for having allowed Saddam "unbridled control" of northern Iraq.

Vienna, Va.: If more US troops had attacked Basra and cleared it sooner from Iraqui irregular forces, would public opinion of non-combatant citizens in Basra be more favorable toward coalition forces? How is it possible for a few thousand Baath Party thugs to have such a hold over such a large number of Shiites in southern Iraq?

Clifford May: I think you're right -- the decision was made to move troops swiftly through the south and not to enter and occupy the cities en route. There were strong strategic reasons for doing that -- for establishing the supply routes quickly, securing the oil wells, and for making the attempt to go right for the head of the snake. But there was a cost to that, too, as you correctly imply. It would be foolish for Iraqis to celebrate until and unless they are confident that the coalition is there to win and will overthrow Saddam -- that there will not be a "peaceful, negotiated, diplomatic" solution that will leave Saddam and/or his cronies in power at the end of the day. As for how a few thousand thugs hold the power, that's easy: they have the weapons. Saddam's system is essentially a Stalinist system. There are commissars standing behind the generals and they are licensed to kill. There are secret police and their paid informers in every neighborhood. This is Totalitarianism 101. It's pretty effective, too.

Reston, Va.: Cliff maybe you can answer my question? There seems to be a lot of hand ringing about how our action in Iraq will create 100 more Bin Ladins and alienate the "moderate" Arab voices. In the 90's we basically turned a blind eye to attacks like the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole treating them as FBI matters like they were organized crime and we spent effort, money, and lives to help Muslims in place like Kuwait, Bosnia and Somalia. The end result of that decade was 9-11. So my question is, are there really any "moderate" voices and, based on their results, are they very powerful? A million Muslim March on Washington rejecting Terrorism and hate would have been nice, but I have seen no such movements. The approach of coddling these groups and nations that support terrorism has already been proven as a failure hasn't it?

Clifford May: Yes, I think you're right. The approach we in the West had toward terrorism over the past 20 or so years -- inaction and appeasement -- failed. We attempted to ignore terrorism. We attempted to treat it as a criminal problem. We made excuses for terrorism. We condoned it. All this was seen as weakness. It encouraged terrorism by demonstrating that terrorism can succeed where conventional military force, diplomacy and other tools do not. It made the problem worse. The joke among Islamists (according to a former CIA agent) became: "You have to be careful about these Americans. Kill enough of them, and they just might sue you." As to your question re "moderate" voices -- they are there, but they are frightened like everyone else. But listen to the free voices of Iraq (e.g. go to www.womenforiraq.org or to the Free Voice of Iraq section of www.defenddemocracy.org and see what they are saying). In the grand scheme, keep this in mind: Winning generals have no problem recruiting volunteers. Losing generals do. We have to have the winning generals. Saddam and bin Laden have to be seen as losers.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Does Democracy with a capital D really have a chance in a region that has never experienced it or a fully functioning republican form of government? None of these nations experienced the renaissance, the reformation, colonialism -- except on the back end -- or any of the other economic/political/religious/scientific transformations of the western world. Isn't it foolish, wasteful, and dangerous to wish democracy off on feudal or despotic societies? Better the devil you know, you know? Thanks much.

Clifford May: Recall that there were many people who did not believe that democracy could possibly take hold in Japan and Germany post-WW2. There were those who said it could not grab a foothold in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Sooner or later, I think democracy will come to the Arab world -- and this may not be too soon. There are more than 4 million Iraqis who have fled Saddam. Many of them have lived in the West where they have come to understand and appreciate Free World values. Iraq is a rich country -- though few shared in the wealth under Saddam. The people are literate. In the Kurdish areas, there is a fledgling democracy right now. I would argue that we have to keep our priorities straight. We are in Iraq first of all as a matter of self-defense. We cannot permit a rogue anti-American megalomaniac to develop weapons of mass destruction that sooner or later he will give to terrorists to deliver to our door. Second, we want to liberate the people of Iraq, to give them a chance to be free. Third, we want to assist them, if we can, on the road to democracy and prosperity. If we achieve only the first, it's still a victory. If we achieve all three, it will be world-historic.

Seattle, Wash.: I am afraid that the U.S. will not be able to prevent Iraq from turning into another Afghanistan. Please convince me that U.S. troops, working almost in complete isolation, will be able to keep Iraq united and secure without devastating expenditures of money and blood. Please convince me that our invasion has not stepped up recruitment for every petty and major anti-American terrorist organization around the globe.

Clifford May: I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your question. Afghanistan is a better place today then it was before we came in and crushed the Taliban and dispersed al Qaeda. Girls can now go to school and work. Families can listen to music. In the stadium, they now have soccer matches -- no longer are dissidents dragged in to have their limbs amputated. All this has to be seen as an improvement. But next steps will be tough in Afghanistan. Warlords control much of the country. There is virtually no economy and no simple way to build one. The population is about 95% illiterate. Iraq is a very different situtation -- vast oil wealth, a literate population, a genuine desire (I believe) for something better than they've had for the past few decades. As for the question of recruitment, I'd argue that when we show weakness, the terrorist srecruiters can say: "Join us, we're winning, we're beating the Americans/infidels/Crusaders/Zionists." It's harder for the recruiters to find volunteers for a movement that is clearly (and literally) doomed.

Vienna, Va.: Thank you for explaining that the Baath party is a system of political commisars and secret police in every neighborhood with a license to kill. If this is true, how long will it take to uproot this vast system after the top echelons of the Hussein regime are killed or captured?

Clifford May: It won't take long if we have the cooperation of the local population. Here's where I believe we missed an opportunity. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the opposition (in exile) Iraqi National Congress wanted to embed Iraqis with our troops, to explain to the locals in their own language, dialect and accent that the Americans are here to help, that they will stay long enough to get the job done but not forever, that they are bringing assistance -- and, by the way, if you tell us where the thugs are they'll get the job done.
But, as I understand it, some folks in the State Department (and CIA) were opposed to allowing this to happen. Similary, money that should have been spent to create Iraqi opposition TV and radio broadcasting was not. I know that there are those who don't trust Chalabi and the INC and other Iraqi exiles. I know there are those who think freedom and democracy are too much to hope for in Iraq. I know there are those who would prefer, in the interests of "stability," that we install another dictator, one that will be acceptable to the Saudis and others in the region. I think this approach would be a great mistake.

Gullsgate, Minn.: Clifford May: If we do eventually renegotiate the reigns of power; hand them over to Chabali, (as many reports suggest is our favorite candidate to succeed Hussein), we will have backed a fraud and a scoundrel-- not too well liked for illegally sucking the bankers dry in Jordan etc.? Or is colonialization to be our administration's final fiat?

Clifford May: We shouldn't install Chalabi or anyone else. We should include the INC and other Iraqi exile organizations. We should encourage, perhaps, a constitutional convention, a de-Baathification campaign, and perhaps local elections at first. (The essence of democracy is not winning elections -- the essence is losing elections with the confidence that you can fight and win another day.)
None of this will be easy. If we leave Iraq too quickly, people will say we're abandoning the Iraqis. If we stay too long, people will say we are colonizing them. What we need to try to do is walk the wire. It's not our job to build a nation for the Iraqis and hand them the key, but rather to help them build a new Iraq on their own.

Gaithersburg, Md.: Does the media have picturs of known terrorist training in Iraq. I have never seen any if they do.

Clifford May: Yes, I have seen pictures of Salman Pak and there are now pictures of the Ansar camp in the north.

New York, N.Y.: Hi Cliff, isn't the terrorism that really threatens America flowing from people like bin Laden, the Ayatollahs of Iran and the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia, who essentially speak in (perverted) religious terms? I do not feel that Hussein is on the list of First Order Islamic terrorits out to hurt our country. My question is do you agree that bin Laden, the Ayatollahs, and specifically Saudi Arabia are bigger and more immediate threats?

Also, do you think Saudi Arabia's political power within the U.S. will cause the Bush administration to shy away from confronting the country that is behind so much of the hatred that is taught against our nation?

Clifford May: This is hard question to answer quickly. I would argue that there are several "jihadist" trends, including Khomeinisim (almost a spent force), Baathism (which we're dealing with right now in Iraq), Arafatism (which is akin to Baathism and focuses on wiping out Israel), Wahabism (which says that all infidels are vermin) and bin Ladenism (which says if they are vermin, obviously they should be killed).
Iraq needs to be viewed, I'm afraid, as only one battle in the larger war against terrorism and the ideologies that drive terrorism. We don't need to deal with all of these groups and trends militarily. But the military option must always be credible.

Cherry Hill, N.J.: Why is it that we can spend up $75 million (and probably more) rebuilding Iraq, yet we can't properly fund our own homeland security needs?

Clifford May: You're right. We can and should do both.

Arlington, Va.: How can we assure the rest of the world that our motives are pure when no chemical weapons have been found and there are other oppressive regimes in the world who already have nuclear weapons? I fear the lesson our action in Iraq teaches the world is not to avoid weapons of mass destruction but to aquire them sooner.

Clifford May: After the 1990-91 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein understood his mistake: He should have been more patient. He should have waited until he had nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. On that basis, I believe, he has spent the past 12 years building those capabilities. But I think we are now demonstrating in Iraq that we have the will and coruage to act against opponents we know intend to kill large numbers of Americans. But again: After Iraq, this war will not be over. There will be many other challenges ahead.
As for assuring the world of the purity of our motives, we probably never will. After all, we spent lives and treasure defending Muslim communities in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan. In exchange, we received not one square foot of territory and no resources. Did that persuade anyone about the purity of our motives? No. But so what? This is not high school, and this is not a popularity contest. You and I know that are motives are to defend our citizens and to liberate others when we can.

Mansfield, Conn.: Could the Bush Administration and Colin Powell have worked with the United Nations Security Council to arrest Saddam Hussein and try him for war crimes? That has worked where Serbian leader Slobodon Milosovich is concerned, and he awaits trial. It is not an easy process but why wouldn't America work with other world powers to seek the arrest and extradition of Saddam Hussein? If, as James Woolsey of CIA says, the US had information about Hussein's involvement in an attempt on the life of former President Bush in 93, why couldn't we organize an arrest process instead of a war?
In fact, America rejected the extradition of Osama bin Laden according to the Washington Post, 10/2001. The Sudanese security services, Major General Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defense, were prepared to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden to the States. U.S. officials suggested he be allowed to go to Afghanistan instead, and did not seek his arrest. (Reported in Gore Vidal's Dreaming War, Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Nation Books, N.Y.)
America had twelve years to plan the arrest and prosecution of Saddam Hussein before invading.
Why doesn't America work in global international legal bodies anymore?

Clifford May: Don't forget that we did intervene militarily-- without UN permission -- in Bosnia and Kosovo. I don't have faith in international institutions as presently constructed to sort out these matters. Why aren't they doing anything about Robert Mugabe, a racist dictator ruining Zimbabwe? Why isn't the UN doing anything about North Korea or Iran? Why did the UN do nothing when the Taliban hijacked Afghanistan?

Alexandria, Va.: Do you think we will need to strike Syria? If not now, eventually?

Clifford May: I hope that, post-Saddam, Assad will be more receptive to diplomatic entreaties. He has not been receptive up to now but maybe this will change his perspective. That's what I hope.

Virginia: What is the domestic impact from the war then?

Clifford May: This war, like every war, will change us in ways we can't imagine. We're only beginning to understand how 9/11 has changed us.

But you've posed a great question --- one that I think would be worth an entire online discussion at another time.

Thanks to everyone who participated with me this afternoon. These were excellent question about a very difficult and important topic.

| |