Is Saddam Hussein the next Fidel Castro? So far, he has
outlasted two American presidents: one who kicked him out of
Kuwait, and another who bluffed and blustered and then only tickled
him with a couple of Tomahawks. After Afghanistan, Saddam seemed
alone on the top of the target list. It only remained for us, to
paraphrase Toby Keith’s immortal words, “put a boot in his ass,
it’s the American way.” I love that song.
But Dubya was distracted. Yassir Arafat, Enron, prescription
drugs and a whole litany of Other Issues intervened. His
administration promptly entered a downward spiral, with heated
arguments between the usual suspects. The administration is split
between the containment crowd — Colin Powell and George Tenet, who
argue that Saddam poses no imminent threat — and advocates of
military action such as Vice President Cheney and Big Dog Rumsfeld.
In recent weeks, the containment crowd has been strengthened by an
unprecedented series of leaks by malcontents, some of whom oppose
particular war plans, and some who oppose any military action at
all. In earlier days, people who leaked draft war plans would find
themselves doing hard time. Some of them now are indeed doing hard
time — waiting for lattes at the Capitol Hill coffee bar.
The president’s failure to resolve the internal fight has left a
political vacuum here and abroad. Congress is now rushing to fill
the vacuum. This week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings
on the Iraqi threat were more than just another dance at the
Naysayers’ Ball.
The hearings posed three questions: First, is Iraq an immediate
threat? Second, what are the options to deal with the threat?
Third, what are our responsibilities after we remove Saddam? It’s
pretty clear that the senators are not at all sold on the idea that
Saddam needs to be removed in the foreseeable future, or that
diplomacy can’t succeed in containing the threat. They clearly
don’t believe the president’s descriptions of Saddam’s weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) programs provide sufficient reason to take
military action.
John Kerry of Massachusetts whined about why we can’t we
peacefully co-exist with Iraq as we did with the Soviets? The
answer is what one panel of experts called, “the pathology of
Saddam Hussein.” Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM — the
United Nations weapons inspectors who were given the royal run
around by the Iraqis — said that Iraqi statements denying the
existence of their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
programs were, simply, lies. The reason for the lies is what he
called, “Saddam’s cataclysmic mentality.” Butler wondered aloud at
Saddam’s continued hot pursuit of nuclear and other WMD. Especially
after 9-11, Butler said, Saddam must know that any use of WMD would
result in his own destruction. But, he said, “Saddam exhibits no
sign of such intelligent judgment.” If Saddam doesn’t believe he
will be destroyed if he uses WMD, he must be delusional.
Butler said he doubted Saddam had or would ever share WMD with
terrorists. But that testimony contradicts U.S. strategists’
expectations. Our people believe that Saddam will share WMD with
terrorists whenever he thinks it will further his goal of expanding
Iraqi control over the region. There was little said at the
hearings to oppose Butler’s opinion. But congressional hearings
sometimes don’t give those who have the most informed opinion the
chance to voice it.
If you haven’t read a book titled, “Saddam’s Bombmaker,” you
should. I met him Wednesday. Dr. Khidir Hamza worked on Saddam
Hussein’s nuclear weapons program for over twenty years, and headed
the program for much of that period. He was one of the first
witnesses in the Senate hearings on Wednesday. While we were both
waiting to appear on MSNBC’s “Hardball” program Wednesday evening,
we spoke about some of what went unsaid in the hearing.
Dr. Hamza is no friend of Saddam but had close contact with him
and his inner circle for two decades. His judgment of Saddam’s
intentions must be given more weight than opinions of people who
haven’t looked Saddam squarely in the eye. I asked Dr. Hamza if he
agreed that Saddam would not give weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists. He disagreed. Strongly.
Saddam, he said, is a risk taker. Dr. Hamza thinks that there
are two instances in which Saddam will give terrorists WMD. First,
if Saddam believes there is deniability — that the weapons won’t
be traceable to him — he will give terrorists chemical or
biological weapons. Second, even if they were traceable to him,
Saddam would share those weapons if he believed that the
retaliation against Iraq will not be sufficient to remove him from
power. This is the lesson of the Clinton years that our enemies —
including Saddam - have not yet forgotten. So far, it has cost us
9-11. The bill will go higher.
Dr. Hamza was more encouraging about nukes. He told me that
Saddam almost certainly wouldn’t share nuclear weapons because of
his own obsessive desire for their power. Dr. Hamza said that
Saddam’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is based on their deterrent
effect. The next time he takes Kuwait, will we be so anxious to
kick him out if he can respond with nukes? Maybe not. Saddam’s
ambitions to rule Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not dormant. He still
wants to reign over a pan-Arab empire ranging from Morocco, across
Saudi Arabia, and through Iraq. That’s why his nuclear program will
never be surrendered or shared.
Ambassador Butler testified that when the U.N. inspections ended
in 1998, Saddam’s nuclear weapons program was judged to be about
two years from building a nuclear weapon. That was four years ago.
The nuclear program is almost a sure bet to succeed by 2005.
Saddam’s biowar program has already succeeded and is the most
immediate threat. Several witnesses in the Wednesday hearing said
that Iraq has weaponized anthrax and botulin toxin. Those are toys
compared to smallpox. According to another expert, the Russians may
have sold smallpox seed stock to Iraq in the 1990s. Saddam’s biowar
team was experimenting with this disease which, though common in
the Middle East, is virtually unknown in the west, and could be a
devastating weapon.
In our history, we have never struck preemptively, but we must
do so in Iraq and against any other terrorist target we identify.
The terrorist is an enemy whose principal strategy is the targeting
of civilians and non-military assets. We have not only the right
but the obligation to defend ourselves by preempting threats such
as those posed by Saddam and his ilk. If the president intends to
stick with his decision to remove Saddam — and because of the
threat, he must — he needs to end the internal squabbles and tell
his team to get on with business. Time to lead, boss.
