Timehost: Welcome to TIME's weekly Forum on Yahoo! Our guest tonight
is former CIA director James Woolsey. Woolsey served from 1993 to 1995 as
President Clinton's first CIA director. Previously, he worked as an
arms-control negotiator for the United States in Europe. He is now a lawyer
working in Washington, D.C. Mr. Woolsey joins us now. Thank you for joining us tonight, Mr. Woolsey.
James Woolsey: Glad to be here, and I'm ready for questions.
Izzynels asks: What is your impression of the town-hall meeting that
happened today, and what effect will that have on American resolve towards
this conflict?
James Woolsey: I think the Administration should have expected some
verbal excitement since they went to a university campus. I think the
excerpts I saw on the Lehrer NewsHour showed that the members of the national security team
handled themselves well. I think that some of the concerns from both from the left and the right
were quite pointed and deeply felt. Some thought we were being too aggressive, and one veteran
clearly thought we should go in and finish the job. And both those sentiments are natural
reactions. Americans prefer not to fight--or if we fight, then the idea is to win clearly,
and not to get bogged down in some intermediate situation.
Supermaggie asks: The United States seems to be currently lacking in
support from its allies. If the United States and the United Kingdom do
not receive more support, do you think that a military attack can be
successfully mounted on Iraq?
James Woolsey: It will be harder but perhaps not impossible. The key
holdout is Saudi Arabia -- and it is indeed aggravating that even though we went to war in 1991 principally to protect its oil, they are unwilling to let us
launch air strikes from their country. But you need to understand their
point of view. We have responded weakly now, or not at all, three times, since
the Gulf War. In 1991, we did not protect the Shia in southern Iraq when
Saddam attacked them. We shot a few cruise missiles at an empty building in
1993 when Iraq tried to kill former President Bush. And we attacked a few
radars in southern Iraq when Saddam went north in 1996 and killed many
hundreds of people in northern Iraq. So you can't really blame the Saudis for
not wanting to poke a stick, or to let us poke a stick, at the viper and then
see us pull back across thousands of miles of ocean leaving them next door to
an angry snake.
Tmjutah asks: Good evening sir. Former Marine here, not a Gulf vet.
Will anything worthwhile be accomplished if we attack, and Saddam Hussein
remains in power?
James Woolsey: I think it will be something between counterproductive and
only marginally useful for us merely to attack Saddam's sites that may
contain chemical and bacteriological weapons. These things are small and
easy to move. If we decide to attack, and we also seriously damage his
instruments of control, such as the Republican guard, we can help weaken
him, but he would probably still stay in power for a long time. We can make
military action more effective over the long run by taking political steps--such as recognizing a government-in-exile, extending the no-fly
zone over the entire country, and protecting the Kurds in the north and the
Shia in the south, if they revolt. But we have to realize that this will be a
difficult and long-term undertaking. A mere few days of strikes now will
just be a slightly more intense version of our weak responses in 1993 and
1996.
Kgb_13 asks: Good evening, Mr. Director. Do you believe this action
will end Iraq's ability to threaten others with terror weapons or so-called
weapons of mass destruction?
James Woolsey: No. It may slow down his production of some chemical and
bacteriological weapons, but I believe we will really only make a clear and
positive contribution to stability in the Gulf if we can bring about the
removal, not only of Saddam, but of his regime. That will take probably
years and the types of steps that I mentioned in response to the last
question.
Jake48183 asks: Are worries of an Iranian influenced Shiite takeover
part of the reason that the Administration is not listing Saddam's removal
as one of its goals?
James Woolsey: Historically, that has been a concern of ours. I think it
was an important element in the Bush administration's decision in 1991 not
to try to remove Saddam from power. But I don't think it is a good reason to
forego efforts now to remove his regime. First of all, opinion in Iran about
the West and the U.S. is beginning to change. President Khatami's
overwhelming electoral victory late last year, and even the welcome afforded
yesterday to the American wrestling team in Iran, suggests that we may be
seeing the bare beginnings of steps which would make it possible for us and
the Iranians to get along. We are not there yet by any means. But almost any
regime in Iraq, or even a loosely-confederated Iraq, with Kurds leaning
towards relationships with Kurds in other countries, and Shia leaning
towards relationships with Shia outside Iraq, would be preferable to the
rule of this killer who now controls Iraq.
MikeEguest_4aa02585 asks: In a hypothetical situation.....we go to
war and Saddam dies, would the US be instrumental in replacing him?
James Woolsey: It would be very difficult for us to have any real
influence over who might replace Saddam in the short run. The best we can do
is support democratic elements in all the Iraqi communities--Kurdish, Shia,
and Sunni-- and bring pressure for the regime to evolve at some point
towards constitutional rule. There will doubtless be a lot of disruption,
confusion, and probably some rather nasty Iraqi leaders if Saddam goes, so
this will take a great deal of patience on our part.
Rizo_Rasheed asks: Why not lift some sanctions to show that we want to
avoid war instead of being impatient . We have to show the Iraqi people
that we are trying to help, not rush into war.
James Woolsey: Well, I believe that this crisis has been created by
Saddam, not by the Iraqi people. And his ruthlessness and his willingness to
ignore them and even to kill them is virtually boundless. Public opinion has
no real effect on what happens in Iraq. Over the long run, the kindest thing
we could do for the Iraqi people, in my view, is to help them get rid not
just of Saddam but his regime.
Jlwalk asks: What is the US legal status of a special action to
remove/depose Saddam Hussein ( or other world leader)?
James Woolsey: It is illegal under executive order 12333, signed by
former President Ford in the mid-1970's, for us to try, directly or indirectly,
to assassinate any foreign leader. The Justice Department has interpreted
that executive order in such a way as to permit military attacks on command
and control sites, such as leadership buildings--for example, President
Reagan's attack on Libya in the mid-80's. What this all means is that it is
against the law for the CIA or any other part of the US government, to try
to carry out or even to assist an assassination. But bombing raids that
target, for example, Saddam's palaces are not illegal. Again, the problem is
not just him as an individual, but the nature of his Ba'athist nationalist regime.
Tmjutah asks: Hasn't Saddam decimated the competent members of the
ruling elite? Who is next in line, as it stands now?
James Woolsey: There is no clear line of succession. This is a very
personal dictatorship. There are no constitutional structures that mean
anything. It is like a Mafia family. The strongest after Saddam will take
control. And therefore it's important to bring pressure from outside, as
much as we can, to bring about a change in the whole nature of the regime,
even though this will probably take a number of years.
Jake48183 asks: Can we trust the Russian govt's integrity in this
matter given their covert sales of weapon technology to the Iraqis?
James Woolsey: I don't believe we can trust the Russians at all on this
one. Former Soviet Foreign Minister Schevardnadze and former
Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev were people with whom we could work. Mr.
Primakov, the current foreign minister, was my counterpart when he was head
of Russian intelligence, and I was director of Central Intelligence.
Although he can be engaging when he wants to be, his fundamental views are
quite supportive of Saddam, and he wants very much to resume oil sales by
Iraq so that Iraq can pay Russia the six billion dollars or so that it owes
for past weapons sales. Primakov also sees an opportunity for Russian oil
firms to get into Iraq on the ground floor. I believe that for all of these
reasons, the Russians are not to be trusted on this issue any further than
we can throw them.
CHAD800 asks: what do you think the relations between US and Russia
will be if we decided to take military actions
James Woolsey: The Russians will express anger and solidarity with the
Iraqi people. There is very little they can actually do about it. But it
will probably contribute to the Russians' willingness to cool relations with
us for a time. On the other hand, Russia badly needs American assistance and
investment to grow out of its economic stagnation, so the Russian government
will be somewhat torn. It will probably try to have it both ways, and will
lecture us, cozy up to Iraq, and generally be disagreeable, while not
pushing so far as to endanger our various aid programs for them, and the
possibility of American investment.
QB_SNEAK asks: ARE WE IN DANGER OF A POSSIBLE RETALIATION IF WE BOMB
IRAQ?
James Woolsey: I think the retaliation that is most likely to occur is
against American and possibly Israeli citizens, embassies and other
facilities in the Middle East, principally by terrorist attacks. But we
cannot wholly discount the possibility of terrorist attacks in this country.
Iraqi intelligence and overseas operations were badly crippled by us during
the Gulf War period. They do not generally have the international reach of
the Iranian intelligence working through Hezbollah and other terrorist
groups. But either Iraqi government-sponsored terrorism, or
quasi-independent terrorists, influenced by ideology-- such as the group
around the blind sheik in New York City--could conceivably carry out
terrorist actions in the U.S.
Tracyguest_3eb94406 asks: Mr. Woolsey...How irresponsible would you
say the Russian president was when he said US military action in Iraq could
trigger WW III?
James Woolsey: I think it was a very irresponsible statement, but since
President Yeltsin said it twice, I would imagine that it was clearly
suggested to him by his foreign minister, Mr. Primakov, as a way of shocking
us.
Futilidae asks: What do you think the probability is that Israel will
become involved in the conflict if the US attacks Iraq? If they do become
involved, what might the consequences be?
James Woolsey: I think Saddam would be a fool to attack Israel,
especially with any weapons of mass destruction. He must understand that
there would be a great likelihood that Israel would respond in a devastating
manner against him, if, for example, he used chemical or biological weapons
against Israel.
Themasterofall asks: what do you think the chances are Saddam will
give in without us resorting to military force
James Woolsey: I think there is some reasonable chance of this. If he is
willing to merely to have some face-saving arrangement whereby a few
inspections use diplomats from various United Nations countries to accompany
the professional inspectors. He may be willing to call that a victory, and
be satisfied with the disruption and expense he has already caused. It is
possible also that he would press for a change in composition of the
inspection teams, and if he gets any concessions on that point at all--and I
certainly hope he does not--then he would try to portray that as a victory
as well, as this may all come to a head this weekend, with Secretary General
Kofi Annan's visit to Baghdad.
Stamm4 asks: In 1990/91, press reports indicated that CIA estimates
of our potential losses ("Saddam never had a weapon he didn't use") were
vastly overestimated. Will they be more realistic this time?
James Woolsey: I don't know how far they were off in 90-91, since I was an
arms control negotiator in Vienna at the time. But normally, estimating
American casualties would not be the thing that the CIA or the rest of
American intelligence would concentrate on. So I don't know if this is an
accurate description of CIA estimates in 90-91 or not. But I am suspicious that it (the description of the
estimates) may be a somewhat distorted picture.
Izzynels asks: Has there been a difference in CIA collection
capabilities since the Gulf War, in particular budgetary problems?
James Woolsey: Since the beginning of the nineties, we have seen
substantial reductions in numbers of reconnaissance satellites and other
parts of our intelligence collection at least in numbers. We have tried to
make the systems and the people more flexible, in order to compensate for
the smaller numbers. Sometimes, this has been successful. But the budgetary
pressures have left us with somewhat less collection capability than I would
like.
Jeffpick asks: Saddam knows first hand that we have the capacity to
severely damage his country, as evident in the last episode. Could one be led to
believe that he is better prepared with his chemical weapons to retaliate?
James Woolsey: He is probably quite prepared to hide and disperse the
chemical weapons or precursor chemicals that he has, as well as the biological weapons, or the materials to make them. In spite of his bluster, however, he would have to realize that using either chemicals or biologicals against us would leave him very vulnerable to a devastating attack, and it would not be one--I believe--that would be unpopular in public opinion. I think that his most likely response, if we use force against him, will be to sponsor terrorist attacks in as many
places has he can and to do so while hiding his hand and carrying out what
in intelligence is called a "false flag" operation. For example, Iraqi
agents would try to appear to be Iranian or from some other country.
Futilidae asks: Although Israel would be able to deal a devastating
blow to Iraq if attacked, wouldn't there be substantial support from other
countries in the region to support Saddam if Iraq were attacked by Israel?
James Woolsey: I don't think there's any chance that the Israelis would
launch an attack against Iraq without being attacked themselves, with one
exception: if they had good enough intelligence to be certain that he was
about to attack them with chemical or biological weapons. But I think that
this is most unlikely. Unfortunately, it's probably not impossible. As for countries that would support him, Saddam has very few real friends or potential allies in the region. He has a number of people who might be willing to hold his coat while he does what he can to weaken our position or influence, but I don't believe has any real friends or allies who would come to his military support.
guest_18d5551 asks: Mr. Woolsey... Again I ask a simple question:
Does it seem to you that the US has become the police agency for the United
Nations?
James Woolsey: Well, not in any strict sense, but it is, I think,
important for Americans to understand that in this post-Cold War era, if any dictator who threatens his neighbors and other
serious world concerns-- such as nearly three-quarters of the world's oil reserves-- is to be
restrained, it will almost certainly have to be the United States that does
it. We are about a quarter of the world's wealth and the only superpower, and
there is no one between us and goal line.
guest_18d5551 asks: Mr. Woolsey...the UN can't continue to inspect
Iraq forever... How are we going to deal with him in five years? Eventually
he WILL rebuild his forces and his destructive power.
James Woolsey: That's exactly why I believe our policy should be to
support a government in exile, establish a no-fly zone over the entire
country, protect the Shia and the Kurds if they revolt, turn over frozen
Iraqi assets to a government in exile, broadcast into Iraq, and generally do
everything we can, short of invading with a land army in order to bring
about a change of government in Iraq. This will not be easy, but in 1980,
when martial law was declared in Poland, we were pretty pessimistic about
Solidarity about ever being able to take power. Yet nine years later, it did
come to power, and immediately thereafter the Berlin Wall fell. Stranger things have happened, indeed in the recent past, than the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime.
1long_shot asks: In light of all the other allegations surrounding
President Clinton in Washington, how do you think it will affect his support
of a military strike against Iraq?
James Woolsey: It probably makes his job slightly harder, but compared
with what the Nixon administration had to do in the fall of 1973, it is
almost nothing. Remember, we had a felon, Agnew, as Vice President, and
immediately after the Attorney General forced his resignation, the special Watergate prosecutor, Cox, was fired, the Attorney General resigned, the Arab nations launched the Yom Kippur War against Israel, and both the Soviet Union and the U.S. went on strategic alert. Compared to the autumn of 1973, and the problems that faced the Nixon administration, this should be easy.
TRUMPXK8 asks: how would someone who is highly intelligent and very good looking(looks like pierce Brosnan) be put in contact with a recruiter for the CIA, to become a CIA officer??
James Woolsey: (Laughs) Good looks may help, and they may hurt, but the CIA's address is in the Washington DC phone book, and they are always
looking for a few good men and women.
Timehost: Thank you, Mr. Woolsey for your time tonight, and for your
insights. Are there any concluding comments you'd like to add?
James Woolsey: The only thing I would add is that Saddam could make it
harder for us to put in place a long term program to remove his regime by giving in, for some small face-saving device at this
point. Even if he does that, I still think we should begin working for the
replacement of the regime over the long run, but it would be politically
much harder for us, if he decides now to try to appear reasonable to the world.
Timehost: Well, thank you very much for joining us. There was a lot
of interest in our chat tonight, Mr. Woolsey, with more than 680 questions
offered. We couldn't get to them all, but we hope we've covered the most
important issues tonight.
James Woolsey: Thank you.
