DATE=8/19/2000
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE:IS IRAQ STILL DANGEROUS?
NUMBER=1-00876 SHORT # 1
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=


INSERTS AVAILABLE IN AUDIO SERVICES
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Anncr:  On the Line - a discussion of United 
States policy and contemporary issues.  This week, 
"Is Iraq Still Dangerous?" Here is your host,-----
--.
Host:   Hello and welcome to On the Line. This 
month marks the tenth anniversary of the invasion 
of Kuwait by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. 
Since then, the United Nations has maintained 
sanctions against Iraq because it refuses to 
comply with the cease-fire resolution that ended 
the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's unmet obligations 
include the dismantling of its programs to develop 
weapons of mass destruction. Since December 1998, 
Iraq has not allowed U-N weapons inspectors into 
the country. Many observers worry that Iraq has 
used the time to reconstitute its military 
capabilities. Others contend that Iraq has been 
crippled by a decade of sanctions and no longer 
presents a major threat. 

Gary Milhollin is director of the Wisconsin 
Project on Nuclear Arms Control. He says that 
though Saddam Hussein is weaker in conventional 
military capabilities, he remains a threat because 
of his weapons of mass destruction.

Milhollin: We are very confident that he has 
thousands of chemical munitions still stored and 
hidden. He's still engaging in missile 
procurement. He's still developing missiles.  And 
we think he has some number of SCUDs still hidden 
with some number of launchers. And he still has 
never revealed his entire nuclear program. Instead 
of getting rid of the sanctions and getting money, 
he's hanging onto these programs, which means he's 
willing to sacrifice billions of dollars to retain 
this capability. That tells you a lot.

Host: Peter Rodman is director of national 
security programs at the Nixon Center for Peace 
and Freedom. He says keeping the sanctions on Iraq 
is essential, despite the false impression that 
they are hurting the Iraqi people.

Rodman: There are hardships that the Iraqi people 
are suffering, but it is not the result of the 
sanctions. It's the result of the choices that 
Saddam is making in diverting his resources and 
all the resources available to him to rebuilding 
his military, to pursuing weapons of mass 
destruction, to rebuilding lots of palaces for his 
cadre. The worst possible thing the United States 
could do would be to yield to these pressures, 
because then we would face a nightmare. Saddam 
would be better able to get hold of weapons of 
mass destruction, terrorize his neighbors, and it 
would do nothing for the people of his country.

Host: Zalmay Khalilzad is director of the strategy 
and doctrine program at the Rand Corporation. He 
says that Saddam can be removed by arming 
opposition forces inside Iraq.

Khalilzad: In order to facilitate a change of 
regime in Iraq, I think these [Kurdish] forces in 
the north and [Shi'ite] in the south have an 
important role to play. My own judgment is, the 
more they become effective in terms of moving 
against Saddam, the more the incentives of those 
who fear Iraq's disintegration will increase to 
change the regime from Baghdad. I think we've had 
a false dichotomy, traditionally thinking that if 
we support the opposition from the north and the 
south, we reduce the chance of change from the 
center. My argument is that you can have exactly 
the opposite effect.

Host:   Gary Milhollin from the Wisconsin Project 
on Nuclear Arms Control says that if sanctions are 
lifted, the Iraqi people will get even less 
humanitarian assistance than they do now, because 
Saddam Hussein will use all the resources to 
rebuild his military. For On the Line, this is ---
-----.

Anncr:  You've been listening to "On the Line" - a 
discussion of United States policies and 
contemporary issues.  This is --------.

18-Aug-2000 13:50 PM EDT (18-Aug-2000 1750 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.