Hussein Ibish vs. Frank Gaffney on invading Iraq

BARNICLE: Time now for the "HARDBALL" debate. Should America invade Iraq or try to contain Saddam Hussein diplomatically? "HARDBALL" correspondent David Shuster has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It seems like every day there is a new Iraqi war plan in the "New York Times." Today, it's an inside out strategy to capture Baghdad, cut off the regime and cause a quick government collapse. A few weeks ago, it was a mass of invasion of 250,000 American G.I.'s swarming in from all directions. No option has been finalized, but many analysts say we cannot afford to wait much longer.

JEB BABBIN, FMR DEFENSE DEPT. OFFICIAL: They will attack us with chemical and biological weapons or dirty bombs or whatever they can throw, when they figure they can get away it or when they figure they can deploy it. It's up to us to shut that threat down before Americans die from it.

SHUSTER: Beyond that immediate threat, an Iraq with nuclear weapons would dangerously redefine the balance of power in the middle east. And the Bush administration argues once Saddam has these weapons, it will be too late. But Iraq's weapons program may be far from that stage. And opponents claim an attack would be without justification.

TARIQ AZIZ, IRAQ DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: We are not interested in any weapons of mass destruction. We have not reproduced. We don't need such weapons of mass destruction. We are capable of defending ourselves by our own conventional means.

SHUSTER: Eleven years ago, the Gulf War was in relative terms a cake walk. But with Saddam's back against the wall, the fighting this time could be fierce and thousands of American soldier could be killed. And even if Saddam is eliminated, experts say a long-term occupation would be needed to shore up the new government.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: It won't have that strong. It won't have that much legitimacy right away. It won't be that democratic. It won't want to follow western norms of free elections necessarily. And it could take us a 10 or more years to really establish a new and benign and steady form of government in Iraq.

SHUSTER (on camera): Congress is about to weigh in with hearings on the administration's options. The question is, should the United States start a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

I'm David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BARNICLE: Frank Gaffney is the president of the Center for Security Policy and Hussein Ibish is with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Frank, containment or conflict? What would your option by and explain why.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I think containment has been demonstrated to be a failure over the past decade or so when people have insisted that if we only kept sanctions on, if we only kept no fly zones in place, if we only maintained a presence in the Gulf with allies who were similarly disposed that that would be enough to alleviate any danger. And I think the danger has clearly continued to grow, and it's to the point now where it's metastasizing. My own feeling is there is no alternative but conflict with Saddam Hussein. The question is is it on our terms, which I think requires us to move and move expeditiously together with Iraqi opposition elements that are not frankly being worked with as they should be now. Or is it going to be on his terms? And if it's on his terms, I think there will be a lot of loss of life, both American and Iraqi, and perhaps others as well.

BARNICLE: Mr. Ibish, wouldn't the world as well as specifically the Middle East be far better off without Saddam Hussein in the scene? So why not take him out?

HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION CMTE: Sure. No doubt it would. But of course, Frank never saw a war he didn't like. So the question is, is this necessary? Is this urgent? Why now? In fact the case has not been made why this is necessary now. In fact, I think Iraq is not a threat to anybody, and in fact the Gulf Arab states who are immediately surrounding Iraq are totally against this. The Turks are totally against it. The Iraqi opposition is totally against it. The Europeans are totally against it because it's unnecessary. It's very dangerous, and it's completely unjustified. It's completely unjustified. It's unnecessary because Iraq is not a military threat to anybody outside of Iraq because the Iraqi government doesn't even control its own territory, and it does not have any chance of possessing nuclear weapons or anything that it would use and anything other than a last resort desperate measure. In fact even the Iraqi defectors and opposition groups who claim that Iraq still has some chemical or biological weapons, do say that the only way the Iraqi government would use it is if Saddam thinks he is about to be overthrown. So why we would want to precipitate that in a reckless way I completely don't understand. This really doesn't make any sense, and that's why the leading opponents of this in Washington are the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, the major generals in the DOD according to "The Washington Post" on Saturday.

BARNICLE: Frank, do you believe that?

IBISH: Are completely and totally opposed to this.

BARNICLE: Do you believe that Frank?

GAFFNEY: Do I believe which of the many things that Hussein said? Most of them I do not believe. I specifically don't believe that Saddam Hussein is as innocuous as disarmed as Hussein insists. I specifically disbelieve that this will be opposed by all of the Gulf state and Turkish allies of the United States. In fact if there is any truth to the story that was in "The New York Times" today I think it's the evidence that most of these countries are, as I've long believed, going to be with us if only we are serious about this. They understand, and frankly I'm surprised that Hussein who professes such concern for the Arab people, wouldn't be more sensitive to the need of the Iraqi people to be liberated from this brutal regime.

(CROSSTALK)

GAFFNEY: And for the other regimes that continue to oppress their people in the region.

IBISH: Frank doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Absolutely not. The Iraq people need to liberate themselves. They don't need Frank. They need to do it. What they do not need is a harebrained scheme like taking over Baghdad first or bombing Iraq and trying to get the Islamic fundamentalists Shiite resistance units out to take over.

BARNICLE: Mr. Ibish, let me ask you a question. You just said the Iraqi people need to liberate themselves. They live under a dictator who has slaughtered his own people, who has lied to the civilized world about the weapons he has on hand. So how do you propose that they liberate themselves? Call 911?

IBISH: No, of course not. The first thing that has to happen is they have to be unleashed and the first thing you have to do and I think the entire Iraqi opposition is very clear and unanimous on this. The economic sanctions against the Iraqi people have to be lifted. This is extremely important because they have made the people, especially the middle class, dependant on that regime. And the lack of ability of the Iraqi people to develop any kind of self-sustaining economic force leaves them I think completely at the mercy of this government.

GAFFNEY: I think there's an alternative (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BARNICLE: Let Frank jump in here.

GAFFNEY: There is an alternative that I think is much more likely to produce the desired result, and that is to help the Iraqi opposition, and they do need our help, to establish themselves in the areas that we currently keep Saddam Hussein's aircraft from flying and strafing and bombing, these no-fly zones, lift the sanctions in those areas as they come under a provisional government, independent of Saddam Hussein and determined to bring about democracy and peace and economic opportunity for the people of Iraq. That, I think, makes sense. Letting Saddam Hussein once again cash in on a free sanction zone is crazy.

IBISH: Allowing the Iraqi people to live freely, to trade freely is not a gift to Saddam. On the contrary.

GAFFNEY: It can be if he's still in power.

IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) And let me just say people should know that among the major opposition groups, in fact, probably the most important one in Iraq, is the supreme council of the Islamic revolution of Iraq which is a right wing Shiite fundamentalist group allied with Iran. So you have to be very, very careful here when people start lauding the Iraqi opposition general as if it were unified, as if it were pro-American or as if it were democratic. Most of it is not. A lot of the groups that --

GAFFNEY: This is a terrible mistake that is being made right now which is not to help bring about a pro democratic, pro-western opposition by equipping and arming and training them. This, is, I think, really the thing that frustrates me most is not the foolishness that we're hearing now but rather the arguments that are now being made by people who are supposed to be helping the president implement his policy within his own government, in the State Department and the CIA, who are undermining the opposition, who are not helping empower them and create precisely the kind of government that I think we would like to see and most especially the people of Iraq deserve.

BARNICLE: Mr. Ibish, let me ask you another question. Staying away from trying to get people to think our way in the Middle East, let's stay away from that for a moment, and let's just take the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Iranians and even throw Israel in there. Don't you think that they would all be not so secretly delighted if we got together just if we did it ourselves went in and killed Saddam Hussein?

IBISH: If it were an assassination, I don't think there would be many people in the Middle East who would shed any tears. But I think all of those countries with the possible exception of Israel are very nervous about the Pandora's box that could be opened by an attack on Iraq.

BARNICLE: What happens?

IBISH: Let me tell you. There is a possibility of the partition of Iraq. The breaking away of the north of Iraq and independent Kurdish Republic, possibly the south oh Iraq to be a fundamentalist Shiite republic. I mean, this would throw into question all of the post World War I borders of the Middle East. It opens all kinds of different regional conflicts because nobody will be happy. For example, it would mean probably that Turkey would have to intervene in northern Iraq, setting up at the very least...

GAFFNEY: There are lots of scenarios here

IBISH: Yes, exactly.

GAFFNEY: And some of them are terrible and some of them are not so bad. And the question is if we allow this thing to continue as it is now, I honestly believe the worst of the scenarios eventually -- the worst for the Iraqi people, the worst for our neighbors and friends, the rest of that region that's just been discussed, because at the end of the day, you will have all of them under the thrall of one of the most dangerous megalomaniacs on the planet who has weapons of mass destruction. That's one of the things that I thing we ought to concentrate on fixing now before it gets to that point.

IBISH: Well, Frank loves, as I said, every war he has ever seen. But the point is we don't need another war. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BARNICLE: What do we need?

IBISH: What we need are to step back from our policies that have been counterproductive that have actually helped Saddam stay in power like the economic sanctions.

GAFFNEY: That's been the centerpiece of containment.

IBISH: Exactly and I think that...

GAFFNEY: It has failed.

IBISH: Yes, because what it has done is it has kept in him in power. So the answer to that is not to charge off (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The answer to that is not to charge off into a half-baked harebrained scheme like the one in the "New York Times" today, which was certainly not (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

IBISH: Well, it was completely dopey, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BARNICLE: Gentlemen, I'm sorry, we have to wrap it up on that note, but thank you both very much. Frank Gaffney and Hussein Ibish.

Up next, is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton considering a White House run in 2004? "Newsweek"'s Howard Fineman will join us next with the "Political Buzz." You're watching HARDBALL.