The consequences of war

Story Tools

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The debate on a possible war against Iraq is heating up on Capitol Hill. Has the United States prepared sufficiently for the consequences of a war with Iraq and how it could impact the nation's image within the global community?

In its hearing Thursday on possible military action against Iraq, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard from former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, as well as current Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Another former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, shared his views as he stepped into the "Crossfire" with hosts James Carville and Robert Novak.

CARVILLE: When I run campaigns, one of the things I always tell my people -- never fight a battle that you're not prepared to win. Victory has consequences, just like defeat.

EAGLEBURGER: You bet you.

CARVILLE: My question is, do you think if we had given sufficient thought -- I mean we're not going to lose to Iraq. I mean let's face it, we all know we're not going to go to war with Iraq and lose a war.

Do you think that we have given sufficient thought to the consequences of victory in terms of our position in the Middle East? And, also, vis-a-vis the rest of the world in America's image for arrogance?

EAGLEBURGER: I don't think we have. But -- on the basis of what I've seen, I don't think we have. But I hope I'm wrong. ... Although I worry a little bit about people saying we're going to get it over in two weeks or two days. Here you can make a mistake thinking it will be over in a hurry.

NOVAK: A cakewalk...

EAGLEBURGER: Yes. You really have to be -- that's a dangerous argument. In the first place, I have to assume Saddam isn't going to fight the second war the way he fought the first one. But anyway, we win it.

How long do we stay there? We are surrounded by Arabs that don't want us there. We're going to put in a government of our choosing. And I don't care how decent they all may be. You put a government in that's imposed by the United States on Iraqis, I can't believe they're going to be enthused about that.

If you think through the consequences of all of this, the problems that face us simply in managing a victory in that country, [it] is going to be bad.

And then there is the other problem, which you've just touched on, which worries me a lot, only because we haven't thought about it much. And that is, have we thought about how the rest of the world is going to look at us over the next decade or two if we throw our weight around without thinking through when we have to do it, as against when we think we'd like to do it?

NOVAK: And then there's the question of priority.

EAGLEBURGER: You got it.

NOVAK: There are serious members of the Senate Intelligence Committee I have talked to who ask two questions: Why Iraq? And why put all the 100,000 terrorists around the world into a secondary category?

EAGLEBURGER: Well, I think in a way, Robert, you've touched on a very important point, which is one of the things that [former National Security Adviser Brent]Scowcroft argued in his article that got a lot of this debate going -- we are losing sight of the battle against terrorism with all of this.

I think there's some truth to that, too, because all of the debate now on Iraq, and what has that led to in terms of thinking about other points where there are terrorists?

There are a lot of terrorists in Syria. You can go around the world and talk about where the other terrorists are located. Lebanon, we've got Hezbollah and so forth. All of these are potential targets, but we're not doing much with it.

NOVAK: Can I raise a question?

EAGLEBURGER: Yes.

NOVAK: That we are going after Iraq -- the U.S. is going after Iraq for reasons of the balance of power in the Middle East and the availability of oil?

EAGLEBURGER: I don't think so. I really -- this oil business is something I never believed. I lived in a government where we went through all of these things. I don't think that oil is the issue.

And on Iraq, I think the president and a number of the people in this administration honestly believe that he [Saddam] is a serious, serious menace to the Middle East. And I can make the same argument. I don't share it as much as they do, but I think it's an honest belief.

CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, there are people who believe that we should have never even expanded it to a war on terrorism and that we're really not serious about that. That the complete focus should have been a war on al Qaeda, and we have not completed that.

The president went out and expanded it from al Qaeda to terrorism. Now we've expanded it to Iraq. Do the people who say that we should have relentless focus on the war with al Qaeda before we expand the war have a valid point?

EAGLEBURGER: No, I really don't think so in this sense: When this started, the president said "war on terrorism." We all embraced that, we all believed it. I still do believe it. Al Qaeda is a piece of that.

But it's -- that's all it is, a piece of this. And if we licked al Qaeda tomorrow morning, we still have a massive terrorism problem. And I know you want me to shut up, and I'll do that right away. But, the fact of the matter is that it's a problem that we've got to deal with.

Story Tools


Panel: Spy agencies in dark about threats

• White House calls pope inspiration for millions
• Lott delays vote on base closing nominee
• Former Clinton adviser Berger to plead guilty


CNN/Money: Security alert issued for 40 million credit cards

• Bin Laden deputy sends message
• U.S. House votes to keep U.N. dues
• Iran poll to go to run-off