'Too bad we didn't liquidate Saddam in 1998' - William Cohen

Ha'aretz Daily ^ | 2/9/03 | Nathan Guttman

[NormsRevenge]

`Too bad we didn't liquidate Saddam in 1998'

In 1998, Iraq expelled UN inspectors. Possibly a war then could have prevented the current crisis, admits former U.S. defense secretary William Cohen.

By Nathan Guttman

Four years ago William Cohen, who was then the secretary of defense, stood beside president Bill Clinton facing a crisis similar to the one with which the U.S. is dealing today. Iraq had expelled the United Nations weapons inspectors from its territory and the situation in the Gulf had heated up to the point at which seemed war was inevitable.

But, then, the crisis ended with a few aerial bombardments and a few cruise missiles fired at targets in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

The administration proved that it had not remained indifferent but the moderate response allowed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to persist - he did not allow the inspectors to return and continued to develop his chemical, biological and atomic programs.

Today Cohen is a businessman. In an interview in his Washington office, he expresses regret at the missed opportunity, when it was already clear to everyone that Saddam Hussein did not intend to comply with the demands of the international community.

In Cohen's opinion, had the international circumstances been different, it would have been possible to have dealt with the Iraqi threat then. "At that time we were prevented from acting more aggressively to renew the inspections, because the only ones who were on our side were the British. None of the others supported - not the French, not the Chinese and not the Russians," says Cohen. In the international political circumstances of 1998, he says, the Clinton administration felt that its hands were tied in dealing with Iraq. "To stop Saddam, we would have had to call up forces like we have today. Would this have been politically possible? Would we have been able to have called up 150,000 soldiers on the ground? Would the American public have supported this? The answer is apparently not," according to Cohen.

What changed the picture, he says, was the attacks September 11, which caused the world to relate differently to rogue states and organizations and to lose faith in conciliation with a threatening state.

American public opinion has also changed and is no longer put off by concepts like "preventive strike."

Of course, Cohen's explanations are also aimed at responding to recent criticism from conservative circles to the effect that the Clinton administration did not do enough during the 1998 crisis to force Iraq to take the inspectors back. Cohen agrees that had it been possible to strike hard at Iraq then, the world would have been spared years of disquiet, but he believes that in the reality of 1998, without international support, there was no chance for a unilateral American military initiative.

Unconventional threat

Cohen's experience as defense secretary taught him that there is not much benefit in the activities of the UN inspectors. During his tenure, he says, the inspectors did not succeed in bringing forward any significant information about Saddam's weapons stores and the only significant details that were known were given by Iraqi defectors, first and foremost Saddam's son-in-law, who was later executed. "It's almost impossible, considering the size of the country and Saddam's deceptive methods," says Cohen. The only chance of getting to the truth, he thinks, is by interviewing Iraqi scientists in protected circumstances, far from Saddam's eyes. But Saddam is preventing such interviews.

Last week President George Bush said there was no scope for a policy of containment with a person like Saddam, aiming his criticism at the Clinton administration. Cohen agrees only partially: "I think that it is definitely possible to stop him from constituting a conventional military threat to the region, as we have seen in the enforcement of the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq," but he notes that in the non-conventional realm, there is no point in trying to contain Saddam: "Such a policy will not stop him in the long term from becoming an unconventional threat to the entire region."

Cohen, 63, came into the Clinton administration from the other side of the political map. He was a Republican senator from Maine who had independent opinions and specialized in the areas of intelligence and military affairs. When Clinton entered his second term, he sought an agreed-upon candidate for the position of defense secretary to replace William Perry, who announced that he was not interested in a second term.

During his first term, Clinton had not succeeded in stabilizing the position of defense secretary. Les Aspin, Clinton's first choice for the job, lasted at the Pentagon for only a year. Health problems, friction with Congress and the embroilment in Somalia, led him to resign with the president's full agreement.

William Perry, who followed him, also had problems in functioning with Congress and the army, particularly in light of the need to institute cuts in the American forces, and he preferred not to stay on for a second term. In giving Cohen the job, Clinton knew that he was someone who was accepted by everyone, someone whose personal and public standing would make it easier for him to function with a hostile Congress and critical public opinion.

After leaving government, Cohen, a lawyer by profession, set up an international business consulting company with several former government officials and former congressmen who still enjoy good connections in the top political echelons, and offered his services to giant concerns that want a bit of help in opening doors. His list of clients is kept secret, but the New York Times recently reported that at least 15 companies pay "the Cohen group" an annual fee of quarter of a million dollars to a million. In return, Cohen and his people work to persuade the American administration and foreign governments to sign contracts with them, ease business conditions and advance their clients' projects.

Support in return for peace

In his years as defense secretary, 1997-2001, Cohen became well-acquainted with the Israeli security establishment. When the inspection crisis with Iraq erupted in 1998, he was in close contact with the Israeli defense minister at the time, Yitzhak Mordechai. Cohen tried to promise Israel America's full help in case of attack, and to obtain a promise that Israel would not respond if attacked.

Then, too, it looked like war was looming though the heads of the Clinton administration, in an assessment in November, 1998, concluded that there was only "a slight probability" that Saddam would try to attack Israel again. In his discussions with Mordechai, Cohen agreed to transfer American war materiel to Israel, increase anti-missile defenses and give Israel equipment to deal with chemical and biological warfare, all in order to decrease the country's anxiety.

War did not break out and Israel was not in danger, but Cohen believes that the lesson is that any American military planning has to take into account the fear that Israel might be hit. Today he is calmer. "I think that Israel is now in a far better situation than it was in the past," he says, noting the Arrow missile system as one of the major factors that provide Israel relative calm in face of the Iraqi threat.

As in 1998, Cohen still says it is better for Israel not to respond to an Iraqi action to keep the war from turning into an Iraqi-Israel conflict. Then and ndow, he believes ultimately it is Israel alone that will decide how to act. However, Cohen disagrees with the Israeli perception that refraining from a response to Saddam for a second time would affect Israel's deterrent power. "Israel is a very strong state militarily, and anyone who might think it is weak would be wrong. I have always believed that restraint is not a sign of weakness, but of strength." he says.

He does not deny America is paying a price for its support of Israel when it comes to enlisting international support against Saddam. From his friend King Abdullah of Jordan he has understood that the lack of progress in the peace process is making it difficult to express public support for the U.S., and therefore he believes that the administration should immediately put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back on the table, even before the conflict with Iraq is over. "The Israelis will also have to understand that they must give the Palestinians some hope, and not in the distant future but within a reasonable amount of time, so that they too can enjoy the fruits of sovereignty," says Cohen, noting that in his opinion the Israeli public will have to begin a debate on the subject of the Jewish settlements in the territories as part of the attempt to give the Palestinians hope.

Now, too, he thinks that if the administration brings back the talks between the sides to the focus of activity, it will be possible to discover a readiness for compromise on both sides.

[jd777]

And Osama...

[PhiKapMom]

Cohen is right! This puts the blame squarely where it belongs -- right in the Clintons lap! He had better hide -- the Clinton's will be looking for him!

[Parley Baer]

I love it about the "missed opportunity". Heck that all the Klintoon administration was, was one BIG "MISSED OPPORTUNITY". Parley

[BOBTHENAILER]

At that time we were prevented from acting more aggressively to renew the inspections, because the only ones who were on our side were the British. None of the others supported - not the French, not the Chinese and not the Russians," says Cohen.

That's right William, it takes a REAL leader to do the right thing when public or world opinion is halheartedly for you, or not at all.

It takes a man who loves his country more than himself to do the hard, unpopular tasks.

Something your guy Billie never had the stomach for.

[Red Dog #1]

Different circumstances my Red Dog A**. This is just damage control to cover for his and Clintons unwillingness to show the leadership needed to build support or if need be take care of it ourselves. Just more Clinton adminstation blame everyone but themselves BS. Oh, wait a minute, I do seem to recall that he did finally start to act tuff the day before he was to be impeached.

[PhiKapMom]

Isn't that the truth? One big Missed Opportunity is right!

[Redleg Duke]

Too bad the Clinton Administration was all form and no substance. A Potemkin Village.

[dts32041]

William "Strange" Cohen the greatest SECDEF since Robert Strange McNamara.

What's the difference between the two billy didn't try to save 3 cents an M-16 by not chroming the chamber.

[maranatha]

Notice he said it would be impossible because the French, the Chinese and the Russians would be against it. Well,well, look what Bush did anyway because he has the guts to try. Besides, who cares what Cohen says; I can't recall all of the incidents, but at the time he served under Clinton I came to know he was a lying lapdog just like the rest. He caused our country as much harm as any of the rest of the Clintonites.

[Cicero]

Cohen was probably the worst Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara. But he only deserves part of the blame, since the rest of clinton's team was equally bad.

Clinton never had the least interest in actually attacking Saddam. He just needed a convenient wag-the-dog target to distract attention from Monica from time to time. Saddam was happy to oblige, since it got the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and made it easier to develop his WMDs.

[elbucko]

A Potemkin Village.

Very well said!

[Reactionary]

Yeah, it's too bad, Cohen.

You didn't do anything about Hussein, covered up terrorist attacks here at home, built reactors for the North Koreans and helped the Jihadist nutcases in Kosovo. You didn't arrest bin Laden when you had the chance, either. It's "too bad" that you helped the Chinese run off with our nuclear secrets, too, isn't it?

Yes, it's "too bad" that Cohen and the rest of the Marxist swine want to destroy this country.

[BOBTHENAILER]

He caused our country as much harm as any of the rest of the Clintonites.

Indeed. What a stark contrast: Clinton/Bush.....Cohen/Rumsfeld.

[vishnu2]

Robert McNamara was a Republican?????

[exit82]

Bob,once again you hit the nail on the head. A real leader would have pushed for the inspections to be resumed in 1998 or else. But Bubba was so "consumed with Osama Bin Laden" I guess the man from Dope must have overlooked it.

[Bob]

Hey Billy boy, in case you hadn't noticed:

The words could have done, should have done and would have done don't mean squat.

The only words that matter are did do and didn't do.

[BOBTHENAILER]

I guess the man from Dope must have overlooked it.

Or maybe the ON Dope.

[maranatha]

I've thanked the Lord every day since Bush named his administration that we were given the finest and most capable men and women of integrity. Clinton, even if he wanted to, could never ever have people such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Evans, Rice, etc. give up their careers and private lives to serve in these positions. It was only because of their faith in Bush and believing they could honestly serve the country that they sacrificed to come aboard. The Lord knew what heavy responsibilities would be facing our country and provided the best.

[okie01]

Are you sure Robert Strange McNamara was a "moderate Republican".

I'm almost certain he was a card-carrying Democrat -- on Kennedy's team from Day One.

[Vigilanteman]

"At that time we were prevented from acting more aggressively to renew the inspections, because the only ones who were on our side were the British. None of the others supported - not the French, not the Chinese and not the Russians," says Cohen.

So what's changed since then except that the Russians seem to be finally coming around and the allies which Clinton dissed like Japan (wouldn't want to offend his ChiCom owners, eh?) have always been on our side, then as well as now.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"In Cohen's opinion, had the international circumstances been different, it would have been possible to have dealt with the Iraqi threat then."

The only difference in international circumstances is the focused and uncompromised leadership from The United States of America.

The difference between "then" and "now", Mr. Cohen, is the personal character and commitment to protect America and her principles inherent in George W. Bush.

[SwinneySwitch]

McNamara was Sec. Def. in JFK and LBJ cabinets and a real A-hole!

[okie01]

I'll be damned. I recalled that McNamara supported JFK as early as the Democrat primaries. But it appears that, even then, he claimed to be a Republican. Obviously, in name only, as he was also associated with other left-wing candidates...

[Lord Basil]

"This puts the blame squarely where it belongs -- right in the Clintons lap!"

Boy, you are right more than you know. The members of the Clinton administration can be proud of their zipper-based foreign policy.

[stylin19a]

In 1998, Iraq expelled UN inspectors.
This is as far as I got. Since this is not true (The UN inspectors left because of no co-operation, they weren't thrown out), what else is BS in this article. ?

[doug from upland]

No one trusted Clinton to keep his word about anything. Why would any country want to fight with us when they didn't know what the rapist psychopath was going to do? We now have a leader who knows how to lead. What a difference.

[Bedford Forrest]

Under what rock has Rachel "The Poetess" Cohen been hiding all these years? Apparently the Klintonistas know how to find the pathetic, weird sod, in a heartbeat. In his brief tenure he did as much damage as Aspin and The Strangeling Quisling McNamara. While we will never have proof that these people were all traitors, we can say without any doubt that they always acted as if they were working for the other side. Always and without fail, real Manchurian types, along with each and every one of their enablers.

[BOBTHENAILER]

The Lord knew what heavy responsibilities would be facing our country and provided the best.

I couldn't agree more.

[Rose in RoseBear]

Pingpingping!

[Bob]

In 1998, Iraq expelled UN inspectors.

This is as far as I got. Since this is not true (The UN inspectors left because of no co-operation, they weren't thrown out), what else is BS in this article. ?

Was that statement precisely legally accurate? No. Was it effectively true? Yes.

What real difference is there between formally expelling the inspectors and allowing them to remain while deliberately preventing them from carrying out genuine inspections?

A Johnnie Cochrane could defend Saddam in court based on the technical legal difference but, in practical terms, Iraq effectively threw them out by its deliberate deception and non-cooperation. IMHO, the UN was just too much of a wuss to force Saddam to formally expel them and took the easy way out by withdrawing them.

[Just mythoughts]

Cohen went on every tube show he could get on carrying around a sack of sugar, claiming that was the amount of anthrax that Iraq had, while stumping for support of the "pervert-in-chief's" pretend war on Iraq in 1998.

He and Maddie Lowbright had their townhall meeting because the "pervert in-chief" couldn't show his face.

Cohen had a huge Hollywood send of at the end of "pervert administration" forget how much money was spent so he could mix with the "beautiful people", it was disgusting.