Against War in Iraq
An interview with former NSA director William E. Odom
by David Donadio
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. He is now a senior fellow and director of National Security Studies at the Hudson Institute, and an adjunct professor at Yale University. As a member of the National Security Council staff from 1977 to 1981, he worked on strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He spoke to us on October 16, 2002.
THE FOLLOWING INTERVIEW IS ABRIDGED.PLEASE CHECK BACK SOON FOR THE FULL VERSION.
The Kenyon Observer: What?s your position on Iraq?
General Odom: I think it is unwise to do it now, and unwise to do it without United Nations support. The reason is that we?re already at one war we haven?t won with Al Qaeda. The second is the issue of starting a war, offensively, will be a precedent, that could really undercut a lot of international norms we?ve worked for 50 years to establish and a lot of other countries have worked on too. One can say "these norms can?t make much difference, so to heck with it," but if you take an economic view of transaction cost, you realize that norms can save you money at times, and that?s why some parts of the world have done better than others. They have been able to get norms to replace complements in order to get compliance, and the results have made them much richer, so they?re both moralistic ideal reasons and pragmatic economic reasons for wondering whether we?re taking very seriously the risks of violating a norm. Another reason is that nuclear weapons are not going to be fully controlled. We?re going to see them proliferate, and we?re going to end up living with countries which are very bad countries from our viewpoint and
also have nuclear weapons. We?re seeing that right now with North Korea. We were bitterly opposed to India and Pakistan having them. Pakistan could easily become Afghanized and religiously fanatic. They have nukes. In some ways the dangers of an Islamic bomb are greater than in Iraq. The likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons goes up each month with the Russians continuing to support that program. So the precedent for doing this just because of nuclear weapons requires us to invade lots of countries. If you put all these things together, it makes it hard for me to see why you?d do this.
TKO: Under what circumstances would you support such a war now?
Odom: If they attack.
TKO: What about if agents acting indirectly or at the behest of some rogue government?
Odom: Well if I could prove they acted, I wouldn?t hesitate.
TKO: How do you think United Nations support changes things?
Odom: It reinforces the norms.
snip...
TKO: Do you think the US could be successful in building a democratic post-war Iraq and if so what would it take?
Odom: It?ll take no less than 50 years of troops on the ground there. Take South Korea; we were there 35 or 40 years before we saw a transformation that?s still not complete. It?s not just the internal problems with Iraq, it?s the rest of the neighborhood. Trying to do it surrounded by hostile countries with this type of development complicates the matter.
http://tko.kenyon.edu/index.php?action=view_article&article=260
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
