• Special Report: America Attacked • Live Online Special Coverage: America Attacked • Reader Reaction • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

America Attacked:
Iraq & Terrorism
With Laurie Mylroie
Author of "Study of Revenge"
Monday, Sept. 24, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT

Tuesday morning, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events two hijacked planes hit and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one plane crashed into the Pentagon and another in Somerset County, Pa. Thousands are presumed dead or injured as emergency services and relief workers continue to make sense of the chaotic scenes. The FBI and authorities across the country continue to track down those responsible for the crimes.

Laurie Mylroie, author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America," will be online to take questions on Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the speculation of his involvement in terrorist activities.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Philadelphia, Pa.: CNN reported last night that Mohamed Atta, apparently one of the pilots, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague and possibly also in Spain during the planning stages for the attacks. This is a more concrete linkage than anything I've heard so far about bin Laden. Did the administration jump the gun in pointing to bin Laden, and if so, will this damage our credibility and dissipate our political capital with Middle Eastern countries if we need to go after Iraq? Also, how likely is it that bin Laden would cooperate with Iraq in this kind of endeavor? (I read somewhere that bin Laden condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.) Thanks for your insights.

Laurie Mylroie: You are correct that nothing that has been made public so far establishes a direct tie to bin Ladin. Yet, probably (one hopes) the administration does have better evidence that it hasn't made public. And, in any case, bin Ladin has been indicted for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Africa.

As for how likely it is that bin Ladin would co-operate with Iraq, it is very likely. In fact, bin Ladin basically serves as a front organization for others: Iraq, Sudan, the Taliban. He doesn't have the organizational skills on his own to carry out major attacks.

It's true that bin Ladin criticized Iraq 10 years ago, when it invaded Kuwait, on the grounds that Kuwait was a Muslim country that hadn't done anything to Iraq. But it is 10 years later and the perception is that the US is unjustly targeting Iraq.

Finally, I do share your concern that our "war" with bin Ladin might interfere with going after Iraq. We may become too distracted by him, bogged down, etc.

Clemmons, N.C.: Given the restrictions on Iraq, how would Saddam Hussein have gone about assisting in the recent attacks?

Laurie Mylroie: The restrictions on Iraq don't affect its ability to carry out terrorism. That's the whole point. That is the ONE thing that Saddm can do to get even and carry out his revenge. And so he does.

Durham, N.C.: Is it possible to declare "victory" in our war against terrorism if Saddam Hussein were left in power?

Laurie Mylroie: Absolutely not. Saddam is the biggest terrorist threat to America. He has been attacking this country since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, in which the mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, sought to topple the buildings. Eight years later, they completed the job.

As long as Saddam is in power, he will seek to harm us.

Alexandria, Va.: Did any of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 receive Iraqi passports or other assistance from Saddam?

Laurie Mylroie: The mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, arrived in the US on an Iraqi passport, in that name. That's why he is known as Ramzi Yousef (although that's an alias).

Yet the key point is that he is an Iraqi intelligence agent. That's where his training (he's very knowledgeable about chemistry) comes from.

Washington, D.C.: While there is speculation that Saddam Hussein has promoted terrorism through the years, what do you believe is his possible strategy now as he views the current events unfold. Do you have some possible scenarios you can discuss. Thank you.

Laurie Mylroie: One of the dangers is that we do not know what Saddam has planned next, or if he will be able to carry it out. In the best case, the Sept 11 attack will not be followed by anything else in the near future.

In the worst case, the Sept 11 attack is the opening blow in a larger campaign and that Saddam hoped that following that attack, we would focus on bin Ladin.

Bin Ladin is a terrible figure and at some time must be made to pay for what he has done. Yet there is a danger in going to war with bin Ladin, without at least also saying that we believe that Iraq was also involved in the Sept 11 attack.

Here's a scenario: what if, while we are at war with bin Ladin, Iraq carries out another terrible assault. Won't we see that in the context of our war with bin Ladin and believe that he is behind it? And won't we then intensify our campaign against him, as Saddam slips ever more from our consciousness? If every time something like this happens, we focus on bin Ladin and do not address Iraq's role, don't we end up giving Saddam a license to kill us all with impunity?

Washington, D.C.: A lot of people (journalists) have been referencing Iraq as a "possibility" for funding, logistics, and intelligence in the Sept. 11 attacks. Given that Hussein would never openly admit any part and also that US attack would be certain, has US intelligence or journalists seen any movement of Iraqi troops in the past week? If so, what is their posture? One more, how has the Kuwaiti border looked since Sept. 11. Thanks.

Laurie Mylroie: As far as I know, there haven't been any Iraqi troop movements toward the Kuwaiti border--at least not yet.

Bethesda, Md.: How close were we to really being able to capture him at the end of the Persian Gulf War? What are your thoughts on why we didn't?

Laurie Mylroie: We weren't close to capturing Saddam, but we could have overthrown him. In March 1991, just after the cease-fire, most of the Iraqi population rose in revolt. We could have helped them--and it would have been easy. But we didn't. Among the reasons, Colin Powell, as JCS Chairman, didn't want to become "entangled" in a "quagmire." Also Bush believed that the Iraqi army would overthrow Saddam.

Winston-Salem, N.C.: After seeing a 60 Minutes expose on the new biological weapons developed in Iraq - specifically a new anthrax/smallpox fusion that combines the deadliness of anthrax with the contagiousness of smallpox -- I wondered whether you have any information on what may have happened to those biologicals from those labs. This is of special concern given the recent crop dusting inquiries.

Laurie Mylroie: You are right that biological warfare is very frightening. That is why the reports about the hijackers looking into what they might do with crop dusters is particularly alarming.

Even without any fancy new BW agents, anthrax, which is well known to the Iraqis is frightening even. The Clinton administration explained that it could be used to kill millions of people--but did nothing about the problem.

Philadelphia, Pa.: If we go to war and ultimately remove Saddam from power, what kind of government would likely replace him? As I understand it, the main opposition groups are Kurds in the north and radical Shi'ites in the south, neither of which sounds like an appealing replacement (although a necessary replacement if in fact Saddam killed 7,000 of our people). Also, other than hijacker Mohamed Atta's apparent meetings with Iraqi intelligence, what evidence has been disclosed that would point to Saddam in the attacks?

Laurie Mylroie: There is an opposition organization called the Iraqi National Congress. When the first Bush administration saw that the coup it expected was not going to happen, it helped establish the INC, with the aim of overthrowing Saddam in an insurgency. Had Bush won the 1992 elections, most probably it would have proceeded on that course, and Saddam would have been gone by now.

But Clinton wasn't really that interested in overthrowing Saddam. It didn't seem so important to Clinton, because he didn't understand the Iraqi threat. Perhaps, by the end of his term in office, Clinton did have a better understanding, but then the task seemed too difficult and risky, so he didn't do it then either.

As for the evidence against Iraq, what is very hard for most people to comprehend is that so early in an investigation--just two weeks--there is little meaningful evidence at all. The FBI investigation will take months, if not years. And that's the problem: we can't wait that long.

So the previous terrorism, becomes extremely important. That, we can understand. And Saddam was behind the 1993 attack on the Trade Center, as I explain in "Study of Revenge." That can be demonstrated to the high legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And once that is done, it raises significant questions as to whether Iraq was not also involved in the Middle Eastern terrorist attacks against US targets that followed. In my view, the dominant theory that there is a new kind of terrorism that does not involve states is simply a mistake.

Oklahoma City, Okla.: I keep reading in European newspapers about Imad Mughniyeh, a known terrorist and head of security for Hezbollah. Israeli intelligence links him to the WTC disaster.

Is our government avoiding talk of Mughniyeh on the record as a way to keep Iran off the table?

Laurie Mylroie: You are right that the Israelis have put out that Mughniyeh was involved, but that isn't a correct statement. Their preoccupation has been Iran--which does indeed attack Israel. But what was behind the Sept 11 terrorism was different.

The Iranians, being Shi'i, are at sharp odds with the Taliban and bin Ladin, both Sunni. That's an important divide, although it is not absolute. The Iranians support Palestinian terrorism, although the Palestinians are Sunni.

Arlington, Va.: A question about Saddam Hussein's psychology as a vengeful leader: Considering the idea that Saddam -- assuming he is involved in the current terror war on the United States -- is not suicidal, but is in fact a man who wants to live to see the results of his actions, how much should we be concerned about Iraq perpetrating a WMD attack on U.S. soil, considering the likely magnitude of an American military response? Should we worry more or less about such an attack if we corner Saddam and he finds he has nothing to lose?

Laurie Mylroie: You are right to point out that we are in a difficult position. Because Saddam has gotten away with so much terrorism against the US (going back to the 1993 Trade Center bombing), he has good reason to believe he can continue to get away with it. That was surely his assumption in the Sept 11 attacks. Hopefully, we will get around to saying that Iraq was involved--but, as of now, that's not certain.

So, if he gets away with the Sept 11 carnage, why should he believe that he won't get away with BW terrorism? But you are also right that if we try to bring him down, he will attack us as well.

This is the consequence of doing nothing about Saddam for a decade. A very high priority should be put on rounding up individuals who might be working for him. The previous investigations into bombing conspiracies, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, showed individuals who seemed to be involved in providing logistical support. They should not be allowed to walk around freely.

Yet this whole problem arose because the 1993 attack was treated solely as a criminal matter. So if the US Attorney's office did not believe it had the evidence against an individual to the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt," nothing was done.

And there is an individual (an Iraqi) who has a Ph.D. in microbiology (which would be very useful for BW terrorism) who looks to have given logistical support to the Trade Center bombers. But he wasn't arrested, because he didn't actually participate in building the bomb.

Washington, D.C.: Does Saddam Hussein still have the support of the Iraqi military? It seems his activities from the Kuwaiti invasion onward have in the long-term only caused the military to become weaker, and for Iraq to have less support in the region than it once did.

Laurie Mylroie: Saddam rules by terror and the military can't do much against him. Also, there are loyalists who benefit from being associated with the regime. They provide the backbone of support and control the instruments of terror.

Alexandria, Va.: How likely is it, in your opinion, that both Iraq and Iran provided financial support to the World Trade Center terrorists?

Laurie Mylroie: Not likely at all. Iraq and Iran are bitter enemies (they fought an eight year war) and they wouldn't trust one another in an operation like this.

Blacksburg, Va.: Clearly, it seems as though these act were committed with intent to start a war. If Sadam Hussein and Iraq were behind these attacks, to what degree do you believe further attacks on the U.S. are possible?

Laurie Mylroie: It is distinctly possible that further attacks are planned. As I explained in a previous note, I'm concerned that Saddam wants us to go to war with bin Ladin, so he can his us again--and again and again--and we'll just intensify our war against the "networks."

Arlington, Va.: Thanks for coming here. After reading the piece on this topic on Salon.com last week it made a great deal of sense to me that Iraq would be involved. Do you think there's any chance this angle is being strongly considered by the administration? Could they be publicly avoiding talking about Iraq and focusing everyone's attention on Afghanistan while at the same time preparing an attack on Iraq? How easy would something like that be to do?

Laurie Mylroie: Thanks very much for your kind comments. There are people in the administration who do believe that Iraq was involved and that Iraq should be the objective in our war on terror. They are senior officials in the Pentagon.

Yet it does not seem that anything has been decided as of now. Still, it is possible that if a decision is made to attack Iraq, little will be said about it beforehand in order to maximize the surprise of the US attack

Seville, Spain: Do you think Sadam has any link to the last terrorist attacks in the US? Do you think he has biological and chemical weapons in Iraq? If yes, would it be possible that he uses them soon and against who? Kuwait?

Laurie Mylroie: Saddam is almost certainly behind the Sept 11 terrorism. And we know that he has chemical and biological weapons. In fact, we've known that since August 1995, when his son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, defected to Jordan.

Yet the Clinton administration did nothing about it. And then when Saddam began his assault on the UN weapons inspectors in the fall of 1997, Clinton again did very little. And it's now almost three years since there were weapons inspectors in Iraq.

As for who Saddam might use them against, the easiest way for him to use them is through terrorism. Then, he has deniability.

New York, N.Y.: You seem pretty convinced that the current government is solely focused on the Network, but that was not the crux of the president's speech. He said we would pursue the terrorists AND those which harbor them. I see that as a blank check against IRAQ, LIBYA and others who promote this activity. Do you not believe this?

Laurie Mylroie: Well, I heard the president's speech also and my memory is that the focus was "networks" and to the extent that he spoke of states, it was mostly about states "harboring" terrorists, which would mean, in this case, Afghanistan.

There is, as you probably now, a major debate between the Pentagon and the State Dept. The Pentagon wants to go after Iraq, the State Dept doesn't want to. The latter position only makes sense, if the State Dept believes that Iraq was NOT involved in the Sept 11 terrorism. So, I think, that's the heart of the matter: whether people believe bin Ladin carried out the attack on his own vs. whether bin Ladin is essentially a "front" for state-supported and state-directed terrorism, particularly from Iraq.

Silver Spring, Md.: Have the other "identified" hijackers been linked with Iraq? What about the 300 or so people being detained by authorities?

Laurie Mylroie: Aside from Mohammed Atta, no other hijacker has been linked with Iraq. Of course, some of the hijackers used false identities, so we don't even know who they are. And as for the 300 others being detained, not much information has been released about them.

Somewhere, USA: Returning to a question about Imad Mughniyeh.

It is reported that he is now living in Tehran... Wouldn't that cause a problem politically and possibly criminally for Iran, a state I think we'd very much like to start doing business with again in the diplomatic sense?

Laurie Mylroie: Mughniyah is living in Iran. Before there is any possibility of US-Iranian relations being straightened out, the Iranians would have to turn him over and otherwise stop supporting terrorism.

Washington, D.C: If it is uncovered that Iraq/Saddam Hussein had a hand in the terrorist attacks, how will the US respond? What defense does Iraq have at its disposal? What would this mean to the War on Terrorism?

Laurie Mylroie: Those who believe that the Sept 11 attack required the resources of a state also believe that Iraq is the only state that could possibly have been behind it. That is the Pentagon view. And they want to do whatever it takes to get rid of Saddam, because that is the only way to address the problem and make sure that this doesn't happen again.

On the other hand, as a person asked before, isn't Saddam going to take down as many of his enemies as he can, when he sees the handwriting on the wall? Yes.

So we are in a very bad position. If we leave him there, he will continue to attack us. And if we take him out, he'll attack us too. But I think the situation will be better, if we seize the initiative and play some role in how things turn out. Also, the sooner we take on this problem, the better. Time works in Saddam's favor, as he develops Iraq's weapons. Sooner or later, he will have a few nuclear bombs and be even more dangerous.

Arlington, Va.: What would it take for the USA to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

Laurie Mylroie: Removing Saddam from power would not be all that difficult. He is hated by most of the Iraqi population and we should work in concert with them.

There is an opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, which he US has backed intermittently. We should fund and arm them. They could do a considerable bit of the fighting on the ground. And we can back them up with a limited number of military advisers and the massive application of air power.

Most probably, it would be possible to recreate the situation that existed in March 1991, right after the cease-fire, when the population turned against Saddam.

Carson City, Nev.: Do you think George Bush Jr. will push hard for Iraqi attacks given the legacy of his own father's failure to finish the job?

Laurie Mylroie: That is a good question. Does this administration have trouble recognizing that it required a state to carry out the Sept 11 attacks (and that that state is almost certainly Iraq), because Bush's father and several senior members of the administration were in charge during the Gulf War and ended the war leaving Saddam in power? Are they reluctant to acknowledge the extent of that blunder? And does that affect their ability to deal effectively with the present situation? I certainly hope not, but that is a concern.

Oakton, Va.: How do you know things about Saddam that the U.S. government seems not to know?

Laurie Mylroie: The U.S. government (or significant elements within it) know what I know. My position is essentially that of the Pentagon and the Deputy Secretary of Defense is one of the blurbists for "Study of Revenge" (as is the man who was CIA director at the time of the 1993 Trade Center bombing, Jim Woolsey)

New York FBI believed that Iraq was behind the 1993 Trade Center bombing. But Clinton handled that in a surreptitious way. When he bombed Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993, he said it was retaliation for Iraq's attempt to kill George Bush.

But Clinton believed that it would take care of the Trade Center bombing too. It would deter ALL future acts of Iraqi terrorism. And when it didn't, Clinton couldn't bring himself to acknowledge what had happened.

Fairfax, Va.: How does Iraq's secular government support religiously motivated terrorism. Are terrorists opportunistic enough to accept help from a state that is not an Islamic state?

Laurie Mylroie: Saddam and bin Ladin are both Sunni and that's important. They share enough in common--like hating the US and wanting US forces out of the Gulf--that they can set aside what separates them.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.