ADM GENE LaROCQUE (USN, Ret.): We talk about "going to war." Other countries don't talk about "going to war." In my experience -- they say "when war comes" or "when war starts." We don't have that experience here in the United States; we go to war, and relatively safely when we do go.

ADM LaROCQUE: Professor, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Center for Defense Information. This is a special program that we're doing today for the first time as part of our weekly series of "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," which is aired all over the United States. I'm just pleased and delighted that you would join us here today for this discussion.

I'm Gene LaRocque, Rear Admiral, United States Navy, president of the Center for Defense Information.

How many of you here today favor an attack on Iraq?

I was just watching a CNN Poll taken a few minutes ago and the majority of Americans are opposed at this moment to an attack. But if we're going to have an attack, the majority of the Americans say it ought to be to remove Saddam Hussein from power. War, to us Americans, has become something of a spectator sport, a real, live video game just like you can play in the arcades or you can watch on your television.

War also, in our experience, has been good for business. Big business. We all benefit from going to war some way, so you don't get much opposition when the spirit of jingoism begins to rise in the country, as it is now, and the war fever becomes more intense. Just take, for example, TV.

We're all watching television more now than we were before this Iraq crisis erupted. The ratings go up, they can charge more to their advertisers. Same thing with magazines, newspapers. They sell more papers, more magazines. Radio talk shows, they can charge more, their ratings go up. And the radio news. It becomes a fascinating, sort of spectator sport. Thrilling, but nobody on our side gets hurt.

In Washington, I think the feeling is at this point that war is inevitable. And I was rather pleased to see that most of you -- all you at the moment are opposed to it. But there's very little that we know of what can actually be accomplished. They can't seem to explain to me and to many other Americans why it is we're going to attack Iraq. You know, it's a small impoverished nation, halfway around the world, and we're setting out to weaken it still further.

It's a little country, twice the size of the state of Idaho in the United States, just twice the size. Ninety-seven percent of the people of Iraq are devout Muslims, religious folks, heavily in debt, billions of dollars in debt from their long and tortuous war with Iran. And at that time, up until 1990, we were backing Iraq against Iran during that war. Of course, we all know that they're sitting on a pool of oil.

And, of course, eight years ago Saddam Hussein did a dumb thing: He attacked Kuwait. Shouldn't have done that, but he attacked over a border dispute. He angered many of us in the West and sort of scared the Saudis at that time. So, with 500,000 troops, over 2000 aircraft, and a whole armada of ships, we went in and we chased Saddam Hussein and his troops out of Kuwait.

After that, we established and got Saddam Hussein to agree to a very punishing set of sanctions, the most draconian in the history of man, and they've gone on now for seven years. I think that it appears that they want to continue these sanctions until the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons have all been destroyed and the capability to build them.

Now the Iraqis, up until now, until this very minute, are permitting inspections to take place in their country. Much of the chemical weapons capability that they had is destroyed. Biological weapons: We found a lot and destroyed some of those. The UN wants to continue the inspections; I think we should continue the inspections. Anybody here think we should stop the inspections?

[No audible response.]

ADM LaROCQUE: Well, glad to hear it.

The inspections Saddam Hussein agreed to and the world community's entitled to a continuation of those inspections. However, the United States' policy is separate from everybody else's at this point. We want, and it is American policy to continue the sanctions until Saddam Hussein is out of power. Now that doesn't sit well with Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi people.

And I say that because the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has made that clear. Very specific in a speech at Georgetown University last year, and she refuses to disavow it.

Now eight years ago when we attacked Iraq, there was really a coalition. And that was that 500,000 people, 2000 aircraft, and the amount of ships. The whole time, we worked as a team, as it were. This time we're going to fight alone. So, as the war approaches, this very day, maybe a few days away, a week away, a month away, we still don't have a clear reason for going in to attack that we can explain.

Now there are four missions that are advanced. First of all, mission number one: Destroy chemical, biological stockpiles and delivery systems, i.e., the missiles. The nuclear stuff is off the table. The United Nations say they're satisfied they don't have the nuclear capability.

Well, first of all, we don't know where the chemical weapons are stored. They're movable, scattered all over. And as one of the generals today said in the paper, "We'll have to make an awful lot of attacks on little targets all over Iraq." And that will require a lot of effort on our part. But what happens? And I don't know the answer to this, maybe you don't either, but it's useful to ponder.

What happens when they strike a chemical plant? Are those chemicals going to be dispersed to the air? What happens when they hit a biological warfare plant? Anthrax? Is that going to spread all over the area? Are people in the area -- Iraqis, and their neighbors, and foreigners who happen to be in Iraq, will they suffer from the problem?

Now take mission number two: Eliminate Iraq's capability to produce chemical/biological weapons. You can't get rid of the spores, which are used to make the anthrax. You can't kill the knowledge on how to make chemical weapons. And as you all know, you just make it with the very primitive stuff, the same stuff we used to make fertilizer. We make numerous attacks and many noncombatants, innocent men, women and children, will be killed.

Mission number three This is a toughie. It's sort of a psychological one. Number three is to force Saddam Hussein to change his mind, to say, "Yes, the inspections will take place." That will require a lot of punitive attacks. We're going to have to find ways to punish the Iraqi people in order to persuade Saddam to change is mind. Many noncombatants dead again. And I doubt if it will probably change Saddam Hussein's mind.

And this, of course, is really, I think, the sort of hidden agenda of many Americans. And that is, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We don't know where he's going to be. We can destroy all of his palaces, but he's a pretty smart fella and he's not going to be in any of those palaces. We'll destroy command posts and kill a lot of the soldiers and sailors that are working in those. Probably some of the electrical grid; we'll take away their electrical capacity. We can destroy all of that and put them back centuries. We can destroy facilities, military facilities, weapons, and military units.

Now the president, members of the Congress have all said, 'We prefer a diplomatic resolution of this problem, diplomacy.' But has anyone suggested -- Can you tell me, has anybody come up from our government with a diplomatic solution today, or any of your governments? I don't know of any. But here are some steps we think at the Center for Defense Information would be useful in structuring a diplomatic solution. There's still time to back away from the brink of war if we want to do it.

...First: Take a look at how it is we got into this mess. How did we, America, assume the sole responsibility for carrying out United Nations resolutions?

...Second: If the current situation is as the president asserts, a truly global responsibility, we should seriously shift the responsibility for all of this back to the United Nations. What are we doing with it?

...Third: Now this is where it gets tough. We should suggest that the United Nations propose a specific date for the end of all inspections if and only if Saddam Hussein agrees to free and unfettered inspections. We tell him when they're going to end.

One of his complaints is that it appears they're going on endlessly. So, we tell him, yes, they're going to end in six months, or a year if you let us have free and unfettered inspections.

...Fourth: The United States could suggest the termination of all sanctions -- just end all the sanctions -- once all the inspections have been completed. Because at the moment, there's nothing to suggest to Saddam Hussein that we're willing to stop the sanctions anytime. And certainly, if you accept Madeleine Albright's point of view, we're not going to give up the sanctions until Saddam Hussein is out of power.

...And Fifth, and this is a tough one for Americans: We could suggest to the secretary general that we no longer will insist on Americans on the inspection teams -- just don't have any Americans there -- if some qualified inspectors can be found in the five billion people in the United Nations. The secretary general can choose 15 more people from that five billion people of the United Nations. Surely, we're not so arrogant here in the United States -- although I think sometimes we might be -- that we're the only ones who know how to inspect in a situation like this.

Prior to the use of force against Iraq by the United States in '91, Congress and the American people engaged in a very healthy and serious debate on whether we should get involved or not. As I said earlier, I fought as hard as I could to keep us from attacking Iraq at that time because it looked to me like we were going to open up Pandora's Box and we'd be at it for years, which is precisely what we're doing. We really haven't done anything except threaten military force to pursue a diplomatic solution.

I'd like to leave you with this one thought: If today we all believe in the goodness of our hearts that the only way to thwart the evil of Saddam Hussein is to kill hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis, then our goodness becomes indistinguishable from his evil.

Well, thanks very much and I'd love your comments or questions, so please pitch in and give me a hard time if you will. Thank you. [Applause.]

ADM LaROCQUE: Do any of you have any questions that you'd like to ask? Did you have a question?

STUDENT: Don't you think it might be a good idea for us to pull back our soldiers and weapons and things like that and maybe start anew? Is that possible?

ADM. LaROCQUE: It's certainly possible, but I'd say very unlikely unless we get sort of a quid pro quo of some kind from Saddam Hussein, so that we can say that this threat of the use of military force persuaded Saddam Hussein to change course. Sure, once you go around issuing ultimatums, it's very hard to pull back. Some people would argue here in Washington that we're so committed that we would be in great trouble if at this point we pulled up our tents and came home. I'd be all for it.

Is there another question? Yes.

Ms. STARR: My name is Rebecca Starr and I go to Colorado College. And sir, I'm wondering, we already know that Russia is not supporting force in this situation at all, and they've used threats if we do use force. What do you think will be the effects on the global community if we do act -- use unilateral force in this situation?

ADM. LaROCQUE: Well, that's a good question: What effect will it have on the whole world situation if we pursue the attack when Russia not only doesn't support it, they actively oppose it? China, I heard today -- an official statesman said today they're opposed to the use of military force. And France, of course, has been opposed for some time. So, I think it's had some very deleterious effects on our relationship in the world.

First of all, I think it will diminish our stature in the world, the United States, if we go in alone or seem to be killing these folks, and particularly if it produces no good results.

Secondly, I think it will tear the United Nations apart. We worked at for 50 years to structure it, and suddenly we, who've been a big supporter -- it was started here, its first meeting was the United States -- if we say we're going to ignore the other members of the Security Council except for Great Britain, it'll weaken the United Nations.

I think in the United States it will have a deleterious effect on the respect that the citizens of the US have for our government's good common sense. And secondly, the military stature will be diminished because the US military may be reluctant to get into this operation. But it seems to me they ought to be saying to the president, what you're asking us to do, Mr. President, is not achievable. But they're acquiescing.

So, all in all, it would be bad. And, of course, we've already discussed, I think you'd have absolute chaos in the Middle East if we go ahead and attack as we're planning. Yes, please.

Mr. WAGNER: My name is Dave Wagner. I'm from Tulane University in New Orleans. And we had kind of a discussion with Mr. Aaron Miller from the State Department this morning and he made the case that Saddam Hussein is a very unique and like -- especially ruthless leader. He said something to the effect that a leader like Saddam Hussein only comes along like every decade to 50 years to a 100 years, or something like that.

And I just wondered if you and your organization felt the same way about him and, if so, whether that should affect the way that we deal with him?

ADM. LaROCQUE: Oh, what short memories they have over in the State Department! (Laughter.) If he was so bad, we were supporting him eight years ago. And it was our Ambassador -- I've forgotten her name now -- that was relaying --

From Audience: April Gillespie. April Gillespie?

ADM. LaROCQUE: Yes, April Gillespie. She said we won't interfere in any way, and she had that word right from the State Department.

So -- Saddam Hussein, in my view, has done some things which we don't like. He invaded a neighboring country. That kind of upsets world order when one country does that. He does have big caches of chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear one. But so do other countries in the world. So, he's certainly not unique in that regard.

Some people say -- for a long time have said that he was not very smart. The fact is, I think he's brilliant, a very intelligent man. And one of the biggest mistakes a military can make is to assume the other side is dumb. I think he's a pretty smart fellow.

Who has another? Yes, please.

SABINA: My name's Sabina and I'm from Germany. And I was just going to ask, in looking at solutions to the crisis, a lot of people have suggested that the thing for the US to do is support an Iraqi government-in-exile to fight Saddam Hussein from within and not from without.

Do you think that's the long term solution to this?

ADM. LaROCQUE: I think it's a bunch of baloney to try to think that we could select a group of Iraqi citizens who don't like Saddam Hussein and pour money into their support or bring them over into England or the United States and set up a government-in-exile. I just don't -- We tried it.

We tried it six years ago and Saddam Hussein infiltrated the group, attacked them in three days and killed them all. That was our group. And didn't kill them all because we got about 8000 of them out, sent them to Guam, our territory out in the Pacific, to save their lives, and they have now been introduced into the United States. We tried that route. We don't know enough about Iraqi politics.

First of all, you've got the Sunnis who run the government, the Shi'as in the south who are the majority, and in the north, the Kurds. You've got the problems with the six countries that surround Iraq. If we destabilize the country and then say we're going to pick a man of our choice to run the country, Iran may just come in and take off that hunk of territory that they wanted eight years ago. That was started 16 years ago, when the war with Iran started.

So, no, I just -- Somebody else can't -- We just can't find a neat, pat solution to have somebody else do the job. I can't find any rationale to support that. Yes.

STUDENT from Germany (male): My name is (inaudible). I'm an exchange student from Germany, as well. And I would like to ask you, do you think that the US Government realizes that an attack on Iraq would not only damage the image of the whole Western world in this area, but also support Muslim fundamentalists and give further rise to that?

ADM. LaROCQUE: Sure. I think it's just going to -- No, I don't think there's any awareness of that at all. If it is, it's modest and it's -- We've become so fixated on the idea of an attack, that we have so created a villain out of Saddam Hussein, that I think we've lost all rationale at this point among those who are blindly wanting to go ahead and attack.

You see, we have a funny thing in this country that has grown up over the years. If you're militaristic in this country, you're patriotic. And I can tell you if you're not militaristic, you're unpatriotic. It's that simple. There's black and white. So, support of the military is very, very strong and militaristic solutions.

As I said, we've been fighting since the day we were born and I don't know if we'll get over it. The president says today, "Why are we doing it?" 'Cause we're a superpower, the one remaining superpower. We're not a superpower. We're one of the powerful nations in the world, perhaps the most powerful, the richest, very fine system of government that works, but we're not a superpower. And we're going to find that out, just like Gulliver and the Lilliputians, when we get tangled up with a little country like Iraq.

But I do think the United States is in a situation that is maybe reminiscent a bit of George Orwell's "1984." I remember in there that Orwell was saying there's so many wars going on all around the world, they seem to be continuous, that people pay no more attention to them rather than to hear that some of their forces were fighting in Timbuktu, wherever that is, sort of thing. It's an interesting thing. Yes, please.

CHRISTINE: My name is Christine and I'm from The American University, and I was curious to know about economic sanctions. And how would sanctions differ in the case of maybe South Africa, where they could be seen as positive sanctions and the minority government -- having a minority government over the majority population, as in comparison to Iraq? How are those types of sanctions different in that they're seen as bad in Iraq, but it worked in South Africa?

ADM. LaROCQUE: Well, a couple of reasons. The first is that the ones in South Africa were not nearly as tough as what we've done to Saddam Hussein. No food, no medicine gets into Iraq. Food and medicine was into South Africa, and I was there at the height of the regime about four -- three or four years before apartheid was ended.

Secondly, when you have the whole world involved in sanctions, there's a possibility, and a pretty good possibility that they will be effective in the sense they'll hurt people. In our situation now, we are pushing the sanctions, but the other countries are arguing for lifting of them. The countries around there, they haven't joined us. They won't support us this time in attacking Iraq. The six countries surrounding Iraq, I suspect there's a lot of stuff coming into Iraq. So, I don't think it's going to work, but it's going to hurt a lot of the civilians, men, women and children, in Iraq.

Did you have a question? Yes, please.

Ms. SCHMIDT: My name is Katarina Schmidt and I'm from Germany, too. And I was just wondering whether you think that the opinion of the public is ever going to leave any impression on the government? As you said, the polls are -- show that the majority's against an attack. And even the public would demonstrate against a war, do you think they would have any effect on the government?

ADM. LaROCQUE: I think it would. I'm sorry there is not more concern here in the country that's being made manifest and obvious. I don't really understand it. Now the people in this country did turn the Vietnam War around, brought an end to the Vietnam War, so there's hope. And, of course, part of that reason was that college guys were going to be drafted and they didn't want to go.

My oldest son fought in Vietnam, so did I. My other son fought in Iraq. Once you get in it, it's pretty hard to escape. But both of them are dead set against the use of military force to try to get our way in the world. We're four percent of the world's population. We don't run it, but sometimes we act like we do.

But thanks very much, guys. I really do hope you'll come back. We loved having you here today and I found it very inspirational. And I'm delighted to know that as a group, you all are studying conflict resolution, which is a terribly important field for study. Too little of it's done. And with an intelligent group from different countries, that I think augers well for more peaceful resolution of problems among nations in the future. Thanks very much. (Applause.)