Milroie Advocates War with Iraq, on Terrorism

Author: Philip Spielberg

On Nov. 6, Dr. Laurie Mylroie presented a speech advocating war against Iraq to a crowd of approximately 120 students, professors and townspeople in the Robert A. Jones '59 House. Mylroie, the publisher of Iraq News, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a consultant to the Department of Defense on terrorism, has written several books on state-sponsored terrorism, including "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America." Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey have praised this book for its convincing argument that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraqi support of terrorism has not yet been proven by the Bush administration; rather its primary motive for invading the country is Hussein's believed retention of weapons of mass destruction. However, Mylroie said she believes that Iraq has been involved with militant Islamic terrorism against the United States in the past, which should justify the policy of "regime change" sought by the United States and several of its allies. Mylroie sought to show why Iraq should be the next target in the "war on terrorism."
According to Mylroie, Iraq's sponsorship of Islamic terrorism dates back to the Feb. 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, in which a bomb-laden van in the garage of the building exploded, killing six workers. Although the death count in this attack was miniscule in comparison to that of Sept. 11, 2001, Mylroie claimed that the perpetrators intended to topple one tower onto the other to kill up to 250,000 people. During the trial of Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the '93 attack, prosecutors reached the conclusion that Yousef and his conspirators acted alone.
The convictions of Yousef and his associates gave the American public a false sense of security, Mylroie claimed, since the trial eliminated the possibility that a foreign government conspired to topple the buildings. Likewise, then President Bill Clinton reinforced this sense of security by publicly stating that the '93 attack was the work of "loose networks" of terrorists. Mylroie disputed this explanation based on 10,000 pages of evidence from the trial indicating that Yousef entered the United States with an Iraqi passport — which suggests that the Iraqi government created false identities for terrorists in order to confuse investigators.
Although Clinton's cruise missile strike on Iraqi intelligence buildings in 1993 was originally framed as retaliation for an Iraqi assassination plot against Clinton's predecessor, George H. W. Bush, Mylroie contended that it was actually in retaliation for the first World Trade Center attack. She suggested that if the American public had known that Clinton ordered the missile strikes for retribution of the World Trade Center bombing, they would have been outraged that they had been kept unaware of the supposed Iraqi link, and that the United States had not taken more drastic action.
Mylroie faulted Clinton for largely ignoring the Iraq issue during his tenure as president. She said she felt that he should have destroyed Hussein's weapons or taken down the Iraqi government, but that the issue was "swept under the rug" for political convenience. Clinton limited his Iraq policy to sanctions, unwilling to address Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or possible links to terrorism. Mylroie claimed that the Clinton administration continually engaged in "spin," or the governmental manipulation of the press, by calling journalists and encouraging them to avoid writing about state sponsorship of terrorism and Saddam's dangerous regime. By doing this, Mylroie said she believed that Clinton avoided dealing with serious national security issues that might have tarnished his political popularity.
However, Mylroie's criticism was not aimed solely at Clinton. She is alarmed that there is a "serious problem of accountability in the federal government," citing the fact that nobody within the CIA has taken responsibility for the massive intelligence failures leading to the Sept.11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. She linked the Sept.11 attacks to Iraq as well, pointing to testimony given to the CIA by several Iraqi defectors who stated that an airplane stationed in a remote region of Iraq had been used to train hijackers. Mylroie asserted that the defectors did not lie to spite their former regime. Satellite photographs of the airplane used for training provide evidence for this claim. The defectors, Mylroie argued, could not have known about such photographs, which prove the existence of such a plane.
Mylroie went on to criticize the tactics of the CIA in her explanation of why the U.S. government would hold back vital information that might strengthen the case for war against Iraq. She said the CIA hears testimony from sources that should implicate Iraq, but denies in communications to the White House that there is a formal connection between the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Iraq.
Since the CIA refuses to acknowledge Iraqi sponsorship of international terrorism, the White House cannot publicly state that this sponsorship exists. Nevertheless, Mylroie said she believes that the real reason for the impending war is Iraq's supposed role in Sept.11, not Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. To strengthen her case, she added that both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have read her book "Study of Revenge," and agree with her theory that Iraq is involved in supporting terrorism.
After the conclusion of Mylroie's speech, she entertained questions from the audience. When asked if there were any "peaceful alternatives to war," a question that met with applause from most members of the audience, Mylroie turned the question back to the audience. One student argued, "Saddam is a rational character who seeks self-preservation," and is therefore willing to engage in diplomacy, but Mylroie retorted that had Hussein been a rational character, he would not have invaded Kuwait given the risks of possible retaliation. She asserted, "Saddam invaded Kuwait because he seeks to restore glory to the Middle East, and since he cannot restore glory through positive means, he will restore it through negative means."
During the question and answer session Mylroie clarified her stance on how to deal with the dictator, arguing that only an invasion of Iraq could prevent Hussein from further terrorist activity and thwart his use of weapons of mass destruction.
Mylroie's position contrasted with that of former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who spoke at the College earlier this year. While Ritter advocates a return of inspectors and considers war the last resort, Mylroie presented the unfortunate quandary that the United States seems to be in: "If we attack, he does his worst to us. If we do not attack, even if inspectors find weapons, they will be rebuilt." Mylroie acknowledged that there could be a large number of American casualties if the United States were to invade Iraq. However, due to the fact that she is convinced Iraq will attack again in some form, Mylroie said she believes that the potential casualties are part of a necessary risk that the United States must take.
Mylroie's lecture was co-sponsored by the Tocqueville Society and The Rohaytn Center for International Affairs. According to Giorgi Areshidze '04, chair of the Society, "The goal of the Tocqueville Society is to engage the campus community in a thorough discussion of the relevant political and social issues of the day." Areshidze further explained that "under the current political circumstances, with the war on terrorism raging, discussing issues of immediate and long-term concern is extremely vital."
Areshidze added that the Tocqueville Society is "pursuing a lecture series entitled 'War on Terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism and Modernity' that will consist of four lectures on this topic. We conceived of the topic broadly, and hope to engage the campus
in a thoughtful and serious discussion of the conflict between fundamentalist Islam, which is driving terrorist attacks that took place on Sept. 11, and modernity, or modern liberal democratic way of life."