(00:00:00) We had scheduled during this hour to talk about home repair projects with Gary Branson, but I think we'll have to let those faucets drip for another couple of weeks because today we want to talk about the situation in the Gulf Martin Sampson has been kind enough to stop in very busy days for him. He's a professor at University of Minnesota political science department and the international relations program and his expertise is the Middle East. Well, Martin, what do you think is going to happen? What's (00:00:26) next? Well, I think we're on the verge of the war the land War than that. I think virtually everybody had hoped would be averted and somewhat Akin I think to our feelings January 14th and 15th that somehow at the last minute there would be a breakthrough here. We are in a position where a breakthrough has not occurred. I think in contrast to January 14 15, so forth in this instance, we have had a very very close call. I think in the context of the ways in which conflict is resolved in the Middle East and intervention by an intermediary a third party that has significant stature the tries to patch things together coupled with bravado on the part of one of the contending forces that in fact is agreeing to make conditions the bravado asserting to the contrary that no conditions have been made that nothing has been sacrificed and so forth is the kind of pattern. That is I think not Unusual in this part of the world as conflicts are resolved. Well, we had the James case. Of course. It hasn't it hasn't quite progressed to that point. No, (00:01:33) it hasn't but now we have the January 15th deadline and and I guess they waited about a day before the air War Began. Do you think the probably weighed about a day before the ground war begins to or I mean the timing I guess it's anybody's guess at this point really (00:01:48) not being a military person. I guess I'm not clear on exactly what defines the beginning of a ground war. And it seems that there has been an increase of activity in the recent past hours and how one tells whether in fact it is be gone or is not begun. This requires expertise. I don't have but but my sense is that it's train on a track and then that unless something dramatic comes from Baghdad to the United Nations accepting in Toto the stipulations lay down yesterday by the bush White House. I think things go forward. (00:02:22) Do you think there's any give at all? On either side at this point. I mean, I've looked at the at the at the Soviet proposal and what and what bush is laid down and they're not they seem like they're not all that far apart at least on the surface. They don't the Soviet plans plan calls for complete withdrawal within 21 days the u.s. Insisted it be within a week. The the Soviet plan gives them a day of ceasefire before they have to begin withdrawing a day in which conceivably there could be some Mischief for sure. They also insist Soviet plan that the security Council sanctions be lifted after the withdrawal is complete the u.s. Leaves that up in the air, but I mean the rest of the rest of it is kind of 48 hours for getting out of Kuwait versus 72 in the release the prisoners 428472. Those are fairly minor differences, aren't (00:03:09) they? I think somebody coming in from Mars who could read an Earthly language and compared these would not in fact see very very major differences in the language the American position wants removal of mines and booby traps at once the Iraqi military out very quickly. I think there are some legitimate questions about how operative at least some of the trucks and transport vehicles in the Iraqi military are and and what time length would in fact be required for a genuine Iraqi military withdrawal. If at the same time, the Iraqis are expected to remove what I assume is a very large number of mines and so forth prior to that that's an activity that in good faith certainly could take more than a week. I think what we see really is the fundamental contrast between the Soviet proposal in the American proposal is more attributable to objective. So I think the Soviet proposal is a very narrow interpretation of the UN resolutions. I think not overly narrow indeed an interpretation that may be congruent with how most of the world reads the UN resolutions the American proposals. I think reflect a concern about the survival of Saddam. As an individual or as leader of Iraq plus an objective of making sure that significant damage is done to I would assume in particular the Revolutionary guard by the end of this (00:04:37) thing. Well, let's say that that the Soviet plan had been adopted that would to some extent allow Saddam to get some of his military hardware back inside the borders of Kuwait. The Revolutionary guard would pretty much be left untouched the lifting of the sanctions means that he would be able to use his oil Revenue to build up. His is Arsenal once again and couldn't we be facing this whole thing all over again six months a year a year and a half down the line. (00:05:06) Well, there's a statement in the New York Times this morning attributed to an unnamed senior Administration official saying politically we wanted to Prive Saddam Hussein of any opportunities for delays and pauses. We want to establish this as a defeated Army if they have a clear defeat and I'm quoting now. No one in Iraq can get the You're 5 or 10 or 15 years from now that they might win the next time. If only they had a better Air Force my own view of that kind of thinking and the as well as the emphasis now on a continuation of sanctions. After in fact, the Iraqi military has withdrawn from Kuwait is that it has a rationale and it can be defended but I think it is too narrow and understanding of the Dynamics of this region and indeed some of the history of this region the if you really defeat them now, they will remember this in 5 10 or 15 years kind of notion flies in the face of what happened in the Middle East war of 1967, which was a very decisive defeat of Egypt and Syria, six short years later under different leadership those countries. In fact, we're back at it with much greater success then then they had had in 1967 and I think the track record is that utter defeat in this region? Tends to be a catalyst for a more determined on next round in regard to completely undermining or decapitating the Iraqi military abolishing the Iraqi military, whatever. It may be a useful item. Then the demise of Saddam Hussein may be a useful item. But now that still leaves the issue in this region of a very significant potential for an arms race. I think an inevitable arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It seems to me it leaves in place a necessity for whoever is leading Iraq in the aftermath of the Saddam Hussein era to begin a very rapid military rebuilding to deal with an Iranian threat on the East the syrians Fret on the west as well as an Israeli a threat somewhat further to the to the west and and the notion then that resolving the immediate problems with the Iraqi regime to say nothing of Kuwait is going to for the 1990s put a Big dent in this overall underlying pattern of lots of oil Revenue lots of reasons for militaries in that region to compete with each other lots of reasons to expect the 1990s the arms races in these regions are going to involve more accurate medium-range missiles that carry heavier payloads plus more in the way of weapons of mass destruction, assuming that resolving the rocky issue undermines that Dynamic it seems to me is is a very bold and probably erroneous assumption (00:07:54) 23 minutes past eleven Professor Martin Sampson Middle East expert political scientist from the University of Minnesota is with us. We will open the telephone lines here give you a chance to put some questions to him as well in the Twin Cities area 2276 thousand is the number two two seven six thousand in the Twin Cities Elsewhere One 865 2970018 hundred six, five two nine seven zero zero, by the way this from the Associated Press, the all clear has now been sounded in Israel regarding the Latest Iraqi scud missile attack all clear in Israel now art and one other thing I want to get up before we take some listener questions as to the difference between the Soviet and US proposals and why the US has not accepted this do you think there might be some hesitation on the part of the United States on President Bush's part to let Gorbachev appear to be the mediator The Peacemaker in all of this he did after all when the Nobel Peace Prize wants and is there a rivalry there that is that is contributing to this any significant way. (00:09:00) Well if Bush is interested in Gorbachev survival politically in the Soviet Union, I'll be at the survival of a political figure who was moved in the galaxy of internal Soviet politics allowing the Soviets. In fact to get some credit for this might not be a totally bad idea. Have any direct Insight on. How angry bush is at this last-minute Soviet initiative my inclination is that what we're seeing here instead is more a contrast of immediate objectives that the Soviets are focusing on the evacuation of Iraq from Kuwait on terms that they could get the Iraqis to agree with we on the other hand are focused on a situation that results in a sharply diminished capacity of the Iraqi military a coupled with a continuation of sanctions and coupled I think with a hope that Saddam Hussein at least politically does not survive this whole exercise. (00:10:13) All right onto some listener questions here just informed CNN is reporting that three different missions to the United Nations indicate. The Soviet Union has told the UN Security Council that Iraq has responded positively to the u.s. Statement. However, CNN says it's unclear if the Iraqis were responding to the u.s. Ultimatum to begin pulling out of Kuwait by noon eastern time were to some other statement but that's potentially an interesting development and one that we will be following and trying to get some more details on as we listen to all these different sources coming in. All right to one of our listeners. Go ahead please Martin Samson's listing for you. What's your question? Hello? Yeah. Yeah. Hi. My name is Jean Martinez from Minneapolis. My question is I'm really highly suspicious of this new stated support for the UN and international law that's been expressed by the Bush Administration coming out of this crisis. Is everybody is well aware the u.s. Spent the 80s under Reagan kind of trashing the UN and of course, there was no international law that recognized the invasion of Panama Grenada. And when the you when the international Court ruled against the US for mining the Nicaraguan harbors, of course, this was denounced and so forth and what I'm of what I don't like to see here is that now that the u.s. Was able through a variety of means to get the security Council to agree to sanction getting Iraq out of Kuwait. It seems that there's a problem with having the u.s. Basically in charge of those forces because now that it appears that Iraq is willing to comply with what the UN Shin SE Bush really wants to take it much further. All right. Thanks for your observation. Better getting Samson response on that is the you (00:12:22) an interesting point and that the other 27 countries that have provided forces, of course are in a position where they can announce one by one or whatever disagreement with the way in which this Coalition forces being used and begin. We removing their troops or whatever and that's one of the things I think that the down the road might might happen in regard to your point about the support for the UN. What I think has happened is really a function of unanimity amongst the permanent members of the security Council we have had for a brief moment IE the past nine months a unanimity. That's very close to President Franklin Roosevelt's Notions about how the piece would be kept after World War 2 namely that you would have four policemen or with the addition of France it becomes Policeman dealing with threats to the peace and threatens threats to International stability wherever those would break out around the world that kind of thinking underlies the provisions that have never been used in the UN Charter to establish a military force connected with the security Council. The Coalition forces are not that military the Genesis though of the Coalition force is very close. I think to the spirit of that kind of thinking in the UN Charter. You're very very right that the White House is attention to the United Nations. Its Reliance on the importance in this new world order of international support for things such as the effort to extirpate araki presence in Kuwait raises a whole lot of questions about subsequent policy and the importance of the UN down the road in on issues in which there may be less unanimity or in which in fact you find Agreement in the security Council on an issue that the United States decides to veto because it is the single country that doesn't agree (00:14:20) if US policy has changed to the point where destroying Iraq or at least is trying Saddam Hussein is now a critical issue. Do you think that the Coalition is going to hold together? Well (00:14:36) One of the ingredients here I think is that there are numerous people in the Arab world who would be very pleased to see the demise of Saddam Hussein particularly if it happens very rapidly particularly if it is done by foreigners and it will put them in a position of being able to criticize what has been done and at the same time being grateful that Saddam Hussein is no longer on the board. My guess is that if the land Roar unfolds and you have a sort of Northern sweep to the northeast of Coalition forces that are going after revolutionary guards located in Iraq and that is accomplished very quickly and it is close enough to Kuwait that it can be justified as related centrally to the objective of being successful in the Kuwaiti part of this theater that Coalition is probably going to hold but it has to happen. I think quite quickly if Saddam begins to withdraw forces, but the forces he is withdrawing Or not the cannon fodder that is in Kuwait. But rather it's the Revolutionary guard that is in Iraq. And he begins to move those forces. In fact North to protect them from the American and other members of the Coalition attack on forces any Kuwait and and around Buster and so forth. And we then begin to pursue those forces congruent with our objective of making sure they're significant destruction to those forces at that point. I think they're going to be very significant cracks in the Coalition. (00:16:07) Why did U s-- policy change if it did change I mean there were saying it one time that didn't really want to the Iraq needed to stay as a power in the region partly to contain Iran and to continue to be part of the the total power equation over there. Goodness knows you nature abhors a vacuum and and soda military power is somebody's going to move in there to take that that if Saddam Hussein is completely destroyed. (00:16:34) Why does it change? Well, I think that There's a degree of relaxation on the part of the United States about Iran. I think Iran is somewhat less militant. It's somewhat less aggressive in attempting to export a revolution which in fact does not look to the Middle East exactly as that Revolution looked in 1980 1981 82 the key ingredient though, I think is specifically the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that up until the very last moment. Some are 1990. The Bush Administration is asking that the United States do things that will be beneficial economically for Iraq, the American policy. In other words of being supportive. I'll be rock is being defended against some Skeptics in Congress by the Bush Administration right up until this invasion of Kuwait in the thing. I think that trypsin is saddam's invasion of Kuwait. I think that's important because of its proximity to the Saudi oil fields damage to which would have very significant effects on the United States as well as on the world economy. (00:17:46) Sure. It's 27 minutes before twelve or talking with Martin Sampson professor of political science at the University of Minnesota a spokesman for United Nations. Secretary-general Javier Perez de Cuellar now says those earlier reports that Iraq accepted the u.s. Proposal for withdraw from Kuwait are not correct. The reports came from the closed un security council meeting that was scheduled to discuss the details of the Soviet peace plan that Iraq did except. So the thing that we had on earlier is being denied Now by United Nations secretary-general Javier Perez de Cuellar as we follow events at the United Nations and in the gulf and in Washington here now that the the deadline the u.s. Deadline for Iraq to begin withdrawing from Kuwait has passed or at least to Signal its acceptance of those conditions. We have some folks on the line with questions for professor. To Sampson. Our phone number in the Twin Cities is 2276 thousand Elsewhere One 865 to 9700. Thanks for your thanks for waiting. So patiently go ahead please now, you're on the air. Yes. I'm calling from South Minneapolis and member of the Army Reserve. So this these events do concern me and my family but I feel like that one of the things that we haven't done and it's a failure that I'm gonna lace squarely on the administration is the fact that we have not negotiated terms with this guy. There is really actually only been as far as I know to meetings and they were not a face-to-face encounter. It just doesn't seem like there's going to be much of a peace even after it's over even if Saddam Hussein is taken out. It doesn't really seem like our problems in that region are going to be over. Basically because I think we have very little knowledge of these people. All right a response Martin Samson. (00:19:43) Well, the spirit of that question I think is is it would Encompass not only face-to-face discussions with the Iraqis, but also use of third parties encouragement to third parties to try to resolve things one can read. In fact, the bush administration's insistence is laid down in December that there would be face-to-face talk specifically in Washington talks with Anna rakia Emissary at which most of the diplom bastards from The Diplomatic Community would be present as an effort to Simply reiterate the American position not as an effort that in normal mechanisms of diplomacy a looks like the sort of exercise that's designed to be conducive to compromise or produce new understandings or whatever and I think particularly in the context of The nature of conflict resolution in the Middle East face-to-face ultimatums and so forth are or are not are not particularly productive. I think we all hope if this land war on folds which it appears which is inevitable. Now the that it goes very quickly that there's a minimum of casualties on both sides. I think certainly the aftermath whether the number of casualties is relatively low or whether this turns out to go on for weeks. And the number of casualties is very high. The aftermath certainly is going to involve a great deal of discussion about the kinds of things that were attempted or were not attempted diplomatically. I would just add that. I have a great sense of disappointment that this has not been resolved diplomatically. I am surprised that sometime in December early in January. Was not an intra Arab effort focused on the objective of preventing Kuwait from and Kuwait. He's from being destroyed the didn't you know result in some kind of a pull out there certainly may have been things Washington could do but Saddam Hussein is made this kind of exercise as difficult as I think one could (00:21:58) imagine do you think Saddam Hussein emerges from the whole thing in the eyes of the Arab world is a hero or a martyr of some kind he certainly has not succeeded so far in getting the masses of people to rise up against the moderate Arab governments. There's been certainly some support and Jordan Jordan for him and among the Palestinians in the PLO has backed him, but he hasn't he hasn't won a whole lot of friends so far with what he's doing what he's done is he? Well, I think he begins (00:22:26) without a whole lot of friends. I think, you know, a lot of people have a pearly clear glass grasp of the repression of this regime a lot of people hold Iraq responsible. The onset of the eight-year Iraq Iran War which caused the tremendous number of casualties and did not produce a kind of Aftershock of people in the region saying we somehow have to shift gears and proceed in a very different way to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future on the other hand. There is a context of great suspicion amongst many people in the Arab world. Then what motivates the United States is not the independence of Kuwait what motivates the United States is an effort to produce a fairly durable presence close to the oil wells of Saudi Arabia and to achieve something that in the view of these people Washington has been seeking for a very long period of time indeed something that you know, some people in Washington over a period of time have have ever judged would be desirable in that context coupled with the dearth of in modern. X Arab victories against non-muslim opponents the only example of that being the very costly Algerian Uprising against the French which finally results in victory in the context of those two things Saddam. I think finds quite easily ingredients of a heroic sort of role than he has managed to hold out longer than the Egyptians and the syrians did and the Six-Day War against the Israelis and Saddam has held out longer than six days against a force much more formidable than the Israeli military. He has held out as long as the Egyptians and syrians did in the 1973 war against the Israelis and there is something in that context quite surprising and that has I think elements of deviousness of cleverness of steadfastness of Courage as well as elements of risking and great great damage. To Iraq and very large numbers of Civilian casualties, which of course have happened over the past week that I think gives him whether he's dead or alive some elements of heroism in the Arab world and down the road how important that turns out to be I think is going to hinge a great deal on the things that emerge subsequently in the region as well as how rapidly this war ends (00:25:03) up my minutes before twelve o'clock Professor Martin Sampson is with us as we talk about events in the Persian Gulf and follow breaking developments. Now that we have a past the deadline for Iraq's response to the u.s. Ultimatum that was issued yesterday. We are monitoring National Public Radio the BBC CBC and other sources so that we can provide you the very latest information as it comes in here on to a patient listener has been waiting for quite a while. Thank you. Go ahead. You're on the air now with Professor Sampson. Thank you. Yes, I'm looking for a comment on. I you do or do not feel the idea of holding a rack accountable for the invasion and the destruction of Kuwait seems to be important. I mean, it seems to me that's a significant difference the key difference between what the Soviet Iraq position is and the us or Coalition position (00:25:52) is Well, I think two things one of the big differences is that the Soviet position eliminates the notion of Iraq paying reparations to Kuwait. The American position is that that's going to be required my view in response to your question is that Iraq is going to have no financial resources that can be expected to be used in that in that way and regardless of what's down on paper there. In fact are not going to be reparations from Iraq to Kuwait. I don't think that's going to make a great deal of difference in the rebuilding of Kuwait the Kuwaiti royal family in the Kuwaiti government has extraordinary Financial capability. So I think that that's a difference of rhetoric rather than a basic difference of or basic choice between potential aftermaths of this War. I think also that insisting that Iraq withdraw without any gains from this war that it not be linked in a specific way that gives Saddam Hussein clear-cut credit for the beginnings of an exercise on the israeli-palestinian issue and so forth indeed is a way of holding the Iraqis accountable and both of you the US and Soviet proposals have that feature. And apparently the Iraqis would agree to (00:27:18) that. Hmm. Do you think that's a major concession on the part of the Iraqis that that not that they finally dropped their linkage? Yeah. I think it's a very significant (00:27:27) one. I mean, I think that that that that without dropping that there would be no reason to be particularly excited about the proposal as it is come from Moscow. One of the thing I would add in regard to this accountability of the Iraqis. We tend to forget that there has been an oil embargo which deprives Iraq of half of its gross national product which has been in place for very Very long period of time not having ourselves to scrounge around for food on the streets of Baghdad or wherever it might be. We lose sight. I think of what an enormous penalty has been inflicted on the people of Iraq because of these economic measures as well as I think on some aspects of the military Readiness of saddam's forces because of these economic embargoes, and of course, there's another ingredient of the penalties that are inflicted namely the damage to saddam's military. (00:28:27) It's about 17 minutes now before 12 o'clock. If you have a question for Professor Sampson in the Twin Cities, it's 2276 thousand Elsewhere One. 865 29700. Hi. Where are you calling from this morning? Yes, go ahead, please. Where you calling from. Maidan Rock, Wisconsin. Yeah, right. I wonder if Professor Sampson if you could comment on the accuracy of the transcript of the meeting between the American ambassador in the Iraqi government before the invasion of Kuwait. Listen for your answer. (00:29:06) I can't comment on the accuracy of the transcript. I guess you would need a third party. That was there. (00:29:14) This was the one where she reportedly said that there wouldn't be that big a consequence if if Iraq invaded is that the (00:29:22) deal? Yes. Yes. It's that transcript certainly either already has been great discussion. There's going to be I think unending discussion about that episode in the aftermath of this war. There are suspicions on the one hand that the United States purposely flashed a green light to an Set up Saddam in ways that then would be conducive to Broad support for the United States to subsequently inflict extensive damage on Saddam. There's an interpretation I think at the very other end of the Spectrum which would be that the United States because states of this region have opposed the positioning of American troops or large amounts of American Equipment. That's that's been the position of all these states with the exception of Oman that's allowed a few a few American troops. The United States has not been able to muster a significant deterrent Force there in the old days when we worried about the Soviets attacking Saudi oil. Our deterrent was in the nature of being able to attack the Soviet someplace else. We simply did not have a deterrent in place and whether we had flashed a red light or a green light Saddam, I think might have had good reason for suspecting if he had already decided to invade that he could proceed to do so without the United States getting in the way. Ambassador Gillespie said if you invade there are going to be a set of resolutions coming out of the security Council supported almost unanimously. There's going to be overwhelming support in the Congress for a military response. There are going to be in excess of 400 thousand American troops in the Arabian Peninsula. I think Washington would have choked and it's Saddam would have laughed and it's hard to hold Ambassador Gillespie. I think responsible for not being able single-handedly 24 see what the response to this would be (00:31:13) isn't it legitimate don't you think for the United States to want and need that deterrent force over there? Because after all our economy runs on that oil, we're perfectly willing to pay a reasonable price for it, but it's it ought to be a fair price reasonable price and thus and the supply should be uninterruptible. Yeah, (00:31:31) we take a big chunk out of the world oil Market how much were actually getting from there is not as important as the facts that we take a lot out of the world oil market and that region puts a great deal into the world oil market and there's a there's a link. That's undeniable. I think a lot of people in Washington have seen that that point if one is thinking about National Security interests, if one on a broader sense is thinking about global interest namely countries of the South not being required to pay even higher prices for energy than they now pay protection for that production in Saudi. Arabia is a very important Point. There's an understandable I think argument on the other side that they are world for a very long time weighted and attempted and resisted various moments and so forth designs of the British and the French as well as the Americans to have forces stationed in that region and it took a very long time to get foreign forces out of there. No self-respecting Arab government in that context is going to welcome forces back in. Yeah, and I think in the aftermath of this war, even if the Saudis might like to keep us there I think inevitably than that Arab states are for their own domestic political purposes going to be insisting on a very rapid withdrawal of American troops (00:32:50) Professor Martin Samson from the University of Minnesota political science department is with us today as we talk about events in the gulf and we'll turn to your question now go ahead please you're on the air. Hello. Yes. Hi professor. I'm a former student of yours. Hello. I have a couple questions for you. First of all, I get to feeling very often that we are very much disliked as Americans over in the Middle East even in Saudi Arabia and all of the other countries and I'd like to know what can we do when this is all over said and done as people as our government. Is there anything we can do really to repair our reputation? I mean this may be real stupid question, but I'm very concerned about how other nationalities view us. All (00:33:33) right, Martin. Go ahead, please. Yeah, it's a good question. I think our leverage for orchestrating the politics of this region is Very limited and I think as well that there's certain cosmetic things that might be regarded with great enthusiasm in the short run than in the long run might turn out differently. Who knows there certainly is a track record. The French were the most hated of the Europeans in the region until after a change of French policy in 1967. Suddenly. You had people in the region saying, oh it's only the French who Wonder understands us to understands us. I think there are three things basically than that that need to happen with American policy one is efforts really in the realm of domestic policy of reducing the centrality of this region to the well-being of the world economy a second is efforts to reduce export of arms to the Middle East something whose scope has to be much much broader than Iraq something that's very difficult because The arms industry there is a very lucrative thing. It's good business. It's very very tough. I think to pass effective arms export legislation that would cover Western Europe the United States the Soviet Union countries like Brazil things that Japanese industry and business get into that are have defense connotations and so forth, but it's an exercise. I think that that has to proceed very very quickly and whose scope has to include the israeli-arab context as well as the Iraqi or the Arab Iranian context. The third thing is for the u.s. To attempt in constructive ways to ameliorate the political fault lines in the region and I think our Leverage is very limited, but there are broad I think issues that are now being discussed quite openly the inappropriateness of ways in which wealth is distributed the repressive NE sub Middle Eastern governments, A variety of those kinds of things that are in the minds of the average, you know person on the sidewalk whether it be a mon or Cairo or Algiers or whatever and I think part of an effective US policy is to get on the side of those issues that in fact is consistent with the way in which we would like to run our own lives my own hope is that the United States makes an enormous effort along these three dimensions and efforts that's commensurate with a kinds of sacrifice that are going to be asked of American soldiers and their families and the American people in general is this ground war moves ahead if indeed it does (00:36:28) Professor Martin Samson from the University of Minnesota political science department is specialty is the Middle East and you're on the air with you now, what's your question? Hi, I know that because we unhappy history between Christianity and Islam. Um, it's impossible for them to divorce that the effects of this war the effects that it would have on Islam. And I know that there are different movements going on there on what course Islam will be taking shape in the future whether it be a reactionary or a traditional or reformist, aren't we having an awful lot of effect on which way that would go and can is there a democracy or any form of government? That would be compatible with Islam? (00:37:16) Well Islam does not specify a particular mode of governance religious laws, very important Islam does not have a separation of church and state their extensive concerns about aspects of the community, but those concerns did not boil down to a clear-cut unequivocal conclusion of what the form of government as we as westerners interested in politics or political science would have on our list of possibilities. There's certainly a large numbers of people in the Middle East that are attracted to islamically oriented movements because they see in that a recipe for a more open society and indeed a mode of openness that can endure in ways that some western-oriented kinds of Concepts like secular parliament's and so forth did not endure one finds impulses of other kinds of in Islam and it's very hard to know for instance whether the in many cases things will work out as it has an Iran with a very repressive group of people ending up in power justifying that on a religious basis throwing out people who with religious justifications were seeking a more open. In fact a broadly Democratic mode of governance (00:38:32) if the Coalition succeeds in getting rid of Saddam Hussein in some way or another, is there any reason to believe that whoever or whatever replaces him will be any better? Do do we have any control over? Who takes over (00:38:45) I think our control is very limited who replaces him as going to have less to work with at the beginning in terms of consolidating rule in terms of having a military that can be trusted for internal security purposes as well as external uses. There are a lot of kinds of things in Iraq to which a new government could be attached to could have a government then for the first time is genuinely representative of the more than 60% of the Iraqi population. That is Shiite Muslim how that would relate to the government in Iran in advance. I think couldn't be predicted. There are a lot of possibilities you could have something coming out of the Revolutionary guard that uses military credentials to orient iraki policy in a direction of much more attention to araki well-being less attention to an external araki agenda. You could have something coming out of the Revolutionary guard than that. Goes in the opposite direction. There is something I think ironic in all of this if Saddam had been defeated in the first two days of the year war if the outcome of this let's say it occurred after 6 days with a defeat. There would have been an unsurprising for many people in this region including Iraq and unsurprising conclusion that secular repressive governments among all the other Faults Are incompetent. You can't nail the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with the incompetence charge in the sense of resisting A non-muslim Fault in ways that I think many people in the region expected. So what all this bequeaths then I think is a less is a more ambiguous endorsement of religiously oriented movements be those closely held or more open kinds of things than I for one would have expected. We now have a secular guy who knows how to use religious themes but whose credentials for using religious themes are just Dreadful who is kind of reiterated that you you know, these secular characters know how to do some things that at least in the short run in the context of resisting for an Infidel forces have a measure of Overconfidence and I think you have a result then of less distinction between secular forces in the Arab world wanting secular governments and religiously oriented forces. It's (00:41:10) about four minutes before the hour coming up at noon music on the Minnesota Public Radio Network classical music and news stations. And on the news and information network will be going off to the British Broadcasting Corporation for their latest news summary, but we've got time for one maybe two more quick questions here from our and Samson. Thank you for waiting. Go ahead, please you're on the air now. Yes many years ago the British and French governments and our own self-interest deterrent many determined many of the borders of the nations in the Middle East and my question is do these countries today have any recourse covered by international law to dispute and perhaps change these borders. (00:41:50) Well the period now during which these borders have been maintained by politically independent governments is much longer than the period of French and British occupation. If one is looking at and Israel, Jordan Syria, Lebanon Iraq, and so forth the period of independent governance of these areas is longer than the period of stewardship by Colonial Powers. There has been a long time then in which these states. In fact on their own could have agreed to change borders. There have been pan-arab ideas. They've been pan Syrian ideas seeking in fact, the elimination of some kinds of these borders the track record I think has been that the regimes in power in these regions have been very committed to retaining them. I think that that the colonial Legacy of the borders is a very reasonable rhetorical point, but that it is probably a less of a challenge to the legitimacy. See of the borders in a real sense than other kinds of things such as maldistribution of wealth such as the existence of states that militarily are never going to be able to defend themselves against their neighbors Kuwait being one of those United Arab Arab Emirates being a another Bahrain being a third (00:43:10) Martin we have less than a minute maybe half a minute or so quick summation of where you think things are headed a ground war how long than what (00:43:18) well my hope is always that these things are and very quickly. I think a ground war appears to be aimed not just at the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. It appears to be aimed at the Revolutionary guard located in any Iraq. And unless there is a coup in Baghdad unless there is a collapse of these revolutionary guard forces. That is I understand. It had not been extensively damaged by the air war in the eyes of the American Military. I think we're in for something that is not going to Over in a couple of (00:43:52) days and there we must stop our thoughts go (00:43:54) out to all the families and so (00:43:55) forth. Thanks so much for coming and really appreciate it. This is midday. I'm Bob Potter.