Return to Transcripts main page

CNN SHOWDOWN: IRAQ

Showdown: Iraq

Aired March 15, 2003 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED ALDOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: We are cooperating with the inspectors and we certainly don't have any kind of WMD.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Amid more denials from Iraq, the U.N. and its allies push ahead with plans for a possible war, and the voices of protest are being heard around the world.

Hello, I'm John Vause in Kuwait City.

In our SHOWDOWN: IRAQ coverage this hour, we'll go live to CNN's Maria Hinojosa in Washington, David Mattingly in Atlanta, and Dana Bash at the White House.

And we begin in Washington with our White House correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana, bring us up to date.

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, 24 hours from now the president will be meeting with his chief allies on the Iraq situation, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. They will be meeting in the Azores -- those are the islands just off the coast of Portugal -- and the Portuguese prime minister will be hosting them there.

We are told by the White House that they are hoping to discuss what their final options are. They have been talking by telephone all week long, but they want to speak face to face, we are told, to get together to show the world that there is a united front, and to figure out what their next moves might be.

But, regardless of what happens tomorrow, the president in his weekly radio address, spoke of the decision that countries around the world will have to make in the next few days, and made it pretty clear that the president is bracing the country for war.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Crucial days lie ahead for the free nations of the world. Governments are now showing whether their stated commitments to liberty and security are words alone or convictions they are prepared to act upon.

And for the government of the United States and the coalition, we believe there is no doubt we will confront a growing danger to protect ourselves, to remove a patron and protector of terror, and to keep the peace of the world.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BASH: Now what will those options be discussed? What will they talk about? Well, first, they will try to figure out if it is at all possible to come up with some kind of compromise language that could get a majority vote at the Security Council.

If they figure that they can't do that, the question, then, is will they have a vote at all, or will they decide not to have the vote despite the fact that the president last week said he wanted all the nations to show their cards.

Now, if they decide not to have a vote at all, then the discussion will turn to the idea of the so-called coalition of the willing, who will be among the coalition of the willing, and what will they do next, what will the time frame be, and who will be with them. All things that the leaders of these countries will be talking about tomorrow -- we are certainly going to watch and listen -- John.

VAUSE: Dana, certainly watching from afar, this administration goes through the diplomatic dance card, if you like.

First there's a call for a Security Council vote, and then there's not, and now it's back on. And then now this emergency summit between those three leaders. There's certainly been -- certainly appears to be this administration in some kind of disarray.

BASH: Well, it's interesting -- you know you don't usually see the diplomacy sort of playing out in public as we've seen it with this particular issue, especially over the past few weeks.

They -- the administration has sort of been forced to -- to do this in public, because the president, of course, has made it a personal challenge to himself to make the phone calls to try to get the votes on the Security Council, along with Tony Blair, he has also been working the phones over the last week.

But, you're right, they feel -- actually we talked to officials here, they feel sort of stymied in some respects, because they feel that they have been offering compromises to -- the British offered, for instance, this idea of benchmarks for Iraqi disarmament this past week, and there is a lot of frustration here at the White House at the French.

They say that the French came out before even the Iraqis did and dismissed that idea, so there -- there was some hope, perhaps, that if they went public that if they did this in a public way it would help bring along some of the undecided countries but in the end it is actually some would say hurt them -- John.

VAUSE: OK, Dana Bash there reporting live from the White House.

Well, U.N. inspectors deciphered the VX report. Thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad today, so let's bring in our senior international correspondent Nic Robertson in the Iraqi capitol, and understand, Nic, you have some new information for us?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTL. CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, John, the Iraq's Foreign Ministry here saying that General Amer Al-Saadi, President Saddam Hussein's top scientific adviser, has sent a letter to Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the two chief U.N. weapons inspectors, requesting they come to Baghdad as soon as possible to accelerate cooperation between Iraqi officials and the U.N. weapons inspectors and to resolve pending issues.

Now, we did hear a rumor of this about a week ago, where Iraqi officials said they were thinking about making such a request of the two U.N. weapons chiefs travel to Baghdad, they'd said that they were thinking about inviting them for Monday, March 17th.

The -- at that time, U.N. officials said they hadn't received such a request. However, now, Iraq said it has sent a formal request to Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to come to Baghdad to accelerate the cooperation between the U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials -- John.

VAUSE: Nic, you get the sense there in Baghdad that as war becomes closer by the hour that there's increasing desperation there on behalf of the Iraqi government to try and drag this out for as long as possible?

ROBERTSON: What we hear privately from Iraqi officials is that the leadership here is willing to do, or wants to do, whatever it will take to avoid war. We hear from the same individuals, both privately and publicly, from officials here, that they think whatever they do, they cannot head off war.

What Iraq has been doing recently, it says, is trying to win friends and support of the U.N. Security Council.

Now any effort Iraq takes at this time to -- in its words, accelerate the process of cooperation is likely to be looked upon kindly by those countries at the U.N. Security Council who are opposing war at this time.

Perhaps Iraq's move coming in that light, certainly the big demonstrations around Iraq today that we've seen not only in sympathy with the peace demonstrations around the world but trying to put Iraq's view out that it wants peace at this time, at least that's how it's been projected here an effort by Iraq knowing that war is likely coming soon to put its view across on the international stage that it wants peace -- John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Nic Robertson reporting from Baghdad.

As I mentioned earlier, the U.N. is, in fact, deciphering a report on VX gas, which was presented to the U.N. by the Iraqis since that stalemate over the U.S. backed resolution on Iraq's grade on at the United Nations. Officials there are, in fact, waiting to translate this finished work on that report about this VX nerve agent program, which the Iraqis have presented that information on.

Now the latest now from CNN's senior U.N. correspondent, Richard Roth.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, they also maybe waiting for that invitation that Nic Robertson just mentioned.

Even a few days ago, the United Nations weapons inspectors here had heard reports of an invitation maybe coming but they had no knowledge of it and even Iraq's ambassador on Thursday said he wasn't aware of any request should Blix and ElBaradei indeed get an invitation and indeed go back it would be their fourth trip in recent months.

There was a voyage in November, then January, then February. And each time they were able to chip away at Iraq's wall of defiance on weapons of mass destruction, but they never really got everything they would have liked. It's a process for a lot of U.N. diplomats and they weren't that discouraged because they've always wanted more time to carry out inspections.

What do they get last evening here in New York? They got a fax from the Iraqi mission, 25 pages, with information about Iraq's VX nerve agent program, or former program, but it's in English, it's in Arabic, and they're going to have to take several days to translate it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. INSPECTOR: Well we received a letter about VX that they had promised and which -- part in English and part in Arabic -- and being translated now, so -- exactly what it contains I cannot tell you at the moment. But they have followed up on their promise that it would come.

ALDOURI: All of what we are doing is to demonstrate, to show to the international community, to the Security Council members, to the members of the United States that Iraq is a clean, is really clean of any mass destruction weapons. We don't have mass destruction weapons at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Iraq has said it had produced 3.9 tons of VX and then disposed of it. The United Nations has never been able to confirm this. The weapons inspectors are still waiting for a follow-up report as promised by Baghdad on anthrax -- John, back to you.

VAUSE: Richard, a very difficult moment for the U.N. Security Council as well. What does it mean for the U.N. if the United States does, in fact, go it alone -- if all of this in fact does fall apart? ROTH: It may depend on just what happens in the war. The United Nations is still going to be needed. The international community for the post-war effort, reconstruction, humanitarian aid, in Iraq. The U.N. will always be a place where differing nations could at least talk about differences.

The Spanish ambassador to the United Nations currently on the Security Council said last evening the United Nations has nine lives. The Security Council will live on.

But many have noted that the United Nations, created over 55 years ago, may need to make a transformation, possibly into concentrating solely on humanitarian affairs, because the nature of wars themselves has changed and that was the reason for the foundation of the U.N. after World War IIs and now you have terrorism, you have many governments that challenge the U.N. citing different laws.

Things are just not country A invading country B. It all seemed so simple in 1990 when Iraq moved into Kuwait.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Richard Roth reporting for us live from the United Nations, thank you, Richard.

Also this programming note for you -- tomorrow on LATE EDITION, Wolf Blitzer has an exclusive interview with Mohammed Aldouri, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations. That's Sunday at noon Eastern right here on CNN.

Well the voices of the world take to the streets again to protest. Coming up, you'll hear from people on both sides of the war debate.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Washington, D.C. where protesters have gathered yet again for another anti-war demonstration. An interview with one of the organizers when we come back after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Welcome back. People opposed to a war in Iraq have taken to the streets in cities around the globe today and some are coming out to support President Bush in the U.S. troops poised in the desert.

CNN correspondents are covering all of this. Maria Hinojosa is in Washington, Jim Bittermann in Paris, and David Mattingly in Atlanta.

Maria Hinojosa starts us off.

HINOJOSA: Well, John, another Saturday, another round of protests around the country, this time here in Washington, D.C. Organizers are hoping that several thousands will come out to again say no war to President Bush.

Now many of the organizers that I've spoken to say what's happening here is pretty historic. Historic because you've never seen this kind of a national mobilization happening so quickly even before a war has been declared.

Another thing that makes it historic according to the organizers is the level of cooperation between the groups that are taking part in these demonstrations.

Just today I have spoken to Republicans who are here, I have spoken to Socialists who are here, and anarchists who are here, all of them saying that they have put aside their ideological differences to be able to send one common message across the world which is no war and they want President Bush to listen.

Now joining me now is Maura Verneyden-Hilliard, who is one of the organizers of the demonstration. Maura, so far are you pleased with what you're seeing -- people will probably say the numbers aren't so large.

MAURA VERNEYDEN-HILLIARD, A.N.S.W.E.R: There are people arriving on buses, there are thousands and thousands of people here, the rally is only just started and this is an emergency convergence that we called only in the last two weeks, so this is a pretty impressive turnout.

HINOJOSA: So what is -- I mean, you have a lot of messages the group A.N.S.W.E.R. has a lot of messages. You're not only saying no to war but to end racism. But what do you think that the people here are joining on, is it very specific?

VERNEYDEN-HILLIARD: Our message is actually very simple. It is opposition to war and recognition that racism is a mechanism to war.

HINOJOSA: What happens? I mean, what kind of plan do you have? There are so many people are talking about there's a possibility of war starting some time next week. What are organizers saying?

VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD: What we know is that this is a critical moment for all of us. The people of the United States and people around the world to come out in force and stop this war from happening. The war makers don't fight the war, it's all of us who are asked to go and fight it and make it happen and without our cooperation it cant' happen.

HINOJOSA: So, the sense though that given the fact that this seems to be moving forward so quickly, there must be a point where you feel a little daunted by all of this.

VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD: We know that in fact we've held them back. They would have launched the carnage months ago except for the fact that the anti-war movement of millions around the world and in the United States has stopped them, and look what's happening now. .

Bush and Blair have to run to a small island in the Atlantic where there won't be protests so they can try to plot a carnage but there's about six billion to the two of them.

HINOJOSA: Thank you very much; one of the organizers here. So as you can see, they continue to say that they believe they have already had an impact. Let's go now to Jim Bittermann in Paris where others have also taken to the streets there.

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Maria. There were protests and demonstrations all over Europe today outside (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the streets of Paris and in a dozen other cities within France.

Basically, thousands in the streets here in Paris, although crowds nowhere near as large as the ones a couple of weeks ago at the end of last month.

A couple of reasons for that, perhaps is that this is after all the fourth demonstration in only two months and also the government here has been so strenuously opposed to the war in Iraq that in fact it may be that many demonstrators do not feel the need to get out into the streets.

Just to give you an idea of how opposed, according to recent public opinion polls, seven out of ten Frenchmen believe that the government is right opposing the war and should use its veto to oppose the war and another indication is this -- this afternoon the opposition Socialist Party here, which normally attacks Jacques Chirac on just about every issue, said that it supports Chirac's position exactly within the United Nations and also believes that he should hold steadfast and use the veto in the United Nations if its necessary.

Now over to David Mattingly in Atlanta.

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Jim. They're called Rallies For America, they're very big on the red white and blue, very big on supporting American troops, but organizers caution everyone to say that they are definitely not pro-war rallies.

They've been held so far in about eight American cities promoted by a.m. talk radio shows. They have been attracting in some cities crowds of up to 10,000 people and they claim to be non-partisan, but the tone of the event depends a lot on the type of crowd that shows up.

For example, in Houston recently, Democratic U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee was booed at one of these rallies and shouted down by a pro-Bush crowd. Jackson Lee opposes military action in Iraq.

In listening to comments from previous rallies there is a strong undercurrent of resentment from some people toward anti-American sentiment at home and abroad and people in these crowds feel that their pro-U.S. point of view has not been getting enough attention in the news media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM PARKER, WEST RADIO, ATLANTA: Over the last few weeks its gotten more and more attention, to the point where it doesn't have to be an equal balance, it just has to be out there as another idea, as another thought to add to the discussion of what's going on overseas and with the Iraqi conflict and how this country is positioned with the rest of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: These rallies so far striking a cord with tens of thousands of people at rallies across the country. They're expecting about 10,000 people here in Atlanta today. These gates are going to come open and it's scheduled to start a little over an hour for now.

Another rally scheduled just like this in Philadelphia for tomorrow. John, back to you.

VAUSE: David, Jim, and Maria thank all three of you for that.

Well, still to come on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ will the standoff with Baghdad be solved with the U.N. or without it. We'll look at what could be the United States' next move.

Plus, the French gave America the Statue of Liberty but differences over a potential war have soured the relationship. But what does the average American think? We'll find out later this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: The summit in the Azores tomorrow is seen as a last stand for diplomacy. In particular, whether to abandon the U.N. resolution that would, for all practical purposes, trigger war against Iraq.

Let's go one on one now with Toby Gati in Washington. She's a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.

Ms. Gati I'd like to start off by asking you is it realistic to think that the U.S. has any chance of getting those nine votes in the Security Council?

TOBY GATI, FMR. ASST. SECY. OF STATE: I think at this point it's highly unlikely the U.S. will get those nine votes and if that's the likely outcome, I think the issue will be to have a vote or not and despite what the president said it would be the worst outcome to have a vote where the U.S. is defeated and then goes to war in defiance of the U.N. It's one thing to ignore it, it's another thing to defy it.

VAUSE: Well what do you make of this weekend's summit then?

GATI: Well I think this is for several reasons. One is this has been a catastrophic week for U.S. diplomacy. This shows the president in the Azores doing something active, working with a group of people even if its only two countries, Spain and Great Britain that support us so it's a positive move.

I think it's also critical for Tony Blair. I mean the ultimate irony would be if the government of Tony Blair were to suffer while Saddam stays in place until we go in so I think we have a real stake in making sure that Blair can go back and say we tried every avenue diplomatic, political persuasion and it's not working.

VAUSE: But if everybody knows that this is basically a show, that they're basically playing out the time here, and it's all basically all for Tony Blair and that the United States will go to war anyway, is this summit dead in the water before it begins?

GATI: No, it's not dead in the water. I think it's important to coordinate strategy. I think the fact that the president made a statement about the mid-east peace process and the need to move ahead is due to Tony Blair.

You know, diplomacy is more than a show. It's important not only that people are with you, but it's how you get their votes, and that's been the problem at the U.N.

Many people have felt that the U.S. wasn't really negotiating it was saying my way or the highway and that's -- that's what was happening. And there's a feeling at the U.N., I think, that the U.N. may not be the U.S.'s favorite instrument but just let's remember there's going to be peace after this war in Iraq and the U.N. is usually charged with doing that. The U.N. resolutions on the mid-east are the basis for a peace process and the U.S. itself has said that the U.S. will bring the issue of North Korea to the Security Council.

So, I think the idea of the U.N. just being a show, or why are you doing this is not correct. We need these instruments and to destroy them is really not good for the future of the international system.

VAUSE: I want to ask you about that, very quickly, about the post-Iraq era. If there is an invasion and the United States takes over what are the dangers here of alienating the U.N. to such an extent that the United States is left holding the bag in Iraq if you like?

GATI: Well, I think there is a danger of that. You're not going to have a coalition of the willing if what we're asking them is for a coalition of the billing. In other words, give us money to reconstruct Iraq after we've gone in and ignored you. So I think we're going to need other countries.

The U.N. is really does reflect the opinions of countries around the world. I mean, just look at NATO. NATO didn't support us, either. So it's not like the U.N. is the only institution that opposed U.S. efforts.

So I think we're going to have to go to the U.N. Remember that all the money that goes to Iraq now through the oil for food program is going to have to be used somehow in a post-war environment to reconstruct Iraq.

Humanitarian aid will go though the U.N. All kinds of programs, refugee programs. So I think we're going to turn to the other side of the U.N. which is the economic and social development side but it really is incumbent on us to remember that we also need the political side of it and I think that's what countries particularly the six who tried to broker some kind of compromise are trying to say.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath. This institution may not function the way you want it to and it is a crisis, certainly, but let's salvage it because in the future we just don't know what's before us and we may need the U.N.

VAUSE: OK, Tobi Gati there in Washington, D.C., thank you for speaking with us today on CNN.

Well ahead on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ the 7th Calvary prepares for a possible war. CNN has correspondents embedded with U.S. troops throughout the gulf region. We'll bring you a view from the frontlines.

Plus, the U.S. is leading the buildup in the gulf but how are the allies contributing. We'll talk about that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Thanks, Fredricka. Well U.S. troops are continuing their training in preparation for a possible war with Iraq. CNN's Walter Rodgers is with one group of soldiers on the front lines in Kuwait.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Atop a U.S. Army main battle tank, soldiers are loading Sabor (ph) Armour piercing concrete bunker, busting 120-millimeter shells.

Below the turret, the loader stores them in the magazine in the event President Bush orders these troops into Iraq just a stones throw north of here.

This is the U.S. Army's third squadron, 7th Calvary. Wiped out under General Custer at the Little Big Horn, reconstituted to fight in nearly every major American war since.

The 7th Calvary's troops are the scouts, out ahead of the main army, they are the eyes of the mechanized infantry division that will follow the Calvary probes Iraqi positions, seeking the best routes north to Baghdad for the massive army behind it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We look for potential enemy locations where they could be located, identifying that or any hazards along the way that would impeded the movement of the divisions main body.

RODGERS: The 7th Cavalry uses helicopters and Armour now instead of horses. Lt. Sarah Fritts will be flying this Kiowa (ph) helicopter in front of the armored vehicles at 100 miles an hour 30 feet off the ground and at night.

LT. SARAH FRITTS, U.S. ARMY: I love that mission, the scout mission, because you're always out front, you're out in front of everybody, and you get -- you're the first one to see the enemy.

RODGERS: For weeks the Cavalry's been practicing hot refueling with motors running. This is when tanks are most vulnerable. They will have to refuel more than a few times if the order comes to attack northward.

Harsh dust storms have already taken their toll in tanks.

Twice a day this soldier rams this bore psych (ph) device into the barrel while another resets sighting systems.

PLATOON SGT. MATTHEW CHASE, U.S. ARMY: I'm confident that all these tankers can hit what they need to.

RODGERS: Even another moving tank, say a T-72, an Iraqi T-72?

CHASE: With us on the move, with a T-72 on the move, we'll hit it.

RODGERS: But engaging the Iraqis in a pitched battle is for fall along (ph) forces. What the Cavalry is battling for is information on Iraqi troop positions and troop strength out in front of everyone this unit is the tip of the tip of the army's spear.

Walter Rodgers, CNN, with the U.S. 7th Cavalry in the Northern Kuwaiti Desert.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: In the next hour of SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, a live report from Alessio Vinci, he's with the Marine Battalion in the Kuwait desert.

Alessio is one of our many CNN correspondents living with the troops and reporting on their activities as they wait for the possible call to war.

What would the U.S. lose if Britain and Spain opted out of the potential war on Iraq?

Well, here to discuss what those allies bring to the table CNN military analyst Brig. General David Grange. He joins us now from Oak Brook, Illinois.

General, I'd like to start by asking you what exactly do the Brits bring and what do they bring that the United States simply could not do without?

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I think the United States of America could do the operation without Britain but it would be very tough and we would not want to do that.

It's a great ally, it's probably our closet ally in battles for the past 50 years, at least, if not more and the Brits bring not only a heavy mechanized ground force, but they also bring a special operating force capability, they bring an air assault force capability, they can and in helicopters deep just like the 101st Airborne of the United States military.

They have fighter aircraft; they'll have a carrier. They just have -- they have substantial -- the 40,000 troop size elements in the Middle East region for this fight so they're staunch, reliable, allies with common tactics, techniques, and procedures.

VAUSE: OK, let's talk quickly about Spain. No troops here on the Spanish behalf so what's their role in all of this?

GRANGE: Well, the Spanish are going to be very key on first of all just getting to the theater. In other words, refueling and rearming bases. Right in the country of Spain. As -- as troop movements, aircraft, ships move from United States of America to the Middle East, Spain is critical as an intermediate staging base to refuel to rearm and refit different armed forces organizations.

And if you recall when the scuds were seized off of Yemen, the Spanish were involved in that, they have ships out in the Arabian Sea in that Red Sea area and those places to go ahead and seize the counter terrorist type operations and support of the coalition forces, so they are a staunch ally as well.

VAUSE: General, you mentioned that the United States and Britain had fallen together many many times. How much of an advantage is the last Gulf War, how many bugs in the system if you like did they find out during the last Gulf War that they've ironed out for this time?

GRANGE: Well there are some communication challenges always between coalition forces. It's always difficult because every country develops in most cases and in NATO there's some exceptions but most militaries develop their own weapons and communications and other equipment, munitions, by themselves.

And so sometimes that's not shared properly or for security reasons that may not be. And so they're not compatible when you have to fight alongside another ally.

In Great Britain's case, there's a lot of similarity in procedures and some of the equipment so it's probably the easiest country for the United States of America to work with and vice versa so there are some bugs but usually they're worked out and of course there's the common language, there's not a translation issue. And they trained together for many, many years.

VAUSE: There's talk here that basically the Brits will take Southern Iraq, essentially because they haven't had as long to deploy in this region and that logistics won't extend much beyond that. What's your take on that argument?

GRANGE: Well I don't know. The armored brigade, the Desert Rats of the British Armored Force, the Chieftain tanks -- they -- they'll probably work, I think, with the American Marines. Their objective would probably be in the southern part of Iraq.

I don't know if it's because they can't go deeper into Iraq. I don't think that's the reason, it's just -- they're on the right side of the battlefield with predominant U.S. forces on the left side of the battlefield as you're facing north. So, I believe that the Brits could go deep if they wanted to, it's just the way it's been laid out. And then I think the Brits have a commando unit as well which fits in nicely with our Marine Corps and so with the U.S. forces and the British forces it just makes sense to array them on the battlefield that way.

VAUSE: OK, Brig. General David Grange there, thank you for that.

Want to move on now, coming up on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, hair trigger alert. Preparing for the worst-case scenario. What if Iraq strikes first? We'll have that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: We told you earlier about the anti-war protests around the world and right now you are looking at live pictures from Spain where thousands of people have come out on the streets of Madrid carrying signs protesting this war, any military strike against Iraq. One sign saying "Boycott U.S. Products." Do not buy U.S. goods.

OK, we have some news out of Pakistan. I understand we want to go now to Ash-Har Quraishi, who is in Lahore, Pakistan. Ash-Har, I understand there has been some breaking news on the arrests of possible terrorists, possible al Qaeda members?

ASH-HAR QURAISHI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, John we are just getting information from Interior Ministry officials here. Very few details but what we do know is that a man having links to al Qaeda -- his name is Yassir al Jazeerai (ph) (UNINTELLIGIBLE) has been apprehended in the eastern city of Lahore. Officials not giving us too much detail about how he was arrested, but they say that they believe he is somebody of some importance within the al Qaeda terrorist network.

We also have some information that he may be of Moroccan nationality. Now we are investigating exactly who al Jazeerei is and how he may be linked to al Qaeda at this point but what we do have right now is government officials confirming that he is in the custody of Pakistani officials -- John.

VAUSE: So any idea of if this arrest has resulted from information which they -- authorities there gleaned from the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

QURAISHI: Now, obviously that is definitely a possibility. Right now authorities are not saying exactly how he was found. There are very few details about whether or not there was a raid that actually took place or whether or not they went in and he was apprehended in another way.

But yes, a lot of information was gleaned from the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed here in Pakistan just about two weeks ago and it's possible that some of that information may have helped lead to this arrest, but right now authorities are giving us very few details so we're trying to find out exactly how he was arrested John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Ash-Har Quraishi on the telephone reporting for us from Lahore.

In the Persian Gulf, U.S. troops are on standby for war but those troops closest to Iraq may soon be on what they call a hair-trigger alert, ready to attack Iraq only under special circumstances.

CNN's Barbara Starr joins us live with more on this Pentagon plan -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, hello to you, John. Yes, many of the 250,000 troops now in the Persian Gulf region indeed are on full alert and that is to be expected.

U.S. war planes now flying over southern Iraq 24/7 keeping a very close eye on the Iraqi military and the Baghdad regime. Now sources tell CNN that Iraq in the last several days has placed several pieces of surface artillery close to the Kuwaiti border within range of U.S. troops and on that border Iraqi and U.S. troops are as close as 20 miles apart in some locations though U.S. spokesmen tell us there are currently no U.S. troops in that DMZ.

What the U.S. is watching for, John, is any sign of some untoward action by Saddam Hussein. Here's the problem. If President Bush gives an ultimatum, once he gives that ultimatum Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi regime may feel very sudden pressure that there are no options for them, they may feel cornered; the U.S. concern is then that Saddam Hussein might order one of three nightmare scenarios.

The torching of the oil fields, some use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. troops, or possibly even some movement of his scud missiles. So that's what this alert status is all about, keeping a very close eye, seeing if any of those scenarios begin to unfold and U.S. troops certainly would move very quickly if they saw any of that.

But, then, the other question of course is should they move before that happens. Discussions at the Pentagon about the possibility of some sort of preemptive strike. But, of course, military officials say preemptive strikes become a question of really setting off the war if you do a lot preemptive strikes you are as much as beginning the war so a lot of discussions about that.

Here at the Pentagon today on a Saturday it's relatively quiet, but there was one sort of dress rehearsal. A man we will get to know quiet well, we all suspect, Major General Stanley Crystal (ph) just a little while ago wrapped up his first rehearsal here in the briefing room, he is the number two man in the operations staff and he will become the main briefer for the news media during the war if there is one supporting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Crystal will be the military briefer we're all going to get to see a lot of his face on TV -- John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Barbara Starr there for us at the Pentagon thank you Barbara.

We just heard Barbara touch on this issue. Could Baghdad strike first? Next on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ just how likely is it that Saddam Hussein could in fact start a war and what would be the consequences? We'll have that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: As the world waits to see whether the U.S. will attack Iraq, there is another question that's received less attention. Will Iraq attack the U.S. It's not as farfetched an idea as you might think.

Ken Pollack is the author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." He's an expert on Iraq. He was an analyst with the CIA for seven years and he served on the National Security Council and he joins us now from Washington to discuss the question will Iraq strike first.

What do you think, Ken?

KENNETH POLLACK, CIA PERSIAN GULF ANALYST 1988-1998: I think it's unlikely, John. I think that in fact Iraq's options to preempt us are very limited and what's more it really runs counter to Saddam's entire strategy for the war just in terms of their ability to strike us.

They're basically three possibilities that Iraq could employ. One are their missile forces. No one believes that the Iraqis have more than a couple of hundred Scuds, Al Samouds. These are very inaccurate missiles, they have very small warheads.

It would be extremely hard for them to do real damage to U.S. forces deployed out in the Kuwaiti desert. In fact, if they were going to do it, probably what they'd be doing is just using up their limited supply of missiles on targets on which they wouldn't do much damage. In fact, as an American, I'd much prefer to see the Iraqis lobbing missiles at U.S. forces where they probably wouldn't hit than have them save those and go after cities where they really could do some damage.

The second possibility is their air force. Their air force is miserable, it's very small, they've got very little flying time, they were never very good and on the other side we have probably the most formidable air defenses in the world.

The Iraqis would have to get extremely lucky to get strikes through our air defenses and only if they use weapons of mass destruction would they be likely to do any real damage to our troops. And of course if they use weapons of mass destruction, I can't imagine anything that would make the Bush administration's case for war better than the Iraqis launching a preemptive war with weapons of mass destruction.

And the third possibility that the Iraqis have is some kind of a ground incursion into northern Iraq. Launch several divisions -- I'm sorry, into northern Kuwait -- to try to disrupt our own forces. There again, the Iraqis ability to do that is extremely limited. They've only got a few divisions in southern Iraq, these are very poor divisions, and if they drive them out into the Kuwait desert, they are going to get annihilated by the four divisions of the U.S. and the British sitting in northern Kuwait and by the magnificent U.S. air forces that are just waiting to pulverize any Iraqi ground forces that come out into the open.

For all these reasons the Iraqis ability to actually preempt us is very low.

VAUSE: What about the possibility of some kind of surprise terrorist attack, a dirty bomb, a chemical attack, in one of the camps or here in Kuwait, or even Israel for example?

POLLACK: Right, actually, John, I think that is by far the greater danger that we face from Iraq. As I was suggesting before, Saddam seems to understand that if he goes first, if he launches an open aggressive attack on U.S. forces, with his own conventional forces, all he is doing is playing into the hands of the Bush administration. All he is doing is making it easy for the Bush administration to gather a coalition to go to war.

But terrorism is an area where he can lash out at us, where if he gets lucky he might be able to do some substantial damage and where he has plausible deniability. We're going to have to make the case to the world that it was the Iraqis who launched this attack. And chances are that most people are going to assume that it was al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization because there are lots of them in the Middle East right now who are gunning for American troops out in the desert.

If Saddam could mount some kind of a terrorist attack that did some real damage to U.S. forces, it might throw off the timetable for war, but I think more important than that at least in his own mind he may believe that this would greatly stoke the pressure on the Bush administration domestically here at home that terrorist attacks on U.S. forces in Kuwait might be able to give a greater impetus to the anti-war movement here and therefore prevent the rush to war and that's why I think that's really the thing that we have to be worried about from Saddam.

VAUSE: OK, Ken Pollack, we want you to stay there we have a few more questions for you next hour but right now we want to move on.

Many Americans these days are avoiding anything French because France is not supporting the U.S. on Iraq. So coming up we'll have feedback from the Big Apple.

WHITNEY CASEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right we're aboard the ferry that shuttles thousands of people across the Hudson to see Lady Liberty. Well, Lady Liberty is French. What do the people here think about that? I'm Whitney Casey. We'll have the story for you coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) VAUSE: France and the United States are long time allies but war has a way of tainting things. Paris says it will not support Washington's stance on Iraq and a possible war. That has left some Americans ready to break the French connection. CNN's Whitney Casey is live near the symbol of Franco-American friendship, the Statue of Liberty. Hello, Whitney.

CASEY: Hello, John, well behind me if you can see just this line of masses of people throngs of people here in New York lining up to go see the Statue of Liberty the hour and a half wait, they don't care. They're all aboard; we are aboard one of the ferry's that takes you over there. It's about to take off so we're all kind of waiting on us but I'm going to walk over here and I just happened to find a group of Frenchmen who are aboard.

This is the New Jersey; it's the ferry that takes you right across the Hudson. These are the three guys that I stood in the line with for a little bit. They're here to visit, they know that the statue was given to us by the French back in the late 1800s and they know, you know, that it stands for freedom.

You guys said to me earlier that when you came here that people told you, you know, that you were -- you were in for a tough one coming over to America right now, but what have you found, basically?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well we were expecting people to considering the context be a little tough with us, but actually people have been very nice, they say "bon jour," and "merci," and they really haven't mentioned anything about what's going on, so.

CASEY: And, and -- you're going out to see the Statue of Liberty, why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically because it represents the image of New York and the fact that it was given by the French. Doesn't mean that much to us, actually.

You know, it's just that whenever you see pictures of New York, the Statue of Liberty is there, and even the name, actually, the fact that liberty is in there. I haven't paid that much attention. I would say just to go there, actually.

CASEY: Well, good luck, you're going to have fun out there. It's a beautiful day out here. And again, the French did give us lady liberty. But most of the people we've talked to in the line today say they're just here because it stands for freedom.

Back to you, John.

VAUSE: OK, Whitney Casey there in New York. We'll have more French connection ahead on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, but first, Fredricka Whitfield in Atlanta has this "News Alert."

(NEWSBREAK)

VAUSE: And welcome back to SHOWDOWN: IRAQ. Thank you, Fredricka.

We are going to have a lot more in this hour coming up, including special reports from our reporters around the world. Ryan Chilcote is with the U.S. Army in the Kuwaiti dessert. David Mattingly and Maria Hinojosa brings us both sides of the protests picture in the United States, and Brent Sadler takes us to northern Iraq where Kurdish troops are also preparing for war.

Embedded is a word we're going to hear a lot about, especially in the coming weeks. U.S. reporters are traveling alongside U.S. forces all around the Gulf region. They're embedded with the troops. So let's go to CNN's Ryan Chilcote. He's with the Army's 101st Airborne in the Kuwaiti desert right now. He joins us now by videophone. Ryan, how are things going?

RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, there's an increasing feeling here among the soldiers that they may be asked to ship out soon in the coming weeks. They don't know anything for sure. In fact, commanders rarely tell their soldiers long before they need to, anytime before they need to that they're going to be heading out, but there is a feeling among the soldiers that they may be asked to do that. They are seeing some signs.

One of them, for example, is that they've been told not to turn in any more laundry. They've been having trouble getting laundry back. And the soldiers have been told, look, don't turn any more laundry, because you might not get it back in time before you have to ship out.

Also, the soldiers have been told to wear -- instructed to wear their full battle wattle. That's military colloquial for all of their armor, their helmets, their vests. Their chemical suits need to be in their backpacks. They need to have their weapons. Now they have ammunition. So some very indirect signs that things are heating up here.

Soldiers obviously preparing for that in their own way. Some soldiers painting their assault rifles tan, other soldiers using this as an opportunity, as one soldier put it, before the storm, the calm before the storm to send out some e-mails back home to tell their loved ones that they're OK and all is fine. Back to you, John.

VAUSE: Ryan, just very quickly, we're seeing a lot of protests again this weekend, a lot of anti-war protests. I'm just curious if that has any impact on the troops that you've been speaking with?

CHILCOTE: Well, absolutely. In fact, I just came from what's called the MWR tent, that's the recreation tent, if you will, where soldiers can play cards, dominoes, ping-pong or watch TV. And one group of soldiers was watching a movie, another watching your program, this program.

And I spoke with three of the soldiers. One of the soldiers said that he supported the protesters' right to protest. He said, he's a soldier, and his very goal is to protect their right to express their point of view. I thought that was a pretty interesting perspective. Another soldier, of course, saying that he felt let down. That he was here to defend the cause of freedom in the world and that these protesters were really letting him down. He was just doing his job. So a mixed feeling among the soldiers. But -- and a lot of them obviously feeling let down, but not this kind of really angry response that you might have expected -- John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Ryan Chilcote there, one of our many embedded crews. Thanks a lot, Ryan.

Well, across the United States this weekend, people are taking public stands and making their voices heard on the Iraq situation. Some are anti-war, others favor military action. CNN's David Mattingly is standing by live in Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park at a rally organized in support of the U.S. forces -- David.

MATTINGLY: Hi, John. You can hear the chants rising up in the crowd right now, USA, USA. This rally for America, as it's called. Just take a look at what's going on out there.

This is the latest in a series. These events have been promoted by AM talk radio stations as a way to express support for U.S. troops. There have been lots of patriotic displays here today. Almost every one I talked to, either former military or a family member of someone in the military. There is plenty of flag waving going on, and some political undercurrents in the crowd as well. Some people demonstrating support for the president, others expressing their displeasure with anti-war sentiments both home and abroad. But everyone I talked to showing up today with a very strong opinion that they feel has been overlooked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was a Vietnam veteran. I hope that we continue to support our troops not only overseas, but at home when they return. It can't be a re-enactment of what happened 30 years ago.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Only in this instance have I thought what it says justice for all -- I think freedom and justice is universal to all men and women. So that's my whole motivation is, supporting people throughout the world who do not have justice, who do not have liberty. And I feel that to be the case in Iraq. There is not liberty or justice there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is America. Everybody's free to speak their mind. But that doesn't give them the right to think that they know more about foreign policy than you or I do. So I strongly oppose them trying to ram down their opinions down everybody's throats. And they can speak their mind and that's fine, but they have to realize that there may be some ramifications. They have to speak with some responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Organizers hoping for about 10,000 people in the crowd today. Looking out there, it's just getting under way right now. We're waiting to hear the Pledge of Allegiance, and to hear some speeches and some more music later today. And we'll see how this plays out throughout the next couple of hours -- John.

VAUSE: David, I'm just wondering how the size of this crowd and its passionate intensity compares with, say, anti-war protests that were held in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago?

MATTINGLY: Well, the people here are very strong in their opinions and they are very eager to make those opinions known. They feel they have been overlooked with all the attention going to the anti-war rallies both in the U.S. and abroad. So expect to hear a lot of vocal support for the United States and for the troops today, as well as a tremendous show of patriotism. A lot of red, white and blue here -- John.

VAUSE: David Mattingly reporting for us there from Atlanta. Thank you, David.

Well, Iraq is asking the U.N.'s chief weapons inspectors to return to Baghdad as soon as possible to resolve pending issues. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, I think he joins us now, is that correct? We have Mr. Roth with us. It's actually Richard Roth who is with us now. I think it's -- no, I think we've lost Richard, but we will now go live to Maria Hinojosa, who I know is with us. Maria, you're on the other side of the protests that David was reporting on. You're there talking about the anti-war protesters. What can you tell us?

HINOJOSA: Well, you know, just in terms of the relationship that the anti-war protesters want to have, vis-a-vis those who call themselves pro-American or pro-U.S.; these people here say that they're very much pro-United States, pro America. They say that they are also patriots and that they also support the troops, but they want to support the troops by having them come home and be safe.

So this is something of a new, and for at least the administration, something of a unwelcome new tradition. Every weekend it seems now there's a demonstration that gets larger and larger that are saying, no more war.

Now, joining me are two congressmen -- well one former congressman, Tom Andrews from Maine and Congressman John Conyers from Michigan. I just want to ask you, earlier this week, Congressman, there were 74 former congressmen, four of them Republicans, who said that they were against this war. What's happening within the Congress? How come there is not more of a voice against this within the Congress?

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN: Well, there are. There were many congressmen that are opposing the war, but we do it in our own way. It's a little bit more laid back. But the support for the war is failing and falling back even in the Congress. As it grows out here in the streets, in the demonstrations, more and more people are contacting their congressmen and senators, and this is causing a great rethinking of this whole issue with many of them. HINOJOSA: Tom Andrews, you are a national director of Way Without War. You call yourselves the largest mainstream anti-war organization. So when a group like this, which is more to the left, comes out, what does that do to the anti-war movement?

TOM ANDREWS, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: You know, this is a very large tent. There are many, many reasons to be against this war, including the reasons that you're hearing here on the stage.

If you look at this crowd, it's a very, very diverse crowd. People from all types of backgrounds, political points of view, colors. This is the anti-war movement. It's growing. We are organized and we're going to create change the political climate in congressional districts across the country so that the United States is going to be willing to stand up and do the right thing.

HINOJOSA: So, former Congressman Tom Andrews, do you think that there are those in Congress who are thinking about their own political cost of speaking out against this war and that's why they don't?

ANDREWS: We are talking to what they call in Congress the swing voters, people that are not in either ideological camp, but are open minded. And we have found that the more they know about this invasion and occupation of Iraq, the less they support it. Our mission is to get the word out to them and to be involved in activities like this, and as well, tomorrow night in over 3,000 locations around the world, in over 100 countries, there will be vigils for peace at 7:00 p.m. Every time zone on this planet, people will be lighting candles for peace, people from every walk of life in 100 countries.

CONYERS: On behalf of all of my congressmen and senators that are not here, I want you to know they are not afraid.

HINOJOSA: But do you think that they're going to heed these protests? Will they?

CONYERS: Oh, absolutely. Not only they, but the president and the administration is monitoring this carefully. That's why people are ultimately going to stop the war. That's why how wars always are stopped.

HINOJOSA: Thank you very much, both of you. You can see one former congressman, one current congressman, saying that they are convinced that these protesters will, in fact, be heard -- John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Maria Hinojosa reporting for us from Washington. Thank you very much, Maria.

Well, earlier, we told you about a letter that the Iraqis had written inviting Drs. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei to Iraq for some urgent talks. We have some more news on that. And we want to bring in our correspondent at the United Nations, Richard Roth. Richard, what can you tell us?

ROTH: John, recapping here, in the last hour, Baghdad announcing that they are inviting, once again, the leading international weapons inspectors on Iraq, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's office, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna. You see the two men sitting here inside the Security Council recently. They routinely come here to New York to give reports. Many of those reports have followed visits to Baghdad. The two inspectors have made journeys there in November, January and February.

Mohamed ElBaradei's office in Vienna says he has received this invitation. Here at the United Nations, a spokesman for Hans Blix says if Dr. Blix was to receive such a letter, quote, "we would have to study the nature of such an invitation and the rationale for making such a trip." The invitation, of course, coming at perhaps a perilous, delicate moment in the relationship between Iraq and the United Nations. With the possible use of military force hanging over everything, it would be a very interesting visit coming at such a time, and it's not clear yet whether the two men would indeed go or whether the Security Council as a whole or whether the U.S. would advise that it wouldn't be a good time at this moment.

It also buys Iraq more time, if they do go, but the visits are usually less than two days, and they do make progress, but not the complete disarmament level of cooperation that Blix and ElBaradei want. They have said in the past, John, as you know, they would like months to complete their job. John, back to you.

VAUSE: OK. Richard Roth, thank you for bringing us up to date with that live from the United Nations.

Well, coming up on SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, the world's largest ethnic group without a country. Now, Brent Sadler joins us live from northern Iraq with people who know Saddam Hussein's brutality first hand.

Also, the effort to persuade Iraq's military leaders to abandon Saddam Hussein. I'll ask CNN analyst Ken Pollack whether it is, in fact, a viable possibility. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: In northern Iraq, leaders of the Kurdish community believe Saddam Hussein has booby-trapped oil fields in anticipation of war. Kurdish troops are also preparing for military conflict. CNN's Brent Sadler joins us now from the Kurdish city of Urbil -- Brent.

BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, John. First of all, the Kurds here, the Iraqi Kurds are concerned about two fronts. They're obviously concerned about Saddam Hussein's forces to the south of this Kurdish enclave, which has been Saddam Hussein free for the past 12 years, since the end of the Gulf War. But they say they're even more concerned about the possibility of Turkish involvement here in the Iraqi/Kurdish zone.

Now, we've known for the past week or so that Turkish forces have been sending troops and armor very close to a river crossing, and also that the Kurdish pashmerga (ph), who number about 70,000 throughout the Kurdish zone, have sent about a couple of thousand, I understand from sources here, of their fighters to really send a warning to the Turks, that if they send their troops in, if Ankara gets involved in this, there will be bloodshed on the ground here between Kurds and Turks, as well as between possibly Kurds and Iraqi soldiers.

Obviously, a great distraction to the main event of a U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein, and of course a potentially embarrassing scenario, to have two allies, as it were, at each other's throats during that conflict. So very important.

We're also hearing from military sources here that the two key cities south of the Kurdish enclave, Kirkuk, the oil-rich area, and Mossel, the defense of those cities may well be put in the hands of two of Saddam Hussein's key men. One is one of his relatives, Ali Hassan Al-Majeed, and the other, the vice chairman of the Ruling Revolutionary Command Council, Izzad Ibraham (ph). Ibraham (ph) responsible for Mossel, Majeed responsible for Kirkuk.

Now, it's important to remind everybody here, John, that it's 15 years ago this Sunday, that you'll recall the infamous attack by Saddam Hussein's forces against a Kurdish town of Halabja close to the Iranian border. Thousands killed. That attack has been continuously mentioned by President George W. Bush over the past many months. Fifteen years to the day tomorrow that that attack happened. And it's also important to note that Kurds believe Ali Hassan Al-Majeed, known here among the Kurds as "Chemical Ali," may well be put in charge of defending Kirkuk -- John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Brent Sadler, reporting there for us from northern Iraq and Kurdish territory. Certainly a very sad anniversary coming up. Thank you, Brent.

SHOWDOWN: IRAQ returns with some military mind games. We'll look to the U.S. push to get Saddam Hussein's military men to turn on him.

And during the first Gulf War, Jordan sided with Iraq. So we'll go live to Amman to see what will happen if there's a war this time. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: The shooting may not have started in Iraq, but another war is already under way, a war for the minds of Saddam Hussein's troops. U.S. and British planes have dropped millions of leaflets over Iraq, urging soldiers and their commanders to simply give up. CNN analyst Ken Pollack joins us again from our Washington bureau to talk about that. Ken, what are the chances that the regular army won't fight?

POLLACK: Well, we think that they're pretty high. All the evidence that's coming out of Iraq is indicating that the regular army is badly demoralized, they're very unhappy and they don't want to die for Saddam Hussein. Of course, you'll remember that back in 1991, most of the regular army didn't fight even for Kuwait. They weren't interested at that point in time. This time around, now that they know that Saddam Hussein is a goner, it seems unlikely that they'll be willing to fight for him this time. The more interesting question is Saddam's Republican Guard. We just don't know if they will fight or not. The evidence from 1991 was that they did fight. They fought very hard, and that was for the defense of Kuwait. This time around, because of their close ties to Saddam, there is expectations that the Republican Guard at least will fight.

VAUSE: By all accounts, though, morale in the regular army is at rock bottom. They're very light on equipment. Is there any possibility that they could actually stage some kind of coup against Saddam Hussein and even fight against the Republican Guard?

POLLACK: Well, I think there are two different issues out there. One is the possibility that you'll have regular army units turn sides, that once the U.S. invasion starts, you'll have regular army commanders with their entire troops coming over to our side and saying, let us help you get rid of Saddam Hussein, we don't like him either. I think that there is a good chance of that. But it seems unlikely that you will have a regular army unit that would be in position to actually remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Right now, Saddam is in Baghdad and he has surrounded himself with the Special Republican Guard and his Republican Guard divisions. So there's very little chance that the regular army could get closest to him.

But there is also still the possibility that you could have a coup coming either from the Republican Guard or from the army high command. I think there is no question that there are regular army officers in the high command that would love to get rid of Saddam Hussein and also Republican Guards who would love to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Over the last 11 years, most of the coup attempts from the Iraqi armed forces that we've seen have come from the Republican Guard.

But even there, Saddam clearly knows this as well. And there is one thing that Saddam Hussein is good at, and that's keeping control over his army and his population. So right now, chances are he has really doubled up on his security around himself, and it probably will require the confusion, the chaos of actual combat to allow anyone inside the Iraqi command structure who'd like to move against Saddam Hussein to give him the cover and the opportunity to do so.

VAUSE: Ken, very, very quickly. Two schools of thought here, that a fight for Iraq is going to be much more passionate than a fight for Kuwait, and that basically these troops will actually stand and fight as opposed to last time when they turned and ran?

POLLACK: I think we just don't know the answer to that. I think that the best guest that we have is that most troops won't fight. The regular army probably won't put up much of a fight. But the Republican Guard, at least elements of the Republican Guard and Saddam's Special Republican Guard, they probably will fight very hard, because they will go down with Saddam's regime.

VAUSE: OK, Ken Pollack, once again, thank you very much. Ken Pollack live for us in Washington.

Well, in Jordan today a big protest against a possible war in Iraq. Demonstrators carrying signs reading "Troops out of the Middle East" and "No War for Oil," marched through the streets of Amman. A lot of Jordanians worry a new war in Iraq could affect their livelihoods. CNN's Rula Amin reports from Amman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RULA AMIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sixty-nine-year-old Ripsha Rafayah (ph) has been traveling this road between Jordan and Iraq since 1961. Rafayah's (ph) three sons took after their father.

Like hundreds of other Jordanian truck drivers, the Rafayahs (ph) make their living crossing this desert back and forth to Iraq. In their tankers, they bring back crucial Iraqi oil for Jordan's vulnerable economy.

At the driver's rest stops, the war overshadows any conversation.

"Everyone is very worried," this driver tells me, "worried about their livelihoods and about Jordan."

Jordan buys $900 million worth of Iraqi oil a year, paying only half the market price, a saving of about $450 million. That is about double the economic aid Jordan gets from the United States every year. And the deal is doubly sweet. Jordan gets to pay for its Iraqi oil with Jordanian products.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Therefore, Jordanian employment, therefore, Jordanian industries, therefore, Jordanian trade, therefore, Jordanian opportunities, therefore, Jordanian transport, therefore truckers. So that's how it works.

AMIN: This route to Iraq generates a lot of income for many Jordanians. And they all want the government to bail them out if there is a war.

This father of five says, it's very difficult to find another job. "If there is a war, Iraqis suffer first. We Jordanians second," he says.

The government is appealing for outside help to try offset the loses. Jordan says it's the U.S.'s best friend in the region, and is hopeful.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We would like to believe that Jordan is an important ally of the United States. We would like to believe that Jordan is an important partner of the United States in its peaceful (UNINTELLIGIBLE) forces. Jordan is the second country that has a peace treaty with Israel. And we have to make sure that Jordan's model is a successful one.

AMIN: The looming war has kept some truck drivers off the roads, but not Abdel Abdullah (ph), a father of 10. His family is always worried about him. But he says he has no choice. "If we stop working on this road, we are finished," he said, "it's the end for us." Abdel (ph) says he's been traveling this route for the past 23 years. And he will keep on going to Iraq as long as the road is open.

But that may not be for long, as the window for a diplomatic solution to avert war seems on the verge of closing down.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMIN: Now, it's not just economic -- not just the economic fallout Jordanians are worried about. Politically, they have concerns as well. The Jordanian public is very apprehensive about any possible military strike against Iraq, apprehensive about civilian casualties among Iraqis, and they don't see much justification for an attack on Jordan's neighbor, Iraq. And that's why the government is concerned in case there is a war that will cause more instability in the region, especially with neighboring -- in their other front, the war is still raging between the Palestinians and Israelis. And that is another concern for Jordanians -- John.

VAUSE: OK, CNN's Rula Amin, reporting for us live from Amman in Jordan. Thank you, Rula.

Well, next, we're going to tackle a hyper sensitive political topic in the United States. It's about Jewish influence on a possible war with Iraq. One congressman's remarks have cost him a job with the Democratic leadership. We'll consider what he said. We'll take a look at the U.S. -Israeli relationship. Stay with us. You're watching CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

VAUSE: Well, Congressman Moran is not the only person to allege that American Jews are pushing the United States towards war. For more on that let's go to Kelly Wallace who is in Tel Aviv -- hello, Kelly.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, John. Well, those allegations coming from others in the United States, some on the left, some on the right. Israelis, for their part are sensitive to what they call the incorrect perception by some. This is an American- Israel war. And Israel officials say they have been careful not to provide ammunition to those who want to portray this as a war for Israel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (voice-over): A rare public display of Israel's solidarity with the United States considering war with Iraq, rare, because while a poll just published shows more than 60 percent of Israelis support military action, the largest support of any country outside the United States. Israel has tried to keep a low profile.

Daniel Ayalon, the Israel ambassador to the U.S., said in a speech earlier this week -- "Iraq is not an Israel problem. It's an international problem. For anyone to suggest that the road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem, nothing could be further from the truth." The suggestions have made their way into Israel's headlines, some in the American right and left charging that American Jews within the Bush administration and Israel are pushing the U.S. to wage war.

BRET STEPHENS, "JERUSALEM POST": To suggest that Israel is somehow, Israel or a cabal of Jewish leaders in the government or in the media are driving American policy goes back to a very an old anti- Semitic trope.

WALLACE: Israel is sensitive to any perception an Iraq campaign would be a war for Israel. That is why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently ordered that only he and his top advisers can talk publicly about Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Israel is not part of the coalition of the willing not because we're not willing but because our presence is neither necessary nor useful at this point.

WALLACE: The Americans are sensitive, too.

(on camera): But what kind of sign does this send about the possibility that we could see...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not at liberty to say at all.

WALLACE (voice-over): The 600 U.S. soldiers in Israel manning the American Patriot Anti-missile Systems are tight lipped, so are officials at the U.S. embassy about the coordination and intelligence sharing between the United States and Israel even if American ships stayed far from the cameras, during a routine naval exercise with the Israelis in January.

The cooperation between the two long time allies is unprecedented, as the U.S. wants to keep Israel out of any war. But touting that cooperation the U.S. fears could further inflame anti- American sentiment in the Arab world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Privately, some Israel officials say, if they were telling the White House what to do, they would have urged the Bush administration to focus first on Iran and Syria, believing those countries represent a larger threat to Israel than Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- John.

VAUSE: OK, Kelly Wallace, reporting for us live there from Tel Aviv. Thank you, Kelly.

Well, let's get back to those controversial comments, which were made by the Virginia Democrat, Jim Moran. Now, he's lost his position as the House Democrat regional whip. Moran said -- quote -- "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community, for the war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." He went on to say, "the leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should." Moran has since apologized, but the comments raise questions about the Israel factor in the U.S. policy on Iraq. So joining us now to debate this issue, syndicated talk show host, Armstrong Williams, in Washington and Norman Solomon, co-author of "Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You." He's in San Francisco.

Gentlemen, we are very tight for time, so we're going to keep it really punchy going along. Armstrong, first question to you. Was Moran's comments out of line?

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Not only wear they out of line, they were very racist. The fact is when you can group a group of people together like Hitler did during the Holocaust, is the kind of things that happens when you group them together and you kill millions of Jews. I mean there are many Jews in this country and around the world who are against this war. And I think that was his -- his comments were totally out of line and he should have been admonished as he was.

NORMAN SOLOMON, AUTHOR, "TARGET IRAQ": Yes, Armstrong is right there. Yes?

VAUSE: Should the guy go? Yes.

SOLOMON: Yes, Armstrong is right. There are many American Jews, including myself, who are opposed to this war. At the same time, we need to be very candid about the fact that the Israeli government wants this war to happen. Sharon has pushed for it to happen and it would be, I think, dishonest or at least misleading to claim that pro- Israel groups, pro-Sharon groups don't have enormous clout on Capitol Hill. They do. That's a reality. It's well understood and we should acknowledge that.

WILLIAMS: But...

VAUSE: Armstrong, how much influence does the Israeli lobby have?

WILLIAMS: An Israeli lobby has had influence for a long time. They have been lobbying for this long ago. And past presidents have not taken it to the point where they wanted to invade Iraq or anybody else. It wasn't until 9-11 that the United States realized that they had become enemies not just Iraq and Osama bin Laden. And a lot of these Islamic radicals around the world threaten peace. They may not be the immediate threat on American soil, but if it threatens Israel, Israel is our ally and as Americans we defend and support our allies.

SOLOMON: Well, we just heard how we shouldn't be grouping organizations and grouping groups, and using them in a stereotypical manner. Here, we just heard about Islamic groups, which is an extremely...

WILLIAMS: I said radical, radical Islamic...

SOLOMON: For instance, Palestinians are having their human rights tromped upon with U.S. subsidy by the Israel government. The occupation has gone on for more than a third of century in the West Bank and Gaza. That's a horrendous violation of human rights. And until we recognize that a Palestinian child's life is just as precious as an Israel's child's life, we will feed the justifiable anger of people who question -- who challenge, quite rightly, the alliance between the Israel and U.S. governments.

WILLIAMS: But what you neglect to point out...

VAUSE: Armstrong, will you at least concede -- Armstrong, will you at least concede that there are some people out there who believe that if the United States did not support Israel, 9-11 would never have happened?

WILLIAMS: No, I don't believe that. I think that is nonsense. And listen, the Palestinians are treated better in Israel than they are in their own Arab states. The Arabs don't want them. They treat them far less. I meant there's a contradictory and a hypocritical message here. Yes, I agree with Norman that they should have the same rights and the same treatment. I have been there. I have sent he complaints. They have made progress. Yes, there's a lot of work that needs to be done, but at least they're treated better there than they are in their own Arab states. They don't want them.

SOLOMON: With due respect, Armstrong, I've been to the occupied territories and the human rights situation is horrendous. It's getting worse. Bet Salum (ph), the Israeli human rights group, pointed out that in a recent period, 80 percent of those shot dead by Israel troops for curfew violations were children who are not threatening the Israel defense forces at all. This is a travesty not only of human rights but of honesty from the U.S. government to not acknowledge that through our tax dollars we are supporting a tyranny of the occupied territories. We are suppressing the human rights of Palestinians. Let's be straight about that.

WILLIAMS: You know that is such revision of history given the fact that Israel has had terrorist attacks, hotel lobbies blown up, restaurants blown up. Even during the war -- the first Persian Gulf War when they had SCUD missiles fired upon them, they could not anything. They could not retaliate. I mean let's not just talk about the Israelis, let's talk about the Palestinian role and the fact that Arafat had every opportunity to bring about peace, come to the discussion table and he refused because he wants this controversy to continue because it empowers him.

(CROSSTALK)

VAUSE: Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, time. I wish I had the bell from "TALK BACK LIVE." That's it, guys. Thank you very much for joining us. This could go on for quite some time, but we need to through it back to Fredricka Whitfield in Atlanta. She has some news for us -- Fredricka.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thanks very much, John.

Well, more now on this warning coming from the World Health Organization, warning travelers and airlines to be careful and be weary of a very viral or a very virulent, rather, case of pneumonia that seems to be touching an awful lot of people. Our Elizabeth Cohen, medical correspondent, was in on a conference call involving the Centers for Disease Control, and can tell us a little bit more now about what we need to be looking out for -- Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Fredricka. I just got off that conference call and what the World Health Organization and the Centers For Disease Control is saying -- if you have a fever of more than 101 degrees and shortness of breath and have traveled to certain countries -- and I'll get to the list of those countries in a minute -- or have had -- or have -- and have traveled to those countries, then you need to report to your physician because you may have this disease that's so new that they have had to give it a new name. It's called severe acute respiratory syndrome. And for some people, treatment has not helped. There have been more than 150 cases. They do not exactly have a number on the number of deaths.

Let me go through again where those -- let me go through where those countries are, where this disease has happened. There have been cases in Canada, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. So again, if you have a temperature of more than 101 degrees and are having some respiratory problems -- shortness of breath, difficulty breathing -- then you need to report to your doctor to see if it is indeed this severe acute respiratory syndrome.

And again, this is a huge mystery. They have no idea what causes this. They -- working on it is some of the best epidemiological labs in the world and they can't figure it out. They've tried anti-viral medication, antibiotic medication and at least in many patients does not seem to be working.

Now, let's talk a little bit about how this disease is spread. What they found is that people are getting it when they have close contact with someone else who is ill. In other words, hospital workers are getting it from their patients. Family members are getting it from people who are sick. They're not getting it by passing people on the street. They're getting it when they have actual close contact.

So again, those two symptoms, the fever, the shortness of breath, if you've been to one of those countries or if you've had contact with someone who has been diagnosed with this syndrome, then you need to address your doctor again. Those symptoms, fever, over 101 degrees, cough, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing --Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Now, Elizabeth, about -- at last two people who have been in the U.S., who have shown these sorts of symptoms are the only cases to have been known in the U.S., is that correct?

COHEN: Right. They said that there are actually no confirmed cases in the United States. But let me go over these two people because this can get very confusing.

Apparently, there was one man who was in New York City for a conference, not someone who lived in the United States, was here for a conference, got on a plane at JFK to go to Frankfurt. He was apparently ill on the plane and the World Health Organization boarded that plane in Frankfurt, took him and his traveling companions off the plane and they are all now in quarantine.

There is a second case of someone who apparently died in Canada. There have been two deaths in Canada. So one of these people who died in Canada apparently flew through Atlanta, Georgia. And so, there's an investigation now in Georgia. One of the -- one of these people had been in one of the countries where this disease happens. They went back to Canada. They died in Canada and it also appeared that they affected one of their family members who had not been traveling, but they infected one of those family members who apparently also has died. And again, that traveler appears to have traveled through Atlanta, Georgia -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right, Elizabeth Cohen, thank you very much.

COHEN: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Well, how serious is France bashing in the United States? Our next guest should know. He's French. He's Jean-Louis Turlin. He's in New York. He's a correspondent for the French daily newspaper, "Le Figaro."

Thank you very much for joining us. I just want to ask you your personal experiences, sir. What have you felt on the streets of New York these days?

JEAN-LOUIS TURLIN, "LE FIGARO" CORRESPONDENT: I don't think this is a very widely spread phenomenon. I think that it's definitely played up by the media. It makes good headlines and certainly, the occasional restaurant that has decided to change the name of French fries got a lot of publicity, more than it deserved. I don't think that this is going to go very far and I don't think that it is a feeling share based majority of the American population.

VAUSE: Well, you say you think this is all media hype, but there has to be some element of truth there. There has to be some kernel of substance for this to go so far. Do you think that this is something that has started in earnest?

TURLIN: I'm sorry. Do I think this is something that has started what? Can you repeat?

VAUSE: That it is based in fact, that there is something there to begin with.

TURLIN: Indeed. I will not say that, you know, a number of Americans have felt betrayed. And frankly, these reactions are to be understood, especially on the part of people who fought on the beaches of Normandy. But this is something, I think, that is irrelevant. You know, if we go back to the very origins of this country, you know, we can say we helped this country become independent. And America certainly -- you know, more than paid back its debt in the first two -- well, the two world wars. But France has been very thankful for that. And you know I can only quote the fact that for the last three years or so, more than 300 medals for the Legion of Honor have been given to World War I veterans. The fact that these people feel that they are not paid back for what -- for their sacrifice in France, I think it is...

VAUSE: Well, I think they feel paid back for the sacrifices they've made. But, I think; now they feel as if they're being betrayed by the French in a gross act of disloyalty.

TURLIN: It is not being disloyal to express a difference of opinion about a major world situation, like the one we're facing. I think that we're talking about a political disagreement, and I don't think it is fair to make it look like the French people versus the American people. This is not the point.

And you know, when the Americans came to liberate France in 1944, they came to fight for freedom, to give not only France but the whole of Europe its freedom back. This means that, you know, we are now able to exert this freedom in every sense, and that includes the possibility of having a political opinion, which may differ from that of America or any other country at a given time. And in this case, it is not just France that has a different position from the American one. This is a feeling...

VAUSE: OK.

TURLIN: ... this is an analysis that is shared by the majority of the Security Council of the U.N.

VAUSE: OK.

TURLIN: So it's not just...

VAUSE: Jean Louis Turlin from "Le Figaro" daily newspaper, thank you very much for your time. We wish you all the best of luck on the main streets of New York.

Well, coming up on SHOWDOWN IRA, hi-tech war training. Over to you, Daniel?

DANIEL SIEBERG, CNN TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: John, that's right. Coming up, we're going to show people some technology that lets the military simulate a battlefield. That's next as SHOWDOWN IRAQ continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: We have some news coming out of the United Nations from our Richard Roth. He's telling us now that the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has also received a letter from Iraqi officials asking them to come to Baghdad for urgent consultations. Earlier this hour we learned his counterpart, Mohamed ElBaradei also received a similar letter. We'll have more on this breaking and developing story in the next hour here on CNN.

But time now for our "Guns and Ammo" segment, and a look at the hi-tech system used to train those who in turn train U.S. troops. CNN technology correspondent, Daniel Sieberg is here to introduce us to something they call FATS.

SIEBERG: John, that's right. FATS or Firearms Training System is a technology that's available to the military to help train them in interactive simulators and helped to simulate or recreate what a battlefield would look like and I'm joined right now by Todd Haley from FATS to talk about this technology.

Now, we've got a couple of guys set up from your company using what are actual weapons that have been converted to simulated weapons. Tell me about what they've got here.

TODD HALEY, FATS TECHNICAL DIRECTOR: That's right, Daniel. Today, we brought an array of weapons to simulate the 240 machine gun, the AT-4 rocket launcher and we even have the Mark-19 automatic grenade launcher.

SIEBERG: And these weapons have been changed to be a simulated weapon that interacts with the screen that you got -- that we've got set up back here. You can measure their performance, their marksmanship while they're shooting.

HALEY: That's correct. Every weapon started life as a real or actual weapon. We have in turn put some electronics to monitor the key fundamentals of marksmanship. And there's lasers in the barrel instead of actually fire bullets.

SIEBERG: All right. Well, now, this technology is currently deployed in the Gulf right now, being used aboard ships and on the ground as well. Let's get a quick demonstration of what these guys can do if we can just begin firing right now with these guys right here.

HALEY: Sure, great.

SIEBERG: All right. Great. Now that's an example of what these weapons can do. How realistic is this simulator because I'm noticing there is some recoil in the weapons? Does that make them fairly real in terms of creating this simulation?

HALEY: Yes, they do. Each weapon recoils about 70 percent of the actual weapons. That's enough to cause the site picture to have to be adjusted. The soldier then has to realign and re-aim at his target and that's the drill we're trying to focus in on for that.

SIEBERG: Now, you've got some other -- you've got binoculars here in your hand. This is also used for other simulations as well. You've been calling in air support, right?

HALEY: Exactly. On the same system that they do the marksmanship training, they can also do close air support where the ground controller is talking to the aircraft. They can also call in naval gunfire, artillery and mortars. And they would use binoculars and laser range...

SIEBERG: All right, well, let's get another quick demonstration here. We've got a MK-19 that's set up as well. If we begin this demonstration, we can show people what this does as well.

HALEY: Sure.

SIEBERG: All right, well, the --- the audio is also very real in all of this.

HALEY: Very well.

SIEBERG: The technology has changed a lot in the last few years. Where do you see this going in the future?

HALEY: We're just going to continue to expand. Networking training is a big thing, taking multiple simulators no matter where they are and linking them across the United States or in a local building, that expands the training and is more realistic for our customers.

SIEBERG: All right. Todd Haley, thank you so much for joining us from FATS to talk about this technology, which, John, is available now and being currently used in the Gulf to simulate rather than having to go out in the battlefield. It's meant to enhance any training that the military is already using.

John, back to you.

VAUSE: Yes, it sounded real from this end, Daniel.

SIEBERG: Yes.

VAUSE: Thank you very much.

Well, coming up on this expanded edition of SHOWDOWN IRAQ, a piece of the past that one family in California has been waiting for. They've been waiting for nearly 35 years. Their story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Well, with the threat of a new war looming ahead for the United States, an important relic from an old war is now coming home. Steven Palmquist's (ph) dog tags turned up in a Vietnamese flea market. They've been missing since he was killed while on patrol in Vietnam in 1968. Illinois state senator, Peter Roscoe (ph), says his parents found the tags while shopping in a Vietnamese market. And they are sending them to the Palmquist (ph) family. And that would be the saddest end of their story today.

That is all for this expanded edition of SHOWDOWN IRAQ. I'm John Vause in Kuwait. Up next, a special two-hour edition of "CNN SATURDAY" with Renay San Miguel and Fredricka Whitfield. They're in Atlanta. Then, "AMERICAN STORIES" at 4:00 Eastern followed by another two-hour edition of "CNN LIVE SATURDAY." That begins at 5:00 Eastern. Thanks for watching. I'm John Vause in Kuwait City. "CNN SATURDAY" begins right now.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com