[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Roger Hill:
"It's [the war] about controlling the Middle East"

The military campaign against Iraq had just begun last week when Roger Hill, a former member of the Australian Special Forces who had spent eight years with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), dropped by TEMPO's editorial office for a chat. With his unique experience of the country that is now facing the might of a superpower and its allies, he could not have come at a better time. Hill, who has been in and out of Iraq since 1991, had just returned from the Middle East—Kuwait, Jordan and Qatar—where he was a consultant to the coalition forces preparing to attack Saddam Hussein's regime. "I was advising them on the country's cultural aspects, the Iraqis' behavior and structure of society, and of course, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability," Hill explained.

Following the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Hill joined the United Nations commission assigned to uncover Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs as chief weapons inspector, a job he held until the last inspection in 1998. In that same year, he was appointed by the United Nations to lead the multinational Special Commission of 80 weapons inspectors and 15 diplomats to search Saddam Hussein's palaces.

For those eight years, Hill went in and out of Saddam Hussein's palaces and inspected one arms and munitions factory after another in search of the dreaded weapons of mass destruction. It was a challenging job, fraught with intimidation and harassment from Iraqi officials. It took all his powers of persuasion and perseverance to get the job done, given the Iraqis' penchant for chicanery in concealing their weapons.

Some palaces—like the most important one: the Republican Palace in downtown Baghdad, by the River Tigris—were totally stripped empty by the time they were open for inspection. Hill's team also discovered a production line plant where tons of chemical agents were made: its cover was the State Enterprise for Pesticide Production (SEPP). The result? "About 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by the commission. But the remaining 5 percent—which the Iraqis refused to declare and which is not insignificant—is being hidden," he said. For all his efforts, Hill was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross in the 1998 Australian Honors List.

Hill came well-equipped for the UNSCOM job. He did intelligence and counter-terrorist operations duties in the Australian Army, and he was responsible for the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence for Australian Defence Force operations overseas. He spoke with TEMPO reporters Yuli Ismartono, Bina Bektiati, Ahmad Taufik and Purwani Diyah Prabandari. The following are excerpts: 

How do you rate Iraq's weapons capability in confronting the American troops and their allies?

There have been no significant improvement in Iraq's military capabilities since the last Gulf War. Their equipment is quite obsolete, consisting mostly of former Soviet Union weaponry, with very limited technology. Iraq broke the arms sanctions and bought small-scale items like new Global Positioning System devices, communications equipment and thermal night imaging through the black market. But its capability to conduct a conventional war against coalition forces is very limited. I believe only 10 to 20 scud missiles are left, with only one to four launchers in good condition. 

What about the remaining 5 percent of weapons of mass destruction that have not been destroyed?

You have to put that 5 percent remaining weapons in the proper context. I figure they have left about 9,000 rounds of nerve agents, the same amount of mustard bombs and about 9,000 liters of anthrax. It's not insignificant, but having said that, there's not enough weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems to currently threaten their near neighbors to any great extent. 

Can you clarify that?

In other words, this is to effect the material balance in the region. It's all about intent and capability and they certainly have the intellectual property. Iraq has the capacity to continue producing them, and this is what the Americans want destroyed. One thing we can definitely say, they do not have any indigenous nuclear device. 

Are documents by Americans regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction accurate?

They are. I saw the weapons myself. My difference with them would only be in the number of remaining weapons. They think it's greater than 5 percent.  

How would you describe Iraq's receptiveness to UNSCOM's inspection?

They would tell us some things but keep quiet about a lot of other things. It wasn't until 1995 that we got them to admit they actually had a biological warfare program. Towards the end, they got to be less cooperative. We were often stopped at gunpoint from proceeding towards one place. We would report this to headquarters in New York but by the time any decision was made the Iraqis would have already moved any evidence.  

Why was that?

I think this was a strategy to beat the inspection team, to make it more difficult for us to find anything. All this intimidation and harassment is government-orchestrated. The regime in Iraq is one of the most repressive in the world, like Stalinism. There are actually parallels between Iraq and the Stasi of the former East Germany. 

Do you think the Iraqis still revere Saddam?

Strangely, Saddam even now, is still more fearful about being killed internally, by his own people than from outside attacks. Why? Because the majority of Iraqis don't want him as a leader. Iraqis are hard-working people, they are well educated and industrious and their country is very rich. The tragedy is that they have this anachronistic regime in power. King Rat and the other rats running the country, totally despotic.  

But how has he managed to survive?

It's how he's been able to control his people. To give one example: about 1996, he killed the entire Third Battalion Special Guard to the last soldier, because some of them had been involved in attempting a coup. Terribly ruthless. Because if one man is guilty, it's not just his family that is affected, it's all his relatives too. Saddam does not believe in leaving anyone alive to exact revenge.  

What is the condition of Saddam's forces?

They haven't been able to modernize their equipment. The average soldier won't fight, and he won't fight very well because they have no loyalty. Soldiers are conscripted. A sense of loyalty to their officers is non-existent. The ones to do any fighting at all are the special Republican Guards, who are commanded by Tirkitis and members of the Baath party. They have better opportunities than the ordinary soldiers, they get better housing, their kids go to better schools. 

How strong are the Republican Guards?

They are certainly better trained than the average soldier, far better equipped, better disciplined and more loyal to the regime. There are two divisions of them. They carry an AK variant that is made locally. But the quality of their training is not that good. 

Overpowered as he is, is Saddam likely to use chemical weapons?

Saddam is unlikely to use chemical weapons in battle. That would be proof he had them all along. But this is not to say it's impossible. He might do it if he is cornered. And he won't use biological weapons because they would not be effective on soldiers. They're good for terrorizing the general populace. 

What is Saddam actually like?

I have never met him. You know what he's probably doing now? He's watching BBC and CNN, seeing the antiwar demonstrators and his advisors are not giving him the bad news. In fact, he thinks he won the war the last time. He feels that he can and will win. He's a narcissist. He will never leave the country. If he is to die, he would rather die at the footsteps of the palace shooting himself with his gun and die as a martyr.  

Where is he likely to be right now?

Probably in one of the buildings of his eight palaces. Each palace consists of a complex of thousands of buildings—we once inspected 10,000 such buildings in 10 days, each of them having a labyrinth of tunnels connecting to each other and bunkers and each complex having its own hospitals and schools. But Saddam is likely to be moving constantly.  

Do you think Saddam will be cornered?

I think he will be. But at the same time, the Americans want to make sure his command communications abilities are destroyed enough so that he cannot get the word out to his people to conduct biological attacks externally.  

Are the United States and its allies legally justified in attacking Iraq?

If we talk about legality, the past eight years have seen UN resolution after resolution demanding that Iraq disarm and destroy their weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad has never done that totally. 

This war is different from the first Gulf War, in which the world backed the US and its allies.

Yes. The coalition forces are essentially conducting a preemptive strike to stop Saddam from attacking them. This is a rogue regime. They had warned him again and again about disarming, and he didn't. So they're taking action. America's psychology changed forever after September 11 and this is the consequence. 

What about civilian casualties?

The American weapons are good enough now that they can isolate targets so that they cause minimal civilian damage. There will be casualties but based on past experience, it will be limited. And even the cruise missiles now are aimed at military targets, avoiding civilians at all costs. 

But they would still be in great danger?

There's no question they are at great risk. But they are tough and hardy people and conflict is not new in the Middle East. I am struck at how strong people are, reconstructing their lives and going about their business after the first war. 

What about Saddam using civilians as human shields?

That is a possibility, he's done that before. If the situation gets bad enough in Baghdad, the special security organization run by Saddam's son Khusay can do things.  

Are any generals likely to defect?

I think attempts to persuade some senior army officers are in the works. 

Will the coalition's psychological war against the Iraqis that's running parallel with the military campaign succeed?

Totally. Intellectuals, artists, bankers, all can see what is happening. 

Does this attack have anything to do with the oil business?

This is not an oil issue. It's more about controlling the Middle East. The region is in decline. Palestine is in trouble and I think Saudi Arabia will fall apart in 10 to 15 years, maybe earlier unless radical changes take place. The leaders are torn between religious groups and democratization. There is extreme poverty, women are not educated and intellectual property is bankrupt because most students only study religion. They have nothing to contribute to modern society.  

What about the US needing new bases?

The US needs better bases, probably because they have to think about pulling out of Saudi Arabia as a potential trouble spot. Jordan is a poor country that has a constant Palestine problem it can't seem to solve. With the US having bases there for about five to 10 years, Jordan can enter into an era of prosperity as a gateway to Iraq. It might take some pressure off the Palestine problem. It could pressure Syria to end its isolationist stance. There will be a paradigm change, the biggest since the last war. And we can only hope the new Iraq is a better Iraq. 

Do you personally support the military campaign in Iraq?

I tend to support the conflict. The current regime is repressive and it needs to be changed. But I have mixed feelings about changing a country's leadership externally. That's hard to deal with intellectually. International law has mandated Iraq to stop producing weapons of mass destruction. But the UN cannot be mandated to do this because of so much vested interest.  

How long will this war last?

It's hard to say, it could take a long time. The aim is to get Saddam Hussein. If the Americans go all out, regardless of civilian casualties, they could complete this in a week. I believe entire Iraqi divisions will defect. If the pressure keeps building the leadership will weaken. 

What about the possibility of urban war?

An urban war will be difficult for the Americans, because it will be fighting from house to house, and this will increase casualties. And it puts the battle on a level plain. But this is a worst case scenario. This is what the Iraqis want.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]