(CNN) -- When Scott Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in August 1998, the news made headlines. Ritter claimed that both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

At the time, A.M. Rosenthal said in the "New York Times" that Ritter "summoned up all his moral and intellectual courage" to tender his resignation.

Ritter has now published a book that analyzes the failure of U.S. policy in Iraq. In "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All" Ritter recommends a diplomatic initiative to invite Iraq back into the community of nations provided that Saddam Hussein observes a number of core principles and agrees to abide by standard international agreements.

In his book, Ritter offers a first-hand inside view of Iraq and Hussein, including how, after the Gulf War, Hussein put in place a concealment program designed to preserve his weapons capabilities. As Ritter and his U.N. team tried to penetrate this concealment mechanism, this former Marine officer inspected some of Iraq's most closely guarded sites, often engaging in face-offs with hostile Iraqi guards and officials.

The following is an edited transcript of a chat conducted on Monday, March 29, 1999 with Scott Ritter, author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All."

Chat Participant: Your new book is 'Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All.' How do you think we can resolve the situation?

Scott Ritter: Well, I think there's only one route, which is diplomatically. Military power is a tool of diplomacy, and there is a role for military power if you're willing to see it through. If you want to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein with military power, then you have to be willing to handle the consequences of that action, which would entail the employment of ground troops and a serious commitment to the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, similar to what was done with Germany and Japan at the end of World War II. I don't believe that the American people, or the rest of the world, are ready to get involved at that level. I have proposed that we arrive to a diplomatic solution with Iraq in order to stabilize the situation.

Chat Participant: Mr. Ritter, now that the inspections with Iraq have ended, how long do you think it will take to rebuild their weapons of mass destruction, and what should the U.S. do about it?

Scott Ritter: It's conceivable that he could rebuild in a meaningful fashion within six months to a year much of what the weapons inspectors have succeeded in destroying or dismantling. The United States should make every effort to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and to work with the international community on solving some of the regional problems that have prompted Iraq to seek to gain these weapons in the first place.

Chat Participant: What are the odds that Iraq will try something while we are involved in the Balkans?

Scott Ritter: Iraq, right now, is playing a game of brinkmanship in which their primary tool is diplomatic in nature. Iraq has no capability of projecting military force outside of its borders in any meaningful fashion. Iraq will take advantage of diplomatic mistakes made by the U.S. in the Middle East region and abroad, including Kosovo, to enhance the Iraqi position. Again, this only reiterates or reinforces the fact that this battle with Iraq must be fought on the field of diplomacy, not the field of battle.

Chat Participant: In your opinion do you think the U.S. is wasting too much time on Iraq instead of focusing on bigger regional problems like Iran?

Scott Ritter: Iraq is a big regional problem, and I believe the United States should be fully engaged in solving the problem with Iraq. However, any such solution must factor in the overall regional equations to include Iran. I think that the United States has been pursuing destabilizing and non-constructive policies vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran, and should start behaving in a fashion which is constructive and which is in keeping with the realities of the Middle East region as a whole.

Chat Participant: If you hadn't gone public, do you think meaningful inspections could be continued?

Scott Ritter: The United States government, the Clinton administration, was well on the path of corrupting the inspection process. My speaking out was designed to reverse this process. Unfortunately, that did not happen and the United States, through Operation Desert Fox, effectively killed the inspection process. The only hope of getting inspectors back in Iraq is for the United States to be respectful of the mandate of the Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq, and not to pervert international law in a manner which pursues its own narrow, unilateral objectives -- in this case, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

Chat Participant: Do you believe there is a fundamental flaw in the way the United States has historically dealt with the Middle East?

Scott Ritter: I believe that the United States seeks stability in the Middle East, and that's a noble objective. However, this administration in particular, but also other administrations in the past, in my opinion, tend to view the complicated situation in the Middle East through the prism of American values and American realities, not recognizing that there are distinct and different cultures and national identities that are involved.

Chat Participant: Mr. Ritter, why do you think that the US wants to keep Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, in power after all the money that has been spent to destroy his country?

Scott Ritter: Right now, my understanding of American policy towards Iraq is actually that we are pursuing a policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power. You raise an interesting point, and that is the country is suffering, or has suffered, grievous damage -- economic and otherwise -- because of years of war and economic sanctions. No matter who is in power in Iraq, whether it be Saddam Hussein or any other leader, the issue of how the Iraqi economy and Iraqi society is rebuilt must be addressed. I believe we spend too much time and effort focused on one man, Saddam Hussein, and very little time and effort focused on the issue of Iraq, Middle East disarmament, and Middle East stability.

Chat Participant: What repercussions do you fear from the U.S. Govt./intelligence community from your book, and did they force you to delete anything from your book? Did they review it?

Scott Ritter: The United States Department of Defense demanded prepublication review of the book. This demand was challenged on Constitutional and contractual grounds, and the Department of Defense backed down, acknowledging they had no right to review the book. However, because I am an American, and I have no desire to do anything that would harm the national security of the United States, I voluntarily offered my manuscript for prepublication review, but put in place certain conditions, because I was concerned that the Clinton administration, given its record of hostility towards me, would misuse this access. The Department of Defense declined to take advantage of my offer, and, later, under pressure from the Department of State, again demanded prepublication review of the book. We again challenged, and that's where matters stood at time of publication. I do not fear repercussions because there is nothing in this book that is damaging to the national security of the United States. It is only embarrassing to the Clinton administration, but not damaging to the United States.

Chat Participant: State Department spokesman James Rubin said your book belongs on the fiction shelves. Did you think your book would draw such a direct response?

Scott Ritter: I would just recommend to Mr. Rubin that he read the book before making such irresponsible statements. Given the fact that Mr. Rubin is a defender of the policies that I am very critical of, it does not surprise me that he would not greet the book's publication with open arms.

Chat Participant: How come most of the Iraqis are supporting their president if he is as bad as the "West" is claiming?

Scott Ritter: Well, this is the underlying problem of American and Western policies towards Iraq. While Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, he is also the legitimate leader of Iraq. We only exacerbate a difficult situation by focusing our attention on him as the root of all evil, and not on the many other factors that weigh in on the overall situation in Iraq and the Middle East.

Chat Participant: Mr. Ritter, were the U.N. inspection teams just spies, and, if so, what does this do to the credibility of the U.N.?

Scott Ritter: The U.N. inspection teams were not spies. We carried out the difficult task given to us by the Security Council. Because of Iraqi obstruction of our work, we were compelled to undertake certain methodologies that are normally associated with espionage, but as long as these methodologies were under the total control of the United Nations Weapons Inspections teams, this was a justifiable course of action. The problem came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives, of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors. It was this perversion of the weapons inspection process that has opened the weapons inspectors to accusations of espionage, and, in fact, has killed any hopes of getting inspectors back into Iraq and has done grievous harm to the potential of the United Nations to engage in meaningful disarmament and peace and security work in the future.

Chat Participant: Mr. Ritter, from your perspective, which western countries have been a serious roadblock to your mission in Iraq?

Scott Ritter: The guilt can be spread fairly evenly across the board. The United Nations Security Council should be held accountable for passing a law and not enforcing it. Its members, specifically Russia, France and China, should be held accountable for putting their own narrow economic self-interests ahead of the disarmament requirement. The United States should be held accountable for perverting the weapons inspection process for its own narrow objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. There's plenty of blame for everybody.

Chat Participant: Does Iraq have the ability to pose a serious threat to the Americas?

Scott Ritter: The answer is "no" -- especially today, given the fact that Iraq's military has been defeated by the coalition in Operation Desert Storm. The Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs have been largely dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors, and the Iraqi economy is in shambles with no real hope of being able to be reconstructed any time soon. The danger comes in that the United States has no policy towards fixing the underlying issues that are destabilizing Iraq and the region. This is a vitally important region, given the realities of our and the world's oil-based economies, and the instability that exists today, unless corrected, will only lead to future conflict -- not that directly affects America, but which given our role as a world leader, will result in the deaths of American men and women who will be committed to conflict, which is inevitable unless something is done to solve those problems today. Air strikes did nothing to compel Iraq to comply with the weapons inspections. Can air strikes have any other result against Serb forces? The concept of military power as policy, in itself, is flawed. Military power is an instrument of policy and will solve nothing on its own. Airpowers alone are not capable of solving extremely complicated problems, such as in Iraq, or, I believe, in Kosovo. If you want to talk about military power, then you need to talk about the full spectrum of military power, which means ground forces. We're not willing to do this in Iraq, and we're not willing to do this in Kosovo. So therefore you have to ask yourself, "Why are we bombing in the first place?" Perhaps the military option is not the right course of action, and we should be spending more time seeking diplomatic solutions. That is what I am proposing in the case of Iraq, and perhaps that might be the better course of action for us to have pursued in Kosovo.

Chat Participant: Why do you deny the spy charge?

Scott Ritter: Because I was not a spy. Iraq was holding on to information and material, which it was not permitted to do. The weapons inspection process allowed the inspectors to take whatever actions required to gain access to this information and material. As long as our work was governed by the mandate given to us by the Security Council, there is no way we can be accused of committing espionage. However, when the work of the inspection team stops being concerned with the disarmament of Iraq, and becomes, instead, entangled with other policies such as the removal of Saddam Hussein -- which are not supported by the Security Council -- then the charges of espionage begin to stick. One of the reasons I resigned from my position in August of 1998, was that I did not want to be part of such a process, that is, to be part of committing espionage under the guise of the United Nations.

Chat Participant: The Serbians say that they rejected the Rambouillet agreement because they were not even consulted in its creation. Is this the same with Iraq? Is the Clinton administration coming up with too many unenforceable "treaty of Versailles" type agreements?

Scott Ritter: Well, we cannot blame the Clinton administration for Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq's disarmament. These were, of course, passed under the Bush administration. The problem comes in how the Clinton administration approaches dealing with these very complicated issues. Iraq and Kosovo are two issues that must be dealt with. Given our role as the world's remaining superpower, the United States must play a role. But this role must be in keeping with what we, as a nation, are willing to expend in terms of developing a solution, and also, what the world is willing to accept in terms of American involvement. I think that the Clinton administration has severely overreached in both categories concerning Iraq and Kosovo.

Chat Participant: For the current situation in Kosovo, I was always under the assumption that NATO was a defensive organization. Right now they are taking on the position of an offensive organization. Do you agree?

Scott Ritter: The Clinton administration has proven itself particularly adept at destroying coalitions created for just causes. We had a coalition, a raid against Iraq, which was supportive of the disarmament requirement of Iraq. But the Clinton administration's narrow-minded policies of regime removal and continuation of economic sanctions effectively destroyed that coalition. Now, in Kosovo, we have NATO, a defensive treaty organization that has existed admirably for 50 years, being led down a path of its eventual demise by the Clinton administration, which has no effective vision of where NATO or the United States should fit in vis-a-vis Europe, and has chosen to react to a difficult situation in Kosovo by abusing its position in NATO to get that organization to do something that is fundamentally inconsistent with its charter.

Chat Participant: Why do you feel the U.S. must play a role in the Kosovo crisis since this is an internal conflict of a sovereign nation?

Scott Ritter: Well, I, first of all, am not an expert on Kosovo and I do not wish to portray myself as an expert on Kosovo. I do believe the United States, as a world leader, has an obligation to get involved where such involvement can have a positive impact. I do believe that there is a role for the United States and a diplomatic solution to the problems in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. I do not believe that the United States has an inherent right to put the lives of American servicemen and women at risk to solve difficult internal disputes, such as we see in Kosovo.

Chat Participant: You are fluent in Russian and, I believe, worked in Russia. What do you feel are the major risks the West must confront regarding Moscow?

Scott Ritter: We face a total breakdown in the rule of law today in Russia. Corruption is rampant, and the fabric of Russian society is on the verge of fraying away to nothing. Russia has a considerable nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons arsenal, as well as sophisticated weapons technology, which, if placed in the hands of irresponsible parties, be it Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, could have a detrimental effect on international peace and security. We're faced with a problem of trying to engage the Russian government in a matter which engenders stability, while being faced with the reality that the Russian government is so inherently corrupt and incompetent that almost nothing positive is coming out of this relationship. It's an extremely difficult problem, and one that we must face up to and continue to deal with, no matter how frustrating it is, if we're to prevent Russia from sliding into anarchy and all of the considerable problems that would entail.

Chat Participant: Do you think there are irresponsible parties in the Russian government itself?

Scott Ritter: Absolutely. I have said that in my book, and I think recent articles such as the one by Seymour Hersch in the "New Yorker" magazine, show that the corruption extends all the way to the top with Yevgeny Primakov, apparently being paid large sums of money by the Iraqi government to influence Russian policies in favor of the Iraqi government.

Chat Participant: What's your opinion of UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler?

Scott Ritter: Richard Butler and I got along very well during the time that I worked for him. He is not an evil man. He is a good man. But he has faults, and, unfortunately, some of these faults adversely affected the way in which he managed the work of the Special Commission. I think history will judge Richard Butler in a mixed fashion. Respectful of his real desire to further the work of disarmament, but critical of his inability to hold back those influences which sought to pervert the noble cause which he was charged to defend, that is, the disarmament of Iraq vs. the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Chat Participant: Do you think the last bombing offensive, "Desert Fox," was an appropriate course of action?

Scott Ritter: I believe Desert Fox was the most ill-defined, ill thought out action in the history of American-Iraqi relations. It was completely counter-productive, its focus was not the disarmament of Iraq, but rather the destabilization of Saddam Hussein. It did not achieve its goals, but it did achieve the destruction of the United Nations weapons inspection team and process. Desert Fox further alienated the United States in the region, and has exposed the reality that this administration has no policy on Iraq. Desert Fox, rather than weakening Saddam Hussein, only weakened the United States, and in fact, has furthered the position of Saddam Hussein in the region and internationally. It was an abject failure.

Chat Participant: What should be our policy if reports that Yugoslavia and Iraq have signed a secret cooperation treaty are true, Iraq giving money and oil in exchange for air defense assistance? I've seen recent reports saying the Yugoslavs have downed seven fighters already.

Scott Ritter: I have no way of confirming the veracity of such reports. However, if true it only further underscores the complexities of what happens when the United States turns down the path of military confrontation that is not backed up with any meaningful, well thought out endgame policy.

Chat Participant: Do you believe Desert Fox took place to relieve the impeachment pressure on President Clinton at the time?

Scott Ritter: No. There's no evidence that supports that. In fact, the chronology of military preparation for Desert Fox predates the chronology of the impeachment of the President. Rather than relieving the pressure on the President concerning the impeachment, Desert Fox was designed as a desperate effort to relieve the pressure faced by the Clinton administration concerning the failures of its Iraq policy and its inability to effectively engage Saddam Hussein diplomatically. It was a military crutch, and it failed abysmally.

Chat Participant: Have you witnessed the situation of the common Iraqis? Did you see evidence of extensive environmental damage in Iraq as a result of the coalition's bombing campaign?

Scott Ritter: To answer the first question, every inspector and myself witnessed the plight of the Iraqi people. Our job was disarmament, but that did not blind us to the horrific suffering that the innocent population of Iraq is going through as a result of these economic sanctions. The Iraqi people are a warm, friendly, kind people, with a deep culture. They are a people very respectful of higher education. They are a people very respectful of human life. They happen to be ruled by a brutal, tyrannical dictator. But that fact should not reflect poorly on the Iraqi people, who, as I said, are just as human as you and I. Now, Desert Storm devastated the economy of Iraq. It devastated much of Iraq's ability to produce oil. It devastated Iraq's ability to generate electricity, which has resulted in a breakdown of the infrastructure needed to sustain a modern society. Water purification plants are inoperative. Refrigeration needed to store medicines no longer exists. Iraqi oil-producing areas are generating pollution on a scale which is unacceptable in any modern country. These are serious issues, serous problems, which cannot even begin to be resolved so long as this cruel and inhumane policy of sanctions continues. These problems will exist with Saddam or without Saddam, and we must come up with a solution, or else we are condemning not only this generation of Iraqis to hell on earth, but other generations as well.

Chat Participant: Any final comments for our audience about your work or your book?

Scott Ritter: This is an extremely important issue, and I think it's reflected in the fact that there are so many questions. It's an issue that the audience needs to become better equipped to handle. I've tried to handle that with my answers today, and one of the reasons why I wrote the book "Endgame" was to put a volume out there that contained a lot of facts that can help the interested reader in becoming more informed about Iraq, about the situation, and what needs to be done to solve these difficult problems. Again, I'm thankful for the opportunity to chat with everyone today. Sorry I couldn't answer all of your questions.

Chat Moderator: Our thanks today to Scott Ritter for joining us and thanks to all our guests for the many great questions.