Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

A Coalition at War: Points of Friction

Aired November 02, 2001 - 19:00   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: "The War Room." Heavy bombing continues and high-tech surveillance aircraft are being deployed. But will the U.S. vow to fight on through a Muslim holy month strain a fragile coalition?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our war that we now fight is against terror and evil. It's not against Muslims.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And the approaching winter is already having an impact on the campaign in Afghanistan. We'll go to the Pentagon and the State Department.

And I'll speak live with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, Ken Adelman, a member of the Pentagon's defense policy board and Robert Hunter -- he's been the U.S. ambassador to NATO and director of Middle East affairs for the National Security Council as we go into the "War Room."

BLITZER: Good evening, I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting tonight from Washington.

We are following a breaking news story. A U.S. military helicopter is downed in Afghanistan. We'll have details momentarily.

But we begin with some of the other late developments we're following this hour. California Governor Gray Davis is defending his decision to reveal a threat against major bridges on the West Coast. National Guard troops are patrolling some spans, including the Golden Gate Bridge.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson says there may be more contaminated letters still working their way through the postal system. He's says he's bracing for the possibility of yet more anthrax cases.

And U.S. unemployment has jumped dramatically in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The labor department says it rose to 5.4 percent in October, up from 4.9 percent in September. That translates to 415,000 people losing jobs just last month, the biggest one-month cut in 21 years. Now to that breaking news: word a U.S. helicopter is down in Afghanistan.

CNN military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre is live at the Pentagon with details -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the initial report we get from a U.S. official is that all the U.S. military personnel are safe after a special operations helicopter went down in Afghanistan.

It's unclear, at this time, whether -- exactly why the helicopter went down, although it appears to be related to bad weather and bad flying conditions over a part of Afghanistan.

The precise mission was also not disclosed by the Pentagon, but a U.S. official telling CNN that there were two helicopters. One had to put down for an emergency or hard landing on the ground, but the second helicopter was able to land and evacuate the people from the first helicopter. And we are told that all the U.S. military personnel have now cleared Afghan airspace. That's really all we know at this point. Except that earlier today, at the Pentagon briefing, they did talk about the fact that in Afghanistan, weather is becoming a factor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Sunny skies affords this U.S. B-52 bomber a clear shot at Taliban frontlines.

In other parts of northern Afghanistan, such as this refugee camp in Kamkishlok (ph), the blinding dust storms of winter have begun. Deteriorating weather conditions have so far stymied Pentagon plans to insert more U.S. special forces to work with the anti-Taliban troops in the north.

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN STUFFLEBEEM, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: This is a country -- starts to transition into its winter season and the rains are starting to fall and the freezing altitudes, of course, that's very difficult on helicopters, much less any aircraft.

MCINTYRE: Laser-guided bombs require clear skies to work. And so far the cloud cover has been thin enough to permit continued strikes against Taliban targets.

But over the next month or so, as a cold front moves in, the northern part of the country is likely to be blanketed with clouds and snow. To help deal with the expected poor visibility, the U.S. is bringing in two high-tech spy planes: the unmanned Global Hawk, which can loiter over the country for more than a day at a time, and the J- Stars radar plane which can pick out moving targets on the ground. Both planes have synthetic aperture radar and thermal sensors that can see through clouds.

At the same time, the United States is supplying the Northern Alliance with clothes and equipment to give it a cold weather advantage over the Taliban.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(on camera): And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, traveling with reporters to Moscow today, again reiterated that it's up to Northern Alliance commanders to decide when to move against either Mazar-e-Sharif or the Afghan capital of Kabul. And Rumsfeld again reiterated his insistence that the military campaign has never been tied to the political goal of organizing a post-Taliban government -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, what are you hearing -- the Northern Alliance -- their reactions to these latest U.S. bombing strikes along the northern front?

MCINTYRE: Well, depending on which Northern Alliance commander or spokesman you talk to. Either the U.S. strikes have been very effective in -- against those frontline Taliban forces or they're having little effect at all.

I think that illustrates, in part, part of the difficulty with the so-called Northern Alliance. It's a very loose alliance and where -- how the air strikes are depends on your particular perspective.

The Pentagon says it doesn't have a good idea of how many troops it's actually hitting, but it says it will continue to bomb them as long as it has some good targeting information.

BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre, thank you very much.

And in this U.S. war against terrorism, the United States has sought help in various forms from many nations. But the resulting coalition is indeed a fragile one.

Let's go live to CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel. She has more -- Andrea.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, never before has there been anything like it. According to one long time foreign policy hand, he described the global coalition this way. He said, "It's not solid. It's not unified. It's very diverse, each country with its own national interests."

Now add to that the very difficult diplomatic land mines that the Bush administration is trying to navigate.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): The call to prayer rings out five times a day in neighborhoods across the Muslim world, where opposition to U.S.-led military strikes in Afghanistan is a constant.

Now with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan only days away, and likely a new source of friction between the U.S. and some of its key Arab and Muslim allies, the Bush administration has thrown down the gauntlet. BUSH: The enemy won't rest during Ramadan. And neither will we. We are going to pursue this war until we achieve our objective.

KOPPEL: But at the same time, President Bush has signed off on plans to wage around-the-clock propaganda war for public opinion, agreeing to set up a communications war room at the White House, Great Britain and Pakistan.

As the military campaign in Afghanistan fast approaches the one- month mark, other points of friction within the coalition have also emerged. They include the rising number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, growing impatience the U.S. military has not destroyed the Taliban or Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, and the composition of a post-Taliban government with the exiled king as figurehead.

Pakistan has told the U.S. moderate members of the Taliban should be included. But just listen to the reaction of the opposition Northern Alliance to such a possibility.

HARON AMIN, NORTHERN ALLIANCE SPOKESMAN: Certainly, the international community had no wish of imposing moderate Nazis in a post-Hitler regime after World War II.

KOPPEL: But it is the volatile Palestinian-Israeli crisis which, in the words of one senior administration official, sits at the heart of what could be a powder keg, a point echoed by some experts.

LEE HAMILTON, WOODROW WILSON CENTER: Whether we like it or not, the Arab moderate states link progress in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to their support of the war on terrorism.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOPPEL (on camera): Now, all of this is further complicated by the advent of CNN and the 24-hour news cycle, which some U.S. officials insist has complicated and has actually raised expectations, Wolf, that there would be either a rapid military or political solution when in fact the reality, they say, is much more complicated -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The Defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has just left on a trip that's going to take him to Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and India. This is not just a military trip. It's, also in part, designed to do something about the coalition.

KOPPEL: Absolutely, Wolf.

As is often the case during a military campaign, the line between military and diplomacy is blurred. Secretary Rumsfeld's message when he goes out to Pakistan, obviously, to reassure the government of Pervez Musharraf that the campaign is on track, that it is going to continue through Ramadan, but that the U.S. feels that this is something that it must do.

In India, much of the same. India, most people probably don't realize, has the second largest Muslim population in the world -- concern there, of course, about Ramadan. And then in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, both neighbors of Afghanistan, the U.S. -- wanting to perhaps put in more special forces there, Wolf. And so Secretary Rumsfeld will have to do some diplomatic finessing on the ground.

BLITZER: Andrea Koppel at the State Department -- thank you very much.

Can, and should, the United States count on help from an anti- terror coalition? Can it hold a coalition together? And does a coalition, by its very nature, require too many compromises in the battle against terrorism?

Joining me now in the CNN "War Room": Ken Adelman -- he's the former U.S. arms control director and host of defensecentral.com. Robert Hunter has served as a Middle East adviser to President Carter and as President Clinton's ambassador to NATO; and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President Ford and to the first President Bush during the Persian Gulf War.

Gentlemen, thanks for joining us.

And Bob Hunter, let me begin with you. "The Wall Street Journal", in an editorial today, wrote this -- we will put it up on our screen: "The war is being turned over to the warriors where it belongs. For three weeks, it's been fought under State Department rules of engagement. This created a reluctance to help the opposition move on Kabul until some new coalition government had first been arranged" -- fair criticism?

ROBERT HUNTER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: I think we are trying to second-guess what our military are doing, and I think it's doing a good job as far as we can tell. But at the same time, our military know that they've got to have the political support of a lot of people in a lot of different countries. We've got the NATO allies standing with us, first time ever that they declared that this was an attack on one is an attack on all, first time in its history.

We also need a lot of countries from the region, particularly Muslim countries, because the al Qaeda, just like Saddam Hussein a decade ago, are trying to say, "we are the Arab street, we are the little guy, and you're the imperialist and you're supporters of Israel." Got to give the lie to that. I think the administration has done a very good job giving that lie.

BLITZER: Ken Adelman, is it fair to say, though, that this criticism from the "Wall Street Journal" reflects a criticism of the Secretary of State Colin Powell who is supposedly much more concerned than others about keeping this fragile coalition together?

KEN ADELMAN, FORMER U.S. ARMS CONTROL DIRECTOR: Well, A, I have a lot of confidence in those who are running the government, including Colin Powell and Don Rumsfeld with whom I've had the pleasure to work three times in my life, and the president, and all.

Let me just say that I think Colin Powell's job is to get as many constitute to support us as possible, and I think that's a very noble effort. But I think the main point is that unlike the Gulf War, where Brent did a wonderful job cobbling together a coalition -- we don't need a coalition and we don't need a coalition.

We have a whole loose groups of states that will support us to some degree on some activities along the way, and I think that's just fine. Think to yourself a coalition in Congress. Some days you have Biden and Helms together on legislation, other times you have -- every day is different for a different kind of task at a different time, and I think that's a wonderful way to run this war.

BLITZER: General Scowcroft, you put that coalition during the Gulf War. You helped, obviously, President Bush put it together. Isn't there, though, too much of a concern right now about keeping this coalition together at the expense of going in there and doing what many critics say has to be done?

BRENT SCOWCROFT, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Look, I think this discussion about coalition, should we have one, shouldn't, misses the point. For us, this war is much less a military operation than it is an intelligence operation. We need to find out where these people are so we can go in and root them out. We don't have unilaterally that capability.

We need to rely on our allies' intelligence networks. We need to rely on our friends for communications intercept to figure out where these guys are, we need to rely on our friends to intercept money which is being laundered through. And finally, we need help to penetrate their organization.

BLITZER: But that's a shocking indictment of the U.S. intelligence community.

SCOWCROFT: No, it isn't.

BLITZER: You are saying that the United States doesn't have these capabilities?

SCOWCROFT: No, no! Look, we are not expert in everything around the world. We don't know very much about Afghanistan. We don't have tentacles into Afghanistan. The Pakistanis do. The Russians do. The Uzbeks do. We need to rely on these people to help us in the areas where we need it.

HUNTER: Well, on top of which, we need the Europeans and others, where some of these cells are still operating to roll them up so that they can't find they just leave one country and go to another country. The idea is to squeeze them, wherever they are, squeeze the money, squeeze the travel, and in effect they'll be people without a country when we get done.

ADELMAN: I disagree with to some extent with my two colleagues here, whom I admire a lot in the fact that I think they're too narrow on the war aims. I think while it's ideal to go after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the best way we can proceed on this is to make it absolutely unmistakable that a country that hosts funds and supports terrorism in any sense is going to have a regime change. While we have seen many of these cells have individuals who are very willing to commit suicide, you don't see many regimes around the world, Wolf, who are willing to commit suicide. They like to stay in power. So I would go after Iraq, I would go after the Taliban to start with, and then I would go after other countries, because only then when you get these guys on the run can you really pursue an international terrorist network.

SCOWCROFT: You're not going to get the guys. Our war is basically not against the Taliban. Our war is against terrorism. The Taliban are an incidental target because they are harboring, because they will not help us root out the terrorists.

(CROSSTALK)

SCOWCROFT: Yes, but we are not after the Taliban. That is not our objective in this operation. It is the terrorist networks.

HUNTER: Let's remember that on September the 11th, we lost 6,000, 7,000 people. The American people feel it, feel it very deeply, and our job, the government's job, is to get a hold of the people that perpetrated that, and in this case the Taliban, the ones who refused to vomit them up.

Now, President Bush said to the Congress -- and I think said very wisely -- OK, I'm going to kind of draw a line here. Whatever you did before, we are going to kind of forget about that. It's what you do now. If you're going to harbor, support and do other things with terrorists in the future, we are going to punish you. But let's come together and try to be on our side.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: The president also said, "if you're not with the United States, in effect, you're with the terrorists," and he says he's not going to differentiate between the terrorists and those who harbor them. The Taliban clearly are harboring al Qaeda.

SCOWCROFT: I understand that, but our basic goal is to root out terrorism, not to destroy countries. The president gave all the terrorist supporters a free ride up to now. He said, "those who continue to support." We have to make an example of the Taliban. There's no question about it. But let's not mistake what it will take to succeed.

ADELMAN: What it will take to succeed, changing the government of Afghanistan, it will take to succeed not only rooting out terrorism as we've known it in the past but to stop any potential terrorism in the future. And that takes going after, as Brent and Bob said very nicely, it goes after the international terrorist network, but it also goes after weapons of mass destruction and countries that support those two things -- international terrorist network or weapons of mass destruction.

And I think it is shortsighted of us to just say, "let's concentrate on Osama bin Laden, let's go after al Qaeda and not go after the biggest threat that we have right now for weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, which is Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

HUNTER: Let me say on that...

BLITZER: Let General Scowcroft reply, because he was, of course, the national security adviser during the Gulf War.

(CROSSTALK)

SCOWCROFT: I understand what you're saying, and those are all worthy goals, but if we try to take on every problem we have in the world at once we are not going to do any of them. We've got to focus, and we need to focus right now. And if we can get rid of Osama bin Laden and take care of the Taliban, then we will get more support for steps two, three, four and five.

BLITZER: One second, Bob...

HUNTER: Let me be the peacemaker between my two friends. I agree with them both.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNTER: You're both in trouble. We've got to focus. We are not going to get a coalition to stay with us if they think we've got all these other objectives we're going to go at. At the same time, if we think about the future, probably more important even than the tragedies we've sustained would be if some country like Iraq were to acquire nuclear weapons or weaponizeable biotech weapons, and we were not able to do anything about it.

But if we are going to get at that -- we've tried for seven or eight years not as well as we should have -- we are going to have a long-term plan that can get some support and can really do the job. If we rush that fence, if we rush that fence, we are going to even lose what we are trying to do now in Afghanistan.

BLITZER: Ken Adelman, we are going to give you the opportunity to respond right after this break.

Coming up in the war room, could President Bush lose the PR war to two men accused of mass murder? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to our "War Room."

As he seeks to hold a unwieldy anti-terror coalition together, is President Bush being forced to fight a public relations war?

I'm joined once again by Ken Adelman of the Pentagon's defense policy board; Robert Hunter, who's been a U.S. ambassador to NATO and a government adviser on the Middle East; and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser during the Persian Gulf War.

And we're also doing -- following some breaking news. As you know, a U.S. military helicopter down because of bad weather in Afghanistan. Another helicopter went in and reportedly has brought back the entire crew back to safety.

But, Ken Adelman, this does underscore the danger of fighting this kind of war, even against what many would describe as a third- rate military power.

ADELMAN: Wolf, we have at one helicopter. We have been in this studio now for 45 minutes and heard five times about one helicopter. Can you imagine fighting World War II, where every helicopter was worth 45 minutes on the air?

The point here is that if we are going to take a farsighted view, we have to realize we are going to have some losses. But I want to go on this war as big as we can in terms of not only getting retribution but protecting America in defense for the future.

The biggest danger we face right now is from weapons of mass destruction used as terrorism. They're the ultimate terrorist weapon and there is a difference, Brent, between Osama bin Laden -- as evil always he is -- and obviously everybody wants to go after him, there's no doubt about that and the network. But he is still an international terrorist network and organization.

When you have the power of the state, in other words, facilities of the state, these billion dollars of budget like Saddam Hussein has, and you have absolutely no morals, you have a real desire to get biological weapons, nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and shove them to anybody out in the street...

HUNTER: Ken, look...

ADELMAN: ... that's the prime target, here.

HUNTER: We are not disagreeing with what we have got to get done, we're just talking about the way to get it done.

The first thing -- we have to demonstrate to the American people and to the world is that we will avenge those people of September 11...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But he wants to go against Iraq right now.

HUNTER: ... and then we have to show we've got credibility...

ADELMAN: What do you mean, credibility for what?

HUNTER: Credibility for going against the people who did the September 11 -- then we've got to show that we are not alone. If we get out there, we're just alone going after Saddam Hussein, we are going to find that we don't have the support we need in neighboring countries. We are going to get attacked everywhere, we are going to have governments go under. This is not the way to go about a good goal.

BLITZER: Let me ask General Scowcroft: Can the U.S. go it alone against Iraq right now?

SCOWCROFT: No, I don't -- against Iraq?

BLITZER: Yes.

SCOWCROFT: Well, I don't know what going it alone against Iraq means.

BLITZER: That's what Ken Adelman wants -- take out Saddam Hussein right now.

SCOWCROFT: Another 500,000 troops?

ADELMAN: Oh no, you wouldn't do that.

SCOWCROFT: What would you do?

ADELMAN: Oh, you don't need 500,000 troops, Brent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just drop a bomb, what is it?

SCOWCROFT: What are you going to do? What does taking him out mean?

ADELMAN: Changing the government, OK -- changing the government.

SCOWCROFT: How are you going to change the government?

ADELMAN: OK, we know at the time of the Gulf War he was about three times stronger than he is right now. We've learned some things...

SCOWCROFT: He's considerably stronger.

ADELMAN: Right, back then he was.

SCOWCROFT: Yes, back then. No question about it.

ADELMAN: We know certain things. We know -- number one -- that he wasn't as strong as -- thank God -- that we estimated at the time, that the Iraq soldiers...

SCOWCROFT: We were stronger, by far, than he was even though he was strong, the bombing campaign wiped him out.

ADELMAN: Wiped him out. That's my point.

(CROSSTALK)

SCOWCROFT: All right, I agree.

ADELMAN: And we found out then in the Gulf War, which is an interesting thing to learn, that the Iraqi soldiers weren't anymore interested in fighting for Saddam Hussein than we were interested in fighting for Saddam Hussein. We were interested in fighting against. Remember that whole group that surrendered to an Italian camera crew at one point.

So I think what we can do is with a show of force, without 500,000 ground troops, quite obviously, that we can have a regime change in Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I doubt it.

ADELMAN: We are not alone on that. We have the support of the Iraqi people. I think that is for sure. And I think if we win, we can show that a lot of countries...

BLITZER: Let's let General Scowcroft and Bob Hunter...

SCOWCROFT: In the course of it, you're going to lose the coalition, because...

ADELMAN: I don't think there's one coalition.

SCOWCROFT: Just a minute.

Because the P.R. war on Iraq has been won by Saddam Hussein, who has convinced the whole region, that is is the sanctions imposed by the United States through the U.N. that have caused all the suffering of the women and children in Iraq.

Now, that's nonsense. It is purely Saddam Hussein. But we've lost that war. So if we turn on Iraq right now -- I'm not saying ever -- right now, they will all say, you're just using terrorism as an excuse to go after your favorite terrorist.

BLITZER: Well, let me ask Bob Hunter very quickly: Why has the U.S. lost the public relations war in the Muslim -- in the Arab world to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

HUNTER: Well first, I don't think we put that at a high enough priority. We didn't get enough Muslim clerics, other kind of leaders out doing it.

Secondly I think we need to kind of show what the future is like. The future has got to be, as the president said, nation building with the U.N. But we've also got to talk about major developments efforts in the area.

We also, I think -- the president needs to appoint somebody now who is going to be this kind of "supremeo" for Arab-Israeli peace making. And as somebody like Henry Kissinger or Jimmy Carter, or Brent Scowcroft here could do it, to show that we are going to be dealing with the future of the region that's going to make more sense than these clowns and these criminals we are dealing with.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: You've got 10 seconds -- 10 seconds. SCOWCROFT: Well, OK, one of the things we've seen after September 11 is some little flowers of hope out here that we have something we can take a hold of and change the whole mood of the region. We shouldn't dampen it, we ought to encourage it.

BLITZER: We've got to leave it right there on that optimistic note.

General Scowcroft, Bob Hunter, and Ken Adelman -- we'll talk to you later.

(CROSSTALK)

"CROSSFIRE" comes your way the bottom of the hour. Tucker Carlson joins me now live with a preview -- Tucker.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, CNN'S "CROSSFIRE": Wolf, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Gray Davis, Dick Gephardt, Rudy Giuliani -- they've long been household names but never have so many households listened so carefully to what they say.

America's leaders in crisis, how have they held up under pressure? Two seasoned political veterans join Bill Press and me as we pass our judgment tonight and give a letter grade to each.

That's "CROSSFIRE" and it's right after you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you very much, Tucker.

And America's heroes broke ranks today. Coming up, the unusual confrontation between those who once stood united in tragedy. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Here are some of the latest developments: A U.S. special forces helicopter has gone down in Afghanistan. A U.S. official tells CNN it's not clear if the chopper was shot down or went down because of bad weather. The source says all the crew members were rescued by another helicopter.

And in New York City, angry firefighters clashed with police during a protest outside the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Twelve protesters were arrested and five others were hurt. Firefighters are upset over the city's decision to cut back the recovery operations because of safety reasons.

That's all the time we have tonight. I'll see you again later tonight, 10 p.m. Eastern, with a "SPECIAL REPORT". Sunday, of course, "LATE EDITION" at noon Eastern.

Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

"CROSSFIRE" 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