Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Interview with Jim Zogby, Ken Adelman

Aired November 21, 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.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: (AUDIO GAP) Osama bin Laden.

Where are America's Arab allies in the fight against terrorism?

I'll ask Jim Zogby of the Arab American Institute, Ken Adelman, former U.S. Arms Control director, CNN military analyst, retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd As we go into the WAR ROOM.

Good evening. I'm John King reporting tonight from Washington. Wolf Blitzer is off.

What impact will the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan have on the rest of the Muslim world? I'll ask our WAR ROOM guests shortly, but first, another stunning development on the ground.

The fight for control of Afghanistan took a critical turn today with the crumbling Taliban agreeing to surrender Kunduz. That's the last northern Afghan city under their control. CNN's Christiane Amanpour joins us live from the capital of Kabul with details -- Christiane.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, indeed momentum is gathering definitely against the Taliban now that they are completely fallen all over the north. This is a big and important step. What's happened, according to CNN in Mazar-i-Sharif there have been talks over the last several hours.

We have known for the last few days, that negotiations were under way to try to get the Taliban to surrender their last stand at Kunduz. They have been fighting there for just over a week now after Mazar fell. Now, what's happened is that the Afghan Taliban have been bolstered by what they call foreign mercenaries. They are the Chechens, Pakistanis and other Arab fighters who are believed to be working with them and also some of those allied to the al Qaeda network.

Now a delegation of Taliban commanders went to Mazar-i-Sharif, which is being held by the Northern Alliance general Abdul Rasheed Dosatm (ph) . He is the one that took Mazar-i-Sharif about two weeks ago, and they have agreed to surrender. Details are apparently still being worked out because there are two different groups, if you like. One the Afghan Taliban and the other, the foreign mercenaries I talked about. We don't know what will become of those people and what will be the modalities and details of the prison of war situation should it turn into that.

We do know that the Northern Alliance had also sent a delegation with an ultimatum to the Taliban and their Arab friends there to surrender within a few days or face a full-scale assault. And about 24 hours ago the U.S. commander of this war, Tommy Franks, had said that Konduz will fall soon. It appears that this is now going to happen.

Of course the Taliban is still maintaining that they will fight on in Kandahar, that is the last bastion on Taliban strength. And we are watching very closely to see if in fact that will fall any time soon. The Taliban, in order perhaps to put up a good show of force and a good public faith, held a press conference in Spinboldag (ph) , Afghanistan, which is just across the border from Pakistan.

They invited a group of journalists in there to say that they will fight on. They also talked about Osama bin Laden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SYED TAYYAD AGHA, MULLAH OMAR SPOKESMAN: We have no idea where he is, because you see, our areas, they are limited now to three or four provinces, so now we don't know where he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The Taliban have been saying different things about Osama bin Laden ever since the beginning of this conflict. At the beginning they said that he is under our control and we know where he is. Then as the war developed they would distance themselves more and more from him. We asked the Northern Alliance president the other day, whether he had any information as to where Osama bin Laden might be and he believes that he is in the Kandahar province in the Maruf (ph) region, which is a mountainous region of the Kandahar province -- John.

KING: Christiane, what is the expectation looking ahead, a final conventional, defining battle, if you will, in and around Kandahar, or the Taliban splitting up and heading into the hills and perhaps a guerrilla war?

AMANPOUR: Well, we have heard, you know, several things. On the one hand, they have said, it's their duty to fight on and they will fight to last man. But they said that about Kunduz as well and in the end that didn't happen. It's hard to imagine what will happen in Kandahar, essentially now that the Taliban are cornered there. And they have perhaps one option and that is to melt into the Hellman (ph) Province where all those mountains are.

But in depends on whether there are all these tribal people who try to press an advantage against them and what United States forces do there particularly those who are on the ground. It will be interesting to see this last province and what happens there.

KING: Christiane Amanpour, once again, tracking developments for us in the very early morning hours in the capital of Kabul, Afghanistan. Thank you very much.

And this programming note: Be sure to join Christiane for a comprehensive look at the battle for power in Afghanistan live from Afghanistan. That comes your way at the top of the hour.

Back here in Washington, the Pentagon is looking past the latest success in northern Afghanistan as the hunt for Osama bin Laden continues.

CNN's Bob Franken joins us now live from the Pentagon -- Bob.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, the secretary of defense decided to go acknowledge the growing U.S. presence on the ground in Afghanistan by making a visit to the home base.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): With special operations so much a part of the war in Afghanistan, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited the headquarters of Special Operations in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

He witnessed close-up, a dramatic demonstration of what could be occurring with the Special Forces in Afghanistan, like rushing this building and recreating an urban house to house battle. The secretary made it clear, during the flight from Washington, that the pretense of Special Operations troops in the war is growing.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We have been incrementally increasing our Special Forces so that we now have much broader and deeper coverage with the various elements in the north and the south that are opposing Taliban and al Qaeda.

FRANKEN: For the news cameras, the visit was a huge special operation, photo-op.

While the Special Operations troops were putting on their public show, Secretary Rumsfeld was elsewhere getting a briefing on the parts that are shrouded in secrecy, the deadly effort to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership.

RUMSFELD: We are putting out some pretty heavy rewards hoping that some of the local folks will get inspired and follow the principle of economics.

FRANKEN: Rumsfeld also fleshed out some details of the plan to offer a reward of up to $25 million for catching the leaders.

RUMSFELD: My guess is what will happen is some person, some human being somewhere would have a scrap of information, and they would go to their leader, their tribal chief for that activity, and they then would see what they think about that.

FRANKEN: For the U.S. Special Forces, the main mission now is eliminating the Taliban and al Qaeda. The diplomats are working on ways to bring all the other factions together. And the long history of blood feuds in Afghanistan may pale in comparison to the fight over who gets what share of the $25 million.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Not a problem for the secretary of defense who told reporters that the state would be made by the State Department, not the Pentagon -- John.

KING: Bob, there are indications tonight, that one of the hangups of the negotiations for the Taliban surrender in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, is that those foreign mercenaries, as Christian Amanpour called them, fighters, not from Afghanistan, want safe passage. They want the Northern Alliance to agree to let them out of the country into Pakistan. Is that something that the Pentagon would look favorably on?

FRANKEN: Well, as the Pentagon professes so know nothing about the actual spirit of the negotiations right now, but the secretary of defense on the plane going down, when he was talking with reporters, made it very clear that he has a very negative attitude to it, saying, any idea that those people should be let loose on any basis at all to leave that country and go to bring terror to other countries and destabilize other countries is unacceptable.

So the secretary of defense is at least taking a very hard bargaining position. It sounds almost like rejection.

KING: And perhaps some disagreement, Bob Franken, between the United States and its ally the Northern Alliance. Thank you very much, Bob Franken, tonight at the Pentagon after a very busy day.

President Bush today paid a Thanksgiving eve visit to Fort Campbell, Kentucky and the screaming eagles of the 101st Airborne. But these troops didn't seem to need much rallying. Let's go live to the White House and CNN's Major Garrett -- Major.

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, it's a presidential ritual visiting military personnel around holidays, but no ritual, presidential or otherwise, feels quite the same these days after September 11. And there was an unmistakable urgency, not only the president's words, but the reaction he got from the assembled troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, among them, as you said, members of the 101st Airborne division, The Screaming Eagles as they are known, as well as members of other Special Operations and Special Forces troops.

Sure, the president yukked it up a bit, when he carved some Thanksgiving turkey and had a good time when he sat down with some of them for an early Thanksgiving meal, but when the president went outside and delivered his message about the mission in Afghanistan, the troops answered with an intensity, it seems, only wartime can yield.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.

(APPLAUSE)

If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GARRETT: Now, the president warned the troops and the rest of the nation, for that matter, to not to declare an early victory. He said there is much left to do in Afghanistan and much less to do in the fight against global terrorism overall. The president at one point saying, across the world and across the years we will fight these evil ones, and we will win.

A very clear indication the president sees more battleground to distant places and battles that could last for many, many years to come.

KING: Major Garrett, live from the White House and the president already up at Camp David, the presidential retreat, to celebrate Thanksgiving with friends and family.

As military objectives are met in Afghanistan, is it time to begin widening the war against terrorism? What is the next target? Joining me now here in the WAR ROOM, Ken Adelman, former U.S. Arms Control director and the host of the Web site, defensecentral.com; retired Air Force Major General and CNN military analyst Don Shepperd (ph), and Jim Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute.

You can take part of in our conversation by sending us you WAR ROOM questions to cnn.com/wolf. Let's begin with you, General Shepperd. A dramatic development tonight in northern Afghanistan, Taliban negotiating to surround the last city it controlled in the north, Kunduz, and a question here about the issue we just discussed; should the Northern Alliance and would the United States allow those hired fighters or those volunteer fighters from other countries, not Afghans, to leave. As you answer the question, I want to show our viewers a map, showing how dramatically the situation in northern Afghanistan has changed.

You can see, if we can get it up here now, you see Kunduz and Kandahar, the orange section here, now the last Taliban stronghold right here. Apparently those troops want a safe corridor to get out into Pakistan. What does this development mean from a military standpoint, would the United States let those troops leave?

MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD (RET.), U.S. AIR FORCE: Bad idea from a military standpoint, goods news that the battle for Kundiz does not take place, you don't have a bunch of wanton killing. The secretary of defense I think, was on target when he said, we don't want those people released with save passage to lay down their arms and go fight in other areas. There is lots to be seen. First, if this agreement holds, and second, what really happens to these P.O.W.s. The SINK (ph) , General Frank, made a typical American visit there and he said, look, we don't want P.O.W.s harmed, mistreated and what have you, that if important, but it is important also that they not be released to go somewhere else and attack our troops.

KING: This sign of progress in Afghanistan raises the question, even though the President said this would go on while, what next? And I want to hear, let's from the commander in chief as he makes clear, yes, there is a long time to go in Afghanistan, but there will be other fronts in this war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Afghanistan is just the beginning on the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these threats are defeated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: All these threats are defeated, Ken Adelman, that could be a long list, but a great deal of speculation that Iraq might be the next target. Should it be?

KEN ADELMAN, FMR. U.S. ARMS CONTROL DIRECTOR: Iraq should be the next target, John. There is no doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in progress. There is no doubt that they have helped terrorists around the world. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the main threat to the United States is from Iraq.

Why do I say that? Because unlike Osama bin Laden, bin who lives in caves and has this loose al Qaeda network, when you have a person like Saddam Hussein, you have a nation, you have all kinds of tax receipts that are in the billions of dollars, you have national laboratories, you have an army, you have an enormous process and an enormous infrastructure to make weapons of mass destruction and then to distribute them around the world. So Iraq should certainly be soon.

KING: That was case on September 10, everything you just said. If you accept your argument, Jim Zogby, to you, but first -- hold on, one second -- to you first, but first, one of our viewers, Leslie, in West Plains, Montana, quote, and here is the question perhaps, "Can we put a stop to Saddam Hussein without the world turning on us?"

JAMES ZOGBY, PRES. ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: That is, of course, the question. And the fact right now is that we have built a strong relationship with the countries in the Middle East who have been assisting us in this battle against Osama bin Laden. That coalition has been the core of our effort and is something we want to keep and maintain as a strong and viable force.

Our allies have been asking to us to be cautious with record to Iraq. They are asking for very specific evidence of evil intent, and in fact, deeds by the regime in Iraq. Thus far it has not been forthcoming, so that if we were to act precipitously without allies and the support of those allies, I think it would be a very dangerous move for us.

KING: You say no, for now.

ADELMAN: But Jim, I think it is easy to show them deeds. The fact is that Iraq invaded Kuwait. The fact is that Iraq tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

ZOGBY: I'm no fan of that regime and neither are countries in that region. The question right now is, is it the time, is it right to move against Iraq, and should we not consult allies before we do anything. I think the answer is absolutely yes, and if our allies urge caution, we should heed what our allies are saying because Jordan is in a very precarious position and is very concerned.

We can't risk further destabilization in the region for a goal that may not be even achievable and that is something we have tried to do before. We can contain Iraq. Right now we are containing it and containing it well. We ought to stick with that goal of containment and not move in a direction that might be destabilizing.

ADELMAN: Two points: One is, I agree with you, Jim, that we should consult allies, but I do not agree with you that our allies should exactly dictate what we do or what we don't do. And I think it's important for us to us have a coalition that fits the mission, rather than the mission being determined by the coalition.

Secondly, let me just say, that we know what Saddam Hussein is doing and I know that you have been very hard on Saddam Hussein.

ZOGBY: Bad guy.

ADELMAN: The fact is that they are now building weapons of mass destruction. They are doing everything they can. Once they get them there is no doubt in my mind that they will give them to any terrorist organization that asks. So, when do we do this? After the fact that they start distributing this? I think that's short-sighted. I think we should do it right away.

KING: General Shepperd, you hear the political debate here from a military standpoint. If Secretary Rumsfeld or the commander-in- chief called and said, hey, Don, what is your advice, should we do this now?

SHEPPERD: I'm in violent agreement with part of both of what they said there. You have on go to Iraq, but you don't have to go there next, you don't have to go there militarily, you may want to try over things first. But you must go to Iraq if you are serious about terrorism. They have used chem on their own people in the Iran Iraq war, they had bio during the Gulf War, didn't use it. They are pursuing nukes and clearly they will use them if they get them. We must deal with this, but there are lots of ways that we may try first.

The support of our allies is very important. We should never be afraid and ring our hands and be afraid of what is going to happen if the security of the United States is involved. But this is very complicated and we should think our way through it carefully before we do it.

ADELMAN: I think there are other ways to do it. I think all the other ways to do it are ineffective, however. We know that economic sanctions really don't stop this kind of activity.

(CROSSTALK)

We know political pressure doesn't stop that. So, the other tools are ineffective.

ZOGBY: You are right about Iraq being different from Afghanistan. This battle in Afghanistan was a breeze compared to was Iraq would involve. I think that former President Bush was right. Look, no fan of the regime. Would love to see the regime change precisely because the people of Iraq need and deserve better leadership and the people of the region as well, deserve a better neighbor.

The fact is, do we want to commit hundreds of thousands of American ground troops to a ground war in Iraq? Do we want to be involved in that kind of conflict? Now, would it serve our purposes, or can we not, as the general proposes, find other means to deal at this point, with both containment and possibly dealing with some of these weapons of mass destruction?

I think there are alternatives and I would not move precipitously into creating what would be a violent and long-term clash that could prove destabilizing to other countries in the region.

ADELMAN: I agree with you if your premises are right, but I didn't think your premises are right. I think that what we found in the Gulf War was that Iraq was not the ferocious military power we saw. When we had whole groups of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to Italian film crews in the middle of that...

ZOGBY: We had 500,000 American troops that we had stationed there and we used enormous firepower, and what was lacking was the will in America to send ground troops into the country. I don't know if that situation has changed.

(CROSSTALK)

ADELMAN: No, we...

ZOGBY: Into Kuwait -- into Kuwait. We did not go north to Baghdad. I don't think the will is there to do it yet.

KING: I am going to call a timeout here. More than a decade after the end of the Gulf War this debate continues. It surely will in the weeks and months ahead.

Coming up next in the WAR ROOM, the Arab street: Where is the support for the war on terror? What are Arab leaders afraid of?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome back to the WAR ROOM. Are some Arab leaders afraid of their followers? Will the United States military gains in Afghanistan lead to political problems or breakthroughs in the Muslim world?

We continue our discussion in the WAR ROOM and I want to start with General Shepperd, and this question from one of our viewers. Donald, in Bow, New Hampshire asks, "At what point did the United States and western coalition members demand that Arab countries demand that Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, step up to the plate and participate both physically and visibly?"

From a military standpoint, is it disappointing to you that we do not see from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt, public statements on a frequent basis supporting the bombing, maybe even offering troops to any peacekeeping mission?

SHEPPERD: Sure, we would always like more support. In reality in the modern world, you simply can't do that. Remember, at great risk to themselves, the nations in this area provide us with the things we need most which is access to oil and also access to bases. That is their contribution.

The secretary of defense has been very careful to make sure that they are allowed to characterize their contributions, not us. We can't, as a nation, dictate to other nations what they are able to do in their own political system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me say something...

KING: Let's look to a map first. Let's look to the map, if we can, of the region, we get it up here, you see the broad area of the Middle East. Afghanistan here. Iran, of all countries, not a friendly nation to the United States, is letting food shipments and humanitarian shipments through. Some military support here, but they are very quiet about it. There has been questions as to whether they are cracking down on the financial network. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. His family has ties there, support at times from the Mubarak government but not frequent public statements. Why not, Jim Zogby?

ZOGBY: Well, there have been frequent public statements. Actually, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, the leadership has been very public about their condemnation of bin Laden. They took his citizenship away, they have frozen the assets of those that they were asked to freeze assets of. They have been cooperating with us in intelligence and they have provided us a command and control center, the most important base for us in the region.

There have been a lot of stories about Saudi lack of cooperation, but they are just stories and I think they are stories by people who don't support the U.S.-Saudi relationship. There was, for example, the charge that Saudi even let us fly missions from Saudi Arabia. Look at the map again. You can't fly missions from Saud Arabia, because you have to fly over Iran to get from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, so it simply is not true. They have been cooperating about as much as anybody and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have put together a plan for a postwar peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. They are willing to cooperate at every point that we have asked them to. I think it is bogus that they have gotten the bum rap they have gotten.

KING: Is it at all their own fault? Should they be speaking out publicly?

ZOGBY: Again, I think the general is right, and the defense secretary is right. The country should have the right to characterize their involvement as they want to characterize their involvement. The point is they are involved,they are supportive, they are making statements. The sheik, in Mecca, who is the chief religious in the country, has been vocal in his condemnation of Saddam Hussein -- I'm sorry, he did that as well, but of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. They have been they clear about their condemnation of this whole things.

KING: Agree or disagree? And as you answer the question, if the United States pushes for a new democracy, a broad-based coalition in Afghanistan, does it not have the moral obligation to say other leaders in the region might want to think about democracy too?

ADELMAN: I think they do. But let me just say on Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I think on the surface they have been cooperative. And I think that Jim is absolutely right on all the points he makes. However, what has been happening below the surface is very damaging. We know that the Saudis have been funding and providing access and giving voice to people who are saying the most hateful things about America.

We know that Egypt, to whom we give $2 billion a year, has been sponsoring, in their official press, this is government press, some of the most hateful, anti-semitic, anti-American, anti-Western ideology that is just very, very damaging.

KING: We are out of time. I am sorry. We will continue this, I promise. Ken Adelman, Jim Zogby, General Shepperd, thank you all for your time. "CROSSFIRE" comes your way at the bottom of the hour. Here is Bill Press with a preview.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": OK, John. News of the fall of Kunduz raises the inevitable question, what is next after Afghanistan? Should U.S. bombers target Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Will the American public, will the Congress support an extended military campaign, or is there another way to shut down those terrorist camps?

Two foreign policy pros shoot it out with me and Tucker Carlson coming up half past the hour on "CROSSFIRE."

KING: Thank you, Bill. A sad development tonight in a mysterious case of anthrax. Coming up, why the FBI is launching a criminal investigation surrounding the woman who lived in this house in Connecticut.

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