Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Richard Holbrooke
Aired September 17, 2002 - 08:02 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Even as Iraq says it will allow the return of weapons inspectors, the Pentagon is proceeding with plans to target key sites.
Barbara Starr is following developments from the Pentagon this morning. She has the very latest for us now -- good morning, Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Well, that's exactly right, plenty of action behind-the-scenes here at the Pentagon. CNN has learned that the U.S. Strategic Command out in Omaha, Nebraska is, in fact, holding a number of targeting meetings, trying to select key targets, what weapons will be put on them and how that whole mission will unfold in the opening hours of any war.
Topping the list of targets, we are led to believe, are Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces, the targets that symbolize his regime, the regime that George W. Bush wants to get rid of. But there are more problematic targets. Once again, the same issue that has plagued the United States since the war of Desert Storm of more than a decade ago, how to target -- you see some of those pictures here -- how to target those suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons sites.
The problem for the United States' targeting community is this. If you believe that these sites are well hidden by Iraq and it's so difficult for U.N. weapons inspectors to find these weapons of mass destruction, exactly who do you locate them well enough to target them, to bomb them and not cause massive civilian damage? So that is one of the issues that is plaguing the U.S. targeting military community at the moment.
But here at the Pentagon, yesterday Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, made clear that targeting is already under way in Iraq in one key respect. They talked about a change in strategy, targeting some key air defense sites and communications, command and control sites instead of going after some of those individual missile launchers and missile sites that the U.S. had been attacking in the no fly zones.
Here's what Rumsfeld had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: What we are doing is we are attempting to, in an orderly way, as the general indicated, arrange our response options in a way that we think, we hope will be net harmful to their capabilities on the ground. We can't know for sure if it has been net harmful. But our intention is to make it net harmful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: It's a crucial policy shift that Don Rumsfeld is announcing, making sure the U.S. controls the skies over Baghdad even before a war begins -- Paula.
ZAHN: Thanks so much, Barbara.
And as Barbara has just talked to us about the targeting going on, the Iraqi government, as you probably know, says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. The White House dismisses the offer as a tactical move by Baghdad. Even if inspectors do return, would Saddam Hussein really allow them to do their job?
Here to tackle that question, Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Welcome back.
Good to see you again, sir.
RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Good to see you.
ZAHN: I wanted to start off by sharing with our audience something the secretary general of the U.N. had to say upon receipt of a letter from the Iraqi foreign minister. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of the inspectors without conditions to continue their work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: Do you buy the line without conditions?
HOLBROOKE: I doubt it, but we'll see. The results of where we are now have come directly from the pressure that the United States has put on the world community since President Bush went to the U.N. a week ago. So the U.S. pressure, the decision, the change in policy to go through the U.N. has begun to pay off. This is international pressure and Kofi Annan in the same comment you just played a part of went on to praise both President Bush and Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, for pressuring Saddam.
So the pressure is beginning to get a reaction in Baghdad. But I don't know if it's going to be enough. That's up to Washington.
ZAHN: Walk us through the machinations of what continues to go on at the U.N. The French apparently balking at the idea of a resolution and that that would...
HOLBROOKE: No, they're not balking at a resolution. They want a dual resolution...
ZAHN: They mean -- right.
HOLBROOKE: They want a two stage resolution. And that's a, that's for the diplomats to iron out. They want, the French are...
ZAHN: What do you think, what kind of consensus do you think they'll arrive at?
HOLBROOKE: Between one resolution and two, I don't think it's an issue that we should second guess the administration on. They'll work it out with the French. I've been in many of these U.N. arguments and in the end they always find a way to cover it up with words.
ZAHN: Let's talk for a moment about how some people think that those resolutions in the end may not be that relevant. The "L.A. Times" reporting this morning that the U.S. has all but scrapped the idea of coercive inspections and instead is pushing for a one strike policy. For example, if inspectors were on the scene at a site and the Iraqis refused to let the inspection continue, then that would allow for military action.
HOLBROOKE: Well, I...
ZAHN: Do you think that's the same thing as what the resolution might ultimately allow for?
HOLBROOKE: I haven't read the "L.A. Times" article, Paula. But I think it is crystal clear that in an absolute minimum a no notice, any time, anywhere, airtight inspection regime that calls on Iraq to comply with all 16 existing Security Council resolutions, all of which they have violated, or else face military consequences, is essential.
Now, what happens after that will depend on Washington's decisions on goals and means. The administration has said their goal is regime change. No matter what Iraq does, regime change would mean Saddam Hussein being removed from power and that's a very different objective from the one most of the international community, with the exception of the British, are prepared to support.
ZAHN: We heard from Rula Amin, our reporter on the ground in Baghdad in our last hour. And she is saying the Iraqi reaction today is very much that because of the president calling for regime change, that this whole idea of inspections is a bit of a canard.
HOLBROOKE: Well, it may be. But Saddam Hussein has made clear in the last 24 hours that he heard the president's speech, that he heard the gathering storm, as President Bush correctly put it, of international pressure, including from the Arab League, and that he's begun to respond.
Now, it is not enough, as the White House said, and as you just said. It's too little. It may be too late. And if regime change is the unmovable goal of the administration, which they say it is, then we're going to, then this isn't going to be enough. But it's a tremendous example of the value of working through the U.N. system, of gathering international and domestic support, something the administration failed to do during the summer and began right after Labor Day with initial results which are quite positive.
ZAHN: Take us inside, if you could, a little bit of what's going on in the U.N. in a timetable sense. You know, we've heard the president say this is going to be...
HOLBROOKE: Colin Powell...
ZAHN: ... days and weeks, not months and years.
HOLBROOKE: Colin Powell has spent a great deal of time in the U.N. in recent days. He met yesterday with dozens of his foreign minister counterparts from all over the world, Security Council members and so on. He has been working with them and especially with the British. I would assume that within a matter of days the British and the Americans will submit to the Security Council a resolution. It will be that airtight, no notice, any time, anywhere resolution, which many of us have been calling for, for a long time. I spoke about that on your show some weeks ago, and the need for it.
And that resolution will then be debated in the U.N. Security Council.
The key countries will be France. You already mentioned them. And the country you haven't mentioned yet, but draw attention to, Russia, will the Russians agree to this? I suspect they will. Early indications are they are.
Then you'll have a Security Council resolution which will be airtight. Will Saddam comply with it? The letter to Kofi Annan yesterday is a step in the right direction. But if Saddam is trying to avoid a new resolution, he's going to have exactly the opposite effect.
ZAHN: Richard, we just have 10 seconds left. Do you think it's a quid pro quo at work with Russia, you support this resolution, the U.S. will allow him to deal, put in to deal with his Chechen rebel problem as he sees fit?
HOLBROOKE: Administration officials have said no, there is no quid pro quo, and I don't think we should allow such a deal.
ZAHN: Richard Holbrooke, as always, good to see you.
HOLBROOKE: Good to see you.
ZAHN: Appreciate your perspective this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 17, 2002 - 08:02 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Even as Iraq says it will allow the return of weapons inspectors, the Pentagon is proceeding with plans to target key sites.
Barbara Starr is following developments from the Pentagon this morning. She has the very latest for us now -- good morning, Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Well, that's exactly right, plenty of action behind-the-scenes here at the Pentagon. CNN has learned that the U.S. Strategic Command out in Omaha, Nebraska is, in fact, holding a number of targeting meetings, trying to select key targets, what weapons will be put on them and how that whole mission will unfold in the opening hours of any war.
Topping the list of targets, we are led to believe, are Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces, the targets that symbolize his regime, the regime that George W. Bush wants to get rid of. But there are more problematic targets. Once again, the same issue that has plagued the United States since the war of Desert Storm of more than a decade ago, how to target -- you see some of those pictures here -- how to target those suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons sites.
The problem for the United States' targeting community is this. If you believe that these sites are well hidden by Iraq and it's so difficult for U.N. weapons inspectors to find these weapons of mass destruction, exactly who do you locate them well enough to target them, to bomb them and not cause massive civilian damage? So that is one of the issues that is plaguing the U.S. targeting military community at the moment.
But here at the Pentagon, yesterday Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, made clear that targeting is already under way in Iraq in one key respect. They talked about a change in strategy, targeting some key air defense sites and communications, command and control sites instead of going after some of those individual missile launchers and missile sites that the U.S. had been attacking in the no fly zones.
Here's what Rumsfeld had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: What we are doing is we are attempting to, in an orderly way, as the general indicated, arrange our response options in a way that we think, we hope will be net harmful to their capabilities on the ground. We can't know for sure if it has been net harmful. But our intention is to make it net harmful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: It's a crucial policy shift that Don Rumsfeld is announcing, making sure the U.S. controls the skies over Baghdad even before a war begins -- Paula.
ZAHN: Thanks so much, Barbara.
And as Barbara has just talked to us about the targeting going on, the Iraqi government, as you probably know, says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. The White House dismisses the offer as a tactical move by Baghdad. Even if inspectors do return, would Saddam Hussein really allow them to do their job?
Here to tackle that question, Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Welcome back.
Good to see you again, sir.
RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Good to see you.
ZAHN: I wanted to start off by sharing with our audience something the secretary general of the U.N. had to say upon receipt of a letter from the Iraqi foreign minister. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of the inspectors without conditions to continue their work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: Do you buy the line without conditions?
HOLBROOKE: I doubt it, but we'll see. The results of where we are now have come directly from the pressure that the United States has put on the world community since President Bush went to the U.N. a week ago. So the U.S. pressure, the decision, the change in policy to go through the U.N. has begun to pay off. This is international pressure and Kofi Annan in the same comment you just played a part of went on to praise both President Bush and Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, for pressuring Saddam.
So the pressure is beginning to get a reaction in Baghdad. But I don't know if it's going to be enough. That's up to Washington.
ZAHN: Walk us through the machinations of what continues to go on at the U.N. The French apparently balking at the idea of a resolution and that that would...
HOLBROOKE: No, they're not balking at a resolution. They want a dual resolution...
ZAHN: They mean -- right.
HOLBROOKE: They want a two stage resolution. And that's a, that's for the diplomats to iron out. They want, the French are...
ZAHN: What do you think, what kind of consensus do you think they'll arrive at?
HOLBROOKE: Between one resolution and two, I don't think it's an issue that we should second guess the administration on. They'll work it out with the French. I've been in many of these U.N. arguments and in the end they always find a way to cover it up with words.
ZAHN: Let's talk for a moment about how some people think that those resolutions in the end may not be that relevant. The "L.A. Times" reporting this morning that the U.S. has all but scrapped the idea of coercive inspections and instead is pushing for a one strike policy. For example, if inspectors were on the scene at a site and the Iraqis refused to let the inspection continue, then that would allow for military action.
HOLBROOKE: Well, I...
ZAHN: Do you think that's the same thing as what the resolution might ultimately allow for?
HOLBROOKE: I haven't read the "L.A. Times" article, Paula. But I think it is crystal clear that in an absolute minimum a no notice, any time, anywhere, airtight inspection regime that calls on Iraq to comply with all 16 existing Security Council resolutions, all of which they have violated, or else face military consequences, is essential.
Now, what happens after that will depend on Washington's decisions on goals and means. The administration has said their goal is regime change. No matter what Iraq does, regime change would mean Saddam Hussein being removed from power and that's a very different objective from the one most of the international community, with the exception of the British, are prepared to support.
ZAHN: We heard from Rula Amin, our reporter on the ground in Baghdad in our last hour. And she is saying the Iraqi reaction today is very much that because of the president calling for regime change, that this whole idea of inspections is a bit of a canard.
HOLBROOKE: Well, it may be. But Saddam Hussein has made clear in the last 24 hours that he heard the president's speech, that he heard the gathering storm, as President Bush correctly put it, of international pressure, including from the Arab League, and that he's begun to respond.
Now, it is not enough, as the White House said, and as you just said. It's too little. It may be too late. And if regime change is the unmovable goal of the administration, which they say it is, then we're going to, then this isn't going to be enough. But it's a tremendous example of the value of working through the U.N. system, of gathering international and domestic support, something the administration failed to do during the summer and began right after Labor Day with initial results which are quite positive.
ZAHN: Take us inside, if you could, a little bit of what's going on in the U.N. in a timetable sense. You know, we've heard the president say this is going to be...
HOLBROOKE: Colin Powell...
ZAHN: ... days and weeks, not months and years.
HOLBROOKE: Colin Powell has spent a great deal of time in the U.N. in recent days. He met yesterday with dozens of his foreign minister counterparts from all over the world, Security Council members and so on. He has been working with them and especially with the British. I would assume that within a matter of days the British and the Americans will submit to the Security Council a resolution. It will be that airtight, no notice, any time, anywhere resolution, which many of us have been calling for, for a long time. I spoke about that on your show some weeks ago, and the need for it.
And that resolution will then be debated in the U.N. Security Council.
The key countries will be France. You already mentioned them. And the country you haven't mentioned yet, but draw attention to, Russia, will the Russians agree to this? I suspect they will. Early indications are they are.
Then you'll have a Security Council resolution which will be airtight. Will Saddam comply with it? The letter to Kofi Annan yesterday is a step in the right direction. But if Saddam is trying to avoid a new resolution, he's going to have exactly the opposite effect.
ZAHN: Richard, we just have 10 seconds left. Do you think it's a quid pro quo at work with Russia, you support this resolution, the U.S. will allow him to deal, put in to deal with his Chechen rebel problem as he sees fit?
HOLBROOKE: Administration officials have said no, there is no quid pro quo, and I don't think we should allow such a deal.
ZAHN: Richard Holbrooke, as always, good to see you.
HOLBROOKE: Good to see you.
ZAHN: Appreciate your perspective this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
