Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With John Warden

Aired September 21, 2002 - 12:23   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.


RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: More now on our exclusive interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Retired Air Force Colonel John Warden is credited as the architect of the U.S. air campaign during the Gulf War. He co-authored a book, "Winning in Fast Time." Colonel Warden watched the Rumsfeld interview with us from Montgomery, Alabama. He joins us now live to offer his insights. Colonel Warden, thank you for being with us today.
COL. JOHN WARDEN (RET)., U.S. AIR FORCE: Renay, good morning. Happy to be here.

SAN MIGUEL: Wondering just what your thoughts were concerning Secretary Rumsfeld's comments. Not really that impressed with what Iraq said today. Any thoughts on your part?

WARDEN: I thought it was pretty darn good. And it followed on in the same sort of things that the president has been doing so well in the last few days. And I think the things that I particularly liked were the fact that he emphasized what a real strategic objectives were, especially in the event that we get into some sort of a conflict, and that being the end of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, stopping repression internally, and also stopping it be a threat to its neighbors.

The other thing that I found particularly useful and great for him to say was this emphasis on making it clear that our quarrel is really with Saddam Hussein and his regime. And for him to entertain the option, however unlikely, that Saddam Hussein could go into exile, that strikes me as a very, very strategic way to look at this whole thing and to keep yourself out of personalizing a relationship and instead sticking to the policy issues, which are crucial.

SAN MIGUEL: As we continue to hear Iraq do the similar kind of dance that we have seen them do with the United Nations, vis-a-vis the inspections and what would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed. We did hear General Tommy Franks today say that America is prepared for any kind of military action with Iraq, and there are reports coming out that there are detailed plans on President Bush's desk, which include a lengthy air campaign. All this should sound very familiar to you -- to knock out command and control, the air defenses, basically, you know, to take out the eyes and ears of Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Is there anything that has changed from the 11 years since you drew up the plans for an air campaign that we should take -- that the U.S. should take into consideration now? WARDEN: Well, there are several things. First of all, that Iraq is a mere shadow of its former self, from the standpoint of its ability to defend itself or anything else. The other thing, though, is that if we look back at the original Gulf War, it strikes me that one of the opportunities that we really missed was to turn the Iraqi military and let them do the job against Saddam Hussein that they would have loved to do.

And as we think about the potential and perhaps even the probability of operations against Saddam Hussein and the regime, I think we need to be very careful about some of our methodology. In other words, if we decided to do a big land invasion, we're going to end up with a long-term problem. It's going to be a bit expensive. If, on the other hand, that we can conduct the air operations and the other things in such a way as to get the Iraqi military to do that ground side of the job, I think we'll be significantly better off from both the political standpoint and there will be far less damage to Iraq, Iraqi civilian casualties, and far less casualties to our own forces also.

SAN MIGUEL: The idea, though, that if we were to come to some kind of a conflict, what we have been hearing now is that, you know, Saddam Hussein, that the speculation that Saddam Hussein would have no choice but to use chemical and biological weapons, what about that?

WARDEN: Well, I mean, the target that -- first of all, the chemical and biological weapons are really -- are very, very difficult things to use in a conventional military sense. And they can have some real value from a standpoint of the users when you're trying to use them from a terrorist standpoint or something like that, but in actual military operations, they are not terribly effective. And even if they were, they have been around for almost a century, and they would have seen a lot more use. They are just simply too hard to use, and I think we can deal with that adequately.

The other thing is, though, is that if you don't put a lot of targets on the ground, that is in terms of your own ground forces, then there's not very much to shoot -- at least against us -- either the chemical or the biological things, and whether that he would use that against his own military or not, you know, who knows, but I suspect it would probably be a little bit difficult to do mechanically.

SAN MIGUEL: Concerning some of the weapons developments that we have seen in Operation Enduring Freedom, things like the Predator drones being used widespread now, the idea of thermobaric bombs, the bunker busters -- how would you use some of these in any campaign against Iraq, and do they have a major role to play if we were to go to war with Iraq again?

WARDEN: Well, yes. In fact, both of them do, but what we need to keep in mind is that the thing that gives us our extraordinary advantage is really is other asymmetric capabilities that come through the third dimension -- air power, sea-launched missiles, bombs dropped from the air, et cetera. And the thing that is of extraordinary value is the fact that today, as opposed to in wars past, that we have most of our bombs and missiles are pretty darn precise, so you can hit exactly what you want to hit.

What the Predator adds to this equation is the ability to put something overhead that can stay there for very long periods of time, and then, in the case of the armed Predators, can act almost instantly on the basis of a new piece of information that arises.

And the thermobaric weapons, so called in any rate, where they have some enormous potential is in doing things to some of the deep underground structures that in the past probably gave people some reasonable degree of protection. And right now, when you got right down to it, if we go to war against Iraq, Iraq is simply doomed. And the only question that comes up, is how long we would take and what the costs are on both sides. And the answer to that is a function of how we decide to go about doing it.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll have to leave it there. Retired Colonel John Warden, the architect of the U.S. air campaign, joining us from Montgomery, Alabama, thank you very much for your insight. We do appreciate it.

WARDEN: Renay, thank you.

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 21, 2002 - 12:23   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: More now on our exclusive interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Retired Air Force Colonel John Warden is credited as the architect of the U.S. air campaign during the Gulf War. He co-authored a book, "Winning in Fast Time." Colonel Warden watched the Rumsfeld interview with us from Montgomery, Alabama. He joins us now live to offer his insights. Colonel Warden, thank you for being with us today.
COL. JOHN WARDEN (RET)., U.S. AIR FORCE: Renay, good morning. Happy to be here.

SAN MIGUEL: Wondering just what your thoughts were concerning Secretary Rumsfeld's comments. Not really that impressed with what Iraq said today. Any thoughts on your part?

WARDEN: I thought it was pretty darn good. And it followed on in the same sort of things that the president has been doing so well in the last few days. And I think the things that I particularly liked were the fact that he emphasized what a real strategic objectives were, especially in the event that we get into some sort of a conflict, and that being the end of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, stopping repression internally, and also stopping it be a threat to its neighbors.

The other thing that I found particularly useful and great for him to say was this emphasis on making it clear that our quarrel is really with Saddam Hussein and his regime. And for him to entertain the option, however unlikely, that Saddam Hussein could go into exile, that strikes me as a very, very strategic way to look at this whole thing and to keep yourself out of personalizing a relationship and instead sticking to the policy issues, which are crucial.

SAN MIGUEL: As we continue to hear Iraq do the similar kind of dance that we have seen them do with the United Nations, vis-a-vis the inspections and what would be allowed and what wouldn't be allowed. We did hear General Tommy Franks today say that America is prepared for any kind of military action with Iraq, and there are reports coming out that there are detailed plans on President Bush's desk, which include a lengthy air campaign. All this should sound very familiar to you -- to knock out command and control, the air defenses, basically, you know, to take out the eyes and ears of Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Is there anything that has changed from the 11 years since you drew up the plans for an air campaign that we should take -- that the U.S. should take into consideration now? WARDEN: Well, there are several things. First of all, that Iraq is a mere shadow of its former self, from the standpoint of its ability to defend itself or anything else. The other thing, though, is that if we look back at the original Gulf War, it strikes me that one of the opportunities that we really missed was to turn the Iraqi military and let them do the job against Saddam Hussein that they would have loved to do.

And as we think about the potential and perhaps even the probability of operations against Saddam Hussein and the regime, I think we need to be very careful about some of our methodology. In other words, if we decided to do a big land invasion, we're going to end up with a long-term problem. It's going to be a bit expensive. If, on the other hand, that we can conduct the air operations and the other things in such a way as to get the Iraqi military to do that ground side of the job, I think we'll be significantly better off from both the political standpoint and there will be far less damage to Iraq, Iraqi civilian casualties, and far less casualties to our own forces also.

SAN MIGUEL: The idea, though, that if we were to come to some kind of a conflict, what we have been hearing now is that, you know, Saddam Hussein, that the speculation that Saddam Hussein would have no choice but to use chemical and biological weapons, what about that?

WARDEN: Well, I mean, the target that -- first of all, the chemical and biological weapons are really -- are very, very difficult things to use in a conventional military sense. And they can have some real value from a standpoint of the users when you're trying to use them from a terrorist standpoint or something like that, but in actual military operations, they are not terribly effective. And even if they were, they have been around for almost a century, and they would have seen a lot more use. They are just simply too hard to use, and I think we can deal with that adequately.

The other thing is, though, is that if you don't put a lot of targets on the ground, that is in terms of your own ground forces, then there's not very much to shoot -- at least against us -- either the chemical or the biological things, and whether that he would use that against his own military or not, you know, who knows, but I suspect it would probably be a little bit difficult to do mechanically.

SAN MIGUEL: Concerning some of the weapons developments that we have seen in Operation Enduring Freedom, things like the Predator drones being used widespread now, the idea of thermobaric bombs, the bunker busters -- how would you use some of these in any campaign against Iraq, and do they have a major role to play if we were to go to war with Iraq again?

WARDEN: Well, yes. In fact, both of them do, but what we need to keep in mind is that the thing that gives us our extraordinary advantage is really is other asymmetric capabilities that come through the third dimension -- air power, sea-launched missiles, bombs dropped from the air, et cetera. And the thing that is of extraordinary value is the fact that today, as opposed to in wars past, that we have most of our bombs and missiles are pretty darn precise, so you can hit exactly what you want to hit.

What the Predator adds to this equation is the ability to put something overhead that can stay there for very long periods of time, and then, in the case of the armed Predators, can act almost instantly on the basis of a new piece of information that arises.

And the thermobaric weapons, so called in any rate, where they have some enormous potential is in doing things to some of the deep underground structures that in the past probably gave people some reasonable degree of protection. And right now, when you got right down to it, if we go to war against Iraq, Iraq is simply doomed. And the only question that comes up, is how long we would take and what the costs are on both sides. And the answer to that is a function of how we decide to go about doing it.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll have to leave it there. Retired Colonel John Warden, the architect of the U.S. air campaign, joining us from Montgomery, Alabama, thank you very much for your insight. We do appreciate it.

WARDEN: Renay, thank you.

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