Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Road to War?
Aired December 19, 2002 - 07:06 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: Iraq's failure to meet the demands for weapons disclosure may not immediately trigger a war. Still, the Pentagon is poised for a massive military buildup in the Persian Gulf.
Let's turn to Barbara Starr, who is standing by live at the Pentagon to bring us up-to-date on that.
Good morning -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Well, Pentagon officials are now openly saying that they are planning a possible buildup of military forces in the Persian Gulf that could roughly double the number of troops there from 60,000 to over 100,000. General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, the man who would run a war, is in town this week to talk about this plan.
The immediate goal here, of course, is to take another step to tighten the noose around Saddam Hussein. Sending more troops and equipment, the U.S. believes, will send a signal to Saddam at a time when the White House, of course, is also saying that the Iraqi government has not told the truth about their weapons of mass destruction.
Now, if President Bush decides to proceed with this plan to build up troops and equipment in the Gulf, officials say the buildup will begin after the Christmas holidays, and that the troops will begin arriving in the region sometime in January.
All of this very key, a very tactical military decision, of course, because it will also shorten the timeline after the first of the year if the president makes a decision to go to war, shorten the timeline for U.S. troops to already be there, be ready to take those final steps.
We should point out that a number of these troops, probably the majority of course, will be support troops. Some will be combat, but a lot of this is going to be support and logistics for those combat troops, both ground and air troops.
At the same time, U.S. intelligence officials told reporters yesterday in a related matter that they had "solid evidence" -- that's their words -- "solid evidence" that Saddam Hussein is planning a scorched-earth policy if the U.S. goes to war against Iraq. And that scorched-earth policy will include, they tell us, his plan to destroy oil wells, to destroy power plants, to use his biological and other weapons of mass destruction possibly against his own people and, again, against his neighbors as he has done in the past. Even, they say, he plans to manufacture civilian casualties, blame it all on the United States.
So, of course, Paula, the very interesting question that's emerging here now is: Why is the administration, why are military officials who are usually so secretive telling reporters all of this information, all about the buildup, all about the scorched-earth policy? Skeptics are saying that possibly this is all an effort, it's true, but all a very key strategic effort to send a message to Saddam Hussein through the news media that President Bush is very serious, and that at this point, Saddam should understand, he has nowhere to go but out of office -- Paula.
ZAHN: I guess the big question is, whether you agree or not on that analysis, is whether Saddam Hussein will ever get that message. Thanks, Barbara Starr.
Let's turn to a man who might be able to figure that all out for us, our own military analyst, General Wesley Clark.
Good morning -- welcome back.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: First of all, let's talk about that scorched-earth policy. Does it make sense that the administration would be floating this to send a message to Saddam Hussein?
CLARK: Well, it might make sense, because what the administration is saying to Saddam Hussein is, we've read your mail, we know what you're doing. And what we're also saying -- what the administration is saying to the rest of the world is, this is not going to be easy, but it is going to be necessary, and if it is necessary to do this, then understand that Saddam Hussein may be trying to put the blame on us when, in fact, this is his policy all along.
So, this is a little bit of preemptive defense, you might say, for what might happen.
ZAHN: But no one should be surprised by Saddam Hussein coming out and basically saying he's going to destroy the oil fields, that he's going to create a humanitarian crisis in his own country and blame it on the Americans.
CLARK: That's the logical thing for him to do.
ZAHN: I mean, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), right?
CLARK: Absolutely, it's a very logical thing for him to do.
ZAHN: And the point of it is?
CLARK: The point of it would be to build support against the United States on behalf of Iraq, so that it would give him hope and encouragement maybe before the start of the war or maybe during the war. I think Saddam probably feels that, oh, he can't whip the United States in open battle. Maybe he feels he can hang on in Baghdad, and if he can get enough support to his side that he'll discourage the United States from attacking in the first place.
ZAHN: I want you to read some tea leaves for us this morning. We're going to quickly share with our audience something Secretary of State Powell had to say about the gaps and omissions in the declaration by Saddam Hussein. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are not encouraged that they have gotten the message or will cooperate based on what we have seen so far in the declaration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: Does that mean we are a step closer to war?
CLARK: Absolutely. This is a step-by-step process to bring the American people and world opinion around to make it very clear that Saddam Hussein is violating, and in the process, maybe Saddam will get the message. I think it's unlikely, but in the meantime, it has to be made clear that war is the last resort, not the first choice.
ZAHN: But it is also very carefully calibrated to continue to try to gain support among UN Security Council members. Is that strategy working?
CLARK: I think it is working. I think as the evidence is slowly revealed, as Saddam has given more time to produce and fails to deliver and blocks the inspectors, I think the UN Security Council's sympathy and support will shift more and more to the United States position.
ZAHN: I know Suzanne Malveaux made a reference to the January 27 date, and that's the date on which Hans Blix will be making a complete report to the UN on these weapons inspections. Is that the beginning of the optimal window then for military action? Is that what we should be looking to?
CLARK: I would think that that is the beginning of the window, but of course, it will depend on what happens between now and then as to how that report comes out, how much more diplomacy and public affairs has to be done after the 27th of January. But the point will be that when the president decides to go to war, he's going to want to do that as rapidly as possible, maybe time for a last-ditch diplomatic effort, but not weeks and months. So, the build up will need to be largely done by that date.
ZAHN: How much more evidence does the UN really need here? I mean, there is newspaper article after newspaper article, after a CNN report this morning showing that the Iraqis haven't even admitted to having stuff that they admitted to having in 1995. I mean, how much more blatant does this have to be? CLARK: I think that people -- the more this goes on, I think the more that the world is going to look to the United States and say, OK, we know there are omissions in the Iraqi report, but what's the evidence? Go back and show us again the positive evidence that you have that he still has this? Do you have photographs? Can you produce the people who say they had worked on this capability? Can you give us some more tangible evidence?
And everybody goes back as a standard to the 1962 United Nations session when Adlai Stevenson showed the photographs of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. I don't think there's going to be anything like that in this case. But there will be people turning to the United States and saying, OK, it's his word against yours, show us more evidence.
ZAHN: And you have no faith Saddam Hussein in the end will come clean.
CLARK: I think it's very unlikely that Saddam Hussein is going to come clean.
ZAHN: Wesley Clark, always good to have you drop by.
CLARK: Thank you, Paula.
ZAHN: We appreciate your perspective.
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 December 19, 2002 - 07:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Iraq's failure to meet the demands for weapons disclosure may not immediately trigger a war. Still, the Pentagon is poised for a massive military buildup in the Persian Gulf.
Let's turn to Barbara Starr, who is standing by live at the Pentagon to bring us up-to-date on that.
Good morning -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
Well, Pentagon officials are now openly saying that they are planning a possible buildup of military forces in the Persian Gulf that could roughly double the number of troops there from 60,000 to over 100,000. General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, the man who would run a war, is in town this week to talk about this plan.
The immediate goal here, of course, is to take another step to tighten the noose around Saddam Hussein. Sending more troops and equipment, the U.S. believes, will send a signal to Saddam at a time when the White House, of course, is also saying that the Iraqi government has not told the truth about their weapons of mass destruction.
Now, if President Bush decides to proceed with this plan to build up troops and equipment in the Gulf, officials say the buildup will begin after the Christmas holidays, and that the troops will begin arriving in the region sometime in January.
All of this very key, a very tactical military decision, of course, because it will also shorten the timeline after the first of the year if the president makes a decision to go to war, shorten the timeline for U.S. troops to already be there, be ready to take those final steps.
We should point out that a number of these troops, probably the majority of course, will be support troops. Some will be combat, but a lot of this is going to be support and logistics for those combat troops, both ground and air troops.
At the same time, U.S. intelligence officials told reporters yesterday in a related matter that they had "solid evidence" -- that's their words -- "solid evidence" that Saddam Hussein is planning a scorched-earth policy if the U.S. goes to war against Iraq. And that scorched-earth policy will include, they tell us, his plan to destroy oil wells, to destroy power plants, to use his biological and other weapons of mass destruction possibly against his own people and, again, against his neighbors as he has done in the past. Even, they say, he plans to manufacture civilian casualties, blame it all on the United States.
So, of course, Paula, the very interesting question that's emerging here now is: Why is the administration, why are military officials who are usually so secretive telling reporters all of this information, all about the buildup, all about the scorched-earth policy? Skeptics are saying that possibly this is all an effort, it's true, but all a very key strategic effort to send a message to Saddam Hussein through the news media that President Bush is very serious, and that at this point, Saddam should understand, he has nowhere to go but out of office -- Paula.
ZAHN: I guess the big question is, whether you agree or not on that analysis, is whether Saddam Hussein will ever get that message. Thanks, Barbara Starr.
Let's turn to a man who might be able to figure that all out for us, our own military analyst, General Wesley Clark.
Good morning -- welcome back.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: First of all, let's talk about that scorched-earth policy. Does it make sense that the administration would be floating this to send a message to Saddam Hussein?
CLARK: Well, it might make sense, because what the administration is saying to Saddam Hussein is, we've read your mail, we know what you're doing. And what we're also saying -- what the administration is saying to the rest of the world is, this is not going to be easy, but it is going to be necessary, and if it is necessary to do this, then understand that Saddam Hussein may be trying to put the blame on us when, in fact, this is his policy all along.
So, this is a little bit of preemptive defense, you might say, for what might happen.
ZAHN: But no one should be surprised by Saddam Hussein coming out and basically saying he's going to destroy the oil fields, that he's going to create a humanitarian crisis in his own country and blame it on the Americans.
CLARK: That's the logical thing for him to do.
ZAHN: I mean, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), right?
CLARK: Absolutely, it's a very logical thing for him to do.
ZAHN: And the point of it is?
CLARK: The point of it would be to build support against the United States on behalf of Iraq, so that it would give him hope and encouragement maybe before the start of the war or maybe during the war. I think Saddam probably feels that, oh, he can't whip the United States in open battle. Maybe he feels he can hang on in Baghdad, and if he can get enough support to his side that he'll discourage the United States from attacking in the first place.
ZAHN: I want you to read some tea leaves for us this morning. We're going to quickly share with our audience something Secretary of State Powell had to say about the gaps and omissions in the declaration by Saddam Hussein. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are not encouraged that they have gotten the message or will cooperate based on what we have seen so far in the declaration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: Does that mean we are a step closer to war?
CLARK: Absolutely. This is a step-by-step process to bring the American people and world opinion around to make it very clear that Saddam Hussein is violating, and in the process, maybe Saddam will get the message. I think it's unlikely, but in the meantime, it has to be made clear that war is the last resort, not the first choice.
ZAHN: But it is also very carefully calibrated to continue to try to gain support among UN Security Council members. Is that strategy working?
CLARK: I think it is working. I think as the evidence is slowly revealed, as Saddam has given more time to produce and fails to deliver and blocks the inspectors, I think the UN Security Council's sympathy and support will shift more and more to the United States position.
ZAHN: I know Suzanne Malveaux made a reference to the January 27 date, and that's the date on which Hans Blix will be making a complete report to the UN on these weapons inspections. Is that the beginning of the optimal window then for military action? Is that what we should be looking to?
CLARK: I would think that that is the beginning of the window, but of course, it will depend on what happens between now and then as to how that report comes out, how much more diplomacy and public affairs has to be done after the 27th of January. But the point will be that when the president decides to go to war, he's going to want to do that as rapidly as possible, maybe time for a last-ditch diplomatic effort, but not weeks and months. So, the build up will need to be largely done by that date.
ZAHN: How much more evidence does the UN really need here? I mean, there is newspaper article after newspaper article, after a CNN report this morning showing that the Iraqis haven't even admitted to having stuff that they admitted to having in 1995. I mean, how much more blatant does this have to be? CLARK: I think that people -- the more this goes on, I think the more that the world is going to look to the United States and say, OK, we know there are omissions in the Iraqi report, but what's the evidence? Go back and show us again the positive evidence that you have that he still has this? Do you have photographs? Can you produce the people who say they had worked on this capability? Can you give us some more tangible evidence?
And everybody goes back as a standard to the 1962 United Nations session when Adlai Stevenson showed the photographs of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. I don't think there's going to be anything like that in this case. But there will be people turning to the United States and saying, OK, it's his word against yours, show us more evidence.
ZAHN: And you have no faith Saddam Hussein in the end will come clean.
CLARK: I think it's very unlikely that Saddam Hussein is going to come clean.
ZAHN: Wesley Clark, always good to have you drop by.
CLARK: Thank you, Paula.
ZAHN: We appreciate your perspective.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
