Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Sunday

Interview With Ken Pollack

Aired November 02, 2003 - 11:07   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: With a fresh reminder this weekend of violence in Iraq, the Senate tomorrow is to vote on legislation that would give billions of dollars for Iraqi reconstruction and security. Could that money help prevent the kinds of attacks that we've seen today? For analysis, we're joined live by Ken Pollack with the Brookings Institution.
Ken, good to see you again.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you, good to be here.

SAN MIGUEL: I'm putting you in charge of how that money is going to be spent, if it is indeed voted by the Congress. In terms of the money that's going for security, what needs to be done? How would you want to see that money spent?

POLLACK: Certainly we need to, as the administration is saying, continue to bring Iraqis into new security services. There's no question about that. But we also need to recognize that security is not a purely military issue. There are political and economic components that go into creating a more stable and secure Iraq. In particular, it's not just about bringing more Iraqis into the security services. That's an important thing but that will take a long time. It will take months if not a year or two to get to the point where Iraqis can take over their own security problems. In the meantime, we've got to find ways to deal with those problems in other ways, reaching out to Iraqi tribal groups and other leaders and convincing them to dampen down these attacks, to cooperate with reconstruction and take security into their own hands.

SAN MIGUEL: General Sanchez said yesterday in that briefing in Baghdad with Paul Bremer that these attacks that have been going on -- this was before today, obviously -- but the attacks have been going on strategically and operationally insignificant. They are designed just to attack America's resolve in all this. But what we heard from Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush yesterday, they're going to stick to their guns on this issue. They are going to remain steadfast. The U.S. will not leave Iraq until the job is done.

POLLACK: There is truth in that statement. But also -- you have to be really careful about that. This is a guerrilla war. As a result, attacks in guerrilla war are always operationally insignificant. That's the whole point. They're all about politics. Guerrilla warfare is a political form of warfare. It's about getting at the resolve of the United States, as you pointed out. It also is about getting at the resolve of the Iraqi people. It's about trying to say to the Iraqi people, you are not going to benefit from this reconstruction. Don't think that Saddam is gone forever. Don't think that the Americans will be able to succeed. We still have a very important say in what's going to happen in Iraq. Don't think that you're ever going to be safe and secure unless you do what we want to. And as a result, the more that they can cause mayhem, the more that they can show the United States to be a paper tiger, the more that they think they can fill American body bags, the greater the likelihood they believe they're going to succeed.

So yes, it's true, this today was not a tactical victory in any sense for anyone, but it was a very important marker that they're laying down saying we can reach out and inflict casualties on the United States.

SAN MIGUEL: The idea that -- this back and forth argument about who's coordinating. Are they coordinated attacks, or is there somebody in charge or centrally in command here, does it really matter? Or all you really need is kind of loosely scattered groups out there causing this kind of damage to have an impact, right?

POLLACK: Right. I work in a place called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy back in Washington. I don't have any greater access to information than Central Command does out in the field. I don't think that any of us back here, I don't get the sense that CentCom really does either, have a really good sense of how things are being coordinated.

But as you're pointing out, you've got a lot of different groups in Iraq right now. They don't represent a large percentage of the Iraqi population, but nevertheless, they're significant enough that they're out there and taking shots at Americans and they're causing problems. There does seem to be a greater degree of sophistication among the attacks, and certainly a greater degree of coordination. Let's remember they mounted five car bomb attacks in one day. That looks like a greater degree of coordination.

So whatever is happening, the resistance is getting more sophisticated. Whether that's because Saddam's loyalists are getting better at what they do, figuring out how to do this, or because you have more Al Qaeda and other sophisticated terrorists moving into the country. It's unclear. But either way, it's a problem for the United States.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll have to leave it there. Ken Pollack with the Brookings Institution, thanks so much for joining us this morning.

POLLACK: 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 November 2, 2003 - 11:07   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: With a fresh reminder this weekend of violence in Iraq, the Senate tomorrow is to vote on legislation that would give billions of dollars for Iraqi reconstruction and security. Could that money help prevent the kinds of attacks that we've seen today? For analysis, we're joined live by Ken Pollack with the Brookings Institution.
Ken, good to see you again.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you, good to be here.

SAN MIGUEL: I'm putting you in charge of how that money is going to be spent, if it is indeed voted by the Congress. In terms of the money that's going for security, what needs to be done? How would you want to see that money spent?

POLLACK: Certainly we need to, as the administration is saying, continue to bring Iraqis into new security services. There's no question about that. But we also need to recognize that security is not a purely military issue. There are political and economic components that go into creating a more stable and secure Iraq. In particular, it's not just about bringing more Iraqis into the security services. That's an important thing but that will take a long time. It will take months if not a year or two to get to the point where Iraqis can take over their own security problems. In the meantime, we've got to find ways to deal with those problems in other ways, reaching out to Iraqi tribal groups and other leaders and convincing them to dampen down these attacks, to cooperate with reconstruction and take security into their own hands.

SAN MIGUEL: General Sanchez said yesterday in that briefing in Baghdad with Paul Bremer that these attacks that have been going on -- this was before today, obviously -- but the attacks have been going on strategically and operationally insignificant. They are designed just to attack America's resolve in all this. But what we heard from Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush yesterday, they're going to stick to their guns on this issue. They are going to remain steadfast. The U.S. will not leave Iraq until the job is done.

POLLACK: There is truth in that statement. But also -- you have to be really careful about that. This is a guerrilla war. As a result, attacks in guerrilla war are always operationally insignificant. That's the whole point. They're all about politics. Guerrilla warfare is a political form of warfare. It's about getting at the resolve of the United States, as you pointed out. It also is about getting at the resolve of the Iraqi people. It's about trying to say to the Iraqi people, you are not going to benefit from this reconstruction. Don't think that Saddam is gone forever. Don't think that the Americans will be able to succeed. We still have a very important say in what's going to happen in Iraq. Don't think that you're ever going to be safe and secure unless you do what we want to. And as a result, the more that they can cause mayhem, the more that they can show the United States to be a paper tiger, the more that they think they can fill American body bags, the greater the likelihood they believe they're going to succeed.

So yes, it's true, this today was not a tactical victory in any sense for anyone, but it was a very important marker that they're laying down saying we can reach out and inflict casualties on the United States.

SAN MIGUEL: The idea that -- this back and forth argument about who's coordinating. Are they coordinated attacks, or is there somebody in charge or centrally in command here, does it really matter? Or all you really need is kind of loosely scattered groups out there causing this kind of damage to have an impact, right?

POLLACK: Right. I work in a place called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy back in Washington. I don't have any greater access to information than Central Command does out in the field. I don't think that any of us back here, I don't get the sense that CentCom really does either, have a really good sense of how things are being coordinated.

But as you're pointing out, you've got a lot of different groups in Iraq right now. They don't represent a large percentage of the Iraqi population, but nevertheless, they're significant enough that they're out there and taking shots at Americans and they're causing problems. There does seem to be a greater degree of sophistication among the attacks, and certainly a greater degree of coordination. Let's remember they mounted five car bomb attacks in one day. That looks like a greater degree of coordination.

So whatever is happening, the resistance is getting more sophisticated. Whether that's because Saddam's loyalists are getting better at what they do, figuring out how to do this, or because you have more Al Qaeda and other sophisticated terrorists moving into the country. It's unclear. But either way, it's a problem for the United States.

SAN MIGUEL: We'll have to leave it there. Ken Pollack with the Brookings Institution, thanks so much for joining us this morning.

POLLACK: 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