Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Marines Battling Insurgents in Fallujah;

Aired April 28, 2004 - 9:00   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.


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: And, in fact, we have more pictures, new pictures coming to us from Al-Jazeera television of the same thing. A different angle, of course, the fighting going on right now in Fallujah. And many solutions, of course, being considered.
We want to take you to Barbara Starr at the Pentagon.

First, Barbara, give us a sense of what you're hearing about this specific fight. And then I want to talk about the broader picture of what this mean for the future of Fallujah.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Soledad, officials here are looking at these pictures. They see them, and they are looking at them, in their words, as the optics, the visual pictures that you see coming out of Iraq. This is, in military terms, the tactical situation on the ground in Fallujah.

Certainly, it does not look good. There's a lot of shooting, a lot of violence that has been going on for the last several days. But we have spoken to a senior military official with very direct knowledge of the situation on the ground and very direct knowledge of General Abizaid's thinking today about all of this. General Abizaid, of course, the head of the U.S. Central Command, the top U.S commander in the region.

Now, General Abizaid is warning, we are told, that the U.S. military cannot solve alone the problems in Fallujah. That he says the military option, in other words, a full-out U.S. Marine Corps assault into the city, should be the option of last resort. He truly believes that there has to be a mix of solutions to solve the problem in Fallujah. There has to be political involvement by both the coalition, the leaders of Fallujah, and by the Iraqis.

General Abizaid a very strong proponent at this point of this type of multi-threaded solution, if you will. They want to give these discussions with the Fallujah leaders more time. And one of the reasons is, again, they feel there is no other option at this point.

From the military point of view here at the Pentagon, it's not a good idea to make that full assault into the city. A lot of civilians are going to die, a lot of damage. And not at all clear that they would be able to essentially eliminate the entire insurgent movement.

There are insurgents in the city; they know where some of them are. They certainly could eliminate some of them. But no indication that that would eliminate the insurgency as an organization or as a problem across Iraq.

General Abizaid believes, we are told, that there is very serious concern about increasing violence in Iraq at this point, of course, between now and the June 30 handover date. He likens it to being in a wind tunnel. And as you move towards the vortex, the turbulence gets worse.

He is looking at options on how to deal with that increased violence, if it breaks out. But, again, a very strong proponent that the Iraqis, Iraqi security forces and the interim government that will emerge, must take a leading role.

So while you're seeing these very unsettling, very violent pictures from Fallujah this morning, it is the tactical situation on the ground. We are told at this point, unless something dramatically shifts on the battlefield, not to expect an all-out assault into the city at any point in the near future. That could be matter of hours or days.

They say that, you know, it can't sit as it is forever. But they do feel that they want to try to give it more time, more time to work with the leaders of Fallujah, more time to deal with it on a political level, so they don't have resort to that last final option, which would be all-out military force -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr working the phones at the Pentagon this morning. Barbara, thanks. We're going to ask you as well to stick around. We're going to check back in with you in just a few minutes -- Bill.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: So what we know now -- and there's a whole lot we do not know -- but at this point, it is well into the late afternoon there on Wednesday afternoon in Fallujah. The fighting continues there. There's said to be targeted strikes carried out by the U.S. military, headed up by the Marines that have encircled that town.

We are told that at least three houses or three buildings, possibly, have been targeted today, possibly holding ammo, possibly holding insurgent fighters. All this coming the day after the nighttime raids on two separate buildings with those giant AC-130 gunshots, with their left-side guns trained on two buildings that were said to be holding ammunition stored up by the insurgents, taken out late last night in that overnight raid.

Some of those explosions trailing off for 20 minutes or longer after the initial strike by the bullets from the AC-130. The truce, the cease-fire, much debated as to whether or not it is, indeed, a cease-fire at this point, continues, we are told. But Paul Bremer said yesterday it's a tenuous cease-fire. And, again, the outstanding issue as to whether or not a negotiated settlement can come out of this is an outstanding question today.

O'BRIEN: And, of course, some of the journalists who are embedded with the Marines in Fallujah say the cease-fire is considered a joke by the Marines who are taking on fire from the insurgents. We're going to go back to Ken Pollack, who's been kind enough to stand around for us for a few moments.

Let's talk a little bit, Ken, about what we just heard from Barbara Starr. She said General Abizaid, the head, obviously, of the U.S. Central Command, says the U.S. military alone cannot be the solution to this problem. A full out and out Marine assault will not work in the long term. At the same time, I think that there are questions about whether or not negotiations can work, and then, of course, you have the U.N. special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, saying that maybe moving the handover up earlier is a better solution.

Let's talk about what he has posed. Do you actually think that that's true, and do you possibly see that happening in light of what we're seeing in Fallujah and, frankly, across Iraq over today and over the last couple of days?

KEN POLLACK, SABAN CENTER, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I completely agree with General Abizaid that the standoff in Fallujah cannot possibly be solved solely by military means. If we go in there and we flatten the town, if we take down the entire -- and flatten is -- you know, I really misspoke there. I should not have said that.

If we go and take down the town -- because the Marines will not flatten it. They will do it very precisely and they will avoid civilian casualties as best they can. But even if we do take down the city and we are able to somehow capture several insurgents and grab several tens of thousands of weapons, that's not going to end the problem of the insurgency from the Sunni Triangle.

Beyond Fallujah, there is Ramadi, there Habbaniyah, there is Adifa (ph). There are a whole bunch of other towns out there that are also very much opposed to the United States of America. And what we need to recognize is that it is going to require bringing the Sunni tribal population back into the reconstruction effort.

We've completely alienated them. And I think this is both what General Abizaid is getting at, I think it's what Ambassador Negroponte is trying to get at, and I think it is what Mr. Brahimi is trying to get at. But until we bring the Sunni tribal population into the reconstruction effort, until we make them feel like reconstruction is going to benefit them, we're going to continue to have these problems, no matter how many towns we take down.

HEMMER: Ken, you were on our program two weeks ago. And to paraphrase your words, you said this should have happened a year ago. Explain what you meant by that based on what we're seeing today.

POLLACK: Sure. The problem was something that we knew about right from the start, Bill. We knew that Fallujah, we knew that Ramadi, all these other towns that I've just reeled off, we knew that they were going to be problems. They were strong tribal towns, some of them, Fallujah in particular. Also had very strong religious bases.

They were the places where Saddam Hussein got his greatest start. And it was critical 12 months to have gone into these places, established security, disarmed the population, and prevented exactly this kind of situation from developing.

We did that in Tikrit. In Saddam's home town, we went in, we did it, we established a security presence, we started working with the people of Tikrit. We showed them that there was going to be a benefit from reconstruction. And Tikrit right now, I want to be careful of what I say, but it is arguably a success story because it worked there.

We did not do this in Fallujah, in Adifa (ph), in Ramadi, and all these other towns. And, as a result, they've become strongholds for the resistance.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Ken, Jack Cafferty. I just was curious about something you said earlier. You said, you know, you're going to have to make a deal with the tribal leaders and indicate to them that they're going to be a part of the new government.

To what degree might they be fighting against the very fear of having to share political power with the Shiites and the Kurds? Old memories die hard. Those two segments of the population, Shiites and Kurds, were oppressed, brutalized, persecuted by the very people inside Fallujah for the last 30 years, with the blessings of Saddam Hussein. Might there be a tremendous fear among the Sunni population of what's going to happen to them if suddenly the power is shared equally with the people they were brutalizing all that time?

POLLACK: Absolutely, Jack. That is exactly their fear. And the problem is that the way that we have conducted ourselves, the way we have handled the post-Saddam government, has reinforced those shares.

Remember, de-Baathification, we went far too far. It was far too arbitrary. We put it in the hands of Ahmed Chalabi, who was using it for his political advantage.

Basically, we excluded virtually all the Sunni tribesmen. We threw them out of the government. Then we set up this new transitional government where we have one Sunni tribal who is not well respected. We basically excluded them from the new government that we set up.

So, you know, if you look at it from the perspective of the Sunni tribesmen, they look at it and say, this is all about us. They are throwing us out of our positions of power. They're not letting us back into the new government they're establishing.

They're going to create a government that is going to oppress us the way that we oppressed the Shia for the last 80 years, and we're not going to take it. And it's up to us to convince them that a new government -- a new democratic Iraq, where there is rule of law, is going to make sure there are minority rights, that no one gets oppressed, and that they will have a fair share in that new government.

O'BRIEN: A tall order, I think it is fair to say. Ken Pollack, we're going to ask you again to stick around as we continue to look at these new pictures coming into us from Fallujah. Some resumption of the fighting there this morning.

Jack Cafferty has been following this story. It's the Question of the Day. And you're really getting some tremendous feedback.

CAFFERTY: Yes. People are frustrated with what they see going on over there. And we're getting hundreds of responses to the question, what do you do about the problem in Fallujah?

Donna, for example, in Virginia, writes: "Cut off all electricity and water. Don't let anyone or anything in to the city. Let anyone who wants to leave out of the city after expecting their possessions for contraband, and then just let them decide what they eventually want to do."

Justin in Pennsylvania: "The fact is, we went to war to win. Though I don't like to hear about casualties, they're a fact of war. If wiping out Fallujah is the next step to victory, then so be it. Unless it's total victory, it's total defeat."

Betsy in New York: "Remaking other cultures in our own image is not always the answer. Food, medicine, clean water, books, removable land mines and threats of cluster bombs are perhaps more important than our version of democracy. Bring our sons and daughters home. Haven't we had enough domino theory for one century? We're creating a new generation of terrorists."

And, finally, Burt in Raleigh, North Carolina: "The way to capture the gunmen in Fallujah and Najaf is to send George Bush and Dick Cheney to Iraq to give a series of speeches. Then, while the fighters try to figure out what George and Dick are talking about, they can be surrounded and captured."

It's an interesting idea.

O'BRIEN: People always find humor in some of what other people would say are really up there with the most dire situations right now.

You know, we've been watching these pictures of helicopters circling Fallujah and military tanks on occasion. You get to see them rolling in. You are looking at live pictures coming into us.

There was an explosion, we're told, chopper propeller noise, chopper firing as well. Barbara Starr has been monitoring this for us from the Pentagon this morning.

Barbara, what are they telling you about the prospects that lie ahead for Fallujah in light of what we're seeing right now?

STARR: Well, what the feeling is here is, first and foremost, they want to listen to the commanders on the ground, on those front lines. Now, they know the Marines are frustrated, that the Marines, many of them feel that they are sitting there taking fire with very limited rules that allow them to defend themselves, return fire, call in the helicopter gunships, go after known insurgent targets in the city when they can find them, not to conduct a general offensive operation into the city, however.

So there is a very clear understanding here that they know the Marines on the ground are frustrated. But a broader picture, of course, here at the Pentagon, and for the Bush administration. And that is, just weeks away now from that transition of what now is being called limited sovereignty being turned over to an Iraqi interim government that is in the process of being selected.

The feeling here, the feeling throughout the Bush administration, appears increasingly to pressure these Iraqi government entities to stand up, as people say here, and let their voices be heard and take some responsibility. The feeling is, it is so close to sovereignty now, that the Iraqis must take a leading role in this. No indication, Soledad, at this point, at least in the next hours and days, that there is going to be any order to move into the city.

Now, we have asked -- here is a key question. If the Marines say they want to make a move if something happens, do they have to come back to the White House and get permission?

O'BRIEN: An interesting question there. Barbara Starr for us at the Pentagon. Barbara, thanks. We're going to continue to check in with you. Bill's going to head now to Karl Penhaul.

HEMMER: The pool reporter is Karl Penhaul. He has been following a report. We're going to try and dip in again.

We tried this 30 minutes ago. The audio is a bit difficult at times. We'll try it again. Karl Penhaul, embedded with the U.S. Marines pool.

KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... and what's been happening (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and pounded those with a mixture of machinegun fire, and also rockets and missiles as these helicopters carry on forward. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in many days in the northwest sector of Fallujah. When I say northwest sector, we're talking about a radius of perhaps a kilometer east and south. That's where these firefights have been taking place. And according to coalition commanders on the ground, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) really a hotbed of insurgent activity.

But coalition authorities also feel that foreign fighters with links to al Qaeda may be insisting Iraqi insurgents here on the ground. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hearing this (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The sound of that gunfire coming from positions south of where we're standing now. Positions that we know over the last few days have been used by insurgents to fire on (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

HEMMER: It is evident, in the words of Karl Penhaul, and the sounds in the background, that the fight is back on. That indicating yet again that the firefight could be quite close in proximity, not just with him, but with the insurgents and Marines.

Earlier in the week, we were told they were 30 yards apart from each other oftentimes in these firefights. There's a lot that we don't know right now. But the indications we're getting is that earlier, near the train station in this city of 300,000, there was a fight there.

There's this neighborhood known as Jolan, J-O-L-A-N. Narrow alleyways, crowded buildings and homes. That is the area that's been described to us as where the majority of the insurgents are taking refuge and hiding out. That is also probably the area, we suspect at this point, where most of the attacks took place overnight.

What's happening today, all we can see is the videophone here and try to decipher the words of Karl Penhaul, the embedded pool reporter there in the town of Fallujah. How many insurgents are there? That, too, is an outstanding question.

We have tried for many weeks now to get a firm grasp on that. Many say hundreds, others suggest thousands. We simply do not know. What we do know is this: the fighting is back on yet again today in Fallujah.

O'BRIEN: And we heard Karl describe the helicopters pounding with a mixture of machinegun fire and also missiles. And he said, of course, this has been the third firefight in just as many days.

He describes this sector, and I guess this is the sector that they're calling really the hotbed of insurgent activity. I believe he said -- and, as you know, it was a little bit difficult to hear him -- it was a one kilometer square area in the northwest sector of Fallujah, where there's been lots of gunfire. Positions he said known by the military as being used by the insurgents.

And as we heard his report interrupted by a loud burst of gunfire, and then returning fire, as well, saying that some of that was the incoming fire from the insurgents. And then the return gunfire coming back from the U.S. Marines who were there.

It was interesting earlier also to hear from Barbara Starr talking about the Marines who are frustrated because they're on this alert and they're shooting and they're firing, and yet they're not actually in a full-fledged position. And I think, at the same time, outside of the questions of frustration you have, the questions to what degree does this give the insurgents a break, where they are resting up, they are getting their weaponry together, they're taking it easy until they decide, because it seems like the insurgents are setting the tone for the battle in Fallujah, at least right now, while these negotiations are ongoing.

And as we reported earlier numerous sheiks from across Iraq coming in to try to help in those negotiations. Maybe try trying to help to the Sunni clerics, getting them onboard with the U.S. plan.

HEMMER: It's an interesting juxtaposition to watch this videotape here. And, again, a live picture by way of videophone in Fallujah. To consider what happened yesterday, the U.N. Security Council, Lakhdar Brahimi, who was in Iraq for 11 days recently, his suggestions that Fallujah must find some sort of political way out, otherwise, he suggested this could be an out and out blood bath.

In addition to that, he is suggesting now that this new interim government does not have to wait until June 30. In fact, it could be established by the end of May, which is about a month away. His suggestion yesterday is that, if you get the interim government in place by the end of May, perhaps it dampens and tempers some of the fighting we see if the Iraqis see some sort of political future as a result of that. And, again, there is talk about how this will be formed, et cetera, and that's still coming together at this point.

O'BRIEN: Ken Pollack has been kind enough to stand by for us. And we're going to go to him for a second

Did you want to add something?

CAFFERTY: No. I just think that eventually, you know, the bigger issue that's gong to have to be addressed, besides the fall of the Saddam Hussein government, is the fact that you have a nation divided into three parts: the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. They have hated each other for 1,000 years; they're not going to start liking each other tomorrow regardless of how the American effort over there turns out.

And somewhere inside the Iraqi civilization, the political leadership of those groups have to step forward at some point and say, look, this is our country, these are our problems. The Americans and the coalition are going to be gone at some point. And the silence from those people seems to be a bit deafening at times.

Where is the leadership of the Iraqis? And how are they planning to resolve some of these long-standing differences within their own culture?

O'BRIEN: I think that's a fascinating question. In fact, let's pose that to Ken Pollack, who has been standing by for us.

You know, one of the questions you see and I think that's fair to ask is, where are the Iraqis? The patrols were supposed to start. It turned out there would be a problem with that because the U.S. military felt that they would be a bigger risk on those joint patrols. So that's been postponed.

And Lakhdar Brahimi now coming forward with maybe a more fully- sketched out plan of what he wants to do in Iraq, but it has limited authority for the government, which means the U.S. military or government forces will take a bigger role in protecting the area. What exactly is the plan with the Iraqi forces, who so far haven't really raised their heads and made a showing in trying to protect or bring democracy to their own nation?

POLLACK: Soledad, the problem with the Iraqi security forces is what we saw earlier on this month, which is that when the Iraqi security forces were thrown into battle against Muqtada al-Sadr's fighters in southern Iraq, when he launched that revolt because we tried to execute the arrest warrant for him, what we found was the Iraqi security forces largely disintegrated. Better than 50 percent of them either simply did not fight or, in some cases, joined Muqtada al-Sadr's forces. This gets to a bigger problem that we have in Iraq, which is that we rushed the formation of Iraqi security forces. We've done this many times around the world. It takes a long time before you have competent forces that are capable of dealing with this kind of situation.

We rushed those forces through training. We did not vet them properly. We did not equip them properly. And, as a result, now, when we really need them, they're just not up to the challenge.

It's why U.S. forces are increasingly being forced to take over this mission, and why I think that anybody who actually knows anything about the Iraqi security forces is talking about the fact that we're going to need to basically remake the Iraqi security forces. And we shouldn't count on their support for probably at least another 12 months, and maybe longer than that.

O'BRIEN: What about the people there? I mean, is there a sense that they don't want democracy? Or is it, as you were talking with Jack earlier, just a bigger fear that, well, you get democracy and you lose out even in a bigger way because you no longer have any power? So they're choosing the less bad option for themselves.

I mean, do people have a vested interest in that? And I should just remind everybody that we're looking at live pictures out of Fallujah. And what you're hearing is the back-and-forth gunfight going on right now -- Ken.

POLLACK: What you have right now, Soledad, is you have a number of minorities within Iraq. The Sunni tribesman, who probably represent somewhere between one million and three million in a population of 25 million, Muqtada al-Sadr's forces in the south, other Sunni fundamentalists, Shia fundamentalists, Shia and Sunni extremists with different strengths, who all believe that democracy will hurt them for one reason or another.

But one of the bright spots, if you can call it that, but it is something worth remembering that we saw over the last few month, is that when Muqtada al-Sadr mounted this revolt against the United States in the south, and he clearly did have a lot more support than the Americans in Baghdad believed, most of Iraq's mainstream leaders, to the extent that there are mainstream leaders, people like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the other members of what's called the Shia Housa (ph), the religious leadership down there, they all said to their people, don't join the revolts, don't resist the Americans. The best course of action for us is to see the reconstruction succeed.

That's critical to us. And what it says is that the majority of Iraqis -- and this is being reflected consistently in the polling data that's coming out of Iraq -- the majority of Iraqis would like to see a pluralist, stable country.

Sometimes they don't talk about democracy, because the word "democracy" has cultural connotations that they don't like. But when you look at the polls that ask them, would you like a representative government, would you like rule of law, would you like transparency in government, they all say yes.

So the trappings of democracy does seem to be -- the basic elements of democracy do seem to be what most of the Iraqi people still want. The problem is -- and this gets back to Jack's earlier question -- they really don't have too many leaders because Saddam killed most of them.

CAFFERTY: How much is the political calendar in the United States complicating the situation in Iraq, Ken? You mentioned a rush to train Iraqi security forces, the perceived rush to hand over political power by June 30. We have an election coming, and this is issue A on the front pages of this nation's newspaper. Put that into the equation.

POLLACK: Sure. Well, obviously, Jack, I'd sound pretty naive if I suggested that somehow the fact that this is a presidential election year has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq. I'm sure that it does.

That said, I think that there are a whole series of problems that we created for ourselves. And I will say from my own perspective, what I've seen, what I've heard from different people, the decision to rush what's called Iraqification, that is, try to stand up these Iraqi security forces prematurely, before even the people in Baghdad who are training them believe that they would be ready for action, wasn't driven as much by the U.S. political calendar so much as it was driven by the criticism that the administration was getting from people at home and from our allies, all of whom were saying, see, you need the U.N., you can't do it by yourselves.

And this was an effort to say, no, we don't need the U.N. We don't' need the rest of the world. We can do it by ourselves with the Iraqi people.

HEMMER: It was a fascinating image a few moments ago to be literally staring down the barrel of a weapon of a U.S Marine firing off round after round in Fallujah, half a world away. Tony Perry is embedded with the U.S. Marines, a writer for the LA Times. He has been our eyes and ears on the ground for most of this. Tony's on the telephone.

If you can hear me, what are you seeing from your perspective?

TONY PERRY, LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORTER: Well, I'm on the roof of the Marine command post here in Fallujah. Two battles are going on simultaneously in different parts of the city.

In one, Cobra hellfire missiles are being fired at insurgents, and insurgents are firing back at the helicopters. And there is a battle both on the ground and in the air between the insurgents and the Marines.

In the other location, F-16s and F-18s have come in and demolished a couple of positions that the insurgents had held. The insurgents have been firing on the Marines. There are four Marines wounded. That battle seems to be wearing down. The other one I think is going to go on for a period of time, both on the ground and with (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So we have had a very active afternoon after a fairly quiet evening, despite that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

HEMMER: Tony, if you can still hang with us here for a moment, we lost your voice just a little bit. I think we have you back.

As we're looking at this videotape, you can't see exactly what we're seeing. We're seeing helicopter gunships now flying in the air overhead. The two areas that you talked about, the two battles that you're describing to us, can you give us a sense in the town of Fallujah, a city of 300,000, as to where in the town this is taking place and what type of urban atmosphere you're seeing?

PERRY: Well, the train station is one of the battles that's on the north side. A lightly-populated area, mostly industrial. Not a lot of people there. But the insurgents have been using the warehouses and the train station as gathering places. Also, the mosques, they have been storing their arms there.

Now, the other location is in a more densely-populated area near the infamous bridge where the four American bodies were hung and mutilated. So it is in two different locations. In the bridge location, there has been infantry fighting, a firefight with the insurgents for a number of hours. And finally, the U.S. called in F- 16s and F-18s, brought in the air power, and destroyed the positions that the insurgents have held.

That's the battle in which four Marines earlier today were wounded. In the other battle near the train station in the less populated area, there are no reports of Marines being wounded.

HEMMER: Can you compare this battle that you're witnessing today to what you saw late last night?

PERRY: Well, late last night really was quite spectacular. The Air Force AC-130, the gunship that has the optics that can see everything at night, has a powerful cam (ph) with pinpoint accuracy. It lit up, as they say, an insurgent position where they were storing weapons, and for 20 minutes we had the most spectacular light show you could ever imagine.

The Fourth of July fireworks times a thousand. Fireballs 500 meters into the air, smoke billowing as the cookoff from the ammunition continued and continued and continued. It was one of the biggest single displays we've seen.

Overall, last night, however, there wasn't all that much activity. It was a relatively light night, although with the spectacular one hit. The AC-130, of course, has been the air weapon of choice since the beginning. It's called the slayer; that's how accurate it is. It sees everything, and it's been acting for three weeks.

HEMMER: Tony, give me one second here. Tony Perry from the LA Times. If you can, please hang on for us.

It's 9:30 back here in New York. Really appreciate your reporting. It has given us a tremendous advantage of trying to figure out what's happening in that town. But as we approach the 9:30 hour here in New York, let's update folks on what's happening here -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: And, in fact, I think we should show folks that we're looking at really incredible videotape. And you can hear the gunfire as Tony was giving us his report. At one point, you were able to see right down the barrel of one of the weapons held by one Marine who is taking part in that gunfire.

Tony described firefight on two fronts. One on the battle on the ground and a battle in the air. And the other battle demolishing some insurgent positions.

To get people up to speed with what we've been seeing, it seems that the on-again, off-again battle between U.S. Marines and Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah very much on again, obviously. And you've been looking at these live pictures from a pool videophone. U.S. forces taking on those insurgents, as they've been doing for most of the last three weeks.

We've also seen U.S. helicopters firing at targets on the ground. We understand those targets include at least three houses they believe to be used by insurgents. In addition, we heard from Tony they're targeting warehouses and mosques, and also some densely-populated areas, where insurgents seem to be not only hiding out, but hiding their weapons as well.

U.S. Marine sharp shooters have been taking shots at insurgents on the ground. Some of those same Marines expected to be part of scheduled joint patrols of the city. They were put off for a couple of days. They're now scheduled to begin tomorrow.

And as we heard from Tony, again, the Los Angeles Times reporter embedded with the Marines there in Fallujah, two battles have been waged. At least four Marines have been injured in today's action.

Let's go right back to Tony Perry, who has been kind enough to stick around with us right now.

Is there a sense to you then, Tony, that the cease-fire is off? Or is this in the realm of what you've been seeing over the last several days? Earlier when we spoke, you said many of the Marines involved in these gunfights think this cease-fire, of course, is not a cease-fire. In fact, it's just a joke.

PERRY: Well, Marines have died, and Marines have been wounded during the cease-fire. That doesn't strike me as much of a cease- fire, and I'm sure it doesn't to their families either.

There has never been a day during the cease-fire in which Marines have not been attacked by the insurgents. In fact, on some days, I think there was an attack per hour on the Marines. So the word "cease-fire" has ceased to have much of a meaning to the Marines.

Also, the insurgents have not turned in their weapons, have not turned in their heavy weaponry that they're using. If anything, they're getting re-supplied by smuggled arms. That, too, was one of the conditions that they're not living up to.

And, of course, neither the Fallujah residents nor the insurgents have helped chorale the suspects who murdered the four American contractors and mutilated their bodies. So the whole negotiating and lull, cease-fire, whatever you want to call it, hasn't taken on much true meaning for the frontline troops.

O'BRIEN: No question about that, obviously. We have this amazing shot. I think it's fair to say without exaggeration, looking down the barrel of one of the Marines who is involved in this gunfight, I have not seen very many shots like that. We're watching a gunfight live as it's unfolding in Fallujah.

Tony, thanks a lot. We're going to ask you to stick around for us as long as you can. Obviously, you're coving this story not just for us, but for the Los Angeles Times, as well. So thank you for updating us. And we're going to just move away for one second, Tony. We'll be back to you.

HEMMER: And perhaps no one watching this quite as closely as there down at the White House. Suzanne Malveaux on the front lawn.

Suzanne, good morning there.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What complicates the matter is just how are they going to transfer power back to the Iraqi people when you take a look at what is happening on the ground in Fallujah. Clearly, they have to maintain some sort of control of that area. But we have gotten new details this morning about the plan coming from U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.

As you know, he met with the U.N. Security Council yesterday behind closed doors, we're told, about that plan to transfer power by June 30. That he actually wants to speed up the timetable.

His idea is to select a caretaker government by the end of May, to give it one full month to define its role, including, of course, its relationship with U.S. security forces. That has been a very big question.

Also, as well, he wants to ensure that representatives of that government do not submit themselves for candidates before the national elections the following year. They hope, of course, that this will prevent some of those more controversial figures from playing a prominent role.

And, finally, Brahimi says -- and he agrees with the U.S. administration on this point -- that he wants this caretaker government to have limited authority, limited sovereignty to prepare this country essentially for the national elections that will take place in the beginning of 2005. That is when he says that the Iraqis will assume their full responsibilities and representatives for their affairs -- Bill.

HEMMER: Suzanne, another question here about the political track and the military track. Does the White House have ultimate control on what the Marines do in Fallujah? Or are they allowing the commanders on the ground to make their own decisions, such as we're seeing now and we saw again late last night?

MALVEAUX: Well, it certainly seems that way. That is really a question more for Pentagon officials. But coming out of the Pentagon, that's what officials have been saying, is that, yes, they have control over what the Marines are doing.

Of course, as you know, Bill, this all becomes a fuzzy situation, June 30, when the Iraqi, at least the caretaker government, actually comes into power. But we understand they will still have their own say, their own authority of the kind of movement that take place inside of that country. It will become much more of a difficult and complex situation when you look at the national elections in January of 2005, when the Iraqi people have more power to determine just what U.S. forces will and will not be able to do.

HEMMER: And one more thought on this Brahimi matter. Yesterday, at the U.N. Security Council here in New York -- does the White House agree with him when he suggests that if you hand over power at the end of May, that you will knock down and temper some of this violence today?

MALVEAUX: Well, they certainly believe that the sooner you do it the better. And one of the things the U.S. administration does agree is that you do have to try to speed up the timetable.

There has been much made over the June 30 deadline, whether or not that is actually a realistic goal. But U.S. administration, as well as Brahimi, both believe that you have to get those representatives in place as quickly as possible. That that, in some ways, will temper this violence, and certainly, at the very least, take an American face off of this effort.

HEMMER: Suzanne, thanks for that, down at the White House.

Listening to Tony Perry from the LA Times. Two battles ongoing now in Fallujah. One near the train station on the northwestern side of the city, one in a densely-populated area, a neighborhood, described to us many times as the area where the insurgents have now taken refuge and taken up the fight.

More now with Soledad.

O'BRIEN: And, you know, we heard Suzanne talking about speeding up that deadline, with the theory behind it of tempering the violence. But, of course, we look at these live pictures coming into us from Fallujah, and you can hear -- I mean, over Suzanne's report we were hearing the gunfight going on. You would not know that the violence is being tempered or heading toward being tempered anytime soon. We're gong to go back to Barbara Starr, who is at the Pentagon, for the latest assessment of what is happening here from the Pentagon this morning.

Barbara, good morning again.

STARR: Good morning again, Soledad.

Well, Pentagon officials are looking at the situation on the ground. Still, they say, this is the Marines responding, of course, very forcefully to a number of attacks by the insurgents. The next round of firefights clearly unfolding here. But at the moment, what they do tell us is that the cease-fire, while it appears visually to be meaningless, technically is still in place.

The Marines are responding defensively. One of the major reasons is the feeling in the U.S. military, starting with the very top, with General Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, is that the military cannot be the realistic solution in Fallujah, that it is now so close to the transition time to sovereignty that the Iraqis, the political process, must be involved, and that it will be a political solution, not a military solution that will work in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, officials say there is not an unlimited amount of time for the Marines to sit there, to respond in this fashion. But they say if there was a decision for a major assault, a major offensive U.S. military assault into Fallujah, it would be a sign that the political process has failed. And that would be extremely troubling to them.

If there was to be a decision for an offensive operation into Fallujah, it would be a decision throughout several places in the Bush administration. We are told that there would be consultation between the military, the White House, the Pentagon, all of the political elements, the coalition authorities in Baghdad. There would have to be a general understanding amongst all of these parties that basically the political process had irretrievably broken down and that there was no other solution.

At this point, they feel they still have time, that there are still hours, perhaps a couple of days ahead of them before they have to make that decision. Officials warning, however, that, you know, they do feel that they must try and still give the political process time to work, but they know the Marines are frustrated. They see these pictures. They know that they are playing across the world today -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr with us from the Pentagon this morning. Barbara, thanks. We'll check in with you in just a few more minutes. Thanks very much.

O'BRIEN: And, you know, we heard Suzanne talking about speeding up that deadline, with the theory behind it of tempering the violence. But, of course, we look at these live pictures coming into us from Fallujah, and you can hear -- I mean, over Suzanne's report we were hearing the gunfight going on. You would not know that the violence is being tempered or heading toward being tempered anytime soon.

We're gong to go back to Barbara Starr, who is at the Pentagon, for the latest assessment of what is happening here from the Pentagon this morning.

Barbara, good morning again.

STARR: Good morning again, Soledad.

Well, Pentagon officials are looking at the situation on the ground. Still, they say, this is the Marines responding, of course, very forcefully to a number of attacks by the insurgents. The next round of firefights clearly unfolding here. But at the moment, what they do tell us is that the cease-fire, while it appears visually to be meaningless, technically is still in place.

The Marines are responding defensively. One of the major reasons is the feeling in the U.S. military, starting with the very top, with General Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, is that the military cannot be the realistic solution in Fallujah, that it is now so close to the transition time to sovereignty that the Iraqis, the political process, must be involved, and that it will be a political solution, not a military solution that will work in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, officials say there is not an unlimited amount of time for the Marines to sit there, to respond in this fashion. But they say if there was a decision for a major assault, a major offensive U.S. military assault into Fallujah, it would be a sign that the political process has failed. And that would be extremely troubling to them.

If there was to be a decision for an offensive operation into Fallujah, it would be a decision throughout several places in the Bush administration. We are told that there would be consultation between the military, the White House, the Pentagon, all of the political elements, the coalition authorities in Baghdad. There would have to be a general understanding amongst all of these parties that basically the political process had irretrievably broken down and that there was no other solution.

At this point, they feel they still have time, that there are still hours, perhaps a couple of days ahead of them before they have to make that decision. Officials warning, however, that, you know, they do feel that they must try and still give the political process time to work, but they know the Marines are frustrated. They see these pictures. They know that they are playing across the world today -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr with us from the Pentagon this morning. Barbara, thanks. We'll check in with you in just a few more minutes. Thanks very much.

HEMMER: This story in Fallujah, as we watch it, has literally knocked the other stories in this country off our radar. Stories like Najaf and what's happening in Baghdad, in the north. Fallujah has truly become, at this point, anyway, the symbol for the struggle for the future of this country.

U.S. Army retired Colonel Pat Lang is with us by telephone down in D.C., former head of intelligence with the Middle East.

And Colonel, thanks for hanging out with us. I know you've been patient on the telephone there. As you are listening to Karl Penhaul's report, are you able at this point to put the U.S. military strategy in a greater context, what we're all witnessing and watching in Fallujah today?

COL. PAT LANG, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the Marines are stuck on the edge of the city in various places trying to weight out the diplomatic process to see how it's going to play itself out. I'm sure they're very impatient. This is a very awkward position for them to be in. And what they're trying to do with these attacks last night and today is to suppress the fire that's incoming into their positions from these buildings out in front of them and around the train station, places like that.

The way you manage to suppress fire so you don't take rounds in your position and lose men is to put a lot of fire on them. And you put as much fire as you can and achieve (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They then either kill them or they decide it's a bad idea and move away.

So what you're seeing is essentially, as they say, a defensive operation, waiting to see how this is going to turn out. You know, I would be very concerned if in the end we decide to move into the city and if we don't go in with a lot of people. That's a very big town.

HEMMER: So you're saying go there with overwhelming force or don't go at all?

LANG: Yes, I would think so. I mean, this is a town of about 300,000 people that has parts of the city named -- things like Golan (ph). You know, Jolan in Iraqi Arabic means Golan (ph). Im mean, these are not soft people in there, and it's a very big place. You could easily get swallowed up in the masses of buildings and streets and things. So if I were to go in, I'd go in with a lot of force.

HEMMER: And what do you do about negotiations? If you've got these ongoing gun battles here and the things we saw last night and again today, is that off the table at this point?

LANG: Well, I think that politically we're obliged by the participation of the Iraqi Governing Council and our desire to have the approval of the Islamic sheiks to engage in these things. But the idea that they're going to show up in town there and make a statement in favor with us is probably more a hope than anything else. I really have a hard time imagining them doing that.

HEMMER: You know, Colonel, a lot of what we've been talking about here takes us back to an argument that has been circulating throughout this country over the past year. Whether or not the U.S. has enough military fighting force on the ground in Iraq, or if more troops need to go in to squelch items like we're watching here in Fallujah. I'm not sure where you come down on that debate. LANG: Well, I've been on record for a long time, Bill, that this is -- I've never thought that we had enough force in Iraq. I didn't think we had enough going in.

The skill of the troops made up for a great deal in the invasion of Iraq. But the problem of occupying a country which has a population which is at least potentially hostile is one that requires a great deal more in a matter of presence on the ground to suppress things before they start than we've ever had. And now we are spread pretty thin all over the country in such a way that the position is, I think, somewhat precarious, actually.

HEMMER: Colonel, thanks. Pat Lang there down in D.C. by way of telephone. U.S. Army retired, former head of intelligence in the Middle East.

And as we almost wrap things up here, I want to get back to Jack again. A lot of reaction today of what we're watching and witnessing today in Fallujah.

CAFFERTY: Yes. The options over there, none of them particularly attractive. If you are going and have to take it a block at a time, American casualties go up. If you use overwhelming air power to quell the insurgents in the city, Iraqi civilian casualties go up. So we asked our viewers this morning the e-mail question: What's the solution in Fallujah?

Charles in Tampa, Florida, writes: "The Fallujah solution must be a negotiated political solution brokered by either the Iraqi Governing Council or the United Nations. Any and all U.S. military action fuels more unrest, not only in Fallujah, but also every other city and town in Iraq. In addition, U.S. military action in Iraq angers Arabs throughout the region."

Sherry in Pennsylvania: "We just need to take action and stop playing with these people. I would vote for an air attack because this would save lives of our ground troops."

Sophie in Denver: "The military should be proactive in Iraq. Simply trying to respond to every incident in the country where every resident is able to keep a machinegun in their home, there's no way the soldiers can be effective. Collateral damage is an unfortunate, but necessary side effect of actually doing the job they're there to do."

And, finally, Lori in Biloxi, Mississippi: "If we want a viable and realistic solution in the war in Fallujah, we have to allow the commanders on the ground in charge of the troops to call the shots, and not the politicians in Washington, who are only looking out for their careers. Vietnam was a political war, and that's a lesson we must never forget."

O'BRIEN: Really I think fantastic e-mails being sent in this morning.

CAFFERTY: Terrific. Very interesting stuff. O'BRIEN: What we are seeing live -- and this, I think, is actually a videotape. We saw really looking right down the barrel of this Marine's -- I believe Karl Penhaul was saying this was one of the snipers that was brought in to try to deal with the insurgents...

HEMMER: Near the train station.

O'BRIEN: ... near the train station. Trying to deal with the insurgent reaction.

It's interesting, too, when you hear what Ken Pollack was saying. He was saying that what's happening in Fallujah is basically the culmination of a year of mistakes that they did not make in Tikrit, where people were actually really looking...

HEMMER: Interesting comment.

O'BRIEN: ... toward bringing the people in Tikrit together, to make sure that they were interested in the reconstruction, wasn't done in Fallujah. And he had a list of other cities as well where it was not done. And I'd be curious to know if what we are seeing in Fallujah right now is what we're going to see in other cities potentially outside of Fallujah, however this is resolved.

CAFFERTY: One of the things that happened in some of those other cities is that military control was established over them in the very early days of the war. And the opposition forces were not allow allowed to melt back into those civilian populations. That's a big part of what happened in Fallujah and Najaf.

And now you've got old members of the elite Republican Guard, outside terrorists, perhaps, members of al Qaeda, perhaps. But those other towns were taken over, and control was established in the early days of the war so that there was no opportunity for this kind of thing to have occurred.

HEMMER: You mentioned the word "quagmire" about 90 minutes ago. If you go back to the beginning of the war on terror in Afghanistan, all the predictions that were made about the military conflict did not come true because you recruited the northern alliance. That battle was over and done with in four weeks.

Similar story when the Iraqi war broke out, 21 days to Baghdad. Again, no one predicted this a year down the road. And it's very difficult for anyone to sit here and say whether this goes on for a month or six months or five years. We just do not know.

CAFFERTY: Yes.

O'BRIEN: We need to hand this over to Daryn Kagan at the CNN Center this morning. She is going to pick up our coverage.

Daryn, obviously lots going on this morning we've been talking about all day.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Absolutely. And we're not going to miss a beat. Good work today, you guys. Thank you so much, Bill and Soledad.

We're going to pick things up right away and get back to Fallujah. We have a number of people standing by. Let's go ahead and listen now to U.S. pool reporter Karl Penhaul.

PENHAUL: ... where we're standing now. This firefight, one of three that we've seen this week. Last night, AC-130 specter gunships in action, pounding two insurgent positions. And on Monday, a gun battle between a Marine platoon and coalition forces. Now, though, Marine helicopters disappeared, and all we see are the plumes of black smoke.

This is Karl Penhaul reporting with the camera of John Tentleton (ph) of the U.S. Networks Pool from Fallujah, Iraq.

KAGAN: And we'll be listening in throughout the morning to U.S. pool reporter Karl Penhaul.

Right now, we want to go to Baghdad. This is the daily news conference by the Coalition Provisional Authority. You'll be hearing from Garrett Bailey (ph). He is the British spokesman for the coalition.

Let's listen in.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

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 April 28, 2004 - 9:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: And, in fact, we have more pictures, new pictures coming to us from Al-Jazeera television of the same thing. A different angle, of course, the fighting going on right now in Fallujah. And many solutions, of course, being considered.
We want to take you to Barbara Starr at the Pentagon.

First, Barbara, give us a sense of what you're hearing about this specific fight. And then I want to talk about the broader picture of what this mean for the future of Fallujah.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Soledad, officials here are looking at these pictures. They see them, and they are looking at them, in their words, as the optics, the visual pictures that you see coming out of Iraq. This is, in military terms, the tactical situation on the ground in Fallujah.

Certainly, it does not look good. There's a lot of shooting, a lot of violence that has been going on for the last several days. But we have spoken to a senior military official with very direct knowledge of the situation on the ground and very direct knowledge of General Abizaid's thinking today about all of this. General Abizaid, of course, the head of the U.S. Central Command, the top U.S commander in the region.

Now, General Abizaid is warning, we are told, that the U.S. military cannot solve alone the problems in Fallujah. That he says the military option, in other words, a full-out U.S. Marine Corps assault into the city, should be the option of last resort. He truly believes that there has to be a mix of solutions to solve the problem in Fallujah. There has to be political involvement by both the coalition, the leaders of Fallujah, and by the Iraqis.

General Abizaid a very strong proponent at this point of this type of multi-threaded solution, if you will. They want to give these discussions with the Fallujah leaders more time. And one of the reasons is, again, they feel there is no other option at this point.

From the military point of view here at the Pentagon, it's not a good idea to make that full assault into the city. A lot of civilians are going to die, a lot of damage. And not at all clear that they would be able to essentially eliminate the entire insurgent movement.

There are insurgents in the city; they know where some of them are. They certainly could eliminate some of them. But no indication that that would eliminate the insurgency as an organization or as a problem across Iraq.

General Abizaid believes, we are told, that there is very serious concern about increasing violence in Iraq at this point, of course, between now and the June 30 handover date. He likens it to being in a wind tunnel. And as you move towards the vortex, the turbulence gets worse.

He is looking at options on how to deal with that increased violence, if it breaks out. But, again, a very strong proponent that the Iraqis, Iraqi security forces and the interim government that will emerge, must take a leading role.

So while you're seeing these very unsettling, very violent pictures from Fallujah this morning, it is the tactical situation on the ground. We are told at this point, unless something dramatically shifts on the battlefield, not to expect an all-out assault into the city at any point in the near future. That could be matter of hours or days.

They say that, you know, it can't sit as it is forever. But they do feel that they want to try to give it more time, more time to work with the leaders of Fallujah, more time to deal with it on a political level, so they don't have resort to that last final option, which would be all-out military force -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr working the phones at the Pentagon this morning. Barbara, thanks. We're going to ask you as well to stick around. We're going to check back in with you in just a few minutes -- Bill.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: So what we know now -- and there's a whole lot we do not know -- but at this point, it is well into the late afternoon there on Wednesday afternoon in Fallujah. The fighting continues there. There's said to be targeted strikes carried out by the U.S. military, headed up by the Marines that have encircled that town.

We are told that at least three houses or three buildings, possibly, have been targeted today, possibly holding ammo, possibly holding insurgent fighters. All this coming the day after the nighttime raids on two separate buildings with those giant AC-130 gunshots, with their left-side guns trained on two buildings that were said to be holding ammunition stored up by the insurgents, taken out late last night in that overnight raid.

Some of those explosions trailing off for 20 minutes or longer after the initial strike by the bullets from the AC-130. The truce, the cease-fire, much debated as to whether or not it is, indeed, a cease-fire at this point, continues, we are told. But Paul Bremer said yesterday it's a tenuous cease-fire. And, again, the outstanding issue as to whether or not a negotiated settlement can come out of this is an outstanding question today.

O'BRIEN: And, of course, some of the journalists who are embedded with the Marines in Fallujah say the cease-fire is considered a joke by the Marines who are taking on fire from the insurgents. We're going to go back to Ken Pollack, who's been kind enough to stand around for us for a few moments.

Let's talk a little bit, Ken, about what we just heard from Barbara Starr. She said General Abizaid, the head, obviously, of the U.S. Central Command, says the U.S. military alone cannot be the solution to this problem. A full out and out Marine assault will not work in the long term. At the same time, I think that there are questions about whether or not negotiations can work, and then, of course, you have the U.N. special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, saying that maybe moving the handover up earlier is a better solution.

Let's talk about what he has posed. Do you actually think that that's true, and do you possibly see that happening in light of what we're seeing in Fallujah and, frankly, across Iraq over today and over the last couple of days?

KEN POLLACK, SABAN CENTER, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I completely agree with General Abizaid that the standoff in Fallujah cannot possibly be solved solely by military means. If we go in there and we flatten the town, if we take down the entire -- and flatten is -- you know, I really misspoke there. I should not have said that.

If we go and take down the town -- because the Marines will not flatten it. They will do it very precisely and they will avoid civilian casualties as best they can. But even if we do take down the city and we are able to somehow capture several insurgents and grab several tens of thousands of weapons, that's not going to end the problem of the insurgency from the Sunni Triangle.

Beyond Fallujah, there is Ramadi, there Habbaniyah, there is Adifa (ph). There are a whole bunch of other towns out there that are also very much opposed to the United States of America. And what we need to recognize is that it is going to require bringing the Sunni tribal population back into the reconstruction effort.

We've completely alienated them. And I think this is both what General Abizaid is getting at, I think it's what Ambassador Negroponte is trying to get at, and I think it is what Mr. Brahimi is trying to get at. But until we bring the Sunni tribal population into the reconstruction effort, until we make them feel like reconstruction is going to benefit them, we're going to continue to have these problems, no matter how many towns we take down.

HEMMER: Ken, you were on our program two weeks ago. And to paraphrase your words, you said this should have happened a year ago. Explain what you meant by that based on what we're seeing today.

POLLACK: Sure. The problem was something that we knew about right from the start, Bill. We knew that Fallujah, we knew that Ramadi, all these other towns that I've just reeled off, we knew that they were going to be problems. They were strong tribal towns, some of them, Fallujah in particular. Also had very strong religious bases.

They were the places where Saddam Hussein got his greatest start. And it was critical 12 months to have gone into these places, established security, disarmed the population, and prevented exactly this kind of situation from developing.

We did that in Tikrit. In Saddam's home town, we went in, we did it, we established a security presence, we started working with the people of Tikrit. We showed them that there was going to be a benefit from reconstruction. And Tikrit right now, I want to be careful of what I say, but it is arguably a success story because it worked there.

We did not do this in Fallujah, in Adifa (ph), in Ramadi, and all these other towns. And, as a result, they've become strongholds for the resistance.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Ken, Jack Cafferty. I just was curious about something you said earlier. You said, you know, you're going to have to make a deal with the tribal leaders and indicate to them that they're going to be a part of the new government.

To what degree might they be fighting against the very fear of having to share political power with the Shiites and the Kurds? Old memories die hard. Those two segments of the population, Shiites and Kurds, were oppressed, brutalized, persecuted by the very people inside Fallujah for the last 30 years, with the blessings of Saddam Hussein. Might there be a tremendous fear among the Sunni population of what's going to happen to them if suddenly the power is shared equally with the people they were brutalizing all that time?

POLLACK: Absolutely, Jack. That is exactly their fear. And the problem is that the way that we have conducted ourselves, the way we have handled the post-Saddam government, has reinforced those shares.

Remember, de-Baathification, we went far too far. It was far too arbitrary. We put it in the hands of Ahmed Chalabi, who was using it for his political advantage.

Basically, we excluded virtually all the Sunni tribesmen. We threw them out of the government. Then we set up this new transitional government where we have one Sunni tribal who is not well respected. We basically excluded them from the new government that we set up.

So, you know, if you look at it from the perspective of the Sunni tribesmen, they look at it and say, this is all about us. They are throwing us out of our positions of power. They're not letting us back into the new government they're establishing.

They're going to create a government that is going to oppress us the way that we oppressed the Shia for the last 80 years, and we're not going to take it. And it's up to us to convince them that a new government -- a new democratic Iraq, where there is rule of law, is going to make sure there are minority rights, that no one gets oppressed, and that they will have a fair share in that new government.

O'BRIEN: A tall order, I think it is fair to say. Ken Pollack, we're going to ask you again to stick around as we continue to look at these new pictures coming into us from Fallujah. Some resumption of the fighting there this morning.

Jack Cafferty has been following this story. It's the Question of the Day. And you're really getting some tremendous feedback.

CAFFERTY: Yes. People are frustrated with what they see going on over there. And we're getting hundreds of responses to the question, what do you do about the problem in Fallujah?

Donna, for example, in Virginia, writes: "Cut off all electricity and water. Don't let anyone or anything in to the city. Let anyone who wants to leave out of the city after expecting their possessions for contraband, and then just let them decide what they eventually want to do."

Justin in Pennsylvania: "The fact is, we went to war to win. Though I don't like to hear about casualties, they're a fact of war. If wiping out Fallujah is the next step to victory, then so be it. Unless it's total victory, it's total defeat."

Betsy in New York: "Remaking other cultures in our own image is not always the answer. Food, medicine, clean water, books, removable land mines and threats of cluster bombs are perhaps more important than our version of democracy. Bring our sons and daughters home. Haven't we had enough domino theory for one century? We're creating a new generation of terrorists."

And, finally, Burt in Raleigh, North Carolina: "The way to capture the gunmen in Fallujah and Najaf is to send George Bush and Dick Cheney to Iraq to give a series of speeches. Then, while the fighters try to figure out what George and Dick are talking about, they can be surrounded and captured."

It's an interesting idea.

O'BRIEN: People always find humor in some of what other people would say are really up there with the most dire situations right now.

You know, we've been watching these pictures of helicopters circling Fallujah and military tanks on occasion. You get to see them rolling in. You are looking at live pictures coming into us.

There was an explosion, we're told, chopper propeller noise, chopper firing as well. Barbara Starr has been monitoring this for us from the Pentagon this morning.

Barbara, what are they telling you about the prospects that lie ahead for Fallujah in light of what we're seeing right now?

STARR: Well, what the feeling is here is, first and foremost, they want to listen to the commanders on the ground, on those front lines. Now, they know the Marines are frustrated, that the Marines, many of them feel that they are sitting there taking fire with very limited rules that allow them to defend themselves, return fire, call in the helicopter gunships, go after known insurgent targets in the city when they can find them, not to conduct a general offensive operation into the city, however.

So there is a very clear understanding here that they know the Marines on the ground are frustrated. But a broader picture, of course, here at the Pentagon, and for the Bush administration. And that is, just weeks away now from that transition of what now is being called limited sovereignty being turned over to an Iraqi interim government that is in the process of being selected.

The feeling here, the feeling throughout the Bush administration, appears increasingly to pressure these Iraqi government entities to stand up, as people say here, and let their voices be heard and take some responsibility. The feeling is, it is so close to sovereignty now, that the Iraqis must take a leading role in this. No indication, Soledad, at this point, at least in the next hours and days, that there is going to be any order to move into the city.

Now, we have asked -- here is a key question. If the Marines say they want to make a move if something happens, do they have to come back to the White House and get permission?

O'BRIEN: An interesting question there. Barbara Starr for us at the Pentagon. Barbara, thanks. We're going to continue to check in with you. Bill's going to head now to Karl Penhaul.

HEMMER: The pool reporter is Karl Penhaul. He has been following a report. We're going to try and dip in again.

We tried this 30 minutes ago. The audio is a bit difficult at times. We'll try it again. Karl Penhaul, embedded with the U.S. Marines pool.

KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... and what's been happening (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and pounded those with a mixture of machinegun fire, and also rockets and missiles as these helicopters carry on forward. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in many days in the northwest sector of Fallujah. When I say northwest sector, we're talking about a radius of perhaps a kilometer east and south. That's where these firefights have been taking place. And according to coalition commanders on the ground, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) really a hotbed of insurgent activity.

But coalition authorities also feel that foreign fighters with links to al Qaeda may be insisting Iraqi insurgents here on the ground. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hearing this (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The sound of that gunfire coming from positions south of where we're standing now. Positions that we know over the last few days have been used by insurgents to fire on (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

HEMMER: It is evident, in the words of Karl Penhaul, and the sounds in the background, that the fight is back on. That indicating yet again that the firefight could be quite close in proximity, not just with him, but with the insurgents and Marines.

Earlier in the week, we were told they were 30 yards apart from each other oftentimes in these firefights. There's a lot that we don't know right now. But the indications we're getting is that earlier, near the train station in this city of 300,000, there was a fight there.

There's this neighborhood known as Jolan, J-O-L-A-N. Narrow alleyways, crowded buildings and homes. That is the area that's been described to us as where the majority of the insurgents are taking refuge and hiding out. That is also probably the area, we suspect at this point, where most of the attacks took place overnight.

What's happening today, all we can see is the videophone here and try to decipher the words of Karl Penhaul, the embedded pool reporter there in the town of Fallujah. How many insurgents are there? That, too, is an outstanding question.

We have tried for many weeks now to get a firm grasp on that. Many say hundreds, others suggest thousands. We simply do not know. What we do know is this: the fighting is back on yet again today in Fallujah.

O'BRIEN: And we heard Karl describe the helicopters pounding with a mixture of machinegun fire and also missiles. And he said, of course, this has been the third firefight in just as many days.

He describes this sector, and I guess this is the sector that they're calling really the hotbed of insurgent activity. I believe he said -- and, as you know, it was a little bit difficult to hear him -- it was a one kilometer square area in the northwest sector of Fallujah, where there's been lots of gunfire. Positions he said known by the military as being used by the insurgents.

And as we heard his report interrupted by a loud burst of gunfire, and then returning fire, as well, saying that some of that was the incoming fire from the insurgents. And then the return gunfire coming back from the U.S. Marines who were there.

It was interesting earlier also to hear from Barbara Starr talking about the Marines who are frustrated because they're on this alert and they're shooting and they're firing, and yet they're not actually in a full-fledged position. And I think, at the same time, outside of the questions of frustration you have, the questions to what degree does this give the insurgents a break, where they are resting up, they are getting their weaponry together, they're taking it easy until they decide, because it seems like the insurgents are setting the tone for the battle in Fallujah, at least right now, while these negotiations are ongoing.

And as we reported earlier numerous sheiks from across Iraq coming in to try to help in those negotiations. Maybe try trying to help to the Sunni clerics, getting them onboard with the U.S. plan.

HEMMER: It's an interesting juxtaposition to watch this videotape here. And, again, a live picture by way of videophone in Fallujah. To consider what happened yesterday, the U.N. Security Council, Lakhdar Brahimi, who was in Iraq for 11 days recently, his suggestions that Fallujah must find some sort of political way out, otherwise, he suggested this could be an out and out blood bath.

In addition to that, he is suggesting now that this new interim government does not have to wait until June 30. In fact, it could be established by the end of May, which is about a month away. His suggestion yesterday is that, if you get the interim government in place by the end of May, perhaps it dampens and tempers some of the fighting we see if the Iraqis see some sort of political future as a result of that. And, again, there is talk about how this will be formed, et cetera, and that's still coming together at this point.

O'BRIEN: Ken Pollack has been kind enough to stand by for us. And we're going to go to him for a second

Did you want to add something?

CAFFERTY: No. I just think that eventually, you know, the bigger issue that's gong to have to be addressed, besides the fall of the Saddam Hussein government, is the fact that you have a nation divided into three parts: the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis. They have hated each other for 1,000 years; they're not going to start liking each other tomorrow regardless of how the American effort over there turns out.

And somewhere inside the Iraqi civilization, the political leadership of those groups have to step forward at some point and say, look, this is our country, these are our problems. The Americans and the coalition are going to be gone at some point. And the silence from those people seems to be a bit deafening at times.

Where is the leadership of the Iraqis? And how are they planning to resolve some of these long-standing differences within their own culture?

O'BRIEN: I think that's a fascinating question. In fact, let's pose that to Ken Pollack, who has been standing by for us.

You know, one of the questions you see and I think that's fair to ask is, where are the Iraqis? The patrols were supposed to start. It turned out there would be a problem with that because the U.S. military felt that they would be a bigger risk on those joint patrols. So that's been postponed.

And Lakhdar Brahimi now coming forward with maybe a more fully- sketched out plan of what he wants to do in Iraq, but it has limited authority for the government, which means the U.S. military or government forces will take a bigger role in protecting the area. What exactly is the plan with the Iraqi forces, who so far haven't really raised their heads and made a showing in trying to protect or bring democracy to their own nation?

POLLACK: Soledad, the problem with the Iraqi security forces is what we saw earlier on this month, which is that when the Iraqi security forces were thrown into battle against Muqtada al-Sadr's fighters in southern Iraq, when he launched that revolt because we tried to execute the arrest warrant for him, what we found was the Iraqi security forces largely disintegrated. Better than 50 percent of them either simply did not fight or, in some cases, joined Muqtada al-Sadr's forces. This gets to a bigger problem that we have in Iraq, which is that we rushed the formation of Iraqi security forces. We've done this many times around the world. It takes a long time before you have competent forces that are capable of dealing with this kind of situation.

We rushed those forces through training. We did not vet them properly. We did not equip them properly. And, as a result, now, when we really need them, they're just not up to the challenge.

It's why U.S. forces are increasingly being forced to take over this mission, and why I think that anybody who actually knows anything about the Iraqi security forces is talking about the fact that we're going to need to basically remake the Iraqi security forces. And we shouldn't count on their support for probably at least another 12 months, and maybe longer than that.

O'BRIEN: What about the people there? I mean, is there a sense that they don't want democracy? Or is it, as you were talking with Jack earlier, just a bigger fear that, well, you get democracy and you lose out even in a bigger way because you no longer have any power? So they're choosing the less bad option for themselves.

I mean, do people have a vested interest in that? And I should just remind everybody that we're looking at live pictures out of Fallujah. And what you're hearing is the back-and-forth gunfight going on right now -- Ken.

POLLACK: What you have right now, Soledad, is you have a number of minorities within Iraq. The Sunni tribesman, who probably represent somewhere between one million and three million in a population of 25 million, Muqtada al-Sadr's forces in the south, other Sunni fundamentalists, Shia fundamentalists, Shia and Sunni extremists with different strengths, who all believe that democracy will hurt them for one reason or another.

But one of the bright spots, if you can call it that, but it is something worth remembering that we saw over the last few month, is that when Muqtada al-Sadr mounted this revolt against the United States in the south, and he clearly did have a lot more support than the Americans in Baghdad believed, most of Iraq's mainstream leaders, to the extent that there are mainstream leaders, people like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the other members of what's called the Shia Housa (ph), the religious leadership down there, they all said to their people, don't join the revolts, don't resist the Americans. The best course of action for us is to see the reconstruction succeed.

That's critical to us. And what it says is that the majority of Iraqis -- and this is being reflected consistently in the polling data that's coming out of Iraq -- the majority of Iraqis would like to see a pluralist, stable country.

Sometimes they don't talk about democracy, because the word "democracy" has cultural connotations that they don't like. But when you look at the polls that ask them, would you like a representative government, would you like rule of law, would you like transparency in government, they all say yes.

So the trappings of democracy does seem to be -- the basic elements of democracy do seem to be what most of the Iraqi people still want. The problem is -- and this gets back to Jack's earlier question -- they really don't have too many leaders because Saddam killed most of them.

CAFFERTY: How much is the political calendar in the United States complicating the situation in Iraq, Ken? You mentioned a rush to train Iraqi security forces, the perceived rush to hand over political power by June 30. We have an election coming, and this is issue A on the front pages of this nation's newspaper. Put that into the equation.

POLLACK: Sure. Well, obviously, Jack, I'd sound pretty naive if I suggested that somehow the fact that this is a presidential election year has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq. I'm sure that it does.

That said, I think that there are a whole series of problems that we created for ourselves. And I will say from my own perspective, what I've seen, what I've heard from different people, the decision to rush what's called Iraqification, that is, try to stand up these Iraqi security forces prematurely, before even the people in Baghdad who are training them believe that they would be ready for action, wasn't driven as much by the U.S. political calendar so much as it was driven by the criticism that the administration was getting from people at home and from our allies, all of whom were saying, see, you need the U.N., you can't do it by yourselves.

And this was an effort to say, no, we don't need the U.N. We don't' need the rest of the world. We can do it by ourselves with the Iraqi people.

HEMMER: It was a fascinating image a few moments ago to be literally staring down the barrel of a weapon of a U.S Marine firing off round after round in Fallujah, half a world away. Tony Perry is embedded with the U.S. Marines, a writer for the LA Times. He has been our eyes and ears on the ground for most of this. Tony's on the telephone.

If you can hear me, what are you seeing from your perspective?

TONY PERRY, LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORTER: Well, I'm on the roof of the Marine command post here in Fallujah. Two battles are going on simultaneously in different parts of the city.

In one, Cobra hellfire missiles are being fired at insurgents, and insurgents are firing back at the helicopters. And there is a battle both on the ground and in the air between the insurgents and the Marines.

In the other location, F-16s and F-18s have come in and demolished a couple of positions that the insurgents had held. The insurgents have been firing on the Marines. There are four Marines wounded. That battle seems to be wearing down. The other one I think is going to go on for a period of time, both on the ground and with (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So we have had a very active afternoon after a fairly quiet evening, despite that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

HEMMER: Tony, if you can still hang with us here for a moment, we lost your voice just a little bit. I think we have you back.

As we're looking at this videotape, you can't see exactly what we're seeing. We're seeing helicopter gunships now flying in the air overhead. The two areas that you talked about, the two battles that you're describing to us, can you give us a sense in the town of Fallujah, a city of 300,000, as to where in the town this is taking place and what type of urban atmosphere you're seeing?

PERRY: Well, the train station is one of the battles that's on the north side. A lightly-populated area, mostly industrial. Not a lot of people there. But the insurgents have been using the warehouses and the train station as gathering places. Also, the mosques, they have been storing their arms there.

Now, the other location is in a more densely-populated area near the infamous bridge where the four American bodies were hung and mutilated. So it is in two different locations. In the bridge location, there has been infantry fighting, a firefight with the insurgents for a number of hours. And finally, the U.S. called in F- 16s and F-18s, brought in the air power, and destroyed the positions that the insurgents have held.

That's the battle in which four Marines earlier today were wounded. In the other battle near the train station in the less populated area, there are no reports of Marines being wounded.

HEMMER: Can you compare this battle that you're witnessing today to what you saw late last night?

PERRY: Well, late last night really was quite spectacular. The Air Force AC-130, the gunship that has the optics that can see everything at night, has a powerful cam (ph) with pinpoint accuracy. It lit up, as they say, an insurgent position where they were storing weapons, and for 20 minutes we had the most spectacular light show you could ever imagine.

The Fourth of July fireworks times a thousand. Fireballs 500 meters into the air, smoke billowing as the cookoff from the ammunition continued and continued and continued. It was one of the biggest single displays we've seen.

Overall, last night, however, there wasn't all that much activity. It was a relatively light night, although with the spectacular one hit. The AC-130, of course, has been the air weapon of choice since the beginning. It's called the slayer; that's how accurate it is. It sees everything, and it's been acting for three weeks.

HEMMER: Tony, give me one second here. Tony Perry from the LA Times. If you can, please hang on for us.

It's 9:30 back here in New York. Really appreciate your reporting. It has given us a tremendous advantage of trying to figure out what's happening in that town. But as we approach the 9:30 hour here in New York, let's update folks on what's happening here -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: And, in fact, I think we should show folks that we're looking at really incredible videotape. And you can hear the gunfire as Tony was giving us his report. At one point, you were able to see right down the barrel of one of the weapons held by one Marine who is taking part in that gunfire.

Tony described firefight on two fronts. One on the battle on the ground and a battle in the air. And the other battle demolishing some insurgent positions.

To get people up to speed with what we've been seeing, it seems that the on-again, off-again battle between U.S. Marines and Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah very much on again, obviously. And you've been looking at these live pictures from a pool videophone. U.S. forces taking on those insurgents, as they've been doing for most of the last three weeks.

We've also seen U.S. helicopters firing at targets on the ground. We understand those targets include at least three houses they believe to be used by insurgents. In addition, we heard from Tony they're targeting warehouses and mosques, and also some densely-populated areas, where insurgents seem to be not only hiding out, but hiding their weapons as well.

U.S. Marine sharp shooters have been taking shots at insurgents on the ground. Some of those same Marines expected to be part of scheduled joint patrols of the city. They were put off for a couple of days. They're now scheduled to begin tomorrow.

And as we heard from Tony, again, the Los Angeles Times reporter embedded with the Marines there in Fallujah, two battles have been waged. At least four Marines have been injured in today's action.

Let's go right back to Tony Perry, who has been kind enough to stick around with us right now.

Is there a sense to you then, Tony, that the cease-fire is off? Or is this in the realm of what you've been seeing over the last several days? Earlier when we spoke, you said many of the Marines involved in these gunfights think this cease-fire, of course, is not a cease-fire. In fact, it's just a joke.

PERRY: Well, Marines have died, and Marines have been wounded during the cease-fire. That doesn't strike me as much of a cease- fire, and I'm sure it doesn't to their families either.

There has never been a day during the cease-fire in which Marines have not been attacked by the insurgents. In fact, on some days, I think there was an attack per hour on the Marines. So the word "cease-fire" has ceased to have much of a meaning to the Marines.

Also, the insurgents have not turned in their weapons, have not turned in their heavy weaponry that they're using. If anything, they're getting re-supplied by smuggled arms. That, too, was one of the conditions that they're not living up to.

And, of course, neither the Fallujah residents nor the insurgents have helped chorale the suspects who murdered the four American contractors and mutilated their bodies. So the whole negotiating and lull, cease-fire, whatever you want to call it, hasn't taken on much true meaning for the frontline troops.

O'BRIEN: No question about that, obviously. We have this amazing shot. I think it's fair to say without exaggeration, looking down the barrel of one of the Marines who is involved in this gunfight, I have not seen very many shots like that. We're watching a gunfight live as it's unfolding in Fallujah.

Tony, thanks a lot. We're going to ask you to stick around for us as long as you can. Obviously, you're coving this story not just for us, but for the Los Angeles Times, as well. So thank you for updating us. And we're going to just move away for one second, Tony. We'll be back to you.

HEMMER: And perhaps no one watching this quite as closely as there down at the White House. Suzanne Malveaux on the front lawn.

Suzanne, good morning there.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What complicates the matter is just how are they going to transfer power back to the Iraqi people when you take a look at what is happening on the ground in Fallujah. Clearly, they have to maintain some sort of control of that area. But we have gotten new details this morning about the plan coming from U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.

As you know, he met with the U.N. Security Council yesterday behind closed doors, we're told, about that plan to transfer power by June 30. That he actually wants to speed up the timetable.

His idea is to select a caretaker government by the end of May, to give it one full month to define its role, including, of course, its relationship with U.S. security forces. That has been a very big question.

Also, as well, he wants to ensure that representatives of that government do not submit themselves for candidates before the national elections the following year. They hope, of course, that this will prevent some of those more controversial figures from playing a prominent role.

And, finally, Brahimi says -- and he agrees with the U.S. administration on this point -- that he wants this caretaker government to have limited authority, limited sovereignty to prepare this country essentially for the national elections that will take place in the beginning of 2005. That is when he says that the Iraqis will assume their full responsibilities and representatives for their affairs -- Bill.

HEMMER: Suzanne, another question here about the political track and the military track. Does the White House have ultimate control on what the Marines do in Fallujah? Or are they allowing the commanders on the ground to make their own decisions, such as we're seeing now and we saw again late last night?

MALVEAUX: Well, it certainly seems that way. That is really a question more for Pentagon officials. But coming out of the Pentagon, that's what officials have been saying, is that, yes, they have control over what the Marines are doing.

Of course, as you know, Bill, this all becomes a fuzzy situation, June 30, when the Iraqi, at least the caretaker government, actually comes into power. But we understand they will still have their own say, their own authority of the kind of movement that take place inside of that country. It will become much more of a difficult and complex situation when you look at the national elections in January of 2005, when the Iraqi people have more power to determine just what U.S. forces will and will not be able to do.

HEMMER: And one more thought on this Brahimi matter. Yesterday, at the U.N. Security Council here in New York -- does the White House agree with him when he suggests that if you hand over power at the end of May, that you will knock down and temper some of this violence today?

MALVEAUX: Well, they certainly believe that the sooner you do it the better. And one of the things the U.S. administration does agree is that you do have to try to speed up the timetable.

There has been much made over the June 30 deadline, whether or not that is actually a realistic goal. But U.S. administration, as well as Brahimi, both believe that you have to get those representatives in place as quickly as possible. That that, in some ways, will temper this violence, and certainly, at the very least, take an American face off of this effort.

HEMMER: Suzanne, thanks for that, down at the White House.

Listening to Tony Perry from the LA Times. Two battles ongoing now in Fallujah. One near the train station on the northwestern side of the city, one in a densely-populated area, a neighborhood, described to us many times as the area where the insurgents have now taken refuge and taken up the fight.

More now with Soledad.

O'BRIEN: And, you know, we heard Suzanne talking about speeding up that deadline, with the theory behind it of tempering the violence. But, of course, we look at these live pictures coming into us from Fallujah, and you can hear -- I mean, over Suzanne's report we were hearing the gunfight going on. You would not know that the violence is being tempered or heading toward being tempered anytime soon. We're gong to go back to Barbara Starr, who is at the Pentagon, for the latest assessment of what is happening here from the Pentagon this morning.

Barbara, good morning again.

STARR: Good morning again, Soledad.

Well, Pentagon officials are looking at the situation on the ground. Still, they say, this is the Marines responding, of course, very forcefully to a number of attacks by the insurgents. The next round of firefights clearly unfolding here. But at the moment, what they do tell us is that the cease-fire, while it appears visually to be meaningless, technically is still in place.

The Marines are responding defensively. One of the major reasons is the feeling in the U.S. military, starting with the very top, with General Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, is that the military cannot be the realistic solution in Fallujah, that it is now so close to the transition time to sovereignty that the Iraqis, the political process, must be involved, and that it will be a political solution, not a military solution that will work in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, officials say there is not an unlimited amount of time for the Marines to sit there, to respond in this fashion. But they say if there was a decision for a major assault, a major offensive U.S. military assault into Fallujah, it would be a sign that the political process has failed. And that would be extremely troubling to them.

If there was to be a decision for an offensive operation into Fallujah, it would be a decision throughout several places in the Bush administration. We are told that there would be consultation between the military, the White House, the Pentagon, all of the political elements, the coalition authorities in Baghdad. There would have to be a general understanding amongst all of these parties that basically the political process had irretrievably broken down and that there was no other solution.

At this point, they feel they still have time, that there are still hours, perhaps a couple of days ahead of them before they have to make that decision. Officials warning, however, that, you know, they do feel that they must try and still give the political process time to work, but they know the Marines are frustrated. They see these pictures. They know that they are playing across the world today -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr with us from the Pentagon this morning. Barbara, thanks. We'll check in with you in just a few more minutes. Thanks very much.

O'BRIEN: And, you know, we heard Suzanne talking about speeding up that deadline, with the theory behind it of tempering the violence. But, of course, we look at these live pictures coming into us from Fallujah, and you can hear -- I mean, over Suzanne's report we were hearing the gunfight going on. You would not know that the violence is being tempered or heading toward being tempered anytime soon.

We're gong to go back to Barbara Starr, who is at the Pentagon, for the latest assessment of what is happening here from the Pentagon this morning.

Barbara, good morning again.

STARR: Good morning again, Soledad.

Well, Pentagon officials are looking at the situation on the ground. Still, they say, this is the Marines responding, of course, very forcefully to a number of attacks by the insurgents. The next round of firefights clearly unfolding here. But at the moment, what they do tell us is that the cease-fire, while it appears visually to be meaningless, technically is still in place.

The Marines are responding defensively. One of the major reasons is the feeling in the U.S. military, starting with the very top, with General Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, is that the military cannot be the realistic solution in Fallujah, that it is now so close to the transition time to sovereignty that the Iraqis, the political process, must be involved, and that it will be a political solution, not a military solution that will work in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, officials say there is not an unlimited amount of time for the Marines to sit there, to respond in this fashion. But they say if there was a decision for a major assault, a major offensive U.S. military assault into Fallujah, it would be a sign that the political process has failed. And that would be extremely troubling to them.

If there was to be a decision for an offensive operation into Fallujah, it would be a decision throughout several places in the Bush administration. We are told that there would be consultation between the military, the White House, the Pentagon, all of the political elements, the coalition authorities in Baghdad. There would have to be a general understanding amongst all of these parties that basically the political process had irretrievably broken down and that there was no other solution.

At this point, they feel they still have time, that there are still hours, perhaps a couple of days ahead of them before they have to make that decision. Officials warning, however, that, you know, they do feel that they must try and still give the political process time to work, but they know the Marines are frustrated. They see these pictures. They know that they are playing across the world today -- Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr with us from the Pentagon this morning. Barbara, thanks. We'll check in with you in just a few more minutes. Thanks very much.

HEMMER: This story in Fallujah, as we watch it, has literally knocked the other stories in this country off our radar. Stories like Najaf and what's happening in Baghdad, in the north. Fallujah has truly become, at this point, anyway, the symbol for the struggle for the future of this country.

U.S. Army retired Colonel Pat Lang is with us by telephone down in D.C., former head of intelligence with the Middle East.

And Colonel, thanks for hanging out with us. I know you've been patient on the telephone there. As you are listening to Karl Penhaul's report, are you able at this point to put the U.S. military strategy in a greater context, what we're all witnessing and watching in Fallujah today?

COL. PAT LANG, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the Marines are stuck on the edge of the city in various places trying to weight out the diplomatic process to see how it's going to play itself out. I'm sure they're very impatient. This is a very awkward position for them to be in. And what they're trying to do with these attacks last night and today is to suppress the fire that's incoming into their positions from these buildings out in front of them and around the train station, places like that.

The way you manage to suppress fire so you don't take rounds in your position and lose men is to put a lot of fire on them. And you put as much fire as you can and achieve (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They then either kill them or they decide it's a bad idea and move away.

So what you're seeing is essentially, as they say, a defensive operation, waiting to see how this is going to turn out. You know, I would be very concerned if in the end we decide to move into the city and if we don't go in with a lot of people. That's a very big town.

HEMMER: So you're saying go there with overwhelming force or don't go at all?

LANG: Yes, I would think so. I mean, this is a town of about 300,000 people that has parts of the city named -- things like Golan (ph). You know, Jolan in Iraqi Arabic means Golan (ph). Im mean, these are not soft people in there, and it's a very big place. You could easily get swallowed up in the masses of buildings and streets and things. So if I were to go in, I'd go in with a lot of force.

HEMMER: And what do you do about negotiations? If you've got these ongoing gun battles here and the things we saw last night and again today, is that off the table at this point?

LANG: Well, I think that politically we're obliged by the participation of the Iraqi Governing Council and our desire to have the approval of the Islamic sheiks to engage in these things. But the idea that they're going to show up in town there and make a statement in favor with us is probably more a hope than anything else. I really have a hard time imagining them doing that.

HEMMER: You know, Colonel, a lot of what we've been talking about here takes us back to an argument that has been circulating throughout this country over the past year. Whether or not the U.S. has enough military fighting force on the ground in Iraq, or if more troops need to go in to squelch items like we're watching here in Fallujah. I'm not sure where you come down on that debate. LANG: Well, I've been on record for a long time, Bill, that this is -- I've never thought that we had enough force in Iraq. I didn't think we had enough going in.

The skill of the troops made up for a great deal in the invasion of Iraq. But the problem of occupying a country which has a population which is at least potentially hostile is one that requires a great deal more in a matter of presence on the ground to suppress things before they start than we've ever had. And now we are spread pretty thin all over the country in such a way that the position is, I think, somewhat precarious, actually.

HEMMER: Colonel, thanks. Pat Lang there down in D.C. by way of telephone. U.S. Army retired, former head of intelligence in the Middle East.

And as we almost wrap things up here, I want to get back to Jack again. A lot of reaction today of what we're watching and witnessing today in Fallujah.

CAFFERTY: Yes. The options over there, none of them particularly attractive. If you are going and have to take it a block at a time, American casualties go up. If you use overwhelming air power to quell the insurgents in the city, Iraqi civilian casualties go up. So we asked our viewers this morning the e-mail question: What's the solution in Fallujah?

Charles in Tampa, Florida, writes: "The Fallujah solution must be a negotiated political solution brokered by either the Iraqi Governing Council or the United Nations. Any and all U.S. military action fuels more unrest, not only in Fallujah, but also every other city and town in Iraq. In addition, U.S. military action in Iraq angers Arabs throughout the region."

Sherry in Pennsylvania: "We just need to take action and stop playing with these people. I would vote for an air attack because this would save lives of our ground troops."

Sophie in Denver: "The military should be proactive in Iraq. Simply trying to respond to every incident in the country where every resident is able to keep a machinegun in their home, there's no way the soldiers can be effective. Collateral damage is an unfortunate, but necessary side effect of actually doing the job they're there to do."

And, finally, Lori in Biloxi, Mississippi: "If we want a viable and realistic solution in the war in Fallujah, we have to allow the commanders on the ground in charge of the troops to call the shots, and not the politicians in Washington, who are only looking out for their careers. Vietnam was a political war, and that's a lesson we must never forget."

O'BRIEN: Really I think fantastic e-mails being sent in this morning.

CAFFERTY: Terrific. Very interesting stuff. O'BRIEN: What we are seeing live -- and this, I think, is actually a videotape. We saw really looking right down the barrel of this Marine's -- I believe Karl Penhaul was saying this was one of the snipers that was brought in to try to deal with the insurgents...

HEMMER: Near the train station.

O'BRIEN: ... near the train station. Trying to deal with the insurgent reaction.

It's interesting, too, when you hear what Ken Pollack was saying. He was saying that what's happening in Fallujah is basically the culmination of a year of mistakes that they did not make in Tikrit, where people were actually really looking...

HEMMER: Interesting comment.

O'BRIEN: ... toward bringing the people in Tikrit together, to make sure that they were interested in the reconstruction, wasn't done in Fallujah. And he had a list of other cities as well where it was not done. And I'd be curious to know if what we are seeing in Fallujah right now is what we're going to see in other cities potentially outside of Fallujah, however this is resolved.

CAFFERTY: One of the things that happened in some of those other cities is that military control was established over them in the very early days of the war. And the opposition forces were not allow allowed to melt back into those civilian populations. That's a big part of what happened in Fallujah and Najaf.

And now you've got old members of the elite Republican Guard, outside terrorists, perhaps, members of al Qaeda, perhaps. But those other towns were taken over, and control was established in the early days of the war so that there was no opportunity for this kind of thing to have occurred.

HEMMER: You mentioned the word "quagmire" about 90 minutes ago. If you go back to the beginning of the war on terror in Afghanistan, all the predictions that were made about the military conflict did not come true because you recruited the northern alliance. That battle was over and done with in four weeks.

Similar story when the Iraqi war broke out, 21 days to Baghdad. Again, no one predicted this a year down the road. And it's very difficult for anyone to sit here and say whether this goes on for a month or six months or five years. We just do not know.

CAFFERTY: Yes.

O'BRIEN: We need to hand this over to Daryn Kagan at the CNN Center this morning. She is going to pick up our coverage.

Daryn, obviously lots going on this morning we've been talking about all day.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Absolutely. And we're not going to miss a beat. Good work today, you guys. Thank you so much, Bill and Soledad.

We're going to pick things up right away and get back to Fallujah. We have a number of people standing by. Let's go ahead and listen now to U.S. pool reporter Karl Penhaul.

PENHAUL: ... where we're standing now. This firefight, one of three that we've seen this week. Last night, AC-130 specter gunships in action, pounding two insurgent positions. And on Monday, a gun battle between a Marine platoon and coalition forces. Now, though, Marine helicopters disappeared, and all we see are the plumes of black smoke.

This is Karl Penhaul reporting with the camera of John Tentleton (ph) of the U.S. Networks Pool from Fallujah, Iraq.

KAGAN: And we'll be listening in throughout the morning to U.S. pool reporter Karl Penhaul.

Right now, we want to go to Baghdad. This is the daily news conference by the Coalition Provisional Authority. You'll be hearing from Garrett Bailey (ph). He is the British spokesman for the coalition.

Let's listen in.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

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