Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

A Swift Pullout?; When to Marry

Aired November 18, 2005 - 08:34   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about what's going on in Washington as this debate continues really to grow on the whole issue of the run-up to war and the conduct of the war in Iraq. We've been talking all this morning about Congressman John Murtha. Jack Murtha is a retired Marine Colonel, well-respected in Congress. A Democrat who is a hawk, and he had some very strong things to say.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: It's time to bring 'em home. They've done everything they can do.

M. O'BRIEN: Those comments from decorated war veteran John Murtha, a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. His service in Vietnam and Korea likely to ratchet up the national debate about a U.S. pullout from Iraq. Murtha has introduced a resolution to try to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq within six months.

MURTHA: I believe we need to turn Iraq over to Iraqis.

REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R), FLORIDA: To pull out now, to surrender now is to give back to the terrorists a country that they don't deserve.

M. O'BRIEN: It's unclear if Murtha's resolution will ever make it to a vote. One Democratic vote that has already failed would have required the president to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Setting a date, according to Major General William Webster of the 3rd Infantry Division, "would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

M. O'BRIEN: The White House fired back at Murtha's comments. And this is a quote from the administration, saying, "He -- referring to Murtha -- is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore -- referring the "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker -- and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. We remain baffled. Nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

Which sets us up very well for a roundtable we're going to have this morning, talking about a possible withdrawal from Iraq, or when U.S. troops could possibly do that.

Joining me now from Washington, former CIA analyst Ken Pollack. He's currently with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Here in New York, Jane Arraf, formerly CNN's Baghdad bureau chief, currently on sabbatical. She's a fellow on the Council On Foreign Relations.

And in Jackson, Mississippi, retired Major General Buford Blount. He lead the U.S. troops into Iraq from Kuwait at the start of the war in 2003.

I want to begin with you, general, if I could. What would happen if U.S. troops left tomorrow?

MAJ. GEN. BUFORD BLOUNT, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, that would be playing into the hands of the terrorists. That's exactly what they want us to do, and so we would be handing Iraq over to them. And so I think would see an escalation in the violence. It would not be a lessening of the violence, it would be an increase in the violence as they attempted to overthrow the elected Iraqi government. So I think it would be the worst thing that we could do at this point.

Ken Pollack, what if U.S. troops left nearly immediately? What would happen?

KEN POLLACK, SABAN CENTER: There would be a civil war in Iraq. I think what you'd see is the Shia south employ (ph) the West also with fragments. Basically as General Blount is suggesting, there would be a fight among all the different Iraqi groups for control over Iraq. But we need to understand, the Iraqi government has no capacity to control this country right now, and there are just far too many groups who are looking to go after each other. The U.S. is often just a drive-by target in many of these.

M. O'BRIEN: All right, but it doesn't seem as if the U.S. has the capacity to control it either.

Jane Arraf, what would happen if the U.S. left tomorrow?

JANE ARRAF, FELLOW ON COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I think what happened this morning, and kind of key, in that little town in the northeast is a perfect example. That is a place where U.S. troops said was one of the safest in Iraq and that's where they thought they could withdrawal and leave Iraqi forces and we have these bombings. Now the problem is everything becomes very politicized, but I think it would be a recipe for civil war if they withdrew now.

M. O'BRIEN: All right, so which leads us what will it take to leave? What do you consider the criteria. It's very difficult for us sitting here in the United States to really measure when the time will be right.

General Blount, when will you know the time is right for U.S. troops to begin leaving?

BLOUNT: Well, it's got to be condition-based. And we're working daily to train Iraqi forces to take over our missions, and very successfully, too. We've turned over 24 of our forward-operating bases to the Iraqi forces, bases that -- small bases where we used to have U.S. forces, now been withdrawn and consolidated, and turned over to Iraqis. And so we're about two-thirds of the way getting to the number, 325,000 trained security forces that we need on the ground to allow us to begin withdrawing our forces back.

M. O'BRIEN: We are two-thirds of the way to 325,000 trained security forces, meaning trained and capable of operating completely independently, is that what you're saying?

BLOUNT: Yes, now completely. You know, we are going to have advisers there as we continue to train the forces, and we have advisers with all armies that we have relationships with throughout the world.

So we will continue to have advisories there that assist in training equipment, and keep peace that we're working on now as a sustaining of these forces. So the sustainment piece is not ready yet, so we're going to have to continue to provide that. But the forces are training on a daily basis, are on patrol daily, and are providing security in a large portion of Iraq now.

M. O'BRIEN: Ken Pollack, what is the measure of whatever criteria you would choose for U.S. troops to leave?

POLLACK: Well, I think, as general Blount is suggesting, we need to have a situation where the Iraqi government has the capability to maintain security and stability in the country.

I think I have a somewhat more pessimistic view than General Blount does about exactly how far along we are there in particular because I see no ability on the part of the Iraqi government to actually sustain the combat forces in field, to use them, employ them, et cetera.

In addition, I'd say we need to have an Iraqi economy that is at least minimally capable of supporting the lives of the Iraqi people which, right now, there's problems there as well. And beyond that, you need a political system in Baghdad that is going to allow the country to stay as a whole and to function and to meet the needs of its people.

M. O'BRIEN: Jane Arraf?

ARRAF: I think Ken is absolutely right on that. You need to have the those three things -- security, economy, and the political process -- and they're probably not going to come together by next year.

M. O'BRIEN: So much easier said than done. Let's go back to the general and talk about that. General, what will it take to get us from today, where we've seen just another round of violence there -- at least 60 dead just today -- to the point that you're talking about, where you have enough security forces on the ground, where the United States can leave and just leave a few advisers behind?

BLOUNT: OK, well, the force that is there now is adequate, I think, to train the Iraqi force and to set up a sustainment base that they're going to need. So we need to continue the route that we're on. We've got very smart, good capable people over there performing these missions. The Iraqis are enlisting, there's no shortage. They want to serve their country. They want to join the military, join the police force, and so no there's shortage of resources over there from Iraqi side, as far as personnel goes. So that all is working. It is just going to take time to do that.

Now, does that mean insurgency will stop? No. Even when we pull out, there is still going to be an element of insurgency there that's going to continue to have suicide bombers, going to continue to attack the infrastructure, attack the democracy that is forming in Iraq. So -- but the Iraqi forces then will be better equipped to handle that, and we can begin to, you know, draw down our American troops and let them turn it over to the Iraqi forces.

M. O'BRIEN: Ken Pollack, what is it going to take, in your view, to get from where we are today to a pull-out?

POLLACK: Well, let me answer that in a slightly different way, Miles, and say that I think we're looking at a process that';s going to take two, three, four years before the U.S. can really start to draw down. I think I'm much more in more agreement with Jane on that point. Because many of the problems that we have are deep-seated, and while we are making some progress at them, the only way to really solve them is over time.

Give you a couple of examples very quickly. Corruption. There is enormous corruption in Iraqi government. It is going to take years to build up a judicial system that is capable of actually tackling corruption. And with regard to the training of the troops, it's certainly true that we're getting the troops through training programs. What's not clear is whether actual unit cohesion is building, command relationships, all of the things that allow units to actually function in combat. That takes much longer than just a 12 or 16-week training program.

M. O'BRIEN: Jane Arraf, final word?

ARRAF: Well, on the ground, when you're there, I mean, you do see Iraqi troops that are coming up to speed. The problem is it's so complicated. They're pouring Kurdish troops into towns where they don't understand the local people, don't speak the same language. Intensely complicated. But it's going to take time and a lot more pain. And that's the thing. It's how much the pain is the United States, is Iraq willing to put up with?

M. O'BRIEN: Excellent work. Thank you, all three of you. Like to have you back as we continue this discussion. Ken Pollack from the Saban Center at Brookings Institution, Jane Arraf with the Council of Foreign Relations, and retired Major General Buford Blount. Excellent roundtable -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: Ahead this morning, Andy is "Minding Your Business," just ahead on AMERICAN MORNING. What's coming up?

ANDY SERWER, "FORTUNE" COLUMNIST: I'm going to tell you how you can get $2,000 of gasoline for free. It's easy. Stay tuned on AMERICAN MORNING.

S. O'BRIEN: All right, we will. Thanks, Andy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

S. O'BRIEN: Before the break, Andy, you teased us with a good offer.

M. O'BRIEN: We're so excited, Andy! How do we get...

S. O'BRIEN: Explicame!

M. O'BRIEN: ...free gas? Free gas, please.

SERWER: Well, you know, all you have to do is buy a car.

M. O'BRIEN: Oh.

SERWER: So is a little a hitch to it, I guess. But, you know, we were talking about the big automakers offering incentives, trying to cut prices, trying to compete. First it was G.M. Yesterday, it was Ford. And I predicted, I said, what's Daimler-Chrysler going to do in response? We found out quickly. They are coming out with a program, starting on Monday, running through January 2nd, where you get $2,400 of free gasoline if you buy a Chrysler vehicle. Of course, some of the hot cars are excluded. The baby Bentley, the Viper, the Magnum -- maybe the cars you really wanted.

But they are -- this is how this works. You get a debit card loaded with $2,400 that you would use at participating gas stations and retailers to fill up your tank. There are questions people have been asking. Well, can you use the $2,400 to buy other things at the convenience store, like beer? I don't know. It's possible. But you're supposed to use it for gasoline.

S. O'BRIEN: Debit card, you should be able to.

SERWER: I would think so. So interesting stuff. But, you know, they're trying to move the cars off the lots. And I think that's really going to be a catchy one, don't you?

S. O'BRIEN: Yes, I do, I do.

SERWER: Nothing like free gasoline.

Want to talk about this other story here concerning a big auction on e-Bay. A part of Americana, the Hollywood sign, is for sale.

M. O'BRIEN: No, it's not!

SERWER: Yes, indeed. Yes, it is. Let me explain. There's two Hollywood signs.

S. O'BRIEN: You have to leave it where it is.

SERWER: No, no, you can pick it up. Here's how it works. The original Hollywood sign -- there it is -- was erected.

M. O'BRIEN: That's "Hollywod."

SERWER: Yes, well, it's missing the O, someone stole it. It's been returned. It was erected in 1923.

M. O'BRIEN: No wonder it's a deal, it's misspelled.

SERWER: No, it's still there. It kind of fell apart in the '70s, and they built a new one in 1978. The 1923 version was put in storage. That is the one that is for sale. Those nine letters, 30- foot wide. The bid starts at $300 grand.

M. O'BRIEN: Look at that. Hollywood Land.

SERWER: Well, that's a very old version. And they got rid of the land part. That really goes all the way -- way, way, way back.

M. O'BRIEN: Can you buy the land portion or just the...

SERWER: The land portion doesn't exist anymore.

S. O'BRIEN: That's great.

SERWER: And spray painted on that is graffiti from bands -- rock bands, mostly. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Nug -- Ted Nugent's name is on there. Which might make it more valuable, or less valuable.

M. O'BRIEN: I would think it would be a potential art exhibit.

SERWER: I would think so, too.

S. O'BRIEN: Three-hundred grand.

SERWER: Can you put that in your apartment, by the way? There's nine 30-foot wide letters.

M. O'BRIEN: I can barely fit me in my new apartment. Are you kidding? All right. She's got my piano, for God's sake!

SERWER: Still to come on AMERICAN MORNING, how old is too old to tie the knot? Well, it's never too old, is it? Is it?

S. O'BRIEN: If you're in love, never.

M. O'BRIEN: That's right. Love is timeless. That's the story. We'll get to the brass tacks reality after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

M. O'BRIEN: I heard that. I don't know why. Why would they think that?

S. O'BRIEN: Because we have the same last name.

M. O'BRIEN: Oh, that would be it. That would be it.

S. O'BRIEN: But we're not. M. O'BRIEN: But co-anchoring is somewhat like marriage.

S. O'BRIEN: But not that much.

M. O'BRIEN: No conjugal benefits and all that.

All right, let's talk about marriage, before I get in further trouble with my real marriage. A study came out about what was the best time to get married? And the president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Roland Warren, is here to talk to us about this.

Roland, what is -- good to see you, by the way.

ROLAND WARREN, NATL. FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE: Hello. Hello. Good morning.

M. O'BRIEN: And bail us out of this mess, if you would. Or bail me. I'm dying alone as usual.

What is the best age to get married?

WARREN: Well, we did a study that surveyed about 1,500 adults ages 18 and above, and found that looking at a couple of different cohorts from those who got married 20 or younger, 20 to 22, or 23 to 27 or above 28. And the ones who reported the highest marital success and happiness were those from the ages 23 to 27.

M. O'BRIEN: Let's show the chart. It -- we actually borrowed this from Andy Serwer's leading economic indicators, and we turned it into an age at first marriage. All you need to know is, folks, look at 23 to 27, male and female, longest bar. Therefore, that is where it's most successful.

And then we have a regional chart to further confuse you, showing that basically the odds of a successful marriage are better in the Northeast versus, say, the South or the West. What is that all about?

WARREN: Well, it's interesting, because that a big counterintuitive when we did the study, because I think certainly when you look at the South and maybe consider it a more traditional environment. But frankly, the Northeast and the Midwest show the best success in terms of marital happiness across all the metrics that we looked at.

S. O'BRIEN: What is the theory behind why'd you be happier married at an age of what many people would be very young, 23 to 27. Maybe I'm just old. That's really what I'm saying. But what's the theory operating behind here, do you think?

WARREN: Well, I think there's a couple of things at work here. First, when you look at marital success, one of the key things is the skills that you bring to the marriage, and I think when somebody comes to you in their mid 20s and says they want to get married, there's a lot of counseling that says, you know, you and support you should get to. But when someone comes in their 30s and says they want to get married, typically I think typically people don't recommend that.

I think the other thing is that certainly the longer you've been single, it's certainly an opportunity for you to be more self-focused.

S. O'BRIEN: That is such a nice way to say, like, stubborn, pig- headed, obstinate, hard to live with, egomaniacal, megalomaniac.

WARREN: Sure. Absolutely.

(CROSSTALK)

WARREN: Absolutely, and marriage is an other-centered institution. So certainly we think that there's some of that at play as well.

S. O'BRIEN: As you can imagine, people who are over that magic cutoff number, 27, freaking out a little.

M. O'BRIEN: Should they be getting nervous? Or what should they do?

WARREN: Well, I mean, I guess you could say that should you be a desperate housewife to be, or so to speak? No, not at all. I think that really what this is saying, though, frankly is that we've been giving young people a lot of counseling, saying the longer you wait, the more likely you are to have marital success. And the data, frankly, just doesn't show that, that really it's about skill building, relationship building, the ability to be other-centered and things of that nature, that really lead to great marriages and some of the longevity. And, frankly, the baggage that you can bring to a marriage from lots of relationships at times can be at play, so there's just a lot of other things to consider beyond just the age.

M. O'BRIEN: So what's the take-away here? You're out there looking. Don't worry about it? What do you do?

WARREN: Well, I think, frankly, from my perspective, if you're of age and you want to get married, to really focus on the skill building piece of it. I think that's the biggest take-away that you can have. When you look at our survey, about 88 percent of the folks that were surveyed really were supportive of marital counseling and, frankly, America surprisingly, maybe to some, still very, very much pro marriage. But I think that those are the real metrics when you look at what it takes in order to sustain a good relationship is skill building.

The other thing for us that's really important is the linkage between other-centered institutions, like fatherhood; 97 percent of those surveys said that father involvement was just as important as mother involvement in the healthy raising of children.

S. O'BRIEN: Amen to that.

WARREN: Well, Amen, and so we are a fatherhood organization that's doing this work. And certainly if you go to our Web site, which is fatherhood.org, there's great resources both on happy marriages and also how to be a great father.

M. O'BRIEN: All right. Boy, that's a good way to end it. Thank you. It's important. It's all part of the picture there.

S. O'BRIEN: Roland Warren is the president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. He's on "Oprah" all the time, and we love to see you there, too. Thanks for talking with us.

WARREN: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

M. O'BRIEN: Thanks for dropping by.

In a moment, today's top stories, including angry mob protests in South Korea. They have a message for President Bush, as he and other world leaders meet. We'll have a live report ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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