Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Iran Offers Talks With U.S. About Iraq Situation; A Look at Operation Swarmer
Aired March 17, 2006 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time.
Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you today's top stories.
Happening now, U.S. troops kicked them out of Afghanistan, now they've found a new place to terrorize. It's 5:00 a.m. along the Pakistani-Afghan border, where the Taliban are taking control and taking pictures to prove it.
We have the shocking pictures this hour.
It's 7:00 p.m. over at the White House, where President Bush is pushing -- is he pushing too hard for democracy in parts of the world where it may take years to take hold? Is it the right medicine for some ailing countries?
We're going to go into depth on that.
And it's 3:00 a.m. in Baghdad. Three years after the war began, is Iraq heading for civil war? We'll get the inside view from "The New York Times" Baghdad bureau chief, John Burns.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Are the Taliban making a comeback across the border in Pakistan? We're going to get to that in a moment.
First, though, there's another developing story at this hour. Iran, blamed by the Bush administration for dangerous meddling in Iraq. Now Iran wants to talk things over. The U.S. first called for these talks some time ago, but the White House is now wary.
Let's go live to our White House correspondent, Elaine Quijano.
Elaine, what's going on?
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And Wolf, the reason the White House is wary is because of the timing of this.
Now, first of all, White House are making very clear that these talks, if they in fact go on between Iran and the United States, would focus on the issue of Iran's role, Iran's behavior in Iraq. Now, the timing of this in question because a senior administration official noting that it comes just as the international community, the U.N. Security Council, specifically, is taking a closer look at Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Now, this official says he believes that in fact this response by Iran is evidence that in fact the international solidarity on this issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions is having an effect, that it's not just the United States taking a look at this, but in fact it is the worldwide community.
Now, also, we understand from this administration official that the United States is picking up information that perhaps there might be a debate going on within the Iranian government about whether or not Iran's president is headed on the right course or whether, perhaps, the Iranian people, Iranian government needs to actually find a way out, i.e., the Russian proposal to enrich uranium there.
Nevertheless, what administration officials again are emphasizing is that despite what might happen in the talks about Iraq, between Iran and the United States, that this in no way is about the broader issue of nuclear weapons. This administration official saying that they see Iran using this as "an escape valve for international pressure" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Iran seen as the greatest threat to the U.S. today. At least that's according to the Bush administration doctrine released this week.
Elaine, thank you very much.
They were one of the most brutal regimes of modern times, and now almost five years after the United States toppled them in Afghanistan, an effort that cost at least 220 American lives, the Taliban are making a comeback in neighboring Pakistan, terrorizing people with their harsh brand of Islam.
Our report contains some very disturbing video. CNN's senior Asia correspondent, Mike Chinoy, has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE CHINOY, CNN SR. ASIA CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Taliban appear to have taken effective control of much of the rugged Pakistani tribal area called Waziristan, and this is the result. A brutal system America went to war in Afghanistan to destroy recreated just across the border in Pakistan. These men executed, their bodies dragged through the streets, the chilling scene, the Taliban claims, recorded by their own cameramen.
Journalist Ahmed Rashid wrote the definitive book on the Taliban.
AHMED RASHID, AUTHOR, "TALIBAN": It's very similar to what has been going on -- what was going on in the early period of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. They are hanging people and torturing people who they consider as un-Islamic. CHINOY: And in a video, as slickly produced as it is gruesome, flaunting their brutality, verses from the Koran superimposed on dangling corpses, the fate of unbelievers, the narrator intones. Jihad against bandits; Allah punishes the oppressors.
SAMINA AHMED, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Judging by this documentary that they've made, they're boasting about what they've done. It seems that they have a fairly comfortable position, but they are -- they don't feel threatened, that they are pretty much in control.
CHINOY: Reinforcing that impression, the video, initially acquired by the online journal "Asia Times," was shot not in some remote mountain hideout but in Waziristan's main town, Miranshah. It shows events which reportedly occurred just in the last few months.
This is the bazaar, crowds gawking at the bodies of those on the receiving end of justice, Taliban-style.
(on camera) Some things on the video are so gruesome, we can't show them. They include beheadings, Taliban carrying the severed heads of those they've executed around in the market before placing those heads on a pole for all to see.
(voice-over) So pervasive is the Taliban's grip that 70,000 Pakistani troops have been unable to dislodge them. Instead, Waziristan has not only become, in many ways, a miniature Taliban- style state; it's also become a key staging ground for the jihadi fighters, responsible for an increasingly effective guerrilla campaign against American troops across the border in Afghanistan.
RASHID: I think it's important, because you have not just Afghan Taliban, but you have Arabs, Central Asians, Chechens, Africans. The same kind of groups of people that you had in Afghanistan before 9/11.
CHINOY: A daunting challenge in the war on terror.
Mike Chinoy, CNN, Islamabad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: For more on this incredible story, let's bring in CNN's Tom Foreman. He's here in THE SITUATION ROOM for a better idea of this area we're talking about -- Tom.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's take a look at the area from the sky here.
There's Afghanistan. There's Pakistan. Waziristan is this area right in here on the border, what we always call the tribal area. And the reason this is so hard to hit is flat-out geography.
You can even see from this picture how many mountains are involved here. But just to the north we'll bring up a name that you might recall. A hundred miles north of here in Afghanistan right across that yellow line there is Tora Bora. This is the area where many U.S. officials believe Osama bin Laden was surrounded after the war, and they could not capture him because when you fight in these mountains, you must fight in a different way than you do on open ground.
Air power, all of these things which might be powerful elsewhere, are very limited by all of these mountains, and people have to go in with guns and rocket launchers and fight essentially close combat in an old-fashioned way. And in those circumstances, the advantages of a major military are much more limited than they might be otherwise.
And look at this. This is what the ground looks like, not simply here, but all the way down to where Waziristan is.
This is the reason this is such an issue, because people are having a very hard time getting in there and rooting the people out. The mountains in this area are the great equalizers. And this is why over and over again people have been able to retreat there and fight.
For the 1980s, largely, when the Afghans were being pursued by the Soviets, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union happened, this is how they fought. They retreated into the mountains and they hid there.
They had these caves. They built Tora Bora in that time precisely for this.
This is why they can't, as the report said, feel somewhat safe while they do it, because to get them out will be difficult and costly. The question now for Pakistan, U.S. forces and Afghani forces is, can you tolerate having them there if they're only going to bother themselves? Or can you limit their ability to come out of these very treacherous mountains?
BLITZER: And it helps explain why Osama bin Laden may be so hard to find.
Tom Foreman, thanks very much for that.
Let's check in with CNN's Zain Verjee. She's at the CNN Center for a quick look at some other news making headlines -- Zain.
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: At this hour, Wolf, some 300 families in central Florida have been driven from their homes by a wildfire. About 200 firefighters are using helicopters, airplanes and bulldozers to battle the blaze. Officials say it's now more than 60 percent contained.
More than 500 acres near the town of Sebring -- that's south of Orlando -- has been charred. Police say that no injuries have been reported and no homes have been burned.
And there's disturbing news for air travelers this evening. The head of the Transportation Security Agency is admitting that investigators were able to smuggle bomb ingredients past airport screeners. Media reports indicate that security failed to detect the materials at all 21 airports tested. Even so, the TSA chief says the results confirm his decision to have screeners focus more on explosives and less on small tools such as scissors.
For the third time this week there's been a fatal shooting at a Denny's restaurant in southern California. Police say today's shooting took place after a fight broke out between two large groups at a Denny's in Anaheim. An 18-year-old man was shot in the parking lot and then he died after reentering the restaurant.
Three other people died in a pair of unrelated shootings at Denny's restaurants since Wednesday -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Zain.
Let's go up to New York. Jack Cafferty is standing by with "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia says that judges are no better qualified than "Joe Sixpack," his words, to make decisions about moral issues like abortion and gay marriage. The Associated Press reports Scalia criticized what he calls the era of the judge moralists.
In a speech to New England's School of Law students, Scalia said, "Anyone who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check."
There's some wisdom.
The justice said the public, through elected legislatures and not the courts, should decide the big issues like the legality of abortion.
So here's the question: Who's better qualified to make decisions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, judges of "Joe Sixpack"?
E-mail us at CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile.
BLITZER: Thanks, Jack, very much.
Coming up, spreading democracy around the world, it's a central premise of the president's foreign policy. Find out why some of his biggest supporters are now getting increasingly critical of this policy.
Plus, did the Bush administration intentionally mislead the American public about prewar intelligence in Iraq? I'll ask Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who now says the answer is yes.
And what a drag. One California town cracks down on smokers with the strictest law in the nation. Will the rest of the country now follow suit?
Stay with us.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: At that hour, U.S. and Iraqi forces are engaged in what the Pentagon is calling Operation Swarmer, rooting out insurgents in the so-called Sunni Triangle. This operation comes almost three years to the day since the U.S. invaded Iraq.
A key administration official involved in planning for the Iraq war was the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson. Wilkerson has now become a serious critic of the decision to go to work in Iraq, and he's on the record, calling the Bush administration -- and I'm quoting now -- "radical."
Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is here in THE SITUATION ROOM. He's joining us now. He teaches courses over at George Washington University and William and Mary in Virginia.
Colonel, thanks very much for joining us.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. POWELL CHIEF OF STAFF: Thanks for asking me.
BLITZER: Knowing what you know now, three years later, almost to the day, was it worth it going to war in Iraq?
WILKERSON: Well, Wolf, let me say that your original statement about Colin Powell and myself being involved in the planning for the war in Iraq I think is not quite correct, and I would like to establish that fact.
BLITZER: Are you saying Colin Powell was not involved?
WILKERSON: I'm saying that we weren't nearly as involved as I think that we should have been involved, and that was based principally on the president's decision on January the 20th, 2003 to make the Defense Department the lead agency in the war on Iraq.
BLITZER: But all of us remember in February it was Colin Powell who delivered that -- that presentation before the U.N. Security Council.
WILKERSON: That's true, but that didn't have anything to do with planning for the war in Iraq.
BLITZER: But it was the rationale for going to war.
WILKERSON: Absolutely, it was a part of that.
BLITZER: So what you're saying is that the Defense Department took over all the post-invasion plans from the State Department even though there had been a pretty detailed State Department plan?
WILKERSON: What I'm saying is that until things turned very bad for us in Iraq, the Defense Department felt like that it could handle things and didn't really need the State Department, except as it demanded that the State Department do this or do that.
BLITZER: All right. We'll correct the record on that.
What about the decision to go to war? Was it the right decision? Was it worth it knowing what you know now?
WILKERSON: Wolf, I have to say, after three years looking at it from a st strategic point of view now, it was not. And let me say why I don't think it was strategically a sound decision.
First of all, the number one winner in the region is not the United States, nor Israel. The number one winner is Iran. Let' just tick off the things that strategically Iran has gained by our having invaded Iraq.
First of all, it eliminated its number one enemy, its enemy that it fought for eight years, most of the decade of the '80s, and lost hundreds of thousands of people fighting without even firing a shot.
BLITZER: That was Saddam Hussein.
WILKERSON: Iraq is gone. Saddam Hussein is gone.
It also eliminated another enemy, the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It also won the elections in Iraq on 15 December for all practical purposes.
BLITZER: Because the Shia, who were the dominant party in Iraq, are aligned with Iran.
WILKERSON: Precisely. And, I mean, there principally Hakim and...
BLITZER: And Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
WILKERSON: And Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
And at the same time, I have to say that Iran pretty much owns the south of Iraq, principally the key city of Basra. The British came to an agreement, I think, early on that they were going to minimize their casualties there and have not aggressively...
BLITZER: But the theory was that Iran, Iraq, North Korea were the axis of evil...
WILKERSON: Exactly.
BLITZER: ... and that if you overthrow Saddam Hussein, that sends a powerful message to the people in Iran and North Korea, you might be next.
WILKERSON: And yet, Iran is now in the catbird seat. And if I were Israel and its leaders right now, I would be far more anxious now than I was prior to 3 March three years ago.
BLITZER: Why is that?
WILKERSON: Because Iran is in the catbird seat. Iran has gained enormous strategic flexibility by the fact that we are beleaguered in Iraq, our ground forces are more or less committed in Iraq. Our ground forces are committed to a struggle that looks interminable. So...
BLITZER: So are you saying that when the Iranians threaten Israel, the Israelis should be taking those threats to be wiped off the face of the map literally?
WILKERSON: I think they should be taking the threat seriously. I think they are.
BLITZER: So why not let -- you know, let them or let the U.S. go ahead and preempt?
WILKERSON: Well, that's an -- that's an option that this administration is looking at right now. I hope they're...
BLITZER: And you think it's serious?
WILKERSON: I hope they are looking at other options well before this on...
BLITZER: Because they say the diplomatic option is the priority.
WILKERSON: But the diplomatic option here seems to be, as was announced this morning, the same diplomatic option we have been exercising to no real end with regard to Pyongyang, the other member of the axis of evil, North Korea. We've had diplomacy going there -- and I use that term with great trepidation -- we've had diplomacy going there for an interminable period and we haven't succeeded in anything.
Let's examine that situation for a moment, Wolf, because when I say "strategic," I mean the entire axis of evil.
BLITZER: Are the people of Iraq better off today, three years later, without Saddam Hussein as their dictator?
WILKERSON: No question that Saddam Hussein being gone is a plus. But the way he was made to go, and the aftermath of that has created a situation that's not conducive to America's interest or Israel's interest.
BLITZER: Listen to what the president said last night at a Republican Party fund-raiser. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Members of the United States Congress, both Republicans and Democrats saw a threat. Members of the United Nations Security Council saw a threat.
By removing Saddam Hussein from power, America is safer and the world is better off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you agree with it?
WILKERSON: No. We see threats all around the world.
I see a looming threat in Pyongyang. I see a looming threat in Tehran. We are not using military force against those two capitals right now, and I hope, for god's sake, that we don't use it against either one of them.
BLITZER: Let me ask you this question about WMD, because you and Colin Powell were directly involved in this. We asked this question the other day in our CNN-"USA-Today"-Gallup poll: "Did the Bush administration deliberately -- deliberately mislead public" -- the public -- "on weapons of mass destruction?"
Fifty-one percent of the American public say yes, 46 percent say no.
And I'll pose the question to you: Did the Bush administration deliberately mislead the American public on WMD?
WILKERSON: Wolf, there's no question in my mind now after looking back at is as an academic, doing research over this last year or two, and my time in the State Department, there's no doubt in my mind that certain members of the Bush administration did in fact politicize the intelligence, did cherry-pick the intelligence..
BLITZER: Who?
WILKERSON: I would put at the top of that list Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, in the Pentagon, who was more or less the planner, if you will, if you can use that term, for post- invasion Iraq.
BLITZER: And so what about Rumsfeld, who was his boss, Wolfowitz, who was his boss? What about them?
WILKERSON: Paul Wolfowitz as deputy secretary of defense probably -- probably did not do all that he could to make sure that the intelligence picture was as the intelligence community was rendering it.
I'm not sure about Secretary Rumsfeld. I think Secretary Rumsfeld's major concern was with transformation of the armed forces. I don't think he was focused as much on war with Iraq as was the vice president's office and certain members of his own Pentagon.
Did Secretary Rumsfeld politicize the intelligence? Did he cherry pick from the intelligence? If his policy planning shopper, his policy shop in Douglas Feith's realm was cherry picking the intelligence and providing talking points for the secretary to speak, then the secretary of defense was also cherry picking.
BLITZER: The secretary of state, who was your boss, Colin Powell, you spent a long time with him. He went to the CIA before he delivered that speech at the U.N. Security Council, spent days reviewing the intelligence. Did he cherry pick what he was going to tell the U.N. Security Council?
WILKERSON: He cherry picked it from the opposite point of view. He cherry picked it from the point of view of trying to get rid of everything in the testimony that he was going to give, the presentation that he was going to give, that didn't have a credible intelligence community backed source.
That was his criterion going in, and that was my criterion going in. And that's what we told Mr. Tenet, that's what we told Mr. McLaughlin the DDCI. And that's what we tried to do, which is why we threw out the package that the White House has given us almost the first day and moved to the NIE, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, that Mr. Tenet said he could back up 100 percent.
BLITZER: Even though, with hindsight, there was a lot of bad information in that .
WILKERSON: A lot of bad information in that, too.
BLITZER: You worked with Colin Powell for a long time. And on December 6, 2003, this is how he described you at the Kennedy Center Honors Dinner for the State Department.
He said, "A dear friend of mine, an old war buddy by the name of Colonel Larry Wilkerson. Larry is an infantry officer, like me. He's a combat helicopter pilot, served in Vietnam. And he's been with me and been my close friend and adviser for 14 years. He's a soldier." Which given his background, that's the highest compliment he can give. What kind of relationship since you've gone public with your criticisms have you had with the former secretary of state?
WILKERSON: Well, it's been strained. He believes in working behind the scenes, and has done much work behind the scenes. I found that -- I felt I could have the greatest affect, if I'm having any effect at all, by coming out and going public.
And I think the American people have verified my decision to come out and go public because, as I read the polls now, the American people are beginning to awaken to the fact that they've been lied to by this administration.
BLITZER: Colonel Wilkerson, thanks very much for joining us. And thanks for your service to our country.
WILKERSON: Thanks for having me here, Wolf.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And you just heard one perspective of what's going on behind the scenes. Coming up, reality on the ground in Iraq. He's just back from Iraq. He was there since day one for three years. He's been "The New York Times" Baghdad bureau chief. John Burns with his assessment of what's really going on inside Iraq.
Plus, the giant -- and I mean giant -- national debt likely to get even bigger. How much is $9 trillion? On this St. Patrick's Day, our Ali Velshi is seeing green, lots of green. He'll have "The Bottom Line."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's a massive fire in Louisville, Kentucky, happening right now.
Let's go to CNN's Zain Verjee. She's watching it with details -- Zain.
VERJEE: Wolf, we want to show you some pictures from CNN's affiliate, WHAF. This is a raging fire that's going on right now. It's happening, as you said, at the west end of Louisville, Kentucky.
This is a warehouse park. It hosts houses, multiple businesses. We don't know if there are any casualties. We don't know if there is anybody trapped in there. And we don't know what caused this.
What we can show you is this picture that we're getting. We see black plumes of smoke lurching up toward the night sky over this deep orange glow. It doesn't appear as though the blazes are under control. Local affiliates are saying that this is a four-alarm fire.
Firefighters are on the scene. They've surrounded the facility and are pouring water on it, trying to get it under control -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Zain, thanks. We'll continue to watch this fire in Louisville.
Zain Verjee reporting.
Many see it as the main factor to how historians will rate the Bush presidency. But how well is the president executing a key component of his foreign policy?
For more on this, we're joined once again by our White House correspondent, Elaine Quijano -- Elaine.
QUIJANO: Good evening to you, Wolf. And we're talking about, of course, the Bush administration's push for democracy around the world.
Now, not surprisingly, critics say that perhaps the Bush administration needs to rethink it's approach. But perhaps, more interestingly, even some Republicans are now saying that as well.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
QUIJANO (voice over): It is the central tenet driving President Bush's foreign policy, supporting and promoting the spread of democracies worldwide. Reaffirmed in the updated "National Security Strategy" released Thursday, the president says democracy is key to ultimately making the world safer.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We believe that democracy is the right of every man and woman in this world. And we understand that history says loud and clear that democracies do not war.
QUIJANO: But some see the Bush administration's approach as too sweeping.
SUSAN RICE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: It's almost cast as the castor oil of U.S. foreign policy that can cure everything from the common cold to nuclear proliferation.
QUIJANO: Critics say the recent sectarian violence in Iraq illustrates why pushing for democracy worldwide may be unrealistic.
MARINA OTTAWAY, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: Once people are given a choice, they vote for whoever they want. And they -- and what is quite clear is that in divided countries -- countries that are divided along ethnic lines or confessional lines, people tend to vote their identity. This is what happened in Iraq.
QUIJANO: But the administration argues that forming democracies in places like Iraq is a long and difficult process.
STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It should surprise no one that freedom has allowed the expression of sectarian identity and the surfacing of sectarian grievances.
QUIJANO: Still, even in Republican circles, there's now a shift in the discussion of democracy.
LORNE CRANER, INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE: There's an old school of Democratic development that says get an economy, get a middle class, get a democracy, in that order. And that is, in some ways, what some people are saying within the Republican party. We need to go a little slower.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUIJANO: At the same time, some Republicans are standing firm with the White House, particularly on the issue of Iraq, agreeing essentially with the White House's view that the Iraqi people are still better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Elaine, thanks very much. Elaine Quijano is over at the White House.
The government is fresh out of green on this St. Patrick's day. And that has our Ali Velshi seeing red. Ali's joining us now with the "Bottom Line" -- Ali.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, if the White House has anything to be thankful for tonight, it's the fact that it got the green light from Congress to continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VELSHI (voice-over): The U.S. is deep in debt, $8.2 trillion in the hole. And that's not the worst of it. This week, the Senate increased the amount the United States can go into debt to nearly $9 trillion. That's a lot of money, real money that the government actually owes to people and foreign governments that hold U.S. bonds.
The interest on that debt, $217 billion this year alone, that can't be spent on other things. That's almost three times what the Department of Education spends in a year.
SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), MARYLAND: We believe that in this country, the American dream is shrinking, not because there's a dream deficit but because there is a wallet deficit.
VELSHI: When President Bush took office in 2001, the U.S. didn't have a deficit. But then came September 11th and war and recession and higher oil prices. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had to be paid for and tax cuts meant less income for the government. And politics is getting in the way of solving this problem.
REA HEDERMAN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Are you going to be accused of voting against war spending and support for the troops when you're simply trying to draw the line on restraint spending?
VELSHI: Even conservative think tanks says the government has to do what Americans have to do.
HEDERMAN: Eventually, this bill is going to come due. We can't keep simply racking up higher and higher debt. If we don't take hard measures now to rein in federal spending, we're going to have to look at massive tax increases on our children and grandchildren.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELSHI: And, Wolf, this year is not going to make it any better. This might be the biggest federal deficit at any time in U.S. history. We're looking at a $400 billion shortfall between what the government takes in and what it's going to spend this year -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Ali, thank you very much. Ali Velshi reporting for us.
And just ahead, reality on the ground in Iraq. Is Iraq on the brink of a civil war? The "New York Times" Baghdad bureau chief, John Burns, he's been there since day one, three years counting. He's seen it all. He'll be live right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Also, for smokers, it's a real drag to be in Calabasas, California right now. We're going to take you there to see how people are dealing with a new law against lighting up in public, almost anywhere in public.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Right now in Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi troops are on the hunt for insurgents in what began as the biggest airborne operation since the war began. The U.S. military says they've seized several weapons caches but resistance has been light.
The timing, though, may be significant. Three years ago this weekend the United States led an invasion of Iraq. Within three weeks, U.S. troops were in Baghdad. But the troops are still in Iraq and there are now widespread fears that the country may be sliding toward civil war.
Let's turn to the veteran "New York Times" Baghdad bureau chief John Burns. He's joining us now on leave here -- he's actually joining us from Canada.
John, you were there for the last nine months of Saddam Hussein's regime. You have basically been in Iraq ever since. Is it your opinion, based on what you know right now, that the country already is in a civil war or moving toward a civil war?
JOHN BURNS, "NEW YORK TIMES": How you calibrate that, I think, Wolf, depends on many things. What we can say is that if it's not a civil war, it's an advanced state of sectarian strife, which becomes ever less distinguishable from civil war.
And the stabilizing factor, the one thing that keeps it from an all-out civil war, of course, is the presence of the United States troops. And the big question -- you know it better than me -- is how long that presence at its present level can be maintained.
BLITZER: A lot will depend on the formation of what is called the national unity government that will bring in all the factions, the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds. They're working at it after the elections in December. They're not there yet. Is it likely to emerge?
BURNS: I think it's going to take some time, Wolf. But I think even when it does emerge -- and Ambassador Khalilzad, the American ambassador has been absolutely tireless in putting this together -- I think they looked over the abyss after the attacks on the mosque at Samarra last month.
I think they will get a government, but it's likely to be a very dysfunctional government and a weak government. And that doesn't put the United States and its enterprise in Iraq much further forward than it is right now.
BLITZER: Is the U.S. making progress in training these Iraqi troops? Because the decision on when the U.S. troops will be able to leave, according to President Bush, is when the Iraqi forces are ready to take over. Do you see discernible evidence that Iraqi forces, police forces, regular army forces are getting ready to take over?
BURNS: I think there's no doubt that the Iraqi army is a lot more effective than it was. But what is really the obtrusive fact about this is that the Iraqi forces, when they fight well -- and they don't always fight well -- fight well when they are fighting in conjunction with American troops and usually when American troops are in the majority.
Of course, the American intent is to draw down American forces to the point where the Iraqi forces take over the brunt of the war fighting in the course of this year. That just doesn't not presently seem realistic to me.
BLITZER: What about all these militias that are still out there? They're well-armed. They're well-financed, specifically the Shia militias which seem to be the source of a lot of concern.
BURNS: Almost an immutable problem. Since the United States began trying to construct a civil society, they have written into both the transitional constitution and the permanent constitution of Iraq that independent political militias, armed militias will not be tolerated. But there's been virtually no progress whatsoever in building them down. And it's probably the last thing that the contending political parties would concede. There's no sign that they're willing to do that.
BLITZER: It sounds like a pretty bleak picture that you're painting, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
BURNS: It does look on the face of it, Wolf, very dismal, very discouraging. Every time that there has been hope for an upturn -- for example, after the December 15th elections, when nearly 12 million people turned out -- there's been a brief uptick followed by a further descent, as you know.
Yet it's too early to say that this is lost, I think. If the Sunni Arabs come on board for the government, if those Sunni Arabs are able to persuade the Baathist rejectionist element in the insurgency to stop fighting, then you could see a change in the entire landscape.
It's too early to say this is lost, but it's certainly a very, very steep mountain for both the Iraqis, who are the allies of the United States, and the United States and its armed forces, to climb.
BLITZER: We just heard Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell's chief of staff here in "THE SITUATION ROOM," saying in his opinion, the big strategic winner of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is Iran, whose influence is dramatically growing in Iraq. Would you agree with that assessment?
BURNS: I think that's true. And there's no doubt that the Shia- led -- the Shia religious parties are subject to quite an enormous degree of Iranian influence. And, yet, you have to remember that in the Iran-Iraq war, the bulk of the fighting, and certainly among the enlisted men on Iraq's side, was by Shiites. Most Shiites I know in Iraq consider themselves to be Iraqis first and Shiites second.
So I think there could be a blowback. I think the Iranians have to watch how deeply and how intrusively they interfere in the affairs in Iraq. But of course it's very dangerous, because the Sunni Arabs long ago took to referring to the principal Shia leaders, even including ayatollah -- Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the principal Shiite religious leader, as Iranians, which in fact Ayatollah Sistani is. He's an Iranian-born cleric.
This has enormous potential for pushing the country further towards civil war. But who knows? There have been some very big shocks lately, and it may be that the political class, the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds will turn back and will come to some kind of agreement, and may yet reach a safe shore.
But I have to say it doesn't look probable.
BLITZER: John Burns is the Baghdad bureau chief of "The New York Times." He's been there a long time and he's going back. You're a very courageous reporter. Thanks for your good work, John.
BURNS: Thanks, Wolf. Thank you very much.
BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.
Just ahead, attention all smokers. Think you can light up on the sidewalk or in the park in one California city? Well, a new law tells you to butt out. Might other cities in California, indeed, around the country, be next to pass these tough anti-smoking laws? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's a massive fire under way right now in Louisville, Kentucky. Take a look at these dramatic pictures. It's an industrial park in Louisville right now. This is a four-alarm blaze. And these are live pictures that you're seeing right now, courtesy our affiliate WHAS, happening right now in Louisville. We'll watch this fire and get you more details as they become available.
Other news we're following -- it's a drag for smokers. A Southern California suburb enacting what could be the toughest smoking ban in the country right now, effectively making it illegal to light up at all public places. CNN's Chris Lawrence is joining us now live from Calabasas with the story. What a story it is -- Chris.
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Wolf. Even if you're smoking on your condo's balcony and it's next to a common area, like the pool or laundry room, you can be asked to stop. And you know, forget about the patios outside the local coffee shops.
Folks have been given fair warning. This is the toughest smoking law in the country.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LAWRENCE (voice-over): Calabasas officials say there's no room for cigarette butts in a city that promotes its open spaces and ocean breeze.
MAYOR BARRY GROVEMAN (D), CALABASAS, CA: When you talk about rights, this is about the rights of people that want to breathe safe air.
LAWRENCE: Starting now, smokers can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $500 if they smoke almost anyplace people gather. That means streets, sidewalks, playgrounds, parks and patios.
You can still smoke inside your car and home, but not in some backyards if it's next to a public area.
There are some designated outdoor areas where smoking will still be legal.
The Calabasas law cites medical research indicating lung cancer kills 3,000 non-smokers each year from secondhand smoke.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I used to be a smoker and I say that I think smoke does offend me. I either have to move, or I will make a comment, you know, geez, I wish they'd put that out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't believe in the law, and I've always been a non-smoker. But if I don't want to be around people that smoke, I leave. I don't think it's my right to ask them to leave.
LAWRENCE: Janet Boyce (ph) says if you think it won't affect your town, think again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're a more liberal state, and everything is going to start here in California.
LAWRENCE: The state law that outlawed smoking at work took effect more than 10 years ago. It's expanded everywhere from bars to most beaches. And 10 states across the country have since passed similar laws.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LAWRENCE: So who enforces a law like this? If you're caught in a park, it would be a city employee. Here, outside of a coffee shop, the store's manager. Put it out when asked, no problem. Challenge it, they may just ask you again to put it out, but you could end up with a misdemeanor charge and a $500 fine -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Could end up with a fistfight, too, if somebody doesn't know the law. Thanks very much, Chris, for that.
Think California's smoking laws are complicated? In one country, you can't light up in bars, but you can in mental hospitals. Our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton is joining us now. She has details on smoking bans around the world -- Abbi.
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, first to Ireland -- seems like a good day for it. A countrywide ban there two years ago has banned smoking in all enclosed spaces. That means pubs and restaurants, offices.
We looked at the laws today and found out that there are some notable exceptions. It seems you can actually light up in nursing homes, maternity homes and specifically cited, the central mental hospital there in Ireland.
On to England, a recently passed bill, a vote in parliament means that in 2007, next year, there will be a similar smoking ban. And not everyone is happy about it. Pub landlords specifically are not. They've introduced an online petition saying that it's not regulation that's needed, Wolf, but ventilation.
BLITZER: Abbi, thank you very much.
Straight ahead, who's better qualified to make decisions on issues like abortion and gay marriage? Judges or Joe Sixpack? It's our question of the hour. Jack Cafferty going through your e-mail right now, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There he is, Jack Cafferty -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: Pretty picture, don't you think?
BLITZER: Lovely.
CAFFERTY: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says that judges are no better qualified than Joe Sixpack to make moral decisions like abortion and gay marriage. "A.P" reports that Scalia, in a speech to a bunch of law students, criticized what he called the era of the judge moralist. So the question is, who's better qualified to make decisions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, judges or Joe Sixpack?
Skip in Naples writes: I'll put my money on Joe Sixpack. All these so-called moral issues are just created to distract people from illegal immigration, lack of affordable health care and the war in Iraq.
David in Spring Hill, Kansas: Joe Sixpack is more knowledgeable about NASCAR and the price of fish bait than question of equal-rights protection under the Constitution. Let's leave the constitutional questions to the judiciary.
Kelly in Ithaca, New York: Judges, of course. Until the vast majority of Americans know more about the Constitution than "American Idol," and value school teachers more than inconsequential NBA prima donnas, I don't want them responsible for decisions that affect me.
Gayle in Columbus, Ohio: Issues like abortion? There is no issue like abortion and the only people qualified to make decisions about it are women. Forget Joe or Antonin anybody. They are biologically disqualified.
Couple of more.
Kevin in Sandy Hook, Virginia: It wasn't long ago Bible-thumping Joe Sixpack was legally forcing blacks to use their own bathrooms and sit at the back of the bus. It took giants in black robes to put an end to this and other ludicrous and insulting states rights infringements on human dignity.
And Martha in Rew, Pennsylvania: It all depends on how many of this six packs Joe has consumed.
Wolf?
BLITZER: Jack, thanks very much. See you on "IN THE MONEY" this weekend here on CNN. Let's see what's coming up right at the top of the hour, Paula is standing by. Hi, Paula.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf, thanks so much. We're going to take you beyond the headlines tonight in a case that is causing shock and a tremendous amount of outrage. Can anything stop the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet? Why does it seem to be getting worse? And how is Las Vegas cutting down on crime? We've got some absolutely amazing pictures to show you at the top of the hour.
Cabs, you know, Wolf, are now armed with cameras. And that's gotten an awful lot of people in trouble. We'll show you.
BLITZER: Thank you, Paula, see you in a few moments.
Coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM. A fight for the ball in March Madness and rubber bullets in Ramallah. "Hot Shots," here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Here's a look at some of the "Hot Shots" coming in from the "Associated Press," pictures likely to be in your hometown newspapers tomorrow.
Ramallah, on the West Bank. Israeli border police shoot rubber bullets at Palestinians protesting the construction of a barrier.
In Spain, satirical figures of Osama bin Laden and President Bush side by side on the streets of Valencia. It's all part of the Fallas festival. At the end of the week, all the figures are burned.
Tennessee, choose life license plates. A federal appeals court ruled today they are legal.
And in Dallas, March Madness. Players for Arkansas and Bucknell fight for the ball. Check this out, Bucknell won it in an upset. Congratulations to them, 59-55, quite a game it was.
Those are some of today's "Hot Shots," pictures often worth a thousand words.
And that's all the time we have today, this week. Don't forget, Sunday, "LATE EDITION." Among my guests this Sunday, Iraq's deputy prime minister, Ahmed Chalabi. Many see him as the man who helped convince the U.S. to start the invasion three years ago. This Sunday, Ahmed Chalabi among my guests on "LATE EDITION," it starts 11:00 a.m. Eastern, Sunday morning. Until then, thanks for joining us, "PAULA ZAHN NOW" starts right now. Paula?
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
