Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Is Iraq Next in the War on Terrorism?; Is the U.S. Military Prepared for New Demands?

Aired March 16, 2002 - 17:30   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.
MARK SHIELDS, CO-HOST: I'm Mark Shields. Robert Novak and I will question one of America's leading war planners.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: He is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK (voice-over): President Bush this week was asked about possible U.S. use of tactical nuclear weapons.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've got all options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends.

NOVAK: The president was asked whether he would take unilateral action against Iraq.

BUSH: You know, all options are on the table, but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.

NOVAK: Paul Wolfowitz has spent much of his career in public service as a national security official, starting at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Nixon administration.

President Reagan and the first President Bush subsequently named him to high-ranking State Department and Defense Department positions, including ambassador to Indonesia.

He was dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University before President George W. Bush appointed him to the Pentagon's second-ranking post.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: Secretary Wolfowitz, you, in the past, have said you don't want to answer questions about Iraq until the war in Afghanistan is cleaned up. But the president has kind of opened that door by talking about Iraq.

So the question I have for you, and maybe the American people are entitled to know, is, sooner or later, will there be U.S. military action against Iraq? Is that just about assured?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: That's something for the president to decide. What the president has laid out, I think, very clearly in the clip that you just showed is that we have a situation here that's really just not acceptable.

With 20/20 hindsight, I think we can see that if we had taken more seriously the threat from Al Qaeda and Afghanistan five years ago, we might have prevented September 11.

What the president is talking about is trying to prevent a much greater strategy which would come from this linkage of weapons of mass destruction material.

But he has made no decisions about how to deal with that. He has identified problems and, among other things, sent his vice president to key countries in the world to talk about how to deal with that problem.

In the meantime, as you alluded in your question, we have a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. I mean, people heard us saying that and thought, "Oh, yes, it's all over but the shouting." I think we, in the last couple weeks, have made it clear there's a lot of fighting still left for us in Afghanistan.

NOVAK: When the question was asked of the president in his press conference and twice he used the words "all options are on the table," tell us, Mr. Wolfowitz, why they interpreted that as meaning that, if necessary, the United States will use nuclear tactical weapons in this war against terrorism. What (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

WOLFOWITZ: I think it's hyperventilation, if I might say so. All options are always on the table, including the diplomatic option. And I think people who think that you separate diplomacy from the threat of war don't understand how diplomacy works. So saying that all options are on the table, I think, is...

NOVAK: That was not a nuclear threat to anyone, sir?

WOLFOWITZ: Oh, it's definitely not a threat. And what the president said about nuclear options is something that every president has said. No president has ever forsworn our ability to use nuclear weapons.

But the essence of it -- and it's very important to say this -- is not to use nuclear weapons but to deter other people from using weapons of mass destruction against us.

SHIELDS: Mr. Secretary, the kindred soul of yours, former colleague, Ken Adelman, has said if the United States does go into Iraq, it would be a cakewalk. Yet, military folks that we talk to say we're talking about a force required of up to 250,000 American troops. Who's right?

WOLFOWITZ: I have enough trouble dealing with the views that are attributed to me. I can't deal with all the views attributed to my friends.

We have not made any decision yet about what to do in Iraq militarily or any other way. I mean, the president has stated that there's a problem. He has all his options on the table, as he said. I think, in every case, our preference is always to try to solve these things through diplomatic means, if it's possible.

Obviously this is a man who's shown great resistance to accepting any reasonable outcomes. But there's been no decision yet made on using military force.

SHIELDS: This war on terrorism is the first war since the Mexican-American war the United States has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) without a draft and without a tax increase. Don't you think it requires a debate, a full debate in the country, and a declaration of war if, in fact, we are going to go to war?

WOLFOWITZ: I think the Congress has already made very clear its strong support; the American people have made clear their very strong support for what the president is doing.

It is a different kind of war. In fact, sometimes one is more inclined to call it a campaign than a war. I don't think we've ever had a quote, "war" in which the work of the intelligence community and intelligence services around the world have been as important as in this one.

We're not just talking about fighting in Afghanistan, as the president has said over and over again. Al Qaeda is present in some 60 countries in the world, including the United States of America. So I think we have, not only all the authority the president needs, but the incredible backing of the American people because they understand that what is at stake is our physical survival and the survival of the values that we care about.

NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, there's been some sort of less talk from administration officials in the recent months about trying to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on America of September 11.

Can we infer, can the American people infer that it is not necessary to link the Iraqi dictator to those attacks in order to have military action against him?

WOLFOWITZ: Let me go back and say what the president made, I think, very clear, crystal clear in his State of the Union message. And I have to say it's exactly the same kind of clarity, I think, that Ronald Reagan introduced in understanding the Soviet Union.

We have a problem. We have countries that have declared, and declare regularly, their hostility to the United States, countries that are involved with terrorists, countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction. That is the most noxious group possible. And it make the possibility of an event in which tens of thousands or millions of Americans are killing, something that would make September 11 pale in comparison -- that is out there. We have to do something about it. Exactly what we do, I think, is something that we've got to work with the American people, we've got to consult with our allies. What we can't do is just wait another 10, 20 years and hope that nothing happens.

NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, this week the Washington Times has run a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) story on the fate of Lieutenant Commander Michael Speicher, a U.S. aviator who was downed in the early stages of the Gulf War. His status was -- he was deemed killed in action. That status has been changed. There's no evidence that he is alive, but Pentagon sources are quoted as indicating he could be alive.

Now, there is some suspicion that this is part of a build-up to go to war against Iraq if they are actually withholding information on this aviator.

Could you enlighten us why there was a silence by the Pentagon for a decade and now this is suddenly coming to light?

WOLFOWITZ: I can't -- look, there hasn't been silence for a decade. In fact, we moved Speicher from the killed-in-action list to the missing-in-action list a few years ago, during the last administration. It was based on pretty hard evidence that he wasn't killed when his plane was shot, that he somehow survived his crash. That's the only hard evidence I know of.

It's a subject that obviously excites a lot of concern, a lot of anxiety. We still see, 25 years, nearly 30 years after the end of the Vietnam War, people are very concerned about what happened to people who are missing in action where we think the enemy country has some reason to know what happened to them and they're not coming clean.

I don't know of any recent information about Speicher. I wish we had it.

SHIELDS: Are you suggesting that there are still POWs in the United States that are unaccounted for, that somehow...

WOLFOWITZ: I didn't say POWs, I said missing in action. We have large numbers of people missing in action from the Vietnam War.

We have this one individual from the Persian Gulf War about whom we do not know their fate and where we have reason to think that other countries have knowledge about their fate. And that is something we continue to press. we press aggressively.

SHIELDS: Saddam Hussein has been called Hitler by an American president, a devil and worse. If in fact, the invasion is made by the United States, or led by the United States, he has to know that his removal, his death are inevitable. That's a logical course.

What is to restrain him any way from the use of chemical, biological weapons? What's to restrain him in any way from attacking Israel?

WOLFOWITZ: First of all, it can't -- there has been no decision by the president about what to do. Let's make that clear, OK.

SHIELDS: Yes.

WOLFOWITZ: Clearly, we're dealing with a very dangerous man, and the kinds of things that you referred in your question are obviously one of the things the president has to take into account and figure on a course of action.

They are also the kind of thing that has to be taken into account if you continue to pursue your course of inaction. For 10 years we've more or less claimed that Saddam Hussein was in his box. Well, his capabilities have grown.

And I think what we have seen with September 11 is there are a lot of ways to attack the United States that are not necessarily conventional means. And it's a problem we've got to take seriously.

The issues you raise are among the very serious issues that the president is considering right now.

SHIELDS: Well, on that very subject, Vice President Cheney, on his trip, where, apparently to round up support, to test the waters, to enlist allies, has gotten, from all reports, cold shoulders to virtually to every capital visited, at least been told time and again, that the United States, rather than invading Iraq at this point, ought to devote energy, time and effort to resolving the still thorny and difficult and painful problems between Israel and the Palestinians.

Is that a correct analysis of the reaction?

WOLFOWITZ: Well, Vice President Cheney's trip is to consult about a wide range of issues with a number of countries that are absolutely crucial to this war on terrorism and crucial to our interests in the Middle East.

There is a long record in diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East, I think it's fair to say, where people say one thing in public and another thing to you in private. I don't know yet what the vice president has heard in private, so I would not jump to conclusions about what he's heard.

On this larger issue, I mean, one of the subjects on his agenda is very definitely to find ways to end the horrible violence that's killing Palestinians and Israelis alike. It is something that we're putting great effort into trying to reach a settlement.

The president has sent General Zinni out there. The Saudis, as you know, I think have a new initiative, something that is quite a new position for the Saudis. And I'm sure that's one of the things the vice president is interested in pursuing.

I think we need to make progress in the war on terror. We need to make progress on the Arab-Israeli issue. I don't think they're linked, and the vice president made it clear that he doesn't think they're linked. SHIELDS: OK. We have to take a break, but when we come back, we'll ask Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz about the outlook for the war in Afghanistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, you have made clear the war in Afghanistan is not over, but apparently Operation Anaconda, which has some American lives lost, has been a success. Can we at least say that it may not be quick but the United States is in a mop-up operation in Afghanistan right now?

WOLFOWITZ: I really hesitate with a word like that. We have -- I mean, Operation Anaconda is the biggest operation in the conflict so far. And it's months into it and it happened after the Taliban had fallen, and it happened after we had taken hundreds of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

I think it's more reasonable to expect that there will be more actions like Anaconda. On as big of scale as Anaconda, I really can't predict. But there are still significant members of terrorists.

It's a huge country. It's the size of the state of Texas. And that doesn't even do it justice because the terrain is much more formidable. The terrain is like the Canadian Rockies. We had people sighting at 10,000, climbing 3,500 foot cliffs in a couple of hours. It was an incredible performance that our men put in in that fight.

NOVAK: Sir, there are many Democrats on Capital Hill who say that in order for Afghanistan, after the fighting is done, not to return to its status as a breeding ground for terrorists who threaten the rise of militants, the United States has to -- I hate to use the word -- engage in nation-building with a long military presence. Do you agree or disagree with that?

WOLFOWITZ: You know, I agree with the goal. I think we all agree on the goal, that we don't want Afghanistan to revert to what it was, which is a sanctuary for the world's worst terrorists.

How you achieve that goal, I think, is not something we can write formulas for. We can't approach it with dogma, I don't believe.

It is a country that historically that has never had a strong central government. And I think as we approach it, what we have to achieve, I think, is the right balance between this new interim authority, which has shown very promising initial steps toward developing a kind of consensus among Afghan people, but a very considerable decentralization of real power and authority in that country.

And it would be, I think, stupid to come in with some blueprint written for some other country, whether it's Germany after World War II or Somalia or Bosnia. Afghanistan is unique, and we'll have to have a unique solution for it.

SHIELDS: Mr. Secretary, this week we saw the biggest Israeli military operation since 1967, 20,000 troops. The United States supplied Apache helicopters, American tanks. Is there any way, when we're the principle supplier of the armaments for Israel, that we can exercise any restraint on General Sharon as they invade Palestinian towns and camps?

WOLFOWITZ: Now, again, that's something where the president calls the shots.

We have a tragic situation going on there. We have -- Israel faces a terrible terrorist problem. The Palestinians are suffering enormously, both from the effects of the siege, the blocking, and from the violence itself.

I think the important thing is to focus on how to get past this violence and how to get toward a solution.

Two years ago, there was virtually no violence and there were serious negotiations heading toward a solution. I think that General Zinni is there is to try to at least tamp down the violence so the two sides can begin to talk to one another about a better outcome.

SHIELDS: One of the targets of the United States' probing and interest and concern has been those countries involved in the distribution of the weapons of mass destruction. And yet, exempt from any mention are Russia and China, the two principle purveyors and suppliers of the technology and, in fact, the instruments themselves.

Why is that? Do we want to pick on the little guys and exempt the big guys?

WOLFOWITZ: Look, our issues with Russia and China are issues about proliferation. In some cases we think it's proliferation that may be actively approved by the government. In some cases, it's companies that operate out of the control of the government.

It's a very different thing from countries that have declared hostility to the United States, that have declared openly a desire to kill Americans, that have engaged in killing Americans. That's a different story entirely.

And I think that's what the president was talking about when he talked about evil regimes and regimes, by the way, that are in a different category of evil when it comes to mistreating their own people. It's not an accident, I think that the countries that express this kind of profound hostility toward the United States have hundreds of thousands of their own people in concentration camps.

NOVAK: We have time for one more question before we take another break, Mr. Secretary.

The expenditure of our arsenal, the U.S. arsenal, in Afghanistan, particularly in the in the early stages of the war, has depleted, according to Pentagon sources. Has that been built up, or is it going to take a long period of -- before you have enough missiles, bombs to continue on, to launch a similar operation anyplace else? WOLFOWITZ: Well, you're right that we have been using a lot of important munitions at pretty high rates and with great effectiveness. And almost from day one we started addressing measures to rebuild those stocks because we realized how important they would be.

But anyone in the world would make a huge mistake to think that the United States has exhausted its military capability with this campaign in Afghanistan. We have enormous strength to do whatever the president asks the U.S. military to do. And as you know, our men and women will do it with great skill and great will and great bravery.

SHIELDS: We have to take a break, but when we come back we'll have the Big Question for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: The Big Question for Paul Wolfowitz:

Last night an interceptor smashed into a dummy warhead, making the third successful test of six attempts. Are we ready to declare success now and say that the missile defense system is ready and on course in American (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

WOLFOWITZ: By no means, but what I think we can say is that our test program is proceeding and showing some quite impressive success.

I'll say right off the bat before some critic discovers it, this was not a, quote, "realistic," test of exactly what intercepts would have to do. But it's the first time we have had anything that looked like a decoy warhead, and it picked out the real warhead from the decoys. They're not as good a decoy as we would expect to face later.

We're in a development program; people need to understand that. We are going to push where there is success. We killed one program this year because it wasn't working well. We have said over and over again it's an important area, where we are going to go down the avenues that work and cut off the avenues that work.

NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, the critics of this program say it's useless, the Cold War is over. But the question I have is, if and when this program is really operational, would the purveyors of the axis of evil that President Bush talked about -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- would they be neutralized by this missile defense system?

WOLFOWITZ: We would be a lot better off than in a situation where we're completely vulnerable. And I think those people ought to go -- if in fact the Cold War is over and there's no threat, they ought to go and ask those countries why they're investing such a large part of their pretty small national treasury...

NOVAK: Will it be effective against them though, do you think?

WOLFOWITZ: It is designed to be effective not against the kind of massive attack that we would have faced from the Soviet Union, but from the more limited capabilities that these countries have. That's the intention, yes. NOVAK: Paul Wolfowitz, thank you very much.

Mark Shields and I will be back with a comment after these messages.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Secretary Wolfowitz is widely been regarded as a leading (ph) hawk in the movement to move against Iraq with military action, but he certainly, in our conversation with him, was the voice of reason. He was saying, "That's up to the president." He did not -- he issued less of a clarion call for action than the president did in his press conference this week.

SHIELDS: And, Bob, on the subject of Iraq, he wouldn't say whether he agreed that some said it would be a cakewalk or would require 250,000 troops. But I think it does highlight the need for full, public debate in the Congress and in the country about what our commitments there and what we're willing to do.

NOVAK: Paul Wolfowitz more or less flatly said that the president saying all options are on the table was not a statement that we're ready to use nuclear weapons in the war against terrorism. He said of course no president ever forswears the use of nuclear weapons, but that wasn't what he meant.

SHIELDS: The other point that he made was that, in spite of Vice President Cheney getting a public rebuff and apparently criticism on his Mideastern trip, about Israel in particular, the United States' need to bring peace there between the Israelis and the Palestinians, at the same time he said that there was no linkage between Palestinian peace and Iraqi evasion.

I'm Mark Shields.

NOVAK: I'm Robert Novak.

Coming up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on "CAPITAL GANG" is Iraq the next target in the war on terrorism, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge's refusal to testify before Congress, a Bush nominee finally going down to defeat. Our guest, Republican Senate Whip Don Nickles and our "Newsmaker of the Week," sportswriter John Feinstein.

SHIELDS: Thank you for joining us.

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