Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
America's New War
Aired October 25, 2001 - 22:00 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.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. It occurred to me today that I just don't know. I come to work each day, and have for the last six and a half weeks, and I don't have a clue what will unfold.
Will someone I know get sick, maybe die? I don't know. I don't know if the administration will make sense or create confusion. I don't know if anthrax will be replaced by something else. I don't know if more buildings will be attacked, I don't know if the terrorists have some other plans, something worse -- I don't know.
I'm in the news business, and not being able to predict the day has always been one part of the joy. Not now, and I suspect I'm not the only one sick and tired and stressed out by it all, all these "I don't knows." And what's worse, I've come to believe that this is the way life is going to be. Not knowing is the new normal.
Today, Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge said, in the strongest terms yet, the anthrax used in the attack on Senator Tom Daschle's office was extraordinarily dangerous, sophisticated, deadly stuff. And it is still out there somewhere. New anthrax cases keep coming out of unsuspected places. The place here, a Virginia mail facility where the State Department mail is processed. Traces of bacteria also turned up at a New York mail facility.
Congress cleared anti-terror legislation today, not a minute too soon for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who didn't try to make any of us feel any better, warning today that terrorists are -- quote -- "plotting, planning and waiting" to kill Americans again. Maybe not knowing isn't so bad after all.
The anthrax in Washington is now being called a weapon, something that very few people or nations could produce. We'll be looking at the possible sources of that tonight. We'll also follow a New Jersey postal worker on his daily route -- and a strange, unsettling path that is these days.
And we'll take a look at letters home, from veterans of wars that came before.
First, some of the headlines from our correspondents in the field, beginning at the White House and John King -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, just a short time ago this evening the vice president strongly suggested more U.S. ground operations in Afghanistan are in the offing. That, though, just a sub-headline here tonight, because of other things Mr. Cheney and other senior administration officials are saying.
They say No. 1, they still have no clue who is responsible for these anthrax mailings, that it's pretty potent stuff, and in the words of the vice president tonight, they have to operate on the assumption that more attacks are in the offing.
BROWN: John, back with you shortly.
Capitol Hill and Jonathan Karl -- Jonathan.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: With a single dissenting vote, the Senate approved broad new powers for law enforcement, in the hopes that a new law will help prevent future acts of terrorism.
BROWN: Jon, thank you.
To northern Afghanistan, the latest on the action there, CNN's Chris Burns on the ground -- Chris.
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, stepped-up U.S. air strikes along this front north of Kabul. Much broader, many more targets. But is it still enough? Is it enough yet? So far, commanders of the Northern Alliance say, "not yet."
BROWN: That controversy a little bit later. We'll be talking to all of you shortly, but we begin at the White House.
Stung by days of criticism that its handling of the anthrax attacks is mushy an inconsistent at best, the administration continues to try and find a clear voice to deliver a clear message, one that is neither sugar-coated, nor hysterical. Believe me, that sounds easier than it really turns out to be. Senior White House correspondent John King again.
John, good evening.
KING: Good evening to you, Aaron.
At this time last night, we told you about a meeting still going on at the White House late into the night on just that point you just made. The administration looking for a way to end the confusion and the criticism, speak with one voice, not only about these anthrax cases, but about the entire domestic terrorist threat.
Today, after those late-night deliberations, the White House rolled out that plan. Speaking for the president, his director of homeland security, Former Governor Tom Ridge.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): This White House briefing is part of a new administration effort to better coordinate its handling of the anthrax scare.
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: Good afternoon.
KING: More information on the mailings, but no answer to the most important question of all.
RIDGE: We still don't know who is responsible.
KING: The anthrax found in Florida, New York and Washington is from the same strain.
RIDGE: The good news is that this strain is susceptible to all of the antibiotics that we have in the United States.
KING: But the anthrax in the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was especially potent.
RIDGE: It is pure, and the spores are smaller. Therefore, they're more dangerous, because they can be more easily absorbed into a person's respiratory system.
KING: The Daschle letter is the only known source of anthrax in Washington, and for now, the suspected cause of anthrax exposure at four locations: the Brentwood mail processing center, where two workers died. The Capitol complex, the remote facility that processes White House mail, and a remote State Department mail room, where a worker was diagnosed with anthrax Thursday.
Authorities assume the contents of the Daschle letter were spread when it was squeezed in mail sorting machines, and perhaps when those machines are were cleaned with high-powered blowers.
MAJ. GEN. JOHN PARKER, U.S. ARMY: These individual spores are very light. And if given some energy from say, wind, or clapping or motion of air in a room, they will drift in the air and then fall to the ground.
KING: A senior administration official says tests so far have not narrowed the field of potential sources.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now, more tests are under way. One key goal, of course, trying to determine whether the anthrax is from here in the United States, or whether it might come from someplace overseas, say, Iraq or former Soviet stockpiles. Administration officials say they are hoping for a breakthrough soon, but the also concede there is no guarantee that more testing will give them a definitive answer -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, the vice president who has been talking a bit over the last couple of days, seems to be the one who bears the bad news for the administration.
KING: He certainly does. And on two fronts tonight, you use the word a short time ago, the new normal. The vice president used the term "new normalcy" tonight to warn Americans, in a speech here in Washington, that this is permanent. Homeland security, more security at airports, more security on the streets. He said this is now permanent, at least for decades to come. Probably even beyond that.
And he also used very strong words about the military campaign. He said it was in a new phase, that the air campaign had destroyed the military infrastructure in Afghanistan, and strongly hinting at more ground operations.
He said this -- quote -- "what comes next, the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists will discover only when it is upon them. But I can tell you that they can expect to see and hear more from the American military" -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, thanks. Senior White House correspondent John King on the lawn this evening, as always.
Just picking up on some things that John talked about. We now know, of course, that the anthrax sent to the Daschle office was very sophisticated. As John suggested, there's a very short list of those who could have helped engineer it, something scientists have in fact been warning for a week now.
A look at the possible sources, our CNN national security correspondent, David Ensor.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Richard Spertzel helped make anthrax as a weapon for the U.S. more than 30 years ago. In the 1990s, he helped the U.N. destroy the biological weapons found in Iraq. Every since anthrax in the letter to Senator Daschle reached the noses of at least 28 people, he's been predicting chemicals or other alterations designed to make the anthrax particles float in the air would be found.
RICHARD SPERTZEL, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS EXPERT: To do that, you have to have to have particles that are not going to be -- tend to adhere to each other, tend to have electrostatic property that will make them cling to surfaces. And they also have to be water repellent.
ENSOR: Now that there's apparently evidence the anthrax has been altered to float better, Spertzel says that means it was either produced in a nation's laboratory, or by someone trained in one.
SPERTZEL: My No. 1 choice would be that there's some kind of active cooperation going on between Iraq and Osama bin Laden.
ENSOR: Spertzel says you can rule out anthrax from the U.S., whose weaponized stockpile was destroyed years ago. But you can't rule out anthrax from the former Soviet Union, stolen and sold to terrorists. There are also, he says, long term biological weapons programs capable of this sophistication in Iran, Syria, Libya, China and North Korea. The additional tests under way could prove crucial. SPERTZEL: Without saying specifically what it is, if that material turned out to be one of about three different substances, then I would be inclined to say, look very, very closely at Iraq.
ENSOR (on camera): Spertzel hopes he's wrong about Iraq, and he warns that there will likely be no smoking gun evidence in the laboratory analysis of the chemicals in the anthrax, though he says the field of suspects could be narrowed.
David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Ask yourself what you'd give to turn back the clock to the day before 9-11. Now ask yourself what you would give up to make sure it never happens again -- a tougher question, we think. Perhaps life and death, possibly life and liberty, certainly a big change in life as we know it.
Congress has been debating what to do, what changes to make to stop the terror at home. And today, the issue wrapped up with a massive anti-terrorism bill, final vote in the Senate.
CNN's Jonathan Karl joins us again with the details. Jonathan, again, good evening.
KARL: Good evening, Aaron.
With a 98-1 vote, the Senate voted to shift that balance between personal freedom and security towards security, granting the attorney general the powers that he asked for nearly six weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): The attorney general says he'll use the new powers as soon as the president signs the bill into law.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: A new era in America's fight against terrorism, made tragically necessary by the attacks of September 11th, is about to begin.
KARL: The bill gives law enforcement expanded authority to tap telephones, including voicemail messages, and more power to track Internet activity, making it much easier, for example, to find out what Web site a suspect is viewing.
The bill also gives the attorney general the power to detain non- citizens for seven days without charging them, and allows prosecutors to share secret grand jury information with intelligence officials.
So would any of these powers have helped prevent the September 11th attacks?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, simple answer.
KARL: But standing on the same stage, the main Republican co- sponsor of the bill disagreed.
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Well, I have a different point of view, and that point of view is this: had we been able to share information between the intelligence agencies of our government and law enforcement, we may very well have been able to have prevented this.
KARL: That's a claim not even the Justice Department makes, instead arguing the bill would help prevent future terrorist acts.
VIET DINH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: The need for these tools and new authorities is immediate. And the passage of this legislation will enhance our ability to conduct ongoing investigations, and to prevent future terrorist incidents.
KARL: The lone dissenter was Democrat Russ Feingold, who argued the bill would restrict civil liberties, and not just of suspected terrorists.
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: Much of it, unfortunately, does get into areas of legitimate computer usage. It gets into medical and educational records -- not of these terrorist suspects, but of people that might have had some casual contact with the person, not with a search warrant, but simply on the say-so of the attorney general.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Several other senators shared Russ Feingold's concern that these powers could be abused by law enforcement, but those senators were won over by a so-called Sunset Provision, that means that many of the most controversial things in this law will expire in four years, unless the Congress explicitly reauthorizes them -- Aaron.
BROWN: Well, it's a tough no-vote to make for any senator.
What did the administration give up in these weeks of dealings?
KARL: Well, an especially tough no-vote, because it was called the USA Patriot Act. One of the key things they gave up, Aaron, was the attorney general wanted the right to detain non-citizens for an indefinite period of time without charge if he felt, he alone felt, that those people posed an immediate terrorist threat. He only got a seven-day period, without charge.
There was another provision where the attorney general wanted the right to use foreign intelligence information, gathered by non-U.S. wiretaps, even if those wiretaps were done in violation of the U.S. Fourth Amendment. That is no longer part of this bill.
BROWN: Jon, goes to the president now. Thank you for your work today. Jonathan Karl in the Senate today, or in the Capitol today.
Coming up from here, they deal with dogs and rain and -- bioterror? Yep, all in a day's work for one postal worker. We'll tell you his story and much more, as we continue. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A postal worker said today, "I feel like I'm an experiment." In a horrible way, he is. They all are. One germ warfare expert points out, most of what we know about anthrax is based on old tests of 3,000 monkeys. And yet tens of thousands of East Coast postal workers continue to get up each morning, go off to work and cope with the fear that an exotic, invisible enemy is threatening them. Nice day at the office.
Here's CNN's Jason Belling.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JASON BELLINI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Jesse Davis doesn't have much mail to deliver today. He works in the Hamilton, New Jersey distribution center, contaminated by anthrax, so the sorting process has been slow, the mail trickling out.
JESSE DAVIS, U.S. POSTAL WORKER: I had to walk fast down there because the lady is looking for some medicine and I didn't have it today. And I didn't want to tell her I didn't have it.
BELLINI (on camera): She wouldn't blame you, would she?
DAVIS: No, no, but I hate to see her look sad.
BELLINI (voice-over): The neighborhood Jesse walks is one where people share what's happening in their lives with their mailman.
DAVIS: In the hospital again?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
DAVIS: Oh, my goodness. Give her my regards, please.
We're a porch family. Know what a porch family is?
BELLINI (on camera): What's a porch family?
DAVIS: A porch family, they're on the porch, getting their mail. Hello, how are you? That has been lost in America, as we've done away with porches.
BELLINI (voice-over): Jesse could probably list many more things that have been done away with, even in this neighborhood. But after 18 years, his presence is something people, and even dogs, can count on.
DAVIS: Camera-shy.
BELLINI (on camera): Takes care of your dog?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, he takes care of my dog. BELLINI: He always gives him a biscuit, huh?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. He's a good mailman.
DAVIS: There are people in life you should know. You should know your mail carrier. Of course, you should know the policemen and the firemen.
BELLINI (voice-over): The bar he drops mail off at around noon each day resembles slightly the one in the show "Cheers." He doesn't stop for a drink, but everyone knows his name.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love him. He's a sweetheart.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have to give Jesse a lot of credit. He's a great man.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He lets me know if I pass him on the street. Just like he did just now, I was waiting for something. He said he didn't have it. That's always a comfort.
BELLINI (on camera): You have continuity in your life.
DAVIS: Oh, yeah. I like continuity. It's one of the better words in life.
BELLINI (voice-over): Each day, Jesse meets up with his fellow postal workers at a diner. Today they discussed the topic that's disrupted the continuity in their work life: the anthrax scare.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At worst, maybe you got it on your shoe.
DAVIS: A guy came up to me yesterday, he said, "I want to hug you." It may not be appropriate, but I want to hug you.
I said, "Well, that's all right. Thank you."
(LAUGHTER)
BELLINI: He's proud to be a mail carrier, but that's not all he is. He's a minister, and this morning, Jesse Davis led the entire letter-carrier corps in a prayer for those sick from anthrax.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, we held hands, gathered around a circle, and had a moment, I guess, where we all prayed together. First time since I've been here that that's been done.
BELLINI: Jesse is protecting himself these days.
(on camera): You're going to take that for how long, five days?
DAVIS: Five days.
BELLINI (voice-over): He says his residents are more worried about anthrax than he is.
DAVID: They brought me hand cream to wash my hands.
BELLINI: To all this, Jesse responds like a minister.
DAVIS: One of those things you try to keep in the back of your mind. Because if you put it in the front of your mind, you become depressed. And we're too blessed to be depressed.
BELLINI: Blessed, even now.
Jason Bellini, CNN, Trenton, New Jersey.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: This anthrax crisis has stretched out for more than three weeks now. For just a moment or so, we want to go back to the terror that played out over 90 minutes on September 11th, the morning, just 90 minutes, ground zero.
The latest numbers today from the mayor's office here in New York: 4,167 missing, 506 dead. Of those, 454 identified. There was a bit of controversy over those numbers today. "The New York Times" compiled its own tally and believes the death count eventually will settle at a number below 3,000. New York's mayor says there's no reason to doubt the missing persons report the city has collected -- and revises, generally downward, by a few each day -- will get that low.
Coming up, we'll go to one village in Afghanistan on the day it rained food.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: For a while today it looked like the shooting war was about to heat up. Britain is expected to promise tomorrow to send ground troops into Afghanistan, if they are needed. The Russians said they would send tanks, old tanks, but a lot of them, to the Northern Alliance. And Vice President Cheney said yes, Osama bin Laden will be taken care of.
But there's another view from the ground, that this tough talk isn't being matched, at least not so far, with action. Chris Burns has the latest from Afghanistan tonight -- Chris.
BURNS: Aaron, well, air strikes continued overnight over Kabul. A number of explosions reported. The main action that we saw in the last 24 hours was along that front north of Kabul, about 25 miles north. We were very close to it.
We watched U.S. air strikes hitting at not only around Bagram airport, but broadening its strikes along two other areas, the road to Kabul and also a mountainside where the Taliban have been dug in, firing rockets and mortars at various villages along that way, killing two people about three days ago. And those strikes appeared to be striking at Taliban troop positions, as well as artillery positions. However, the Taliban were fighting back. They're shooting triple-A antiaircraft fire up at the planes, and there was at least one surface-to- air missile that we saw that was fired, that missed the planes. However, that could be an increasing concern for those air strikes if those surface-to-air missiles multiply.
The Northern Alliance seemed to be taking advantage of those air strikes by sending more forces down south toward the front. We saw at least two tanks driving down toward the front. However, the Northern Alliance commanders say that it's still not enough. They still need to see many more air strikes pounding away at those Taliban positions, because the Northern Alliance are far outnumbered and far outgunned on that front.
Also in the north, the U.S. air strikes were targeting areas around Mazar-e-Sharif, very strategic town in the north, that the Taliban are holding on to and fighting back. The Northern Alliance claiming to have taken, in the last 24 hours, a village close to the outskirts of that town. However, that fighting does go on, very difficult for us to confirm the Northern Alliance claims because of the remoteness of that fighting.
Is it enough? The Northern Alliance commanders saying -- in fact, one said -- he called it "child's play," compared to what he'd like to see done along this front north of Kabul. They need to see a lot more of those air strikes before they're willing to launch an offensive for Kabul itself -- Aaron.
BROWN: Well, everybody has got their own agenda in this thing. The Northern Alliance defense minister, or foreign minister today, I guess, complained that the United States was bombing too much near the cities and not enough, I guess, where his forces are marshalled.
What do you make of all that?
BURNS: Well, the Northern Alliance foreign minister Abdullah Abullah said that he was concerned about civilian casualties in the urban areas, where the bombing has been going on. He said that could actually backfire against his movement, if there's increasing anger against the U.S., because the Northern Alliance is somehow seen as an ally of the U.S.
Also, it would help the Northern Alliance if these air strikes were stepped up along these Taliban troop positions. He perhaps does have a bit of a point here. But there's also this political angle, is that there has yet to be some kind of a plan for a government after the Taliban. And that is a fear among the international community, that if that is not in place, there could be new factional fighting in Kabul, if Kabul falls to the Northern Alliance.
We saw this factional fighting five years ago, just before the Northern Alliance was driven out of the capital, driven out of power by the Taliban. And that is a concern. That is why a U.N. special envoy is on his way to Pakistan and Iran this weekend, to talk with the two main powers in this region, to start seeing what kind of political arrangement there can be made, to try to avoid that factional fighting. In which case, when that is done, there could be perhaps more of a push toward Kabul to put more pressure on the Taliban to fall.
In the meantime, there is that political side of the equation that has to be paid attention to -- Aaron.
BROWN: And we have. Chris, thanks. Chris Burns, northern Afghanistan. It is Friday morning there now. Thank you, Chris.
There is something oh, so American about what you're about to see. Not far -- not terribly far from where the bombs are dropping, food is falling from the sky. Here's CNN's Satinder Bindra.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SATINDER BINDRA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The residents of Khoja Bahawuddin say strange things are happening in their town. Last night, terrified people ran out of their mud huts when they heard loud thumps on their roofs.
"We all woke up at 2:00 in the morning," says Sharaf Ullah, "and thought we were being bombed. But when we looked around, we found packets of food." Five packets of food landed in Sharaf Ullah's backyard.
"My wife rushed out, Sharaf Ullah says, "and suddenly this package dropped a meter away from her. She got so frightened she's ill now." But luckily for Sharaf Ullah, who's not sure if he can ever find work in this war and drought-ravaged nation, his nine children have food tonight. They're eating raisins, peanut butter and crackers -- a rare and sumptuous treat in one of the world's poorest countries.
(on camera): Sharing this rare bounty from the skies are hundreds of other residents. Some people here say dozens of food packages rained down on their homes. Suddenly there's so much American food in some parts of this town, it's being openly sold at these makeshift shops.
(voice-over): Each package costs about 40 cents, for those who can afford it. None of these people can. They're all refugees who fled Taliban-controlled areas months ago. Now they watch in agony as their neighbors feast, and they starve.
MOHAMMED SARWAR, RESIDENT (through translator): I can't understand why the U.S. drops food from the skies in the middle of the night. It should be distributed properly.
BINDRA: This latest U.S. food drop comes just one day after anti-Taliban leaders expressed concerns at the rising number of civilian casualties in the ongoing American bombing campaign. But for all their leadership's concerns, residents here just want to thank the American people for their generosity.
In northeastern Afghanistan, where thousands routinely go hungry, no one appears concerned about recent U.S. allegations the Taliban might try to be poison U.S. food aid. The Taliban have dismissed the U.S. charges as propaganda. Unaware of this controversy, Sharaf Ullah and his family have already finished all the rice and cooked lentils in their packages, and say they can never forget the day when it rained food.
Satinder Bindra, CNN, northeastern Afghanistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Still ahead from us: choosing a warplane for the year 2040, and a look at one from the 1940s. And both will in the air for years to come.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The Pentagon is about to renew its faith in high-tech weapons in a very big way, announcing tomorrow the winner of a defense contract worth a mindboggling $200 billion.
It goes to the company, Boeing or Lockheed Martin, with the chosen design for the military's joint strike fighter, a plane designed to maneuver like an F-16, bust armor like an a-10, replace the Navy's F-18, and hover like a Marine Harrier. Did we mention stealth technology? It has that too. The General Accounting Office calls it a recipe for cost overruns. The Pentagon wants to buy up to 3,000 planes over the next 40 years.
But that's for another day. These days, as it has been for two generations, the enemy -- whatever the enemy happens to be -- fears the giant B-52. Designed during World War II, flying today over Afghanistan today, half as old as aviation itself.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): They lumber. That's what's they do. But to those who love them, that lumbering is a beautiful sight.
JEFFREY UNDERWOOD, AIR FORCE HISTORIAN: This aircraft is one of the true classics of aviation. This is a wonderful airplane. There can be no doubt about it, simply because of the longevity. It's recognized worldwide. Everybody knows what a B-52 is and most people know what a B-52 can do.
BROWN: It can carry virtually an entire arsenal, 77,000 pounds at a time.
UNDERWOOD: It can carry just a normal, or "dumb" gravity bomb, which just falls where it's supposed to. It can also carry cruise missiles, internally or externally on pylons. It can carry up to 20 cruise missiles at a time. It also has the capacity to carry the new JDAMs, or joint direct attack munition, which is up to a 2,000-pound bomb. It is GPS with little fins on the back of the bomb to make it highly accurate.
BROWN: By aviation standards, the B-52 is not only old, but ought to be examined by an archaeologist. Most of the 750 that were built were made in the 1950s, and as the military likes to say, it wasn't long before they came into service.
ANNOUNCER: A force of a million tons of TNT is released.
BROWN: A B-52 carried one of the first H bombs that test dropped in the Pacific. And B-52s were always on alert for the Strategic Air Command in the United States, ready to head to the Soviet Union to deliver nuclear weapons in the event of a Communist attack. It's designation: Stratofortress.
The airplane and people behind it were the objects of a stinging assault by filmmaker Stanley Kubrick in the movie "Dr. Strangelove."
And then there was Vietnam. B-52s, the Air Force say, flew thousands of missions. From 1965-1973, 17 of the planes either crashed or were shot down, but today that all seems far removed.
UNDERWOOD: They are a major element of the -- American's national defense. And I think the American people really got their money's worth from an aircraft started in World War II and built in the '50s, and is working its way through the 21st century, and probably about halfway through the 21st century.
BROWN: If current Pentagon planning holds up, B-52s will be around until the year 2045. Most will have new insides, updated avionics and the like. But it would mean an American warplane surviving nearly a hundred years.
IVAN ELAND, DEFENSE ANALYST, CATO INSTITUTE: Most of the time this aircraft sat on the ground waiting for nuclear war, which never happened and hopefully won't. But this aircraft didn't get -- doesn't have a lot of maneuvering or whatever. It's a high altitude bomber. So the airframe has not taken a lot of punishment. In other words, there's still a lot of life -- a lot of life left in the old aircraft.
BROWN: Ivan Eland spends a lot of time thinking about airplanes. In the brutal coefficient of war, he says, bombers are worth every penny.
ELAND: They are very cost-effective in bombs dropped and targets killed for the amount that you spend on them. Two carrier battle groups have the same effectiveness as four -- as just four bombers.
BROWN: Despite that the Air Force plans to move most bombers -- including B-52s -- aside.
ELAND: The Air Force is run by fighter generals, and they want the F-22, which is the most expensive fighter aircraft ever made. And it's an air-to-air superiority fighter that was made to fight against Soviet fighters that were never deployed. So -- but the Air Force nevertheless is continuing with this. And by the time they get done building the F-22 and what -- another fighter called the joint strike fighter, there's just simply no funding left for bombers.
BROWN: This is the F-22: a sleek, very expensive airplane. And in one of life's ironies, it sits right next to a Vietnam-era B-52 in the Air Force museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. An irony not lost on the museum's historian, Jeff Underwood.
UNDERWOOD: The thought that it's possible for the first pilots to have their sons and daughters and their sons and daughters actually fly or fly in these aircraft is pretty remarkable. I think we can count on seeing this airplane flying for a lot longer than either of us will be around. When America talks about extending its power overseas, the global power or the global reach, the B-52 is a symbol that should not be taken lightly.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: For all those Air Force and other pilots out, there we acknowledge Stratofortress is just one nickname. Airmen, of course, have others. Consider "BUFF," which stands for "big, ugly, fat fellow," or words to that effect.
When we come back, the awkward alliance with Saudi Arabia. We'll talk with an adviser to the Saudi government in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: One of about a half-dozen fronts in the war on terror is the effort to keep Arab states from seeing it as a war on Islam. Today the White House launched another major offensive, President Bush welcoming the crown prince of Bahrain, and naming Bahrain a major ally. He also put in a call to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, thanking him for his nation's work in fighting terror.
This is tricky diplomacy, in light of the concerns in Washington and elsewhere that Saudi Arabia isn't helping nearly enough, and may in fact be split over Osama bin Laden. Earlier today, we talked with Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy adviser to the Saudi government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Given that it now appears that most of the hijackers -- the terrorists that attacked New York and Washington -- were Saudi, does the government of Saudi Arabia believe that Al Qaeda is operating in the -- in your country?
ADEL AL-JUBEIR, SAUDI FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER: Well, we believe that Al Qaeda is operating in over 50 countries. Their main base seems to be Afghanistan, and their membership includes citizens from a lot of countries. We're very troubled by the fact that Saudis were involved, because we believe that they bring shame to their religion, to their country and to their people. And it pains us greatly to have some of our own involved in something like this.
BROWN: Does your government believe there is widespread sympathy for Al Qaeda within Saudi Arabia?
AL-JUBEIR: No, I don't believe so at all. I believe that no normal and sane human being would support objectives that are criminal and as horrific as the ones we've seen on September 11. There may be some sympathy among a very small percentage of Saudis, just like there was sympathy among a very small percentage Americans for the crime that timothy McVeigh committed. But over all, no. Absolutely not. It violates the principles of our faith, the principles of our culture and of humanity.
BROWN: As I'm sure you know, there is a fair amount of conversation -- in the United States in the government and out -- about what exactly Saudi Arabia is doing in support of United States effort in Afghanistan and more broadly, I guess, against terrorists around the world. Can you tell us what Saudi Arabia is in fact doing?
AL-JUBEIR: I'm glad you asked the question. I believe that the conversations are taking place in the press outside the government. As far as the U.S. government is concerned, I have seen no statement from any official, from the president of the United States on downwards, that was in way critical of Saudi Arabia's role in this. We condemn terrorism. We are victims of it. We have been fighting it, and we will spare no effort in trying to work with the international community the eliminate this problem that the world faces.
BROWN: Just -- perhaps you did not hear this. So let me pass this on. Senator Joseph Biden, who chairs the foreign relations committee in the Senate, said that Saudi Arabia, quote, "is funding hatred," that the United States had gone overboard in its love affair for Saudi Arabia on this matter. Certainly that is criticism from an important person in the United States government.
AL-JUBEIR: Yes. I -- I -- we have tremendous respect for Senator Biden. I am sorry to hear him make this statement. But I believe that he probably needs to be informed a little bit better about where Saudi Arabia stands. We do not fund terrorism. In fact, it's against our laws and people would be punished if that turned out to be the case. We do not fund extremism. That goes against our principles and our tenets, and our record and our history is very clear.
But what I meant in terms of U.S. officials is those that are directly involved in the effort to combat the scourge of terrorism, whether it's the White House, the NSC, the FBI, the Treasury Department or the State Department. I cannot remember one official saying anything negative about Saudi Arabia's role in this effort. This is contrary to what we read in the press.
BROWN: Perhaps, then, sir, it would be helpful if you could just tell us what in fact the government is doing. Are you seizing the assets of suspected terrorist groups? What is it that you are doing?
AL-JUBEIR: Yes, we are working in terms of information sharing, in terms of trying to track the flow of capital, in terms of trying to identify groups and freeze their assets, in terms of trying to identify individuals. Yes. All of these.
BROWN: Let me ask. I don't want to spend all of our time on this. But let me just ask this one different way. Because this is one criticism I know you're aware of in the American press, which is that in the gulf war, the Saudi role was loud, it was clear, it was visible. And this time, less so, it appears. The suggestion being that Saudi Arabia does not feel directly threatened in the way it did with Iraq and the Gulf War.
AL-JUBEIR: That is not correct, because we are just as threatened as anybody else by terrorists. We have -- like I said earlier -- been victims of it. The difference is that the -- this effort is being played out in -- from a military perspective, far from our lands. And from a diplomatic and law-enforcement and information perspective, yes, we play a major role in it, as do almost 100 countries.
So we're really not the center of gravity here, and hence that's why we don't have the 2,000 journalists that we had during the Gulf War. That's why we don't have reporting out of Saudi Arabia. It's all out of Pakistan and Afghanistan. And so the fact that we're not in the limelight does not diminish our role and our support for this effort.
BROWN: Do you anticipate -- as a final question. Do you anticipate, sir, that the United States government will ask Saudi Arabia to do more than it is currently doing as this campaign -- which as you know is being described here as quite extensive, quite long lasting -- unfolds?
AL-JUBEIR: I think that we -- our interests require us to be very active in the efforts to squeeze terrorists and to bring them to justice. Our interests require that we work with everybody in the world community to put an end to this scourge. And I think that we have responded with everything that we possibly could to make sure that this effort succeeds. As to what people will ask us to do or not ask us to do, that's really in the realm of speculation. I can't -- I think that's a question that's probably better addressed to your officials.
BROWN: So we'll do that. We'll ask them. In the meantime, thank you for your time today. We appreciate it very much.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
BROWN: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We have asked the question so many times since September 11th, it's almost become a refrain: "why do they hate us?" One Muslim-American group offered an answer in commercials that aired in Los Angeles. The message: double standards in U.S. policy are to blame for anti-American sentiment. It didn't go over very well. The Muslim public affairs council pulled the ads after the organization and the radio station received angry calls. Here's a portion of one of the ads.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Some people want you to believe that this is a simple war between civilizations. It's not. We live in an interconnected world, and American actions are felt throughout the Muslim world, just as the actions of a few terrorists were felt so strongly here. Instead of stigmatizing Muslims and blaming Muslims, let's talk to one another and find out where we're really coming from. Talk to a Muslim today.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BROWN: We're joined tonight from Washington from Sarah Eltantawi. She is the communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Good evening.
SARAH ELTANTAWI, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Good evening.
BROWN: Timing is everything. Was the timing wrong for the message you were trying to get people to hear?
ELTANTAWI: Well, you know, Aaron, we really didn't think so, because we aren't trying to be antagonistic or at all counter to any kind of U.S. interest in that message. What we're trying to do at the Muslim Public Affairs Council is update our stance on counterterrorism.
Since 1999, we have had a firm stance on counterterrorism policy, which we published and distributed to members of Congress. And now in the wake of these horrific attacks against our country, we have decided to look deeper into anti-American sentiment, because we believe that anti-American sentiment puts wind in the sails of extremists and terrorists who want to recruit young Muslim men to their vicious causes. And unless...
BROWN: Sarah, I'm sorry. That is -- without debating that, really, the question -- the first question is -- setting a side the right or wrong, the appropriateness of the message -- was it the right time, given that we're six weeks away from this attack, to start talking about the broader foreign policy questions here?
ELTANTAWI: Well, you know, I don't think that we look at these foreign policies as necessarily something that needs to be discussed down the road. We're discussing counterterrorism policy every day. We're talking about the military response. And our council is for a military response as a partial solution on the war on terrorism.
But we recognize -- just as President Bush has repeatedly said -- that this is going to be a long war with many different fronts. And we were simply sort of adding something to the diplomatic front of this war on terrorism. We see it as very much part and parcel of the overall strategy of our country.
BROWN: And the message you wanted to get out was that American policy, particularly as it pertains to Israel, is a root cause for anti-American feeling. Fair?
ELTANTAWI: It's a fair sentence, but that's not exactly where we were trying to get out in our ad. What we were saying in our ad was -- we were trying to resist some of the -- specifically radio talk show hosts who want to call this a clash of civilizations, who want to say that this is a pan-Islamic fascist movement.
We just simply don't think it's that simple. And we believe that we're making a big mistake if we think that this is a religious conflict or that this an be explained by religious extremism. If we don't look at the political dimension of what has gone one, then I think we are going to miss the point in a lot of ways. And it's not going to be for our own good.
BROWN: Well, what's the lesson of having pulled the ads? As you think about it now, was it the right response? Do you wish you had left them on? Did you give in to pressure here?
ELTANTAWI: Well, there were different opinions within the Council on what to do about the ad. What happened was that we -- our job is to work for our constituents. And if our constituents felt insecure or somehow at a greater chance of being targeted because of some of the content of that ad, then it's our first priority to ensure the safety of our constituents. So in that sense, we put a hiatus on the ad until the security of our constituents can be guaranteed. And that's the first priority.
BROWN: Sarah, we're out of time. Thanks for talking about this. We should talk about these issues -- all of us -- more. So I hope you will come back and join us.
ELTANTAWI: Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thank you. And when we come back, letters to home which tell the story of war. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: When you try to understand and trace the history of a war, you can read the accounts from the generals or presidential memoirs. You can analyze the great battles. But there may be no better way to understand what war really is than to read the thoughts of the people who fight it on the ground. Tonight, letters home from CNN's Beth Nissen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than 60,000 have been collected so far. Letters written during every armed conflict in America's history: the civil car. Vietnam. World War I. Korea. V mails from World War Two. E-mails from Bosnia. Letters from home. Letters from the front.
ANDREW CARROLL, EDITOR, "WAR LETTERS:" These are pages out of our national autobiography. They chronicle individual and societal attitudes over time, so you can see these evolutions of thought and perspectives over months, years, decades.
NISSEN: Andrew Carroll is the editor of the book "War Letters." In reading and cataloging thousands of wartime letters, Carroll noticed a pattern in American's attitudes about war. At the beginning of a war, he says, letters from soldiers and those at home express eagerness for the fight, confidence of victory.
CARROLL: Every war since the Civil War has begun with this great sense of purpose and -- for lack of a better word -- almost enthusiasm. Even Vietnam. Even Korea. There was tremendous support for these wars.
NISSEN: This letter was written by a mother who cheerfully sent three sons off the fight in World War I. Only one would survive. "Jack Ellis sails next week," she wrote. "I know just how his mother will feel for those ten days while he is crossing. But she wouldn't have had him stay at home any more than I would have had you. I know you will come back to me."
CARROLL: You see this in the letters, too. You see a great sense of gung-ho spirit. We do have this one image going in and the reality is so much different.
NISSEN: Attitudes begin to change as the truth of war is revealed.
CARROLL: War in the abstract -- especially for those of us on the home front or who are civilians -- is almost tolerable. But the reality of it is just so much more ferocious than I think anyone is expecting. And we have letters written right from the trenches, the fox holes. And they could not be more intense.
NISSEN: In a letter to his wife Mabel in 1918, First Lieutenant Ed Luckert (ph) wrote: "Several boys I saw have lost both legs. Others had shrapnel wounds as big as a dinner plate. Fragment of shell do make horrid wounds."
Jack Trane, a Marine serving in Korea, wrote to his folks: "Our platoon started out with 38 men to assault and capture a hill. In the morning there were 10 of us left. God, what a slaughter."
Nothing changes attitudes at home as much as word of casualties.
CARROLL: The telegrams that are coming, or the phone calls or the knock at the door from the military chaplain as casualties come in. There's a diminished sense of what this is about. And almost an ebbing away of that enthusiasm.
NISSEN: As war grinds on for months, for years, support for the fighting falters further -- at home, and on the battlefield.
"I can't wait to get out of here," wrote one soldier in Vietnam. "We have a right to our opinions and I'll never forgive L. Bald Nose Johnson for getting us into this futile war on such an appalling scale."
This colorful letter was sent to a friend by his buddy in Vietnam. "Kill for peace?" the GI scribbled. "I quit."
CARROLL: You see an increasing sense of bitterness about what war is and just the fact that civilizations reach this point.
NISSEN: After seeing one fierce World War I battle, Lieutenant Luckert (ph) wrote" "We are a poor people. Know what? It makes me feel sorry for everybody that they must settle differences by going to war. Why in the dickens should we have to kill each other to settle a matter of liberty or rights?"
Even from a so-called good war -- World War II -- there is written evidence is this change in attitudes from the initial eagerness to fight to sorrowful conclusions about the nature of war. In late 1942, an 18-year-old Navy recruit wrote to his mother: "It's days like this that make me anxious to be out fighting. I belong out at the front, and the sooner there the better." After a year and a half of combat, that same soldier mailed a very different letter home. "Oh, Mom," he wrote, "I hope my own children never have to fight a war. Friends disappearing. Lives being extinguished. It's just not right." The author of both letters: former President George Bush.
It may be true that war is "just not right," but so many of these letters make it clear there are times war is necessary. In April of 1999, a soldier in Bosnia e-mailed his son. "There are some very mean people in the world, and they need to be watched," he wrote. "Very bad things happened at Auschwitz. We have a similar situation here. One set of folks want to eliminate another."
CARROLL: You see this in war after war. The sense that as terrible as this may be, there are things worth fighting for.
NISSEN: The letters spell it out. Freedom is worth fighting for. Freedom from injustice, oppression, terror. Just before D-Day, Second Lieutenant Jack Lundberg wrote to his mom and pop. "We of the United States have something to fight for. The U.S.A. is worth a sacrifice." His letter is one reminder sacrifice is demanded. This was the last letter Jack Lundberg wrote home before he was killed in combat.
CARROLL: We forget, societies are like people. They forget things.
NISSEN: Forget at the beginning of each new war how long a commitment war can require and how dreadfully it can be tested.
Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: We'll update the latest developments of this war, America's new war, in just a moment.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
