Return to Transcripts main page

In the Arena

Breaking News From Libya; Will Japan Turn to Oil for Energy?

Aired March 21, 2011 - 20:00   ET

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

ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. Here with me is show regular E.D. Hill.

E.D., what have you got for us tonight?

E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, we're watching what's happening, of course, in Japan and the Middle East, turmoil there. The question in Japan is whether they stick with nuclear energy or turn to oil. How does that impact the price you pay for gas, food and basically anything else you're going to be purchasing for the next six months out? We'll discuss that.

SPITZER: Fascinating issue and a critically important one for everybody's pocketbook. Sounds great.

But, tonight, we start with breaking news from Libya. Anti- aircraft guns continue to light up the skies over the city Tripoli.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

SPITZER: Those images were captured just a few hours ago as coalition forces launched another round of airstrikes.

It's day three of the military engagement in Libya and the overarching question at this point: now what? After 100-plus missiles overwhelmed Gadhafi's air forces and halted their momentum, the coalition clearly controls the sky. But Gadhafi controls much of the country.

The multi-day barrage still leaves a nation divided. As you can see, the shaded area covers the no-fly zone territory being enforced by the coalition. Their airstrikes concentrated mostly around Tripoli taking out Gadhafi's anti-aircraft defense systems and command and control centers.

The rebels received significant air support around Benghazi, allowing them to push back an intended Gadhafi assault. But the end game remains as muddled now as it did last week.

And in Chile today, President Obama did little to clear up the situation. He restated America's policy in Libya: Gadhafi must go.

But that only led to more questions: How and who would drive him out? Because you see, the U.N. resolution limits military action to protecting innocent civilians and does not authorize regime change. In addition, the president has said with absolute certainty, no U.S. troops will enter Libya. So, can the rebels defeat Gadhafi without some greater intervention?

Many military analysts think it's unlikely. And that brings us to the questions we will examine tonight.

What if there is a stalemate emerges, leaving Gadhafi in power and Libya split in two? Is that victory or defeat given the president's clear statement that Gadhafi must go? How will success be defined in this operation? And will this turn into a long-term campaign?

We go now to Arwa Damon in Benghazi, where opposition forces remain in control.

Arwa, what are they planning to do now?

ARWA DAMON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Eliot, basically, they want to fulfill their aim, and that is to free Libya of Gadhafi. What they do now feel and what we do see is that the momentum appears to have shifted on Saturday. Gadhafi's forces were basically inside Benghazi -- at least 95 people were killed in violence. Then we have the airstrikes on Sunday that literally brought his military machine to a grinding halt. Now, we have the opposition fighters back in Ajdabiya, from 100 miles to the west of Benghazi, trying to retake the city. One unit, we are being told, trying to outflank Gadhafi's forces by going around Ajdabiya, targeting Brega.

What we're really seeing is now the opposition in full forward momentum. They had been just about nearing a defeat prior to these airstrikes and we are seeing that beginning to regain ground that they had lost. Their aim, they say, is to keep this up until they reach Tripoli.

SPITZER: Is there news about who is actually controlling Ajdabiya this evening? Have the opposition forces been able to retake that city, or is this where there is contact between the two sides right now?

DAMON: Well, we've had a couple of conflicting reports as to who actually controls Ajdabiya itself. From what we can gather, the opposition seems to control the center of the city. Gadhafi's forces control two of its entrances.

Earlier this morning, we were told that at one point, Gadhafi's forces appeared as if they would be retreating, but opposition forces swarmed forward in a very chaotic manner -- this type of undisciplined military behavior that we've been seeing from them. They were immediately fired upon and forced to fall back.

The latest that we have is that Gadhafi still controls -- his military still controls those entrances. But the opposition believes that by this time tomorrow, they will be able to control Ajdabiya. They feel as if Gadhafi's military has been significantly -- significantly -- hit by the airstrikes that happened.

SPITZER: You know, one of the surprising things I heard today from the United States general, General Ham, who was in charge of this operation, was that said there was no contact with the opposition military forces. And I guess he was saying, look, we are here just to protect the air space, put in place a no-fly zone, not to get actively involved.

But it seems a little surprising. Have you heard from the opposition that they would like to be in direct contact with the U.S. military or the coalition military forces to coordinate what they are doing with what we're doing?

DAMON: Yes, Eliot, I think they would want to be to a certain degree, especially so that they could feel more secure, so that they could have a better handle in terms of what the plans were for airstrikes, for those types of movements. But they are also fully aware of the fact that the mission here, the U.N. resolution does not have a mandate, does not encompass the removal of Gadhafi himself. They do realize that the coalition forces who are involved in this are not necessarily saying that they flat out side with the opposition. It's not as if they're going to become the opposition's air force. So, they are aware of how sensitive the situation is.

And, interestingly, one leader of the opposition told us today that he was not looking for the coalition to take out Gadhafi. He said that the opposition wanted to be the one to do it themselves. At this point, there really is so much gratitude toward the international community for stepping in like this, because at the end of the day, people here firmly believe that if that hadn't happened, they would have all eventually been massacred by Gadhafi.

Their request was in a certain degree pretty straightforward, although it is quite complex. They wanted the no-fly zone. They wanted the airstrikes. And then after that, they said it would be a much more even battlefield and then they want to take it from there, Eliot.

SPITZER: All right, Arwa. Thank you for the report. We'll be continuing to chat in the days ahead, no doubt. Stay safe over there.

DAMON: Thank you.

SPITZER: Winning the skies, establishing the no-fly zone over Libya may turn out to be the easy part. There are questions tonight about America's specific mission and whether the U.N.'s humanitarian mandate is broad enough to force Gadhafi out.

Here now is James Rubin, former assistant secretary of state, executive editor of the "Bloomberg View."

Jamie, good to have with us.

JAMES RUBIN, FORMER ASST. SECRETARY OF STATE: Nice to be with you, Eliot.

SPITZER: As always, your wisdom on this is prescient far beyond virtually anybody else out there.

Let's begin actually by playing a very brief sound bite from President Obama today and listen to what he said our objective was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go. And we've got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: All right. Now, here's the problem. We've got a U.N. mandate that says humanitarian assistance and we have done that with a no-fly zone. But the president is saying Gadhafi must go and it's unclear to many people whether the military action we are involved in now will be sufficient to get Gadhafi out. So, what is our objective here and what's the strategy to get there?

RUBIN: Well, I think we need to take this apart a little bit, Eliot.

The policy -- the goal is clearly that Gadhafi needs to go. But the president has been, I think, pretty clear even in that statement there that we're not going to yet prepared to use military means to achieve that policy. The military means, think, considering that it took some time for him to get there, were driven in the end by fear of a massacre in Benghazi. I believe the last time I was on your show, that's where we were, we were facing a real massacre.

And then, really, at the 11th hour, the president turned around and said, OK, if we have to do something to prevent massacre, let's use force to do that. And it worked. And their tanks were destroyed. The artillery and other armor was destroyed, and the massacre of Benghazi didn't take place.

But as far as getting rid of Gadhafi, the president is pointing to the sanctions policy and some other steps that they've taken. I think -- let's be frank -- that's not going to be sufficient. Taking away his money, that's in international banks, is not going to stop him from being in power. In fact, I think we all know he has tens of billion that he stored in Tripoli.

So, if we are going to get rid of Gadhafi, if we want to see him go, there's really only two ways. Either we or our allies take action to get rid of him, or the rebels do.

And I think what you are seeing now is this hesitation in the international community's part of whether to take the step towards the second option -- arming the rebels, coordinating military operations with the rebels, letting them know where we are going to bomb so they can operate within that context, and the world just isn't quite ready for that, and clearly the president isn't.

SPITZER: I don't want to reduce this to politics. But isn't it an enormous problem for the president because if Gadhafi is there in six months, won't this entire effort be viewed as a failure?

RUBIN: Well, I do think that would be unfair because --

SPITZER: I'm not saying it's fair. I agree with you. We'll have done a successful humanitarian intervention and saved Benghazi.

RUBIN: Well, it's a reality in the modern world when you're president of the United States and the most powerful leader in the world, when there's a dictator out there who's thumbing his nose at you, it makes you look bad. Obviously, Obama -- so far, President Obama has been -- is prepared to live with that.

Now, the pressure may build. Let's see what happens. Will the rebels start to roll? Will they -- using all this air power as a de facto assistance, will they be able to move towards Tripoli? Will Gadhafi be cornered? Will he be stuck in his box? You know, will he broadcast to the world and stick his nose -- his face out there to make the point.

SPITZER: You said something very interesting. You said either we or our allies need to get rid of him or the rebels. I don't think -- and most people don't think the rebels independently can do it. They don't have the military wherewithal right now.

But could France go in? President Sarkozy has been more aggressive than we in using military force. Would they get out in front of us perhaps and play that role?

RUBIN: I don't think you should rule out this rebellion succeeding on the ground, if we were to arm and train them, for example, if we were to provide with sophisticated weapons. We were preventing the Gadhafi's air force from operating, perhaps even coordinating the air attacks with a ground offensive. Then those mercenaries who are rushing with Gadhafi to the east may start rushing to the south and going home and he'll be left with hundreds of people defending him, not thousands.

SPITZER: Well, let me ask you this, though -- under the strictures of the U.N. mandate, if rebels start playing offense, can we provide air support for them? Does that fit within the parameters of the humanitarian purpose articulated in the U.N. mandate?

RUBIN: I've read the resolution and I spoken with someone who's involved in drafting it -- not an American. And it's clear that we can provide weapons to the rebels. That was specifically exempted in this resolution. They refer back to the arms embargo and exempt rebels from that.

But I think as far as air attacks in coordination with the rebels, I think that would be beyond what the resolution certainly intended.

SPITZER: An issue that is emerging here in domestic politics, the domestic debate -- there are significant numbers of members of Congress opposed to our Libyan intervention. For the policy aside for a moment, they are saying there is no legal foundation for the president to be doing -- to have ordered our participation.

You were in the secretary of state's office. You were at the State Department during the period of our intervention of Bosnia. Do we have a legal foundation now that's similar or dissimilar to what we have in Bosnia?

RUBIN: Well, you're the lawyer here, Eliot. But I've been around these war powers issues for a couple of decades now, believe it or not. I worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. When you're in the Congress, you think Congress has more power than you do when you're working in the executive.

SPITZER: Right.

RUBIN: So, I understand both sides of this argument. But I think in this particular case, what the president is doing now is so clearly authorized by the U.N. Security Council resolution that the president's position is particularly strong where he has the international law on his side. The president always is going to say he has -- even under the War Powers Act, he's got, you know, 90 days or 60 days to get a vote.

Look, the opponents are always going to cite the War Powers Act. No president since it was put in place in 1973 has ever accepted fully its constitutionality. This is the kind of debate that's a procedural debate.

SPITZER: Interestingly, President Nixon vetoed the bill and it was then passed by Congress over his veto, so it's law, of course. But it is -- you're right, it has never been. And this is a case of where you stand depends on where you sit.

RUBIN: Exactly.

SPITZER: President Obama, when he was in Congress, took a much narrower view of presidential war power. Now, he's in the Oval Office, has a different view.

All right. Jamie, thank you so much.

RUBIN: Thank you.

SPITZER: If you've been watching CNN, you've seen our senior international correspondent Nic Robertson reporting almost around the clock from Tripoli. Tonight, Nic is responding angrily to a story being pushed by FOX News claiming that he and other reporters covering the war in Libya were taken to a Gadhafi compound and used as human shields to prevent a coalition strike. It's an allegation with zero foundation.

Earlier, Wolf Blitzer spoke with Nic Robertson to get the real story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I want you to explain what you know about the suggestion, FOX News reporting that you, a "Reuters" crew and some other journalists were effectively used by Gadhafi as a human shield to prevent allied fighter planes from coming in and attacking a certain position. Explain what you know about this.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this allegation is outrageous and it's absolutely hypocritical. You know, when you come to somewhere like Libya, you expect lies and deceit from a dictatorship here. You don't expect it from the other journalists.

Why do I say that? Because FOX News has said that they didn't send somebody on this trip last night because they said it was a, quote/unquote, "propaganda trip." They sent a member of their team. He was non-editorial. He was nontechnical, not normally a cameraman.

He was given a camera by the team and told to come out and come on the bus with 40 other journalists who were there, who were free to get on the bus, free to get off the bus when they wanted, told us when he was on the bus that even he, this member of the FOX team, was surprised that the correspondent and the normal cameraman weren't coming out, that he was being sent. This isn't his normal job. That he was being sent.

So, that's why I say what FOX is saying is outrageous and hypocritical. And the idea that we were some kind of human shields is nuts. I mean, if they had actually been there, Steve Harrigan, the correspondent here, is somebody I've known for years. I see him more times at breakfast than I see him out on trips with government officials here. Other correspondents here who go out regularly say the same thing. NBC, CBS, all the other news teams here go out -- not on all the government trips. We didn't go out on another one yesterday.

But we very, very rarely see the FOX News team out on the trips.

So, for them to say and call this -- to say they didn't go and for them to call this and say this was government propaganda to hold us there as human shields when they didn't even leave the hotel -- the correspondent leave the hotel and go and see for himself -- is ridiculous.

We were taken there. We went in through security. We filmed the building. We were given 15, 20 minutes to do that, five minutes in Gadhafi's tent and then we were taken out. And I was literally, physically pushed back on the bus when we left. That's how quickly the government officials wanted to get us out.

If I sound angry is because I am. As I say, I expect lies from the government here. I don't expect it from other journalists. And it's frankly incredibly disappointing to me, Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, did this FOX representative who went with you on this trip, did he have a camera?

ROBERTSON: He was given a camera by the cameraman and the correspondent who stayed in the hotel and didn't go out -- a correspondent who rarely leaves his hotel. I don't know who he's talking to here to pick up and find out what the story is.

When we go on these government trips, it's for a very simple reason, because we don't want government officials to film it themselves, edit it themselves and then hand it off to us. We want to go for ourselves. We want to go and see -- is it a command and control system? What are the telltale signs there that the government wouldn't let us see if they edited the tape? That's why we go, because we're news professionals and we want to see it for ourselves.

As I say, I'm disappointed, shocked. I find this a very, very poor situation, Wolf.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SPITZER: All right. As you can see, Nic feels strongly about that as well he should.

All right. Did president Obama overstep his constitutional authority to enter Libya? Some in Congress think so. Representative Ron Paul is one of them. He's coming up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: In a letter to Congress today, President Obama spelled out his right to defend Libya. The use of force is within his power as commander-in-chief. Of course, Senator Obama once argued the president should always get congressional approval to use force, unless the country is under immediate threat.

Texas Representative Ron Paul agrees with the position that the president took when the president was in the Senate. And tonight, Mr. Paul joins us to say the president is acting unconstitutionally.

Congressman, thank you for joining us.

REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Thank you. Good to be with you.

SPITZER: Well, let me separate out two different issues, if I could. One, you don't think we should be in Libya at all. You just think it's bad policy. And as you said in an article that is published, it's simply none of our business.

So, let's start there. Explain why you don't think what's going on in Libya or, for that matter, the rest of North Africa is any of our business.

PAUL: Well, because I don't think they are up front with this. It is said that we are going there for humanitarian reasons. But have you ever noticed around the world, there are a lot of humanitarian problems. One, in gross abuse of rights was in Rwanda. We didn't care too much about that.

There's abuse of demonstrators all through the Middle East right now. But -- it's being done by governments that we endorse. There are friendly dictators. So, I think they are being disingenuous when they say this is a mission for humanitarianism. It's probably more related to oil than anything else.

SPITZER: Let's parse this a little bit, Congressman. I think you are absolutely correct. There are contradictions inherent in foreign policy and certainly, President Clinton who was in office as president when the events -- the genocide in Rwanda occurred has said his deepest regret is that, as president, he did not send our troops in there to stop that genocide.

So, let me ask you this -- would you have supported intervention in Rwanda to stop what's clearly genocide, that led to the loss -- unimaginable loss of life? Would you have supported that?

PAUL: No, I don't think it's part of our Constitution that we should go around the world trying to solve every problem. And I think it's very difficult to help people who really need it. Even in Libya today, the chances of really helping the people is unknown.

But too often when you take money or even food and give it to these factions when they are fighting and at war, they become weapons of war. One faction will get it and use it against the other. And very rarely does it help the people.

So, I don't think it is constitutional. I don't think it accomplishes what it's supposed to. And that the Founders were, I think, rather shrewd in giving us advice. Stay out of entangling alliances, stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.

But there's every reason to help people and we are a generous nation. When people really suffer, whether there's an earthquake or any type of tragedy, the American people are quite willing to help.

But when politicians get involved, it becomes political and it doesn't achieve it. There's always unintended consequences and things happen that weren't intended. And I just think we have gotten into wars so often since World War II carelessly.

And here we are, we are engaged in two wars now. We can't get out of either one and we are just falling into another one and the authorities coming from the United Nations. Congress is irrelevant. You know, they don't seem to --

SPITZER: Congressman, we'll get -- we'll get to legal authority in just a moment. But I want to understand the parameters. Some people say and, you know, some applaud and some criticize you for this, that you're an isolationist. And you really don't want any involvement in foreign affairs, no military alliances.

And give me an example where you would have supported our intervention because of genocide, because of some humanitarian crisis where we would send the military to get rid of a foreign government that was perpetrating acts so heinous it simply violated our sense of humanity and decency. Is there any one example? PAUL: Well, not militarily, no, always only voluntarily. But the use of the word isolationist is a misuse of the word, a misunderstanding of that definition.

I am a noninterventionist. But I'm a free trader. I want people to go and come and trade with people.

SPITZER: OK.

PAUL: And engage with people. Isolationist is usually a protectionist. You know, they have --

SPITZER: All right. Congressman --

PAUL: See? I'm for working and trading with Cuba. And that's not isolationism.

SPITZER: All right. Fair point and a fair distinction. I want to pivot now for a moment.

You have made a strong argument that the president lacks the constitutional power to do what we're doing. Explain why and explain why -- you know, it's been since 1942 since we've had a declaration of war from the United States Congress.

PAUL: Right.

SPITZER: So, it's been decades and decades. It doesn't mean you're wrong, of course. But, so -- why doesn't the president have power as commander-in-chief to send the military when he says this is threatening our national security? Which is exactly what he said in a letter to Congress today.

PAUL: Well, I guess it's because I listened to his speeches when he was a senator because he was talking. Now, he has the power -- the powers to come away from the House and from the Senate and from the Congress.

But, you know, the argument is that he's getting authority from the U.N. and treaties allow -- that an international law becomes the law of the land. But there are limitations. You cannot amend the Constitution by treaty. What if the U.N. decided that we shouldn't have a First Amendment? Would you say, oh, this is OK because the authority comes from the United Nations?

SPITZER: Congressman --

PAUL: It would be preposterous. So, you can't -- you can't rule out -- go ahead.

SPITZER: Let me interrupt for one second because I clearly agree with you about that. Of course, the U.N. can't amend our Constitution. But you also can't amend the Constitution through the statute you rely, on the War Powers Act, which tried to very carefully and tightly cabin the president's power. And that's why no president has really embraced it. PAUL: Yes.

SPITZER: The president would argue inherent in his executive power as commander-in-chief is the authority over the military to intervene where national security is at risk, which is what he says in the letter today. Is he wrong about that?

PAUL: I also agree with all the presidents who consider the war powers resolution is unconstitutional. I believe that. That is amending the Constitution as well. And it actually legalizes war for 90 days like was mentioned earlier on this program.

He can't -- he doesn't have to sweat it with Congress because Congress legalized war for 60 days and then he has 30 days more. By that time, there's a lot of killing going on and nobody gets it -- you know, nobody stops a war. So, they slip into war, Congress reneges on their responsibility, the president usurped his power and they use it when they're in the executive branch. They like this.

But, no, the war powers resolution is not constitutional. But so the presidents don't like because they're afraid their power maybe curtailed. I don't like it because it has given the president too much power and actually legalizes war for 90 days.

SPITZER: All right. Congressman, we got to run. But I want you to come back on the show because I want to have a conversation with you about what you're going to do, are you gong to court? How are you going to enforce your view and actually get a remedy for your perspective on this?

Anyway, Congressman, always great to have you on the show. Appreciate your joining us tonight.

PAUL: Thank you.

SPITZER: Coming up: we'll check on the situation in Japan as smoke emanating from the reactors today renews fears of radiation.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Turning now to the nuclear crisis in Japan. Smoke spewed Monday from two reactors in Fukushima's Daiichi power plant and workers were evacuated. The director of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency warned and I quote, "The crisis has not been resolved and the situation remains," and I quote again, "very serious."

International security expert and CNN contributor Jim Walsh joins us now and E.D. Hill is here as well.

Jim, thanks for being with us again. Let me just frame the question this way. How much radiation is leaking right now? Is it more or less than yesterday? So are we making progress? And are those spent pools that have been the focus of so much attention, is the temperature in those pools going down which is what we hope? JIM WALSH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Two good questions, Eliot. On radiation levels and the answer to that is it's all location, location, location.

One of the big developments we had today, a new development is that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, is finally and I underline the world "finally" on the ground. And they are independently taking radiation measurements. They went out today about 26 kilometers from the plant and then 500 kilometers from the plant and they report on their Web site tonight that there are at least two locations that have high levels of contamination. That's their wording, not mine. Now, they didn't specify what those were. And so, again, my answer is -- is the radiation situation good or bad? It depends on where you are because in some locations -- clearly, at least in two locations, according to the IAEA it is a problem.

On the issue of the spent pond, the spent fuel ponds where they keep the nuclear waste, again, another development on this today. Of course, to answer your question, are the temperatures good? We don't know. You know, we haven't heard anything in days about the one at unit four. Unit three, there was a suspected fire near that spent fuel pond today. So that remains undetermined.

But in addition to three and four, the IAEA is again reporting tonight on its Web site that there was a separate fuel -- spent fuel pond where they store waste away from the reactors and that the government is now pouring water on top of that facility. That's all they say. Now that would lead you to believe that they're a little concerned about there or there might be an issue there insofar as they're taking actions today that they have not taken in the past. But, again, facts are few here so we can't offer a precise judgment.

E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Jim, the IAEA says it's getting information that is in their words conflicting from the Japanese government. What questions do you think the government needs to answer right now?

WALSH: Well, you know, part of this may be that the government and more particularly the utility here doesn't have the answers. They may not know what the answers are, but I know what the questions are. The questions are what caused those fires today? Why do we have new fires at unit two and unit three?

HILL: And why is that? Why is that a critical question to answer?

WALSH: Because if you don't know what's causing the fire, number one, you can't prevent that from happening again. And that it may indicate a problem that needs to be addressed. For me, you know, I'm worried about the reactors, yes. But it seems we're making progress there. We got five and six taken care of. One looks pretty good. They're pumping the water in. But I continue to remain concerned about the nature of the problem at the spent fuel ponds, at three and four.

Is there a hole in one of them? Is water leaking out? What is this new development today with the separate facility that's on the ground outside of the reactor? So all my questions would focus or would primarily focus on those spent fuel ponds and what their status is.

SPITZER: You know, Jim, another dimension to this problem if some of the radiation comes down and gets embedded in the soil which is what makes significant areas of around Chernobyl, for instance, impossible to be inhabited, is that a concern around the reactors? And if so, how large a domain, how large a piece of property is that going to affect?

WALSH: Well, it's a good question. I don't think we have a final answer on that. One would guess that in the main it's the area around the plants themselves that will have the highest amount of radiation. When radiation is up in the air and it begins to disperse, as it disperses it falls down to the ground where it falls. The most of it falls closest to the area in the immediate vicinity presumably.

There's another development here tonight, Eliot, that does have an impact on the answer to this question. That is Japan is going to get some rain. And so what happens when it rains is if you have dust particles or smoke that has radiation attached to it and it rains, the rains washes that out of the atmosphere and then it collects in a more concentrated form on parts of the ground where it could attach to vegetation or might get into water. So, I think we're going to want to watch the weather pattern over the next couple of days and see what impact that may have in terms of how radiation is distributed and how concentrated it might become.

SPITZER: All right. Jim Walsh, as always, thanks for your insight.

WALSH: Thank you.

HILL: Coming up next, does the disaster in Japan plus chaos in the Middle East add up to an economic nightmare for all of us here in the U.S.? Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: More now on the impact being felt in this country by the turmoil in the Middle East and the disaster in Japan -- E.D.

HILL: Yes, I think we're all worried about this, you know, especially how does this impact us here in the United States, American families, you, me, especially the price of gas. Joining me now is John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil and the founder and chief executive of Citizens for Affordable Energy. Thanks so much for being with us.

JOHN HOFMEISTER, FOUNDER, CITIZENS FOR AFFORDABLE ENERGY: Thanks, E.D.

HILL: You know, I was out driving today in Pennsylvania actually and I had to fill up the car which was painful. Because I realized that, you know, just filling up your car with gas, it's increased about $15 in just the past year. You take a look at Libya now, a source of oil. Now we don't know what's going on there. You take a look at Japan, which if it doesn't go back to nuclear energy at the level that it was, will probably be going to oil even more. And you wonder how does this impact us?

HOFMEISTER: Well, E.D., we have a serious problem now and it's going to get worse over the next two to three years as the demand for fossil fuel, that is crude oil, increases because of China and India which are nearly going to double their consumption over the next five to six years. The problem now is the turmoil in the Middle East and the tightening supply is driving up the crude oil price. The average family in the United States is going to have to pay or have to choose whether they buy gas or whether they buy other things. The biggest problem that families face is what choices to make. But gas is not going to come down any time soon unless we go back into recession and the demand destruction sets back in. I'm afraid we are in a high oil price period.

HILL: Well, what can possibly bring that down? You know, we've taken a look at expanding our sources of energy. I live in Texas. You know, I can tell you that I've gone past west Texas wind turbines. I lived through those 110-degree, you know, solid sunshine summers. Yet, it doesn't seem our country as a whole has really gotten on board with, you know, wind and solar energy.

HOFMEISTER: We have no energy plan in this country and we haven't had for decades. Wind and solar are not answers to the energy requirements of the future at this stage of their evolution. In other words, it's inefficient and it's only sporadic forms of energy. Only when the wind blows, only when the sun shines and it does nothing for crude oil which is used for personal mobility, for transportation. And so, we can do all the wind farms and sun farms we can imagine but it doesn't help the price of gasoline which is a very serious problem.

HILL: And meantime, you brought up China. I had heard that China is planning ahead, that they have gone and they have found sources for their oil that they've either, you know, purchased the rights to it or purchased the opportunity to get the oil from various sources. Have we done any of that? If we're not going to drill here, have we figured out where we can go and get it other than the Middle East?

HOFMEISTER: The answer is no. We're completely trusting the availability of the global trading market which is going to get smaller because you're absolutely right. China has a strategic plan as to where its crude oil is going to come from, which countries. They put $110 billion of loans out there for countries like Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kazakhstan and others. And they're going to make sure they get supplies. Their supplies aren't going to come out of the global trading pool. So that pool is going to be diminished which means we're facing even higher prices. In fact, I believe we're facing shortages by the middle of this decade.

HILL: But do we have the oil resources here in the United States that we could capitalize on? And do we have then the refining capacity? HOFMEISTER: We absolutely have the reserves. The president misleads the public when he says we have only two percent of the reserves. He's using a very narrow definition of oil ready to produce.

We have the resources in the ground. I testified in Congress a month ago. If we raised our production three million barrels a day to 10 million barrels and we used 20, we could produce half of our oil instead of a third of our oil. We'd create three million jobs and we could sustain that increased production for many decades into the future. We have hundreds of --

HILL: I can hear the frustration in your voice. You know, you testified before Congress a week ago and for the next five years, I'm sure they'll be studying that testimony and then putting it out to committee to study.

Let me turn to Japan again. Because we've -- you know, of course, we're following moment by moment what's happening with their nuclear facilities there. If they cannot go back to nuclear power or they feel that it is simply not, you know, safe, reliable, whatever, and they go to oil -- where do they get that? If you have a country like Japan with that consumption needing oil right away, where do they go and what does that then do to the supply and our cost for it?

HOFMEISTER: They first go to Saudi Arabia where they have long- term contractual relationships with Saudi Aramco oil company. They also go to Malaysia. They go to Brunei. They go to local sources. You try to get oil from the nearest source as you can to cut down on the transportation costs.

HILL: Right.

HOFMEISTER: Those are sources which will take oil out of the global trading market which is going to make what's available to us. Again, there's going to be less of it and it's going to be more expensive. So shifting to fossil fuels in Japan is going to cost the whole world higher prices not just for oil but natural gas, liquefied natural gas as well.

HILL: All right. If you have to put on your cap and see into the future, a year from now you're filling up your car with gas. What do you expect to be paying a gallon?

HOFMEISTER: This time next year I'd say in the $4, $4.25 range.

HILL: And a year after that.

HOFMEISTER: By later in 2012, oh, probably very close to $5 a gallon, unless we can do something in this country to either produce more oil or change people's driving habits, which is very unlikely because we don't have mass transit systems in this country to really change effectively driving habits.

HILL: Right. You have to get to work. Absolutely. You've got to get to work. You've got to get to school. And, you know, life goes on. We're going to have to have some pretty difficult decisions, it seems, coming up.

Thank you so much for joining us.

HOFMEISTER: You bet.

HILL: And that's really what it comes down to. You know, we know what we need. The question is how to supply our need. And it seems like we continue to study it we never get any farther from, you know, extricating ourselves from the need for oil.

SPITZER: You know, E.D., it was fascinating to hear him say and he's exactly right. We have no energy policy in this nation. And this is something we've been hearing about since the days of Jimmy Carter. And, of course, no progress, no meaningful progress down in Washington. All right.

HILL: Pull out the bike.

SPITZER: Well, it can only go so far. I can only go -- I'm not, you know, I'm not, you know, one of those --

HILL: A spring chicken?

SPITZER: No. What are you saying?

All right. E.D., great interview.

Still ahead, an inside look at the allied forces' military strategy in Libya. General Spider Marks maps out the mission, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: We're moving now into our map room. And I'd like to bring in General Spider Marks. General Marks served in the Army for more than 30 years and spent time in the Balkans and in Iraq. He's here to talk military strategy with us.

General, thanks for coming in.

GEN. SPIDER MARKS, COMMANDING GEN. U.S ARMY INTELLIGENCE CTR. (RET.): Thank you.

SPITZER: So we own all this air space. How did that happen?

MARKS: Well, it happens very, very quickly. And what you see here on the map in front of you is called the theater of operations. Libya specifically is the area of operations. So these are the airfields where the air flights are coming out of and attacking targets into Libya. What's important to understand is that this is very busy air space. Separation so the airplanes don't fly into each other is achieved by vertical distance. And also, it's important to know that over here over the Atlantic or the western med is where refueling area takes place. Because B-2 bombers, the stealth bomber, flies and engages targets here in Libya emanating out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

SPITZER: Missouri.

MARKS: Missouri. They refuel. They conduct their operations. They return home. They have breakfast with their kids the next morning.

SPITZER: And how many pilots are in this B-2?

MARKS: I think there are two. I think there are two.

SPITZER: So two guys take off in Missouri, fly to Libya, drop the bombs and then go back.

MARKS: Return home.

SPITZER: Wow.

MARKS: They sure do. They sure do.

SPITZER: Supersonic speed, though?

MARKS: Well, again, I don't know the specific capabilities of that aircraft.

SPITZER: OK.

MARKS: But I do think they are home based at Whiteman Air Force Base and that's where they stay when they're not conducting the operation.

SPITZER: Amazing.

MARKS: So if we can take a closer look at the map that really focuses in on Libya itself, what you seem to find here is the no-fly zone. This line as identified. Obviously to the east of Benghazi and west of Tripoli, it defines the northern portions along the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Sirte here in Libya. These are the locations where the rebel forces have been holding down and are trying to regain momentum. If we can go to the next map, what we see here are the specific locations where there have been close air support, what is called air-ground liaison teams that obviously are taking place to achieve separation between the rebel, the opposition forces and Gadhafi's forces.

SPITZER: What have the targets been? What is the sequence of targeting? Do you begin with anti-aircraft embankments so that we can fly there safely? Sequentially, what do you target?

MARKS: The very first thing that was going out there were the air defense targets and the command and control capabilities that Gadhafi has. Those attacks were done by cruise missiles. Those are fixed sites. Those were done by cruise missiles coming out of both submarines and ground launch cruise missiles that are owned by the coalition, mostly the United States. Then there have been some aircraft targets going after those -- aircraft going after those fixed targets as well.

SPITZER: Have we crated their runways for instance? Do we do that early on just to prevent their aircraft from taking off?

MARKS: We do but we also want to make sure that we have access to those airfields if necessary. So we crater those very specific airfields that need to be taken out. Also, what we see here are where engagements took place to achieve separation between the opposition forces and Gadhafi's forces to give them some breathing room. The real intent is to allow the opposition forces to regain some momentum, stop Gadhafi where he is so that the opposition forces can regroup and try to get some additional objectives taken down.

SPITZER: Now, this has been an unbelievably successful operation. As far as I have heard, we have not lost a single airplane, not a single casualty. We control the air space. We have succeeded in taking the opposition forces and putting them back on the offense instead of playing defense which is what they've been doing for the last couple of weeks. Am I missing something? We've won this battle quickly and with remarkable speed.

MARKS: What we have done is we've achieved the initial objectives of a no-fly zone and, in essence, support to the opposition to keep Gadhafi's forces moving backwards. What we haven't done is achieve the overall objective which is no we're moving in the direction of say, the removal of Gadhafi. This is a necessary first step. It is not sufficient. It's critical, not sufficient.

SPITZER: Well, that's the critical issue I want to raise here very, very quickly. The no-fly zone was authorized through the U.N. resolution to save civilian lives. The president has said on the other hand getting rid of Gadhafi is our objective. Will the no-fly zone get rid of Gadhafi?

MARKS: Not at all. It will not get of Colonel Gadhafi. In fact, here's the scenario that's very likely.

Gadhafi is hunkered down in some hard, deeply buried bunker some place. We've achieved success and the rebels have achieved success and Gadhafi is satisfied with a separated Libya.

SPITZER: Right.

MARKS: I think that's unsatisfactory.

SPITZER: I think the president has said that's unsatisfactory given what he said as well.

General Marks, thanks for coming in and giving us that military education on how this actually happens. This is a huge victory so far at least. Days and weeks ahead, we'll ask you to keep coming back.

MARKS: Thanks.

SPITZER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Breaking news tonight from Yemen. Embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh and a top military general are negotiating an end to Saleh's 32-year rule. According to a U.S. official, the deal would let Saleh remain in office for the rest of this year if he allows for a peaceful transition of power.

In a break with the president, three military leaders declared their support today for anti-government protesters and vowed to protect them. This after a brutal government crackdown Friday left 52 people dead and more than 100 injured. And today, Saleh's presidency seemed to reach a tipping point as dozens of officials called for him to step down.

Now, Saleh may be left with only two choices -- resign gracefully and leave the country in peace or follow in the bloody footsteps of Moammar Gadhafi. Tonight, we can only hope he chooses peace.

E.D., a remarkable time across all of North Africa and the Middle East.

HILL: It is. And if you're looking at what impacts our national security the most, I think Yemen is it because of the weak government, the weak military and the large concentration of Al Qaeda there and the people who have been found fighting on other soil against us that went there afterwards.

SPITZER: Well, that is in fact where there has been a big Al Qaeda presence. We've been working with Saleh's government sending drones in. Of course, that came out in the WikiLeaks he was lying to his public. We were doing it. He was pretending this was being done by them.

Anyway, E.D., thank you for joining me IN THE ARENA tonight. Thank you all for watching.

"PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.