Return to Transcripts main page

In the Arena

Command Confusion; Civil War in Libya Rages On

Aired March 24, 2011 - 20:00   ET

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

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. I'm joined by regulars E.D. Hill and Will Cain.

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

E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know I'm going to look at "the huh" factor. Are we coordinating with the Libyan opposition or not? Are we working under NATO command and they're taking control or not? A

A lot of questions. We're going to try to get the answers.

SPITZER: All right. Will?

WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Brand-new numbers out today from a Pew Hispanic study and it says, guess what? The Hispanic population is booming. But the interesting note, where it's booming. I'm going to tell you.

SPITZER: All right. Look forward to it. But first breaking news on Libya. For days the White House has talked about handing off control of the operation in Libya to NATO, but now that it's happening, the question of NATO's exact role is still up in the air.

Just hours ago, NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told CNN that America will relinquish military command within in days. But Rasmussen made clear that NATO will only enforce the no-fly zone. NATO will not take leadership of the most critical aspect of the campaign, those elements relating to the protection of civilians which have been the basis for the assault on Moammar Gadhafi's forces that halted their momentum against the rebels.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: We have not decided yet whether we will take on the broader responsibility. This means that right at this moment, you will have two operations.

We have taken on responsibility for the no-fly zone while the coalition still continues its activities. But as I told you, we are considering whether we should take on that broader responsibility. However, that decision has not been made yet. (END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: In the military, there's nothing more important than clear command and control. This sounds like command and confusion.

Is this any way to run a war?

General Wesley Clark served as supreme allied commander of the successful NATO intervention in Kosovo and has an insider's perspective on why an international intervention of this type can be such a complicated diplomatic dance.

General Clark, welcome, and thank you for joining us.

WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Thanks, Eliot.

Well, it is confusing. And especially when you hear it like this, it's probably less confusing for the pilots because basically they're going to be given a mission order, they're going to be given the intelligence, they're going to be told to go out and do something. They'll be given a frequency. There'll be a controller who tells them what to do and they'll be de-conflicted from other aircraft.

But yes, it does sound confusing and I think it's temporary because I think within three or four days, NATO will decide to take the whole thing.

SPITZER: Well, it seems to me, General, and I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the reason for this delay is that there is uncertainty about what the scope of that U.N. authorization really is.

What does the U.N. mandate mean when it says protect, use any and all measures necessary to protect civilians?

And so let me frame it for you this way. If you were now the supreme allied commander, as you were for many years, and you looked at that U.N. resolution, and the opposition forces were beginning to go on the offense -- they were beginning to march from Benghazi toward Tripoli -- would we be able to provide air cover for them in that offensive operation?

CLARK: Well, you might not exactly provide air cover for them, but if the Libyan tanks were around the cities and still shelling and so forth, you would be probably able to take out the tanks.

Eliot, this gets addressed by lawyers. There's --

SPITZER: Then you've heard me.

CLARK: Actually there are lawyers in the State Department and in the Pentagon who will look at this in great detail. They'll use the best guidance they can get to the commanders.

I think, you know, the confusion for NATO is rather that Turkey, in particular, they have guest workers in Libya. They're very sensitive in terms of their regional role. There is a Muslim member of NATO. And they want to see how the operation unfolds. It will take a few days to get accustomed to it. And once it's clear that it's not using excessive force and not killing civilians, I think Turkey will sign on.

SPITZER: Well, where we seem to be right now, and obviously we watched and talked to folks over in Libya all day long, it seems that the massive bombing, clearly the no-fly zone was established, the massing bombing has created some element of momentum for the opposition forces, but the question is, will this be sufficient to actually turn the tide so they can march forward to Tripoli and actually unseat Moammar Gadhafi.

What is your take on the military balance of power right now?

CLARK: The military balance of power is probably still with Gadhafi. But there are -- that's a material balance of power. If you look at the moral balance, the morale and the sense of inevitability, I think increasingly Gadhafi's forces will fine that inevitably they're going to be run out of town.

There are other nonmilitary factors at work here. The International Criminal Supreme Court considering Gadhafi, considering charging him. Once he becomes a war criminal, that further diminishes things.

A diplomatic effort to encircle and isolate Gadhafi is gaining momentum. The training of the Libyan opposition forces, their familiarity with the weapons and so forth, that they're doing themselves is gaining. And inevitably they will become more adept at sharing information with NATO.

SPITZER: But in an odd way, you're -- while you are absolutely correct that it seems inevitable that Moammar Gadhafi will end up on the wrong side of a criminal prosecution by the International Court, does that not create certainly for him an incentive to fight to the end?

So where is that pivotal moment? When -- because he has no place to go. He's going to be tracked down and prosecuted, and who knows what the remedy would be. So doesn't that mean we need to tip not just the moral balance that you talk about that's so important but also the military balance and how do we do that given what the constraints are right now on what NATO or the allies can do?

CLARK: Gadhafi is unpredictable. And we really don't know exactly what the tipping point is. But it's also possible. His people are reaching out, they're trying to figure out what's going on. It's also possible he may decide he wants to cut a deal before he gets indicted in an effort to avoid the worst possible consequences.

He's got plenty of money. He may -- be searching right now, probably is, for a way to get that money out of there. Looking at which government's going to give him protection. And then he may decide to cut the best deal he can. These people don't go down a single course of action. They're not fools. They're very smart candy operators. That's the reason he's remained in power. So he's ruthless, he's saying he'll never give in and so forth. But there's a part of Gadhafi which is certainly working to say what's my next move and what's my best means for survival.

We can't really know from his perspective everything about it. But I think it's a -- it's a mistake to think that the only thing that can dislodge him is boots on the ground and military force.

There are other elements at play here, that -- there's no -- there's no guarantee of this as there would be if you put in a sizable invasion force. You would definitely run Gadhafi out. But it's possible that we may get rid of him without that.

SPITZER: All right. General Clark, I certainly hope you're right because the sooner he is gone, fewer lives will be lost and the better it is for humankind everywhere in this world.

All right. General Clark, thanks so very much for your insight.

Joining me now is a uniquely independent voice as one of the most senior advisers of the George W. Bush State Department. He disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq and he believes our current policy in Afghanistan is a mistake.

Richard Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His book, "War of Necessity, War of Choice" is a must- read. I think we should be in Libya. Richard thinks we shouldn't be.

Richard, explain why I'm wrong. And you know I don't like to be told I'm wrong. But I have such faith in you. Explain it to me.

(LAUGHTER)

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: It's a fair question, as always. I'll speak for myself rather than for the Council on Foreign Relations. I don't think U.S. interests are vital here. The economic interests are significant but modest still.

Two percent of the world's oil output. But I don't think the humanitarian crisis was automatic or as acute as people thought. I think other issues in the Middle East are more important, more deserving of U.S. focus, Egypt, Bahrain, conceivably Syria, certainly Iran and Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan, (INAUDIBLE) field.

But secondly, I don't think this has really been thought through. Some of the things you were just talking about with General Clark.

What do we do next? And we can lay out all the various scenarios, and I can think of at least four scenarios. But it's not clear to me we have thought through what is the aftermath.

And I also don't think we're confident, Eliot, of exactly who ultimately would take power and what would be their orientation if we were to succeed.

SPITZER: Look, I agree with the second half of your statement, we haven't thought this through properly, and we need to do that very rapidly and very clearly.

Let me challenge your premise, though.

HAASS: Sure.

SPITZER: You may be correct, Libya is not one of the vital strategic interests. But is -- aren't you answering the wrong question? Isn't the right question, if we had not gone into Libya, would we not have undercut the entirety of the revolution for freedom throughout North Africa and the Middle East?

HAASS: Not at all. Not at all.

SPITZER: All right. Tell me why I'm wrong on that one.

HAASS: The fact that you got the Arab League to support this resolution in the U.N. should tell you something. What was the last time the Arab League endorsed an intervention against one of their own? Answer, never.

Why is that? Because Gadhafi is a pariah even in the Arab world. He doesn't have a lot of -- he doesn't have a lot of resonance. Each situation, what's going to happen in Egypt, it's not going to be based on this.

Do you think what the Saudis are going to do in Bahrain is going to be fundamentally based on what happens with Moammar Gadhafi? Essentially each boat on its own bottom.

SPITZER: Well, if you're correct, each boat on its own bottom, and in fact each nation will be analyzed separately, then you're correct. No vital interest, we shouldn't perhaps be here.

But if you believe, as I do, that if we had failed to go in and sent the message throughout the Arab world that when you're as tough as nails and shoot at your own civilians as Gadhafi is willing to, you survive. But we push out a Mubarak and arguably in Yemen, as well. That sends the wrong message and would have had consequences, I think.

HAASS: Eliot. Eliot, if the next crisis is in Syria, are you going sit here on your show and recommend that the United States do a no-fly zone and more than it should?

SPITZER: Then you assess whether it's possible and here we'll see the possibilities and the realty of success will vindicate this decision --

HAASS: Or in Bahrain? Would you take on the sorties in Bahrain?

SPITZER: That is the next choice -- well.

HAASS: The answer is you wouldn't. So again you've got to take --

SPITZER: Not necessarily. All right. But anyway, Richard -- Richard, your arguments are always persuasive. I want you to explain prospectively --

HAASS: Sure.

SPITZER: Look, retrospective question, fascinating, but we've gone beyond it. Prospectively what do we now do? How do we take this to a victorious outcome since we're in?

HAASS: There's four potential ways this goes at the risk of making it too complicated. One is the cease-fire happens. Highly unlikely. Second is a prolonged --

SPITZER: Stop. Can I stop -- if there's a cease-fire, does he then survive and maintain, and that's a loss for us?

HAASS: Well, again, the question is what then happens? I don't think it's sustainable. Civil wars tend not to stop. It's not like a basketball game with the halftime. I think it's very tough. You could have a prolonged civil war, though, in which there's carnage on both sides as civil wars are. Or you can have either side prevail.

You could have the opposition prevail over Gadhafi. He could implode, they could do better without outside help, or just the opposite. Gadhafi could prevail against a disorganized opposition. So this could still go in lots of ways.

SPITZER: How do you assess -- not likelihood but whether we should or not since we're in? You can't go in with a toe, because now an outcome -- would we agree -- that if Gadhafi is there six months from now that is a significant defeat for the United States?

HAASS: It is bad for the United States. The United States has specifically called for his ouster. The best at least on the surface outcome for the United States if he's gone. But then we have to think about some other things. What is the nature of the opposition, how did they -- how did they orient themselves.

Also, can they maintain order? It's quite possible that the ouster of Gadhafi could actually lead to circumstances where NATO or the Arab League or both would be pressured to think about introducing some kind of peacekeeping force. There could be boots on the ground.

SPITZER: Because of the fear that mayhem would be the other alternative. But if we want the best outcome there is a judgment -- tell me if I'm wrong -- the best of the outcomes is the opposition prevails over Gadhafi in a reasonably short time frame. Is that likely to happen without our giving them more military assistance than they're getting right now?

HAASS: No. They're going to need a lot more military assistance from the outside. And again, it's only a desirable political outcome if they not only have capacity at the end of the day to run their country, but if they have an orientation. And again, my concern is I don't think you, me, or anyone else can speak with confidence about exactly what the opposition would do if it were to come to power. We don't even know what the opposition would be because indeed once they got rid of Gadhafi, there might be an awful lot of infighting.

The pattern of revolutions is once they get rid of the old regime, they tend to then start fighting amongst themselves.

SPITZER: Dissent breaks out immediately. That will be next week's crisis if we, in fact, get there. But this is then where the mission creep comes from because no-fly zone was easy to state, in fact, reasonably easy to implement. But now we're bombing -- we're beginning to intervene in a more aggressive military way.

HAASS: Exactly. We're already beyond a no-fly zone. This is already a so-called no-fly zone plus, and if that isn't enough, then the question is do you simply level the playing fields so fighting can go on forever? That doesn't seem moral or very humanitarian.

So you've got to decide then, are you going to let Gadhafi prevail? Probably not. So I think then NATO is then on the hook to essentially try to tilt the playing field in favor of the opposition that will require a lot more use of air power and conceivably ground forces.

SPITZER: Right. Look, we're not there just to be referees and neutral arbiters, we're there to get an outcome. And that's what the president has said.

I want to switch geography just a little bit.

HAASS: Sure.

SPITZER: You raised Syria and very powerfully said, look, do you go to Syria next, which is obviously much more problematic, much more difficult. But it Syria the next hot spot where we're finally seeing after the Assad family has ruled for decades, again this organic rising up of opposition?

HAASS: I would hope so, as the Arabs would say, inshallah. It would be a very good thing to see. It's another minority-run country. The Alawites who run Syria are maybe 10 percent plus or minus of the country.

We should be thinking, what can we say, what can we do behind the scenes that might weaken the government there or strengthen the opposition. We should do it there. We should do it in Iran.

We don't always want to be on the defensive in the Middle East, where essentially it's our friends coming under power. Under sway, rather. We want to look for ways to weaken the countries that are the most problematic beginning with Iran but also Syria.

SPITZER: OK. You are the person who wrote the memos to the president saying here's what we can do. If you were writing the memo right now to President Obama about Syria, what would we do? What could we do? What leverage do we have?

HAASS: Well, I would be looking now to raise the rhetoric, find ways if the opposition needs help, whether it's with technology, whether it's with cash. That's why you have the CIA.

It's also why essentially you want to communicate with these people so they can get messages. The government wants to control the flow of information. They don't want oppositions to coalesce. If we can help in places like Iran or Syria with different types of software technology and the social media, we should be open to that.

SPITZER: I hate to go back to Libya, but you did -- your mention of the reference of the CIA. And your articles on this, which are fascinating, you said why didn't we use covert means. You said we could have used covert means.

Would that have been successful? Do we have the capacity? Could we actually have ended Gadhafi's reign that way?

HAASS: The honest answer is I don't know. But going forward we may have to think about it. If we don't want to have a heavy military presence and the president has also ruled out boots on the ground, and if Gadhafi hangs in there for a while, we're going to have to look at ways of ratcheting up the sanctions, ways of perhaps helping but also shaping the opposition.

SPITZER: Right.

HAASS: And ways of weakening the regime and covert means are one of them. You don't want to deny yourself any of the instruments of national security here.

SPITZER: All right. Richard, thank you for coming in. You speak with the wisdom of experience, and that's why I hate to disagree with you. Thanks so much for coming in.

HAASS: Thanks, Eliot.

SPITZER: All right. Coalition air strikes launched perhaps its fiercest attacks yet against Gadhafi.

CNN's Nic Robertson is on the ground and close enough to hear the heavy bombardment. We'll talk with him coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: In the six days since the operation started, coalition forces have flown more than 750 sorties and launched more than 170 missiles against Moammar Gadhafi's air and ground forces. Today coalition forces carried out bombing raids in the Libyan cities of Ajdabiya and Misrata within the especially heavy assault on air bases outside Tripoli.

Nic Robertson is on the ground there at the capital -- Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Eliot, some of the heaviest explosions we have heard so far. One of the detonations shook the location that we're in.

It's not clear if that was because it's closer than some of the explosions we've heard or because it's bigger. But we have heard from the Pentagon that ammunition stores and supplies are being targeted. We know from the government last night that communications equipment in the military air field in the east of the city was targeted.

Witnesses have told us they've seen columns of smoke and fires at the -- at the military base in the east of the city here. That military air field. And in the west of the city, too, we've heard witnesses describe columns of smoke rising from there, as well, after we've heard explosions from here.

Not as much anti-aircraft gunfire as we've heard a few nights ago. That seems to be a change on the ground here. Not so much anti- aircraft gunfire fired when these -- when these loud explosions happened -- Eliot.

SPITZER: Any sense that these attacks on Tripoli itself by the coalition forces are continuing and will be a continuous part of this escalating battle?

ROBERTSON: It certainly seems to be. Why? Because at the moment the government forces here are facing off with rebels in Misrata and in Ajdabiya. A long distance from the capital. But what the coalition is doing at the moment is weakening as they tell us the command and control, the communications that we're seeing hit, fuel stores here according to the government have been hit.

And the military infrastructures themselves which is clearly going to degrade the government's ability to communicate further down the line towards the front. We heard government officials telling us last night that their communications, in fact, are being degraded at the moment.

And their ability to resupply those units in the field are being degraded here. Some effect -- it's having some effect in Misrata but not a lot yet in Ajdabiya, which is a red line for the government. They don't want to give up that town -- Eliot.

SPITZER: Can you tell us, is this having any emotional impact? The fact that the coalition, that we can just bomb with abandon in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, which is, of course, where Gadhafi has made his capital, his stronghold. The fact that we can do this with abandon, are you sensing in the military there that this is making them reconsider their very effort to defend Gadhafi?

ROBERTSON: You know, what I found interesting today -- we were at a funeral, at a mass funeral at the seafront today in what they call the martyr cemetery. And this was what the government told us were soldiers and civilians killed in air strikes here.

They offered no proof, and we could see no evidence civilians were killed. In fact, in the several hundreds of people there, we couldn't find any family members either, which I think tells you a lot. But one person we did find there that we recognized was a soldier that we met from the front line in the east of the country, Ajdabiya. Just a week ago.

Yet here he is, he's decided to come to the capital perhaps where he feels safer. But it's his commitment to the fight in the east as any measure of others' commitment, we can see the people like him -- he had expensive sunglasses, he spoke English well, he was probably from a well-off family, with a good education.

But it's clear he doesn't really want to be at the front line right now. And he'd rather be in the capital.

Psychologically, I think the city is bracing itself for worse to come. There are fewer cars on the streets and a lot of stores are closed. But the loyalists are still very strong around Gadhafi, and that was their message at this funeral today, that they will continue to fight.

So I think, yes, it's having a psychological impact, but perhaps not entirely as the coalition would want to see at the moment -- Eliot.

SPITZER: All right. Thank you, Nic, for that report.

Since the fighting began, most of the world has abandoned Gadhafi, and scores of diplomats have defected. One of the first was Ali Suleman Aujali, the former Libyan ambassador to the United States. He now represents the transitional government in Benghazi.

Ambassador, thank you for joining me here tonight.

ALI SULEMAN AUJALI, FORMER LIBYAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Thank you.

SPITZER: So you represent the transitional government. If there were one request you could make of the United States, of the NATO countries, what would it be?

AUJALI: Well, the request I will insist to continue (ph) to protect the Libyan civilians from Gadhafi until they achieve their goals. We need air protection and we need the alliance to hit the Gadhafi forces with their mobilizing from south to north.

Countries are still under siege for more than four weeks. They cut water, cut electricity. People are suffering in Misrata and in Zawiya and in Zantan. And they need -- they need to be rescued.

This is the mission of the international community and the correlation which has been set according to the resolution of the council.

SPITZER: Are the actions that have been taken so far beginning to turn the tide? Is the opposition -- the transitional government and your forces, are they beginning to push Gadhafi back?

AUJALI: Of course. Of course. We have seen a lot of -- a lot of progress since this strike began last Saturday. First of all, the French when they hit the Gadhafi's forces marching from west to east, just 40 kilometers from Benghazi, then they saved not less than 100,000, 150,000 lives.

If Gadhafi managed to reach Benghazi, the forces he has that he can destroy the east of Libya completely, then today we can see also a difference in balance of power on the ground.

Now the opposition, they are marching, but their problem mow is that the weapons, they don't have enough weapons, and the range of weapons is shorter than Gadhafi's. Then they need to be supplied with weapons. And this is one of my first I've requested from the United States here, and I think the same request went to the -- to the western countries.

SPITZER: Have you met with Secretary of State Clinton or senior members of the State Department?

AUJALI: Oh, yes, of course. I met with Secretary Clinton, and I met with undersecretary and --

SPITZER: And have you made these requests for armaments and also for recognition? And what is the response from them?

AUJALI: Very clear. This is my priority, and the priority of my people. The protection of the human life and the recognition because now the council, this is the only body we have created since the demonstration started in Benghazi on the 17th.

And I made many things very clear request. I think that when the West and when the United Nations approve that Libya have to have protection from Gadhafi's forces, this is a great achievement. Now we want recognition. Because this body, they will have access to the frozen money then they can buy more medicine, they can buy more food, and they can buy more armor.

SPITZER: Look, so far only France has recognized the transitional government. I won't -- we don't have time to get into the question of why the United States has not. I've made it very clear I think we should.

Let me ask this question. You've heard even just tonight on the show, very smart, sophisticated people ask the question, what will happen if you win? What type of government will the transitional government that you now represent put in place? Will it be secular, democratic? Will it respect rights? What is your vision of the next government?

AUJALI: I think the Libyan people, they have been suffering for 42 years. This is the great chance for them to choose their own government. We want a democratic country, that respect its own people, respect their dreams, respect their neighbors, respect the international community.

Now you see how much Gadhafi was engaged in problems with different countries. He's banishing countries, just take for example, Switzerland, which we have his -- one of his sons, bad behave. And when the police interfered, then he (INAUDIBLE) then he treat them in a very selfish way. Then we want a democratic country to represent the people, Libyan society is a very open society, very moderate society. Don't listen to Gadhafi's accusation that we have al Qaeda and all this -- I think nobody is believing that now.

SPITZER: Will it be possible for what we know of Libya -- and I apologize, it's much less than it should be perhaps. But there is a very powerful argument being made that it is a tribally-based society and the tribes would essentially devolve into civil war.

Is that likely or would this not happen?

AUJALI: I will never accept this term of civil war. Libyans, they're not fighting each other. Libyans they're fighting the (INAUDIBLE) support in Gadhafi. Then the people are against their government. The government is hitting their people with any kind of weapon.

And you know that, Eliot, the Libyans, they fought for 30 years against the entire colonization in 1911, and the same tribe they're fighting -- the Italian, they're fighting Gadhafi now. Then there is no way for the Libyans to fight each other. But they are together to fight the mercenaries that Gadhafi brought from all over the world unfortunately.

SPITZER: All right. Ambassador, thank you so much for being here, for providing us this information and for what you have done in the past couple of days.

Thank you, sir.

AUJALI: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

SPITZER: Coming up, a changing of the guard in Libya. No, Gadhafi is still there but NATO and not the United States could be taking the lead. A former State Department official weighs in coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Today's NATO announcement trying to clarify its role in the military mission in Libya only left more questions and contradictions. E.D. Hill has the latest.

HILL: Are we so shocked? I mean, there's all this diplomatic wrangling that goes on. The upshot is NATO then only agrees to take over the no-fly zone. Turkey refuses to participate in the strikes against Gadhafi and that leaves the U.S. still in charge. Here's the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: From the start, President Obama has stressed that the role of the U.S. military would be limited in time and scope. Our mission has been to use America's unique capabilities to create the conditions for the no-fly zone and to assist in meeting urgent humanitarian needs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Well, earlier I spoke with Elise Jordan, a speechwriter for Clinton's predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. Elise also worked with the National Security Council.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: Elise, thank you very much for being with us. So is the U.S. involvement limited in time and scope, or are we taking it over? Can you figure it out?

ELISE JORDAN, FORMER SPEECH WRITER FOR CONDOLEEZA RICE: I would disagree that it's going to be limited in time and scope. And I also think that you are not alone in being confused about what's going on here.

Because I think confusion is really the buzz word and this strategy is being developed on the fly. A coalition that's being developed on the fly, and that is not going to make for a smooth transition or a smooth operation in my opinion.

HILL: You know, I actually had a lot of hope when the Arab league, you know, came in and said, OK, we're supporting this. I thought, well, good, finally. What took you so long to get in the party?

Finally they're stepping up and getting involved in the relations and the issues that are confronting their region. And then sure enough the same day we start dropping the bombs to stop the -- you know, the advance of the troops and the aircraft, they start backpedaling going, no, we wanted you involved, but not like that.

JORDAN: Well, I think that that's what we can expect from now on. I thought it was interesting that in Secretary Clinton's remarks she cited the great support of many Arab nations, but would not name an Arab nation.

And she also, you know, cited the Arab league proudly, but there's really -- it's not exactly a good story there I don't think there. I certainly don't see that changing as the conflict becomes more protracted.

HILL: So here's the next thing that I can't figure out, conflicting statements from the State Department and the Pentagon. We've got a State Department spokesman today saying we have maintained contact with the Libyan opposition.

And then right after that we've got the Pentagon spokesman saying we are not communicating with the opposition on the ground. Are talking, or are you not?

JORDAN: I think it's a microcosm of the confusion surrounding this operation and the opposition in my mind not knowing who the opposition is and what we're supporting is a huge problem. Back in, it was 2007, we found an al Qaeda stockpile listing who the foreign fighters were in Iraq. Until that point, we had previously thought that the foreign fighters were primarily from Saudi Arabia.

No, they're from Libya and so one out of five foreign fighters and even better they're from Benghazi in eastern Libya. So that's the rebel capital. That's the stronghold, these are our allies here? I'm just --

HILL: Yes, a very good point because as I think people try to understand what's going on there -- I've been talking about Yemen the past couple of nights. That is because al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been using that sort of Southern Yemen as a base.

However, when you look at fighters picked up in Afghanistan and Iraq, the majority, largest percentage are people who come out of Libya. That's why these two countries are so significant and we're really focusing on them.

Let me ask you something that again, I'm confused by. In NATO we've got NATO. We're supposed to work together. We all want world peace. Yet, you've got Turkey saying we don't want NATO taking over this operation and the French saying, yes, we do. And the U.S. saying, get us out of here. Why does Turkey want NATO in and France wants NATO out?

JORDAN: Everything always becomes infinitely more complicated when you make it NATO as we have watched in Afghanistan --

HILL: Why is that --

JORDAN: Well, because you have 28 nations with competing agendas, and the Turks, their reticence is because they don't want to be seen as bombing another Muslim nation. They have claimed that civilian casualties are their concern.

The French Sarkozy is the least popular president since the fifth republic was founded in 1958, and he's going to have an election year next year. So he's embracing Libya as his signature issue to try to gain some support for that effort.

HILL: Elise Jordan, thank you so much for your insight. Appreciate it.

JORDAN: Thanks for having me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: You know, so after talking to Elise and looking at what's happening today, I think the heart of the United States is in the right place. But clearly everyone is not on the same page in the agenda.

SPITZER: You know, it is awfully tough to do this with the world watching every decision, every decision having to be explained. The good news is Gadhafi's now playing defense, the opposition forces are playing offense. It seems as though certainly what would have been a humanitarian disaster had he gone to Benghazi was stopped. That much is good.

HILL: Let's take heart in that.

SPITZER: What's in the crystal ball for the future, who knows. All right, thanks, E.D.

Coming up, unexpected fallout of the Japanese disaster and what it means for American auto plants when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Word today that Toyota may shut down its manufacturing plants in the United States, a direct result of the disaster in Japan. How much will the devastation in Japan affect the United States economy?

Joining me now from London is CNN's Richard Quest. Richard, is this potential shutdown of all the Toyota plants here in the United States just the first of many effects we're going to suffer from of the crisis and disasters over in Japan?

RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think what you're looking at is probably the most widespread part of the effects. The supply chain is being so integrated now into the global economy, Eliot. That it's simply not possible to have a major exporting country like Japan suffer such a calamity and there not to be ripple effects in different countries.

And let me give you an example if I may. If just take the area where this tsunami and this earthquake took place, it's actually only about 7 percent to 8 percent of Japanese GDP in its own right. However, one you factor in the way in which Japan has closed parts of its domestic industry, transferring resources to deal with this crisis.

And then you realize whether it be time and motion just in time, whichever management strategy is now in place in those car factories, in those electronics assembly plants, in those computer and silicon valley plants that look for wafer chips and look for digital chips from Japan, they will all feel the effect.

SPITZER: You know, Richard, you're making a critical point. It's the integration of the world economy that makes us all dependent on everybody else. Even though at first blush everybody said, this is a small region.

The number of sectors you mentioned, you've got autos, computers, electronics, all of these wholly integrated. We'll see what you're suggesting other areas of the U.S. economy that are dependent upon little parts that come from there that may be affected by this.

QUEST: Yes. No question about it. But you're also going to see innovation, ingenuity. For instance, just take digital chips. They are already sourcing them from other parts of Southeast Asia. That's a given. They are -- we are seeing a certain rise in prices of certain silicon chips because of that.

If you look at cars, we've heard from Toyota that they expect to meet supply as indeed has Honda, as indeed has Nissan. They're using whatever they can to shift their resources, but -- and I think this needs to be borne in mind.

What you see to use the economic jargon, economic dislocation, the disruption to the production process, it will bounce back because the hallmark of all these natural disasters is a very sharp v-shape down as production stops and the economic grounds to a halt.

But then as reconstruction as pent-up demand and all those things come in again, you see the economies going up again, and that was borne out by the World Bank figures. They estimate that -- private groups estimate that the total cost within Japan could be up to $300 billion. That's twice as much as the Kobe earthquake in 1995. But when you look at long term economic damage then perhaps it's not quite so serious as it might seem.

None of which and I must stress this and I know you want to stress this, none of which, our economic discussion shouldn't detract from the fact that there are at least 10,000 and possibly many, many more people who perished in this.

SPITZER: Absolutely. Look, the human cost, human toll of that tragedy is immeasurable. And we're just talking about economics here which doesn't factor in the same way, shape, or form. Let me raise a last question, the cost of capital. You talk about $300 billion.

Japan is going to borrow money to rebuild. The economy's going to come back. Will that demand for capital drive interest rates up? Is that going to have a currency impact? Any other macro economic impact that we should be thinking about in terms of the U.S. economy?

QUEST: Good question, excellent. No, not in the long term. First of all, Japan already has a GDP/debt ratio heading towards 200 percent. So they're going to have to be careful how they choose to borrow this money, but Japan has one advantage that the United States simply doesn't have.

And that is the Japanese people will finance much of this themselves through their own very high savings rate. And if there's nothing else that we can say about Japan is they will rally to the cause. Now, somewhat perversely we saw a strong rise in value of the yen because the fears money will be brought back to Japan.

I expect that to unwind as things get back to normal and people realize that bringing money home isn't happening to the same extent. In the U.S. economy at the moment, the core influences remain. They remain unemployment. They remain the high-budget deficit. They remain all things like sluggish economic growth and the need for fiscal stimulus to keep things moving.

Those influences in the short to medium term will have a much greater impact than what's happening in Japan per se.

SPITZER: All right. Richard, fascinating, and I appreciate that tutorial on the macro economics of the world. We'll be back to you shortly I hope. Thank you very much.

Coming up, brand new information tonight, and it confirms what Reverend Sam Rodriguez has been telling us on this show for some time. The Hispanic vote will decide the next election. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: New census numbers tonight show the changing face of the American population. Will Cain has that story.

CAIN: Yes, Eliot, the Hispanic population -- that's what this is about. We've all known that the Hispanic population is growing, but the Hispanic center came out with numbers saying the population has finally reached the 50 million mark, which is hugely (inaudible).

Take a look at some of these numbers. The Hispanic population has grown by 43 percent since 2000. Let me put that in perspective for you. Over that same time period, if you put all other ethnic groups together, they've grown about by 5 percent. So this obviously has wide-ranging meaning for our society, but this is a political show, right, Eliot? Sometimes --

SPITZER: Sometimes, yes.

CAIN: So what does that mean for politics? Joining me now is Reverend Samuel Rodriguez. He's the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

Reverend, so what does this mean? Are these new voters going to be Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, socialists? What it will going to be?

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Well, it means one thing here -- Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore. This is where sweet home Alabama reconciles with La Macarena.

The realty is if you remember Richard Nixon's old southern strategy, this is the 21st Century southern strategy where Hispanics emerge as the quintessential independent block for the 2012 election. It's a great day in America.

CAIN: You know, you're right on point by talking about the south because the Pew study shows that the states in the south like Alabama and Georgia are some of the fastest growing Hispanic populations in the nation.

You know, I've been reading a book, Reverend, by Dr. James Gimple at the University of Maryland. He says when immigrant groups throughout history in the United States have moved here, they adopt the voting patterns of the geographic area they move into. You know, traditionally that's meant in New York, and New York is liberal, so a lot of these immigrant groups have become Democrats. What does that mean though? These immigrants are moving south. Are we looking at Republican voters?

RODRIGUEZ: We are. We're looking at the potential of the Republican Party once again capturing a significant portion of the Hispanic electorate. Now look, this is -- Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, we're not talking about New York, California, Texas, and Florida anymore.

This is an opportunity for the Republican Party to make significant inroads in this community, post facto the immigration reform debacle. Yes, it's true. These immigrants and the Latino community may very well absorb the ethos of the geographical region they live in.

The south, very Christian, very pro-faith, very pro-family, not really a community in the region that looks like, smells like, believes the same values of the Hispanic-American electorate.

The question is what will the Republican Party do? Will they have an epiphany? A revolution, a moment of Zen today or will they wait until after 2012 to reconcile with the African-American community?

CAIN: So what are your predictions? Let's talk short term. It's not just these states in the south. There are some swing states that have growing Hispanic populations as well. States like Missouri, Montana, Colorado so what's your prediction? Do you think Republicans will be able to capitalize on this population growth?

RODRIGUEZ: I think Republicans can capitalize only if there is a moment of coming together on the issue of immigration reform, 44 percent of Hispanics supported George W. Bush in 2004. If the immigration reform debacle would have not taken place in 2006, the Republicans were poised to capture over 50 percent of the vote.

CAIN: Reverend, what does that mean by immigration reform? So do Republicans -- Hispanics have a substantive problem with immigration reform, what do Republicans have to do it win them over on that issue?

RODRIGUEZ: First of all, perception versus realty. The Hispanic electorate is not in favor of amnesty. The Hispanic electorate is in favor of the rule of law and the application of the rule of law. In the matter of fact, surveys and research that have been taking place recently indicate that Hispanic American electorate is completely in favor of stopping all illegal immigration.

What the Hispanic American electorate has a problem with is the rhetoric stemming out of certain segments, out of the republican Party. The rhetoric that embraces threats that seemed to be xenophobic and nativist.

So the Republican Party should address the Hispanic American electorate and say we support legal immigration. We thank God for the Hispanic American community. Hispanic Americans --

CAIN: So you're telling me it's just a rhetoric problem, not a substance problem?

RODRIGUEZ: It's both rhetoric and substantive, but there's a reason why Hispanics will never, 92 percent support one party. There's a reason for that. Hispanics remember Ronald Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan that understood that Hispanics were natural conservatives.

At the end of the day if the Republicans right now take advantage of this opportunity and understand it is impossible to win the White House in 2012 without the Hispanic American electorates and they reach out to leaders in the Hispanic community.

And say how do we deal with the immigration reform situation in a way that is not amnesty, but likewise in a way that does not seem to alienate the Hispanic or immigrant community.

CAIN: Real quickly, Sam, I got to ask you one question. You said the Hispanic population will never vote in a 90 percent margin like that. If you look at "New York Times" exit poll since 1972, the black population has voted 80 percent of the Democratic presidential candidate. While Hispanic population has been more about 60-40, do you predict the Hispanic population will still be divided like that?

RODRIGUEZ: I even predict they'll be at the end of the day a 50/50 split and leaning more and more towards the Republican Party or independent social conservative movement. Hispanics have a strong ethos and a very strong social conservative thread. They are also committed to justice and education and health care reform.

CAIN: All right.

RODRIGUEZ: So in order for both parties to succeed, they have to move towards the center.

CAIN: All right, Reverend, I appreciate it. I certainly hope you're right. I know you don't, Eliot.

SPITZER: Look, if what the reverend is saying is independent voters who judge every candidate on the merits, it's what every voter should do. I've always believed that.

CAIN: Thanks.

SPITZER: All right, up next, E.D.'s going to come back and talk with Will and me about the day's dramatic developments in Libya.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: All right, back to Libya. You know, let's not get caught in the weeds much there are a ton of questions, but the good news is a humanitarian crisis was averted in Benghazi. There's a trajectory to get rid of Gadhafi which is, despite whatever people say, our objective, but I still think we need to hear from the president. Shouldn't we hear from him at some point soon?

HILL: Yes, what I find interesting is you have liberal writers saying why Libya isn't Iraq. The big difference is we had better planning. We had better -- more defined goals in Iraq and we look how that turned out.

I wish we had better defined goals right now and I think that the president does have to come out and take care of all these questions. Is NATO leading? Are we leading? You know, what's going on? I'm not getting that.

CAIN: You and I disagree on this, and we have for weeks on this show. We're not going to rehash the debate in 60 seconds, but look, I have been saying this -- yes, we should hear from the president.

I feel like this debate has been in the weeds. I'm not clear on why we're there, what we're there to do and I take a small victory in the fact that you're starting to ask those questions.

SPITZER: No, I've been asking since the beginning. Let me be very clear, this is not Iraq because in Iraq, we went for WMD that simply were not there. Whether there are other bases who have gone in is a separate question. We're going in here to save a humanitarian crisis.

HILL: But we also had a humanitarian issue --

SPITZER: No, we are going to add momentum to a democracy movement that is an Arab spring, an Arab awakening that will change humanity if it works out --

HILL: Not if we walk away.

SPITZER: Not if we walk away, which is why we should not walk away. All right, E.D. and Will, thanks for being here. Thank you guys for watching. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts - coming up right now.