Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Who Was Responsible?

Aired May 13, 2003 - 14:07   ET

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

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


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: No claims of responsibility yet. Of course a lot of finger pointing in the wake of those terrorist attacks, and of course at the top of really everybody's list, Al Qaeda.
Dr. Jim Walsh is an expert on international security and terrorism issues and he joins us as always, from Harvard University -- actually, across the river in Cambridge.

Jim, good to have you back with us.

JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIV.: Good to be here, Miles.

O'BRIEN: All right, are we jumping to conclusions by saying Al Qaeda, or is that the logical thing to do here?

WALSH: I think it's always good to be cautious about assigning blame. We should wait until all the facts are in.

But let's face it, Al Qaeda is probably the best first guess, the working hypothesis we ought to have, and there are several reasons we should have. As Andrea pointed out in her report, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence -- the manner of the attack, the scale of the attack, the degree of organizational sophistication involved in the attack.

Plus, we have additional elements as well. We have a warning by the State Department on May 1st, indicating that there may be attacks in Saudi Arabia based on the chatter, and that chatter may be tied back to Al Qaeda. And then there were arrests. The Saudis attempted to break up an Al Qaeda cell. They got some of their explosives and money, but didn't nab the crooks. And it's thought that perhaps those people were involved in the events of recent days.

O'BRIEN: It's pretty strong circumstantial case. If it does turn out to be Al Qaeda, what should we make of it, and what does this say about Al Qaeda's ability to operate and perhaps operate elsewhere?

WALSH: Well, it's a really interesting question, Miles, because you could take one of two positions. You could say, for example, that this shows that Al Qaeda is strong. After all, it is a major attack, it's a sophisticated attack, large amount of explosives, and on the very day that Secretary Powell is arriving into Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, you could argue that in some ways, this shows Al Qaeda's weakness. Why? because Al Qaeda did not strike the U.S. homeland, it did not strike during the Iraq war, and it basically strike in what might be called its home court. That is to say in Saudi Arabia where there are a lot of ideological and religious sympathizers. I think in the end what you have to say is it's not very strong, but it's still strong enough to carry out deadly attacks.

O'BRIEN: Let me ask you this. When you talk about Al Qaeda, it is such a decentralized operation -- if that's the right term for it -- that there could be many people out there who simply sympathize with Bin Laden and what Al Qaeda stands for and does something in their name, and yet be entirely separate. In that sense, do we make Al Qaeda out to be much more organized and efficient than it really is?

WALSH: I think that's an excellent point and often a point overlooked. When we see an incident, we need to think about three possible categories of suspects. There is Al Qaeda itself, which is basically a small organization of made members. Then there are other terrorist groups, Jamaah Islamiya (ph) and others, who occasionally affiliate with Al Qaeda, who may coordinate with Al Qaeda, or receive assistance from Al Qaeda, and then there are sort of folks who might do something on their own because they get angry.

I think in this particular case, however, given the size of the explosions -- we're talking about hundreds of pounds of high explosives -- of coordinating attacks all happening at separate locations at the same time, that speaks to more likely it being Al Qaeda itself than an opportunist.

O'BRIEN: Is it possible this could be a turning point for the Saudis as they deal with Al Qaeda? They've had to kind of work it both ways over the years because of the fundamentalist ferment that occurs in the kingdom.

And as a result of that, they've had to do some wink-and-nod deals, which probably have allowed Al Qaeda to continue on more than it might have otherwise. At this juncture, do they have to take a different tact, do you think?

WALSH: That's a really good question. I think we may have the answer to that question when the crown prince offers his speech later today. I think that is a major event, the fact that he's giving a speech. I think we'll be watching the content of that very closely. It's true. Let's face it, Saudi Arabia has walked a fine line. It's a monarchy. Some have argued it's not the most stable monarchy in the world. And on the one hand, Americans are not very popular in Saudi Arabia and religious fervor, Wahhabianism, is very strong. And on the other hand, Saudi Arabia has traditionally needed the U.S. as an ally, particularly in the area of security. So it's tried to balance these interests, and the U.S. has been unhappy with the balance in the past year and a half. Saudi Arabia has not extradited anyone on the 9/11. It dragged its feet on the Khobar Towers incident.

So this will be a big test, and maybe we'll get an inkling to that answer in the upcoming speech.

O'BRIEN: All right, Jim Walsh, thanks for shedding some light on all of this for us. We appreciate it as always.

WALSH: Thank you, Miles.

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







Aired May 13, 2003 - 14:07   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: No claims of responsibility yet. Of course a lot of finger pointing in the wake of those terrorist attacks, and of course at the top of really everybody's list, Al Qaeda.
Dr. Jim Walsh is an expert on international security and terrorism issues and he joins us as always, from Harvard University -- actually, across the river in Cambridge.

Jim, good to have you back with us.

JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIV.: Good to be here, Miles.

O'BRIEN: All right, are we jumping to conclusions by saying Al Qaeda, or is that the logical thing to do here?

WALSH: I think it's always good to be cautious about assigning blame. We should wait until all the facts are in.

But let's face it, Al Qaeda is probably the best first guess, the working hypothesis we ought to have, and there are several reasons we should have. As Andrea pointed out in her report, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence -- the manner of the attack, the scale of the attack, the degree of organizational sophistication involved in the attack.

Plus, we have additional elements as well. We have a warning by the State Department on May 1st, indicating that there may be attacks in Saudi Arabia based on the chatter, and that chatter may be tied back to Al Qaeda. And then there were arrests. The Saudis attempted to break up an Al Qaeda cell. They got some of their explosives and money, but didn't nab the crooks. And it's thought that perhaps those people were involved in the events of recent days.

O'BRIEN: It's pretty strong circumstantial case. If it does turn out to be Al Qaeda, what should we make of it, and what does this say about Al Qaeda's ability to operate and perhaps operate elsewhere?

WALSH: Well, it's a really interesting question, Miles, because you could take one of two positions. You could say, for example, that this shows that Al Qaeda is strong. After all, it is a major attack, it's a sophisticated attack, large amount of explosives, and on the very day that Secretary Powell is arriving into Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, you could argue that in some ways, this shows Al Qaeda's weakness. Why? because Al Qaeda did not strike the U.S. homeland, it did not strike during the Iraq war, and it basically strike in what might be called its home court. That is to say in Saudi Arabia where there are a lot of ideological and religious sympathizers. I think in the end what you have to say is it's not very strong, but it's still strong enough to carry out deadly attacks.

O'BRIEN: Let me ask you this. When you talk about Al Qaeda, it is such a decentralized operation -- if that's the right term for it -- that there could be many people out there who simply sympathize with Bin Laden and what Al Qaeda stands for and does something in their name, and yet be entirely separate. In that sense, do we make Al Qaeda out to be much more organized and efficient than it really is?

WALSH: I think that's an excellent point and often a point overlooked. When we see an incident, we need to think about three possible categories of suspects. There is Al Qaeda itself, which is basically a small organization of made members. Then there are other terrorist groups, Jamaah Islamiya (ph) and others, who occasionally affiliate with Al Qaeda, who may coordinate with Al Qaeda, or receive assistance from Al Qaeda, and then there are sort of folks who might do something on their own because they get angry.

I think in this particular case, however, given the size of the explosions -- we're talking about hundreds of pounds of high explosives -- of coordinating attacks all happening at separate locations at the same time, that speaks to more likely it being Al Qaeda itself than an opportunist.

O'BRIEN: Is it possible this could be a turning point for the Saudis as they deal with Al Qaeda? They've had to kind of work it both ways over the years because of the fundamentalist ferment that occurs in the kingdom.

And as a result of that, they've had to do some wink-and-nod deals, which probably have allowed Al Qaeda to continue on more than it might have otherwise. At this juncture, do they have to take a different tact, do you think?

WALSH: That's a really good question. I think we may have the answer to that question when the crown prince offers his speech later today. I think that is a major event, the fact that he's giving a speech. I think we'll be watching the content of that very closely. It's true. Let's face it, Saudi Arabia has walked a fine line. It's a monarchy. Some have argued it's not the most stable monarchy in the world. And on the one hand, Americans are not very popular in Saudi Arabia and religious fervor, Wahhabianism, is very strong. And on the other hand, Saudi Arabia has traditionally needed the U.S. as an ally, particularly in the area of security. So it's tried to balance these interests, and the U.S. has been unhappy with the balance in the past year and a half. Saudi Arabia has not extradited anyone on the 9/11. It dragged its feet on the Khobar Towers incident.

So this will be a big test, and maybe we'll get an inkling to that answer in the upcoming speech.

O'BRIEN: All right, Jim Walsh, thanks for shedding some light on all of this for us. We appreciate it as always.

WALSH: Thank you, Miles.

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