Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

A Military Perspective

Aired January 28, 2003 - 10:10   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.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get some perspective now on the decisions facing President Bush and the military leaders who would conduct a war against Iraq, and for that, we turn to CNN military analyst and retired Air Force General Don Shepherd, who's with us in the flesh here in the studio.
Good to see you, again, finally, with your world travels and all.

What do you make of what's happened in the last almost exactly 24 hours from now? Yesterday, we saw Hans Blix give his presentation to the U.N. After that presentation, what do you think about the likelihood of there being a large coalition of major countries joining onboard with the U.S.?

GEN. DON SHEPHERD, (RET.) CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, I don't think you will see a rapid movement of nations to a coalition environment. I think what you're going to see is the president beginning to lay out the case to the American people starting tonight, and then more will be brought out over the coming weeks as we continue to deploy forces, and I see that more people will come on board as this plays out.

Nobody wants to be on the losing side. There's going to be intense diplomatic pressure through the United Nations, but it's going to take some time. It's not going to be quick.

HARRIS: How important is it right now to get a broader coalition, get other countries, say for instance, Turkey, who's been a bit recalcitrant up to this particular point, some other countries in the region actually to come on board? Because It's been made clear, the U.S. has made clear, the U.S. has made clear it's position is, it does need any other countries to help out.

SHEPHERD: Yes, it doesn't need any other countries to help out, but we absolutely want other countries in this coalition. It's particularly important for two reasons. One is the basing. Things can change during the war making basing from different directions very, very important. And Further, not only basing, but our legitimacy in the rule of law through the United Nations and the perceptions about America all over the world. Those two things are really important. So you want a coalition of the willing, and you want as many people on it as possible.

HARRIS: How about afterwards, when it's all said and done, there's no question victory will come to this particular side of it. Whether it's all said and done, there will have to then to be some sort of occupation in Iraq to go ahead and turn things around in that country. If that does happen, and it happens predominantly with the U.S. troops, doesn't that mean it's going to be a huge drag on the U.S. forces here?

SHEPHERD: Yes, because our track record has been, we say we don't want to do nation building, but we go in because nobody else can or will. We were in Bosnia, we were in Kosovo, we were in Afghanistan, and now it looks like we're going to be in Iraq. We may be in other places. And so no matter the fact you don't want to go and stay, we end up doing that. So it's going to fall on us as the military to maintain a security blanket while you working all of this, and it means a larger military and more military expenses over a longer period of time.

HARRIS: Since we brought up the military and the troops, when will this critical mass, the number of troops that will be needed, when do you think they will be there, in position to do something?

SHEPHERD: Well, a couple of things about that. First of all, we have the forces in the region and of course the United States now, if we are attacked, to do anything, and things can cause us to be attacked, such as Saddam moving forces down toward Kuwait, and that type of thing. So we have the forces to protect ourselves and launch attacks. But to do what we're talking about, which is to launch a massive invasion from the north, west and south, and to work the diplomacy, and then go into Baghdad, change the regime, you're probably talking about certainly, certainly no sooner than late February, early March, maybe mid-March around there.

HARRIS: Could that timing window be affected by somewhat by any introduction of new weaponry here? I read about one recently, in "Newsweek" magazine, I want to credit where credit is due here, about a new high-powered microwave, which actually maybe could incapacitate any incoming missiles that might be carrying any biological weapons or whatever on it. And that would mean if that does work, you wouldn't need to wear those heavy chemical suits, which are so hot in the summertime.

SHEPHERD: Yes, great idea. We always introduce new weapons whenever we go to war, and we try them. They're almost science projects. But the high-powered microwave has been worked on for a long time, for missile defense and also for area denial, to replace mines, and then also reportedly recently to dig out chemical and biological weapons and disable them.

My guess is, that this stuff is not as ready as is being hyped in the media. The idea of putting something that takes a lot of power into a small thing such as a cruise missile, get it through rock and buried and do damage underground may or may not there, but if it's there, we'll probably try it, and we'll try other things that aren't being announced. These are what we call deep black programs, and we'll probably see some of it this time around.

HARRIS: We'll talk more about it in the days to come, no doubt. General Don Shepard, appreciate it. And now also in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I believe it was "Time" magazine in which that piece was done, not "Newsweek." Sorry, folks, there. Thanks, Don.

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 January 28, 2003 - 10:10   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get some perspective now on the decisions facing President Bush and the military leaders who would conduct a war against Iraq, and for that, we turn to CNN military analyst and retired Air Force General Don Shepherd, who's with us in the flesh here in the studio.
Good to see you, again, finally, with your world travels and all.

What do you make of what's happened in the last almost exactly 24 hours from now? Yesterday, we saw Hans Blix give his presentation to the U.N. After that presentation, what do you think about the likelihood of there being a large coalition of major countries joining onboard with the U.S.?

GEN. DON SHEPHERD, (RET.) CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, I don't think you will see a rapid movement of nations to a coalition environment. I think what you're going to see is the president beginning to lay out the case to the American people starting tonight, and then more will be brought out over the coming weeks as we continue to deploy forces, and I see that more people will come on board as this plays out.

Nobody wants to be on the losing side. There's going to be intense diplomatic pressure through the United Nations, but it's going to take some time. It's not going to be quick.

HARRIS: How important is it right now to get a broader coalition, get other countries, say for instance, Turkey, who's been a bit recalcitrant up to this particular point, some other countries in the region actually to come on board? Because It's been made clear, the U.S. has made clear, the U.S. has made clear it's position is, it does need any other countries to help out.

SHEPHERD: Yes, it doesn't need any other countries to help out, but we absolutely want other countries in this coalition. It's particularly important for two reasons. One is the basing. Things can change during the war making basing from different directions very, very important. And Further, not only basing, but our legitimacy in the rule of law through the United Nations and the perceptions about America all over the world. Those two things are really important. So you want a coalition of the willing, and you want as many people on it as possible.

HARRIS: How about afterwards, when it's all said and done, there's no question victory will come to this particular side of it. Whether it's all said and done, there will have to then to be some sort of occupation in Iraq to go ahead and turn things around in that country. If that does happen, and it happens predominantly with the U.S. troops, doesn't that mean it's going to be a huge drag on the U.S. forces here?

SHEPHERD: Yes, because our track record has been, we say we don't want to do nation building, but we go in because nobody else can or will. We were in Bosnia, we were in Kosovo, we were in Afghanistan, and now it looks like we're going to be in Iraq. We may be in other places. And so no matter the fact you don't want to go and stay, we end up doing that. So it's going to fall on us as the military to maintain a security blanket while you working all of this, and it means a larger military and more military expenses over a longer period of time.

HARRIS: Since we brought up the military and the troops, when will this critical mass, the number of troops that will be needed, when do you think they will be there, in position to do something?

SHEPHERD: Well, a couple of things about that. First of all, we have the forces in the region and of course the United States now, if we are attacked, to do anything, and things can cause us to be attacked, such as Saddam moving forces down toward Kuwait, and that type of thing. So we have the forces to protect ourselves and launch attacks. But to do what we're talking about, which is to launch a massive invasion from the north, west and south, and to work the diplomacy, and then go into Baghdad, change the regime, you're probably talking about certainly, certainly no sooner than late February, early March, maybe mid-March around there.

HARRIS: Could that timing window be affected by somewhat by any introduction of new weaponry here? I read about one recently, in "Newsweek" magazine, I want to credit where credit is due here, about a new high-powered microwave, which actually maybe could incapacitate any incoming missiles that might be carrying any biological weapons or whatever on it. And that would mean if that does work, you wouldn't need to wear those heavy chemical suits, which are so hot in the summertime.

SHEPHERD: Yes, great idea. We always introduce new weapons whenever we go to war, and we try them. They're almost science projects. But the high-powered microwave has been worked on for a long time, for missile defense and also for area denial, to replace mines, and then also reportedly recently to dig out chemical and biological weapons and disable them.

My guess is, that this stuff is not as ready as is being hyped in the media. The idea of putting something that takes a lot of power into a small thing such as a cruise missile, get it through rock and buried and do damage underground may or may not there, but if it's there, we'll probably try it, and we'll try other things that aren't being announced. These are what we call deep black programs, and we'll probably see some of it this time around.

HARRIS: We'll talk more about it in the days to come, no doubt. General Don Shepard, appreciate it. And now also in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I believe it was "Time" magazine in which that piece was done, not "Newsweek." Sorry, folks, there. Thanks, Don.

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