Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

U.S. Will Have to be Decisive in Iraq

Aired July 31, 2002 - 09:49   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: And right now we are going to check in with Wolf Blitzer, who is standing by at our Washington Bureau to talk a little bit more about the political ramifications of the Senate judiciary hearings that we just dipped into -- good morning again, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, Paula. The fact that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Joe Biden is encouraging the Republican leadership of that committee underscores what he hopes won't become a political debate in this heavy political season before the November elections.

So, one of the ranking Republicans, Richard Lugar, opening up with a statement right now. They will then bring in that first panel, the panel which will assess the actual dangers that they believe the Iraqi regime poses to the United States, to its friends in the region, weapons of mass destruction, of course, biological, chemical, potentially even nuclear, according to the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

And as we all know yesterday, Rumsfeld made clear he's not very optimistic that even if those U.N. weapons inspection teams should be allowed to go back into Iraq -- they've been gone for almost four years -- they would be able to do much given the Iraqi capability over these past few years to conceal their laboratories, and he also released information for the first time publicly that the Iraqis may be developing mobile units to move around biological weapons that would not necessarily be targeted -- easily targeted by U.S. air power.

In effect setting the stage for what seems to be an almost inevitable desire by at least several high-ranking Bush administration officials to go with a full-scale military assault against Saddam Hussein to engage in what they call "regime change."

ZAHN: So Wolf, what is -- what are the political consequences of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee taking on these hearing at a time when most of the public polls would suggest -- or at least the latest "Wall Street Journal-NBC" poll -- that 54 percent of Americans support the way the president is looking into the possibility of an attack on Iraq. You know, you have got Democrats out there, some of whom are sensitive to the issue of some of their opposition to the Gulf War. How is that all going to play out politically? BLITZER: Well, there's a desire on the part of many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indeed many members of the Senate Democrats and even Republicans, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, being a leading spokesman on the Republican side, that the country, the American public, deserves a thorough debate of all of these issue before, perhaps, a quarter of a million U.S. military forces, men and women, are ordered to engage in war against Iraq, that before the United States undertakes that kind of action with, of course, a lot of people remembering Vietnam in the 60s as an example that the Congress has a responsibility to thoroughly debate these issues, let the best minds come forward. Right now, minds, former officials, military, diplomatic, other officials, experts, come before the Congress and testify.

But subsequently, in weeks to come, as Senator Biden just said, the administration will be sending representatives from the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence community to testify and discuss what they can discuss in open public session. There will be closed, classified briefings as well. The last thing the Pentagon will want to do is release war plans that could potentially aid Saddam Hussein. But there will be a debate, and that debate is beginning today.

ZAHN: Let's bring General Wesley Clark in the discussion now. Good morning, general.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Good so see you, again. We have seen a number of plans leaked, potential plans leaked to newspapers over the last couple of weeks. We have talked about the inside out plans, striking Baghdad first, trying to destroy the command-and-control centers, and toppling Saddam Hussein at the whole time -- at the same time. Of all of these plans that you have seen, which do you think have the most resonance with the administration at this point?

CLARK: Well, I think the administration is going to have to pick the plan that's decisive, And ultimately, that's going to be all of those plans. There's going to be agents on the ground, there are going to be Iraqis that are armed and trained. There are going to be strikes on command-and-control centers, and there is going to have to be a substantial ground component because once an operation like this begins, the greatest risk, the greatest problem would be if you weren't successful. So at the time you have weighed all the risks, you have made the decision to launch. Go all the way. Get the job done. Get it done right. Finish it. So I think it will be a very heavy option.

ZAHN: And, Wolf, take us behind the scenes of the amount of discord among Pentagon officials and how that has run over to the administration as well.

BLITZER: It's interesting, I think General Clark will agree with me on this point. The political leadership of the Bush administration, whether the secretary of defense, Rumsfeld, the deputy secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, others within the White House like Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, they may be the most -- quote -- "hawkish" when it comes to Saddam Hussein and trying to overthrow his regime. The military establishment, some of the top generals, including at the central command, which would be in charge of this kind of an operation, are a lot more cautious. They're worried about what might happen. Of course, if the president orders them into action, they will snap to attention and do what they are ordered to do, but I would be curious, General Clark, tell our viewers why you think some of those military generals are a bit more cautious than the political leadership?

CLARK: The military leaders -- they know very well what can go wrong in an operation like this. They understand that you could put in a force into Baghdad and an aircraft could get shot down. You could lose communications. You could not get the support in it needs, and if you have couple of small losses and a big setback in world opinion, looks like the United States isn't winning, then what? And so if they're told to do a mission, they are going to work their way through the mission, and give the most complete plan that they can, the one that has got the best chance of succeeding. That's not going to be the one that's necessarily the lightest or the easiest to sell politically, and so the military is on the horns of a dilemma here. They want to do what the commander in chief wants, but they know what military science and military art requires. They are going to give their best military judgment, and sometimes that's not always politically acceptable.

ZAHN: Well, gentlemen, we are going to have to leave it there at this hour. General Wesley Clark, appreciate your joining us. Wolf Blitzer, good to see you again in the morning.

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