Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With James Dobbins

Aired July 15, 2003 - 08:05   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Post-war operations have proven to be deadly difficult for Americans in Iraq. The Pentagon says additional troops may be needed to help contain the resistance. The cost of that reconstruction is a burden the U.S. wants to share, but who is willing to pitch in with money and with military power?
Good questions.

James Dobbins, director of the International Security & Defense Policy Center at Rand is our guest now in D.C.

Sir, good morning.

Welcome to AMERICAN MORNING.

JAMES DOBBINS, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE POLICY CENTER, RAND: Good morning.

HEMMER: You believe more troops are necessary. How many, with 145,000 right now in that country?

DOBBINS: I don't think there's an easy answer. If you set the number of troops we had in Bosnia and Kosovo as a standard and tried to replicate that for Iraq, you would come up with a figure of around 500,000. That's clearly an unrealistic number. We're not going to get anything close to that. But it does suggest that more than we currently have, maybe as much as twice what we currently have, would be desirable. And history does suggest that the stronger the force, the stabilization force, the lower the casualties.

HEMMER: So you're saying 300,000 would be suitable and right for this?

DOBBINS: I wouldn't pose any particular number. I do believe that the current number is probably inadequate and it probably needs to be increased significantly.

HEMMER: Let's talk about pulling in other countries into this current effort. You believe that if you do that, the violence goes down.

Why so convinced of that?

DOBBINS: Well, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the size of the peacekeeping force and the number of casualties that it suffers and, indeed, the number of casualties it has to inflict. In countries in which we've gone in heavy with very large peacekeeping forces as a proportion of the overall population, like Germany after WWII or Bosnia or Kosovo more recently, we've had no casualties whatsoever, not a single one.

In countries where we've gone in more lightly, with smaller forces, such as Somalia and Afghanistan, we suffered continuous low level, but nevertheless, continuous casualties.

HEMMER: Again, why do you believe that is?

Let me throw out some numbers for you. You had some work in the Balkans. Eighty percent of the troops in Bosnia are not American. In Kosovo, 84 percent of the troops are not American. In Iraq, you have more than 90 percent of the troops working right now in that country are American.

Why is it that if you share the wealth internationally that, you believe, the result is different?

DOBBINS: Well, I think that we're not going to get the higher figures that we ideally should have unless we bring in more countries and expand the coalition in Iraq beyond the relatively limited coalition that actually fought the war. There simply aren't enough resources within the American and the British arsenals to man this operation and to fund it at the levels it's ultimately going to require.

HEMMER: India apparently was going to offer 17,000 troops. The prime minister has rejected that.

What's the significance of that movement?

DOBBINS: I think there's a delicate balance between control and participation. On the one hand, the United States needs to maintain adequate control of this operation to keep it on course and moving forward. On the other hand, we need broader participation and to do that we're going to have to share authority with countries that contribute, which means we're going to have to use institutions that they and we belong to, like, in the case of Europe, NATO; like the World Bank and like the United Nations.

HEMMER: And we'll see if...

DOBBINS: I think we're only going to get broader participation if we're prepared to share responsibility more widely than we have so far.

HEMMER: Let me hit you on one more thing here. Last hour we were talking about the possibility of the new norm for the U.S. military. You go back to the days of Vietnam, being away for a year or even two years was not unusual at all. If you look at the movement from the Pentagon from yesterday, members of the 3rd I.D. will now stay well past September, which puts them away from home at a minimum of 12 months, maybe 14, possibly 15 or longer.

Is this a new norm for the U.S. military given the amount of involvement in Afghanistan, in Iraq and other places, maybe even like Liberia in the very near future?

DOBBINS: Well, it's too early to call it a norm. But I think that the demands on the U.S. military have increased very significantly over the last couple of years. And in Iraq, where you have nearly one third of the U.S. Army currently stationed, you're in a situation where virtually everyone in the Army is either in Iraq or on his way to Iraq or on his way back from Iraq. And that's likely to continue as long as we need to station what amounts to a third of the Army in or around Iraq.

HEMMER: James Dobbins our guest in D.C., thanks, from Rand down in Washington.

Appreciate it today.

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 July 15, 2003 - 08:05   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Post-war operations have proven to be deadly difficult for Americans in Iraq. The Pentagon says additional troops may be needed to help contain the resistance. The cost of that reconstruction is a burden the U.S. wants to share, but who is willing to pitch in with money and with military power?
Good questions.

James Dobbins, director of the International Security & Defense Policy Center at Rand is our guest now in D.C.

Sir, good morning.

Welcome to AMERICAN MORNING.

JAMES DOBBINS, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE POLICY CENTER, RAND: Good morning.

HEMMER: You believe more troops are necessary. How many, with 145,000 right now in that country?

DOBBINS: I don't think there's an easy answer. If you set the number of troops we had in Bosnia and Kosovo as a standard and tried to replicate that for Iraq, you would come up with a figure of around 500,000. That's clearly an unrealistic number. We're not going to get anything close to that. But it does suggest that more than we currently have, maybe as much as twice what we currently have, would be desirable. And history does suggest that the stronger the force, the stabilization force, the lower the casualties.

HEMMER: So you're saying 300,000 would be suitable and right for this?

DOBBINS: I wouldn't pose any particular number. I do believe that the current number is probably inadequate and it probably needs to be increased significantly.

HEMMER: Let's talk about pulling in other countries into this current effort. You believe that if you do that, the violence goes down.

Why so convinced of that?

DOBBINS: Well, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the size of the peacekeeping force and the number of casualties that it suffers and, indeed, the number of casualties it has to inflict. In countries in which we've gone in heavy with very large peacekeeping forces as a proportion of the overall population, like Germany after WWII or Bosnia or Kosovo more recently, we've had no casualties whatsoever, not a single one.

In countries where we've gone in more lightly, with smaller forces, such as Somalia and Afghanistan, we suffered continuous low level, but nevertheless, continuous casualties.

HEMMER: Again, why do you believe that is?

Let me throw out some numbers for you. You had some work in the Balkans. Eighty percent of the troops in Bosnia are not American. In Kosovo, 84 percent of the troops are not American. In Iraq, you have more than 90 percent of the troops working right now in that country are American.

Why is it that if you share the wealth internationally that, you believe, the result is different?

DOBBINS: Well, I think that we're not going to get the higher figures that we ideally should have unless we bring in more countries and expand the coalition in Iraq beyond the relatively limited coalition that actually fought the war. There simply aren't enough resources within the American and the British arsenals to man this operation and to fund it at the levels it's ultimately going to require.

HEMMER: India apparently was going to offer 17,000 troops. The prime minister has rejected that.

What's the significance of that movement?

DOBBINS: I think there's a delicate balance between control and participation. On the one hand, the United States needs to maintain adequate control of this operation to keep it on course and moving forward. On the other hand, we need broader participation and to do that we're going to have to share authority with countries that contribute, which means we're going to have to use institutions that they and we belong to, like, in the case of Europe, NATO; like the World Bank and like the United Nations.

HEMMER: And we'll see if...

DOBBINS: I think we're only going to get broader participation if we're prepared to share responsibility more widely than we have so far.

HEMMER: Let me hit you on one more thing here. Last hour we were talking about the possibility of the new norm for the U.S. military. You go back to the days of Vietnam, being away for a year or even two years was not unusual at all. If you look at the movement from the Pentagon from yesterday, members of the 3rd I.D. will now stay well past September, which puts them away from home at a minimum of 12 months, maybe 14, possibly 15 or longer.

Is this a new norm for the U.S. military given the amount of involvement in Afghanistan, in Iraq and other places, maybe even like Liberia in the very near future?

DOBBINS: Well, it's too early to call it a norm. But I think that the demands on the U.S. military have increased very significantly over the last couple of years. And in Iraq, where you have nearly one third of the U.S. Army currently stationed, you're in a situation where virtually everyone in the Army is either in Iraq or on his way to Iraq or on his way back from Iraq. And that's likely to continue as long as we need to station what amounts to a third of the Army in or around Iraq.

HEMMER: James Dobbins our guest in D.C., thanks, from Rand down in Washington.

Appreciate it today.

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