Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

U.S. Considers Allowing U.N. Control of International Force

Aired August 28, 2003 - 09:03   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: We want to get right now back to this issue of Iraq. A top State Department official is saying the White House is exploring options right now to get more international troops into Iraq. One plan would put an American commander in charge of a U.N.-sponsored force.
For more on this, our senior White House correspondent live in Crawford, Texas. The president continues his vacation there. Here is John King.

John -- what are they saying? Good morning.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Bill.

Well, if they could pull this off at the United Nations, it would give the administration something it very much wants and, some say, needs -- more international troops on the ground, an opportunity to beef up the force in Iraq a little bit, also an opportunity to rotate out some of those American troops on the ground in Iraq for months now.

But this is still an "if," not a "when." Negotiations at the United Nations to try to get a new resolution that would authorize a multinational force, but a multinational force that would have the blessing of the United Nations but not be under the direct command of the United Nations. It would be a U.S. commander. That is the only way the administration says it could go for this plan.

Those negotiations continuing. Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy, Richard Armitage, talking to Security Council members in New York, trying to come up with language that says the United Nations blesses a multinational force, but would not take the direct command -- none of those blue helmets that you have seen in other peacekeeping missions around the world.

The U.S. would be in charge of this operation. The question is: Will other countries, especially those on the Security Council, put behind them the debates over going to war in the first place, how the administration has conducted the post-war days, in Iraq, and agree to this multinational force? The administration would like to pull it off.

The question, though, Bill, is: Can they do the diplomacy at the United Nations to make it possible?

HEMMER: I'm going to remember the word you threw in there. The word you said was, "if." If indeed it comes to this, possibly late September when they go back to the U.N. and meetings with the Security Council then. However, if that's the case, is the White House saying that it wants more troops in Iraq based on a U.N. cover, a U.N. resolution? If that's the case, how do they balance that view after they've been saying for weeks now that the troop strength there is adequate on the ground?

KING: The administration is not saying it wants or needs more troops now, and it says it would base that decision based on the ground commanders. And the Pentagon and the White House continue to insist that Central Command says it does not need more troops, and the generals in Iraq are saying more troops might mean more targets, not less terrorism.

So, they say right now they do not need more troops. But if you had a scenario where a month or two from now more international troops were beginning to rotate in, what you would likely see in the short term is the troop numbers go up. That the U.S. troops would stay, more international help would come in, and for a short period of time the number would go up at least a modest amount. And then, when everybody was comfortable with the new situation and the transition in of international troops, U.S. troops would begin to rotate out and the numbers would go down.

So, if you get more help, at least in the short term, most U.S. officials think the overall number of troops would go up. But the diplomacy is still going on, Bill. This is in terms of getting more boots on the ground, and if all of this comes to be, it's still a couple of months away at least.

HEMMER: Let's talk about another topic quickly if we can, John -- this whole idea that the White House may want to slash pay raises for federal workers. What's happening there?

KING: The president invoked his authority to do just that yesterday. Past presidents have done this, too, but look for the federal employees' unions, some key members of Congress who represent a lot of federal workers, to complain about this today.

If the president just let things be under the contract, all federal workers covered by what's called the GS scale would get a 2.7 percent raise in January for inflation. Some would also get a locality raise it's called. If you live in a part of the country with high housing costs, you get a bigger raise. Some employees could have been eligible for up to 15 percent raises in January.

The president invoked his authority yesterday to limit those raises to just 2 percent. The president says the country simply cannot afford more now because of the ongoing war against terrorism.

Again, the president has this power. He used it last year as well. Past presidents have used it. But this is likely to cause a bit of a storm, if you will, especially from the labor unions.

HEMMER: John, thank -- John King in Crawford.

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




Force>


Aired August 28, 2003 - 09:03   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: We want to get right now back to this issue of Iraq. A top State Department official is saying the White House is exploring options right now to get more international troops into Iraq. One plan would put an American commander in charge of a U.N.-sponsored force.
For more on this, our senior White House correspondent live in Crawford, Texas. The president continues his vacation there. Here is John King.

John -- what are they saying? Good morning.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Bill.

Well, if they could pull this off at the United Nations, it would give the administration something it very much wants and, some say, needs -- more international troops on the ground, an opportunity to beef up the force in Iraq a little bit, also an opportunity to rotate out some of those American troops on the ground in Iraq for months now.

But this is still an "if," not a "when." Negotiations at the United Nations to try to get a new resolution that would authorize a multinational force, but a multinational force that would have the blessing of the United Nations but not be under the direct command of the United Nations. It would be a U.S. commander. That is the only way the administration says it could go for this plan.

Those negotiations continuing. Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy, Richard Armitage, talking to Security Council members in New York, trying to come up with language that says the United Nations blesses a multinational force, but would not take the direct command -- none of those blue helmets that you have seen in other peacekeeping missions around the world.

The U.S. would be in charge of this operation. The question is: Will other countries, especially those on the Security Council, put behind them the debates over going to war in the first place, how the administration has conducted the post-war days, in Iraq, and agree to this multinational force? The administration would like to pull it off.

The question, though, Bill, is: Can they do the diplomacy at the United Nations to make it possible?

HEMMER: I'm going to remember the word you threw in there. The word you said was, "if." If indeed it comes to this, possibly late September when they go back to the U.N. and meetings with the Security Council then. However, if that's the case, is the White House saying that it wants more troops in Iraq based on a U.N. cover, a U.N. resolution? If that's the case, how do they balance that view after they've been saying for weeks now that the troop strength there is adequate on the ground?

KING: The administration is not saying it wants or needs more troops now, and it says it would base that decision based on the ground commanders. And the Pentagon and the White House continue to insist that Central Command says it does not need more troops, and the generals in Iraq are saying more troops might mean more targets, not less terrorism.

So, they say right now they do not need more troops. But if you had a scenario where a month or two from now more international troops were beginning to rotate in, what you would likely see in the short term is the troop numbers go up. That the U.S. troops would stay, more international help would come in, and for a short period of time the number would go up at least a modest amount. And then, when everybody was comfortable with the new situation and the transition in of international troops, U.S. troops would begin to rotate out and the numbers would go down.

So, if you get more help, at least in the short term, most U.S. officials think the overall number of troops would go up. But the diplomacy is still going on, Bill. This is in terms of getting more boots on the ground, and if all of this comes to be, it's still a couple of months away at least.

HEMMER: Let's talk about another topic quickly if we can, John -- this whole idea that the White House may want to slash pay raises for federal workers. What's happening there?

KING: The president invoked his authority to do just that yesterday. Past presidents have done this, too, but look for the federal employees' unions, some key members of Congress who represent a lot of federal workers, to complain about this today.

If the president just let things be under the contract, all federal workers covered by what's called the GS scale would get a 2.7 percent raise in January for inflation. Some would also get a locality raise it's called. If you live in a part of the country with high housing costs, you get a bigger raise. Some employees could have been eligible for up to 15 percent raises in January.

The president invoked his authority yesterday to limit those raises to just 2 percent. The president says the country simply cannot afford more now because of the ongoing war against terrorism.

Again, the president has this power. He used it last year as well. Past presidents have used it. But this is likely to cause a bit of a storm, if you will, especially from the labor unions.

HEMMER: John, thank -- John King in Crawford.

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




Force>