Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Largest Air Assault in Iraq Since Start of War;
Aired March 16, 2006 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: To our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information from around the world are arriving all the time.
Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you today's top stories.
Happening now, it's 1:00 a.m. in Iraq, where U.S. forces at this hour are on the hunt for insurgents in the biggest airborne assault since the war started. Why did it take so long?
Can Iraq avoid a civil war? Do Iraqis even want to stay together as one country? I will ask former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. She's standing by live.
And it's 5:00 p.m. here in Washington, where the White House says Iran may be the next big threat. A national security blueprint reserves the right for a first strike. Could Iran be the next target?
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Three years after the start of the war in Iraq, U.S. forces are carrying out the largest air assault operation there to date. Right now, newly released pictures from the front lines, as U.S. and Iraqi troops search for insurgents near Samarra, where last month's bombing of a Shiite mosque triggered a wave of sectarian violence.
For this developing story, our senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, is standing by in Baghdad.
But let's go straight to the Pentagon. Barbara Star has got the latest details -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the operation continues ongoing. It is expected to last for several days.
Operation Swarmer, 1,500 troops, pretty much evenly split between U.S. and Iraqi forces, led by the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division. This is your standard airborne assault.
There were about 50 helicopters used to bring in these troops. They came in, mostly by helicopter. Some ground vehicles involved to maintain that tactical surprise.
This is a 10-square-mile area near Samarra, rural, spread out. By all accounts, they are moving through these dispersed village areas looking for insurgents.
What we are told is that it is Iraqis who came up with the intelligence that insurgents might be in this area. Then the mission was planned, training began several days ago. Some of the initial pictures we got were of the training mission some seven days back or so to get ready for all of this.
It is the hope, certainly, of the U.S. military that the Iraqis will prove themselves on this mission, but the question, Wolf, is, will this make any difference to the ongoing sectarian violence in the country? Even today, General Abizaid said the number one issue is to get a new national unity government seated to take control and prove to the Iraqi people that it can control their country -- Wolf.
BLITZER: An air assault -- I just want our viewers not to be confused -- is different than air strikes. An air assault, you have these paratroopers who are going in via helicopter, by and large, then they get on the ground and go in their vehicles. We're not talking about massive air strikes right now, are we?
STARR: Absolutely not, Wolf. You are exactly right.
This is not air strikes. This is not aerial bombardment. An air assault is used to maintain surprise.
They came in -- they were picked up, came by helicopter, came to this location, were dropped off and then moved closer in by truck. But all accounts -- I think Nic will describe more -- they are doing cordons and sweeps. They have set up perimeters on the ground so they can control the movement of people, people moving in, people moving out, so they can go through, try to locate any insurgents, any weapons, any fake uniforms and fake IDs. That is something they are looking for because they have had many incidences now where people have worn those fake uniforms to try and pass themselves off as Iraqi police, and then launched attacks.
So it's that kind of material that they are looking for. If they go in on foot, if they go in on the ground, they can be much more precise. And certainly the hope is they will limit any civilian casualties -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Barbara, thank you very much.
Barbara's at the Pentagon.
Is this airborne operation aimed at those who may be instigating the sectarian violence in Iraq? Does it signal a wider crackdown?
Our senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, is on the scene in Baghdad with more.
You have answers to those questions, Nic?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, I think we have some answers. We talked to a resident of the area, just close to where the operation is going on a few hours ago. He said that he could hear some detonations, perhaps one every 10 minutes or so, he described at that time, several hours ago. But what he told us was very revealing.
He said the area that is being cordoned off at the moment is an area belonging to a tribe that is known locally to be sympathetic to the insurgency. He said that local people believe that there were foreign fighters in the area. He said people thought they had even seen Afghan fighters in that particular area. But the tribe there, sympathetic to insurgents.
And that is what we had been told by Iraqi security sources; they say that in that area, there are Arab fighters they describe them, and Iraqi insurgents. They say in that area that those insurgents have been setting up checkpoints, looting people at those checkpoints, killing other people. Indeed they say the three journalists who were covering the shine when it was blown up a couple of weeks ago in the town of Samarra, were taken to that area and killed in that particular area.
So where the 101st Airborne is focusing on right now with this ten-by-ten mile square area, this is, according to local people at least, the right area to be in for sweeping, looking for insurgents in this area. But so far as we've been told by the 101st Airborne, no insurgents discovered so far, no shootouts, and no casualties so far, Wolf.
BLITZER: Have they given you an explanation, the U.S. military in Baghdad, Nic, why they didn't allow any American journalists to be embedded in this operation?
ROBERTSON: Well, Wolf, what we have seen recently is a rotation of troops coming in and out of Iraq. The 101st Airborne -- this appears to be one of their biggest -- well, their biggest operation, clearly, since they arrived here. They haven't been in this particular area for very long now.
What typically happens is we tend to develop relationships with troops on the ground and we get, perhaps, an inkling something may happen. If we can, we head out to those areas in advance. That didn't happen this time. Was it because we didn't have the connections or was it because we weren't informed, because there was a need to keep this particular operation quiet? That's not clear.
But certainly, we've only heard of one journalist being along for the ride, and as far as we know, that journalist not with a major news organization, Wolf.
BLITZER: Do you know which news organization it is?
ROBERTSON: Wolf, I don't at this time. We're anticipating joining the operation in several hours so, we do hope to get a much closer look at what's going on, and have a much better idea, ourselves, on the ground, with the 101st Airborne. BLITZER: That would be excellent. Have to get our own people on the ground to see what's going on, bring our viewers the videotape, and the pictures, the interviews, the images, as we see them. Thanks, Nic, very much. Nic Robertson on the scene in Baghdad.
Can this kind of military operation quell the overall chaos, though, in Iraq? Should the United States just cut its losses and leave?
Coming up, I'll speak live with the former U.S. secretary of state, Madeleine Albright. She is standing by here in the THE SITUATION ROOM.
In our CNN "Security Watch," while U.S. troops are on the offensive in Iraq right now, is the White House looking ahead to the next threat? Today, it released a major strategy blueprint which says Iran may be America's greatest security challenge and it's sticking to a doctrine of preemptive strikes. Could that mean a future attack against Iran's nuclear program?
CNN's Brian Todd is standing by -- but let's go to our national security correspondent, David Ensor for more. David?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, most analysts believe that an effective military strike against Iran's nuclear program is hard to imagine. Administration officials today said the new National Security Strategy they unveiled is not aimed at Iran in particular.
But nonetheless, many may see it that way.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR (Voice-over): It is the first revision of the National Security Strategy since the Iraq war. But despite all the problems there, Bush adviser Stephen Hadley made clear the president is not reconsidering his doctrine of preemptive war.
STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The doctrine of preemption remains sound, and must remain an integral part of our National Security Strategy.
ENSOR: Restating that doctrine now is not aimed at Iran in particular, Hadley insisted. But that is the way world will see it, say critics.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The administration has a big stick, but it also is carrying things a little bit too strongly in terms of its rhetoric. If we want Iran to forego nuclear ambitions weapons, the way I think we have to do it is through quiet diplomacy.
ENSOR: As for Iran's latest offer of direct talks with the U.S., Hadley was cool to it.
HADLEY: When you talk about saying, Let's have bilateral diplomatic contacts, you have to ask yourself whether that is going to serve the overall interest, or is it, in fact, going to break the international consensus and suggest to Iran that they have an alternative way, other than responding to the demands of the international community.
ENSOR: But some critics question the motive behind refusing direct talks with Tehran.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will not touch the Iranians. Why not? Are we perhaps trying to prevent a compromise? Do we really want Iran to desist, or do we want to drive it into extremism?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Well, the administration stands by its doctrine of preemptive intervention. Hadley did say that next time, one thing needs to be different: better intelligence -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much. David Ensor reporting.
So, how would a preemptive strike against Iran unfold? It turns out there are several possible scenarios.
CNN's Brian Todd has been looking into this part of the story. What have you come up with?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Several possible scenarios indeed, Wolf, but according to the experts we spoke to, none that wouldn't be dangerous and very costly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice-over): With the White House chorus against Iran growing.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECY. OF STATE: We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
TODD: And with the administration reinforcing its preemptive strike option, the question now, how would Iran be targeted?
Retired war planner Colonel Sam Gardner (ph) dropped a war game for the "Atlantic Monthly Magazine" in 2004. He presented three options: a conventional attack on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, using primarily air strikes; a so-called regime change option, targeting the leadership.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Special operation would come from Afghanistan, maybe come Azerbaijan, and ten the bulk of the ground force would come from Iraq in this option.
TODD: And what Gardner says is the most commonly discussed option, striking some of Iran's nuclear facilities. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That would probably be about a three-day air campaign, with aircraft like the B-2, cruise missiles fired from ships and aircraft, and we could go after the facilities we know about.
TODD: If the hits were successful, Gardner says, Iran's nuclear capabilities would be set back a few years. Military analysts we spoke to believe a conventional attack using ground forces would be difficult, because of mountainous terrain in southern and western Iran. American bases in now in neighboring Iraq provide shorter striking distances, but any response by Iran might tax already thin U.S. combat units.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Iranians can do the math. They see that we are tied down in Iraq. They see that we are tied down in Afghanistan. They see that we're tied down in North Korea.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: And experts say Iran's retaliation could be devastating with a standing army of hundreds of thousands of troops and an already sophisticated chemical and biological warfare program.
Analysts say Iran could then wreak havoc on the world's oil supply, not only for the U.S. and its allies but for countries like China which might then bring about its own economic retaliation against the United States -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Brian, thank you very much.
And to our viewers, stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Time now for Jack Cafferty and "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Wolf. You would think for as much publicity as it's getting, the Pentagon could have come up with a better name than Operation Swarmer. It's the target air assault operation in Iraq since the invasion three years ago. The target is suspected insurgents and the American television audience.
Meanwhile, Americans are growing more pessimistic about this undertaking, the war. A new poll shows only 22 percent of us believe the U.S. is sure to win in Iraq. Sixty percent say that things are going poorly, and 55 percent say Iraq is headed for chaos civil war.
Here's the question. What's the symbolism of the largest air assault in Iraq in three years? E-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@cnn.com, or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile.
BLITZER: You are about to be swarmed with e-mail, Jack.
CAFFERTY: That's a really dumb name, Operation Swarmer. What does that mean?
BLITZER: Swarm, you know, to swarm.
CAFFERTY: It's stupid.
BLITZER: We'll look it up.
CAFFERTY: I don't like it.
BLITZER: Thanks, Jack.
Up ahead, concerns over computers at the Homeland Security Department. How secure are they? Our Internet reporters are working the story. We're going to tell you what they're finding.
Also, troubled times for President Bush, but Democrats can't seem to gain any ground, either. Would it could mean for the midterm election.
And straight ahead, Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state. She's standing by to join us live, right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: U.S. troops today are engaged in the biggest air assault operation since the start of the war in Iraq, but have Americans had enough? Our latest poll asked if the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over.
When the war started, 68 percent said yes. Now that number, only 37 percent saying it was worth it, 60 percent saying it was not. So, where do things go from here? Joining us from New York is the former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright.
Madam Secretary, thanks very much for joining us.
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECY. OF STATE: Good to be with you, Wolf.
BLITZER: What do you say? Was it worth it, going to war in Iraq?
ALBRIGHT: Well, it is certainly is good that Saddam Hussein is gone, but I honestly think that the incompetence in which the post invasion plans were put together, and the chaos that is now existing in Iraq makes one really question it, and the over 2,000 American lives that have been lost.
I think it would have been worth it if it were planned properly. I thought that this was a war of choice but the truth is, the planning of it, and the carrying out of it has been incompetent. And it's our troops that are the brilliant part of this, but the Washington planning of it has not worked.
BLITZER: The air assault operation underway right now, Operation Swarmer, it's a joint U.S.-Iraqi military campaign to try to deal with insurgents north of Baghdad. I assume you think this is good that Iraqi forces now maybe up to speed, are getting ready to cooperate with U.S. forces in these kinds of operations? ALBRIGHT: Well, it is. That's the idea. We have to see how much they are really doing and how up to speed they are. I hope it is well coordinated. As I say, I have a great deal of confidence in our troops.
I was listening to your report. They so far haven't found insurgents, so I hope very much that the coincidence of this being the third anniversary of the beginning of the war and the finding of intelligence to launch this Swarmer Operation really produces the insurgents.
BLITZER: Well, are you suggesting or implying that there may be some political motive in launching this operation?
ALBRIGHT: No, I just think it is a very interesting day. The operation, the putting out of the national security strategy, the president going out. I admire the coordination.
BLITZER: So it is sort of like changing the subject, is that what you are saying?
ALBRIGHT: I hope that this all works, because I have great faith in the military.
BLITZER: But it would be pretty devastating if the U.S. military and American lives were put on the line, put in danger to try to help the president politically, because that's the implication of what I hear you saying.
ALBRIGHT: No, I am not saying that. I think that they have managed to have an important day in terms of putting out the national security strategy, and putting this Operation Swarmer into place. I hope that the intelligence matches what they are trying to do. I admire the military.
BLITZER: Let me read to you from the new national security strategy, this segment, on Iraq. "This administration inherited an Iraq threat that was unresolved. We have no doubt that the world is a better place for the removal of this dangerous and unpredictable tyrant, and we have no doubt that the world is better off if tyrants know that if they pursue WMD, weapons of mass destruction, at their own peril." Basically, they're suggesting they inherited this problem from you, from the Clinton administration.
ALBRIGHT: They inherited a sanctions regime that had Saddam Hussein in a box. We now know that he did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and so, they inherited quite a different situation, and as I've said, this was a war of choice, not of necessity. There was not an imminent threat, and the administration should have kept its eye on the ball on Afghanistan, which is far from finished, as you know, Wolf. There have been greater and greater problems in Afghanistan, despite the efforts of President Karzai.
BLITZER: Listen to what General John Abizaid, the military central commander, said as he testified yesterday, before Congress. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENERAL JOHN ABIZAID, MILITARY CENTRAL COMMANDER: I believe that we are not on the verge of a civil war. I believe that the sectarian issues are controllable, and I believe that the government of national unity will emerge, and I believe that the Iraqi security forces will continue to improve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you agree with him on all those points, because they're pretty upbeat?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I hope he's right. It certainly doesn't look as though the problems among the various groups in Iraq are being resolved. I hope very much that the political situation can evolve in that way, because despite the Operation Swarmer, there is not a military solution to all of this. And the political process has to go forward. I was very interested to see that our ambassador there is going to be able to talk to the Iranians about some of this, because they clearly have a growing influence in the area, and I hope very much that that happens.
BLITZER: Well I know that Ambassador Khalilzad is authorized to speak to Iranians. He told me last Sunday that hasn't started yet. I want to read to you a quote from Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, someone who worked with you, you know him. He know as lot about countries that disintegrate into various ethnic, sectarian violence, based on his experience in the Balkans. "Rather than the folly of continuing a course of action of holding a country together where the residents clearly don't want it, we would do much better to have a managed breakup." He's referring now to a managed breakup potentially of Iraq, Shiite/Sunni/Kurd. Is that a smart strategy?
ALBRIGHT: Well I know that Ambassador Galbraith has talked about that. I think that there might be huge unintended consequences to that, because the Kurds, obviously there are Kurds in other countries, in Turkey, and Iran, Azerbaijan, various places -- and that would create a knock-on effect on that.
The south would just enlarge its power with Iran, and I'm very worried that a breakup of the country would create that kind of momentum. I hope, and wish that there's some way to have a unified, centralized government, with a certain amount of autonomous power for the various regions, but I personally would be worried about the unintended consequences.
BLITZER: Let's talk about the strategy of preemptive strikes, reaffirmed by the administration today in its national security strategy in this document. It says this, "there are a few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self- defense."
Do you support this policy of preemptive strikes?
ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, every country does have a right to self defense. I think the problem has been in creating a doctrine out of it and making it possible for other countries to think about it.
What they are talking about is prevention of war. I think the part that is the real Achilles Heel of the whole aspect of this is inaccurate intelligence, and that is what worries me, is that putting this kind of inherent right to self defense out as a doctrine, without having proper intelligence, I think is very worrisome.
I don't think the doctrine as stated has gone over particularly well. I don't think it has made us any safer, and I'm surprised that they have reiterated it in this way, in this document.
By the way, Wolf, I teach a course on national security, and my students have been wondering, where is the national security strategy document? We've still been working off 2002. They were supposed to issue it once a year. So I'm really glad that I now have something new to give my students.
BLITZER: It's almost 40 pages, they'll have something to read. I read it earlier today. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, thanks for joining us.
ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Wolf.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Coming up next, new developments in the CIA leak case. Why lawyers for the vice president's former chief-of-staff are sending subpoenas to reporters.
Plus, troubled times all around Washington. Can President Bush turn around his political fortunes? If not, can Democrats take advantage? We're going to show you the political lay of the land. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A major air offensive under way right now in Iraq, the largest air assault operation since the start of the war. We'll have more on that coming up shortly. First though, let's go to Zain Verjee once again at the CNN Center for a closer look at other stories making news. Zain?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, just minutes ago, we learned that Zacarias Moussaoui's lawyers have officially filed papers supporting a court decision to severely limit the government's case. The prosecution has asked the judge to reconsider that decision. Today, the TSA placed Carla Martin, the government lawyer accused of improperly contacting witnesses on the case, on administrative leave with pay. As you say exclusively here in THE SITUATION ROOM last hour, Martin's attorney is now firing back. He says Martin is being, quote, "vilified for her alleged misconduct." They are playing basketball in San Diego's Cox Arena right now, but just a little bit earlier, a bomb scare delayed the arrival of March Madness to San Diego for about an hour. NCAA tournament officials say fans were evacuated when a bomb-sniffing dog detected a suspicious package. Police later gave the all clear.
Lawyers for Lewis Libby are subpoenaing documents from "The New York Times," "Time," magazine and three reporters. It could signal another standoff between the news media and the courts over the Valerie Plame affair. Former "Times" reporter Judith Miller was jailed last summer for refusing to reveal sources to investigators looking into who revealed Plame's identity as a CIA officer. Libby, the former chief-of-staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, is accused of perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators. Wolf?
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Zain.
You'd think these would be heady days for Democrats here in Washington. The president's poll numbers are at an all-time low, and the White House seems to be bouncing from crisis to crisis. Despite that, Democrats can't seem to gain any traction, at least, not yet. Our senior national correspondent John Roberts is here in THE SITUATION ROOM with more on the story -- John?
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon to you, Wolf. With his poll numbers in the mid 30s doldrums, people are asking how can President Bush pull himself out of the hole that he's in and improve Republican fortunes for November? As one Republican told me, there may not be an answer to that question.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: It is a sharp second term downturn, not unlike what Ronald Reagan suffered in his sixth year. Ken Duberstein was part of the team brought in to resurrect that White House.
KEN DUBERSTEIN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: I think, you know, he's in a pickle on Iraq right now. He and his team keep saying that we're making progress, and yet the TV screens show all of the bombs going off and all these bodies being buried, et cetera.
ROBERTS: President Reagan recovered from the Iran Contra scandal by shaking up his staff, focusing on a series of small victories. President Bush is being urged to do the same, but it may be far more difficult to dig out from an increasingly unpopular war.
DUBERSTEIN: It's not just saying we have a plan for victory, but need to spell it out so that the American people have a buy-in. It's getting awfully late for that.
ROBERTS: The president is politically wounded, yet Democrats are still having problems gaining traction with voters. The chief reason? For years, says party chairman Howard Dean, they haven't had a forcefully articulated, clear message.
HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I think, over the years, we have not understood that when the American people want change, we have to provide them with a vehicle for change. What we are now doing is position the Democratic Party as an agent of change.
ROBERTS: But can that strategy ignite a 1994-style upheaval, when Republicans reversed decades of Democrat control in Congress?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democrats are looking at 1994 as their model. And they're missing one essential piece, and that essential piece in Newt Gingrich. In 1994, we only had one guy leading the parade.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: While the poll numbers are beginning to move up, many Democrats are concerned about a leadership deficit. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are seen as competent managers, but not compelling, not the types to lead a voter revolution -- Wolf?
BLITZER: John, thanks very much. John Roberts reporting
And to our viewers, remember, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where political news is arriving all the time. CNN, America's campaign headquarters
Coming up, the price of oil and the price of gasoline going up, up, up. We're going to tell you why.
And it's the biggest airborne assault since the start of the war in Iraq. Some are asking, "What took so long?" I'll ask someone was there from day one, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General James "Spider" Marks. He's standing by live here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Back to our top story now, the powerful air assault operation launched today by U.S. and Iraqi forces against insurgent targets near Samarra. It's the biggest such operation since the start of the war. Here's a question. Why now?
Joining us now, our military analyst, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General James "Spider" Marks. He's a former top military intelligence officer in Iraq. You were there from the beginning. Is this the way to go after insurgents, with an air assault operation like this?
BRIG. GEN. JAMES MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Wolf, this is precisely how you want to do it. This is based on very clear intelligence probably provided by Iraqis predominantly. And you go after, very precisely, a very vulnerable target. And then you can eliminate that as a sanctuary for the insurgents, or whoever wants to use it.
BLITZER: So walk us through the process. You've got these paratroopers, these combat assault teams. They come in on helicopters. They get off the helicopter. And then what? MARKS: Well, it's more than just a helicopter ride. I've got to tell you. This is not a helicopter ride to an objective. This is an air assault where a lot of planning takes place in advance. What the air assault capabilities provide you is a lot of tactical flexibility to maneuver that force as the situation changes before you set down.
Once you set down, you are going to assemble combat power as best you can for whatever task you have, whether that's rescue someone or whether that's to go to destroy someone. You coalesce on the objective. In other words, you're kind of dispersed initially, and then you coalesce and you swarm as the operation connotes onto a very precise target.
BLITZER: Well, talk about swarm. What does that exactly mean in this context?
MARKS: What you're going to see, and what we will probably see after the fact when we starting doing the after-action reviews on this, is the U.S. military and the Iraqis together work very, very closely. You come in from multiple angles onto targets. You come together on the ground very precisely, and then teams will go after very precise targets very much based on what's called actionable intelligence.
BLITZER: What is the job of the Iraqis who are part of this mission, and the job of the U.S. forces, the Army commandos, if you will? Can they talk to each other? Do they have the language skills to talk to each other?
MARKS: The short answer is yes. They're going to cooperate very, very closely. The key to all of this -- well, first of all the Iraqis have in place infantry. I mean, this is a combat arms operation that's taking play. U.S. infantry air assault forces, Iraqi ground infantry forces working very closely together.
Once on the ground, you will have a mix of units. But most likely, you'll have Iraqi units with U.S. liaison teams embedded with those units, and Iraqi units embedded as liaison teams in the U.S. So you have immediate exchange of combat information.
BLITZER: What I'm worried about, I'm sure a lot of commanders are worried about, friendly fire. You've got Iraqi forces who are nervous, presumably. They haven't had a lot of experience in this kind of cooperative venture with U.S. forces, American troops going out there, seeing Iraqis. There is a potential for disaster.
MARKS: Sure. There's always a potential for collateral damage and fratricide. But that's why you do the exchange of those liaison teams up front, and you train in advance. It's not like picking up somebody five minutes before you get on the helicopter and you take off. I mean, these have been normally for some time in advance of this operation.
BLITZER: Who makes the decision not to bring along embedded American journalists, the U.S. media, to come along. Because you know, from day one, you were there in Iraq. American journalists were allowed to go in as embedded reporters.
MARKS: Yes, U.S. journalists and all international journalists are embedded throughout the four nations.
BLITZER: Because in this particular case -- apparently, Nic Robertson said there may have been one, but there certainly, as far as we can tell, haven't been any TV reporters or TV camera crews. All the video we're seeing is DOD, Department of Defense, U.S. military video.
MARKS: May view is that decision -- I don't know the short answer to that question. But my view is that decision was probably delegated down to the very lowest level. And the tactical commanders on the ground probably made a decision not to embed reporters because of the element of surprise. They didn't want anything to leak before this large operation.
BLITZER: But they trusted reporters at the beginning of the war, which was a lot bigger military operation than this operation.
MARKS: I completely concur. I can only draw the comparison that before the war, those embedded reporters were there for quite some time. You would think that they would have embedded reporters routinely with these units, and they would make this operation to them. But I can't answer your question.
BLITZER: Here's a quick question, from this new book, "Cobra Two," written by guys a couple guys who were here in THE SITUATION ROOM yesterday. It's a book telling the story of the entire war, how it unfolded. And you know them, Bernard Trainor, the lieutenant general of the U.S. Marine Corps, retired, Michael Gordon of "The New York Times."
In the book, you're quoted as saying this, and you were there from the beginning. "My position is that we lost momentum and that the insurgency was not inevitable." Do you want to explain what you meant?
MARKS: Sure. Absolutely. The insurgency was not inevitable back in March and April of '03. There were initial indicators that we were going to have unrest in the cities. And you needed to have -- and this is important, Wolf. You needed to have more combat power available on the ground for those unknowns. There was a lot we didn't know.
And I was a senior intel guy. And I will admit that there was a lot I didn't understand about the Iraqi resistance and the depth of what I called the fear factor, how the normal Iraqi citizen would stand up and take action against the U.S. armored formation, knowing with certainty that he was going to die.
So the initial indicators were there, but they could have been eliminated. And the way you do that is you deny sanctuary to those burgeoning insurgents. And the way you do that is you don't give them sanctuary in the population. So you've got to convince the population, those that would harbor bad guys, it's a better deal to stay on the side of the coalition forces than it is to harbor the bad guys.
BLITZER: General, thanks very much for joining us.
MARKS: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Still to come here in THE SITUATION ROOM, there's new data coming in from the Census Bureau showing suburbs are booming. We're going to show you which ones are the fastest growing in the country.
Plus, are government computers vulnerable to attacks? We're going to take a closer look at a new report, show you which agencies get a failing grade. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Lou Dobbs getting ready for his program that begins right at the top of the hour. Lou, how are you doing?
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Doing well, Wolf. Thank you very much.
Coming up at 6:00 here on CNN, the White House unveils a new national security strategy, a strategy that reiterates the U.S. policy of preemptive strike against national threats and that places Iran as the greatest threat to America. We'll have that special report, and I'll be talking with Francis Fukuyama, who works on the national strategic threat analysis four years ago, the original.
And Communist China rapidly gaining military influence in the western hemisphere at the expense of the United States. We'll tell you why it's happened -- why it's happening now. And we'll have a special report on that, as well.
Among our guests tonight, Juan Hernandez, author and former cabinet member of the Mexican government for President Vicente Fox. He'll be here to tell us why illegal immigration isn't a Mexican problem. I'll tell him why it is. We hope you'll be with us for that and a great deal more.
Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: All right, Lou. Thanks very much. Let's stay in New York. Ali Velshi's got the bottom line. Ali, what are you working on?
ALI VELSHI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Wolf. Good to see you. The price of oil today gaining almost $1.50 a barrel today because apparently, the world's most driving nation is going to drive even more this summer. On average, we're burning more gasoline, about 2 percent more than we did last year.
And then there's that other fuel. You may notice I've got some coffee cups in front of me. Coffee, the high-end coffee market, is big. It could be worth about $19 billion a year within five years. And with McDonalds now introducing this premium roast coffee, Starbucks is fighting hard to preserve the segment of the industry that it basically created in America.
One move it's taking is to guarantee the safety of its beans. Coffee beans enter the United States in shipping containers on container ships. Well, Starbucks took part in a three-year study with the Department of Homeland Security, which reportedly found vulnerability in the shipments between Guatemala and the United States.
So Starbucks says it will install sensors on the containers to detect any tampering. And it seems that people are running out of those big metro areas faster than you can say "suburb." New estimates from the Census Bureau find that the fastest growing counties in the United States are well outside big cities. More and more people move to the 'burbs and beyond.
The county experiencing the biggest boom is Flagler County in Florida, north of Daytona Beach. It took the title for the second year in a row, growing by nearly 11 percent. It now has 76,000 residents.
Rounding out the top five are Lyon County, Nevada, outside of Reno, Kendall County, Illinois, which is southwest of Chicago, Texas's Rockwell County, outside of Dallas, and Washington County in Utah. It's actually closer to Vegas than it is to Salt Lake City.
And all 13 of the top 20 boom counties are in the South, although those numbers are from before Hurricane Katrina forced thousands of people to relocate.
Watching markets for you, Wolf, the Dow closed 43 points higher to 11,253, now within 500 points of its all-time high, which was set in January of 2000. NASDAQ closed 12 points lower to just under 2,300 points -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Ali, thanks very much. Ali's got the bottom line
Up ahead, what's the symbolism of the largest U.S.-led air assault operation in Iraq over the past three years? It's unfolding right now. Jack Cafferty is sorting through your email. He's got our question of the hour.
And this note, coming up in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, the White House reaffirming its first strike policy. We're going to show you how that could impact the growing tension over Iran's nuclear program. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: U.S. and Iraqi forces are engaged in the largest air offensive in Iraq since the invasion. We're going to have more on that coming up. First, though, let's get a quick check of some other stories making news right now. Zain is joining us once again.
Hi, Zain.
VERJEE: Hi, Wolf. This hour, engineers in Hawaii are inspecting dams to see if they can withstand growing pressure after weeks of rain. Search teams are combing the area downstream of a dam that burst on the island of Kauai about two days ago. Two people are confirmed dead and seven are missing. Heavy rains are expected to last at least until Saturday.
The three church fire suspects in Alabama almost got out of jail today. Almost. Federal magistrate set bail at $50,000 each and ordered them to stay home, not drink alcohol or go online. But their lawyers decided to have the young men stay behind bars because the U.S. attorney said he would have ordered them rearrested on state charges. The three college students are charged with an arson streak that burned nine churches.
And on the issue of port security, a government study finds some room for improvement. The study was conducted by the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security. It looked at how port security grant money is spent. The agency found that almost $30 million, 20 percent of the grant money, was not spent in ways that would protect a port in a terrorist attack -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Zain.
A bad day all around for homeland security. The department received an F grade for its computer security. That means it could be vulnerable to hackers, terrorists, and identity thieves. How did the rest of the feds do in that congressional report released today? Let's get some answers from our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton -- Abbi?
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, the government as a whole got a D-plus today for its security, it's computer security. Certain agencies, critical agencies, did far worse. Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy all receiving a failing grade.
And a government report today warned of some of the potential dangers of these weaknesses in computer security. Critical operations could be disrupted, Social Security numbers, taxpayer information, could be accessed by criminals. Some of the agencies cited in the report today receiving those worst grades were there at the hearing to defend themselves, talking about the improvements they've made.
Department of Homeland Security, in its three years of existence, has gotten an F every single year. An official from that department saying to expect real and measurable improvements in the future, Wolf. So we'll how everyone does next year.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Abbi, for that. And remember, stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Up next, what's the symbolism of the largest air assault operation in Iraq in three years? It's our question of the hour. Jack's standing by with your email.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's head up to New York and Jack Cafferty. Hi, Jack.
CAFFERTY: Wolf, how are you doing? Operation Swarmer, the largest air assault in Iraq since the invasion three years ago. The military says the target is suspected insurgents. My guess is the target is also the American television audience. The question this hour is, what's the symbolism of the largest air assault in Iraq in three years? Got some interesting stuff.
Caroline in McMinnville, Oregon: "Jack, I'm confused. How is it that three years after mission accomplished, the U.S. launches the largest air assault since the invasion of Iraq? Could it be the administration's using this as a training exercise for an invasion into the country in W's sights? After all, there are a lot of countries that need his kind of democracy."
Adrienne in Los Angeles: "Operation Swarmer? More like Operation Photo Op. It's the same old song and dance. As soon as the headlines focus on how miserable George is doing as president, we miraculously have some new military push to distract us from the truth. Headline: Vermont towns call to impeach President Bush. White House: "Hey, look over here. We have helicopter."
Reed writes, "That's easy enough. My poll numbers are low. Wag the dog."
Donald in Richmond, Virginia: "Come on, Jack. You have better things to whine about than what they're calling the current operation in Iraq. Too much talk's going around about how we're failing in Iraq. Let's focus on succeeding and keep our eye on the ball."
John in Jacksonville, Florida, writes, "The symbolism is to get the focus off George Bush's lousy poll numbers and back onto video of brave troops streaming into battle. It's a calculated political move to buy time. The sad thing is, the troops are the pawns in the game."
And Rolf writes from Safety Harbor, Florida, "What an idiotic way to democratize a country, by bombing the hell out of it" -- Wolf?
BLITZER: What do you think of this decision not to let reporters, camera crews, news media, basically go along for the ride?
CAFFERTY: I think it's symptomatic of the way the Bush administration has handled almost every issue for the last five years. They have a real aversion to including the American public in a lot of what they do. It took two days for us to learn that Dick Cheney had shot some guy in the head with his shotgun.
We didn't learn about the Dubai ports deal until it was already done. I mean, there's example after example after example, including those energy meetings where Ken Lay was a participant, where we're never told what's going on. So this is nothing new.
BLITZER: Jack, I'll see you in an hour here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Lou Dobbs tonight getting read to start right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
