Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

U.S. Skeptical About Iraq's Offer to Resume U.N. Weapons Talks

Aired August 04, 2002 - 11:08   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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We focus our attention now on another Middle East hot spot, Iraq, as the U.S. seeks to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration expresses skepticism about Baghdad's offer to resume U.N. weapons talks. For more we turn to CNN's front man on Iraq and the host of "LATE EDITION," Wolf Blitzer. He joins us live from Washington.

Hi there, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, CNN's LATE EDITION: Hi, Fredricka.

The debate over Iraq, what the United States should be doing about President Saddam Hussein in full course here in Washington. A debate with a full gamut of assessments ranking from another war with Iraq being relatively simple to one that would be very dangerous, indeed.

Let's bring in an expert on the military to assess what the United States might anticipate. Joining us now Retired General Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander.

General Clark, thanks for joining us. And walk us through the debate that's unfolding in Washington, precisely. You've been in the middle of those debates, especially involving the Balkans. The split, as you can tell, between the military on the one hand and the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, on the other?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), FRMR NATO SUPREME CMDR.: The military operates on political guidance and direction. Military leaders will ask of the president and his key officials, what is it you want us to do? And then they'll produce the plans that will accomplish that.

Of course, the military people have their own code of professionalism. They have their own experiences. They have their own formula for looking at risks and evaluating alternatives and this may produce answers that political leaders aren't comfortable with.

Obviously, everyone wants the operation to be as small and risk- free, quick, as easy, as clean as possible. And yet the military people are charged with planning the operation have to plan for all the eventualities and in military operations, there's one infallible rule, things go wrong. Accidents happen. The weather doesn't cooperate and so forth and so you have to be robust. And it's from these differing perspectives that this debate is emerging. BLITZER: Like you, General, I stay in close touch with former good friends, sources over at the Pentagon. There seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, a different approach coming from Air Force leadership as opposed to Army leadership. The Air Force presumably being much more gung-ho in going forward with air strikes against Iraq. The Army command, a lot more concerned.

CLARK: I think the Air Force does have more confidence in the more modern techniques and precision strike, and so forth. The Army says, but what if -- what if there is a dust storm? And what if he maneuvers? And what if the enemy forces go into built up areas? And what if there's civilian refugees entangled in the columns, then the air power can't work effectively.

So it's how much risk do you want to take? Yes, you could go in with air power. It can do some wonderful things, but ultimately can air power occupy the ground, sort out the friendlies from the hostiles, and win the peace? And the answer is, not by itself. So how much you have combined arms in there, Army and Air Force together, that's the issue.

BLITZER: You've also heard some of the various assessments about another military strike against Iraq. Former Pentagon officials like Ken Adelman, Richard Pearl saying it would be relatively easy, the Iraqis much weaker than they were a decade or so ago. Anthony Cortisman, a former Pentagon official, who is not with the Center for Strategic & International Studies here in Washington, a think tank, being very concerned in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that that kind of thinking, that it would be a cake walk or a speed bump is totally irresponsible. Where do you come down on the overall assessment?

CLARK: Well, I believe it very much depends on the objectives of the campaign. And, of course, we don't really know what precise objectives have been given to the military. And that clarity is important.

If it's simply to attack and devastate the Iraqi armed forces, then I believe that they are somewhat demoralized, they are under equipped, and I believe that's a task the United States armed forces could handle, rather expeditiously.

If it's to go in and find the weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the possibility that there can, in the future, be continued programs with weapons of mass destruction, then that's an entirely different matter.

And if it's to find and take out Saddam Hussein, who is really the key to all this, then it's even more difficult. So it's in the process of moving to those different tasks that the difficulties come in.

I wouldn't underestimate the challenge of this. It'll be quite easy to get into Iraq, to go after and eliminate Saddam Hussein, and all the labs and all the components of the weapons of mass destruction program. And to do so in a way that doesn't deepen instability in the region, that doesn't bring Iran into play, that avoids Saddam's ability to use weapons of mass destruction in a deterrent way against us our allies in the region, that's going to be difficult.

BLITZER: Finally, General, briefly, can the U.S. go it alone without extensive base assets in and around the area over there?

CLARK: It depends on how much risk we're willing to take. We can get several aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf, three, four carriers. That's a lot of aircraft. We can put a large number of troops in Kuwait. I'm assuming, since we already have troops there, we would use Kuwait. There may be a couple of other Gulf States that will support us.

But how much risk are we willing to take? What if we need a larger force? What are we going to do in the aftermath? What are we going to do to prevent Saddam Hussein from preemptively using weapons of mass destruction, the few that he might have, against our friends and allies in the region? How will the conflict be changed if that dynamic emerges?

And those are risks and, of course, the more allies, the more friends we have, the less those risks will weigh on us.

BLITZER: General Wesley Clark, as usual, thanks for joining us. We'll continue this conversation at the top of the hour on LATE EDITION.

Fredricka, as you can see, a lot of questions, no simple answers. This debate, though, is just beginning here in Washington. As U.S. officials point out, the clock is ticking, another big wild card, will the Iraqis develop weapons of mass destruction forcing the U.S. hand? We'll continue this discussion on LATE EDITION, but for the time being, Fredricka, back to you.

WHITFIELD: All right, thanks a lot, Wolf.

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