Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Talk to CNN: The New Iraq
Aired July 20, 2003 - 09:30 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.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we have asked for your e-mail questions on Iraq. And you have sent them in for sure. Lots of them.
THOMAS ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: You certainly have. You know, our panel here now to offer some insights for us this morning. We're going to start with our retired General George Harrison, here at the CNN center in Atlanta. Also, CNN's Nic Robertson; he joins us in Baghdad this morning.
Gentlemen, good morning.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
GENERAL GEORGE HARRISON, RETIRED, U.S. AIR FORCE: Good morning.
COLLINS: Nic, let's go ahead and -- pardon me, let's go ahead and start with the general. General Harrison, we have a question for you here.
As a national guardsman that had been deployed for 14 months, I would like to see bringing back the draft to alleviate pressure on the U.S.
That's coming to us from a concerned sergeant. But I think -- I don't know, general. Some people would say one of the most unique and possibly powerful things about the U.S. military is that it's 100 percent voluntary.
HARRISON: Well, that's exactly right. And, of course, the nation had a great debate in 1973, '74, about whether or not we should continue with the draft. We decided to not do that. And one of the reasons we decided to do that was to ensure that there would be national involvement with volunteers; if we can't attract enough volunteers, of course, or we won't have an effective military.
So far we've been able to attract volunteers, but I'll agree with the National Guard sergeant that we have used the National Guard, the Air National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the reserve forces to a great extent over the last five years. We can't go to war without them. And we're going to have to figure out how we can either expand the guard reserve forces, or figure out a way to give them more of their part-time status back, as opposed to their current nearly full- time status.
ROBERTS: General, we have another question coming into us along those same lines. This one goes on to say, "I'm sure that many other Vietnam vets and myself are wondering why U.S. forces have not been conducting their own ambushes of the bad guys. Is it just that the media is not reporting it or is it that U.S. forces are hamstrung by political policy?"
This comes to us from U.S. Army, retired, Redmond, in St. Robert, Missouri.
What do you say to that?
HARRISON: Well, I don't think there's a hamstringing by political policy, particularly. I think it's a matter of tactics and the way the people in the field are deciding to handle the problem. It's a very complex issue. As you know, there's a debate to whether or not this is, in fact, guerrilla warfare or it's just criminal activity. I tend to think it's more guerrilla warfare than criminal activity in character.
However, it's not really useful to second-guess the tactics in the field. I think our tactical commanders have done a really good job so far, and I am not aware of any particular political pressure to drive them in one direction or the other. As a matter of fact, just the converse. I think there's a considerable reliance on the administration on the professional military advice of the people in the field.
COLLINS: All right, general. Thanks so much. Nic Robertson, good morning to you. I want to throw this question out to you. Coming to us from Jeff. It says, "We're hearing daily on the deaths in Iraq. Is there any coverage on the attackers? It seems that we're only hearing half the story. Any American loss is a tragedy and should be reported but the reporting seems to suggest the loss of life is in vain."
ROBERTSON: Well, certainly we are following up, and I've just come back from Fallujah, just west of Baghdad, where there was a deadly attack on U.S. troops two days ago. There's been a big follow- up force, to answer the last question, a big follow-up force put out in the field to show an aggressive and sturdy response.
And the troops are going out and responding aggressively when they're attacked. And they were attacked around Fallujah a couple of days even before that earlier in the week. They were attacked by a group with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. No U.S. troops were injured, but in that incident, all the Iraqi attackers were killed.
And certainly, we've been trying to ask the question today exactly who is behind the attack. I've talked to the mayor of the town, the chief of police, the commanding officer whose troops are in the field under fire. None of them can put their finger on exactly who's attacking, but everybody is talking in terms of having provided a carrot to that community, that when they're attacked, they show the stick, so to speak. A lot of work, engineering work, work going into schools, work going into hospitals, sewage systems, going on in all those towns. But when troops are attacked now, the response is very, very robust. ROBERTS: Nic, we'll be back to you in one second. We want to talk with our Chris Burns; he joins us now from the presidential ranch, Crawford, Texas, following the president.
Chris, we get this from Mike in Houston. "We thought Iraq had WMD, and we invaded rather than seeking a diplomatic solution. We know North Korea has WMD and we are seeking a diplomatic solution and not invading... what's wrong with this picture?"
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Thomas, the response from the Bush administration had been that Iraq was more of an imminent danger because it had the money and the wherewithal to actually produce a lot of weapons of mass destruction and destabilize the region. Whereas North Korea is isolated, its neighbors are trying to pressure it to get rid of that nuclear program, that the nuclear program has been limited up to now.
And that, of course, also keep in kind that really a diplomatic solution with North Korea seems to be really the only way out of this, because if there were a conflict, there are so many terrible things that could happen. That, first of all, Seoul, which is the South Korean capital, with millions of people, is just over the border; it could be bombarded by North Korean artillery. So millions of lives are at stake.
Also, if North Korea collapses, China and other countries in the region are worried about all these millions of North Koreans headed for the exits. Thomas?
COLLINS: Chris, another one for you. Coming from Warner Robins, Georgia, this is Robert. And he asks, or actually, says, "Absolutely no nation of the U.N. should place troops in Iraq until the U.S. and British turn over all oversight of Iraq oil well production and resource distribution to the U.N." What do you think about that?
BURNS: Well, up to now the U.N. has been dealing with a food for oil program. They do have a role in the process, and the U.S. and British-led authority insists that any of the oil revenues are dedicated for the Iraqis. So that is the argument from the American- led side. Heidi?
COLLINS: Thanks, Chris.
ROBERTS: Let's get back to Nic, real quickly. We get this, Nic, from someone in Marine City, Minnesota. Melden...
COLLINS: Michigan.
ROBERTS: Michigan, rather. I'm sorry. From Melden. Did we find the WMDs, and in parenthesis here, weapons of mass destruction, in Iraq?
So far nothing, correct?
ROBERTSON: Correct. So far nothing. Some uranium enrichment parts found in the garden of a scientist. He turned those into the CIA along with documents that weapons inspectors had been trying to find all through the 1990s. But as yet, no smoking gun, nothing that can definitively be said to have been a near and present danger, if you will, in terms of biological, chemical weapons that could have been used in this particular war or deployed in a very short space of time. Nothing so far to substantiate that.
However, the CIA is here. They are going through millions of documents. They do have in their possession now a number of very senior figures from the Iraqi regime who should have, like the former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, like Mahmud Abid (ph), the former private secretary to Saddam Hussein, people who were very key in the weapons of mass destruction program. So perhaps U.S. intelligence authorities have the right material in their hand in terms of people and documents, but they need to go through it.
ROBERTS: Nic, real quickly, we asked Chris this question before, about the situation in North Korea, where they're taking a diplomatic solution there, when, on the other hand, in Iraq they went in to invade. How is that playing out on the streets there with the people that are following the news? What is the everyday, average Iraqi citizen saying in regard to that?
ROBERTSON: Well, a lot of people would be very cynical on that issue, here. And they would say the United States came to Iraq to gain control of the oil. And they would go beyond that, even, if they're real critics of what the United States and the coalition is trying to do here, and they would say they're trying to gain control in the whole region.
Of course, that was something that Saddam Hussein's government said when it was in power. But it is certainly a theme that people will talk to you about here. When they say there are injustices in terms of the way Iraq was dealt with, with the rest of the world, that's the solution they often put forward. And that's their reasoning, often.
COLLINS: OK. To Chris Burns now, in Crawford, Texas, with the president. Chris, coming in from Ed this morning, "It is difficult to understand how we can ask our ex-European, etc., friends to help bail us out, when the administration thumbed their noses at them in our rush to go to war. Now it's their turn to thumb theirs at us. Do you blame them?"
BURNS: Well, that's a very good question. The Europeans are right now reluctant to provide any international troops. They would like to see a wider U.N. mandate. There is a U.N. mandate, 1483, that allows the U.S.-led coalition to institute an authority in Iraq, but the Europeans and other countries -- the Indians, President Bush would like India to send 17,000 troops, they're not getting them either, because they would like a wider U.N. mandate.
That's a big question right now today, what that would be, what kind of role the U.N. would have. But yes, there is a reluctance by the Europeans. Of course, they're rather bitter about that, at least some leaders are. We might see something come out of the talks today between President Bush and Sylvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister who is visiting today, perhaps trying to mend relations there. Heidi?
COLLINS: And General Harrison, on that same question, how usual or frequent is it that countries wait for a U.N. mandate before dedicating troops to a particular conflict?
HARRISON: Well, I think that's a fairly common way of doing business, to wait for a U.N. mandate. However, as you recall, in the 1991 Gulf War, we did not have a U.N. force, per se. That was a coalition force that operated just as we did in the most recent conflict.
So while a U.N. mandate is important, bilateral relationships can bring forces in. And I think we're all optimistic that India will bring forces in.
ROBERTS: General, we appreciate your time this morning. Gentlemen, all of you, we appreciate your time. Chris Burns in Crawford, Texas; Nic Robertson in Baghdad. We'll talk to you all soon. Thanks very much.
HARRISON: Thank you.
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 20, 2003 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we have asked for your e-mail questions on Iraq. And you have sent them in for sure. Lots of them.
THOMAS ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: You certainly have. You know, our panel here now to offer some insights for us this morning. We're going to start with our retired General George Harrison, here at the CNN center in Atlanta. Also, CNN's Nic Robertson; he joins us in Baghdad this morning.
Gentlemen, good morning.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
GENERAL GEORGE HARRISON, RETIRED, U.S. AIR FORCE: Good morning.
COLLINS: Nic, let's go ahead and -- pardon me, let's go ahead and start with the general. General Harrison, we have a question for you here.
As a national guardsman that had been deployed for 14 months, I would like to see bringing back the draft to alleviate pressure on the U.S.
That's coming to us from a concerned sergeant. But I think -- I don't know, general. Some people would say one of the most unique and possibly powerful things about the U.S. military is that it's 100 percent voluntary.
HARRISON: Well, that's exactly right. And, of course, the nation had a great debate in 1973, '74, about whether or not we should continue with the draft. We decided to not do that. And one of the reasons we decided to do that was to ensure that there would be national involvement with volunteers; if we can't attract enough volunteers, of course, or we won't have an effective military.
So far we've been able to attract volunteers, but I'll agree with the National Guard sergeant that we have used the National Guard, the Air National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the reserve forces to a great extent over the last five years. We can't go to war without them. And we're going to have to figure out how we can either expand the guard reserve forces, or figure out a way to give them more of their part-time status back, as opposed to their current nearly full- time status.
ROBERTS: General, we have another question coming into us along those same lines. This one goes on to say, "I'm sure that many other Vietnam vets and myself are wondering why U.S. forces have not been conducting their own ambushes of the bad guys. Is it just that the media is not reporting it or is it that U.S. forces are hamstrung by political policy?"
This comes to us from U.S. Army, retired, Redmond, in St. Robert, Missouri.
What do you say to that?
HARRISON: Well, I don't think there's a hamstringing by political policy, particularly. I think it's a matter of tactics and the way the people in the field are deciding to handle the problem. It's a very complex issue. As you know, there's a debate to whether or not this is, in fact, guerrilla warfare or it's just criminal activity. I tend to think it's more guerrilla warfare than criminal activity in character.
However, it's not really useful to second-guess the tactics in the field. I think our tactical commanders have done a really good job so far, and I am not aware of any particular political pressure to drive them in one direction or the other. As a matter of fact, just the converse. I think there's a considerable reliance on the administration on the professional military advice of the people in the field.
COLLINS: All right, general. Thanks so much. Nic Robertson, good morning to you. I want to throw this question out to you. Coming to us from Jeff. It says, "We're hearing daily on the deaths in Iraq. Is there any coverage on the attackers? It seems that we're only hearing half the story. Any American loss is a tragedy and should be reported but the reporting seems to suggest the loss of life is in vain."
ROBERTSON: Well, certainly we are following up, and I've just come back from Fallujah, just west of Baghdad, where there was a deadly attack on U.S. troops two days ago. There's been a big follow- up force, to answer the last question, a big follow-up force put out in the field to show an aggressive and sturdy response.
And the troops are going out and responding aggressively when they're attacked. And they were attacked around Fallujah a couple of days even before that earlier in the week. They were attacked by a group with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. No U.S. troops were injured, but in that incident, all the Iraqi attackers were killed.
And certainly, we've been trying to ask the question today exactly who is behind the attack. I've talked to the mayor of the town, the chief of police, the commanding officer whose troops are in the field under fire. None of them can put their finger on exactly who's attacking, but everybody is talking in terms of having provided a carrot to that community, that when they're attacked, they show the stick, so to speak. A lot of work, engineering work, work going into schools, work going into hospitals, sewage systems, going on in all those towns. But when troops are attacked now, the response is very, very robust. ROBERTS: Nic, we'll be back to you in one second. We want to talk with our Chris Burns; he joins us now from the presidential ranch, Crawford, Texas, following the president.
Chris, we get this from Mike in Houston. "We thought Iraq had WMD, and we invaded rather than seeking a diplomatic solution. We know North Korea has WMD and we are seeking a diplomatic solution and not invading... what's wrong with this picture?"
CHRIS BURNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Thomas, the response from the Bush administration had been that Iraq was more of an imminent danger because it had the money and the wherewithal to actually produce a lot of weapons of mass destruction and destabilize the region. Whereas North Korea is isolated, its neighbors are trying to pressure it to get rid of that nuclear program, that the nuclear program has been limited up to now.
And that, of course, also keep in kind that really a diplomatic solution with North Korea seems to be really the only way out of this, because if there were a conflict, there are so many terrible things that could happen. That, first of all, Seoul, which is the South Korean capital, with millions of people, is just over the border; it could be bombarded by North Korean artillery. So millions of lives are at stake.
Also, if North Korea collapses, China and other countries in the region are worried about all these millions of North Koreans headed for the exits. Thomas?
COLLINS: Chris, another one for you. Coming from Warner Robins, Georgia, this is Robert. And he asks, or actually, says, "Absolutely no nation of the U.N. should place troops in Iraq until the U.S. and British turn over all oversight of Iraq oil well production and resource distribution to the U.N." What do you think about that?
BURNS: Well, up to now the U.N. has been dealing with a food for oil program. They do have a role in the process, and the U.S. and British-led authority insists that any of the oil revenues are dedicated for the Iraqis. So that is the argument from the American- led side. Heidi?
COLLINS: Thanks, Chris.
ROBERTS: Let's get back to Nic, real quickly. We get this, Nic, from someone in Marine City, Minnesota. Melden...
COLLINS: Michigan.
ROBERTS: Michigan, rather. I'm sorry. From Melden. Did we find the WMDs, and in parenthesis here, weapons of mass destruction, in Iraq?
So far nothing, correct?
ROBERTSON: Correct. So far nothing. Some uranium enrichment parts found in the garden of a scientist. He turned those into the CIA along with documents that weapons inspectors had been trying to find all through the 1990s. But as yet, no smoking gun, nothing that can definitively be said to have been a near and present danger, if you will, in terms of biological, chemical weapons that could have been used in this particular war or deployed in a very short space of time. Nothing so far to substantiate that.
However, the CIA is here. They are going through millions of documents. They do have in their possession now a number of very senior figures from the Iraqi regime who should have, like the former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, like Mahmud Abid (ph), the former private secretary to Saddam Hussein, people who were very key in the weapons of mass destruction program. So perhaps U.S. intelligence authorities have the right material in their hand in terms of people and documents, but they need to go through it.
ROBERTS: Nic, real quickly, we asked Chris this question before, about the situation in North Korea, where they're taking a diplomatic solution there, when, on the other hand, in Iraq they went in to invade. How is that playing out on the streets there with the people that are following the news? What is the everyday, average Iraqi citizen saying in regard to that?
ROBERTSON: Well, a lot of people would be very cynical on that issue, here. And they would say the United States came to Iraq to gain control of the oil. And they would go beyond that, even, if they're real critics of what the United States and the coalition is trying to do here, and they would say they're trying to gain control in the whole region.
Of course, that was something that Saddam Hussein's government said when it was in power. But it is certainly a theme that people will talk to you about here. When they say there are injustices in terms of the way Iraq was dealt with, with the rest of the world, that's the solution they often put forward. And that's their reasoning, often.
COLLINS: OK. To Chris Burns now, in Crawford, Texas, with the president. Chris, coming in from Ed this morning, "It is difficult to understand how we can ask our ex-European, etc., friends to help bail us out, when the administration thumbed their noses at them in our rush to go to war. Now it's their turn to thumb theirs at us. Do you blame them?"
BURNS: Well, that's a very good question. The Europeans are right now reluctant to provide any international troops. They would like to see a wider U.N. mandate. There is a U.N. mandate, 1483, that allows the U.S.-led coalition to institute an authority in Iraq, but the Europeans and other countries -- the Indians, President Bush would like India to send 17,000 troops, they're not getting them either, because they would like a wider U.N. mandate.
That's a big question right now today, what that would be, what kind of role the U.N. would have. But yes, there is a reluctance by the Europeans. Of course, they're rather bitter about that, at least some leaders are. We might see something come out of the talks today between President Bush and Sylvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister who is visiting today, perhaps trying to mend relations there. Heidi?
COLLINS: And General Harrison, on that same question, how usual or frequent is it that countries wait for a U.N. mandate before dedicating troops to a particular conflict?
HARRISON: Well, I think that's a fairly common way of doing business, to wait for a U.N. mandate. However, as you recall, in the 1991 Gulf War, we did not have a U.N. force, per se. That was a coalition force that operated just as we did in the most recent conflict.
So while a U.N. mandate is important, bilateral relationships can bring forces in. And I think we're all optimistic that India will bring forces in.
ROBERTS: General, we appreciate your time this morning. Gentlemen, all of you, we appreciate your time. Chris Burns in Crawford, Texas; Nic Robertson in Baghdad. We'll talk to you all soon. Thanks very much.
HARRISON: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
