Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Talk to CNN

Aired August 24, 2003 - 09:29   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.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: We would like to have a third multinational division, and that's not a secret. We've been working that for some time now. We have two multinational divisions in there right now, one led by the U.K., one led by Poland. We need a third one in there, and that would be of assistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: That's the joint chiefs chairman, Richard Myers. He was talking just about an hour ago, we heard him here on CNN. He was talking about other countries taking the role -- of helping the United States in Iraq. And if you have a question about the situation in Iraq, it's time now to "Talk to CNN."

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: All morning we've been asking you to e-mail your questions to wam@cnn.com. Now it's time to get some answers from our experts. This morning we have CNN analyst Kenneth Pollack. He is in Washington this morning. Hi, Kenneth. White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux outside President Bush's Texas ranch, and CNN's Rym Brahimi joining us live from Baghdad this morning.

VAUSE: OK. And the first question is for Ken. And this is actually from anonymous. "Why should the rest of the world have to fix the mess the United States started? The reason for going in was weapons of mass destruction. Where are they?"

KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Well, there are obviously two different sets of questions in there. There is the weapons of mass destruction issue, and then there's this issue of fixing Iraq.

The weapons of mass destruction issue, big messy question. Obviously the U.S. expected to find weapons of mass destruction lying all over Iraq. That hasn't manifested itself. But at this point in time, we still just don't know exactly what the Iraqis were or weren't up to. There are indications that they were up to something. David Kay is leading a big team that should have an answer at some point in the fall.

In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that a lot of the world didn't want the United States to go into Iraq, certainly not the way that we wound up going in. But having done, so the world does have a stake in getting Iraq right. Iraq is an extraordinarily important country and an extremely important part of the world. In Iraq falls into chaos, if it becomes Lebanon of the 1970s or Afghanistan of the 1990s, it could destabilize the entire Persian Gulf region and the entire Middle East. Though the world may be very angry at the U.S. for how it handled it, certainly it wouldn't be in anyone's interest for that to happen.

COLLINS: All right. Suzanne, this next question for you with the president for us this morning in Crawford, Texas. From Sydney in California, it says, "I can't believe that some people are saying we should just leave Iraq. Do they think it's a game to be discarded when it gets tough?" Of course, President Bush saying this week, at the very latest, that the United States will stay the course in Iraq.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, absolutely. And as the last caller had suggested and asked whether or not there was an important role to stay there, absolutely. The Bush administration and the president specifically saying that they believe this is going to be something that is going to last for quite some time. They're willing to put in the resources.

What has become very interesting, the debate over the last week, of course, is whether or not there are going to be additional countries that are going to add troops as well as aid. And this is something that the Bush administration is recognizing they need to do more with. I mean, there's the possibility of another U.N. Security Council resolution to make it more attractive to these countries, to provide some sort of political cover so they can make more contributions.

But one thing that was interesting that came up this morning from the U.S. Civil Administrator, Paul Bremer, he said there's already an international force inside of the country. There are more than 30 countries that are involved in this. 45 that have actually pledged to contribute something for the reconstruction effort. But you can bet that the Bush administration sees this as something that is going to be a long-term project.

VAUSE: OK. Want to move along very quickly. Let's go to Rym Brahimi in Baghdad.

This e-mail coming from Mike in South Carolina. To control Iraq, I think the best way is to govern the northern part of Iraq, as well as the southern part - I guess of the country. Let the Iraqis govern central Iraq by the help of U.N. to patrol the borders.

I guess the question there, Rym, is why not hand back control of the country in those areas where it's sort of fairly calm and let the U.S. handle the more difficult areas?

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in fact, it's not -- it would be good if there were to be a scenario that would work like that perfectly. It's not as black and white or as simple as that. As you know, there was this so-called Sunni triangle, and that's the center of the country. It goes from Baghdad to the western town of Fallujah and up to even Mosul, if you will. And that was believed to be the most dangerous areas, especially for U.S. troops, because most of the resistance was believed to originate from there. But now we're seeing instability in other parts of the country. We're seeing instability in the south where the Brits are basically in charge, and the British army. Three British servicemen were killed yesterday in an ambush. And now in the north, the north that was supposed to be relatively peaceful until now and under control, well, the 173rd Airborne has been patrolling that area more than ever because there have been ethnic clashes between Turkmen and Kurds.

It's not as easy to sort of focus on one part of the country hoping that the rest will come together or focus on one part of the country that seems relatively stable because things do pop up now and then. In terms of controlling the borders, we understand from the coalition authority that they are working on doing that. And there are questions, of course, as to how come they're not able to secure the borders and all these people that the coalition authority say are foreign fighters are able to come in.

The CPA and Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator, has said, however, that they are trying to get as many Iraqis involved with security in order for that process to begin, and so far they've involved some 50,000 Iraqis in that process.

VAUSE: So Rym, are they giving a time frame on when this will happen? I think that's the major concern here is how soon can the United States hand over control to the Iraqis?

BRAHIMI: Well, that's exactly the big question. And even in those areas, again, where one would have thought that gradually this process was moving forward faster than in the center of the country, well, that hasn't happened.

Again, let me tell you, I was in the north, I was in Kirkuk where those ethnic clashes just erupted, I was there just last week, and they were telling me that things are getting better, the ethnic tensions are sort of slowly dying down, but they were very aware, the U.S. military and Iraqis alike, that if the U.S. military were to leave, although they've trained police in that area, ethnic tensions would flare up again. It might be a long process.

VAUSE: Thanks, Rym.

COLLINS: Let's go to Ken Pollack now.

Ken, there's an e-mail for you from Wallace. It says, "Let's talk money. The U.S. is spending $1 billion a week to stay in Iraq. Are we being reimbursed from the sale of Iraqi oil? How much oil is sold each week and where does the money go? Is the U.S. getting any of the frozen Iraqi assets around the world?" Your thoughts on that.

POLLACK: Well, I hate to break this to you, Wallace, but unfortunately the answer to your question generally is no. The U.S. is not getting reimbursed by Iraq, and it's unlikely to do so. Right now the Iraqis are not selling a huge amount of oil. The hope is they'll get up to a point where they can sell somewhere between 15 and $17 billion worth of oil within a year or so. If that's the case, that money ought to be able to pay for a good chunk of Iraq's civil reconstruction, rebuilding its economy, rebuilding its infrastructure, helping a political system to get started.

COLLINS: Wasn't that always the plan, Ken?

POLLACK: Exactly. That was always the plan. There was always a recognition that Iraq's oil money needed to go to rebuild the country. Ultimately what's in the best interests of Iraq, the United States and really the rest of the world is a stable Iraq that can stand on its own feet. And if the U.S. starts trying to use that oil to pay for our security costs, the Iraqis are never going to be at that point where they can stand on their own two feet.

VAUSE: OK. Let's go to Suzanne at Crawford outside the western White House.

"Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? A suggestion for success in Iraq: Provide 'Marshall Plan' type massive aid to Iraq. That's a reference to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. It would be much cheaper than $5 billion a month we are now spending." That from Mel in Fort Worth.

Suzanne, what's the administration's take on that idea? What do you think?

MALVEAUX: Well, one thing they're talking about now is that some people are saying is this a parallel to what we saw in Afghanistan where you saw all of these fighters, the Mujahideen that were going to Afghanistan to fight the former Soviet forces and back in the '80s and just had this kind of battleground, this shootout ground. Is it true that you now have these terrorists, al Qaeda types that are now being attracted to Iraq to fight U.S. and their coalition partners? Is that the kind of situation we're dealing with?

We have heard from the civil administrator, Paul Bremer. We've also heard from the military types on the ground that yes, there are al Qaeda types that are coming into the country. Yes, they are attracting more terrorists, and it is on the rise inside of Iraq. What they need to do now, however, is really try to build more of an international coalition so they can rotate the U.S. forces out. They can have other forces come in. The big thing here is that they really have to frame this as a fight that is the west, that is the world against these terrorists, not the United States against these terrorists that seem to be streaming into the country.

VAUSE: And Suzanne, I guess the point is you can't just dump massive amounts of money into a country that's just not stable.

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. I mean, that's one of the reasons why this is -- you've got the political wing of this, you've got the military wing, and it's also one of the reasons why you have this debate that's taking place over just how much political and economic power should the rest of the world have when it comes to a U.N. mandate to say, OK, here's how we see Iraq, here's how we want the reconstruction effort to go. The administration flat out says we're taking the responsibility, we're taking most of the burden here, we're going to make those type of decisions.

COLLINS: All right. Let's head back to Baghdad now. We've got Rym Brahimi standing by this morning.

This is a question from Peter, Rym. It says, "Before the war, there was concern about post-war disruption of the food supply. Do Iraqis have sufficient food? How does food distribution work now?" Can you update us on that?

BRAHIMI: Yes. Definitely. He remembers well, indeed, that before the war there was a food rationing system. The food was distributed by the Iraqi government, and it was food that was bought with the oil for food program. Iraq was selling a limited amount of oil to be able to buy food to distribute to the population, and it was praised as a very good program. And now there's still a rationing system.

Now, people are more or less aware of that. Again, there seems to be a bit of an issue here as to how many people really know where to go and how to get it. But I think by now, four months after the war, people know where to get their rations that are distributed. There is enough food. It is expensive for most people, though. Prices have gone up. And the Iraqi dinar has gone down against the dollar.

COLLINS: All right. Thanks so much to our panel this morning, all three of you. Ken Pollack, our CNN analyst, Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas, and Rym Brahimi in Baghdad this morning. Thanks, guys.

VAUSE: We had a lot of questions, and apologize if we didn't get to your question this morning. We did as many as we could.

COLLINS: We sure did.

VAUSE: Iraq was also the focus of the latest "Newsweek" magazine poll. Among the questions, "Are you concerned the U.S. will get bogged down in Iraq?" Nearly 70 percent of those questioned say they are concerned. And 40 percent of those say, well, they're very concerned. When asked their feelings on a George W. Bush reelection, 44 percent said they would like to see a second term. Get this. Nearly half, 49 percent, said one term would be enough.

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 August 24, 2003 - 09:29   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: We would like to have a third multinational division, and that's not a secret. We've been working that for some time now. We have two multinational divisions in there right now, one led by the U.K., one led by Poland. We need a third one in there, and that would be of assistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: That's the joint chiefs chairman, Richard Myers. He was talking just about an hour ago, we heard him here on CNN. He was talking about other countries taking the role -- of helping the United States in Iraq. And if you have a question about the situation in Iraq, it's time now to "Talk to CNN."

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: All morning we've been asking you to e-mail your questions to wam@cnn.com. Now it's time to get some answers from our experts. This morning we have CNN analyst Kenneth Pollack. He is in Washington this morning. Hi, Kenneth. White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux outside President Bush's Texas ranch, and CNN's Rym Brahimi joining us live from Baghdad this morning.

VAUSE: OK. And the first question is for Ken. And this is actually from anonymous. "Why should the rest of the world have to fix the mess the United States started? The reason for going in was weapons of mass destruction. Where are they?"

KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Well, there are obviously two different sets of questions in there. There is the weapons of mass destruction issue, and then there's this issue of fixing Iraq.

The weapons of mass destruction issue, big messy question. Obviously the U.S. expected to find weapons of mass destruction lying all over Iraq. That hasn't manifested itself. But at this point in time, we still just don't know exactly what the Iraqis were or weren't up to. There are indications that they were up to something. David Kay is leading a big team that should have an answer at some point in the fall.

In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that a lot of the world didn't want the United States to go into Iraq, certainly not the way that we wound up going in. But having done, so the world does have a stake in getting Iraq right. Iraq is an extraordinarily important country and an extremely important part of the world. In Iraq falls into chaos, if it becomes Lebanon of the 1970s or Afghanistan of the 1990s, it could destabilize the entire Persian Gulf region and the entire Middle East. Though the world may be very angry at the U.S. for how it handled it, certainly it wouldn't be in anyone's interest for that to happen.

COLLINS: All right. Suzanne, this next question for you with the president for us this morning in Crawford, Texas. From Sydney in California, it says, "I can't believe that some people are saying we should just leave Iraq. Do they think it's a game to be discarded when it gets tough?" Of course, President Bush saying this week, at the very latest, that the United States will stay the course in Iraq.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, absolutely. And as the last caller had suggested and asked whether or not there was an important role to stay there, absolutely. The Bush administration and the president specifically saying that they believe this is going to be something that is going to last for quite some time. They're willing to put in the resources.

What has become very interesting, the debate over the last week, of course, is whether or not there are going to be additional countries that are going to add troops as well as aid. And this is something that the Bush administration is recognizing they need to do more with. I mean, there's the possibility of another U.N. Security Council resolution to make it more attractive to these countries, to provide some sort of political cover so they can make more contributions.

But one thing that was interesting that came up this morning from the U.S. Civil Administrator, Paul Bremer, he said there's already an international force inside of the country. There are more than 30 countries that are involved in this. 45 that have actually pledged to contribute something for the reconstruction effort. But you can bet that the Bush administration sees this as something that is going to be a long-term project.

VAUSE: OK. Want to move along very quickly. Let's go to Rym Brahimi in Baghdad.

This e-mail coming from Mike in South Carolina. To control Iraq, I think the best way is to govern the northern part of Iraq, as well as the southern part - I guess of the country. Let the Iraqis govern central Iraq by the help of U.N. to patrol the borders.

I guess the question there, Rym, is why not hand back control of the country in those areas where it's sort of fairly calm and let the U.S. handle the more difficult areas?

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in fact, it's not -- it would be good if there were to be a scenario that would work like that perfectly. It's not as black and white or as simple as that. As you know, there was this so-called Sunni triangle, and that's the center of the country. It goes from Baghdad to the western town of Fallujah and up to even Mosul, if you will. And that was believed to be the most dangerous areas, especially for U.S. troops, because most of the resistance was believed to originate from there. But now we're seeing instability in other parts of the country. We're seeing instability in the south where the Brits are basically in charge, and the British army. Three British servicemen were killed yesterday in an ambush. And now in the north, the north that was supposed to be relatively peaceful until now and under control, well, the 173rd Airborne has been patrolling that area more than ever because there have been ethnic clashes between Turkmen and Kurds.

It's not as easy to sort of focus on one part of the country hoping that the rest will come together or focus on one part of the country that seems relatively stable because things do pop up now and then. In terms of controlling the borders, we understand from the coalition authority that they are working on doing that. And there are questions, of course, as to how come they're not able to secure the borders and all these people that the coalition authority say are foreign fighters are able to come in.

The CPA and Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator, has said, however, that they are trying to get as many Iraqis involved with security in order for that process to begin, and so far they've involved some 50,000 Iraqis in that process.

VAUSE: So Rym, are they giving a time frame on when this will happen? I think that's the major concern here is how soon can the United States hand over control to the Iraqis?

BRAHIMI: Well, that's exactly the big question. And even in those areas, again, where one would have thought that gradually this process was moving forward faster than in the center of the country, well, that hasn't happened.

Again, let me tell you, I was in the north, I was in Kirkuk where those ethnic clashes just erupted, I was there just last week, and they were telling me that things are getting better, the ethnic tensions are sort of slowly dying down, but they were very aware, the U.S. military and Iraqis alike, that if the U.S. military were to leave, although they've trained police in that area, ethnic tensions would flare up again. It might be a long process.

VAUSE: Thanks, Rym.

COLLINS: Let's go to Ken Pollack now.

Ken, there's an e-mail for you from Wallace. It says, "Let's talk money. The U.S. is spending $1 billion a week to stay in Iraq. Are we being reimbursed from the sale of Iraqi oil? How much oil is sold each week and where does the money go? Is the U.S. getting any of the frozen Iraqi assets around the world?" Your thoughts on that.

POLLACK: Well, I hate to break this to you, Wallace, but unfortunately the answer to your question generally is no. The U.S. is not getting reimbursed by Iraq, and it's unlikely to do so. Right now the Iraqis are not selling a huge amount of oil. The hope is they'll get up to a point where they can sell somewhere between 15 and $17 billion worth of oil within a year or so. If that's the case, that money ought to be able to pay for a good chunk of Iraq's civil reconstruction, rebuilding its economy, rebuilding its infrastructure, helping a political system to get started.

COLLINS: Wasn't that always the plan, Ken?

POLLACK: Exactly. That was always the plan. There was always a recognition that Iraq's oil money needed to go to rebuild the country. Ultimately what's in the best interests of Iraq, the United States and really the rest of the world is a stable Iraq that can stand on its own feet. And if the U.S. starts trying to use that oil to pay for our security costs, the Iraqis are never going to be at that point where they can stand on their own two feet.

VAUSE: OK. Let's go to Suzanne at Crawford outside the western White House.

"Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? A suggestion for success in Iraq: Provide 'Marshall Plan' type massive aid to Iraq. That's a reference to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. It would be much cheaper than $5 billion a month we are now spending." That from Mel in Fort Worth.

Suzanne, what's the administration's take on that idea? What do you think?

MALVEAUX: Well, one thing they're talking about now is that some people are saying is this a parallel to what we saw in Afghanistan where you saw all of these fighters, the Mujahideen that were going to Afghanistan to fight the former Soviet forces and back in the '80s and just had this kind of battleground, this shootout ground. Is it true that you now have these terrorists, al Qaeda types that are now being attracted to Iraq to fight U.S. and their coalition partners? Is that the kind of situation we're dealing with?

We have heard from the civil administrator, Paul Bremer. We've also heard from the military types on the ground that yes, there are al Qaeda types that are coming into the country. Yes, they are attracting more terrorists, and it is on the rise inside of Iraq. What they need to do now, however, is really try to build more of an international coalition so they can rotate the U.S. forces out. They can have other forces come in. The big thing here is that they really have to frame this as a fight that is the west, that is the world against these terrorists, not the United States against these terrorists that seem to be streaming into the country.

VAUSE: And Suzanne, I guess the point is you can't just dump massive amounts of money into a country that's just not stable.

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. I mean, that's one of the reasons why this is -- you've got the political wing of this, you've got the military wing, and it's also one of the reasons why you have this debate that's taking place over just how much political and economic power should the rest of the world have when it comes to a U.N. mandate to say, OK, here's how we see Iraq, here's how we want the reconstruction effort to go. The administration flat out says we're taking the responsibility, we're taking most of the burden here, we're going to make those type of decisions.

COLLINS: All right. Let's head back to Baghdad now. We've got Rym Brahimi standing by this morning.

This is a question from Peter, Rym. It says, "Before the war, there was concern about post-war disruption of the food supply. Do Iraqis have sufficient food? How does food distribution work now?" Can you update us on that?

BRAHIMI: Yes. Definitely. He remembers well, indeed, that before the war there was a food rationing system. The food was distributed by the Iraqi government, and it was food that was bought with the oil for food program. Iraq was selling a limited amount of oil to be able to buy food to distribute to the population, and it was praised as a very good program. And now there's still a rationing system.

Now, people are more or less aware of that. Again, there seems to be a bit of an issue here as to how many people really know where to go and how to get it. But I think by now, four months after the war, people know where to get their rations that are distributed. There is enough food. It is expensive for most people, though. Prices have gone up. And the Iraqi dinar has gone down against the dollar.

COLLINS: All right. Thanks so much to our panel this morning, all three of you. Ken Pollack, our CNN analyst, Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas, and Rym Brahimi in Baghdad this morning. Thanks, guys.

VAUSE: We had a lot of questions, and apologize if we didn't get to your question this morning. We did as many as we could.

COLLINS: We sure did.

VAUSE: Iraq was also the focus of the latest "Newsweek" magazine poll. Among the questions, "Are you concerned the U.S. will get bogged down in Iraq?" Nearly 70 percent of those questioned say they are concerned. And 40 percent of those say, well, they're very concerned. When asked their feelings on a George W. Bush reelection, 44 percent said they would like to see a second term. Get this. Nearly half, 49 percent, said one term would be enough.

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