Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview with Jim Walsh
Aired November 16, 2002 - 09:13 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we've learned that a top al Qaeda terrorist is now in U.S. custody. But we don't have much more detail on it than that. Other developments in the war on terror are the release of the new Osama bin Laden audiotape. That was obviously very big. And there's also a new terror bulletin from the FBI warning of a possible "spectacular attack" in this country.
That's a lot to process, a lot to consider. For now, we're at Code Yellow, which means an elevated level of threat for terrorist attacks.
Joining us from Boston to hash all this out is Jim Walsh of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Walsh's research and writings focus on international security and, in particular, weapons of mass destruction. We could ask him probably about Mr. Blix's mission as well.
But I'll tell you what, let's -- only if we have time for that. Let's talk about this for just a moment.
There was a great piece by Peter Bergen, who is one of our analysts, today, yesterday in "The New York Times" talking about al Qaeda moving into sort of a -- from a bricks-and-mortar operation in Afghanistan to a virtual operation, operating on the Internet, audiotapes floating around. I suppose al Qaeda, given its goals, doesn't need a fortress, does it?
JIM WALSH, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Well, I think if it had its choice, it would prefer to have a home base that it could train in. It would have preferred to have had that old system under Afghanistan with the Taliban.
But given that it's had to give that up, it's adapting. You know, I read Peter's piece, I thought it was excellent. I thought he highlighted some key points, one is which -- one of which is that when bin Laden gets up and says something, it's usually a good idea to follow what he says.
Usually the things he says are things he will follow through on. And the appearance of this tape this week, I think, is the biggest story of the week. We have not heard from bin Laden in a dated tape, video or audio, in over a year. And you have to ask yourself the question, why didn't this tape appear a month earlier? Or why didn't it appear a month later? It's appeared now. And I think it's a -- Peter correctly assesses it as an indicator that there may be a second wave of attacks coming.
O'BRIEN: Well, and Peter points out there is a fair amount of evidence that would support this theory. There was a few months before the embassy attacks in Africa there was a tape, before the attack on the "Cole" in Yemen, there was a tape. And there -- if you look back on them with hindsight, there were some actually fairly significant hints as to what might happen.
All right. So I'm going to ask you to give us hindsight without the benefit of hindsight here, analyze this if you can, and give us a sense of what -- read the tea leaves for us. What's in that statement that should give us some sort of actionable way to respond?
WALSH: Well, I tell you, what is most noticeable about that statement to me is the reference to all the other countries, the coalition partners, to Russia, to France, to Germany, to Italy, to Australia, the notion that the bombing in Bali was not aimed at Americans but instead at Australians.
Now, you take that list of countries, sort of threatening talk about a list of countries, and then you put that together with things that have come out this week from our European friends, from German and French intelligence, suggesting that the level of chatter is up, that they expect something sooner rather than later, and an interview given by the head of Interpol, that's the international police agency.
And in that interview, the gentleman says he expects there to be an attack in which several countries are hit at the same time, maybe not the U.S., but certainly European allies, others, perhaps Pakistan, Afghanistan.
I think all of those things tie together.
O'BRIEN: Lot of criticism of the U.S. intelligence committee, the fact that a year and a half after 9/11, Osama bin Laden, apparently, most people believe that's a bona fide legitimate tape, Osama bin Laden is alive and kicking and plotting. Would you place blame on the intelligence community and the war on terrorism in general?
WALSH: Well, yes, and no. I don't think we should judge the war on terrorism based solely on whether we have captured bin Laden or not. I think that's a tough job. This is a big planet with lots of frontier areas. I think it's a very difficult job, and I'm not surprised it's going to take longer than a year.
And so -- and I think on -- in more generally in the war on terrorism, if that's the right phrase, we have done some things well and we've done other things poorly. We have not stabilized Afghanistan. There is no government in Afghanistan beyond Kabul, and I think that's a problem. That allows al Qaeda to take up positions to travel, to hide out.
I think we need to do a better job of securing the nuclear, the biological and chemical materials in this country, in the former Soviet Union, and in other countries so that we can prevent al Qaeda from getting access to those deadly materials.
So in some areas we're doing well, in other areas we have a long way to go.
O'BRIEN: We have been talking about Iraq all morning. To what extent do you think the effort in Iraq, the disarmament effort, the focus on Saddam Hussein, has taken the eye off the ball, if you will?
WALSH: Well, how would I answer that? I think that if we go to war in Iraq, there's a good chance that that's going to be the case. Let's face it, everyone has pretty much forgotten about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is off the television screens, off the radio, no one really cares or is watching what's happening over there.
I'm sure the government is, but the American public is not because the president, who is the leader, he tells us what to focus on, is focusing on Iraq, and that's where all of the political attention is going.
Now, if we -- if what happens, and I expect this will happen is that we'll -- the inspectors will go to Baghdad, they'll be able to collect some information. But when the rubber meets the road, Saddam is not going to allow those inspectors to do what they need to do. We will have him in material breach. That will be followed by a military intervention.
And I think when that happens, we really will be focusing on Iraq. Because once you put troops on the ground and you start to fight a war, that is job No. 1. And you can't have two No. 1 priorities.
So I think there is a danger here that by focusing on Iraq we will not put the political and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) attention resources on Afghanistan and on al Qaeda that we need to be doing.
O'BRIEN: All right. I suppose we would be remiss to allow Afghanistan to foment additional terrorism in the future, and that is the -- there's a distinct possibility that could happen again.
WALSH: Absolutely. I mean, one reason why al Qaeda was attracted to Afghanistan in the first place, as it was attracted to Sudan and other countries, that these were broken states, these were states that were not working, that were wracked by civil war, where a terrorist group could come in and co-opt and weak government, or aside from that, set up its own shop without being hassled by the government.
And that's why, in states that have strong governments, the European states, elsewhere, it's much more difficult for terrorism to flourish.
So while you have Afghanistan, we were able to kick out the Taliban, we were able to disrupt al Qaeda. But Afghanistan remains a broken state.
O'BRIEN: Jim Walsh is with the Kennedy School, along the shores of the Charles River. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. We appreciate it.
WALSH: Thank you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right.
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 November 16, 2002 - 09:13 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we've learned that a top al Qaeda terrorist is now in U.S. custody. But we don't have much more detail on it than that. Other developments in the war on terror are the release of the new Osama bin Laden audiotape. That was obviously very big. And there's also a new terror bulletin from the FBI warning of a possible "spectacular attack" in this country.
That's a lot to process, a lot to consider. For now, we're at Code Yellow, which means an elevated level of threat for terrorist attacks.
Joining us from Boston to hash all this out is Jim Walsh of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Walsh's research and writings focus on international security and, in particular, weapons of mass destruction. We could ask him probably about Mr. Blix's mission as well.
But I'll tell you what, let's -- only if we have time for that. Let's talk about this for just a moment.
There was a great piece by Peter Bergen, who is one of our analysts, today, yesterday in "The New York Times" talking about al Qaeda moving into sort of a -- from a bricks-and-mortar operation in Afghanistan to a virtual operation, operating on the Internet, audiotapes floating around. I suppose al Qaeda, given its goals, doesn't need a fortress, does it?
JIM WALSH, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Well, I think if it had its choice, it would prefer to have a home base that it could train in. It would have preferred to have had that old system under Afghanistan with the Taliban.
But given that it's had to give that up, it's adapting. You know, I read Peter's piece, I thought it was excellent. I thought he highlighted some key points, one is which -- one of which is that when bin Laden gets up and says something, it's usually a good idea to follow what he says.
Usually the things he says are things he will follow through on. And the appearance of this tape this week, I think, is the biggest story of the week. We have not heard from bin Laden in a dated tape, video or audio, in over a year. And you have to ask yourself the question, why didn't this tape appear a month earlier? Or why didn't it appear a month later? It's appeared now. And I think it's a -- Peter correctly assesses it as an indicator that there may be a second wave of attacks coming.
O'BRIEN: Well, and Peter points out there is a fair amount of evidence that would support this theory. There was a few months before the embassy attacks in Africa there was a tape, before the attack on the "Cole" in Yemen, there was a tape. And there -- if you look back on them with hindsight, there were some actually fairly significant hints as to what might happen.
All right. So I'm going to ask you to give us hindsight without the benefit of hindsight here, analyze this if you can, and give us a sense of what -- read the tea leaves for us. What's in that statement that should give us some sort of actionable way to respond?
WALSH: Well, I tell you, what is most noticeable about that statement to me is the reference to all the other countries, the coalition partners, to Russia, to France, to Germany, to Italy, to Australia, the notion that the bombing in Bali was not aimed at Americans but instead at Australians.
Now, you take that list of countries, sort of threatening talk about a list of countries, and then you put that together with things that have come out this week from our European friends, from German and French intelligence, suggesting that the level of chatter is up, that they expect something sooner rather than later, and an interview given by the head of Interpol, that's the international police agency.
And in that interview, the gentleman says he expects there to be an attack in which several countries are hit at the same time, maybe not the U.S., but certainly European allies, others, perhaps Pakistan, Afghanistan.
I think all of those things tie together.
O'BRIEN: Lot of criticism of the U.S. intelligence committee, the fact that a year and a half after 9/11, Osama bin Laden, apparently, most people believe that's a bona fide legitimate tape, Osama bin Laden is alive and kicking and plotting. Would you place blame on the intelligence community and the war on terrorism in general?
WALSH: Well, yes, and no. I don't think we should judge the war on terrorism based solely on whether we have captured bin Laden or not. I think that's a tough job. This is a big planet with lots of frontier areas. I think it's a very difficult job, and I'm not surprised it's going to take longer than a year.
And so -- and I think on -- in more generally in the war on terrorism, if that's the right phrase, we have done some things well and we've done other things poorly. We have not stabilized Afghanistan. There is no government in Afghanistan beyond Kabul, and I think that's a problem. That allows al Qaeda to take up positions to travel, to hide out.
I think we need to do a better job of securing the nuclear, the biological and chemical materials in this country, in the former Soviet Union, and in other countries so that we can prevent al Qaeda from getting access to those deadly materials.
So in some areas we're doing well, in other areas we have a long way to go.
O'BRIEN: We have been talking about Iraq all morning. To what extent do you think the effort in Iraq, the disarmament effort, the focus on Saddam Hussein, has taken the eye off the ball, if you will?
WALSH: Well, how would I answer that? I think that if we go to war in Iraq, there's a good chance that that's going to be the case. Let's face it, everyone has pretty much forgotten about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is off the television screens, off the radio, no one really cares or is watching what's happening over there.
I'm sure the government is, but the American public is not because the president, who is the leader, he tells us what to focus on, is focusing on Iraq, and that's where all of the political attention is going.
Now, if we -- if what happens, and I expect this will happen is that we'll -- the inspectors will go to Baghdad, they'll be able to collect some information. But when the rubber meets the road, Saddam is not going to allow those inspectors to do what they need to do. We will have him in material breach. That will be followed by a military intervention.
And I think when that happens, we really will be focusing on Iraq. Because once you put troops on the ground and you start to fight a war, that is job No. 1. And you can't have two No. 1 priorities.
So I think there is a danger here that by focusing on Iraq we will not put the political and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) attention resources on Afghanistan and on al Qaeda that we need to be doing.
O'BRIEN: All right. I suppose we would be remiss to allow Afghanistan to foment additional terrorism in the future, and that is the -- there's a distinct possibility that could happen again.
WALSH: Absolutely. I mean, one reason why al Qaeda was attracted to Afghanistan in the first place, as it was attracted to Sudan and other countries, that these were broken states, these were states that were not working, that were wracked by civil war, where a terrorist group could come in and co-opt and weak government, or aside from that, set up its own shop without being hassled by the government.
And that's why, in states that have strong governments, the European states, elsewhere, it's much more difficult for terrorism to flourish.
So while you have Afghanistan, we were able to kick out the Taliban, we were able to disrupt al Qaeda. But Afghanistan remains a broken state.
O'BRIEN: Jim Walsh is with the Kennedy School, along the shores of the Charles River. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. We appreciate it.
WALSH: Thank you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
