Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview with Michael O'Hanlon
Aired December 28, 2002 - 09:04 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.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, ANCHOR: With the war on terror in Afghanistan, the standoff with Iraq, and now this growing dispute with North Korea, we pose the question, is the Bush administration spreading itself too thin?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld contends the U.S. is capable of fighting at least two regional conflicts at the same time.
Joining us now is Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Some of his many areas of expertise are arms treaties, Asian security issues, and Iraq policies. And he's with us this morning to sort it all out for us.
Thanks for being with us.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: My pleasure, thank you.
CALLAWAY: A lot on the foreign policy plate for the administration at this point. We have heard Rumsfeld say we, two conflicts at the same time, no problem. What is your -- That's a lot for the U.S. to handle at one time.
O'HANLON: Well, not to mention that it would be three, because we have already basically got two.
CALLAWAY: Afghanistan, right.
O'HANLON: Exactly. And Afghanistan may be small in troop numbers, but it uses certain specialized capabilities quite a bit.
And so this is certainly not the sort of thing we want to do. Obviously you want to avoid war anyway for other reasons. But Rumsfeld certainly at least in one sense is right that we can help South Korea defend itself. And we can take limited offensive actions against North Korea even while prosecuting a full-fledged invasion of Iraq and continuing the war in Afghanistan.
In other words, we're not going to be vulnerable to military defeat on the peninsula, but it's certainly not the best time for us to be upping the ante.
CALLAWAY: So...
O'HANLON: You know, I also think this debate about two wars, three wars obscures a fundamental point, which is that in Korea, we don't really have good military options even if we've got the full U.S. military available, because North Korea can bring huge force to bear against Seoul, the capital...
CALLAWAY: Oh, right.
O'HANLON: ... of South Korea, no matter how many American troops we put in place. So the issue of two versus three is not as central as the fact that in Korea, an enemy aggression could kill hundreds of thousands of people. It's a much more threatening sort of possible war than anything Saddam Hussein can do if we invade Iraq.
CALLAWAY: Well, when you hear Rumsfeld say that waging war on multiple fronts is not a problem, you have to ask that question, is it a problem? Even if it, you know, even if North Korea is not part of the war that is waged. Sounds like a world war.
O'HANLON: Yes, it gets to be a bit much. But frankly, again, I think Mr. Rumsfeld, to one, in one sense, said what he had to. In another sense, again, it sort of obscures the main point. We are not going to start a war in Korea. The North Koreans are not going to start a war in Korea. What they are going to do is start to build more nuclear bombs.
And I think the Bush administration right now is making a big mistake in not recognizing it has to stop that.
CALLAWAY: Right.
O'HANLON: This is not going to be a question about a big war in Korea unless things really degenerate a lot further. The question is, how do we stop North Korea from adding to an arsenal of maybe one or two nuclear bombs and reprocessing this plutonium...
CALLAWAY: So...
O'HANLON: ... and making six or eight more?
CALLAWAY: North Korea has the attention of the U.S. Is that what they wanted? And is there a diplomatic solution now?
O'HANLON: Well, they don't really have our attention in the sense -- well, you're right, they -- we're watching, but we're not doing much. We're saying we refuse to negotiate under threat of blackmail. That's a reasonable policy. But we have to find some way to finesse this, because the current policy by North Korea is simply unacceptable. The United States cannot continue on its current course.
The Bush administration has a failing policy. We need to find some way to turn the agenda back in a way that we can discuss with North Korea. And I would advocate toughening the demands on North Korea, even beyond the nuclear issue, to the Japanese kidnapping victims, to North Korean conventional forces, and telling the North, If you make progress on these issues, we will be willing to provide aid and technical assistance and diplomatic relations, but it has to be all as part of one big package.
CALLAWAY: Yes, but... O'HANLON: The Bush administration -- they need to negotiate.
CALLAWAY: But historically, has the U.S. been able to handle more than one crisis at a time like this?
O'HANLON: Not very well. And I grant that point. But North Korea is giving us no choice. And the good news about Iraq policy, if there is good news, is that most of the tough decisions in many ways have been made. Mr. Bush, I think, figured out a very good diplomatic strategy last fall. Obviously he has to figure out now when and how to go to war.
But I think the basic framework for the policy has largely been established. There were a lot of vigorous debates through the summer and the early fall in the administration. I think they have a very good policy, a very sustainable policy. They're probably going to have to go to war. It's going to take a fair amount of time and attention. But the basic thinking has been done.
In North Korea, they now need to put their creativity to use in that part of the world, because the issue will not wait.
CALLAWAY: All right, Michael, thank you for being with us. It's Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Thanks for getting up early with us this morning.
O'HANLON: My pleasure, 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 December 28, 2002 - 09:04 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, ANCHOR: With the war on terror in Afghanistan, the standoff with Iraq, and now this growing dispute with North Korea, we pose the question, is the Bush administration spreading itself too thin?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld contends the U.S. is capable of fighting at least two regional conflicts at the same time.
Joining us now is Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Some of his many areas of expertise are arms treaties, Asian security issues, and Iraq policies. And he's with us this morning to sort it all out for us.
Thanks for being with us.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: My pleasure, thank you.
CALLAWAY: A lot on the foreign policy plate for the administration at this point. We have heard Rumsfeld say we, two conflicts at the same time, no problem. What is your -- That's a lot for the U.S. to handle at one time.
O'HANLON: Well, not to mention that it would be three, because we have already basically got two.
CALLAWAY: Afghanistan, right.
O'HANLON: Exactly. And Afghanistan may be small in troop numbers, but it uses certain specialized capabilities quite a bit.
And so this is certainly not the sort of thing we want to do. Obviously you want to avoid war anyway for other reasons. But Rumsfeld certainly at least in one sense is right that we can help South Korea defend itself. And we can take limited offensive actions against North Korea even while prosecuting a full-fledged invasion of Iraq and continuing the war in Afghanistan.
In other words, we're not going to be vulnerable to military defeat on the peninsula, but it's certainly not the best time for us to be upping the ante.
CALLAWAY: So...
O'HANLON: You know, I also think this debate about two wars, three wars obscures a fundamental point, which is that in Korea, we don't really have good military options even if we've got the full U.S. military available, because North Korea can bring huge force to bear against Seoul, the capital...
CALLAWAY: Oh, right.
O'HANLON: ... of South Korea, no matter how many American troops we put in place. So the issue of two versus three is not as central as the fact that in Korea, an enemy aggression could kill hundreds of thousands of people. It's a much more threatening sort of possible war than anything Saddam Hussein can do if we invade Iraq.
CALLAWAY: Well, when you hear Rumsfeld say that waging war on multiple fronts is not a problem, you have to ask that question, is it a problem? Even if it, you know, even if North Korea is not part of the war that is waged. Sounds like a world war.
O'HANLON: Yes, it gets to be a bit much. But frankly, again, I think Mr. Rumsfeld, to one, in one sense, said what he had to. In another sense, again, it sort of obscures the main point. We are not going to start a war in Korea. The North Koreans are not going to start a war in Korea. What they are going to do is start to build more nuclear bombs.
And I think the Bush administration right now is making a big mistake in not recognizing it has to stop that.
CALLAWAY: Right.
O'HANLON: This is not going to be a question about a big war in Korea unless things really degenerate a lot further. The question is, how do we stop North Korea from adding to an arsenal of maybe one or two nuclear bombs and reprocessing this plutonium...
CALLAWAY: So...
O'HANLON: ... and making six or eight more?
CALLAWAY: North Korea has the attention of the U.S. Is that what they wanted? And is there a diplomatic solution now?
O'HANLON: Well, they don't really have our attention in the sense -- well, you're right, they -- we're watching, but we're not doing much. We're saying we refuse to negotiate under threat of blackmail. That's a reasonable policy. But we have to find some way to finesse this, because the current policy by North Korea is simply unacceptable. The United States cannot continue on its current course.
The Bush administration has a failing policy. We need to find some way to turn the agenda back in a way that we can discuss with North Korea. And I would advocate toughening the demands on North Korea, even beyond the nuclear issue, to the Japanese kidnapping victims, to North Korean conventional forces, and telling the North, If you make progress on these issues, we will be willing to provide aid and technical assistance and diplomatic relations, but it has to be all as part of one big package.
CALLAWAY: Yes, but... O'HANLON: The Bush administration -- they need to negotiate.
CALLAWAY: But historically, has the U.S. been able to handle more than one crisis at a time like this?
O'HANLON: Not very well. And I grant that point. But North Korea is giving us no choice. And the good news about Iraq policy, if there is good news, is that most of the tough decisions in many ways have been made. Mr. Bush, I think, figured out a very good diplomatic strategy last fall. Obviously he has to figure out now when and how to go to war.
But I think the basic framework for the policy has largely been established. There were a lot of vigorous debates through the summer and the early fall in the administration. I think they have a very good policy, a very sustainable policy. They're probably going to have to go to war. It's going to take a fair amount of time and attention. But the basic thinking has been done.
In North Korea, they now need to put their creativity to use in that part of the world, because the issue will not wait.
CALLAWAY: All right, Michael, thank you for being with us. It's Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Thanks for getting up early with us this morning.
O'HANLON: My pleasure, 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
