Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

America's War on Terrorism: Interview with Paul Bremer, Ken Adelman, Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.)

Aired October 29, 2001 - 19:00   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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: (AUDIO GAP) get the job done?

Is it time to send in ground forces? We'll go into the war room with three men who have advised presidents: Former NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark; former U.S. counterterrorism ambassador Paul Bremer; and Ken Adelman, formerly the top U.S. arms control official.

We'll go live to the Pentagon.

Good evening. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting tonight from Washington.

We begin with a new terrorism alert just issued by the Justice Department here in Washington. Let's go right to CNN senior White House correspondent John King for details -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the FBI had already put law enforcement agencies across the country a high alert. The decision made today to go directly in public with a new announcement, a new threat assessment, if you will, of the potential for a terrorist strike here in the United States or on U.S. interest's overseas. That dramatic announcement made after one senior official said the president reviewed the information, new intelligence information, and found it to be quote "stark and compelling."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The administration has concluded, based on information developed, that there may be additional terrorists attacks within the United States and against the United States interests over the next week. The administration views this information as credible, but unfortunately, it does not contain specific information as to the type of attack or specific targets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Eighteen thousand law enforcement agencies around the country put on their highest state-of-alert. The administration also notifying governors to put their state and local law enforcement authorities on high alert to take any steps they deem necessary at the state level. Key members of Congress notified as well. U.S. officials including the attorney general declining to discuss the source of the intelligence information leading them to make this dramatic new announcement of a new potential threat of terrorism. But one senior administration official telling us a short time ago that the information came from several sources, that it was viewed as both credible and timely, and that is why the administration decided to make this announcement and to make it in such a public fashion -- Wolf.

BLITZER: As you remember, John, on October 11, the FBI issued a similar alert with unspecified threats. Why was it a written statement at that time, such a high visibility public appearance by the two top law enforcement officials at this time?

KING: We are told a number of be reasons, but first and foremost the timeliness of this information. The intelligence data suggesting a potential for an attack on the United States within a matter of days. They decided it was urgent to get that message out once they viewed the information as credible.

Also, you mentioned that October 11 alert. Some criticism at the time that no senior officials were available to take questions about that advisory put out over the Internet, put out on paper. The administration has also been criticized for its response to the anthrax scare in recent days, has decided that whenever possible it is best to just make an announcement in public and to answer any questions they can answer. Although they were very reluctant to answer the most important question, which is where did this information come from?

BLITZER: John King, at the White House. Thank you very much. let's check some of the other late developments we are following this hour.

Trace amounts of anthrax have been found at two State Department mail rooms. An email to workers says officials don't know the extent of the contamination.

Anthrax has also turned up in a building used by the Health and Human Services Department. The Food and Drug Administration is among the agencies with offices there. Meanwhile the Environmental Protection Agency is recommending the contaminated Hart Senate Office Building be fumigated with chlorine dioxide gas to kill all of the remaining anthrax spores.

And New York mayor Rudy Giuliani testified at a congressional hearing on terrorism today. He called for a law allowing information to be shared among the FBI, state and local authorities.

Now let's turn to something that we'll be focusing on a lot in the coming weeks. We call it the "War Room." We'll be bringing in experts with backgrounds in the top ranks of the military and the government. We'll discuss the military campaign shortly, but let's start with the new terror threat just issued by the U.S. government. I'm joined here in Washington by the former ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, Paul Bremer, who also chaired a national commission on terrorism; and Ken Adelman, former director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. And joining us from London, CNN military analyst retired General Wesley Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO. He directed the allied military campaign in Kosovo.

Let me begin with you, Ambassador Bremer, what do you make of latest threat alert issued by the attorney general?

PAUL BREMER, FMR. COUNTERTERRORISM AMB.: It's obviously a serious amount of intelligence that they got. They wouldn't have issued this threat alert unless they had something they found quite credible.

It's very hard from the outside to judge how good that intelligence is. This is the most difficult intelligence in the world there is to get. Intelligence out of terrorist groups. And it is extremely sensitive, co we are not going to know, I don't think, unless somebody breaks security, which I hope they don't, we are not going to know where it came from.

BLITZER: Ken Adelman, as you know, there is a delicate line the U.S. government has to walk. They want people to go back to work,they want them to fly, they want them to go to the malls, to sporting events. They issue an alert like this, that is going to set back a lot of that effort.

KEN ADELMAN, FMR. U.S. ARMS CONTROL DIRECTOR: It is, Wolf, and the fact is that they are not telling us what to do about it. So if you are an average citizen, which we all are, you don't know what that means right now.

BLITZER: It just means go ahead with our business. General Clark, you are in London, right now, an ally to the United States in this war on terrorism. How is it playing over there, U.S. interests abroad, the attorney general said, could be targeted as well?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FMR. NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: Well, in London, there have been a number of rumors throughout Britain that something might happen over here, but in general the level of concern is much lower. They have lived with terrorism from the I.R.A. for years. And their view is they have got to simply live through it and work through it and that is what they are prepared to do.

BLITZER: Is it smart, General Clark, for the government, the Bush Administration, to be making these public alerts as they are right now?

CLARK: It very much depends how they are followed up and what is done with the information later on. We have got to build a broad platform of support in the United States to show how to win this war at home. The war first has to be won at home. It's easier to win at home. They have got the American public on their side. We own the media, we own all the means of communications. We speak the language. This war can be won in the United States.

And if this one way to alert the citizenry and do it, there will be a number of measures, such as Mayor Giuliani has proposed, that have got to be enacted. But this war is winnable at home and it is winnable first there.

BLITZER: Go ahead.

ADELMAN: I think General Clark has a good point that we have to be diligent and we really have to stay on our toes at home. However, I think the best defense in this is a good offense. I would see that if we go after the international terrorist network, the weapons of mass destruction, and especially states that support them, starting out in Afghanistan and going on to Iraq before long, I think that is the best way to handle this crisis right now.

And I don't think we should just bolster at home. I think we have to go harder overseas.

BLITZER: Ambassador, you chaired that commission on terrorism. On October 11 as you heard John King report, they issued a statement, a written statement, of a threat facing the United States at home as well as abroad. Now they go public the way they are. What is the right way for an administration to be dealing with this issue?

BREMER: I think they've got it about right now. And I should say this: I think it is important alert, because it is not just the American citizens who are being alerted, it is all of our law enforcement agencies.

A law enforcement agent paying a lot of attention can really have an impact. The attack on us at the millennium, the planned attack on us at the millennium was basically thwarted by an alert customs officer, border guard, actually, in Seattle, outside of Seattle when she became suspicious of somebody trying to come in. It turned out he had four bombs in his trunk.

I remember a case like when I was in government where an alert local policeman in Vermont, got suspicious of some guys walking along a railroad track at 2:00 in the morning. They turned out to be Syrian terrorists. So, there is something to be said for everybody paying attention. But in the long run, Ken Adelman is absolutely right.

We have got to go on the offensive. We've got to win this war outside the United States as well as here,.

BLITZER: General Clark, we are going to talk about the military situation on the ground in Afghanistan, but you have been the recipient of this kind of intelligence, the most classified, the most sensitive intelligence the U.S. government gets. When they say they can't release the intelligence, we have to assume this is pretty good information even though it is not specific, is that right?

CLARK: Well, it is probably from a reputable source. It is a source that we have used before. We don't know what that source is but the information is probably not specific, or if it is specific as to the type of attack or the time of attack, it's not specific enough to take action on it in any case. And if you went into the details you might lose the source. So that's was this is about.

BLITZER: Ken Adelman, very briefly, before we go to the military aspects, some people are already criticizing the administration for, in effect, preemptively covering their bases by saying yes, we have this information out there, but we can't tell you what it is. Is that criticism fair?

ADELMAN: I think Jerry has a good point that -- tell people to be on their toes. I think, though, that unlike the situations you have encountered before, Jerry, everybody today is on their toes. And unless -- what I would rather see is that kind of announcement along with more specificity on what they would expect for something like that, but if they don't have that, then this is best they can do.

But everybody these days must be, and I think every law enforcement agency would be on their toes in a way that is totally different from the way this country ran before September 11.

BLITZER: And if they weren't before, those 18,000 law enforcement authorities will be right now.

Stand by, gentlemen. I want to shift to the military campaign in Afghanistan. Let's go live to the Pentagon. CNN military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre is standing by with the latest information over there -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, remember in the early stages of this campaign when there was some speculation the United States was running out of targets. Well, it turns out that there are plenty of targets that are being bombed and still to bomb. The Pentagon insists it is making progress in its war against terrorists and their backers in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Armed with more video evidence of successful strikes against Taliban targets, the Pentagon argues it is not getting bogged down in Afghanistan.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHMN.: We are pretty much on our plan. And we are in the drivers seat. We are proceeding at our pace. We are not proceeding at the Taliban's pace or al Qaeda's pace.

MCINTYRE: These before and after satellite photos show a complex of military maintenance buildings near Kabul reduced to rubble by U.S. smart bombs Friday -- one of dozens of targets hit in recent days with plenty more targets remaining.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We have damaged and destroyed a number of tanks, a number of artillery pieces, a number of armored personnel carriers and a number of troops. Are there leaders mixed in there? Yes. At what level? Who knows. There is middle to upper-high, but to our knowledge, none of the very top, six, eight, ten people have been included in that number.

MCINTYRE: And Pentagon officials now confirm that airstrikes like this one against an armored vehicle defending Mazar-i-Sharif are, at times, being accomplished with the help of U.S. special forces troops on the ground with the Northern Alliance who are using laser designators to guide U.S. pilots to their targets.

But the outnumbered and under equipped Northern Alliance says the Taliban has not been sufficiently weakened by U.S. bombing to move against them. With winter snows expected soon, which traditionally freeze battle lines until the spring, the U.S. began air drooping ammunition from C-130s to the Northern Alliance. But the alliance is having trouble getting the bullets to its front line troops.

RUMSFELD: They are moving them frequently not with vehicles, but with horses and donkeys and mules. And it takes time to get them unpacked and moved out to where the people are.

MCINTYRE: A better option would be for the United States to secure a base in northern Afghanistan where food and supplies could be flown in, something Pentagon planners are considering.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Meanwhile Pentagon sources say despite a public apology, the United States intentionally bombed a Red Cross warehouse in Kabul last week in order to deny food to the Taliban. Nevertheless, senior Pentagon officials say it was a mistake that the warehouse should have been taken off the target list, but it wasn't -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, you mentioned a base the U.S. might want to establish in northern Afghanistan for food and supplies. What about a base to from which to launch commando strikes someplace inside Afghanistan?

MCINTYRE: That is also something the Pentagon is considering. But they are concerned about having a presence on the ground that would then require forced protection on the ground and also provide a possible target for the Taliban. But if they can do it safely in an area, say where the Northern Alliance is, it is one of the options on the table.

BLITZER: OK, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. Thank you very much. Let's return now to our "War Room" and our guests here in Washington.

Once again, the former ambassador to counterterrorism, Paul Bremer; former arms control director Ken Adelman; and in London CNN military analyst, former NATO commander retired General WESLEY CLARK. And by the way, if you want to join in the questions, you can e-mail me your questions. Just go to CNN.com/wolf.

General Clark, you heard the report from Jamie McIntyre. The criticism that is being leveled against the U.S. military, the Pentagon planners, is that they are sort of fighting with one arm tied behind their back. They are not really letting loose, delivering the military knockout punish that they clearly could do but they are holding back for a variety of reasons.

CLARK: Well, I don't think that is correct. I think as General Myers said they are probably on track. You can't expect too much at this stage of the campaign. They have to take it step-by-step, pace themselves. Go after the good targets, put the assets in position to gain intelligence. Build the relationships with the Northern Alliance. Develop confidence in them and give the Northern Alliance to adjust to some of those Russian weapons and some of the other supplies that are coming in.

But I would point out, Wolf, that in addition to the fight in Afghanistan there are other challenges here in this theater. You may recall in the Kosovo campaign that we were very careful to protect the strategic stability of Macedonia.

Milosevic knew if he destabilized Macedonia, he could drive NATO out of the conflict. That was our launching platform if we had to go in on the ground. In this campaign that place is taken by Pakistan. Now, the border to Pakistan and Afghanistan is a very tough border. It is a very porous border. We have had reports of up to 5,000 or more Pakistanis trying to walk in to help the Taliban.

We know there must be supplies, maybe technology coming back and forth across that border. We have had reports of friendly Afghan tribesmen taking airfields inside Pakistan, airfields the taking of which basically challenges the Musharraf government with an incipient civil war. It's essential for the success of this campaign that Pakistan remain fully within Musharraf's control, and that that border be sealed as tightly as possible to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of the Taliban while they are being taken down by the combination of Northern Alliance and U.S. forces.

So, this is another major area. This is the strategic area on which the campaign may well rest.

BLITZER: All right, let's move on. Ken Adelman, one of our viewers, Ryan, in Huntington Beach, California asks a similar question. Let me get your thoughts on this. He asks this: "Why can't we go in there with everything we have got? We should be acting like we are in a war."

ADELMAN: Well, I agree mostly with the sentiment of what he said. I think General Clark laid out very nicely a lot of the reasons why we have to be very careful. I think there are also reasons like your viewer mentioned on why a shock, and awe and far more military might would do a lot of good.

I think we have to teach a lesson around the world, and that lesson is that you cannot attack the United States with impunity. And what I would like to see is the removal of the government in Afghanistan, removal of government in Iraq, and get idea around that any government that supports international terrorist network or weapons of mass destruction and the worst international terrorist network is one with weapons of mass destruction, is going to be removed. BLITZER: If you start walking down that road, do you stop with Iraq? Do you go to Syria, do you go to Yemen, do you go to Sudan. There is a lot of countries out there that are on the State Department's terrorist list. ADELMAN: Right. I say to you, let's accomplish two, Wolf, and then let's get back to the war room and we will talk about what other ones to get. But I think that the point has to be made that around the world it is no longer proper to support, fund, and house international terrorists, or to involve yourself in weapons of mass destruction.

BLITZER: Ambassador Bremer, keeping this coalition together, are you more sensitive to the needs of keeping the coalition together than the steps Ken Adelman is suggesting, because the coalition would crumble pretty quickly once you begin going down that road?

BREMER: I don't think that is actually true. First of all, I don't think coalitions are there for their own sake. They are a means to an end, which is, as Ken puts it, we have got to have victory here. We have a very good broad coalition for the Afghan phase of this operation. And I think we ought to hold that together.

But there will be another phase. In fact, the president has laid out a very clear strategy, a strategic objective, where he said every country is going to have to choose. You are either on our side or on the side of the terrorists and those countries, he said on September 20, which continue to give terrorists territory, will be considered hostile regimes. Now those are buzz words. Those mean that that is a cause of war. You can go to war over a hostile regime.

My choice frankly, is different than Ken's. My strategy would be to go after some of the easier targets after Afghanistan and try to essentially give up terrorists like Sudan or Libya without having to use military force again. That will be a new coalition. It won't be the same one.

BLITZER: All right. General Clark, very briefly before we take a break, what is your strategy right now? You suggested in the past that the U.S. may be investing too much energy on the military front and not enough on the diplomatic front.

CLARK: That is exactly right. We have got to understand what Osama bin Laden really wants. What he wants is the United States to strike very powerfully to mobilize Muslim opinion against United States for excessive use of force. He wants to be able to destabilize the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately he wants Mecca, Medina and the Mantle of Mohammed. And this is really a struggle for the heart and soul of Islam. So as we wage the military battle on the ground in Afghanistan, we have got to be aware of the broader context of this strategic struggle. We have got to, at one time, fight the war in Afghanistan and at the same time build a coalition, the Pakistanis and the other regimes in cooperation with us and they have to take measures to cut off the fundamentalists funding and support that is coming out of their own countries. BLITZER: Hold on one second, hold that thought. We are going to take a quick break.

Coming up: more from the "War Room." How patient will Americans be if the U.S. death toll in Afghanistan rises? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. We are in what we call our CNN "War Room" discussing the military campaign in Afghanistan. Joining me once again here in Washington: The former ambassador-at-large for counterterroism Paul Bremer; former arms control director Ken Adelman; from London, the retired General Wesley Clark. He is the former NATO supreme allied commander, CNN military analyst.

Ken Adelman, we have another e-mail from Tony in Louisville, asked this question, which is a fair question: "Would the American public's resolve wan under a steady and ongoing casualty count that would extend over three or four years?"

ADELMAN: No.

BLITZER: Why do you say that?

ADELMAN: Because I think all Americans understand that this was an attack on America, an attack on our values and America will give the confidence to our government that it needs. This government is a group of -- we are very fortunate to have people like Donald Rumsfeld for whom I worked three times in my life. He is just a wonderful, wonderful man. And Dick Cheney there, President Bush, Colin Powell. I think this is a really first-class team.

BLITZER: General Clark, you were restrained during the wars in Kosovo the U.S. was restrained. The Gulf War thinking air power alone could get the job done neat and clean without a lot of U.S. casualties. If the U.S. sends ground troops into Afghanistan into those caves where those guerrillas learned how to fight against the old Soviet Union, there are going to be a lot of body bags, unfortunately.

CLARK: Well, you are going to have some casualties, but most wars have been won in Afghanistan by bribery and treachery. And we can't neglect the influence of a few dollars well placed and the sense of inevitable defeat that we are going to inflict on the Taliban. So if we work this thing the right way, and we build the momentum and use the raids selectively, we will have good results, we will have strategic results without high costs.

But I do agree with Ken Adelman. I think the American public -- this is different than Kosovo, this is different than the Gulf War and I think the American public will support significant costs provided they see the strategy and understand that we have the momentum and are succeeding with this.

BLITZER: Ambassador Bremer, the president and his top advisers have already lost some 6,000 killed, 5 or 6,000 in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. Will that make a difference this time in the willingness to go forth and endanger the young men and women of the U.S. armed services?

BREMER: I think it will. I think in fact for the last 20 years we have operated under a misapprehension that the American people were not prepared to take casualties to the extent -- I think they were prepared. In any case, that's all history.

Now we have a new war declared on us very clearly by these extremist Muslims. And I think there is a clear sense in the American people that we are going to have to see this thing through. So I agree with both the General and with Ken, that we will find the American people ready to follow as long as the administration continues to do as good a job as it has in articulating a clear strategic goal and a strategy of both political and military that gets you to that goal.

ADELMAN: And Wolf, let me just tell you it is amazing to us who have been around Washington for a long time how much this country has changed since September 11. We all dealt with individual crisis. I was with Ronald Reagan at summits and Wes very nicely at Kosovo and Jerry Bremer through many administrations in the '70s and '80s.

You know, we had our problems and we had all kinds of controversies with Congress. This country is a different country than it was before September 11th. The unity, the determination, just the sheer pride that Americans take in being America and what we have seen is, the outpouring is just different. It feels different than anything we have seen in our lifetime.

BLITZER: I want to thank all three of you preemptively. I know I am going to get a lot of email. General Clark, what is on your lapel in five seconds?

CLARK: This is a poppy. It's given out in England in commemoration of Armistice Day, 11 November 1918 when all the guns were silent. It has never been forgotten -- the end of World War I.

BLITZER: General Clark, thanks for joining us. Ambassador Bremer, Ken Adelman, thanks so much.

The government, meanwhile, warns something ugly could happen over the next week. The Justice Department is reports a new credible threat of terrorism against the United States. The latest on that story and the other late developments in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's get a quick check of the latest developments.

Attorney General John Ashcroft warns Americans at home and abroad to be on the highest alert over the next week. Ashcroft says U.S. intelligence sources have received a credible domestic terrorism threat against the United States and its interests. As with other such alerts recently released, the threat was not specific. Anthrax has found its way to the headquarters of the U.S. State Department. Officials there report trace amounts in two mail rooms on letters sent to the department's Rewards for Justice program and in a mail pouch bound for the U.S. embassy in Peru.

Health officials in New Jersey say a 51-year-old woman who lives near the Hamilton Township mail facility is recovering well from skin anthrax. She's not an employee of the postal service or any news media organization. That's all the time we have tonight. Please join me tomorrow at both 5 and 7:00 p.m. Eastern. Until then thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "CROSSFIRE" begins right now.

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