Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Interview with Lawrence Korb, Ken Adelman

Aired December 06, 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.
(AUDIO GAP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: In there to root out the terrorists, to find them where they are. Our job has got a long way to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'll discuss unfinished business with former arms control director, Ken Adelman, former assistant defense secretary Lawrence Korb, and CNN military analyst, retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd, as we go into the WAR ROOM.

Good evening. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting tonight from Washington. First it was Mazar-e Sharif. Then it was the Afghan capital, Kabul. Now it's Kandahar, the city where it all began for the Taliban, and from which they came to control nearly all of Afghanistan. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar's luck appears to be running out. Then again, he still may have a little luck left.

We begin with the deal for the surrender of Kandahar. There's some dissension over the details of the agreement, as CNN's Nic Robertson reports from the Pakistani-Afghan border.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The terms of that surrender, that the Taliban should be allowed to walk -- should be allowed to put down their weapons and walk free from the, city including the Taliban leadership, and their weapons should be surrendered to a former Mujahedeen commander, Mullah Nakib Olar (ph), who was a commander, a very senior figure inside Kandahar in the early 1990s. He has now been entrusted by the Taliban to take control of Kandahar city.

Interestingly, the negotiations taking place with the new head of Afghanistan's interim government, Hamid Karzai. Interestingly, that the Taliban now say that Hamid Karzai is not allowed to enter the city, that Mullah Nakib should be allowed to control the city.

We spoke a little earlier with Hamid Karzai and he gave us these terms for the surrender. HAMID KARZAI, CHAIRMAN, INTERIM AFGHANISTAN GOVERNMENT: The Taliban leadership have decided to surrender Kandahar, Helmand and Kabul to me and that, in return, we have offered him amnesty and that they can go to their homes safe without any trouble. There has not been any specific conditions. And we only raised to discuss the modalities of transfer of power in order to prevent chaos, in order unnecessary confusion, the transfer of power will be done in a slow and orderly manner.

ROBERTSON: Now, the terms of the surrender also call for Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, to renounce terrorism, to renounce his association with terrorist organizations, with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and although they were not mentioned by name, that he should make verbal and public statements to this point.

One of the big questions that remain, of course, is what happens to the reported 600 Arab fighters who are reportedly in and around the Kandahar area? So far, it appears from what Mr. Karzai tells us, that he doesn't want them in the country, that they must leave, that they should face international justice, but that he is not placing them under arrest and will not be charging them inside Afghanistan. This, of course, doesn't give any indication of what is going to happen to Osama bin Laden. In fact, Mr. Karzai said he does not know where Osama bin Laden is and he does not know where the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, is at this time.

Nic Robertson, CNN, on the Afghan/Pakistan border.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And this note, Nic will have more at the top of the hour in his SPECIAL REPORT, LIVE FROM AFGHANISTAN.

The Pentagon is tuned in to events in Kandahar, and does not necessarily want to watch "Let's Make A Deal." Let's go live to our CNN military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre, standing live at the Pentagon -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the Pentagon is keeping a close eye on the negotiations over the fated of Kandahar. The interest here, the Pentagon officials want to make sure none of the bad guys get away.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): The Pentagon insists when Kandahar falls it wants Taliaban leader Mullah Mohamed Omar taken prisoner.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Obviously he has been the principle person who has been harboring the al Qaeda network in that country. He does not deserve medal of freedom.

MCINTYRE: A senior Pentagon official expressed deep concern that Hamad Karzai, designated leader of the new interim government, might cut a deal with Omar and other top Taliban that would, "let them off the hook." The would cause serious strains with the new Afghan government, he said, a warning echoed by Secretary Rumsfeld.

RUMSFELD: Our cooperation and assistance with those people, would clearly take a turn south if something where to be done with respect to the senior people in that situation, that was inconsistent with what I have said.

MCINTYRE: The U.S. insists it was all Taliban officials in prison until they can be sorted out. Meanwhile eastern opposition forces urged on and supported by U.S. special forces on the ground, are continuing the search for Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora.

GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS VICE CHAIRMAN: They have moved up the Tora Bora valley, in that cave complex area. As is a battlefield elsewhere, is very fluid, but they have, in fact, been directing their ground attacks against facilities and we have been assisting them with our air support.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: The latest on the fighting is that opposition forces are now at the Kandahar airport and have called for U.S. airstrikes to solidify their positions.

The U.S. suffered more casualties today, although minor ones. A Marine helicopter, a Huey helicopter at base southwest of Kandahar, crashed and burned after what was described as a hard landing. Pentagon officials say that one of the people on the helicopter was hurt during the hard landing, another person apparently was hurt after the helicopter caught fire and some of the munitions, in the words of the Pentagon, "cooked off" or exploded because of the fire.

Again though, those injuries are described as noncritical, relatively minor, and the helicopter you can see in these pictures provided by American pool reporters was a total loss -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie, Camp Rhino, where the Marines are based, about 60 miles southwest of Kandahar, that camp is on high alert right now. Do you have any details of what is going on?

MCINTYRE: What happened was, several hours before this helicopter crash, Marines there began -- believed they were under fire from someone outside the base, either Taliban forces or perhaps it was thought it might be bandits.

They returned fire with mortars and small arms. And they sent some teams out, including the helicopter to go look around. It still at this hour, unclear whether they were actually under attack or what exactly was going on, but they did go on a high the state of alert. In fact, they even issued flack jackets to American reporters who were severing as a pool there -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, thank you very much.

Will Afghanistan's new leaders let the old ones off the hook? Joining me now in here in the CNN WAR ROOM: Ken Adelman, the former U.S. arms control director and the host of defensecentral.com; CNN military analyst, retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd; and Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary, now vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This note, you can send your WAR ROOM questions to us, go to my Web site, cnn.com/wolf. That's where you can also read my daily column.

General Shepperd, let me begin with you. An e-mailer wrote us this question: "How can the U.S. allow surrender of Kandahar with the stipulation of allowing the Taliban to walk away. How many terrorists are we allowing to walk away undetected to harm or kill more Americans?"

MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD (RET.), U.S. AIR FORCE: First of all, the United States is not in charge of this surrender. Hamid Karzai (ph) is, although we have the Marines down there. But the basis of the question is right. We cannot let the wrong guys get away here. Perhaps there are some Afghan Taliban that Hamid Karzai wants to have just walk away and set up their arms, but the really bad guys, Taliban leadership, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar must be had and must be had by us.

BLITZER: I want to show our viewers a map that sort of describes what is going on. Larry Korb I want you to pay particular attention. If you take a look at this map, this is Kandahar right around here. This is the airport to the east, where rebel forces, anti-Taliban forces, appear to be in control. But if you go down south about 60 miles or so, right around here, is Camp Rhino, not very far away. Those U.S. marines, potentially, more than 1,000 of them, they could be in trouble.

LAWRENCE KORB, FMR., ASST. DEFENSE SECRETARY: They could be in trouble but with our air power and everything, I don't think they really will be. The real question is would we use the Marines to get Mullah Omar if Karzai or some of the Taliban factions decide not to turn him over. That is going to be the critical issue, I think here.

BLITZER: Do you have confidence in Hamad Karzai, the rebel leader, a Pashtun leader, who apparently has made this deal with Mullah Omar?

KEN ADELMAN, HOST, DEFENSECENTRAL.COM: No. I would say that what we have to do is tell them exactly what we want. We want the top Taliban leader to be apprehend. We want all al Qaeda to be apprehended, and foreign fighters who are with the Taliban.

BLITZER: You know Hamad Karzai was selected by all the anti- Taliban forces at that meeting outside of Bonn, Germany, to be the leader over the next six months of the interim government.

ADELMAN: Right, and I think it is wonderful he was selected on that, Wolf. I'm saying that the United States forces enabled him and his government to get in power and therefore we should take that position of power and just tell him, this is a war effort, and while we are at war in Afghanistan, making it possible that his government takes over, we want all foreign fighters, the Taliban, all al Qaeda, and the top leadership, not just Omar, but say the top ten leaders of the Taliban, and throw them all in jail as war criminals.

BLITZER: Militarily speaking, we have a question from a viewer.

Maybe Larry Korb, you want to handle this one: "What will the U.S. do if Omar surrender agreement allows him to return to his home?" Live out in peace, if you will.

KORB: Well, I mean, that's the key question, remember we didn't want the Northern Alliance, our other proxy fighters to go into Kabul. And they went in, they just ignored us. This is what happens when you get into bed with some of these characters. Remember, these people have switched sides several times, I think Ken is right, we have to make it clear, but then we also have to say how much are we willing to do about it. And I think that's where, if you got the Marines there you need to play hard ball with these people. And that's going to be a delicate act.

And the United States, I think, is making a big mistake by not getting involved in the peacekeeping. We've basically said, we're just going to do the military, we are going to let others do the peacekeeping. But if we don't do that, we're not going to have the leverage to ensure that the peace is the way we want it.

BLITZER: Let me bring General Shepperd in, the U.S. military and the U.S. government, by all accounts, doesn't want to participate in peacekeeping, and President Bush during the campaign made it clear the U.S. military is a fighting force, not necessarily a peacekeeping force.

SHEPPERD: Yes, I disagree with Larry on this. In this particular case, the peacekeeping force -- we have a big interest in keeping peace, that's for sure, but we can do it in other ways other than using our forces. If possible use Muslim forces in there and the main thing we need our forces for is to go other places worldwide. There's other important -- more important things to do. We have got to bring Afghanistan to a successful conclusion, and then we need to turn the peace making over to other people and we need to hold Afghans responsible for reading Afghanistan.

ADELMAN: I would agree with Don on that, with one provio -- that we have an absolute right to go back to Afghanistan militarily whenever we want to wipe out any kind of terrorist organization or any cooperation with terrorism. We have a clear right of return with any government in Afghanistan, and as I understand the deal that was made in Bonn, that was guaranteed.

BLITZER: They have a lot of other countries apparently ready to go in for peace keepers.

KORB: Well, we do. And I don't think we have to dominate, we have to be there maybe 10,000 or 20,000 Americans have to be part of this force, because we have learned, as we saw in the Balkans, if we don't get involved we're not going to bring about that stability because of who we are. Ken's right you want to have the right to go back, but if you are already there, it's much easier to go back.

ADELMAN: I would keep forces in the region, for sure, maybe still in Afghanistan, right there, but we don't need to be part of the peacekeeping operation. I would trust the Turks to do that, the British to do that, the Australians have been nice, maybe the French want to get involved.

BLITZER: Well, you know, the Jordanians and other Muslim countries are apparently ready to participate. Wouldn't that be politically -- for the Muslim world, Arab world more palatable?

ADELMAN: Yes, it would be more palatable. And as long as we keep forces either in Afghanistan or right in the area, right near with a clear right of return if something happens that is very destructive to the Afghan government or destructive in sense of organizing again for terrorism. It's better the we not participate. Why? Because we glow in the dark, American troops are radioactive, in the sense that we are targets like the Turks are not targets, like the Jordanians are not targets. America is a prime target for terrorism.

BLITZER: We are swamped with e-mail, General Shepperd, and many of them -- so many of them focus on this question: Could the surrender of Kandahar be a trap?

SHEPPERD: Absolutely. We must be very, very cautious about doing this. These people are capable of anything, they have demonstrated in a junior way at Mazar-e Sharif. There are other things that they can do, and I'm not giving anybody any ideas, but we must be very, very cautious about how this -- quote -- "surrender" this city is -- takes place, not only the reception of the people and the weapons, but sorting them out and bringing it to a successful conclusion -- very dangerous time.

BLITZER: So how does the U.S. military -- you worked at the Pentagon, you studied the military for a long time, how do they deal with a situation like this, as politically complex as it, but as military dangerous as it is for those U.S. forces on the ground.

KORB: And that's why it's been important right from the beginning to synchronize your political and military strategies. And this should have been clear, right in the beginning when we got involved with the Northern Alliance and these Pashtun factions exactly who was going to do what, and what would be the ground rules. Obviously we didn't, because we have been playing catch up ball, here. We've left it to the United Nations and Bonn really to dictate what was going to happen. And I think that we need to stay involved, and if we don't, then we risk -- we risk something like this.

We should be the ones calling the shots, because without our air power these people wouldn't get to first base. And so we need to make sure that that's clear.

BLITZER: But you heard Larry make the point before, Ken, that the administration, the U.S. military told the Northern Alliance don't go into Kabul, they said never mind, they went into Kabul. They didn't appear to pay a heavy price for disobeying the request of the U.S. military, which got them there in the first place. Why should Hamid Karzai listen to the U.S. no?.

ADELMAN: I think it's wonderful they went into Kabul. I think that Kabul fell, to tell you the truth, and that it went from red blue at that time. And I support that. I think it was just --

KORB: But that was not our policy.

ADELMAN: OK. Policy, shmolicy, at that point. The fact...

KORB: But that's a bad point.

ADELMAN: ... is that our allies of our's took the capital of a city, and got rid of the Taliban, got rid of one of the sponsors of terrorism. And we want to move on to other sponsors, but when we fought this war to get rid of the al Qaeda, to get rid of the government that hosts terrorism. We cannot tolerate what group to let any leadership go in the Taliban.

And Larry is absolutely right, when they say, you know, these Afghans switch sides all the time. The lower levels can switch sides all they want, the upper levels must pay a price for their obnoxious and terrible government.

BLITZER: General Shepherd, I want to go back to the map once again, because even if Mullah Mohammed Omar is captured, whatever, Osama bin Laden still remains very much at large.

And if we take a look at the map. He is up in -- presumably at least a lot of speculation -- right around here, this is Kandahar, what we've been talking about. Up here in the Tora Bora mountain area, a very rugged area, a very wild area, an area that the U.S. does not necessarily with its friends have a lot of control. What if anything, will the capture of Kandahar do in the search for Osama bin Laden?

SHEPPERD: Well, arguably it will allow us to apply more of our assets to a smaller and smaller area, which has been our success so far. We can train all of our sensors on Tora Bora, as oppose to spreading it. The good news about Tora Bora, though, it appears that ground forces, the mujahideen who have been in those caves are going in there to take them back, as the ground forces assisted by now, our special forces. So it enables us to do more in a smaller area, and I think we'll be successful. And I think he's there.

BLITZER: All right. We are going to take a quick break. We were taking a look at some pictures, as you were speaking, of what's happening in Tora Bora, right now. The fighting, obviously, could be intense over there.

And When we come back, could Saddam Hussein be the next target? One of our guests says the U.S. should invade Iraq, get this, by Christmas. Christmas this year, is that a good idea? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to the CNN WAR ROOM. remember the domino effect? With the Taliban apparently toppled, leading lawmakers say the United States should now knock over Saddam Hussein. Should Iraq be the next target in the war on terrorism?

Larry Korb, you probably know ten U.S. lawmakers sent a letter, have issued a letter, saying precisely that Iraq should be the next target. Listen to this: Senators Lott, Lieberman, McCain, Helms, Shelby, a lot of members said: Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power.

And they want it to happen sooner rather than later.

KORB: Yes, but they didn't say that he was part of the terrorist attack on the United States and there was any evidence to tie him. And unless you have that, I don't think you can do that.

You have got a lot of other things you need to do before that. You need to go Sudan, Libya, Yemen, deal with the al Qaeda networks there, much the same way that we dealt with the situation in Afghanistan. And those countries have given indications that they are willing to crackdown on the al Qaeda.

If you want to go after Saddam, you better make sure that you have a coalition to support you because just militarily, it won't be easy. And the idea that some of these opposition groups in Iraq are anywhere near like the Northern Alliance, I don't think holds up.

BLITZER: All right, Ken Adelman, you are the one who says the U.S. should invade by Christmas of this year.

ADELMAN: Right. There's almost nothing that Larry said, my good friend, Larry, said, that I agree with. Absolutely almost nothing.

BLITZER: Tell us briefly why.

ADELMAN: Very briefly, number one, Saddam Hussein remains the biggest threat to the United States of any person and any country, leader in the world. He has a weapons of mass destruction program underway. There is no doubt he would use it against the United States, either directly or give it to the al Qaeda network.

Number two, that it makes no difference whether he was involved in September 11 or not. I personally think there is evidence that he was involved. I think it was not by chance that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the whole operation, was in Prague meeting with one of the heads of Iraqi intelligence. They were not talking about their summer vacation at that time. It is not by chance that there is a terrorist...

BLITZER: Let me let Larry Korb briefly previously respond to that.

ADELMAN: ... terrorist camp in the south that was training terrorists in the south of Iraq on flying planes.

KORB: Yes, but all of what you said, Ken, was true before September 11. He was this big problem.

ADELMAN: No, he didn't have the meetings before...

(CROSSTALK)

KORB: And Colin Powell has said that those meetings do not lead to a smoking gun. You can bet if it did was a smoking gun showing that they were connected to September 11, we would have made that public now.

ADELMAN: It's certainly smoldering.

KORB: Well, yes, but Powell -- just because they met does not mean that that was...

ADELMAN: What do you think they were talking about, Larry?

KORB: Well, I don't know what they were talking about because I'm not in government any more. But I assume that the secretary of state would know. And if he would know, he would go public because if he would, then he would be able to follow what those congressmen and senators said and get other people, because that's they way we got Pakistan to support us in the war against Afghanistan, by showing the evidence that bin Laden...

(CROSSTALK)

ADELMAN: Eavesdrop on it, but, you know, you put the logic together, the head of the September 11 operation meets with one of the heads of Iraqi intelligence a few weeks before September 11 and for one day and then he flies back to Florida. What do you think he would be talking about?

BLITZER: General Shepperd, a U.S. military assault against Iraq and the republican guard and the Iraqi military is a lot more complicated than what the U.S. military has done in Afghanistan.

SHEPPERD: It is. And I'm glad it's clear now that it's not the military guy on this panel who says we should be in Iraq by Christmas.

On the other hand, it is more complicated and for one big reason. It requires U.S. ground forces, large numbers of them, to do that. It's not that it's all that complicated. It's not that the outcome is in any kind of doubt. But we are going to have move large numbers of U.S. ground forces there to do that before you can do it. Totally different and totally the opposite from what we're doing in Afghanistan with only air power and special forces.

BLITZER: And you need bases too. The bases in Saudi Arabia, at this time, might not be available.

ADELMAN: Right. But I don't agree. I don't agree that you need an enormous number of American troops. I think that reviewing the bidding, that you look at what Saddam Hussein did in 1991. He was not a great fighter. His army is down to one-third than it was before...

BLITZER: Ken, hold that thought.

ADELMAN: ... and I think it would be a cake walk.

BLITZER: A cake walk. We heard it right here. Ken Adelman, Larry Korb, General Shepperd, thanks for joining us.

Up next, three bodies of American servicemen greeted with honors in Germany. Details of this solemn ceremony when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Here are some of the latest developments we are following: The bodies of three American servicemen arrived at the U.S. air base at Ramstein, Germany a little while ago. Two of them were Green Berets killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. The third was a sailor who died from an accidental head injury aboard the USS Kitty Hawk.

Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today in a somewhat contentious hearing. He lashed out at those questioning the administration's anti-terror initiatives, saying that critics are helping the enemy.

And police now say a gunman killed one person inside a factory in Goshen, Indiana and injured at least six others today before apparently killing himself. The wife of one of the worker's says the man had been fired earlier in the day.

And that's all the time we have tonight. Please join me again tomorrow twice at both 5:00 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