Yesterday I watched Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition... just the last part of it, that is: a very interesting give-and-take between two luminaries of US geopolitics --Messrs Zbig Brzezinski and ret. Gen Brent Scowcroft. Here's the transcript:
Joining us now with perspective on a number of key issues on the world stage, two guests: Retired U.S. Air Force General Brent Scowcroft. He served as the national security adviser to both former presidents Ford and the first President Bush. And Zbigniew Brzezinski was former President Carter's national security adviser.
Gentlemen, welcome back to "Late Edition." Thanks for joining us.
Who is responsible, General Scowcroft, in your opinion, for the miscalculation on the insurgency that has erupted with such deadly consequences in Iraq, for miscalculating that insurgency and all that flows from that?
BRENT SCOWCROFT, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I don't know who inside the administration you can say was responsible for it. I think the administration operated heavily on the basis of a single assumption as to what the consequence would be, and perhaps didn't pay enough attention to the alternative, to the what-ifs.
BLITZER: The assumption was that the U.S. would have a speedy defeat of Saddam Hussein, and then things would fall into place.
SCOWCROFT: Well, there would still be a structure in place which could pick up and move over, and that we would be simply liberators and monitoring the reconstitution of the destroyed economy.
BLITZER: We heard Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi intellectual, someone widely expected to be the Iraqi ambassador to the United States, just say that he himself didn't think this insurgency would develop, and he would share -- take responsibility.
A lot of Iraqis were telling the Bush administration this kind of notion, "Don't worry."
SCOWCROFT: Oh, indeed. Much of our intelligence, that which purported to come out of Iraq, was from emigres who had sources back there, who may have had their own reasons and so on.
But I think, you know, it cannot be surprising that there's an insurgency now. The dimensions of it, the organization, the financing and so on, perhaps is a surprise...
BLITZER: We know there was...
SCOWCROFT: ... but not that there was an insurgency.
BLITZER: Dr. Brzezinski, we know there was a huge intelligence blunder on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Everybody recognizes that now.
But now it's apparent, and Kanan Makiya now believes, and other Iraqis, that Saddam Hussein was plotting this insurgency all along, anticipating a U.S. assault. That would seem to be another intelligence blunder of huge import, and as a result a lot of Americans and others are dying.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, it's not just an intelligence blunder. It's a question of the mindset. There was such fervor to go to war against Iraq. And it was propounded with such intensity and, I'm sorry to say, demagoguery by a bunch of fanatics that it was quite natural for them also to argue that it's going to be very easy, that we'd be welcomed as liberators, that the aftermath would be very simple.
I think we're dealing here with a problem which goes beyond intelligence. It's a fundamental misjudgment, and it's a consequence of a decision-making process in which skeptics, questioners, people who disagreed really didn't play much of a role.
BLITZER: Well, you use a tough word, "fanatics." Who do you mean, when you say fanatics, talking about fanatics?
BRZEZINSKI: I'm not going to mention names, but people who, either for religious or strategic reasons, have a very one-sided view of Iraq and of the Middle East and what needs to be done in the area.
BLITZER: When you say "religious reasons" -- I'm pressing you, because these are strong words that you're throwing out, and you're a man of very precise language.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think we all know that in American politics, particularly in recent times, there has been an intensified linkage between extreme religious views and politics. And there are a number of people who have very, very intense feelings about the Middle East. And I think that has colored our approach to Iraq and has colored our assessments of what would happen.
BLITZER: Well, maybe I'm missing something. Are you talking about fundamentalist Christians? Are you talking about Jews? Specifically, what are you trying...
BRZEZINSKI: I'm talking about all of them. I'm talking about all of them: people who approach this issue with a very strong religious fervor or a kind of strategic fanaticism, the kind of fanaticism that leads some people currently, for example, to argue that we should attack Iran, that we should bomb Iran.
BLITZER: And is this related to support for Israel is coloring their...
BRZEZINSKI: In some cases, I'm sure it is. In some cases, it isn't. It's a mixture.
You know, this is a very diversified country, and there's a variety of viewpoints.
But in recent times, and particularly after 9/11, there has been an intensification in intensely views, intensely views. And when that is translated into the decision-making process, in which you really don't vent alternatives very systematically, you are inclined to get into difficulties of the kind that we're now facing in Iraq.
BLITZER: Do you accept that, General Scowcroft?
SCOWCROFT: This is a complex situation, and I would leave it to my colleague to define it.
The one point I would like to make, though, is I think we're in danger of exaggerating the degree to which Saddam Hussein planned this whole insurgency. I think if it had been carefully planned, we wouldn't have pulled him out of a hole in the ground like a rat. There would have been much more going on.
I think they have reconstituted, and it probably is Baathist- oriented and so on. They're very well-organized and so on.
But I think that's going a little too far, to think that this was all one part of a grand plan.
BLITZER: Do you agree with that?
BRZEZINSKI: Yes, I think the point about Saddam hiding in a hole doesn't fit with the notion of a well-planned underground insurgency.
BLITZER: But there's no doubt they have a lot of money and they have lot of people and they're causing enormous amount of damage.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes, but it's also a fact that shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein -- and let me remind you, I was a critic and opponent of the war -- there was still a predisposition in Iraq to feel it's good that he's gone. But we, unfortunately, mishandled the aftermath. And now, a year and a half later, it is an occupation. And generally speaking, people don't like to be occupied by foreigners.
BLITZER: I'm interested in your assessment -- and you're a retired U.S. Air Force general -- of this exchange that Rumsfeld had with the soldier in Kuwait this past week on a lack of armor and their going into battle not fully protected.
You can understand why a lot of troops and their relatives, their families, the American public is pretty upset about this.
SCOWCROFT: Look, I think it's understandable that our vehicles were not prepared for this kind of operation. We have a wonderful military machine, but it's basically geared to a World War II kind of massive military operation, not to roadside bombs exploding under vehicles and so on and so forth.
Now, you can argue how rapidly we have been able to adjust our vehicles. And we're getting a lot better in the whole insurgency kind of thing.
But this is a kind of war that we thought was behind us. This is not high-tech war now. This is low-tech war. This is routing people out of apartment buildings and so on. This is the toughest, meanest kind of warfare, much more like clearing out Berlin in World War II than it is in either Desert Storm or military operations.
BLITZER: All right, I'm going to pick up on that. We're going to broaden this discussion, get into some other areas, as well. But we'll take a quick break.
Up next, a quick check of what's making news right now, including the latest on the Palestinian presidential race.
Then, the former national security advisers weigh in on the political intrigue in Ukraine: a democracy movement's opposition candidate poisoned.
Stay with "Late Edition." We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
We're talking about the world's global hot spots and the challenges they pose with our guests, former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brent Scowcroft, Iran, how worried are you that Iran is moving closer toward developing a nuclear bomb?
SCOWCROFT: Well, I'm terribly worried. I think they probably are. Indeed, you know, I mean, you go back as far as the Shah, the Shah was talking about obtaining nuclear weapons.
BLITZER: What should the U.S. be doing that it is not doing right now?
SCOWCROFT: I think we should be more wholeheartedly supporting the Europeans. I don't know whether their approach will work. But it seems to me we ought to be presenting Iran with a picture of better relations, of increasing our contact with the regime, in exchange for them foregoing the right to enrich uranium.
It might not work. But certainly a tough line is not likely to produce anything.
BLITZER: A military option, in your opinion, is...
SCOWCROFT: I don't think we have a reasonable military option. And therefore, I think we have little to lose by reaching out and trying to draw them at least into freezing their program.
BLITZER: What's your assessment, Dr. Brzezinski?
BRZEZINSKI: Well, first of all, I'm not terribly worried, but I agree with Brent.
BLITZER: Why aren't you terribly worried?
BRZEZINSKI: Because for one thing, they are not about to have it. It will take several years for them really to have it. Secondly, what can they do with it as a practical matter? This is a serious country. This is not a fly-by-night fictional country that could act in a totally reckless fashion.
BLITZER: What about giving it to terrorists?
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, but would they want to do that? They have security problems, serious security problems around them. Pakistan, which is unstable, India, Russia, Israel, have nuclear weapons. They have a real security problem.
And the way to deal with this issue is the way Brent recommends, which is to try to work them into international system in which they can pursue their nuclear program on a peaceful basis, but they get some benefits from abandoning, forsaking the military program, and then eventually point towards some sort of an arrangement, some sort of an arrangement for a nuclear-free Middle East. Because less than that is not going to offer them a long-term inducement to eschew nuclear weapons.
SCOWCROFT: Let me tell you why I'm more worried than Zbig is. It is not Iran itself, but if Iran gets away with enriching uranium, Brazil already has announced that it wants to enrich uranium, and pretty soon you'll have every medium-sized country in the world producing the capability for nuclear weapons. I think that we ought to try to stop now, before it gets started.
BLITZER: Let's talk about the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
In October, October 14th in The Financial Times, you were quoted as saying this: "Ariel Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized. When there is a suicide attack followed up by a reprisal, Sharon calls the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism,' and the president says, 'Yes, you are.' He, Mr. Sharon, has been nothing but trouble."
Did you say that?
SCOWCROFT: Unfortunately I did. It wasn't supposed to be for publication.
BLITZER: This was in an off-the-record conversation?
SCOWCROFT: Yes. Yes.
BLITZER: And so it got out there.
SCOWCROFT: Yes.
BLITZER: And so explain to our viewers what you meant. And I assume you meant this, what you said.
SCOWCROFT: Well, I think the best explanation I have is what Dov Weisglass gave as to what Sharon's strategy was.
BLITZER: He's an aide to the prime minister?
SCOWCROFT: He's an aide to the prime minister. Which was to get out of Gaza, because the Israeli position is pretty untenable, get out of one or two settlements, finish the wall, and then say, we're through.
The administration has felt that Gaza was the first step in a program, and what I have been arguing is if Sharon has his way, it's not the first step, it's the last step.
BLITZER: But fundamentally, the question is this: Do you think Sharon has the president wrapped around his finger?
SCOWCROFT: That was -- I would never have used that in public, of course not. But what I believe is that Sharon appeals to the president and his attitude on the war on terrorism, and he says "I'm on the front line of that war. The people after me are terrorists." What is the president going to do? No, they're not terrorists? In that sense, the president plays into Sharon's plan.
BLITZER: What do you think?
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I thought you were going to throw some embarrassing quote at me.
BLITZER: No.
BRZEZINSKI: I thought Brent's diagnosis was brilliant. And I think one should say publicly what one says privately. And I agree with him.
BLITZER: You agree that what? Be specific.
BRZEZINSKI: Whatever you cited him as saying, the whole works.
BLITZER: That the president is basically controlled by Ariel Sharon?
BRZEZINSKI: "Controlled" is your word. I don't think he said that.
BLITZER: Well, I'll repeat. It says, "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger."
BRZEZINSKI: Yes, that's about right.
BLITZER: That's being precise.
BRZEZINSKI: Sharon comes and whispers "Terrorism, terrorism," and the president is now...
BLITZER: But Israelis do face terrorism.
BRZEZINSKI: Of course. But this is not the whole problem. It is not the entire problem, and certainly not the global problem.
BLITZER: What do you think the United States should be doing now, after Yasser Arafat's death, to try to jumpstart a revived peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians?
BRZEZINSKI: We should be doing what a friend of mine and a colleague of Brent's recently recommended, Henry Kissinger. He said something with which I very much agree. We should be much more explicit about staking what the actual content, what the elements of a peace settlement ought to be, not leave that wide open.
Because if you leave it wide open, the Israelis and the Palestinians distrust one another so much that they'll never move towards peace. But if we lay on the table a package -- and there are several key elements of that package which are generally known and understood -- and say, this is what the settlement will be based on, then I think we move the parties concerned toward serious negotiations.
BLITZER: But that would seem to be -- and we're going to take a break, but I'll let you wrap this up, General Scowcroft -- the U.S. sort of imposing a settlement on the Israelis and the Palestinians, or squeezing both sides to come up with some sort of solution. Is that something that would be a good idea?
SCOWCROFT: I have been opposed to that for most of this conflict. I think it is the only solution now. The two sides by themselves, the animosity is so deep and the mistrust is so wide that they can never do it by themselves. We have got to say, this is it. And you know, as Zbig says, the outlines of a settlement are really quite clear. There are a few rough edges that need to be honed off, but it is not difficult to see what a settlement is now. But we are the ones that have to impose it.
BLITZER: All right. We'll continue this conversation and expand it to talk about what's happening in Ukraine. But we'll take another quick break. Our conversation with the former national security advisers will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. We're talking with our guests, two former national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Dr. Brzezinski, what do you make of this opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, in Ukraine, whose face has been so brutally distorted; now the evidence suggests he was poisoned. The question is, poisoned by whom.
BRZEZINSKI: We don't know by whom, but we can guess. Presumably either someone from the security services of Ukraine, or maybe Russia, or from one of the mafias that feels threatened by the prospects of his election.
BLITZER: They play hardball over there. They play pretty tough.
BRZEZINSKI: Let me mention this: Yushchenko's promoter, a banker called Hetman (ph), was going to run for president against Kuchma. Somebody shot him in the elevator as he was going home to his apartment. It was never uncovered who did it. I mean, there is a tradition here knocking off political opponents.
BLITZER: Are these Ukrainians that are doing this or Russian- influenced (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
BRZEZINSKI: You can't separate those elements, because the Ukrainian mafia is tied in very closely to the Russian mafia, and then that has been made worse by Putin's bizarre behavior, really bizarre behavior, of endorsing Yanukovych so blatantly -- blatantly and brazenly -- and then even congratulating him when he hadn't yet won.
So this connection adds an international dimension to all of this, which is very serious.
BLITZER: General Scowcroft, what is your assessment of what's happening in Ukraine right now and this poisoning of the opposition leader?
SCOWCROFT: Well, I agree with what Zbig said. I think, you know, this is really tough business. This is a tough area. It goes far back to Kuchma, who really started out wanting to be able to run...
BLITZER: The president of Ukraine.
SCOWCROFT: The president. Who wanted to run again. That avenue seemed to be closed, so he has his handpicked man, and so on. Yushchenko is the opposition. And I think that is the outcome.
BLITZER: It raises questions, though, about in this post-Cold War era, the U.S.-Russian relationship, specifically the relationship between President Bush and Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
The Economist magazine wrote this on December 11th: "Far from being a political and economic reformer who runs an admittedly flawed but still recognizable democracy, Mr. Putin has become an obstacle to change, who is in charge of an ill-managed autocracy. The question is, what can the West do about it?"
Do you agree with The Economist?
SCOWCROFT: I think that's an exaggeration. I'm not sure who Mr. Putin is. He's a complicated figure. But I think he was acting here -- I think he lost it in a way. He was acting against his own best interests by criticizing so sharply the United States as being behind this and so on. That's not in his interest, whatever he actually believes. I think he just -- I think he went overboard.
BLITZER: Do you think he went overboard?
BRZEZINSKI: No, I don't. I think Putin represents the interests of the last gasp of the Soviet elite, and particularly of the KGB.
And he's been very consistent since coming to power in doing two things. One, restricting the freedom or democracy within Russia itself. He's been very systematic about it. And secondly, trying to reimpose Russian primacy, domination perhaps even, preponderance in any case, over its immediate adjoining neighbors, countries that became independent when the Soviet Union disintegrated.
And the biggest prize is Ukraine. And that's the prize he's trying to grab. And I think he's overreaching.
BLITZER: Is the president behaving responsibly in dealing with Putin right now?
SCOWCROFT: Yes, I think he is. I think he is.
Zbig may be right. I'm not sure he's right. There's no question that Putin relies on the KGB people, because I think they're the only ones he trusts in the system. But I don't think he's simply a throwback. I think he is more complicated than that.
But there's no question that the near abroad, whether it's Ukraine, whether it's Georgia and probably will go into Central Asia, is the area where we want to assure independence for those countries, and Putin would like to reabsorb them. That is a true area of conflict between the two sides.
BLITZER: Brent Scowcroft, thanks very much for joining us.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, always a pleasure to have you on the program as well.
Up next, the results of our Web question of the week. We'll show you what they are. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Our "Late Edition" Web question of the week asked this: Do U.S. troops in Iraq have adequate resources? Take a look at this -- 8 percent of you say yes; 92 percent of you say no. Remember, this is not a scientific poll.
And that's your "Late Edition" for Sunday, December 12th.
Please be sure to join me next Sunday and every Sunday at noon Eastern for the last word in Sunday talk.
I'm here Monday through Friday twice a day at both noon and 5 p.m. Eastern.
Until tomorrow, thanks very much for joining us.
transcripts.cnn.com |
