Market Call

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I feel strongly about what we’re doing. I feel strongly that the course of this administration has taken will make America more secure. And the world more free. And, therefore, the world more peaceful. As a conviction that’s deep in my soul.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHAFFLER: After watching the news conference, Democratic rival John Kerry released a statement. He attacked the president for offering no specific plan for Iraq.

Kerry says President Bush “stubbornly clings to the same policy that has led to a greater risk to American troops and a steadily higher cost to the American taxpayer.”

Kerry adds, “we need to internationalize the effort and put an end to the American occupation. We need a real transfer of political power to the U.N.”

So is President Bush’s Iraq policy failing? We look at that in our “Tough Call.” Joining us is Cliff May from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Larry Korb from the Center for American Progress joins me, as well.

Gentlemen, good to have you back here.

CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Thanks, Rhonda.

LAWRENCE KORB, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Good morning.

SCHAFFLER: Larry, let’s start with you. Your impressions after watching the news conference last night?

KORB: Well, I think the president confused morality with moral certainty. He made a good case for why we need to do stuff in Iraq but he did not tell us what plan he has to deal with the situation. He said he was going to listen to the military now about the number of troops but a year ago he ignored General Sunsechi (ph) who told him he’d need 200,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.

He disbanded the Iraqi army, which everybody now admits was a big mistake. They went after Al-Sadr (ph) without having a game plan as to what would happen after it. And even Ambassador Bremer last Sunday, when they asked him, well who are you going to turn power over to? He said, that’s a good question. The president didn’t tell us that last night.

SCHAFFLER: Although what the president did say is that power will be turned over on June 30th.

Cliff, should the U.S. be sticking to that deadline?

MAY: I think, at this point, we absolutely have to. I think it’s very important symbolically that we transfer the sovereignty, that we make the gesture to show that we’re not there to occupy. We’re not there to colonize. We’re not there for the oil. We want, as quickly as possible, to stand up a decent civil society and decent government in Iraq.

I think we should be clear, and I think the president was, that once we hand over sovereignty, nonetheless, American soldiers won’t be going home. There will probably be more of them there because the Iraqis are not yet at a point where they can take charge of their own security.

So I think the important thing the president tried to convey, not necessarily to Larry or me or you, but to the American public is, look, we know what we’re doing. We have a mission. We’re going to fulfill it and I’m very confident that we can get it done and we will get it done.

SCHAFFLER: Cliff, the other issue the president focused on last night briefly was that he said at one point it’s only been a year because he was talking about some of the difficulties in Iraq. Now, is that a fair assessment to say it takes time to build democracy or should the critics have their say and that is, in one year things have not gone well?

MAY: Yes, it is hard to do something very quickly. And especially if you look at this in the broader context, which I think we need to do. Which is that for more than 20 years the United States, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, had no realistic policy when it came to radical, ideological Islam and terrorism.

Don’t forget, it was 1979 in Iran that radical Islamists first took over the U.S. embassy and held our diplomats hostage. We had not only no plan and no way to deal with it, we didn’t have any conclusions afterwards. In ’83, we were first attacking Beirut by suicide terrorists. Again, we did nothing but ignore the problem. And by ignoring the problem, after being attacked over many, many years, 9/11 came about when terrorists really got emboldened.

Now we are beginning to formulate a policy to deal with this very, very real threat that we did ignore for so many years. And we are succeeding slowly. Look, there hasn’t been an attack on the U.S. since 9/11. Libya is now disarming. We have the protect for a free and democratic country in the Arab Middle East for the first time in history. All this is very important. We’re starting to think seriously about terrorism and the ideologies that drive terrorism.

SCHAFFLER: OK, Larry, it’s your turn now. Some response to that?

KORB: Well, there’s no doubt about the fact that it’s going to be a long process in Iraq but that’s not what we were led to believe. We were told, because the administration relied on people like Ahmad Chalabi, rather than the professionals in the military and in the intelligence agencies, we would be greeted as liberators. We weren’t. On May 2nd last year, the Pentagon announced – this is the day after the president’s mission accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier, we’d be down to 30,000 troops by the end of the summer of 2003.

This is the problem. They have really not developed a plan. And I didn’t hear anything last night that told me that they recognize how difficult it’s going to be, what the cost is going be.

Now who are we going to hand over – I agree with Cliff. We should hand over power as soon as possible. But if we don’t know who we’re going to hand it over to, that would be an absolute disaster. The president said he’s going have Brahimi (ph), the U.N. representative, talk to Sustani (ph) and they’ll come up with a plan. Well suppose Sustani has a plan that excludes the Kurds? What do we do then?

This June 30th deadline has no real strategic sense. If you say, look, we’ll hand it over soon as we’re sure things are going to work, this will give the people in Iraq, the moderate leaders, an incentive to get their act together. But if you stay with this June 30th deadline, basically time is on their side and they know it.

SCHAFFLER: Cliff, go ahead.

MAY: I’ve got to say just very quickly. Larry, I think, does know this. We’re not talking about a handover of power. We’re talking about a handover of sovereignty. Sovereignty is largely symbolic, power isn’t. There’s a big difference there and it’s important that policy people and those explaining it make sure that everyone understands that difference.

KORB: Well, if you hand over sovereignty and it’s empty, that’s even worse. Because if you’re going to hand it over, you’re going to have to give them some say in what happens. And if you have an illegitimate government that takes over, whatever it is that’s seen as illegitimate, that’s a recipe for civil wars because we have not yet disbanded the militias.

It’s not just Sadr’s militias. We have about four or five militias still there. The Iraqi security forces are not up to the job because we tried to accelerate that process. And so what you’re going to have is a recipe for civil war unless you get your act together.

SCHAFFLER: Let me jump in here for a minute, Cliff, and ask you this. Based on what John Kerry said about internationalizing this event a little bit more. It would be more helpful, would it not, if there were a stronger coalition, if you will, or perhaps more participation, some U.N. involvement? Wouldn’t that help the cause of it?

MAY: I’m not sure it would, unfortunately. Look, first of all, the U.N. we now know was implicit with Saddam Hussein in stealing billions of dollars under the Oil-for-Food Program, which was a scam from the Iraq people. And the moderate Iraqis and smart Iraqis know what the U.N. has done with them.

Also, look back at what the U.N. has been put in charge of in other situations. Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda. Look at Cambodia. When the U.N.’s put in charge, that really means you’re going to let the slaughters take place and make believe it’s not your fault anymore.

We want international involvement. We want the U.N. to play a role but don’t think for a minute that Kofi Annan or anybody else at the U.N. can actually handle this very difficult situation. It’s hard for us to handle, the U.N. can’t do it.

KORB: And it’s ironic that Cliff would say that because we’re putting our hopes in Brahimi (ph). The president said last night he’s going to live with the solution that Brahimi and Sustani (ph) come up with. And the reason he’s doing that is because he does not have a better way to go. We should have gone to the U.N. quite a while ago. Now with 75 days left, it’s going to be hard for the U.N. to do what needs to be done.

But Cliff says, the U.N. certainly has an awful lot of problems, no doubt about it. But the fact of the matter is, he said last night, he empowered Brahimi to do what Ambassador Bremer seems to be able to do.

SCHAFFLER: Cliff, you’re sighing. Go ahead. Don’t have a lot of time but go ahead.

MAY: No. If what Larry says is true, if the president is putting all his faith in Brahimi and the United Nations, then I think the president’s making a very grave error. Brahimi came into an early meeting and he said, ‘I’m here as your Arab brother.’ And he said that in front of Kurds and Turkamens (ph), who are not Arabs and are very worried about being dominated by Arabs. It was a dreadful mistake for somebody from the U.N. to make. I think that the president shouldn’t put that much faith in the U.N. but should utilize whatever strengths the U.N. has but not more. And if Larry’s right, then I think the president’s making a mistake. I’m sorry.

SCHAFFLER: Larry Korb, Cliff May, we have to end it there. Gentlemen, you’ll be back. I know we’ll discuss this further. Thanks so much.

And that wraps it up for MARKET CALL today. Thanks for watching. Have a great day.