The Flipside

Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.

I’m sure that all of us share the same feeling. It is unfortunate that we are having a conversation about the significant loss of life, which is continuing as we speak. Both of you have an opinion on whether we should get out of Iraq, or should not get out of Iraq and how.

Doug, let me start with you since the CATO Institute has published a new book, “Exiting Iraq.” What is your feeling about how we can or should we expeditiously withdraw from Iraq?

DOUG BANDOW, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE: We need to be talking about getting out of Iraq in months and not years. I don’t believe that we have four years or ten years to talk about troops there. I think this is an issue which is not just in our hands. It’s in the Iraqi people’s hands. As American casualties accelerate I don’t believe that we can afford to stay there. And I don’t believe that’s going to be helping the long-term reconstruction of Iraq.

So I think we need to talk about phasing out our troops. We need to begin draw down tied to the election. We need to set a firm deadline, and indicate that is going to be the responsibility of the Iraqi people to build their country and to defend our country.

RAMBERG: Andrew, do you want to weigh in on here? Because your time line is quite different.

ANDREW APOSTOLOU, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, I don’t have a time line. That’s the whole point. The only exit strategy that we have in Iraq is success. We can’t afford to lose in Iraq. That’s very clear. If we lose in Iraq, Iraq reverts to becoming the terrorism- sponsoring state that it was under Saddam Hussein. That’s why we can’t afford to lose. Giving a firm deadline is exactly what the terrorists want.

So nobody in the U.S. that has a serious opinion in foreign policy, neither of the candidates running in your elections in November is saying there’s a firm deadline. What both parties agree on, I think this is a very, very strong consensus in this country, is that we have to win in Iraq, and we can win in Iraq. We have seen what we managed to achieved in Iraq (INAUDIBLE) over 12 years. Creating a decent, fairly Democratic society with people are very pro-U.S. and antiterrorism.

We can do that in the rest of Iraq. It’s going to be tough, but we’re going to succeed.

ELAM: Doug, I want to ask you about something here I was reading. It says, continuing military occupation in Iraq distracts attention from fighting al Qaeda. How so?

BANDOW: Among other things, we don’t have nearly enough troops in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is deteriorating now. They’ve had to postponed elections. We are seeing increased Taliban activity. Attacks on NGO groups. We see (INAUDIBLE) has pulled out. That is an area where this administration got distracted very early. It rightly went after the Taliban in Afghanistan, and almost immediately turned its attention to Iraq.

I don’t see what the success strategy is in Iraq. The reality is this administration has made a mistake on virtually every post occupation decision. And we’re in a situation now where we’ve agreed not to go in the city of Najaf. We’ve agreed not do go into the city of Fallujah, within the Sunni Triangle, as it’s called, U.S. forces are not going into a number of cities. Those cities have essentially been turned over to insurgents. We have a very serious problem here.

It’s not just a question of what American policymakers want. It’s what the Iraqi people want. And what we seem to be seeing with an accelerating insurgency is they don’t want the U.S. there. And the real question is what happens after an election if an elected government says we want you to accelerate your exit. And I think that’s likely to happen if a government actually represents the Iraqi people.

MORRIS: Gentlemen, as we get callers we’re going to try to go to them right away. Brad in New York. Thank you for joining us. What’s your question or comment? Hello, Brad?

CALLER: Hello. How are you doing?

MORRIS: We’ doing fine. Go right ahead, please.

CALLER: I opposed the Vietnam War in the ’60s, and I don’t recall this media. And the talks like this that you’re having now was withheld during the Vietnam War. For every 1,000 soldiers that were unfortunately killed over there. And I sometimes wonder if it’s — is this war more of a political issue, or is it a war about security? I — you know, it just seems to have become very political, and maybe somebody can answer that question for me.

MORRIS: Why don’t we try Andrew, is this war a political issue?

APOSTOLOU: Well, it is a political issue, and it should be a political issue. There’s nothing that shouldn’t be politicized in a democracy. You’re having an election coming up. This issue should be debated. There is nothing wrong with that. My view all along has been that it was critical for western security, not just the U.S., but the rest of us as well, that we go after Saddam Hussein’s regime.

You could not fight the war against terrorism and have Saddam breaking out of containment as he was going to. So you had to deal with that sooner or later. And September 11th made it absolutely critical and vital. There’s nothing wrong with debating this issue. It’s critical to debate it.

RAMBERG: Andrew, I want to have you respond quickly to something that Doug said which is that we’re using so many of our resource in Iraq that actually we’re taking resources away from fighting terrorism across the world.

APOSTOLOU: Well, he referred to Afghanistan. And the problem with that point is that essentially we have taken a very wise decision in my view in Afghanistan, not to take the approach of just flooding the country with soldiers. What we’re not going to do is what the Soviets did, which was try and pile in the military force.

What’s needed in Afghanistan is very carefully targeted counter insurgency, and counter terrorism. If you look at that time fact that the U.S. Special Forces recently nailed a chap called Rozz Cahn (ph) an important Taliban commander in Southeast Afghanistan, you can see that successes are being made. But counter insurgency takes a long time. It’s very political. It takes a lot of patience, and we’re doing it gradually and slowly. And that’s the way it’s got to be done. Sending a whole army to Afghanistan is a waste of time.

ELAM: Andrew, we have another caller on the line. Cora in Indiana, would you like to go ahead?

CALLER: Yes, I would. I think we need to stay the course. Help our Iraqis take care of themselves. All this started back when George Bush landed that jet on the carrier, and the old man on the hill started screaming photo op. And then they set out with the mainstream media to destroy George Bush. They destroyed this country.

The people — this country made it look bad around the world. And they’ve been doing it ever since to destroy George Bush. They have destroyed our country, the opinion of our country around the world. And I am not for John Kerry to bring in the United Nations, and let Germany and France dictate what’s going on in this country.

MORRIS: Thank you for your comment. Andrew, talk a bit about the political path that is ahead. Because it seems clearly that a lot of people are thinking it is politics. It is something that we are facing. It is a war that a lot of people are comparing with Vietnam. But for very different reasons. So what do you see as political path?

APOSTOLOU: Well, I think, as I said before, there’s an election on it, and it has to be debated. And that is as should happen in a democracy. What both parties are trying to do is try and play out the differences between them. The differences aren’t that great. Let’s remember, election campaigns are like seduction. You should always forget what was said before when you had what happens afterwards.

I think in November people will forget a hot lot of things that has been said. The fact is, everybody agrees you have to fight a war in Iraq. You have to win in Iraq. And at the same time we need a different coalition to counter terrorism globally. And I have to say that what is impressive in America is the consensus in the political class over doing that.

MORRIS: Doug, your opinion with regard to the political path.

BANDOW: The problem, of course, is there are a lot of censuses of the political elite, which very often don’t represent the voters. And we find the voters today; the majority think the war was a mistake. The question is, are they willing to sustain a war that they think is a mistaken.

Beyond that, again, you have to go back to what the Iraqi people want. All the polls we see of the Iraqi people is, they don’t like the U.S. They want the U.S. troops out. And a majority have said that attacks on American personnel are justified. That is a very unstable climate in Iraq to maintain American troops. And we cannot assume that we can dictate this decision. What happens if an electoral majority emerges that actually represents that sentiment, and says go home?

We’ve got a very real problem. We’ve got to think in terms of are we willing to sustain 40, 50 60 or more casualties a month? Are we willing to occupy a country where we have now said we will not go into major cities? We have turned major cities over to insurgents. Are we willing to accept that situation, and how does that build democracy in Iraq?

ELAM: Doug I am going to cut you off for a second because we have one more caller, and we are running out of time. Abdul in California, go right ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I have a comment about the Iraq war. I am a former Freedom Fighter. I fought in Afghanistan against Russia. So the gentlemen — a comment saying Afghanistan is peace and election and these things all — because United States spent over $400 million to buy these people for election, to work for Karzai and there’s no peace outside the Kabul city.

Another thing about Iraq, it’s OK, George Bush did a great job to take out the regime of Saddam Hussein. But what about if we talk about freedom, and takeout these fascist regimes, what about Palestinians? Nobody carries about Palestinians, 5 million Palestinians live under occupation or 200,000 or 300,000 living in the desert underneath a tent.

So if he wants to — for people go to help United States or, you know, not going to cause that much damage and terrorism, all these things, (INAUDIBLE) main costs are out there. All these (INAUDIBLE) about people are so frustrated about the Palestinian cause. Nobody mention. Example I gave you, I work for George Bush. I put an article in a newspaper. I urge people to vote for George Bush. But I notice he’s two-faced. Now, if —

MORRIS: Abdul, I’m sorry. We’re almost out of time. Your points are well taken; that there are other parts of the world that maybe there is not at the attention that we are focusing this particular conversation on. But we want to allow our guests to have very quick comment. Doug, please give a very brief final comment with regard to this.

BANDOW: Well, I think we see very serious problems elsewhere in the world. I think Afghanistan is not going nearly as well as been presented. This is an issue where a lot of analysts think that we may have lost an opportunity to get bin Laden back a year-and-a-half ago. We need more troop there. That situation could deteriorate as we have seen the deterioration in Iraq. And then we’ve got an extraordinary problem.

MORRIS: Doug Bandow from Cato Institute. I thank you very much. Andrew Apostolou?

APOSTOLOU: Yes, well, the U.S. Army has today denied that they are handing over cities in Iraq to the insurgents. Don’t believe everything you need in “The New York Times”. We’ve got to stay the course in Iraq. The Iraqi political factions have made it very clear, that includes the one backed by Iran, by the way, that they want the United States to stay in the country. Iraqis are fighting with us and dying in very large numbers. I do wish that was more reported.

MORRIS: Andrew Apostolou, thank you so much, from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. To both of you, we appreciate it.