Wolf Blitzer Reports

Susan Rice is an expert in foreign policy studies over at the Brookings Institution here in Washington. And Eleana Gordon is with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. She’s worked closely with Iraqi women’s groups.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

What do you think is going to happen on January 30, Eleana?

ELEANA GORDON, FOUNDATION DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: You know, as the president of Iraq, Iawar (ph), said, it’s anybody’s guess. We’re rolling the dice. There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of excitement, particularly in the Shiite and Kurdish areas. And even in Baghdad, 75 percent of Iraqis in all the different polls say they will go vote.

But then again, if there’s an attack early in the morning and many people are killed, you just don’t know how people will react. So, it’s anyone’s guess.

BLITZER: It could turn out to be great, could turn out to be a disaster. That’s your sense as well — we simply don’t know?

SUSAN RICE, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INST.: Well, it’s hard to see how it turns out great. I mean, on the polling day, it could be relatively peaceful, and it could be good in that respect.

But the fact is there’s going to be a large segment of the population that’s going to be unable or unwilling to participate, the Sunnis. And that, in itself, creates a situation which is problematic because of the security situation to date has been so terribly bad and because there are many in the Sunni community that don’t feel that this is an opportunity for them to express themselves.

So the outcome is already somewhat compromised, which is why you hear administration officials downplaying the significance of the election this week.

BLITZER: If a lot of the Sunnis simply are scared or can’t go out and vote, the Shiites are going to vote in big numbers, the Kurds are going to vote in big numbers. What does that mean to the outcome of this election?

GORDON: Well, first of all, I think you have to remember that almost every party has Sunni members in it. And there are a number of lists, party lists, that are Sunnis. So there will be Sunnis elected.

And the second thing that you have to remember is the Shiite leadership and Sistani, in particular, have made it very clear that they will include and they understand the need to include the Sunnis in the constitutional process.

The third thing is, as you mentioned, the Sunnis either are unwilling to participate or afraid to participate because they’re being intimidated. Those who are being intimidated, for them, postponing the elections would actually be a bad thing because it would be a victory to the terrorists for intimidating them.

So, even the Sunni who want to participate and may be afraid to vote, it’s important to hold the election in a signal that we’re not going to let the terrorists who are trying to boycott the democratic process and sabotage it succeed.

BLITZER: And I think you probably agree, but correct me if I’m wrong, Susan. At this point, it’s better to go forward with the election on January 30 than at this late moment to postpone it?

RICE: Well, there are differing views on this. My personal view is, Wolf, that yes, we’re between a rock and a hard place, no pun intended. It’s a very bad situation.

And we lose by going ahead, and we lose by not going ahead. On balance, I think we’re better off going ahead on the 30th.

BLITZER: All right. Stand by for just a moment. Susan Candiotti has been covering the court martial in Fort Hood, Texas. I want to bring her in.

They’ve gone to — the jury is now deliberating. Susan, is there any sense, first of all, how long this might take, or is this totally unpredictable?

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think, as always, totally unpredictable because we don’t know what will be going on behind closed doors, naturally. We do know the judge is prepared to work all weekend if he wants to.

I can tell you this, this is how prosecutors wound things up. He showed one of the abuse photographs to the jury and they said, “This cannot become a recruitment poster for the United States Army,” — Wolf?

BLITZER: Charles Graner, the Army specialist.

Who makes up the jury, Susan?

CANDIOTTI: It’s a jury of 10 people. Four of them are officers, six noncommissioned officers. And there is not a jury foreperson. In this case, it’s called the president.

Once they deliberate, unlike in a civilian trial, there is no need for a unanimous verdict to get a conviction. In this case, only seven of the 10 members must vote to convict. Otherwise, it is an acquittal.

BLITZER: What was the major argument that the defense made that he was simply obeying orders?

CANDIOTTI: Well, that the government made, I’m sorry, Wolf, or the defense?

BLITZER: No, that the defense — his argument basically was he’s a low level. He’s a U.S. Army specialist. And his argument was, you know, what? They told me to do this, maybe not in so many words, but they said, you know, rough up these guys a little bit, get them to talk.

CANDIOTTI: Precisely. That’s what they’ve maintained all along. That, after all, I’m just a low level guy doing what I was told to do. And this was in order to soften up the prisoners for interrogation.

The problem is, according to the government, there’s no evidence that there were any orders, in fact; and that the prosecutors maintain that Graner was doing this on his own. In the words of the defense, Graner is simply being made a scapegoat for the U.S. Army and for military intelligence.

BLITZER: All right. Susan Candiotti will be staying at Fort Hood, Texas for the verdict. Once the jury reaches its decision, we’ll, of course, go back there immediately.

Susan, thanks very much. From one Susan to another Susan, what do you think of this trial that’s under way in Fort Hood, Texas, U.S. Army specialist, Charles Graner? He could face many years in prison for doing what he allegedly did do to these detainees.

RICE: Well, obviously the — we await the verdict, and we don’t want to prejudge it. But these abuses were horrible. And I think it’s very important for the United States military and for the American people, and indeed for the international community, to see justice done.

But the question is, after we have dealt with the prosecutions of these low level soldiers who participated, or allegedly participated in the abuse, what about the senior officers? Is there validity to the claims that there were senior officers, if not giving the orders, then condoning it and encouraging these very junior enlisted people to commit these atrocities?

I think that’s the second half of the story, and it’s very important that, that come out as well.

BLITZER: These were mostly reservists at the Abu Ghraib prison. What’s your bottom line assessment, Eleana?

GORDON: I agree that it’s critical for us to look at the entire picture. And I would add that in any situation you know that power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely.

So, were there checks and balances set up? Were there processes set up going in to make sure that if this kind of abuse would happen, which is to be expected, that there were processes to catch it and stop it? And I don’t know that we’ve looked into that and that we have a good sense for that.

BLITZER: All right. Stand by, ladies. We’re going to take a quick break, but we’re going to talk about Iraq. Much more to discuss. More with Susan Rice, Eleana Gordon right after this short break.

You’re watching the news from CNN.

BLITZER: Welcome back. We’re focusing in on Iraq’s future and its elections just a couple weeks away.

How many Iraqis are going to feel safe enough to go to the polls? What happens next? Our guest, Eleana Gordon, is with the Foundation For the Defense of Democracies; Susan Rice is with the Brookings Institution.

Thanks, once again.

Did you see the — you saw the banner headline, the big headline, lead headline in “The Washington Post” this morning, Eleana, that the National Intelligence Council has come up with this 15-year projection of the world, these outside think tank academics, mostly.

And they sense that what has happened in Iraq has actually created a hotbed for terrorism, and that Iraq could emerge over the next several years as what Afghanistan was, namely the training ground for al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits making a situation that was bad under Saddam Hussein potentially even worse.

GORDON: There is no doubt that it’s increased and attracted terrorist activity. But to say it would become the equivalent of Afghanistan, you would have to assume that you’d have a Taliban-like government in Iraq take control, take power and actively cooperate with the terrorists in training. And I don’t think that’s going to happen in Iraq.

Most likely, the Shiite majority controlled government, it has every interest in trying to defeat the Sunni-Wahabi terrorists who are coming from outside, who view the Shiite as traitors to the religion and are the ones who are attacking Shiite leaders today like Sistani’s representative and aide..

BLITZER: So you disagree?

GORDON: I’m just saying it’s a little — it’s going to be different than Afghanistan. Now, it still will be a breeding ground, and it will be a fighting ground. And this battle with terrorists and insurgents, with the insurgents, may go on for many years.

Typically counterinsurgency does take many years. But I don’t think it will be the equivalent of Afghanistan because we won’t have a Taliban-like government in power actively cooperating with them.

BLITZER: Did you see that story in “The Washington Post?”

RICE: I did.

BLITZER: Did you read the National Intelligence Council assessment?

RICE: I think that what we — the NIC is saying is not that it will become Afghanistan in the sense that there will be a Taliban government. But it will become Afghanistan in the sense that it is the 21st century hot place to go if you’re an extremist, Islamist terrorist want to-be.

And what happened in Afghanistan is they trained together, they operated together. They formed a cadre that endured and that coalesced around al Qaeda. And then those cadres disbursed and went out around the world to commit terrorist acts.

What Iraq has the potential to become, and I think it’s a credible finding on the part of the National Intelligence Council, is yet again another gathering, proving, training recruiting ground for these terrorists to get to know one another, form links, get — cut — their operational teeth and then leave Iraq and disperse again around the world to bite us and our friends.

BLITZER: If…

RICE: So it’s a real concern.

BLITZER: If the elections work, though, in Iraq, and if there’s a strong government in place and they can create a military and police force that can control the situation, and eventually U.S. troops leaving in numbers, that theory necessarily would be discarded.

RICE: No it wouldn’t because the point that the report is making…

BLITZER: Big if, certainly?

RICE: Big ifs, yes.

But the point it was making is it’s already served that purpose. The fact of the insurgency to date has brought these groups together, the fact they are training, and operating, and gathering funding, and using weapons and taking out ammunition that they discovered after Saddam, all of that has created this phenomenon already.

And it will be worse if a stable Iraqi government isn’t formed. And I think there, as you said, there are a lot of big ifs there.

BLITZER: Yes…

RICE: It will be a weak state for a long time…

BLITZER: Those are…

RICE: … even if the election succeeds.

BLITZER: Those are huge ifs.

There’s no doubt, Eleana, that Afghani — that Iraq — now, like Afghanistan in the ’80s, let’s say, and ’90s, that Iraq now, if you hate the West, if you hate the United States, if you hate democracy and you’re in the Middle East, and you’re an Islamist, and you’re a young kid and you want to go do something, you’re going to be attracted to go fight in Iraq.

GORDON: You will. What’s also interesting and happening in Iraq right now is that you’re seeing a beginning of the divide between Iraqi nationalist insurgents and the Arab fighters who are coming from — not only Arab — but the Islamist fighters who are coming from outside. And you’re seeing them say to Bin Laden, there’s a lot of anger, saying, you’re hijacking our cause. This is not your cause.

And I think local interests will always trump international and broader interests. So what’s also happening is while it’s attracting these terrorists, it’s also creating a counterterrorist movement that is both Islamic and Iraqi and Arab, and that will be fighting back.

And I don’t know that we could go anywhere in the world fight the terrorists and not have that become a breeding ground and a place that will attract them. BLITZER: You were a senior adviser to former President Clinton. You helped Senator Kerry in his campaign. What should the U.S. government do now looking at this terror threat emanating from Iraq? What should the Bush administration, in your opinion, do?

RICE: Well, obviously we have to do our utmost to establish a representative, stable government in Iraq. And we have to do much better to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces so that they can take over responsibility for securing their country.

BLITZER: They’re trying to do both of those.

RICE: They are, but they have failed thus far. And they’ve made innumerable mistakes along the way. And they’re beginning to recognize that.

And I think we need to look out for the possibility, as some have begun to hint this week in the administration, that after the elections, the administration might welcome quietly, or even actually solicit privately, a request from a new Iraqi government for the United States to begin withdrawing its forces because the situation has become so intractable and so difficult.

And there’s some inside the administration, according to the “Financial Times” and others who have concluded that it’s unwinnable.

BLITZER: It’s sort of the old, declare victory and get out. You think that’s in the works right now?

GORDON: I don’t think so because I don’t think that Sistani and the Shiite leaders want the United States to leave any time soon.

BLITZER: The grand ayatollah, Ali Sistani?

GORDON: And he is likely to have quite a bit of influence in the new government.

I think they will be moderately anti-American in tone, and they will certainly talk about a timetable for the United States to leave. And they will use that as a basis to reach out to the Sunni, the Iraqi Sunni, not the terrorists from the outside, and bring them into the process.

So I don’t think we’re about to exit soon because I don’t think the Iraqis are going to ask us just yet.

BLITZER: The flip side, Susan, of the withdrawal, starting the withdrawal after the Iraqi elections, is to further beef up the U.S. military presence, go from 150,000 U.S. troops who are in the area now, maybe to 200,000 or 250,000 and simply crack down and kill the insurgents as quickly as they possibly can.

RICE: Well, that’s an option except we don’t readily have 200,000-250,000 troops to put in there. We already have gone to a back door draft and prevented soldiers and forces from leaving the Army that are due to leave. We have a real problem of capacity. And even though you could make a good argument that, that would be the optimal step to crush the insurgency and help stabilize the situation, there’s a real question as to whether the Iraqi government to be elected and the Iraqi people would stand for such a major increase of American forces.

BLITZER: Would that be counterproductive, in your opinion, Eleana?

GORDON: I do think it would be. I don’t think the idea is to come with mass force. I think we need to, in general, learn how to adapt our fighting to fight a counterinsurgency. And that’s not really how our military operates today. So, that’s something we’re learning in Iraq and we have to continue to learn.

And I think the — we should look back on the experience of other successful counterinsurgencies like the British in Malaya the 19 — late 1940s. That took them about 12 years to defeat the insurgency.

BLITZER: Do you think the American public has the patience for another 12 years of this?

GORDON: I think what you’re going to see is it’s not this kind of level of casualties, but I think there will be some, some presence. I think the Iraqis will take over more and more of the counterinsurgency.

We will withdraw, but that the counterinsurgency is both military and political. And with the elections moving forward, the political process is also moving forward to help solve the problem and let the Iraqis take the lead in solving this problem.

It is an Iraqi problem.

BLITZER: Everybody would love the Iraqis to take the lead. The question — and Susan I’ll let you wrap it up. The question is, can the Iraqis do it?

RICE: Well, I don’t think we know. And we haven’t invested in a sustained training operation the way we might have. We could have chosen to bring Iraqi security personnel out of Iraq, to an array of NATO countries to be trained in those countries simultaneously in an atmosphere of security where, in fact, they could have much greater opportunity to learn what they need to learn and then come back into the field.

We haven’t really given this training effort our maximal best.

BLITZER: We’ll leave it right there.

Susan Rice, thanks very much. Eleana Gordon, thanks to you as well.

GORDON: Thank you.