Ex-defense chief: U.S. must assume threat credible
 |
Ex-Defense Secretary William Cohen
Story Tools
VIDEO
|
CNN's Jeanne Meserve on what's behind the new alert.
CNN's Lisa Sylvester on the strain put on local budgets.
CNN's Soledad O'Brien talks with the Department of Homeland Security's Tom Ridge.
|
| SECURITY MEASURES |
• New York: Checkpoints at bridges and tunnels.
• Los Angeles: Extra patrols at 600 critical locations.
• Washington: Airspace restrictions.
|
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the wake of a heightened terror threat alert, high-level Pentagon officials were set to conduct a drill Tuesday in case terrorists try to disable the U.S. Defense Department.
Former Defense Secretary William Cohen fielded questions Tuesday from CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer and some TV viewers about the alert, Pentagon drill and other security-related topics.
BLITZER: This orange level of alert, by all accounts, seems to be a lot more serious than all of the previous four escalations.
COHEN: Well, it does. There may be different tactical aims by those who are engaging in this "chatter." It could be real. There may be an attack planned during this period of time. It could be tactical in the sense they're trying to disrupt the holiday spirit in spending and travel, which would have an impact upon our economy, and third, it could be to raise that level up high, knowing that we can't sustain it over a long period of time and should not try to sustain it, and then when it starts to drop back, then launch an attack.
All of those may be involved. What the officials have to do is assume that it's real and not something that's just fictional. They have to act as if it's fact.
BLITZER: What struck me is that Friday I heard they were going to have a meeting Monday to review whether or not to change the alert level, but over the weekend, the intelligence community got all sorts of information saying ... it's probably not a good idea to wait until Monday. They called in everybody on Saturday, and as you know, on Sunday [Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge] was out making the surprise announcement.
COHEN: Obviously the volume is up, but also we have to assume the credibility of the sources is also up. The intersection of volume and reliability no doubt accounts for this.
BLITZER: Here's an e-mail from Steve. [This viewer has a question on surface-to-air missiles for Washington and maybe New York. He wants to know] why not every major city, dam, power facility, etc.?
COHEN: There may be other alternatives to putting up surface-to-air missiles. That may work in Washington and a few of our key facilities, but the notion that we put them up in all of the key infrastructures that could be attacked, I think would be quite expensive and perhaps even counterproductive.
Perhaps we could look at the power projects that he's talking about, the dams that could cause catastrophic harm, but we have to take some measure of balance and caution here.
BLITZER: Give our viewers a sense of this continuity of government exercise that's under way at the Pentagon. When you were defense secretary, did you have such an exercise?
COHEN: We certainly went through an exercise as to where we would go in a moment of crisis in order to preserve this continuity of government. We walked through the process. We did not have a formal exercise as such, but certainly the key members were taken to locations that they would go to in a time of emergency, and I'm sure that's what's involved here as well. ...
BLITZER: There have been numerous reports over the years that there are some locations outside of Washington, West Virginia, elsewhere, where the government has already established a deep underground bunker that would basically have members of Congress and others available there to make sure that continuity of government would go forward.
COHEN: I think members of Congress have been concerned that the continuity of government hasn't really been extended fully to the members of Congress. So that's still an area of some debate. But there are others who would be protected in terms of the continuity of government.
BLITZER: We have a caller -- David in Illinois.
CALLER: This "Code Orange" alert seems to be coming quickly on the heels of Saddam [Hussein]'s capture. I know Saddam and 9/11 have nothing in common with each other, but could this possibly be retaliation?
COHEN: That's certainly a possibility but have you to remember also, it comes on the heels of, I believe, a [General Accounting Office] report that indicated the United States is not fully prepared for dealing with a weapons of mass destruction, be it biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear. ... So it comes on the heels of both.
I think that we have been preparing for this for a long time, that we know that the terrorists are out there. We know they intend to attack the United States abroad and certainly here at home as well. It's not new. It's a question [of] why now? It could be in response to Saddam's capture, but I think it goes much deeper than that.
BLITZER: Let's talk about Libya. This is a significant development that Moammar Gadhafi has come forward and said bring them all in, the inspectors, the CIA, anybody you want and we'll tell you where all of the weapons of mass destruction capabilities are. Go ahead and destroy it.
COHEN: ... It's very good news because I think that Gadhafi has recognized that as long as he is a pariah state and so classified by the international community, there's no hope that the country will join the benefits of being part of that international community. ...
BLITZER: That has been a work in progress, quietly negotiations going back for some nine months as the president said. When you were the secretary of defense and still privy to the nation's important information -- top secrets -- did you have any indication that Libya was in fact developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
COHEN: Indeed we did. As a matter of fact, one of the documents that I signed off on and filed prior to my departure was [one commenting on Libya].
In that document, we identified exactly what Libya was suspected of doing, trying to develop -- they certainly had chemical weapons, trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear capability and having dual use for the biological weapons. They were clearly identified as one of those countries that deserved special attention and continued to be put on that list for sanctions.
BLITZER: You think he was more motivated by waking up one morning and saying this is the right thing to do, or he was scared, scared at the image of Libya going down the way Iraq's Saddam Hussein went down?
COHEN: Who knows what lurks in the minds of Gadhafi. I can't say. I don't think any of us can speculate with any degree of responsibility here. What was he looking at? He was looking at a country that was not enjoying the fruits of being part of the international community. What was he looking at? He was seeing sanctions that were keeping him [from] the ability to perhaps develop an internal military capability that would secure his position and make it easier for his son to assume political leadership in the future.
There are a variety of factors that could be involved -- maybe, just maybe he decided one day that having weapons of mass destruction were not in his interests, as much as South Africa decided earlier, Kazakhstan decided earlier, Brazil decided earlier.
Perhaps he saw the benefits of giving it up and going to a conventional capability and becoming less of a target of sanctions than he currently is.
BLITZER: I wanted to get your feedback [on] the courts now saying if a soldier or sailor or airman, Marine doesn't necessarily want to get an Anthrax vaccination they might not necessarily be required, ordered to do so. You were at the Pentagon when they started giving out those anthrax vaccines.
COHEN: I mandated it, and there were questions raised -- shouldn't it be voluntary? No more so in my opinion than you should have the option of wearing a helmet or a flack jacket. This is something that's absolutely required if we're going to put our men, women at risk on the front lines. It seems to me to give the individual choice, I think is a mistake. I would disagree with the court ruling.
This is not something that's some exotic medication or drug that's being developed. It's something we've had sufficient experience with, and to give the individual soldier the opportunity to say I don't think I want this -- to allow that person to go into a battlefield environment where he or she could be at risk, affecting the ability of the unit to carry out its mission, is simply unacceptable.
