Skip to main content
CNN.com /TRANSCRIPTS

CNN TV
EDITIONS





CNN TALKBACK LIVE

After Afghanistan, what's next?

Aired November 20, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOIE CHEN, HOST: Negotiating with the enemy -- what are the options?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It is perfectly proper for the Northern Alliance and anyone else, including American soldiers, to tell people to surrender or be killed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: After Afghanistan, what's next?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember, the goal of this war is not catching bin Laden, it's rendering al Qaeda incapable carrying out further terror attacks on the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: And, speaking of catching bin Laden...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're hunting him down.

RUMSFELD: We have large rewards out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He would likely be killed by the bullet of the enemy, rather than to surrender.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Twenty-five million -- do you think anyone is going to collect?

(APPLAUSE)

CHEN: Twenty-five million? All of these folks want the 25 million. Whether they're willing to go to caves or not, we're not too sure. Good afternoon and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Joie Chen. Thanks for being with us this afternoon. From the caves of Afghanistan to the border of Iraq, we're covering a lot of territory today. Tribal leaders in southern Afghanistan are now trying to negotiate with Taliban commanders in an effort to get them to surrender. But is there anything to negotiate, beyond "surrender or be killed"?

Our guests today, former Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. Jay Winik is also with us, an historian, author as well. "April 1865: the Month that Saved America" is his new book.

Also with us today, former Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis. We call the colonel Bob here. He is currently vice president for policy with the Family Research Council.

And with us today as well is Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, defense analyst and Congressional adviser. He's perhaps better known to you -- well, depending on what age are, some folks in our audience might be a little young for this -- but he's best-known as the guitarist who played with Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers, back in the 1970s.

Although I have to tell you, Skunk, there are some folks in our audience today who weren't around for the '70s.

JEFF "SKUNK" BAXTER, DEFENSE ANALYST: Thanks, Joie.

CHEN: Just a fair warning to you. So we'll talk about defensive policy issues today, instead. To all of you, I want to start talking about this notion of surrender, whether it is time to just let those folks in the Taliban give themselves up, even though Osama bin Laden. Skunk, we'll start with you on that.

BAXTER: Well, I think people have to understand that many of the people that are talking about surrendering are not Afghanis. They are members of groups outside of Afghanistan that were put together to go in to align themselves with the Taliban. So these people aren't even Afghani citizens or members of the country.

As are as surrender is concerned, maybe unconditional surrender, but again, the excuse of, "I didn't know what was going on, I was only following orders," I don't think really carries much water. And I think the secretary of defense has may it very clear about what the policy should be on that.

CHEN: OK, quick word from Pat on that.

PAT SCHROEDER (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, I don't think they're going to allow them to plea. This is not plea bargaining, for heaven sakes. I also think the real concern is you don't want to play around too long and allow them to try and blend back into the whole countryside. There's some talk of that.

Look, if they're cornered and they're really sealed off, I think we're just waiting time until we have unconditional surrender, and then the world community figures out what's the appropriate thing to do at that point. CHEN: Colonel, I have to ask you -- you're a West Point grad, you're a man who served in the military for so many years -- aren't there some rules of war about this? And maybe the rules of war don't always apply, and what we have now established is a very different war.

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RET): Well, I think they do apply, Joie. Quite frankly, the Geneva Convention, 39 pages of it, that outline exactly what we do with people that are hostiles, and if we come into a situation where we take control over them, how to treat them. But you know, if you're confronted with a situation, should there be an opportunity for them to surrender, you should take that opportunity.

We should not gratuitously take lives. We certainly -- when I was a chief for leadership at the Army's infantry school, was very forthright in saying that. You know, we used to use illustrations like the My Lai and other situations, where people were massacred. That's not the nature of the U.S. military. We are there, yes, to kill if necessary, but to preserve life as well.

CHEN: And a word from Jay Winik, on the subject of surrender or no mercy.

JAY WINIK, AUTHOR, "APRIL: 1865": Yes, I generally agree with what Bob was just saying. If we have them cornered and they will unconditionally surrender, we should accept that. Now, concerning bin Laden, I'm reminded here of this story of what happened at the end of the Civil War with John Wilkes Booth.

Of course, to remind your listeners, Wilkes Booth had just killed, assassinated Abraham Lincoln, and there was the most massive manhunt in history to find him. And at a certain point, when aides came to the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, and said, "we have found Booth." And at that point, he put down on a desk a diary, two guns, a pistol, a compass -- and by doing that, he was saying to the secretary of war, "John Wilkes Booth is dead."

I suspect that kind of fate may be what will happen with bin Laden.

CHEN: We will see. Osama bin Laden has expressed, in some quarters, in any case, he doesn't want to be taken alive. Certainly not to be turned over to the hands of the United States.

Out here in our audience, there are some views as well. Roger is hear from Alabama, and has had a lot to say about these issues. Roger is a vet, himself.

ROGER: Yes. I remember when this war started, it was against the terrorism and the al Qaeda network, and against governments that support terrorism. Well, we basically took a third world country, bombed it back to the Stone Age. The Taliban has given up the government of that country. They're surrendering.

We're going to get a government in there that doesn't support terrorism, so I say let them surrender unconditionally.

CHEN: Millie, a word from you on surrender -- an opportunity for folks to walk away?

MILLIE: I agree. But if we're going to put them on trial, I think that trial, or whatever, should be in their country. Because in our country, it would cost us a tremendous amount of money to go through this whole system. But if we are going to put them on trial, it should there.

CHEN: A trial, audience, what do you think? A trial for the leaders of al Qaeda?

Jack, we don't want a trial. What do you want?

JACK: I think they should be eradicated wherever you find them.

(APPLAUSE)

CHEN: Eradicated is a word I would normally associate with roach spray, or something like that. You're talking about the ultimate penalty.

JACK: Eliminate them.

CHEN: Goodbye.

JACK: Find them.

(APPLAUSE)

CHEN: This is a tough punishment, but then you get into the notion that really, you have to consider what would come next. If the outcome is, there is going to a nation of Afghanistan, one way or another, Colonel, isn't there some notion that you have to think to the future? Isn't this why you can't go and show no mercy, even to the losers?

MAGINNIS: You're right, Joie. We're faced with an ethnically divided country. Keep in mind, the Taliban took over in 1996 because the leadership, which were ethnically diverse at the time, didn't get along. They were fiefdoms and warlords. There were a lot of big egos out there, frankly. And so the Taliban said, "we're going to bring, you know, control, logic, we're going to bring peace to this land." Obviously, that failed.

But this is very important that we not, you know, be perceived as imposing something on the people they don't want as well. We face the real prospect that something is going to backfire, should we be perceived as a bully ourselves.

CHEN: Hear you on that, Colonel. We're going to have to take a break, here. When we come back, a very special interview on CNN. CNN's Judy Woodruff with the attorney general of the United States, Mr. Ashcroft, right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHEN: Welcome back. We know we had a little delay there after that important interview with Mr. Ashcroft, but we want to get back and reintroduce our guests, first of all just so you will you will be reminded who is with us today besides the folks here in our studio audience and with us on the web.

With us today, Pat Schroeder, former Congresswoman, now active in New Century, New Solutions. Also with us today, Jay, Winik "April 1865, the Month That Saved America" is his book. Go out and buy that now because he wants you to do that. Also with us today, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis, Vice President for Policy for the Family Research Council and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter as well, defense analyst and familiar face to those in the rock scene. Thank you all for being with us.

Time and again, you know, we hear that the war on terrorism is going be a long one, not necessarily one limited to inside Afghanistan's borders. Early in the game there was a call to root out terrorists wherever they are, and there a lot of folks here in our audience, I will tell our guests, that are interested in moving beyond Afghanistan's borders. Jack, is it time to consider Iraq as the next target?

JACK: Yes, I think it's time to consider all of them. But it's going to take a long time to do that. We can't do it all at one time.

CHEN: Want to ask you folks on our panel what you think about that. Colonel, let's start with you on that. The question of moving beyond the borders of Afghanistan and thinking about Iraq?

MAGINISS: Well, Joie, the Bush administration is making a strong case. The head -- Condoleezza Rice, the state department spokesman, even Rumsfeld out over the last week making, you know, pretty strong statements about Saddam Hussein.

Now, I think we need to make sure as a country -- and quite frankly, you're not going to see this in open press -- but are there pieces of the puzzle pointing at Saddam Hussein about the 9-11 incident. We know about Mohammed Atta and his relationship, perhaps, with Iraqi intelligence. We know about their involvement perhaps in the World Trade Center bombing of '93, and there are a host of other things are becoming to light. I hope they know more than this.

But if we find out that it all points in that direction, and there is no question Saddam Hussein, you know, is involved and has continued to be involved after UNSCOM left in December of '98 in developing biological and chemical weapons and even perhaps nuclear munitions, that that is a major threat against the U.S. and he's made no secret that he would come after us.

So if he is in bed with al Qaeda, we know that he does terrorist training in a small area in southern part of Baghdad. So he has got all the markings of putting the crosshairs on his very forehead.

CHEN: Signs are there but Pat Schroeder, is there enough evidence?

SCHROEDER: Well, I think it's going to be dependent upon what else comes forward. I think Bob said it very well. And I think we want to make sure that our allies hold up. I also think -- remember we have to find our own domestic terrorist, whoever this is who is sending anthrax through the mail.

I mean, we seem to be doing a better job of smoking out Osama Bin Laden than we've been able to find this guy who's hiding out somewhere near Trenton, New Jersey.

So somehow this person who is bringing our postal service to almost a standstill -- which is very harmful to the whole nation and the economy -- that ought to be high on our list too.

But when we go beyond taking after Bin Laden, it becomes very clear we want to hold the world community together. And so it is going to take some pretty hard evidence. Maybe we can't take all of that evidence public, but we are going to at least have to show it to the alliance, I think, to be able to put that in, rather than these are a group of people that we haven't really liked cohabiting the planet with so here, let's go get them.

CHEN: Skunk, you know, it is not just that. It's also Afghanistan is a very different place from Iraq and Iraq has troop forces ten times what Afghanistan -- what the Taliban does?

BAXTER: I think it's important to understand something. When the president talks about a different kind of warfare, asymmetric warfare, nontraditional warfare, it's more like fighting a disease. You try to isolate it, you develop prophylactics against it. You try to inoculate against it. You try to remove the factors that create it and feed it. And as you do that, you begin to shrink the pool.

Yes, there will be outbreaks. Yes, there will be times when we have to deal with it, but we have understand if you look at it more like a disease you can understand that it takes time and it's going to take -- it's not surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri.

As far as Iraq is concerned, yes, we definitely have a situation here where -- in a sense we have the same situation we have in Afghanistan. We've got to make sure whoever is going to replace Saddam Hussein is going to be somewhat democratic and somewhat understanding of our -- of our principles.

In 1963 and 1964 in Afghanistan, the king -- Zahir Shah had actually promoted and put together a constitution. There is a -- is a history of democracy in Afghanistan. Many women were in the Cabinet...

CHEN: He did get overthrown, too -- there's a whole...

BAXTER: So here is a -- here is country that has an understanding of this. We have to now look to Iraq and see if we can develop the same kind of situation, create a situation where the people of Iraq actually have some say in their own government. CHEN: Voices from the audience here. This is Amber, one of our young people with some very -- very smart comments. Amber.

AMBER: I think that if we find out who has been doing all of this, then we need to go ahead and take care of it, even if we just -- we just need to get who is doing it, because we shouldn't wait. If someone, you know, hurts your family and everything, you want to know who's doing it.

CHEN: And you go after whatever the limit is, even if you have limited proof that Iraq might be involved, that Saddam Hussein might be involved, limited conjecture? How much do you need?

AMBER: Just whatever it takes.

CHEN: Jay Winik, voice of history on the notion of going after these additional targets. Is there some history on that?

WINIK: Yeah, well, it's a -- an interesting question. Sometimes history throws at us this sort of inexorable logic that some events are unavoidable. AT the beginning of World War I, the British foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, mournfully looked out and he said, "The lights will not -- the lights are going out all over Europe, and they will not be lit for some time." But of course out of the ashes of -- of World War I was eventually built a far better world.

And I suspect in this case the fact that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the fact that we know that they have been building it and lying to our -- to our inspectors when they were in there and then threw us out -- means that we will probably come to a point of reckoning where the administration will either demand public transparency, where we can find out what they have and ensure that it not be unleashed to be used against the American people or perhaps, unlike -- not unlike in previous situations in history -- war will become unavoidable.

CHEN: Voices from our audience again. Gary on the subject of going after Saddam Hussein. Is this unfinished business?

GARY: When the Bill of Rights was written 200 years ago, there was no such thing as weapons of mass destruction. It took two minutes to load a gun. Times have changed. In order to protect ourselves, you know, if we have any evidence that this guy had done it, no matter how flimsy we may think it is -- you know, we know they are doing it. Go after them. Get them. It is the only way we are going to protect ourselves.

CHEN: Pat, this audience is one with a very tough line. Do you have a warning for them?

SCHROEDER: Well, again, what is -- what is the proof? I mean, we know we had a long history with him pre the Gulf War, and we know that he is no one we want anywhere near our country and we would not want to live under him.

On the other hand, did he have a direct connection to this specific -- or these specific terrorist events? And I think the rest of the world is going -- is going to ask us that if we decide we are going to take him on.

And taking him on is a much larger mission in some ways than taking on Afghanistan, because they do have substantial weapons and we are not quite sure what they would do with them. So the neighborhood he lives in, I think, is going to want us to consult with them, because it could really be very destructive to that neighborhood. In other words...

CHEN: ...international reaction. One other word on Iraq from Linda in our audience.

LINDA: She -- like she was saying, we can't even figure out who is giving out the anthrax or whatever. Why are we going to bring Saddam Hussein into this, is what I just don't understand. Because we can't even figure out, you know, whose anthrax and we can't even find Bin Laden.

CHEN: Good voice in the young people in our audience. We'll take a break, come back and continue the conversation after this.

CHEN: Should the war on terrorism taken to Iraq? You have just a few minutes to take the "TALKBACK LIVE" on-line viewer vote at cnn.com/talkback. We will have the results when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHEN: Note from our on-line viewers. Now, this is not a scientific poll. But we did ask online: should the United States send its war against terrorism against Iraq. And 80 percent of those voting in our on-line viewer vote said, "Yes indeed. Move on. Make the next target Iraq."

All right. Let's also talk about moving on in terms of what it means to the future of Afghanistan. Should there be an element of nation-building? That is to say, do we have an obligation, do we have a commitment to move on in Afghanistan afterwards and help in the establishment of a new government, help with something more than humanitarian aid? Linda?

LINDA: I think we should step in and try to help them rebuild, and I'm not sure. But I have lot of confidence in President Bush, and he has had -- handled this with wisdom. And I think he will continue to.

CHEN: Skunk, there are risks inherent in that nation building.

BAXTER: Well, there is always a risk. But here again is a country that has somewhat of a history of democracy.

We have the opportunity to go in and -- and for the -- usually you don't get a second chance. I think we blew it after the -- the Afghani-Russian war. We should have gone in and helped those folks. Now we have a tremendous opportunity to do that. It's a country that can grow food. It's a country that was an agrarian society. We can bring people in like Hernando de Soto, who have an understanding of creating wealth and creating equity. We have a tremendous opportunity here.

I don't want to go in and become Afghanistan. But I think we have a responsibility to help the Afghani people. Because every time you do this, every country that you build or help to create its own autonomy, instead of becoming a place for guests like Osama Bin Laden, it becomes a place for fugitives like Osama Bin Laden. And the more you empower people, the less you give people like Bin Laden the opportunity to take advantage.

CHEN: Audience? Tepid. But Robert is here you. No generation gap here, Skunk. Robert is here with you on that.

ROBERT: I believe exactly what you said earlier, and in fact I said that earlier too. But I do believe we need to go in and do some nation building and things of that nature, because we had had experience doing that in the past during World War II and around that time.

And we can't just leave these people here with their head cut off. That's what a government is, it's their head. They need somebody to lead them, and so we need to put someone in there that's capable of leading them towards prosperity.

MAGINISS: Joie?

CHEN: Very smart young people. Yes, sir?

MAGINISS: Joie, we made a mistake prior to the Soviet invasion in '79. For years we gave millions of dollars to the Afghans, but we didn't try to change anything. We just tried to give them aid. And what did they do? They build dams and irrigation systems that grew opium and then they shipped the heroin they produced to the U.S..

So we have to be much smarter this time. Yes, we need to provide humanitarian support. We need to provide an economic infrastructure to create a treasury, to create a national bank, a judicial system and so forth.

But I really believe that that is something that we ought to give our allies, support it morally, because they need the leadership. We have to because we are the world's superpower. We have to be on the war of taking it to whoever is next, whether it's Sudan or Yemen or even Iraq. But we can't get tied down with the -- the resources we have. But clearly we have a moral responsibility, now we've bombed them for the last couple of months.

SCHROEDER: Joie?

CHEN: Yes, ma'am.

SCHROEDER: I must say we also have to make sure that women are included in any new government. I mean it has been outrageous how Afghani women have been treated.

CHEN: Audience with you on that. A voice from one of the women in our audience.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hope that when you are speaking about we, it is the collective we, all the allies that have banded together to fight terrorism. I am -- I'm hoping that the burden for building nations is not going to be just put on the United States. It really needs to be collective. Otherwise, aren't we going to have other people come up against us in the future? I think we need to get all the allies building nations.

CHEN: Maria here in our audience also says think globally.

MAGINISS: That's absolutely right.

MARIA: Yes, if America does indeed help rebuild the nation of Afghanistan, it will probably be the only country -- the first country in the world to do this after a war.

CHEN: History on that, Jay?

WINICK: Well, in -- in fact, World War II is very instructive here. After World War II when both the Nazi regime was decimated as well as Japan -- we dropped two atom bombs on them -- then we played a prominent and pronounced role in both rebuilding and reconstructing Germany as well as Japan. And today they are both functioning democracies and healthy -- and healthy members of the alliance and really good allies to us as well.

Now the point has been made that maybe we don't have the resources and the ability to go in and nation build, and that's probably right. But it is a fact that we want to send two messages: if you defy us, we will hurt you if not destroy you, but we are also a generous nation, and we can play a major role in leadership in helping bring together our coalition of nations as well as the United Nations and the Muslim world in rebuilding and reconstructing Afghanistan and finally giving them a shot at some decency and stability and peace.

CHEN: A word from Roger, our vet here in the audience. Military powers about war and peace?

ROGER: Learn from history. What I -- what he said I agree with 100 percent. Take a look what we did in Europe, rebuilding governments there, and learn from that and maybe model the same system of what we are going to have to do with Afghanistan or any other nation that we bomb a government out of control.

CHEN: And that is the last word from our audience today. Thank you all for being with us here in our audience and contributing to our truncated conversation.

We appreciate all of our guests as well: Pat Schroeder, Jay Winik, Colonel Maginiss and Jeff Baxter. Thanks to all of you in the audience and at home. Join us again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern for more "TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT." Now, Judy Woodruff with a look ahead at the next hour of news here on CNN.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


 
 
 
 


 Search   

Back to the top