[Y]

DATE

AUG 2 1 2002

CORR. FILE *Meet the Press*

ACTION: JSR ARB DG SSM

DK TC JI (RAJ)

COMMENTS:
for public statements

SUBJ. FILE __________

CROSS REF. __________

DC OFFICE:
Jody/Christie/Lisa

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, August 18, 2002

1

MR. BRIAN WILLIAMS: Our issues this Sunday: The national security advisor makes a case for war with Iraq. Is it time for Saddam Hussein to go? What kind of threat does he pose to the United States? What would it mean for the U.S. relationship with key allies? And what would a post-Saddam regime look like? Our guests: former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the leader of the Gulf War forces in 1991, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and two key Republicans with differing views, Senator Dick Lugar of the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Jim Inhofe of the Armed Services Committee.

Then: Flying out of business. American Airlines cuts flights. US Airways files for bankruptcy. Is United next? Will the airline industry be able to recover? And as we approach the one-year anniversary of September 11, are the skies really any safer? The debate over arming pilots, extending a deadline for the screening of all checked baggage and improving the air marshal program with our guests, two members of the House Aviation Subcommittee, Chairman John Mica, Republican of Florida, and Peter DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon, plus, the former CEO of American Airlines, Robert Crandall, and a former airline regulator, now Yale Law professor, Michael E. Levine.

But first--and good morning. Joining us now former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Senators Dick Lugar and Jim Inhofe. Welcome to you all.

Dr. Kissinger, we'll begin with you. Is the U.S. ready to launch what would be a pre-emptive strike against Iraq? Should the U.S. launch such a strike? Has the president made the case?

DR. HENRY KISSINGER: I think the president has made the intellectual case that needs to be made, which is that the international environment has changed fundamentally from the period of the nation-state and from a level of technology in which attacks could take place only from a nation-state and in which technology did not permit a decisive, early victory.

We're now in a period where many of the threats are transnational and where the damage of a first strike could be so overwhelming as to cripple society. And when these weapons then fall into the hands of an authoritarian country that has already used them against its own population, against its neighbors, in the middle of a region that spawned the terrorism in the first place, a very serious security problem arises. And the president has made that. He has not yet created the political framework, but that will have to be the next step.

MR. WILLIAMS: When you say he has made the intellectual case, the caveat you add about--we'll call it the doomsday scenario--can be crippling to this conversation. Must any military strike then, by nature, be massive and crippling when it lands?

DR. KISSINGER: You mean any American strike?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

DR. KISSINGER: I think the purpose of any military operation against Iraq should be the removal of the capacity of weapons of mass destruction and to the creation of a transparent system in which this cannot happen again because it is absolutely against the interest, not only of the United States, but of the world to have these weapons that are easily distributed in the hands of such absolutist rulers in a region, which, after all, has spawned the terrorism that we suffered last year and where we will, therefore, be judged in part by our ability, now matter what people say now when they're afraid--by our ability to control the danger.

BURRELLE'S INFORMATION SERVICES / (202)419-1859 / (800)456-2877

2

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's ask a man who has taken U.S. forces into combat in that region. General Schwarzkopf, you've heard Secretary Kissinger's argument. Now, based on what you see and what you hear and what you know these days, is the U.S. ready for such a war and should the U.S. go to war in this instance?

GEN. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: Well, first of all, you have to understand that the Iraqi military is 400,000 active duty people. Probably 300,000 of them you can discount, but you can't discount the 100,000 Republican Guard and Palace Guard. And not only are they a good military force, but they also have a lot of good equipment behind them. They're going to have over 8,000 tanks and armored personnel carriers, a large amount of artillery. It's not going to be an easy battle. And certainly I think that we will prevail, but I think it would be much more effective if we didn't have to do it alone. I think we need the base rights to muster our forces, not just in the obvious places like Kuwait and Turkey, but it would be--one of our strengths during the Gulf War was the fact that we were able to use the Saudi bases that put us in a great position to use their port facilities and their unused airfield facilities. I certainly agree with Dr. Kissinger that this is a worldwide problem and, therefore, I don't think that we need to go it alone militarily.

MR. WILLIAMS: General Schwarzkopf, even though the war being fought in Afghanistan is not a conventional war in any sense that we've all been raised to think of it, this would put the United States at war on two fronts. Do you have any fundamental problem with that with your knowledge of the current military structure?

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: Well, obviously, you don't want to be at war on two fronts, if you can avoid it. Although, I would say that some of the forces being used in Afghanistan-or committed to Afghanistan, would not necessarily be required in a battle against Iraq. But more importantly, if you remember during the Gulf War, we had an international force. We had troops from many, many different nations involved and that gave us a great deal of strength. I think that we would be lacking if we went alone at this time. It's great to have other people with you even if their military contribution is small. It's a commitment on their part that helps to strengthen the overall coalition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Lugar, I want to read you what is so far the clearest recitation from this administration of why to go to war against Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. It comes from Friday's Washington Post and Condoleezza Rice. And it reads: "The United States and other nations have little choice but to seek the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said. ...This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver them, on all of us," Rice told the BBC. "There is a very powerful moral case for regime change. We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing. ...Clearly, if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now, this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way."

And, Senator Lugar, is that enough of a case for you?

SEN. DICK LUGAR, (R-IN): Well, the question is, as Henry Kissinger said, weapons of mass destruction. That, we really have to figure out how we get our hands on them either through U.N. sanctions, through diplomacy or finally through war. Now, whether we remove Saddam Hussein or not--and that is often stated the objective--the weapons of mass destruction must be identified. I make that point because we could remove Saddam and find a government there that is not very cooperative. There's always an assumption that Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction are coincident. I think at this point, the president and Ms. Rice and others have to weigh themselves and then express to the

3

American people what the cost of this will be, who will be with us, who are the allies? where are the bases? Have we exhausted all of our intelligence resources and do we have concurrence of the Congress to a vote to authorize this?

Those are not impossible objectives. But it appears to me that that is required for the planning. So we know the objective, we know the cost in advance. We know that we're going to have casualties and we're prepared for that. We know that we're going to have an all-out war to victory. And we know, finally, that we're going to get our hands on the weapons of mass destruction because we know enough about the regime that succeeds Saddam, the politics of Iraq, to be able to figure out where the 300 installations are, the materials, all the rest that we have to clean up.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, since the coalition was viewed among the master strokes of Bush Sr., President 41, and since, for example, Schroeder of Germany has called this an adventure on the part of the United States, you join us from London this morning. What kind of coalition, best case, do you think the U.S. could count on?

SEN. LUGAR: We need to have our NATO allies right here in Great Britain. For example, Tony Blair has a problem with the Cabinet. But it is one that he is going to work through, I'm confident, if, in fact, the case is made by our president to him. And I would guess by the time we're finished, the Germans will be aboard and so will others. The fact is some robust diplomacy is required.

Now, these coalitions don't happen by chance or by press release. They happen because we sort of lay down the score. And that would be true of our thoughts with the Russians now. They have an interest in this situation, the same way they did in Afghanistan. We've got to make certain we're coincident with them. We have to make certain that the nations around the country are prepared, that is the Middle Eastern countries. That is not impossible, despite all their public statements of protestation. But this is going to require heavy lifting now. And a confident president with a clear plan, with support by the American people, we're going to have to at least get some support from allies, some money from allies, some bases from allies and show that because that is going to be required, ultimately, to have the kind of victory and the final result we need in Iraq.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Inhofe, Senator Lugar just mentioned he would like very much for this to have congressional approval, the seal of approval before the White House continued. Would you put the same standard on it?

SEN. JIM INHOFE, (R-OK): No, I wouldn't. I think that would be nice to have. But let's stop and think. We're talking this thing to death. And I see an analogous situation with Osama bin Laden. In 1992, he took credit for the attempted bombing of 100 of our troops in Yemen. Then, of course, the 18 Rangers in Somalia, whose naked bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Later on, whether or not he was responsible, he took credit for that. Remember the Trade Center of 1993? Then, of course, along came Kenya and Tanzania--224 people died; 12 of them were Americans. Then the USS Cole--17 sailors died. We took credit. We sat around wringing our hands all this time. And we're wringing our hands again right now.

I think Condoleezza Rice is exactly right. We have a guy out there right now who has made his case. He's kicked out our weapon inspectors that were there by virtue of U.N. resolution. We had a president who allowed us, for the first time, to run out of there with our tail between our legs. He has said that the mother of all wars is coming up, and we're sitting around wringing our hands. And I think that we're going to have to do something. And I believe that Condoleezza Rice is right.

4

Now, whether or not we have to wait around for someone to agree with us and to get the coalition put together, I think the general is right. They have about 100,000 good troops. But Jalala Alabani--I believe it's Alabani--has the Kurds, about 100,000 Kurds, ground troops, ready to join us. Let's always remember what happened in 1996. The Kurds in the north and some of the opposition were ready to join us. And we were to lead this fight and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, we didn't do it. President Clinton decided not to do it. If George W. Bush had been in the White House in 1996, we wouldn't be worried about this today.

One last thing. Remember 1986? 1986, when the president sent--What?--29 F-111s into Libya. And we didn't have the support of all these coalitions. We didn't even have flyover rights in France. Well, we haven't heard from Qaddafi since then.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Lugar, your colleague says this is being talked to death. Others are anxious, but some are warning--even top Republicans. As you know, there has been a split, telling the president to go slowly. If you have say in this matter, and you do, what will you say regarding the pace of progress?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, the pace of progress is up to the president. But clearly we do not, at this point, have the allies. We haven't figured out the money part of it, the bases. And I'm not certain we have the intelligence support that we need and we can get. And so I don't think it's talking it to death. I would say that, prudently, we are setting the stage for success. Now, it is well and good to talk about the Kurds in the north and say only 100,000 troops are there to be met with. But we all understand, I hope, that unless we plan this carefully, we're likely to destabilize other countries in the Middle East, create havoc with regard to the energy situation worldwide, including our own country--that there are other ramifications of this that do require sober analysis. And I think we need to take time, whether you're president or Congress or the public to understand that.

MR. WILLIAMS: And, Dr. Kissinger, I'd like to read you something from Brent Scowcroft in The Wall Street Journal Thursday, an op-ed that was not insignificant given his standing with the Bush family and, of course, his standing as one of the architects of the first Gulf War: "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken. ...Ignoring that clear [world] sentiment [against an attack] would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence."

So, Dr. Kissinger, people have raised problems with the coalition, about the war on terrorism, about the Middle East and certainly with the leadership back home. How much work is that, then, for the American president to make his case before the U.S. can be ready?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, first of all, let me say that Brent Scowcroft is a great public servant and a long-standing friend of mine, and I respect his views enormously. I disagree with his analogies. I don't know what specific counterterrorism acts are going to be prevented by action against Iraq. That, to be sure, should be well-prepared and well-thought out. I would, in fact, make the contrary argument--what is important in that region to get across--if the people who challenge the United States and the international order by their behavior suffer grievous and unacceptable consequences, and, therefore, I believe that when the smoke clears in a well-conducted operation, the counterterrorism campaign will be strengthened.

In thinking about allies, one has to ask one's self, not whether one should consult them--of course, one should consult them--but whether one should give them a veto. In the first Gulf campaign, President

5

Bush solved the problem by deploying a massive American force in the region well before he had a coalition. And so if countries wanted to gain any influence over our action, they were almost obliged to join the coalition. And I think if one looks at the record, one will find most of the allies joined the coalition after what is called "Bush 41" had made clear that he would defend the independence of Kuwait, if necessary, alone.

I believe that we will have more support once a clear-cut decision is made, once it is presented in the conclusive way in which it can be presented, more in terms of weapons of mass destruction than in terms of regime change. And if an opportunity is given to those countries that hesitate at the beginning to join in the reconstruction period that must inevitably follow. I think these are all opportunities for American leadership and for contributing to an international system in which such dangers, as we've been facing and as are looming on the horizon, are going to be removed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to come back to that point. First, General Schwarzkopf, as a student of history, you know how carefully President Truman unleashed the nuclear genie. And having said that, I want to read you this. This is more Scowcroft: "[If the U.S. attacks Iraq]...Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty...This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East."

General, how strongly do you share that fear?

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: Well, you know, during the Gulf War, we were concerned about the use of weapons of mass destruction on the part of the Iraqis. Our way of handling that was very simple. We went to them and said, "You know, we've got more than you do, and by golly, if you use weapons of mass destruction against our troops, you will pay for it dearly with the arsenal that we have." However, in this case, I think that if we invade Iraq and the regime is very close to falling, I'm very, very concerned that the Iraqis will, in fact, use weapons of mass destruction. I sincerely believe that their first target will be Tel Aviv, just as it was during the Gulf War. I mean, we started bombing them with our forces and the Israelis weren't even in the fight, and the first Scuds were sent towards Israel, obviously trying to bring Israel into the war and therefore lose the support of the Arab world. I think exactly the same thing would happen again if we don't take measures to preclude that from happening.

I would like to make one point, and that's about the support. It's great to have the support of the rest of the world, but I'll tell you, the single-most important thing, if our troops go to war, is to have the support of their own country. I've been to war several times, sometimes without the support of the nation and other times with the support of the nation, and it makes all the difference in the world to those men and women on the ground that they have unequivocal full support of the American people when they go to war. And that's going to be one of the things that's necessary.

DR. KISSINGER: Brian...

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Lugar, in the event of an attack, would not--and Dr. Kissinger touched on this point--would not the U.S. be left--if not an annex of Iraq, with the need to run Iraq, occupy Iraq for a period of time? And, secondly, I wanted to ask you about this Iraq-Russia alliance, this $40 billion trade deal, and how that, even symbolically, affects the balance here.

6

SEN. LUGAR: Well, clearly, if we go it alone and we change the regime, we will have to govern Iraq for an indefinite period of time until there is an acceptable government and we get the weapons of mass destruction. Now, we may be able to enlist people, as others have suggested, once they see how the war is going. And I hope that's the case. But on this occasion, unless we send troops over there and predeploy them to influence this, we're going to have to talk to some other nations diplomatically.

Now, with regard to the Iraq-Russian announcement, $40 billion, five years, and the same Washington Post editor who wrote that story indicated that many oil executives in Russia feel not much is going to happen with that, largely because of what they call the international circumstance. I mean, a war is about to occur there. We have to talk frankly to the Russians about their interest there because they have sizable ones. I'm going to have the privilege of seeing the Russian defense minister in a few days, and I intend to bring this up because I believe we have a coincidence of interest in Iraq, and it's not very nice to express it in this way, with this symbolic gesture, even if it doesn't have much meaning. The fact is that Russia is obligated, as we are, to enforce the Security Council U.N. regulations. They know that. And we have got to hew to that and try to put the screws on in that, every way we can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Inhofe, what about the growing number of Americans we hear from and read about in opinion polls saying, "You know what? I just haven't heard the case made yet to the extent that I could support going in, pre-emptively, in Iraq."

SEN. INHOFE: Well, first of all, the American people don't have and shouldn't have the information that the national security team has. You know, the whole thing's about leadership. If we know that there's a threat out there and the threat is great, didn't we learn something from September 11th? Now, just stop and envision for a minute, if you would, that terrible picture that we saw on the TV tubes of the planes going into the World Trade Center, if that had been the weapon of choice of a terrorist, and that is a nuclear warhead on a missile, there'd be nothing left except a piece of charcoal. We wouldn't be talking about 3,000 people; we'd be talking about two million people.

Are we willing to wait for a second warning? And I don't think we are. Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction--I believe, including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I, for one, am not willing to wait for that to happen. We have the best national security team that's ever been assembled. I think the star of that team is Condoleezza Rice. We should let them listen to the confidential information they have, the intelligence they have and act and exert leadership and quit worrying about who else is going to join us.

MR. WILLIAMS: And, General Schwarzkopf, how much should any discussion of this topic be tempered by what we don't know?

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: Well, obviously, I don't have access to the intelligence that the national security team has, and I think most of the American people don't. I know most of the American people don't either, but I think it's necessary in somewhere along the line to make sure that there's a very convincing case made, either through the Congress or through national debate or otherwise, so that the American people are more aware of exactly what this threat consists of and what the risk is if we, in fact, go in there and what the risk is of whether Saddam will use nuclear weapons or not.

MR. WILLIAMS: General, I want to ask you about the Bush family--and this may call for a judgment on your part. It's been said that it's personal where the Bush family and Saddam Hussein of Iraq are

7

concerned. Yet Andrea Mitchell reported on this week's "Nightly News," "The president has sounded noticeably more cautious since visiting his father recently." That would indicate that 41 has had, however patronizing it sounds, a mollifying effect on 43, even though the latter is the current president of the United States. How much give and take do you think there is between these two men--the first, of which, of course, assembled that huge coalition in the Gulf War?

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: Well, I've said over and over again--and I truly believe this--that the decision made by President Bush back at the end of the Gulf War was not only the right decision, it was the only decision that could be made given the circumstances of that time. And I support him 100 percent in that decision and so do an awful lot of other people. I've been around him many, many times since then. And I've never heard him express any kind of great concern for that decision or "He should have done it some other way and, therefore, somebody else ought to do it." I've never heard any of that kind of talk whatsoever. He's always been very statesmanlike about it and very clear as to why he made the decisions he did along with, oh, by the way, the leadership of the entire coalition. And I'm talking about all of our allies were involved and literally agreed with that decision when it was made. So I don't believe there's any acrimony there that he is passing on to his son.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Lugar, when Brent Scowcroft, old friend of George Herbert Walker Bush, co-author, friend and confidant, writes so public an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal should we read anything more into that? Is there a message in that piece for President 43?

SEN. LUGAR: The message was thoughtful prudence. I did not read into Brent Scowcroft's piece that he was opposed to the war. I think at the end of the day, he might say, as I have, that it's probable, that there is going to be military action, and maybe much sooner than the end of the day. I think, however, the questions raised by Brent Scowcroft were very, very valid. And I suspect that probably President Bush is musing over that and is prepared to answer them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Kissinger--few seconds left--if you were advising this president to make the case publicly, what form would it take: a sustained campaign, an address to the nation, an address to Congress or taking Senator Inhofe's lead using the intelligence the administration has already gathered during what is already wartime, proceeding as he sees fit?

DR. KISSINGER: The president got elected. So he, obviously, knows more about how to handle public opinion than I, as an unpolitical figure do. I think he is in a position to answer the questions that were raised in this program. I think he should put it before the American public, but he should couple it also with a clear statement of the direction in which he intends to go and organize his government so that they speak with one voice, once the decision is made. And in making that case, he will probably want to point out not only the existing dangers, which General Schwarzkopf and Brent Scowcroft mentioned, but to compare the danger today to the danger of, say, an attack on Israel or Saudi Arabia five years from now if we do nothing in our means of responding then. And I think if put into that time frame and in the face of the existing dangers, he will be able to carry our people with him.

MR. WILLIAMS: Secretary Kissinger, I have to ask you about a briefing you were present for, the Rand briefing over at the Pentagon, to a group called the Defense Policy Board, a more or less informal group that advises the secretary of Defense. The briefer and the contents of the briefing, as a whole, have remained confidential, but on quote in particular--I know you're familiar with it--was leaked. Said: "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from idealist to cheerleader and that Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies." As the U.S. goes forward, it was a sobering briefing, at least the part the news media got ahold of.

8

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I don't want to speak about what goes on at classified briefings, but I will react to the part that you read. There's no doubt that there are Saudi citizens that have participated in terrorist acts. There's also no doubt that some of the Saudi government has been lax in enforcing security measures. But it is quite another matter to paint Saudi Arabia, which has, after all, been cooperative with the United States on many important problems, including the Gulf War, as an enemy of the United States and at a moment when we are engaged in Afghanistan, thinking of war with Iraq, also to describe Saudi Arabia as an enemy whose government has to be overthrown and part of its territory should be occupied, I thought was a reckless act and not consistent with creating an environment in which more fundamental dangers have to be addressed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Secretary Kissinger...

DR. KISSINGER: We are able to deal with the Saudi government to rectify the problems that were described. These are problems that can be managed. They don't have to be dealt with by the methods that were outlined.

MR. WILLIAMS: Secretary Kissinger, we'll have to end it there with our thanks for joining us. As well, thanks to General Schwarzkopf, Senators Lugar and Inhofe. Gentlemen, thank you all.

We'll take a break, and coming up next as MEET THE PRESS continues, as the summer travel season wraps up, what is next for troubled U.S. air carriers? Are the skies any safer as we take a look at security? We'll ask two members of the House Aviation Subcommittee, the former CEO of American Airlines and a former airline executive and regulator--all coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. WILLIAMS: The airline business, economics and security, after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. WILLIAMS: We are back. Our topic: the airline business, security, both financial and passengers. And let's get right into this. Bob Crandall, we learned this week USAir in bankruptcy. United widely rumored to be following them next. American Airlines, removing first class on some jets, removing meals on some domestic flights, letting go 7,000 employees. Are we going to look back and laugh that there was ever any luxuries aloft when Americans flew?

MR. ROBERT CRANDALL: Well, I think, Brian, that the public are voting rather clearly. The public has been offered a choice, in effect, between quite high levels of convenience and service on the one hand and very low prices on the other. And the public has clearly come down in favor of the lowest possible price. So what you're seeing happen, as a variety of changes sweep across the industry, but you are seeing the major carriers amending their business plans, changing the business models, doing what they can do to become more efficient in order to be able to compete in that chosen characteristic, the public's favorite characteristic, which is price. And you're going to see that continue. And I think the answer is, yes, over time, I think the public will find that air travel is less accessible, less ubiquitous and less service-oriented, perhaps more efficient and more price-oriented, but less convenient, less easy to use than has been the case in the past.

MR. WILLIAMS: Congressman Mica, how much of this is September 11 outflow and how much of it is what's being called "the Southwest Airlines effect," what Herb Kelleher brought to the industry, and

9

that is the expectation that maybe you'll get a meal and a bag to go, but you're going to get a seat on an airline. It'll get you from point A to point B.

REP. JOHN MICA, (R-FL): Well, Brian, we have to look back even before September 11. Airlines were in trouble. Their revenues were decreasing. And that was a result of the economy. So we've a turndown even before September 11. September 11 even made it worse. But from my perspective in Congress, you know, we have a vital industry and we're employing millions of people. We saw how many people were put out of work after 9/11, and even before with the economic slowdown. Our job is to make sure that people stay in jobs and also that we move the economy forward, which will also put more people on planes.

MR. WILLIAMS: In that point, Mr. Levine, a recent--a major U.S. CEO recently said to me, "You know what? We're going to be left with a few brand names in the airline business." And he said it may not be a bad thing, a few companies running the entire industry. What do you think is happening?

PROF. MICHAEL E. LEVINE: Well, I think that the hope that consolidation will somehow save the industry is an error, actually. One of the problems that the industry has had is that it has been very vulnerable to its labor groups. And if we consolidate very far in this industry, you'll get to a position where one of the labor groups will be able to take out a one-quarter or a third of the industry capacity, and that will cause very, very severe difficulties for the public. I also think that as long as the aircraft that are removed from service are not blown up in some major orgy of aluminum destruction, they can come out of the desert into the hands of discount carriers, and that it will be unlikely that a consolidated network industry will get back the pricing power that some of its leaders would like to have.

MR. WILLIAMS: The problem is, Mr. Crandall, when those discount carriers come up, airlines like American seem to show up at gates right next door. JetBlue flying from JFK to Long Beach. What's American doing? They're adding service to Long Beach, not because they wanted to necessarily because it's great American competition, correct?

MR. CRANDALL: Well, it is competition, Brian. The fact of the matter is, look, American has lots of business on the West Coast, lots of business on the East Coast. If it simply steps away from everybody who enters the transcontinental markets, then American's ability to appeal to travelers who want to travel all across the network will diminish. So you're not going to see the existing carriers, the so-called traditional carriers, simply step back from all competition. On the other hand, you have not seen any carrier, American or any other, step up, for example, and start flying from JFK to points in Florida to compete with JetBlue. So as discount carriers come into those markets that are essential to the network carriers or perceived to be essential, you'll see competition. In other places, you'll see the traditional carriers stand away, as they have, as the discount carriers, notably Southwest, have gotten larger.

MR. WILLIAMS: Congressman Mica, I have to switch gears here because top of mind as well is airline security. And you, as one of the architects of the Transportation Security Administration, have to speak to this. I'm going to read you some of the reporting from...

REP. MICA: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: ...USA Today that you're very familiar with this week: "...the [Air Marshal] program is so beset with problems that sources say at least 80 marshals have quit, and other marshals say they are considering a class-action lawsuit over working conditions that they fear put travelers at risk. ...Hiring

10

standards for marshals added since Sept. 11 have been lowered dramatically, sources say. No longer
must applicants pass a difficult marksmanship course...In addition, many new hires were given guns and
badges and put aboard flights before extensive background checks were completed. ...Despite the
undercover nature of the work, officials have implemented a dress code that marshals worry identifies
them to terrorists. And scheduling has been haphazard: While some marshals have not flown for weeks
at a time, sources say others are working 12- to 16-hour days and are falling asleep or getting sick aboard
flights."

Congressman, how did this happen? This is a nation, yes, that had its clock cleaned on September 11 but also won World War II and launched D-Day and can do really whatever it sets its mind to. And here we are with an air marshal program that some have just called a complete mess.

REP. MICA: Well, Brian, first of all, I was one of those who opposed having government try to do everything. It usually costs more, it takes more people and takes longer. Unfortunately, I didn't win that battle, so a lot of people in the name of security wanted to build bureaucracy. And that took the eye off of the ball on important programs like the air marshal program.

I've talked to Admiral Loy who has now taken over as the TSA administrator. There have been some problems. We have a new administrator. He's only been on the job a few weeks. I think he can straighten it out. I think there are some disgruntled employees in the air marshal program. It wasn't really what they thought they were getting into, and some need to get out. It is not a 9-to-5 job. So there are going to be some unhappy campers.

The one thing that concerns me is the training element, and we will look into that and make certain that they have the training and qualifications to protect our public.

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to bring in another guest who's with us by satellite, Congressman Peter DeFazio, Democrat of the state of Oregon.

Congressman, where to begin. Let's start with the plainclothes aspect of these jobs. With Americans flying more and more in sweat suits and shorts, picking out the white guy, aged 30 in the front row, who may be armed and have a badge is not difficult. How to fix what's already been damaged here?

REP. PETER DeFAZIO, (D-OR): Well, it's kind of a game among passengers. I fly a lot myself. A lot of people are trying to pick out the air marshal, but the point is the Bush administration appointed an incompetent. And it took them a very long time to remove them. We've been complaining for months about John McGaw gold-plating the Secret Service mentality that he brought to this agency. This could have all been done much better than it was done. So we need to step back, give Admiral Loy some time here and let him come to Congress with plans on how to better implement aviation security.

Brian, if I could jump back to your first topic.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.

REP. DeFAZIO: I didn't get to speak on that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.

11

REP. DeFAZIO: This was an industry that was tremendously mismanaged before 9/11. Let's remember that. The hub-and-spoke system--you said fly A to B. People have got to fly A, B, C and D: American, United, these big conglomerates. They put together systems people didn't want to deal with. Remember the big subject before 9/11 was passenger rights because people felt so abused. And for them to now blithely say, "Oh, what people"--really they don't want service, they don't want all of these things. They just want the cheapest seats. They're forgetting their biggest profit center was business travelers. And they're not going to get the business travelers back with what they're talking about. We need to begin to think about whether we're going to have to regulate this industry again. When you get to three, you don't have competition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Congressman, look at what you've made me do. I've got to go back to Crandall now. Bob Crandall is a lot of things in the airline business. You are the inventor of things like business class and frequent flier points. You're unfairly identified as the inventor of the hub-and-spoke system, but you did make it work at American. It is slowly being dismantled; longer waits for flights. Is that a good thing?

MR. CRANDALL: No, it's not a good thing, but it is an essential thing. If the objective is to optimize the utilization of equipment and assets and make everything as optimally efficient as possible, and if the facts are that you do not need or cannot support the enormous frequency of flights, which we had before, then what is being done--that is stretching out the hubs a bit, having people wait a bit more, use the equipment a bit more intensively makes a lot of sense.

I think the point is--you know, Mr. DeFazio kind of gets cross with us and calls us incompetent, which I don't think we are. The fact of the matter is, the hub-and-spoke system offered enormous convenience. It built a system that gave the United States great ubiquity of service. Service was everywhere. There was a lot of frequency. We sold the extra seats at low prices to those who didn't need that convenience. As that has changed, the airlines are going to have to change their system. One of the outcomes is going to be that service will be considerably less convenient.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're going to take a break in our discussion. We'll continue on this topic right after this.

(Announcements)

MR. WILLIAMS: We're back. And we go back to Michael Levine, Yale law professor, formerly of the airline business. On the hub and spoke argument, briefly, why can't you fly from Syracuse to Duluth, if you really want to, without visiting your friends at O'Hare in Chicago, for instance?

PROF. LEVINE: Because you have a choice. You can either charter a plane with two seats at high cost to fly you to Duluth. I'm assuming you're one of the two people today who wants to go from Syracuse to Duluth. And the other thing we can do is put you on a plane with 90 other people who want to go somewhere from Syracuse, get you to a place where there are 90 people who want to go from somewhere to Duluth and have you change planes there. If we can do that five or six times a day from Syracuse, and if another couple of competitors can do it five or six more times, you may have 18 shots a day to go from Syracuse to Duluth. There's no way you can do that in the kind of point-to-point discount airline system that people talk about when they talk about Southwest.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Crandall, back on security, we've talked about profiling with you in the past. You hear from a lot of Americans, "Look, we know who did this September 11," and yet, my favorite

12

example is a column by Bob Greene, Chicago Tribune, a scene where Senator John Glenn, who flew the X-15, who orbited the Earth, who went back up in the shuttle, arguably the most patriotic American alive and the least likely to bomb a jetliner, was shown going through the X-ray machine and back through and his shoes were taken off, very patiently as a good American citizen, while who knows how many people were sliding through while John Glenn was getting extra scrutiny. A lot of people agree that doesn't make much sense. You've said go ahead and profile the least-risk passengers. Explain.

MR. CRANDALL: That's exactly what I--well, I think we have to be realistic. I think John Glenn is unlikely to hijack an airplane. I think Bob Crandall, you, Mike Levine, Congressman Mica, all are very unlikely to hijack an airplane or to do any violence. All of us, I suspect, would be perfectly happy to submit to extensive background checks, to have a biometric identifier or fingerprint so that when we get to the airport, the airport knows who we are; the intelligence system knows all about our background. We can go through with a minimum of inspection. Someone who shows up with a Middle Eastern background, in the right age bracket, all right, without that intensive intelligence background, I think we should focus our resources on those people who are most likely to be a threat. I think that's simply realistic. And I believe that--I do not believe that the country wants to afford or can afford a work force of 72,000 people, where a very significant piece of that 72,000 people are spent looking at people who are unlikely to be a threat. So my answer is, yes, let's profile if we need to.

MR. WILLIAMS: Congressman Mica, it's a very doctrinaire business right now, airline security. When is common sense going to enter into it?

REP. MICA: Well, it's very difficult. Congress mandated, and I strongly opposed, the creation of the bureaucracy that we now see them trying to create. And, then, again, that's very difficult for a government to get it right, whether it's air marshals or whether it's screening. We're trying to get, now, in place, a profiling system that makes sense, that's acceptable. We need to be going after bad guys--Bob is exactly right--and not just things. And the things that we're examining in the airports--we're using 1950s' technology.

MR. CRANDALL: That's right.

REP. MICA: It's almost farcical. But it's a very tough debate in Congress. And it's almost become a partisan thing. Are you for security and spend all this money on bureaucracy or are you against it? And it's a tough battle right now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Congressman DeFazio, there may be 1.5 billion bags next year. How on Earth is the United States going to X-ray each and every one of them?

REP. DeFAZIO: Well, in Great Britain at Heathrow, every single bag goes through explosives checks, and they're using American technology. We had a wake-up call with Pan Am 103. The industry fought an effective system to move us toward full-bag screening. Today, a fraction of the bags are screened. I believe an explosives attack is much more likely than a takeover. We have to move ahead with this program. And putting in place an indefinite delay because of the extraordinary incompetence of Mr. Magaw, the former head of this agency, who was fired, and saying, "Well, maybe someday we'll get to the point where we're checking every bag" is not acceptable. He also resisted the frequent traveler card. The guy was a disaster. This doesn't have to be a gold-plated, huge bureaucracy, which John is concerned about. I share those concerns. It doesn't need to be as big as they're saying. It can be more efficient. And I think Admiral Lloyd can do that. But it took them too long to get a good person as head of this agency.

13

MR. WILLIAMS: Michael Levine, you hear people say this, "As the nation that won World War II, why can't we put the machines in the airports, if we have to federalize the plans to get them in there?"

PROF. LEVINE: Because we got to focus on what the problem is. Nobody can do everything at once. We're looking for things. We should be looking for people. The Israelis--who have the best airline security in the world--first tried the looking for things approach. And, then, they discovered that even within the low-volume context of the Israeli system, they had to start looking at people. Once you look at people, you can use all this American technology to make it work. But if you want to do it the way Congressman DeFazio would do it, every jar of hair gel and so on becomes a technical challenge to the machine. Instead of spending gazillions of dollars to try to figure out how to do every haystack in America, why don't we try to figure out where the haystacks are that are likely to have the needle in it that we're trying to find?

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you know how many e-mails are going to arrive here from history buffs on Truman and FDR's efforts to federalize private industry?

PROF. LEVINE: Yeah.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to be fun to read. Gentlemen, we could do another hour on this. Congressman John Mica, Congressman DeFazio, thank you both for being with us. Robert Crandall, formerly of American; Michael Levine, formerly of the airlines, and went into a good cushy private-sector job at Yale Law School, thank you all. We're going to take a break. We have more when we come right back.

(Announcements)

MR. WILLIAMS: A reminder to start your day tomorrow morning on "Today" with Katie and Matt. Then I'll see you tomorrow evening for "NBC Nightly News." That's all for today. Tim Russert will be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.