SUN. APR. 20TH WOLF BLITZER INTERVIEW

BLITZER: Welcome back to our special LATE EDITION, "The New Iraq."

For the United States the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime may have been, relatively speaking at least, the easy part. Now the work begins to restore order and stability and try to establish a new democratic government in Iraq.

Joining us now with perspective on the diplomatic, military, security challenges facing a new Iraq and the United States are three distinguished guests: in Connecticut, the former secretary of state, Dr. Henry Kissinger; here in Washington, the former defense secretary, William Cohen; and also here in Washington, the former national security adviser, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Gentlemen, welcome to LATE EDITION.

And, Dr. Kissinger, let me begin with you. You are the elderstatesman of this group, after all. With Saddam Hussein still on the loose, if in fact he is alive, and still no evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, can the U.S., can the Bush administration declare victory?

HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the Bush administration can declare victory when it is in a position to move toward the establishment of civil order, and I think it has reached that point. It hasn't achieved civil order yet, but it is in a position to do so.

The weapons of mass destruction are a secondary issue from that point of view, and I expect that they will be found.

BLITZER: What about that, Dr. Brzezinski?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I think one has to differentiate between a military victory and a political victory. The political victory will come by stages within Iraq, within the region, more widely in our relations with the allies.

As far as the weapons of mass destruction are concerned, that is a problem because, obviously, if he had them in any significant fashion, he would have used them. They would have been deployed with his troops. So the most we can hope for is we'll find some arsenals that were hidden for some purpose but strangely not used in the course of the war.

BLITZER: Well, he didn't use them during the first Gulf War a dozen years ago because of the threats that were made by the then first Bush administration that the U.S. might even use nuclear weapons in response.

U

2

Maybe he was deterred this time, as well.

BRZEZINSKI: Yes, but that would then show that deterrence did work.

BLITZER: So, in other words, you're skeptical that he did have significant quantities?

BRZEZINSKI: Yes, I am skeptical that he had significant amounts of weapons of mass destruction. I think he had some components, perhaps he had some weapons, like chemical weapons, which really aren't weapons of mass destruction, but he clearly didn't have them deployed with his troops.

BLITZER: What about that?

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, we don't know whether Saddam himself was killed on that decapitation strike in the very first instance and whether there was a loss of command and control. There are a variety of reasons that could explain this.

But I think the important thing to remember is that security and stability is critical, as Dr. Kissinger was saying. But not of secondary importance is the finding of those weapons of mass destruction.

I am convinced that he has them. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rule rolling up and then moving those trucks out.

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. We will find them. It may take some time, but it is of political importance that we do so. That was the central justification for going into Iraq in the first instance.

BLITZER: All right, we're just getting started. We have a lot more to talk about. We're going to take a quick break, though. Much more to discuss with Henry Kissinger, William Cohen and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

We're also looking for your phone calls. We'll check the latest developments when LATE EDITION, "The New Iraq," returns.

ANNOUNCER: Time now for our Picture of the Week, a face from the new Iraq. Twelve-year-old Ali Ismael Abbas lost his arms, as well as his family, in the bombings near Baghdad. The Iraqi boy, who was also badly burned, is being treated in Kuwait. Doctors say his condition is improving.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[L]

3

We're continuing our conversation with the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the former Defense Secretary William Cohen and the former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Dr. Kissinger, how long will U.S. troops, serious numbers of U.S. troops, have to remain in Iraq? KISSINGER: I think they'll have to remain at least a couple of years, because it will be necessary to establish a government and to help to protect that government against people who are trying to overthrow the system that is emerging.

BLITZER: When you say a couple of years, U.S. troops have been in Germany and Japan for decades, since the end of World War II. Why won't they be in Iraq for decades?

KISSINGER: Well, I don't think they can be in Iraq for decades because of the environment of the Islamic world. But I think it's likely that they will stay longer than two years. They've been staying in Bosnia for six years, and that was a simpler problem.

But we should try to get other countries to join us so that it does not appear like an American occupation but that other countries are sharing the responsibilities and not making it look as if it were the exercise of one individual country.

BLITZER: Dr. Brzezinski...

KISSINGER: ... one individual, non-Muslim country.

BLITZER: ... is it a good idea to let the U.N. just take charge of peacekeeping in Iraq and let the U.S. sort of withdraw? Or maybe even NATO, give NATO that responsibility?

BRZEZINSKI: I don't think we can move just from one arrangement to another. We may transition to it gradually by phases. But the key point, one that Henry just made, namely that the sooner that we internationalize the longer we will be able to stay, I think is a very valid one.

Unlike Europe, unlike Japan or unlike Bosnia and Kosovo, the population, at best, has very mixed attitudes toward United States. And the longer we stay along, the sooner we'll become the objects of hostility and even attacks.

BLITZER: Why shouldn't they be grateful to the United States for liberating them from Saddam Hussein?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, they may be grateful for liberation from Saddam, but they're not grateful for the bombing, for the casualties. They don't like the

4

presence of Americans on their soil. Incidentally, the same is the problem in Saudi Arabia.

So the sooner we defuse our presence, camouflage it in some respects and then terminate it, the better.

BLITZER: Do you think that the U.S. should also let the U.N. inspectors, Dr. Hans Blix, come in, Secretary Cohen, and take charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction under the assumption that if the U.S. finds something, then it could be suspect in the eyes of some, could have been planted theoretically?

COHEN: I think the U.N. inspectors can have a role to play, but, frankly, it's been pointed out the discovery of these weapons are going to come about by virtue of Iraqi personnel who have been, quote, "liberated." They will lead either the U.S. forces in conjunction with some of the U.N. inspectors or alone to these sites.

I think they can play a role to give credibility to it. But it's going to be the U.S., for the foreseeable future, helping to stabilize and also to question the Iraqi scientists.

BLITZER: Dr. Kissinger, do you have thoughts on that, who should be in charge of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix or General Tommy Franks?

KISSINGER: I think General Tommy Franks. It's an absurdity to let Hans Blix, who has failed over 10 years of the inspection systems, that has not succeeded over 10 years, now to become the final judge of whether weapons of mass destruction have been found.

These weapons will be found because former members of the regime will tell us where they are. And the former members of the regime, obviously, did not tell Blix and his team where they are, so it would be purely symbolic gesture to let these people in.

And it would really be a device by which the process which led to the frustration and stalemate on the Security Council prior to the war be repeated. So, I'm not very anxious -- I think it's a bad idea to let the U.N. inspectors back in.

BLITZER: All right. Dr. Brzezinski, can you respond to that?

But also respond to what the president said this week about lifting economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. since the invasion of Kuwait, lifting those economic sanctions as quickly as possible. Listen to what the president said.

5

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Emergency supplies are now moving freely to Iraq from many countries. Now that Iraq is liberated, the United Nations should lift economic sanctions on that country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You think the president is right, they should immediately lift all economic sanctions against Iraq?

BRZEZINSKI: I have no problem with the lifting of economic sanctions. I do think, however, it is very important to try to create some international legitimization for the existing political status quo in Iraq, which is obviously quite abnormal.

We have a military occupation. We have, at best, an incipient Iraqi administration. And I think it is in our interest to create, as soon as possible, some vestiges of international legality and involve others in the process, which goes beyond the question of sanctions.

There will have to be a lot of money spent on the reconstruction. Obviously it is not in our interest that we pay for all of it. So we have to engage the international community.

BLITZER: Before we get off Iraq and move to Syria, I want to ask you, Secretary Cohen, this whole issue of Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress. He's now in Baghdad. He's establishing himself as a figure in a post-Saddam region.

He spoke out earlier today on ABC's This Week. I want you to listen to what he said about a U.S. military presence in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHALABI: A military presence of the United States in Iraq must be -- is a necessity until at least the first democratic election is held. And I think this process should take two years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Ahmad Chalabi is a favorite of many at the Pentagon, some at the White House, not at the State Department, not at the CIA.

You dealt with him when you were at the Pentagon, to a certain degree. Is

6

he the guy?

COHEN: The question is not whether the State Department or the CIA or anyone else likes him. The question is whether the Iraqi people like him.

I think he is entitled to go back to Iraq, as he has, to establish himself. If he wishes to run for political office, he should do so. There should be no anointing on the part of the United States. This is a decision for the Iraqi people and not for us to make for them.

So, if he can establish his roots that were deep at one point, but he has been in this country and elsewhere for many, many years, then he should be able to run for election.

BLITZER: Dr. Kissinger, the president, we just heard here on CNN Live just a few minutes ago, said the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Asad is beginning to get the message, he said. There are some positive signs coming from Damascus.

I guess a lot of people are beginning to take the president much more seriously in the aftermath of the speedy victory in Iraq. Do you think the Syrians will come clean now?

KISSINGER: Well, the president has done everything he said he would do in the war of terror. So, I think countries are well advised to take him seriously.

What we want from the Syrians is that they don't give shelter to Iraqi leaders that become refugees there, that they do something about the Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist groups in the Bekaa Valley, and that they participate in the peace process with Israel. And I think we can achieve all of these objectives. BLITZER: You think that Syria is ready to, in effect, bite the bullet and sever its relationship with groups the State Department, Dr. Brzezinski, calls terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, these groups, and end that kind of support for those kinds of terror organizations?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, first of all, let's not forget that in the '90-'91 war, Syria was on our side. Syria has not been a close friend of Saddam Hussein nor of his regime in Iraq. I think the Syrians now perceive the new political realities in the Middle East.

They also, I think, expect that we will be seriously engaged in the peace process. I think they're counting on that. And therefore, their willingness to be forthcoming is related to a larger view of what's going to be happening in the Middle East.

7

And if we do the things we said we plan to do -- not only regarding Iraq, but regarding the region as a whole, and particularly the Arab-Palestinian issue or the Israeli-Arab issue more generally -- then I think the Syrians would be cooperative.

**BLITZER:** What do you think about that whole Syrian -- because there's been some who say Syria should be next on the U.S. military agenda, although most people think that is unlikely at any time in the near future.

**COHEN:** Well, I think the Syrians certainly have an interest in not providing safe haven to terrorist groups or individuals, and they would be wise to turn them over, should they arrive in Damascus.

But I think we should pause here and consolidate this victory, so to speak, and say that we have liberated the people of Iraq, but we've got a lot of work to do, and not line someone else up in the gun sights at this moment.

I think we can bring that about by persuasion. I think there is a interest on the part of Syria, and as Dr. Brzezinski has also indicated, to wrap that up in the context of what Dr. Kissinger was saying, is that President Bush has fulfilled everything he said he would do.

The next thing he must do is to get the Middle East peace process back on track. If that is the case, I think you will find Syria more than willing to at least discuss these issues, which have been so perplexing for so long.

**BLITZER:** Dr. Kissinger, nobody knows more about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than you do. You struggled with it for decades.

Abu Mazan Mahmoud Abbas, the new prime minister-designate of the Palestinian Authority, is he the man who could reach a deal, a peace deal with Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel?

**KISSINGER:** Well, he's the one on whom we're counting and the regions to have some confidence in him. The problem will be how to get the process started and to get some momentum.

And we should be careful. I've looked at some of these proposals, and there are too many moving parts. I think the negotiating process has to be reduced to a few simple propositions. But I believe the opportunity for progress is better than it has been in years.

**BLITZER:** I'm going to give you the last word, Dr. Brzezinski. This road map that Dr. Kissinger is talking about, three years to final settlement, an independent Palestinian state, is that overly ambitious right now?

il

8

BRZEZINSKI: Well, actually my fear is that it's underambitious, because a lot of negative things can happen in that part of the world in the course of three years.

But if we become seriously engaged, backed by the international community, but particularly the United States is seriously engaged, I think we can move both the Israelis and the Palestinians in the direction of peace, and perhaps it'll accelerate.

BLITZER: And do you see the administration seriously engaged right now?

BRZEZINSKI: I think the administration probably is not seriously engaged right now, but I think, if it wishes to engage the rest of the international community in the Middle East, and particularly in the reconstruction efforts of Iraq, it'll have to consider their interests.

And the Europeans, after all, are very close to the Middle East, and they desperately need genuine progress toward peace, particularly between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

BLITZER: We're going to leave it right there. Dr. Brzezinski, as usual, thank you very much. Secretary Cohen, Secretary Kissinger, always good to have all three of you on our program. Thanks very much for joining us.

Just ahead, with the French president, Jacques Chirac, having led the fierce opposition to war against Iraq, what will it take for the United States and France to forge a post-war partnership? We'll talk with France's ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, when LATE EDITION, "The New Iraq," returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)