Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=9-25-03

TYPE=INTERVIEW

NUMBER=3-796

TITLE=ADAMS-IRAQ

BYLINE=DAVIE BORGIDA

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Gordon Adams, Director of the Security Policy Studies Program at the Elliott School of International Affairs discusses the Bush administration's calls to increase military forces in Iraq.

MR. BORGIDA

And now joining us here in our studio, Dr. Gordon Adams, a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Adams, thanks for being with us to discuss the road ahead in Iraq, particularly on the security and military side. The President of the United States went to the General Assembly, asked for -- in some ways, this is a vast oversimplification but -- some forgiveness and some help, and I'm not sure if he got either. What's your take?

DR. ADAMS

Well, the President's approach, I think, was largely not to ask for forgiveness but essentially to justify the policy and its execution, and to challenge the United Nations to say, okay, now you've got to step in and help us; you weren't there to approve a resolution back last January, but we have acted in conformance with what we thought the resolution provided last September. We have saved the good name of the United Nations. Now it's your turn to jump in with troops and with funding to help us out.

MR. BORGIDA

But that does not appear to be forthcoming, even though Mr. Schroeder said that they had put aside their differences. I don't see that the troop level will be increasing on a multinational level.

DR. ADAMS

The German case is a good illustration of the problem. The Germans are prepared to let bygones be bygones politically, but they're not prepared to send troops into the field. And I think it very unlikely that they will send much funding our way as well. They will do some police training, probably in Germany rather than in Iraq, but they're going to be very careful about how far they join in.

It's illustrative of the President's larger problem. Most nations feel excluded by the policy already a year ago and then six months ago. They're not now prepared to step in and save the President's bacon when it comes to money or troops right now.

MR. BORGIDA

Let's talk about that troop level. Some top defense officials are saying that there is a good chance now that more reservists will be called up. Are the U.S. forces in Iraq, and certainly worldwide, being stretched too thin as a result of all this?

DR. ADAMS

In Iraq, everybody now recognizes the force is probably inadequate. American politicians have somewhat resisted -- Secretary Rumsfeld has resisted -- sending more American forces in the absence of at least another division of forces from somewhere. It's clear the administration is now considering going back into the pool of the Reserves in the United States. That's a real problem for them politically. Families in the Reserve and Guard structure right now aren't real happy about the extension of terms of deployment over in Iraq.

MR. BORGIDA

Well, that will lead me into my next question, because there is a domestic U.S. political dimension to all this certainly. And as it becomes more difficult, at least from a public relations standpoint, for the Bush administration when there are more attacks on U.S. troops and so on, and there doesn't appear to be a great deal of help from other countries, we are seeing at the same time the President's public opinion poll ratings going down a bit. And certainly now we see General Wesley Clark in the picture on the Democratic side. How do you see this from a domestic political perspective?

DR. ADAMS

It's quite unusual to have a foreign policy or security issue be central to a presidential campaign. It looks very likely in this instance. Usually it's the economy. The economy may well improve over the next 10 months. It's not clear that the situation in Iraq is going to improve over the next 10 months. So the President's political standing now here is under challenge. His leadership is under challenge. And this some 12 months after it couldn't have ranked higher.

MR. BORGIDA

That's right. And the irony, too, is that as he began his presidency, he was criticized in some quarters, and certainly by partisan Democrats, that he was weak on foreign policy. And here he is now being judged on it.

DR. ADAMS

And now he's being judged on it. And in a sense, rightly so. That is, since 9/11, the President has clearly made the fight on terrorism and the fight about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction the centerpieces of his national security strategy. If we don't find the weapons, if we don't find Saddam Hussein, if we don't find Osama bin Laden, his leadership is going to be called into question politically here at home.

MR. BORGIDA

How do you see General Clark shaping up as a candidate? Because this evening the Democrats will be debating among themselves on the national scale -- I believe it's now up to 10 candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for President -- and General Clark, who is known to our listeners and viewers around the world as a former top general, presents an interesting case, doesn't he?

DR. ADAMS

It's very interesting for the Democrats. Unlike anybody else on the Democratic side, General Clark can show some bona fide national security credentials. And that even applies to John Kerry. Because after Kerry came home from Vietnam he tossed his medals over the wall, leaving himself vulnerable on the national security question.

General Clark is unchallengeable. And that actually I think strengthens the Democrat field, because they now have a candidate, as it were, they can gather behind, whose critique of the President's national security and leadership is not going to be called into question because of his credentials.

MR. BORGIDA

And certainly to flip things a little bit back to the President, though, as you corrected me, he did not go to the General Assembly with forgiveness or apology on his agenda, but certainly remained forthright about what he believed was the appropriateness of a unilateral approach. What's your thoughts about that, quickly?

DR. ADAMS

The President clearly, and his national security leadership, are clearly consistently of one mind about this policy. One has to ask, as the reality on the ground starts to diverge from intentions, how long they can stay this consistent about where they want to go.

MR. BORGIDA

Well, we will see, and we will keep connected with our audience about the domestic political dimension, because that's also very important. Dr. Gordon Adams, a professor at George Washington University here in Washington, D.C., thanks for your perspective. We appreciate it.

(End of interview.)

NEB/PT