CNN Late Edition - Transition
CNN Late Edition - Transition
BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
President Bush reportedly leaning toward sending perhaps another 20 additional troops into Iraq. How will the new Congress react?
Joining us from Phoenix, Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, and here in Washington, Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee
How would you react, Senator Reed, if another 20,000, 30,000 troops were sent in by the president?
SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: Well, I'd be very skeptical. General Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, pointed out that surging troops without a purpose doesn't make any sense. So I think we'd all have to understand what the purpose of this increase would be.
BLITZER: The purpose, presumably, would be to try to stop the fighting in the Baghdad area.
REED: Well, that might be the purpose, but Baghdad is 6 million people. We've already sent in additional forces, a few months ago, to try to stop the fighting. If it's just a short-term increase in troops, won't our adversaries simply adjust their tactics, wait us out and wait until we reduce again?
So I think you'd have to ask very serious questions about the utility of this.
And as General Christman pointed out, the stress on the Army would be excruciating, in terms of finding these troops, sustaining them and, indeed, sustaining them for any length of time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BLITZER: Here's what Senator McCain said in Baghdad -- and I'll bring this back to Senator Reed -- earlier in the week. And Senator McCain has been very consistent from day one, going back 3 1/2 years. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): I'd like to say that I believe conditions have improved, certainly, in Baghdad. They have not. I believe that there's still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province, in order to bring the sectarian violence under control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Earlier in the day, Colin Powell, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the former secretary of state, said he doesn't see, himself, any justification, right now, for an increase in troops. He doesn't know if that would help.
REED: Well, I think General Powell's instincts are accurate. Again, what is the mission of these new troops?
Are they going to go take on these sectarian militias?
Are they going to simply augment troops that are on the ground today?
This is a city of 6 million people. It will require a huge number of security forces, not just another 15,000. My sense is that this is more of a political gesture, if the president does it, to try to...
BLITZER: Politically, it would be unpopular, presumably.
REED: Well, I think, with the base of right-wing neoconservatives who have been arguing for years and years and years that we just have to send more troops in -- I think that's what the appeal would be.
I think that's not going to change the dynamic. And again, I think the key feature here, in terms of making a difference, is not so much adding additional American troops.
It's getting the Iraqi government to make tough decisions about taking on the militias, about purging their security forces of militia influences, of real reconciliation, which apparently didn't work this weekend; and providing services so that the 70 percent unemployment rate in some of these neighborhoods can go down.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BLITZER: What do you think, Senator Reed?
REED: Well, since 2003, I've argued for a larger Army and Marine Corps. Chuck Hagel and I sponsored a resolution that was tabled to that effect, in 2003.
The problem, now, is it's much more difficult to field that force. As Senator Kyl pointed out, it's more expensive. But also, recruitment is very difficult for the Army.
But I do think we have to expand the force. But I think it's not going to be easy. And in the meantime, we have a force that is on the verge of breaking, as General Schoomaker said.
And that is, I think, a stunning indictment of this administration's handling of the Department of the Defense and the Army.
BLITZER: Is Charlie Rangel right when he says the Pentagon spends about $4 billion a year in advertising on television, radio, newspapers, magazines, simply to try to recruit members for the U.S. military?
REED: He is accurate in the sense of the scale of that number. I don't know if it's exactly $4 billion, but it's a huge contract for advertisement agencies, for recruiters in the field.
This is a big operation. And it's part of having a volunteer army. I think the volunteer army has been a great success, but you have to shape your strategy based upon your resources.
And at this juncture, the resources of the Army and Marine Corps are stretched so thin that this notion of increasing, substantially, our forces in Iraq is, I think, a real problematic question.
And also, we can't forget Afghanistan. There the commanders are asking for additional forces, NATO forces, but additional forces.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BLITZER: What do you think, Senator Reed?
Because Condoleezza Rice seems to have the same view as Senator Kyl. She also is worried about the Syrians having a dominant role, once again, in Lebanon, as "compensation," in her word, if the U.S. were to seek Syria's help in Iraq.
REED: Well, the consequences of the strategy pursued by President Bush and Secretary Rice has an enhanced Iran and indeed, in some respects, and enhanced Syria.
They are taking advantage of the situation in Iraq. But this is a regional issue which has tremendous regional consequences.
And as, I think, the preceding panel pointed out, not all of these consequences are in the best interests of Iran or Syria. A destabilized Iraq could also engender destabilization elsewhere.
So I think that we have to look for areas in which there might be a common ground, not based upon altruism but self-interest, and that we can get the cooperation, hopefully, or at least work to that, of these other regional powers.
BLITZER: We're almost out of time, Senator Reed. But I know you've been in touch with the family of Senator Tim Johnson, the Democratic senator from South Dakota who had emergency brain surgery this week.
How is he doing?
REED: He's doing well. There's genuine optimism. I spoke with Barb, his wife, his son Brooks was an NCO in Iraq with the 101st -- a wonderful family, and he's a wonderful gentleman.
And there's a real genuine optimism that he's coming through a very difficult process, but coming through at this point with very, very good signs of progress.
BLITZER: I know you and Senator Kyl and everyone wishes him and the family obviously a very speedy recovery. We have to leave it there, senators. Thanks to both of you for coming in, John Kyl of Arizona, Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/17/le.01.html