2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

November 27, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - November 27

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPT SPOKESMAN: There was an interesting news story speculating on what the Iraq Study Group might decide it recommends on before it has actually met.

Neither Syria nor Iran should need any sort of incentive to try to play a positive, transparent role in Iraq's development. It should be in their interest to have a stable, peaceful, prosperous Iraq on their borders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: That's Sean McCormick from the State Department talking about some of the discussions about what to do in Iraq. Now some analytical observations from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent for National Public Radio -- FOX NEWS contributors, all.

OK, so the search for fresh options in Iraq is in full swing, Iraq Study Group's meeting here in Washington; you've got the Iraqi President Talabani who's in Iran meeting with officials there. The talk everywhere seems to be of some sort of discussions tomorrow with Iran and Syria about what's going on inside Iraq. What is the sense you get that there's any whiff of progress here?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, look, I don't think that there's any harm in talking to Iran and Syria, but in terms of the whiff of progress thinking that Iran and Syria are somehow going to rescue us, I don't know if it's in their interest to do that.

Now Sean McCormack did say it's in their interest to have a stable, peaceful, prosperous Iraq on their borders, that's true, they don't want Iraq to implode and export instability. But on the other hand, they certainly are not interested in seeing Iraq being a U.S. ally in the war on terror, which is one of the stated goals of this administration. And we are basically asking people, who the president has named as part of the "Axis of Evil," to help us out of an increasingly difficult situation in Iraq, and I think the price that they would extract for that help is going to be pretty high.

ANGLE: Well, that -- they would extract -- I mean, otherwise, why would the Iranians suddenly quit mucking around (INAUDIBLE)?

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Yeah, I used to think that the first demand of the Iranians would say let us have a nuclear weapon and the first demand of the Syrians would be let us have Lebanon. I think their first command, in fact, will be OK, you get out, you know, and then we'll take care of the situation. You know, I don't think...

ANGLE: With those other two goals to follow close behind.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, and then they -- you know, they're on the march, they're on the rise. We are seen as being weak. They know what the election returns said. The Democrats all want to pull out, you know, by -- on one timetable or another and President Bush is in a very weak state. Now the Iraq Study Group has certainly signaled about as much as you possibly can that one of its major recommendations will be, quote, unquote, "regional diplomacy," to include the Iranians and the Syrians, but also others in the region and you can see a lot of anticipatory action along that line.

Vice President Cheney just went to Saudi Arabia, which will be another player in the game; the president's going to meet with King Abdullah of Jordan, that's part of the game. You've got the Israelis all of a sudden saying, "Wait, wait, we're willing to talk to the Palestinians. Get us a new government and we'll give up lots of land," I mean, that's another part that could be part of the game.

ANGLE: You know, Fred -- go ahead.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Just this idea of a Mideast conference, if that is the best thing that this Baker-Hamilton Commission can come up with, they're a pretty pathetic lot. I mean, that's like saying, "Oh, there's a problem there, let's form a committee." Come on, that's ridiculous. And particularly bringing in the Syrians and the Iranians. I mean look, Sean McCormack, we all know him, he's a wonderful guy, but he certainly doesn't believe that they really want to have a stable Iraq.

If they want a stable Iraq, why do the Syrians allow Jihadists to come across the border, harbor them in Syria and send them across the border? And why is Iran then backing the Mahdi Army, you know, the biggest and probably bloodiest militia in Iraq, they're backing them.

ANGLE: And one of the biggest troublemakers.

BARNES: And the biggest troublemakers, yeah, that's al Sadr. I think they do want Iraq to explode and then they'll move in, and at the very least, create a satellite, a country that they can dominate and it won't be a Democracy.

ANGLE: Now Mara, on the way -- on this trip -- on the first leg of this trip, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley said -- was asked about all this and said that Prime Minister Maliki has expressed some very strong views about discussions, particularly with Iran and his view, as Hadley described it, was that if anybody's going to talk to Iran, it's should be Iraqis and not Americans.

LIASSON: Right. Well look, Maliki has a strong interest in not being seen as a U.S. stooge. There's a lot of domestic politics, too. He's having a hard time controlling his own coalition. At times it seems like he has no control at all, especially over his coalition partner, Muqtada al Sadr, who's the head of the Mahdi Army. And I think that's important, I mean, the Iraqis have to be seen as the masters of their own destiny. They don't seem to be able to control the violence there right now, but I think he makes an important point and I think the U.S. will go out of its way to make sure that he is seen as someone who is in control.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, the -- when the president meets with Maliki, what I think he's got to say is that you have -- there are certain things that you've got to do and time is fleeting. I mean, we -- I can only hold the American people and the Congress in -- to support our policy in Iraq for a very short time. And if you haven't got your -- the militias under control, your Iraqi army standing up, a political settlement reached, you're going -- we're going to have to leave.

ANGLE: You'd think Maliki would already know that. Wouldn't you?

KONDRACKE: Well you'd think so. Read the paper.

ANGLE: When we come back with the panel, we'll look at the upcoming NATO summit and what the U.S. and its allies will be looking at there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICHOLAS BURNS, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States delegation, led by President Bush and Secretary Rice, at the summit, will be pressing this idea to encourage the allies, the European allies, to spend more on defense, to acquire the systems and capabilities that are absolutely necessary for a success on the modern battlefield and in modern peacekeeping.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We came to Afghanistan because it was obvious that the problem in Afghanistan had become a problem for the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: OK. The president's on his way to a NATO summit where are the key issue tomorrow will be to, among other things, get other nations to contribute more money. I mean, basically the U.S. is saying, "Hey, we've been carrying the load, here. We've been paying the lion's share of all these things. And, you know, since Soviet Union is gone, but there are a lot of other things going on in the world, and we've been footing too much of the bill, we need help."

LIASSON: Right. And, you know, Afghanistan is one of the few places where there was an international consensus. It's not controversial like Iraq. That was a place where there were actually terrorists, the Taliban, and they harbored Osama bin Laden. But Afghanistan has proved to be a lot more stubborn a problem than, I think, the West thought it would be. Seems like we had solved the problem there, installed a Democratically-elected government, but outside of Kabul, the capital, there's not a whole lot of safety and the Taliban has been resurgent.

But I do think that yeah, the U.S. wants the European and other NATO countries to pony up more. That's, I think, been a perennial problem. You and I have covered a lot of summits where the Europeans talk big, they want to be a counterweight to the United States, but as you heard Nick Burns just say, they're not willing to spend the proportion of their GDP on defense the way we do.

KONDRACKE: The United States spends about 3.8 percent of GDP on defense, the whole rest of NATO spends 1.9 percent. That's the other NATO average. The Brits spend 2.5; the Dutch, 1.7; the Canadians, 1.1. Those are the ones who are fighting in Afghanistan. I mean, and then you go down from there. And our friends, the French, you know, have specifically refused to get involved in Afghanistan. They've got 20,000 men that they have on standby duty for use someplace, and when they were asked specifically to join up and go help out in Afghanistan, they said, "No, we're going to hold these back in case they're need in Kosovo." You know, typically French.

(LAUGHTER)

BARNES: What was that number for the Dutch, again? Do you have that?

KONDRACKE: I've actually go that -- 1.7 percent of GDP.

BARNES: And they're one of the best, you know, the Dutch. I mean, look, the other problem is, and even when they come, like the Germans, the Italians and the Spanish, even when they come, they have a rule. No combat. They don't want to fight. So it's left to the Americans, the Canadians, and the Dutch, actually, are pretty good. And then the Australians, who aren't even members of NATO are the ones who are actually doing the fighting. And the Canadians have lost 34 soldiers in recent months, so they've really done a good job.

Look, the Europeans have been free-riders now for 60 years. It's going to are hard to get them off the dole, it really is. And it'll almost be small amounts of money, percentage-wise.

ANGLE: Well now, there was some indication that Angela Merkel, the German leader, was willing, and the Germans are one of these who have restrictions, our people can't go into this area and that area, they're the areas that just happen to be where the combat is. There was some indication that she was actually willing to make some accommodation on this point.

KONDRACKE: That's her gift to President Bush. I mean, she's of the same sort of ideology, Christian Democrat, right of center and all that, and that's good. That's a great step. Now, if only others would follow it, it'd be terrific.

BARNES: You haven't seen anything happen yet, exactly.

ANGLE: Right.

BARNES: In terms of Germans. I mean, Germans aren't exactly running to the front.

ANGLE: Well, you know, the interesting thing is -- we've got about a minute left -- the interesting thing that NATO, you know, was originally the bulwark against the Soviet empire in Europe. And now NATO is sort of a come-one-come-all organization, we may not always be able to get anything through because there's so many people, but it does create trained people with largely the same equipment and willing partners for when you need a coalition of the willing.

LIASSON: And, you know, instead of -- yeah, the NATO's mission has changed, it's not just defending the West against the Communist threat, it's going into places like Bosnia or Kosovo or now Afghanistan and that's a much more difficult challenge, actually, because you've got to stick around for a long time and you've got to fight. And it's pretty difficult.

KONDRACKE: But with the -- Russia acting like the Soviet Union, having all these little former Soviet countries as members of NATO, certainly Putin regards this as encirclement on the part of -- and it is -- and it helps defend them against Russian encroachment.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006