Click
photo to play
Length: 5:00
WOLF BLITZER: This bill,
by the way, marks the fact of the matter the
Democratic controlled Congress will send President
Bush binding legislation on the war. And when he
carries out his veto threat, it will be only the
second time he's actually done so during his entire
presidency.
Meanwhile, the bill sets some benchmarks, as they're
called, for the Iraqi government. Among them, deploy
trained Iraqi security forces in Baghdad and give
Iraqi commanders more leeway to make decisions
without political intervention.
The second goal is the disarming of Iraq's militias.
Another benchmark -- ensure that Iraq's oil and other
resources benefit all Iraqis.
The bill says Iraq should reform its process of
removing officials with ties to the Saddam Hussein
regime and it calls for the protection of minority
rights.
What might the practical effect of all of this be on
Iraq?
Michael Ware is joining us now.
Michael is our special correspondent in Baghdad.
He's joining us from New York on this day -- Michael,
thanks very much.
Good to have you here stateside.
What would it mean, practically speaking -- and
you've been there from day one; you've spent four
years covering this war -- if the Democrats had their
way and by the end of March of next year, U.S. combat
forces pulled out of Iraq?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at that point,
or very soon after, you would have some kind of
regional conflict in the Middle East, almost without
doubt.
You would instantly see the Shia militias that
essentially are driving this government -- they're
the ones who own this government, because this
government is not a government in the sense that we
understand. It's a loose alliance of these militias
that U.S. intelligence says is backed by Iran.
So you would immediately see them consolidate their
power. That means consolidating Iranian influence.
They'd also look to expand that.
Now, the Arab states in the region, America's allies,
who have been screaming about this since before the
invasion, would not be able to sit back. They'd have
to respond by supporting the Sunnis.
So you would see the country immediately turn into an
Iranian proxy kind of territory or Iranian sponsored
territory and then an al Qaeda-dominated Sunni-Arab
regional backed semi-state, at war with each other,
that would suck in all the regional players.
It's nothing but disaster -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And it's an awful scenario, the way you
described it.
But what about this September?
It's still a few months down the road. The president
keeps referring to what General Petraeus says, that
by September, we should know, basically, whether this
new strategy, the so-called surge, is working?
What changes would you expect to have occurred by
September?
WARE: Okay, for a start, I think many people are
looking to General Petraeus' remarks and his
reference to September as him coming to deliver the
magic solution. Well, it's not that at all.
Simply, what General Petraeus is going to do in
September is have a look at the strategy that they're
using now and he's going to say if it's working or if
it's not.
He has no expectation that he's going to say it has
worked and that the job is over and that it's
finished. He's merely going to say we continue this
and go forward or we need to look at other options.
We're now hearing top military commanders talk about
what some of those other options are. A major general
in Iraq has now opened the door to the possibility
that the solution in Iraq, the political solution
everyone talks about, may be a non-democratic state.
So even in September, if things are going as best as
they could be hoped, the generals are saying there
won't be an end to the violence, we're going to need
patience. This is just the beginning. It's not the
end.
BLITZER: I've heard several Arab leaders, allies of
the United States, say to me privately what they need
in Iraq, Michael, is another strongman, almost like
Saddam Hussein, who can control the situation there
on the ground.
WARE: Indeed. What this U.S. major general, Robert
Mixon, who commands a division in northern Iraq,
pointed to was precisely that.
When he listed the elements of U.S. victory, he said
it's leaving behind an effective and functioning
Iraqi government that can deliver services to its
people and that is a partner with the U.S. and the
world against terrorists.
Now, I said to him, you can have all of those things
without a democracy.
His response?
Indeed. You see that across the Middle East.
So that's what's shaping as the alternative. That's
Plan B, a Musharraf-like Pakistan, a strongman with a
quasi-democracy who first and foremost delivers
security.
BLITZER: Michael Ware in New York for us.
Michael, thanks very much.
WARE: Thank you.
BLITZER: Jack Cafferty is in New York, as well.
A good chance for you and Michael to sit down, Jack.
I know you're a big fan of his.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I am a big fan of
his. And it's interesting to hear him talk about a
solution perhaps taking the form, the exact same
form, that Iraq was in before we invaded.