Length: 7:08
LARGE (83.7 MB)
-----
SMALL (8.5 MB)
ANDERSON COOPER: Joining
me now from CNN headquarters in Baghdad, CNN's
Michael Ware, and John King in Washington.
Michael, General Petraeus talked about bringing
30,000 troops home by next summer. The president is
expected to formally announce the plan Thursday night
in a speech. Everyone seems to be acting like this is
some sort of strategy.
Correct me if I'm wrong. This is really nothing new.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, you're correct
entirely, Anderson.
In no way is this a new direction or a policy shift
by the U.S. Essentially, this was going to happen
anyway. The surge was comprised of 30,000 extra
troops sent as shock forces to Iraq. A surge, by
definition, implies something temporary, a short-term
impulse.
Well, we now know that that was an escalation for one
year, borrowing troops from here and there to send
them to, principally, Baghdad. Well, the end of that
year is up by the summer of next year anyway. The
money starts running out in the beginning of next
year, and the Army has already said it can't continue
to keep sending these 30,000 troops. They can't
maintain those forces.
So, no, this is no new direction. This is not a grand
policy announcement that America is drawing down.
It's just the end of the surge, Anderson.
COOPER: John, the White House, some in the media in
the last couple months acted like this Petraeus
report was really going to be a watershed event,
after which there would be serious discussions about
what to do next. In truth, isn't this largely
political theater? I mean, has the White House known
all along what they planned to do?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well,
Anderson, the Democrats certainly hoped it would be a
watershed event, and they hoped it would be a
watershed event that got them more votes to force the
president to change his hand.
The White House, all along, has wanted one thing.
Beyond any specific day-to-day tactical or strategic
decision, they want control over this war. And that
means no timeline forcing a troop withdrawal, no
strings attached on the money for the war.
Will the president get all that? It appears at this
moment the Democrats are still short the votes to
force a timeline. That skepticism in the Senate
today, though, does tell you that many Republicans
still want to do some things to restrict the
president's ability to keep the troops there past
next summer in the numbers the president wants to do
that.
But, certainly, the White House still has the
commander in chief. And the attitude, the political
climate, was not as foul yesterday and today that
many thought it would be when they were awaiting this
day back in, say, July or even early August --
Anderson.
COOPER: Michael, General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker talked today that -- you know, admitting that
there hasn't been much progress on national
reconciliation in Iraq from the central government
since the so-called surge. But they said there were
signs of improvement across the country that bode
well for the future.
Do you see those signs on the ground, out in various
provinces?
WARE: To be perfectly honest, I would have to say, by
and large, the answer to that is no.
Are the elements for real reconciliation present here
in Iraq? I'm afraid to report that I certainly can't
see them. I mean, it's one thing to have a pastiche
of Iraqi politicians do a photo opportunity and say
we're ready to work towards reconciliation. That's
just so cosmetic.
I mean, even if this government managed to introduce
a de-Baathification law, for example -- a key
sticking point -- I mean, there's no Sunni who's
going to be able to go and work for a ministry
controlled by the Badr militia or by the Jaish al
Mahdi militia, like the Ministry of Interior or the
Ministry of Health.
And we heard that the ambassador and the general talk
about already there's, like, forced
de-Baathification. Well, yes, it's being forced as
America is imposing these tribes upon the Iraqi
government. And the Iraqi government essentially has
a political gun to its head, being forced to absorb
these people.
And, finally, when you talk to these tribal forces
that are now the bedrock of America's strategic
policy, like we have, they make it very clear, they
hate this government, and they have no intentions of
sharing power with this government. And the power
brokers of this government never intend to share
power with what they call terrorists. And, by that,
they mean Sunni.
So, no, there's no real sign of reconciliation
forthcoming.
COOPER: It's interesting, Michael, because I was down
in south Baghdad today, talking to Sunni tribal
leaders there, who are trying to get their concerned
citizens -- the volunteers, who they have now armed
and are working in conjunction with the U.S. -- they
want them to become part of the Iraqi police. They
say they want to work with the central Iraqi
government.
A, do you believe them? And, B, is the problem with
the central Iraqi government not wanting to work with
them?
WARE: It is, in fact, both.
And we have to be careful about what we hear Iraqis
say when we're surrounded by American soldiers. If
we're on an embed and we're dealing with these Iraqi
forces, they're going to be very careful in what they
say, because their American paymasters essentially
are standing around.
When you talk to these groups in their undiluted
state -- we were with those groups, not with
Americans, and to be honest, I have known many of
these organizations for years -- they hate al Qaeda,
no problem. That's a shared American agenda. They are
vehemently anti-Iranian, which also makes them
vehemently anti-Maliki government. They believe this
is essentially Iranian influence. So, no, they don't
want to work with this central government. And this
central government is working with them under great
sufferance, being forced by the U.S. -- Anderson.
COOPER: Interesting.
John King, I want to play you something that Senator
Barack Obama said today in the hearings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I think that we should not have had this
discussion on 9/11 or 9/10 or 9/12, because I think
it perpetuates this notion that, somehow, the
original decision to go into Iraq was directly
related to the attacks on 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Who was responsible for the timing of this,
the fact there's testimony about Iraq on the
anniversary of 9/11?
KING: Well, Anderson, if Senator Obama is frustrated,
he has only his own Democratic leadership to blame.
The September 15th deadline for a report from the
administration was actually recommended by a
Republican -- Senator John Warner -- but that was
passed, of course, with the blessing of the
Democrats.
Now, September 15 is this coming weekend, so they
wanted to have the testimony in advance of that
deadline. But the latter half of this week is the
Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, and the House and
the Senate will not be in session. So, they were left
with September 10 and September 11 to have this
testimony.
So it is the Democrats, by not paying close enough to
the calendar a few months ago, who put themselves in
this position. But Senator Obama, in that hearing,
bringing back the constant criticism of this
administration. There are many -- especially
Democrats -- who believe the president has always
tried to make this war about more than toppling
Saddam Hussein and about more than those weapons of
mass destruction, that, of course, were never
found.