Click
photo to play
Length: 3:32
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: And
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is promising to
bring that bill cutting off most of Iraq War funding
to a vote within the next two months if President
Bush vetoes a timetable to withdraw troops.
Joining us now, Michael Ware -- tell me, you're on
the ground. The situation there, what would happen if
the U.S. government pulled most of the funding out
for U.S. troops by March of next year?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, it would be
an American nightmare. If Congress decided to cut off
the flow of finances, if America decides to stop
paying for this war and the fight grinds to a halt,
then the people who will benefit will be the enemies
that America has identified -- al Qaeda and Iran
particularly.
Because there's no one else to pick up the mantle of
the fight and carry it forward. Within Iraq, there
would be unimaginable bloodshed. And, as the former
chief of Central Command, General Abizaid,
forewarned, there would almost certainly be regional
warfare within the broader Middle East that, without
a shadow of a doubt would not only produce more
terrorists, but would ultimately, eventually, blow
back on the United States of America.
MALVEAUX: Could the Maliki government survive such a
pullout and reducing those funds?
WARE: Not at all. Not at all. If these funds are cut
off, not only does it rip the carpet out from
underneath the feet of the American troops here on
the ground, but given that America is underwriting
the Maliki government, certainly in terms of
finances, it would see this brittle administration
here in Iraq crumble, as well.
Again, who would be the victor?
No one but Iran. Iran already has much greater
political influence here in this country than
Washington does.
So if the pipeline of money stops, there's nothing to
stop Iran consolidating its power. Now, while I
understand that Democrats and their posturing like
this on the finance issues in Congress reflects the
mood of America, here on the ground, it just means
trouble and a nightmare end to this war.
MALVEAUX: But, Michael, what about the alternatives?
There are some Democrats who say maybe we should
redeploy, put U.S. troops outside of Baghdad and
perhaps outside of the country, and they'll be ready
to go if such a crisis happens.
WARE: Well, again, this is not a new concept. There
is not a new strategy. This is the policy of
containment -- pull back, seal what borders we can --
because let's bear in mind, Iraq's longest land
border is with Iran and there will be no U.S. troops
on that border.
There's no guarantee Turkey will allow U.S. troops on
its border, either. And Syria? Do you think
Syria is going to allow U.S. soldiers and Marines on
its territory, to police Iraq? I don't think so.
And you want to make it a precondition that the
troops will move in if something arises?
There is no if. And you'll see America's Arab allies,
who have been screaming about the disaster they see
here in Iraq, particularly Saudi Arabia, becoming
much more overtly involved in this fight on the Sunni
side.
MALVEAUX: Michael Ware, thank you so much for keeping
it all in perspective.