July 6, 2008
Op-ed
ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos
STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: One of our headliners this morning, Senator Joe Lieberman, was until recently on the Vets for Freedom advisory board. He is here to debate Senator Jack Reed, a former Army ranger backing Barack Obama.
Gentlemen, welcome.
LIEBERMAN: George, good to be with you.
REED: George, good morning.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Senator Lieberman, under Senator Obama's plan, there will be combat troops in Iraq through 2009, through 2010. Why isn't that enough to finish the job?
LIEBERMAN: Well, we'll see if it's enough. I think what's significant about what's happened in the last week -- frankly, in the last month, since Senator Obama clinched the nomination -- is how many big positions -- Iraq, Iran, free trade, the death penalty – that Senator Obama has moved, altered his position on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think on Iraq he's coming towards John McCain?
LIEBERMAN: I do, because, look, for a long time, Senator Obama said let's get those troops out as quickly as we can, regardless of what's happening on the ground. Senator Obama, I think, here on Iraq is trying to deal with what the former vice president might call an inconvenient truth, which is that, on Iraq, John McCain has been right and consistent and Senator Obama has been wrong.
And John McCain had the guts to say in 2003 to the Bush administration, Secretary Rumsfeld, "Our policy in Iraq is failing. We need more troops," when everybody else was saying, "Pull the troops
out." McCain has said, "I'd rather lose this election than lose this war, because winning this war is too important for the security of the United States."
Now his policy is working. Iraq is succeeding. And Senator Obama has to deal with that inconvenient truth.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there a change?
REED: I don't believe there's a change. In fact, I think it's remarkable. I think Senator McCain has not been consistently right. He's been fundamentally wrong on the strategy.
A pre-emptive unilateral attack in Iraq has, I think, had unfortunate consequences strategically. We see ourselves in Afghanistan being confronted by a revived Taliban. We see the Iranians growing in influence and power in the region. And much of that is attributed to the initial decision to conduct military operations, unilateral operations in Iraq.
STEPHANOPOULOS: As you...
REED: Senator Obama opposed that at the time. I think what's -- excuse me, George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me just move on, though, because, as you know, Senator Obama also says there hasn't been any change in position, but I want to show you what he said at the debate back in April with Charles Gibson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIBSON: So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge that, no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics once I've given them a new mission.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: He says that was his position then, that's his position today. But I guess what I want to try to pin down is, what does it mean exactly? He's going to order a change in mission, timetable of 16 months, but listen to the commanders on tactics.
So does that mean that after two or three months, if the commanders come and say, "You know, we have to freeze with the withdrawals," there will be a freeze?
REED: I think what it means is clearly Senator Obama is outlining a strategy to redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Senator McCain has a strategy of staying there indefinitely. That is the key, significant strategic difference.
I think, in terms of the operational consequences, Senator Obama has always recognized there will be a residual American force, get combat troops out as quickly as possible, but there will be a force for counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces, and also force protection.
And I think the key issue, in terms of what he's listening to, what I hope he's listening to, is force protection of American military forces there. But as far as reversing the deployment, I think he won't do that, because I think, in the grand strategy, the great strategy, we have to have more forces in Afghanistan...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're saying, if the forces are needed to protect American troops, this residual force could go up and all the combat troops might not come out?
REED: I doubt it very seriously, because the issue here is not so much -- and this is where I think the debate gets sort of bogged down in dates and details, et cetera -- I think the way to focus on the debate is the missions that our forces have. The mission of force protection, the mission of counterterrorism, the mission of training, those are the missions that Senator Obama recognizes and he'll listen to the commanders about how to do that.
But the clear strategy of redeploying forces out, coming down irreversibly is the strategy that he's been consistently proposing.
LIEBERMAN: George, two things. One is, there's been a significant change in Barack Obama's position on Iraq in the last week. He said very clearly throughout the whole primary campaign that he wanted the troops out as quickly as possible, regardless of conditions on the ground. That's what Senator McCain disagreed with.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but he did say during the primaries there that he would listen to the commanders on tactics.
LIEBERMAN: On tactics. But honestly, listen to him this – what he said this week in Montana. He said he would be affected by what the commanders told him and that he'd be focused on what's good for the safety of our troops -- very good -- and for the stability of
Iraq.
Now, that's basically John McCain's position. John McCain wants our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. In fact, as a result of the surge that John McCain advocated, our troops are coming out of Iraq, and I think they'll continue to come out of Iraq. He doesn't want them to stay there forever in battle.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if Barack Obama has the same position as John McCain, why should people vote for John McCain?
LIEBERMAN: Why should people vote for Barack Obama? I think the significant fact is this: McCain has been principled and consistent. He put his whole campaign on the line to take an unpopular position about what should happen in Iraq because he thought it was that important to our country. Senator Obama has been shifting.
And I want a president who's going to be true to what he believes is best for our country. And I think that's what John McCain has shown with regard to Iraq and throughout his entire career.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And just to be clear, Senator Reed, you are saying that, at some level, the size of the residual force, the pace of the withdrawal has to be tied to conditions on the ground?
REED: Well, it has to be tied to the advice that military commanders give, which is a function almost directly of conditions on the ground, but there's another important condition on the ground that's just too often overlooked. It's the political condition. It's what the Iraqis are willing to do, the reconciliation efforts, those real efforts, not some of the legislation that's been passed but not implemented.
And one of the factors I think that'll influence decisively Iraqi political action is the clear indication that we're leaving. They have been dawdling a bit because I think they feel -- and particularly with Senator McCain -- that they have unlimited time.
They don't have unlimited time. We have to make it clear to them -- and I think this does it quite precisely, of saying we are redeploying our forces. We're coming out. We'll help you, but you have to help yourselves. That's the critical political...
(CROSSTALK)
LIEBERMAN: With all respect to Jack -- and he's my dear friend -- the Iraqi political leadership has reconciled. I mean, that's one of the great things that's happened as a result of the surge. There's greater security. Maliki has shown strength. The Sunnis are now trusting him, and the Kurds are, as well. The economy is moving. Iraq is on the way...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But then the U.S. can withdraw, right?
LIEBERMAN: The U.S. is withdrawing. In fact, the surge troops are coming out. We expect to hear from General Petraeus this summer, as he told us earlier in the year before the Armed Services Committee, about whether we can bring more troops out in the fall.
So this all heading in the right direction. And that's why I say, because of Senator Obama's shifting, the American people are going to have to ask themselves, on Iraq and a lot of other questions, which Barack Obama will govern if he is elected? Will it be the one, the positions he took during the primary, or the positions that he's taking now?
With John McCain, I think they know who he is and what they're going to get as president.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to Iran, because there's also developments in Iran this week. ABC's Jonathan Karl reported that the Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could attack Iran's nuclear facilities this year. One official told him, "We are in the window of vulnerability, and there's an increasing likelihood that Israel will carry out such an attack."
Are you worried about that? Is there anything the United States can do about it?
REED: Well, I'm concerned, and I think I reflect the concerns of many military leaders that there are no very good military options with respect to Iran...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you agree there's a greater likelihood that Israel will go this year?
REED: I think the likelihood is a function, really, of not just what the Israelis do, but we do, in a very positive sense, of engaging the world diplomatic community in a concerted effort to try to move Iran away from the development of nuclear fuel cycle.
And I think that has to be done with very deliberate and very effective action by the White House, by the secretary of state, by others. I didn't think that's not something that's just an idle exercise (ph). It has to be done. It has to be a predicate to anything further that's done there. So I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But should the U.S. put up a yellow light or a red light and say, "Israel, don't"...
(CROSSTALK)
REED: I can tell you what. From the military commanders I've spoken to, the yellow lights are blinking very, very quickly. In fact, I think even it might be a flashing red, because the consequences in the region would be significant, and they would be region-wide. There would be a reaction. I think there would be a very adverse reaction.
And I think we have to seize the time. As short as it might be, we have to seize the time for a diplomatic approach sincerely.
And one of the things we have to do is engage the Russians, because they're one of the key players. And I think some of the policies of the administration, particularly trying to put missile systems in Poland and Lithuania, has distracted them from consciously, sincerely concentrating on one issue, which is getting the Russians to help us in Iran.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Flashing red light?
LIEBERMAN: I think there's a caution light. Look, the good news is that the American and Israeli militaries, intelligence community, government work very closely together.
The fact that -- there's a stark reality here, which is that no matter what the international community has done -- the Europeans negotiated for two years with the Iranians, that we have just made them an offer to begin negotiations again -- if they will not stop permanently, but temporarily suspend their uranium enrichment program as a sign of good faith, the Iranians have consistently said no.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But they say they won't, so should Israel attack?
LIEBERMAN: Well, that's up to Israel, obviously. But I would say that obviously Israel is first in the line of Iranian fire and it represents an existential threat to Israel.
But you know who's next? The Arab countries in the Middle East. And they're worried about the Iranian program and want us to act strongly to stop it.
And we're next, because Ahmadinejad in Tehran constantly leads the mobs in shouts of "Death to America." And they mean it. So I think right now we have to do -- we have to pick up the strength of our sanctions against them.
The U.S. Treasury Department has been very strong in squeezing the Iranian economy. I think we've got to now -- particularly the banking sector -- we've now got to move to the insurance sector and even to countries that are selling them gasoline, because the clock is ticking.
Everybody says we can't let Iran become a nuclear power. I agree. But at some point, we, pursuant to United States Security Council resolutions that demand that Iran stop its nuclear enrichment program, they have to believe that we may take military action.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We have just a couple of minutes left. I want to...
LIEBERMAN: I hope it never comes to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... to one other subject. You said last week that Americans should back John McCain because our enemies will test us next year. And I guess, what did you mean by that? Are you saying that the election is going to trigger an attack and an attack is more likely if Obama gets elected?
LIEBERMAN: No, but let me make clear, history tell us this. In 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, Al Qaida hit the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. In 2001, 9/11, first year of the Bush administration, Al Qaida hit the World Trade Center.
Our government is worried about the Iranians or the terrorists testing a new president. What I'm saying is we need a president on January 20, 2009, who's ready to be commander-in-chief on day one.
I think by his life experience, by his long service in the Senate, by his passing tests under pressure, by his introduction of the 9/11 Commission and support of the 9/11 legislation, by his support of the Patriot Act and the wiretapping act, John McCain is ready to protect the security of the American people.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Your response?
LIEBERMAN: I'm not saying Barack Obama is not prepared. I'm
John McCain is ready on day one. And that's what we're going to need.
REED: Well, Al Qaida is not waiting for our electoral cycle or inauguration. If they have an opportunity to strike, they will strike. And that is why I think we have to take steps today, and that is why I was very pleased when Senator Obama called for much more aggressive action in Pakistan.
There, Al Qaida is reconstituting itself. Our intelligence agencies tell us that. If they have the operational space and they have the time, they will develop plans, and it's not with respect to the new administration. It's when they think they can strike and be effective at catastrophic attacks.
And I think Senator Obama has demonstrated the insight he has on strategy by saying, let's focus on the real enemies, the ones that are attacking us and plan to attack us here in the United States. They're not in Iraq. They're probably more likely in Pakistan.
And I think that's the area that we have to focus on. The administration has to do that now.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that is all we have time for today. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.
REED: Thank you.
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, George.
###
