TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Bio on Ms. Wright
• The Washington Post official site
• Ms. Wright's interview with Secretary Colin Powell

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Robin Wright covers the Middle East and issues related to terrorism for "The Washington Post.' Her work has earned her 5 Pulitzer Prize nominations and the National Magazine Award for her reporting from Iran in the 'New Yorker.' She joins us tonight from Washington. Robin, nice to have you on the program.

Robin Wright: Nice to be with you.

Tavis: Let me start with your assessment of how President Bush did to the U.N.

Robin: Well, it was an interesting speech, but it really was kind of a summary of the kinds of themes he's been developing over the last 4 years...and particularly focusing on the spread of democracy is one of the most effective tools in countering terrorism. The issue really is what ideas the administration has at this juncture to deal with, to move the issue forward, to develop democracy to help countries undergo reform politically and economically, particularly in the Middle East. This is a very difficult challenge.

Tavis: Let's talk about moving the issue forward and whether or not the president has, in fact, put a situation in place where we now see a clear shift of power in Iraq.

Robin: Well, the United States, after 3 months of--since the transition has begun, to seriously leave the major issues to the Iraqis to decide. That was particularly evident during the crisis in Najaf, the holy city dominated by Shiite Muslims in the south, which was where the mosque, the shrine was seized by Islamic extremists last month. And during this crisis, Prime Minister Allawi and his aides, his military and national security team, really were responsible for making the decisions about when to go in, how to go in militarily in terms of the offers of amnesty and offers to try to diffuse the crisis through overtures toward the insurgents. The United States at some of the key meetings actually sat on the sides of the room and didn't speak. It was a very interesting symbol of the turning point in Iraq. Now there's still a very, very long way to go. The United States holds the purse strings, in effect, because the $18 billion in aid is ultimately ours to decide whether we say 'yea' or 'nay.' But the Iraqis are now listing their priorities, and the focus has shifted from the big-ticket items that were designed to help U.S. companies to the smaller, labor-intensive programs that would get money into Iraq and create jobs.

Tavis: I wanna talk here a second about the difference in policy between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry on this issue. Before I get to their differences, first the difference that Mr. Bush clearly has with the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. As you well know, Mr. Annan has called what the U.S. has done in Iraq underneath or behind the Bush administration as illegal. His word. He called the U.S. invasion of Iraq illegal. The president, of course, tried to rebut that in his speech before the U.N. Do you think he made any headway with regard to that argument, and are there folk, countries around the world that still, in fact, see the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the invasion, indeed, of Iraq as 'illegal'?

Robin: I think there are a large number of countries around the world where public opinion is opposed to the U.S. occupation or intervention in Iraq. I think there are many leaders, though, who share the long-term U.S. goals of creating a stable environment. But that doesn't mean any of them are going to provide international assistance any time soon. I think that there is a realization that this is difficult, it's likely to be bloody, and it's not likely to be popular at home. So while the United States has made overtures to other countries to try to get beyond the differences of the past, there have, so far, been no takers.

Tavis: Some would argue that it is outright arrogance. Some, I guess, would argue that it is certainly hubris on the part of the president to step into a body like the U.N. and expect that they would, in fact, give him listen. That they would, in fact, give him ear. That they would, in fact, consider what he has to say, given how he thumbed his nose, as the administration did at various points along the way, with regard to U.N. help and involvement in Iraq.

Robin: I'm not sure what your question is, but in terms of your statement, it is true that there are a number of countries who are very angry at the administration for creating the kind of instability we see in Iraq today. The insurgency, the disruption of the oil pipeline, and the impact on the oil market. The kind of bad case of nerves that affects the price of oil. There is still a long way to go when repairing the damage created by the administration from the course charted by the United Nations 2 years ago.

Tavis: Without knowing the question, you answered it quite well. Let me move on now to the differences between John Kerry and George Bush. At this juncture, what is the difference--the primary differences perhaps--that Mr. Kerry is trying to draw between himself and Mr. Bush on Iraq? Because the Bush administration continues to ridicule him for having so many positions on Iraq, he can't keep track of them.

Robin: Well, Kerry, in a speech at New York University, outlined a 4-point plan that was based in each of its elements on a desire to get greater participation by the international community. That was true in terms of troops in different forms, whether they are as trainers or to protect U.N. election staff going in, to get greater reconstruction aid so that Iraqis will see there is a tangible alternative to the kind of insecurity they live in their daily lives. The Kerry campaign is also trying to say that we need to do more in getting the international community involved in the democratization process. We have 4 months left until the critical elections, and the Iraqis need a lot more help than they're getting now in their ability--so they can pull this off. So, um, the common denominator was international assistance, but we get back to the same problem that the Bush administration has had, and that is making overtures to other countries and not getting any response. The Kerry campaign believes that just because it is not Mr. Bush that they will have a more receptive response. That, of course, is difficult to judge at this point.

Tavis: The president clearly wants some more help from Congress in this election season and perhaps even beyond. If he's re-elected, is he likely to get it, given the situation that we are now engaged in in Iraq?

Robin: Well, I suspect the biggest issue on the hill after the election will probably be a request for more money. The United States has forked out 87 billion this year for Iraq and Afghanistan. 18 alone just for reconstruction aid, and there's a widespread belief that it will take at least $50 to $100 billion to really generate the kind of movement that will create an alternative that will appeal to Iraqis, so there's a lot more that this administration or a new administration would need from congress.

Tavis: So much of President Bush's--back to his speech at the U.N.--so much of his speech to the U.N., as you well know, was really not gestured at U.N. general assembly, but really to the American voter, given that we're just days, weeks away from the all-important presidential election here. Let me ask you how you think this issue is going to play between now and November. I'm having a hard time keeping track of this because on any given day, I don't know how the American voter really feels about this Iraq situation and whether or not it is ultimately going to be the issue versus, shall we say, pocketbook issues. So where do you rank this issue in terms of how the American voter is going to weigh this thing come November?

Robin: Well, a recent poll by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Pew Center found that the most important issue among swing voters is Iraq. That they split fairly evenly on the economy. When it comes to foreign policy itself, they look to the Democrats. When it comes to the war on terrorism and national security issues, they look to the Bush administration. That Iraq then becomes the swing issue, and the poll found that while a slim majority of swing voters look to the Democrats on Iraq, they did not believe that candidate Kerry had provided a significant enough or tangible enough alternative set of ideas to attract their votes. Now, that may change because of what happened this week. This is the first time that Senator Kerry has revealed something that was much more specific. The question is how realistic is it? It will be very interesting to watch the first presidential debate next week and see how this plays out. This is going to be, um, I think, in the end because of the daily bloodiness, the ongoing beheadings, the heinous acts by extremists, this is going to be probably at the end of the day the most important issue.

Tavis: I've seen a couple of stories, and indeed one or two polls--I shouldn't say polls, but certainly stories that suggest that there are--there is, I should say, a significant number, however one defines 'significant,' but a number of world leaders who actually prefer John Kerry over George W. Bush. Indeed, as you may recall, Mr. Kerry early on in the campaign got in trouble for suggesting the same. I wonder whether or not, one, you have heard that or felt that or sensed that in your own reporting on these international issues, and, number 2, whether or not something like that even matters to the American voter between now and November, that other world leaders would like to see a changing of the guard here on our international policy?

Robin: I'm not sure the American voter cares what international leaders think about the United States. I think they're concerned about the anger at the United States throughout the world. There was a poll recently in the last couple of weeks that found of 35 countries spread across the globe, all but 3 of them had varied degrees of real anger at the United States because of its intervention in Iraq, reflecting the fact that the Bush administration had really dissipated the kind of goodwill generated after the September 9th--September 11th attacks.

Tavis: Let me ask you, with regard to the money here, if the issue that many Americans are concerned about is in fact the economy--that ranks right up there--are they making--is it your sense that there's a connection being made between the money that it's gonna take to get us our of Iraq and where that money is actually going to come from?

Robin: Well, that's a very good question, Tavis. I think the average voter doesn't recognize how much more money it's going to take to get out of Iraq, to help create an alternative in Iraq. I think that's a looming issue that the voter hasn't recognized yet.

Tavis: What's your sense--John Kerry's spoken to this. What's your sense of, whomever the president might be come January of next year when a new Congress is seated in Washington and they're asked for support--how long is it going to take us to--I don't even want to say get out of Iraq ‘cause I'm not even sure what 'get out of Iraq' actually means. But how much longer are we going to be in this quagmire? Does that make sense?

Robin: It's an open question. Nobody knows. Senator Kerry has now talked about setting a deadline of 4 years. One of the lead military officials in Iraq, who is in charge of training, has talked about a period of 5 years. But that doesn't mean, necessarily, that troops will have to be there. It does mean that the trainers will have to be there. It's very difficult. It will be determined, really, largely by events on the ground, and the will of the Iraqi government elected in January to keep American troops there. We're going through a period of 16 months of 2 big transitions, marked first by the elections in January for the first representative government, and then the period of 2005, writing a new constitution and holding the first national elections for a new assembly, a permanent head of state. And it'll be very interesting to see whether the U.S. military presence actually becomes an issue in that election. And the candidates may be running in Iraq saying how soon they'll ask American troops to leave.

Tavis: Well, we will keep track of these issues in large as you're reporting on it. Thank you, Robin, for joining us. We appreciate it. We'll do it again sometime.

Robin: Thank you.

Tavis: Thank you. Up next, singer Lalah Hathaway. Stay with us.