TONIGHT

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

RELATED LINKS

• Sen. Lugar's official site
• Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Letters to the Next President

E-mail a friend

Tavis: I'm honored to welcome Senator Richard Lugar from my home state of Indiana to this program. The former Navy officer has been a fixture in the U.S. Senate for nearly 30 years now, serving as the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Last week, he was honored by the Africare organization for his efforts on behalf of the continent of Africa. Senator Lugar joins us tonight from Washington. Senator, nice to have you on the program, sir.

Senator Richard Lugar: Thank you very much, Tavis. Great to be with you.

Tavis: Glad to have you on. It seems interesting and strange to have two Hoosiers discussing foreign policy, but I guess if anybody can talk about it we can talk about it, huh?

Lugar: Well, that's indeed true.

Tavis: Congratulations on the Africare award. That's heady stuff and it's awfully nice to see a Senator and a Republican Senator from a Midwest state, no less, honored for his concern and care about the continent of Africa, so congratulations.

Lugar: I was proud to share that award with Congressman Don Payne, who has been a dear friend and a mentor for me on Africa, and Secretary Powell was there to be with both of us, so it was a great occasion. About 2,000 people active in the civil rights movement in this country, the African Ambassadors and those from all over the world who are concerned about Africa.

Tavis: Congratulations once again. Let's talk about foreign policy, shall we? Let me start with a word you used, admittedly, some time ago to describe the Bush policy in Iraq. You are clearly a Bush supporter, but some months ago you called their policy in Iraq incompetent. Have you changed your opinion about how they are handling or mishandling the situation there?

Lugar: Well, I used that word advisedly because we had had another hearing on the attempts to get money out to the villages, the reconstruction money, $18 billion, of which we had appropriated only about $1.4 billion had been spent. This wasn't the first time we brought the subject up in public hearings, and I just said I felt the administration of those reconstruction funds showed incompetence of the administration. We really had to do better. We had to do better swiftly. I would just say that at Fallujah, where the battle rages even as we speak, there is good planning for reconstruction money to get to Fallujah. It probably won't buy the hearts and minds and affection of the people there, but it may in fact get some people employed, get some economic activity going, some possibilities for Iraqis who are going to have to govern that city after the fighting is over.

Tavis: Let's talk about the hearts and minds and affections, to use your phrase, of not the Iraqi people, respectfully, but the American people. Tell me how it is that we should interpret the fact that American servicemen and women are still dying, that Fallujah is the latest place where they are dying and just the other day we had the absolute deadliest day with regard to the loss of American life that we have had in over six months. How should I interpret that as an American citizen?

Lugar: Well, essentially, it was the deadliest day because this is the first very large battle we fought since the overall war was over, over a year ago. This is a big war effort in Fallujah. It involves thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis. The reason that we are involved is because the Iraqis believe, correctly, that they have to gain control of Fallujah and the other cities in order to have an election in January, and if the election is vital, if they're to have credibility with their own people. No one has elected the provisional government. Somebody really has to put votes on the board. We're the back-up for that, but of course, our professional soldiers are in fact the major force. The question is, are there enough Iraqis after the insurgents have left, and most of them have by this point, to govern Fallujah, to govern Samara, that was overtaken a short time ago, to govern other places as the insurgent business is wrapped up. I think this is vital for Americans to understand that we are in a stage in which the Iraqis are establishing control of their country. We're supporting their move toward democracy. The elections are going to occur. A constitution will be written. Elections will be held. And then there will be very good negotiations as to our withdrawal.

Tavis: How do we get people to accept the word of the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he says that Iraqis are taking control of their government but that's happening clearly at the expense of American lives? How do you square those two statements?

Lugar: Well, it's happening with Americans offering a protective shield against insurgents, some of whom are Iraqis, many of them dissatisfied Sunnis who had special advantages under Saddam Hussein, but some insurgents, terrorists from other countries who have taken advantage of the situation, and they're very hopeful that they are going to wear us down as well as any other allies that are still with us out there so that we simply abandon Iraq. Now, to do so, then, starts from scratch the war on terror all over again. You have an incubator for terrorism there with no stoppers, much as Afghanistan was left after we abandoned it having successfully driven the Soviet Union out 10 years ago. That's why it's important to complete the job. But it is deadly. It is dangerous. It does involve Americans. It involves sacrifice. It is important that we achieve, at least, the results that we have been fighting for, and I believe we're going to do so.

Tavis: Let me back up a couple seconds here to something that you said--let me back up, I should say, to something that you said a few seconds ago, and that is in describing what we are dealing with in Fallujah. You said that it was the--I'm paraphrasing now, but you said it was the deadliest day because it is the first big battle that we have had to fight since the war in Iraq was over. That phrase strikes me as somewhat interesting, Senator Lugar, because one could argue that the war in Iraq really isn't over, never mind what President Bush has said.

Lugar: Well, you could argue that, and, of course, here we get into doctrinal disputes as to when war is over and when victory is declared. Clearly, the big debate we have had in this country, and it was a part of the political campaign, may continue historically, was that preparation for the day after the war was deficient, that is, our planning was simply inadequate for the circumstances that came about--looting, for example, and the blowing up of oil lines and destruction all over Iraq. We did not have police authority on the ground, then, we still have some of our soldiers, who were fighters for war, not for civil activity after the war. It was a miscalculation on the part of some of our officials, who felt that we would be welcomed by the Iraqis, that they would not be fearful of retribution from Saddam's types and others. Ever since that point, we have been catching up and we have been doing better, but I take your point. You could say that we never completed the job to begin with, and now we are in the process of completing it, and it's still a deadly business.

Tavis: I'm loving your phraseology tonight; so let me pick up on another phrase you just used, doctrinal disputes. Speaking of doctrinal disputes, does it at all concern you or bother you that the American people, at least, have not been privy to debate anywhere in the House or Senate about this change, this massive change in military policy, at least in how we engage the world militarily from one of trying to contain crises around the world to one of preemptive strike, the so-called Bush doctrine? Should not Congress allow the American people to be part of, to witness a conversation, a debate, on the floor about whether or not we really ought to have, as our new policy, one of preemptive strike?

Lugar: Well, there has been considerable debate on the floor, and quite a number of opportunities to talk about it even in hearings that our Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held and have been witnessed over C-Span. I would just say, respectfully, that during the political campaign, both President Bush and Senator Kerry agreed that on occasion, preemption is a good idea.

Tavis: Uh-huh.

Lugar: Now, at that point, why, they might differ on the circumstances and when, but clearly, in the war against terror, most Americans have come to the conclusion that if we believe that we can strike and eliminate a threat to the homeland--us, right here on the United States--New York, Washington, Chicago and so forth--we ought to do that. That is preemption. Now, the argument comes how sure are you with regard to your intelligence? That what you are going to strike really is worth striking? Willing to take the risk to do that?

Tavis: Are you getting more comfortable with the answers you're going to get with regard to that question in the coming months and years?

Lugar: Well, yes, I think we are now, for example, in the situation of diplomacy with Iran, and with North Korea, to take two topical points that are potentially very dangerous, because in both cases we believe that those nations have designs on building nuclear weapons, probably in the case of Iran have not done so yet, in the case of North Korea maybe have a few. Now, some might say, "Well, that's too bad." They build nuclear weapons and build a little bit of a stockpile, but what to worry about? There is a lot to worry about. When regimes such as those have nuclear weapons and have missiles and have regimes that might use them. So the question right now for us is can we work a diplomatic track with six powers in North Korea, with the Europeans in Iran, and perhaps with the U.N. Security Council coming in, and dissuade these people as opposed to going into preemptive action, military action to try to destroy the weapons, the factories, the people that are dealing with it.

Tavis: Two other quick questions and I'll let you get back to doing the work and the business of the people of Indiana, including my mother and brothers and sisters who need your help back in Indiana.

Lugar: Good people.

Tavis: They are very good people. They are indeed. Let me go back to the where we started the conversation, with a reference you made to your friend, Secretary Powell, who showed up at the Africare dinner at which you were honored just the other night. The conventional wisdom is that Secretary Powell is going to leave this administration early in this second term. We've seen Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Evans at Justice and Commerce leave, respectively, already, or at least announce their resignations. So the conventional wisdom is Secretary Powell is not long for this administration. If in fact he leaves, one could argue again, conventional wisdom is that he's the last dove in this administration. What you would be left with is a bunch of hawks in the Bush administration. Does that concern you at all?

Lugar: Well, I would not agree that you are left only with hawks. I think, in fact, Secretary Powell is going to stay. My encouragement would be for a long while, for four more years. I think he's indispensable. He has to make that judgment, ultimately, for himself, but he really is required, but he has a good number of allies within the administration who I believe are offering good advice to the President, and the President may not always take that advice, but on most occasions he has. Secretary Powell, more often than not, has had the last word.

Tavis: One last question here at the end. It would be remiss of me to not ask your thoughts on what happens--this could open up a whole 'nother conversation for another show but we know that Mr. Arafat is ill as we speak, and we keep hearing reports as to whether or not he's really in a coma or whether or not he has transitioned, whatever the case may be. If his health does not get better, we're looking at some difficult days ahead in the Middle East. How do you perceive what's going to happen there?

Lugar: Well, I perceive that in Palestine, they will come up with new leaders, and hopefully we will be able to have at least some constructive influence and encouraging that the leaders be elected, that they be moderate and they be negotiators, people that are prepared to deal with the Israeli government, with Egypt, with Jordan, with other countries in the surrounding territory. That could be a salutary result of all of this. On the other hand, we have no idea who will emerge in that leadership, but it will be somebody different. Arafat, with all of his strong qualities, was never a person who could say yes, whether it was President Clinton or President Bush before that or what have you, Arafat simply could not strike a deal. Preferably, the new leaders of Palestine will be able to do so.

Tavis: He is the very insightful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the senior Senator from my home state, the Hoosier state back there in Indiana. Senator, nice to have you on. You're welcome any time.

Lugar: Thank you, Tavis. Thank you very much.

Tavis: Glad to have you. Up next on this program, actor Paul Giamatti, star of the new film "Sideways." Stay with us.