MONDAY

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

RELATED LINKS

• Article on top Iraq war correspondents
• Q & A with Mr. Burns
• About Mr. Burns

E-mail a friend

Tavis: John Burns was the chief foreign correspondent in Baghdad, bureau chief for the "New York Times." His dispatches from Baghdad have been some of the most widely read and respected reporting about the war. The kind of journalism that earned him Pulitzer Prizes for his previous work on the war in Bosnia and the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan. He's currently on a rare trip outside of Iraq. Tonight, we actually find him in Vancouver. John Burns, nice to have you on the program, sir.

John F. Burns: It's a great pleasure, Tavis.

Tavis: Today, President Bush gave another speech, this time in Cleveland. He continues, of course, to travel around the country, wherever he can get an audience, to talk about his staying the course. And indeed, he is staying on message. Talk to me first up about what you make of the President's absolute desire and his pattern, I should say, of, in fact, staying on message, staying on course. Not at all deviating where this war is concerned.

Burns: Well, obviously, Tavis, it's not my business as a "New York Times" correspondent to get into the American politics of this. But I can say that seen from the ground in Iraq, it looks like the options are very narrow indeed. The United States is there. The country is in a state of incipient civil war. And it does seem clear that the withdrawal of American troops would precipitate much greater chaos than is presently there.

Indeed, Iraqi public opinion polls, including most recent ones, show a strong, strong Iraqi desire for American troops to stay. Not to stay forever, not to occupy the country forever, but to stay long enough to prevail in this conflict and create conditions of stability.

Tavis: All right, if I'm to believe what you're suggesting and what some have indicated, which is, in fact, that Iraqi people want the U.S. military to stay, why all the insurgency? Why the dead bodies of Iraqi women and children every single day? The two things, at first glance, don't seem to juxtapose, do they?

Burns: This is a complex question. But this is not a classic war of national resistance of the kind that the United States faced in Vietnam. This is a largely sectarian, overwhelmingly sectarian, Sunni-Arab based insurgency which has several different components. The principal ones of which, of course, as your viewers will know, are Islamic militants who have found in Iraq a perfect forum for their activities.

And then you have the Baathist resistance, that's to say the remnants of Saddam's regime, who wished to restore Sunni-Arab minority rule in Iraq. They have been extremely persistent. They have been extremely effective. And of course, the United States has held three elections, two elections and a referendum, in Iraq, which have produced Shiite majority victories.

So, the Shiite majority and the Kurds do not wish to cede back to the status coati and Sunni-Arab minority rule. This is extremely difficult puzzle to resolve.

Tavis: It seems to me, maybe I'm wrong about this. That's why I have you on the program, to correct me, if I am. It seems what started out as a relatively small group of Saddam loyalists has grown into a guerrilla force. Am I wrong about that?

Burns: Well, I'll tell you. Let me take you back three years to March 19, 2003, when I was sitting on top of the, I think, twenty-fourth floor roof of the Palestine Hotel, and watching the beginning of enterprise. This shock and awe, as the United States military called it at the time. At that time, those of us who had lived through the last nine months, in my case, of Saddam Hussein's rule had no doubt whatsoever that the Iraqi people and the overwhelming majority, including, we felt, most Sunni Arabs, wanted to see the back of Saddam Hussein.

And if that could be accomplished at any acceptable price, that for the Iraqi people, regardless of the weapons of mass destruction argument, would be an unmitigated good. Well, of course, it hasn't turned out that way. In my view, what happened was that when Saddam failed to fight for the city of Baghdad, as we'd expected him to, you'll remember that at this time three years ago, the expectation was the United States forces would advance rapidly on Baghdad and then might have a two or three month fight for the city.

They didn't. Saddam's forces just disappeared. We know now that what had happened was that Saddam, who had ruled by terror, had chosen to continue his, if you will, role in Iraqi life by going underground and fighting a guerrilla war, if you will, but using the same methods of terror. Terror from underground instead of terror from over ground.

So what you really have here is a continuum. And into that came the Islamic militants, which vastly complicated the whole business. But if you were to ask Iraqis, Sunni, Arab, Shiite, or Kurds, whether or not they see any future in Iraq for the Islamic militants, the answer would be overwhelmingly no. In the high nineties, there was no political constituency for Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

The real core of this, and the key and the answer to American's dilemma in Iraq, is to come to some kind of accommodation and settlement with that Sunni-Arab, Baathist insurgency. What the American military calls the rejectionist core of the insurgency. And there have been some steps made towards that end.

Tavis: Let me go back to President Bush's speech earlier today in Cleveland, where I started this conversation, and ask a question this time that I hope you can answer, relative to the President's remarks. And that is this notion that the President keeps pushing that there are stories inside of Iraq. Since you spend all your time there, he made the case again today that there are stories inside of Iraq, stories of progress, stories of rebuilding, stories of turning the corner that we are not hearing about that he pressed today in this speech.

Is the President on point about that? Is he right about that? And if he is right about it, to what extent is he right about it? Are we not seeing, are we not hearing, are we not reading about a great deal of progress, or is he finding a couple gems here and there that he puts in these speeches?

Burns: We're talking about a glass half empty and a glass half full. The President is not wrong about that. There has been considerable progress made in 14 of the 18 provinces of Iraq. The insurgency is absolutely vestigial, or not present at all. And in those provinces, the $20 billion plus American reconstruction effort has made headway.

In the four key provinces, accounting for about 60 percent of the population, that's Baghdad and provinces immediately adjacent to it, where the war has been concentrated, of course, it's been extremely difficult to do anything. As for whether the American media have under-covered the good news and over-covered the bad news, I would guess that's an allegation, an assertion that is commonly made by people who are responsible for these events.

And there is some truth to it. And why is there some truth to it? First of all, because the very nature of our business, we tend to cover what dramatically goes wrong rather than what quietly goes right. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. Secondly, getting to the places where the good things are happening is not so easy for the media.

Travel in Iraq is extremely hazardous. We have to look at everything we do against the possibility that we may, frankly, lose people in the venture. That constrains us considerably. And I would like to say that when I go on embeds with the American military, every single American military unit I've been with; they are doing good things, quite apart from the war.

They are reconstructing schools. They are helping to rebuild hospitals. They are doing good things. But they're also involved in a deadly war. The principal characteristic of which, for Americans, is that 2,300 soldiers have died. And if it's that that we cover, much more than we cover the good that is being done, it's unfortunate.

It's probably, to some degree, inevitable. But it's something like people like me, who have a responsibility for guiding, at least, the "New York Times" coverage in Iraq, bear constantly in mind.

Tavis: Speaking of that, let me ask you a personal question, if I might. Do you just love the "New York Times" that much? Are you a sadomasochist? What's the problem? Why are you still hanging out in Baghdad, when folk are losing their lives, to your earlier point, indeed, journalists?

Burns: If you're a reporter, you want to go where the action is. And where is the action right now? The action in Iraq. I'm a foreign correspondent. I've been a foreign correspondent for the "New York Times" for nearly 30 years. I'm 61 years old. How lucky am I that at my age I'm still doing the business at the core of what matters to the "New York Times?"

The rewards are very considerable. We march onto the front page with a great regularity. And it's an adventure. It's a deadly adventure. But I can tell you this. Every single correspondent and photographer that the "New York Times" has assigned to Iraq has wanted to come back. Not one of them has willingly left our rotation.

Unless for family reasons, and there are, of course, correspondents with young children who have compelling reasons not to expose themselves to these kinds of hazards. But not one of those, I guess now 30, 40, 50 correspondents and photographers we have assigned to Iraq in the last three years has quit because of the hazards willfully, willingly.

They have wanted to continue. And the core of our people who are there now, some eight to 10 people, are people who have been doing it almost continuously now for three years. So don't feel sorry for us. (laugh) We chose this. And we like to be there.

Tavis: I feel appreciative of your sharing your personal story in answer to that question. Let me close our conversation, John, by going back to the Iraqi people, if I might. Specifically, Iraqi officials who we know just days ago announced and agreed to set up a 19-member security counsel. Let me close by asking you to tell me more about what that make up of that security council is, and whether or not the make up of the council will in fact lead to a decrease in the curbing of the kind of violence we're seeing too much of these days?

Burns: Well, that, of course, is the big question. It's the $64 million question. The National Security Council is an attempt led by Ambassador Khalilzad, the American ambassador in Baghdad, to, if you will, counterbalance the effects of the December elections, which produced yet again a Shiite majority. The problem is, it's the Sunni Arabs who are fighting this war.

You want to include them; you want to give them a louder voice and a greater influence in the affairs of a democratic Iraq than they won at the polls. It's a difficult thing to do. The Shiites and the Kurds are very uneasy about it. But that National Security Council offers the possibility of including Sunni Arab leaders of considerable influence who may, who may, be able to bring about a winding down of the rejectionist Sunni Arab element in this insurgency.

Whether they will or not, who knows? But I have to say that every one of us who has seen the whole course of this, and I'm sure everybody watching this on television tonight will wish that it is so.

Tavis: We see the byline regularly in the 'New York Times.' He is the Baghdad bureau chief for the 'New York Times.' He is John F. Burns. Delighted to have him on the program; tonight from Vancouver. Mr. Burns, safe travels back to Iraq, and a safe stay in Iraq. We look forward to continuing to read your coverage in the "Times" every day, and I thank you for coming on.

Burns: Great pleasure, Tavis. Thank you.

Tavis: Glad to have you on. Up next on this program, actor Steve Harris, back in prime time. Used to be "The Practice," now "Heist." Stay with us.