President Bush Calls Iraq Violence a 'Serious Concern'

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, I'm not quite sure whether I would go quite that far. I think the Democrats, obviously, out of deep conviction, but also because of the approaching elections, are focusing essentially on criticizing the policy, but not at this stage offering a comprehensive alternative, at least not on the top Democratic political leadership level.

But after the elections, depending on their outcome, either there would be an opportunity to really move towards bipartisan on foreign policy, particularly on this issue, or the Democrats win big. They may be tempted, of course, to launch a much more massive assault.

JIM LEHRER: What did you make of the president's references today -- he's also made them before -- to the Jim Baker study group, the Iraq Study Group -- Lee Hamilton is also the co-chairman of this -- as if that will provide a vehicle for doing what you were saying earlier?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, up to a point. I imagine they're going to come up with some recommendations. But unless the members of that group, some of whom do have some genuine experience in foreign affairs, are then included in the decision-making process, it's going to be a report which is going to be read at this stage still by a relatively closed in-group that formulated the policies that so far have been so unsuccessful.

And hence, the likelihood of any serious departures from existing policy is not very high until more people are admitted into that process and participate in an active day-to-day basis in re-evaluating the situation.

JIM LEHRER: Walter Mead, do you agree that there needs to be -- or let's put it this way. Do you detect in President Bush, by what he said about the Hamilton-Baker thing, and other things, and what he said about other things today, a reaching out, a beginning of reaching out to others and to let some people in the inner circle that he has not done before?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I think the president's clearly been reaching out to a number of people in the sort of national security establishment. You know, there have been reports that Henry Kissinger has been in to see the president. I think the president's clearly listening to James Baker.

You know, how all of this plays out in terms of the internal bureaucracy and in-fighting is hard to say, but -- I think the president is showing in a lot of different ways that he feels he needs a wider range of counsel. And, again, I would add that this seems to reinforce the trend that we've talked about before, that in the second Bush term, there's been much more of an emphasis on some of the classic tools of American foreign policy and diplomacy, the approaches with the six-party talks in North Korea, the reliance on working with the Germans and the Europeans on Iran.

So I think the move on Iraq seems to be part of a broader shift in the way the president is looking at American foreign policy.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Oh, I think a great deal. There's no doubt that there is a more widespread sense of anxiety in the country, and that sense of anxiety has also penetrated the Republican Party. And I'm sure that the Republican establishment is very anxious as to where things are headed for the nation at large in Iraq, but for their own political fortunes, as well.

And I'm sure the president has been encouraged to take the position that he has taken today. I'm glad he has taken it up to a point, but I want to reiterate: I don't view this yet as the beginning of a significant change of policy, but rather as the beginning of a condition that I characterize as a state of denial.

That is to say, it's black and white, and we are winning, and we're going to have a victory, and the victory is defined in traditional terms: a secular, stable, democratic Iraq. Notice his definition of victory today, much more, much more limited, more or less a self-sustaining government in Iraq that can govern the country. That's a very different definition of success.

JIM LEHRER: Did you hear the same difference, Walter Mead?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Yes. And, in fact, last week we talked about the same point, that the word "democratic" has dropped out of his victory conditions, and there's much more talk of "stability."

And I think you could also hear in his remarks today a sense that the U.S. and the government of Iraq don't always agree on everything and that there's a sense of two different national interests at work, which again would reinforce Dr. Brzezinski's point that there's less of a sense of this is a struggle of good and evil with the Iraqis that are in the government the full representatives of good.

Bush is still talking about that it's a democratically elected government, and he's right about that, but there is more of a sense that American national interests should be driving the conception and our policy actions in Iraq, not an ideological holy war.

JIM LEHRER: What did you make, Walter Mead, of the juxtaposition today of what President Bush said in his news conference and before what Prime Minister Maliki said? Is there some pushing, some public pushing going on? What do you make of it? And is it a healthy or a bad thing?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: I don't think it's a problem. I think, you know, each man is responding to political and policy pressures in their own country. And, again, I think it's a healthy thing that the government of Iraq and the government of the United States don't feel that they can't let an inch of space appear between them.

The reality is that, for the Iraqis, it would be fatal to look like they are the poodle of the Americans, and whatever Bush says, they accept. And Bush understands, too, that to sort of try to demand some kind of public compliance by the Iraqis with every American whim would weaken the government and therefore undercut his remaining objectives in Iraq.

So I think it's a fairly balanced situation. I do think there is some real pushing and pulling indoors and in these meetings, because it's clear that the Americans are trying to push the Iraqis to move harder on some of these sectarian issues, and that the Iraqi government is a little bit divided about that.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: In a sense, I suppose we have a Maliki problem because we have an Iraq problem, but I think there is an issue here that's worth scrutinizing a little more closely, and that's the issue of the benchmarks. What are benchmarks? Benchmarks are targets that have to be fulfilled. They cannot be fulfilled in an indefinite period of time, so there are timetables in benchmarks.

JIM LEHRER: Whether you like it or not.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Whether you like it or not.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: So when the president says, "No timetable," well, maybe, in his sense there's no timetable, but there are timetables by the back door, so to speak. And suppose the benchmarks are not met.

JIM LEHRER: Well, give us a couple of examples of what a potential benchmark might be.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, national reconciliation, more effective army, replacement of American forces in different provinces.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Now, suppose they're not met. They're not likely to be met in total. So we're going to be in this vague situation a year from now and maybe even 18 months from now. Killings are continuing; Americans are still dying. Some benchmarks are being met; some are not being met. What do we do then?

Now, there are two alternatives: either staying the course without saying it, which means more of the same mess; or perhaps blame and run, not cut and run, but blame and run.