      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to William Cohen main page    Transcript for: William CohenMr. Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. William S. Cohen has served as Republican Congressman and Senator from the state of Maine and as Secretary of Defense for Democratic President Bill Clinton. He is the author of eleven books including his newest “Love in Black and White” with his wife Janet Langhart Cohen. The topic before the house: Iraq, the future of the U.S. military and third party politics. The world of Bill Cohen, this week on Think Tank.Mr. Wattenberg: Former Secretary of Defense, former Senator, former Congressman, former Mayor, William S. Cohen, welcome to Think Tank. Principle author of a fascinating book, Love in Black and White with your wife, Janet Langhart Cohen, welcome to Think Tank. Let’s cut right to the chase. You’re not in the defense business anymore; you’re not in the politics business/ Iraq. Mr. Wattenberg: If you were an advisor to President Bush and you were in a quiet room all alone with him, what would you say? Mr. Cohen: Well, I’ve had an opportunity to speak to President Bush on a couple of occasions when he invited former members of the Secretary of Defense’s, Secretary of State, he had us all come to two meetings in the White House, and I spoke to him both during the course of those meetings and also privately. But I think you can’t just look at Iraq. I think you have to look at a much bigger picture, even though the need right now is to try to get control of the security situation. I don’t think you’ll ever really have any measure of success unless you deal with Iran, Syria, Israel, Palestine, and put those pieces together. I think there’s a way to do that, and I think the way to do that is to negotiate from a position of strength, which we don’t have at this point, at least we don’t have the perception of strength at this point. And what I’ve recommended is that -- publicly and privately =- is that we have to go back to the UN, to the Security Council, to say, ‘are you really serious about dealing with Iran?’ because they are moving very rapidly toward a nuclear weapons program, they are funneling money into Hammas and Hezbollah. They are the central country that we have to deal with now. If you’re serious about what they’re doing on the nuclear issue, which is to me the most dangerous, then you have to support increased and enhanced sanctions to deal with it quickly. That’s a sort of a big sky level. Mr. Wattenberg: Somewhat of a cosmic level -- Mr. Cohen: It is. Mr. Wattenberg: But the question was, Iraq. I mean that’s what’s -- Mr. Cohen: The thing is, you can’t just deal with Iraq itself because there are other elements. Until you deal with Iran you’re not going to be able to solve the problem in Iraq. Mr. Wattenberg: But the President and the country, and you’re old Department of Defense, has a big problem now with Iraq, and the question was, if you were telling President Bush or the new Chairman, or the new Secretary, Bob Gates, Bill Gates, and they say -- and the President says to you, ‘Bill, I appreciate what you’re saying about the whole Middle East, I agree with you; what do I do about Iraq?’ Mr. Cohen: There’s only really two options, it seems to me. You either have to increase the strength substantially, or you have to have a new strategy about you’re going to follow, say, a containment strategy. You’re going to start reducing your forces, go to other countries in the region, the Gulf region, and enhance those security, try to contain the violence that is now festering and flaring up in Iraq. For the past four and a half years we’ve been behind the curve, and it seems to me, unless you’re able to bring security to that country, and that means having overwhelming force, and if it can’t come from the United States -- Mr. Wattenberg: Which is not really plausible. You can’t take a riven country of 20 million people with a Civil War going on and say, ‘we’re going to make it quiet’. Mr. Cohen: It’s not only the U.S. What I’m suggesting is that the international community has real interest now. They don’t like the fact that we’re there; they also don’t look forward to the prospect of us leaving, because now they are quite horrified of what is going to take place because it now affects their security interest, to the extent that Iraq descends into a state of nature, total chaos, total anarchy, then their futures are at stake as well because that can spread into Saudi Arabia, all of the other countries in the region. So, more than the US has an interest in this right now, the international community, so you’ve got to go to them and say, ‘Look, our political support has simply been diminishing, we’re not going to be able to sustain it’ -- Mr. Wattenberg: Their support started out with a club of about 21, 22 nations, the Brits are still with us, but they’re drawing down, and most everyone’s pulling down, or has already left, I think. Mr. Cohen: And what is the world saying? The world is saying ‘don’t leave’. They are saying don’t leave now, because you’re now going to jeopardize everybody’s interest. Mr. Wattenberg: So, is that your advice to the President? Draw down but don’t leave? Mr. Cohen: No. I’m saying you’ve got one of two choices. You can go to the internationals and say, ‘Look, we can’t do this on our own anymore’. We’ve had some support, we haven’t had overwhelming support, we need other countries to be involved, because the political pressure in our country is now moving to get out, not altogether, but substantially draw down. That means that could leave this country in a state of constant warfare, which may affect your interest in having access to stable region with oil and gas coming out of there. So we all have an interest now and we need your support. If we can’t get it, here’s the other option. We’re going to have to reconfigure our forces, redeploy them, have a containment strategy, not desirable, but may be the only alternative to reinforce those countries who are then going to be on the edge of this continued warfare. I don’t see any other options. Mr. Wattenberg: I agree. Realistically, it’s the second option that’s going to happen. Those European countries, particularly, can not politically, no matter what the personal opinion of their military or leaders, it is not a political climate that can say we’re going to send troops, or we’re going to give aid to the Americans. It just isn’t there, is it? Mr. Cohen: We have to say to them that we can’t continue to carry your interests on the backs of our soldiers and our taxpayers as well. So either you help us or we’re going to have to have a different strategy, because we can’t continue to support spending eight or nine billion a month, losing as many soldiers as we have, so many injured, 30,000 or more not counting the psychic wounds that have been inflicted. Mr. Wattenberg: 30,000 what? Mr. Cohen: Or more. Mr. Wattenberg: Of what? Mr. Cohen: Wounded, seriously wounded soldiers. Mr. Wattenberg: It’s a very interesting phenomenon; you’ve had what? 4000 people killed, Americans or something like that -- Mr. Cohen: 3,500 and climbing. Mr. Wattenberg: In Vietnam you had twelve times as many killed and most of them were conscripts. Everybody in Iraq, in one way or another, is a volunteer and that is a fact that is rarely -- I mean, and a lot of the guys and women are re-upping. Mr. Cohen: That is true. You had more killed in Vietnam, but because of what we’ve been able to do in the medical field, to be able to save these young people, if you take those 30,000 who’ve been wounded, many of them would have died had they been given the same kind of medical treatment that was available back in the Vietnam days in terms of getting them out, getting them to the hospital, having the protective armor that they do have. So, with the numbers shouldn’t get into a numbers game, this is a serious, serious -- Mr. Wattenberg: No, but I think the distinction between a conscript Army and a volunteer Army is a very important one to draw. I mean, nobody was forced into this war, unlike the Vietnam War. Mr. Cohen: Yeah, and they didn’t make the decision to go to war. The soldiers don’t get to make those decisions. Mr. Wattenberg: No, but they get to make the decision to put themselves in harm’s way, should something arise. Mr. Cohen: That’s true, but they don’t get to decide where they go. That’s done by the political forces, and the same with Vietnam, they were drafted and sent into a war that perhaps they didn’t support either, but because they were patriotic and they saw it was their duty and obligation. The same thing is true for those who volunteer. Mr. Wattenberg: They had no choice. They would have gone to jail as draft resistors, and the young men and women today have a choice. Now let me ask you something else -- Mr. Cohen: The choice is too limited. There should be more people involved in this. There is a war going on, but very few Americans are fighting it and that’s one of the problems in this country. Mr. Wattenberg: I understand that you are in favor of reconstituting the draft, is that correct? Mr. Cohen: No. What I’ve said is I believe in universal service. I think that we need to encourage our young people to say that you have something to give to this country. It doesn’t have to be in the military; it can be through Peace Corps, it could be through helping out at Walter Reed, it could be dealing with veterans, it could be dealing with our older folks, but we need to have people understand that there’s something you have to contribute to citizenship, as well as -- Mr. Wattenberg: But the operative word you used was encourage. You are in favor of encouraging it; not mandating it. Mr. Cohen: Well, I would encourage it and if that’s a step that doesn’t produce results, it could come to mandating universal service in some form, yes. Mr. Wattenberg: That every kid, after he gets out of high school, must serve a year in some form of public service. And that would not violate your Republican soul of having big government? Mr. Cohen: It would - I think under these circumstances we’re living in a world that’s turning faster and faster. I think that we have to understand that we have responsibilities as citizens and not just our parents who have passed on the heritage of the greatest generation for the sacrifices they made. I think that we can give something back and a year or two of volunteering to do something to help better our society is not too much. Mr. Wattenberg: Have you thought about running for President? Mr. Cohen: No. Mr. Wattenberg: Why not? Mr. Cohen: I have no support group that would be supporting me for President. Mr. Wattenberg: Well, you don’t have it unless you try to get it. Mr. Cohen: No, I had 24 years in public office and I know that, certainly, as Maine goes, so goes the nation, I might have a shot at that, but no. The Republican Party is much more conservative in philosophy than I am, and the Democratic Party is much more liberal than I am, and so, there’s no real base out there. Mr. Wattenberg: It’s very interesting, and I did a one-hour television program on it called A Third Choice. The record of independent and third party candidacies in this country is pretty good, the founder of the Republican Party, a man named Abraham Lincoln, was a very acquisitive corporate railroad attorney who ran as a third or fourth party candidate. In 1992 Ross Perot was well ahead of Bill Clinton, and the incumbent president George Bush, until he went nuts. Mr. Cohen: You skipped John Anderson who -- Mr. Wattenberg: Well, listen, not a -- it doesn’t work for everybody, but my own view is there is a lust in this country for 2008, or whatever, to get a third force out there and if -- Mr. Cohen: Mayor Bloomberg is -- Mr. Wattenberg: Bloomberg has one advantage, he’s got a billion dollars he says he’s going to spend. I think Joe Lieberman would be terrific, I think Rudy Giuliani, I think John McCain, who may not do that well in the Republican primary, I think someone like yourself could put together a third party ticket and announce in advance the kind of people who would be in the Cabinet, and could do dynamite. And you know, in a three party race you can carry a state with 33 percent, 34 percent of the vote, when 50 percent of the people turn out; so you don’t have to win everything, you have to win something. Mr. Cohen: Well, if I had Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s resources and I had John McCain’s party, or affiliation, or basic support group that might be doable. Mr. Wattenberg: Okay, we’ll work on you. A couple of other things that you faced during your tenure, gays in the military -- how do you come out on that? Mr. Cohen: Well, I supported at the time the don’t ask/don’t tell. I also think that things have changed within the military itself. They do have former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Shalikashvili saying it’s time to reexamine that issue. I think it can be reexamined and I think it has to be done in a thoughtful way. The key issue has to be, can you, sort of openly, as a gay man or woman, and can the military still have good order and discipline. That has to be the key. So I think -- Mr. Wattenberg: You know, with all due respect, you’re using a politician’s word here by saying reexamine. You know this issue -- Mr. Cohen: You reexamine by having hearings. You then look at how the Israeli’s are doing, how are the British doing, how are the other countries who’ve allowed this doing? Are they able to remain good order and discipline and what distinguishes them from us? that’s what I would do. Mr. Wattenberg: Let me ask you something, I mean, let’s play a little hypothetical game. Let us assume that it was reexamined, and you know the issue pretty well, and you know pretty well what the various parties would say. Where would you come out? Mr. Cohen: Well, depending on what the reexamination showed, I think society has changed, it’s become more acceptable to have gays who have always served in the military, who are serving there now, to the extent that they can carry out their duties without engaging in conduct that violates good order and discipline any more so than you would have heterosexuals in conduct that undermines that, then they should be allowed to serve. I also think it very much depends on testimony that comes from within the military. That’s why it’s important that Shalikashvili, General Shalikashvili, raise this issue. The moment a politician does, then it becomes a wedge issue. My goodness there go the Democrats again or they’re the Republicans opposed to it, suddenly it’s a wedge issue. This should not be a wedge issue, it’s -- Mr. Wattenberg: That’s why a third party candidacy would be a great thing for this country. You’re not locked into pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-choice, anti-choice; you can get some intelligent people up there and say, ‘look, this is what we, in our wisdom, have decided.’ If it isn’t any good the Congress and the courts aren’t going to allow it anyway, but it could just be very fresh. Mr. Cohen: One of the first questions we would have in a reexamination would be to ask the military how many translators have we lost? Has that impacted our ability to deal with the enemy? So, how many speak Farsi, how many -- I would have that kind of examination and say ‘have they all been kicked out now because they have declared that they’re openly gay? Does that impact our national security, or is that something we should look at?’ So there are serious questions that can be raised in this and to have it in a fashion that doesn’t politicize it to the point, say ‘well, you’re either anti-gay or pro-gay’. What about being pro-American and saying, can these people serve openly and can we still have good order and discipline? I think we can, but I think it has to come from that kind of examination to see what others have done and what we should be doing. Mr. Wattenberg: How has the expanded role of women in the military worked out? There are some contradictory - there was that case of that woman pilot who they got into a crash and they said –- on the carrier and they said, ‘Well she wasn’t really as well qualified as men’, but they bent over backwards to meet a quota. Where do you come out? You must be quite familiar with that. Mr. Cohen: Without women in our military today we wouldn’t be able to function. They are fundamental. Mr. Wattenberg: In combat? Mr. Cohen: Even in combat. You’ve got women helicopter pilots who are carrying out their missions, you may not remember Tammy Duckworth who lost both of her legs. Mr. Wattenberg: That was in your book. Mr. Cohen: Indeed. They’re out there sacrificing, they’re great warriors. Mr. Wattenberg: How about as GI’s on the ground in combat. Are they doing that now? Mr. Cohen: They’re on the ground. They’re at risk just as much as any of the male soldiers. They’re playing a key role in the defense of this country. Mr. Wattenberg: Does America have any choice? Can it opt out of being the global leader? Mr. Cohen: I don’t think we can afford to. I think that we need to continue to be a force, as Michael Mendelbaum has written, a goliath. Maybe goliath’s not the right metaphor here, but we need to have, we have been a stabilizing force for the world and when you have stability you have economic opportunity; when you have economic opportunity you generate prosperity; when you have prosperity you can then reinforce Democratic values. So there is a need for a goliath, I think that most people, not withstanding the criticism of the United States, would prefer to have the United States play that role than anybody else. Now could that change in the coming years? Anything is possible, but I think right now we’re still the force for good in the world and we need to remain that force for good. Mr. Wattenberg: Are we spending enough on defense? Mr. Cohen: No in the sense that we’ve got some major programs that are seriously under funded. Mr. Wattenberg: Like what? Mr. Cohen: Well, all of the major platforms that we have. What we would normally do, we have a shipbuilding program that has been cut back dramatically; we’ve got to increase the number of our ships. The big capital budget involvement in that. We need to increase and fund fully, the aircraft that we decided to modernize. We have joint strike fighter which is coming on; we have the F22 Raptor; we have others that we need to fund to make sure that we have the dominant force -- Mr. Wattenberg: Is the American power structure, defense and other aspects of it, configured in a way to deal with a insurgency, a terrorist situation? I mean, we have planes and we have ships, but that’s not exactly the way you fight terrorism. Mr. Cohen: That’s right. You have to do both. You have to be concerned about anyone who would interrupt or try to shut down the sea lanes of communication, so you still have to have a big force. You still have to have a force that can be deployed from the United States to elsewhere, so you need that. But in addition, what you’re pointing out is we need to have people who are skilled in language and culture and history, soft power, using our wealth to help other people in terms of their needs for medications, for healthcare, for investment in small business and to build their hopes up. If you simply have the United States and a few other countries who are incredibly wealthy and the rest of the world in poverty, you will not survive, ultimately, as a society because if too many people who are deprived and desperate, and when they have no hope they will turn against you. So, we have a big task ahead, but we’re up to it and I think what we have to do is refocus our energies and bring other people into this to persuade other countries that this is not our war against terror alone. Everybody is at risk. There are extreme elements all over the world, we need to cooperate and share intelligence to use good police techniques and tactics, Special Forces, covert action, ultimately military action. Mr. Wattenberg: It’s been -- I mean, if somebody said on September 12th, 2001, that for the next six years there would not be any major terrorist act committed by foreigners in the United States, I think 98 percent of the people would have said that’s crazy. It does not take a lot of high tech to roll a hand grenade into an outdoor pizzeria, and, yet there’s been a lot of international cooperation and it’s worked -- Mr. Cohen: Well, we had the Brits rolled up a cell -- there was a cell to explode 10 aircraft coming to the United States killing some 3,000 people. That was good police work, good intelligence that was done. That has to be replicated the world over for those countries who are seriously concerned they don’t want to see their country destroyed the way we’re seeing Iraq destroyed from within. Mr. Wattenberg: Does that mean doing things like detaining people in Guantanamo? I mean there is that fine line between being tough on terrorism and some people saying being too tough on terrorism and going over the line on civil liberties. Mr. Cohen: Well there’s always a line to be drawn. You certainly want to be tough on terrorism, but you also don’t -- it seems to me want to lock up people without having any opportunity for them to consult a lawyer under any circumstance, and they’re just never heard from again. That’s something that we used to ascribe to totalitarian societies. Mr. Wattenberg: Have we done that in Guantanamo? Mr. Cohen: Well, we’ve got people who have been locked up and have not had an opportunity to consult lawyers or to deal with accusers or have evidence, have access to evidence. I think we have to have a different arrangement. Congress has made some changes; I think that’s good. But obviously you want to keep those hardcore terrorists who are out there who want to kill you, you know, you’ve got to keep them locked up. But you also have to have a system whereby make sure you’ve got the right people because we’ve had how many people in our own criminal justice system that we see day after day, whoops, have the wrong guy spend 15 years, 20 years in jail, and suddenly DNA tests show we made a big mistake. Well, same thing on a different scale, saying maybe not everybody who’s locked up falls in that category, or maybe they should at least have an opportunity to at least contest the charges rather than never be heard from again. I don’t think we want to send a signal to the rest of the world that we just put people away and they never have a chance to challenge the accusation that they’re a terrorist. Mr. Wattenberg: Let me close on two more personal notions. You are a very fine athlete and you were one of the, I don’t know, the only one, I guess there are others, but one of the few published poets. A lot of people who had collaborators to write memoirs about what great people they are. What is the role of athletics in an active life? Does it help? Mr. Cohen: Athletics are key to a sound body and sound mind. That’s the key to not only longevity, but happiness for me. I’ve never felt better than after I finish a workout, I say that I’ve done something to stay healthy, but it’s a spiritual exercise. Mr. Wattenberg: Do you still play basketball? Mr. Cohen: Only when challenged. I played a lot of it in my day. Mr. Wattenberg: I know you did. And you were, what All New England, or something like that? Mr. Cohen: New England Hall of Fame, All Star Team. I was named to the Silver Anniversary All Star Team by the National Association of Basketball Coaches. Mr. Wattenberg: Good for you. And then tell me about poetry. America is not, in terms of your kind of poetry, is not a poem crazy country. I mean, they are under more popular sources. I mean, I think some of our musical comedy lyrics are great poetry, but that’s not -- of the excerpts that you printed in your book, that’s not what you’re doing. Mr. Cohen: What does a poet do? A poet tries to take words and compress them into, squeeze them until they almost hurt and to create an idea, to create an image, to create an emotion and a sentiment. Politicians need words to persuade their constituents and over the years, from Jack Kennedy and others, they have turned to poets in order to try to make a point, to articulate policies. So words are what politicians traffic in and what better way than to turn to great poets of the years to make a point. Do we dare disturb the universe, do we eat a peach et cetera? There are great words of Robert Frost in terms of what Jack Kennedy used to quote from. Mr. Wattenberg: I think that inaugural was great stuff. Mr. Cohen: A great inaugural. So, poetry is important. It’s another form of expression, but it compresses words into -- to squeeze that word until you can really create something that will stay in your mind’s eye. Mr. Wattenberg: Okay, Secretary, Senator, Mayor Cohen, neighbor, thank you so much for joining us on Think Tank. We hope to have you back again and thank you. Please remember to send us your comments via email, we think it makes Think Tank a better program. For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |