President Bush Visits South Korea
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now on</s>WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: In South Korea, President Bush will soon visit the DMZ, the backyard of his "axis of evil." But furious protesters see no evil. So, should you be scared of North Korea?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When the police arrived, Diane was crawling, trying to push herself up towards her apartment, unable to breathe, bleeding to death with one dog still loose.</s>BLITZER: A San Francisco couple goes on trial for the dog- mauling death of their neighbor. Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. President Bush has called it the most dangerous spot on earth, and in a few hours, he will be there. That tops our news alert. President Bush will visit the American troops at the heavily- guarded demilitarized zone, separating communist North Korea and Democratic South Korea. He's not backing down from his "axis of evil" tough talk, but is expected to renew an offer to negotiate with the North. We'll have much more on this in a moment. U.S. forces in Afghanistan may have opened a new phase in the war. Over the weekend, two airstrikes near the city of Khowst were apparently aimed at warring factions opposed to the interim government. Up to now, the aim of U.S. forces has been the destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda. In another move to help the new Afghan government, a U.S. general has begun a mission aimed at helping Afghanistan establish a national army. According to U.S. officials, American soldiers are expected to arrive in about a month to begin training fighters loyal to Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai. And at the Winter Olympics, amid the backdrop of the pairs figure skating scandal, Michelle Kwan goes for the gold tonight. She faces a tough battle, skating last among the other medal contenders in the short program. Kwan won the silver medal in Nagano, Japan, in 1998. Now, more on our top story. In just a few hours, President Bush will visit the Korean demilitarized zone, one of the most heavily- armed areas anywhere on the planet, guarded by almost two million troops on both sides of that zone. Mr. Bush's visit is one of the key stops of his trip to South Korea. For more on that, here is CNN's senior White House correspondent, John King.</s>JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A warm welcome for the president at the American high school in Seoul. The challenge now is convincing a key U.S. ally a tough stance against North Korea is not inconsistent with the goal of a reunited peninsula. President Kim Dae Jung has staked his legacy on his so-called Sunshine police. And advisers worry now that Mr. Bush's labeling North Korea part of an axis of evil will discourage diplomatic progress.</s>YANG SUNG CHUL, SOUTH KOREAN AMB. TO U.S.: Whether wrongly or rightly, they are insisting, for instance, America not to have hostile actions or hostile stance on North Korea.</s>KING: Mr. Bush came to Seoul from Tokyo. In a speech to the Japanese parliament, he held out hope for Korean unification.</s>BUSH: We seek a region in which demilitarized zones and missile batteries no longer separate people with a common heritage and a common future.</s>KING: The DMZ separates South from North, nearly 50 years after the Korean War. Mr. Bush visits U.S. troops there Wednesday, and will make it clear, as he did in Tokyo, that in his view, the ball is in North Korea's court.</s>BUSH: We seek a peaceful region, where the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction do not threaten humanity.</s>KING: The focus on North Korea is just one reminder that Asia already is a second front in the war on terror. U.S. special forces are helping the Philippines crack down on the Abu Sayyaf terrorist network. And U.S. military officials are having talks with counterparts in Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, about efforts to curb terrorism, and perhaps, weapons shipments. In Seoul, days of demonstrations objecting to the "axis of evil" characterization. And aides say Mr. Bush will not repeat the line while in South Korea. (on camera): But his hosts fear the damage is already done. As Mr. Bush arrived here, the North Korean government issued a tough statement accusing the United States of trying to incite a second Korean war. John King, CNN, Seoul.</s>BLITZER: The standoff between North and South Korea with thousands of U.S. troops in between has been going on for decades. Successive American presidents have been warning that the demilitarized zone is potentially a flash point, one that could trigger all-out war. I was there almost nine years ago, when I was covering the White House.</s>WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is pointless for them to try to develop nuclear weapons, because if they ever used them it would be the end of their country.</s>BLITZER (voice-over): That was then President Bill Clinton in 1993 when he visited the DMZ. Things changed, but they also remained very much the same. Indeed, President Bush could make the same exact point today. The half-century U.S. security commitment to South Korea continues with no end in sight, physically backed up by some 40,000 U.S. troops. They have always been seen as a trip wire, potentially standing only a few miles away from a million heavily-armed North Korean troops. Here is how I saw it when I was there. (on camera): Behind me is what's called the Bridge of no Return, right in the middle of the demilitarized zone. It was here where nearly 100,000 prisoners were exchanged following the Korean War. (voice-over): By all accounts, this is still one of the most dangerous spots on earth. Don't be misled by the routine and eerie silence that almost always pervades the DMZ. Here's what one U.S. soldier told me then.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually think it's pretty calm up here, real laid-back. Basically I don't have a lot of fears about North Korea coming down.</s>BLITZER: And that superficial calm certainly has not misled the Bush administration. In often blunt language, top officials in recent weeks have expressed concern over North Korea's missile program and export of arms. And in recent days, North Korea has responded, calling the president the head of -- quote -- "an empire of evil." Joining us now to talk about these harsh words and whether North Korea remains a major threat to world peace is James Steinberg. He's the former deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration. Thanks for joining us, Jim. The key question, how much of a threat is North Korea right now to the West?</s>JAMES STEINBERG, FMR. DEP. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There's no question, Wolf, that North Korea does pose a threat. It is a country that is the leading exporter of missiles and other weapons of mass destruction technology. And that's a legitimate area of concern. The question now is how best to deal with that? We had to start beginning to deal with North Korea's nuclear program back in 1994. And what we needed was a policy that was both tough on our position that they shouldn't develop that technology, but at the same time, recognizing that we needed to engage with them to bring it to an end. The same was true with their missile test. We became very concerned in 1998 with this new missile test, that posed a threat to Japan and potentially to the United States. But through engagement, we were able to get North Korea to impose a moratorium on that testing.</s>BLITZER: But they're pursuing weapons of mass destruction even as we speak right now. That's why the president included North Korea in his "axis of evil".</s>STEINBERG: Well, their nuclear program is frozen right now. They still have steps to go to dismantle it, but they have stopped the reprocessing that proposed such a great danger to us. Similar, their missile testing is in moratorium, and we need to extend that. Now the challenge is to get them to stop exporting that missile technology and other weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the Clinton administration we were working on an agreement with them. We need to continue to press that. As well as deal with the other issues that the Bush administration has identified. But we're only going to get there if we have a combination of a strong stand and a willingness to engage.</s>BLITZER: All of the evidence, though, does point to biological, chemical weapons that they've been working on over all these years, as well.</s>STEINBERG: Well, unfortunately, Wolf, there are lots of countries around the world. And in the administration's own study, there are dozens of countries that are developing biological and chemical weapons. We need to deal with those problems wherever we find them. But we have an opportunity to move forward on what are the most dangerous areas, which is these missile exports. And I do hope that both the North Koreans and the administration can take advantage of an opportunity to reach an agreement.</s>BLITZER: So are you suggesting that the president's tough talk about North Korea has undermined that effort?</s>STEINBERG: I think there's a place for tough talk, but there's also a place for a good strategy, that turns that tough talk, and the leverage that it gives you, into an agreement. In the first place, we need to get a good understanding with our South Korean allies. Because if we're not together on this, we're not going to make progress. And then together we need to tell the North Koreans that we're not going to tolerate bad behavior. But we're also prepared to work with them to get a less tense and a less confrontational stance.</s>BLITZER: You know the parallel that's been drawn to former President Reagan's evil empire speech, which eventually resulted in steps that saw the Soviet Union crumble. A lot of people are suggesting right now President Bush's tough talk about North Korea, Iran and Iraq, will eventually see those regimes go down.</s>STEINBERG: There's a lot of debate about why the Soviet Union came to an end. We need to give credit to the people within the Soviet empire who stood up against it for all that time.</s>BLITZER: But the Bush administration people are saying what they're trying to do is give credit to those within North Korea, Iran and Iraq, to stand up and bring those regimes down, as was the case in the former Soviet Union.</s>STEINBERG: But don't forget, Ronald Reagan also negotiated arms control treaties with the Soviet Union during that time. And that's exactly the model we need to follow here. Be clear about our values and our principles, but also recognizing that the best way to protect our security is to stop these dangerous behavior. And if we can get it through engagement and negotiations, we shouldn't pass up that opportunity.</s>BLITZER: In the meantime, you're not suggesting the U.S. withdraw from the DMZ?</s>STEINBERG: On the contrary. It's critical that we stay there. Our support is what helps stabilize the situation there. We need to make clear to North Korea that we're not going to tolerate any kind of risky behavior. At the same time, we ought to show them an alternative path that can lead to a more stable future for the whole peninsula.</s>BLITZER: David Steinberg, deputy national security adviser to President Clinton. Thank you very much. This programming note: our senior White House correspondent, John King, will report. "LIVE FROM THE DMZ" tonight. That's at 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific, here on CNN. And our Web question of the day is this: which of these three axis of evil nations, as attributed by President Bush, poses the greatest risk to the United States? Vote at cnn.com/wolf. While you're there, let me know what you're thinking. Send me your comments. I'll read some of them on the air each day. That's also where you can read my daily on-line column. Turning now to some key shifts in the war on terrorism, one dealing with swaying public opinion overseas, including possibly spreading false information. The other involves U.S. warplanes attacking Afghan factions opposed to the new interim government of Hamid Karzai. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, is over at the Pentagon. She joins us now with details on both of these. First, Barbara, on the propaganda warfare strategy, what's going on?</s>BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's a really interesting question, Wolf. Nobody's quite sure. It turns out that right after September 11th, the Pentagon established the Office of Strategic Influence. This is a 15-man shop with its own outside PR advisers that is aimed at, as one official told us, "influencing the hearts and minds of the opposition in the war on terrorism." Now, of course, all of this used to be called propaganda, and we've seen some of it in the war in Afghanistan already: the dropping of leaflets, the broadcasting of radio transmissions into Afghanistan, all part of the traditional effort to influence the Afghan people to revolt against the Taliban and the al Qaeda. But now the question is whether the Pentagon's going to go a step further into this very controversial new, era which they call information operations. And part of information operations, in fact, is deception. It's classified, very covert. The Pentagon never talks about it. Now, officials tell us so far there has been no decision to engage in this kind of deception with the foreign news media. But the question is whether or not they might do it down the road, and whether they would see it as a key effort to try and influence public opinion abroad. Rumsfeld is not known to be particularly in favor of this, but the final proposal hasn't come to his desk yet, so we're not really sure where all of this may sort out. It's likely to continue to be very controversial.</s>BLITZER: Barbara, on the other front, the air war. It used to be the U.S. was bombing Taliban targets and al Qaeda targets. But in recent days other targets are now the targeted, if you will, of U.S. bombs. What's going on on that front?</s>STARR: That's also a very interesting development that emerged over the weekend, not noticed very widely here in the United States. But over the weekend, the U.S. conducted two sets of airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday, southeast of Khowst, in an area where there were a lot of opposition forces. But that's exactly right. The target was not Taliban and not al Qaeda. It turns out a group of supporters of Hamid Karzai, the head of the interim government, had come under small arms fire in this remote area. Airstrikes were called in to deal with this, but there was no indication that Taliban or al Qaeda were involved. And so far it appears that for the first time now, U.S. airstrikes were called in in a local fight against militia between competing warlords -- something that the Pentagon had stayed out of until now.</s>BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. Thank you very much for that update. And joining me now to talk a little more about both of these developments, our military analyst, Retired Army Brigadier General David Grange. General Grange, let's start off with the last thing that Barbara just spoke about: the U.S. intervening on behalf of Hamid Karzai's interim government, in effect. Going after certain targets -- not al Qaeda, not Taliban -- but targets that represent a threat to the interim government. Should the U.S. military be involved in that? BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY</s>BLITZER: So if the U.S. is going to train Hamid Karzai's interim military -- and there are threats to that military, in effect, threats to the government, the interim regime -- the U.S., understandably, you're saying, would have an interest in trying to help Karzai?</s>GRANGE: I think we're committed to that. Even though there are some dangers there, we are committed, just like the international coalition is committed to them.</s>BLITZER: What do you think about this other proposal -- and it's only a proposal right now -- as Barbara just reported, the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has not signed off on it. The Defense Department getting into this office of strategic influence, spreading information and, at times, disinformation -- wrong information, to win the propaganda war on behalf of the United States?</s>GRANGE: Well, the United States, we have to influence public opinion on both friendly and unfriendly countries around the world. We're going to do operations or we're going to engage through some type of diplomatic, or economic, or combat effort. However, I don't think it's right to spread disinformation around the world, for this reason: one is, our power is in telling the truth. American power is telling the truth. That's what we're known for. And that's powerful enough. Now, if there is a combat operation that requires surprise, and you must have deception in that target country, or the surrounding regional countries in order to achieve surprise, then it's OK, I believe.</s>BLITZER: To what? To lie to news media?</s>GRANGE: No, to deceive in what's going on in that operation, to save lives and achieve surprise. But the general idea of just putting out disinformation around the world, in order to gain public support, is wrong. That, I think, is wrong. And it won't only stay overseas. Because the world is so small with globalization, the information environment, it will come back to the United States media anyway.</s>BLITZER: So if you spread disinformation in the Middle East or in Europe or in Asia someplace, it could, as they say in the trade, blow back into the U.S. news media. And that would in effect be illegal, for the U.S. government to be providing false information to the U.S. news media?</s>GRANGE: It's illegal for the Department of Defense, for the Central Intelligence Agency, to spread propaganda in the United States. That is illegal. So, that would be the blowback problem if we did that.</s>BLITZER: There would have to be new legislation to approve this, to authorize that kind of false information dissemination.</s>GRANGE: I can't imagine us doing that. I think only in war and to save lives and to accomplish an objective. Never a carte blanche capability to do that.</s>BLITZER: So, who is promoting this notion at the Pentagon right now? It's obviously got some serious consideration.</s>GRANGE: Well, it may be blown out of proportion a little. I think that our ability to use information operations around the world is a necessity. You have to. But keep in mind, information operations also involves just good public affairs, sharing information. Soliciting what America and the West stands for: blue jeans, rock and roll and hamburger joints. I mean, there's great things to be put out there to tell the truth. And that's -- when others get caught off guard, our adversaries, with disinformation, that gives us the power.</s>BLITZER: So you're saying there's a major difference between public diplomacy, public affairs -- psychological warfare, if you will -- as opposed to disinformation?</s>GRANGE: Well, disinformation can be part of psychological operations, but only focused on the enemy, not on the world or our regional allies.</s>BLITZER: General Grange, thanks for your insight. I appreciate it.</s>GRANGE: Sure, thank you.</s>BLITZER: And this note: Pentagon information versus disinformation. We'll discuss that tonight here in the CNN "WAR ROOM." That's at 7:00 Eastern, 4:00 Pacific. Should dog owners pay when their pets kill? Today, jurors start gathering the facts in a high-profile trial. And the first account was hard to hear.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The back of her neck, which was pierced so deep, it almost went down to the vertebrae.</s>BLITZER: Later: why the killer mom trial became surprisingly tense earlier today. And forget about Vegas and Atlanta. There's a new place for Mike to fight. You might be surprised to hear where he might show up. Stay with us.