Interview with Carl Levin; War in Libya
CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Why in the world is the U.S. military involved in Libya? Republicans are the toughest critics, but there are echoes inside the Democratic Party.</s>SEN. JIM WEBB, D-VA.: I really don't believe that we have an obligation to get involved in every single occurrence in that part of the world.</s>REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, D-OHIO: The immediate thing congress needs to do when it returns is to cut off any funds for containing Libya.</s>CROWLEY: In a statement, Senator Jay Rockefeller wrote of serious concerns. Our military and budget are stretched thin fighting two wars already. And I want to avoid getting into another conflict with unknown cost and consequences. Tomorrow night, the president addresses the nation. Today, a muddled mission against Gadhafi. We talk to Senate armed services chairman Carl Levin. And chaos throughout the Mideast with former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and the former head of the CIA, General Michael Hayden. Then assessing growing concern over Japan's nuclear disaster with nuclear analyst Joseph Cirincione. And the impact of all of this on the U.W. with economist Alice Rivlin and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. I'm Candy Crowley and this is State of the Union. Helped by coalition air strikes pounding away at Gadhafi's military power, anti-government insurgents have retaken a second city, Brega. There is optimistic talk of moving all the way over into the Gadhafi stronghold of Tripoli. The rebels are back on offense, while on the homefront in the political arena, President Obama plays defense.</s>PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The role of American forces has been limited. We're not putting any ground forces into Libya. Our military has provided unique capabilities at the beginning. But this is now a broad international effort.</s>CROWLEY: Among those looking for explanation and a little clarity, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the democratic chair of the armed services committee which holds hearings on Libya this week. He joins me now. Are you -- you have talked to the president frequently in your position, obviously, as head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Are you fully on board with this mission?</s>LEVIN: I am. I think it's the mission which has got a clear purpose. Once the international community was onboard, which was absolutely critical to this mission beginning and succeeding, then it made sense that to be part of that international community in a limited mission with stated goals which there were, a number of very clearly stated goals, but limited. And then to see the kind of success which they're having now because of the support of that international community. Very different, by the way, than the situation was in Iraq where there was not international community support. And we went in anyway without that. There's a very clear difference.</s>CROWLEY: Well, there were -- I mean, we should just add there were other troops other than the U.S. once we went into Iraq.</s>LEVIN: But there was no U.N. support in Iraq. It made a big difference.</s>CROWLEY: So if you can just -- can you give me a version of what this mission is? What are we doing there?</s>LEVIN: We're part of an international coalition which has been supported now by U.N. resolution, the support of Arab countries, to prevent the slaughter of civilians in Libya and to make sure that that continue with a no-fly zone which is maintained over Libya to prevent Gadhafi from reasserting control of the air.</s>CROWLEY: So I want to read something to you from The New York Times Friday. It was from Joseph Ralston, whom I'm sure you know, former NATO commander, vice chairman of the joint chiefs. And he wrote this, "we should never begin an operation without knowing how we stand down. We did a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years. It did nothing to get rid of Saddam. So why do we think it will get rid of Gadhafi?" Now, clearly, they said over and over again the mission isn't to get rid of Gadhafi, but if the mission is to keep Gadhafi from attacking his people, doesn't this seem like a flyover with no end?</s>LEVIN: Well, it will be -- it is a flyover which is succeeding. It has set Gadhafi back. He's on his heels now moving his troops towards his capital where he is strong. But he has prevented the slaughter of Libyan people. And that is what the trigger was for the president.</s>CROWLEY: But don't you have to state -- the idea of the end game, like when does this stop? It doesn't seem that it can stop unless Gadhafi is gone. And so even though everybody keeps saying, oh no, the mission is not to get rid of Gadhafi. How can you stop the mission unless Gadhafi is gone, because the minute those -- do you have any doubt that the minute both planes stop enforcing a no-fly zone he will be back with his troops going after the rebels?</s>LEVIN: It is going to depend on the circumstance that exists at that particular time. There's other means of removing Gadhafi than military means. We've seen that in other countries as a matter of fact. We saw that in Egypt where the people of Egypt removed their dictator. The people of Libya can remove their dictator. But we are not going to be the ones to remove him. We are the ones, as part of an international coalition, that are going to prevent him from massacring his own people.</s>CROWLEY: So basically, this coalition, flyover is kind of the air force for the rebels. It pushes back tanks. It makes sure that he can't put anything up in the air. So, you know, the fact of the matter is it does seem that this coalition, including the U.S., has to be prepared to stay there until the rebels can undo Gadhafi.</s>LEVIN: It's not just the rebels, it's the people who will ultimately undo Gadhafi. And it's also going to be economic sanctions, freeze of his assets -- $30 billion his assets have been frozen.</s>CROWLEY: But do we have to stay there so long as he's in office?</s>LEVIN: Not necessarily. It depends on -- it depends on whether or not the other means, the economic means, the political means succeed and it depends on whether or not the people are able to contain him and ultimately remove him. The military mission is clearly stated, not to remove Gadhafi. I didn't hear a lot of protest, by the way. When the mission was stated to be limited, when it was stated that it's not going to be a mission which continually expands. The military was very much worried about a mission which would creep, as they put it. They wanted to know what the goals were. They were limited set goals, no troops on the ground. And that part of the mission seems to me is succeeding. The fact that it's going to take the people of Libya to remove their dictator with the help of economic sanctions that the world has put in place and by the way, with a weakened Gadhafi because of the success, hopefully, of this military mission doesn't mean that we're there forever. It means that there are other means which are going to be utilized.</s>CROWLEY: Sure. But I guess what I'm saying is even a weakened Gadhafi is a dangerous Gadhafi. And it seems that there is no way out of this no-fly and help of the humanitarian assistance until he is gone. Even if it's not the mission, he has to be gone and powerless.</s>LEVIN: Or so weakened and so put in a corner by his own people that he is unable to again start slaughtering his own people.</s>CROWLEY: Let me ask something that Secretary Gates, Secretary of Defense Gates said on Meet the Press when asked what the U.S. interests are in Libya specifically. And he had this to say.</s>SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT M. GATES: I don't think it's vital interest of the United States, but we clearly have interests there. And it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States.</s>CROWLEY: So, I think another way of asking this question is, what's in it for the U.S.?</s>LEVIN: A number of things are in it. First of all that we want to be part of a world community to determine to prevent a slaughter of large numbers of people. Secondly, what's in it for us is that there is a democratic movement afoot in the Arab world. And we should be on the side of that democratic movement. Where we can do so is part of an international community which is unique. And that is the situation that exists in Libya. There's a democratic movement that is moving in Libya, part of a larger movement...</s>CROWLEY: There's one in Syria, too. Should we do something in Syria?</s>LEVIN: Not unless the international community has said to us come help us remove this dictator. We should use other means in terms of limiting the power of dictators. And we have, by the way. But we cannot use military means to remove every dictator. What's unusual here, it really gives us an opportunity is that here you've got an international community, and the Arab world has said let us together remove a dictator. And that gives, it seems to me, a lot of support to our mission of supporting democracy in that area.</s>CROWLEY: You know, Africa is full of countries where leaders are slaughtering their people in the hundreds of thousands. And we've done nothing about that. So the tipping point to you is well if they ask us to come and the international community supports it then we'll go. That's -- that's your...</s>LEVIN: That's key. That is absolutely critical. And it's what's unique here. And by the way, it was stated as being critical here. The secretary of state said we will not go. We will not go unless there's support by the international community. Because otherwise, you have huge downsides. Otherwise, the people in the streets and the Arab world are going to be demonstrating against us for intervening instead of demonstrating against their own dictators.</s>CROWLEY: And just quickly, there's one of the things that Secretary Gates was also asked was about whether we would arm the rebels, see to it, because they are very underarmed as compared to Gadhafi at this point. As Secretary Gates sees it, that is allowed under this U.N. resolution. Would it be a good idea for the U.S. to arm these rebels?</s>LEVIN: That will be a decision which will be made by a coalition and be made again by a president who is thoughtful, who is deliberative, and who is also cautious. Because if the arms purpose, of supplying arms to the rebels, have the purpose of helping them to prevent a slaughter of their people, protect people, that's one thing. However, if those arms are just going to add fuel to a civil war, that's very different. Because then it is not aimed at providing a cease-fire and the end of violence. Those arms, if they are going used offensively by the rebels, it seems to me, would be adding fuel to that fire and would be inconsistent with what the U.N. resolution calls for which is a cease-fire. But that is a decision which will be made by the president and coalition partners.</s>CROWLEY: So, the U.S. is unwilling to make unilateral decisions here when it comes to Libya.</s>LEVIN: I hope so. Because that is the secret to success is a coalition, international decision where a unilateral decision could have significant downsides.</s>CROWLEY: Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, you have hearings this Tuesday with the NATO commander as your chief witness, talking about Libya. Thank you so much for joining us today. Up next, we'll get perspective on Libya from two former intelligence officials, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.