U.S. Seeks Greater U.N. Role in Iraq
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's right now hear something from Ken Pollack, our analyst who joins us from time to time to talk about issues from Iraq, security matters, as well as political issues as well. And, Ken, quite a bit has been going on in the last 48 hours or so now in the wake of this bombing there at the U.N. headquarters. I'm sure you no doubt have heard the words coming from -- or the talk at least about discussions between Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, getting together to talk about the beginning of language being put together that might invite more nations to contribute more troops. How do you see that process playing out? And do you even see, perhaps, some of these nations sitting on the sidelines and perhaps having -- sharing in some</s>KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Yes, unfortunately, Leon, I'm afraid that you're right. You can criticize U.S. diplomacy. I have criticized U.S. diplomacy. I don't think we've done a terrific job. But by the same token, I think there are a number of other countries out there who have behaved in a fairly reprehensible fashion and are enjoying the fact that the Americans and U.N. officials are dying over there, because they see this as being proof that the U.S. should never have invaded Iraq itself. At this point in time, though, let's talk about where we go forward from here. Basically, we know where the U.S. stands. The U.S. is going to go to the U.N. and say, we want more countries, we want some kind of a U.N. impromoder (ph), which will allow more countries to join in the peace operation there, but we're not willing to relinquish any control. That leaves two possibilities for the rest of the world. One, they can come in and say, all right, that's fine, we understand that, we're going to pony up a little bit more, and there will be some countries that may be willing to come forward. But other countries may use this as an opportunity to try to press the U.N. and to try to force the hand of the U.N. to try to gain greater control over the peacekeeping operations and the reconstruction efforts inside of Iraq, take that away from the United States. Countries like Germany, like France, others may come in and say, you now need our help, you can't do it by yourself, the U.N. personnel who are there are not only necessary to this operation, but they're also dangerously vulnerable, and the only way to care for them is to have additional U.N. forces in there, and what that means is we want to have a greater say in the course of Iraqi reconstruction.</s>HARRIS: But it would appear, though, that the U.S. would have to give something. It's not a negotiation if one side goes in and says here's how it's got to be. There has to be something that the U.S. can give that would actually encourage or at least improve the atmosphere to make countries, I guess, more amenable to the idea?</s>POLLACK: You'd think so, Leon. You're right. It's not a negotiation. But the Bush administration generally hasn't negotiated over this stuff. They've basically said, look, here's what we're willing to accept, anyone who is willing to sign up for it, that's fine, come on board, anyone who isn't willing to accept that, we're not interested in you either.</s>HARRIS: Ken, some have said that's the reason why the situation is the way it is right now.</s>POLLACK: I certainly think that that's a big reason why so few countries have been willing to join us with the U.S. effort, is because the U.S. approach has mostly been our way or the highway. What they seem to be trying to do now, what the Bush administration seems to be trying to do now is to get some additional cover, because they seem to believe there are other countries out there who are just looking for some kind of a head nod from the U.N. that will allow them to go to the domestic constituencies and say, see, we've been asked to come in by the United Nations. Therefore, we can go ahead and do this. But, again, I think we have to be very realistic. I don't think many countries are going to be persuaded by just that. I think the ones that really matter, the countries that can provide tens of thousands of troops, like Germany, like France, like India, they all want the greater control that so far the U.S. has just not been willing to part with.</s>HARRIS: Did you hear moments ago when we had former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger on, and he said something about it being the time now, and he doesn't understand why the administration hasn't done this up to this point, he said, it's time to get nasty, it's time to get nastier there in Iraq -- going to the border, going to Syria, getting some of these elements that he believes are the ones behind the bombings like the one we saw the other day. To do that, you'd necessarily need to have more boots on the ground, more troops in there. But that point aside, do you think it is time to take that step, to get that nasty, to use his word, to go to the borders now?</s>POLLACK: Leon, you're putting the issue exactly right. I think it would be useful to get nasty, in Secretary Eagleburger's phrase. But as you're pointing out, we don't have the troops there yet. The coalition forces there don't yet have the forces on hand that will to allow them to both control Iraq's urban areas and to control its borders. It's why I, among other people, have suggested we probably need more like 250,000 or 300,000 troops in Iraq for a period of months, maybe as many as six months, to get control over the situation. And yes, the problem that we have is the U.S. doesn't have that many troops to send. Our Army is tapped out. And if we're going to put that number of people into the field, we're going to have to go to the rest of the world. Now, after that period of time, hopefully, we'll have Iraqis coming on board. We'll have more Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi policemen and hopefully, after a period of about six months, we can start to turn over those responsibilities to the Iraqis. But we've got to understand at this moment in time, we've got a real security need, and we don't have the troops and the Iraqis don't have the troops, and that means we're going to have to go to somebody else.</s>HARRIS: That being the case, let me ask you this question I asked an analyst we had on yesterday. Do you think that in the foreseeable future, we're going to be seeing terrorist forces in Iraq brought under control before or after we see these sort of terroristic forces brought under control in the Palestinian/Israeli issue.</s>POLLACK: Boy oh boy, that is such a tough one. Let me put it this way. I think we're going to continue to see terrorist attacks in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The only question is whether those -- the number of attacks and the severity of them increases or decreases over time. And there, it's really about what the United States is willing to do. If we're willing to bring in other countries, if we're willing to put more resources into the country and do a better job in terms of the organization and the running of the reconstruction program, I think you can see these continuing, but declining over time. Otherwise, it's just going to get worse.</s>HARRIS: Boy, it's tough way to make a bet either way. Thanks, Ken. Appreciate it. Ken Pollack, good to see you, as always.</s>POLLACK: Thank you, Leon. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com