A Wider Conflict?
Powell on bin Laden, Mideast peace-and whether we'll ultimately go after
Iraq
By Lally Weymouth
NEWSWEEK
Dec. 3 issue - Secretary of State Colin Powell has long been
viewed as the moderate in an administration of hawks. But Powell insists
that complete harmony has prevailed among the administration's decision
makers, despite rumors that he has been urging caution on his colleagues
in the war on terror. Seated at a conference table in the State
Department, Powell spoke with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth last week.
Excerpt
WEYMOUTH: It has been reported that you were opposed to the tougher
strategy in Afghanistan taken up by the administration three weeks ago.
POWELL: This is absolute nonsense. We have had an integrated,
unified strategy from the beginning. It was my responsibility to help
put the coalition together and deal with the diplomatic aspects of our
campaign. It was [Defense] Secretary Rumsfeld's responsibility to come
up with the war plan that we executed.
So why did the war strategy appear to change?
It didn't change. It never changed. It was a campaign that
started out to go after air-defense systems and the military capability
of the Taliban. Then it shifted to destroying the training bases of Al
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. It then started focusing on Osama bin Laden
himself, and then in a careful, well-designed manner it focused on the
Taliban forces in the vicinity of Mazar-e Sharif and north of Kabul. As
we got more and more American military Special Forces people into the
country, which took time, they could more effectively bring in the air
power to assist the Northern Alliance. You had a First World air force
and a Fourth World army on the ground, and it took a while to connect
the two. And people misread this as some big disagreement within the
administration-that somehow we had gotten bogged down.
Will Osama bin Laden be captured?
"We are trying to persuade these countries that they should give up
these activities. If they don't, they will have to bear the
consequences."
- COLIN POWELL
Secretary of state I think so. I think he is finding it more
and more difficult to avoid his fate. There is no country anxious to see
him show up as a guest. More and more land is being liberated and made
unavailable for him to seek shelter in. The battle in the northern part
of the country was quick and decisive. The south will be a little more
difficult-you won't have an army like the Northern Alliance. That may
take more time, but I think the Taliban's authority has pretty much been
destroyed. And now the diplomatic process is catching up with what has
happened on the battlefield.
After Afghanistan, should we go on to Iraq?
We keep our eye on Iraq. We know they are trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction. We will look at Iraq and every other
country that harbors terrorists and see what would be appropriate
measures to take.
The State Department report says that Iran has ties with
terrorists, Syria shelters terrorists-so are we going to see another war
like the one in Afghanistan in those countries, or will different
measures be pursued?
Different kinds of measures appropriate to the challenges we
face. We are trying to persuade these countries that they should give up
these activities. If they don't, they will have to bear the
consequences.
Turning to the Middle East, last week you announced that the
U.S. is once again becoming involved in Middle East peacemaking.
We called for an end to violence. We also called for the end of
incitement to violence. [But] we made clear that there are causes for
the incitement in the eyes of the Palestinians-the occupation and
settlement activity. We are sending over [retired Marine] Gen. Tony
Zinni, who can help to achieve a ceasefire working with the commissions
we expect both sides to establish.
Reportedly, you agreed with Prime Minister Sharon that there
should be seven days of quiet before there could be a ceasefire.
Newspapers have said that remarks on the seven-day period were removed
from your speech.
No draft of my speech ever had a reference to seven days. The
suggestion is that it was taken out because someone did not like it. Not
the case. There is not a new U.S. plan that is going to be imposed. The
only thing that will ever work is something agreed upon between the two
of them.
Former prime minister Ehud Barak, with the aid of President
Clinton, offered what many believed was an incredible deal to the
Palestinians, and they turned it down. Why would they accept it now?
I am not sure they have changed. I am sure the Palestinians
would like to start again at that deal and try to go further.
What do you say to the charge that your speech and the
president's promise of a Palestinian state prove that terrorism works?
It proves no such thing. We are very supportive of Israel. We
will always be there for Israel. But at the same time we are trying to
help Israel and the Palestinians get out of this situation of enmity
they have been in for so many years.
But weren't you motivated by the fact that the Saudis and
Egyptians were demanding action?
We are not doing this because we have any obligation to pay one
side or another off. We are doing it because it is the right thing to
do.
C 2001 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/662416.asp
THE END
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [email protected]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrHhl.bVKZIr
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
