INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”

Guest: Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)

Reporters: Kathy Kiely, USA Today & Ed Epstein, San Francisco Chronicle

Moderator: C-SPAN

TAPE DATE: Friday, July 13, 2007

AIR DATE/TIME: SUNDAY, July 15, 2007 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET

Please use with attribution to C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*

* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network

Please contact Jennifer Moire in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at

202-626-8797 or jmoire@c-span.org for questions

© NCSC

Copyrighted material: use with attribution only

PETER SLEN, HOST: Today on Newsmakers, Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island, is our guest. He’s a member of the Armed Services Committee, and he’s Chairman of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee. And currently he’s working on a bill in the Senate to withdraw the troops from Iraq.

Here to question him, Kathy Kiely of USA Today and Ed Epstein of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Senator Reed, if I may start, we mentioned your bill that you’re working on for troop withdrawal. You have said that you have about 51 votes in support of it. The House has recently passed a bill calling for troop withdrawal.

But neither of those bills are veto proof. What’s the purpose of this exercise?

U.S. SEN. JACK REED, (D-RI): Well, the purpose is to get the strategy right and to set the policy dimensions so that we can stabilize or help stabilize Iraq and also concentrate on what’s in the, I think, the central interest in the national security of the United States.

And so really the attempt is to get the policy changed in a new direction. We’re working to that effort. And I think we’ve made progress over the last several weeks. We’ve attracted bipartisan support.

As you mentioned, Peter, the House passed virtually identical version just yesterday. And we’re poised for a very significant debate next week. And we’re going to try to get it passed.

We have a hurdle in the Senate that the House does not have and that is we need 60 votes to cut off debate and get to a final vote on the measure. And we’re still aiming for 60 – and I don’t know if we’ll get it but we’re going to keep trying.

SLEN: Kathy Kiely.

KATHY KIELY, WASHINGTON REPORTER, USA TODAY: Senator, what’s the timing? When do you expect this debate to come to a head on your particular amendment? And does it help you to wait? Or is it better to do this vote earlier in the week?

REED: I believe that we’ll begin Monday and, you know, carry through perhaps Tuesday and Wednesday. I don’t think there’s an advantage – significant advantage of waiting a few days or going ahead. I think we’re committed to try to go ahead.

KIELY: Well, last week you had the House vote. But really there were only four Republicans not major defections in the House. And you also had a report from the president, an interim report on the situation in Iraq.

Can you talk about how those two moments might affect the debate in the Senate?

REED: Well, there’s a couple of reports that have emerged this week. One was a report in the newspaper, an intelligence estimate, that al-Qaida has in fact reconstituted itself, particularly in the Pakistan/Afghani border areas, and that I think a lot of people are really wondering across the country what’s been happening in the last six years and questioning sort of the huge investment of resources in Iraq when in fact the existential threat, the people who are daily and ruthlessly plotting to attack this country, seems to have been able to reestablish themselves.

That’s one report I think that bears on this debate. The second, as you point out, is the benchmark reports coming out of Iraq which shows on the surface mixed progress. But when you probe beneath, the real critical issue is very little or no progress at all, the political issues, the legal actions by the Iraqi government to redistribute oil properties, profits, to incorporate more of the Sunni community into their government. No progress at all.

And I was there last weekend. And the prospect of anything changing over the next several weeks or months, certainly through September, are very bleak indeed. So we’re ready, I think, for a vote on the policy. I don’t think we have to wait.

I got the impression from General Petraeus that he wasn’t waiting. Now he might be overruled by people in the White House and, you know, wait until September. But he seemed very eager to come forward as quickly as possible with a new direction and policy.

ED EPSTEIN, WASHINGTON REPORTER, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: Do you think the fact that only four Republicans in the House voted for the Democratic bill is going to hurt your efforts, is going to lead some Republicans to say I’m not going to take that lead?

REED: No.

EPSTEIN: I’ll stay with the president.

REED: I don’t think so. I think what we’ve seen first is we have got the three Republican co-sponsors, Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Hagel, and Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, three very well respected, very well regarded individuals who have made the decision that we need to change this policy.

And in addition is there’s a lot of interest by Republicans who previously were staunchly against any type of change in policy, legislative change policy. They’re talking about proposals that in some respects are very similar.

I know Senator Collins in Maine is talking about a proposal that essentially encompasses our missions, the new redefined and more discreet missions. And she’s talking about doing that, you know, giving the president instructions to do it immediately.

That’s a shift, I think. And then we’re seeing Senator Warren, Senator Lugar, talking about, you know, setting the ground after September for a new policy direction. So I don’t think what happened in the House is going to bear directly on the Senate. I think what has happened here is individual senators are very conscientiously, very sincerely, trying to come up with what they think is the right policy of the country.

EPSTEIN: But some of the Republican senators have kind of jumped ship on the policy and recently said they won’t vote your amendment. They don’t want to vote for a withdrawal time table yet. They say wait until September or come up with a different proposal.

REED: Well…

EPSTEIN: Do you think that you’re – my question I guess is – so your proposal next week, the Reed-Levin (ph) proposal, this is just going to be the forerunner? Is there a possible room for a compromise with these Republicans who are coming over to your side?

REED: …well, we think – we think this is the best policy going forward in the substance. That’s why we’re so engaged in trying to advance it.

In general terms, I would hope that we could start, you know, having some common ground. But I think there’s some element that has to be included within a – any position that emerges from the Senate and to the House, and that is firstly we have to initiate in this withdrawal, not dictate numbers, timing, to the battalion and platoon.

But there has to be a certain sense. And it’s going to begin. And then I think the other factors – and we have to change the missions. This open-ended mission of population protection are frankly, you know, developing democracy in Iraq. It’s just not sustainable.

The salient point that comes back to me time and time again talking to people, at least informally in the Pentagon, is that beyond next April, the ability of the American military to sustain 160,000 troops, it vanishes.

So if we’re talking about from now to April, let’s start talking about a new direction, better missions. And the final point, we’ve got to get a strategy, not a military approach, but a strategy, diplomatic, economic, engaging a regional neighbors, engaging the world community. That has to be part of it, too.

If we can talk about shaping those elements as something, there’s a possibility of I think picking up additional Republicans. And that – I think that discussion is going on. Sometimes the discussion in the Senate is not too much directly face to face, but it’s what you’re putting in your amendment versus what’s in other amendments.

I’m seeing a lot of common elements here, particularly this change to more discreet missions. And that’s encouraging to me.

KIELY: Senator, you said you’re seeing these common elements and you would like to find some common ground. The other Senator Reid, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, last week kind of indicated he’s not so interested in compromising. He was strongly in favor of your proposal.

REED: Yes.

KIELY: But he said he wouldn’t vote for a compromise measure that Ken Salazar, one of your Democratic colleagues, is helping to propound with Republicans because it doesn’t, in his view, have teeth in it.

So doesn’t this look an awful lot like Democrats are just trying to hold Republicans’ feet to the fire? I mean, when are we going to see people actually working together towards a common goal.

REED: Well, I mean, I – you know, we are working together. I think it’s very significant that we have three Republican senators, original co-sponsors of our amendment.

KIELY: That still doesn’t get you to 60.

REED: It doesn’t get us to 60. But when people – you know, several months ago when there was very few people that would approach – particularly Republicans – the Reed-Levin (ph) language, we first submitted that in June of ’06. And when I think we received 39 votes. Not even all the Democrats.

So we’ve been moving forward. And that’s the nature – it’s frustrating at times, but that’s the nature of legislative activity. So I would sort of say, well, you know, no one’s working together. It’s not, it is bipartisan. And it’s sincerely bipartisan.

And these common threads and other legislative proposals suggest also that there’s movement in substance. And I support Harry’s point because I think we’re at the point, not just where we are but where the American people are in which they’re looking for real change, substantive change, that works or our best effort at that.

KIELY: Right. But it sounds like you could end up at the end of this week with your vote, your amendment maybe getting a majority, probably getting a majority in the Senate but not the super majority that it needs to pass, maybe Senator Warner and Lugar’s amendment getting a vote.

But it sounds like you might end up with all these disparate signals to the president but no piece of legislation that will actually pass. Is it better to just have these votes? Or is better to actually get a piece of legislation through the Senate?

REED: Well, I don’t think those are mutually exclusive. I think you’ve got to have the results (ph) to start working on a legislative proposal that will surmount the 60 vote procedural margin.

KIELY: And when do you think you’ll get that? This week?

REED: I hope so. But I’m, you know, I’m working as hard as I can to do that. But frankly I think if you look back just two or three weeks ago, the idea that we’d be here this week with a bipartisan initiative that has real, as Harry says, has real teeth, and I think responses to strategic demands of the country at the moment that is getting very good reviews by the American public that they want this change in direction.

I think that’s progress. And that’s within a few weeks that’s, I think, is a significant step forward. And I think obviously, as you suggest by your questions and Ed’s questions, the pressure’s building.

And it’s not – it’s the pressure of the American people ultimately.

EPSTEIN: So what do you think are the odds that by the time Congress leaves in early August, if you do leave in early August, that there will be a legislation passed by the Senate where you can get 60 votes for something that has binding measures in it, it has teeth in it, as Senator Harry Reid would say.

REED: We’ve got a majority now. It’ll be much more difficult to get to 60 votes. And I, you know, we’re going to keep – all I can say is we’re going to try. I’m going to try very sincerely.

EPSTEIN: The Democrats – anti-war Democrats in the Congress are criticized both from the right and the left. The right says this is – you’re playing into al-Qaida’s hands and the left says you’re not doing enough to end the war.

And is this just going to be – I think the Washington Post had an analysis today saying there’s just be a summer of stalemate. Is this just more jawboning by the Congress or…

REED: Well, it’s not jawboning by now. And again, I’ve been consistent in my approach to this for over a year at a time when we weren’t attracting the kind of bipartisan support of what we had today or even the unanimous, or virtually unanimous, support of the Democratic caucus.

And, you know, we are in a situation, I believe, of not just trying to make rhetorical statements but trying to change this policy in a way that would be beneficial for the country. And any time you do that you invite criticism from all sides, particularly from the farthest reaches of the political spectrum, both sides of the spectrum.

EPSTEIN: Many of the Republicans who spoke yesterday in the House said, why are we doing this in July? It’s just a re-run. It’s just talk, talk, talk. And besides, we, the Congress, order General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to report back to us, what is it, September 15th. “Why aren’t we waiting for that? That’s the definitive report to act. Why aren’t we waiting?”

REED: Well, I think, again, I was surprised, I must confess, in a personal conversation with General Petraeus last weekend in Baghdad where he went out of his way to say, “I think I’m going to be able to say something before the end of August.”

Now that again might have been overruled. But that was my distinct impression from our personal conversation.

So I think he understands. And here’s what I think is happening within the ranks of the military and the Pentagon. They know that come April of next year, the ability to generate 160,000 troops is virtually impossible unless you adopt Draconian personnel.

KIELY: Explain why that is.

REED: Well, because of the need to rest forces, the need to go and call up Reserve units, National Guard brigades. One of the things they’ve done over the last sort of deployment cycle is try to emphasize regular forces to rest the National Guard.

If you keep this level of troops up, you have to generate more forces. It’s simple arithmetic. That just puts huge pressure on.

So instead of 15 months – now remember, the only – the major way they’re doing this deployment is extending towards the 15 months. They’re looking at even further if they want to keep this up indefinitely.

KIELY: To extending the tours of the regular forces or…

REED: Regular forces.

KIELY: …the Guard and Reserve?

REED: Everybody that goes in. If you have a National Guard brigade and you mobilize them, you’re going to have to – you’re not going to be able to differentiate between a National Guard or a regular troop because frankly it’s one army, as it should be.

So you’re talking about extended tours. You’re talking about reliance on stop loss to prevent people to leave the service. You’re talking about…

KIELY: And when you say stop loss, in other words somebody who’s up for retirement or able to muster out or would not be allowed to do that.

REED: Exactly. They fulfilled their entire enlistment term and probably serving with distinction and credibility and gallantry but they’re told they can’t leave.

KIELY: And do you – do you sense that there is concern from the people you talk to in Pentagon that that is unsustainable? I mean, what is your intent from…

REED: Absolutely. My sense is that they understand this. And they also understand that, you know, it gets more complicated rather than less past April.

KIELY: So let me ask you this. You went to Iraq. The same week you were in Iraq, John McCain was in Iraq.

REED: Right.

KIELY: The two of you came back and said pretty similar things. You said the political situation is horrendous. The military is making some progress. Similar assessments but you came up with diametrically different conclusions about what you should do. John McCain is up there saying we’ve got to stay the course.

What – can you explain why you came to such different conclusions? And, you know, Senator McCain certainly has his credentials and he’s very passionate about this. Have you talked to him and…

REED: I think – not in the detailed, extended conversation. I’m not going to try to explain Senator McCain’s position. I wouldn’t presume to do that. I have consistently thought that this strategy going back to October of 2002 was the wrong strategy.

And I think over time it’s been borne out by the developments. They’re reconstituted al-Qaida. That’s the threat. That’s the 9/11 threat that’s still looming out there. And they’ve gotten stronger in the intervening years.

We’ve enhanced the strategic power of Iran. One reason is because we are in Iraq, because the government of al-Maliki and his colleagues have as close ties to some Iranian element as they do to United States. In fact, even closer in some cases.

We have a situation where the Army and the land forces and the Marine Corps in particular are at the point of not exhaustion but the wear and tear is palpable. And they’re sensing it. And they’re going to have difficulty generating these forces.

And then within Iraq itself, the key issue here is not tactical disposition or troops on the ground. It’s the political will of the Iraqi leadership to do tough things, which has not been manifested. And frankly, going back to Ed’s question, why wait until September, I don’t believe – and I don’t think anyone else does – that they’re going to take dramatic actions the next two or three weeks to pass complicated legislation to embrace the Sunni community.

In fact, I feel that this government, this al-Maliki government, the sheer dominating of it, together with the current field (ph), they’ve won. And they’re paranoid about losing in to the Sunnis. The idea of reconciliation is very difficult.

And so what you’re seeing is all these factors on the ground that suggest it’s difficult – I would say impossible – to sustain, just stay the course.

EPSTEIN: Do you – when you – you said you met with General Petraeus and he indicted be ready to report before September.

REED: Yes.

EPSTEIN: Did you get any indication, any feeling from him and other officers you spoke to, about what that report would say? Did they feel this has been a success?

REED: Well, I think for several factors. One is that a commander, General Petraeus and his ward of commanders – and they’re outstanding officers and very courageous and decent people. Because they lead soldiers in battle, they have to, I think – and not in any cynical way, but their heart and soul is with those troops. And they’re not going to say that what they’ve done has been an abject failure. They can’t do that.

And frankly it hasn’t been. But I think they also have to recognize – and this I think goes more to the president than General Petraeus. And one of the – one of the things about the president, I think, he is mistaken about seriously is that this has to be his strategy. He’s the commander in chief.

General Petraeus is a subordinate officer who will give him military advice, just like General Pace and others. But ultimately he’s the commander in chief. And the – continuous really (ph) Dodge is saying, “Well, we have to wait. Petraeus has all the answers,” is, I think, not only unbecoming but it’s not the way this should work...

KIELY: Let me ask you…

REED: …because he has to integrate not just tactical dispositions but all the political things we’ve talked about, the diplomatic things.

Petraeus doesn’t have a good window on that. Maybe Crocker has a little better. But where is the point where all these things come together? The president. And rather than just saying, “Well, wait for Petraeus,” the president I think has to start leading more aggressively.

EPSTEIN: Why should Iran and Syria kind of help us? What’s in it for them?

REED: The only reason they’ll help us is if they can see some self interest. And the self interest there is that – and this is something we have to convince them if it’s not obvious to them, is that a chaotic Iraq, an unstable Iraq, is going to be hurtful to them.

They have to recognize that chaos on their border is not a good thing. And I, you know, again, they might not be – they might not be sophisticated enough or astute enough to sense that. That’s part of what our diplomatic – maybe not just…

EPSTEIN: But wouldn’t – if you were an Iranian leader, wouldn’t you want your old enemy, Iraq, to be either chaotic or…

REED: No. I would want it to…

EPSTEIN: …have a Shi’a state then?

REED: …I want it to have a Shi’a – I would want to have a government that was friendly. But also I would see the strategic advantage of seeing us tied down there.

In fact, one of the aspects of the strategy might be if we are no longer as decisively engaged there, that is not something that if I was in Tehran in their leadership, I would see as a blessing frankly because I think that would give us more strategic flexibility.

One of the problems we have with Iran today is that we have 160,000 troops there and a government that has very close ties with them with elements of Iranian intelligence and sympathetic Iraqis who can, in fact, counteract what we do against them by directly going after us there.

That’s not a strategic strength. That’s a strategic vulnerability.

KIELY: Senator, you talked about General Petraeus’ – what you think is his unwillingness to critique the strategy because he’s commanding troops on the ground.

One of the criticisms that’s being made by Republicans that was certainly made very pointedly in the House debate was that by raising these issues and raising these doubts about the strategy, your undercutting troops who are on the ground.

And the point that’s being made by some of your critics is you’ve got to – raising this will sort of undercut morale and make it more difficult. You’ve put people out there. Now support them is the argument.

What’s your response?

REED: Well, first there is absolutely no intention to undercut the troops that are out there. And I would argue…

KIELY: There is no intention, but how do you – how do you (INAUDIBLE)…

REED: …well, I think first of all on the ground, I mean, I think we have most sophisticated and the best military forces we’ve ever fielded.

I think they do recognize this debate is going on. In fact, they recognize that within America – and in fact our hope is that some day might even take place in Baghdad, that there is truly political debate, discussion, differences to air out, and policies change by legislative process, by legal process.

So I think the understanding is not just as a civic lesson but I think they understand it.

KIELY: But do you think it affects the morale?

REED: Well, I can tell you the morale I’ve seen out there has been excellent. I, you know, and I’m not naive enough to say that – you know, to assume that they’re holding back a bit.

But I have not seen indications that the morale is being affected by this debate. We talked to – a lot of troops went out to Patrol Base Murray (ph) right out in the heart of the fight in new dispositions. We talked to troops and obviously thanked them, too, besides talking to them.

We talked to young majors in the force air cavalry division. They – there was not this, you know, “We’re being abandoned.” They have some real concerns themselves.

I mean, a lot of these troops were there a year ago. And they told us, you know, we were doing this…

KIELY: Can you give us an example without telling us names of what was the most significant concern that was expressed to you by the…

REED: Well, I think the most significant story is that, you know, they were here a year ago or two years ago doing the same things. They came back, the situation had deteriorated. They’re doing the same things they were doing two years ago: civic action, cleaning out the bad guys.

And they are getting to the point where they’re saying, “If we come back a year from now, we’ll be doing the same thing, seeing the same bad guys appear, et cetera.”

KIELY: If your amendment is approved, can the troops be withdrawn safely? How would that work?

REED: Well, first, there’s – I think it’s useful to talk about the amendment – there would be a date to initiate a withdrawal 120 days after passage which allows for appropriate planning. But also it doesn’t mandate how many troops, what time, et cetera.

That is the appropriate providence of the commander in chief and subordinate commanders.

Second, it would require transition to three discreet missions by April of next year. Those missions first, force protection. We cannot let American soldiers, Marines, sailors, men and women be out there without everything they need to protect themselves.

Second mission, counter terrorism. There are al-Qaida elements there, much exaggerated I think by the administration. But we have to be able to go after – oh, by the way, we should be going after them not just in Iraq but in Somalia as we did.

And I would think also somehow with the help of the Musharraf government in Pakistan where they seem to be thriving. And the third mission is training Iraqi security forces.

And we leave kind of the parameters of those missions, as it should be, to the military commander. But the force protection is central.

EPSTEIN: How many – how many forces you have would stay under that formula, do you think? What’s the estimate?

REED: Well, I think first I think it would be a significant reduction from the present forces of 160,000. We have not asked for an estimate. In fact, I think in the current mode of the White House and the Pentagon of we’re not saying to – I think they would be difficult to get such an estimate.

KIELY: But don’t you leave the door open for the president then to just take out 20 people and say, “I did it, I reduced the force.”

REED: You know, there’s no way that we can prevent the president from evading the law. In fact, I think given what he and the vice president have done in many different areas, that’s palpable.

KIELY: So why not put in a number?

REED: But we have – well, no, because we have to, I think, do what we think is in the best interest of the country and is the most feasible operationally. I mean, perhaps I’m old fashioned. But, you know, if we’re going to give troops their mission, let’s give them the mission and let the commanders figure out what they can do.

But, you know, we have to do what I think is sensible and what, in fact, will advance the interest of this country. And I think that’s why we’re engaged in this serious debate.

SLEN: We are out of time. And Senator Jack Reed, one final question. As Chairman of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan. Reports are up of violence in Afghanistan. And also about another aircraft carrier off – a U.S. aircraft carrier sailing off the coast of Iran.

Is Iran an emerging threat? And is there a chance of military action against Iran?

REED: Iran is not an emerging threat. I would argue is it was a more serious threat than Iraq even two or three years ago because it’s at a much more, I think, much more aligned with terrorist groups and also much more capable of generating military forces and more adroit and adept than Saddam ever was at both diplomacy, military, covert actions, et cetera.

So it is definitely a threat. The carriers is, I think, the proverbial, you know, speak softly and carry a big stick approach, which is basically sending the message that if Iran goes across whatever the trip wire line the president has established then there is the – limited capacity for military operation.

But my sense, and it goes back to a point I made with Ed, is that this would be a different calculation if we didn’t have 160,000 American troops in close proximity to our allies who are also allies of the Iranians who are influenced in some – in significant ways by the Iranians.

I mean, this is a vulnerability, not a strength. And just, you know, look at the frustrating sort of evidence that’s emerging by our military people of explosive form of projectiles coming in, they think, from Iran, of agents in Iran. And we are sort of tied down because, you know, I don’t think anyone knows what the reaction of a striking – any type of action would be within Baghdad itself within our allies.

So for those reasons, and also I think for greater reasons of sort of the ability of our military to now engage Iran given our overextension to Iraq, the likelihood of military action, I think, is very low.

That means we have to really be aggressive with our diplomatic actions. We have to do things that this administration seems to be unwilling or unable to do: engagement, real engagement with respect to the Palestinian and Israeli situation, real engagement in the region, attempting to pull the Syrians away from the Iranians.

If that’s the weak link, let’s exploit it diplomatically. None of that is being done. And nothing is being done creatively. And I think we should get active diplomatically immediately because Iran is a significant threat to our interest.

SLEN: And Afghanistan?

REED: Afghanistan is deteriorating. The largest producer of opium in the world now is turning into, unfortunately, a not-go economy which has very unfortunate implications for the stability there.

NATO is now taking a lead. They’re not able, I think, to generate all the forces, the necessary forces. We have troops there. They’re getting increasingly difficult. And again, if you look at the strategy this administration has pursued, instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, they pivoted and conducted an operation in Iraq which is complicated, contentious, and to date not being satisfactorily concluded and drawing off huge resources that more properly I think could have devoted to Afghanistan and also, indirectly at least, Pakistan.

I think the key to Afghanistan is what’s happening in Pakistan. And there is a situation that is – it’s also very serious.

SLEN: Our guest on Newsmakers has been Senator Jack Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee. Kathy Kiely of USA Today and Ed Epstein have been our reporters.

Thanks for joining us.

END