Transcript
JAMES LINDSAY: Thank you. I'd like to welcome you to another in a series of Brookings press briefings on the United States campaign against terrorism. Today we once again have a group of distinguished scholars to talk about various aspects of the campaign. I am joined at the podium by my colleague Mike O'Hanlon, who is a senior fellow here at Brookings; also joined by Shibley Telhami, who is a nonresident senior fellow and a professor of government and holder of the Anwar Sadat Peace Chair at the University of Maryland, and my colleague, Roberta Cohen, senior fellow here at Brookings.
As everybody knows, last night the president held a major, prime-time press conference, the first prime-time press conference held by a president since 1995. Clearly the President's objective was to reassure the American public that the Administration is moving, making progress in its campaign against terrorism. And as the President made that speech what is remarkable is that he has what can only be described as unprecedented public support behind him.
In the days since the bombing campaign began on Sunday, a variety of polls have been conducted in the American public and they show that by a number greater than nine out of ten Americans support the President's actions, even though equally large numbers in the polls acknowledge that the campaign is likely to be hard, it is likely to be difficult, it is likely to be costly.
To put that in perspective, the poll results you're seeing from the first few days of this campaign are remarkably more supportive than the American public was in the opening day of the Gulf War campaign where public support for the war topped out initially in the low 70s, so it's about a 20 percentage point gap. As someone who's been studying Congress and foreign policy for two decades and American public opinion, you can't find unanimity like this on any other issue of any major substance.
I think the American support for the campaign against terrorism clearly carries over to politics. We have a remarkable degree of bipartisan support on the Hill. Even, for example, after the President announced he was cutting off briefings to key Members of Congress because of what he perceived to be unacceptable leaks, there was some grumbling on the Hill. What was remarkable was how little grumbling there was.
Likewise the President through Condoleezza Rice made the very unusual request to the American news media to reconsider airing Mr. bin Laden's videos on American television, and rather than leading to a public protest, many of the news media acknowledged it and are in serious discussions about how they should treat such issues.
So I think it's really important to underscore how different the politics of the campaign on terrorism are from much of what we've been used to over the past several decades.
The obvious question that follows from that is can it be sustained? That is, will the American public stand behind the campaign against terrorism, especially if, as President Bush said last night, it may take a year or two.
Now clearly, many people are arguing the fact that the American public will prove to be casualty phobic in the words of, I think it was Saddam Hussein, "Americans don't have the lungs for the ardor of losing lots of blood." And in this case I think it's really important to underscore how different this campaign is than let's say Somalia or Lebanon—both cases in which the United States reversed course after losing forces. Again, in Somalia, what happened was 18 Army Rangers died in October of 1993. America's policy quickly changed... What's important there, what the American public focused on then as to Lebanon was not simply on the cost but what did they stand to gain from this operation? And I think Americans at the end of the day, in the case of Somalia, where Lebanon asked the question what are we getting out of this adventure, and the Administration couldn't come up with a compelling answer to that.
I think when we talk today about the campaign against terrorism, I think the President will be able to make a pretty compelling answer as to what's at stake. One need only watch the video of the World Trade Center collapsing to have that point driven home.
And again, for those who worry that Americans don't have the stomach for this, let me take us back to the war against Vietnam or in Vietnam, which belies the notion of a casualty-phobic American public. In that case, I point out in 1973 after eight years of war, nearly 60,000 American soldiers dead and not much to show for it, more than 40 percent of the American public favored staying in Vietnam. So I want to underscore the likelihood of American commitment.
Obviously playing into the American public's ongoing support for the war is going to be this battle for hearts and minds. Last night the President spoke about the need to make a better case, a better job of making our case to the public in the Middle East, in the Islamic world. I think he's actually fighting for the hearts and minds not only abroad, but here at home as well.
In terms of fighting for the hearts and minds abroad, clearly the evidence last night on the Children's Relief Fund of American children to provide a dollar each for Afghan children, I think also the appeal by the President to Americans to remain tolerant, not single out Arab Americans or Muslim Americans, people who might appear to be either, for harassment and violence clearly is designed to continue to make this argument to the Arab and Islamic world that the United States is not engaged in a war on Islam or a war on the Arab world.
Now Shibley obviously can talk about the extent to which that is likely to get much traction outside the United States, but I want to emphasize that those appeals also resonate home politically. Those are also designed to remind Americans and our allies abroad that there is justice adjustment to the American cause.
Conversely I would point out that obviously Mr. Bush is not the only one playing for hearts and minds. Mr. bin Laden and his associates are releasing videos, clearly are trying to influence public opinion particularly in the Arab and Islamic world. He's been hailed for his masterly use of video and modern technology to put his message out and to mobilize the public, and particularly his sudden decision to move the Palestinian issue up to the top of the issues mobilizing him.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that when Mr. bin Laden does this he may be galvanizing Arab and Muslim public, but he's also galvanizing Western and American public against him. It's a two-edged sword. Again, I think Mr. bin Laden's video last Sunday was quite clear on his attitude towards Americans and his goal.
This of course raises a broader set of questions about what American policy will be, American foreign policy. I think last night the President emphasized two important things in the short term. One is that the United States is going to be engaged in nation building. We're not going to call it nation building. I believe the term of art now is stabilization of a future government, which is a mouthful. But clearly, we're going to do it. We're not going to turn around and walk away from Afghanistan. It's a major commitment.
Obviously the President, given the campaign promise last year, is not going to embrace the term nation building. Mr. Blair may call it nation building. We'll call it something else, but we'll be doing the same thing.
The second thing quite significant last night was the President called for a role for the United Nations. He's going to bring the United Nations into the process process of providing long term stabilization in Af