The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of the day. Two eyewitness reports on the brutal civil war in Liberia. The escalating tension with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. And, as the war in Iraq continues, the history of America's role as military occupier.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: The U.S. embassy in Liberia came under mortar fire today, as heavy fighting engulfed the capital city of Monrovia. At least 90 people died in battles between rebels and government forces. A number of bodies were piled in front of the American embassy, to urge the U.S. to take action. A small contingent of U.S. Marines arrived at the embassy to bolster security and help with evacuations. In Crawford, Texas, today, President Bush, who has said the U.S. may offer limited help, commented on the crisis.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We just sent a group of troops in to protect our interests and we're concerned about our people in Liberia. We'll continue to monitor the situation very closely. We're working with the United Nations to affect policy necessary to get the cease-fire back in place.

GWEN IFILL: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has signed deployment orders to send 4,500 sailors and marines from the Horn of Africa to the Mediterranean Sea, closer to the West Coast of Africa. That's in case they are needed in Liberia. We'll have more on this in just a moment. The third deadly attack on U.S. and U.N. personnel in the past 48 hours killed two and injured three people in Baghdad today. We have a report from Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News.

LOUISE BATES: The explosive device was detonated as the convoy passed by, killing a U.S. soldier and his Iraqi interpreter. Three other soldiers were also injured in the attack, which occurred at 10:30 local time. An Iraqi man working at a nearby store helped pull the wounded from the vehicles.

COL. JOHN KEM, U.S. Army: It's important to note that the Iraqi people were very helpful. One of the men who worked at one of the stands nearby was the first person on the scene, and he assisted in helping the soldiers out of the vehicle, which probably saved at least one soldier's life.

LOUISE BATES: The injured troops, who were from the First Armored Division, were Medivaced out of the area. The U.S. Army said an Iraqi fire truck arrived at the scene and put the blaze out. A spokesman described the attack as an "everyday occurrence."

LT. ALEX KASARDA, U.S. Army: When something like that happens, of course, you're going to be a little bit more concerned. You're going to have it in the back of your head. But it's something as a soldier that you deal with it.

LOUISE BATES: 152 U.S. soldiers have now been killed in action since hostilities began, five more than during the 1991 Gulf War. In an effort to lower the profile of American forces, the new U.S. military chief in Iraq has announced plans to create an Iraqi militia, numbering almost 7,000.

GWEN IFILL: Yesterday two U.S. soldiers were killed in a grenade attack outside the northern city of Mosul. And a U.N. relief worker died in an ambush on a convoy near Hilla, south of the capital. Saudi Arabia said today it has arrested 16 militants who were plotting "terrorist attacks" on Saudi targets. The government news agency said the roundup occurred in Riyadh and elsewhere north and east of the capital. Security forces seized underground caches of weapons, explosives, and bomb-making materials. It's not clear when the arrests took place. In May, three suicide bombings in Riyadh killed 35 people, including nine Americans Thirty-four out of one thousand allegations of civil rights abuses under the Patriot Act have been found to be "credible." That's according to a report released today by the inspector general of the Justice Department. The IG's office is required by the new anti-terrorism law to monitor charges of abuse arising from its enforcement. The claims came in over a six- month period from December, 2002, to June, 2003. Most were from Muslims or people of Arab descent, who claimed they'd been mistreated during detentions following 9/11. Massachusetts will not file state criminal charges against Catholic Church leaders in Boston. Attorney General Thomas Reilly today confirmed a report that former Cardinal Bernard Law and his aides would not be prosecuted for moving sexually abusive priests from parish to parish. Law resigned as archbishop in December. A lawyer representing more than 100 alleged victims of abuse said he was disappointed by the attorney general's decision.

MITCHELL GARABEDIAN, Victim's Attorney: I think he has to apply laws that are outdated, that are very old, and since the priests and the supervisor of priests were able to keep this a secret for so long, the statute of limitations worked in the favor of the priests and the supervisor of priests.

GWEN IFILL: About 500 civil suits have been filed against the Boston archdiocese. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 91 points to close below 9097. The NASDAQ fell 27 points to close at 1681. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the war in Liberia; nuclear weapons in North Korea; and American military occupations, past and present.

UPDATE - TURMOIL

GWEN IFILL: Now the Liberia story, and, once again, to Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News.

LOUISE BATES: Mortar shells have hit the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in the Liberian capital, Monrovia. The U.S. Military officials said one round hit a building in the compound. Shells also landed around diplomatic residential compound where 10,000 Liberians are seeking shelter. One shell hit the compound located across the street from the embassy, killing at least 25. Distraught Liberians lined up 18 bodies in front of the embassy building. Residents ran for cover as rebel fighters and those loyal to President Charles Taylor engaged in a battle for the city. Taylor has vowed to fight to the last man in Monrovia, his only remaining strong hold.

PRESIDENT CHARLES TAYLOR: We will fight street to street, house to house,.

LOUISE BATES: Mortars pounded the capital for two hours. Earlier 41 U.S. Marines flew in to strengthen security at the embassy compound.

LT. COMDR. TERENCE DULEY, U.S. Navy: We're inserting 41 U.S. Marines from the free anti-terrorism security team, into the U.S. Embassy compound.

LOUISE BATES: The marines are assisting with evacuations. Helicopters took 25 to 30 foreign aid workers and some foreign journalists to safety.

GWEN IFILL: For the latest on the developments inside Monrovia, we're joined by Ann Simmons of the Los Angeles Times. She joins us by phone from that city. Ann, we have seen and we have heard about what looks like chaos going on right now in Monrovia. Describe the scene to us.

ANN SIMMONS: It's been a very intense day, Gwen. There has been a lot of mortar fire, gunfire, grenades-- basically shells raining throughout the city. There have been a lot of lives lost. The last count we've gotten, it's been 90 dead and more than 300 injured. Mortars have been basically raining down on Monrovia today. There is chaos. Civilians are running-- scrambling, basically-- to find shelter. Many of them have moved into the compounds of housing complexes, into schools and other public buildings. Many of them have found refuge not too far from the U.S. Embassy compound. But it's not safe at all, because there's no telling where a mortar might drop.

GWEN IFILL: You mentioned the U.S. Embassy compound. That's where there was so much activity today: Bodies being piled up outside the door, mortar was falling directly. Has the U.S. Embassy compound ever been involved in this, as long as this uprising has been going on?

ANN SIMMONS: Well, officials have said that until today the U.S. Embassy compound had not really taken any fire. It certainly had not been hit by a shell. The commissary, in fact, was hit today by a shell, and there were several mortars that fell around the building. Now, the embassy officials had said that they had a few stray bullets come into the compound, but certainly they had never experienced this kind of a barrage, so this is new.

GWEN IFILL: We had heard, and certainly reported, that Charles Taylor, the president of Liberia, had made a deal with the president of Nigeria to accept exile there. Yet he seems to be sticking, literally, by his guns and staying in Monrovia. Where was he during all this today?

ANN SIMMONS: As far as we know, the president is still in Monrovia. He has not made an appearance, so it's difficult to say exactly where his whereabouts are right now. President Taylor has said that he is going to stick by his people. On Saturday he said that he and his men were going to fight street to street, door to door until these rebels had been crushed. He does not intend to leave Monrovia, according to him... according to his words, until peacekeepers have arrived. So for the time being, President Taylor is certainly still entrenched in Monrovia.

GWEN IFILL: And President Bush has said he won't send peacekeepers until Charles Taylor has left. Is there resentment that's building in that country at all towards the United States for not having moved... sent peacekeepers or any kind of military in so far to guard anything aside from their own property?

ANN SIMMONS: Oh, most definitely. There's a rising level of frustration and disappointment. Everyone you talk to on the streets of Liberia will say, "Please, let the U.S. send troops; let them send troops to help us get out of this mess." They consider themselves to be a colony of the United States. As you know, the country was settled by freed American slaves. And many people here consider the U.S. to be a big brother of Liberia. There is growing resentment. In fact, today there were several people hurling stones and rocks at the embassy compound building. Others were screaming that the U.S. has blood on its hands. And that was one of the reasons why they decided to pile up the bodies in front of the U.S. Embassy. It was more of a statement to say, "Look, this is what's happening here, and we feel abandoned." And people you talk to on the streets will say that. They feel abandoned, they feel the U.S. has forsaken them.

GWEN IFILL: What happened to the plan to involve other West African countries in kind of a regional peacekeeping force to help stem some of this violence?

ANN SIMMONS: As far as it stands, Gwen, that plan still stands. Butthere has been no exact date as to when peacekeepers from the neighboring West African countries might come in. There is still a level of hesitation. And ECOAS, which is the peacekeeping force in the region, has pledged troops to this operation. But there is still no indication as to when those troops might arrive. But there is still no indication as to when those troops might arrive. Many Liberians will tell you at the moment we want any kind of peacekeepers to come in, but many of them feel that the U.S. is more reliable, and they have more trust in the U.S. because of their experience with Eco-Mug forces in the past in the early '90s. Many of them believe that Eco-Mug or West African peacekeepers may give some kind of cover to President Charles Taylor, so they really want the U.S.

GWEN IFILL: Everybody is waiting on the U.S., it sounds like.

ANN SIMMONS: That's correct, Gwen, and that's what you will hear today on the streets of Monrovia. And to be honest, there was a lot of excitement, a lot of welcoming, greetings from Liberians on the streets for expatriates in general, and especially for Americans. And that has turned a little sour. Now people are saying, "what's going on? Why have we been forgotten? Don't we count?"

GWEN IFILL: All right. Ann Simmons from the Los Angeles Times. Stay safe.

ANN SIMMONS: Thanks very much, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: Now, for the humanitarian situation in Monrovia. For that, we're joined by Muktar Farah. He heads the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for Liberia. He was evacuated earlier today with the rest of the U.N.'S international staff, from Liberia to neighboring sierra Leone. He joins us by phone from that country's capital, Freetown. Welcome, Mr. Farah.

MUKTAR FARAH: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: How was the evacuation today? We have seen the reports of much... of mortar shelling, gunfire, of pretty much chaos in Liberia's capital. How dangerous was it for you to evacuate?

MUKTAR FARAH: Yeah, it was really very dangerous. I left Monrovia seven hours ago when the fighting has intensified. Heavy mortar shells falling in various parts of the city as well as gunfire, wounding houses of residents in the city.

GWEN IFILL: From the point of view of what you were there to do, which is to say the humanitarian work, what was the situation in Monrovia as you left today?

MUKTAR FARAH: The situation was really desperate. We have 100,000 IDP's presently trying to seek protection around the U.S. Embassy in buildings where basically there is no water, there is no electricity. And the food has been running out generally in the whole of the city. We humanitarian workers are not able to reach this population because of the fighting. And we are fearing that soon we will be seeing... if this war is not stopped. Recently, cholera was in the increase. Malaria has been claiming children particularly, and now with no food and water and sanitation, the situation is pretty desperate. The humanitarian community, or the international community, should do something to stop the war in Liberia.

GWEN IFILL: So when you talk about cholera and you talk about hunger, it's hard to prioritize, I know, but what would you say would be the most critical concerns that should be... that you say the international community should be addressing first?

MUKTAR FARAH: The first thing is to really, to protect the civilians. The civilians have really seen the fighting into various parts of the city, and some of them are also left the city, going out of the city, basically nowhere where there no shelter, there's no food, there's no water and sanitation. So really the priority right now is an international force to go into the city and secure all the areas where the civilian population are sheltered.

GWEN IFILL: You left today. Are there any other humanitarian workers still on the ground?

MUKTAR FARAH: Yes. We have the Red Cross, who are busy at the hospital -- the main hospital in Monrovia, which is right now overwhelmed. We have some who have basically turned their houses into hospitals to respond to the situation. Right now the only response we're doing is to address the emergency health needs of the population. We are not able to provide water because we are not able to move anymore to reach this population. So all the food we have in our warehouses at the port, we are not able to reach, so the food situation in general in the city is desperate. And this might really cause a humanitarian disaster, as I said earlier.

GWEN IFILL: I know you're talking about what happened in the city, in the country's capital of Monrovia, which is of course where you were. Is there any way to know what's happening outside of the capital?

MUKTAR FARAH: Well, outside of the capital at the moment, the situation really... the fighting is mainly concentrated in Monrovia. We have not heard of any major fighting outside in the counties. But even there, the humanitarian community was not able to access this location. Basically 80 percent of the country was not accessible. We have IDP's, refugees as well, outside the city, whom we are not able to access at the moment. You can imagine we have not been able to access there for one month. These people are basically foraging for food. They were basically depending on the humanitarian assistance being provided by the humanitarian agencies on the ground. So even out there in the counties the situation is desperate. People cannot farm. They have no means to really survive.

GWEN IFILL: And how much time do you think before something has to happen? How quickly does something have to happen from the outside?

MUKTAR FARAH: We will estimate that something has to happen in two days' time really to save more people from dying. We are looking particularly at the most vulnerable-- children under five-- and they will be dying in thousands due to malnutrition, cholera, malaria, as the most, you know, diseases that is total for this vulnerable population.

GWEN IFILL: All right. Muktar Farah, From the U.N., thank you very much for joining us.

FOCUS - NUCLEAR CHALLENGE

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour, North Korea's nuclear challenge, and American occupations, past and present. Spencer Michels begins the North Korea story.

SPENCER MICHELS: The sense of crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions has intensified this month. Newspaper reports last week revealed that North Korean officials told the Bush administration earlier this month that they had reprocessed "enough plutonium to make half a dozen nuclear bombs." Former Defense Secretary William Perry, who handled the North Korea issue in the Clinton administration, warned last Tuesday in a Washington Post interview that the "nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities." Another warning came later in the week from the chief of the U.N. Atomic Agency, Mohamed elBaradei. He said North Korea poses the "most immediate and most serious threat" to global efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. And over the weekend, the New York Times reported that elevated levels of Krypton 85, a gas emitted during plutonium production, have been detected along North Korea's borders, suggesting a new secret nuclear site. All of this comes in the wake of the North Koreans' admission last October that they had a secret uranium enrichment program, a violation of a 1994 agreement with the U.S. Since then, they have reopened the Yongbyong nuclear plant, and expelled U.N. weapons inspectors. The president has insisted he wants to solve the crisis through multilateral diplomacy, not one-on-one talks that North Korea has demanded. Still, the Pentagon has beefed up its military presence in the region, and officials have said all options remain on the table. The U.S. and some of its allies have also pressed the Chinese to use their leverage to help end the standoff between the U.S. and North Korea. British Prime Minister Tony Blair made his case in Beijing today.

TONY BLAIR: The key thing that has changed in respect of North Korea is there's now pressure here, in this region, from China, from Japan, from South Korea. The pressure from China is particularly important in bringing home to the North Korean regime that they've got to change their position on this nuclear weapons program. Otherwise, this region's stability is threatened. But more importantly, the stability of the wider world is threatened.

SPENCER MICHELS: President Bush addressed the issue in Crawford, Texas, today during a visit with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The desire by the North Koreans to convince the world that they're in the process of developing a nuclear arsenal is nothing new. I mean, we've known that for a while. And therefore, we must continue to work with the neighborhood to convince Kim Jong Il that his decision is an unwise decision.

SPENCER MICHELS: North Korea today restated its demand for a non- aggression treaty with the United States, amid growing expectations of new talks.

GWEN IFILL: Now Margaret Warner has more on developments in North Korea.

MARGARET WARNER: How dangerous is the North Korea situation, and what should the U.S. do about it? For that, we turn to two men with a long history dealing with the issue. William Perry, as we just said, was secretary of defense in the first Clinton administration, and special envoy to North Korea during the second Clinton term. He recently returned from a trip to the region. Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl, a former member of the Intelligence Committee, is co- sponsoring a bill to end all U.S. aid to North Korea, and impose additional sanctions on that country. Welcome to you both.

Secretary Perry, beginning with you, as we just reported you had this rather dire warning in an interview with the Washington Post last week in which you said you thought the nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities. Explain what you meant by that.

WILLIAM PERRY: If North Korea continues on its present course, by the end of the year, I think we'll have about eight nuclear weapons, and next year will be in serial production of about five to ten nuclear weapon as year. I consider this poses an unacceptable risk to our security. This will give them enough weapons to target Japan, South Korea and still have enough plutonium left over to sell to the highest bidder. There are plenty of bidders out there willing to bid for it. And if any of the terror groups are willing to get nuclear weapons or are able to get that plutonium, then we could see it end up in an American city.

MARGARET WARNER: So when you mentioned American cities you weren't saying you thought North Korea could strike American cities with missiles loaded with this stuff, but rather that they would be in a position to sell small but lethal amounts to terrorists?

WILLIAM PERRY: Exactly. I do not think the danger is from North Korea missiles fired at the United States. I think the danger is in selling the plutonium or the weapons to a terror group and the terror groups planning them in an American city covertly.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Kyl, do you see the situation as this dire?

SEN. JON KYL: It could be, and that's the great unknown here. I think instead of the word will, the Secretary Perry uses, I would use the word could. But in either case, he's right that we have got to try to deal with this problem right away. We know that North Korea earns its hard currency by shipping illicit material, for example missile technology that is forbidden by agreements that have been signed by the North Koreans as well as other kinds of weapons of mass destruction material. And if they begin shipping nuclear material or weapons abroad, then obviously the world has a huge problem on its hands. So the time to deal with that is right now. And on that I do agree with Secretary Perry.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think it's possible, Senator, though, that North Korea is bluffing? I notice the president used the terminology that, well, North Korea wants us to think they're at this point. Could they be overstating either what they've already done or what they're capable of doing?

SEN. JON KYL: Yes, they could and probably are overstating the case. But it doesn't detract from the proposition that we know they are making progress, and it's unacceptable that they get to the point the secretary mentioned. That's why it's important not to deal with them by simply sitting down to talk and promising them things, but putting some sticks on the table as well as carrots in order to demonstrate that we mean business, that we are serious and we have the means of enforcing what we are asking them to do.

MARGARET WARNER: Gentlemen, before we get to your prescriptions, let me ask you both, beginning with Secretary Perry, what you think of the administration's policy so far as we. As we reported they have been essentially trying to ratchet up the pressure from Japan, from china, other neighbors on North Korea, at the same time they did go to three-way talks in Beijing with the North Koreans and Chinese in April, I believe. Do you think that's been effective?

WILLIAM PERRY: I cannot truly discern the policy at this point, Margaret. But the approach that's been taken, which is to deal with the other nations, has good and bad points to it. The good point is that this problem clearly concerns China and South Korea and Japan. It's clear that any solution needs to involve those countries. So I think that is good. But I also believe that to solve this problem we have to deal directly with the North Koreans. We cannot outsource the problem as serious to other countries to solve. The consequence of having look to other countries to solve this problem for the last six months is we've gone from where there are fuel rods that are canned and relatively safe to where they are processed. There's no uncertainty about what they have. They have 8,000 cans of spend fuel and there's no uncertainty that they process that, they'll have enough plutonium to make about six bombs. And it has been reported, as you mentioned, that Krypton 85 had been detected coming from North Korea, which means they are processing.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Kyl, how would you grade the administration's approach so far, and what about the point the Secretary Perry made that in the last six, eight months, North Korea does seem to have made progress?

SEN. JON KYL: Well, they've been working on their program. There's absolutely no question about that. The question is what you do about it. And the position that's been taken by the past, in the Clinton administration was you promise them things, they sign on the dotted line to receive the things you promise, and then they keep right on violating the agreements that they've signed. That's the history. So where do you go from here? I think the administration's proliferation security initiative is the right way to go, that's an initiative in which we sit down with ten or twelve other countries to start with and others after that and develop a regime by which we are going to stop the North Koreans from selling this material abroad -- the proliferation problem that we've been talking about. And if we're able to stop that, we achieve two things. First of all, we prevent the proliferation of this material around the world, and secondly we deny the North Koreans hard currency. How do you do that? You can't do it by sitting down with them and talking. Talk is cheap. They're not going to agree to give up the weapons; they didn't develop them for bargaining chips, they developed them for their own national security and to sell them for hard currency. So there's only one way you're going to be able to persuade them to drop their plans and stop this development and stop the proliferation, and that is to let them know that there are consequences, bad consequences to them, if they continue to do that. And that's what this proliferation security initiative is all about. It's economic sanctions, it's interdiction of the transport of these kinds of materials. And then some other things that we'd like to talk about in terms of regime change that are involved in the legislation that I've introduced.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Perry, can the interdiction strategy work here -- whatever they do back in North Korea at least prevent them from exporting any of this, and I suppose with interdiction also prevent them from being able to export other things that enable them to earn hard currency?

WILLIAM PERRY: I think our line of defense really depends on stopping them from getting the weapons and plutonium in the first place. I do not believe it is feasible to stop them from smuggling out plutonium that can make an atomic bomb. It would take a sphere of plutonium about the size of a big grapefruit, or maybe as large as a soccer ball, to make a nuclear bomb. And I have no reason to believe it's possible to have an effective program of stopping them from smuggling out a package that size. Therefore, I'm not satisfied with a solution that calls for interdiction. I want to stop the problem at the source, before they get the plutonium and the nuclear weapons.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Kyl, a quick response on that, that it's a pretty tall order to prevent a smuggling of that amount.

SEN. JON KYL: It's not impossible, we can say please stop doing it, we've give you money, food, we'll build you a nuclear plant. Those are things we've promised in the past and they've gone right ahead with their elicit development of this material. So pleading with them, offering them money and assistance doesn't solve the problem. A combination of being tough and offering some help might work, and that's why I say a combination of carrots and sticks.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me let Secretary Perry who has said a couple of times we ought to engage in direct talks, I mean, why would they work, make the case for that. Why would they work any more effectively in the past?

WILLIAM PERRY: I don't think what I'm saying is that much different from what Senator Kyl said. I believe in coercive diplomacy, that is direct negotiations but backed with a credible threat of military force. That's what we did in '94, and while that agreement, as Senator Kyl has pointed out was far from perfect, let me say it did in the absence of that agreement North Korea today could have fifty to a hundred nuclear weapons. That's what that agreement bought for us. But it did not cause North Korea to give up its aspirations for nuclear weapons. We are still faced with that problem and we still have to deal with it. And to deal with it I believe the only way I can conceive, short of war, is coercive diplomacy, go in with direct negotiations, assisted by the other countries in the region, direct negotiations backed by a credible threat of military force.

MARGARET WARNER: But Secretary Perry, is there a credible threat of military force? I mean, most of the experts will say Seoul is so close by, you know the arguments, that North Korea could mount a devastating just conventional counter attack on Seoul within' minutes.

WILLIAM PERRY: There are no easy solutions to this problem. The threat from North Korea, from conventional forces is powerful already, but they have been deterred from using those conventional forces now for more than four decades, so the threat of military force is something that North Korea understands. My own belief, Margaret, is that if we are tough, if we offer a credible threat of military force, we will not have to use it. It's only when we are weak that we are in danger of having to use a military force.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Kyl do, you think there is a credible military option available?

SEN. JON KYL: Well, in a sense there is, but they have to believe we would use it. I think Secretary Perry and I are fairly close here, but see if I can summarize it. We agree that there immediate to be discussions, but they need to be multilateral, and they certainly need to include the Chinese which have the leverage power over the North Koreans. We believe that no option, military included, should be taken off the table, and that that, I guess, is an ultimate proposition. But in order to have coercive diplomacy you need some other things in between and that's where I'm suggesting that the proliferation security initiative of the administration which includes interdiction, which includes economic sanctions and so on are an intermediate step of sanctions that are short of nuclear war you but still demonstrate the seriousness of purpose and could help to force the North Koreans to agree to the termination of this program.

MARGARET WARNER: A final brief question to both of you, beginning with you, Senator Kyl. Do you think there should be a red line that the administration makes perfectly clear to the North Koreans that if they cross it, the U.S. will attack militarily whatever the consequences, and if so, what should that red line be?

SEN. JON KYL: Well, first of all there was such a red line under the Clinton administration. And the North Koreans have now exceeded that, because they have moved forward, as second Perry said. So I think you need to be careful about drawing red lines. Any such lines like that need to be conveyed in clear terms, but probably not in public as we're doing right now.But that should be part of the diplomacy, part of the message that we send them, that there is a point of no return and they don't want to get to that point.

MARGARET WARNER: Should there be a point of no return, Secretary Perry, that's made clear to them, and if so what should it be?

WILLIAM PERRY: In 1994, we made the process of, the reprocessing of plutonium the red line. My own belief is we should have made that the red line late last year. It seemed like it's a little late to make that a red line since it appears that the plutonium has already been processed.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Secretary Perry and Senator Kyl, thank you both.

FOCUS - AMERICA OCCUPIER

GWEN IFILL: The American occupation of Iraq: We begin with this background report from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: The attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq now come at a rate averaging one every two hours. Most of the incidents are not deadly, but 38 American soldiers and marines have been killed in action since major fighting was declared over May 1. Last week, U.S. Military leaders said for the first time that the ambushes amount to "guerrilla tactics." General John Abizaid heads the U.S. Central command.

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, Commander, U.S. Central Command: We're seeing a cellular organization of six to eight people armed with RPG's, machine guns, et cetera, attacking us at times and places of their choosing. And other times, we attack them at times and places of our choosing. They are receiving financial help from probably regional-level leaders. And I think describing it as guerrilla tactics being employed against us is, you know, a proper thing to describe in strictly military terms.

KWAME HOLMAN: U.S. commanders warn the attacks will continue, and that the U.S. troop level in Iraq-- about 150,000-- will remain in place until next year. Ultimately, the American-led occupation could last two, even four years, Abizaid's predecessor, General Tommy Franks, said earlier this month. Meanwhile, a new report from a team of Pentagon advisors says the U.S. window of opportunity for success in Iraq is closing, and that next three months will be crucial to reversing the instability. The report says coalition security forces in Iraq are inadequate, and that the provision of basic services requires more international help and more financial investment. On the ground, there's ongoing unrest. Today in Baghdad, a group of Shiite Muslims called on the Americans to leave. It was similar to a protest in the Shiite's holy city of Najaf yesterday. Still, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, reported progress during appearances on several Sunday news programs, notably the formation of an Iraqi governing council picked by the U.S. members of the group will attend a U.N. Security Council debate on Iraq tomorrow.

L. PAUL BREMER, Postwar Iraq Administrator: I think it's clear that given the size of the task, we're going to be there for a while. I don't know how many years. Of course, in terms of what I'm in charge of, which is the coalition authority, there is a pretty clear timetable. We took the first step last week with the selection of a governing council, which is the first time the Iraqis have had a representative group. We'll get a constitutional process started here in the next couple of months. Once a constitution is written and we have elections, we'll get a sovereign Iraqi government, and at that point the coalition's job is done. There may still be a need for security forces, but at least the civilian coalition authority, which I head, will then, at that point, hand over sovereignty to an Iraqi government. If all goes well, it could be as early as next year. It depends how long it takes the Iraqis to write a constitution. Really, the timing of the coalition's stay there is now in Iraqi hands.

KWAME HOLMAN: Bremer said last week that when democracy arrives in Iraq, coalition forces will depart.

GWEN IFILL: Now, we take a longer view: Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: We explore the role of the U.S. as occupier now with four historians: NewsHour regular Michael Beschloss, Bruce Jentleson of Duke University, Carol Gluck of Columbia University, and John Dower of M.I.T..

Well, guests, the beginning of the American occupation has sent people scrambling for their history books. Professor Jentleson, a worthwhile exercise?

BRUCE JENTLESON: Well, I think to a certain extent it is, but you have to both look at the lessons we've learned from the past, and also in a way the world is so different today. Bus even some things that may have succeeded in the past, the circumstances in Iraq are very, very different than, for example, in post World War II Germany or Japan.

RAY SUAREZ: How so?

BRUCE JENTLESON: Well, there are a number of differences. One, I think, is that the occupations in both those countries had a strong degree of international acceptance. There is a sense that after winning the war the United States had the right to be there and that we were representing the interests of the world. Second is domestically there wasn't a lot of challenge within either country to the United States being there. And also both countries were largely homogeneous compared to a country like Iraq. And third, and in some ways most insidious, is we didn't have the problems of weapons proliferation then that we have today, whether we're talking about AK-47's, suicide bombers, or anything like that, you didn't have American civilian officials or soldiers being killed in anything like we're seeing in Iraq. So the circumstances are really very different, which is part of the reason why some of the analogies that were drawn by the administration to the past were really very glib and not very helpful for guiding policy.

RAY SUAREZ: Glib and not very helpful for guiding policy, Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, I think one criticism you can make is this, and that is that when President Bush and the administration were trying to get Americans to support this war before the war began, I felt at the time and said so that one of the things that they would have to do is to say only half of the problem is to win this war, and probably the easier half, if we take the responsibility on Iraq, this could be something that could take a long time, a lot of sacrifice, money, American lives. We Americans would have to have staying power. And I think one way you can very much criticize this president is to say that he did not before the war began say, you know, this is part of the job and it may take a very long time. So if you're an American making a decision on whether to go to war or not, you should keep in your mind that a large part of this question is, are you also going to support an occupation that could conceivably take years.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, if you describe that as almost a necessary precondition, in other times in America's history when we have had long-term occupations of other countries, have the leaders in place at those times done what you just suggested?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: No, they haven't. Franklin Roosevelt, for instance, at the time of World War II was focused on winning the war, made it clear that there would have to be an occupation, but for instance in Germany he was asked how long we would have American troops in Europe, he said maybe a year or two. I think he knew in his mind it was likely that it would take longer, but what he was speaking to was the fact that Americans do not like to think of themselves as occupiers, we don't like to think of ourselves as an empire. We don't have a history of long occupations. He knew that even after a war as popular as world war ii, the people would say bring the troops home.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there something, Professor Gluck, that's quantifiably different about the mission here? In recent times when the United States has intervened militarily in countries, we've handed the job over to an international consortium, in the case of the United Nations in some places, our al rice in the case of NATO assistance in the Balkans. Is America going it alone making this, or almost alone so far, making this just a very different proposition?

CAROL GLUCK: What makes it a different proposition, it seems to me, is that it's a very different time and it's a very different place. And the analogy that's been referred to that's been made not only by the administration but by so many people to the success as it's said of the American occupation of Japan and Germany is historically deficient, it ignores the difference in time and place. And if I were to state the largest difference, it would be that what succeeded in Japan and Germany, the parts of the occupation that were successful, were due to what was already there on the ground among the Japanese and German people, the institutions, and also the will. So that the idea that America succeeded in bringing democracy to Japan and Germany is actually kind of an insult to the facts of the time. So the biggest difference to me is that this analogy overlooks the situation, the time and the place today. That means America today, Iraq today, Afghanistan today.

RAY SUAREZ: But when you say that the institutions were already in place in Japan and Germany, weren't we dealing with countries that had long-term governments that was found, were found by the United States to be noxious, a Nazi philosophy that reached all the way down to the smallest post office in the most rural area, a militarist cult in Japan, and a cult around the emperor that we found troublesome to building a democratic state? Can you also make a mistake exaggerating in the other direction, that there was a lot we wanted to keep about Japan and Germany in 1945?

CAROL GLUCK: Wait a minute, because we weren't the only people who found those regimes noxious. That is to say there are a number of, a lot of Germans and a lot of Japanese who were happy to be, as it was said in 1945, liberated by the Americans. And when I say that they are building on institutions and popular will of the past, I mean that Germany before 1933, the Weimar Republic or Japan during the 1920s-- an era that's called "Taisho" Democracy-- were constitutional governments. So that you were, what America did-- and it did succeed in doing-- was facilitating and supporting, with its enormous power, the power of a victor over a defeated nation in both cases, facilitating the forces, however small, however large they were, that wanted to move in the direction of building on those democratic institutions of the past.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Dower, aren't American forces right now, both civilian and military, engaged in the process of trying to figure out what to keep about old Ba'athist Iraq and what to make sure is replaced and swept away?

JOHN DOWER: Well, it's difficult for me to say what American administrators in Iraq are thinking today, because I'm not sure that any of us know whether they really had this kind of planning ahead of time. One of the great differences in the case of Japan was that the Americans had done planning for the occupation of Japan beginning shortly after Pearl Harbor. And by the 19... the end of the war by 1944 or so, they were doing very serious planning for what they would do in Japan once hostilities ended. One of the things that was very clear in the case of Japan was that the government in Japan would be intact. It was a formal war; the Americans made clear that they would negotiate the end of the war with the emperor when the emperor, who had declared war, announced that the war was over. This was a formal act that the Japanese people accepted. And they were exhausted. They had been fighting and dying since the late 1930s. And the Americans were able to move in to an intact government-- that's a striking difference from the present-- and to a government which had accepted their presence as a formal condition of the surrender that the emperor and the Japanese government had accepted and announced. Once they got in there, as Professor Gluck has said, they were able to work with various groups within the society-- both at the government level and at the grassroots level-- who in one way or another really were committed to starting over, and really welcomed the end of what had been seven or eight years of enormous losses in war. The Japanese casualties were roughly, we estimate, about two million military dead and about one million civilian dead in the course of World War II. And when that ended, there was a sense of relief, and there was a sense that the Americans and the allied powers had come in as a legitimate occupation force. So there was a great deal the Americans went in knowing that they could build on and there were a great many elements they knew they could cooperate with.

RAY SUAREZ: The United States stayed on in Japan, professor dower, well into the '50s. I understand there was virtually no homegrown resistance to that occupation. Is that right?

JOHN DOWER: Well, like all occupations, this one began, as was mentioned previously, with the notion "we will stay there until our task is done; we will stay there until Japan is a democratic society." And when pressed on this, people like General Douglas Macarthur, who was the supreme commander, said, "Well, probably one or two years we should be done." And he really was arguing he could wrap it up by 1947, two years after the end of the war. And he hoped he could do that because he wanted to run for president in the United States. In the end, the Americans stayed there for six and a half years, and, of course, the American military presence remains in Japan to the present day.

RAY SUAREZ: Weren't we also in Korea for a long time, Professor Gluck?

CAROL GLUCK: At the same time that we occupied Japan we occupied Korea, and it's very instructive because we didn't do the same thing in Korea. We didn't give the Koreans the same kind of opportunity, and that had to do with the Cold War. We actually ran a military government and then supported dictatorships for many years. So there's another instance where the time and the place really mattered. We also occupied Okinawa and didn't occupy it in the same way that professor dower talked about Japan. We ruled Okinawa, and the Americans ruled Okinawa from 1945 to 1972.

RAY SUAREZ: And Professor Jentleson, along with these post-World War II occupations in the first half of the century, wasn't the United States involved in a lot of places in our own hemisphere where there wasn't international cooperation or international support?

BRUCE JENTLESON: Yeah, the United States military intervened very frequently in many Central American and Caribbean countries in the early part of the 20th century: Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic. Some of these interventions went on for 20 years, as in Haiti; in Nicaragua, sort of on and off for 20 or 25 years. And at the end of the day, it wasn't the single case, in which when we left we could leave behind stability other than in the hands of a dictator. We really didn't claim democracy to be a major purpose then. It was really more about order and our own interests, particularly our economic interests. But we also fueled a lot of anti-American nationalism and planted many of the seeds of instability that were part of our problems after World War II. Franklin Roosevelt tried to shift the strategy to a good neighbor policy from 1933 to 1945. And there were some positive effects there. But after World War II, in the context of the Cold War, some of the roots of instability we had to deal with were the ones that we in part helped create in the first half of the 20th century.

JOHN DOWER: One of the great differences is the difference between this administration and people who were involved in the early so- called "democratization" of Japan, who were very much coming out of a left-wing, progressive New Deal milieu in which they believed they could bring democracy to people of a very liberal sort-- "liberalism" was a key phrase-- and that they could do this with the state coming in and playing an important role in the economy.

RAY SUAREZ: And you would say that that's a stark contrast to today?

JOHN DOWER: I think we're a very different America today, and our political objectives are very different today.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And one other thing, and that is that, for instance, in Germany, one of the worst nightmares of FDR and Truman had was that Hitler might survive the end of World War II, perhaps retreat to some mountain readout and use his money and his influence to create the kind of insurgency that we are now seeing in Iraq. So if you had had that kind of thing in Germany after world War II, I think the kind of record that John Dower has talked about in Japan and that we also had in Germany might have been a much bleaker story.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day. The U.S. Embassy in Liberia came under mortar fire, as a contingent of U.S. Marines arrived to bolster security and help with evacuations. In Iraq, a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed when a roadside blast destroyed their vehicle north of Baghdad. And 34 claims of civil rights abuses under the new anti- terrorism Patriot Act are "credible," according to the Justice Department's inspector general.

GWEN IFILL: And again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add names when the deaths are official, and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are two more.

GWEN IFILL: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and good night.