The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we focus on the Iraq crisis with United Nations Special Envoy Rolf Ekeus, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch, and the congressional view from two Senators and two Congressmen. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: There are signs Iraqi troops are pulling back from positions near the Kuwait border. But in saying that today, Joint Chiefs Chairman General John Shalikashvili said it was not clear where they will go. Speaking at a Washington news conference, he said the United States will continue its military build-up in the region.

JOHN SHALIKASHVILI, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: The latest information we have now indicates that there is fairly broad movement for most of those units that have been brought down South. However, having said that, there is still an indication that considerable units still remain, that we do not have any indication as to where the units that are preparing to move will be moving to, and so we are continuing to watch the situation very carefully, and at the same time, we are continuing with the deployments that the President had set in motion.

MR. LEHRER: The general said there were 3600 U.S. troops in the area now, with 36,000 on the way. Some 250 U.S. and allied aircraft are on-station. Also ready are aircraft on the carrier George Washington and sixteen other ships. This afternoon, President Clinton said he was hopeful about the situation in Kuwait, but it was too early to reach any conclusions. We'll have much more on this story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: In Haiti today, hundreds of U.S. soldiers took control of the presidential palace in Port-au-Prince. Supporters of Jean-Bertrand Aristide cheered their arrival. And cabinet ministers appointed by Aristide fired all employees hired by Haiti's de facto President Emile Jonassaint. An aide to Aristide said that Jonassaint had also stepped down. A U.S. Embassy spokesman said Sec. of State Christopher may accompany Aristide when he returns to Haiti this weekend. Sec. Christopher met with Syria's President, Hafez Al-Assad, in Damascus today. He called the discussions constructive but said there are still gaps between Israel's and Syria's position on the disputed Golan Heights. Meanwhile, Israeli Radio reported that Israel has suspended peace talks with the PLO. That followed a claim by the Islamic group Hamas that it had kidnapped an Israeli soldier.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, the Chrysler Corporation reported third quarter profits of $651 million, 54 percent higher than the same period last year. President Clinton campaigned for Democratic candidates today, stopped at a Ford Motor Company plant in Dearborn, Michigan. He toured the assembly line where Mustangs are made and afterwards told workers the U.S. economy was on an upswing.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Our exports are up around the world. We're selling all kind of things we never sold before, not just automobile. We're selling rice to Japan for the first time, something I'm very proud of -- [applause] and Mustangs to Japan, I might add. [applause] Exports to Mexico are up 19 percent. Exports of cars and trucks are up 500 percent.

MR. MAC NEIL: On Wall Street today, stocks were up more than 55 points. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 3876.83 in heavy trading. Two of the nation's largest hospital owners announced a merger today. National Medical Enterprises and American Medical Holdings will merge in a $3.3 billion deal.

MR. LEHRER: The Nobel Prize for economics was awarded to three men today. John Harsanyi of Hungary, John Nash of the United States, and Reinhard Selten of Germany were chosen for using strategies applied in games, such as chess, to understand economic issues. Harsanyi was born in Hungary and is now a U.S. citizen. He retired as a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Nash works at Princeton University, and Selten is on the faculty of the University of Bonn in Germany. The Russian ruble dropped 845 points against the dollar today, closing down more than 27 percent. That's the worst single-day plunge since trading began on the ruble in 1992. Both the Russian government and the Central Bank have planned emergency sessions to discuss the crisis.

MR. MAC NEIL: The space shuttle Endeavor completed an 11-day environmental research mission today, with the landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Bad weather had prevented a scheduled touchdown at the Kennedy Space Center. The six-member crew gathered 3-D images of an erupting volcano, forests, and other physical features during a nearly 5 million mile journey. That's our summary of the top stories. Now it's on to Iraq, with U.N. Arms Inspector Rolf Ekeus, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright, Deputy Defense Sec. John Deutch, and four members of Congress. FOCUS - CRISIS IN THE GULF

MR. LEHRER: The Iraq story is our story tonight. We begin with the issue that is believed to have triggered Saddam Hussein's decision to mass troops near the Kuwaiti border. His country is hurting from the United Nations economic embargo. Getting it lifted is tied to Iraq producing weapons of mass destruction. Monitoring that is the job of UN Special Envoy Rolf Ekeus. Today he delivered a report to the Security Council. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with him earlier outside a meeting room at the UN in New York.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us. You said today in your report to the Security Council that your program to monitor Iraq's weapons was up and running. What exactly did you mean by that?

ROLF EKEUS, Chairman, UN Commission on Iraq: First of all, the human factor, if I may so, weapons specialists and inspectors in place, we have a lot of technology-type cameras, chemical sensors, and other type of technology already operating in Baghdad, and linking then this data obtained by the sensors to a center for monitoring. We have high altitude aerial surveillance going on through the U-2 operation which we have at our disposal to carry out. We have helicopters flying. All these things put together with an obligation for Iraq to work with us I think constitutes a very effective system. There are still a number of loose ends, which means that we have to test also the system for a certain time. But it's like commissioning a ship, an ocean liner. You have to run it first to shake it down, as they say in the trade, to see that all components work. And that's the same with this.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But the testing period, as I understand it, has been a sticky wicket. In fact, it may have even triggered the Iraqi actions of the past few days. Can you give me some insight into that, what the testing period was designed to do and what Iraqi expectations were that then when they weren't met caused this action?

ROLF EKEUS: When we outlined earlier last autumn and early this year the ideas how this monitoring should take place, we always stated we cannot say that we trust the system until we have been allowed to run it for a while. Iraq protested quite vigorously in the early stages against the whole idea of testing, but now this time they have fundamentally accepted this. And I think they understand and agree that six months is a reasonable period.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That was the period of time you wanted to take --

ROLF EKEUS: Yes, I had in mind. What I wanted, however, was an assurance that it would be no more than six months. Such assurance is difficult to give by the nature of things, because then you are not testing. I mean, we have to see what, what the real work is giving us for results, but still I think six months is still a reasonable time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that what you're going to continue to insist on, or has the crisis changed that?

ROLF EKEUS: Now we are in real time. Now we are doing the work. And the actual results will, will give us the answers. We will report on a monthly basis to the Security Council on the progress. And in six months' time, we will anyhow be obliged to make a major report to the Council on the whole system. I expect, or I expected before this crisis, that everything should be -- look quite fine after this six months. That's our expectations. But now we have to see if these expectations are right or not.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You called this report a trigger to the crisis. Were you surprised by the Iraqi moves?

ROLF EKEUS: Well, I didn't expect it, if I may say so, but we had early warnings of quite vigorous attacks or verbal attacks in Iraqi media especially, in some press, which gave us some heads up, so to say, that something could happen. But in our request, requests to the government, they denied that these statements say during a couple of months were in any way reflecting the official position; the Iraqi government was insisting on working with us. However, this latest development, therefore, was not really expected but didn't come as a total surprise.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How precarious is your position and those of your people on the ground in Iraq after this crisis?

ROLF EKEUS: We are, of course, very concerned in the light of Iraq's statements that they should cease working with us. We can't do that if -- we can't carry out any monitoring without Iraq -- Iraqi side giving us access, giving us the necessary data, giving us possibility to talk to site managers, enter buildings, and so on. So this is crucial.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: As we all know, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was quite a surprise, despite monitoring and other things that were in place to know about these things. How confident are you now that the system that you put in place will prevent surprises? For example, the CIA says that the Iraqis are involved in making weapons now underground?

ROLF EKEUS: Well, if we are allowed to work according to our plans, we are not blocked now. With this provision, I would say we are quite confident. We have a very clear case of the overview of the whole country thanks to our U-2 operations. We have a capability to go close into practically all production facilities with overhead photography.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Can you monitor underground activity?

ROLF EKEUS: We can, of course, watch if there is digging and more that type of thing going on, but to recall that the water table in Iraq, in spite of it being so dry, is surprisingly high. It is not easy to do underground -- there are limited areas where you can do underground construction. And we keep a close eye on such things. There are many, many -- I don't want to describe what technique we have. It's classified. But we have various means to explore and detect such things.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How important is Iraq's recognition of Kuwait to the conclusion of your work and to the ultimate lifting of sanctions?

ROLF EKEUS: There is no formal link between our mandate and the Kuwaitis, but it goes without saying that the whole question of Kuwait is the beginning and the end of the whole Gulf question. It started with the violation of Kuwait's sovereignty, and it's no doubt so it can never end without satisfactory solution, namely Iraq's complete acceptance of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Kuwait, including the acceptance of the borders. So there is in that sense a link, but technically there is no link. They should be looked upon, each other, as separate entities.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And it's your sense at this point that the prospects of lifting the embargo have now diminished considerably after this crisis or what? What would your prediction be?

ROLF EKEUS: Well, I think it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion then, say that as it stands today, it looks really darkened, the possibilities. However, with our report, maybe we have given Iraq a little opening to quickly turn around and, so to say, start anew, but the matter of lifting is in the hands of the members of the Security Council, and it may -- their actions may have given a lasting impression on them, which will be negative, but that is impossible to say for me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You spend more time in Baghdad than most outsiders. What is your sense about the psychology of Saddam Hussein that would have caused him to make this move just at the point when relief appeared to be -- relief for the Iraqi people appeared to be just around the corner?

ROLF EKEUS: Yeah. It is a sort of siege mentality, definitely, in Iraq. It is a society which almost voluntarily isolated themselves and had been isolated. Lack of contact with the world I think is one explanation and the sense of self-victimization, so to say, describe oneself as a victim instead of knowing that all the neighbors are fearing the country but the country, itself, feels or portrays itself as a victim, and this internal discussion of victim sense, victimization, I think, has been one of the reasons why it has been such a gross misreading of the international community's position.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At this moment, how do you assess Iraq's capacity to threaten the region with weapons of mass destruction or countries like Israel?

ROLF EKEUS: We feel that they are limited or practically non- existent. The neighbors they can reach through still quite the conventional force, that's obvious. But the capability for, I would say, regional, long-range projection or war of military force, they don't have it simply. They have -- this capability has been eliminated by us, and we, as long as we stay in Iraq, we will see to it also and we can guarantee practically that no such projection, force projection is possible.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you.

ROLF EKEUS: Thank you very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Next on the sanctions issue and dealing with Iraq, we turn to the American representative to the United Nations, Amb. Madeleine Albright. Madame Ambassador, thank you for joining us. Do you have anything late to add on what Iraqi troops are moving and where they're going? We heard Gen. Shalikashivili said they appear to be moving broadly but it's not clear where.

AMB. ALBRIGHT: That's where the information rests at the moment, Robin. We do see some broad movement, but it is very hard to tell in what direction they're going and how far back they are moving, if, in fact, that is what's going on. This morning, we did still see movements from North to South that had actually some reinforcements. So I think it's too early to make a judgment. There are, as Gen. Shalikashvili said, some broad movements taking place.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you're not claiming victory yet in driving him back?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, we'll have to see what happens. You know, there are a lot of words being spoken. As the President said yesterday, we have to see real deeds, and we'll be able to judge that, and photographs don't lie. So we'll be able to see that.

MR. MAC NEIL: Does the United States agree with what we have just heard Amb. Ekeus say, that the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been effectively eliminated and they no longer represent a threat to countries in the region?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, we are -- we always study very carefully what Amb. Ekeus says. He makes very clear technical judgments. We have to assess everything that he tells us. What we are concerned about is that we see some gaps in some of the information that we're getting, and we'll have to kind of judge his most recent report. I think our concern is we have to make sure that there is no possibility for using the weapons of mass destruction, and we make the judgment as we go along. The question here, Robin, is with this monitoring regime our own sense has been is that we have to see a good track record, and we have to have confidence in the credibility of what is being told us. And the Security Council has to have confidence in the credibility of Iraq's behavior. And, frankly, what we've seen in the last couple of days really makes us wonder. I mean, why would you believe a country that enforces -- doesn't want to abide by sanctions resolutions and then tries to prove a point by moving thousands of forces to the border? So if credibility is the issue, they just lost a large part of it.

MR. MAC NEIL: How, how long a period of testing of that monitoring system -- Mr. Ekeus said they thought six months was the appropriate one and the Iraqis agreed to that -- how long does the U.S. think that testing period should be?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, we are not -- we don't want to set a time period on it. We believe that the issue here is not the validity of the UN or the U.S. The issue here is the credibility of Iraq, and we believe that we need a long enough period to make sure that once the monitoring system is up and running that we're able to really see a good, lengthy trackrecord. And we have not wanted to put a time limit on it as some others have.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do you think the response in the Security Council is going to be when Mr. Ekeus's report is presented this week?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think from preliminary discussions that we've had I think that the Council members want to put it into the proper context. As I said earlier, Amb. Ekeus is an outstanding technical expert, and everybody has great confidence in what UNSCOM is doing. But it is up to the members of the Security Council to put it in the political context. That's something that we do every time, but this time, I have to tell you, when the political context is surrounded by 70,000 troops, that does, in fact, create a -- in my mind -- a political situation that might influence other members of the Council.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think that political context has removed any pressure there was from Russia, from France, from China, on the U.S. and Britain to move faster to raise the sanctions, lift the sanctions? Do you think this political context just wiped that out for the time being?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that obviously, they're making their judgments at this time, as are we. But I think that the case is much harder to argue at the moment. I think that they are probably assessing and reassessing. They have been arguing that Iraq is beginning to make progress on this monitoring process and on their abiding by that particular sanctions resolution. We and the British have a different view, as do some other members of the Council. We believe that they need to not only carry out that particular sanctions resolution but they have to carry out all of them. And we are pressing on that. And I think we will assume that our colleagues on the Council will be reassessing their own positions.

MR. MAC NEIL: The specific cease-fire resolution only connects the oil embargo, the embargo against Iraq selling its oil to the observation of this destruction of the weapons of mass destruction. It does not involve those other resolutions.

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, what we see this as a package that it's very -- and it has a lot to do with what I said earlier, Robin, about the necessity not only for the Iraqis to live up to that particular cease-fire part of the sanctions resolution, but also to prove their record and their credibility. We have to have faith that if and when sanctions are lifted, that they will abide by a proper international regime. And if we cannot have confidence in their credibility, then we don't believe that we ought to lift sanctions on -- even on oil. That is our position.

MR. MAC NEIL: You've been talking today of ways to prevent Saddam from doing this again, throwing the area into crisis and getting American troops, provoking the movement of American troops over there, asking, talking about asking the Security Council for an exclusion zone. How would that work, an exclusion zone?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, let me clarify something here. We have four objectives the President stated last night in terms of what we're trying to do here. First of all, we're trying to deter the Iraqis from invading Kuwait. Second, we want to make sure that they live up to all their sanctions obligations. Third, we want to make sure that they don't harass those international monitors that Amb. Ekeus was talking about, and fourth, we want to make sure that they do not remain the bully in the neighborhood. And what happens is a process that's going on at the UN right now, is we are consulting with other members of the Security Council for ideas about how to make sure, especially on that fourth point, so that we don't have to deal with Iraq, Iraq is basically a repeat offender. And we don't want them going back to the scene of the crime or being in a position to repeat their offense. And exclusion zones is an idea that has been raised. There have been other ideas. We are looking at what the appropriate method is to deal with this particular issue, and that's what we're all going to be doing in the next few days without at the moment specifically coming down on one side or another. But the issue here is to try to find a method so that this doesn't happen again.

MR. MAC NEIL: What other options would there be beyond excluding the Iraqi troops from a southern area?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, there are a variety of ways that we can try to hem them in. I'm not prepared to go into the details of those at the moment. There have been a variety of ideas surfaced by others in terms of, you know, to a great extent going all the way to some kind of disarming others with a lesser intent, but the main purpose here -- and I sense this from everyone that I've talked to in the Security Council -- is nobody wants to deal with this on a repeated basis. And those countries that have felt -- as you stated -- that it was time to lift sanctions on Iraq, they too want to find some solution so that they are not faced with trying to defend any credibility. We want to make sure here that Iraq is not able to bully the neighbors.

MR. MAC NEIL: When this immediate crisis is over in U.S. eyes what explicitly, particularly must Saddam do to get the oil embargo lifted, which is obviously his first wish?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Well, he does have to do several things. And the sanctions resolutions spell this out. He has to recognize Kuwait and not just the territorial integrity but the border with Kuwait. He has to stop torturing his own citizens in the North as well as the South. What he's doing to the Marsh Shiites is a horrible ecological and humanitarian issue. He has to abide by the resolutions on the weapons of mass destruction. There are a whole series of these sanctions resolutions, and we are looking at them as a whole because, as I said earlier, it's a credibility issue.

MR. MAC NEIL: That position has been criticized a lot by some of the U.S. allies and in the American press for stretching the meaning of the original resolutions so as to avoid lifting sanctions until Saddam Hussein, himself, has gone. Is that, in fact, the U.S. position?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Our position has been the same all along, is that we believe that these -- this is a package of resolutions that go together, that go to the heart of how Saddam Hussein sees what kind of international behavior is acceptable. Saddam Hussein broke a very basic law of international behavior. He marched aggressively into another country and burned and pillaged it. And the international community set a series of sanction resolutions down as basically tests of whether he was ready to be a member again of the international community. We do not see it as cafeteria style. We see that he has to accept all of these sanctions resolutions and abide by all of them, and this is not a negotiation. This is the way that we believe it has to be carried out.

MR. MAC NEIL: Would the Clinton administration recommend lifting the sanctions if he did all that with Saddam still in power?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: I think that we believe that if he carried out all those resolutions -- and I think the main one is to stop repressing his people -- then we would have to see what the change of behavior is. Frankly, we don't see how he can stay in power without repressing his people. So that is a big hypothetical question. But basically, we are looking for a change of the behavior which includes not repressing his people in North and South and providing humanitarian assistance to his people. You know, Amb. Ekeus spoke about the fact that Iraq sees itself as a victim. The bottom line here is that Saddam Hussein is the one who is creating those humanitarian disasters that they speak about, the hungry people and the sick children. He can, according to resolutions of the UN 706 and 712, sell oil in order to bring in more money to provide humanitarian assistance. It is his record that is being questioned, not ours.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think the sanctions are weakening him?

AMB. ALBRIGHT: I think clearly the sanctions are weakening him, because what is happening is that I think that part of what he did here is he is concerned about the economic situation. And we believe that it is very important for him to carry out all these sanctions resolutions so that he can then have access to oil money and have the possibility of rejoining the community if, in fact, he lives up to all these sanctions resolutions which obviously also include not repressing his people and lying to them.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, Madeleine Albright, thank you -- Ambassador, thank you very much for joining us. Jim.

AMB. ALBRIGHT: Very good to be with you.

MR. LEHRER: Now, the Pentagon's assessment. It comes from Deputy Defense Sec. John Deutch. Margaret Warner talked with him earlier this evening.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Secretary, welcome. What can you tell us about where Iraqi troops are now in relation to the Kuwaiti border?

JOHN DEUTCH, Deputy Secretary of Defense: Margaret, the Iraqi troops have stopped moving South, stopped moving towards Kuwait, and some, most of the units are beginning to turn around and go back to their loading points as if they were going to return North, North of the 32nd Parallel, which is a dividing line between Southern Iraq and Central Iraq. So right now, the Iraqi forces have stopped moving South, and they show indications of moving around as if they were going to withdraw. But it has not happened yet.

MS. WARNER: And is the speed with which they're moving what you would expect for a pullback like this? In other words, does it appear to you as if they're moving as quickly as could be expected?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: They are moving consistent with what our expectation was if they were going to be withdrawn. But I want to stress again that until they have withdrawn their forces, this story is not over. So, yes, they are moving according to our expectations for a withdrawal, but it has not happened fully at this time.

MS. WARNER: Now, is the movement you've seen so far enough at least to rule out at this point the idea of a preemptive strike?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: We're ruling out nothing at the present time. We're continuing the plans that have been announced by the President and by Sec. Perry. We're deploying forces to the Kuwaiti theater of operations. We will continue our plan of deploying these forces until it is absolutely clear that this threat by Saddam Hussein is gone.

MS. WARNER: And where does the U.S. deployment stand right now? What have you got there in the region? What have you got on the way?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: Oh, we have a great deal on the way and there in the region. We have a Marine unit. We have Army Patriot battalions. We're moving an Army battalion there. It may be arriving tomorrow. We are building up our aircraft to over 500 aircraft which several hundred will be air-to-ground capable. There are four Naval ships capable of delivering Tomahawk Cruise missiles in the region. This has been a very rapid and very powerful build- up.

MS. WARNER: More than 500 aircraft and how many troops in this phase of the build-up?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: In this phase of the build-up, we -- depending upon how many of those troops that we've alerted will actually be sent could go as high as 36,000. That represents all the services, but we are prepared, I as I think Gen. Shalikashvili has mentioned, to deliver very, very rapidly over 100,000 troops to the area in case we do have to confront Saddam Hussein and show him that the aggression that he has underway will not be tolerated. The President has made that very clear, and we are prepared to move, if necessary.

MS. WARNER: You said this was a very rapid build-up. Compare, if you could, for me how quickly and how many troops and how much heavy equipment you've been able to move in this period of time as compared to say the first time Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and President Bush sent forces to Saudi Arabia.

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: I would say that there are three or four differences, Margaret, important differences which have meant we could move more rapidly and more decisively. First, the intelligence was acted on very quickly. We have been keeping with our intelligence systems close track of what is happening in Southern Iraq. And as soon as these movements by these two Republican Guard divisions were noted, the President was informed and the President acted decisively to say we've got to stop this and we've go to stop it now. Secondly, we've had in place pre- positioned equipment in the Gulf which was not there before, better, fast maritime transport for other equipment, a better airlift for our forces, so our response has been much more rapid than it was in the case of the first attack by Saddam Hussein on Kuwait. But, of course, we do have that history. That is our guide.

MS. WARNER: Gen. Waller, who was the deputy director of military operations in the Gulf War, said on this show last night that if the pullback, if the Iraqi pullback didn't proceed quickly enough, that the U.S. should really just set an ultimatum for Saddam and go ahead and strike if he didn't meet that ultimatum. Is that the kind of thing -- could that be militarily useful, in your view?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: Well, we have a whole series of options under consideration if Saddam Hussein does not withdraw or does not withdraw rapidly enough. I think the President was very clear last night that he expects to have prompt compliance. And we will take whatever action is necessary to assure that those troops are not at risk to Saudi Arabia or to Kuwait. And I don't think I want to dwell on every possible case that we've looked at, but let me say that we are committed to absolutely sure reversal of this thrust by Saddam Hussein.

MS. WARNER: And exactly to what point or where do the Iraqi troops have to pull back before the U.S. would stop its deployment?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: These are matters that are still under consideration, but it's important -- two points are important. One is that we reverse this aggression and move South by Saddam Hussein. And the second is that we assure that the withdrawal is sufficient that it does not happen again. After all, we don't want to respond to every possible movement that Saddam Hussein makes towards the South. So we will be working, Sec. Perry and National Security Adviser Tony Lake have beenconsidering the kinds of steps that we will require in order to assure that this will not happen in the future.

MS. WARNER: So, in other words, you're talking about steps that will prevent Saddam Hussein from being able to just precipitate an international crisis like this anytime he wants?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: Absolutely. I think it's clear to every American that we're not going to have a crazy person in the Middle East by moving some tank battalions South disrupt our -- the peace in the area, risk disrupting the peace in the area, and move our forces all over the globe.

MS. WARNER: And would one idea be, do you think, a useful idea be that a zone would be established into which they would not be permitted, even within their own territory, to move troops, i.e., a zone around Kuwait?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: There are several different ideas under consideration now. I want to stress that Bill Perry and Tony Lake and Gen. Shalikashvili have been discussing them. We want to, of course, consult with our coalition partners before arriving at any definite conclusion. But there are several different approaches which are possible to accomplish what you're addressing, Margaret, and that is how to keep Saddam Hussein from doing this kind of trick in the future.

MS. WARNER: What does a build-up like this cost?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: A very good question, Margaret. It certainly is going to cost a lot. I have not been able -- could not give you a good estimate of the cost because we still don't know how extensive the deployment is going to be. But I would say it's going to cost several hundred million dollars. That would be my ballpark estimate, but we can't give a firm number now.

MS. WARNER: Now, so you have this big build-up in the Gulf. You've got troops in Haiti. If there were to be a peace agreement in Bosnia, we're tentatively committed to send 25,000 troops there. Is there any point at which you get overextended, the Pentagon gets overextended here?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: Well, the greatest commitment we have, Bill Perry has, President Clinton has, for the U.S. forces is for them to be ready. And here is a perfect example of why our forces have to be ready and have to be able to move rapidly to meet any possible danger in the world -- Haiti -- now we have Iraq, a possibility exists always of violence in Bosnia. We maintain our forces at the highest state of readiness -- they're as ready as they've ever been -- just because of the kinds of demands that this new world order, as people call it, are placing upon the military forces of the United States. President Clinton has backed a ready force, and the men and women in our armed forces are ready to serve and are effectively serving in all these different areas.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you briefly about Haiti. With the three- men military Junta gone, where does that leave sort of the military and police function in Haiti now?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: Well, we're in the process now with the arrival of the international police monitors, the imminent return of President Aristide here over the weekend, a process of building a new civilian police force in Haiti is going to move forward, I believe, ore rapidly. Nevertheless, as I keep on noting at every occasion that I can, civil violence is a problem in Haiti, and we will continue to have to be alert for and work with the Haitian government, the now soon-to-be-legitimate government of President Aristide to minimize the violence in that country and to assure that U.S. forces are not exposed, overly exposed to risk.

MS. WARNER: And from what you've seenof the army that Gen. Cedras and the other members of the Junta left behind, could they form the core of a new retrained Haitian army, and would they be accepted by the Haitian people?

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: We believe that working with President Aristide there would be a fraction of the FOD which could be reconverted into a proper civilian police force and a military unit in a democratic republic. It's going to take time, going to take time to decide which ones of those individuals are free of human rights violations and time to train them in the ways that a police force behaves in a democracy. But that is a task that is still ahead of us, and we think that it will be successful in the weeks and months ahead.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Secretary, thanks very much.

SEC. JOHN DEUTCH: Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Thanks for being with us. FOCUS - VIEW FROM THE HILL

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the view from Congress. From the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana. From the House, Democrat Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Sen. Lugar, what do you think of the way President Clinton and his administration have handled the Iraqi situation?

SEN. LUGAR: They've handled it well. They've moved decisively, as we heard tonight, on the basis of intelligence reports. They've moved comprehensively. I think the problem now is having made that commitment, we've got to make certain, as Mr. Deutch said, that we don't have to keep going back and forth as Saddam feints and jabs. And we have to also make certain, as our administration has pointed out, that we adhere to the United Nations resolutions, all of them, namely recognition of the boundary of Kuwait and its sovereignty, the end of all weapons of mass destruction, including ballistic missiles that might be left beside there, and the end of terrorism. All of those three are implied, and none of them have been met, not by a long shot, by Iraq. So we now have, I think, ahead of us the so-called preemptive moves or moves we might take to restrict Iraq in the future well beyond those restrictions that are there now. And I think that requires thinking. I applaud the administration what they've done. I hope that they do not cave by sending somebody over there to negotiate with Saddam.

MR. LEHRER: Somebody like former President Jimmy Carter?

SEN. LUGAR: Precisely. And I think that would jeopardize not only the credibility of the administration but likewise any sort of solution with Saddam.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dodd, what's your assessment of how the administration's handled this thing so far?

SEN. DODD: Well, I know this doesn't make necessarily for a great show but I happen to agree totally what --

MR. LEHRER: I've got some other questions. That's all right.

SEN. DODD: I think Sen. Lugar hit it right on the head. I think they're acting decisively. This is a good example of where a continuum of foreign policy begun by President Bush, what has made this successful from a military standpoint the last several days is the forward placement and keeping those, that equipment in ready supply in Saudi arabia and Kuwait so that they don't have the problem logistically that we did in the fall of 1990, where you had a massive build-up take place over many months. We're maintaining our position with regard to the UN resolutions, as Sen. Lugar has pointed out, and I think at this point here I would agree, I think at this point to start talking about some diplomatic resolution here will be playing right into the hands of Saddam Hussein, and I think that would be a mistake.

MR. LEHRER: Is anybody doing that?

SEN. DODD: I don't believe so, but I'm sure there are those who are thinking about it tonight, that there's some diplomatic resolution to this problem. You're dealing here with one of the world's first class thugs. And he's going to pressure and push us at every single opportunity, keeping the coalition together, adhering to the UN resolutions. I think he's the best defense at this juncture against that desired expansionism that Saddam Hussein originally sought in 1990.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Hyde, do you think that President Clinton and his folks have sent the right message to Saddam Hussein by their actions?

REP. HYDE: Yes, I do. I agree with Dick Lugar and Chris Dodd. I think the President's actions were proportional, appropriate, timely, and as Dick Lugar said, I hope he persists in that. Saddam Hussein has to go. As we had to get rid of Gen. Cedras, somehow or other, I think, the rock is going to be a difficult place and make it difficult in the region as long as Saddam Hussein is there. What we must do is encourage the Iraqi people to get rid of him one way or the other. And until they do, I think we're going to have problems.

MR. LEHRER: You don't think the United States should take some action directly against Saddam Hussein?

REP. HYDE: I don't think so, because that would require us probably to go into Baghdad and find him, and I think that's a pretty tough proposition. I would rather have the Iraqi people understand that they're going to have very painful sanctions imposed against them so long as Saddam Hussein is in authority.

MR. LEHRER: Congresswoman Schroeder, what's your view of the situation right this moment?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, again, we keep getting more and more consensus. This is positively amazing. I think some of the good things this President has done too is say very clearly we are not there forever, that we've got a time certain, and that he moves back those troops within that period of time, or we're going to act, because I think it's very clear that we don't want to be the 911 number that gets called up, and we just go zooming in every other week whenever he decides to tweak us around. I think we're absolutely all saying the same thing, that this man is a king of miscalculation. If he thought this was the way to get the sanctions lifted, he's really got a perception problem. And the world's got to deal with it. I also worry -- I agree with Henry Hyde that the people have got to deal with him but I don't know how they do when he controls everything they know about him. One of the interesting things has been the news reports out of Baghdad, and they are not getting the picture, the picture that we're getting. That's troubling as to how you get democracy going if you don't have the right information to act on.

MR. LEHRER: Well, let's go to the point that you've raised, Sen. Lugar, is keeping the heat on, the course from this point on. What, what should the United States do? Let's say, for instance, that those Iraqi troops just kind of stay there, where they are, they don't move any closer to Kuwait, they don't take any action against the Kuwaitis, they don't do anything but sit there. And should the United States take some kind of preemptive military action?

SEN. LUGAR: That may be an alternative, and I don't want to preempt what the administration is thinking about, but very clearly, itseems to me that the making of a ground zone, much as we have an air zone there, in which Iraqi forces cannot be, is --

MR. LEHRER: In their own country, how could we do that?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, the same way we put air prohibitions over the top third to protect the Kurds and the bottom third now to protect Kuwait, essentially. Why not? We won the war. You know, in essence, we're trying to say to these people you've got to stop your weapons of mass destruction, terrorizing the rest of the world, obliterating boundaries with your neighbors. That is fully our option. We ought to act upon that. In a tactical sense, we probably would give them warning to get out, or we're going to go after you with aircraft --

MR. LEHRER: And you think the Congress and the people of the United States would support that?

SEN. LUGAR: Yes, I think so. I think clearly this is a time where we've been down this trail before. It's well staked out, and it seems to me at this point the President really has the people in addition to Congress behind him.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. How do you feel about that?

SEN. DODD: I agree with that. And I think the people in Congress would be supportive of it. I think it's important to point out there were a lot of people who were critical of President Bush because we didn't go to Baghdad and seek out Saddam Hussein. It's important to recall that putting together the UN resolutions and building the international coalition was an extremely difficult task and that it was only done with the commitment that we would not do that. And while there are those who are critical of President Bush for sort of violating those agreements and going to Baghdad, I think he did the right thing by not breaking the coalition. And I think you may want to today, in addition to that Sen. Lugar has suggested, talk about maybe amending those resolutions which would create at least the option. I think Henry Hyde made a good point. It's difficult to get in and do the job, but at least the option ought to exist within those UN resolutions should the opportunity exist to actually go after Saddam Hussein. But at the very least, I think creating a zone that would be a hundred, hundred and fifty, two hundred miles, whatever our military experts would tell us, would be enough of a cushion to prohibit or at least stop the kind of things we've seen over the last five days.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Congressman Hyde, let me ask you, if folks there in Illinois, in your district, come up to you and say -- I assume some of them probably already have -- hey, wait a minute, I thought we took care of Saddam Hussein, we sent 500,000 troops there, we spent millions of dollars, and here's this guy giving us trouble again, what do you say to them?

REP. HYDE: Well, I think they realize that we didn't finish the job. We felt perhaps with too much hope that the Iraqi people would finish the job. They haven't. Saddam Hussein has stayed in power through terror as a dictator, and he controls the news, and he's going to stay in power unless something happens. I would suggest, however, if he keeps seventy or eighty thousand troops in a threatening posture, even if they're within his own borders, it would do no wrong for us to issue an ultimatum and as Dick Cheney suggested yesterday or last night, not let him call the tune or write the scenario, but it wouldn't be too difficult to decimate those troops on the ground.

MR. LEHRER: And you'd support that even if they don't take an overt act toward Kuwait?

REP. HYDE: I think if they remain massed in a threatening position, you don't have to wait for them to throw the first punch.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Congresswoman?

REP. SCHROEDER: I think I'd add just one qualifier. I would hope, and I think Henry would agree, that we would also get a UN resolution on that zone, and if we have that kind of a mandate behind us, then it's very clear. Look, there's another problem we don't talk about, and that is we got over this first hurdle as voting as a world community and showing real solidarity, but we know that we have borne an unfair part of that burden, and we're the ones that are able to deploy the most rapidly and get back there if they violate those standards. And so as a consequence, we want to make sure that he doesn't just whenever he looks weak at home decide he'll call America back out and start ranting and raving and use that to build up his image. And that is where we've got to get the world community standing with us to say we've got to back up, we got to give a strong zone area in here, and we've got to find a way we all work to answer these 911 calls, because we can't do it forever.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lugar, what about that point? I mean, here we have a situation -- Saddam Hussein sends his troops toward Kuwait and immediately, the United States -- and you commended the President for doing so, we get 36,000 troops on the way, and nobody else -- well, the other people are sending a few people and a few this and a few that, but this -- is this the role of the future of the United States of America?

SEN. LUGAR: Yes, it is. We are the world leader. We are the superpower. We don't jump up and down boasting about it, but that is our role. Now, we also have a role as the President played it yesterday in calling up the leaders of the world and saying this is what we face, and we're counting upon you to play ball. And that's important because Saddam may have been counting on Russia, on France, on others. It's a support, the lifting of sanctions. After all, Iraq owes the Russians $10 billion for arms Russia would like to collect. The French have been somewhat sympathetic. The Turks on occasion --

MR. LEHRER: They want -- and they owe him a lot of money.

SEN. LUGAR: A lot of money.

MR. LEHRER: $6 billion.

SEN. LUGAR: On your program last night the Iraqi ambassador to the UN said there may be national interest that might come into this perhaps. Saddam is desperate, and obviously, he broke out of the mold to try to get something started, or may not have anticipated our response. But without that response, the whole thing goes in the drain. The world counts upon us.

MR. LEHRER: Are you comfortable with that, Sen. Dodd, that it's the United States, the young men and women of the United States are the ones that get on the planes and get on the ships and go in the air too when the Saddam Husseins of this world do this?

SEN. DODD: Well, you can't allow a vacuum to persist. Saddam Hussein is not the only such character in the world, and there will be those who will consistently try and challenge the civilized world in terms of our resolve, and until some alternative that is reliable comes forward, I think you have to assume that role. Not in every case do you have to do what we're doing here. Leadership could be exercised, the power of economic sanctions, political sanctions. There's a variety of ways of exercising the leadership, but there's no one in the world today that can do that, save ourselves. And I think this President is showing leadership. In this particular case it's important as well that I think people hear what you're hearing this evening, and that is four members of Congress who come from different wings of our parties, if you will, and yet, we're all saying basically the same thing. I happen to believe that maybe Saddam Hussein because there have been so many critical reports about this President's handling of foreign policy felt maybe those divisions existed, and that created an opportunity. And I think clearly the message tonight from the four of us is that would be a mistake.

MR. LEHRER: Yes, Congressman.

REP. HYDE: Jim, can I comment?

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

REP. HYDE: I think it's clear that our national interests are intimately involved in what happens between Iraq and Kuwait because of the large percentage of the world's oil reserves, which are known to be in the region if a place like Iraq were to dominate the Persian Gulf, the economies of the world would be in wretched shape. We'd have a massive world depression and a lot of suffering. That is very clear. I think it became clear as a result of Desert Storm, and so our national interests are directly involved. We have to act, but then the task of diplomacy is to bring the other countries along, which I'm confident we can do through the UN, as Pat said.

MR. LEHRER: Congresswoman Schroeder, what is your overview of this, of sending -- is the same question I just asked Sen. Dodd whether or not you're comfortable with this role for the United States?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, let me say first of all, it's very costly, and we're about 3 percent of the world's population, and we're bearing a very heavy financial burden. We're also bearing a very heavy personal burden. I think the most critical vote any of us ever make is that of deploying the most precious thing we have, our young people offshore to defend someone else and figure out what the national interest is in that case. But I guess one of the other reasons I think it's so important that we don't just say it's our responsibility and we will always do it is I don't want some other crazy dictator in the world to suddenly think, ah, ha, this is the time to move, Saddam Hussein has pulled them over there. We've got Haiti down here, maybe North Korea or maybe somewhere else. In other words, it's in the whole world's interest, not just ours, to figure out a way. And this is obviously long-term. But we all are bearing more of this burden because otherwise we don't want anyone to miscalculate, and it would be a miscalculation today. We can handle these things, but it would be a miscalculation but a very, very costly one if they decided that we were pinned down, and they could now, and they could now act.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lugar, as somebody that's been dealing with foreign affairs for a long time in the Senate, do you feel that what's happened here is a new step toward defining how this world is going to sort itself out post Cold War, or is this just another dealing, is this dealing with a thug?

SEN. LUGAR: I think this may be a significant step. On this one, the American people have come together on that of a vital interest, support of the President. The President acted quickly. That probably is very important, just given what Pat Schroeder, so with regard to miscalculation in Korea or in Bosnia, or other places. In Korea, we know our national interest. Bosnia would have been tougher to find, but clearly this kind of decisive action may give hope to the American people. We know how to use the armed forces well in behalf of our national interest.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We have to leave it there. Thank you all four very much. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the main stories of this Tuesday, there are signs Iraqi troops are pulling back from positions near the Kuwait border, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the U.S. will continue its military build-up. In Haiti, hundreds of U.S. soldiers took control of the presidential palace. Israel suspended peace negotiations with the PLO after Islamic militants kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.