MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

E-mail a friend

Tavis: William Cohen has enjoyed a unique and distinguished career in public service. As a freshman Republican in the House, he helped build a case on national television for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. From there, he went on to serve in the Senate from his home state of Maine. Later, he went on to work for a Democratic administration, as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense.

He is now chairman and CEO of his own consulting firm in Washington. Which is where we find him tonight. Secretary Cohen, nice to have you back on this program, sir.

William Cohen: Pleasure to be with you, Tavis.

Tavis: Glad to have you. Tell me about this meeting. Let me start by asking what the invitation to the meeting was like. I guess they contacted you, and?

Cohen: They, uh, the White House had called my office and, uh, inquired as to whether I would be available to attend a briefing at the White House in which President Bush and his Cabinet members would be present. And I of course said that I would. And I knew that other members, former members of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, were going to be invited.

And I thought it was a good opportunity to listen to what the President had to say, and perhaps have a chance to offer a few comments during the course of that. I must say that no one was under the misapprehension that the 13 of us were going to walk in there and sit around a table for 45 minutes or so and have any major impact on the foreign policy of the country. But nonetheless, just to have that number of people stretching back to Bob McNamara 45 years ago was a pretty impressive gathering.

Tavis: To your point that nobody believed that in one 45 minute meeting they were going to change the President's mind on the direction of his policy in Iraq, why, then, do you think the President invited you all to the meeting?

Cohen: I think it was a symbolic reaching out on his part. He's been accused of being contained or confined to a very tight inner circle. And I think he wanted to try to demonstrate to the country that he was reaching out to other people for any advice they might have. I think it was symbolism, but also, he showed that he was willing to stay almost a full hour. Contrary to some reports that he was there five or 10 minutes, he was there nearly an hour.

Before we went into the Oval Office for a photo op, and then returned to the Roosevelt Room for a further briefing by his National Security Advisor. So, it was an opportunity for members to raise issues they felt the President at least ought to hear, and I think he was pretty actively engaged, trying to make his case, but also willing to listen to any commentary.

Tavis: We're told that the President took a significant number of notes in this meeting. Again, no one believed, to your earlier point, that they were going to change his mind. But do you think the President took anything constructive away from that meeting, particularly from those who disagree with his policy?

Cohen: There were several points that were made, one of which I think he took to heart, and that was the need for the President not to conflate or join together to so-called war on terror, and to have that associated primarily and almost exclusively with the war in Iraq. In other words, the war on terror is much broader.

And the President need to make sure that he reminds the American people and our allies that this is a war that has very extensive global implications. It's important in Iraq, but it's not exclusively in Iraq. And I think that was a point that he made notes on and took to heart.

Tavis: Of course, you are a Republican, but you worked, as I mentioned earlier, in a Democratic administration. I was reading and talked to some folks who had the sense that there might have been some effort on the part of the White House to use, certainly, the Democrats in the meeting as cover. That the President wasn't really sincere, necessarily, in inviting people across the aisle to this conversation. Your thoughts?

Cohen: Well, I have urged on a number of occasions publicly on various programs that I've appeared during the past several years, but at least over the past year and a half, specifically that the President needed to bring Democrats, as well as Republicans, into his counsel of advisors, as such. That I believe that there's still an opportunity for the President to reach out to key members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, and bring Democrats and Republicans together to try to establish or sustain a coalition of the willing.

Not only in Iraq, but certainly on Capitol Hill. That coalition of the willing has fractured, and the country is fractured over Iraq. And I think if there's any hope to sustain public commitment, he's got to bring Democrats into these discussions. And so, I saw this as an opportunity, really, not to take advantage of Democratic members who were there.

But rather to also make himself open and available to any comments they might wish to make. So I didn't see it quite as simply trying to co-op them. I don't think you're gonna co-op, uh, Secretary Madeline Albright, or Secretary Bill Perry, or others. I think we all understood why we were there. But we also had an opportunity to express some opinions.

Tavis: Let me ask you to take me back right quick to when you were asked by President Clinton to serve as his defense secretary. I recall that there were some Republicans who weren't happy with you for accepting that opportunity. But since we're talking here about bipartisan politics, what is the value? What are the challenges of having Republicans and Democrats work together in a particular administration?

Cohen: Well, if you're talking at the level of state department and, and defense department, I think it's critical. We can't afford to have the country split along partisan lines when it comes to the national security of this country. And so any possibility of bringing Democrats into the process, whether you appoint them to key positions, or you use them as key advisors, bringing them into consultations frequently, that helps to sustain a, a coalition.

Which will help the country get through a very difficult time. We're losing people every day. And that's taking a toll on the willpower and the staying power of the United States. And so, if it's important to the President that he persuades the country to hang with him and see this thing through, he's got to have the support of key members of Congress.

And that's why I think it's always better to try and make it as bipartisan as possible, bring key members in, appoint them if possible. But if not, make sure that you bring them in on a regular basis, and you actually listen to what they have to say, as well as try to persuade them that they should be on board.

Tavis: I'd be remiss, as the former Secretary of Defense, to not ask you about this 'New York Times' story that came out some days ago. Where the 'New York Times' was able to get information that suggested that some 80 percent of Marine deaths were the result of upper body wounds. And that had the armor that these servicemen and women were wearing, had the armor been better, there might be many more men and women alive today. What did you make of that story?

Cohen: Well, I think it was an important story, and one that needs to be out, as it was reported. Part of the problem, I, I think the major part of the problem, obviously, is that there were a lot of miscalculations made about going into war, in terms of how we would be received, how quickly the war would be won.

It would be over. And how quickly the U.S. troops would be able to depart. We were not greeted as liberators, certainly after the first few months, and we didn't anticipate the level of insurgency that we're continuing to see as of this day. And so, as a result of that miscalculation, or failure to play for the kind of insurgency we're seeing today, we've suffered deaths.

Some due to a lack of armored humvees, and some due to a lack of adequate armor for our military. Part of the difficulty also is that once this was under way, some of the firms that do produce body armor were certainly not in a position to ramp up their production levels in a very quick manner. And that was part of the problem.

Secondly, apparently there was some concern on the part of the Army and the Marines, in terms of how much mobility would be compromised by putting additional armor on. So those kinds of debates no doubt took place inside the Pentagon, or inside the Department of Defense, which probably contributed to the delay in getting the kind of adequate armor that's needed.

But there's no question that it goes back to the initial decision and, and miscalculation of not having sufficient forces, and the right kind of forces, in order to crush the insurgency from the very beginning.

Tavis: Before my time with you ends, I wanna go back to Iraq, and then to Iran, if I might. Back to Iraq, I don't know that President Bush asked you this specifically, (laugh) but let me ask you specifically what you do think the course or policy ought to be at this point in Iraq.

Cohen: At this point, I think we have very few options. At this point, I think what we have to try and do is to get as many Iraqis into the military as possible, and pursue a dual-track strategy, so to speak, that the President's talked about. Number one, getting Iraqis to defend Iraq, and number two, trying to persuade the Iraqis they have to amend their constitution, or interpret it in a way that gives a greater participatory role on the part of the Sunnis.

So that they aren't cut out by this kind of weak central government, with the Kurds in the north, the Shi'a in the south, controlling the resources and the revenues coming from oil, and really isolating the Sunni majority population in those areas, those three large provinces. I think unless they do that, we're looking at a very difficult time, and one that might spin out into a real civil war.

So, I think we have to proceed as we are, accelerating the transformation and the hand over of that responsibility to the Iraqi military as quickly as possible. And then hope that the political leaders will see the benefit and the wisdom of not simply putting in place a Shi'a majority that doesn't have respect either for the rule of law or for any rights of the minority. If that's the case, we're looking at a very dark scenario for the future.

Tavis: Let me go to Iran then, and talk specifically about their nuclear program, and get your thoughts. The president of Iran, as you well know, has been making some really, really bizarre, strange, threatening comments of late. Should we take this guy seriously? Should we just write him off? How do you handle a guy making these kinds of outlandish statements consistently?

Cohen: Well, you can't write him off. Iran is a big country, and it has a, certainly a rich history over the centuries. And they are on their way to developing a nuclear capability. So you can't write it off. This individual's been elected, he's very conservative, and any notion that there was some kind of a division in Iran within the population seems to have been overwhelmed by his election by a fairly significant margin.

But what's happening, I think, is that by virtue of these extraordinary exaggerations that he is indulging in, and wild stories about the lack, no existence of the Holocaust, and that Israel ought to be blown off the face of the Earth, what he's doing is actually undercutting his and Iran's position in world affairs.

And I think it's going to lead to a greater isolation of Iran, rather than what I think the Iranian people would want to have, is further integration into the international community. So, on the one hand, he may be solidifying his support domestically.

At the international level, I think he's giving larger support to Great Britain, to the French, and the Germans who also share the view that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's going to be very dangerous and destabilizing. And we should, in the western world, do everything we can to prevent that from taking place.

Tavis: Secretary Cohen, as always, I appreciate your insight. Honored to have you on this program. All the best, you have a great year. Thanks for coming on.

Cohen: Thank you, Tavis, pleasure.

Tavis: My pleasure. Up next on this program, filmmaker Marshall Curry on his acclaimed documentary, "Street Fight.' Stay with us.