MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 26, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Good evening. I'm Alan Keyes. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
Now, as you can see, the background is missing. No Capitol over my shoulder tonight. That's because I'm not in Washington, DC. I'm actually visiting Fort Smith, Arkansas.
And guess what I got tonight? They not only give you a key to the city when you come here — I came for a speech and all that, you know the kind of thing I do — they not only gave me a nice key. No, they gave you a key to the frontier. The whole West is mine. Isn't that wonderful? Yes, I think it is.
Actually, though, it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic we'll be dealing with tonight. As I often tell my audiences, I think we're in a time when we need to remember the frontier traditions of America.
The fact that in point of truth, this is not a country that is not used to being faced with dangers. We were born in danger. We built a country across frontiers that posed constant dangers to folks. And the thought that we are faced with a pervasive danger from terrorism, sure, it's got to get our attention, but I don't think it ought to get us down. And we'll be talking about that this evening.
We're going to be addressing the question of how the war on terrorism is going and just what is involved in carrying that war to the terrorists themselves, something that I think is on everybody's mind in the wake of the terrible murder of Danny Pearl and the barbaric act that we have witnessed, which has reminded us all not just of the cost but of the cold and vicious spirit of the terrorism that acts against us.
Now, President Bush has on several occasions addressed himself to the kinds of things that we need to be doing and thinking about as we carry this word to the terrorists. Let's hear some of the things that he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This act will not stand. We will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes. We will get them running. And we'll bring them to justice.
No group or nation should mistake America's intentions. We will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated. And this goal will not be achieved until all the world's nations stop harboring and supporting such terrorists within their borders.
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as the battlefield. And we must pursue them wherever they are.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Thousands of terrorists, the world as our battlefield, we must pursue them wherever they are. How do we, in fact, give meaning to those words? What do we do to follow up on that kind of a threat to terrorists around the world?
Obviously, the war in Afghanistan was aimed at sending a strong signal to the states and nations that might harbor and facilitate terrorists in their training camps and facilities. But, if thousands of terrorists are, in fact, in cells around the world, that's not only cells in places like Afghanistan and Yemen, it's in places like Germany and France and Italy and, yes, the United States, as we know from what we've gathered of the activities of the terrorists who struck us on September 11, many of whom had been in the United States for quite some time before the day they struck.
How do we carry the war to these terrorists? And how are we, in fact, doing in the war on terrorism? That's question number one that we're going to be addressing tonight.
We're also going to be looking at what an effective effort is going to require if, in fact, we're going to go after these terrorists and root them out. And then we're going to ask the hard question because after all is said and done, the business of going around, hunting for folks, finding them where they live, and eliminating, killing them, as we were reminded last night in the words of I think Vice President Cheney, something that I think for a lot of Americans might make us a little queasy. Do we have the stomach to do what's necessary?
We are joined this evening by Constantine Menges, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, and Steve Emerson, a terrorism expert and MSNBC analyst. Steve is the author of the new book “American Jihad.” Welcome to the show, gentlemen. Appreciate your being with us tonight.
I would like to first address a question to you, Steve, because obviously we have focused our attention on the Middle East. We've focused on what was needed in Afghanistan. But if the president's words are accurate, and I think sad to say they are, we are faced with a threat that is pervasive, that is global, that involves hundreds of thousands of terrorist cadres around the world. I'm not sure, though, that Americans have a true sense of the scope of this threat and what needs to be done to meet it. What would you say about the threat, as it exists on a global level?
STEVEN EMERSON, AUTHOR, “AMERICAN JIHAD”: I think the threat as of right now five-and-a-half months after 9-11, is you could say is almost the same as it was on 9-10. That is, there is a massive infrastructure worldwide in some 60 countries, the intact leadership. Two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership survived. They're obviously trying to reconstitute themselves.
On round two, they've lost. But round three is yet to come up. And the fact is that when you look at the whole spectrum of Middle Eastern terrorist groups, of Islamic fundamentalist groups operating worldwide, they are still largely a presence in most countries and in the United States today, and are capable of still carrying out the same type of horrific as tack as they did on 9-11.
Yes, we did deal a very serious blow to them in their base in Afghanistan. And the Europeans have been very good in wrapping them up. And we've been doing a good job here. But this is just a drop in the bucket. This is going to take 10 years minimally before we can see the real end results.
KEYES: Constantine Menges, faced with that kind of a threat, a strategic threat that involves this kind of cadre in countries around the world, obviously it is not the sort of threat that can be dealt with on a day-to-day basis with conventional war-making means. What are we talking about in terms of an effort that would actually be able to find and target these kinds of terrorist cadres and eliminate them as a threat?
CONSTANTINE MENGES, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Well, Alan, I have to say that I agree with Steve Emerson in large measure that the threat remains very serious. But we've gone far beyond a drop in the bucket.
First of all, the very awakening that happened on September 11 of our administration, the president, the country, our allies has really made an enormous difference. And the sign of the difference and the consequences of success so far, which are more than a drop in the bucket I think, a significant setback with large threats remaining are the fact that thanks be to God we haven't had any major attacks since September 11, though certainly efforts are being planned and made right now.
To your question, what to do? It takes, as President Bush has told us, political mean, covert means, military means, a whole range of methods, economic means. And the thing that's good is finally we're having a proactive strategy, go and get them, and before they hit us, before they kill more of our men, women, and children, and also work together in a comprehensive way to do this. Be focused, comprehensive, and global in our defensive proactive work.
And that, I think, is happening. It will take a long time. Steve Emerson is right about that. But we've made significant progress in starting the effort.
Now, I'm very concerned, I should say, about the fact that the Iranian regime, which is a major support of terrorism, actually called the most active support of terrorism, is very active now in Afghanistan, trying to bring about, through covert action, through inserting Afghan refugees whom they've trained who are called the Afghan Hezbollah, into Afghanistan right now as we speak to take part of the territory and establish a radical Islamic anti-U.S. regime there, which will reconstitute itself as another kind of terrorism.
We're not good yet at winning the peace there. We're not doing effective enough work on the ground in Afghanistan. We also need to deal with terrorist groups such as the Colombian communist guerrillas — the FARC, which are right on our southern border and be much more proactive about them. We need to deal with the terrorist-supporting regimes like Iran and Iraq.
KEYES: Do you think that we have — and this I would address this to either of you, but maybe first to Steve. Are we talking, though, about the cells and cadre that might be present right this minute in London, in Frankfurt, in Rome, in other places in Europe, maybe even in cities in the United States? Are we talking about individuals who right now are, as it were, gone to ground, but still might be actively planning assaults against us? And what do we do about those cells in terms of rooting them out?
EMERSON: Well, one of the problems is, of course, that we can't arrest people on the basis of intent. If we had picked up all the 9-11 conspirators on the day before, they couldn't have been held because there was no evidence showing their intent to carry out the horrific act.
On the other hand, there's no doubt that there are definite al Qaeda members, as well as members of other radical Islamic groups, not just in London and Paris and in Germany, but in the United States. And whether they are actively involved right now is a question we can't answer.
We know that they have been recruited in the past. And we know based on past experiences that they can be activated even two, three, four years after they're placed in the United States or in Europe. They're rolling out people now in Europe that were in place five years ago that basically had nothing to do until they were instructed to do something.
MENGES: Alan...
KEYES: Just a question. Before you start, Constantine, I have a question, though because the formulation that you've used there, we can't move against people until they have broken the law, I mean, are we in a war, or are we in some law enforcement exercise? And if we're in a war when the enemy has constituted its forces and recruited those forces and put those forces in place, you don't apprehend them. When you find them, you engage and eliminate them. Can't we do that, Constantine? Or are we not going to be able to carry this war to the enemy in that direct sense?
MENGES: Well, Alan, certainly the United States and none of the democracies can or should kill people on their territory based upon the view that they may be planning terrorist actions. They should prevent them from acting. They should arrest them. They should prosecute them in a lawful way and keep our constitutional system and so forth.
What I think — you know, Alan, that I spent some years at the CIA and also at the White House working on this problem and the administration where we both served with President Reagan. And I think, however, we need to look at a deeper way.
You can think of individual terrorists sort of as the metastasizing cancer cells. But the tumors, the source of the problem, are the terrorist-supporting states and the regimes. And this is where President Bush was right to talk about an “axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran, North Korea.
And now is the time, this is the moment in history, finally, to help the people of Iraq, help the people of Iran also, remove those terrible governments which support terrorism and bring about modern constitutional government in that country, and also to succeed in Afghanistan bringing about modern constitutional government.
That will undercut the source of the support and networking logistics, encouragement, money, financing, covert weapons and so forth that the terrorists all over the place need. That's where they're getting it. They're getting it from the oil money from Iraq and Iran and other places.
KEYES: I think, well, but Constantine, I think you're — I will have to add to that list that they're also getting it from the oil money from Saudi Arabia and other folks who are pretending to be working hand-in-glove with us against terrorism. And that money is fungible. And it has, in fact, been going into the hands of the bad guys.
And so I'm not sure it's as simple as to deal with the puppets when we also know that behind those puppets stand — other eminence greases (ph) — if I could put it that way, that are causing part of the problem. I appreciate it, gentlemen. Thank you. We've run out of time for your segment this evening.
But I really appreciate your coming and sharing your thoughts with us. And I think you've helped to lay on the table the elements that we're going to have to look at this evening in terms of the state sponsors and facilitators, in terms of the presence of cadre around the world in countries like our own and in Europe and elsewhere, and also, of course, the legal and moral questions that are involved in carrying the war to the enemies.
Is it law enforcement, or is it warfare? And if it's warfare, can we anticipate the enemy's moves? Or do we have to wait until they strike?
These are the kinds of questions we will be taking a further look at as we get to the heart of the matter next here on MAKING SENSE. And later, we'll be taking a look at the big fight that's developing over energy and energy policy, heating up in Washington in part of the because sensitivity to our dependence on foreign oil supplies that come from parts of the world that are deeply affected by or involved with the terrorist phenomena. Plus, of course, we'll be getting to open phone lines, 1-866-KEYES-USA.
But before we get to all of that, does this make sense? A little while ago on the show, we talked about the fact that in Washington, DC, they were moving toward using surveillance cameras. We dealt with some of the civil liberties issues. The other day they announced they turned off the cameras because the Olympic games were over and the big intensified threat was gone.
I thought we were at all times right now in this country on high alert against terror and that the argument that they were making was that this would be a necessary part of the strategy to fight it. If it's still going on, what sense does it make to turn off the cameras? Do you think that makes sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. We're talking about the war on terror and the issues that are involved in carrying that war to the enemy. Obviously, our campaign in Afghanistan was aimed at destroying infrastructure that existed in a country that was facilitating the war on terror.
But the president himself in his State of the Union address indicated the existence of terrorist cadre globally around the world, and cells that can exist in the United States, in Europe, in other countries outside of the Middle East or even the Third World. How do we carry the war to that enemy? How do we, in fact, take a proactive approach that might deal with the terrorists before they have dealt a blow against us?
Joining us to get to the heart of this matter very vital to us all is Charles Kupchan, a security and military strategic affairs expert who's a professor at Georgetown University. Also with us, Jack Rice, a former CIA agent. And retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, he's also an MSNBC analyst. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JACK RICE, FORMER AGENT, CIA: Good evening.
KEYES: The question that's in front of us, I think, is one that is vital also sometimes, I think, as I've heard people talking about it, a little hard for folks to just come to grips with, beyond the kind of issue that is proposed by a country like Afghanistan where we can move with conventional forces to try to deal with a state that is sponsoring terrorism, how do we carry the war to the enemy in terms of going after these terrorist cadres before they are, in fact, able to strike at us? Is there a way that we can, in fact, make that happen?
Let me address the question first to you from the CIA perspective. What do you think can be done in the way of taking intelligence and turning into effective action that will, in fact, deal with this terrorist threat?
RICE: Well, Alan...
KEYES: Jack, what do you think?
(CROSSTALK)
RICE: ... absolutely, Alan. There's a way that this can be done.
The president has already aggressively approached most of these issues, not only going after al Qaeda across the world, but also starting in Afghanistan. We already have referenced to special ops units in potentially Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere.
It's important, though, that we realize that this is a process that's going to take time. And most importantly, we do need the support of our allies while we do this. There has been some argument on whether we should do this unilaterally or whether we should do this as a coalition.
The difficulty we have, at least with al Qaeda, we have an organization that crosses over anywhere from 30 to 50 countries. We can't be in all of those countries from a military perspective. And I don't think we have the intelligence capability to be in all of those countries as well and provide all of that information.
We need the information we can get from Pakistani ISI, Mossad, MI-6 (ph), all the others that can help us. With that help, we should be able to take it to the enemy because the purpose is to stop them. Sometimes we can't destroy them outright. We simply need to stop their capability.
KEYES: Well, when you say stop their capability, though, are we talking about something that is more in a law enforcement vein, or are we talking about something that actually involves taking teams of people in to eliminate these terrorists, to wipe them out, to kill them as one of our leaders have said?
Charles Kupchan, which of these things is the alternative? Are we going to be dealing with a mixture of both? And if it comes to actual direct action of that kind, do you think that the American people have the stomach to move forward with a campaign that involves that kind of direct action against terrorist individuals?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, SECURITY AND MILITARY STRATEGIC AFFAIRS EXPERT: Well, I think it's a little bit of both, Alan. We actually have to go after the head of the monster, which is the network itself, as it existed in Afghanistan, as it may exist in Yemen or Somalia. And that may well require the use of military force.
But in terms of going after sleeper cells in the United States, in Japan, in Germany, that's much more of a law enforcement challenge. And it means getting our FBI to talk to our police forces, getting our immigration services to talk to our intelligence services.
That's one of the things that this new director for Homeland Security is supposed to do. It remains to be seen whether he is, in fact — has sufficient political authority to do that.
But I think it is important to make sure that we don't oversell the military part of this in the sense that we did win the war in Afghanistan quite handily. But al Qaeda, two-thirds of the leadership is still at large. There probably are sleeper cells here.
And that's why the message to the American people has to be both get ready, be ready to take hits if we go in the military option. But this is also a long, long fight that's going to require patience. It is going to require vigilance. And we really, I think, need to emphasize that part of this battle as long as the guns, the bombs, the whistles, the more overt things that we can see.
KEYES: Jack Jacobs, what is your sense now of where we go from here? I mean, we've had the Afghanistan war. We have struck an effective blow, I think, in conventional military terms against the infrastructure. But, as these gentlemen are pointing out, we are left with two-thirds or more of the problem in terms of the actual threat, the individuals who pose that threat to Americans and other countries around the world. What do we do to carry the word to them?
JACK JACOBS, RETIRED COLONEL, U.S. ARMY: Well, I think they're right in many respects. I thin we were lucky in Afghanistan because we had a concentrated enemy that was very easy to get rid of.
We have to remember that we spent several decades denuding our intelligence capability. We have a very large and bloated intelligence bureaucracy that can only do what bureaucracies do best. And that is to do routine tests in a routine way and searching after and identifying and finding and killing and getting rid of terrorists.
These things are not routine jobs. And we don't have the capability at the moment to do those kinds of things, the kind of capability that we had some decades ago. And administrations have had a lot to answer for in the last couple of administrations.
KEYES: See, along those lines, one of the things I guess that has been running across my mind since very early on after the terrorist attacks occurred was the fact that in may ways the threat that we're faced is a threat that none of these institutions is able to deal with on a routine basis — the FBI, the CIA, our military people. Wouldn't it make sense to sit down and actually conceive of an anti-terrorist unit that would bring together elements from all of these different agencies, specifically geared to the job of hunting down these terrorists and finding them? Why aren't we seeing folks thinking about putting together a force of that kind? And would it be feasible? Charles Kupchan, what do you think?
KUPCHAN: I think we do have forces that are to some extent trained for that. Different components of our Army, our Navy, our Marines, the special forces operations units. And they are very much trained in terms of going in quietly, covert, taking out terrorist cells.
But the domestic side of it really is more difficult because it requires careful intelligence. It requires cooperation with other countries. And to some extent that is at odds with our military objectives because the Europeans and others have thought us to be too unilateral, and have pulled back from us to some extent. But we very much needs them in terms of intelligence cooperation.
And I also think, just to put one other issue on the table, we ought to also be having a debate not just about getting rid of existing terrorists but about a long-term plan to make sure there aren't new generations of terrorists that are emerging in the Middle East, in Africa, in other deprived parts of the world. And so I think part of our political discourse has to be how do we simulate development? How do we get primary education to parts of the world that really only have Islamic schools to offer their children? And so there's a real development issue that, in my mind, ought to be part of our agenda on how to fight terrorism over the long-run.
KEYES: Well, but I have got to tell you, I listened to what you just said. And I think you're selling us short. We have been engaged in development efforts since the end of World War II. We invented the very concept in many ways and have carried it forward around the world through international agencies, through bilateral programs, and so forth and so on.
I guess I always react a little bit negatively to the idea that somehow or another there's a connection between terrorism being led by somebody like Osama bin Laden and his buddies that's fueled with the rich resources that have come from Middle East oil.
These are not — some of the people who are backing this phenomenon, these aren't the poor countries and the downtrodden countries. These are folks who have consciously chosen to waste their wealth, not building up their people but building up weapons and cadre and networks that are aimed at destroying us and destroying others. That's a choice they made.
I, frankly, don't see what it has to do with our foreign aid stance or how anything we can do in that regard is going to diffuse the kind of politically motivated hatred they seem to me to represent. Jack Rice, what do you think?
RICE: Well, to some degree, Alan, I would agree. And then to some degree, I would disagree with you.
First of all, from a tactical perspective, we're doing a lot right now to try to attack these organizations. But I would agree with one of our other guests here that there is a longer-term strategic approach that we can take.
And there are two columns here. There is the military-slash-police column that we can use to approach this. But there is a financial approach that I think that we can take.
Let's face it. A lot of the people who become terrorists are the young, the naive, the disenfranchised. I'm not talking about the Osama bin Laden at the top here or some of his lieutenants. I'm talking about the thousands of others who see this as no alternative but something like this.
Now, there are going to be those who want to kill us and hate us no matter what we do. We can't fix those people. But there are a great number that are in the middle here that I think we can approach. And we can say these are the ones that we want to give some sort of alternative to. We have not...
KEYES: Wait, wait, wait, wait, now, before we go — you mean all the terrorists — we have literally in foreign aid programs and other kinds of assistance programs around the world over the course of the last several decades thrown trillions of dollars at these countries in all different forms of aid and development assistance and loans and you name it. And we have now a cadre of terrorists coming at us from some parts of the world that include some of the richest, oil richest, countries in the world. What has this got to do with development? I can't see it.
(CROSSTALK)
KUPCHAN: ... coming out of Saudi Arabia, right, are coming from states that have huge income equalities that are deeply dysfunctional. Can we fix that? No. But can we do a better job of spending aid better? Could we perhaps spend more than .1 percent of our national income on aid? Is there a way that we can fight malaria, can fight AIDS, can do a better job of getting primary education?
I think there is no question the answer is yes. And I also think we ought to see this partly as a national security problem. We now need to worry about collapsing states. Why? Because Afghanistan collapsed, and it was a breeding ground for al Qaeda. This is now part of our national security agenda.
KEYES: But first of all, I think that that is a naive statement about Afghanistan. Afghanistan collapsed. Afghanistan has been in its incipient state, constant warfare, tribal differences, all kinds of conflict and chaos for several hundred years. And you're now acting as if that permanent state and condition, which has actually been dealt with by several nations and empires over the course of those centuries, is something that we invented. No, it's not.
KUPCHAN: I didn't say that at all.
(CROSSTALK)
KUPCHAN: All I said is that we need to worry about states like that because they can come back to haunt us. I'm not blaming the U.S.
Afghanistan has been racked by foreign intervention, by ethnic conflict. But we need to have a discussion in this country about how to deal with those states, how to put them on the map, because we turned our backs on them. And that turning of the backs came back to haunt us. And we can do better.
RICE: You know, Alan, there is one other issue here we can address...
KEYES: Go ahead.
RICE: ... and you mentioned whether or not the American people have the stomach to handle this sort of thing. The fact is we are actually killing people right now in Afghanistan, as you might recall, with the Predator drone. We were shooting Hellfire missiles that killed several people at that point. And it's obvious that we're going to see that in the future.
Now, I don't expect that to happen in places like Europe, in places like the United States. But you're going to see continued aggressive military actions with the support of the intelligence community. And, in fact, that will be one arm of this entire military operation. And it must be.
RICE: Alan...
KEYES: One of the great — yeah, just a second. We have come to the end of our time. I really appreciate it. This has turned into a very lively discussion.
And it raised, I think, a serious question because I, frankly, think we need to be throwing bullets and lethal actions in the direction of terrorists. Whether throwing money in the direction of the world is going to solve this problem I, frankly, believe that's one of our delusions and has been for several decades that we somehow get into a situation like this and think, well, if we just throw enough money at it, it will go away.
If we had understood that the strategic dimension of our situation in the world can't be dealt with that way, we might have been less willing to back away from some of the proactive approaches we hould have been taking for several decades on this very question. Gentlemen, thank you for joining me tonight. Appreciate it very much.
Next, we're going to get to the bottom line. And later, we'll be talking with you about what's on your mind.
But first, and very relevant to what we were just talking about, there are folks who are coming forward now to make the argument, in fact, that we need to be gathering more foreign aid money and, in the name of fighting terrorism, throw it at different countries around the world because that's going to do something to, what, I don't know, stop people from hating us?
Osama bin Laden, here you have a rich fellow, came into one of the greatest inheritances of any individual on the face of the earth. And yet, he nurtured this kind of hatred against us for years. Do you think you're going to solve that problem with money? Because I don't. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
As we talk about the war on terrorism, we inevitably hear the name Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. In addition to being part of the whole terrorism problem, and part of the scope of that problem in the near east and the Middle east, we should also know, of course, and remember that these are countries that are heavy oil producers. And the United States is very heavily dependent on imported oil.
And that leads us to our next topic for the evening. Because you've all heard, I am sure, the Bush administration has come forward to articulate its new policy. And our dependence on oil that comes from countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, in addition, of course, to Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, these are the leaders in terms of providing oil to the United States.
And at least a couple of them are clearly going to be affected by the war on terrorism as it affects the Middle East. That means that there's a relationship between our strategy toward that war on terror, our ability to conduct it with confidence and firmness, to deal with some of these states, whatever may be their role in oil production firmly and in a way that reflects our real interest.
If we're going to be able to do that, then we're going to have to find a way to establish greater energy independence, so we won't have to be looking over our shoulder at the possible economic impact of taking a strong stand for our safety. That is, I think, part of the motive for the intense discussion that is beginning amongst our leaders and policymakers about what should be our approach on energy.
The administration has come forward with what it regards as a balanced approach, trying to make sure that we sustain economic growth by opening up new areas, where we can find oil that will be under our control, such as ANWAR and the Arctic reserve.
Other folks coming forward to suggest that we need to take measures to increase the cafe standards, the standards that govern how many miles per gallon cars have to get on our roads so that we will economize and thereby reduce our demand for this foreign oil.
This has been a contentious topic in the energy area for many years. Here tonight to tell us — think it through, we are joined by Marlo Lewis, an energy policy expert, and Scott Stoermer, the communications director at the League of Conservation Voters.
Let me start, first of all, with you Scott. And the situation in which we now find ourselves, in addition to the problems that we have on the security front faced with the challenges that are represented by our dependence on foreign oil, what kind of steps do you think it would be appropriate for us to take, in other to reduce our dependence on imported oil?
SCOTT STOERMER, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: Well, I think we have to make sure, Alan, that we get the facts straight on this is that, yes, the United States imports about 50 percent of the oil that we currently use. In about 10 years, if we continue to consume oil at the rates we now are, we're going to have to import about 60 percent of the oil we use.
We import 620,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq, 1.7 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. We have to make sure that we're making up this difference to reduce our dependence upon this foreign oil, because as the president said yesterday, and as many of us agree, these countries don't like us very much.
So we have to make sure that we're making up this difference in other areas. What we in the environmental community believe, and many on Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike believe, is that the best way to do this is to make sure that we're making cars go further on a gallon of gas, since transportation makes up about 60 percent of the oil that we consume here in the United States, and that we're doing it in a way that strengthens our economy, preserves our national security, and protects our environment. And that doing all of these things is going to get us a long way.
KEYES: Well, does that mean that in order to — wait a second now. Does that mean that in order to fight the war on terrorism, we have to kind of declare war on the SUVs and the other gas guzzlers that are back on our roads?
STOERMER: Well, I don't think we have to declare war on the SUVs, but we do have to declare a war on is waste. What we do have to declare a war on are people who are opposing increased fuel efficiency standards, when we know that current technology exists that can close the loophole between SUVs and passenger cars.
Do you know, Alan, that if we just close the loophole that keeps SUVs from achieving the same miles per gallon rate as automobiles, we will save one million barrels of oil a day? That is far more than we import from Iraq. And if we just pass what is included in the Senate energy bill that's proposed by Senators Daschle and Binghamman, about 35 miles per gallon for automobiles, we will save 15 times more gas than oil than could ever be found in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
KEYES: Let me go to Marlo Lewis now. Marlo's an energy expert, formally with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where they've done a lot of good work on a whole range of environmental issues.
Marlo, as you're listening to what Scott has to say, what are you thinking about this proposal that we have to cut back on our demand, raise the cafe standards, take these kinds of measures? Do you think that's the only alternative we have here?
MARLO LEWIS, JR. ENERGY POLICY EXPERT: Well, Alan, I think Scott sounds like a very well-meaning fellow. And I know that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle in Congress are singing to the same tune of fuel economy standards and reducing demand, and closing the loophole for SUVs.
But you know, when you really examine the evidence, what this boils down to is a blood for oil trade. The idea is that we can save oil, but the consequences that we will spill more American blood. And I think it's very unfortunate that people are thinking like this.
KEYES: Now when you say that, what do you mean?
LEWIS: What they're really saying or what they're really proposing is that we should honor the memories of all of those people who died on September 11, and Daniel Pearl, by putting more Americans at risk on our highways and...
STOERMER: Hold on one second.
KEYES: No. No. Wait a minute, Scott. Hold on, Scott. Just let him finish. Go ahead.
LEWIS: The fuel economy standards have killed over 1,000 Americans a year for the last 20 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And if we raise those standards, we will cause our automobiles to be downsized and made more lightweight, once again. And lighter, smaller cars are not as safe as heavier, bigger cars. It's very simple. You make cars...
KEYES: Well, Marlo, don't — if you're going to address...
LEWIS: ...and smaller, you save oil, but you also put more people at risk.
KEYES: Marlo Lewis, if we're going to address the problem of our dependency, though, on foreign oil, what do we do in order to try to cut back on that dependency? What's the alternative? If we're not going to move in a direction like this, if you think there are dangers in this kind of conservation, what direction do we move in? Are there reserves we can tap into that would be useful here? And how should we do it?
LEWIS: Well, Alan, this is going to sound heretical to people who are both Democrats and Republicans, but I do not think that oil dependency is a real problem. I think it's a made-up problem or a problem that exists only in perception.
The cafe program was put into effect in 1975. Since then, our oil imports have increased from 35 percent of our total oil to over 50 percent, which shows you how, in effect, fuel economy standards are. And there's a reason why we are importing more and more oil over time, even as we make cars more and more fuel efficient. And even though OPEC remains a cartel that restricts supply in order to increase price.
And it's simply that we get a better buy in the global economy by importing this much oil. And all of the projections, all of the trends say we're going to be importing more, as Scott said, 60 percent in 10 years. And that is simply a reflection of global markets.
KEYES: Scott Stoermer, we're looking at a background where, if what Marlo says is true, it doesn't look like the approach you're suggesting is going to have much effect. We've been following this restrictive approach. And yet, we've seen our dependence on foreign oil increase. Isn't it likely that if we just do more of the same, we'll get more of the same results?
STOERMER: I think that the time has come now to go ahead and take advantage of this golden opportunity, to make sure that we can take advantage of the best of America's future, rather than the worst of our energy past.
Now if we want to talk about spilling American blood, I mean, let's talk about that. Twelve years ago, I remember getting a letter in the mail rom President George Herbert Walker Bush, putting me back in uniform on active duty and sending me over to the Persian Gulf to defend our oil interests there.
So let's talk about that for a second. And let's talk about the safety issues in terms of increasing fuel efficiency standards. In December, the Center for Automobile Safety found that there has absolutely been no correlation whatsoever between increased fuel efficiency standards and deaths on the highway.
The National Academy of Scientists' stipulation in their report last year was disputed by many members of that panel. And in fact, the Department of Energy found that 85 percent of the increases in fuel efficiency standard that came as a result of our 1975 cafe law were from technological, not structural improvements. So let's talk about what we can do right now, which is make sure...
KEYES: Scott, Marlo, I have to thank you for being with me this evening. We've run out of time. We're obviously just scratching the surface of this issue. We'll be revisiting it as this discussion intensifies.
I do have one though I want to share with all of you, though. Because it seems to me on one side and the other, one thing that has been put on the table by the administration that I think makes a certain amount of sense is to look at tapping into our own reserves, to reduce our dependency by moving forward in a responsible way, to make use of energy reserves, the Anwar reserves and others.
A lot of exaggerated arguments have been made about the dangers of this, when in truth, it turns out to be both safe for the environment, safer for the folks on our highways, and safer in terms of reducing our dependency on foreign oil for security. That's my sense of it.
Thanks, Marlo and Scott. Later, we'll get to my outrage of the day. But first, I want to hear what's on your mind. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now we get to what's on your mind. Let's start with Greg in Ohio. Greg, are you making sense tonight?
GREG: Dr. Keyes, it's a pleasure. My question is, in the name of national security and for the sake of our economy and the blood of our children, why don't we simply pull out of these countries and not give them a reason for any further terrorist action?
KEYES: Well, because I think then the terrorists would be ruling the world. I don't think I want terrorists running the global, telling good decent people who would want to trade together and work together and play together and entertain together and have all kinds of trade and commerce.
Most of the people in this world aren't out to kill each other. And why should we allow our relations with other law-abiding, decent, peaceful people to be governed by a bunch of bloody-minded terrorists? I don't think we should let that interfere with our relations with good people around the world. We can't let these people win or the globe will, I think, literally become a hellish place ruled over by thugs.
Let's go to Moishe in New York. Moishe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MOISHE: Hi, can you hear me?
KEYES: Yes, I can. Yes, welcome to the show.
MOISHE: I take the opposite perspective. I think that 22 Arab-Muslim countries can't — they barely outproduce one Israel, we have a major culture difference. Their religion and their politics have to be combined. And they have to be repressed because the Arabians have never been able to have a culture like we have. If you go through their towns, they're just — they're nothing. They don't have a Paris or a Rome. They don't have any nice, beautiful cities. It's a culture...
KEYES: Well, Moishe...
MOISHE: ... that Mark Twain described as —
KEYES: Moishe, I think that we shouldn't misunderstand. Yes, there are cultural differences between us, but I am not sure that those cultural differences are necessarily any justification or even really any excuse for acts of cold-blooded hatred. Now cultural differences can be bridged. Those kinds of actions, I think, only have to be repelled and dealt with. Thank you for your call. Appreciate it.
Let's go to Shannon in Texas. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, Shannon.
SHANNON: Yes, Mr. Keyes, I'm finally glad to see they put a real conservative on TV. But I had the privilege of working on your campaign in 2000. And I hope to do it again in two more years. My question for you tonight is the issue of drug testing for welfare recipients has come up, but it's never really been talked about. And I was just wondering, what's your opinion on it?
KEYES: Well, it seems to me that if we have actual cause to believe, as sometimes we do, because people are neglecting their children and in other ways destroying their lives. I don't think we should just let people go down the road of self-destruction without any kind of interference.
And that means that if you see signs that there is drug abuse and it's destroying the ability of individuals to take care of themselves and take care of their children, I think that it's perfectly justified for the state to step in and say if we're going to be giving you this kind of help, we need to know what's really going on and even to compel you to deal with the problem that you face.
So I think that I would be in favor of that, where there's actually probable cause to believe that it's affecting the lives and welfare of people, and particularly of their children. Thanks for your call. And thank all of you for your feedback.
Next on the program, we're going to get to my outrage of the day. It seems — it seems to be the case that some of the folks sitting on the Supreme Court believe that they ought to have certain liberties that they're trying to take away from the rest of us. More on that when we get back here on America's - on MAKING SENSE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: So the Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that the governor of Indiana can't replace a monument that was vandalized back in the early '90's, because it includes a representation of the 10 commandments.
Now as Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, and Scalia pointed out, there is a freeze in the Supreme Court chamber itself that has a representation of Moses with the 10 commandments. They can acknowledge the real legal heritage of this nation, but they want everybody else to forget about it? I think that that's outrageous. That's my sense of it.
Next, “AMERICA AT WAR” with Gregg Jarett. See you tomorrow.
Now, as you can see, the background is missing. No Capitol over my shoulder tonight. That's because I'm not in Washington, DC. I'm actually visiting Fort Smith, Arkansas.
And guess what I got tonight? They not only give you a key to the city when you come here — I came for a speech and all that, you know the kind of thing I do — they not only gave me a nice key. No, they gave you a key to the frontier. The whole West is mine. Isn't that wonderful? Yes, I think it is.
Actually, though, it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic we'll be dealing with tonight. As I often tell my audiences, I think we're in a time when we need to remember the frontier traditions of America.
The fact that in point of truth, this is not a country that is not used to being faced with dangers. We were born in danger. We built a country across frontiers that posed constant dangers to folks. And the thought that we are faced with a pervasive danger from terrorism, sure, it's got to get our attention, but I don't think it ought to get us down. And we'll be talking about that this evening.
We're going to be addressing the question of how the war on terrorism is going and just what is involved in carrying that war to the terrorists themselves, something that I think is on everybody's mind in the wake of the terrible murder of Danny Pearl and the barbaric act that we have witnessed, which has reminded us all not just of the cost but of the cold and vicious spirit of the terrorism that acts against us.
Now, President Bush has on several occasions addressed himself to the kinds of things that we need to be doing and thinking about as we carry this word to the terrorists. Let's hear some of the things that he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This act will not stand. We will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes. We will get them running. And we'll bring them to justice.
No group or nation should mistake America's intentions. We will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated. And this goal will not be achieved until all the world's nations stop harboring and supporting such terrorists within their borders.
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as the battlefield. And we must pursue them wherever they are.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Thousands of terrorists, the world as our battlefield, we must pursue them wherever they are. How do we, in fact, give meaning to those words? What do we do to follow up on that kind of a threat to terrorists around the world?
Obviously, the war in Afghanistan was aimed at sending a strong signal to the states and nations that might harbor and facilitate terrorists in their training camps and facilities. But, if thousands of terrorists are, in fact, in cells around the world, that's not only cells in places like Afghanistan and Yemen, it's in places like Germany and France and Italy and, yes, the United States, as we know from what we've gathered of the activities of the terrorists who struck us on September 11, many of whom had been in the United States for quite some time before the day they struck.
How do we carry the war to these terrorists? And how are we, in fact, doing in the war on terrorism? That's question number one that we're going to be addressing tonight.
We're also going to be looking at what an effective effort is going to require if, in fact, we're going to go after these terrorists and root them out. And then we're going to ask the hard question because after all is said and done, the business of going around, hunting for folks, finding them where they live, and eliminating, killing them, as we were reminded last night in the words of I think Vice President Cheney, something that I think for a lot of Americans might make us a little queasy. Do we have the stomach to do what's necessary?
We are joined this evening by Constantine Menges, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, and Steve Emerson, a terrorism expert and MSNBC analyst. Steve is the author of the new book “American Jihad.” Welcome to the show, gentlemen. Appreciate your being with us tonight.
I would like to first address a question to you, Steve, because obviously we have focused our attention on the Middle East. We've focused on what was needed in Afghanistan. But if the president's words are accurate, and I think sad to say they are, we are faced with a threat that is pervasive, that is global, that involves hundreds of thousands of terrorist cadres around the world. I'm not sure, though, that Americans have a true sense of the scope of this threat and what needs to be done to meet it. What would you say about the threat, as it exists on a global level?
STEVEN EMERSON, AUTHOR, “AMERICAN JIHAD”: I think the threat as of right now five-and-a-half months after 9-11, is you could say is almost the same as it was on 9-10. That is, there is a massive infrastructure worldwide in some 60 countries, the intact leadership. Two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership survived. They're obviously trying to reconstitute themselves.
On round two, they've lost. But round three is yet to come up. And the fact is that when you look at the whole spectrum of Middle Eastern terrorist groups, of Islamic fundamentalist groups operating worldwide, they are still largely a presence in most countries and in the United States today, and are capable of still carrying out the same type of horrific as tack as they did on 9-11.
Yes, we did deal a very serious blow to them in their base in Afghanistan. And the Europeans have been very good in wrapping them up. And we've been doing a good job here. But this is just a drop in the bucket. This is going to take 10 years minimally before we can see the real end results.
KEYES: Constantine Menges, faced with that kind of a threat, a strategic threat that involves this kind of cadre in countries around the world, obviously it is not the sort of threat that can be dealt with on a day-to-day basis with conventional war-making means. What are we talking about in terms of an effort that would actually be able to find and target these kinds of terrorist cadres and eliminate them as a threat?
CONSTANTINE MENGES, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Well, Alan, I have to say that I agree with Steve Emerson in large measure that the threat remains very serious. But we've gone far beyond a drop in the bucket.
First of all, the very awakening that happened on September 11 of our administration, the president, the country, our allies has really made an enormous difference. And the sign of the difference and the consequences of success so far, which are more than a drop in the bucket I think, a significant setback with large threats remaining are the fact that thanks be to God we haven't had any major attacks since September 11, though certainly efforts are being planned and made right now.
To your question, what to do? It takes, as President Bush has told us, political mean, covert means, military means, a whole range of methods, economic means. And the thing that's good is finally we're having a proactive strategy, go and get them, and before they hit us, before they kill more of our men, women, and children, and also work together in a comprehensive way to do this. Be focused, comprehensive, and global in our defensive proactive work.
And that, I think, is happening. It will take a long time. Steve Emerson is right about that. But we've made significant progress in starting the effort.
Now, I'm very concerned, I should say, about the fact that the Iranian regime, which is a major support of terrorism, actually called the most active support of terrorism, is very active now in Afghanistan, trying to bring about, through covert action, through inserting Afghan refugees whom they've trained who are called the Afghan Hezbollah, into Afghanistan right now as we speak to take part of the territory and establish a radical Islamic anti-U.S. regime there, which will reconstitute itself as another kind of terrorism.
We're not good yet at winning the peace there. We're not doing effective enough work on the ground in Afghanistan. We also need to deal with terrorist groups such as the Colombian communist guerrillas — the FARC, which are right on our southern border and be much more proactive about them. We need to deal with the terrorist-supporting regimes like Iran and Iraq.
KEYES: Do you think that we have — and this I would address this to either of you, but maybe first to Steve. Are we talking, though, about the cells and cadre that might be present right this minute in London, in Frankfurt, in Rome, in other places in Europe, maybe even in cities in the United States? Are we talking about individuals who right now are, as it were, gone to ground, but still might be actively planning assaults against us? And what do we do about those cells in terms of rooting them out?
EMERSON: Well, one of the problems is, of course, that we can't arrest people on the basis of intent. If we had picked up all the 9-11 conspirators on the day before, they couldn't have been held because there was no evidence showing their intent to carry out the horrific act.
On the other hand, there's no doubt that there are definite al Qaeda members, as well as members of other radical Islamic groups, not just in London and Paris and in Germany, but in the United States. And whether they are actively involved right now is a question we can't answer.
We know that they have been recruited in the past. And we know based on past experiences that they can be activated even two, three, four years after they're placed in the United States or in Europe. They're rolling out people now in Europe that were in place five years ago that basically had nothing to do until they were instructed to do something.
MENGES: Alan...
KEYES: Just a question. Before you start, Constantine, I have a question, though because the formulation that you've used there, we can't move against people until they have broken the law, I mean, are we in a war, or are we in some law enforcement exercise? And if we're in a war when the enemy has constituted its forces and recruited those forces and put those forces in place, you don't apprehend them. When you find them, you engage and eliminate them. Can't we do that, Constantine? Or are we not going to be able to carry this war to the enemy in that direct sense?
MENGES: Well, Alan, certainly the United States and none of the democracies can or should kill people on their territory based upon the view that they may be planning terrorist actions. They should prevent them from acting. They should arrest them. They should prosecute them in a lawful way and keep our constitutional system and so forth.
What I think — you know, Alan, that I spent some years at the CIA and also at the White House working on this problem and the administration where we both served with President Reagan. And I think, however, we need to look at a deeper way.
You can think of individual terrorists sort of as the metastasizing cancer cells. But the tumors, the source of the problem, are the terrorist-supporting states and the regimes. And this is where President Bush was right to talk about an “axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran, North Korea.
And now is the time, this is the moment in history, finally, to help the people of Iraq, help the people of Iran also, remove those terrible governments which support terrorism and bring about modern constitutional government in that country, and also to succeed in Afghanistan bringing about modern constitutional government.
That will undercut the source of the support and networking logistics, encouragement, money, financing, covert weapons and so forth that the terrorists all over the place need. That's where they're getting it. They're getting it from the oil money from Iraq and Iran and other places.
KEYES: I think, well, but Constantine, I think you're — I will have to add to that list that they're also getting it from the oil money from Saudi Arabia and other folks who are pretending to be working hand-in-glove with us against terrorism. And that money is fungible. And it has, in fact, been going into the hands of the bad guys.
And so I'm not sure it's as simple as to deal with the puppets when we also know that behind those puppets stand — other eminence greases (ph) — if I could put it that way, that are causing part of the problem. I appreciate it, gentlemen. Thank you. We've run out of time for your segment this evening.
But I really appreciate your coming and sharing your thoughts with us. And I think you've helped to lay on the table the elements that we're going to have to look at this evening in terms of the state sponsors and facilitators, in terms of the presence of cadre around the world in countries like our own and in Europe and elsewhere, and also, of course, the legal and moral questions that are involved in carrying the war to the enemies.
Is it law enforcement, or is it warfare? And if it's warfare, can we anticipate the enemy's moves? Or do we have to wait until they strike?
These are the kinds of questions we will be taking a further look at as we get to the heart of the matter next here on MAKING SENSE. And later, we'll be taking a look at the big fight that's developing over energy and energy policy, heating up in Washington in part of the because sensitivity to our dependence on foreign oil supplies that come from parts of the world that are deeply affected by or involved with the terrorist phenomena. Plus, of course, we'll be getting to open phone lines, 1-866-KEYES-USA.
But before we get to all of that, does this make sense? A little while ago on the show, we talked about the fact that in Washington, DC, they were moving toward using surveillance cameras. We dealt with some of the civil liberties issues. The other day they announced they turned off the cameras because the Olympic games were over and the big intensified threat was gone.
I thought we were at all times right now in this country on high alert against terror and that the argument that they were making was that this would be a necessary part of the strategy to fight it. If it's still going on, what sense does it make to turn off the cameras? Do you think that makes sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. We're talking about the war on terror and the issues that are involved in carrying that war to the enemy. Obviously, our campaign in Afghanistan was aimed at destroying infrastructure that existed in a country that was facilitating the war on terror.
But the president himself in his State of the Union address indicated the existence of terrorist cadre globally around the world, and cells that can exist in the United States, in Europe, in other countries outside of the Middle East or even the Third World. How do we carry the war to that enemy? How do we, in fact, take a proactive approach that might deal with the terrorists before they have dealt a blow against us?
Joining us to get to the heart of this matter very vital to us all is Charles Kupchan, a security and military strategic affairs expert who's a professor at Georgetown University. Also with us, Jack Rice, a former CIA agent. And retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, he's also an MSNBC analyst. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JACK RICE, FORMER AGENT, CIA: Good evening.
KEYES: The question that's in front of us, I think, is one that is vital also sometimes, I think, as I've heard people talking about it, a little hard for folks to just come to grips with, beyond the kind of issue that is proposed by a country like Afghanistan where we can move with conventional forces to try to deal with a state that is sponsoring terrorism, how do we carry the war to the enemy in terms of going after these terrorist cadres before they are, in fact, able to strike at us? Is there a way that we can, in fact, make that happen?
Let me address the question first to you from the CIA perspective. What do you think can be done in the way of taking intelligence and turning into effective action that will, in fact, deal with this terrorist threat?
RICE: Well, Alan...
KEYES: Jack, what do you think?
(CROSSTALK)
RICE: ... absolutely, Alan. There's a way that this can be done.
The president has already aggressively approached most of these issues, not only going after al Qaeda across the world, but also starting in Afghanistan. We already have referenced to special ops units in potentially Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere.
It's important, though, that we realize that this is a process that's going to take time. And most importantly, we do need the support of our allies while we do this. There has been some argument on whether we should do this unilaterally or whether we should do this as a coalition.
The difficulty we have, at least with al Qaeda, we have an organization that crosses over anywhere from 30 to 50 countries. We can't be in all of those countries from a military perspective. And I don't think we have the intelligence capability to be in all of those countries as well and provide all of that information.
We need the information we can get from Pakistani ISI, Mossad, MI-6 (ph), all the others that can help us. With that help, we should be able to take it to the enemy because the purpose is to stop them. Sometimes we can't destroy them outright. We simply need to stop their capability.
KEYES: Well, when you say stop their capability, though, are we talking about something that is more in a law enforcement vein, or are we talking about something that actually involves taking teams of people in to eliminate these terrorists, to wipe them out, to kill them as one of our leaders have said?
Charles Kupchan, which of these things is the alternative? Are we going to be dealing with a mixture of both? And if it comes to actual direct action of that kind, do you think that the American people have the stomach to move forward with a campaign that involves that kind of direct action against terrorist individuals?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, SECURITY AND MILITARY STRATEGIC AFFAIRS EXPERT: Well, I think it's a little bit of both, Alan. We actually have to go after the head of the monster, which is the network itself, as it existed in Afghanistan, as it may exist in Yemen or Somalia. And that may well require the use of military force.
But in terms of going after sleeper cells in the United States, in Japan, in Germany, that's much more of a law enforcement challenge. And it means getting our FBI to talk to our police forces, getting our immigration services to talk to our intelligence services.
That's one of the things that this new director for Homeland Security is supposed to do. It remains to be seen whether he is, in fact — has sufficient political authority to do that.
But I think it is important to make sure that we don't oversell the military part of this in the sense that we did win the war in Afghanistan quite handily. But al Qaeda, two-thirds of the leadership is still at large. There probably are sleeper cells here.
And that's why the message to the American people has to be both get ready, be ready to take hits if we go in the military option. But this is also a long, long fight that's going to require patience. It is going to require vigilance. And we really, I think, need to emphasize that part of this battle as long as the guns, the bombs, the whistles, the more overt things that we can see.
KEYES: Jack Jacobs, what is your sense now of where we go from here? I mean, we've had the Afghanistan war. We have struck an effective blow, I think, in conventional military terms against the infrastructure. But, as these gentlemen are pointing out, we are left with two-thirds or more of the problem in terms of the actual threat, the individuals who pose that threat to Americans and other countries around the world. What do we do to carry the word to them?
JACK JACOBS, RETIRED COLONEL, U.S. ARMY: Well, I think they're right in many respects. I thin we were lucky in Afghanistan because we had a concentrated enemy that was very easy to get rid of.
We have to remember that we spent several decades denuding our intelligence capability. We have a very large and bloated intelligence bureaucracy that can only do what bureaucracies do best. And that is to do routine tests in a routine way and searching after and identifying and finding and killing and getting rid of terrorists.
These things are not routine jobs. And we don't have the capability at the moment to do those kinds of things, the kind of capability that we had some decades ago. And administrations have had a lot to answer for in the last couple of administrations.
KEYES: See, along those lines, one of the things I guess that has been running across my mind since very early on after the terrorist attacks occurred was the fact that in may ways the threat that we're faced is a threat that none of these institutions is able to deal with on a routine basis — the FBI, the CIA, our military people. Wouldn't it make sense to sit down and actually conceive of an anti-terrorist unit that would bring together elements from all of these different agencies, specifically geared to the job of hunting down these terrorists and finding them? Why aren't we seeing folks thinking about putting together a force of that kind? And would it be feasible? Charles Kupchan, what do you think?
KUPCHAN: I think we do have forces that are to some extent trained for that. Different components of our Army, our Navy, our Marines, the special forces operations units. And they are very much trained in terms of going in quietly, covert, taking out terrorist cells.
But the domestic side of it really is more difficult because it requires careful intelligence. It requires cooperation with other countries. And to some extent that is at odds with our military objectives because the Europeans and others have thought us to be too unilateral, and have pulled back from us to some extent. But we very much needs them in terms of intelligence cooperation.
And I also think, just to put one other issue on the table, we ought to also be having a debate not just about getting rid of existing terrorists but about a long-term plan to make sure there aren't new generations of terrorists that are emerging in the Middle East, in Africa, in other deprived parts of the world. And so I think part of our political discourse has to be how do we simulate development? How do we get primary education to parts of the world that really only have Islamic schools to offer their children? And so there's a real development issue that, in my mind, ought to be part of our agenda on how to fight terrorism over the long-run.
KEYES: Well, but I have got to tell you, I listened to what you just said. And I think you're selling us short. We have been engaged in development efforts since the end of World War II. We invented the very concept in many ways and have carried it forward around the world through international agencies, through bilateral programs, and so forth and so on.
I guess I always react a little bit negatively to the idea that somehow or another there's a connection between terrorism being led by somebody like Osama bin Laden and his buddies that's fueled with the rich resources that have come from Middle East oil.
These are not — some of the people who are backing this phenomenon, these aren't the poor countries and the downtrodden countries. These are folks who have consciously chosen to waste their wealth, not building up their people but building up weapons and cadre and networks that are aimed at destroying us and destroying others. That's a choice they made.
I, frankly, don't see what it has to do with our foreign aid stance or how anything we can do in that regard is going to diffuse the kind of politically motivated hatred they seem to me to represent. Jack Rice, what do you think?
RICE: Well, to some degree, Alan, I would agree. And then to some degree, I would disagree with you.
First of all, from a tactical perspective, we're doing a lot right now to try to attack these organizations. But I would agree with one of our other guests here that there is a longer-term strategic approach that we can take.
And there are two columns here. There is the military-slash-police column that we can use to approach this. But there is a financial approach that I think that we can take.
Let's face it. A lot of the people who become terrorists are the young, the naive, the disenfranchised. I'm not talking about the Osama bin Laden at the top here or some of his lieutenants. I'm talking about the thousands of others who see this as no alternative but something like this.
Now, there are going to be those who want to kill us and hate us no matter what we do. We can't fix those people. But there are a great number that are in the middle here that I think we can approach. And we can say these are the ones that we want to give some sort of alternative to. We have not...
KEYES: Wait, wait, wait, wait, now, before we go — you mean all the terrorists — we have literally in foreign aid programs and other kinds of assistance programs around the world over the course of the last several decades thrown trillions of dollars at these countries in all different forms of aid and development assistance and loans and you name it. And we have now a cadre of terrorists coming at us from some parts of the world that include some of the richest, oil richest, countries in the world. What has this got to do with development? I can't see it.
(CROSSTALK)
KUPCHAN: ... coming out of Saudi Arabia, right, are coming from states that have huge income equalities that are deeply dysfunctional. Can we fix that? No. But can we do a better job of spending aid better? Could we perhaps spend more than .1 percent of our national income on aid? Is there a way that we can fight malaria, can fight AIDS, can do a better job of getting primary education?
I think there is no question the answer is yes. And I also think we ought to see this partly as a national security problem. We now need to worry about collapsing states. Why? Because Afghanistan collapsed, and it was a breeding ground for al Qaeda. This is now part of our national security agenda.
KEYES: But first of all, I think that that is a naive statement about Afghanistan. Afghanistan collapsed. Afghanistan has been in its incipient state, constant warfare, tribal differences, all kinds of conflict and chaos for several hundred years. And you're now acting as if that permanent state and condition, which has actually been dealt with by several nations and empires over the course of those centuries, is something that we invented. No, it's not.
KUPCHAN: I didn't say that at all.
(CROSSTALK)
KUPCHAN: All I said is that we need to worry about states like that because they can come back to haunt us. I'm not blaming the U.S.
Afghanistan has been racked by foreign intervention, by ethnic conflict. But we need to have a discussion in this country about how to deal with those states, how to put them on the map, because we turned our backs on them. And that turning of the backs came back to haunt us. And we can do better.
RICE: You know, Alan, there is one other issue here we can address...
KEYES: Go ahead.
RICE: ... and you mentioned whether or not the American people have the stomach to handle this sort of thing. The fact is we are actually killing people right now in Afghanistan, as you might recall, with the Predator drone. We were shooting Hellfire missiles that killed several people at that point. And it's obvious that we're going to see that in the future.
Now, I don't expect that to happen in places like Europe, in places like the United States. But you're going to see continued aggressive military actions with the support of the intelligence community. And, in fact, that will be one arm of this entire military operation. And it must be.
RICE: Alan...
KEYES: One of the great — yeah, just a second. We have come to the end of our time. I really appreciate it. This has turned into a very lively discussion.
And it raised, I think, a serious question because I, frankly, think we need to be throwing bullets and lethal actions in the direction of terrorists. Whether throwing money in the direction of the world is going to solve this problem I, frankly, believe that's one of our delusions and has been for several decades that we somehow get into a situation like this and think, well, if we just throw enough money at it, it will go away.
If we had understood that the strategic dimension of our situation in the world can't be dealt with that way, we might have been less willing to back away from some of the proactive approaches we hould have been taking for several decades on this very question. Gentlemen, thank you for joining me tonight. Appreciate it very much.
Next, we're going to get to the bottom line. And later, we'll be talking with you about what's on your mind.
But first, and very relevant to what we were just talking about, there are folks who are coming forward now to make the argument, in fact, that we need to be gathering more foreign aid money and, in the name of fighting terrorism, throw it at different countries around the world because that's going to do something to, what, I don't know, stop people from hating us?
Osama bin Laden, here you have a rich fellow, came into one of the greatest inheritances of any individual on the face of the earth. And yet, he nurtured this kind of hatred against us for years. Do you think you're going to solve that problem with money? Because I don't. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
As we talk about the war on terrorism, we inevitably hear the name Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. In addition to being part of the whole terrorism problem, and part of the scope of that problem in the near east and the Middle east, we should also know, of course, and remember that these are countries that are heavy oil producers. And the United States is very heavily dependent on imported oil.
And that leads us to our next topic for the evening. Because you've all heard, I am sure, the Bush administration has come forward to articulate its new policy. And our dependence on oil that comes from countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, in addition, of course, to Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, these are the leaders in terms of providing oil to the United States.
And at least a couple of them are clearly going to be affected by the war on terrorism as it affects the Middle East. That means that there's a relationship between our strategy toward that war on terror, our ability to conduct it with confidence and firmness, to deal with some of these states, whatever may be their role in oil production firmly and in a way that reflects our real interest.
If we're going to be able to do that, then we're going to have to find a way to establish greater energy independence, so we won't have to be looking over our shoulder at the possible economic impact of taking a strong stand for our safety. That is, I think, part of the motive for the intense discussion that is beginning amongst our leaders and policymakers about what should be our approach on energy.
The administration has come forward with what it regards as a balanced approach, trying to make sure that we sustain economic growth by opening up new areas, where we can find oil that will be under our control, such as ANWAR and the Arctic reserve.
Other folks coming forward to suggest that we need to take measures to increase the cafe standards, the standards that govern how many miles per gallon cars have to get on our roads so that we will economize and thereby reduce our demand for this foreign oil.
This has been a contentious topic in the energy area for many years. Here tonight to tell us — think it through, we are joined by Marlo Lewis, an energy policy expert, and Scott Stoermer, the communications director at the League of Conservation Voters.
Let me start, first of all, with you Scott. And the situation in which we now find ourselves, in addition to the problems that we have on the security front faced with the challenges that are represented by our dependence on foreign oil, what kind of steps do you think it would be appropriate for us to take, in other to reduce our dependence on imported oil?
SCOTT STOERMER, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: Well, I think we have to make sure, Alan, that we get the facts straight on this is that, yes, the United States imports about 50 percent of the oil that we currently use. In about 10 years, if we continue to consume oil at the rates we now are, we're going to have to import about 60 percent of the oil we use.
We import 620,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq, 1.7 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. We have to make sure that we're making up this difference to reduce our dependence upon this foreign oil, because as the president said yesterday, and as many of us agree, these countries don't like us very much.
So we have to make sure that we're making up this difference in other areas. What we in the environmental community believe, and many on Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike believe, is that the best way to do this is to make sure that we're making cars go further on a gallon of gas, since transportation makes up about 60 percent of the oil that we consume here in the United States, and that we're doing it in a way that strengthens our economy, preserves our national security, and protects our environment. And that doing all of these things is going to get us a long way.
KEYES: Well, does that mean that in order to — wait a second now. Does that mean that in order to fight the war on terrorism, we have to kind of declare war on the SUVs and the other gas guzzlers that are back on our roads?
STOERMER: Well, I don't think we have to declare war on the SUVs, but we do have to declare a war on is waste. What we do have to declare a war on are people who are opposing increased fuel efficiency standards, when we know that current technology exists that can close the loophole between SUVs and passenger cars.
Do you know, Alan, that if we just close the loophole that keeps SUVs from achieving the same miles per gallon rate as automobiles, we will save one million barrels of oil a day? That is far more than we import from Iraq. And if we just pass what is included in the Senate energy bill that's proposed by Senators Daschle and Binghamman, about 35 miles per gallon for automobiles, we will save 15 times more gas than oil than could ever be found in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
KEYES: Let me go to Marlo Lewis now. Marlo's an energy expert, formally with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where they've done a lot of good work on a whole range of environmental issues.
Marlo, as you're listening to what Scott has to say, what are you thinking about this proposal that we have to cut back on our demand, raise the cafe standards, take these kinds of measures? Do you think that's the only alternative we have here?
MARLO LEWIS, JR. ENERGY POLICY EXPERT: Well, Alan, I think Scott sounds like a very well-meaning fellow. And I know that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle in Congress are singing to the same tune of fuel economy standards and reducing demand, and closing the loophole for SUVs.
But you know, when you really examine the evidence, what this boils down to is a blood for oil trade. The idea is that we can save oil, but the consequences that we will spill more American blood. And I think it's very unfortunate that people are thinking like this.
KEYES: Now when you say that, what do you mean?
LEWIS: What they're really saying or what they're really proposing is that we should honor the memories of all of those people who died on September 11, and Daniel Pearl, by putting more Americans at risk on our highways and...
STOERMER: Hold on one second.
KEYES: No. No. Wait a minute, Scott. Hold on, Scott. Just let him finish. Go ahead.
LEWIS: The fuel economy standards have killed over 1,000 Americans a year for the last 20 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences. And if we raise those standards, we will cause our automobiles to be downsized and made more lightweight, once again. And lighter, smaller cars are not as safe as heavier, bigger cars. It's very simple. You make cars...
KEYES: Well, Marlo, don't — if you're going to address...
LEWIS: ...and smaller, you save oil, but you also put more people at risk.
KEYES: Marlo Lewis, if we're going to address the problem of our dependency, though, on foreign oil, what do we do in order to try to cut back on that dependency? What's the alternative? If we're not going to move in a direction like this, if you think there are dangers in this kind of conservation, what direction do we move in? Are there reserves we can tap into that would be useful here? And how should we do it?
LEWIS: Well, Alan, this is going to sound heretical to people who are both Democrats and Republicans, but I do not think that oil dependency is a real problem. I think it's a made-up problem or a problem that exists only in perception.
The cafe program was put into effect in 1975. Since then, our oil imports have increased from 35 percent of our total oil to over 50 percent, which shows you how, in effect, fuel economy standards are. And there's a reason why we are importing more and more oil over time, even as we make cars more and more fuel efficient. And even though OPEC remains a cartel that restricts supply in order to increase price.
And it's simply that we get a better buy in the global economy by importing this much oil. And all of the projections, all of the trends say we're going to be importing more, as Scott said, 60 percent in 10 years. And that is simply a reflection of global markets.
KEYES: Scott Stoermer, we're looking at a background where, if what Marlo says is true, it doesn't look like the approach you're suggesting is going to have much effect. We've been following this restrictive approach. And yet, we've seen our dependence on foreign oil increase. Isn't it likely that if we just do more of the same, we'll get more of the same results?
STOERMER: I think that the time has come now to go ahead and take advantage of this golden opportunity, to make sure that we can take advantage of the best of America's future, rather than the worst of our energy past.
Now if we want to talk about spilling American blood, I mean, let's talk about that. Twelve years ago, I remember getting a letter in the mail rom President George Herbert Walker Bush, putting me back in uniform on active duty and sending me over to the Persian Gulf to defend our oil interests there.
So let's talk about that for a second. And let's talk about the safety issues in terms of increasing fuel efficiency standards. In December, the Center for Automobile Safety found that there has absolutely been no correlation whatsoever between increased fuel efficiency standards and deaths on the highway.
The National Academy of Scientists' stipulation in their report last year was disputed by many members of that panel. And in fact, the Department of Energy found that 85 percent of the increases in fuel efficiency standard that came as a result of our 1975 cafe law were from technological, not structural improvements. So let's talk about what we can do right now, which is make sure...
KEYES: Scott, Marlo, I have to thank you for being with me this evening. We've run out of time. We're obviously just scratching the surface of this issue. We'll be revisiting it as this discussion intensifies.
I do have one though I want to share with all of you, though. Because it seems to me on one side and the other, one thing that has been put on the table by the administration that I think makes a certain amount of sense is to look at tapping into our own reserves, to reduce our dependency by moving forward in a responsible way, to make use of energy reserves, the Anwar reserves and others.
A lot of exaggerated arguments have been made about the dangers of this, when in truth, it turns out to be both safe for the environment, safer for the folks on our highways, and safer in terms of reducing our dependency on foreign oil for security. That's my sense of it.
Thanks, Marlo and Scott. Later, we'll get to my outrage of the day. But first, I want to hear what's on your mind. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now we get to what's on your mind. Let's start with Greg in Ohio. Greg, are you making sense tonight?
GREG: Dr. Keyes, it's a pleasure. My question is, in the name of national security and for the sake of our economy and the blood of our children, why don't we simply pull out of these countries and not give them a reason for any further terrorist action?
KEYES: Well, because I think then the terrorists would be ruling the world. I don't think I want terrorists running the global, telling good decent people who would want to trade together and work together and play together and entertain together and have all kinds of trade and commerce.
Most of the people in this world aren't out to kill each other. And why should we allow our relations with other law-abiding, decent, peaceful people to be governed by a bunch of bloody-minded terrorists? I don't think we should let that interfere with our relations with good people around the world. We can't let these people win or the globe will, I think, literally become a hellish place ruled over by thugs.
Let's go to Moishe in New York. Moishe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MOISHE: Hi, can you hear me?
KEYES: Yes, I can. Yes, welcome to the show.
MOISHE: I take the opposite perspective. I think that 22 Arab-Muslim countries can't — they barely outproduce one Israel, we have a major culture difference. Their religion and their politics have to be combined. And they have to be repressed because the Arabians have never been able to have a culture like we have. If you go through their towns, they're just — they're nothing. They don't have a Paris or a Rome. They don't have any nice, beautiful cities. It's a culture...
KEYES: Well, Moishe...
MOISHE: ... that Mark Twain described as —
KEYES: Moishe, I think that we shouldn't misunderstand. Yes, there are cultural differences between us, but I am not sure that those cultural differences are necessarily any justification or even really any excuse for acts of cold-blooded hatred. Now cultural differences can be bridged. Those kinds of actions, I think, only have to be repelled and dealt with. Thank you for your call. Appreciate it.
Let's go to Shannon in Texas. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, Shannon.
SHANNON: Yes, Mr. Keyes, I'm finally glad to see they put a real conservative on TV. But I had the privilege of working on your campaign in 2000. And I hope to do it again in two more years. My question for you tonight is the issue of drug testing for welfare recipients has come up, but it's never really been talked about. And I was just wondering, what's your opinion on it?
KEYES: Well, it seems to me that if we have actual cause to believe, as sometimes we do, because people are neglecting their children and in other ways destroying their lives. I don't think we should just let people go down the road of self-destruction without any kind of interference.
And that means that if you see signs that there is drug abuse and it's destroying the ability of individuals to take care of themselves and take care of their children, I think that it's perfectly justified for the state to step in and say if we're going to be giving you this kind of help, we need to know what's really going on and even to compel you to deal with the problem that you face.
So I think that I would be in favor of that, where there's actually probable cause to believe that it's affecting the lives and welfare of people, and particularly of their children. Thanks for your call. And thank all of you for your feedback.
Next on the program, we're going to get to my outrage of the day. It seems — it seems to be the case that some of the folks sitting on the Supreme Court believe that they ought to have certain liberties that they're trying to take away from the rest of us. More on that when we get back here on America's - on MAKING SENSE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: So the Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that the governor of Indiana can't replace a monument that was vandalized back in the early '90's, because it includes a representation of the 10 commandments.
Now as Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, and Scalia pointed out, there is a freeze in the Supreme Court chamber itself that has a representation of Moses with the 10 commandments. They can acknowledge the real legal heritage of this nation, but they want everybody else to forget about it? I think that that's outrageous. That's my sense of it.
Next, “AMERICA AT WAR” with Gregg Jarett. See you tomorrow.