|
MODERATOR:
Trying
to figure out who the questioner was.
BUSH:
If
I think it's in our nation's strategic interest I'll commit
troops. I
thought
it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check
because
of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the position I
took.
I think it's important for NATO to be strong and
confident. I
felt
like unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO, and so it depends on
the
situation,
Mr. Vice President.
MODERATOR:
Well,
let's stay on the subject for a moment.
New question related to
this.
I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have
been eight
major
actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or
naval
forces. Let me name them. Lebanon,
Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf,
Somalia,
Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If
you had been president for any of
those
interventions, would any of those interventions not have
happened?
GORE:
Can
you run through the list again?
MODERATOR:
Sure.
Lebanon.
GORE:
I
thought that was a mistake.
MODERATOR:
Grenada.
GORE:
I
supported that.
MODERATOR:
Panama.
GORE:
I
supported that.
MODERATOR:
Persian
Gulf.
GORE:
Yes,
I voted for it, supported it.
MODERATOR:
Somalia.
GORE:
Of
course, and that again -- no, I think that that was
ill-considered. I
did
support it at the time. It
was in the previous administration, in
the
Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the
lessons
there
are ones that we should take very, very seriously.
MODERATOR:
Bosnia.
GORE:
Oh,
yes.
MODERATOR:
Haiti.
GORE:
Yes.
MODERATOR:
And
then Kosovo.
GORE:
Yes.
MODERATOR:
We
talked about that. Want
me to do it with you? Lebanon.
BUSH:
Make
a couple comments.
MODERATOR:
Sure,
absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH:
Started
off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a
nation-building
mission, and that's where the mission went wrong.
The
mission
was changed. And
as a result, our nation paid a price.
And so I
don't
think our troops ought to be used for what's called
nation-building.
I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win
war.
I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow
the dictator
when
it's in our best interests.
But in this case it was a
nation-building
exercise, and same with Haiti.
I wouldn't have supported
either.
MODERATOR:
What
about Lebanon?
BUSH:
Yes.
MODERATOR:
Grenada.
BUSH:
Yes.
MODERATOR:
Panama?
BUSH:
Yes.
Some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you
know what I
mean.
MODERATOR:
I
do, I do. The Persian Gulf, obviously.
And Bosnia. And
you have
already
talked about Kosovo. But
the reverse side of the question,
Governor,
that Vice President Gore mentioned, 600,000 people died in
Rwanda
in 1994. There
was no U.S. intervention, no intervention from the
outside
world. Was that a
mistake not to intervene?
BUSH:
I
think the administration did the right thing in that case.
I do. It
was
a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV
screens, but
it's
a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning
system in
place
in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide
the
way
we saw it there in Rwanda.
And that's a case where we need to use
our
influence to have countries in Africa come together and help
deal
with
the situation. The
administration, seem like we're having a great
love
for us tonight, but the administration made the right decision
on
training
Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda,
and
so
I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops
into
Rwanda.
MODERATOR:
Do
you have any second thoughts on that, based on what you said a
moment
ago
about genocide?
GORE:
I'd
like to come back to the question of nation building, but let
me
address
the question directly, first.
Fine. We did, actually, send
troops
into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures.
My
wife
Tipper, who is here, actually went on a military plane with
General
Sholicatchvieli
on one of those flights.
But I think in retrospect we
were
too late getting in there.
We could have saved more lives if we had
acted
earlier. But I do
not think that it was an example of a conflict
where
we should have put our troops in to try to separate the
parties for
this
reason, Jim. One
of the criteria that I think is important in
deciding
when and if we should ever get involved around the world is
whether
or not our national security interest is involved, if we can
really
make the difference with military forces.
We tried everything
else.
If we have allies in the Balkans we have allies, NATO,
ready,
willing
and able to go and carry a big part of the burden.
In Africa we
did
not. Now, we have tried -- our countries tried to create an Africa
crisis
response team there, and we've met some resistance.
We have had
some
luck with Nigeria, but in Sierra Leon, and now that Nigeria
has
become
a democracy, and we hope it stays that way, then maybe we can
build
on that. But
because we had no allies and because it was very
unclear
that we could actually accomplish what we would want to
accomplish
about putting military forces there, I think it was the right
thing
not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was, but I think we
should
have
come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.
MODERATOR:
So
what would you say, Governor, that somebody would say hey wait
a
minute,
why not Africa, I mean why the Middle East, why the Balkans,
but
not
Africa, when 600,000 people's lives are at risk?
BUSH:
Well,
I understand, and Africa is important.
And we've got to do a lot
of
work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are
some --
Vice
President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy.
We have to
work
with Nigeria. That's
an important continent. But
there's got to be
priorities,
and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is
Europe
and the Far East, our own hemisphere.
And those are my four top
priorities
should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor
work
hard to get other nations to come together to prevent
atrocity. I
thought
the best example of a way to handle the situation was East
Timor
when
we provided logistical support to the Australians, support
that only
we
can provide. I
thought that was a good model.
But we can't be all
things
to all people in the world, Jim.
And I think that's where maybe
the
vice president and I begin to have some differences.
I'm worried
about
overcommitting our military around the world.
I want to be
judicious
in its use. You
mentioned Haiti. I
wouldn't have sent troops
to
Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile.
It was a nation
building
mission, and it was not very successful.
It cost us billions, a
couple
billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any
better
off
in Haiti than it was before.
MODERATOR:
Vice
President Gore, do you agree with the governor's views on
nation
building,
the use of military, our military, for nation building as he
described
and defined it?
GORE:
I
don't think we agree on that.
I would certainly also be judicious in
evaluating
any potential use of American troops overseas.
I think we
have
to be very reticent about that.
But look, Jim, the world is
changing
so rapidly. The
way I see it, the world is getting much closer
together. Like it or not, we are now -- the United States is now the
natural
leader of the world. All
these other countries are looking to
us.
Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and
shouldn't
be,
doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere.
Now,
both of us are kind of, I guess, stating the other's position
in a
maximalist
extreme way, but I think there is a difference here.
This
idea
of nation building is kind of a pejorative phrase, but think
about
the
great conflict of the past century, World War II.
During the years
between
World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by
our
military
leaders and the people of the United States.
The lesson was
that
in the aftermath of World War I, we kind of turned our backs
and
left
them to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble
that
quickly
became World War II. And
acting upon that lesson in the
aftermath
of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the
Marshall
Plan,
President Truman did. We
got intimately involved in building NATO
and
other structures there. We
still have lots of troops in Europe.
And
what
did we do in the late '40's and '50's and '60's?
We were nation
building. And it was economic. But
it was also military. And
the
confidence
that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by
having
troops there. We
had civil administrators come in to set up their
ways
of building their towns back.
MODERATOR:
You
said in the Boston debate, Governor, on this issue of nation
building,
that the United States military is overextended now.
Where is
it
overextended? Where
are there U.S. military that you would bring home
if
you become president?
BUSH:
First
let me just say one comment about what the vice president
said. I
think
one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is
we
let
our military atrophy. And
we can't do that. We've
got to rebuild
our
military. But one
of the problems we have in the military is we're
in
a lot of places around the world.
And I mentioned one, and that's the
Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there.
I
recognize
we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal.
That
would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO.
No one is
suggesting
that. But I think
it ought to be one of our priorities to
work
with our European friends to convince them to put troops on
the
ground. And there is an example.
Haiti is another example.
Now there
are
some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the
administration
in Columbia. I
think it's important for us to be training
Columbians
in that part of the world.
The hemisphere is in our interest
to
have a peaceful Columbia.
But --
MODERATOR:
The
use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting
that if
you
don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do
the civil
thing,
is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes
in
after
the military that builds nations or all of that?
Is that on your
radar
screen?
BUSH:
I
don't think so. I
think what we need to do is convince people who
live
in the lands they live in to build the nations.
Maybe I'm missing
something
here. I mean,
we're going to have kind of a nation building
core
from America? Absolutely
not. Our military is meant to fight and
win
war. That's what it's meant to do.
And when it gets overextended,
morale
drops. I strongly
believe we need to have a military presence in
the
peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to
keep
regional
stability. And I
strongly believe we need to keep a presence in
NATO,
but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military.
It
needs
to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear,
and the
extra
strategy obvious.
GORE:
I
don't disagree with that.
I certainly don't disagree that we ought to
get
our troops home from places like the Balkans as soon as we
can, as
soon
as the mission is complete.
That's what we did in Haiti.
There are
no
more than a handful of American military personnel in Haiti
now. And
Haitians
have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore
democracy. That's really about all we can do. But if you have a
situation
like that right in our backyard with chaos about to break out
and
flotillas forming to come across the water, and all kinds of
violence
there,
right in one of our neighboring countries there, then I think
that
we
did the right thing there.
And as for this idea of nation building,
the
phrase sounds grandiose.
And, you know, we can't be -- we can't
allow
ourselves to get overextended.
I certainly agree with that.
And
that's
why I've supported building up our capacity.
I've devoted in the
budget
I've proposed, as I said last week, more than twice as much as
the
governor
has proposed. I
think that it's in better shape now than he
generally
does. We've had
some disagreements about that.
He said that
two
divisions would have to report not ready for duty, and that's
not
what
the joint chiefs say. But
there's no doubt that we have to continue
building
up readiness and military strength.
And we have to also be very
cautious
in the way we use our military.
MODERATOR:
In
the non-military area of influencing events around the world,
the
financial
and economic are, the World Bank President Wilfinson said
recently,
Governor, that U.S. contributions to overseas development
assistance
is lower now almost than it has ever been.
Is that a problem
for
you? Do you think -- what is your -- what is your idea about what
the
United States' obligations are?
I'm talking about financial
assistance
and that sort of thing to other countries, the poor
countries.
BUSH:
Well,
I mentioned Third World debt.
MODERATOR:
Sure.
BUSH:
That's
a place where we can use our generosity to influence in a
positive
way,
influence nations. I
believe we ought to have foreign aid, but I
don't
think we ought to just have foreign aid for the sake of
foreign
aid.
I think foreign aid needs to be used to encourage
markets and
reform. I think a lot of times we just spend aid and say we feel
better
about
it and it ends up being spent the wrong way, and there's some
pretty
egregious examples recently.
One being Russia, where we had IMF
loans
that ended up in the pockets of a lot of powerful people and
didn't
help
the nation. I
think the IMF has got a role in the world, but I
don't
want to see the IMF out there as a way to say to world
bankers, if
you
make a bad loan, we'll bail you out.
It needs to be available for
emergency
situations. I
thought the President did the right thing with
Mexico
and was very strongly supportive of the administration in
Mexico.
But
I don't think the IMF ought to be a stop loss for people who
ought to
be
able to evaluate risks themselves.& | 
