'This Week' Transcript: Target Libya

March 13, 2011 — -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR (voice-over): This week, "Target Libya." Missilestrikes begin.

OBAMA: Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. Thepeople of Libya must be protected.

AMANPOUR: Another war front opens for the United States. Theworld unleashes all necessary measures to stop Libyan leader MoammarGadhafi. His son, Saif, speaks to "This Week" in a worldwideexclusive. What next for Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan people, for theUnited States military? How does it end?

Then, disaster in the Pacific. Nuclear nightmare scenario inJapan. How prepared is the United States? Could it happen here?Libya and Japan, two crises with major consequences for the UnitedStates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Live from the Newseum in Washington, D.C., "ThisWeek" with Christiane Amanpour, "Target Libya," starts right now.

AMANPOUR: As we begin our broadcast, the United States is at warin a third Muslim country, Libya. We'll take you there live in just amoment. ABC's team of correspondents is covering every angle of thisstory. I will have an exclusive interview with Moammar Gadhafi's sonand close adviser, Saif al-Islam. And I'll be joined here in thestudio by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,to discuss what's being called Operation Odyssey Dawn.

But first, the latest headlines in this fast-moving story. Adefiant Moammar Gadhafi is promising a long war, one day after theUnited States and a broad international coalition launched militarystrikes on his country. British and American ships and submarinesfired 112 cruise missiles at more than 20 targets on the coast.

American B-2 bombers took out a Libyan airfield, all part of thelargest Western military intervention in the Arab world since thestart of the Iraq war. The show of force is designed to impose a no-fly zone to prevent the Libyan strongman from firing on his ownpeople.

Sunday, Tripoli shook with the sound of explosions and anti-aircraft fire. Libyan state television reported that 48 people hadbeen killed.

But today, in a phone call to state television, Gadhafi saidLibyans stand ready to fight what he calls "crusaders." This is afight, he says, that he will win.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. GADHAFI (through translator): You are not capable of aprolonged -- for a prolonged war in Libya. We consider ourselvesready for a long war. Be aware of that. We're not retreatinganywhere, because this is our land. This is where we're staying.Then you're going to return defeated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Joining me on the line from Tripoli in Libya, Saif al-Islam, Colonel Gadhafi's second son and close adviser.

Saif, thank you for joining me. Can you tell me right now, whereare you? And what is happening there right now?

GADHAFI: You know, we are in Tripoli, as you know. Butyesterday, we were surprised that -- you know, the Americans and theBritish and the French attacked Libya, attacked five cities,terrorized people, and (inaudible) children, women were so afraidyesterday, heavy bombing everywhere. So it was a big surprise that,finally, President Obama -- we thought he's a good man and friend ofArab world -- is bombing Libya.

AMANPOUR: Saif, President Obama very explicitly gave your fatheran ultimatum and said cease fire, stop, and this won't happen. Hethen had to say that the attacks continue and the United States cannotsit idly by while a leader says that there will be no mercy. Why didyour father continue the attacks in Benghazi? Why didn't he have acease fire?

GADHAFI: First of all, our people went to Benghazi to liberateBenghazi from the gangsters and the armed militia. So if you -- ifthe Americans want to -- want to help the Libyan people in Benghazi,so go to Benghazi and liberate Benghazi from the militia and theterrorists. So do it.

AMANPOUR: My question, though, is, there is now missile strikesand an air attack against Libya. Will Colonel Gadhafi step down?Will he step aside?

GADHAFI: Step aside why? I mean, to step -- again, there's abig misunderstanding. The whole country is united against the armedmilitia and the terrorists. You asked -- simply, the Americans andother Western countries, you are supporting the terrorists and thearmed militia. That's it.

AMANPOUR: Saif, will there be Libyan retaliation against, let'ssay, commercial flights around the Mediterranean or other targets?

GADHAFI: No, this is not our target. Our target is how to helpour people in Libya, especially in Benghazi. Believe me, they areliving a nightmare, a nightmare, really, a nightmare. They have nofreedom, nothing under the rule of the armed militia.

So we urge the Americans either to go there themselves and helpour people there or let the Libyan people help their brothers inBenghazi. But believe me, one day, you wake up and you will find outthat you were supporting the wrong people. And you are being a bigmistake with supporting those people. It's like the WMD in Iraq.It's another story.

AMANPOUR: Saif al-Islam, thank you very much, indeed, forjoining us from Tripoli.

GADHAFI: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: So that's the view from the Gadhafis in Tripoli.Let's go to eastern Libya, the rebel stronghold where ABC's AlexanderMarquardt joins us live.

So what is the mood there where you are?

MARQUARDT: Good morning, Christiane. We are in Tubruq, ineastern Libya, where an opposition spokesman told us this morning thatmorale is sky high. They've been pleading for military interventionfor weeks. They now feel that there's a level playing field, that therebels will be able to push the Gadhafi forces out of the east, awayfrom cities like Ajdabiya and Benghazi that have seen heavy fightingover the last few days. Eventually, they want to make their way toTripoli, where they plan to oust Gadhafi.

We spoke with people on the streets. They're understandably veryhappy, thanking the coalition for what they've done, specificallyFrance and the U.K., for introducing the resolution at the U.N. Theybelieve that this intervention will lead to victory and eventually toa free Libya.

But with this change in tide comes a period of insurgency. Theopposition spokesman said that this is the scary part, because of howillogical Gadhafi is and because of -- because of what he calls histhirst for blood.

Christiane?

AMANPOUR: Alex, thanks.

And now let's go to the capital Tripoli, again. That could soonbe ground zero in this conflict. Moammar Gadhafi is there, and so isthe BBC's Allan Little, who joins us now live.

So, Allan, you heard from the Gadhafis. You heard the mood inBenghazi. What do you think is the next move in Tripoli? And how arethey portraying it there?

LITTLE: Well, fighting talk from Colonel Gadhafi, as from hisson, Saif, largely for domestic consumption. It's not hard to goaround the city and find people willing to echo those sentiments,diehard devotees of Colonel Gadhafi saying that -- people sayingthey're willing to die along with him if it comes to that.

There's no doubting the sincerity of those people, I think, andthe passion with which they speak. Their devotion then seems to getmore intense the more isolated he becomes from the world. Thequestion is, how representative is that voice? No other voice canmake itself heard here in the prevailing atmosphere in whichpatriotism for Libya is fused with devotion to the person of Gadhafihimself.

What are those hundreds of thousands, if not millions of peoplewho do not take part in those demonstrations of devotion, really feeland think in the silence of their own heads? What is the realsentiment of Tripoli? That is simply impossible in this atmosphere togauge.

AMANPOUR: Allan, thank you so much.

And, of course, the leaders of Britain, France, and PresidentObama is keeping a close tab on the unfolding situation. ABC's JakeTapper is live at the White House.

And, Jake, what from the White House is the end game here?What's the perspective from there?

TAPPER: Good morning, Christiane. President Obama is in Brazil.But you talked on a very, very difficult question for the White House,because it's been the position of President Obama that there should beregime change in Libya, since March 3rd, when Obama said that Gadhafihas to go.

But that is not the goal of this military operation. The goal ofthis military operation officially is to impose a no-fly zone and toprotect civilians. Gadhafi stepping down is not part of it.

So what I would expect is that you will see more effortsinternationally to arm the Libyan rebels so that they will take intotheir own hands the goal of toppling Gadhafi. But that is notofficially the goal of this military operation, so it's a delicatedance for President Obama as he attempts to make this militaryoperation even more international than previous U.S. militaryoperations.

As you know, as we've talked about, there's been a huge effort bythe White House to make this seem as though the United States is notplaying a leading role, even though, of course, we have 11 ships inthe Mediterranean, five of which were firing Tomahawk missiles.There, of course, are other nations participating in the militaryoperation, France, the U.K., and others coming in the coming days, butright now, the U.S. is taking a major leadership role, although theObama administration wants to make this seem as though it is the worldagainst Gadhafi, not Obama and the U.S. against Gadhafi, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Jake, just very quickly, do you think the U.S. willarm the rebels?

TAPPER: I think it's a distinct possibility that the U.S. willbe part of an international effort to do so. I would doubt very muchthat the U.S. would do so on its own.

AMANPOUR: Jake, all right.

And let's go now to Martha Raddatz. The U.S. is pledging, asJake said, to step back to a support role after the initial phase.Martha, you're there. You're covering the military. Is thathappening? Do you think it's realistic to go into a support role?It's obviously very unusual in these kinds of military interventions. RADDATZ: It's certainly unusual for the U.S. And right now, aU.S. general is in charge of the operation, General Carter Ham. Andyou have an admiral, Admiral Scott -- or Sam Locklear, who is on aship. And he is the tactical commander, meaning he is coordinatingall of these air strikes.

But in a few days, the hope is, the U.S. hopes that GeneralCarter Ham can turn over his responsibility to one of the coalitionmembers. That is the plan right now. I don't think they know whothat will be.

But in this initial phase, the U.S. does have uniquecapabilities, as the president keeps saying. You had stealth bombersgoing in there. You had the B-2 bombers going in there. You hadthese Tomahawk missiles on the ships. So the U.S. felt it had to takethe lead role in this phase.

And this phase is, of course, to wipe out Gadhafi's air defenses.The next phase will be the no-fly zone. I do think the U.S. will beinvolved in that somewhat and will have fighters involved in that, butthe bulk of the no-fly zone will be flown by British pilots, Frenchpilots, and other allies.

AMANPOUR: Martha, thank you so much.

And joining me next, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff. And we'll put that to him. I'll ask him how themissions will work, when it will end, and whether it can succeed atall if Moammar Gadhafi remains in power.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

Though his son sounded subdued, Moammar Gadhafi himself wassounding undaunted this morning. He says his supporters are armed andprepared to fight, and he's pledging that this will be, quote, "a longwar."

Joining me now, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, AdmiralMike Mullen.

Thank you for joining us.

MULLEN: Good morning.

AMANPOUR: Is the United States leading this? Or is it in asupporting role?

MULLEN: Well, actually, the French were the first ones inyesterday, in terms of starting to establish the no-fly zone. TheUnited States is taking the lead in terms of the coalition. GeneralCarter Ham, U.S. commander of U.S. AFRICOM, is actually the commanderright now. And we look to, in the next few days, transition that to acoalition leadership.

AMANPOUR: So the U.S. will pull back?

MULLEN: The U.S. will essentially take a supporting role,providing unique capabilities, certainly in terms of things likejamming, things like...

AMANPOUR: But not bombing and flying over?

MULLEN: No -- well, certainly, the -- we'll be in transition. Imean, effectively, Christiane, what's happened in the last 24 hours isthe no-fly zone has been put -- has essentially started to have itseffects. We've got aircraft over Benghazi right now. We have thatfor 24/7. He hasn't flown any aircraft in the last two days. So theinitial part of the operation and the idea of getting a no-fly zone inplace is...

AMANPOUR: Is successful?

MULLEN: Well, it has been successful so far.

AMANPOUR: So will it be a long war, as Colonel Gadhafi pledges?

MULLEN: Well, we're very focused on the limited objectives thatthe president has given us and actually the international coalitionhas given us, in terms of providing the no-fly zone so that he cannotattack his own people, to avoid any kind of humanitarian massacre, ifyou will, and to provide for the humanitarian corridors, humanitariansupport of the Libyan people.

AMANPOUR: So you say a limited objective, but we've heard fromthe president, we've heard from the secretary of state, Gadhafi has togo. Is that the military objective?

MULLEN: Well, the military objective is -- is as I justdescribed it, in terms of -- the mission is very clear right now.It's to focus on getting this no-fly zone in place and to support theU.N. objectives of no humanitarian crisis and humanitarian support,protecting Libyan civilians.

AMANPOUR: So it's possible that we could have, like Iraq, a 12-year no-fly zone with the strongman still in place?

MULLEN: Well, again, I think circumstances will drive where thisgoes in the future. I wouldn't speculate in terms of length at thisparticular point in time. It's had a pretty significant effect veryearly in terms of our ability to address his forces -- to attack hisforces on the ground, which we did yesterday outside Benghazi, and getthe no-fly zone stood up.

AMANPOUR: What about other countries, such as Bahrain, such asYemen? If the United States military is attacking to protectcivilians in Libya, why not in Bahrain and Yemen?

MULLEN: Well, I think, first of all, just back to Libya, a veryimportant part of this has been the Arab League vote to establish ano-fly zone and the -- the partners -- the coalition partners that arecoming into play with respect to Libya.

AMANPOUR: Correct. But what's the logic?

MULLEN: In terms of...

AMANPOUR: Of other people being -- civilians being killed inother countries where the U.S. has an interest?

MULLEN: Well, I think -- I think we have to -- to be verycareful to treat every country differently. Certainly, there's atremendous change going on right now throughout the Middle East,including in Bahrain. And Bahrain is a much different -- in a muchdifferent situation than Libya.

We haven't had a relationship with Libya for a long, long time.The Bahrainis and that country has been a critical ally for decades.So we're working very hard to support a peaceful resolution there, astragic as it has been, and we certainly decry the violence which hasoccurred in Bahrain. I just think the approach there needs to bedifferent. AMANPOUR: Do you think the Libyans have the wherewithal toretaliate against the United States or its allies in the region orhere?

MULLEN: I don't think -- from a military standpoint, certainly,they have some capability. And -- and yet, at least if I were to takethe first 24 hours or so, they've -- they've not been a very effectiveforce.

Part of what you do when you go into this is you assume they havea fairly significant capability or the capability they have is gooduntil proven otherwise. We've taken out their air defense. We'veactually stopped -- attacked -- we've attacked some of their forces onthe ground in the vicinity of Benghazi. And yesterday they were onthe march to Benghazi. They were lobbing rockets and mortars inBenghazi...

AMANPOUR: So Benghazi is safe?

MULLEN: Well, Benghazi -- they're no longer marching there. Iwouldn't describe Benghazi as safe at this particular point in time.

AMANPOUR: But even though you say you have to assume that theyhave some kind of capability, realistically, do you think Gadhafi canattack civilian aircraft targets and will do?

MULLEN: Well, he still has -- from what I've seen this morning,he still has some surface-to-air capability, where he could attack anaircraft, including one of ours. We haven't seen large-scaleindications of that after the action yesterday. He clearly has theability to continue to attack his own people, and then we're veryfocused on that, and -- and trying to ensure that his military forcesdon't do that.

AMANPOUR: Mustard gas stockpiles, is that a problem?

MULLEN: Very closely monitored, and I haven't seen it as aproblem thus far.

AMANPOUR: Admiral Mullen, thank you very much, indeed, forjoining us.

MULLEN: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And we're covering the unfolding events in Libya fromall angles this morning. Up next, I'll speak with a leader of theopposition movement who until recently worked for Gadhafi himself. Hejoins me with unique insight into the Libyan strongman.

And later, will a new war abroad bring a new threat here in theUnited States? Could Gadhafi retaliate on American soil? I'll putthat question to the former homeland security secretary, MichaelChertoff.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

H. CLINTON: The world will not sit idly by while more innocentcivilians are killed. We are standing with the people of Libya, andwe will not waver in our efforts to protect them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, as you heard his son, Saif, tell us, MoammarGadhafi remains in Tripoli, presumably hunkered down. His Tripolicompound is reportedly filled with hundreds of supporters, includingwomen and children. Could they make up a human shield, a possiblelast line of defense for the embattled leader?

Until just weeks ago, Ali Suleiman Aujali was Gadhafi's voice inthe United States, the Libyan ambassador to this country. But Aujalihas turned against Gadhafi and is now a leading voice of theopposition. He joins me here at the Newseum in Washington.

And from New York, a man whose country led the call for airstrikes we're seeing right now, France's ambassador to the UnitedNations, Gerard Araud.

Gentlemen, welcome, both, to this program.

AUJALI: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you first, former Ambassador Aujali, whatis in the mind of Gadhafi right now? This is a man you know, youserved. Under this threat, will he fold?

AUJALI: I think there is one thing in the mind of Gadhafi, thathe will not step down at all. He will fight until the end.

AMANPOUR: So everything that his son is telling us, that he'stelling us is not just bravado?

AUJALI: Yeah.

AMANPOUR: He will fight?

AUJALI: He will fight. He will fight. He has no other choice.He has no shelter to go. And this is his -- his attitude. He willnever give up. ARAUD: Yes.

AMANPOUR: So how will this end?

AUJALI: Well, the end -- now I think there is a good chanceafter the air strikes, after the revolutionaries being protected by --from the Gadhafi hitting, I think now they'll start marching to the --to the east. And we have to -- we have to break the siege againstTripoli. If Tripoli...

AMANPOUR: So you're hoping that the rebels will keep marching onto the capital...

AUJALI: Of course. Of course. Of course.

AMANPOUR: ... and take on Gadhafi himself?

AUJALI: Of course. Yeah, we have to open the road, you know, toGadhafi's -- where he's staying.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, Ambassador Araud. This is pretty muchan extraordinary situation. There is a military intervention, andFrance is the country that has led it and that has really brought theUnited States to this situation. You're listening to the ambassadorhere, Aujali. Why is it that France took that decision?

ARAUD: Well, I think it was, first, I guess, a moral and humanreaction. It was impossible to consider a victory of Gadhafi andGadhafi taking Benghazi. He was himself saying what will happen. Hewas saying that they -- they will search house by house. He wasreferring to rivers of blood. It was simply totally impossible to --to accept it.

You have also to consider that, for us, Libya, the Maghreb, it'sa bit like you, Central America and Cuba. In human and geographicterms, it's very close to -- to my country.

AMANPOUR: Well, then let me ask you, though. Now, then, are youon the side of the rebels? Is this the -- you know, making the rebelswin, is that the aim of this current military operation?

ARAUD: We -- we do consider France as recognized -- thecommittee of Benghazi as the representative of the Libyan people. Wesimply want the Libyan people able to express their -- their will.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you, Mr. Aujali. You've heardAdmiral Mullen clearly said the mission is to protect the citizens ofBenghazi and -- and Libya and to open up humanitarian ability forthem, not to take out Gadhafi, not to support the opposition. What doyou understand by this resolution?

AUJALI: I understand the mission is to protect the Libyancivilians, not only Benghazi. Protection of the Libyan civilian onlyachieved by one goal, that Gadhafi is not there, not only by stop hisairplanes striking the people. The dangers is Gadhafi himself.

AMANPOUR: So you understand, this military action is aimed toget rid of Gadhafi?

AUJALI: Of course. If this is not the mission, then they wouldjust hit some airplane -- shot the airplanes down and then leave wasthis madman, killing his people without mercy. This is...

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you, Ambassador Araud. Is that theaim? Is that what the United States, France, and Britain have signedup to, to get rid of Colonel Gadhafi?

ARAUD: We want the Libyan people to be able to express theirwill, I've said, which -- and we consider that it means that Gadhafihas to go.

AMANPOUR: Are you concerned -- are you concerned that there willbe retaliation? You've taken on this -- this military intervention.He has threatened retaliation against France, Britain, the UnitedStates, or at least their interests. Are you worried?

ARAUD: You know, when you enter a military intervention, it'snever risk-free. So we have to be careful and to consider all thedangers. But, also, we know that Gadhafi is prone to empty rhetoric.

AMANPOUR: All right. Let me ask you one final question,Ambassador Aujali. This is designed to divide and conquer, to getGadhafi's people away from him. You defected. Do you think thatothers around him will defect?

AUJALI: Believe me, the people who are around him, especiallythe ministers, if they have a chance to defect, they will do it now,now, now. But he kept them -- he's keeping them in the Bab al-Azizia.They have no place to go...

AMANPOUR: In his compound?

AUJALI: In his compound. Then he's using them as a -- as ahuman shelter, also. But if they have a chance, they will defect.For example, I give you example, if you have some time. Then -- Ihave a friend of mine who was appointed the ambassador to Geneva.He's a young man, first time he's been appointed the head of mission.And when he left Tripoli with his credential, he just resigned.

AMANPOUR: All right. Well, we'll see what happens, whether thepeople around Gadhafi turn against him. Ambassador Araud in New York,thank you for joining us.

Ambassador Aujali, thank you for joining us.

And when we return, the big question: How -- now that the U.S.has struck at Libya, will Libya strike back? I'll discuss that with ahigh-powered roundtable that includes the former chair of the HouseIntelligence Committee and an architect of the war in Iraq.

And later, we turn to the week's other major story, danger anddevastation in Japan, as that country struggles to avert a full-scalenuclear meltdown. I'll ask former Energy Secretary Bill Richardsonand former Homeland Secretary Chief Michael Chertoff whether Americais prepared to manage such a catastrophe.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Actions have consequences, and the writ of theinternational community must be enforced. Today we are part of abroad coalition, we are answering the calls of a threatened people,and we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: President Obama right there -- excuse me -- explainingwhy American missiles and allied air strikes are now raining down onLibya, emphasizing that this is a broad international effort. Asnoteworthy as what the president said yesterday is what he left out,namely, his recent declaration that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi mustgo.

This is a momentous time in America's relations with the Arabworld. And joining he today to discuss its far-reaching implications,ABC's George Will, former Congresswoman Jane Harman, who chaired theHouse Intelligence Committee, Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy secretaryof defense under George W. Bush and a mastermind of the war in Iraq,and Robin Wright of the U.S. Institute of Peace, author of "Rock theCasbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World."

Thank you all for joining me. And let me ask you first, George,do you think that this was the right thing to do?

WILL: I do not. We have intervened in a tribal society in acivil war. And we have taken sides in that civil war on behalf ofpeople we do not know or understand for the purpose -- not avowed, butinexorably our purpose -- of creating a political vacuum bydecapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? Wedo not know and cannot know.

AMANPOUR: Paul Wolfowitz, you disagree with George?

WOLFOWITZ: I do. I think that what we have prevented, for onething, is a bloodbath in Benghazi, which would have stained ourreputation throughout the Arab world, at a time when our reputationreally matters. And I understand George's hesitations, but it wouldseem to me, if you follow those hesitations, you say, it's better tokeep this devil that we know than the unknown, and I don't see how anyunknown could be worse than the devil who is in Tripoli right now. AMANPOUR: Except wouldn't you say the hesitation -- you cantrace it right back to your operation in Iraq, that, you know, itcaused such a pendulum swing against trying to intervene because ofthe chaos that was unleashed.

WOLFOWITZ: We have paid the price of intervention. Sometimeswe've paid the price of nonintervention, in Bosnia, for example. Oneof the things that makes the situation so unique is the monstrousquality of the Tripoli regime, the monstrous quality of Gadhafi andhis sons. And I know, you know, people say, well, what about Bahrain?What about Yemen? This is a totally different case, where a man isactually slaughtering his own people, has no regard for his ownpeople. He uses mercenaries to kill them. It is a unique case, andit's being watched throughout the Arab world.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you, former congresswoman. You saton the Intelligence Committee. You -- I mean, this question about whyLibya and not Bahrain or -- or Yemen, American allies, is that a validdistinction to make?

HARMAN: I think it is. First, let me salute the life andservice of Warren Christopher, a dear friend from California, who diedyesterday and say how honored I am now to be president and CEO of theWoodrow Wilson Center, succeeding Lee Hamilton, and working withscholars like Robin and Aaron David Miller and others.

I think we have to see this in a broader context. I just watchedyour Mike Mullen interview, where he said we -- we view each of thesecountries individually. We need a strategic narrative.

And as I look at this, from my experience being in Congress whenwe did nothing in Rwanda, which Bill Clinton said was his biggestmistake, when we intervened in -- in Bosnia, did a no-fly zone, whichdidn't prevent the -- the massacre at Srebrenica, when we -- whenCongress acted in Afghanistan, the authorization to use military forceis still in effect, and then we took our eye off the ball, when wewent into Iraq, I voted for that, because I believed the intelligence,which turned out to be wrong, I see lessons to be learned, and I'm notsure we're learning all the lessons.

As I look at it, the biggest threats to the United States, to ourhomeland security, are Yemen and some of the Al Qaida and other terrorcells in Pakistan. Going into Libya has a moral objective, and Istrongly agree with that. And I also think that Hillary Clinton andSusan Rice, who were strong proponents of what we're doing here, aregreat public servants.

But we have to understand that just a no-fly zone here may notcause regime change. And if we have a cornered Moammar Gadhafi -- whois not a rational actor -- and he uses mustard gas against his people,how have we...

AMANPOUR: Well, actually -- Admiral Mullen...

HARMAN: ... how have we prevented that?

AMANPOUR: Admiral Mullen said that there wasn't a huge amount ofthreat there.

HARMAN: There are two tons of liquefied mustard gas in Libya.

AMANPOUR: Yeah, but he said he hasn't seen any movement of that.

HARMAN: Not yet. We've only been there for 24 hours.

AMANPOUR: Do you think it's a threat?

HARMAN: I worry about that. I mean, we can't take out mustardgas by air. If we blow it up, we disperse it. And I worry about aguy who's going to fight to the end -- and that's what we just heardfrom the former ambassador -- and is not a rational actor, doingthings like that, putting human shields around all the obvioustargets, including his own -- his own living quarters, and takingWesterners as hostages and possibly engaging in terror acts and goingdown with as much bloodshed as possible.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you. You've interviewed him; I'veinterviewed him. A lot of people have. Is he the crazy man thatRepresentative Harman talks about? Or is he going to either fold orbe turned on by his own people?

WRIGHT: He could prolong this for a very long time. This is nota man who plays by international rules, nor is he a man who thinkslike even many of his counterparts in the Arab world, and that's why Ithink you've seen a great deal of unity in the Arab world against him.This is someone that everyone in Africa, in the Arab world...

AMANPOUR: Which is really unusual, to have such a big Arabcoalition against a fellow Arab leader.

WRIGHT: And we haven't had one like this since the Iraq war backin 1990-1991. And that's what's, in fact, given the internationalcommunity the legs. Without that, we probably would not be engaged.

But this is a very different kind of war. This is a countrythat's the size of Alaska with a population smaller than New YorkCity. And so when we talk about the -- the kind of scenarios down theroad, this is -- you know, most of the cities are along the coastalstrip -- that it may not be as complicated as a place like Iraq was.This is -- you know, there are obvious targets and obvious sequence ofplaces that either side will go. But there is mission gap betweensaying we want regime change and we're in there militarily forhumanitarian. And that's where the problem is.

AMANPOUR: Should it be regime change?

WOLFOWITZ: Look, I think one of the most important pieces that'smissing here is our connection with this transitional national councilin Benghazi. They are -- they have representatives from all over thecountry. They seem to be setting up rules that are respectable rules.

AMANPOUR: Really? Are you convinced about that? Who are they?

WOLFOWITZ: Well, I'm not convinced. Well, I think we shouldhave people in there so we really know better who they are. And weought to be thinking of them as a leading edge here. I think it'sbeen right to get an international coalition out in front and not makethis all American, but most of all, it's a Libyan fight. What's beenamazing over the last month is how brave the Libyan people have been.And I think -- across the whole country. this is not just a tribalthing in the east.

AMANPOUR: But -- but when it comes, then, to lessons learned,what happens then with a Bahrain or a Yemen? I mean, isn't this adouble standard?

WOLFOWITZ: Look, excuse me: Libya is a separate case all byitself. You cannot...

AMANPOUR: It is or it isn't.

WOLFOWITZ: No, no, you can't -- you can't compare the regime inBahrain or even the regime in Sana'a to Gadhafi. But, yes, there is acertain -- there's something in common here, which is that regimesthat don't represent their people are not only wrong, they'reultimately unstable. And I think what we should be working for inBahrain, what we should be working for in Yemen are governments thatare much more representative of their people so that we can work withthem better. But they're not -- it's absolutely wrong to comparewhat's happening there with what Gadhafi is -- is doing and has beendoing for 40 years.

WILL: There is no limiting principle in what we've done. If weare to protect people who are under assault, then where people areunder assault in Bahrain, we are logically -- not only logicallycommitted to help them, we are inciting them to rise in expectation.The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began, becausewe had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone.That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.

WRIGHT: Look, Yemen and Bahrain have the same problem that we doin Libya. Forty-five people were killed by the regime in Yemen,peaceful protests on Friday. You have the same thing in Bahrain.

This is -- the Obama administration has been responding veryslowly at the outset to this kind of colossal transformation in theArab world, and it's finally begun to kind of -- in response to what'shappened in Tunisia, then in Egypt, and now in Libya, but it -- todevelop a strategy, but it doesn't have a policy across the regionthat is consistent. And I think it's going to catch us at some point.

HARMAN: Two points. I agree with that. We don't have asecurity narrative across the world. And we absolutely need that,because these countries are connected to each other. One fruit vendorwho immolates himself in the boonies in Tunisia has set off afirestorm, an earthquake -- let's use Japan as the metaphor -- acrossthe region.

Two points about this. One, Congress. The leaders of Congresswere briefed last Friday at the -- in the Situation Room. Many werepart of the recess and weren't there. That is not, by my lights,briefing Congress. Congress needs to be called back and discuss thisand authorize or limit...

AMANPOUR: Isn't it too late?

HARMAN: ... the mission. No, I think the president is lawfullyacting under his emergency powers as commander-in-chief and the U.N.resolution. And we didn't ask Congress to approve Bosnia. But Ithink Congress needs to act.

The other thing is, this is a zero-sum game militarily. We arestretched to the limit. And the assets we put into Libya we aretaking away from somewhere else. And it's not just warships, people,and money. It's brain cells.

AMANPOUR: All right. Let me then ask you -- since you've justsaid that, last lightning round then. Is this, as the president said,in the U.S. national interest?

WILL: It is not worth war.

AMANPOUR: U.S. national interest?

HARMAN: It is not as direct a threat to us as Yemen andPakistan.

AMANPOUR: U.S. national interests?

WOLFOWITZ: I think, if Gadhafi were to survive, it would be verymuch against American interest, very seriously so.

WRIGHT: We were within 24 hours probably of losing Benghazi,which would have been losing Libya. So you have to ask yourself, howimportant is Libya to the broader scheme of things? And it had becomethe new model. After peaceful transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, youbegan to see a new model in Libya and the use of force, and that'swhere it became dangerous.

AMANPOUR: So within 24 hours, was it a desperation move, then?

WRIGHT: I think that we were very close to the point of notbeing able to intervene at all, because it would have become Gadhafi'sbaby -- his country again.

AMANPOUR: Well, certainly everybody is going to be watching thisand keeping a very close eye. Thank you all very much, indeed.

And when we return, the other story making global headlines thisweek, the disaster in the Pacific. The nuclear crisis in Japan raisesa disturbing question: What if it happened here? Could it? Is theUnited States prepared to respond to a full-scale nuclear meltdown?I'll ask the man who coordinated the federal response to a host ofnational disasters, former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.He'll join me. And so will Bill Richardson, who's grappled withissues of nuclear safety as diplomat, energy secretary, and governorof New Mexico. I'll ask them whether the U.S. should be ready for apossible terrorist attack sponsored by Moammar Gadhafi.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: In Japan today, workers at the Fukushima nuclear powerplant are struggling to contain radiation, as fears of contaminationspread across the country. Officials abandoned a plan to release moreradioactive gasses into the air to relieve pressure at the crippledreactor. And the government announced the plant itself would bescrapped once the emergency is resolved.

And this troubling news: Higher than normal levels of radiationhas been found in spinach and milk. That's been detected from farmsabout 90 miles from the reactor.

The harrowing images we've seen day after day have many Americansasking one question: Could it happen here?

There are 104 nuclear reactors scattered around the country insome 31 states. At least a dozen are in areas at moderate to highrisk of an earthquake. So what happens if a natural disaster sets offa catastrophic domino effect here in America? Is the governmentprepared to respond?

Joining me now to answer that question, Michael Chertoff, whoserved as secretary of homeland security in the Bush administration,and he's also chairman of the Chertoff Group. And with us, BillRichardson, who wears many hats. He was Bill Clinton's energysecretary and ambassador to the United Nations and most recentlyserved as governor of New Mexico.

Gentlemen, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us.

Just before we get to the crucial issue of Japan and nuclearenergy, let me ask you regarding Gadhafi's threats and the possibilityof terrorism. Your job was to protect the homeland here. Do youthink there's an increased risk now with this military activity overLibya?

CHERTOFF: I think you have to assume there's an increased risk inthe sense that Gadhafi is a proven terrorist, and it's wise to assumethat he's got the intent at some point to do something to retaliate.

But I think his capability has been much degraded. For onething, we have raised the level of our protection and our securityover the years. I think his capability in the U.S. is not that great.If this operates today as it did when I was in office, we already haveunfolded a plan to track all of his operatives in the United Statesand to make sure they're not in a position to do something. So...

AMANPOUR: So you're really prepared here for that?

CHERTOFF: I think we are prepared for this, but, again, theimportant thing is to continue to watch him not only here in the U.S.,but look at American interests overseas, including people who aretraveling or people who may be living overseas, as well.

AMANPOUR: I mean, his son said, no, that's not our target, whenI asked him about retaliation. I mean...

CHERTOFF: Well, you know, he's like a cornered rat. And acornered rat will do whatever it has to do in order to defend itselfor to strike back. So while right now my suspicion is they have theirhands full, it's certainly something -- it's prudent to consider thathe may seek to divert attention or even to push back by strikingsomeplace else.

But, again, his capability now is not what it was 10 years ago.And more importantly, we've got a much more robust security apparatus.

AMANPOUR: And, Governor Richardson, do you think that the U.S.is more at risk?

RICHARDSON: Well, I don't want to be an alarmist. And I agreewith what the secretary said. But he's a very unpredictable -- he'salmost a wild man right now. He's cornered. My concern is, does hehave any chemical weapons? I am concerned about these mustard gasreports.

AMANPOUR: We asked Admiral Mullen about that.

RICHARDSON: No, I know what he said, but my concern is, thereare some allegations that he was directly responsible for Lockerbie.My concern is, Americans in the Mediterranean flying I think should beextra cautious.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but when a man is cornered who isdesperate, who wants to cling on to power, who sees his basenarrowing, who is attacked, could be capable, as he has in the past,very horrendous things.

AMANPOUR: Let's turn to the other major, major story, thispotential cataclysmic meltdown. Is there -- is the United Statestotally prepared to handle something like that? Could that happenhere?

CHERTOFF: Well, let's -- let's define what we mean by handle.If you had a -- an earthquake that resulted in serious damage,devastating damage to a nuclear power plant -- and I'm saying thatthat would happen -- it would be a very ugly situation.

The critical issue would be to evacuate people in a timelyfashion. Now, as part of the process of putting these plans in and aspart of our general planning process, we have worked to developevacuation plans. But make no mistake: They have to be drilled.They have to be exercised. And if that hasn't been done, it's goingto become a challenge.

AMANPOUR: Has it been done?

CHERTOFF: Well, I think it varies. I mean, if you look atCalifornia, they tend to be very good about the process ofpreparation. Other states may not be quite as intense about it.

The thing to remember is this, though: No matter how good youare, it's going to be very difficult. And the way to minimize thedifficulty is to have people be self-reliant, to have them wellprepared, to make sure they're educated so they can take their ownactions to get out of the way if, in fact, it looks like we're goingto have a problem.

AMANPOUR: And, Governor, you were governor of New Mexico whenSecretary Chertoff was in office. To your mind, is the federalgovernment prepared if it happened somewhere near your state?

RICHARDSON: Well, I can tell you that states generally are notprepared. And so we rely on the federal government. And -- and Ibelieve the secretary's right. The federal government has to lead.

I think the big message here is -- from -- from the Japanesecrisis is that we're looking at what happened in the oil spill, whathappened with the mining disaster in West Virginia, the pipelineexplosion. We have to look at the safety, cost, environmental risksof all our energy production. And I think the message with thenuclear reactors in Japan is that we should look at all our 104reactors in the United States for their safety and preparedness withinNRC.

AMANPOUR: And when you were governor -- you were saying thestates aren't prepared -- but did you believe that the federalgovernment was prepared?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think this tragedy in Japan indicates thatwe need to be better prepared, that...

AMANPOUR: So is that a yes or a no?

CHERTOFF: Well, I think -- I think, again, Christiane, you haveto have a realistic expectation. I think the federal government is --has a general plan for catastrophic incidents. I think there arecapabilities that could be deployed.

But recognizing, the initial hours after any kind of catastrophe,the government is not going to rescue everybody. That's not possible.And part of what I used to say and what Secretary Napolitano is sayingis, preparation begins at the home and at the business level.

And that means, if you're in an area which is earthquake-prone,you've got to have a plan in place to evacuate if necessary, or you'vegot to know how to shelter yourself. Now, there's going to be a bigexercise in May, in the central part of the country, the New Madridearthquake fault, which we put in process several years ago. Andthat's a great opportunity for communities to take a -- a second lookat their plans and make sure they're really serious and well-prepared.

AMANPOUR: So what scares you most as a former governor andhaving to rely on the federal government for this kind of rescue?

RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, we need to have evacuationplans. I don't think we have adequate ones around the country.

Secondly, we have to look at licensing of new nuclear powerplants. The president wants to proceed with 20 in the next decade.We want to have loan guarantees. But I think we have to have atimeout on nuclear power.

AMANPOUR: So is that -- a timeout?

RICHARDSON: A timeout, not -- not a moratorium, a timeout,review the safety and cost of all these plants, with the new licensingplants. Let's look at those that are being proposed in earthquake-prone areas. Let's look at those that are in seismic -- where there'sintensive seismic material.

And then, lastly, look at the ones -- and there's about a thirdof our nuclear plants that have some of this Japanese technology thatobviously has not worked. And I think internationally we have to havesome leadership in the whole range of the coolants in these reactors,the spent fuel. We have to look at ways that the internationalcommunity, the international atomic energy commission looks at waysthat there can be standardized safety procedures.

AMANPOUR: Do you think there needs to be a timeout?

CHERTOFF: Well, I -- I agree with Bill, we need to obviouslylook at the lessons learned from what's happened in Japan. But what Iwould caution against is overreacting, even to this catastrophicevent.

You know, we had a problem with BP in the gulf, and the reactionwas, we can't drill in the gulf. We have problems with other forms ofenergy, and people say, well, we shouldn't do that.

Well, you know, at the end of the day, if we don't use coal, oil,natural gas, or nuclear, we're going to be sitting around the firetrying to warm ourselves like we did eons ago.

So we're going to have to manage risk. That doesn't meanguaranteeing against any -- it means having in place ways to mitigateproblems. And that's where I think the lessons of Japan can be very,very helpful.

RICHARDSON: And I think the lesson, also, for America is, wehave to look at renewable energy, natural gas, clean sources, butreassess our entire safety procedures when it comes to our fossilfuels. When it -- look what happened in -- in the gulf. Look whathappened in these mining disasters. A new conversation about safety,cost, and environmental risk of our energy production.

AMANPOUR: A new conversation, indeed. Thank you both very muchfor joining us. Secretary Chertoff, Governor Richardson, thank youfor coming in.

And we'll have a final thought when we come back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: A week ago, I was in Japan. This program wasbroadcast out of there after we were covering the aftermath of theterrible earthquake and tsunami. And with me, a team of ABCcorrespondents, reporting on all the aspects of the unfolding tragedy,including the nuclear accident.

When we returned to the United States, we gathered to discuss thestories that we all didn't get a chance to report on the air. And youcan find that conversation at abcnews.com, where you can always getthe latest developments on Japan and Libya. And, of course, "WorldNews with David Muir" will have a full wrap of the day's events. AndABC will have all the news across all the platforms.

Thank you for watching "This Week," and I'll see you again nextSunday.