Click here to watch the first part of the Talk of Paris with Brent Scowcroft

Welcome back to the set of The Talk of Paris with our guest, in a live link-up with Washington, Brent Scowcroft, the former advisor to three US presidents – Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. Brent Scowcroft, who coined the famous phrase of the “new world order”. Today, what assessment do you make of the two mandates of George Bush Jr. (George W. Bush)? You courageously denounced the war in Iraq. This warning was not heeded by the current President. What’s your assessment: do you think he really is the worst president the US has ever had?

Well, I’m not in a position [for] making historical assessments. I believe that… I would leave it to history to judge. We’ve had presidents who at the time were thought to be outstanding and who history has graded low; and others who ended their office nearly in disgrace, like President Truman, who have gone on to resume a [place among] our great presidents. So I think I would rather pass that question.

But, regarding the war in Iraq, against Saddam Hussein, it was almost a Shakespearean tragedy between George Bush father and son. You were advisor to the son. Was there a big conflict between the two of them?

I don’t think so. My sense is that the father said, “I was President, I had my chance; my son is President now, I’m not going to sit here and look over his shoulder and tell him how he ought to behave.” So I believe that he assumed the position of observer, rather than of confidant.

But the 41^st President was against the second war against Saddam Hussein, was he not?

Well I don’t believe he ever said he was for it or against it. If he did, I do not recall it.

I’d like to remind our viewers that you appointed Condoleezza Rice to the White House. She then went on to become the first black Secretary of State. What assessment do you make of her action? Are you satisfied with your pupil, your former pupil?

Well, I think I’m very proud of my pupil. I think she has gone very far. She’s a very young woman; she undertook an extremely difficult job, at an extremely difficult time in American foreign policy. And the problems were daunting. And I think she did her best at it.

At the same time, she did not prevent the war in Iraq, so her influence was not strong enough to weigh heavily enough relative to Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Cheney…

Well, you know, I’m not privy to all the inner workings of the 43^rd President, and to how they made that decision, and to who supported it and who didn’t. Certainly, it did not turn out to be one of the most [inaudible] that this country has ever made. But, as I say, I don’t know who is responsible for what part of that decision.

Let’s talk about the future. In your view, would Hillary Clinton be a good choice to succeed Condoleezza Rice at the Department of State?

I think Senator Clinton is a very responsible, sound, solid thinker. I think she did an outstanding job on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She knows a good deal about foreign policy and I would be very comfortable to see her as Secretary of State.

She herself supported the war in Iraq, unlike Barack Obama. So how will things turn out between the two to foresee the future US policy on Iraq?

I believe, at this point, that who supported and who opposed the war is largely irrelevant. We are where we are, and the important thing, to me, is that we leave Iraq in a position where it represents a force for stability in that difficult region, the Middle East, rather than a force for chaos and conflict. So I think the future is broadly open. And who supported and who opposed the war is history now, and does not affect the way we should think looking forward.

Regarding Iraq, in how much time do you think the US should leave?

I do not believe we should leave Iraq based on a calendar. I believe we should leave Iraq based on the situation on the ground. It’s improving steadily now. And that’s optimistic. And, I think, as it improves, we can withdraw some of our troops that are involved in the actual conflict. The Iraqi army is getting much more capable in dealing, in preserving the security of the country. But, behind the frontline troops, the United States is still providing much of the support for the Iraqi army (artillery, helicopters, supplies, infrastructure, intelligence). It will take time to train the Iraqis. And then there’s the political situation, which we don’t and can’t control. But we need to judge at what point and at what rate we can draw down, and at what point we can say, “Alright, we have done enough, Iraq is able to stand on its stable, constructive feet as a force for good in the region.” To put a date on it, I think, would be a mistake.

But do you think, nevertheless, that the Americans, the boys, should have left Iraq before the end of the first mandate of Barack Obama (that is to say within the next four years)?

Not necessarily. I would hope that things would progress rapidly enough for that to be possible. But I think that’s a matter for judgment, not for calendar.

Very well. Let’s now look at the other major war for the new President, a question by a special advisor to the IFRI, Dominique Moïsi, on Afghanistan.

The priority of President Barack Obama, when it comes to foreign policy, will be apparently on Afghanistan. Do you think sending more troops to Afghanistan will contribute to the solution or do you think there is really no military solution there?

I agree with my friend that there is not or should not be political solution to Afghanistan. It’s a very different problem than Iraq and it needs to be treated differently. Afghanistan has a long history, but it’s a history of a country that is loosely joined together, a loose confederation, if you will, of tribal leaders, warlords, regional leaders, governed by a very light-touch from the center. And I believe that that’s what we should focus on. That is not a military solution. And I believe we should be looking around for ways to recreate the Afghanistan which existed before the Soviets went in. The Soviets tried a military solution to Afghanistan. And we should look seriously at what happened to the Soviet effort. After all, they had over twice the troops that we and our NATO allies have there now. And they were unable to succeed. So, yes, I think we need to look for other alternatives and be focused on an Afghanistan which is not a perfect model of parliamentary democracy in a highly centralized state but an Afghanistan which is, again, not a menace as it was when it sheltered the Al-Qaida terrorists or training camps. And that’s after all, why we went in, in the first place.

Let’s listen to another question by somebody who knows you very well: Pierre Lellouche: is Obama a realist or an idealist? Let’s listen to Pierre Lellouche’s question. Pierre Lellouche, as you know, is a member of the French Parliament, and he has also been an advisor to Jacques Chirac for diplomatic affairs.

[…] I hope you’re well. Perhaps you’ll remember a conversation we had in your office a few years ago, at the beginning of the war in Iraq, about the debate between the realists and the neo-cons. You were one of the realists, of course, and against the war. You said it was a mistake. The question I wanted to ask you is the following: do you think Obama belongs to the realist school, or do you think he may be tempted by some of the idealistic trends of thought that we have known in the past in some of the Democrat presidents? Thank you.

Well, that’s a very good question from my dear friend Pierre. And it’s a difficult question for me to answer. I don’t think that what I’ve heard so far from President-Elect Obama allows me to categorize him very conveniently. We have thrown these words around with great abandon recently: realists, idealists, neo-cons… and it’s sort of shifting territories. But I guess, from the little that I have heard, in the way that candidate Obama has described what he would undertake, it seems to me that he comes closer to the realist school in the sense that he would try to find out what the motives and goals of other countries are as a beginning to how to deal with them, rather than setting idealistic goals and struggling, whatever the facts on the ground are, to achieve them. But it’s something that our President-Elect has not really revealed in terms of his diplomatic philosophy.

Well, you think that the master word will be “negotiations”, including with Iran?

Yes, and that’s an indication, to me, that what he seeks is to find out what the other’s operating parameters are, what the points are on which agreement is possible, what the irreconcilable points are…That is, to me, a realistic approach. You take a solid appraisal of what the ground is and then you try to take advantage of that ground and move forward. Rather than start with the ideal and try to make the ground fit the reality.

And, if there’s no agreement with the Iranians, if they continue to produce and enrich uranium, and get the atomic bomb, do you think Barack Obama should bombard nuclear power stations in Iran?

I’ve been characterized, by your questioners, as a realist. As a realist, I wouldn’t start with the final question (“What if….?”). I would start with “What can we do to try to avoid that final question?” and deal with the question not in the beginning but at the end. And I think we have not done all that we can to avoid the possibility that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

Let’s listen to the last question of the program, by Dominique Moïsi of IFRI, about the future of the US in 2025.

In a recent report published by the US Administration on the state of the world in 2025, it appears that the United States will be part of a multi-polar world and, in 2025, will not be the only world power. So, if we look to the future, what is your feeling, how do you see the status of the US in 2025?

Well, I think my friend Dominique for that question. I believe that the nature of power in the world is changing. And I think that globalization is affecting that as it is everything else. National borders are eroding. States can no longer provide for themselves or their citizens independently, as is the case through much of history. Many of the basic problems we face – whether it’s health issues, climate issues, financial issues – spill across national borders. And I think that is causing a change in the nature of national power. Certainly at the end of the Cold War, the United States stood alone in terms of the traditional elements of national power. Probably since the time of the Roman Empire. But look what happened in Iraq. A very small nation has, in a sense, tied the United States in knots. And I think what we’re going to see is a multi-polar world. But that’s a term of the 20^th century. I think we are going to see a softening of the sharp edges of national power. Because countries are going to have to reach out to other countries in order to deal, increasingly, with a number of problems in the world. And I think we’re going to see more of a blending than of multi-polarity. Because multi-polarity implies groups against groups. And I think that’s likely to diminish somewhat in the coming years.

But, as the historian Fukuyama said, do you see the end of America Inc., the end of the hyper-power of the United States, in 2025?

I believe that’s true. The end of the Cold War was a unique period in history. The end of World War II marked the diminution of the power of the traditional great powers, who were weakened by World War I and World War II. And the Cold War exhausted one of the two that was left, the Soviet Union. And there was, remaining, the United States. But the state of the world is changing and evolving. And I think this notion of the hyper-power, in terms of the ability to get results in the exercise of power, is diminishing rapidly, and the exercise of power will require cooperation in order to achieve results.

Very well. Thank you very much, Brent Scowcroft for having been our guest – our 100^th guest on The Talk of Paris. Thank you for having participated in this program. I would also like to thank all those who helped me to prepare it (Julia Dorner, Sarah Brown, Juliette Igier, Pierre Gabas and Jean Lessieur) and, of course, all the technical teams of France 24. Thank you to all of you and join us again very soon on France 24.