Interview with Bruce
Drake of the New York Daily News
(December 12, 1983)
Mr. Drake. I wonder if we could start right off on the Mideast, Mr.
President. A Congressman said last week, after those hearings that they
had on the Hill, that it seemed to him the marine force had become more
of a lightning rod for attack than a peacekeeping force. And I was wondering
whether you feel that the marines, in that particular position that
they're in now, continue to serve a useful purpose, and whether you're
likely to redeploy them.
The President. Well, I believe this, that while we had hoped in this
whole plan and in sending, at Lebanon's request, this multinational
force, that casualties could be avoided. But I have to believe that
what is happening is an indication of the determination of some others
to prevent Lebanon from having either peace or its sovereignty as a
nation. And if there is a lightning-rod effect to the multinational
force -- because this is happening to other forces there other than
our own -- it is that their chances of destroying the peace in Lebanon
would be enhanced if they could get us to go home.
Mr. Drake. ``They'' meaning?
The President. Meaning the forces. First of all, there are forces in
Lebanon that are fighting not just with the new government of Lebanon
but are fighting with each other. They have been for years. That's what
caused the breakdown of Lebanon several years ago. But they're aided
and abetted by others who have other ideas. The Syrians, for example,
have made it plain that they believe that Lebanon is really intended
to be a part of a greater Syria.
Mr. Drake. I think what I was getting at -- you said in your speech
after the terrorist bombing on the marines that their operational role
at the airport was to prevent the area from becoming a battleground.
It would seem that it has become a battleground.
The President. Yes. But remember -- remember that when this whole thing
was conceived, Lebanon, itself, was a battlefield, with thousands of
innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered because of armed
forces that were fighting in that congested city, using it as a battlefield.
And remember that elsewhere, there was no stable Government of Lebanon.
There were these other factions fighting each other.
The proposal was that, when finally the PLO -- which was one of the
battling factions -- was ousted and left, that a multinational force
would go in -- the idea that the two nations, Syria and Israel, would
leave. Both had agreed to -- said that when the other left, they would
leave Lebanon.
The multinational force was to be a sort of ``keeping order force''
while the Lebanese Government reinstated itself, developed an armed
force that could then take over in these war-torn areas as those two
nations left. Remember that originally, there was no quarrel on the
part of Lebanon of Syria invading, because it was invading against the
PLO. So, Lebanon actually invited Syria to come in and help because
of this kind of trouble.
Now, the multinational force went in. I think there were a great many
accomplishments. The fighting stopped. There was some withdrawal, and
then Syria reneged on its agreement and has refused to leave. There
is an agreement now between Lebanon and Israel, which Israel has agreed
that it will leave. But it can't leave as long as it's threatened by
the Syrian forces there.
But the Lebanese Government has created an army, and we have trained
that army. We have provided materiel and weapons in great amounts. And
so, the purpose is still there.
Mr. Drake. Is the purpose served by keeping them at the airport in
specific?
The President. Actually the airport is probably not as hazardous as
it might be to be where some of the other forces are that are out actually
patrolling the streets, threatened by snipers and so forth everyday.
But the importance is that's the only airport in Lebanon. If they're
to have any communication with the outside world, if they're to have
traffic back and forth -- including our own people, our own diplomats
who are trying to help in this process -- that airport must be kept
open. And they were there to keep the airport open.
Mr. Drake. So, your inclination is to keep them there?
The President. No. My function is only that the multinational force
-- that includes the leaders of those other three countries -- that
we must have a visible showing of our multinational force in Lebanon
to perform their function. But as the actual tactics and locale, that
I leave to the military.
Mr. Drake. Let me ask you a broader question about it. We've, so far,
lost 250 lives, and many Americans seem to feel that Lebanon is a place
where another disaster could happen at any time. We've had a direct
military exchange with the Syrians. Are you worried that fears of war,
of escalation will cause public and congressional support of your policies
to erode? And what can you say to assure Americans that we are not about
to be drawn into the kind of quagmire that it has been for so many other
countries?
The President. We're not about to be drawn in. Let me call to your
attention there's going to be no firing by the marines unless they are
fired upon and they defend themselves. That's far different than going
in as an aggressive force that is now going to advance and conquer territory.
There's no intention on the part of the multinational force to do that.
So, no, there's not going to be a war involving us.
Mr. Drake. What about congressional support? You must have read the
papers over the last days. There are all sorts of reports that the congressional
mood is turning again. Are you concerned about that?
The President. Certainly, I'm concerned. But I wish that some of those
who are weakening in their resolve would recognize they're weakening
precisely because that's what those who are committing the assaults
on our forces -- why they have committed them. They feel that, if they
can make enough trouble, that we will withdraw.
Mr. Drake. Let me ask you this to sort of interject. You know there
was another terrorist attack on one of our Embassies this morning in
Kuwait. You were reported last week to have made mention of a thousand
terrorists massing, I think it was, in Lebanon. Is that an accurate
report? And do you think that the attack today in Kuwait signals some
sort of intensive campaign of terrorism that we're going to face in
the next few months?
The President. Well, even you in the press have had some information
that led you to print stories that worldwide terrorism, some of these
-- [inaudible] -- on the increase and that the threats extend far and
wide. You mentioned before about the casualties, the bulk of the casualties,
the tragedies that we sustained in Beirut were from just one such suicide
mission.
Mr. Drake. Right.
The President. But now to indicate that that doesn't only happen in
Beirut is this thing in Kuwait. And apparently the same people are claiming
credit who claimed credit for the assault on us, on the French, on our
Embassy, which proceeded any attack on our military forces.
This is a tactic that is being used by the kind of people that we're
trying to prevent from taking over in yet another country -- Lebanon.
Mr. Drake. Do you believe it's connected to this group of terrorists
that you reportedly spoke of to the -- Lew Lehrman's group last week?
The President. Do I what?
Mr. Drake. It was reported that when you met with the Citizens for
America last week, you made reference to this large group of terrorists
that had massed, I think, in Lebanon, you said. Do you or your officials
connect the attack today to that?
The President. Let me just say that there was sufficient evidence for
me to feel safe in making that statement.
Mr. Drake. Mr. President, in Syria -- excuse me -- some reports from
Lebanon say that the Syrians' success in downing our two bombers had
shaken the confidence of some Lebanese in us as a protector. Do you
feel that's the case? And I also wanted to ask you whether you had any
second thoughts about older aircraft being used for that mission when,
as you've often said, we have the New Jersey offshore with its 16-inch
guns.
The President. Let me set the record straight on that. All that I did
-- I don't give tactical orders to the military when there is a mission
that has been approved to be carried out. All I said was that I hoped
that they would consider that and see if that was a viable alternative,
because it wouldn't present more of a safety factor. And the decision,
for a number of actual tactical reasons, was that the airstrike -- for
one thing, the forces that we were going after are mobile. And there
would be no way just in an artillery attack to know whether we're still
shooting at them or not, or whether they've gone someplace else.
I don't believe -- the beginning of your question -- I don't believe
that there's been any lessening on the part of the Lebanese in their
trust in the multinational force or their belief that it is essential.
Mr. Drake. You don't think that the shooting down of the planes had
a propaganda effect to help the Syrians in that region?
The President. Well, the Syrians immediately jumped onto the bandwagon
of propaganda. But they haven't reported anything about the success
of that mission. We knocked out a number of very important installations,
including blowing up an ammunition dump.
So, yes, there were casualties. Yes, one of them was a complete tragedy.
There were some things that -- the planning of that couldn't have been
foreseen. The weather lowered in; they had to go in at a lower altitude.
But, as I say, I think the mission accomplished its purpose.
Mr. Drake. What about the pact that we made with the Israelis? As Secretary
Shultz is finding out, in the Mideast a lot of moderate and other Arabs
are asking how can we say this doesn't undermine our credibility as
a peacemaker, as an honest broker, in Lebanon and the Mideast as a whole,
if we have now entered into this military pact with the Israelis.
The President. Well, I think that we have an answer to that and have
been giving the answer to them on this. This relationship with the Israelis
is something that we've had since 1948. And a restatement of it or a
dealing with some specifics with the new government now in Israel is
a natural thing to do.
But the net point is that at the same time we're doing that, we are
working with the moderate states. For example, one thing that was mentioned
was the possibility of joint maneuvers. Well, we've had joint maneuvers
with some of the other Arab States. We have, regularly, joint maneuvers
with Egypt. We have forces in other places there.
Mr. Drake. But that's as we see it, Mr. President. Isn't there -- don't
you concede that there's a factor that they see it a different way since
there's been this longstanding enmity with Israel?
The President. Yes, but there seems to be a change when they find out
that at the same time, we informed Israel of what we were going to continue
to do with regard to the moderate Arab States.
Mr. Drake. Well, did we get any concessions that the moderate Arab
States had hoped we would get from Israel, such as some more conciliatory
statements on the settlement policy?
The President. No, there's a difference of opinion on that, and it
has existed since Camp David, on the settlements. But we made our position
plain that we still believe that that should stop -- that is one of
the subjects for negotiation in a peace process. But we did tell them
what we were going to do with regard to other Arab States who also require
some of the same kind of cooperation that we're giving Israel, and we're
going to do that.
Mr. Drake. You've often -- as recently as your radio address on Saturday
-- mentioned the large Soviet presence in Syria. But you haven't said
what it is you think their immediate design is. Is it just Soviet troublemaking?
Are they prepared, do you think, for a confrontation in the region?
What do you think the Soviets are up to?
The President. I don't know that there's any sign that they want a
confrontation, particularly with us. But there's no question about their
interest in the Middle East, and there's no question but that where
there is trouble of any kind, they don't mind stirring the pot.
Now, just take a look at Ethiopia, South Yemen, and you can see that
the Soviets have eyed the Middle East. It is a place of strategic importance
to, particularly, the Western World -- Europe and Japan. Where would
they turn to, what would they do if suddenly a force should shut off
the energy supply that comes from the Middle East?
Now, the Soviet Union does not need the Middle East for that purpose.
The Soviet Union has the greatest supply of oil reserves in the world.
It is the greatest producer of energy.
Mr. Drake. Well, is there anything that you're expecting as far as
what they intend in the region? Do we -- you do not expect that the
Soviets are trying to shift confrontation to that region? Do you think
that they're just filling contractual obligations to an ally?
The President. Well, I think very much they want to be involved and
have a stake in the Middle East. And you can't ignore the things that,
as I say, that they've done in Yemen and Ethiopia, there in the horn
of Africa. You can't ignore Afghanistan. You can't ignore the divisions
that they have at the border of Iran.
As a matter of fact, the Russian desire to move in that direction toward
warm water precedes even the Soviets.
Mr. Drake. On a completely different aspect of the Middle East, I've
listened to you for many years, and you always spoke with emotion about
the PLO. What are your thoughts on the fate of Arafat -- you know, where
he stands today, and also on the specific issue of whether Israel, us,
or the U.N. should provide guarantees for him to leave the country?
The President. Well, I think our own view is here that his absence
from Lebanon would be a step forward.
Mr. Drake. Do you think the Israelis are going to permit it, or do
you -- --
The President. I don't know. We haven't communicated directly -- or
I haven't -- with them on this point and their now sudden statement
about this. But I have to say that we had evidence that Arafat -- remember,
he is one of those who has, as some Arab States have, declared that
Israel has no right to exist as a nation, that it was war to the death
with them. But then he modified that position in his discussions with
King Hussein of Jordan, with regard to negotiations for peace, and then
was overruled by his own people, which must have been the growing prominence
of that radical force in the PLO that has been fighting him.
Now, it's a case of will the real Mr. Arafat stand up. I don't know
whether he has lost any leadership in the PLO. I don't know whether
that modification still exists or whether he is willing to go further
with that. I think that he would find great support among the PLO. I
think the PLO people, the Palestinians on the West Bank are more moderate
and don't want war. They want a peaceful solution to their problems.
Mr. Drake. Are we going to ask -- are we going to press the Israelis
diplomatically to let him leave?
The President. I have to tell you, with our people, the Secretary of
State abroad and all -- had a meeting on that.
Mr. Drake. Let me ask -- there's one thing I have to ask -- --
Deputy Press Secretary Speakes. That's got to be the last one.
Hunger in America
Mr. Drake. There's one thing I have to ask which is on the question
of Ed Meese's comments the other day. I'm sure you've read it. I'm sure
you read the controversy, all the reaction from the Democrats. I wonder
if you could tell me your feelings about that and in specific whether
you agree with his assertion that there's considerable information that
some people who can afford to do otherwise are going to soup kitchens
for free food?
The President. I'm delighted to set the record straight on that.
Let me preface it by saying one thing: As long as there is one person
in this country who is hungry, then that's one person too many, and
something must be done about it. And I happen to know that Ed Meese
agrees with that.
Reading the entire script of the interview, I have to say that the
reaction ignored much of what was in that interview and distorted the
meaning of what he had said.
Now, we ourselves are the ones who have encouraged this getting into
the picture of private groups, church groups, others in providing meals
and the food centers. I've visited some of them myself around the country.
We have contributed surplus foods to these people and to these food
centers to help in what they're doing.
It isn't a case that this is to fight off starvation. What we envisioned
with this is that the government does all that it can to try and see
that there is no hunger. But others can make life also a little easier,
maybe a lot easier, for these people in going beyond just the absolute
necessities and, by these efforts, making sure that families can have
a little more than bare necessities, which makes life worth living --
--
Mr. Drake. Well, could I -- --
The President. Now, let me just say this -- --
Mr. Drake. Sorry.
The President. We have found -- first of all, we are spending more
on nutrition in this country than has ever been spent before in the
history of the country. More people are getting food stamps than have
ever gotten them before. I rejoice in these private groups, because
there are more of those helping than have ever helped before.
But what he probably was trying to point out is that any time you've
got a program of this kind -- how do we find cheaters on welfare, people
that are getting welfare and being supported by their fellow citizens
who don't really have a need and who should not be there. Well, isn't
it logical to suggest that people of the same train of mind are going
to take advantage of those who are privately trying to help? Now, the
situation is that those private groups have no way of checking on the
credentials of someone who comes there. They have opened their doors
to invite those in -- the hungry in.
Now, this leads to why we have a commission -- and that, too, has been
distorted, I'm afraid, in the accounting or the recounting of the --
the press and others have, every once in a while on an annual basis,
have brought up finding an individual or people or a family that is
doing without and that is hungry. I want to know why, because I know
what we're doing; I know what the private sector's doing. And this commission
was sent out not to find out if there's hunger in America; it was sent
to find out how widespread is this. How many people are there who are
suffering this? And is it because of some bungling in our distribution
system? Is it because of people who don't know the way to find these
programs? It could be some of both. And if so, we want to find out how
do we communicate better and say to someone who is hungry, ``Look, here
is how you find out the answer to your problem. Go here and there; appeal
to the right people.''
Mr. Drake. Could I ask one more question?
Mr. Speakes. We're right on the ground.
Terrorism
Mr. Drake. I just want to ask quickly, what are your feelings with
this security business? Is the White House becoming sort of a fortress?
There's now this report that Secret Service are going to be armed with
ground-to-air missiles in case there's an attack from a plane. Does
this -- --
The President. I haven't heard anything about that -- such a thing.
I have to say that I don't inquire too much. I have a great faith in
our security forces and I -- like the military, I leave them to do what
they believe in their own best judgment.
Mr. Drake. It sounds like you might be safer somewhere else. [Laughter]
The President. Well, in Kuwait, for example? [Laughter] This is the
problem with worldwide terrorism. We do have some information on what
they have threatened, their activities worldwide, and there are precautions
that have to be taken.
Mr. Drake. Should make campaigning difficult.
The President. Well, yes. I have my own idea of one of the things about
this terrorism. It's almost an impossible thing to detect and confine,
but I believe that the countries and the groups in whose name the terrorists
are operating have a responsibility.
For example, in this in Kuwait, if this is an Iranian group -- claims
that this is part of a holy war and this is being done in the interest
of the Government of Iran, then I think Iran has a responsibility to
curb and curtail these things being done in their name, just as I would
feel that if somebody went out doing these things and said they were
doing them in the interest of the United States, I would feel that I
had a responsibility to corral them and stop them.
Mr. Drake. Thank you, Mr. President.
Sources: Public Papers of the President |