From Disarmingly Self-Assured
Think of her as the eye of the storm. Whether sparring with critics over Iraq, grappling with the egos of Cabinet secretaries or confronting hot spots like Iran and North Korea, Condoleezza Rice is unflappable. Amid all the hand-wringers, finger-pointers and second-guessers, she is disarmingly self-assured. Add to this her unwavering loyalty to the President, and it's little wonder she has become the most influential National Security Advisor in years.Dr. Rice developed her confidence the hard way -- as a child raised in segregated Birmingham, Alabama. With talent and sheer will, she rose above the prejudice around her, becoming a college professor at 26, a senior White House advisor at 34, Provost of Stanford University at 38. Today, the woman, who as a girl was once barred from "whites only" restaurants, is a close confidante of the most powerful man on earth.
Recently, Dr. Rice sat down with Reader's Digest to discuss the challenges now facing America, and what the future may hold.
RD: Where would you rank a failure in Iraq among the threats to U.S. interests and world interests?
Rice: Any failure in Iraq is a very high threat to American security and to the future of the free world. But we're not going to fail in Iraq because this President is resolute. We have the chance now, with Saddam Hussein gone, to build with the Iraqis an Iraq that is stable and prosperous, that can be a linchpin for a different kind of Middle East. It's an opportunity that can't be missed -- and won't be. There's one thing about President Bush: When he is confronted with a challenge, he doesn't say, "What a problem." He says, "What an opportunity."
I'll tell you a story about this. When our Assistant Secretary of State Jim Kelly went to North Korea and confronted them about the fact that they were pursuing nuclear weapons, in clear violation of agreements they had made with the United States government, the North Koreans essentially said, "Yes, we are. We're violating these agreements." It was a surprise to everybody, and we talked about how to meet this challenge. And the President said, "Well, there's a tremendous opportunity here." I have to tell you, everybody in the room -- Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld -- we all looked at him. What are you talking about?
And he said, "There's an opportunity here because there are a lot of countries that have a great deal at stake if North Korea makes the Korean peninsula nuclear. The Chinese have more to lose than we do. The Japanese, the South Koreans, the Russians." Before long, a strategy began to emerge to make the discussions multilateral, rather than just between the United States and North Korea, which is how the North Koreans wanted it. By convincing others they have a stake in a non-nuclear Korean peninsula, we had a chance to resolve the North Korean issue and make the resolution stick.
RD: If before the war with Iraq there had been undeniable proof that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found, would you have nonetheless advocated military action to remove Saddam's regime?
Rice: That's hard to answer because Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, his use of those weapons, his terrorizing of the region are of a piece. He was a triple threat in many ways.
We gave him a chance to demonstrate that he had no weapons of mass destruction. But he delayed inspections. He wouldn't allow people to be taken out of the country to be interviewed. He did everything he could to obstruct an investigation. So he was given the chance to prove exactly what you are saying -- that he had no weapons of mass destruction -- and he didn't do it.
RD: What credence would you give to reports that Saddam's own aides may have deceived him into thinking he had weapons of mass destruction, when in reality he did not? Couldn't that explain why he'd resist inspections, even if he didn't have weapons to hide?
Rice: It's an interesting theory. And I'll tell you, if I were an academic again, it might be one that I would pursue. As somebody who has to help make policy, you can't take that chance. The good thing is that, with weapons inspector David Kay, we will find the truth about what happened to his weapons of mass destruction.
I think we're going to learn that Saddam was on a massive campaign to deceive the international community about the status of his weapons programs, and that he fully intended to continue to build these programs.
RD: In your view, what would now make a list of the nations that pose the greatest threat to our national interest?
Rice: Obviously, we worry about the [nuclear] proliferation that has taken place in North Korea. We are concerned about what may be going on in Iran under cover of civilian nuclear projects that look like they're probably part of a military program. These are not just threats to the United States; these are threats to international peace and stability.
We also have to worry about weak states. What we learned with Afghanistan is that the Taliban was born of weakness, and went on to become a breeding ground and eventually a safe harbor for al Qaeda. Much of what we do is to try to strengthen the infrastructure of weak states so they can be resistant to terrorists.
Serendipity
RD: What does the President mean when he says we won't tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran?Rice: Well, no one should be willing to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran. This is a problem for the international system, not just for the United States. It has taken us a while to convince people that Iran's programs were a threat, but now people see that Iran is a problem.
Through the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are condemning what the Iranians are doing, and giving them a strong warning that, if they violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they're not going to have anybody cooperating with them. There are many approaches to a problem like this, and the military option is one, but it ought to be close to your last resort.
RD: Given that the Administration felt military intervention in Iraq was appropriate, how do you respond to those who might say, "If Iraq, why not Iran?" Where does the logic of preemption begin and end?
Rice: It's foolhardy to use the same method everywhere. You have to look at circumstances, at what kind of support you can mobilize in the international community and at what kind of leverage you have on states.
Oddly enough, Iran, as closed and repressive as it is, with an unelected few thwarting the will of the people, does have some openness to the outside world. It was an Iranian opposition group that exposed the Natanz [nuclear] facility in Iran.
So you have some things to work with in Iran that you didn't have in Iraq. And when people talk about preemptive war, well, we were at war with Iraq for 12 years. Somebody had to eventually deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein. There are many other methods available to us with other countries.
RD: You've said a number of times that we can't afford to be the world's "911" emergency line. Are we at risk of becoming overextended across the globe, militarily and financially?
Rice: We are currently more than capable of handling the responsibilities that we have. And, as the only superpower, we've come to see those responsibilities differently after 9/11.
Before then, a lot of issues and conflicts around the world seemed unconnected. There was a problem here, a problem there. What 9/11 exposed was that there is a great battle going on between chaos and order. And on the side of order, we have a number of instruments at our disposal. Obviously, the military instrument, which we've used in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have the law enforcement instrument, which we're using worldwide. We have the intelligence instrument, financial instruments, diplomatic tools.
But what we really have is a unifying idea on the side of order, which is that to defeat these terrorists you have to eliminate their leadership and their networks. You also have to have an alternative. And that alternative is the march of democratic values, the march of open societies, the march of tolerance, all of the things that they hate most. While this unifying idea doesn't draw us to overextension, it does draw us to places and struggles that we might not have seen as central to our national security interests prior to 9/11.
RD: Do you think people who would do us harm might take advantage of this period when we're deeply engaged in Iraq?
Rice: I think it's having just the opposite effect. Countries that might be trouble, or terrorists who might be trouble, recognize strength. And they fear it. They feed on weakness.
Now in the '90s, when it looked like we couldn't take a casualty, there's no doubt it emboldened them. We know that they were emboldened by Somalia. I think they're testing us. And the American people understand that we have to sacrifice now for freedom and security because we didn't pick this fight on 9/11. It came to us.
There are those who say, "Well, if you just hadn't gone into Iraq, there wouldn't be terrorists there." They weren't someplace drinking tea and playing Scrabble. These are hardened jihadists who will fight us someplace. And if they want to fight us in Iraq, where we are 140,000 strong, better there than in New York City again.
RD: You had firsthand experience with terrorism, growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, during the violent resistance to the civil rights movement. In light of that experience, what advice would you give to American families who are frightened of terrorism?
Rice: One thing that helped me get through it was that, even though I was a child, my parents were not afraid to talk about what was happening. It was a time when bombs went off in neighborhoods, when a bomb killed four little girls in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, one of whom was a friend of mine. And my parents explained that it was a terrible thing happening, but it wasn't directed personally at me.
One of the saddest things about terrorism is that it really intends to stop the conversation, particularly when it targets children and other innocents. It intends to take the future away from people. And my parents were very good at not letting that happen.
As Americans and as the American government, there are things we can do to try to prepare. But we also have to go on with our lives.
RD: What can you see yourself doing once you've left the Bush Administration. Will you run for office?
Rice: There is nothing I am worse at than long-term planning. I have never run my life that way. I believe that serendipity or fate or divine intervention has led me to a series of wholly implausible steps in my life. And I've been open to those twists and turns because I didn't have a long-term plan.
When my students would say, "How do I do what you do?" I'd answer: "You start as a failed piano major and go from there." So we'll see what comes next. There's only one job I covet, which is the NFL Commissioner. But Paul Tagliabue is doing a great job, so I'll wait till he retires.