LARRY JOHNSON on CNN Today

SPECIAL THANKS to Patrick Henry for finding this video for us!

We’ll get the transcript and add it shortly. HERE IT IS, IN FULL:

R. SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I’m Rick Sanchez.

There certainly has been a lot of talk about this recession for the last year or so, and now we are being told by the experts that we are officially in a recession.

Now, believe it or not, this has more to do with being an economic exercise than just about anything else, when it comes to academia telling us what most Americans have, as you can read on Twitter and MySpace and on Facebook, already known for a long period of time. So, we’re going to be sharing some of their comments with you in just a little bit.

It also begs the question, if it really started, this recession, about a year ago, does that mean that we’re almost out of the woods now or closer to being out of the woods than we would have been had it only started six or five months ago? We are going to be getting into all of that. But, first, let’s talk about this. The pirates apparently have struck again, and this time in something that’s considered much more daring. Consider the fact that they have been hitting cargo ships in the past, but now we’re talking about a cruise ship, this cruise ship that you’re about to see right here. We have got some pictures of it. This is what it looks like. Obviously, this is a file picture, not when they were actually trying to get away from pirates.

It’s a 30-ton luxury cruise ship attacked off the coast of Yemen in this case. It’s called the Nautica, 684 passengers on board, 400 crew members. Consider what would have happened if the pirates had gotten their hands on it. The ship owner says they used evasive maneuvers and accelerated and were able to get away as a result.

Obviously, there have been some passenger yachts that have been taken, most of them smaller. And we have just done our own research and found out that there was actually a passenger ship that was also attacked. That was back in 2005.

The big story that we’re talking about now, still, though, is having to do with India, and not only terrorism there, but the possibility that there could be terrorism here in the United States as well.

Let’s toss, first of all, with some of the pictures that we have been getting now. Let’s start with a picture out of a train station. You’re about to see one of the suspects at the train station. There he is right. His name is Azam Kasav. Now, Indians are saying they believe he’s an Kashmiri anti-Indian.

They also say — and this is important — that he’s talking now. Show them that other picture, if you have, Dan. Show them the picture that we have that’s close up of him just moments after he was arrested. Remember, he’s the only one who they have been able to interview, the only one who is still alive according to police officials there. And they hope to be able to get a lot of information from him.

Joining us now is Larry Johnson. He is an anti-terrorism expert who is good enough to give us some information on this. Also with me is Mike Brooks, who, as usual, joins us to be able to share the perspective of what can happen here in this country with something like this.

Let me start with you, if I possibly can, Mr. Johnson.

You have heard the arguments from many of the Indians, including Indian citizens, who say it’s the Pakistanis’ fault. They haven’t done enough to stop the terrorists in the Kashmir district. But then there’s also the argument made by many Americans that say, well, we have a similar problem in parts of Pakistan, in Waziristan, specifically. And a lot of people are saying just go in there, guns a’blazing, and take them out.

Is that a good argument that they’re making? LARRY JOHNSON, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: No, as far as the guns a’blazing, because if we could, we would have. The targets are very difficult.

And I’m not talking about this theoretically. I work with the U.S. military forces that have that particular mission. And so I know exactly what their capabilities are, what the plans are. And unfortunately the problem with the terrorists is, they do not have fixed installations. There are not a lot number of them massed together.

And more often than not, they integrate themselves into civilian population. The problem here, though, is the government of India — of Pakistan is at war with itself. There is an element of the Pakistani government which is very favorable to the United States, supports our efforts on the counterterrorism front, but there are rogue elements in the intelligence service that have provided direct support to al Qaeda, the Taliban, to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the group that is likely suspected of carrying this out.

And it’s clear to me that the group that carried this out had intelligence support.

(CROSSTALK)

R. SANCHEZ: Separating that, though, because if we — start it’s difficult for us to, you know, grasp the idea of the situation in Kashmir, you know, the two parts of Kashmir. What we can understand, though, is that we are still in a war on terror and we need to try and come to grips with how we’re going to go after it.

And we have seen what happened, the Donald Rumsfeld theory of going in like World War II. And now we’re hearing from a president- elect who seems to be saying we’re going to go at this a little bit more gingerly.

If you don’t go in with brute force, then what do you do?

JOHNSON: Well, we shouldn’t portray it as it’s either brute force or surrender. In fact, what I hope Barack Obama will do now with General Jones in charge at the National Security Council is finally we will get a coordinated effort.

Rick, do you realize that right now, as of this day, the FBI has a list of top al Qaeda suspects, the CIA has a list of top al Qaeda suspects, and as does DOD, and the lists don’t match? There has been no coordination at the White House to insist upon one list, so that you have a focused, coordinated effort, where the FBI goes after the ones the FBI can get, the CIA goes after the ones the CIA can get, and the military does what it can.

There has been a complete failure of coordination at the White House.

R. SANCHEZ: You mean to tell me still to this day, after everything we heard leading up to 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission, as a matter of fact, that there are still obstacles between one agency and another?

JOHNSON: Yes.

R. SANCHEZ: In terms of talking to each other?

JOHNSON: Yes.

R. SANCHEZ: I thought that Homeland Security was supposed to solve all that.

JOHNSON: No. Homeland Security is in a completely different arena.

I once participated in an exercise that involved both offshore activities and activities onshore. And there came a time where there was an issue to coordinate, and someone raised from Department of Defense said, well, maybe we should have Homeland Security coordinate that, and three of the other agencies that I won’t mention used an expletive that basically said, you have got to be kidding me.

So, there’s still a fundamental problem of coordination. And the only way that has got to be sorted out is at the White House. And, unfortunately, both Stephen Hadley and Condoleezza Rice did a very poor job, as did their predecessors, Berger and Lake. We have not seen a good coordination at the White House since Brent Scowcroft and Bob Gates were running it.

R. SANCHEZ: We have got a new team. As a matter of fact, that new team was announced just today by Barack Obama. And we’re going to be explaining who they are, what their roles are going to be, and what they’re going to have to explain when they go before some of their confirmation hearings as well.

We thank you, Larry, for taking time to talk to us.

JOHNSON: Thanks, Rick.

R. SANCHEZ: We will be calling on you again.

My partner here is going to be joining us in just a little bit. And you are going to be taking another part of this story, because a lot of people are asking, well, if they take these little boats and they’re able to get into some place like Mumbai, why wouldn’t they be able to do that in Boston or Miami or Washington or Baltimore, or any of the port cities here in the United States?

Let’s tackle that. Let’s talk about what could happen here in the United States when we come back.

By the way, we’re also going to be listening to some of the things that you’re saying here on Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook as well.

I will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) R. SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back to the world headquarters of CNN. I’m Rick Sanchez.

We have got some comments coming in that I want to share with you.

Robert, let’s start with the Twitter comments here. This is Leslie, who’s watching our newscast right now. She says: “The war on terror is a war on an ideology. That’s why it’s impossible to win. Who’s a target? Who’s safe? Do you know?” she asks.

And then we have got this comment coming in on the report I gave you just moments ago about that cruise ship: “Yikes. That could put a major hole in the hull of the cruise industry.”

Yes, it could. We will be following both of those stories.

Again, Larry Johnson has been joining us. He is going to stay with us, as well as Mike Brooks.

Why is — direct question to you. You ready? Why is what happened in Mumbai less apt to happen here in the United States, or is it?

MIKE BROOKS, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Because, since 9/11, Rick, I think we are a harder target for transnational terrorism. And I think there is more — there is an information sharing, intelligence — Larry was talking about that — but I think between local, state, and federal, it’s better than it was on 9/11.

I was — you know, spent six years with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and that’s when we all — we had what they call — and Larry knows about this — the wall. If you were working a criminal case, and then you had intelligence come in, in relation to the criminal case, there wasn’t that much sharing. It’s better, but I still think the Department of Homeland Security, which he talked about, you know, and after 9/11 when they developed this…

(CROSSTALK)

R. SANCHEZ: A lot of people in that agency says it’s a mess.

BROOKS: It is, 22 different agencies. Do they speak to each other? On some things, yes, some things, no. But could that happen here? Yes, it could. But I think there’s better information sharing, better intelligence sharing here, because you figure, in India, there’s 28 states, and they don’t talk to each other.

R. SANCHEZ: But hold on. We’re talking about 10 guys with machine guns who get into some big city and just start doing what they did in Mumbai.

Larry, what is to stop it from happening here?

JOHNSON: Well, Rick, have you ever been to Kansas City?

R. SANCHEZ: Sure.

JOHNSON: OK.

So, if I asked you — if I took you in from the river at night, you would know how to get to the Crown Center, down to the Plaza, over to the Hyatt and then to Union Station to carry out an attack at night?

R. SANCHEZ: With a GPS.

JOHNSON: Well, what I’m telling you, what happened here is, either these individuals had conducted extensive surveillance of this area beforehand, because Harriman (ph) House, which — that Jewish rest stop, that’s not commonly known. That is special inside knowledge. So, they clearly had support either on the ground or they themselves were in…

(CROSSTALK)

R. SANCHEZ: OK. I understand your argument. But why couldn’t those 10 guys — and I’m asking this question because I fear it and as an American citizen, I’m thinking the same thing a lot of people are thinking. Why couldn’t they do the same thing here in the United States? They couldn’t do the reconnaissance, is that what you’re saying?

JOHNSON: They could in theory.

But the reality is, number one, these guys, the jihadists, they don’t travel well. As Mike correctly noted, we have gotten much better at cracking down and preventing them from getting in.

And, frankly, the local police are much more effective at collecting intelligence on what’s going on in their communities than is the federal government, in my view.

(CROSSTALK)

BROOKS: And you’re right, Larry. And that’s where the joint terrorism task forces, that’s where they come into play, Rick, because they are — the FBI can’t do it by themselves. The CIA can do this.

But when you have task forces like this, that’s what really hardens up your targets in each of the cities. And — but there’s one thing you still have to worry about, that law enforcement, that I worry about, my former colleagues worry about, and these are the lone wolves.

You know, as someone just on Twitter says, the ideology. Yes, al Qaeda — everybody looks at al Qaeda as a group. And they look as…

R. SANCHEZ: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BROOKS: Yes. R. SANCHEZ: But it’s also a mind-set. But then you have the local, homegrown terrorists here in the United States we have seen taken — you know, you look at…

(CROSSTALK)

R. SANCHEZ: Timothy McVeigh.

BROOKS: Look at Timothy McVeigh.

So, those are the ones that scare me and scare everyone else, because all it takes, Rick, especially this time of the year, is someone with guns and explosives to go into a mall, go in a hotel, like we saw, and that’s just…

(CROSSTALK)

R. SANCHEZ: Let me ask you guys the question. Look, the question that this person just brought up a minute ago here on Twitter, and it’s an interesting one, if this is an ideology, how do you lessen the fierceness of that ideology?

Let me go ahead and put that back up for you, Robert. I know you wanted to show it. This is the question that we’re talking about. And a lot of people really believe this, that you can’t just go after it, as we said earlier, guns a’blazing, because it’s a thought process. And you can’t attack a thought process.

JOHNSON: Well, Rick, ultimately it’s an international diplomatic effort, because India — India faces the problem, Egypt faces the problem, Jordan faces the problem, even Syria. We have seen the Marriott bombings in Jordan. We have seen them in Pakistan.

So, at the end of the day, there has to be a coordinated, global effort. And some of that may involve military action. I’m not saying let’s not use the military. Let’s use the military where they can.

R. SANCHEZ: Right.

JOHNSON: Some of it may involve police action. Some of it is going to involve intelligence action.

The key to this is to have a coordinated process. And I was, frankly, happy to see General Jones put in as the national security adviser, because he’s the one person that I think has the experience and the understanding to pull this off.

R. SANCHEZ: So does it seem is everyone else happy to see him there.

You, too, right?

BROOKS: Well, I’m also happy to see Eric Holder, because if you think — if you recall, Eric Holder was the deputy attorney general under Clinton when we were attacked in 1998 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. I was there. I was in Nairobi having dinner when the FBI director at the time, Louis Freeh, got called out to the balcony on his secure phone.

He just got off the phone with President Clinton when they sent cruise missiles in a reasonable — as a retaliation into Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. So, he’s not a rookie to the terrorist…

(CROSSTALK)

R. SANCHEZ: He comes with experience.

BROOKS: Exactly.

R. SANCHEZ: Larry Johnson, my thanks to you. Mike Brooks, my thanks to you. Two great guests to have this conversation with. And I’m sure it edified a lot of folks who are listening in.