NR: "...it's accounting
for more casualties than virtually any other threat
that they face almost combined."
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Length: 7:09
LARGE (82.8 MB)
-----
SMALL (8.7 MB)
Don Lemon spent an hour discussing Afghanistan;
Michael was on twice, first discussing the war in
general and later talking about IEDs and their
impact on the war.
DON LEMON:
I want to bring in now CNN's Michael Ware. He has
covered some of the world's most dangerous places for
CNN, including the war in Afghanistan, and just got
back from there just a couple of weeks ago. You hear
those stories, Michael, and of course, it just breaks
your heart. But this week, we saw the president going
to Dover. We have seen members of the administration
going to visit veterans, the president meeting with
the Joint Chiefs and his chief advisers.
If you -- you know, you've been doing this. He is
weighing 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. What do
you think? Are more troops the answer here?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends
upon how President Obama decides what his goals in
Afghanistan in this war really, really are. I mean,
if you want to apply the military pressure to put a
clamp, to seriously undermine the Taliban, then, yes,
you need more troops. But if his military goals are
less than that, then perhaps he can get away with
fewer troops.
Certainly, I know the commanders on the ground want
to fight this war and they say they need 40,000 more.
Now, that will still only be a small number of what's
actually required. But as it stands right now in the
battle in Afghanistan, the U.S. effort is barely
touching the Taliban's war machine. It's disrupting
it, but it's done nothing to dismantle it. So if you
want to put pressure on that organization, you need
more boots on the ground.
LEMON: Hey, listen, Mike, I know this is sort of --
you're not a politico here, but reading the tea
leaves, many people who are politicos are saying if
you see the president going out to Dover, you see the
first lady and you also see Mrs. Biden going to
veteran hospitals, you hear the vice president
talking about Afghanistan, the secretary of state
saying, the president is considering a different
approach and mission in Afghanistan -- there are
those who say all of this means that the president
probably will not be sending 40,000 troops into the
region there. Have you heard anything about that?
WARE: Well, no, I haven't. Obviously, the military is
keeping things tight, as is the White House. I
certainly know what the military wants, and I would
suspect that the defense secretary, Robert Gates,
will be leaning towards a higher number than a lower
number. But again, that's only speculation.
It all comes down to this decision from the White
House. Now, the fact that the president and the first
lady and others have been paying due attention to
America's fallen and wounded at the moment could be
going either way with regards to this decision. At
the very least, it's poignant and timely that the
administration is at least addressing and getting
something of a first-hand account of the true human
cost of this war before such an important decision is
made.
Perhaps it's a sign that he's going to send more and
he wants to say that, I know the cost. Or it could be
the other way. I can't read the tea leaves, Don.
LEMON: Thank you. Thank you very much for that,
Michael. Michael, as I said, was in Afghanistan just
a short time ago and also experienced what many
troops are experiencing there, Michael, and that's
IEDs. We're going to talk to him about that in just a
little bit. He's going to rejoin us.
First, they are the number one killer of soldiers on
patrol in Afghanistan...
LEMON: All right, from Anderson Cooper to CNN's
Michael Ware, who knows a thing or two about the
danger of IEDs.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WARE (voice-over): A hidden Taliban roadside bomb, an
IED, is about to hit this Afghan police gun truck. A
CNN cameraman and I are riding in it. By some
miracle, it detonated a heartbeat too soon.
Otherwise, we'd all be dead. Instead, gravel rains
over us.
(on camera): You all right?
(voice-over): Then comes the shooting, a so-called
"death blossom," police firing aimlessly to ward off
further attack.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: Michael, we are certainly glad that you -- you
said if it just -- a fraction of a second later, and
you might not be here. Talk to me about that
experience over there because many of the troops are
facing that same experience.
WARE: Absolutely, Don. I mean, that's the troops'
worst nightmare. As you say, it's accounting for more
casualties, the IED, than virtually any other threat
that they face almost combined. And the worst part
about these things is, obviously, you don't see them
coming. Many are found. Many are defused. Many are
blown up where they're discovered. But some still get
through. And as we saw this week, seven American
soldiers died in one vehicle alone.
Now, in our vehicle -- we were in an Afghan gun
truck, which is just a pickup, and we were sitting in
the back. If that bomb had detonated just a
nanosecond later, then we may have a very, very
different story to tell. Indeed, the patrol I was on
contacted me -- this police patrol, Afghan police
patrol -- contacted me a week later and said the
exact same spot where we'd been hit, two men lost
their legs and another man lost his sight in yet
another IED. They're the true mark of the war in
Afghanistan now, Don.
LEMON: I want to talk to you about a couple of
different things here because -- we'll get to what
they're doing and how they're improving the
equipment, technology, medicine there. But there is a
new danger on the horizon that I'm being told, and by
you, as well, Michael. It's coming from the Iranians,
this new device called an ESP, which is even more
dangerous than the old IED. Is that correct?
WARE: Well, it's a very particular form of roadside
bomb, and it is lethal. Now, the Iranians are
specialists in the creation, development and
deployment of these bombs. We saw them starting to
appear in Iraq as Iran stepped up its campaign
against U.S. soldiers.
So far, we haven't seen them become a major threat
yet in Afghanistan. But I can tell you, I had it
confirmed by the U.S. military that they are finding
caches or dumps of these weapons or their components.
So some of these bombs are getting in the country.
Now it's just a matter of time, perhaps. And when
these things go off, they can punch through the armor
of an Abrams battle tank like a fist through a piece
of plywood. These are devastating bombs. And from my
time in Iraq, I can vouch for that, Don.
LEMON: Yes. And Michael Ware tells us even with the
technology -- there are improvements in medicine on
the battlefield, that's helping, improvements in
armored vehicles, equipment-jamming devices, as well
-- but if you have a new type of device then it's
going to pose an even new challenge and you may have
to start over again.
Michael, I could talk to you about this all day. We
appreciate you joining us. We're going to move on. We
have so much to cover in this hour. This is a huge
story that we want to give our viewers as much
information about as possible. Thank you,
Michael.