AAM: "Perhaps we have to
see: what do we call a win in Afghanistan?"
Friday, February 27, 2009
Length: 5:59
LARGE (82.8 MB)
-----
SMALL (7.3 MB)
John Roberts discusses the Iraq/Afghanistan war
plans with Michael, Christiane Amanpour, and
General George Joulwan (Ret.). During the
discussion, Michael says he may soon be heading for
Afghanistan. Stay tuned...
JOHN
ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Details about the president's
plans for Iraq leaking out of the White House right
now. The official announcement just a few hours away.
But President Obama has been promising to turn the
military's attention from Iraq to Afghanistan since
the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will
end this war in Iraq. End it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: And a new CNN poll just out this morning
finds more than two-thirds of Americans think that
the president should pull our troops from Iraq. Mr.
Obama says that he's going to have the combat troops
out by August of 2010. That's just 19 months. Is that
a realistic time frame?
Joining me now with a look at the president's plan,
CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane
Amanpour, our veteran Baghdad correspondent Michael
Ware, and in Washington former NATO Supreme Commander
General George Joulwan. He studied the progress of
Iraqi security forces for Congress in 2007.
And General, let's start with you. This window of 19
months is three months longer than the president's
original plan, but is it realistic to get all combat
forces out of Iraq by August of next year?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN, FMR. NATO SUPREME ALLIED
COMMANDER: Well, I think the key word they've used
was responsible withdrawal. He's consulted with his
military commanders on the ground, with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, all recently. And he's come up with
a plan that I believe his commanders and the Joint
Chiefs support.
So I think it's doable. The key is going to be this
year. We're going to have elections in July. We're
going to have a national election in December. All of
that will play into it and I think he will adjust as
he goes along. But I think it is reasonable, given
where we are now in Iraq.
ROBERTS: You know, of course, Christiane and Michael,
not all of the troops are going to come out of Iraq.
They're talking about a residual force of 35,000 to
50,000 in a, quote, "non-combat role." Is there such
a thing as a non-combat role?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL
CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there is. You can be there. You
can pull back and you can be there as a reserve to
help in any emergency. I think the key, as General
Joulwan said, it's not just this year, it is this
year, but it's also beefing up the Iraqi security
forces.
Look, we've been talking about this almost from the
very beginning. The only way that the United States
can pull out in a safe way is if the Iraqi security
forces are up and running and capable of running and
securing their country. And, also, if the elections
go okay in December, whether there's a real chance of
solidifying the notion of political pluralism.
ROBERTS: You know, Michael, some people say there is
no such thing as a non-combat role for American
troops in Baghdad. You spent so much time there.
Would you agree or disagree with that?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well,
it is walking a fine line. And we did hear from the
commanders on the ground there before the Bush
administration signed a new agreement outlining the
American withdrawal the "combat," "support" troops --
what do these definitions mean? What's a combat
soldier? What's a support soldier?
You can stretch those definitions if you're not very
careful. So, they will be restricted far more than
even they are now. They won't be roaming the streets
on patrols, so that their exposure will be way down,
but Iraq is Iraq and anything could happen.
ROBERTS: Of course, as the troops draw down in Iraq,
they will be beefing up the force in Afghanistan.
General, we had a CNN/ Opinion Research Corporation
poll out yesterday that found that 64 percent of
Americans believe that the U.S. is not winning the
war in Afghanistan. What are the goals going forward
there and how do you define an end game in
Afghanistan?
JOULWAN: Well, I think, really, I would talk an end
state, not an end game or an end date. And I think
what needs to be built up in Afghanistan, like Iraq,
is civilian capacity and, in many cases, that's not
military forces, it's civilian agencies. The military
has to create the secure environment. That's
absolutely necessary in Afghanistan.
And we saw what the surge did in Iraq, but it's the
civilian agencies that are going to bring about true
peace. And so, what we need to see is a balanced
mixture of military and civilian agencies in
Afghanistan. And I think the shift over to
Afghanistan is very much in our national interests
and it should take place sooner rather than later.
ROBERTS: Christiane and Michael, I was talking to
former Senator Chuck Hagel last week. And I said to
him, can the U.S. win in Afghanistan and he said, if
you look at history, that would suggest no.
AMANPOUR: Well, you know, yes, but then today is not
last century. And when the United States forces came
into Afghanistan, they were welcomed after 9/11 when
they sent the Taliban and al Qaeda packing. Some of
the biggest Loya Jirgas that were held there, the big
meetings there, had standing ovations for the United
States and international troops.
So, we don't want to take a specious point from
yesteryear and transplant it right now. The point is,
what are the troops doing there? Are they going to
help secure the place as General Joulwan said and
make it possible for the vital nation-building? And
this is the question which I have for this
administration. Are they going to continue an
environment where we can have nation building or are
they just going to go against the militants and al
Qaeda and I think it's very, very important they do
both.
ROBERTS: Michael, you may be spending a lot of time
there in the near future.
WARE: It's distinctly possible.
ROBERTS: Do you think that the U.S. can win in
Afghanistan?
WARE: Well, it depends on a definition of a win is.
As in Iraq, as the surge was unfolding, when General
Petraeus took command of the war there, the goals and
the aims, the definition of a win, was revised from
this noble concept of a shining democracy as a beacon
to the region to a state that can administer itself
and poses no threat to the United States or the
region. Perhaps we have to see what do we call a win
in Afghanistan.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm going next month and I know that
there has been a huge amount of progress made and so,
for the United States, it's vital to keep it and to
secure that progress, for instance, in women's
affairs and other such things. And by the way, there
can be a non-U.S. combat role, it's possible. Look at
Bosnia after the war there. Tens of thousands of U.S.
and other forces -- they didn't go into combat, they
kept the peace.
ROBERTS: Well, be safe, both of you, if you head over
there. General Joulwan, thanks for being with us this
morning. Appreciate it.
JOULWAN: Thank you.
ROBERTS: Kiran?