Erica Hill talks to Michael and former DEA agent Robert Strang about the action on Wednesday that resulted in the death of the leader of one of the Mexican drug cartels.

ERICA HILL: The drug war next door could escalate. That is the fear following the death of a major cartel leader.

(VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: The ruthless drug lord gunned down in this shootout between police and cartel members. His name: Arturo Beltran Leyva. Mexican President Felipe Calderon said killing him was a heavy blow against one of the most dangerous criminal organizations in Mexico.

But it could also unleash a power struggle between rival cartels, one that could, in fact, lead to more bloodshed?

Michael Ware just returned from the front lines in Mexico. He joins us, along with Robert Strang, who's a security expert and former special agent for the DEA.

Good to have both of you with us. We should point out that it's not just President Calderon who's saying this is a huge blow. The acting administrator for the DEA also said...

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's correct.

HILL: ... this is a heavy blow. So, is it a heavy blow, Michael, to the cartel there, or is this going to incite more violence?

WARE: Well, we'll have to wait and see. This is certainly a body blow to the general dynamics of the cartels, to lose one of the leadership, and someone so senior, obviously has a disrupting effect. But what are the ripples going to be? Will there be a smooth transition of power within the cartel? Will others come and try to feed off the carcass? Will there be internal disputes within the cartel? We just don't know which way it will go yet.

HILL: So, do you see this then as sort of being the first major one to fall in what could be in fact a line of the heads of these cartels being brought down?

ROBERT STRANG, FORMER DEA AGENT: I do. President Calderon said three years ago when he came into office, "I'm going to work with the United States. I'm going to do the best I can to stop this $20 billion industry." And 14,000 deaths in the last three years, he says, "What am I going to do to stop it?"

This is the first major victory he's had. He's on his way to do what Colombia did to those cartels, he's going to do the major cartels in Mexico.

HILL: You said repeatedly, Michael, that it's Mexican blood paying for this insatiable American appetite for illegal drugs.

WARE: That's right. Well, there is the, you know, the moral compass. I mean, all of this death is stemming from a struggle for the right to supply America's illicit demand for drugs. So if you can have this Mexican blood on your hands, then you're a better -- or a worse -- person than I.

But also, let's not forget the penetration of American soil. If you want to be purely self-interested about this, there are hundreds upon hundreds of active cartel members in America, in literally hundreds of American cities. And they don't muck around. I mean, we're not talking LA. street gangs here. We're talking L.A. street gangs on steroids, and...

STRANG: Right. Well, look. Last year, there were hundreds of arrests made by the Justice Department and DEA in the United States. We're having a lot of crossfire, kidnappings, crime in cities like Phoenix and Atlanta and San Diego that are directly affected by what's happening in Mexico.

These cartels, the billion-dollar salesmen down there, there are CEOs running it, need the people up here to get the job done. It's one big organization.

So, look, we've got to get to the drugs before they get to our kids in our country. There is bloodshed. Let us protect our own kids in our own country. Let us work with Mexico. This is a country that's right across our border. We cannot allow this to continue.

WARE: My final point would be, after we took down the Medellin and the Cali cartels, power shifts to the Mexicans, we now target the Mexicans -- well, there's $20 billion up for grabs every year. That profit incentive is going to see this industry evolve and evolve and evolve.

STRANG: Right.

WARE: Ultimately, every time we try to find a way to stop it, it's like an insurgency. It's adaptive.

STRANG: Well, do we give up and just let the drugs come to our kids?

WARE: We have to address the demand.

STRANG: We do. It's a three-legged stool. You have to hit the treatment, enforcement, and also the education of the kids.

WARE: Yes.

HILL: And you hit them all with the exact same intensity?

STRANG: Right. You do.

HILL: You do?

STRANG: You do. And that's -- everybody agrees, after year after year, keep hitting these cartels in Mexico, keep education our kids through programs like DARE in the United States, keep putting funding into treatment centers so people that have a problem can get better. This is how we're defeating the problem. This is how we're trying to make it better for the kids in our country.

WARE: But 'just say no' is not going to work ultimately, is it? I mean, is this a case like prohibition? I mean, shall we eventually face facts?

STRANG: Yes. Well, the facts are that we can't have methamphetamine legal in our country. The facts are that heroin and cocaine are killing too many people. The facts are, that we cannot allow this to continue, and we have to put up the good fight, which we're doing.

WARE: But where do we find the few good men left to train, you know what I mean?

STRANG: Well, they're there. And not everybody is corrupt.

WARE: Agreed.

STRANG: We've got a good president in Mexico. He's working with us. We're working with him. We're on the right track here.

HILL: On the right track but still a very long road ahead.

WARE: Oh-ho. Never-ending.

HILL: Michael Ware, Robert Strang, good to have both of you with us. Thanks.

WARE: Cheers.

An edited version of the piece about Roy Hallums that aired on AC360 last night, followed by Rick Sanchez asking Michael to talk more about what happened on Haifa Street.

RICK SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.

So often, we have heard stories of Americans that are kidnapped in Iraq. And some of those stories, they ended up with what are, well, gruesome executions. But this one ended with a daring rescue.

The man that you're about to meet was an American contractor. He was building messhalls and he was providing food for our military. He was captured. His kidnappers demanded $12 million. And now he's telling the story of what that was like, how he got out.

Then there's this fellow, our own Michael Ware. He sat down with him. And not only did he sit down with him as a journalist, but what Michael was able to do is, he actually was able to compare notes, because this very same thing happened to Michael.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE (voice-over): Three months after Roy Hallums disappeared in Baghdad in 2004, this proof of life video appeared.

ROY HALLUMS: My name is Roy Hallums. I'm an American national. Please help me.

WARE: Before it was over, Hallums would be held nearly a full year by Iraqi insurgents -- 311 days -- something I know a little about having been taken by al Qaeda myself.

(on camera): When I was grabbed by al Qaeda and pulled from my car, I mean, they were just going to cut my head off. But it was like it was someone else. At that moment, it felt to me like it was happening to someone else even though I was completely or even hyper-aware of the moment.

HALLUMS: You're right. It's like it's almost third person, that I can sit there and tell the story. I can answer any question anybody has. It doesn't bother me, and what's for lunch?

WARE (voice-over): This is Hallums at the end of his ordeal. He lost 40 pounds but says he never lost hope. For most of the time, his kidnappers kept him in a secret and cramped underground cell, the entrance sealed shut.

HALLUMS: You could hear them troweling this concrete over the door, and then they would shove a freezer over the top of that to hide where the door was. You're buried in there, and if they decide, well, it's just too dangerous to go back to the house and they never come back, then you're in your tomb.

WARE (on camera): Dead men tell no tales.

(voice-over): Eight months after his proof of life video had appeared, U.S. Special Forces received a crucial tip on his whereabouts. Worried Hallums would be moved, they instantly launched a daylight rescue.

HALLUMS: I heard Special Forces pounding on this little door in the room where I was, and the guy jumps down in there and says, "Are you Roy?" They actually found where I was, you know, which was a miracle.

WARE: Two days after Roy Hallums was rescued, I joined a U.S. hostage team gathering information and I shot this video as they returned to the Iraqi farmhouse and Hallums' hellhole.

It gave me a sense of what may have awaited me or any other of the westerners kidnapped in Iraq. And now talking with Hallums, it's forcing me to deal with things I would rather forget.

My experience began here. I was grabbed in late 2004, not far from where you see this burning American Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This is Haifa Street in the center of Baghdad and al Qaeda had just taken over the neighborhood. Like Hallums, I was taken at the height of al Qaeda's campaign of their videotaped beheadings, like this one, the last images of contractor Nicholas Berg alive.

I actually videotaped my own capture, my camera catching one of my abductors pulling a pin on a grenade before they pulled me from the car.

Unlike Hallums, for me there was to be no imprisonment. This was al Qaeda, and I was going to die. They readied me immediately for beheading, to be filmed with my own camera. I was only saved by Iraqi insurgents I knew who resented al Qaeda's takeover.

(on camera): Your moment of liberation, brother.

(voice-over): Meeting Hallums, sharing our experiences flushed up in me a mix of emotions. I can't even bear the thought of being held for months on end like he was.

HALLUMS: You're laying there in this little hole in the dark. You're tied up, hands and feet, and every little noise, every bump is, is this it? Is this when they're going to do it?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Good God. Michael joins us now.

That's one hell of a story, man.

WARE: Oh, it's incredible. Can you imagine 10 months stuck in a hole?

Now, I'm -- apart from Roy Hallums, I'm the only Western civilian to have actually seen this hole. And I don't know if you could see in the video that the soldier shot off his video camera -- the soldiers are on their knees. They're not standing up. They're moving around on their knees.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

WARE: And he was kept tied behind his back, feet, and masked that 10 months in that hole.

SANCHEZ: I'm wondering as I watch that, you took a picture of the guy who took you.

WARE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or one of them.

SANCHEZ: What did he do with that live grenade? I'm not quite sure I understand. You say he pull -- we saw him pull the pin.

WARE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. On that film -- I filmed my whole kidnap. I kept the camera running the whole time.

SANCHEZ: You're nuts.

WARE: Well, it was good -- you know?

SANCHEZ: Yes. No, no, you're a courageous guy.

WARE: But I filmed the whole thing.

And at the end of it, al Qaeda went back and taped -- and deleted, basically, the clip. Their faces were on it.

SANCHEZ: Right.

WARE: But they missed those few frames. So, what you're seeing is one of the guys stepping out, pulling the pin on the grenade and throwing it.

SANCHEZ: That's the guy we saw in that picture.

WARE: Yeah. And he's the one who came to the back of the car, grabbed me, held the grenade to my head and pulled me out.

SANCHEZ: So, as long as you know there's a live grenade there and he's holding the pin with his thumb, you're not going to do anything.

WARE: No. And there's like 20 guys who have got AK's to my head. I have got .9-mils to my head. And it was actually while they were trying to figure out how to use my camera...

SANCHEZ: Oh, my goodness.

WARE: ... so, they could film my -- I was under the banner, the same as you saw Nicholas Berg.

SANCHEZ: Did you think you could get away at that moment?

WARE: Not a chance in living hell.

SANCHEZ: Really?

WARE: That wasn't even a consideration.

SANCHEZ: So, where did they take you?

WARE: They dragged me from the car, because, at that point, it's like al Qaeda had just taken over midtown Manhattan.

SANCHEZ: And they had just beheaded somebody.

WARE: They were right in the process of it.

And, so, they grabbed me, pulled me from the car. They took me round back to a safer place. They set up the banner.

And they're there getting ready, you know, like the dude's got the blade. The others are standing back. I'm just standing there making my peace. And...

SANCHEZ: You're thinking you're going to be dead?

WARE: There wasn't even a question. And they're like positioning me. All right, now, how do you get this thing to record? And that's when the Iraqis saved me.

SANCHEZ: Were you willing to do anything to live?

WARE: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: No, really, seriously? I'm serious. Because we see people who -- we get videos here at CNN that we will not put on the air because we know that these people have been coerced.

WARE: Under duress.

SANCHEZ: Correct.

WARE: And I have received a lot of those tapes, and I have been involved in retrieving a lot of hostages.

SANCHEZ: So, let me ask you point-blank, when you're in that situation, would you be willing to do anything to live?

WARE: Well, put it this way...

SANCHEZ: Take an oath to al Qaeda, take an oath to whatever.

WARE: That was not the first time I have been grabbed. But I'm telling you, I was grabbed by Zarqawi's al Qaeda, right...

SANCHEZ: Right.

WARE: ... at the height of their beheading campaign. I'm the only Western to have ever been grabbed by al Qaeda and lived to tell the tale.

There was no option of doing anything to stay alive, you know? I couldn't even offer to give them a kiss.

SANCHEZ: You were just riding the wave.

WARE: It was, you die. That was it. And as the Iraqis who saved me, when they said to the al Qaeda, you know, so you going to kill him? And they said, "well, you bring a Westerner in here and you think he's going to leave alive? No. We're going to butcher him now."

SANCHEZ: How did you finally get out?

WARE: Basically, al Qaeda took over central Baghdad. The nationalist insurgents -- because there were guys who were fighting, like, the American war of independence, you know, to fight the occupation, fighting for their country.

SANCHEZ: Right.

WARE: Then you've got the Islamic psychopaths. I knew those, like, nationalists, those patriots. They're the ones who took me in there and indeed while we're standing there, the guy, the guy who brought me in says to al Qaeda, you know, "you're gonna kill him?" "Yes, you know, we're going to kill him." And they go, "well, you know that dishonors me. You know who I am." And he goes, "yes, we know who you are but we're going to kill him."

He goes, "oh, right. So, you know, bugger me, huh?" And he goes, "you know who I work for. Who do you think told me to bring in him here? Should we get him on the phone?" The big, big guy.

SANCHEZ: So you were using their own tribalism against them?

WARE: They were. They were. Basically what it came down to was, there was foreign al Qaeda and Iraqi al Qaeda.

SANCHEZ: Exactly.

WARE: And the Iraqi al Qaeda said, "is killing this guy worth having to go to turf war with these blokes?" That's where it came down to. And it's because the Iraqi fighters had known me for so long that they were prepared to do that. They said, "you can kill him, but if you kill him, we're at war, sunshine."

SANCHEZ: It's an amazing story. Thanks for sharing it with us.

WARE: Oh, yeah, it's great to relive it just for the purposes of milking it on television years later. Yeah, it does wonders for me.

SANCHEZ: It's a good thing we have you, Michael. Thank you.

WARE: Oh, yeah.

SANCHEZ: We have a great story tonight about the power of social media. Stick around. You're going to get a kick out of this thing.

WARE: Yeah?

Michael's prepared piece on Roy Hallums, an American contractor who was held hostage by Iraqi insurgents for 311 days. Michael also discusses some of the details of his own close call on Haifa Street in 2004.

ANDERSON COOPER: Up close tonight, we have some extraordinary video to show you. It's the rescue of an American held hostage in Iraq for nearly a year. You may remember him. His name is Roy Hallums, that's him there being held hostage, an American contractor.

And take a look at this exclusive video. You'll only see it here at CNN. And we're going to show you much more of it in a moment. It's Special Forces rescuing Roy, and the ordeal he went though is simply stunning.

Our Michael Ware has spent years covering the war in Iraq, was briefly himself held captive. He joins us now. Michael, the conditions that Roy Hallums was held in, it's unthinkable.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Honestly, it is mind boggling, Anderson. I mean, I've been grabbed a few times by different people in different places. I had not had to endure the long-term captivity that Hallums and others have experienced.

But even compared to other people, what Hallums went through -- I'm the only person who's been able to go back to the house where he was held and go into the...

COOPER: And this is the underground cell?

WARE: Literally, literally. It was in a farmhouse. There was a block you would lift up and you would climb down, and there would be this space. You couldn't even stand up in it. There were no lights, there was no ventilation.

And for the last three months -- he was held there for ten months, always tied, always masked. For the last three months when they would close the lid, they would cement it over.

COOPER: They would actually close it up?

WARE: They would cement it over.

So if you take a look here, you can see this was a space. It had a lid that they would then cover and a family lived above. They were the cover story for the kidnap gang.

COOPER: Unbelievable.

WARE: But for the last three months, they would trowel over with concrete and every three days chip it open to feed him again. That's a nightmare I can't even begin to fathom.

COOPER: Let's take a look at this piece.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: Three months after Roy Hallums disappeared in Baghdad in 2004, this proof of life video appeared.

ROY HALLUMS, KIDNAPPING SURVIVOR (videotape): My name is Roy Hallums, I'm an American national. Please help me.

WARE: Hallums was an American contractor, building mess halls and providing food to the U.S. military, and his kidnappers were demanding $12 million for his release.

HALLUMS (on camera): You're just basically in shock. And you're moving and you're walking but it's almost like an out of body experience. You can see what's going on, but you don't believe it.

WARE: Before it was over, Hallums would be held nearly a full year by Iraqi insurgents -- 311 days, something I know a little about having been taken by al Qaeda myself.

WARE (on camera): When I was grabbed by al Qaeda and pulled from my car, I mean, they were just going to cut my head off. But it was like it was someone else. At that moment, it felt to me like it was happening to someone else even though I was completely or even hyper-aware of the moment.

HALLUMS: You're right. It's like it's almost third person, that I can sit there and tell the story. I can answer any question anybody has. It doesn't bother me, and what's for lunch, you know?

WARE (voice-over): This is Hallums at the end of his ordeal. He lost 40 pounds but says he never lost hope. For most of the time, his kidnappers kept him in a secret and cramped underground cell, the entrance sealed shut.

HALLUMS: You could hear them troweling this concrete over the door, and then they would shove a freezer over the top of that to hide where the door was. You're buried in there, and if they decide, well, it's just too dangerous to go back to the house and they never come back, then you're in your tomb.

WARE (on camera): Dead men tell no tales.

(voice-over): Eight months after his proof of life video had appeared, U.S. Special Forces received a crucial tip on his whereabouts. Worried Hallums would be moved, they instantly launched a daylight rescue, four helicopters sweeping into a village south of Baghdad, this video shot on a soldier's helmet camera and beamed back live to headquarters. The men smashed their way into the house. They knew to look under the freezer, under the rug, and then under the concrete.

HALLUMS: I heard Special Forces pounding on this little door in the room where I was, and the guy jumps down in there and says, "Are you Roy?" It's like, well, this can't really be happening, because after all this time, they actually found where I was, you know, which was a miracle.

WARE: Two days after Roy Hallums was rescued, I joined a U.S. hostage team gathering information and I shot this video as they returned to the Iraqi farmhouse and Hallums' hellhole.

It gave me a sense of what may have awaited me or any other of the westerners kidnapped in Iraq. And now talking with Hallums, it's forcing me to deal with things I would rather forget.

My experience began here. I was grabbed in late 2004, not far from where you see this burning American Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This is Haifa Street in the center of Baghdad, and al Qaeda had just taken over the neighborhood. Like Hallums, I was taken at the height of al Qaeda's campaign of their videotaped beheadings, like this one, the last images of one contractor Nicolas Berg alive.

I actually videotaped my own capture. My camera catching one of my abductors pulling a pin on a grenade before they pulled me from the car.

Unlike Hallums, for me there was to be no imprisonment. This was al Qaeda, and I was going to die. They readied me immediately for beheading, to be filmed with my own camera. I was only saved by Iraqi insurgents I knew who resented al Qaeda's takeover.

(on camera): Your moment of liberation, brother.

(voice-over): Meeting Hallums, sharing our experiences, flushed up in me a mix of emotions. I can't even bear the thought of being held for months on end like he was.

HALLUMS: You're laying there in this little hole in the dark. You're tied up, hands and feet, and every little noise, every bump, it's, is this it? Is this when they're going to do it?

WARE: And as with much in war, you gain a new perspective on life. We both know nothing is ever going to be the same for us again.

(on camera): Is it the little things? Like for me, with all the conflict I've been in, it's the tiny things. It's a smell or it can be a sound, or it can be a certain texture or color or word that triggers or evokes memory. What is it for you?

HALLUMS: Usually little things. I had nylon zip ties on my wrists 24 hours a day for ten and a half months. The other day I was out walking my dog and my neighbor had brought something home from the store and he was cutting the zip ties off of the bundle, and I looked down at his yard, and there's these zip ties laying there that had been cut off.

And it's just one of those things, you remember, you had a different relationship with that zip tie than he has.

WARE: In the end, though, it's those who love us waiting back home, often unknowing, who suffer the most, while survivors like Hallums -- barely able to walk or talk after not being able to do either for so many months -- know just how lucky we are to be alive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WARE: And yet as luckily as we are, Anderson, the Roy Hallums of the world and others know all of this comes with a price that we'll just keep paying forever.

COOPER: It's unbelievable how calm he is describing it.

WARE: He's such a stoic individual. He is so understated. Yet what I fear is there is so much buried.

COOPER: It's great that he's made it this far. Michael, appreciate it, Michael Ware.

WARE: Absolutely.

Rick Sanchez fills in for Campbell Brown and talks to Michael And former DEA agent Robert Strang about the shootout yesterday in Mexico that ended in the death of the head of one of the drug cartels.

RICK SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.

Tonight, you're going to see one of the most extraordinary shootouts that we've seen in a long time, which results in the death of one of Mexico's most notorious drug bosses. Some say he's the boss of bosses. His name is Arturo Beltran Leyva.

Here's the video, by the way.

(VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Are you hearing that? That's a luxury housing complex in Cuernavaca. Let's keep listening.

(VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: It's outside of Mexico City. I hear the police officers yelling. That means, "Don't move, don't move."

Those are actually members of the Mexican Navy, by the way, along with police who have moved in to take on a cartel leader. Let's keep listening.

(VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: That's automatic gunfire you're listening to. In total, six members of the cartel are killed here.

So, what I want to do now is take this video and this story apart with two people who know it from the inside out.

Robert Strang is a former special agent for the DEA. And Michael Ware, as you know, just got back from this bloody border town of Juarez across from El Paso.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's a charming little place, Rick, yeah.

SANCHEZ: Charming little place indeed, right?

Bob, let me start with you. They call this guy the "jefe of jefes," "the boss of bosses." How big is he?

ROBERT STRANG, FORMER DEA SPECIAL AGENT: Well, he's certainly one of the major cartel leaders in Mexico. And there are other bosses as big as he is. And you know, as you know, Mexico is running the cartels through the country and all through the United States.

The Justice Department says now that these cartels, including this one, are in 250 cities across the United States. So, all the money that's being made here in the U.S., it's crossing the border going back to Mexico, and ultimately ends up with people like him. And there's probably only about eight people at his level across all the cartels. He's a pretty big player.

SANCHEZ: Can he be replaced? Can you replace a guy like this?

WARE: Well, it depends on what happens, doesn't it, Bob. I mean, you can have a power struggle from within. You can have other cartels come and try and feed off the carcass or he can have a smooth transition from one of his lieutenants. We're just going to have to wait and see.

SANCHEZ: Let's look at -- can we look at some of this video again? Can you play some of that video for me, if you would?

I want to just show how big this operation is.

STRANG: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: And take into consideration, fellows, that this effort has been going on for sometime now. Why has it taken it this long -- taken them so long to actually go in full force and do something like this? Or do they do it and we don't know about it?

WARE: First, you've got to get the actionable intelligence. Why haven't you found Osama bin Laden?

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Yes.

WARE: It's the same thing.

STRANG: Rick, 14,000 people have died in the last 3 1/2 years.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

STRANG: Fourteen thousand because of this drug cartel.

SANCHEZ: Because of Leyva. Because of Leyva.

STRANG: Look at this. Look at the innocent people that got injured, the innocent people that got hurt. Look at the kidnappings in our own country because of this cartel. This is a huge, widespread problem. This -- by the way, this just isn't a problem in Mexico. This is a problem for us in the U.S.

WARE: I couldn't agree more.

STRANG: These cartels are running some of the biggest organized crime networks in our cities, in our country, as we speak.

WARE: In the United States. This is an American drug war and it's being paid for with Mexican blood.

SANCHEZ: I don't see that. In fact, what I see is that we are giving them the money because we're buying the drugs from there.

WARE: You're giving them nothing. Exactly. Exactly.

SANCHEZ: That's what I'm saying. Well, that's what I'm saying.

WARE: This is a war being fought to supply America's demand for illicit drugs.

SANCHEZ: But where you're wrong, I believe is, the violence has not poured over the border. We're not seeing Americans...

WARE: Well, so what? What I'm saying, it's being paid for in Mexican blood. Are they less than Americans?

STRANG: The violence is here because of what is going on in Mexico. There's no question.

SANCHEZ: How so? How so?

STRANG: Look at the arrests.

SANCHEZ: But not direct violence from them.

STRANG: Yes.

SANCHEZ: We don't have cartel members coming into the United States...

WARE: Yes, you do. You have kidnappings in El Paso. You have murders.

STRANG: Two hundred fifty arrests by the Justice Department and DEA this year alone. There's four other major investigations going on right now. These are arrests of Mexicans in the U.S.

SANCHEZ: But let me tell you how they do it. I read this story recently in "Rolling Stone" that detailed exactly -- and you can disagree with the story, but I'll just tell you what the story says. It says they use low-level operatives here in the United States. Most of these people have no idea what's going on with guys like Leyva. That's who they use to keep themselves buffered from the higher-ups.

WARE: That's what al Qaeda does, too.

SANCHEZ: Is that true?

STRANG: Look, first of all, I don't -- "Rolling Stone," what it says is partially true. But the information that we have and the facts that we have here in the U.S. is that these cartels at high levels are putting people in the cities here that they can afford to have arrested. People who are loyal to them, people who can get the money back to them.

WARE: They're expendable.

STRANG: As soon as they make a big kilo or two kilo sale of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, the money goes right back to Mexico. They have total control over what's going on in almost every American city.

SANCHEZ: That's an insane...

WARE: And America is doing virtually nothing.

SANCHEZ: That's an insidious way of dealing with it.

WARE: America is doing virtually nothing.

SANCHEZ: Why?

WARE: Well, the number of DEA agents in Central America, for example, you know...

SANCHEZ: Colombia has more than any, right?

WARE: Well, it begins in Colombia. It begins in Colombia, transships through Central America. It's banked in Panama. The distribution is now through Mexico. We're seeing the power shift.

In Central America, what's the total number of DEA agents? I think there's more DEA agents in Albany, New York than there are in Central America.

STRANG: Well, look...

SANCHEZ: Why is that?

STRANG: Well, because, first of all...

WARE: How much are we spending? They're making billions and we're throwing a couple hundred million at the problem.

SANCHEZ: Bob, he raises a good point. Why isn't there more of an emphasis in places like Mexico to protect us from that border?

STRANG: Mexico is priority for our government. Calderon has been cooperating with the U.S. We've been providing them with assets, with resources, with agents, training.

WARE: Token, token.

STRANG: Let me tell you -- but we've been giving a lot of support.

WARE: And how institutionalized are the cartels in the political life of Mexico?

STRANG: No question. We helped dismantle the cartels in Cali, Colombia, in Medellin, Colombia.

WARE: Yes.

STRANG: Are we working with Mexico now for the first time since Calderon was elected?

WARE: Yes. Can you run for president in Mexico without a cartel backing you?

STRANG: Calderon did. And he's getting them now, isn't he? We're getting there.

WARE: El Chappo seems to be doing OK.

STRANG: We're doing OK.

SANCHEZ: And let me ask you this one final question before we go.

As we look at this video, will we then see more nationalized efforts, the federales as we call them, going in and making these kinds of operations, because usually you'd think somebody in the government, like you say, would pick up the phone and say, "Hey, Leyva, guess what, these guys are coming to get you, you better make a run for it." Nobody called this guy. They got him.

STRANG: They got him. And we're going to hopefully...

SANCHEZ: What does that said?

STRANG: That says that somewhere we got a break. That says somewhere the government in Mexico was able to get through and attack these high-level operatives. This is from wiretap information, it's from informants.

SANCHEZ: Are we helping them? Is your agency...

STRANG: My former agency is working very closely with the Mexican government. We are providing them with the training, with the financing, with the resources. That's how this was done.

WARE: But has the dynamic changed, even with his removal from the landscape? The profit incentive is still there.

SANCHEZ: Well, let's see.

WARE: Will this change the war?

STRANG: Let me say this. You can't let this go on in Mexico. It's a border with the country.

WARE: Exactly.

STRANG: There's so much going on there. I worry about people coming in across the border, explosives, drugs. It's too close to home.

WARE: So when are we going to commit to this problem? That's the question.

SANCHEZ: Let's talk about next time, gentlemen. Thanks so much for being with us.

WARE: Good onya, Rick.

STRANG: Thanks, Rick.

SANCHEZ: Michael, Bob, appreciate it as usual. A good lively discussion.

Another look at the slaughter going on in Juarez, with some of the same footage we've seen and some new info as well. Afterwards, Michael joins Anderson in the studio to discuss the future.

ANDERSON COOPER: We're back with an exclusive look inside the sophisticated tunnel underneath the San Diego-Tijuana border. A Mexican drug cartel built it. They don't know which one yet.

They and other cartels responsible for dozens of freshly dug graves, as well, all across Mexico every single day. Dozens of murder victims.

Michael Ware saw that firsthand in a single bloody day in Juarez, Mexico, just across the border from El Paso, Texas. First, we want to warn you: his report has some very graphic images.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE (voice-over): On this day, we're in Juarez to see the horrors for ourselves. It's just before dusk as I approach a fresh crime scene.

(on camera) In Juarez, 1,600 people died from drug-related violence last year. This year the total's already well over 2,000. And today's total is already at 12.

The man in that car was hit by cartel gunmen, riddled with eight bullets. His passenger tried to flee but only made it that far.

(voice-over) This was yet another afternoon of killing in Juarez, with a night of murder yet to follow.

(on camera) It's only 9:00. We're now going and joining this police patrol. Since the killings this afternoon that we saw, there's already been another homicide, bringing today's total to 13.

(voice-over) Every night joint patrols like this one between local and federal police and Mexican soldiers crisscross the city, trying desperately to stem the flow of blood.

(on camera) This patrol has just received a call that something's happened. They're now moving at high speed through these narrow streets to get to the scene as quick as they can. We have no idea what we're about to find.

Turns out it was a report of a robbery. The two men have escaped on foot. The police are still looking for them. But in a town like this, you never know what a call may lead you to.

(voice-over) By now, it's close to 10 p.m., and the reports of violence are streaming in over the police radio.

(on camera) The men with us say sometimes the cartels put in false calls to drag them to other parts of the city while they go and do their business where they're really operating.

(voice-over) But before the night is over, there is even more carnage to come. All this in our one afternoon and evening visit to this deadly city.

(on camera) This time it's almost too much to bear. It's just after 11:00. And where you see those policemen gathered at that door, there's just been four more slayings, this time all women.

The early reports are that a gunman walked in that door and executed all of them, one of them a 12-year-old girl, another one 14. And in a gut-wrenching irony, all of this done with the American border crossing just here, 80 yards away. There can be no more pertinent reminder of the Mexican blood that's being spilt in this war for the right to supply America's demand for illicit drugs.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Michael Ware joins us now.

You know, the Mexican military has now flooded into these towns. It's been -- you know, I think some 45,000 Mexican soldiers all across the country. I mean, unless drug consumption in the U.S. gets reduced, can anything really be done, as long as there's a demand?

WARE: Absolutely not. And that's the thing about this war. I mean, this war rages from U.S. soil all the way down from Colombia.

In Colombia the product is created. It's transshipped through Central America. The banking's done in Panama. It's distributed through Mexico, all of which is driven by America's demand for the drugs. And until that changes, the profit incentive is so huge that there's nothing to stop them.

COOPER: And what the Mexicans are trying to do, the military, the government is hoping to do is to at least break down these large cartels into smaller groups so that it's more of a law enforcement issue and not a threat to national security.

WARE: That's right.

COOPER: They think it's a threat to national security.

WARE: And it is a threat to national security. I mean, some of the building blocks of power, political and certainly on the street within Mexico belong to the cartels. I mean, it's hard for politicians to run seriously for office without some kind of cartel backing. I mean, that's how entrenched they are within Mexican society.

COOPER: Are you surprised? I mean, you spent a lot of time in Iraq. Were you surprised at how violent things were in Juarez?

WARE: Well, it's my second or third trip to Juarez. And it's just getting worse. It's getting absolutely worse. I thought the first trip earlier this year was bad enough. Now they're averaging at least 12 drug-related murders every single day.

COOPER: Amazing.

WARE: There's no sign of it stopping, none.

COOPER: Michael Ware, appreciate it. Great reporting. Thank you very much.

WARE: Thanks, Anderson.

Anderson Cooper hosts from San Diego; Michael reports on the latest escalation in violence in Juarez after a horrific attack on a drug rehab facility. Yesterday, Michael and his crew spent the day riding with law enforcement officials as the body count climbed higher and higher.

ANDERSON COOPER: And we're back at the Otay Mesa border crossing in San Diego.

Before the break, we took you inside that newly found tunnel, approximately 900 feet long. Authorities believe it was used to ferry narcotics from Mexico to the United States. The tunnel was discovered, but, frankly, there's no telling how many others there may be right now being used or being built by cartels and traffickers whose roots extend across America.

These cartels deal in drugs and in death. And we're about to show you that in very graphic images. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. This violence is happening in the border city of Juarez. It's next to El Paso, Texas, but, frankly, it is a world away.

Juarez is among the most dangerous places on Earth right now.

Michael Ware went on patrol with a Mexican joint operations task force through the streets, through the killing fields.

Again, a warning: His report does contain graphic and disturbing images.

Here is life and death in Juarez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This footage is difficult to watch, these anguished cries impossible to forget. Relatives entering this building seeking the bodies of their loved ones executed by a Mexican drug cartel.

You're witnessing the pain of the Mexican border town of Juarez, the front line in the war on drugs. And this, a crime scene I just had to see for myself.

(on camera): There's so much violence that occurs here in Juarez that the world just does not hear about.

And, now, it's disconcerting to see this fresh paint here on these walls as an old woman makes her home in this building, for, just two months ago, this literally was a corridor of blood.

This building had been a drug rehabilitation center. And one of the major cartels suspected that its rivals were recruiting foot soldiers from among the patients. So they came in this door and down this corridor, moving from room to room to room, executing everyone they found.

While they're now trying to build a home, this is where 17 people died in yet another day of Juarez violence.

(voice-over): Within two days of this attack, the death toll rose even higher, when two survivors died in hospital.

And there is no discrimination to the slaughter. Under these clothes lies a 7-year-old American boy, his father the target, but the hit man chose not to let the child live.

On this day, we're in Juarez to see the horrors for ourselves. It's just before dusk as I approach a fresh crime scene.

(on camera): In Juarez, 1,600 people died from drug-related violence last year. This year, the total's already well over 2,000. And today's total is already at 12.

The man in that car was hit by cartel gunmen, riddled with eight bullets. His passenger tried to flee, but only made it that far.

(voice-over): This was yet another afternoon of killing in Juarez, with a night of murder yet to follow.

(on camera): It's only 9:00. We're now going and joining this police patrol. Since the killings this afternoon that we saw, there's already been another homicide, bringing today's total to 13.

(voice-over): Every night, joint patrols like this one between local and federal police and Mexican soldiers crisscross the city, trying desperately to stem the flow of blood.

(on camera): Things were so bad that, earlier in the year, the Mexican president had to call in the military to help protect the city. For a short time, there was a lull in the violence, but it quickly returned. Now it's worse than it's ever been before.

(voice-over): By now, it's close to 10:00 p.m., and the reports of violence are streaming in over the police radio.

(on camera): The patrol has just received another call on the radio. there's some kind of incident. But those lights there, that's America. It's the U.S. border. This reminds you just how close this war on drugs is being fought to American soil.

(voice-over): But, before the night is over, there is even more carnage to come, all this in our one afternoon and evening visit to this deadly city.

(on camera): This time, it's almost too much to bear. It's just after 11:00. And where you see those policemen gathered at that door, there's just been four more slayings, this time all women.

The early reports are that a gunman walked in that door and executed all of them, one of them a 12-year-old girl, another one 14, and, in a gut-wrenching irony, all of this done with the American border crossing just here, 80 yards away.

There can be no more pertinent reminder of the Mexican blood that's being spilt in this war for the right to supply America's demand for illicit drugs.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: And Michael Ware joins us from El Paso, just across the border from Juarez -- El Paso, ironically, now one of the safest small cities in the United States.

Michael, in Juarez, does the public feel like the presence of all these security forces and the Mexican military, do they feel like it's making a difference?

WARE: No, absolutely not, Anderson. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

We spoke to so many people during our visit to Juarez -- indeed, that's Juarez, what you see behind us right now. I'm standing on American soil. There's a fence and a train line below. And that's the city itself. Indeed, our police patrol was up and down this area here. And some of the murder scenes are just behind me.

The people fear not just the cartels, but they watch the army and the police stand by as others are being killed. They know that many of the police are corrupt, that the military's doing nothing. Yet, on the other hand, we asked some of the soldiers, when you have an incident, do the local people help you?

And the soldiers are telling us, "They give us no help at all."

So, there's no respect from the people for the security forces. And the few honest police and military aren't getting any help from a terrified population -- Anderson.

COOPER: And the death toll is rising.

Michael Ware, appreciate it. Thank you, Michael.

Anderson Cooper talks with Michael, Chris Lawrence, Peter Bergen, David Gergen, and Robin Wright (from the US Institute of Peace) about the withdrawal date of July 2011, whether we are doing nation-building, and whether corruption really matters.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Selling the strategy -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top commanders rolling out and selling President Obama's so-called troop surge for Afghanistan and the date he set, about 20 months from now, for starting -- starting -- to bring them home.

Today on Capitol Hill, tough questions for Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen and Secretary of State Clinton, pushback from Republicans over the conditional deadline, and from Democrats for not pulling out now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: My president sold me a clunker, and I paid for it with my children's and my constituent's children and grandchildren's cash.

I guess the question I would ask is this. As of 8:00 last night, do we have a new war, or do we have an old war under new ownership?

ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think we have -- we have inherited the same war, but is it a dynamic war. And -- and, frankly, the situation is getting worse. The fire is getting hotter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Over on the Senate side, John McCain, who favors sending more troops, took issue with the 2011 deadline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: When conditions on the ground have decisively begun to change for the better, that is when our troops should start to return home with honor, not one minute longer, not one minute sooner, and certainly not on some arbitrary date in July 2011.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, joins us now.

General, your take on what Senator McCain said? I mean, is this just an arbitrary date?

GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: That date is when you start the transition of tasks to Afghan security forces.

And the pace of that transition, the pace of the drawdown is conditions-based. Those were words in the speech last night, and, frankly, I think very realistic and quite reassuring.

COOPER: Why that date? I mean, Defense Secretary Gates indicated today the date was at least in part a response to U.S. domestic politics.

PETRAEUS: Well, I think there are a number of audiences, actually, for that kind of date. One probably is a U.S. public, after eight years of war. Also the Afghan people, they also want their forces to take over. Perhaps even some of us. You know, get on with it. We have to get going with this effort. And having that mark on the wall out there, I think, is -- has that purpose, if you will.

COOPER: But, you know, I mean, every village I went to with the Marines in Helmand in September, the local elder would say to the Marine in charge, when are -- how long are you guys going to be here? Because the Taliban is going to be here an awfully long time. They're going to wait you out. What assurances can you give me that you're going to be here for a long time?

And the Marines could basically say, well, look, we know when we're being redeployed. We know who is replacing us. Beyond that, we can't tell you.

Now are we going to say, well, July 2011?

PETRAEUS: Oh, I don't think so at all, Anderson, actually.

I think, again, if you go back to the words of the speech, what that said is, that's when you start to transition. And I think that's a realistic goal to have out there. With 18 months more of quite substantial forces on the ground, I think it is reasonable. I think it is doable to be able to begin to transition to Afghan security forces.

COOPER: Well, let's dig deeper now with our panel.

Joining us, Michael Ware, Chris Lawrence, both who have spent considerable time in Afghanistan. So has national security analyst Peter Bergen. Also with us, senior political analyst David Gergen, and Robin Wright, a fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and author of "Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East."

David Gergen, you just heard Petraeus trying to couch what the president said last night. The bottom line, though, I mean, the president did in fact announce a date. Was that the right thing to do?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Anderson, I -- it was -- I think Fareed Zakaria said last night he had been at the White House for that luncheon yesterday with columnists. And he concluded that the day had a lot to do with politics and a political calender.

But I think it's important to understand, what the White House is trying to say is, the public won't sustain, won't support an open-ended war. And they had to -- and this worked out to be a logical time to begin the drawdown.

The danger, of course, is -- and people have immediately said, no, this has a lot more to do with President Obama's reelection and trying to save Democratic seats than it does with the situation in Afghanistan. So, it is -- I think it's going to be a subject of deep debate in this country, and it's going to cause the conservatives in particular to question the president's strategy from here on out.

COOPER: Michael Ware, what kind of a message does it send to the Taliban, who watch this kind of stuff very closely?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, obviously, as everybody openly concedes, that assists the Taliban, to know that America is setting a deadline, no matter how firm or fixed or not.

They will play the waiting game. There's absolutely no question about that. However, I dare say that this date is not set in stone. I mean, even the president last night said it will be a responsible withdrawal, and it will be based upon the conditions on the ground.

COOPER: And just the start is 2011. And that doesn't -- the start means the actual withdrawal could take years.

WARE: Exactly. Exactly. And it could be a long drawn-out process. I think, you know, it's right. Let's not joke about this. This withdrawal date, however real or not it is, is simply about American domestic politics. It's about keeping the left in the Democratic Party vaguely happy. And it's about leading up to a presidential election in 2012. Militarily, it doesn't serve a great purpose.

COOPER: Robin Wright, I read one blogger saying today, well, so what if the Taliban just try to wait us out. Then it will basically be the responsibility of the Afghan forces, who presumably, by then, will be more able to take on the Taliban directly.

ROBIN WRIGHT, FELLOW, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE: Well, that's assuming that the United States is unable to accomplish anything in the 18 months.

And I think that, unlike the previous eight years, that this is going to be a time of really intense confrontation and trying to carve out new space. And if the Taliban steps back and goes underground during that period, that just leaves more room for the United States and its allies in NATO to take greater control on the ground, create a different reality economically with the new project on agriculture for the Afghan people, that that strategy could backfire for the Taliban.

COOPER: Peter, your take on having some sort of a date?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, I mean, I agree with everything that's been said, but there's another audience, which is the Afghans themselves, which is to signal to them that it is a not an open-ended, you know, just long-term commitment with no deadlines.

COOPER: You're talking about the Afghan government as kind of a wakeup call?

BERGEN: Yeah. Yeah.

And I think -- but, clearly, it's -- it's conditions-based. So, there's very few places right now where the Afghan army or the Afghan police can really take over in any meaningful way. That's not going to change very dramatically in 18 months, but it could -- obviously, it could be better. The Afghan army is pretty ineffective right now.

That was true of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police, now both of them much more effective.

COOPER: How come they're...

WARE: That's the exact point I was thinking of. We heard this before from the Bush administration, setting a date to force the Maliki government in Iraq to step up and hurry up and get ready to take responsibility. That really didn't happen. Their troops and their police didn't really get that much better in an accelerated way. We just learned to accept them doing it in the Iraqi way.

COOPER: I want to talk to Chris Lawrence, who just got back from Afghanistan, on the other side of this break about morale of U.S. forces that he found on the ground.

We're going to have more with our panel in a moment.

Length: 6:26

LARGE (74.8 MB) ----- SMALL (7.9 MB)

COOPER: Thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan, now, the first may arrive in the next several weeks. They're going to be heading into Taliban hot spots, trying to protect civilians, clearing the area, building physical structures, governance capabilities, and trust.

The White House, though, saying the mission is not nation-building.

I asked General Petraeus about the apparent difference between what's being said in the White House Briefing Room and what the mission looks like on the ground.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: The Marines I was with would talk about their strategy, clear, hold, and build. I assume that is still the overall strategy for commanders on the ground.

And they talk about build, they talk about building governance capabilities in villages. Isn't that, in effect, nation-building?

PETRAEUS: Well, what they are really doing there is trying to help reestablish the traditional social organizing structures in Afghan society that in many cases have been damaged or literally torn asunder by the Taliban, by this 30-plus years of war that Afghanistan has experienced.

COOPER: Well, that sounds like nation-building.

PETRAEUS: So, it is trying to provide security -- it is trying to provide security for local communities, so that the traditional structures can once again be the organizing feature, if you will, in those villages, in the valleys, and that they then tie into the district and provincial and ultimately national structures.

COOPER: But how is what we're doing not nation-building?

PETRAEUS: I'm not saying that it's not nation-building. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

But, I mean, what we're doing is a comprehensive...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Okay.

PETRAEUS: ... counterinsurgency campaign plan.

It is -- it has focused objectives. One of the products of this deliberation that has taken place over the last several months, which has tested and retested all the different concepts and ideas and assumptions, is indeed quite focused objectives.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Back now with our panel.

Chris Lawrence, you were just in Afghanistan. No one in Washington wants to say it's nation-building. But it's nation-building.

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, but the thing is, Anderson, I think, when you talk to these troops on the ground, they're not throwing around terms like that, you know. And I think we have talked so much about when we're getting out and this date to getting out. Talk about getting in. When President Obama announced those 30,000 troops going in, there were a lot of happy Marines.

WARE: Oh, yes. Heck yes.

LAWRENCE: There were Marines saying: We want to fight.

You know, we get so caught up in the exit strategy and like that, you....

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But in Helmand Province right now, Peter, as we just saw on the ground, I mean, there's not a lot of kinetic activity, as they say. There's not a lot of confrontation with the Taliban. There's IEDs going off. People are getting killed, but it's a lot of going to villages, having tea with people.

BERGEN: And, interestingly, you know, there are 11,000 Marines and there just seem to be a handful of U.S. government officials. I mean, if the idea is that this is supposed to be largely a sort of political, nonmilitary -- everything is being done by the military, which is just the way the American government is organized right now.

And it's very, very clear in Helmand. The civilian surge which is supposed to be part of this..

COOPER: It's not happening?

BERGEN: It's happening very, very slowly.

COOPER: Right.

WARE: Yeah, yeah. It's almost nonexistent.

And the building block of power in Helmand Province haven't changed. It's still...

COOPER: And Helmand Province here and Kandahar, I mean, this is the main area where -- of Taliban activity.

WARE: Absolutely. This is what we're talking about, southern Afghanistan here.

I mean, yes, you have got Kabul, but you have not got a history of a strong central government in this country. There are -- so many questions that have local answers to them. And we haven't been addressing them on that level.

COOPER: If -- I mean, the Afghans did pretty well fighting the Soviets.

WARE: Right.

COOPER: How come we're having so much trouble training the Afghan army?

WARE: But they didn't do that -- they didn't do that as a national army.

LAWRENCE: Yeah.

COOPER: It was local forces.

WARE: They did that as...

LAWRENCE: ... modeled as an American police force or an American army.

WARE: Right. They did it as bands of guerrillas.

COOPER: But you hear from people saying, well, look, the Afghan forces are illiterate. But they were illiterate when they were fighting the Soviets, Peter.

BERGEN: Right. I mean, actually, in Pashto, the word for cousin and enemy is the same word.

(LAUGHTER)

BERGEN: So, I mean, low-level endemic warfare is just a way of life in Afghanistan. These people love to fight.

COOPER: Are we trying to train them in a way that's not appropriate?

BERGEN: I think that's right.

WARE: And we're enforcing our expectations, our models, our values.

COOPER: David Gergen, I mean, it is nation-building when you look at it on the ground.

GERGEN: Anderson, I think it's nation-building-lite.

Yes, of course it is a form of trying to get some fundamental organizations together, to get security forces into villages, to get some order, and try to leave that behind. But what the president explicitly rejected in his councils was that there were some in the Pentagon who called for a very significant buildup. And they wanted to have a five- to 10-year commitment.

That was the true nation-building proposal. And it was to leave a lot of Americans in there for five to 10 years, put in a lot of money, with contractors contracting out, build up the civilian side. And what the president said was, no, I'm not going to do that. It's too open-ended. The country won't pay a -- spend a trillion dollars in Afghanistan. We're going to have to start pulling the plug.

And he's come up with this compromise plan. It's not pleasing anybody. It has got a very small number of people in the middle. But I do think -- I don't think it's appropriate to call it the true nation-building.

COOPER: Right.

GERGEN: It's nation-building-lite.

COOPER: Robin, can the Taliban be co-opted?

WRIGHT: Oh, I think that's a very good question.

I think this is not like Iraq, in that the dynamics are very different. There may be some that can be peeled away, but I'm not sure we're going to see an awakening, like we did in Iraq.

COOPER: I mean, the -- the military is saying 60 percent to 70 percent are not hard-core ideologues and may be folks that can be dealt with in one way or another.

WRIGHT: Well, it depends on what the alternatives are. And this is why what -- this whole idea of nation-building is really so important. And what the administration is talking about is not nation-building in the classical sense of propping up a strong central government.

It is, as you've been discussing, dealing with the local environments, with the provinces, and trying to help them take over. And that's where we're looking for a similar kind of awakening, by making the local agents, the local leaders, the traditional powers strong enough that they can take on the Taliban, and that some of the Taliban may be lured away from the Taliban to side with their traditional leaders.

COOPER: All right, we are going to have more from our panel after this break.

We want to tackle the question of corruption, how important that is, whether it puts the entire mission in jeopardy, or whether it's a red herring, whether it's not as important as a lot of people say it's been.

Length: 6:26

LARGE (74.8 MB) ----- SMALL (7.9 MB)

COOPER: During a discussion earlier about nation-building, General Petraeus said we're not trying to turn Afghanistan into another Sweden, which would be a miracle. In a recent study, Sweden ranks as one of the least corruption nations on Earth, Afghanistan second worst on the planet.

But if building another Sweden is impossible, is building any kind of legitimate government any easier? I asked the general about it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: How important is limiting corruption in Afghanistan? The White House says it was looking for promises from President Hamid Karzai before making a decision on troop levels. He gave reform lip service, certainly, in his inaugural speech.

Whether or not they're able to deliver on that, can we win in Afghanistan without limiting corruption? Does it matter?

PETRAEUS: Well, clearly, it matters enormously, Anderson. As you know, clearly a government has to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people for them to support it. And popular support for, again, the government at whatever level is a necessary component to achieving progress in this kind of endeavor.

We did hear, as you noted, some encouraging words from President Karzai, clear recognition of the importance of combating the corruption that has characterized some of the governmental institutions in Afghanistan, some in quite a severe manner.

And, in fact, in recent weeks, actually, there have been some arrests, charges brought against some fairly senior governmental officials, a border police commander, some ministers, and so forth. And we will have to see if this now follows through, if indeed this is a commitment that is really turned into action and is operationalized, if you will, because it is a very important element in the overall way ahead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Let's talk again with our panel, many of whom -- all of us at this table -- have spent a lot of time in Afghanistan over the years.

Peter, do you agree with that? Does corruption really matter?

BERGEN: Well, it matters, but I think order is more important than corruption. I mean, bringing security is -- that's what Afghans want.

There's been quite a lot of polling on this issue. The last government really that brought a lot of security to the country was the Taliban, which is hardly a very legitimate government, but they did bring security. And, so...

COOPER: So, it doesn't matter changing the essential nature of the Afghan government; it doesn't matter, necessarily, to eliminate the opium trade?

WARE: Oh, no, that's not going to change at all. I mean, that's the oxygen that the economy is breathing.

And, I mean, no matter what government is in place -- for example, Spin Boldak, which is just south of Kandahar, is a border crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you're made the police chief or the border patrol chief of a border checkpoint, you are now a rich man. And that's how it works.

COOPER: Because you're taking taxes. You've got a cut of everything that goes through.

WARE: That's how it works. Why on earth would you want to be a district chief of your village, when you have got all this responsibility, you have got to protect people, unless you are getting something for it?

COOPER: But -- but...

WARE: That's what -- that's what runs this place.

COOPER: Robin, do you agree with that? I mean, doesn't that undercut the legitimacy of what the U.S. is trying to do there, if they're trying to instill a sense of trust in a local government, governor, and in the national government in Afghanistan?

WRIGHT: U.S. strategy is today almost as vulnerable politically as it is militarily, because of the central government, because of the widespread belief that President Karzai and many in his government are engaged in, not only corrupt practices, but the drug trade as well.

I disagree with Michael a little bit on the impact of the drug trade, in that -- on the average farmer in Afghanistan. They don't make that much. And many of them -- I have walked through those poppy fields many times and heard from many that they would rather grow something else, but that this was more profitable.

Now they have found studies that pomegranates and there are other commodities that could create alternatives. The key here is creating security, so that you can begin getting some of those farmers to look at alternative crops, and not get -- not have their whole lives wrapped up in this corrupt practice.

COOPER: One of the problems, of course, the thing that promotes opium is that it's something that can just be stored for long periods of time, doesn't go bad. So, if there's a bad season one year, if the market is bad one year, it can be still sold the following year.

WARE: And you can warehouse it for that bad season.

COOPER: Right.

WARE: And the price is going to go up. I mean, we saw the Taliban actually did that. When they stopped people growing, they had massive stockpiles, and they profited enormously.

COOPER: Let's take a look at the map in terms of strength of the Taliban and where they are. I mean, where is the -- where are the biggest hot spots?

WARE: Well, obviously, the Taliban, you know, has always come from and always shall have its power bases in the south. Principally, this is the heartland of the Taliban.

COOPER: Kandahar.

WARE: That's where it was born. That's where it was born bred. And, from there, that's where it spreads.

COOPER: And it's a major city, Kandahar, in this region, which is not really under control of U.S. forces.

WARE: Oh, absolutely not. I mean, there's a token Canadian presence there, but I was just in Kandahar, what, about eight weeks ago. And Kandahar itself is divided into, you know, 14, 17 neighborhoods.

There's a couple of neighborhoods the police can't go into.

COOPER: And we're seeing...

WARE: And every -- every district around it is controlled by the Taliban. The capital, Kandahar, is under siege.

COOPER: And if you look at the American flags, this is where American forces are. And it's in the heart of the battle zone.

LAWRENCE: Yes. We went to one police checkpoint in the Arghandab River Valley where...

WARE: The Arghandab, perfect example.

LAWRENCE: Yes, where the Taliban control, where the police literally are afraid to leave their police station, because they get shot at when they leave.

WARE: And Arghandab used to be denied to the Taliban. But the ancient -- or the elderly tribal leader who controlled the area died. Now, during the three days of mourning for his funeral, the Taliban literally flooded back in. But, while he was alive, he kept them out.

COOPER: David Gergen, I want to -- I know I cut you off -- David.

GERGEN: No, I just wanted to add one thing, Anderson, about where we are domestically 24 hours after the president's speech, because I think a couple of important things have happened.

You talked last night a lot about this started the president's selling last night with the speech. Anderson, the last -- the last 24 hours already have been his best shot, with his speech and then the testimony today.

Starting tomorrow, the -- you know, the picture starts becoming more cluttered. He has a jobs summit Thursday. Then he has jobs numbers Friday. He goes to Copenhagen for climate change on -- next week. Then he goes to Oslo.

He -- they have now had their best shot. And I think two things have emerged. First, I think it's relatively clear he has not achieved the unity in the country that he is seeking that he spoke of last night. People are still -- you know, there's a lot of skepticism about it.

But, very importantly, for him, it has emerged now on Capitol Hill that it looks like the Congress will support him, a majority will support him financially, so it will give him permission to go ahead. And that was a big achievement for them today, that they could hold the Congress.

COOPER: I have got to leave it there.

David Gergen, Robin Wright, Peter Bergen, Michael Ware, Chris Lawrence, appreciate all of you being with us. Thanks very much.

Erica Hill talks to Michael, Peter Blaber (author of "The Men, the Mission, and Me"), and Jeremy Scahill (author of "Blackwater" and a writer for The Nation). Michael explains why we have to deal with the Afghan warlords in order to stabilize the situation enough get our troops out.

(People may bristle at his ending comments, but as usual, he lays the truth on the line, politics be damned. I may not like the reality, but it is the reality, and that's what we need to deal with.)

ERICA HILL: For more now on the president's plan and its chances for success, I'm joined by Peter Blaber, former Delta Force mission unit commander. He's also the author of "Mission, The Men and Me." Here in New York, Jeremy Scahill, the author of "Blackwater, the Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and also an investigative journalist for the "Nation." His story in the current issue is on the "secret war" in Pakistan. Michael Ware is also with us in the studio, CNN's international correspondent who has of course reported extensively from Iraq and Afghanistan. Good to have all of you here.

Michael, I want to start with you because I know it was something that you mentioned last night. You spent so much time there. You said last night, the key to this, really, is winning over the warlords. The average American sitting back, you hear that, you think, why on earth would the U.S. want to deal with warlords in Afghanistan?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, sadly, it's just an unavoidable truth that the fundamental building blocks of the Afghan society are the warlords or the tribal chiefs, depending on what you want to call them. It's a very feudal society. If you're up in some remote mountain valley, Kabul can exercise absolutely no authority over you or your village. So if you got a land dispute or any kind of problem, you go to the local big chief. And that big chief will have another big chief. They're the people that America needs to be reaching out to. At night, in the villages, that's when the Taliban comes in. That's when the Taliban roams. That's when they have control. It's these people that can counter the Taliban at night and when America is not there. But only if we finally put it in their interest to do so.

HILL: So, Jeremy, how do you put it in their interests? How do you make it enticing to them to work with U.S. forces?

JEREMY SCAHILL, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, "THE NATION": I found it very interesting to read the communications from al Qaeda and from the Taliban both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan -- and there is a difference -- where they were essentially saying we're glad President Obama made this decision because it's a great recruiting tool for us. I think this really it has to be part of the calculus. How is the U.S. presence in Afghanistan affecting the swelling ranks of the Taliban and hindering the kind of cooperation that Michael references here when talking about the other tribes?

HILL: In some ways wouldn't you expect that, because a bit of that is inflammatory language, is it not? So they're going to say that no matter what?

SCAHILL: Well, of course. But I also think that we are seeing an increase in the ranks of the Taliban now in an unprecedented scale since the war was first launched. And we cannot eliminate what the glaring factor that the U.S. occupation presents in terms of being that kind of flypaper for the Taliban and for al Qaeda.

HILL: Peter, you were there when the war first launched. You went in, and you feel that small special op groups are really the way to make this happen. How do they end up helping dealing with the Taliban that you're dealing with today, which is not exactly the same as the Taliban that was there in 2001?

PETER BLABER, AUTHOR, "THE MISSION, THE MEN, AND ME": Sure. Well, the Taliban is a guerilla-type army, they move in small teams. They use hit-and-run tactics. They usually fight from terrain that they're familiar with. And they exfil using the same terrain. And you know, to try to counter that type of tactics with large non- nimble forces is an exercise in futility. It just gives them more targets. And allows them to -- it just plays into their game, which is that hit-and-run type of operation. So I really believe that we should go back to what we already know works, what's been tried and tested in the early days of Afghanistan, when less than 500 interagency forces working together in small cross-functional teams with their Afghan counterparts were able to overthrow all of al Qaeda and all of the Taliban. The situation has changed.

HILL: So are you confident from what you heard of the president's plan, yes, the numbers were much larger than the numbers you're talking about, but are you confident within the president's plan there is that strategy you that feel is needed to accomplish this?

BLABER: I believe that if any commanding general can recognize and employ that type of strategy, it's General McChrystal. So I am optimistic that General McChrystal will array and allocate his forces accordingly.

HILL: What about from your viewpoint, is this plan something that's going to work there? Because you do need the support of the Afghan people. There wasn't so much talk about the Afghan people last night. The talk was really about the American people.

WARE: Absolutely. It's all very American-centric. And I've got to tell you despite what others might say, America is now pretty much seen as an occupier. It may be an occupier with good intent. But you are an occupier, nonetheless. And as we know, occupiers have never fared well in Afghanistan.

HILL: Does the date help with that? There's been so much controversy about--

WARE: No, they still are seeing foreign troops in their villages. They're still seeing foreign tanks. And we know what they do with foreigners, even al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, from the very inception, from the very beginning of their alliance, Osama Bin Laden swore fealty to Mullah Omar as the protector of the faithful and that was a very savvy PR move. Osama didn't want the Afghans to see a bunch of Arabs from al Qaeda to be imposing their will on Afghans and that's what we're doing.

SCAHILL: Let's remember, that there are, according to General Jones, the national security adviser, less than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan with no ability to strike. And he said on CNN in October that there is little chance of the Taliban rising up. Those are precisely the justifications the president laid out last night. So what are we talking about here? A career military guy in General Jones laying it on the line and then the president contradicting him in this address. I think there's a muddled message there that ultimately is going to come back to bite the president.

HILL: You think there should be no troops at all in Afghanistan, they should all be gone at this point.

SCAHILL: We need to have a sober discussion in this country on this question, is our continued occupation there, as Michael says, ultimately harming our national security? Are we creating fresh enemies that will come back and blow back on us later? That to me should be one of the crucial questions and it goes unaddressed.

HILL: We have only about 15 seconds for each of you, and Peter, I'll start with you. Is this decision by the president is it making the U.S. more or less safe?

BLABER: It's making us more safe. No matter what you think about the numbers in Afghanistan, one fact remains the same, that a small disparate group of terrorists eat, drink, sleep, and live to kill you and your family and destroy the western way of life. We can either take the fight to them or sit on our hands back here and wait for them to accomplish their mission. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather take the fight to them and destroy them before they have the opportunity to destroy our families, our country and our way of life.

HILL: More or less, I guess you're --

SCAHILL: Well, I guess it makes us less safe. By that standard, then we should be invading Saudi Arabia tomorrow and overthrowing the monarchy dictatorship there. The fact is this makes us less safe as Americans. We're creating a disaster in terms of instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I think we're going to pay the price of this for years to come.

HILL: Michael, 15 seconds to answer this question. What is a win for the U.S. there?

WARE: A win for the U.S. is leaving behind some kind of functioning state, whether it's recognizable to us or not, that can at least hold itself together in some fashion, prevent sanctuary to al Qaeda and you can walk away. Bottom line, America did not go there to save Afghan women, to educate Afghan children. America was tacitly accepting the existence of the Taliban government until al Qaeda came to strike. So America's interest is simply denying sanctuary. You achieve that? Go home.

HILL: Those are some fighting words for a lot of people in this country that it's not about women or children but we're going have to leave it there.

WARE: It is what it is.

HILL: Michael Ware, Jeremy Scahill, Peter Blaber. Appreciate your insight all of you this evening. Thanks.

Larry King was on live after AC360 and spoke to Michael, Peter Bergen, and Nic Robertson.

Michael again emphasizes that whether another 30,000 troops will help depends completely on where they are are posted on what their orders will be.

(I thought Nic's insight about the medical issues was very interesting -- we will have more fatalities because of the differences in terrain from Iraq, the lack of the ability to get wounded troops medivac'd to a hospital within the 'golden hour' after the injuries are sustained, which is a reason so many more wounded in Iraq have been saved.)

LARRY KING: First we thank them all for staying up late with us. In New York, Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst, best-selling author. His books include "The Osama bin Laden I know" and "Holy War, Inc." Michael Ware, CNN's international correspondent, and Nic Robertson, CNN's senior international correspondent.

All right, Peter, give me your mini-analysis of the speech tonight.

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, you know, I think it did what it was supposed to. I thought it was a good speech in content. There's been a lot of focus on the pullout in 2011.

But there was a huge caveat in the speech, which is the withdrawal is going to be conditions-based, the transfer of authority to Afghan police and army will be conditions-based. Right now only one of the 34 provinces in Afghanistan is actually under the complete control of the Afghan military and police. That number could be two by 2011, it could be ten. Who knows?

So I think the idea that the United States is going to start withdrawing in significant number in 2011, actually it wasn't in the speech, even though some people have fastened on that as a fact. I think that there was a big conditionality that was in the speech.

KING: Michael Ware, is it going to make a big difference?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, depends how they are used, Larry. Put it this way. As it stands right now, the Taliban war machine hasn't even been dented. Their ability to recruit, to supply, to plan, to command, to execute operations remains untouched.

The U.S. military barely has enough troops to nibble away at them. Even the massive offensive currently under way in Helmand province is just one small bite of a very big apple.

And even these extra troops, which will bring the American presence to roughly 100,000, that's not enough to defeat the Taliban. You have no hope of beating them on their home soil.

So what you want to do is put enough pressure on them to bring about a political solution. And to do that, you're also going to need Afghan allies in the government and in the villages, the tribes, and among the warlords.

I thought the speech was a bit hollow, to be honest.

KING: All right, Nic Robertson, 36,000-plus injured and/or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since all of this started. Is it going to get worse before it gets better?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If you put more troops into Afghanistan, which is exactly what's happening, then more are going to get injured and killed.

One of the saving graces, if you will, in Iraq was there was this golden hour whereby any troops that were injured, you could get them to a proper medical facility within an hour. And that meant most people who were brought in there alive could be saved.

In Afghanistan it's an entirely different dynamic. The medical facilities that the troops had in Iraq aren't there in the same number and same distribution. It takes longer to get people from some of these remote mountainous places when they're injured to some of the major medical facilities. That's going to be a challenge.

Perhaps -- we've heard talk of this sort of pullback to around major population centers. That will keep the majority of troops perhaps closer to some of those medical facilities.

But it's not going to look like Iraq. There are going to be people who would have been injured in Iraq and survived, they will be injured in Afghanistan and they won't survive.

KING: Peter, are you more optimistic based on tonight?

BERGEN: Yeah. I mean, I think this is long overdue. Afghanistan was the least-resourced post-World War II nation-building operation, if you want to call it that. In Bosnia, the United States spent 12 times more per capita, in Kosovo I think it was 18 times more per capita than what was spent in Afghanistan in the early period.

The Bush administration had an ideological aversion to nation-building. You get what you pay for. The whole thing was done on the cheap. And since then, the Taliban have come back. This time they have morphed ideologically and tactically with Al Qaeda, and as Michael points out, they are quite an effective fighting force.

So this is long overdue. We've tried several approaches with Afghanistan. And after the Soviets withdrew, we basically paid no attention to it. The Taliban came in, Al Qaeda with them.

In the post-2001 period we did it on the cheap, and the Taliban came back, and, again, morphed together ideologically and tactically with Al Qaeda.

Now we're doing something somewhat serious. It has a fighting chance of success.

KING: Michael, are you pessimistic?

WARE: Well, no, I'm not. I mean, do I see hope. But I mean, honestly, Larry, it's going to take a couple of miracles, a sprinkle of magic, and a good dose of some good luck.

I mean, ultimately, pardon the expression, I'm waiting to see the whites of President Obama's eyes. This war can be won -- not that it can be won, but this war can still be a success if he's prepared to do what has to be done.

Now, tonight, he took one step in that direction, promising another 30,000 troops. But in his speech tonight, apart from that promise of the additional troops, you can throw the rest of the speech away. We've heard it all before.

Let's wait and see if he can follow through on the myriad of other things that he has to do, the building blocks that go into place.

This war, American troops are bleeding and dying because Pakistan tacitly supports the Taliban. Why? Because their rival, India, supports the Afghan government. You have Saudi Arabia in there playing the game, as they have been since the Soviet era. You have Iran protecting its national interest. China is spending billions in aid and reconstruction.

There are so many hands at play. So 30,000 troops and a finely worded speech are far to convince me. But do I give up the ghost? No, Larry, not yet. But I need to be persuaded.

Anderson Cooper kicks off AC360 with a recap of the most important moments from the speech and then talks to his panel: Michael, Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Peter Bergen, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Michael says he was disappointed by the revoiced rhetoric he heard ("Let's hit Pakistan with a wet piece of lettuce") although he was not expecting details to be discussed in the speech.

In the second clip, John King and Michael are back at the Magic Wall to show again where the American/NATO forces are and where the fighting is.

Finally, Anderson talks to Fareed Zakaria about the president's grasp of the situation in Afghanistan (which leads to a wisecrack about Michael's wearing of the salwar kameez).

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight: President Obama's new plan to fight the war in Afghanistan and, he says, finish it soon. He is sending more troops, 30,000, but it's a commitment with an expiration date, July 2011. A year-and-a-half to fight the Taliban, build up Afghan governance and security forces, and then try to get out.

He made his case at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, about an hour north of New York's Ground Zero, where the war began more than eight years ago.

We have extensive coverage in the hour ahead from our reporters who have been there for years, our political analysts on the heat this is already taking, Dick Cheney blasting the president today, liberal Democrats already opposing any additional troop commitment.

But, first, some of the key moments, in case you missed the speech, President Obama tonight, in his own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.

Our new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short, the status quo is not sustainable.

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.

This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

It's easy to forget that when this war began we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was President Obama tonight.

You heard him defend the length of time it took him to come up with a new war plan, the president invoking his visit to Dover Air Force Base during that time, where the remains of America's war dead come home. He witnessed the return of 18 of our fallen. More than 800 American men and women have died in the Afghan theater since the war began.

Mr. Obama also speaking tonight of how polarized Americans have become over this war. The question now, of course, did he change any minds tonight? Did he change your mind?

Because, in addition to the 18-month clock he started tonight, there's about a half-dozen more clocks ticking, a budget clock, a military morale clock, and, as always, a political clock.

I want to get a quick read tonight on some test reaction on all of it from CNN experts and correspondents, a lot of whom have gotten the answers firsthand, spending a lot of time on the ground over the years, a lot of them recently back from Afghanistan, starting with chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour.

Christiane, what jumped out at you tonight?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, he obviously put the troops on the ground. He has put this deadline of 18 months to start withdrawing them.

Experts on the ground told us today that the last thing people on the ground there need and in the region is the notion of an exit strategy, because they want to see promises kept, security delivered, and some kind of stability and development laid, so that Afghanistan can, in fact, stand on its own two feet.

COOPER: Senior international correspondent Nic Robertson, was it a mistake for the president to kind of put a timeline on this? Does that signal to our enemies when the U.S. wants to get out?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Unfortunately, it does.

The Taliban have all time in the world. They have said that from the beginning. They have their own strategy. They'll be deciding now when to put in place their own surges, midterm elections for the upcoming presidential election. They will have their surges. They will watch where the troops deploy to. They will make their own movements. They will change their own strategy. And they will wait those 18 months, and be ready to step forward when troops step back.

COOPER: Michael Ware, you have spent a lot of time in Afghanistan. You lived in Kandahar. What did you think of the president's speech?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, maybe I expected too much. I found it disappointing.

Apart from, you know, confirming the fact that he is sending extra troops, the rest was just rhetoric. I mean, we've heard it all before: Let's pull together. Let's hit Pakistan with a wet piece of lettuce. Let's take a new...

(LAUGHTER)

WARE: You know, let's take a new path forward.

I mean, obviously, we're not going to give away the details in the president's speech, but I thought it lacked the substance I was hoping to hear.

COOPER: Peter Bergen, national security analyst, you've spent a lot of time on the ground in Pakistan. We were just there together in September. What did you think? What did you hear tonight?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, you know, the -- if we're talking about the withdrawal in 18 months, there is a huge kind of caveat to that, which is, it's conditions-based.

Right now, there are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. Only one is actually controlled by the Afghan police and Afghan military, which is Kabul Province, the capital. So, you know, when it comes to this 18-month decision, you know, it could be that only two provinces are handed over. It could be 10. Who knows? It's a very, very big caveat. It's not that there's going to be a big drawdown come July 2011, I don't think.

COOPER: Sanjay Gupta, chief medical correspondent, you were just there with us in September. Casualties are going to increase. There's no getting around it.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

I didn't expect him to talk about the increased medical capabilities out there, but obviously -- that is obviously something that is going to be necessary. The hospitals there, the biggest trauma hospitals, are already running at full capacity.

Add to that that you're really -- most of the medevacs are by chopper. So, you need more choppers. You need more personnel to transport these patients back. And just the nature of these injuries, Anderson -- you saw them as well -- I mean, they're just very, very difficult to treat.

The medical infrastructure is not good, even at its baseline.

COOPER: We are going to have more with our panelists in just a moment, a lot more throughout this hour.

Let us know what you think. Join the live chat, the discussion going on now at AC360.com. I will try to log on shortly.

Length: 3:03

LARGE (35.5 MB) ----- SMALL (3.7 MB)

ANDERSON COOPER: Thirty thousand more troops for Afghanistan puts real pressure on an already stretched military. Tonight, we want to take a quick, closer look at the troops, where exactly they are going to be going in Afghanistan.

Let's bring in John King, who is at the magic wall with Michael Ware -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, thanks.

And as we zoom in on Afghanistan, let's first remember it is in perhaps the world's most volatile neighborhood here. Now, let's come in a little bit closer and we will underscore the challenge the president outlined tonight.

Here is Afghanistan. And I want to draw a quick line just to help as we go forward here. Just going to draw this line through here. And, as we go forward, you will understand the significance of why.

And, Michael, you jump in as we do this.

First, let's take a look at where the troops are now in Afghanistan. And you see the American flags and the British flags down in this region, most of the NATO flags up...

MICHAEL WARE: Yes.

Notice all the American flags, Aussie flag, British flags here, and the NATO-European flags at the north. Now let's go to the next item, and you will see why.

KING: I can you show right here. The darker the province -- right.

WARE: This is where the fighting is. This is where it isn't.

KING: But the darker the province, the stronger the Taliban.

WARE: Right, the darker the province, more Taliban influence or control.

This is where the NATO troops are. This is the bulk of the fight. And indeed, even on this map, I would argue that you could make Kandahar as dark as Helmand. Perhaps Zabul. Perhaps Partika. Even perhaps Khost.

I mean the Taliban's control is even worse than it looks here, especially at night in the villages. American patrol will come at day. But by night, guess who's in charge?

KING: And if you send 30,000 more US troops, most of them highlighted in here, what is the impact even if things go very well? I want to bring in the neighboring region here, because what happens in Afghanistan will deeply effect what happens in the border region in Pakistan.

WARE: Absolutely. As we know, Pakistan's role in this great Afghan game, as you may want to call it, is they're giving sanctuary to those who are killing the American soldiers and attacking the U.S. government.

Now up here there's Pakistani Taliban which is different to the Afghan Taliban. There's al Qaeda. There's the Hisbe Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. But these sanctuaries, these safe zones for the fighters stretch all the way down. Indeed, even down here in the major city of Quetta in Pakistan, the leadership there is well known. It's called the Quetta Shura. They're the ones running the war from here.

So the problem stretches all along. And I would suspect the bulk of the 30,000 troops going there are going to be going to this region. Right now this is where the fight is. Right here in Helmand province where Anderson was.

See, the problem is, America's bitten off a very small piece of a large apple. To the Taliban, this is all one operating area. But we're trying to do it bit by bit by bit. And they're just simply running rings around us.

KING: Anderson, as you can see, and you know it from your time there, again, most of the concentration will be down in here. Some NATO forces up here. And one of the big questions we will answer in the coming days is will the NATO allies put up real numbers or will they send modest, symbolic contributions, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes, Mike and John, stick by that wall for a second.

Length: 2:34

LARGE (29.9 MB) ----- SMALL (3.2 MB)

ANDERSON COOPER: Fareed Zakaria, you were at the White House today along with several others. You had lunch with President Obama. He has really been looking into the minutia of this policy. I mean, that's what he's been spending a lot of time doing, correct?

FAREED ZAKARIA: He's been looking into the minutia. He's very well informed on it. He can talk about Pashtun areas and Tajik areas. He'd give Michael Ware a run for his money on that map. But I think...

COOPER: But he's not wearing pajamas like Michael Ware.

ZAKARIA: I didn't tell you what he was dressed in.

MICHAEL WARE: Yeah, well, at least I look good in them.

ZAKARIA: No, but I actually think what he spent a lot of time focusing on is a bigger issue. Which is what are the strategic states here for the United States? Because you know, we give ourselves the challenge -- how do we stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban -- that's a huge challenge. It's one we could do if provided the resources and time. But the question is, is that in the national interests of the United States?

What he has focused in on is the idea that disrupting and dismantling al Qaeda is the core national security interest of the United States. And I think in that sense, this is a limitation of what have been previous conceptions of why we were in Afghanistan. Certainly a limitation from Bush.

President Bush talked often about the need to establish a viable functioning democracy, a flourishing economy. Obama doesn't talk about a lot of that. It really is focused on dismantling al Qaeda.

COOPER: Well, Michael Ware, can they then do what they did in Iraq? Can they either co-opt Taliban, those 10-dollar-a-day Taliban, the ones who aren't hard core ideologues, and can they just start to buy off people? Pay thugs, you know, to form militias and control small amounts of territory?

WARE: Anderson, there certainly is some room for that. And I can tell you now that, from when I was there back in September, the American military is already investigating this option.

Indeed, a pilot program was underway, at that time being run by the president's brother in Kandahar. They're calling it the local national protectors' program.

Now it will be a lot more complicated than Iraq. It will be a lot bloodier. It will be a lot messier. Expect a lot of human rights to go out the window.

But once you give power to these men, and I sat with them in Kandahar, if they say, "There will be no Taliban in my district," then there will be no Taliban in that district. And if they show up, they won't just kill their wife and their father and mother. They'll probably kill their goats, their dogs and everything. There is an option that needs to be explored.