Length: 6:22
LARGE (73.6 MB)
-----
SMALL (7.8
MB)
JOHN
ROBERTS: Just a short time ago, President Obama
wrapped up his meeting with top military and civilian
advisers, including Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as he
moves closer to a crucial decision on whether to send
more troops to Afghanistan.
General Stanley McChrystal, who is in charge of the
war effort there, says the additional forces are
vital.
CNN's Michael Ware was just in Afghanistan, and what
he heard from U.S. commanders on the ground was not
encouraging.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's clear that the
way this war is currently being fought, it's simply
not working. The Taliban are as strong as ever. Right
now, American strategy for fighting this conflict is
undergoing a massive review. And it's obvious that
there's simply not enough international nor Afghan
troops to do the job. That's leading many to call for
something that's all too familiar here in
Afghanistan, the involvement of the tribes or simply
a return of the warlords.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Michael Ware is with me here in New York
tonight and in Washington our CNN senior political
analyst, Gloria Borger.
Gloria, let's start with you.
You had an interesting column that you wrote in which
you said President Obama is at a similar point now
that President Bush was in, in 2006 in regards to
Iraq when he was deciding on whether or not to move
forward with the so-called surge strategy.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
Well, you both will remember this. He had a
counterinsurgency that wasn't working in Iraq. He had
a war that was really losing its popularity with the
American people.
And he had a lot of conflicts within his own war
cabinet, if you will, about what to do next, which is
exactly what we're seeing with President Obama.
ROBERTS: So, Michael, the suggested strategies here
that the president is looking at really are polar
opposites. One is to pull U.S. troops out and rely on
a counterterror -- targeted counterterrorism
strategy. The other one is to inject as many as
40,000 more troops into Afghanistan and pursue a
broad counterinsurgency strategy.
You have been there. You have spent an awful lot of
time there.
WARE: Yes.
ROBERTS: Which to you is the more prudent strategy?
WARE: Well, I would put it slightly differently,
John.
I think the strategy is the choice between actually
deciding to fight this war or letting it become an
American defeat on his watch. I mean, this is a
challenge now for the new president. He has to stand
up and be commander in chief. And that may mean
biting the bullet of public opinion, because right
now, what's happening militarily, the American war
effort is not even putting a dent in the Taliban war
machine.
And the generals and everyone know you're not going
to win this war. You're never going to defeat the
Taliban on their home soil. But you don't have to
lose. So, it's about finding strategies, given the
American domestic environment that will enable them
to do that.
Minimum, you need more troops, I'm sorry, just to put
the hurt on the Taliban.
ROBERTS: Now, if -- General McChrystal has warned
about this -- if you lose the war effort there, you
risk a potential return to the bad old days when the
Taliban invites in al Qaeda. It again becomes a base
of terrorism.
If you were to draw down U.S. forces and rely on the
strategy of targeting counterterrorism, using
Predator attacks, maybe drop in some special forces
once in a while, do you think that that would risk
the Taliban taking control? Can you be effective
enough?
(CROSSTALK)
WARE: Well, yes, good luck with that strategy. It
didn't work before. It's not going to work now.
I mean, A, you've got to have the assets to know
where to go. B, your agencies have to be talking
together long enough to agree to actually go and do
it and find the cojones to pull it off.
Now, that wasn't working then. So, you need to be
fighting this war or you need to find a resolution
that gets yourself out of there quick, smart. And I
think there's a way for him to do both, more troops,
but if he starts looking at Afghan solutions, unleash
the Afghans. It's going to have risk, but it could
work.
ROBERTS: Gloria, go ahead.
BORGER: Well, you know, I think the vice president is
trying to find a way to come to some kind of middle
ground on this.
But he's not talking about more nation-building in
Afghanistan. He's talking about an Afghanistan and
Pakistan policy, because his point is that al Qaeda
has actually moved into Pakistan and that the goal of
their mission was to destroy and dismantle al Qaeda.
And, so, he wants to rely more on human intelligence
and special forces in Afghanistan, and also consider
the problems in Pakistan. I don't have any idea
whether that would work. I would like to know what --
what Michael would think...
WARE: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: ... on the ground.
ROBERTS: Go ahead.
WARE: Well, actually, this may by a byproduct if,
say, America goes down the path it did in Iraq, which
they're looking at doing, which is basically getting
U.S.-backed militias.
Now, in Iraq, it was from the insurgency. In
Afghanistan, they're going through the tribal system.
A pilot program is already under way being run by the
Afghan president's brother. Not only would that give
America suddenly more forces in the field to actually
go out and kill the Taliban -- because they know who
they are and where they are -- it will also send a
message to Pakistan.
The Taliban is only able to operate because the
Pakistani intelligence agency tolerates it by giving
it sanctuary. It's essentially Pakistan's militia in
Afghanistan. All of a sudden, America might have its
own militia in Afghanistan, and that would send a
message to Pakistan.
BORGER: But, Michael, you know, the concern here in
American political circles is that President Karzai
doesn't have any credibility with his own people...
WARE: He doesn't.
BORGER: He's not exactly the kind of partner you want
to have. And when they look at what's changed --
WARE: He's not.
BORGER: When they look at what's changed, they say
it's Karzai.
ROBERTS: But here's the thing. Do you go with the
partner you want? Or do you go with the partner you
got?
WARE: Yes, look, listen. All around the world, we're
dealing with some pretty unsavory people.
BORGER: Right.
WARE: We're dealing with politicians who aren't
exactly --
ROBERTS: And that's nothing new.
WARE: Hello, that's called geopolitics. I mean, it
was once said, there's no such thing as friends in
international politics, only national interests.
Right?
Well, America is not relying on Hamid Karzai. It
would be foolish to do so. In fact, they're starting
to look around for more partners in Afghanistan.
Now, does that undermine the original notion of
democracy and a strong central government? Yes, but
they're no longer the mission objectives. Hold that
place together long enough for this election cycle to
play out, have something to show the people at the
next elections, and then you'll find a way to start
pulling out of this war, because the war will keep
going after you leave.
ROBERTS: We've got to leave there. Michael Ware,
Gloria Borger, thanks for joining us tonight. Really
appreciate it.
BORGER: Sure.
ROBERTS: And, of course, this is going to go on and
on.