Length: 7:12
LARGE (83.8 MB)
-----
SMALL (8.9 MB)
Erica Hill talks to Michael, Fareed Zakaria, and
Atia Abawi about the expected announcement of a
troop increase to Afghanistan. But will more boots
on the ground be enough to turn the situation
around?
ERICA
HILL: First up, though, President Obama's decision to
escalate the war in Afghanistan. Three months after
his commander, General Stanley McChrystal, called for
additional forces and more than eight years after the
war began, the outlines are now coming into focus.
Reportedly, as many as 34,000 additional troops will
be sent. That's on top of 20,000 the president sent
in March. And it would push force levels there above
the 100,000 mark -- the new strategy evolving out of
nine top-level White House meetings in consultation
with former commanders, including General Colin
Powell, who, along with more than 300 others, is
spending the evening in a massive tent on the White
House's South Lawn.
The president and Mrs. Obama, of course, are hosting
the first state dinner of this administration, their
guest, the prime minister of India, which, along with
Pakistan is a vital player in the Afghan conflict.
We will have more on the dinner shortly and what the
president said tonight, but, first, what he said
about Afghanistan earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: After
eight years, some of those years in which we did not
have, I think, either the resources or the strategy
to get the job done, it is my intention to finish the
job.
And I feel very confident that when the American
people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing
there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that
they will be supportive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Now, the president will make his case to the
country one week from tonight. Already, though, new
polling shows Americans are sharply divided -- a
number of Democratic lawmakers objecting to spending
more dollars and more lives on Afghanistan, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi leaving the door open to a war
surtax to cover the cost, which could hit $1 trillion
over 10 years.
And on top of all that, there simply aren't any
guarantees on any of this. So says our panel, CNN's
Fareed Zakaria, who we should mention is also
attending the state dinner tonight. Also with us, CNN
international correspondents Michael Ware and Atia
Abawi.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HILL: Fareed, we heard the president say he intends
to -- quote -- "finish the job" in Afghanistan, words
which were obviously chosen for a reason. Do his
actions back them up?
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: It's not
clear yet.
I think that the president has brought a commendable
kind of focus on Afghanistan. And the focus has
broadened to include the central role that Pakistan
plays. They're trying to figure out what it is they
need to do, how do they get an Afghan partner. That
is the government of Hamid Karzai.
But the crucial question of whether or not more
troops is going to bring some kind of magical
stability to these areas, or whether that will
produce a certain kind of exacerbation of the
conflict, when you bring troops into areas,
mountainous areas, tribal areas, where people don't
want outsiders, I think remains somewhat unclear.
I think that he's going to have to do more than just
a few words to convince most people.
HILL: And obviously going to need to see what happens
when those troops are sent in.
Michael, CNN has learned that president will likely
send 34,000 additional troops, which is slightly
below the 40,000 requested by General McChrystal. Is
that enough to, as the president put it today, ensure
that al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate
in the region?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends how
they're used.
I mean, you're not going to win the war. And you're
not going to defeat the Taliban. And, indeed I'm sure
that's not the aim. The aim is to hurt them. Right
now, the Taliban machinery is virtually untouched.
They're able to recruit, train, deploy, supply, and
engage fighters at their will. And there's no
shortage of them. But using extra troops to try and
put pressure on the Taliban, to at least force them
to a negotiating position, I think, is the ultimate
objective. And it depends how they're used.
And you use them with local forces, not just this
paper tiger which is the Afghan army. But you need
the tribe leaders. You need the old warlords, the
veterans of the Soviet war. You need to bring these
people in, because, once you get them onside, a local
boss, when he says there will be no Taliban in my
district, there will be no Taliban in that district.
HILL: Which, as we have learned, of course, is easier
said than done.
So, Atia, when we talk about the sentiment on the
ground regarding this troop buildup, do the Afghan
people, A, want it? And they -- do they see it as
something that will help, perhaps, move their
government along? And -- and do they have faith the
government will rise to the occasion here and
eventually set the country on the right course?
ATIA ABAWI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica, it really
depends on who you talk to, because, when you talk to
the Afghan people, it changes from province to
province, from village to village, district to
district.
Many Afghans do believe, if the troops are brought
in, they should be brought in for the right reason.
And that is to help build a society, build their
country.
When you talk to the average Afghan throughout the
country, which we have been doing from provinces,
they will tell you that their number-one issue isn't
necessarily security. It is actually poverty. They
say, help bring them jobs, and that you will help
Afghanistan stabilize. And it's not necessarily just
about defeating the Taliban.
It's helping their government, because, right now,
the majority of the Afghan people do not trust the
Afghan government. They see it as a reason to move to
the Taliban right now, go towards them. And the
Taliban are using that to their advantage. They're
using the propaganda to push the Afghan people away
from the coalition efforts, away from the Afghan
government by pointing at the corruption.
HILL: Well, and there's also a lot of talk about how
the American people, of course, are reading this and
how they feel about it.
Fareed, two CNN/Opinion Research polls released
today, the first one showing 52 percent of Americans
oppose the war in Afghanistan, 45 percent support it.
But when they were asked what they thought about the
president sending 34,000 additional troops to
Afghanistan, they're basically split here.
And, as we know, presidencies can often be made or
broken by decisions when public opinion is divided
like this. How much does President Obama, Fareed,
have riding on this decision?
ZAKARIA: Well, I think he has a lot riding
strategically. I don't think he should make the
decision by reading public opinion polls.
I also think the polls, as you say, suggest the
American people are sort of split down the middle,
which means that it is all up to the administration
and up to President Obama to articulate a strategy.
And, if it is successful, you will find that the
public will go along with him. I think what the
public is worried about and is ambivalent about is
whether or not we have a coherent strategy, whether
we understand what we're getting ourselves in for.
I think, as long as we were doing something, and it
seemed, broadly speaking, successful, they would be
comfortable with keeping a bunch of -- you know, a
lot of troops in there; 30,000 or 40,000 more troops
wouldn't be a problem. The real question is the
strategy, not the number of troops.
HILL: And the president, as we heard earlier today,
said that when the American people hear his reasons
for doing this, that they will perhaps be behind the
surge more. So, we will be interested to see what
happens with that.
Stay with us, Fareed Zakaria, Michael Ware, and Atia
Abawi. We are not done with this discussion yet.
Length: 4:52
LARGE (56.5 MB)
-----
SMALL (6.1 MB)
ERICA
HILL: President Obama tonight hosting the first state
dinner of his presidency, his guest, India's prime
minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, one superpower, one
rising power, each with very powerful interests in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and each coping with the
consequences, including terrorism.
One year ago this week, Mumbai, India's largest city,
was targeted in a string of coordinated and deadly
terror attacks. The killers targeted hotels,
transportation, and Mumbai's Jewish community. The
story is told in a new HBO documentary, "Terror in
Mumbai," which airs tomorrow and throughout the year.
In one especially heart-wrenching moment recounting
the slaughter at a Jewish center, you hear the actual
cell phone conversation between a terrorist in Mumbai
and his boss in Pakistan, who has already given the
order to kill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TERROR IN MUMBAI")
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm listening.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What, shoot them?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Do it. Sit them up and shoot
them in the back of the head.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Again, from the HBO documentary "Terror in
Mumbai."
Back now with our panel and "Digging Deeper," Fareed
Zakaria, Michael Ware, and Atia Abawi.
Fareed, this really was India's 9/11. And you say the
terrorist organization behind it, the LeT, was
actually created by Pakistan. And there is sort of a
tacit agreement between the LeT and the Pakistani
government to keep it operating, which obviously puts
the U.S. in a very tough position. I know you wrote
about it in "Newsweek" this week.
FAREED ZAKARIA: It is the central problem with the
Afghanistan strategy and with the AfPak problem, if
you will, which is that the goals of Pakistan are not
the same as the goals of the United States.
Pakistan wants an Afghanistan that is pliable, which
means that they have supported the Afghan Taliban,
and they have supported the Taliban to keep
Afghanistan on edge, to give them what they call
strategic depth.
Now, we need the Pakistanis to cooperate with us. We
need them to get tougher on terrorism. And, yet, they
don't see their interests as exactly the same. How
you square the circle, you know, how you support the
Pakistani government and try to get the Pakistani
army to do something that, deep down, they don't
believe is in their national interests is really in
many ways the central problem in the Afghanistan
area.
HILL: Michael, despite what is currently happening in
western Pakistan against the Taliban, since 2001,
Pakistan's main focus, which Fareed alluded to, has
always been on its eastern border with India.
So, can there ever be full cooperation from Pakistan
when we're talking about this fight?
MICHAEL WARE: This is what America needs to
understand, that U.S. troops are bleeding and dying
in Afghanistan over less to do with jihad, far less
to do with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and almost
everything to do with Pakistani and Indian rivalry.
Afghanistan is just another battlefield where that
competition is being fought out. And it's in neither
side's interest to help America, who is caught in the
middle right now. So, it's about making Pakistan feel
secure about its national interests. It's getting
India to feel secure about its national interests
while at the same time somehow furthering America's
interests. It's a very complex mix, Erica.
HILL: And so much of it is being played out in
Afghanistan.
Atia, are any of the actions that are happening,
then, specifically in places like southern
Waziristan, being taken seriously in Afghanistan?
ATIA ABAWI: Well, the situation in Afghanistan, when
you talk about Pakistan and India, the Afghan people,
the troops on the ground, they know it is a big
issue. They know that it is an issue that is
continuing the war here in Afghanistan.
And when you talk to the Afghan people, they're
afraid to say anything about exactly what's going on
until you talk to them after an attack, after a
suicide attack, after a car bomb, after they have
lost a loved one.
And they will tell me, as they have told me time and
time again, that they know who is behind it, that
they know that their country is still a battleground
for different ideologies. And they actually
continuously point the finger at Pakistan.
But it's also too simple to say that it's just
Pakistan. Many people time and time again will tell
you that, in Afghanistan right now, it's the greater
game. It is many hands that are playing a role in the
continuous war, whether it be the West, whether it be
neighboring countries, whether it be Islamic
fundamentalists.
HILL: I only...
ABAWI: Erica.
HILL: Thanks, Atia.
I only have time for a quick yes or no, Fareed. But
it is possible for the U.S., heading forward, to
maintain a strong relationship with both India and
Pakistan, given all of these issues?
ZAKARIA: Sure. The United States has done it in the
past. We give the Pakistani military a lot of money.
I just think we should be asking more from it.
HILL: And we will see if they follow that.
Fareed Zakaria, Atia Abawi, Michael Ware, appreciate
the time from all of you tonight. Thank
you.