Length: 6:27
LARGE (75.3 MB)
-----
SMALL (7.9 MB)
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.