AC: "As long as they don't
host al Qaeda, America doesn't care beyond that."
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Length: 6:28
LARGE (74.9 MB)
-----
SMALL (7.9 MB)
Anderson once again talks to Michael (on set)
and to Peter Bergen (in DC) about the Afghanistan
elections, this time moments before the polls open
there. Michael stays on to discuss today's bombings
in Iraq. And Anderson announces that all three will
be in Afghanistan the first week of September.
ANDERSON
COOPER: We're joined now by Peter Bergen, CNN
national security analyst in Washington, and also by
our own Michael Ware, who has certainly spent a lot
of time both, we know, in Iraq, and also in
Afghanistan.
Peter, let's start off with you. A big day for this
country. What is at stake right now?
PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, at stake
is the entire project that the international
community is engaged in.
I mean, if this election goes off fairly well, many
of the naysayers, I think, will be shown not to be
correct. I think the main indicator to look for,
Anderson, is voter turnout. Karzai's going to win
this election either in the first round or the second
round. That's a virtual certainty.
But if voter turnout is significant on the day,
certainly above 50 percent or 60 percent, something
like that, I think that sends a message that the
Afghan population were not intimidated by the
Taliban, were actively engaged in this very important
election.
The last election was in 2004. There was 80 percent
turnout. I think that's very unlikely that we will
see that kind of turnout. But a significant turnout
would be a big signal to the Taliban that the Afghan
population were not intimidated.
COOPER: Michael Ware, Secretary of State Clinton says
the U.S. is impartial in this in terms of who
actually gets elected. Does it matter to the U.S. who
gets...
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, no, it really
doesn't. It doesn't -- in some ways, it doesn't
matter to the Afghan people, and, to some degree, it
doesn't matter to the U.S. interests in Afghanistan
either.
I mean, I think I would disagree with Peter to some
degree. I think this election's going to happen, no
matter what. It mightn't be pretty. It's going to be
disrupted in certain areas. Would we consider it a
complete clean, legitimate election? No. There's
going to be deep flaws within it.
But will it be enough for the Afghan people? I would
think so. And we're going to see a lot of disruption
in the south. And maybe the Pashtuns in the south,
the people from whence the Taliban came, are going to
feel even more disenfranchised, which is one of the
Taliban goals.
But I don't think this election is going to mean a
great deal in terms of going forward, either for
Afghanistan or for U.S. strategy, because whether
it's the return of Hamid Karzai or whether it's
Abdullah Abdullah or anyone else, we're going to see
a hodgepodge of warlords, corrupt officials, and
another government that cannot deliver services to
its people.
COOPER: Peter, is corruption that deeply entrenched
in Afghanistan right now, I mean, narco corruption,
other forms?
BERGEN: Yes.
I mean, according to Transparency International, the
NGO that tracks this thing, you know, Afghanistan is
one of the most corrupt countries in the world,
perhaps only beaten by Somalia. So, that's a pretty
low bar.
So, yes, there's no doubt, as Michael says, it's a
highly corrupt country. A third of the economy is
basically generated by the drug business. And that's
just a fact.
COOPER: And in terms of the U.S. policy, Michael,
clearly, the Obama administration has tried to scale
down what the endgame or what the goal is. At this
point, is the goal, as the U.S. has set it,
achievable?
WARE: I think it is. And we saw this begin under the
Bush administration. It started to tone down its
goals, as it did in Iraq.
The word democracy was dropped, for example. And,
certainly, we're not looking at, you know, shining
models for that region, nor in the Middle East, as
Iraq was meant to be. Essentially, a stable country
that can hold itself together, won't host al Qaeda
will be more than enough for U.S. interests.
And I have to tell you, I visited D.C. not so long
ago and went to the Department of State. And it was
made very, very clear to me that Afghanistan nor Iraq
are considered strategically important to U.S.
interests.
They are important countries, but they're not
strategically vital. As it was said to me, and is
accurate, Afghanistan's a pile of rocks. It just so
happens that al Qaeda had bases there at one point.
If the Taliban want to re-engage, re-enter the
political process, end their insurgency, as long as
they don't host al Qaeda, America doesn't care beyond
that.
COOPER: Peter Bergen, appreciate it.
Michael, stick around. Michael, we will talk about
Iraq. I want to talk about an especially terrifying
day in Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister blaming al
Qaeda in Iraq and Saddam Hussein loyalists for a wave
of grisly bombings at the capital, a half-dozen
explosions across the city, including nearly
simultaneous truck bombings of the foreign and
finance ministries, nearly 100 dead, hundreds more
hurt.
Michael, what do you make of this, six bombings, 95
people dead, the deadliest day of violence since the
U.S. pulled back troops from the cities. What
happened?
WARE: This is, welcome to Iraq.
This was happening under the U.S.-led offensive,
under the U.S.- led war. I remember, when I was there
just not so long ago, just before I left, 80 died in
one day. Today, the death toll's 95 or 100. This is
part of a long-running campaign.
COOPER: Well, the prime minister today said that
they're going to have to -- quote -- this is going to
lead to the -- quote -- "reevaluation of our plans
and security mechanisms."
Is it possible that they would reevaluate the U.S.
position of pulling out?
WARE: Well, I know that the U.S. command there would
like to redeploy some troops to the north, certainly
around Mosul and some of the more vulnerable villages
up there, because at the moment that's one of al
Qaeda's latest strongholds. That's going to be a very
interesting question, because the Maliki government
has been dogged about running this war on its own in
its own way.
It wants America to underwrite it, but it doesn't
want America to participate. It wants to do this its
own way. It's tearing down the blast walls in
Baghdad. And, for example, it's ludicrous to hear the
prime minister of Iraq blame these bombings on Saddam
loyalists or Baathist loyalists.
The Baathist loyalists went on the U.S. government
payroll. They opposed al Qaeda during Saddam. They
oppose them now. That's just a sign of the
Shia-vs.-Sunni rivalry. That's got nothing to do with
the real security threat.
COOPER: A rivalry which is alive and well.
Michael Ware, appreciate it. Thanks very much.
A quick program note: Starting the week of September
7, Michael, Peter Bergen, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, and I are
going to be reporting from Afghanistan with American
forces on the front lines in their battle with the
Taliban. I hope you join us for that week.