CB: "It's about putting it
in the interests of tribes or commanders or individuals
who have drifted over to the Taliban, simply to drift
back."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Length: 5:53
LARGE (68.3 MB)
-----
SMALL (7.3 MB)
Michael, Peter Bergen, and Michael Crowley of
"The New Republic" discuss the Afghan problem and
the possibility of putting local Talibs on the US
payroll in order to take them out of the fight.
CAMPBELL
BROWN: Tomorrow, President Obama sits down for an
all-important meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And this will be one of the last meetings before the
president decides whether to commit thousands more
U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
With so much on the line right now, another part of
the war effort is also getting a lot of attention
tonight. The president has signed a bill that would
essentially put Taliban fighters on the U.S. payroll,
I mean, literally buying the loyalty of local Taliban
members.
It has worked before. Some 90,000 Iraqis switched
sides and were paid $300 each per month. So, could
this same idea work in Afghanistan?
We're going to talk about that and this strategy more
generally with CNN's Michael Ware with us tonight,
national security analyst Peter Bergen, and Michael
Crowley, senior editor of "The New Republic," who, we
should mention, just traveled with Secretary Gates.
And we will talk about that with you as well.
Welcome, everybody.
Michael, let me just get your take on this,
generally. How much will it help, paying Taliban?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, a
program like this can't be taken as a given.
Iraq is Iraq, and Afghanistan is Afghanistan. You
can't just pick the model up and dump it down. That
being said, the principle -- there is room and indeed
tradition in Afghanistan for doing just these things.
It's about putting it in the interests of tribes or
commanders or individuals who have drifted over to
the Taliban, simply to drift back.
I mean...
BROWN: Who don't have real loyalty to the Taliban.
WARE: That's what I was about to say.
I mean, a lot of the fighters on the ground and even
the mid-ranking commanders aren't in the Taliban to
be Taliban. It's because it's in their best interests
right now. So, you just have to put it in someone
else's interests to go your way, to align their
interests with yours for either a brief period or
not.
That being said also, it won't be as simple as Iraq.
It won't be -- it will be messier. It will be much
more complicated. And the repercussions can be
enormous.
BROWN: Is that a danger we have here, Peter, thinking
about this in terms of the way we did in Iraq, that
it worked with the Sunnis, and that they're just
trying to apply the same model?
PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, as a
general principle, it's a good idea, and certainly in
Iraq, it was probably one of the best use of American
taxpayer money, was the $300 million a year that was
spent on getting 100,000 people who used to be
shooting at American soldiers to be shooting instead
at our -- at the United States' enemies.
That's a massive surge of effectively 200,000 people.
So it so worked in Iraq. In Afghanistan, you know, I
think on the lower level, the lower-level commanders,
as Mike has indicated, this is very plausible.
In terms of the upper levels of the Taliban, this is
a nonstarter. But this money is not meant for that.
This is meant for commanders on the ground who are at
sort of a local level, buying off the local
commander. The higher levels of the Taliban have
taken every opportunity to say they have no interest
in having a deal. And I just take that at face value.
BROWN: So let's go a little broader with this. We
mentioned earlier this big meeting taking place
Friday. You have traveled very recently with
Secretary of Defense Gates around the con -- around
the world, I should say.
Give us your impression, because I'm -- he didn't
come out and tell you what the plan is going to be.
MICHAEL CROWLEY, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE NEW REPUBLIC":
Right. No. No.
BROWN: But where do you think he's leaning? Did you
get a sense for that?
CROWLEY: Well, he's been very cagey. He's playing his
cards close. He's a former CIA man, so he likes
secrecy and discretion.
But I think, if you read the tea leaves, if you look
at his public statements, and you look at who he --
who is reporting to him, the military chain of
command, Admiral Mullen, General McChrystal in
Afghanistan, those guys want to go big with
counterinsurgency, 40,000 or more troops.
And I think Gates is much closer to those guys than
he is to Vice President Biden, who wants to try to do
this as much as possible with a light troop presence
and Predator drones and special forces.
I think Gates is pushing Obama in the direction of a
bigger counterinsurgency operation that uses a lot of
troops. And I think one reason that this new strategy
is appealing is an understanding that there are so
many troops, number one, that our military can
supply, and, number two, that public opinion and the
political system will support right now.
So, even if you're not going to be able to buy off
the whole Taliban insurgency, if you can shrink that
population of people that we have to deal with,
that's very important, because we just don't have
enough troops to really just come in and conquer
them.
BROWN: And is that kind of the thinking here?
WARE: Yeah.
BROWN: It's that you have got to bring -- you have to
look at this twofold. The political will is not
there. We just don't have the raw numbers.
WARE: Right.
BROWN: We have got to look at other areas where we
can...
WARE: Really, on the military, you know, formula, if
you really wanted to win the war in Afghanistan, you
need about 400,000 or 500,000 troops. Now, that's
just not going to happen.
Plus, you also need local solutions at the end of the
day anyway, because you are hoping to get out of
there as quickly as possible. And let's be realistic.
The Obama administration has really only got to look
for a solution that's going to hold itself together
with glue and string for a couple of years until the
next presidential election.
So, yeah, you need to look beyond what you have got
and you ultimately need a local solution. I was just
sitting with some of these warlords six weeks ago.
And some of them have been ignored by the Karzai
government, and are saying, well, tell me why I
shouldn't go to the Taliban? Give me something
better.
BROWN: Let me quickly, before we go, Peter, ask you
how Pakistan plays into all of this, because you
still have these issues with terrorists along the
border in Pakistan. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton criticized the country's inability to take
out those terrorists.
How much of a challenge are we facing if Pakistan
isn't dealing with the situation it faces, I mean,
especially given the recent violence?
BERGEN: Well, I think that one of the biggest
strategic changes in the last year or so is, the
Pakistani population, government, and military are
really -- have got very sick of the militants.
These new military operations by the Pakistani
military are much more serious against the Taliban
than anything we have seen in the past. This is
supported by the population. They don't have to win
any hearts and minds. They have got the population
behind them.
And it may not be a perfect solution, but it is
certainly better than anything that's preceded, you
know, in the last several years.
BROWN: Peter Bergen with us tonight, Michael Ware,
and Michael Crowley, thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
Thanks very much.