AC: "The Taliban, the
tribes, the al Qaeda affiliates -- they own that region
of Pakistan."
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Length: 5:15
LARGE (60.9 MB)
-----
SMALL (6.4 MB)
Yesterday afternoon Anderson Cooper sat down for
an exclusive interview with the former president of
Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, which was aired tonight
on AC360. That was followed by a clip of
former vice-president Dick Cheney criticizing
President Obama for taking time to weigh the
options as far as increasing the troop levels in
Afghanistan. And after that, Anderson (apparently
in LA) spoke with Michael (in NY) and Peter Bergen
(presumably in DC) about all of it.
ANDERSON
COOPER: During his speech last night, former vice
president Dick Cheney blasted President Obama for
taking too long to decide whether to send more troops
to Afghanistan. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES: Having announced his Afghanistan strategy in
March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a
decision and unable to provide his commander on the
ground with the troops he needs to complete the
mission. The White House must stop dithering while
America's Armed Forces are in danger.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: The White House shot back today saying that
what Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls
his solemn responsibility to the men and women in
uniform and the American public.
Joining me now to talk strategy: Michael Ware and CNN
national security analyst, Peter Bergen.
Michael Ware, first about what former Vice President
Cheney said. For years, there were folks on the
ground in Iraq saying there are not enough troops,
there are not enough troops. And all we heard from
the Bush administration was, "Oh, there are plenty
enough troops," and then all of a sudden one day they
said there weren't enough troops and they needed a
surge.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes,
suddenly there was a surge. And indeed it's a fact,
what he says is correct -- in strict military terms,
there's nowhere near enough troops to fight the
counterinsurgency that America is planning for.
But America's known that going in, even with U.S.
troops and NATO troops combined, there's still not
enough boots on the ground to fight the war that
America needs to fight.
COOPER: Peter, at one point under the Bush
administration there were some 6,000 U.S. troops in
Afghanistan. That was it.
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes,
even two years after the fall of the Taliban there
were only 6,000 American soldiers. And, you know,
that's the size of a police department in a city like
Houston. And you're talking about a country the size
of Texas. So, you know, obviously it was never
enough; it's still probably not enough. But it is
getting better.
COOPER: Peter, when you hear Pervez Musharraf say
there is no way Mullah Omar is in Pakistan; that the
epicenter is Afghanistan, I mean every intelligence
official I've ever talked to and I know the ones
you've talked to all say all these folks are in
Pakistan. Does he not know that or does he just not
want to admit that? What do you make of it?
BERGEN: Well, I think the latter. I mean watching
that interview was deja vu all over again because
we've heard President Musharraf say very similar
things in the past and we've also heard people who
work for him say very similar things in the past. You
know, arguing on the positive side, you know, the
Pakistani government is very serious now about going
after a lot of the militants on its territory, not
necessarily some elements like the Haqqani network or
Mullah Omar.
But this offensive that's going on in Waziristan is
not a performance offensive as we've seen in the
past. This is a massive undertaking; 30,000 soldiers
that are setting up blocking forces, they've done
months of artillery fire and air raids to soften up
the positions and it's really real.
COOPER: Michael, are the Pakistan -- is the Pakistan
military able to fight a counter insurgency, though?
It's a particular kind of warfare. And it seems like
they're pretty suited for a conventional war against
India.
WARE: Well, you hit the nail right on the head there.
The whole focus is their rivalry with India. Now that
parlays also into the conflict in Afghanistan.
But in terms of fighting an internal insurgency in
Pakistan, the Pakistani military says openly that
they don't have the equipment for it. Whilst they may
have the know how to do it, they can't divert troops
from the Kashmiri border with India. They have troops
in other places. They only have so many resources.
And listen, the Taliban, the tribes, the al Qaeda
affiliates, they own that region of Pakistan and the
terrain itself is formidable. I mean, entire valleys
swallow divisions of infantry troops. And the
militants have had a long time to dig in.
So the Pakistani military really and truly is up
against if even if at last its heart is in this fight
-- Anderson.
COOPER: Peter, you talk about the Haqqani network.
There are a lot of people who don't know what's going
on in Pakistan to the level of detail about knowing
the names of different networks in Pakistan. Explain
just briefly -- Taliban is a loose term for a lot of
different networks run by different people inside
Pakistan.
And it seems like the criticism at least of the
Pakistan, even in this offensive, is that they're
making side deals with some members of the Taliban to
kind of stay out of the fight while they go after
members of the Taliban that they believe are
attacking mainly inside Pakistan.
BERGEN: Yes. And I mean, I think that's fairly
accurate. The Haqqani network kidnapped, for
instance, reporter -- "New York Times" reporter David
Rodhe who's just writing -- just written this
brilliant series about his kidnapping in "The New
York Times."
They are long-time allies of al Qaeda, they are
orientated towards a sort of global Jihad, they're
attacking into Afghanistan, and they've left --
they're not really attacking into Pakistan so they're
being kind of left alone in this offensive. What
people that will be going after though is the
Pakistani Taliban who've made a major strategic error
by attacking the equivalent of the Pakistani Pentagon
and killing hundreds of Pakistani civilians and
soldiers and, you know, they are going to be under a
lot of pressure.
And the big difference, I think, another factor here
is the Pakistani population is very in favor of these
offensives. They are no longer seen as just sort of
acting in the United States -- sort of part of the
American war on terror. They're seen as being done
for really Pakistani interests. And that, again, is a
positive development.
COOPER: We're going to leave it there. Peter Bergen
and Michael Ware. Guys, appreciate it. Thanks very
much tonight.