Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

War Strategy: Escalate and Exit; Congress Scrutinizes War Plan; General Stanley McChrystal Addresses Troops

Aired December 02, 2009 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: The Senate is back at it again this morning debating health care reform. A live picture now, Capitol Hill there. Yesterday, senators were focused on proposed cuts to Medicare. Democrats say the spending cuts will help protect the government-run program. Republicans say seniors will suffer.

We're watching all of the developments. We'll bring you the very latest.

For now, I'm Heidi Collins.

CNN NEWSROOM continues with Tony Harris.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. It is Wednesday, December 2nd. And here are top stories for you in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Get in, finish the job, get out. President Obama's new Afghan war strategy calls for a troop surge and drawdown at warp speed. Reaction from the halls of Congress to the streets of Kabul to our virtual town, the CNN NEWSROOM blog.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris. And you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Escalate and exit, that is the new troop strategy ordered by this nation's commander-in-chief, making it clear the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is a war with limits.

Our White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Quick in and quick out.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our cause is just. Our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might.

MALVEAUX: President Obama is ordering 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan over just a six-month period. Lightning speed for any military operation.

OBAMA: We'll deploy in the first part of 2010. The fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.

MALVEAUX: The U.S. mission is to go after Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents while training the Afghan security forces to step up and fight for themselves with a clear timeline for U.S. forces to pull out beginning in July of 2011.

OBAMA: After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

MALVEAUX: The president put the Afghan government and its people on notice.

OBAMA: It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. The days of providing a blank check are over.

MALVEAUX: The price tag for the U.S. military operation this year, the president said, will be $30 billion. Worth the sacrifice, Mr. Obama reminded Americans.

OBAMA: This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

MALVEAUX: The president's hope is not to leave a messy, contracted war behind for his possible successor in 2012 if Mr. Obama only serves one term. But he's taking a page from President Bush's playbook not to box himself in if things fall apart.

OBAMA: Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Now, aside from that, Tony, this speech did not really have the feel of many of the war speeches I covered under President Bush. It did not have the same kind of bluster or bravado, if you would, especially when you consider that he's calling for the escalation of the Afghan war. The president's speech was not meant to actually echo President Bush because they realize that part of this was as much about saying that he wanted to end the war as he wanted to ramp it up.

HARRIS: Suzanne, you know we're used to presidents making big speeches and then, in many cases, hitting the road and starting the selling of the message.

I'm wondering, how is this president selling this message?

MALVEAUX: Well, we saw this morning the vice president, Joe Biden, as well as General David Petraeus, hitting the morning talk shows, basically putting this out there, the mission. We also see unfolding as we speak, Tony -- I'm sure you see it as well -- Secretary Gates and Clinton, as well as the chair of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, before members of Congress to justify where this strategy has come from and how they believe it will be successful. What's interesting, Tony, is that tomorrow you're going to see a White House that perhaps wants to change the topic and change the subject here a bit. He has put out the strategy, but tomorrow it's about a jobs summit, talking about, as he mentioned last night, he's still very much in touch with the fact that so many Americans are unemployed. And, quite frankly, that's the number one thing that's on folks' minds, not necessarily potential terrorist threats.

That's something the president is going to address tomorrow, Tony, changing the subject.

HARRIS: I think you're right about that, yes.

All right. At the White House, Suzanne Malveaux for us.

Suzanne, appreciate it. Thank you.

And as Suzanne just mentioned, the president's new war plan for Afghanistan is under scrutiny on Capitol Hill this morning. Right now, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are questioning top administration officials about the troop buildup. Among those testifying, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: Among a range of difficult choices, this is the best way to protect our nation now and in the future. The extremists we are fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan have attacked us and our allies before. If we allow them access to the very same safe havens they used before 2001, they will have a greater capacity to regroup and attack again. They could drag an entire region into chaos.

Our civilian and military leaders in Afghanistan have reported that the situation is serious and worsening. And we agree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Congressional Correspondent Brianna Keilar live from Capitol Hill.

And Brianna, what are some of the concerns we're hearing from lawmakers about the president's plan?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There are a number of them, and there is a divide, not surprisingly, along party lines.

The first, of course, just this troop increase, 30,000 more U.S. troops. Republicans generally support this. Democrats generally do not. Some of them saying they are worried that this would become a quagmire in Afghanistan. And then there's also the issue of July 2011, that bringing troops home, beginning to bring troops home after 18 months.

Republicans -- for instance, Senator John McCain -- really concerned this is an arbitrary date. He said that success really should be the exit strategy.

And then Democrats want to make sure that this is a firm timetable. They're afraid there may be some wiggle room here, and they want to make sure that this continued war in Afghanistan isn't unending.

And also, there is the issue of cost. Democrats have raised concerns, saying that this could really get in the way of domestic priorities, Tony, but Republicans, as well as Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, have said, you know what? You can't decide whether to fight a war based on economics, that's not the way to do it -- Tony.

HARRIS: OK.

On Capitol Hill, our congressional correspondent, Brianna Keilar.

Brianna, thank you.

General David Petraeus is the top man at U.S. Central Command, the team responsible for military ops in the Mideast. Before that he formulated and implemented President Bush's surge in Iraq nearly three years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: You were the architect of the surge strategy in Iraq, also talking about community protection. You designed that whole thing as well.

How many of the lessons learned in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan? Because while there are similarities, they are also very different places.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Well, I think any time you try to apply lessons from one situation to another, you have to be keenly aware of the differences of the context in which those lessons will be applied. And we spent a great deal of recent months to get the kind nuanced understanding in local areas, and the additional forces that have already flown in this year have enabled us in certain of those areas to provide the kind of density to where you can carry out strategies that can capitalize on the lessons that we did bring from Iraq about securing the population, about reaching out to it, about reconciling -- reintegrating the reconcilables is the term in Afghanistan, and so forth.

ROBERTS: Can you, do you believe in Afghanistan, create a similar environment as you did in Iraq in the Sunni provinces with the so-called Sunni awakening?

PETRAEUS: Well, it's different. This will be more of a village or valley awakening, we suspect.

There won't be the larger tribal confederations, we don't believe, that we were able to achieve over time in Iraq after supporting the early, very small elements that wanted to reject, in that case, al Qaeda in Iraq. But there are already cases.

Very recently, a senior Taliban figure in Herat Province in the west was killed. Dozens of his fighters came in from the cold, if you will, renounced violence. As the words from the president's speech last night, that we will deal with individuals who are willing to renounce violence. That is how you -- one of the ways in which you do in fact end these kinds of wars, as we saw in Iraq and as we've seen in a number of other historical cases.

But make no mistake about it, there are also very clearly irreconcilables. These are never going to support the new Afghanistan, and they have to be killed, captured or run off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: As promised, we are devoting a large portion of today's newscast to your reaction to the president's decision. Here's what some of you are saying on our blog.

Michael from Texas says, "I watched the speech and thought it was unconvincing that the strategy would work, no NATO help... only enough troops to continue a stalemate and leave our troops as sitting ducks."

Iona says, "I trust and believe in our president and the powerful leaders of our military; they have all the information to make the best informed decisions, we don't."

Keep those blog comments coming. Just go to CNN.com/Tony, or send us an iReport at CNN.com/ireport. We will share more of your comments and iReports throughout the next two hours.

That region of the world, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran, so volatile to begin with. Just add a few nukes and what do you get?

And our Rob Marciano is tracking a serious storm system that is affecting half of the country right now. We'll talk to Rob in just a couple of minutes.

But first, here's a look at the Dow. Our Susan Lisovicz will join us later in the hour.

As you can see, we're pretty much flat for the day.

We're back in a moment. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Very quickly now, we want to get you to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and the Helmand Province, to give you a bit of what General Stanley McChrystal is saying to U.S. forces right now.

Let's have you take a look and a listen. (JOINED IN PROGRESS)

GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES, AFGHANISTAN: In my view, it is the least dangerous of the major groups with an aspiration to be in the government. Wants to change the government style but wants to be part of that government.

The Haqqani network operates a little bit like a criminal syndicate, a little bit like a terrorist group, a little bit like an insurgency, has significant links with al Qaeda, has significant links with the Taliban, has reached significantly into parts of Afghanistan, particularly lethal. When we see attacks inside the capital city of Kabul, the first guess is normally the Haqqani network. And then the Taliban, the traditional Taliban. In this case, I'll call them the Quetta shura Taliban, with separate elements up in the Kunduz area, the Bagdiz (ph) area, the Ferar (ph) area, and then smaller elements.

HARRIS: There you have General Stanley McChrystal in Kandahar, Afghanistan, talking to U.S. military personnel, laying out the challenges and targets as the new strategy, which is essentially a counterinsurgency and a training strategy, move forward in Afghanistan.

The president announcing last night an additional 30,000 troops going to Afghanistan to carry out that new strategy.

Stressing what's at stake in his speech, announcing the 30,000 more U.S. troops for Afghanistan, President Obama makes it clear he expects more help from allies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Of course this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war.

Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are in danger, and the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: And once again, let's take you back to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and more from General Stanley McChrystal. Permission granted to CNN to air this portion of the briefing from the general to U.S. Service personnel.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

MCCHRYSTAL: The bottom line is violence in Afghanistan from 2008 to 2009 went up 60 percent one year. From 2007 to 2009, it went up about 300 percent. And the violence has grown from relatively focused in the south and east to being generally spread around the country, although clearly most heavily at the south and east still. It's not an insurgency that will take Kabul tomorrow, but it's an insurgency that affect the way of life of the Afghan people. And you see it here.

So, how does it affect the way of life?

If an individual lives in the Helmand River Valley and is a farmer, and wants to take what he grows or she grows up to (INAUDIBLE) Kandahar to sell it, there's not security to prevent them from being stopped by checkpoints, there's not security to stop them from being endangered by these (ph), there's not security to stop them in operating the way people would like to operate with complete freedom.

So this is our challenge.

Now, we're going to change the situation. We've already started to change the situation.

And when I talked about today marking the beginning of things being different, that's really a little bit of a mistake, because, actually, we've been changing for a number of months now. And this is the culmination of some of those changes that have already started, but with the decision announced by President Obama and with many of the coalition partners indicating the same intent, what we are going to do now is be in tremendous position to go for it.

I think we've got a foundation on which to build where we go forward. So I have exceptional confidence right now, because -- of course General Carter (INAUDIBLE), a great British hero, Winston Churchill. Because if you think about where we are now, even though it's eight years, this is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end.

I think it's the end of the beginning. And I think everything changes right now.

So why do I think things are different? First off, I get around the battlefield a lot, and that's one of the great parts of this job.

I getting to go out and see different elements, and so I can see what happens in Kabul, and then I can go out and see what happens in a fairly small organization and get a sense for the texture of things. It's never a complete picture.

I went to (INAUDIBLE) and Ogar (ph) Province. And what we've had in a fairly limited amount of time is a coalition and Afghan partnership that went in, and partnering with the local Afghan national police and the Afghan national army element in creating security zones or security bubbles.

Attacks are down 62 percent. Intelligence tips provided are up 80 percent. And that's not the only place in Afghanistan that's happening. That's one place where people went in and they figured out how to do counterinsurgency right, because counterinsurgency starts, as you know, with protecting the people, because at the end of the day, the people are what we are here for. We're here to respect the Afghan people. We're here to protect the Afghan people. And we're here to enable the Afghan people to build their country.

We're not going to nation-build. What we are going to do is allow a nation to nation-build.

OK. So, the four buzzwords, what did -- you've got to have buzzwords. So what did we come up with? The first one is "clarity."

What do I think we have?

When I got here in June, we were tasked to do an assessment. We were tasked to study the situation, which we did.

I released that after 60 days or 70 days. It promptly got leaked to the press, although it was a classified document. But what it did is it forced us to focus.

It forced us to start and understand the situation even more than we might have otherwise. It forced us to put our minds around what it is we were doing here.

The recent decision-making process that happened in the United States and has been paralleled in other countries has done much of the same. When the strategic assessment, or initial assessment, was called and was put into D.C., what they did was they went on a very intense decision-making process, and it involved a number of video teleconferences with us here participating back with leadership in Washington D.C., five or six with my president.

There's a time difference, so two things could happen. He could either get up in the middle of the night and BPC (ph) with me in the day, which didn't happen, or I could drag myself up at 3:30 in the morning. But it was an honor once or twice, and then it was work.

No, it was really good, because what we did was we focused on the problem. We talked about it. We worked it through.

I've been to Brussels three times, Bratislava, met with NATO leaders, and done the same sort of thing. So, what I will tell you is I got here in 2002. I had never seen people focus on this problem like we have.

We have constant meetings, our element with Minister Wardak and Director Salad (ph), part of the security element. So we have got a focus we never had. So we understand the situation better than we ever have.

We understand the breadth of the problem and the challenge. And I don't think we underestimate it like perhaps we might have been guilty of in the past.

We also have a changed political environment. As you know, we went through elections on 20th of August. The elections were actually security-wise an incredible success. We enabled a lot of people to vote.

The elections had their own problems with fraud. OK? But through that process, it pulled the security parts together and it focused the world on what happened.

People who never heard of Afghanistan were talking about who the candidates were for president. Pretty extraordinary. And that's a good thing, because as we then talked about a runoff, we then had decisions, and then we conducted an inauguration.

It brought the focus in. It brought the understanding in. And that's clarity.

Then we got clarity in our mission through that decision-making process I talked about. Everybody looked at what we were doing. And instead of using broad words, they started to go in.

I spent a whole night one night defining the (INAUDIBLE). But that's good, because people had thrown words around before, and they hadn't stopped and said -- and we were all guilty.

Now, focused -- what does that mean? What are we going to do? What are we trying to do? Who is responsible to do it?

And now our mission is to prevent the insurgency from being an existential threat to government of Afghanistan and prevent al Qaeda or other international terrorists from using Afghanistan as a safe haven. And that mission is clearer to us now.

I think we've also got clarity on the way ahead in a new way because we understand counterinsurgency better than we used to. I think in many cases in the past we didn't think enough about it. I think 2001, many of us had learned a tremendous amount that we may have known from books, but now we know from experience.

And now we have young sergeants, young officers who have been on the ground and dealt with people and understand counterinsurgency, and understand at the end of the day it's relationships and it's relationships with people. And it's credibility that matters.

The second word of our buzzwords is "capability." And what we're talking about here is we are more capable than we used to be. And I think we've got a foundation I mentioned on which we can build a successful way ahead better than before.

There's been a lot of focus on force levels. Everybody says capability equals (INAUDIBLE). And, in fact, as we put out our initial assessment, we said there are a number of things we had to do, and if we didn't do those, force levels were not important. And we have done most of those now. And if you haven't stopped and thought about it, in the last six months we've accomplished an amazing amount.

First off, we stood up the intermediate joint command, General Rodriguez's three-star headquarters to coordinate the fight across the regional command. Never had that before. That has enabled my headquarters, the ISAF headquarters, to do what we call "Up and Out," more political, more engagement outside.

We've stood up the NATO training mission in Afghanistan. Our main effort in the way ahead is building Afghan national security force capacity. And so what we have done is make that a NATO command now, and we're fighting to push many more resources into that so we can do that faster, we can do that better. And it's incredibly important that we do that.

We've changed the way we operate. We've changed many of you taking part in video teleconferences almost daily, commanders' updates, (INAUDIBLE) and whatnot. We pass information better than we used to. We've pushed very hard to get our networks out to more places, to more people, and force people to operate on them more.

A few months ago, we never were partnered with our Afghan brothers during those update briefs. Now every day Minister Wardak or General Brahimi (ph), myself, et cetera, are all networked and talk about the situation, because it's one effort and can't be -- it should not be broken down and separated.

And then when I mentioned we created capability because we're doing counterinsurgency better, we've put out counterinsurgency guidance. We put out tactical directives, driving directives.

We've taught ourselves. We've created a counterinsurgency advising assess (ph) team. We're doing all the things we can to make ourselves a better counterinsurgency, better partners.

And one of the highlights of this is partnering. And that is pulling units to operate to make both units better.

We don't talk a lot about it anymore. If you'll notice, in our communications we don't talk about the number of insurgents that we've killed, because it's not about how many we've killed. It's about preventing them having access to the population.

And we've done a good job of that. But in the process, our Special Operating Forces, through precision operations, have taken a tremendous toll of the leadership of terrorist insurgent organizations. And those are combined Afghan/coalition organizations that have been doing this, and it's an extraordinary effect. And that is going to have a cumulative positive effect on what we're doing.

Also on the ground, what you have done here through hard work, most notable, or in the press, the central Helmand River Valley. Areas that had not been secured for a long time now have forces that are doing extraordinary work in names we know, Gansir (ph), Nawa (ph), Musakawa (ph). All areas that were very difficult are now the beginning of providing effective security for the population, and that's where we're going. And we're doing that, and it's slow, but sure, but it's effective. And we're going to do more. As you've seen, over time, we're going to continue to build those.

When you go back and talk about the effect of our operations, just one Gumay (ph) and the Harad (ph) area was targeted, killed along with about 23 of his accomplices. And very soon after, a tremendous number, like 56 of his former fighters, came in and reintegrated with the government of Afghanistan. And that is the combination of precision strike, but also giving the people a chance to rejoin society with respect. And that's going to be critical to the way ahead.

What's the way ahead going to look like over the next year and a half? As many of you heard, this will go on for quite a while, but it will be decided, in my view, in the next one to two years. We are going to focus with additional forces in the south. The south is going to be the main effort.

I believe that by next summer the uplift of new forces will make a difference on the ground significantly. I believe that by next time this year we'll see a level of progress that will convince us that we can clearly articulate the progress and predict the effectiveness of our operations. And I believe that by the summer of 2011 that will be obvious to all the players involved. To the Taliban and insurgents, I think it will be obvious to Afghan National Security Forces and obvious to us and it will be obvious to the Afghan people in all of those areas, and that's the critical point. So that we can offer them the confidence that we're going to be able to provide that security.

OK, the next thing that we threw out is commitment. One of the things that's critical when we talk about counterinsurgency or any effort, anything we do but particularly military operations, it's the fact that you're committed. Typically, in a military contest, the side that believes it will win and is committed enough, ultimately does. What we are trying to do is get the population of Afghanistan to believe in their government and the security that they can be provided so that they will commit themselves to support.

What we've seen President Obama's speech is clearly a demonstration of commitment embedded partnering which we have stood up is a demonstration of commitment. There's a saying that the Germans use, and I'll butcher the pronunciation shilterschlis (ph), but what it means is "feel of the cloth." And it came from a time when soldiers fought in tight formations and the shoulder rubbed up against the shoulder next to them, and from the feel of the cloth they got confidence because they knew they weren't alone. From the feel of the cloth they knew they were part of the team. What we are trying to do with embedded partnering is to provide that same confidence. The feel of the cloth of partners who are committed to each other and committed to a single cause.

We had an operation recently up in Balamargad (ph). We tragically lost two soldiers to drowning in a very fast moving river there. And we had a number of different elements that were in Balamargad operating, but as they went to establish enough security to recover those bodies, and it was a firefight going on before the loss of two individuals and for the first day after it, the Afghan National Police, Afghan National Army, Italian forces, Spanish forces, American forces, and the locals who had been operating on the side of the Taliban the day before started working together. OK. It's still very fragile. There is still not huge confidence, but there is commitment to improving the security there and there are a number of people who are making it work. HARRIS: All right, let's do this. Let's take a moment to explain what you're watching right now.

Obviously, you're watching and listening to General Stanley McChrystal, the top military leader in Afghanistan. He is holding a briefing, and later he'll take a tour of Afghanistan. He will go north, south, east and west in the country today.

This particular meeting that you're watching is being attended by U.S. troops and local Afghan leaders. The media is attending this briefing as well, but will not be allowed to ask questions. Now, the local Afghans will be permitted to ask whatever questions they would like.

And again, this meeting is being held in Kandahar. CNN was granted special access to this briefing by the U.S. military. Now let's take you back to the general.

MCCHRYSTAL: ... improvements in life. Basic physical things from electricity to roads to schools, there's been amazing amount of progress made. And so the last eight years have not been at all without tremendous progress. But we do have a challenge right now and so the confidence that we have, for me, derives from a number of things.

First, President Karzai in his inaugural address, you demonstrated confidence in the way ahead. He said in the next three years he expects to take significant responsibility for security in key areas of the country. And in five years, it's his intent that Afghan forces take lead in security for the sovereignty of the country.

Confidently, too, the Afghan people have stayed committed and the look at the demonstrations of confidence they've given just in voting, just in supporting, just in joining Afghan National Security Forces.

And then there's the commitment of the people in this room. This summer, I was down visiting a Lieutenant Colonel Gus Ferres (ph) organization as they had just gone through significant combat and spin regime. Young men, they had lost a lot of casualties. They and their Afghan partners fought through a depth of IEDs that were like a minefield. But they did it, they took it through and there was almost no collateral damage or civilian casualties. And that was a commitment on their part but the confidence that they could do it. And when I look in their eyes, and I keep a photograph of their organization in my office now because every time I look at them, I gain confidence.

I think we're in a very different place, as I mentioned. I was up a couple weeks ago for an Australian Remembrance Day ceremony up in Alusghan (ph). There were Dutch, Australian, French, Afghans, obviously a few Americans, and they remembered the first World War. But as I looked around and I saw the soldiers there, it's clear to me that they are cut from the same cloth that have made our forces so proud in the past. As I've watched your forces and I've watched you lead, I see the same thing. So it's very, very difficult for me to see 43 nations in a coalition joined by brave Afghan partners and not be confident. So I would say today marks a significant point. Starting today we move forward in a new way and starting today I believe we're have a tremendous move forward and tremendous success here.

Last thing I want to thank each one of you for what you do and I'd like you to pass it to your people. When I get to move around, I am awed by the courage. When I go to hospitals, I am awed by the quiet courage. No one ever says, feel sorry for me. When I move around on holidays and I see people who have missed time with their families, I am awed. No one ever says, I've had it tough, I need it easier. All they ask about is the welfare of their people and how we're going to be successful. So I want to thank you for that.

OK, I'll open it up for questions. All right. No questions. Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS: All right. We'll monitor the Q-and-A, but once again let's sort of recap what we've been watching here. I think you'd agree, pretty extraordinary stuff from the top military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. Let's say what was happening here.

First of all, correct a bit of information I shared with you just a couple minutes ago. I mentioned that the general had planned to tour the four regions of the country. That did not happen today because of weather conditions. So what did happen is that once the general reached the central region of Afghanistan, he participated in a videoconference that was beamed out to the north, west and east of the country. And then you've been watching this briefing taking place in Kandahar, obviously in southern Afghanistan. This is the second and final battlefield tour for the general.

And boy, what's been interesting about this is there have been so many quotable moments here from the general. Let's go through just a few of them. The general saying, I have never seen people so focused on Afghanistan. We have a focus like we've never had. Everything changes right now.

In describing the insurgency, you heard the general say it is an insurgency that will not topple Kabul tomorrow, but it threatens the lives and well-being of every Afghan trying to live a normal, safe and secure life.

The mission, if you wanted clear articulation of the mission moving forward, you heard it from General McChrystal. He said the mission is to prevent the insurgency from being a threat to the government and to our allies.

General McChrystal saying he has exceptional confident in the new strategy saying we're more capable than we used to be and that by this time next year we'll see progress that will be obvious.

General Stanley McChrystal briefing Afghan leaders and U.S. forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

You have heard the president's plan for the war in Afghanistan, then you called us. Here's some of what you're saying on our phone lines.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CALLER: Hi. This is Nikisha (ph) calling from New Orleans.

I think that the U.S. should let the president do his job. He did not start the war, but he sure enough has to finish it. So whatever decision he makes, please allow him to make it.

CALLER: Hello. My name is Ethel (ph) and I live in Chollo (ph) Arizona.

I'm calling to tell President Obama to please back up his promise and bring our troops home when he was elected and to get out of Afghanistan. It's a losing battle and more troops over there is just going to be another Vietnam.

Please, Mr. Obama, bring our troops home now.

CALLER: Hi, Tony. I am a retired master sergeant and I support the president's decision 100 percent.

CALLER: Yes, I think Obama is betraying his liberal base. This is not why we voted him in office. Everything he's done is not what we wanted and I'm so dissatisfied and I will not vote for him again.

I'm Bill from California.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HARRIS: OK. You still have plenty of time to voice your comments. Just call us at 1-877-742-5760. You can also leave a comment on our blog. Go to CNN.com/tony and send us an iReport too, that's a great way to reach us. That address, CNN.com/ireport.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: The new marching orders are in place for Afghanistan. The president outlined his strategy in a primetime speech last night. And joining us with a reaction to the plan is a retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

Professor, thanks for your time. We appreciate it.

COL. ANDREW BACEVICH, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well thank you for having me.

HARRIS: Well a lot of questions I want to try to get to with you. Why do you disagree with president's decision on troops and strategy?

BACEVICH: All kinds of reason. I think the first one I'd begin with is the American people elected Barack Obama because he promised to change the way Washington works. And I'd argue that the Afghanistan issue provided him with an opportune moment to change the way Washington works, at least with regard to national security policy.

HARRIS: Would you acknowledge that he stated on the campaign that he thought more troops were needed, that Afghanistan was under resourced?

BACEVICH: Yes, I think he did say that. I think most people who voted for Obama viewed that campaign talk as a tactic to protect himself from being accused of being a national security wimp. Nobody who voted for Obama would have been disappointed if he had failed to deliver on that particular campaign promise. Many people who voted for Obama are disappointed with the fact that he has now chosen to make himself a war president. He's no longer going to be somebody who says he inherited wars. He now has chosen war in Afghanistan. I, for one, think it's an unnecessary war.

HARRIS: OK. So not surprising there are many who disagree. Yesterday, we talked to someone who you probably know or certainly know her views. A woman spent a lot of time on the ground in Afghanistan, Clare Lockhart, director for the Institute of State Effectiveness.

Here's what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARE LOCKHART, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR STATE EFFECTIVENESS: General McChrystal assessment of the conditions in Afghanistan was, in my view, exactly the right one. He understood what was going on on the ground and he shifted strategy in a dramatic way. He's saying, we've got to protect the population and we've got to invest in training Afghan Security Forces so they can provide for their own security going forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: OK, Professor, that seems like a reasonable approach assessment, but I'm curious as to why you think you're correct and people like Clare Lockhart, the president of the United States, the secretary of state -- you know where I'm going here -- secretary of defense and the generals on the ground, General McChrystal, who we just heard from, why are those folks incorrect?

BACEVICH: Well, I mean, Clare Lockhart is reciting the administration's talking points and I guess there are plenty of people willing to do that. I would make the following argument, that even if General McChrystal succeeds beyond anybody's wildest dreams in pacifying Afghanistan, that success will not appreciably reduce the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism. The president said last night that Afghanistan and Pakistan constitute the epicenter of that threat. That's nonsense. The threat is not concentrated in any one particular place. Jihadism is a transnational phenomenon. It's found in Brooklyn and in Denver as much as it's found in the mountains of Helmand Province.

So, the key question, it seems to me, that Obama and his administration and supporters of the Afghan war failed to ask is this -- what is U.S. strategy to deal with the threat promised by jihadism? During the Bush era, there was a strategy. The strategy was to wage a global war with expectations of transforming the greater Middle East. That effort failed. Well, in the wake of that failure, what is our strategy? Simply doubling down in Afghanistan does not constitute a strategy to deal with jihadism.

HARRIS: Well, the president last night said, I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and you're saying what to that argument from the president?

BACEVICH: I'm saying there's no question that our vital national interests are not at stake in Afghanistan. The al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan is minimal and may -- and keeping al Qaeda out does not require the occupation of the country and the expenditure of approximately $100 billion a year. We don't have the money. Or if we do have the money, we have a lot better places to spend that money than Afghanistan.

So, we have -- we have argued ourselves into believing that Afghanistan constitutes this vital interest. And in convincing ourselves of that, we've allowed Afghanistan to hijack national security policy in ways that allow other priorities to go under resourced and unattended.

HARRIS: Strong views.

Professor Bacevich, appreciate it. Thanks for your time.

BACEVICH: Thank you.

HARRIS: The pros and cons of the war in Afghanistan. We are hearing from you and our correspondents on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: We are hearing your views on President Obama's new Afghanistan strategy through your iReports. We've received reports in favor of the troop surge and even a call for more troops to be deployed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK QUAVIS, CNN IREPORTER: If you're willing to send another 30,000 troops over there, and according to the news it's going to be a three-year project, why don't we just send 50 over there and get this done with already? Why do we keep playing games with these people? KATY BROWN, CNN IREPORTER: Thank you, President Obama, for agreeing to send more troops. It is need. We need to take out al Qaeda. We need to -- and with 30,000 more troops, we will do just that. No matter the cost moneywise.

EGBERTO WILLIES, CNN IREPORTER: This was a political compromise. Unfortunately, I fear the ramification of this escalation will have two distinct effects on his domestic agenda, specifically health care reform. The GOP will support and tout said support of bipartisanship to insulate them from the party of no, and at the same time try to scuttle health care reform on the premise that we cannot afford a war as well as reform.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Smart stuff.

We're also hearing from iReporters who say the troop buildup is a bad idea, and it's time to end the war in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERALD DIMMITT, CNN IREPORTER: I supported Obama. I was proud when he received a Noble Peace Prize, I heard people groveling around about how terrible that was. But let me tell you, it should be ripped from his mantle. No man of peace, no recipient of the Noble Peace Prize should be waging war throughout the world outside of the boundaries of his country.

MELISSA FAZLI, CNN IREPORTER: There's no exit strategy yet for Afghanistan. Haven't heard of one. All we hear now he wants to send in 30,000 more troops.

I believe, yes, if you want to rotate the troops as far as the people who have been there for so long and have, you know, a fresh -- have the fresh troops come in, but I believe that Afghanistan is a black hole and that we are spending way too much money there and resources. And our men and women are in harm's way.

DOUG REPORTS, CNN IREPORTER: I just don't see how you can start a war or go into a war with more troops and have a firm date of when you think you can leave. It just never works out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: You guys are awesome. So engaged. If you would, keep sending us your thoughts and your reports, CNN.com/tony or CNN.com/ireport. We will share more of your thoughts in the next hour of the CNN NEWSROOM.

As a matter of fact, here's what we're working on for the next hour of CNN NEWSROOM. Our David Mattingly has been talking to military families, getting their reaction to the president's new Afghanistan strategy. We will hear from them, including a woman whose husband has been deployed six times. Plus, President Obama looking the nation straight in the eye. You may have noticed something different about last night's television address. We will analyze what it was and what it means.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)