Return to Transcripts main page

Prism

Compared to Iraq Afghanistan's Lack Of Roads, U.S. Military's Lack Of Bases, It Will Be A Slow Influx of Troops Over the Next Six Months, Or More

Aired December 02, 2009 - 12:00   ET

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

British sailors released from Iran, return to Dubai today, hugs and smiles all around. >

STAN GRANT, CNN INT'L. ANCHOR, PRISM (voice over): 30,000 American troops are now on a fast track to Afghanistan. But the logistics of getting them there will be challenging.

The families of five British sailors detained for a week express relief as Iran releases them.

And in our "Prism Segment" tonight, nuclear threats, are world bodies too concerned about who might get nuclear weapons and not enough about who already has them?

(On camera): From CNN Abu Dhabi in United Arab Emirates, this is PRISM, where we take a story and look at it from multiple perspectives. I'm Stan Grant.

U.S. President Barack Obama says he is accelerating the pace in Afghanistan, sending in more troops now to end the war faster. He has ordered 30,000 additional troops. They will be deployed in the first part of next year. And there is now a light at the end of the tunnel. The U.S. could begin pulling out in mid-2011.

Mr. Obama says the goal is to break the Taliban momentum and return security duties to the Afghans.

NATO troops already on the ground in Afghanistan are being briefed now. General Stanley McChrystal is talking about the mission with coalition forces in Kandahar. In Washington, Obama administration officials have been fielding questions on the plan from the Senate Armed Services Committee. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reminded lawmakers of the mission's focus and the president's commitment to see it through.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: As the president first stated in March, and re-emphasized last night, the goal of the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and to prevent its return to both countries. The international military effort to stabilize Afghanistan is necessary to achieve this over- arching goal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: Critics and supporters alike have made comparisons between the troop surge coming up in Afghanistan and the one carried out in Iraq. But as Chris Lawrence reports there one difference in particular that complicates this mission.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN INT'L. CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Military leaders said in would be all but impossible to rush new troops to Afghanistan as quickly as they did Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is not going to be a brigade a month, because of the infrastructure piece.

LAWRENCE: That was just before Thanksgiving. Now they have been challenged by the president to deploy 30,000 by summer.

GATES: We do not have the same kind of transportation access to Afghanistan that we did in Iraq.

LAWRENCE: Five brigades rushed into Iraq in just five months. But they did so over paved highways and had a huge staging area in the Kuwaiti desert. Almost everything has to come into Afghanistan by air.

Most of the new forces will come south, to places like Camp Wolverine (ph). But construction is already underway to increase its capacity from 1,880 to 5,000 troops.

LT. JOHN CRITCH, U.S. NAVY: 20 soldiers use one toilet, so many soldiers to a shower. There is no where - you know we are still doing a lot of that right now just to get ready to bring in the massing troops.

LAWRENCE: Housing is so tight at many bases defense analysts say most of the new troops will have to live in an expeditionary state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is to say tents, and so forth, as opposed to hard stand buildings.

LAWRENCE: This is actually President Obama's second surge. Earlier this year he ordered more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Logistically we weren't prepared for the surge.

LAWRENCE: Soldiers who were part of that earlier increase say supplies are just catching up with them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The problem is it is getting there a little bit after the troops surge, when it should have been visa versa. It should have been the support first, or at the same time, at least.

LAWRENCE (On camera): A U.S. official tells us that the goal of getting all the troops into Afghanistan within six months is, quote, "achievable". But it is more likely they won't all get in there until late summer. Chris Lawrence, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRANT: NATO's secretary general says the war is not America's alone to fight. Anders Fogh Rasmussen says, European nations will contribute 5,000 new troops to the international force in Afghanistan. Poland and Albania are among those nations pledging to deploy reinforcements. But U.S. allies like Germany and France are staying mum for now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: At this very important moment NATO must demonstrate its unity and strength once again. And it means in concrete terms that all allies and partners in our mission must do more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the U.S. troop deployment will speed training of Afghan security forces, which he argues is essential to the exit strategy. Mr. Brown is under considerable pressure at home to get British troops out of the war zone. CNN's Political Contributor Robin Oakley joins me now from our London Bureau.

Robin, it is being said it is a difficult sell for President Obama, in the U.S., very, very difficult for Gordon Brown?

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Very difficult for Gordon Brown and for a lot of other European leaders, Stan, because all of them have found the public has been running away from the battle in Afghanistan over the last year. There is no the same support in the opinion polls. Here in Britain, probably 55 percent saying they want out. In Germany, it goes up to two-thirds. And of course in Germany recently, after a botched air strike, in Afghanistan, they have lost their chief of army staff and their defense minister. So, it is an unpopular war there.

So, I think there is huge relief among particularly the Europeans in NATO, that in the very first sentence of Barack Obama's speech at West Point, at which he announced the policy, there was reference to conclusion. They are all looking for an exit strategy and they are hoping that what they are seeing here, in the political shape that accompanies troop deployments will be some kind of exit strategy, Stan.

GRANT: Robin, we heard form Anders Fogh Rasmussen, saying that NATO will contribute an extra 5,000, but what you have outlined there, the difficulty facing leaders in France and Germany, non-committal, where is it going to come from?

OAKLEY: Well, Spain, Italy, Slovakia are three countries, and Turkey, Poland, all talking about increasing troop numbers. We probably won't know until the NATO meeting later this week, or maybe not until a conference in London at the end of January, precisely what the numbers will be. But I think the United States was looking to France and Germany for about 1,500 troops each towards swelling the numbers. No sign, yet, of either France or Germany coming in, in a big way. But of course, we shouldn't forget that the international security assistance force, in Afghanistan, is involved with 43 nations. And there are only 28 nations in NATO. So, there are other potential contributors to the forces as well, Stan.

GRANT: Robin, good to have you on the program. Thanks very much.

That is Robin Oakley, joining us live there from London.

Well, tonight on "AMANPOUR", reaction to President Obama's announced strategy for Afghanistan. Christiane talks one on one in a CNN exclusive with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. That is on "AMANPOUR" at midnight tonight, in Abu Dhabi, 2100 in Central Europe. That is about three hours from now here on CNN.

Five British sailors detained for a week in Iran are heading for calmer waters. Their racing yacht is expected to dock in Dubai soon after being towed across the Persian Gulf. It accidentally drifted into Iranian waters last week, while sailing from Bahrain to Dubai for a race. Relieved family members are speaking out. Atika Shubert joins us now from London.

It took quite a bit of diplomatic effort to achieve this result, Atika, didn't it?

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN INT'L. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it did. I mean, when the incident happened on November 25th British officials immediately contacted their Iranian counterparts, the foreign secretary here, David Miliband spoke to his counterpart in Iran. And after days of negotiation they are finally able to get a result. And the family members just had a press conference here saying the key to success was really a low-key approach and keeping it strictly a consular affair. Only talking about this -this is what they say was an innocent mistake of them straying into Iranian waters. Not connected to any other political situation. And that is what has really enabled their successful release.

And we are expecting that crew to arrive in Dubai any moment now.

GRANT: Atika, thank you very much for bringing us up to date on those U.K. sailors, freed. They are on their way to Dubai.

Well, Iran says it will forge ahead on its own with uranium enrichment processing. That has got the international community nervous. But are other countries a bigger threat? In tonight's "Prism Segment" we will take a look at concerns over nuclear weapons.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRANT: Welcome back. Our "Prism Segment" this evening, the global threat from nuclear weapons. Iran's recent decision to forge ahead with enriching uranium on its own has fueled new fears about the Islamic republic's nuclear program. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Iran will construct more facilities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN (through translator): We require multiple sites to produce nuclear fuel for us. We need at least 10 new sites.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: Today, Mr. Ahmadinejad revealed Iran will now enrich its uranium to an even higher level. He referred to a now-rejected U.N. brokered deal to enrich uranium abroad. Telling the crowd, so we said, "If you want to give us the fuel we'll take it. If not, then fine and good- bye."

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency is among those concerned about a possible military component to Iran's nuclear program. Listen to how the leaders of the U.S. and Britain characterize the global threat from nuclear weapons, recently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For decades we have averted disaster, even under the shadow of the super power standoff. But today the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act we will invite nuclear arms races in every region and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

GORDON BROWN, PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN: Let there be no ambiguity. Iran and North Korea must now know that the world will be even tougher on proliferation. We are ready to consider further sanctions. Britain will insist in future that the onus on non-nuclear state is that in the years ahead it is for them to prove that they are not developing nuclear weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: The situation with North Korea remains fluid as the United States and other nations try to persuade Pyongyang to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program. North Korea conducted additional missile tests this year. Then walked away from talks in April and forged ahead with its second nuclear weapons test in May. The unpredictability of Kim Jung-Il's regime and questions about the internal stability of the Communist nation concern analysts like Asian security expert Victor Cha.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR CHA, U.S. ASIAN SECURITY EXPERT: A country like North Korea, that remains as opaque as it is, with an unpredictable leadership, amassing nuclear weapons, and basically selling every weapon system that they have ever produced, that is also not a good scenario.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: There are also concerns about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan's pursuit of a nuclear program dates back to the 1970s. It progressed through the testing stages, in the '80s and the 1990s, culminating in the testing of six weapons in 1998. Pakistan is believed to have between 40 and 70 nuclear weapons. But the instability in Pakistan concerns many.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, which is, as we all know, a nuclear armed state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: Well, Pakistan's prime minister was unflinching when asked about the safety of the country's arsenal, on a trip to China.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you sure, so-called 100 percent sure, with confidence, that the nuclear weapons. or arsenals, in Pakistan are in safe hands?

YUSUF RAZA GILANI, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN: Certainly, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Period?

GILANI: Certainly, yes, it is in safe hands. And command and control over this issue is extremely in safe hands. And there is no question about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: The Pakistani president speaking there. There are other threats in other places, too. International security expert Jim Walsh joins us now, from Newton, Massachusetts, outside of Boston.

Let's stay with Pakistan, just while we are talking about it. Up to 70 nuclear weapons. We know about the instability, the terrorists threat, the fragile government. Is that what concerns you most, Pakistan?

JIM WALSH, MASSACHUSETTS INST. OF TECHNOLOGY: Well, I think there are two concerns with Pakistan. And they are ones that you both raise, Stan.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, there is the question of the danger of use by a government, a deliberate use in an act of war. And then there is a second and separate danger, does that country have control over its own weapons? And it's material, or will that leak out to terrorists or other non-state actors? Both those concerns are in play with Pakistan. Pakistan is in a long-term rivalry with India, it has fought three wars with India. And India has nuclear weapons. So, on worries, if anywhere on the globe, that seems to be -South Asia seem to be the place where I think, even if it is a small chance, it is the biggest of the small chances that a nuclear war would actually be fought. That would be horrific beyond description.

And then, there is this other concern that I don't think the Taliban is going to take over Pakistan, the army is very strong there, but there are ongoing questions about control and security of materials and weapons.

Now, the Pakistanis understandably get very upset when people talk about this, because they think people are talking down to them and saying they are incompetent. And I want to underline the fact that wealthy countries have had problems securing their nuclear materials and their weapons. The Soviet Union collapsed, there were all sorts of problems. In the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have had problems with our management of our nuclear assets. So, it is not just about Pakistan. It is a general problem, but Pakistan, in particular, brings together several things that worry people.

GRANT: OK, in the past it has also brought together this proliferation network, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran. We know that North Korea has the bomb. Pakistan, we have spoken about. Is it inevitable that Iran will follow those two and also develop the bomb?

WALSH: No, I don't think so. I mean, the inevitability argument is -has been a common feature of the nuclear age. Going back to 1945, people said it was inevitable that there would be 40 nuclear weapons states. It would be inevitable that we would have so-called limited nuclear wars that would be fought between the Soviet Union and the United States. That didn't happen. In fact, when you look at the big picture, the track record, the rate of proliferation has actually declined. And some of the countries that had nuclear assets, South Africa, Ukraine, for example, gave up their nuclear weapons and their nuclear materials.

So, don't think we are rushing headlong, inevitably, into a world of dozens of nuclear weapons states. And for Iran, yes that is a concern and it is a concern coming after their elections this June. But the writing is not on the wall. We are still years away from what would be a final outcome in the Iranian case. So, I think there is time for all of us to move in a new direction. So, I would urge viewers not to assume the worst. And to continue to try to work hard on seeing that Iran sees that it is not in its interest to go down that path.

GRANT: OK, let's look at the role of the United States. We heard earlier from Barack Obama, talking about more complexity, when it comes to nuclear weapons. He spoke about a break out in other parts of the world. But to what extent does the United States help create this. It did a civilian nuclear deal with India. That has worried Pakistan. We know its relationship with Israel. And Israel has a covert weapons program. That bothers Iran.

To what extent is the United States helping to create this, to fuel this?

WALSH: Well, you know, in nuclear affairs, historically, obviously the U.S. has a big share of the blame here, the first country to develop nuclear weapons; the first country to use them. People often forget they were used. We used nuclear weapons. But I think -and recently U.S. policy has been to emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. But I think we are now moving away from that.

President Obama has been the first president of the United States to articulate a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. He is talking about cuts with the Russians. He is talking about the comprehensive test ban treaty. And a treaty to stop the production of bomb related material, so-called Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty. So I think U.S. policy is moving in a different direction.

The Iranian program, if they decide to pursue nuclear weapons that is not going to be because of Israel's nuclear weapons, which I think are a danger and are not often discussed. It is not going to be because of the U.S. If Iran decides to go down that route, it is going to be because of internal dynamics within Iran. And there is only so much control or influence that anyone has over that.

GRANT: Yes, Jim, thank you very much for that. Jim Walsh, there, international security expert, joining us there from Washington.

We are going to go now to Jim Boulden. I believe Jim is standing by. He is speaking about the Iranian -the Iranian sailors, yes, the sailors from the U.K. who were taken to Iran.

Jim, have they now arrived in Dubai?

JIM BOULDEN, CNN INT'L. CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it looks like they have arrived. I'm at the port of Mena Sahayee (ph), and there are lots of TV crews here and there are a number of men getting off a boat, the British (UNINTELLIGIBLE) here as well; lots of hugs and kisses on the dock here. They are all wearing white shirts that say crew. A lot of handshakes.

They are just getting off a fast boat. I was told a few minutes ago that they came into the port area and they were transferred to a fast boat so they could get here. I have also been told that they are going to be given a few minutes to shower and probably call some family and then they are going to have a press conference here in Dubai in a few minutes.

But, Stan, it looks like success. Lots of hugs, lots of smiles, lots of cameras. And I can confirm for you that they are indeed on dry land.

GRANT: It has been quite an ordeal. Let's just go back over this, Jim.

They were sailing to Dubai, they strayed off course, and were taken by Iranian navy. Talk us through exactly what has happened, what has happened to the point where they are now in Dubai.

BOULDEN: Well, as you know, they should have arrived in Dubai last Wednesday, shouldn't they? They left Bahrain for this two-day race, the yacht race. And they did not arrive in Dubai which was half way through on their way to Oman. And they didn't show up, which got people worried. And then really no word public, anyway, and then the British embassy, the British foreign office confirmed that they in fact had been taken by Iranians. IT is very likely their boat had a problem. And that they sailed errantly into Iranian waters and were taken by Iran.

Now, I can tell you now, they are all smiling. They are having their photos taken here; quite a happy moment. And then, we were told of course that they were released this morning, officially, by the foreign office. Taken to an island in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and handed over to Sail Bahrain, which the team they use, the team who they sail for. And then they have been taken here to the Dubai port.

And, Stan, as I said, they are coming out with their packs. They have had their photos taken, hugs and kisses here. They are going to head up now to the hotel to have a shower. And then we should hear more from them about their ordeal for the last week.

GRANT: Yes, we will look forward to that. Very, very relieved men. Thank you very much for that, Jim.

Jim Boulden just repeating there the five British sailors who were taken to Iran. They strayed off course and had gone into Iranian borders, released now in Dubai. As Jim says we'll hear from them soon.

We'll go to a break now. Stay with us, much more of PRISM to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRANT: Welcome back. We're going to take a look at the global weather picture now. Lola Martinez standing by at the CNN World Weather Center.

(WEATHER REPORT)

GRANT: Lola, thank you for that. And that's it for me, Stan Grant in Abu Dhabi. "INSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST" next after we update the headlines.

END