Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Afghanistan Hospital Attack; Hearing Today; Doctors Without Borders Calling For Investigation; Going To Hear From Two Presidential Candidates; U.S. General Speaks about Hospital Bombing; U.S. Rules of Engagement. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 06, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London. 8:00 p.m. in Moscow, 9:30 p.m. in Kabul. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

The United States military plan in Afghanistan in a deadly U.S. bombing of a hospital there. That's the focus today of a critically important hearing up on Capitol Hill.

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, testifying this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee on that bombing which the Pentagon calls a mistake. He says it was a U.S. decision to go ahead with the airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz. Twenty-two people were killed, including 12 aid workers and three children. General Campbell testified that Afghan forces called in air support because they were taking fire from enemy positions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JOHN CAMPBELL, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY: To be clear, the decision to provide aerial (ph) fires was a U.S. decision made within the U.S. chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility. I must allow the investigation to take its course. And, therefore, I am not at liberty to discuss further specifics at this time. However, I assure you that the investigation will be thorough, objective and transparent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: General Campbell went on to say that a U.S. special operations' team was, in fact, in the vicinity of the area to help direct the U.S. fighter on Taliban positions.

Let's get some more from our Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr. Barbara, General Campbell didn't get into specifics about the investigation during this hearing. He did say that he ordered the retraining for all U.S. forces in Afghanistan on the rules of engagement in that country. What does that tell you?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: That may be the most significant thing that's been said by General Campbell so far about this. Perhaps, perhaps, a big hint that he may believe his troops are not up to date on the rules of engagement that govern what they may legally and not legally do. The rules of engagement, when and how U.S. troops can come in with air support can come in and strike a target on the ground.

There's only a couple of reasons they're allowed to do this. One is if the U.S. troops are at risk. There were no U.S. troops that night taking fire, according to General Campbell. Two, if they are going after Al Qaeda, there were only Taliban there, by all accounts. And, three, if the Afghans are about to be overrun.

The Afghans were on the counter attack going back against Taliban positions. The Taliban had invaded the town days prior and taken over many areas. Obviously, Doctors Without Borders still furious. Furious that it's being called a mistake. They say they were under attack for 30 minutes. They made phone calls. They tried to get it stopped and nobody stopped the attack on them.

I don't think anyone believes that the U.S. wantingly went ahead and struck a hospital, knowing it was a hospital. The question now is why did the U.S. -- why did U.S. commanders not know they were hitting a hospital -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It's a good question. The committee also originally was meant -- was convened to talk about the overall U.S. presence, the overall U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Right now, the U.S. position is to keep a troop level in Afghanistan that is to secure and support, basically, the U.S. embassy in Kabul. General Campbell said a lot has changed since that original decision was made. Listen to what he said at today's hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPBELL: Based on conditions on the ground, based on the transitions I've talked about, I do believe that we have to provide our senior leadership options different than the current plan that we're going with, absolutely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, is he laying the groundwork, possibly, for keeping thousands of troops in Afghanistan past next year? Because almost all of them were supposed to be removed by the end of 2016.

STARR: That's right, Wolf. There's about 10,000 U.S. troops on the ground right now. Most were expected to come home by the end of next year. But just look at what has happened in this area we've been talking about. Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, the Taliban able to move in, basically take over the town. Their largest victory since 2001. It underscores that while the Afghan troops are trying to make some progress, according to the U.S., they still, still, have a very long way to go to be able to secure that country.

So, if the U.S. pulls out entirely and if there's no NATO force there, what will happen to the security situation in Afghanistan? The Republican chairman, Senator John McCain, of that committee this morning, making a very strong case that he feels more U.S. troops should stay -- Wolf.

[13:05:10] BLITZER: All right, Barbara, thank you.

Earlier today, the international medical aid group, Doctors Without Borders, accused U.S. forces of deliberately bombing that hospital in Kunduz city. The U.S. says it's conducting a full investigation. But Doctors Without Borders is calling, also, for an independent inquiry insisting, quote, "a war crime has been committed."

Let's bring in Jason Cone of -- who's joining us from New York. He's the executive director for Doctors Without Borders. Jason, first, let me express our deepest, deepest condolences to you, the loss of 12 of your colleagues, the patients there, the kids who were there. Why do you think this was a deliberate U.S. airstrike?

JASON CONE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS: Thank you Wolf, for the condolences. It's been a tremendously difficult time having lost 22 staff and patients. You know, given the nature of the attack, the fact that there were strikes over a -- over an extended period of time on our hospital, and one specific building and the rest of our compound remains untouched, we think it's absolutely critical that an independent and impartial investigation is conducted.

We certainly are willing to cooperate with the Defense Department investigation, as well as NATO and Afghan government investigations. But the fact of the matter is that a hospital that has been operational since 2011 for which we had told all the relevant contacts at U.S. military, both at civilian and military leadership level, about that we were continuing to operate.

We had nearly 200 patients and staff inside. No one can claim to not know what this building was doing and who it was treating and the fact that we were providing impartial medical care in a war zone, as we do in many countries around the world.

BLITZER: And who do you want to conduct this outside international, I assume it'll be some sort of international, investigation?

CONE: We're still looking into that. We think it needs to have certainly an independent and international character to it. We just think it's critical, especially in the last 72 hours given the repeated changes of positions, from being, quote, unquote, "collateral damage" to airstrike called in by Afghan military to now these latest statements by General Campbell, that it was done through the U.S. chain of command.

So, the changing story just drives to us to -- reinforces the point that it needs to independent, an independent investigation, to have any credibility. And this is about respect for the laws of war and the international humanitarian law. And this attack was certainly a grave violation of those laws. And until we're told otherwise and until we see an independent investigation, we will presume that this was, in fact, a war crime.

BLITZER: Well, because a war crime, obviously, very strong words. Do you believe the pilots, the crew members of this aircraft, this AC-130 that dropped the munitions on this hospital, they knew, in fact, it was a hospital, there were doctors, nurses, patients, children, inside? They deliberately wanted to blow it up?

CONE: That's for U.S. and coalition authorities to prove otherwise. We've done everything we could, over the past years that this hospital has been operational. It says on the very front doors of the compound, we treat all victims of violence, impartially and driven by medical ethics. We provided the GPS coordinates repeatedly to civilian and military leadership, both in Washington and Kabul.

And we find it very difficult to believe that people were not aware of the intent and the purpose of this facility. The fact that close to 400 patients have been treated during the proceeding days.

And then, when the attack was unfolding, we called those (INAUDIBLE) to notify them that the attack was going. And it continued repeatedly, basically in 15 increments, and hitting, repeatedly, our hospital and killing the 22 staff and patients we had.

And there needs to be an accounting for that. And it needs to be done independently. That can be complimentary to the investigations unfolding under the auspices of U.S. government and NATO and Afghan authorities. But we think and will continue to demand for an independent inquiry into the -- into this attack.

BLITZER: Is there any evidence, Jason, that the Taliban may have been launching fire from -- either from within that hospital or very near to that hospital that could have inspired this attack?

CONE: Our staff tell us, on the ground, and note that we had close to the 80 staff, both on the ground and working in the hospital, that it was quiet in the compound until the airstrikes started. We cannot accept that armed forces enter our hospitals. That puts our staff at risk anywhere in the world, not just in Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sudan. We need respect for our facilities. And those -- they are there to treat anyone who's wounded.

[13:10:02] But it requires, and it says on the front gates of our hospitals, that you cannot enter with weapons. And we make this clear. And we've made this clear to the authorities at the outset of opening these hospitals, both Afghan authorities and U.S.

All along, going back to 2009 when we -- when we reentered Afghanistan after having to leave for five years after the killing of some of our colleagues in 2004. So, this has been -- it's -- the fundamentals of the Geneva Conventions in Humanitarian Law that armed groups respect the sanctity of these medical facilities and respect the fact that weapons cannot enter. And that we will treat the wounded and civilians. And that when combatants are wounded, they are no longer combatants. They are civilians and it should be treated as such.

I think it's (INAUDIBLE) understood and it's quite striking to hear General Campbell talk about the need to re-educate our armed forces about rules of engagement and the basic laws of war. And this is what we're calling for. This is not just about what happened to our colleagues and our patients here in Afghanistan. It's generally in any conflict zone that we work in. The basic necessity that under humanitarian law, there is a need to respect medical facilities as protected spaces and that that needs to be guaranteed and respected. There are no longer any more humanitarian aid forces in Kunduz. And now, you have a population who has lost complete access to medical care at a dire time in the midst of a war zone.

BLITZER: It's a city of about 300,000 or at least was a city of about 300,000, the fifth largest city in Afghanistan.

Jason Cone, thanks so much for joining us. We know Doctors Without Borders does incredibly important work around the world, and it's obviously a huge tragedy that they have now had to abandon that work in Kunduz city. Thanks, once again.

We're going to talk --

CONE: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: -- much more about this U.S. role in Afghanistan as well.

There's a lot more on the race for the White House. Two presidential candidates, Senator Rand Paul, Governor John Kasich, they're both joining me live this hour. We'll get their reaction to what we just heard.

We'll also talk about polls, gun control, Syria. Lots coming up this hour.

[13:12:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:08] BLITZER: Let's get back to our top story, the outrage over that deadly U.S. bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan and the explanations of how it happened. Appearing before of the Senate Armed Services Committee today, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan said the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz City was struck by mistake. General John Campbell adding that extraordinary efforts were being made to protect civilians there. Senator Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky, the Republican presidential candidate, is joining us now live.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you.

BLITZER: Let me get your reaction to what we just heard from the executive director of Doctors Without Borders, who doesn't believe it was a mistake, that it was deliberate, that it was potentially a war crime. Your reaction?

PAUL: You know, there's been a lot of confusion in the response. Was it an accident or was it done on purpose? It appears as if the coordinates were given to somebody, because they kept repeatedly bombing the same site. But I think it goes to a bigger question, and this is a question that President Obama should have to answer, why are we still at war in Afghanistan? What is the U.S. objective? What's the U.S. mission? And why are we bombing anybody in Afghan?

I think we had a clear cut mission after 9/11, but that's been long gone for many years now. And I think really that the Afghans need to step up and defend themselves. But there's no reason for the U.S. to be involved there at all at this point. And tragic accidents will happen when you're involved with war, but I don't see why we're still involved in Afghanistan.

BLITZER: Well, I'm going to get to that in a moment, but you're a physician, you're a doctor, do you agree with the executive director of Doctors Without Borders that in addition to the U.S. investigation, the NATO investigation, the Afghan investigation, there should also be an impartial outside international investigation?

PAUL: Yes, I don't mind an outside international investigation, but somebody needs to step up and say, why are we there and what is the policy? Doctors and hospitals should never be targeted, and so that's completely unacceptable. But if it's an accident, it's still a bad policy because why are we dropping bombs in Afghanistan. We've been helping them for 10 years or more. They should step up and they should be able to combat against any insurgency. And there is not a clear-cut U.S. role. And if we're to be back at war in Afghanistan, the president should come to Congress and ask for permission, and we should say why we are at war and have a debate over that, but we shouldn't be in perpetual war all around the globe.

BLITZER: The argument is, if the U.S., the NATO allies, were to completely pull out, it would be a disaster. The Taliban, potentially, could take over and Afghanistan would be back to where it was before 9/11.

PAUL: Well, I guess my question would be, why? We've given them billions and billions of dollars. We've spent more in Afghanistan than we did in the Marshall Plan. Why can't they defend themselves after a decade? Will we have to defend them in perpetuity? No, I don't think we should have a perpetual war over there and I think often people will not stand up and defend themselves if we're doing the defending. So they are doing more of the ground activity, but I think their entire defense, minus maybe some armaments and some support, but really we should not be at war in Afghanistan. They should be able, after a decade or more, to defend themselves.

BLITZER: What about the Russian involvement in Syria right now? If you were president of the United States, what would you do about that?

PAUL: Well, I think the first thing that's very, very important is to have open lines of communication. We have some in the primary, Carly Fiorina mostly, who says she doesn't want to talk to Putin and she's ready to use force against the Russians. Well, man, are we lucky she wasn't president during the Cold War because we did keep open lines of communication throughout the Cold War. We're in very close proximity over there. and the last thing we need is an accident where we shoot down one of the Russians or vice versa. So I think we need to know where everyone is flying, what everyone's role is and if we can find common ground with trying to destroy ISIS. And I'm very worried about an accident happening over there and I'm also very worried about some Republicans who want to have no dialogue, because that's a recipe for a disaster.

[13:20:10] BLITZER: So you basically want -- what you've described in the past to me as a noninterventionist policy. You're not an isolationist, but you want to be really careful about the U.S. getting involved in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, other international hot spots?

PAUL: But the interesting thing, it's kind of the opposite of isolationism. I'm for diplomatic engagement. The people like Carly Fiorina, they want to diplomatically isolate us and not have any discussions with Putin. I think that is very much a mistake. So I'm for diplomatic engagement. I am for being involved. And I am for saying, you know what, let's be very careful that we don't do something rash that might start world war three.

And let's also realize from history how we got to this point. Saddam Hussein, once he was toppled, made Iran stronger. Iran and Iraq are now allies. They're also allies with Syria. Now they're allied with Russia. So I would argue that the Iraq War was a mistake and it actually enabled Russia to become stronger in the region, and that's what we need to think about before we topple another dictator, what are the unintended consequences of toppling dictators in the Middle East?

BLITZER: If you were elected president, on a domestic issue, what, if anything, would you do to tighten up gun control issues in the United States?

PAUL: Well, I think it's a terrible tragedy and, you know, my heart goes out to the families. I've got a couple kids in college and in high school, and I can't imagine, you know, something like that happening in a school. But the thing is, they already have universal registration in Oregon. They have significant gun registration laws. And I just don't think that more controls are the answer.

I do think that we should not preannounce to the public, to the potentially crazy and homicidal people out there that there are places they can go to shoot people. And that's what we've done with our schools. We say, well, there are no armed guards, there are no armed teachers, there are no armed off duty policemen, and I think that's a mistake. I think we should do the opposite. I think we should announce across America that there are not going to be gun-free zones where you can go and shoot people. And I think if we did, that there is some deterrent effect.

I believe the same for our commercial airliners. After 9/11, I was a big proponent of making sure our pilots were armed and I have bills now to try to facilitate that. I want every potential jihadists and terrorist in the world to know that our pilots are armed and that if you come into the cockpit, you will be shot. And so I think there is a deterrent effect from guns. There obviously is the destruction when a crazy people uses a gun, but there also can be deterrents from guns. And I saw an example yesterday. I think it was a vo-lock (ph) conspiracy website was talking about many instances where shooters have been stopped by having an armed person in the right place at the right time. BLITZER: Senator Paul, thanks very much for joining us.

PAUL: Thank you.

BLITZER: Up next, we'll have more on the future of U.S. in Afghanistan. I'll ask the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee how many U.S. troops he thinks should stay on the ground there. Congressman Mac Thornberry, there you see him, up on Capitol Hill. He joins me live when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:27:15] BLITZER: Let's get back to our top story. The top U.S. military commander testifying up on Capitol Hill today on the situation in Afghanistan. He was talking about the U.S. military plans overall in that country, as well as that deadly U.S. air strike on a hospital there. That air strike has created a strong reaction after 22 people were killed, including patients and aid workers.

Congressman Mac Thornberry, Republican from Texas, is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He's joining us now.

Let's start with this hospital bombing. General Campbell said today that as a result of this bombing he wants to engage in new instructions for all U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, new rules of engagement. After 14 years of warfare there, the U.S. moved in almost exactly 14 years ago in Afghanistan after 9/11. Why now? Why does the U.S. need new rules of engagement?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I think it's because we have far fewer Americans there than we have had in the past. Remember the military plan was to have more Americans there to advise and assist the Afghan security forces more than the president allowed. He -- the president insisted on going below 10,000. So we have less interaction, less engagement with the Afghan forces. We do a lot of our advising with video conferences now. so it does make sense, if you're going to have that many fewer people, then looking at the rules of engagement for when we do bring our air power to bear, only makes sense.

BLITZER: All U.S. troops, almost all U.S. troops, are supposed to be out of Afghanistan by the end of next year, very few remaining, only to protect, basically, the U.S. embassy in Kabul. Would that be a mistake, from your perspective, because you heard Rand Paul say he does want all U.S. troops out of there?

THORNBERRY: Yes, it would be a huge mistake and what would happen is, Afghanistan would turn into another Iraq. That's exactly what we did in Iraq. We withdrew everybody but a few people around the embassy, and look at the mess that has been created since then.

Look, we're in Afghanistan for the exact same reasons we were there in the fall of 2001, to prevent attacks from being masterminded or launched from there against us. And the fact is Afghanistan will always be very attractive to terrorists. They have large -- a lot amount -- a large amount of ungoverned spaces. They have the illegal drug crop that can help finance them. They have the history there of terrorism. So you're seeing ISIS growing today in Afghanistan, as well as al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban. So for us to stick our heads in the sand and say, we're just walking away and think we're going to leave all of that over there is just delusional.

[13:30:01] BLITZER: But you know the criticism, the U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars training Afghan troops, Afghan military, Afghan police.