Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Lays Out Afghan Policy, No Troop Specifics; Navy Investigates Accident as Some Remains of Missing Sailors Found; Afghan President Thanks Trump for U.S. Support, Pakistan Not Happy. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired August 22, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Because the vice president, we were just talking about, Mike Pence, was on the "Today" show this morning saying the generals want another almost 4,000 troops. So if there's 8,400 now, that would bring it up to more than maybe 12,000 or 13,000. Is that really enough to get the job done?

REP. MIKE COFFMAN, (R), COLORADO: Well, I think two things. First of all, I mentioned the change in the rules of engagement. Right now, the Taliban cannot be targeted unless there's a direct threat to U.S. forces. However, we're there to support the Afghan government and they're an existential threat to the Afghan government. So the change in the rules of engagement will allow us to directly target them, even if not a threat to U.S. forces. That's very important. As well as not having a specific timeline and have a conditions-based approach on the ground to -- to when we decide to reduce our presence.

BLITZER: Here the question I have, as somebody covered the war for, what, 16 years. At one point the U.S. had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Couldn't get the job done with 100,000 troops. We're going back to the Bush administration, the Obama administration. Now it seems the president is having a bit, a little bit of a surge there going up. What makes you think that 14,000 or 13,000 troops really in the long run is going to make much of a difference, given the history, the geography, the nature of the population, the nature of the terrorists, including the Taliban in Afghanistan?

COFFMAN: Well, don't get me wrong, I think that it was a mistake to be there in the first place. But we are there, and the question is, how do we extricate ourselves from Afghanistan? And I'm glad to hear the president's reiterating his opposition to nation building. As an Iraq war veteran, I think that's very important. It was a mistake in Afghanistan, a mistake in Iraq as well, from a U.S. national security perspective.

You know, I just think that -- this reminds me of Vietnam, where, in 1972, President Nixon wanted to extricate ourselves from -- U.S. forces from Vietnam and he had to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table, who felt they were really winning and had no cause to be there, to negotiate. So he did "Operation Linebacker," which was an intensive bombing campaign in North Vietnam. And they came to the negotiating table and we were able to extricate ourselves from Vietnam. We need -- what we need is intense military pressure again for the

purpose of bringing them to the negotiating table. He's signaled in a very important way that that prospect of -- of some type of governance involving the Taliban. I think that was an important signal to send in his statement, in his speech last night, that clearly will be, you know -- that the Taliban will be paying attention to. That on one hand, it was the fist of toughness. And on the other hand, it was a statement saying that we want to negotiate with you, that there is a path to a negotiated settlement.

BLITZER: The president also directly challenged both Pakistan and India, neighbors over there, to do more in the region. As you know, Pakistan has been very much, at times, a key ally in regard to Afghanistan, but not necessarily all of the time.

Listen to something the vice president, Mike Pence, said earlier today, because I think it's significant. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Pakistan just simply needs to do more. We all think back of the time that the -- the mastermind of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was found living in a compound in Pakistan. Literally, within just a few short miles of their military academy.

We're putting them on notice. They need to step up as a partner. And if they want to see the United States continue to partner with them for security in the region, they need to do more to confront the terrorist organizations that are using particularly northern Pakistan, the Waziristan area as a safe haven.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. You're on the Armed Services Committee, Congressman. Did the Pakistani military protect Osama bin Laden?

COFFMAN: I -- there's still a question about that. But what is not in question is they're playing both sides in this war by allowing the -- the Afghan Taliban to have safe harbor in their country and -- and folks like the Haqqani network. It is -- they've been playing both sides and it's important to bring them onboard. It will be interesting to see the reaction from the Pakistani government, particularly vis-a-vis the fact we're asking India to play a larger role in Afghanistan. And they see India as a mortal throat their country. So I think -- I think both messages were important. And we'll have to see, you know, where the chips fall on this.

[13:35:17] BLITZER: The vice president, he said the U.S. now, the Trump administration is putting the Pakistani government on notice. And he, on his own, brought up the whole issue of Osama bin Laden hiding out in Pakistan a few miles away from their chief -- their main military command headquarters, their training facility over there. I thought that was significant.

We're going to follow-up on that, of course, a lot more and Pakistanis are watching all of this closely.

Congressman Mike Coffman, of Colorado, thanks as usual for joining us.

COFFMAN: Thank you.

BLITZER: The collision between the "USS John S. McCain" and an oil tanker off the coast of Singapore. When we come back, we'll have the latest on the sailors missing thought missing in the tragedy. Plus, a look at the Navy's plans to investigate how this accident happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:24] BLITZER: The U.S. Navy confirming that some remains of missing U.S. sailors have been found. Ten U.S. sailors had been missing since the "USS John S. McCain" collided with a tanker ship near Singapore on Monday, which prompted a rare one-day pause of operations for all U.S. Navy ships based in the region.

Matt Rivers is joining us live from Singapore.

Matt, what else are we learning about the ongoing search?

MATT RIVERS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's still going but, unfortunately, the news has not been good over the last 24 hours or so. We heard in the last couple of hours from the commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet who gave a press conference and confirmed this has now turned fatal. He said the U.S. Navy divers sent most of the day here in Singapore at the pier not far from where we are now going through the compartments, the sealed compartments inside the hull of that ship that were damaged as a result of this incident. And as they were able to access those compartments that is where they found some remains, as it was put by the admiral, of those missing U.S. sailors. He wouldn't say how many were recovered inside the hull of the ship.

And at the same time, Wolf, what you had was the Malaysian Navy, actually, who had been helping in the search-and-rescue operation, they found a body in waters near where this incident happened. That body now in the process of being transferred back to the U.S. Navy for identification.

And while they are still calling this a search-and-rescue operation, recovery, at this point, does seem to be coming upon us quickly.

BLITZER: There's also some new information, Matt, about the moments leading up to the crash. What have you and our team learned?

RIVERS: Yes. We know that a U.S. Navy official tells CNN it appears there was a steering failure shortly before this incident happened, and that a backup system either wasn't utilized or wasn't available. But also it isn't clear whether that steering issue was what actually caused this crash. So that's going to be one of the questions that the Navy is now asking as part of a broader review that it's now going to undertake throughout the entire U.S. Navy, not just what's going on here. Wolf, this is the fourth incident of ships deployed to this region, a part of the 7th Fleet of the U.S. Navy, that been involved in incidents in 2017 alone. Remember, it was in the middle of June that the "USS Fitzgerald" crashed into a container ship killing seven U.S. sailors. This is yet another fatality incident with this latest ship being involved in another crash. This time, with an oil tanker. The Navy rightly asking the question, what's going on here? Do we have systemic problems? And if we do, we clearly need to fix that moving forward.

BLITZER: Certainly do.

All right, Matt, thank you. Matt Rivers, in Singapore for us.

Retired rear admiral and CNN military analyst, John Kirby joins now.

Thanks so much, John, for joining us.

The ship's steering went out supposedly just before the crash. What potentially could cause a problem like that?

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY & DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: It could be anything. Could be maybe maintenance wasn't done. It could be an electronic or electrical failure causing some of the system to go down. They'll figure this out. If, in fact, it's true there was a steering casualty in the moments before the collision, I can't imagine that had something to do with the collision itself. Is it the only factor? Maybe not. Did the crew have other alternatives to try to get the steering back on? Yes. As Matt said, maybe they didn't utilize them or maybe they weren't available. We'll have to let the investigation pan itself out.

BLITZER: It's pretty unusual to have four warships involved in these accidents in this year alone in the same part of the world, isn't it?

KIRBY: Very unusual. You've got not only four accidents, Wolf, but four ship-handling-related accidents. Three collisions and a grounding, which all really get down to ship handling, all in the same region of the world. Which is why Admiral Richardson called for a comprehensive review of forward-deployed naval forces and their procedures and their standing certifications. They need do that soup- to-nuts and take a hard look at this. It's also why he ordered a one- day pause, or at least a one-day pause across the entire Navy, just to make sure we're looking at safety, safe navigation and, again, manning resources and equipping.

BLITZER: Admiral John Richardson is the chief of Naval operations. He's the chief of the U.S. Navy.

There have been some suggesting maybe there are cyberattacks that are aimed at these U.S. warships. Here's the tweet that he put out in response to those suggestions. This is from Admiral Richardson: "To clarify regarding possibility of cyber intrusion or sabotage, no indications right now. But review will consider all possibilities."

Is it plausible that some enemy of the United States is using a cyberattack to go and deal with the navigation, the steering, of these huge U.S. warships causing these four collisions?

[13:45:21] KIRBY: I think it's wise that the Navy is going to consider all factors and take a look at this. They have to, particularly in this networked environment we're in. There are some networks on the ship that are open. They're not open-open. They're secure. But, look, it's highly unlikely. The ship's cyber defenses are significant. Not, not saying they shouldn't look at it, but they're very significant.

And just to put a fine point on it, Wolf, when we talk about the steering system, the steering system on a ship, while it does have electronic components, it is not networked off the ship. There's no way into it from off the ship. So I think we can put that safely aside. But it's wise for the Navy to be willing to look at all factors here. That said, again, I find it highly unlikely that cyber intrusions would have anything to do with what happened.

BLITZER: And he says, no indications now, but review will consider all possibilities. If it is a cyberattack, that would be a huge, huge problem.

KIRBY: It would be, Wolf, but, honestly, I'd really be surprised if it had anything to do with this.

BLITZER: All right. We'll see what the investigation comes up with.

Thanks very much, John, for that.

Retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, our military analyst.

President Trump says his goal in Afghanistan is to win. But after 16 years of American boots on the ground, what does winning look like? We're going to discuss that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:04] BLITZER: The president of Pakistan is applauding President Trump's decision to commit more U.S. troops to the country to fight against the resurgent Taliban and other terrorists. In a statement, the Afghan president thanked the U.S. for supporting, quote, "the joint struggle against the threat of terrorism." But Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan, was certainly not too happy with the president's statements.

Let's discuss this and more. Joining us, retired Colonel Steven Warren, a CNN military analyst.

Steve, thanks very much for joining us.

The strategy that he unveiled last night, the president, from your perspective, as someone who spent 28 years in the military until recently, is it much different than what we've seen over the past 16 years?

COL. STEVEN WARREN, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Wolf, the strategy they unveiled is not significantly different. The key point, and he highlighted this, is he wanted it to be a condition based as opposed to a time-based situation. But other than that, essentially, it's the same strategy, perhaps with some of the rougher edges kind of filed down. There were edges to the Obama strategy that the military, the generals particularly, weren't comfortable with, limits to troop numbers, limits to authorities, some other limitations.

BLITZER: Listen to what the president said about Pakistan, a very sensitive issue. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country's harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. servicemembers and officials.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That does represent a change, the tough talk on Pakistan. We didn't necessarily hear that very often from the Obama administration or the Bush administration before that.

WARREN: Well, we didn't hear the tough talk as much, but if you'll recall, you know, under the Obama administration, there was a significant escalation of drone strikes against terror targets --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But the aid continued, the billions of dollars to Pakistan.

WARREN: It's certainly been a carrot-and-stick approach to Pakistan for many years, with strikes along the border, with aid coming to help them fortify themselves against these insurgencies. So it's a difficult situation. What we need to see, Wolf, is whether or not conditions on the ground actually change. Will we take a different approach to Pakistan or will we continue pace as we've been going for years?

BLITZER: But the dilemma of that the president used to feel -- because I interviewed him on this many times when he was a candidate or a private citizen, going back at least 15, 20 years. This war has been going on for 16 years. When the U.S. had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, couldn't get the job done, why should anyone believe 10,000 or 15,000 U.S. troops could get the job done.

WARREN: It's a legitimate question. And frankly, 10,000 or 15,000 troops won't make that much of a difference. Keep in mind that when there were 100,000 American troops, the Afghan army barely existed. Today, the Afghan army is over 300,000 strong. And it's gaining in capabilities. It's not nearly to the point that it could be and should be but it's much stronger than it was before.

BLITZER: Is it true that the Afghan government really only controls the major cities, the capital, Kabul, some other areas, but vast chunks of the country are controlled by the Taliban, other terrorist groups. And now, you can confirm this if you can, Iran is developing an ISIS of much greater involvement in Afghanistan. WARREN: ISIS is certainly trying to gain a foothold. And

interestingly enough, we see the Taliban fighting ISIS in certain parts of Afghanistan. We see vast swaths of Afghanistan that are either wholly ungoverned or that are controlled by the Taliban or other Haqqani network personnel. It's across the map. So, what we've seen is the ability of the Afghan forces to control anything outside of the cities really hasn't gotten up to par yet.

BLITZER: So do you think that when the president slightly opened up negotiations, talks to the Taliban, that's going to make a difference?

[13:55:06] WARREN: It is an important point. And if there is an opportunity, with no conditions attached, to talk to the Taliban, and the president is willing to do that, I think this is worth considering.

BLITZER: Steve Warren, our newest military analyst.

As I said yesterday, welcome to CNN. Good to have you here.

WARREN: Thanks. It's great to be here.

BLITZER: Thanks very much.

Steve Warner is our CNN military analyst, former spokesman over at the Pentagon.

That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. I'll be back 5:00 p.m. Eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM."

For our international viewers, "AMANPOUR" is coming up next.

For our viewers in North America, "NEWSROOM" today with Pamela Brown starts right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:59:57] PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Pamela Brown, in for Brooke Baldwin. Thanks for being here with us on this tuesday.

Well, one president, two very different speeches. Less than 24 hours after delivering a disciplined, on-script address on Afghanistan, President Trump is en route to a campaign-style rally in Arizona, where we typically see the president --