Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Pakistan Losing Ground to Insurgents?; Battling the Taliban in Afghanistan
Aired May 10, 2009 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Taliban insurgents threatened a large swath of the country, an important U.S. ally and a nuclear power. And the Taliban digging in their heels in neighboring Afghanistan.
During the next hour, we'll tell you why the outcome of this relationship between the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan also very important. We'll examine the nuclear threat at the heart of what's going on in Pakistan. And we'll also talk about what's next for U.S. troops already being dropped into the region, particularly in Afghanistan. Might they also be involved in a bigger way in Pakistan?
We'll also talk about Sharia law. What is it? The Taliban is threatening to bring it back in Afghanistan. Seven years after the Taliban fell. So, Pakistan and Afghanistan in this special hour of the NEWSROOM.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES: The United States has a stake in the future of these two countries. We have learned time and again that our security is shared. It is a lesson that we learned most painfully on 9/11 and it is a lesson that we will not forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: That's President Obama talking about it this week as he hosted the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan here in the U.S.. Also joining us to discuss these issues, CNN correspondents Reza Seyah, Stan Grant, Barbara Starr, representatives from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United Nations, and a former military intelligence officer as well. All of them joining us to get this discussion going. So let's begin with a look at what's taking place in the region. Let's begin with Reza Seyah in Pakistan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REZA SEYAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Day three of the Pakistani military offensive against the Taliban in the Swat region in the Pakistani army says they've killed another 55 militants on Saturday.
(voice-over): That's in addition to the 143 militants they say they killed on Friday. CNN is unable to verify these numbers because reporters are banned from the region.
The Pakistani government calling this operation a full scale military offensive. But what's also emerging is a full-scale humanitarian crisis. 200,000 civilians, according to the U.N., have already fled the region where the fighting is taking place. 300,000 other civilians are on their way out.
Under equipped hospitals according to U.N. officials overwhelmed with injured. Despite the humanitarian crisis, on Saturday, Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani says the operation will continue. He acknowledged the crisis but he says in order for the Taliban to be defeated, the operation must go on.
YOUSAF RAZA GILANI, PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER: This is not a normal war. This is a guerilla war. But it is our resolve, it is the resolve of the army, that there should be minimum collateral damage. And it should be over as soon as possible.
SEYAH (voice-over): Over the past two years, the Pakistani military has launched a half dozen offensives against the Taliban in the Swat Valley. They have never been able to defeat the Taliban. They've always fought to a stand still. But this time the government says things will be different. This time they say they will stay in the region until the Taliban is defeated.
(on camera): Also on Saturday, the 15th U.S. missile strike from an unmanned drone in the tribal region along the Afghan border, that strike, according to intelligence officials, killing five militants in south Waziristan. Reza Seyah, CNN, Islamabad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STAN GRANT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Fredricka, now that we've established that the air strikes themselves did kill the civilians the question is just how many casualties were there? Now U.S. military are putting the number at around about 50, others much higher. Afghan President Hamid Karzai say he has heard from his own government here that in fact more than 100 people were killed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: In an exclusive interview with our Wolf Blitzer. Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai has this to say about which is the biggest threat.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST (on camera): Who is the bigger threat to Afghanistan? The Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, or the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar?
PRES. HAMID KARZAI, AFGHANISTAN: None of them. They can cause damage. They can kill innocent people. They can destroy schools. But they're not a threat to Afghanistan. They can hurt. They can slow down our progress towards a better tomorrow. They can slow down the reconstruction. They can attack bridges and destroy them. But they're not a threat to the Afghan state or to the value system the Afghan people hold dear. BLITZER: I always ask you this question, and I'll ask it to you again. Do you know where Bin Laden is?
KARZAI: No, I don't know where he is, really. But I hope we will catch him one day, sooner or later.
BLITZER: Do you think he's in Afghanistan?
KARZAI: Definitely not, no. He can't hide in Afghanistan.
BLITZER: Where do you think he might be.
KARZAI: Well, there are rumors that he's probably in areas close to the Afghan border in Pakistan, but we don't know.
BLITZER: Do you believe he's alive?
KARZAI: Well, from what we hear, he probably is alive. But we don't know.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: I know this seems way far over there, but why what takes place in Afghanistan and Pakistan certainly does impact our lives here in the U.S. We're going to be delving into that a bit further. Meantime, Josh Levs has been receiving all kinds of e-mails from you about the relations between the U.S. and these two countries. What's next and what are the commitments, Josh.
JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I tell you. It's billions of dollars. Hi, Fred. Hey, what are you doing over there? I love all these cameras when we do this show. Billions of dollars, U.S. troops that have been over there, obviously lots of people weighing in and saying, you know what, we see that we have a stake in this. And I tell you, Fred, there's a lot of skepticism. Let's zoom in for just a second.
I'll show you some of the things coming through. Jeff Clark, one of our frequent Facebookers, wrote this on your Facebook page, Fredricka Whitfield CNN. Pakistan is about a day away from becoming a state under Taliban rule. Over here at our brand new CNN NEWSROOM blog, we got someone saying, you know what, the U.S. should ask the Afghan government to basically hold an election and see how many people actually support the Taliban, and if they don't, they should create an army to get rid of it.
Check this out. I'm just going to zoom through to see how many messages we're getting. They're coming to us, Facebook, twitter, my page Josh Levs CNN and the CNN NEWSROOM blog. We also got our e-mails weekends@cnn.com. And we're committed to getting answers to your questions. So keep them coming, we're going to pose them to our guests throughout the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Welcome back. We're focusing this entire hour on the relations between U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the importance of such at this point moving forward. We have some incredible guests with us today to answer some of your questions and concerns about the U.S. commitment to these two countries.
Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, also joining us, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad. And we'll be talking to both of them and they'll be answering some of your questions as well. Meantime, this week President Obama hosted the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan and he reiterated why it is so important for the U.S. to commit to both countries.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The United States has a stake in the future of these two countries. We have learned time and again that our security is shared. It is a lesson that we learned most painfully on 9/11 and it is a lesson that we will not forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right, several reasons why President Obama is concerned about the developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. One of the most crucial, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It could be disastrous if those nukes fell into the hands of, say, the Taliban. Carl Azuz has more on what's behind the push to stabilize the region.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARL AZUZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Afghanistan and Pakistan are half a world away. Why does it matter if President Obama meets with their leaders? Well, you've heard about the Taliban expanding its control in Pakistan. They used to be in control of neighboring Afghanistan. This is a group that didn't allow women to get an education, or even show their faces in public.
What are considered misdemeanors in the U.S. could mean a fatal beating under Taliban rule. There was no music, no TV, the most basic civil liberties didn't exist. And it was the Taliban that allowed the Al Qaeda terrorist group to set up shop in Afghanistan, getting armed, getting trained, and planning events like the September 11th attacks.
So you can see why it's important to the U.S. that the Taliban doesn't ever gain control in Pakistan, which also happens to have nuclear weapons. What about Afghanistan? Didn't the U.S. lead an effort to strike back at Al Qaeda and kick out the Taliban in 2001? Yes. But today, Afghanistan is anything but stable.
Like Pakistani President Asif ali Zardari, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is considered by many political analysts to be weak and unpopular in his home country. President Obama is sending 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan to help prevent the spread of militants there. And he's sending American civilian workers and billions of dollars to both Afghanistan and Pakistan in hopes of strengthening stability in the region. Carl Azuz, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE) WHITFIELD: And to underscore President Obama's message, Afghan President amid Karzai, while in Washington this week, underscored that Pakistan and Afghanistan do indeed have shared interests.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. HAMID KARZAI, AFGHANISTAN: Afghanistan is the closest neighbor of Pakistan. The closest brotherly, sisterly relation with Pakistan. We are like conjoined twins. We are not separable. We are one. We are together. We will live together, we will die together. But we will not die, we'll continue living together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: So that was President Hamid Karzai. So again, our guest now this hour, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. joining us from New York. Zalmay Khalilzad is with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, joining us from Washington and the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. Good to see both of you.
All right. Mr. Ambassador Haqqani, let me begin with you. Because President Karzai is saying like conjoined twins, Pakistan and Afghanistan are. Indeed, the similar or the same interests?
HUSAIN HAQQANI, PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Absolutely. Pakistan and Afghanistan have shared history, shared cultural ties. Our people have traded with each other, lived together with each other, for a very long time. And we fought the Soviet Union together. Remember, the Soviet Union got its greatest beating in Afghanistan at the hands of Afghan revolutionaries, people who fought for Afghanistan's freedom with the help of Pakistan, including President Karzai, who was in Pakistan during that period.
WHITFIELD: Mr. Khalilzad, Ambassador Khalilzad, if I could ask you, you know, you have to wonder about the relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan at this point forward. President Karzai made it clear that we had a special relationship, I'm paraphrasing his words, a special relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan because they began this fight together under the Bush administration.
However, now we're talking about a new administration in Pakistan, a new administration in the U.S. Does it hurt or help the cause?
ZALMAY KHALILZAD, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO AFGHANISTAN: Well, I think the important issue, that there is no difference between the parties, whether democrats or republicans or the Obama administration or the Bush administration, is that the challenge of extremism and the challenge of terror that confronts the world emanates from this region of Afghanistan, Pakistan. This is the crucible of extremism and terror.
What happens there will determine the future of extremism and terror to a large degree. There may be some differences in tactics between the two administrations but I think you've seen the results, the review that have taken place, some adjustments have been made in the Obama administration's approach to this. But on the fundamental issue, I think politically this administration, like the previous one, regards the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to be very important.
WHITFIELD: And Ambassador Haqqani, do you see the relations between Pakistan and the U.S. different? It's no longer under Musharraf's rule but instead, you know, Zardari? Are they off to a good start?
HAQQANI: Well, the most important thing is that the United States always finds it easier to befriend a democrat, although not in Pakistan, unfortunately. The history with Pakistan has been that the United States always ended up having a military-to-military relationship with our dictators.
So this time, because Pakistan's a democracy, Afghanistan is a democracy, and the United States is, of course, the world's oldest democracy, we have an opportunity to work on the basis of shared values and shared interests. Not just because the United States is underwriting the security or the financing of our military dictators.
WHITFIELD: Also, of interest and great concern is the nuclear interests of Pakistan and who would be at the controls, so to speak. I know Pakistan is asking the U.S. Congress for more money with which to continue to secure its border, secure the country. But at the same time the U.S. is saying, you know, before we are willing to agree to any more money we want some cooperation, we want access to this Pakistani scientist who apparently shared some nuclear -
(CROSSTALK)
HAQQANI: I would just stop you right there, because I think sometimes what happens is that there are what I call journalist's questions. And Pakistan's nuclear program is another journalist question. And because journalists keep asking it, congressmen start and keep asking it.
The truth of the matter is that those in the American administration who need to know and know something about nuclear weapons, and with all due respect not every journalist and not every member of Congress knows everything about nuclear weapons -
WHITFIELD: So you think that's not a legitimate question that should be asked from Congress?
HAQQANI: Well, basically, I think they should ask it -
WHITFIELD: As to why - intelligence shared with other countries --
HAQQANI: May I complete my answer? I think that they should actually ask the United States Intelligence Services that question. And whenever that question has been asked, American intelligence and the United States military has always said that they are satisfied with the command and control system of Pakistan's nuclear weapons -
WHITFIELD: Are you concerned that's going to perhaps stand in the way then of Pakistan being able to get more U.S. money?
HAQQANI: I think that is a different matter. You know that it is easier for failing insurance companies and car companies to get money from Congress too and that doesn't have anything to do with the merit of the case.
So I think sometimes we shouldn't mix things together and we should try and understand issues, especially since on your show you really want to make an effort to make Americans understand what's going on in the world.
WHITFIELD: And this is a great opportunity to do that, because we've invited a lot of our viewers to send some questions. Because people want clarity. There are areas that are very confusing and complex to them. So Josh Levs is here in the studio with me and he's got a number of questions, in fact, to both of you ambassadors, to try to perhaps, I guess, offer some real understanding. So that everyone is clear about what is at stake and where are we going from this point forward.
HAQQANI: So let's clear the nuclear question first.
WHITFIELD: OK. So -
HAQQANI: And the nuclear question, the answer to that is that Pakistan has a nuclear command and control system. We tested our nuclear weapons in 1998. It's been 11 years. No nuclear materials have ever been leaked to any terrorist or militant group, ever. And as long as Pakistan has a strong government and a strong military, there's no question whatsoever -
WHITFIELD: But that's what's being threatened, right? Isn't that?
HAQQANI: No, that is not true.
WHITFIELD: Right now by the Taliban.
HAQQANI: That is not true.
WHITFIELD: The strength of the government, the strength of the Pakistani military -
HAQQANI: That is not true either. I think that there again, people do not always get the right picture. Yes, the Taliban are present. And when they capture one particular area, your cameraman takes their images and that makes it seem as if the Taliban are about to override a country with a million-strong army.
WHITFIELD: OK.
HAQQANI: Americans are used to understanding wars like the second world war. When you defeated Japan, the Japanese surrendered and your forces took over the country. They don't always understand guerilla war in which people can come out of caves, hit and run a few places, shoot up a few people, blow up others but they certainly do not have the ability to take over the Pakistani state.
WHITFIELD: OK. Mr. Ambassador, we've got a couple more questions I want to get in and this time from the viewers. Josh, quickly, what do you have? LEVS: Ambassador Haqqani, I'm going to pick right up on where we just were. We're getting a lot of skepticism from our viewers, a lot of people saying, in fact, literally the opposite of what you just said. So I'm going to give you a chance to respond. Let's zoom in on the screen behind me. I want to show you an example of something Jeff wrote on a Facebook page.
He says Pakistan is about a day away from becoming a state under Taliban rule. He jokes if it's not the case by air time. Obviously you reject that notion. But do this for me. Give me a realistic picture of the amount of power and influence that the Taliban has right now in your country.
HAQQANI: Well, apparently there are several thousand Taliban. They come out every now and then. They take over some region, some village. And of course because Pakistan does not have the capacity to have reinforced military posts or police stations in every village of a country of 160 million people, therefore it's very easy for them to put on a show every now and then. But they're not about to overrun the entire country.
LEVS: OK.
HAQQANI: They're limited geographically. And when the military goes back, it fights them back. The situation is not very different, for example, from how it was in Iraq in the beginning. The terrorists were able to hit and run but they were never able to take over Baghdad, and the same with Pakistan. What Pakistan needs is the ability not only to defeat the terrorists but also to hold on to territory and make sure that number of Taliban dwindles down -
WHITFIELD: All right.
HAQQANI: And the people who join the ranks of the Taliban are fewer and fewer.
LEVS: And ambassador, we'll continue to follow that. Really quickly, this time, I want to turn to Ambassador Khalilzad. If I could for a moment, because a lot of talk also from our viewers about the amount of influence that the Taliban has in Afghanistan. I want to zoom in quickly, and then we'll go take a look at this from Dan Nelson at the CNN NEWSROOM blog.
Short version of this, he wants the U.S. to ask Afghanistan to hold an election asking how many people support the Taliban. Sir, ambassador, if they were to do that, inside Afghanistan, what would the results be, do you think? How much support is there really on the ground in Afghanistan?
WHITFIELD: And this is aside from the fact that you have an election coming this fall and President Karzai's job is on the line, right?
KHALILZAD: Yes. Well, based on public opinion polls that have been conducted in Afghanistan, and of course the circumstances are difficult. One doesn't know how reliable these are. But reliable organizations have conducted them, and they said that perhaps there is as much as 20 percent or so support, perhaps, for the Taliban. And in fact, a former Taliban member has nominated, has petitioned, submitted his papers to run for president.
I don't believe that the Taliban are very popular in Afghanistan. But because of the weaknesses and in terms of government, because of the porousness of the border, Taliban going back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan, they are a threat, particularly to eastern and southern Afghanistan.
WHITFIELD: OK. And real quickly, Ambassador Khalilzad, President Karzai is asking the U.S. to end its combat operations because of most recently so many civilians being used allegedly as human shields by the Taliban there. Do you agree that - with what the president is saying? That U.S. operations need to just end right here? And if that's the case, then how do you try to defeat the Taliban or these extremists?
KHALILZAD: I think the civilian casualty issue is a very important issue. And every effort needs to be made to avoid civilian casualties. It's a problem that we don't have enough ground forces, Afghan and coalition, to carry out the population protectionist strategy. So air power is relied upon to respond to the threat by the Taliban and sometimes the weapon goes wrong, sometimes the Taliban hides among people in homes.
So civilian casualties do take place. But I think what is required is to adjust the strategy and to minimize the possibility of civilian casualties. But stopping military operations altogether would send the wrong message. It will not be good for Afghanistan. It will not be good for Pakistan. It certainly will not be good for the struggle against extremism and terror.
WHITFIELD: All right. Ambassador Haqqani and Ambassador Khalilzad, we're going to try and continue this conversation, get a little bit more time out of you. Because we've got so many more e-mail questions coming from people. Josh Levs is fielding them there.
And we also have to address the issue of in Pakistan, we're now talking about thousands of Pakistani civilians who are being forced into refugee camps because simply they feel like they have no other place to go that is safe.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: We're continuing our conversation about the U.S. relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan. As so much bubbles up in that region, particularly as the Taliban is showing that they are gaining strength. So we're continuing our conversation fuelled by a lot of your questions that you've been sending to us all day.
Joining us right now, the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani. Joining us from New York and former Afghanistan ambassador to the U.S., Zalmay Khalilzad, now a counselor for Strategic and International Studies. And Josh Levs with us right now as well.
So Josh, we've got a lot of people who have asked questions about - LEVS: Yes.
WHITFIELD: The growing of poppy and the heroin drug trade. We know that that is what's fueling the fight for the Taliban, fueling them financially as well. What's the question going to former Ambassador Khalilzad on that?
LEVS: Absolutely. I'll tell you. Unfortunately a lot of our viewers are responding to CNN viewing on the ground about those poppy fields. And ambassador, I'm going to close in on the board behind me. I'm going to show you a question that we received from Victoria here who talks about President Hamid Karzai having talked about the effort to stamp out poppy production in 12 provinces in Afghanistan. Is it realistic, sir, to think this will ever be possible?
KHALILZAD: Well, certainly it will not be easy. And it will take time. The strategy that has been pursued so far has not produced the kind of results that would have been expected. There is need for adjustment. There has to be greater efforts at alternative livelihood. There has to be greater efforts at interdiction. There has to be greater effort to bring to justice those in government who are involved in facilitating narcotics trafficking.
But as long as there is demand in the world for narcotics, they will be produced somewhere. But a more effective strategy can push it out or reduce it from Afghanistan. But it remains a big challenge and is a threat to the new Afghan system, the potential for criminalization not only of the economy but also of the politics of the country can take place as a result of this cancer that is affecting the Afghan economic and political system.
WHITFIELD: Mr. Ambassador, President Karzai's gotten a lot of flack. Some have actually criticized him that he has not been doing enough to respond to the poppy and the heroin problem. And that he's been complacent and actually, you know, turned the other cheek. His response was, he has made some firings. He's looked and tried to weed out corruption. But are Afghans in general feeling like he has been doing enough?
KHALILZAD: Well, I don't know. I mean, he's not as popular as he used to be in Afghanistan, that's clear. But -
WHITFIELD: Is that in part why?
KHALILZAD: Well, I'm sure -
WHITFIELD: The drug trade?
KHALILZAD: This is part of the reason. He's been there for a long time, seven, eight years. That also I'm sure that's a factor. But at the same time it's fair to say that the coalition, and international community, has not done enough.
WHITFIELD: OK.
KHALILZAD; That we have not changed our strategy appropriately. We have not followed a strategy that has good relationship between ends and means. Afghans by themselves cannot handle this problem. And many of the areas where poppies are grown, there is a lot of coalition presence there. So we have to look at both what they can do more to be effective, and what we can do together with them to enable them to do more.
WHITFIELD: OK. And Josh, you have a question from a viewer who's really asking about whether Pakistan's army can really take on the Taliban. We know that some U.S. officials have actually said they're concerned about whether Pakistan's army really is equipped to deal with the kind of warfare that the Taliban would be prepared to carry out.
JOSH LEVS: Equipment and loyalty. That's what I want to post to Ambassador Haqqani. Lets zoom in, I want to show you something that we got from Brian here on Facebook, the American public has heard elements in the Pakistani government and military have been running operations independent of their elected leadership. Tell me sir, realistically and honestly, are there large numbers inside the Pakistani military that actually are not responding to the elected leadership and are taking part in other activities there?
HUSAIN HAQQANI, PAKISTAN'S AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: I think that we are -- have a patent in Pakistan in the past of military intervention and politics we've had full coups so that's why people have these suspicions. That the fact of the matter is that no one in the Pakistani army wants Pakistan to be Talibanized. They do not want Pakistan's young women not to ever go to school. That's not the issue here --
LEVS: No one at all? No one in the army wants that?
HAQQANI: Probably very few. Not significant enough to --
LEVS: Not enough to impact the military?
HAQQANI: Not enough to impact the military. What happened is that when General Musharraf ruled the country, because he combined the offices of army chief and president, his mistakes were often attributed to the military as an institution. That has changed now but it will take some time for that change to manifest itself. The important thing to understand is that the Taliban derived their support from disenchantment with the United States, disenchantment with westernization and globalization. And the feeling of helplessness and hopelessness than the poor of Pakistan in certain areas have. So if we can drain the swamp of that poverty, we can deprive the Taliban of recruits.
WHITFIELD: Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani and former Afghanistan ambassador to the U.S. --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Former U.S. ambassador of Afghanistan.
WHITFIELD: Former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, sorry, Hamid Khalilzad. Thanks so much. Now counselor, working with the counselor for strategic and international studies. That's a mouthful. Thank you gentlemen, I appreciate it and thanks so much for answering all of our viewers' questions as well.
We've got much more straight ahead particularly about the refugee crisis that now has been produced in Pakistan.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: More now on our focus. An hour-long focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, what's taking place in the region and what's the U.S. commitment to it. In Pakistan we know now that a million people are considered refugees. Forced from their homes in the Swat Valley because they simply say they just don't feel safe. Let's talk more about this with Tim Irwin, the spokesman for the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. Also with us, Ken Robinson, a former military intelligence officer, joining us from Los Angeles. In part because he can also talk about how the U.S. military might be playing a role in what is now a refugee humanitarian crisis. All right, let me begin with you, Tim. The numbers right now, a million or so people. What's your greatest concern about how these people can get help and for how long will they be living in these tent cities?
TIM IRWIN, SPOKESPERSON, U.N. HIGH COMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES: That million figure actually refers to two different displacement episodes. The current episode we're witnessing at the moment in northwest Pakistan has displaced -- government estimates would suggest about 500,000 people. Our biggest concern for them at the moment is that this wave of people is continuing to flow out of the conflict areas, south to an area where there are relief infrastructures in place. We're estimating about 30,000 people are making that journey every day. Pakistani government estimate the 200,000 people have pled fled to safe areas. But there are additional 300,000 people who are on the move. This is a massive displacement of individuals. And a significant infrastructure needs to be put in place to ensure that they have adequate protection --
WHITFIELD: Oh, boy. Time frame on a significant infrastructure. What do you mean when you say that, exactly? Because there will be no throwing up of buildings or real kind of more permanent structures to help house all that's people. What do you mean?
IRWIN: We're talking much more basic. We're talking displacement camps, tents, access to clean drinking water, sanitation, obviously, to avoid the outbreak of disease. UNHCR working with government partners have already constructed three. These are already nearly full. A fourth camp is about to go into action later this week. And obviously, we've got teams on the ground scouting for other locations where new camps can be built.
WHITFIELD: Tim, it also means working with non government organizations and then sometimes we're talking about other allied troop forces which is why I want to bring in Ken Robinson here. Ken, as far as we understand, U.S. military forces that have been in the area of Pakistan and Afghanistan really have been kind of combat- ready. Do you see their role shifting, potentially, to help in this humanitarian crisis?
KEN ROBINSON, FMR. MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Not initially, Fredricka. One of the challenges that we have to look exactly at what the government of Pakistan does versus what they say. Their ambassador was very diplomatic in the previous 15 minutes. However, what they do is they are unwilling to move forces away from their Indian border with fear of the Indian army. They feel that that is the clear and present threat to their national security.
They've always looked at the Taliban as an irritant and it's only been very, very recently that they realize that now that the Taliban is 60 miles outside of their capital, that they have a real problem. They ceded the whole control of the Swat Valley. It will be very unlikely for the United States to want to step into that when Pakistan's own military is not willing to wade into that and own that problem full bowl.
WHITFIELD: Tim, talk to me about the real challenges here of working under such hostile conditions, for your volunteers, for your staff, for other groups that are willing to help out in a humanitarian way.
IRWIN: We have specialist emergency teams who get deployed to these sort of situations around the world on a regular basis. The conditions for them are obviously very difficult. But they're also expert at very quickly getting out the kind of settlement and the basic infrastructure that's needed to ensure that people are safe and have access to help, to water and food. What we're concerned about at the moment are those people who are still trapped within the conflict zone. Humanitarian agencies such as ours and others are not able to access them. We hear disturbing reports that people are being kept from moving out to safe areas. And so we would certainly call on all parties in this to ensure that humanitarian principles are upheld. And that freedom of movement is allowed to all of those caught up in this conflict.
WHITFIELD: Reinforcements being brought in on a humanitarian level. Ken, when we talk about reinforcements on a military level, from the U.S. military, we already know President Obama committing more troops, many of whom were deployed to Iraq now being relocated to Afghanistan. Talk to me about the concerns that are facing a lot of military personnel about whether indeed the 21,000 or so troops already recommitted to Afghanistan is enough, and if they're equipped to deal with the terrain there and really what is at hand.
ROBINSON: Great question. The real concern is the Duran line, that line between the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The fact that it's very porous. The fact that neither side, neither Afghanistan or Pakistan, has demonstrated an ability to prevent the Taliban from moving back and forth and having sanctuary. Also, the United States government has made it very clear in the last few days how much they believe that the military solution alone is not the answer, that it must be economic. The government of Pakistan and Afghanistan, just in the last 24 hours, have finally agreed on a memorandum of understanding to try to get trade flowing back and forth between the two. An argument that had been going on for 43 years. And they're just now coming to a memorandum of understanding. Without that trade, you cannot have infrastructure. Without infrastructure, you can't have governance. And so security is the key role now to allow that to happen. WHITFIELD: Military analyst Ken Robinson thanks so much and Tim Irwin, spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, thanks so much for having this spirited conversation about the humanitarian and military assistance now going to that region. Thanks so much, gentlemen. Appreciate it.
One of the things the Taliban says it wants to bring back, particularly to Afghanistan, Sharia law. What does that mean for women and girls?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: I'm Fredricka Whitfield, welcome back to this special hour devoted to the U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan. The strengthening Taliban is threatening both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the powers within and they're also threatening to bring back Sharia law, particularly in Afghanistan. What exactly does that mean? We've got a special guest with us right now, Sumbul Ali-Karamali, the author of "The Muslim Next Door" she joins us now from San Francisco. All right Sumbul, so most of us understand the Taliban to be a control within Afghanistan particularly, what we saw more than seven years ago. It means in part girls can't go to school, women are not allowed some basic human rights. Is that what is being threatened to be brought back if indeed the Taliban gains strength, gains control in Afghanistan?
SUMBUL ALI-KARAMALI, AUTHOR, "THE MUSLIM NEXT DOOR": Well, you know, as an academic and as a Muslim, I'm just outraged that the idea of Sharia, which is what they're claiming to bring back, is associated with the kinds of things that they do. Because Sharia actually just means "the way of God." And it's a set of principles in Islam. So in fact, I can lay them out for you right now. They're the protection of life, the protection of family, the protection of intellect, the protection of property --
WHITFIELD: What people have come to associate with Sharia law is it really means that women and girls are treated as second-class citizens and that's what the Taliban means right when they say we want to bring it back to Afghanistan?
ALI-KARAMALI: The Taliban are completely ignorant of what Sharia is. They're not applying Sharia, they're applying their version of Islam. It's ironic and tragic because the Koran and Mohammad actually gave women more rights in the seventh century than any other legal system in the world has --
WHITFIELD: But that's not what they're threatening to do, is that right? Just for clarity's sake of what the Taliban, whether or not they're using the definition properly or not, their intent is to make sure that women and young girls are not given the same basic human rights. Right?
ALI-KARAMALI: Yes. I think that's right. They're completely in violation of Sharia. They completely violate Sharia.
WHITFIELD: How worried are you about that? ALI-KARAMALI: That's what they do, they brutalize women. I'm horrified. I think they need to be stopped. They don't -- they act in the name of Islam but what they're doing is completely violating. They're supposed to be protecting life and yet they're murdering innocent people. They're supposed to be protecting intellect, instead they're burning down schools. It's just appalling.
WHITFIELD: So these are some of the concerns we have from a number of viewers who have been sending us e-mails all day about this. Looking for some clarity, Josh, what do you have as it pertains to what might be brought back based on what the Taliban's promises are?
JOSH LEVS: Yeah it's interesting you know Fred but a lot of people are talking about in this context. Is this version of Sharia law, what we've been seeing from the Taliban. Is it being used in a way particularly to keep people down? I'm going to zoom in on the board. I just want to show you one example of something Timothy's saying, "Without eliminating poverty and providing education to lift people out of despair, will any amount of money or arms or lives be enough?
And what we're finding is a lot of people, this is on Facebook, it's on Twitter, have sent e-mail. A lot of people pointing to Sharia law and this version of religious law as one example of authorities trying to keep people down. To what extent do you understand them to be succeeding? And honestly what can be done to try to translate your version of Sharia law to people who are in that situation?
ALI-KARAMALI: Yes, well you know this isn't just my version of Sharia law. Sharia law is actually a very confusing term because it implies some sort of a codified law. Sharia is a set of principles. Talibans are as one of my friend says off the reservation. They have nothing to do with Sharia law. Increasingly Muslims have to step in and reject this kind of extremism and reject violence and that's one reason I wrote my book, was to try to explain what Sharia is actually and how it's so completely removed from the Taliban. There's an increasing number of Muslim organizations that are taking a stand against this kind of violence. I'm working with a group of Muslim women who are working on a project called jihad against violence. And this is what needs to be done --
LEVS: I saw about 10 different messages coming in on all these different forums that talk about that. Kind of call for what you're calling for, more Muslim leaders and leaders of Muslim nations to take action. It sounds from what you're saying that you agree with some of our viewers out there that leaders of Muslim nations and some Muslim leaders in the world need to do a lot more than what they've done so far.
ALI-KARAMALI: That's right. I think it's important to remember that no Muslim majority country recognizes the Taliban as legitimate. And the overwhelming majority of Muslims are horrified and terrified at what they're doing. Because they are not Muslim. They are not -- well, they consider themselves Muslims but they're ignorant, they're barely educated, barely literate. What they're doing is power play and brutality. WHITFIELD: And wielding a lot of power and seemingly gaining some too. Sumbul Ali-Karamali, author of "The Muslim Next Door" joining us from San Francisco, thanks so much for answering our questions.
ALI-KARAMALI: Thank you so much for having me.
WHITFIELD: And the questions of our viewers as well. Of course right after this we're going to have many more comments from you about this entire hour devoted to U.S., Afghanistan, Pakistan relations.
Meantime, today's edge of discovery. Just a little diversion here. For a mere $200,000, you too can train to be an astronaut. CNN's Deborah Feyerick has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, damn, I feel good!
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): By the looks of it Joshua Bush is going to space. But he's not in a spaceship. At least not yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just relax, enjoy the ride right now.
FEYERICK: When Bush takes a spin in this human centrifuge, one of the most realistic flight simulators in the world, he feels the pressure of powerful G-forces on his body and even a brief moment of weightlessness. For about $6,000, almost anyone can get a similar experience at the National Aerospace Training and Research Center called NASTAR.
GLENN KING, NASTAR CENTER: It's realistic. The same forces that will happen during a real flight happen here during training.
FEYERICK: But for Bush, this isn't just a thrill ride.
JOSHUA BUSH, "SPACE" AGENT: One of the reasons why I'm here today is to gain a better understanding of the NASTAR center and how their products can relate to my clients.
FEYERICK: Bush is an intergalactic travel agent selling tickets for Richard Branson's newest out of this world adventure. For $200,000, you can get high-tech training and a front row seat on the world's first spacecraft designed specifically for tourism.
BUSH: So it's going to be almost an eerie but calming silence as you look out one of the huge portholes at the curvature of the earth, the edge of the atmosphere, and you'll be floating.
FEYERICK: Building and testing are under way now. If all goes according to plan, the first space tourists will be soaring by 2011.
BUSH: Great ride.
FEYERICK: Deborah Feyerick, CNN.
(END OF VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Some final thoughts now on the U.S. relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan. We're hearing from you and Josh Levs is going to guide us through. Final thoughts and comments.
LEVS: I'll tell you, we've got a lot of questions in. We also hear from people with a lot of comments. So I'm going to walk over here to the screen and I'll show you. Throughout the show we've been following your comments. We've got everything going, twitter, facebook, our CNN Newsroom blog. Let's zoom in I'll show you a few. Jeff Clark one of our frequent Facebookers here, I question Pakistan's will power to confront an invasion into their sovereign state. Let's jump over here. More on Facebook, Judy. It appears the closest thing to stability in Pakistan is the military which benefits from the fear of India. Let's get into twitter. Pakistan needs to be the most committed nation in the effort to rebuilding their neighbor. Now after the show's over discussions keep going. You have Fredricka Whitfield's Facebook page right here, FredrickaWhitfieldCNN, we're so happy she's on Facebook now. And you've got my Facebook page right here --
WHITFIELD: I'm such a late bloomer.
LEVS: There's mine, Josh Levs. Let's get back to Fred. We're going to keep those discussions going on both of those, also my twitter page, joshlevscnn. A lot of serious topics Fred and of course we're going to keep covering these big-time. And following them right here on this show.
WHITFIELD: Thanks so much to our viewers for helping to fuel the conversation with great questions. Josh, thanks to you. We had ambassadors Husain Haqqani and Zalmay Khalilzad also with us as well as Sumbul Ali-Karamali and Ken Robinson, thanks to everybody for being part of this. I'm Fredricka Whitfield, see you again tomorrow.
Up next, take a look right now at live pictures of the red carpet. They have that at the White House correspondents' dinner in Washington. Live pictures right there, a lot of folks lining up just for a glimpse of the president, the first lady, and all the other invited guests.
Plus, take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: The economy is bad. Money is tight. So, what does that mean for mom on mother's day? I'm Don Lemon. I'm going for a ride behind the scenes with the Fed Ex delivery man to tell us how mom is making out on this mother's day.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: And hopefully Don making a delivery to his mom too on mother's day. Happy mother's day to his mom, my mom, everybody else's mom. Josh, your mom on this mother's day weekend. Have a great one every one.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Tornado fury, deadly twisters tear through the nation and the same part of the country is on track to get hit again. California is burning. Ferocious wildfires eat up thousands of miles and no home is safe. There are new developments but the danger is not over yet.
Compromising picture. The photo op that terrified New York has cost a White House official his job. Did he resign? Or was he fired? We have new information.
Meet the press. Take them on. The president usually feels the heat here. Tonight, his chance to turn the tables. No questions asked.
