Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
All U.S. Troops To Be Out Of Iraq; End of the War in Iraq; Demise of a Dictator; Herman Cain and the Politics of Abortion
Aired October 21, 2011 - 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: All right, so top of the hour, let me just reset and tell our viewers who might just be tuning in what's going on.
The president of The United States, just moments ago, went into the White House Briefing Room and announced that the war in Iraq is about to end for the United States. That all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year. There are about 45,000 U.S. troops there right now.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, is now taking questions, the President didn't take questions. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN LIVE COVERAGE)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And on my right, the vice president's national security advisor, Tony Blinken and they are here to take your questions about the announcement the president just made. After that, why don't we give your questions to them on that subject or other subjects they may be able to help you with, and then I will remain to take your questions on other subjects.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nine years for complete withdrawal is in the White House's assessment, is this a victory for the United States and if I could follow up just -- if you could answer that, then follow up.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I think one of the more poignant moments in the civics (ph) downstairs, the secure video conference was when President Obama congratulated prime minister Maliki and the people of Iraq for getting to this momentous moment. And when importantly prime minister Maliki congratulated President Obama, and our troops, and our diplomats for all they've done.
So, when the president laid out a vision for the future of Iraq in February 2009 down in Camp Lejeune, many of you were there, he said what we are looking for is an Iraq that's secure, stable an self- reliant and that's exactly what we got here. So, there's no question this is a success.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And specifically, long discussions over the issue of immunity. Had that issue been resolved, would the president have preferred to have had trainers -- remain U.S. trainers -- U.S. troops remain there as trainers?
MCDONOUGH: What the president preferred was for the best relationship for the United States and Iraq going forward. That's exactly what we have now as a result of the painstaking work of importantly our commanding general there, Lloyd Austin, and our ambassador, Jim Jeffrey. And what we've done over the course of these last three years has indicate -- the president's indicated his, not only commitment to fulfilling that security agreement, but also his willingness to hear out the Iraqis on what kind of relationship they want to have going forward.
So, we talked about immunities, there's no question about that. But the decision -- and the president will insist on our troops having what they need no matter where they are but the bottom line is the decision that you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his view and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship that we want to have going forward.
That relationship is a normal relationship, that's based on a diplomatic lead, no -- a civilian presence in the lead, but also will have important security components as our relationships diplomatically all around the world have from Jordan to Egypt to Columbia to other countries that have similar kinds of security components. So, we feel like we got exactly what we need to protect our interests and the Iraqis feel the same way.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you guys are confident that the Iraqi security forces are very well equipped to take the lead without any further assistance or (INAUDIBLE)?
MCDONOUGH: Well, I think we feel very proud of the work that our guys have done -- civilian and military have done in training the Iraqis. I think importantly they've work together over the course of these last several years, not only trained together but also deployed, partnered together. Very robustly.
And I think as we've done this -- and Tony can attest to this as well, as we've done very intensively, frankly, over the course of the last seven or eight months, a full review of where we stand with the Iraqis, one assessment after another about the Iraqi security forces came back saying these guys are ready, these guys are capable, these guys are proven. Importantly, they're proven because they've been tested and a lot of the kinds of threats that they're going to see going forward. So, we feel very good about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even though the troops are coming home, major attacks continue in Iraq. You didn't feel as you said that the Iraqi security forces are prepared for that. But what was the hold-up? What prevented an agreement being reached on leaving trainers behind when so many independent analysts (ph) as well as U.S. officials said training was essential to get those troops in order?
MCDONOUGH: You know, Matt, it's important -- I think it is important to point out that we have -- we have a capacity to maintain trainers. In fact, the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq will have a capacity to train Iraqis on the new kinds of weapons and weapon systems that the Iraqis are going to buy, including, importantly, like the F-16s that they just purchased just about a month ago. So, we will have a training capacity there. We'll have the kind of normal training relationship that we have with countries all over the world. You'll see, for example, central command looking for opportunities to have increased naval cooperation. You'll see opportunities and naval exercises, opportunities to have increased Air Force training and exercise opportunities.
So, we're going to have the kind of robust security cooperation with the Iraqis that we have with important allies all around the world. So, the suggestion of your question that somehow there's not going to be training is just not accurate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE.)
MCDONOUGH: The main -- the main purpose -- the main purpose of the effort that we undertook, Matt, over the course of not only the last several months and intensively Tony and I, but also over the last several years was the establishment of a normal relationship with a secure, stable and self-reliant Iraq that allows them in the region of a considerable unrest at the moment to chart the kind of secure future that they want. That was the goal. Not some kind of arrangement around immunities. And in getting this kind of goal, this kind of fulfilling this goal of a secure relationship, a secure, stable, self- reliant Iraq, we got exactly what we need.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said the Iraq mission was ending as a success. Is that the same as mission accomplished?
MCDONOUGH: I'll let you check your thesaurus, I'm sorry on that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Has this created an open door for Iran to assert influence in Iraq and what's the U.S. plan to counter Iranian power there?
MCDONOUGH: Well, the fact of the matter is that I think as you stack up where the Iranians feel they stand right now in 2011 after years of the kind of international -- united international pressure that they've seen over the last several years, the kind of, frankly, robust outcry against the kind of activity that we saw announced just last week as it relates to them not living up to their obligations under the convention to which they're party to protect diplomats, of all things.
So, I think what you're seeing is in the first instance an Iran that is weaker and that is more isolated. So, we don't need to try to exercise our influence on those matters through Iraq. We, frankly, do that as a course -- matter of course through the United Nations bi- laterally with our friends throughout the region.
And so, we're obviously concerned about Iran's unwillingness to live up to its obligations, be that on human rights, be that on their nuclear program, or be that on something as simple as protecting diplomats wherever they're serving. We have concerns about that, but we don't have concerns about our ability to make sure that the Iraqis can exercise the kind of sovereignty that they want. I think it's important to highlight one critical fact as we look at Iraq's future. If you see the kind of increased production of Iraq oil output as we've seen over the last couple years, over the next two years, they'll surpass Iranian output for oil production. So, this is just one indicator of the kind of very positive future that we think the Iraqis have in front of them.
BLITZER: That was McDonough, president's deputy national security advisor briefing reporters over at the White House after the president's dramatic announcement that from the U.S. perspective, the war in Iraq will be over at the end of this year when the remaining approximately 40,000 to 45,000 U.S. troops will completely be out of Iraq. Dennis McDonough insisting that this is exactly what the U.S. wants even though there has been a failure, at least so far, to work out any new agreement with the Iraqi government and prime minister Nouri al Maliki to maintain at least some U.S. troops in Iraq after the start of next year, 3,000 to 5,000, which had been the hope of a lot of U.S. officials.
But Nouri al Maliki's government refused to provide the immunity that's currently provided to all U.S. military personnel in Iraq, and as a result, those negotiations apparently collapsed at least for now.
Chris Lawrence is our Pentagon correspondent. Chris, all U.S. military forces will be out. I assume there will be a handful, 50, 100 U.S. marines that will protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. That's the largest U.S. embassy in the world. Thousands of American diplomats and contractors are stationed there. There will be some other Marines, I assume, at the consulates or other places. But for all practical purposes, the Pentagon is going to be out of the picture as far as the future of Iraq is concerned. The State Department, the CIA will take over.
Unfortunately, Chris Lawrence, we've lost him over at the Pentagon.
And our Gloria Borger is here. Gloria, you've been e-mailing with a lot of your sources, texting and getting information that's coming in. But this will be a rather modest U.S. military presence. Just a few Marines protecting the Embassy, and maybe some Iraqis will come over here to bases in the United States for training. But there won't be any U.S. military bases in Iraq anymore.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. And I think, to the point that you were just making, and Dennis McDonough just made, which is essentially, we have other ways of dealing with Iran, don't worry so much about Iran. We believe it's weaker and more isolated and this withdrawal from Iraq does not mean that we've taken our eye off the ball as far as Iran is concerned. And there is the state department. There is the CIA. There are other ways to deal with Iran and the larger point he says is that -- when he was asked a question about victory, he said Iraq is secure, stable and self- reliant.
BLITZER: Yes, and let's hope it stays that way.
BORGER: Well, that's the question.
BLITZER: After 2000 -- at the end of this year 2012, there are going to be a lot of questions as far as the future of Iraq is concerned. We're watching all of this unfold. John King is watching it as well. John, as you take a look at what the president said, what Dennis McDonough, his Deputy National Security Advisor said, you know that there's going to be a lot of reaction coming in, including a reaction, I assume, from some of the president's Republican critics, including some of the presidential candidates.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And some of the Republican critics in Congress and an independent Senator in Congress, Joe Lieberman, we know, Wolf, they thought it was very critically important to keep that residual force, whether it's 3,000, 5,000, some thought it should be in the ballpark of 15,000 or 20,000. That debate will play out now, but it is very clear from the president's standpoint those negotiations are over. And he said he's going to keep the promise he made as a candidate for president in 2008 and get all U.S. troops out by the end of this year.
If you look at the map of Iraq right now, you see the dots where we have Mosul, Kirkuk, Decri (ph), you see these dots here, the biggest base obviously here in Baghdad. The military has divided Iraq for the last few years essentially into three pieces, northern, central and southern Iraq. Bosra down here, during the Iraq war, this was largely the domain of the British troops. With the small American military presence here and military presence -- American military presence throughout these other places. So you see, if you go back and look, this is during the surge -- the big surge.
And remember, this was happening in the Bush administration. Then Senator Barack Obama opposed the surge. He said it was a reckless policy under the Bush administration. You see all these blue dots, that was the surge of U.S. troops, a much larger U.S. military presence at that time as the surge played out.
Now, if you look back in time, almost nine years, the war started here, in March. You saw about 150,000 at the beginning. Then troop levels came down, the Bush administration thought early on it could start to drop them down, then of course we all remember the significant problems in Iraq. And you see the troop level seize (ph) sign a little bit. Here's the surge area right here where they actually went higher. The surge brought U.S. troop levels higher than they were at the beginning of the war, and then since then, there's been this slow drawdown. And then in the last couple of years, a dramatic drawdown. Remember it was in 2010, just last year, that the number of troops in Afghanistan actually passed the number of troops in Iraq.
As of today, little more than 90,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The president saying today, that number will continue to drop. But they're not supposed to go home until 2014. About 30,000 troops in Iraq right now. We're having this conversation in the middle of October, a very ambitious logistical operation to get 39,000 troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. But that is what the president says will take place. As we have this conversation, Wolf, it is sad but important that we remember this. More than 4,400 Americans lost their lives over the nearly nine years of this war. You see the highest casualties in 2004, 2005, this is when things were going south in Iraq and then during the surge -- when you had the troop surge.
So obviously, you had increased military tempo, you had increased fatalities as well. Fewer in recent years, but 4,400 -- more than 4,400 brave Americans lost their lives during this war that has, as we all know, become a huge political controversy here in the United States. And just for point of reference, 1,800 in the 10 years the United States has been in Afghanistan. 1,800 troops have lost their lives there, the larger number, 4,400 in Iraq.
So, there will be a political debate about this, Wolf, there will be a policy debate, security debate about whether you need that residual force. But you heard it very clearly from the president, he believes this is a promise he made and it is a promise he is going to keep now, all U.S. troops. And again, that's a big logistical challenge, so if they don't make it until December 30th, it might slip into early January, but all troops coming out of Iraq ending the war. It will not end the political debate, the historic cal debate about whether it was the wise course to begin with.
BLITZER: Yes, that debate will certainly continue. John, stand by, our own Fareed Zakaria is joining us on the phone right now.
Fareed, I know you're getting ready for an exclusive interview with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I assume you're in Tiran right now listening to the President of the United Stated, and I know our viewers here in the United States and around the world are anxious for your thoughts on what the president has just announced.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" (on the phone): Well, I think it's just as you and John King have been pointing out. But it is important to point out this is the disappointment for the United States. The United States was in active negotiations with the Iraqi government to try to retain a residual force. I know that the central command of the United States wanted a force much larger than 2,000 or 3,000. The debate that was taking place in the American administration was whether to have 15,000 troops or 3,000 troops. Clearly, what happened was on the Iraqi said, they were simply not able to muster the political coalition to make the -- to make the deal work.
And that tells you that there were strong enough forces on let us for simplicity sake call it the pro-Iranian side of the Iraqi political spectrum, the Muqtada al Sadr's of the world, and others that made it very difficult for this to move forward.
So here we are in a situation where we will lose, without any question, day to day influence in Iraq and the Iranians will gain it. I think that it does fulfill a promise that the president had made, but there was a very easy path to maintain some kind of force level if this status of forces agreement had been negotiated.
Clearly what happened was the Iraqis were unwilling to make that deal happen and so the president decided in that context he was going to make clear that we were getting -- there was no circumstance in which American troops were going to stay in Iraq without the legal status of forces agreement that we have with any country in which we have our troops.
BLITZER: Including South Korea, including Japan, including Germany. After all of those wars, decades ago, the U.S. still has significant troop levels in those countries. But there are status of forces agreements that the U.S. attempted to negotiate with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki over these past several weeks and months. But as you correctly point out, Fareed, they failed.
Here's what worries a lot of U.S. officials, and you're there in Iran right now, Fareed, that when all the dust settles next year and the year to come, that Iraq might be dramatically aligned not only with Iran but also with Syria. And indeed in recent weeks, in the face of all the turmoil that's going on in Syria, Baghdad, Nuri al Maliki, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has basically backed up Bashar al Assad, the Syrian leader. And I'm anxious to see if that worst case scenario, that the likes of Joe Lieberman or John McCain or Lindsey Graham might fear, is that realistic that all the blood and treasure the U.S. invested in Iraq might, in the end, emerge as a Iranian strategic victory.
ZAKARIA: I think there is a great -- a likelihood of that. Maybe not a likelihood. There is a distinct possibility of that. And it tells us, I think, that we -- there was a dramatic misconception of Iraq from the start. We never really understood the country we were getting involved in. We never understood the exiles when we empowered. You know, the president of Iraq, the Talibani, the prime minister of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, has spent years in Iran. They were funded by Iran. They speak (INAUDIBLE) fluently.
They have close relations with the leader of the Quds force, General Suleimani. So the idea that they would not have some kind of close connection and the -- you know, the way in which the United States entered this almost blindly assuming that because we were the liberators and we were getting rid of a bad guy, all of Iraq would rise in our support, just shows that there was both a strategic and a tactical level, a game very badly played and now we are reaping the rewards of that, or the consequences of that. I don't think there was much the Obama administration could do at this point because -- and there were many forces within Iraq that did want to do the deal with the United States, just not enough. And so we face a situation where we will have to redouble our efforts politically and diplomatically.
But I'll tell you something. In this part of the world, Wolf, there's nothing here -- and nothing helps soft power more than hard power. In other words, if you're going to try to have influence and be persuasive and have an impact on decision making, sure helps to be militarily powerful, strong, consequential and having had a certain number of American troops that would be crucial to training the Iraqi army will be very useful. What remains to be seen, Wolf, is who will play that role because the Iraqi army sure needs help. They have been trained by the Americans. If the Americans are going to withdraw, somebody is going to have to fill that vacuum. BLITZER: Excellent point, Fareed.
Before I let you go, when are you sitting down with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? When can we expect to know what he has to say about this dramatic announcement from President Obama today, also the killing yesterday of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, and these latest accusations that the U.S. government has put forward accusing the Iranians of attempting to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador here in Washington, Adel Al-Jubeir? When are you going to be speaking in this exclusive interview with President Ahmadinejad?
ZAKARIA: It's 9:00 here in the night. I'm -- the interview is scheduled for 6:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. President Ahmadinejad, apparently, gets up at 4:00, goes for a run, then goes to the gym. And so when he's done with all of that, I will interview him.
And you're absolutely right, Wolf, we've got issues to the Saudi -- the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, we've got Libya and Gadhafi, we've got the consequence, what happens in Syria, and, of course, this new announcement about Iraq. And we're going to get his reaction to all of those things. As you know, he's a very seasons politician, so I'm sure he'll have already given some thought to what he's going to say.
BLITZER: I assume he'll say -- declare victory on all fronts if what he told a few reporters who met with him in New York City during the time -- the week he was in New York for the U.N. General Assembly. I was among those reporters. I assume he'll say that Iran is doing everything right and the U.S. is doing everything wrong.
All right, Fareed, we're anxious to get -- to hear what -- how this interview goes. Good luck. I know on "Fareed Zakaria GPS" Sunday morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern, replayed 1:00 p.m. Eastern, Fareed's interview with President Ahmadinejad. We'll all be looking forward to that. And, Fareed, we'll stay in very close touch with you.
Just want to recap the breaking news. President Obama, only moments ago, announcing at the White House that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year, declaring that the war in Iraq will be over.
We'll continue the breaking news coverage right here in the CNN NEWSROOM right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're following the breaking news. President Obama announcing only moments ago that all U.S. troops, the remaining 39,000 or so still if Iraq right now will be home by the end of the year. No agreement on retaining any residual U.S. military presence. There had been an effort in recent weeks and months to negotiate a new status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki. That would have allowed perhaps 3,000 or 5,000, some U.S. military personnel at the U.S. military's central command, who wanted 15,000 U.S. troops to remain to have that presence there. But as of now, that is not happening because of opposition within the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki.
Retired U.S. Army General Mark Kimmitt is joining us, as is retired U.S. Army General Spider Marks. I want to bring both of them in to this conversation.
General Kimmitt, first to you. What do you make of this announcement from the president?
GENERAL MARK KIMMITT (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Well, I'm not surprised. It has been clear over the last few weeks that the negotiations have stalled on the point of immunity, the diplomatic protection that our soldiers enjoy while operating in Iraq. The Iraqis were not willing to grant it. The U.S. cannot keep their forces there without it. So the president was backed into a corner and had to make the decision to withdraw the combat forces at the end of this year.
BLITZER: What does it say about Iran's level of influence within Iraq that prevented Nuri al Maliki from accepting a new status of forces agreement with the U.S.?
KIMMITT: Well, as Fareed said earlier, clearly the geographic proximity of Iran and Iraq -- Iran is going to have a significant amount of influence inside of Iraq for years to come, even though there are a significant number of Iraqi nationalists that are trying to push back on this. I think it's quite evident that there is celebration going on tonight in Tehran and there's going to be worry in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi about which way the Iraqi government and the Iraqi nation is going. Will it be going to the west or will it be going to the east. And this would be one more indicator that the influence is going to be focused on the east rather than on the west.
BLITZER: Yes, I assume you're right.
General Marks, Spider Marks is with us, as well. Do you agree with General Kimmitt and Fareed Zakaria and a lot of others that this does represent a sort of strategic setback for the U.S. right now?
GENERAL JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Oh, I completely concur that it's a strategic setback. I disagree with Mark in that I don't think the president was backed into a corner. Clearly what could have happened was an incredibly more aggressive diplomatic posture to ensure that al Maliki would have worked a little harder toward establishing a status of forces agreement.
If -- and Mark knows exceptionally well, if we have one soldier, one Marine or one individual on the ground who wears a uniform in Iraq, that individual has to be protected by SOFA (ph). And it's totally unacceptable for us to have any type of relationship going forward that would have a mil to mil, a military to military type component without SOFA. That becomes a stumbling block and is a no-go line in terms of our relationship moving forward.
Now, having said that, I can promise you, there is going to be a U.S. presence in the region, most likely in Kuwait, that allows the United States to have a presence that can provide kinetic capabilities to protect all U.S. presence that will exist. There still is going to be an embassy. There will still be diplomatic efforts that will take place in Iraq. And there will be a U.S. military presence that's over the horizon that's available.
BLITZER: SOFA stands for a Status of Forces Agreement.
Generals, thanks very much.
We're going to continue the breaking news coverage. Lots more coming up. We'll take a quick break. Don Lemon will continue right after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT (March 19, 2003): On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Don Lemon live at the CNN world headquarters in Atlanta.
We have been following the breaking news coming out of Washington, the president at the White House moments ago announcing that all troops -- most of them, most of them -- will leave Iraq by end of this year, except for a few, maybe about 150, who will stay there to work with arms sales.
Clearly, a big week, a big week for this White House when it comes to foreign policy because we know on top of that, Moammar Gadhafi -- that tyrant is dead. The fighting is over in Libya, as well. Liberation is at hand. One day after the grisly end to Moammar Gadhafi, we're looking ahead to that country's next pivotal moment. You know, it'll come soon. It'll come soon, a formal declaration by the National Transitional Council that will clear the way for a new Libyan government and free elections.
NATO meanwhile is working out the details for winding down its air campaign. And while there is no doubt Libya's dictator of 42 years is gone, the circumstances are still unclear and Moammar Gadhafi's burial is on hold.
We're looking ahead to life after Moammar Gadhafi in Libya right now, a life after U.S. troops in Iraq, as well. I want to talk to a man who has served as U.S. diplomat in both those countries and many others. His name is David Mack. He joins us by phone now. He is former U.S. envoy, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, and now a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us. I'm sure you heard the news here on CNN. Let's start with Iraq. Now, we know Americans were pulling out. We knew that that was going to happen. But what does it mean to speed up this process at this point? DAVID MACK, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE (via telephone): Oh, the process is moving ahead very, very rapidly already. It has been for some time. And the physics of this are that you really -- it's is very hard to stop such a logistic effort. So really, it was necessary to cut to the chase and make a final decision, and that's what we have done.
LEMON: The service -- the enforcement agreement that they couldn't come to terms with, that has been highly reported -- that's what a source close to the administration says -- what influence do you think it had on this process?
MACK: Well, look, Don, it's possible for both Iraqi strategists and U.S. strategists to make a very strong case for keeping a significant U.S. military presence in the country after the end of the year, but the domestic politics in both countries are against it.
I believe that most of the senior Iraqi military leadership and probably most of their political leadership wanted to have this presence remain, but the politics of Maliki's -- Prime Minister Maliki's cabinet, his reliance upon the Sadr action, the presence of other armed factions that have vowed to see the end of a U.S. military presence in the country, made it impossible domestically in Iraqi politics for the government to provide any of the legal provisions that would have been necessary to satisfy the American side.
As for U.S. domestic politics, outside of people like me and other strategists in Washington, D.C., most of the American public is fed up with our involvement in Iraq. They want to see the end of any U.S. military presence there. They questioned why we would even be considering keeping military forces in the country.
That's certainly true of most of President Obama's party, and you will notice, you don't have any of the Republican presidential candidates plumping for this, either. It's fine for Senator McCain and Senator Graham to make a case for this, just as there are foreign policy national security specialists on the Democratic -- on the -- in the Obama administration who can make a case for it.
But the American public has made it very clear that it doesn't want to continue sending its sons and daughters to Iraq to keep Iraqis from killing one another. That's the way they look at it, and they don't see some of these other strategic pictures.
And so I think it was natural that the two governments were going to come to this agreement. I think it's been inevitable for some time. And I'm glad it's finally made -- put in very concrete terms now.
LEMON: Ambassador, I want to turn now -- I want to turn now to Libya and Moammar Gadhafi's death. Clearly, this has been a big week, at least foreign policy-wise, when it comes to the president, and a big year, Osama bin Laden, and now this, Moammar Gadhafi, and now the withdrawal of troops here.
What does this mean for the White House? Because you mentioned the other side, you mentioned the Republicans on this side may try to spin it in a different direction, saying that the president is trying to at least ease or lose or lighten the footprint of the U.S. presence in the world.
What do you make of the week for the White House on foreign policy, at least?
MACK: Oh, I think that the Libya involvement of the United States and the way this has played out has been almost picture- perfect. From the beginning, this was a case where our European allies in NATO had a much larger strategic stake than the United States did. It was incumbent upon them to share the burdens.
And the Obama administration has from the very beginning -- the president's inaugural speech and his speech in Oslo when he got the Nobel Prize -- he's made it clear that he wants to work through global alliances when he can. There will be cases when the U.S. has to go unilateral. There will be cases when the U.S. has to emphasize its military involvement.
But to the extent it is possible, the Obama administration has taken what I believe is the very wise course of trying to make heavy use of our alliances, sharing the burdens of global security and making use of all the other tools of U.S. national security -- diplomacy, intelligence methods, propaganda, and the United Nations.
And so what happened when this came up, despite all the pressures on President Obama to become involved unilaterally, he spent a good week putting together this global coalition, including Arab states, getting an Arab League resolution, going to the United States (SIC) and saying we want a tougher U.N. Security Council resolution. They got a great mandate. The United States then proceeded to use its unique military assets to take out Iraqi (SIC) air defense, blind their radar --
LEMON: And David Mack --
MACK: -- make it possible for NATO to gain control of the air.
LEMON: And David Mack, now we see the culmination of it -- pardon me for cutting you off here, but now we see the culmination of it with Moammar Gadhafi being captured and killed. Thank you very much for that, David Mack. We appreciate it.
We want to move on now and go to Tripoli in Libya now and go to CNN's Ivan Watson. Ivan, it is yet to play out when it's -- you know, as we were talking about here, what's going to happen in Iraq. And also, it's yet to play out how Libya is going to form a democracy, what exactly the Transitional Council is doing, as well.
Take us forward a day from when it was announced Moammar Gadhafi had been killed.
IVAN WATSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the plan right now, Don, is that Transitional Council is about to declare liberation, basically. And it's not entirely clear whether that's going to be on Saturday or Sunday. But they say that they're going to have some kind of official ceremony in the eastern city of Benghazi, which is where this revolution all started.
Now, the reason the date of that is important is because the council has already signed (ph) to follow a timetable. Basically, the clock starts ticking upon the declaration of liberation that within eight months, Libyans should go to the polls in a national election to elect a constitutional assembly, basically, a new parliament that's going to be charged with writing up a new constitution and establishing a new government.
That's why this date and the end, the downfall, the death of Moammar Gadhafi has been so important. They couldn't embark on this next step until the former dictator was taken out of the picture, Don.
LEMON: Does this help or hurt the Transitional Council by the way things went down yesterday, Ivan?
WATSON: Well, a lot of questions coming out. Right now, we're into the second night of celebrations here in Tripoli of Moammar Gadhafi's death. I'm hearing people shooting up in the air back here, honking their horns, a lot of people here think this man was a tyrant and are happy to see him bloodied, and in the end, killed.
Harder to gauge are the silent Libyans, the one who perhaps are afraid to speak out right now because there's so many rebels armed out in the streets, people who are telling me in confidence, Listen, I'm uncomfortable with the way this man died. I think he should have been taken to court, or others who say, you know, I respected him despite his faults. We've heard that there were people crying last night when they saw the images of Gadhafi's dead body on Libyan TV last night.
There are also the international implications. The United Nations high commissioner for human rights is calling for an investigation now into how Gadhafi was killed, whether it was, in fact, in some kind of a crossfire or some kind of extrajudicial killing, and that could have implications for the men who brought him -- who captured him in the end in Sirte yesterday, Don.
LEMON: And Ivan, I want to tell our viewers we're watching some very graphic images there to the right of your screen of Moammar Gadhafi dead, laying there on a stretcher on the floor.
So listen, Ivan, again, we have yet to see how this is exactly going to play out when it comes to democracy because this is a region that doesn't -- hasn't really known democracy. It could take decades. Is there a sense, at least from on the ground, of optimism from the Libyan people about this?
WATSON: You know, I talked to a guy who came out of Friday prayers in a mosque and he said, I do feel good about the future. Yes, Libya has never had political parties. Yes, Libya has never really had elections that anybody -- in living memory, but anything, this guy said, is better than what we had before. So we've got to take a Libyan citizen at his word for that. LEMON: Yes, there's concern about -- because of the different troops and different factions, about a civil war on the ground there. Are you getting a sense that things are working at least as normal as possible after this? Because Moammar Gadhafi really hasn't been in power for quite a few months now. So is everything running or there -- I'm sure there are just normal issues that come about.
WATSON: Well, I just got back here this morning. A little more than two months ago, when Gadhafi still ran this city, you had really long gas lines here, power blackouts going off. It was pretty dire, the situation. Part of that was due to an international blockade.
Now the gas is flowing at the gas stations. There's electricity again. Telecommunications are still a mess. Water is not running through the city pumps right now. That's a big challenge.
And then you have the problem of all of these armed units, these militias that are running around that because of the situation before this, they basically had to operate separately. How can they get integrated? How can they get demobilized? A lot of unarmed residents of Tripoli are telling me that they're really not feeling secure right now because there are so many armed men running around -- you may be able to hear them shooting their guns up in the air. And that's going to be a big challenge. Can these guys be disarmed, demobilized?
I spoke with one fighter today, and he was wearing the epaulets of a general or a colonel or something. He told me he found them on the floor in an army base that the rebels had raided, and he put them on for fun. But he said, I'm hoping to take this uniform off soon, put this gun down and go back to being a university student. That is what he was before.
Some of the other fighters we're hearing from are not ready to give up their weapons. They're living the dream right now. They've been freedom fighters. How are you going to reintegrate them into civilian life, Don? Big challenge.
LEMON: Ivan Watson in Tripoli, Libya. And you can see fireworks going off behind Ivan, lots of celebrating going on there. Thank you, sir.
In U.S. politics, Herman Cain says he's 100 percent pro-life. But I want you to listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HERMAN CAIN (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make, not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: OK, so is the GOP contender really pro-choice? I want you to consider that. It's "Fair Game" up next. But first I want to tell you about this. To you political junkies, let's test your knowledge. When it comes to abortion, 83 percent of Democrats think that it should be legal, abortion should be legal under all or certain circumstances.
So my question for you today is this. What percentage of voting Republicans believe that abortion should be legal? What percent of voting Republicans believe that abortion should be legal? Stick around. The answer might surprise you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right, welcome back everyone. Before the break, we looked at some CNN polling that showed 83 percent of Democrats think abortion should be legal under all or certain circumstances. And I asked you to guess how many Republicans feel the same way. What did you guess, 20, 30, maybe 40 percent? You need to go a lot higher -- 72 percent of voting Republicans think abortion should be legal under all or certain circumstances. Only 27 percent think abortion should be illegal, no matter what.
So that polling leads to all sorts of "Fair Game" questions that I'm going to ask my next two guests, democratic strategist Maria Cardona and CNN contributor Will Cain.
So Will, 72 percent -- 72 percent -- of voting Republicans think abortion should be legal under all or certain circumstances. You heard that. So how did such a minority of Republicans come to play such an influential role in choosing the GOP nominee?
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I have to be honest, I find that poll pretty shocking, Don. I guess the answer to that is because it's such an impassioned issue. For those that believe that life begins at conception, those that are pro-life, it is an almost litmus test issue. It's the top of the list. It's one of your biggest things you choose a candidate on, so you're going to make it a bag part of your platform.
LEMON: Yes. Maria, let's talk about the newest influence in the Republican Party, the Tea Party. Does that movement make it even harder for abortion rights supporters in the GOP to be heard?
MARIA CARDONA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, I do think it definitely has a lot to do with the difficulty in any Republican really voicing their support for the pro-choice position.
I also think that the pro-life lobby has always been incredibly important in D.C. and in national politics, and they have always pushed candidates to use a point that Will Cain made -- to use it as a litmus. And if they don't pass that litmus, they make it very hard for that candidate to get any support from the national level and from fund-raising, which is always important.
LEMON: All right, case in point, so let's go to the latest GOP candidate to face the wrath of abortion opponents. We're talking about Herman Cain. Let me read you a statement that he released. He says, "I am 100 percent pro-life. End of story. I will appoint judges who know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children. I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto funds for Planned Parenthood."
Now, why did Cain feel the need to release that statement? Well, because he has been coming across as someone who is an abortion rights supporter. I want you to take a listen to Cain on CNN's "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: If one of your female, children, grandchildren was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
HERMAN CAIN (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You're mixing two things here, Piers.
MORGAN: Why?
CAIN: You're mixing two things here.
MORGAN: But that's what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to, it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: OK, so Cain personally doesn't believe in abortion, but he thinks that it's no one's business what another family decides. Isn't that what abortion rights people have been saying all along here, Maria?
CARDONA: Absolutely. I heard that, and I thought I was listening to a Democrat, Don. I was, like, Oh, my God. He's come out as a Democrat, because that is exactly what Democrats believe. The pro-right folks and -- I'm sorry, the pro-choice folks, most of them Democrats, obviously, they never want abortions. They never are, you know, wanting for there to be more abortions. We have always supported a woman's right to choice.
And the words that Cain just used are exactly the words that we all use in terms of the reason why it should be a woman's right to chose what happens to her own body. And what's interesting here, Don, is that the Tea Party -- the Tea Party ideology is always get government out of the way. So shouldn't they be pro-choice, as well?
LEMON: So Will, listen, you know, this is the second, maybe third time in a couple days, a couple of weeks, that he has -- he responded saying, I didn't understand the question or I didn't get the answer quite right. He did it when he talked about Guantanamo Bay and whether or not he would negotiate with terrorists. He's done it with this.
Can he continue to do this, and do you think he meant what he said or did he just not understand the question?
CAIN: Herman Cain's nonsense is only matched by my friend, Maria's, nonsense she was just saying. Let me tell you something. I do not want to have an abortion debate in two minutes on national television. This is a nuanced conversation that's very important.
But the issue when we keep saying it's a woman's right to choose -- we don't have the right to choose to punch each other in the face! We don't have the right to murder -- to choose to murder each other. The question -- the only question that matters in this debate is when life begins. That's it. We shouldn't have another conversation until you answer that!
As for Herman Cain, I have no idea what he's talking about because Herman Cain has no idea what he's talking about. There is -- this does not -- this does not just revolve around abortion. It's whether or not he wants an electrified fence, about whether or not it's a joke or he doesn't want to offend somebody. It's about whether or not he'd trade troops (SIC) from Guantanamo Bay for a captured troop with al Qaeda. He walks back statements. He says things. I don't know what he's talking about because he doesn't.
CARDONA: And Will's argument is exactly the hypocrisy that all of the Tea Party and the Republicans are actually suffering from. Either you want an activist government, or you don't. Republicans always say, Smaller government, smaller government, let's get rid of government.
LEMON: But Maria --
CARDONA: Government should not be involved in --
CAIN: No, you miss my point, Maria!
CARDONA: -- what happens to a woman's body.
LEMON: Hang on, hang on, hang on. Maria, but it does -- to the question that I gave Will, that I asked Will, it sort of plays into the whole thing about him having a problem articulating his positions.
CARDONA: Yes.
LEMON: Do you believe that he has a problem articulating his positions when he has to come back and say, I didn't understand the question, or, Let me clarify that?
CARDONA: Yes. There's no question about that, Don. And to me, it underscores yet again that this is not somebody who is ready for primetime. This is the second or third time he has had to walk back his positions because he knows that he's in trouble with the conservative base whom he can't get elected without them.
And it also shows me that this is the beginning of the wilting of a candidate under the national spotlight, somebody who was never ready to be in this to win this.
LEMON: All right, Maria and Will --
CAIN: Let me say we agree on Herman --
LEMON: That's going to have to be the last word. Will, I'm so sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
LEMON: We're getting to close to the top of the hour. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. And that's "Fair Game" for today.
Now, you've heard the big announcement about 60 minutes ago, all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year. So what do the veterans of this war think? We're talking to one of them right after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Breaking news here on CNN. After nearly nine years, U.S. troops in Iraq are heading home. President Barack Obama made the announcement about an hour ago that U.S. troops -- that the U.S. will withdraw almost all of our troops from Iraq. Now, he says they'll be home in time for the holidays.
I want to bring in now Paul Rieckhoff. He's executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and he joins me from Washington. Paul, thank you so much. Your reaction to the president's announcement?
PAUL RIECKHOFF, IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA (via telephone): Well, good to be with you, Don. It's good news. I mean, this is really good news for the troops serving overseas and especially for the families to know that their loved ones are going to be home in time for the holidays.
And I think it's a historic day for the United States and for the people of Iraq, and it's a really a poignant time, especially for the veterans community. I mean, many of us gave large arts of our lives, some gave all in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn. So you know, the veterans in our office today are walking around and talking about their service, and also remembering the folks that we've lost that brought us to this point.
LEMON: Have you had a chance to speak to any of the family members or troops at all?
RIECKHOFF: Yes, we're getting notes coming in and I think that it's buzzing around right now. And we've got folks in our office who are in the National Guard or in the reserve. We've actually got two of our staff members that are serving overseas in Afghanistan right now. And you know, we're really just reflecting on the sacrifices.
And I think it's especially important that all Americans think about all these folks, over a million folks who've served in Iraq over the last eight years. And it's going to be important that they remember that sacrifice as we go into a pretty historic Veterans Day coming up on 11/11/11.
We've got to recognize all those men and women who gave so much over the course of these last eight years, and also think about the fact that they need more than just a pat on the back. They're coming home to record levels of unemployment. Suicide rates are high. We've got, you know, mental and physical challenges. And we've got to get all Americans to remember that just as we supported them in Iraq, we've got to continue to support them once they transition home in the coming months.
LEMON: Paul Rieckhoff, thank you, the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. We really appreciate it.
And let's not forget 4,400 more -- more than 4,400 men and women have died in this war, and we should remember that.
I'm Don Lemon. I'll see you right after the break. Brooke Baldwin, as a matter of fact, will be here right after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
