Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Blinken in Afghanistan; Richard Haass is Interviewed about Russian Sanctions and Afghanistan Withdrawal; Officials to Release Shooting Footage in Chicago; Capitol Police Testify About Planning Failures. Aired 9:30-10a ET.

Aired April 15, 2021 - 09:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:20]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: In his decision to pull all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, CNN has learned that President Biden went against the advice of some of his most senior advisers.

Multiple military and administration officials tell myself and colleagues Kylie Atwood and Kevin Liptak that leaders, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Millie, the head of the U.S. Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, and senior State Department officials are concerned not only about what a withdrawal will mean for the counterterrorism mission, but also about the security of U.S. diplomats based there.

A senior administration official acknowledged the disagreements to me describing a, quote, rigorous debate inside the administration. This official told me all points of view were considered and all arguments were put on the table.

We should remember that when former President Trump considered a full withdrawal from Afghanistan, military leaders set a floor of some 2,500 troops to provide the most basic counterterror support and diplomatic security.

President Biden's order will shrink the U.S. deployment below that figure. The withdrawal will be completed at the latest by the 20th anniversary in September of 9/11.

CNN international security editor Nick Paton Walsh, he is following the developments from Kabul.

And, Nick, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, he just made a visit -- an unannounced visit to Afghanistan this morning.

What words of encouragement did he have?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: That essentially while the presence of the United States here is changing, that the relationship will continue and will essentially evolve.

I mean Antony Blinken has, in the past few weeks, been sending very stern messages to one of the people he met here, President Ashraf Ghani, saying get onboard with our peace process. And here, I think, today, there was a bid to try and smooth the relationship on and, frankly, Ashraf Ghani, too, knows that he needs as much American good will as humanly possible.

Antony Blinken clear that the public statements from the Afghan presidency here, that they respect America's decision about its troop levels and they want a smooth transition. But that reflected the private discussions only the people in the room will know.

But at a press conference that just ended now, Jim, Antony Blinken kept leaning on a couple of ideas, which are key here, essentially to say that, look, while if you talk about intelligence gathering, counterterrorism activities, that is a threat that's evolved, that's no longer centered here. And to keep assets based here for a sort of 20-year-old threat that's now changed, didn't quite make logical sense.

And he also harked (ph) at the idea that this is in the Taliban's interest to be involved in negotiations. They've said very clearly for the last three days they're not going to the Istanbul peace conference on Saturday week and even this morning said that the decision to begin withdrawing troops on May the 1st and not have withdrawn them all by that violated the Dohar agreement signed by the former Trump administration and that there could be countermeasures.

But here's what Antony Blinken had to say about what he thought would happen if the Taliban resorted to violence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: It's very important that the Taliban recognize that it will never be legitimate and it will never be durable if it rejects a political process and tries to take the country by force.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALSH: Well, this is essentially the gamble at the heart of the strategy here, that the Taliban needs international legitimacy as it essentially becomes more of the government here in Afghanistan under the peace process proposed so it can keep getting international aid or, as some see it, the Taliban, after two decades of fighting, need to keep their very fractious and diverse fighters under one umbrella and need a decisive victory.

[09:35:09]

It's the months ahead we'll see that and it's Afghans who will pay the price if this turns ugly, which I'm afraid many people believe is likely to be the story of the months ahead, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes, pay the price of Taliban terror attacks as well. Nick Paton Walsh, good to have you there in Kabul.

Well, let's speak more about this news, as well as the breaking news of Russian sanctions, U.S. sanctions on Russia, with Ambassador Richard Haass. He's president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Also author of "The World: A Brief Introduction."

Ambassador, always good to have you on. I wonder if we can begin with these new Russia sanctions because, as you know, the U.S., under multiple administrations, has already tried sanctions on Russia in a similar category, expelling diplomats, putting economic sanctions on individuals and entities from Russia.

What gives us confidence that these new sanctions will do what past sanctions have not and deter Russia?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, It's the right question, and the answer is they may -- they may fail. By the time you've done so much sanctioning, there's not a lot left.

What's interesting about these new sanctions is not the expelling of diplomats or going after certain individuals, it's basically denying American financial institutions' participation in purchases of Russian debt. That's a more significant sanction. That will bite a little bit.

But your larger point is right, I think sanctions can only do so much for foreign policy and we've probably come close to peaking.

SCIUTTO: So give us a little more detail about these financial market access sanctions here because discussions about blocking Russia from U.S. denominated financial markets, a tactic that the U.S. has used with great effect against Iran, has been something of a nuclear option with Russia. This doesn't deny it totally, but it does relating to certain bond issues, et cetera. That's because (ph) Russia doesn't have a lot of debt.

I just wonder, based on a quick look at this, does this have the potential to bite more?

HAASS: This has the potential to bite somewhat. Already you've seen the ruble go down a little bit. Russia does need every once in a while to access the international marketplace for funding, you know, via the debt route.

But, you're right, this is not the nuclear option. We're not disallowing Russia to participate in the so-called switch (ph) system, which is the global currency arrangement system. So there -- that is still left.

But, again, I think this will hurt. And, you know, the kit (ph) bag of American foreign policy here lacks certain things. And, you know, this is in the context of, you know, there are cyberattacks. It's, you know, it's in the context with the buildup against Ukraine. We don't want anything to turn military. So that rules those instruments out directly. We can transfer more arms to Ukraine. So that's another thing we can

do. We can strengthen NATO. We've already announced another few hundred troops going to Germany.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HAASS: So I think these sanctions ought to be seen not as the totality of the policy, but as an element of it.

SCIUTTO: Tell me about that Russian military activity along the border with Ukraine. Fifty thousand more troops there. I've spoken to officials in the Pentagon who say probably a Russian show of force rather than foreshadowing an invasion, but they have some worry that this might turn into military action. And I wonder, when you watch these moves, where do you stand? Do you see the potential for, if not a full-on invasion, you know, a ratcheting up of the military activity there?

HAASS: I do. Jim, it reminds me a little bit of the conversation we had 30 years ago when Saddam Hussein was building up along Kuwait's border. Was it just a show of force? Was it gun boat diplomacy? Where -- is he actually getting ready to do something?

Well, in Saddam's case, he did something, he invaded Kuwait. So it's possible the Russians are just muscling. But it hasn't been clear what for. What do they want?

So I actually don't rule out the possibility that they may add troops in Crimea or they may expand their grab of Ukrainian territory. I just -- I don't feel comfortable, but I wouldn't -- I wouldn't rule that out.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Big test for the Biden administration, no question.

OK, if we can move on to Afghanistan for a moment here. I've spoken to a number of members of the administration, there's also -- as well as folks in the Pentagon, about this decision. Clearly there was opposition within the Biden administration, as most senior military advisers said, listen, you go to zero, there's real danger there.

And it strikes me the administration is taking a big risk here, right? We saw what happened when President Obama ordered a full withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. They had to go back in. ISIS came back. They say al Qaeda is not a threat to the U.S. homeland today. That could change.

How much of a risk is this in your view?

HAASS: Well, it's a large risk. It's a near certainty that there will be -- Afghanistan itself will be awful (ph).

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HAASS: There will be all sorts of reprisals, retribution against anyone who worked with the government, against girls and women.

[09:40:04] That's pretty certain.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HAASS: The question is if and when the Taliban control most of the country, would they invite back or simply not be in a position to prevent groups like ISIS or al Qaeda from setting up shop? That's quite possible.

So I think the administration is taking a big risk.

I also think people are asking the wrong question. By staying there, it's not as though we could have brought peace through a military victory, but sometimes in foreign policy you make a commitment to avoid things.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HAASS: And it's exactly this. The question is whether a small, open- ended American presence could have avoided what you've just put your finger on, the risk of terrorists return, all sorts of mayhem in the country, and whether that was a price worth paying. I would have argued, yes. The president decided not.

SCIUTTO: It seems that that was Millie's point of view, in effect, that we are the finger in the dam, right? A small military presence to keep from the dam breaking in terms of Taliban control.

Well, we're going to see a real live test of this.

Ambassador Richard Haass, thanks so much.

HAASS: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, the city of Chicago is now on edge ahead of the release of body camera footage of the fatal shooting of a 13-year-old. We have new reaction from that teen's family as well as Chicago's mayor. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:45:42]

SCIUTTO: Within the next few hours, officials in Chicago will release body cam video in the police shooting last year of 13-year-old Adam Toledo. A boy shot and killed by an officer who chased him into an alley back in March. Police say Toledo was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting.

CNN's Ryan Young is following all of this.

Ryan, how is the city preparing for the potential fallout here?

RYAN YOUNG, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you understand, Jim, a lot of high emotions in this. We saw what happened last summer with some of the protests in terms of what policing were going on throughout the country. So you understand why police officers are on high alert.

But what this involves is a 13-year-old who, according to police, had a weapon.

Now, the city has shot spotter technology all through it. We know Chicago deals with a lot of gun violence every single year. It was one of those shot spotter devices that actually detected eight gunshots about two weeks ago early in the morning. When officers arrived, they saw a 21-year-old and this 13-year-old apparently running from the scene.

And when officers engaged, they indicated that they saw the firearm. A shot was fired and hit that 13-year-old sadly in the chest. And there have been protests saying that obviously they needed to be more accountability, but from the law enforcement side they're saying the young man had a gun.

In fact, listen to the city's mayor talk about this tough video over the last few days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR LORI LIGHTFOOT (D), CHICAGO, ILLINOIS: A mom and father who have lost their son, siblings that have lost their brother, grandparents. So I want to be respectful of the family, but I also do think that something like a police-involved shooting, particularly under these circumstances, it's important for us to be transparent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YOUNG: Jim, you hear a lot of times, especially in black and brown communities in Chicago, they want more accountability from the police department. But, obviously, with the fact that there was a gun in this young man's hand, apparently this is what has some people saying this shooting is quite different.

Now, the family has seen this video. It was very tough for them, obviously, to watch. In fact, they have released a statement in a short time. They are calling for calm. They say they want to make sure that Adam's memory can be best honored by refraining from violence and working constructively for reform.

So you can see the family's already hoping that there will be calm throughout the city.

Another thing, we know the city is connected by bridges. There will be maintenance work all around the city. So a lot of the bridges to downtown will be up. There's been a lot of rumors that it's not really about the maintenance work, they're trying to keep people from the downtown corridor. This is where there were violent protests this summer -- last summer, actually, so people are concerned about what could happen in the next few hours when this video is released. But we should not understate the fact that a 13-year-old lost his life.

SCIUTTO: That's right. The shooting, as you know, took place just last month, March. Ryan Young, thanks very much.

SCIUTTO: Were there critical lapses in police planning ahead of the deadly Capitol Hill insurrection? Big testimony is expected on that today. We're going to have the details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:19]

SCIUTTO: Soon the inspector general of the U.S. Capitol Police, Michael Bolton, will testify before a House committee about his report detailing critical lapses in planning, policies, and procedures that he says led up to the deadly January 6th Capitol insurrection.

We're also learning the Capitol Police were ordered not to use their most powerful crowd control weapons, such as flash bang grenades.

CNN's Whitney Wild, she's been following all of this.

Whitney, I mean, the report is alarming because what it gets to is that critical errors were made in advance of this. In other words, they had a warning that this might get messy or violent, but were told explicitly not to use some methods that could have controlled that violence. Why? And what methods exactly?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's what we're going to find out today. So what they were told not to do was not to use their less lethal options, their less lethal crowd control option that would include munitions that are -- basically act as stun grenades. So that's one example of really, in the end, what turned out to be poor judgement on the -- on the part of leadership to guide their troops in this really critical breakdown that was happening right before their very eyes.

We'll also hear from the inspector general today about the list of planning problems that they knew about several months actually before this insurrection. For example, there were just many box that they needed to check.

Things as small as keeping their equipment and temperature controlled settings to ensure that it was effective. We know that they didn't do that. That upon trying to use some of these things, like riot shields, they were rendered ineffective on that very day. So that's just one example of a list of things that leadership was supposed to do that they did not do.

We will also hear about the intelligence breakdown.

[09:55:02]

So we'll hear that there's very little consensus among USCP leadership about what the intelligence said. Here's one quote from Inspector General Bolton's opening remark today. He's going to say, certain officials believed USCP intelligence products indicated there may be threats but did not identify anything specific while other officials believed it would be inaccurate to state that there were no known specific threats to the joint session based on those same USCP intelligence products.

And then finally, Jim, when we're all looking for a way to move forward, one of the more substantive recommendations that IG Bolton will make today is suggesting that the agency move from a police oriented agency to more of a protective oriented agency. He thinks this fits the mission better on The Hill. So we'll see if USCP is receptive and if Congress is receptive to that suggestion, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And also big suggestion already is to add hundreds more Capitol Police officers still moving its way through Congress.

Whitney Wild, thanks very much.

Attorneys for former Officer Derek Chauvin may rest their case as early as today. We're going to take you live to the courthouse just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)