Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Defends Withdrawal from Afghanistan; White House to Recommend Booster Shot 8 Months After Vaccination; Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper Speaks Out. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired August 17, 2021 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: So you were on the ground. You spent time in Kabul, more than a year. How hard logistically will it be to save these people?

BRIG. GEN. PETER ZWACK, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): Thank you for the question.

This is a painfully difficult problem set. Yes, the intent would define a way to get them back but there's no mechanism to bring them, especially out of the inner land, if they didn't get out before the final push from the Taliban.

This is a tragic aspect of this scenario that is unfolding. Everybody is trying to do their best but, unfortunately, we're a bit behind the power curve here.

And if these -- if there were to be a major flow coming from the hinter land, it needed to start way back when the trimmers and indications that units were to go wobbly and the mission was to fail.

The other aspect here is there's an inward focus now of getting as many people out. U.S. military can't push out beyond that parameter to help. People want to help.

It is a desperately fragile situation still within Kabul and especially the airport. A lot of moving pieces. And this is a real tragedy.

And in the end, this may be, in part -- we don't like it -- be, in part, on the largess of the Taliban leadership, both in Kabul now and regionally.

And right now, they have been, at least in the Kabul area, they have been nuanced, if you will, in how they manage this.

The situation is still extremely dangerous and could turn in a heartbeat with an accident or incident that gets people shooting at each other with all those jetliners on the ground.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Juliette, I saw you nodding your head as the general was speaking. The U.S. has spent, as we heard from Jake Sullivan, a trillion

dollars, lost thousands of lives there, and now has to negotiate with the Taliban to get Americans to the airport.

Only until the 31st, though, as Jake Sullivan says, if that deal holds.

Do you expect it will for two weeks? And then what's the possibility that it will be renewed for a week more?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It's hard to tell if there's a Taliban 2.0 right now, how different it is from 2021 Their press conference today suggested that they will try to make overtures.

But we need -- I would -- the assumption has to be no. And that we do whatever we can do in two weeks.

So where I thought Jake Sullivan was heading with this press conference was there was a decision made. That is -- I don't mean to say it not past. It's on going that.

But, you know, he was somewhat defiant. He knows the debate is going on. He knows people are angry about the decision. But he was focused on the present and future.

The present is getting everyone out of the airport and securing the airport. That's what we saw in the last 36 hours. And getting as many Americans and interpreters and others out.

But there was also a pivot in this presser to counterterrorism, which has been a focus for those of us in Homeland Security as much as the exit has been in the media, which is clearly the risk is higher.

We do not have a footprint in Afghanistan like we used to. We do not have the eyes and ears.

The question is whether our counterterrorism capabilities, grown over the last 20 years, can mitigate that increased risk. And Sullivan said it could.

We do a lot of counterterrorism efforts without a military footprint. But eyes on that -- because both al Qaeda -- but remember, ISIS has a foothold in Afghanistan, as well -- are both playing in a country that doesn't have a lot of governance outside of the major cities.

CAMEROTA: Barbara, tell us what the Pentagon plan is. It sounds like getting the Americans out is the first priority. There's something like 5,000 to 10,000 Americans estimated still in Afghanistan. And we just heard in the press conference, they got 700 out today?

I mean, I don't -- it sounds like it's not going as quickly as it could be. I know that some of this is a State Department decision. But in terms of the Pentagon, what's the plan?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, I think one of the most significant things they said is they are now talking to the Taliban around the airport about ensuring safe passage of people to get to the airport to board flights.

When you do these operations, they tend to ramp up. You have to start essentially an air bridge of aircraft constantly coming in unloading troops, unloading supplies, and then fill those seats with people who need to get out.

So expect -- they very much expect it to ramp up in the coming days, between now and the end of the month and to be able to get more and more people out.

They talked anywhere up to 9,000 people a day, a combination obviously of Americans, Afghans, perhaps third-party nationals, as well.

[14:35:04]

It will depend on keeping control at the airport. That's something they have a heavy footprint on now and people in and around Kabul.

And of course, the really such difficult part of this is all the Afghans who live outside of Kabul or don't live anywhere near the airport.

It may be simply impossible for them to get past Taliban check points, get to the city, get to the airport to even think about getting on flights.

BLACKWELL: John Harwood, Jake Sullivan would not respond to questions about our reporting about the blame game happening inside the administration.

We know there are Democrats in Congress who are criticizing the Biden administration. What do you know about this blame shifting that's happening?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, as John F. Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs, victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan.

So, obviously, after a very, very difficult, embarrassing, humiliating day that the United States experienced yesterday, you'll have different elements of the administration faulting one another for not having moved too fast, not having perceived the threat or the willingness of the Afghan forces to fight in the most accurate way.

But I think the significance of this briefing was the focus and the attempt at a new start today to make the case that our task -- and it's partially resolved with respect to say NATO troops and U.S. troops that were there, embassy personnel -- to withdraw them without casualties.

And now the focus is on the evacuation. That evacuation is the difference between a temporary humiliation that we suffered yesterday and a long-term calamity for the Biden administration.

If you get 9,000 people a day out for 14 days, you get well over 100,000 people out. And they're talking about somewhere in the range of 80,000 to 100,000 people.

I do think also that we've reached one finish line already. That is what is Afghanistan going to be? It's going to be the Taliban's Afghanistan.

And President Biden thinks he can defend the choice of saying, if the Afghan government can't hold after 20 years, they won't hold another 20 without the United States.

The ball game for the Biden administration in terms of excuse is this evacuation, which is why it's significant that neither Jen Psaki or Jake Sullivan ruled out going past August 31st.

Because if they can sustain cooperation from the Taliban, which now has a diplomatic interest in appearing more reasonable, and with that heavy footprint that Barbara referred to at the airport, if they can get this going and get a steady stream of people out, and that is successful, it is impossible to imagine them cutting that off when that is going to, in essence, be the legacy of this withdrawal.

How effectively and safely did the United States get out people who were either American citizens or people who helped the United States for 20 years?

CAMEROTA: Let's hope. Let's hope there's not an end date on August 31st if they are not all out. That's still an open question. But I hear you, John, that that sounds like it's their goal at the moment.

General, about going forward, moving forward in Afghanistan, there seems to be this conventional wisdom that without the U.S. presence that Afghanistan will once again become a terrorist safe haven.

I'm wondering, is that a forgone conclusion? And why would it be in the Taliban's interest to allow terror groups safe haven in Afghanistan?

SWACK: Alisyn, I really appreciate that question, all right, because this is something I've been thinking about a lot.

Yes, the terror issue is there and historic. That's why we landed there in 2002. In theory, our mission expanded but we're there for that reason, as well.

This is not just a U.S. and immediate ally issue. This is a regional issue. While we have major issues with them, the Russians do not like Sunni jihadist terror that potentially risks their interests in central Asia, China that borders on 50 miles along the corridor.

We have our issues with them but they have also a major issue in their mind with jihadism. And even Iran out there, which is playing a bit of a double game. Shia, Shiites who were treated badly have an interest in there, as well.

So this is far more than just our issue. And carefully, I do believe -- and it's been done before -- we need to be talking to even competitors and adversaries how to get a handle on it. It would be really, I think, bad for this Taliban this new caliphate,

if you will, to be caught in the midst of trying to enable al Qaeda, let alone ISIS, who they've not all had good relations with.

[14:40:13]

So I think it's more nuanced that, if we leave, the whole terrorism is going to blow up. There are a lot of people with skin in this game.

CAMEROTA: Really interesting insights.

General Swack, Barbara Starr, Juliette Kayyem, John Harwood, thank you all very much for helping us understand what is happening.

OK, now to this. We're also following a big development on COVID. If you're fully vaccinated but wondering if a booster shot is in your future, we have new guidance that you need to hear.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:45:05]

BLACKWELL: Sources tell CNN the Biden administration is working on a plan to get COVID boosters shots to millions more Americans. That could start as soon as next month.

The added dose would be for people who have been fully vaccinated for at least eight months.

The distribution plan will prioritize seniors and health care workers who were first eligible to get the vaccines.

CAMEROTA: So the expectation is to recommend a third shot for Pfizer and Moderna recipients. A source says top health officials are waiting for more data on the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

A few minutes ago, the White House confirmed that the COVID team would speak on boosters tomorrow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Does the president plan and first lady plan to get booster shots?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Certainly, if they are recommended. Once a formal announcement or a briefing is done, they will certainly plan to follow the guidelines, of course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: We have so many questions.

BLACKWELL: So many.

CAMEROTA: And joining us now, E.R. doctor and CNN medical analyst, Leana Wen. She served as Baltimore's health commissioner and wrote the book "Lifelines, A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health."

Dr. Wen, thanks so much for being here.

OK. Just help us get our heads around this concept of the booster shot.

We go in once a year to get the flu shot and we know every year we have to get a different flu shot. Now every eight months we'll have to get a COVID shot?

DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: I don't think we know it's going to be every eight months at all.

So when we look at other vaccines and how they work, there are some vaccines you get a series. So for example, polio vaccine you get four doses. Hepatitis vaccine, you get three doses. And then you're done.

That may be the case for the COVID vaccine. Maybe the third dose is the final dose.

Or maybe it's more like the tetanus vaccine, which you have to get a booster dose every 10 years because your immunity wanes.

Or maybe it's like the flu vaccine where maybe you have to get this every year. We don't know if that's the case.

At this point, we're waiting for data from the Biden health team on what exactly they're seeing. Because from what I understand, the vaccines still look like they are very protective against severe illness, severe enough to cause hospitalization or death.

Maybe waning over time when it comes to symptomatic illness. So maybe you're still getting mild flu-like symptoms.

And I think that, at this point, I would hope their guidance is nuanced enough so people can choose whether they think they are at high risk for COVID-19, for severe outcomes, and that's when they would decide whether they should get a booster.

BLACKWELL: Dr. Wen, so much of this infrastructure of getting vaccines or masking relies upon the honor system, right? The administration is going to come out and say, eight months after your second shot, you should get a booster. We know a million people already have.

Should there be some tighter regulation for when these boosters are given out or would that be a deterrent for people to get the shot they need? What do you think?

WEN: I think the opposite. I think, at this point, we need to let people make the best decision for their own health in consultation with their doctor.

That's because there's so much nuance. Let's say a healthy person who is fully vaccinated, they aren't that worried about getting symptoms from COVID-19. Probably, if they're nine months out from the initial shot, they may decide they don't want a booster shot. On the other hand, you may have someone that is elderly, who has

chronic renal disease, lung disease and with heart disease, the chance of them landing in the hospital with COVID-19 is pretty high.

Maybe they're not at eight months yet but they want the added protection. I want for that patient to have the option of getting the booster dose.

Because our federal regulators really should not be giving clinical advice to patients. I think they can make general recommendations. But at this point, we need to empower patients and their physicians to make individualized medical decisions rather than one size fits all.

You mentioned the honor code. I was really against the honor code and still am against the honor code when it comes to masks and vaccinations because if you lie, you're impacting other people's health.

In this case, an honor code is fine because there's no public health downside to more people getting booster doses.

CAMEROTA: So there's no downside to getting more booster doses.

Are we to understand now, given this new data, that if we don't get a third shot, a booster, that our immunity has waned after eight months?

WEN: That's the part, Alison, I don't think we have the answer to just yet, as in there are data emerging from Israel, from the United Kingdom that look as if the immunity may be waning.

But it's unclear what is waning, as in, is it just that you are more likely to get COVID but then you're still getting fever, body aches, you're not getting that sick, or are you getting sick enough you land in the hospital?

That's the key question. And I think that's what we're waiting for the Biden administration to answer.

[14:50:02]

And I just want to say, at the moment, we are relying on other countries' data. I think a lot of us in public health here in the U.S. have been concerned that the CDC is not collecting data that they need to.

Why are we waiting for other countries when we have nearly 200 million people in the U.S. who have been vaccinated? We should be getting data from this group, too.

BLACKWELL: All right. Hopefully, the administration offers some clarity when they announce this new advisory.

Dr. Leana Wen, thank you.

For the first time since being fired by former President Trump, former defense secretary, Mark Esper, is now speaking to CNN in an exclusive interview. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Today, former defense secretary, Mark Esper, spoke exclusively with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

Now, this was his first on-camera interview since being fired by former President Trump. He talked about that. He was also pressed on the chaos in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARK ESPER, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Of course, there were more options between the two binary choices presented by the president.

Just better planning and extending the timeline and taking a more thoughtful approach and not relying on simple assumptions would have prevented this disastrous outcome we're seeing unfolding behind us right now, before us right now.

It's a humanitarian crisis that I fear is only going to grow worse in the coming days and weeks.

Clearly, the Afghan people deserve better political leadership than what they had over the past 20 years.

We saw the Afghan soldiers, many of whom fight bravely on the battlefield with the United States and allied support. But to put this all on them is just shifting the blame.

The fact is President Biden owns this. He owns the mess, the catastrophe that's been created over the past several weeks, couple of weeks, and should own up to it.

And really, at this point, we have to remedy the situation. We have to make sure the airfield is secured, which I understand it is.

But now we have to think about, how do we identify, locate, and help bring back the up to 15,000 Americans who are in the country, the State Department and other U.S. government employees?

We have to think about, how do we bring back our Afghan partners, many who risked their lives for the past two decades to help the United States and its allies?

[14:54:57]

So the president could cut through this paperwork, bring the folks out of the country, and take them to another third country, take them to Guam, wherever, but we need to take care of them.

And then, we should think about, how do we organize an international effort to really put the pressure on the Taliban to mitigate this emerging humanitarian crisis?

And then, finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say we really need to cobble back together our best intelligence assets and resources to make sure we know what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan so it doesn't, once again, become a safe haven for terrorists to attack America.

After all, that's the entire reason why we went there in first place in 2001.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: This was started under your administration, the president you served.

Can you take us into the conversations that were under way that even imagined that this would result in anything other than what we have seen today?

ESPER: Well, first of all, there were a series of United States presidents, beginning with President Obama, who wanted to see America withdraw from Afghanistan.

I think, at the end of the day, that was the right policy objective and remains to be the case, and I said so.

Second, just because negotiations began under the Trump administration does not ignore the fact that, again, President Biden owns the situation, the implementation of his withdrawal that we now see unfolding before us.

But that said, the Trump administration signed an agreement with the Taliban in February of 2020. It was a political agreement.

It was based on a premise that I and many others, inside and outside of the government, shared.

And that was that the only way forward was going to be a political agreement, not a military solution imposed by the United States and the Afghan government, but a political solution. The Taliban signed up to that.

We agreed to make reductions in our forces. At the same time, they committed to not allow, as you mentioned earlier, Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists to attack the United States. Then they made some other commitments as well.

I was clear at the time this agreement had to be conditions based. In other words, both sides need to meet their ends of the agreement.

The good news for the United States military is we were planning we ductions any way. At the time, we were about 13,000 troops. We planned to go down to around 8,600 or so by the summer.

With those caveats and conditions in mind, we proceeded.

I thought despite it not being a perfect deal or a great deal, it was a good enough deal.

And we actually had Afghans later in the summer talking to one another, which I thought was an achievement. My concern was that President Trump, by continuing to want to withdraw

American forces out of Afghanistan, undermined the agreement.

Which is why, in the fall, when he was calling for a return of U.S. forces by Christmas, I objected, and formally wrote a letter to him, a memo, based on recommendations from the military chain of command and my senior civilian leadership, that we not reduce below 4,500 troops, unless and until conditions were met by the Taliban.

Otherwise, we would see a number of things play out, which are unfolding now in many ways.

That, of course, was just a few weeks or a week or so before I left office. But that's the state of play.

Now, that said, President Biden coming into office, he was not necessarily bound to continue to Trump plan. He was not necessarily bound to implement the political agreement.

He could have taken, as he did, a completely different path. He could have tried to go back to the table with the Taliban and renegotiate.

He could have demanded, as I argued, that they agree to the conditions they established or they agreed to in the agreement and that we use military power to compel them to do that.

So that gets back to your first question. I think there were more options available to President Biden and his administration than simply continuing to withdraw U.S. forces, and doing it in such a precipitous and such a poorly planned way that we now see this crisis right before our eyes.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to get further down into the military miscalculations in a bit.

But first, I want to continue to ask you about the president that you served because this is relevant.

Do you believe that President Trump had a full understanding of what actually all this meant in the field?

You know, the peace negotiations -- and you just said it -- were with the Taliban, cut out the Afghan government for the first part, and basically, you know, with just with the Taliban, undermining the Afghan government.

You also, you know -- well, do you believe that Trump had an understanding of actually what was going on?

And do you think, or do you know whether there were any election considerations in terms of his desire to pull U.S. forces out even more rapidly?

[14:59:54]

ESPER: Look, I'll just speak for myself and DOD. I will say that we were very clear-eyed about what we could do about

the credibility of the agreement, about our trust in it, and about what would happen or not happen as we looked ahead.