Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Infrastructure Negotiations; U.S. Military Leaders Testify on Afghanistan. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired September 28, 2021 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:11]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello everyone. Welcome to NEWSROOM. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Victor is off today.

And we begin with what's being called the most significant televised testimony from the U.S. military in a generation, the nation's top military leaders going before the Senate Armed Services Committee today to answer tough questions about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And for the first time, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, spoke publicly about his actions in the final weeks of the Trump presidency.

You will remember in the just-released book "Peril," Milley is described as holding secret meetings and calling his Chinese counterpart out of fear that then-President Trump was acting erratically in his final weeks in office. Today, Milley defended his actions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: At no time was I attempting to change or influence the process, usurp authority, or insert myself in the chain of command.

But I am expected, I am required to give my advice and ensure that the president is fully informed on military matters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: OK, there's so much testimony to dissect.

So let's bring in CNN Pentagon correspondent Oren Liebermann.

Oren, let's start with the major issue from the hearing. And that's the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and whether the generals had advised President Biden to keep a troop presence there.

So tell us what was said. OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: This was one of the

biggest questions. And they were very careful in their wording here. They said they wouldn't get into specific recommendations that they made to the president. That has executive privilege.

But they also made clear what their personal views were that there should be a force of at least 2, 500 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan, not only to support the Afghan military, but to the government, but also to support essentially security and stability throughout the country.

That message came from the top U.S. general, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as the commander of us Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, when he said this about his personal view:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Senator, again, I won't I won't share my personal recommendation to the president. But I will give you my honest opinion.

And my honest opinion and view shaped my recommendation. I recommended that we maintain 2, 500 troops in Afghanistan. And I also recommended earlier in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4, 500 at that time. Those were my personal views.

I also have a view that the withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and eventually the Afghan government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIEBERMANN: Immediately after this, they turned to General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and asked him, do you agree? And he effectively said, look, I'm not going to get into the recommendations I made of the president. But he agrees with that personal view that there should have been a force that remained there.

He says, back in fall 2020, he told only the Trump administration, but then the Biden administration, that a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces could very well lead to a collapse of the Afghan military, a collapse of a government and then at that point two possible outcomes, either a Taliban takeover or an ongoing civil war throughout the country, a situation which Afghanistan knows all too well.

So, essentially a deep-down look at the thought process going into the evacuation, going into the final withdrawal of U.S. troops and all of the challenges we saw play out. He was asked one other question, Alisyn, and it was about the NEO, the noncombatant evacuation operation.

He was asked, was it a success? He called it a logistical success to be able to move 124,000 people in a matter of days, but a strategic failure.

CAMEROTA: Yes, that was really interesting to hear him give that kind of assessment.

Oren, stay with us, if you would.

Also joining the conversation now, we have CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel, CNN military analyst Retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton, and CNN chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward, who is back in Kabul, Afghanistan, for the perspective from there.

Great to have all of you.

Colonel Leighton, I want to start with you, because you just heard Oren lay out that it was not only General McKenzie who said that he suggested leaving 2, 500 troops. It was also General Austin, who said that advice was given to President Biden.

But here's what President Biden said about that to George Stephanopoulos on August 19.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: So, no one told -- your military advisers not tell you, no, we should just keep 2, 500 troops, it's been a stable situation for the last several years, we can do that, we can continue to do that?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, no one said that to me that I can recall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Colonel, how do we square that discrepancy?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That's a pretty hard one to square, isn't it, Alisyn?

I think what you're looking at here is the president may have wanted to hear certain things and maybe he wasn't prepared to indicate that there was dissension within his administration. It's -- you're getting into the realm of speculation here, but it may have been a bit of wishful thinking on his part.

[14:05:03]

And I think that you what you heard from the military people and the chairman especially and the secretary of defense was that they gave him some pretty clear advice that he needed to maintain a residual presence in Afghanistan. And, otherwise, we'd see some chaotic scenes. And, of course, those chaotic scenes unfolded.

CAMEROTA: Yes, I mean, Clarissa, I know that you're not here to give us military advice. But I think that President Biden also said that the idea that 2, 500 U.S. troops could stave off the Taliban was just faulty logic.

I mean, I seem to recall him saying that it was getting more dangerous, even before the chaotic pullout, that every year it was getting more dangerous in Afghanistan.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, Alisyn, there's no question about it. The Taliban has been on the ascent for a while.

But the pivotal moment, really, in terms of solidifying their gains and really contributing to their optimism and strength on the battlefield was, I think, the Doha agreements, because, basically, it became abundantly clear to the Taliban that all they needed to do in order to help precipitate the withdrawal of U.S. troops was to agree that Afghanistan would never again become a safe haven for al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.

They did not have to sit down with the Afghan government and hash out an agreement. They did not have to talk about what that might look like. And so what that basically did was allow them to kind of enter a game of just watching the clock.

And they knew the Americans were leaving. They began to position themselves around provincial capitals. They began to try to strike deals where they could. They presented themselves as much more pragmatic, as much more interested in governance.

And they basically set about getting everything in place for this moment that began then in May, when U.S. troops began to leave in earnest, when morale among the Afghan army was at an all-time low, when the Afghan army quickly, it became clear, was not able to function coherently and properly without the logistical and fighting combat support that the U.S. had provided for all of those years.

So, essentially, they were playing the long game, and they knew how this would end. No one could have predicted just how quickly it ended and how little resistance there were. And I think that's what we have heard today in these hearings.

But I think that the outcome, while it might have happened much more quickly than anticipated, was always anticipated.

CAMEROTA: And Jamie, and then to some political questions, which some of these senators during the committee hearing delved into.

One of them was from Senator Cotton, who wanted to know that if General Milley's advice wasn't followed by the president, why didn't General Milley resign? Here's that explanation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Why haven't you resigned?

MILLEY: Senator, as a senior military officer, resigning is a really serious thing. It's a political act if I'm resigning in protest. My job is to provide advice.

My statutory responsibility is to provide legal advice or best military advice to the president. And that's my legal requirement. Just from a personal standpoint, my dad didn't get a choice to resign at Iwo Jima. And those kids that are Abbey Gate, they don't get a choice to resign.

And I'm not going to turn my back on them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Jamie, what a moment to hear the thinking of our top military leaders.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Right.

And, of course, he's correct. This is the classic line between civilian authority and military authority. But I think what you also saw there was an attempt to score points.

The Republicans were asking very different questions about this, because, from the Republicans' point of view, this is a way to score points saying, President Biden made a mistake. And so that was going right to the heart of it.

CAMEROTA: Back to Clarissa's question that she said earlier. I heard her earlier this morning on "NEW DAY" say what she would ask the generals, which was, you know, what went wrong? Why didn't you see this coming?

And so let me play for you what General Milley said, Colonel, about the 11-day collapse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILLEY: We absolutely missed the rapid 11-day collapse of the Afghan military and the collapse of their government.

I think there was a lot of intelligence that clearly indicated that, after we withdrew, that it was a likely outcome of a collapse of the military and collapse of the government. Most of those intelligence assessments indicated that that would occur late fall, perhaps early winter.

[14:10:03]

While we were there though, up through 31 August, I don't -- there's no intel assessment that says the government's going to collapse and the military is going to collapse in 11 days that I'm aware of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Colonel, what are we to take away from that? What's the lesson there?

LEIGHTON: Well, the way General Milley characterized it, Alisyn, is this is an intelligence failure.

So you can look at it in several different ways. Clearly, on the surface, the intelligence was not there from a tactical standpoint. On the other hand, a lot of independent observers were looking at this, and were saying, we have got a problem here. This is a government that is not a strong government, it is the old Afghan government.

It is not going to survive any type of a push forward. And if you had looked at the rot and the corruption that existed within the Afghan government and the Afghan military, to be frank, that was a real recipe for disaster.

These people weren't going to last long no matter what we did. And that -- the failure of the intelligence community to explicitly state that or the operational community to look at it in that way and say, if you look at all the historical examples that are out there, these kinds of collapses happen very, very quickly.

And it should have been at least predictable that we would have had a rapid advance of the Taliban by -- and whether it's 11 days or 20 days is almost immaterial. It's going to be fast. And they should have assessed it from that standpoint and thought of it in that way.

CAMEROTA: So, Clarissa, when you were saying this morning that people on the ground wanted to know why wasn't there more preparation put in place by the U.S. when they saw all of this -- this house of cards falling, did that answer that?

WARD: I think, listen, of course, there -- I think we have heard a lot of real candor in the hearings today so far, and there have been some revelations.

I don't think any of that, honestly, at this stage is going to provide Afghan people with any sense of resolution about this. And, honestly, I think that most people, particularly in the city of Kabul, are just trying to survive at this stage and get on with their lives, because people here don't know what's going to happen five minutes in the future, let alone two weeks, two months.

And so these types of hearings and this kind of soul-searching, which is so important in the moments after an immense catastrophe like this, or an immense success, however you see it, it's less relevant for them on the ground.

As far as they're concerned, they feel that the rug was whipped out from under them, fairly or unfairly. And they do feel that things could have been handled better. And I think you heard that today, with that admission. It was a logistical success, but a strategic failure.

And there was some small details in there as well, just piggybacking on what General Leighton was just saying. OK, you have the intelligence issue, but then, beyond that, there was this talk about, our advisers were no longer embedded with the Afghan army for the last three years.

And what that meant was, you knew how many guns they were getting, how many weapons they had, what their sort of strategic logistical situation was, but you didn't know any longer what was going on in the hearts and the minds of Afghan forces.

And that kind of human intelligence, being together on the ground day in, day out, that is hugely crucial in making a determination when you're carrying out a withdrawal as to what the capacity and capability is of the forces who you're leaving behind.

CAMEROTA: Then, Jamie, beyond Afghanistan, there's the other stuff that General Milley had to address today, and that was the stuff that's in Bob Woodward and Robert Costa's book "Peril," basically, that General Milley believed -- and he wasn't alone.

There were other people in President Trump's orbit who believed he was becoming unhinged and more erratic after he lost the election. And so Milley was asked about that conversation that he had with Speaker Nancy Pelosi about, are you sure everything's going to be OK?

Because Nancy Pelosi was basically saying he's crazy, you know, referring to Donald Trump.

Here was General Milley's response today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILLEY: She was concerned and made very -- or made various personal references characterizing the president.

I explained to her that the president is the sole nuclear launch authority, and he doesn't launch them alone, and that I am not qualified to determine the mental health of the president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: How about that, Jamie?

GANGEL: So, that last phrase, "and I am not able to determine the mental health of the president of the United States," is actually not in his prepared statement. That seems to have been an ad lib along the way.

Let's just take a step back and look at what would Woodward and Costa report in their book. They reported that they received a full transcript of that phone call between Speaker Pelosi and General Milley. And it is verbatim.

[14:15:14]

There are quotes. And I'm going to read you now what they have from the transcript of that phone call.

Speaker Pelosi says: "Who knows what he might do? He's crazy. You know he's crazy. He's been crazy for a long time. So don't say you don't know what his state of mind is. He's crazy. And what he did yesterday," referring actually to January 6, "is further evidence of his craziness."

And General Milley responds: "Madam Speaker, I agree with you on everything."

So there's either a little bit of cleanup on aisle six here with that ad lib today, or -- we are reporting what Woodward and Costa report in the book, but I called them this morning, and they stand by their reporting.

All of that said, Alisyn, I do think that it was both extraordinary that General Milley had took the time, as part of his opening statement, to address all of the reporting from the Woodward and Costa book and some of the other books that had been out there, because he clearly felt the need to say that he had been acting within his authority.

He went through the phone calls with the Chinese generals and said it was routine. He made a point of saying, these military communications at the highest levels are critical to the security of the United States.

So, he wanted to make sure that he got across that he was only acting within his authority.

CAMEROTA: I thought so too. I mean, that -- what he said today is so different than no comment or I'm not going to talk about that.

GANGEL: Correct. Correct.

CAMEROTA: So, all right, Jamie Gangel, Clarissa Ward, Colonel Leighton, thank you all very much.

OK, now to what's happening on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying a new strategy, we're told, to get President Biden's infrastructure and spending plans both passed, but not everyone is on board with the new plan.

Plus, Gabby Petito's family makes a public plea to Brian Laundrie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:22:03]

CAMEROTA: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is shifting her approach in this make-or-break week for President Biden's agenda.

The speaker has decided to move forward with a vote on the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill before striking a deal on that $3.5 trillion social safety net reconciliation bill.

The decision to separate the two bills is a major reversal for Speaker Pelosi, who has said for months she would do them in tandem. Today, President Biden is holding meetings at the White House with two key Democratic senators, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, on all of this.

Let's get the latest from CNN congressional correspondent Ryan Nobles and CNN's chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins.

Ryan, what is behind Speaker Pelosi's change in tactics after we have heard from the progressive so many times in her caucus who have said no way, no how to separating these?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it seems as though the House speaker would like to get something accomplished for the Biden agenda and do it as soon as possible.

Now, there is a tangible reason for this. The surface transportation appropriation expires by the end of this week, and by passing this bipartisan infrastructure bill, that would alleviate that kind of procedural pressure on funding roads and bridges across the country.

But it doesn't have to be done that way, because this bipartisan infrastructure package is such a much bigger bill that they're dealing with here. And it involves so many other aspects of the negotiations here on Capitol Hill.

And what the House speaker is hoping is that she can get an agreement with some progressives on basically a framework for that much bigger $3.5 trillion human infrastructure package that you talked about that would be enough for them to vote yes by Thursday.

The problem is, at this point, progressives are holding firm that they want to see more than just an agreement. And right now, an agreement seems to be nowhere in the offering.

This is what Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Our caucus is strongest when it's unified, and decoupling these bills, it starts to pit priorities against one another.

And that's why I don't -- I disagree with separating them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: So, you hear AOC there talking about the Progressive Caucus, of which there are more than 90 members.

Now, we don't think that there are 90 members willing to vote no on Thursday, but there could be as many as 40. And, Alisyn, the margins are so tight in the House of Representatives. The House speaker can only afford to lose three, maybe four votes, depending on how Republicans decide to handle this. So she needs to bring them on board.

And right now, she just does not have the votes.

CAMEROTA: OK, so, Kaitlan, President Biden is meeting with those two key Democratic senators, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, as we said.

This isn't the first time that he's spoken to them. Is President Biden now taking the lead in these negotiations?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: He is to a degree.

And that is when it comes to this top-line number, because, as House Speaker Pelosi indicated to her caucus last night, it's President Biden who is negotiating with them on what they want this top-line number to look like.

And, as of last night, there had not been an agreement between the White House and Democrats on what that figure should be. We should note, of course, as you said, Senator Manchin is here.

[14:25:05]

Just a few moments ago, Jen Psaki, the press secretary, said when she came out to the briefing that Senator Manchin was still here. And Senator Sinema was here earlier in the day meeting with President Biden .She's actually just returned to the White House in the last few moments, if it gives you a sense of just how ongoing these discussions are.

But what the White House is not saying is whether or not they came to an agreement on that top-line number. And, instead, they are saying to ask Manchin and ask Sinema what their feelings are walking out of these meetings with President Biden.

And, of course, that is so at the heart of this, essentially, what Ryan is talking about there, with this frustration among these progressive House members over whether or not they are going to vote yes on that bipartisan infrastructure bill on Thursday, is, first, they want to know what they're looking at when it comes to this much bigger reconciliation package.

That's going to be the social change and climate change -- that social policy and climate change bill. That's what they want to know, what it is that Manchin and Sinema are willing to sign on to. And so far, those are numbers that they have not made clear.

And if it gives you a sense of what Senator Manchin has been saying earlier today about the details, this is what he told reporters about the timeline on putting that package together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I think there's a lot of work needs to be done. I keep telling you all we're going to work and work and work in a good faith.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, Alisyn, that's different than what we had heard from Senator Manchin just a few weeks ago, when he was calling for a complete pause on putting together a $3.5 trillion package.

But it does give you a sense of how Manchin and Sinema, as they have at so many times of the Biden presidency, been at the center of a big legislative decision. They are once again, but we have not heard their specifics yet on what they want that top-line number to look like.

And we're also not hearing it from the White House either. But maybe we will learn more after Sinema leaves this second meeting here at the White House in just about three hours.

CAMEROTA: OK.

And then, Ryan, all this is happening against the backdrop of a government shutdown, possibly Thursday night. And I understand that Democrats are changing tactics there as well. What's the latest?

NOBLES: Yes.

So, essentially, what Democrats had attempted to do was tie the government spending bill along with the lifting of the debt ceiling as a way to get Republicans on the record as part of raising the debt ceiling, which is set to expire sometime in the middle of October.

At this point, they understand the urgency of the government spending issue. As you mentioned, a government shutdown could occur as late as midnight on Thursday. So, it appears that they are at least temporarily going to separate those two pieces of legislation and find ways to pass them both independently.

That's a different legislative strategy. Regardless, Democrats have said time and time again that they're not going to let either of these things happen. They're not going to let the government shut down, and they're not going to allow the debt ceiling not to be raised.

At this point, it's just a matter of how they're going to get it done. It seems pretty clear they're not going to get any Republican support to make it happen.

CAMEROTA: OK, Ryan Nobles, Kaitlan Collins, thank you both very much for the status report of all these important things.

Now to coronavirus. Vaccinations for kids are one step closer to becoming reality. We have new information about those shots for children aged 5 through 11.

And former President Obama is expected to speak this hour at the groundbreaking for his presidential library. So, we will bring you his remarks live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)