Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Tonight
Troops to Afghanistan; Obama's War Plan; Jane Harman Interview; Afghan-Americans; John Nagl Interview; Matthew Hoh Interview
Aired December 01, 2009 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight President Obama announces his new plan for Afghanistan, a large-scale escalation of the eight-year war, 30,000 more Americans will be sent in to finish the job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What the president will do tonight is announce an accelerated strategy to take on al Qaeda and its extremist allies to ensure that the Taliban can't provide a safe haven for them to plot and plan.
ROBERTS: So is this the right plan for victory? Not everyone is on board. President Obama's own party is deeply divided. Many Democrats openly oppose doubling down in Afghanistan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The costs of this escalation will be enormous both in terms of blood and treasure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything would be on the table in terms of trying to prevent this error from occurring.
ROBERTS: Congresswoman Jane Harman (ph) will be here to tell us why she is opposed to the surge. Whatever the end game, Afghanistan could now become the defining issue of Barack Obama's presidency.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN TONIGHT live from New York. Here now John Roberts.
ROBERTS: Good evening, and thanks very much for joining us. Decision time for Afghanistan, just under an hour from now, President Obama will formally announce a new strategy for what he has called the necessary war. The president will address the nation in a prime time speech from West Point Military Academy.
He is expected to call for sending an additional 30,000 troops to be deployed within six months. The mission to disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. But it will not be an open-ended American commitment. A specific timeline for withdrawal will be a part of the deal.
CNN's Ed Henry is at West Point tonight. He joins us now live. What else can we expect from the president tonight, Ed? ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, the president is going to order the military that he wants 30,000 more U.S. troops headed to Afghanistan. And the key is he wants it with some speed. He wants it faster, this deployment than even General Stanley McChrystal, his commander on the ground suggested when he had laid out in his now famous memo that he wanted these troops spread out, about 40,000 of them, spread out over a year.
The president is only going to give him 30,000, but he is going to do it within six months. And he is really going to make a big deal about that speed because he thinks this is key to try and break the Taliban's back. In fact, we just obtained an excerpt in which the president in this speech to the American people will say quote, "the 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest pace possible so they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight, and they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans."
And that transfer of responsibility, as you mentioned, the president will lay out somewhat of a specific timetable, saying that beginning in July of 2011, about 18 months from now, he wants to start pulling these surge forces out of Afghanistan. But the key is that moving past that date, he is not going commit to withdrawing other troops on any specific time frame or deadline. However you want to phrase it, but basically he wants to leave it to conditions on the ground.
He leaves a very big hedge there, and that is part of the reason there is that divide that you mentioned in his own party. Some Democrats complaining that sounds a lot like former President Bush talking about Iraq, where he never had an exact time frame to pull troops, instead left it based on conditions on the ground and troops stayed there for a long time and are still there in fact -- John.
ROBERTS: You know Ed, it's also similar to President Bush's surge though in that President Bush said the surge will last a certain amount of time, then we'll pull those surge troops out, leave other troops there. But hasn't the president said that he would like to see the bulk of American combat forces out of Afghanistan before the end of his first term?
HENRY: That's right. Well when I interviewed the president in China a couple of weeks ago, he said he would like to see the bulk of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan before he leaves office. He did not want to pass it on to his successor. Obviously you can read that as the end of his first term, or if he serves two terms, it will actually be seven years from now. But you're right that in the short-term his aides are at least hoping, their goal we're told is to get a bulk of U.S. troops out over the next few years, hopefully by the end of his first term.
But the key is they're not committing to that, and the president is not going to commit to that in the speech tonight. He said he is going to talk about a goal, but he is going to leave that wide open. And that's part of the frustration among some Democrats on the left -- John.
ROBERTS: CNN chief White House correspondent Ed Henry for us tonight at West Point. Ed, thanks so much and stay with CNN to watch President Obama announce his new war strategy for victory in Afghanistan. We'll have complete coverage of the president's speech less than an hour from now and an in-depth analysis from the best political team on television.
The plan to send new troops into Afghanistan will happen quickly. President Obama is calling, as Ed said, for an accelerated timetable. Here is what it means in terms of actual boots on the ground. Thirty thousand will be deployed in the next six months. The first wave of Marines could be there by Christmas. Those new troops will be added to the 22,000 that President Obama sent earlier this year. The combined troop surges will bring the total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to 100,000 with more than half of those sent in by President Obama.
The president tonight tried to emphasize that the United States is not going it alone, asking NATO for some 6,000 troops. In an excerpt from his speech obtained by CNN, the president says, quote "Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead", end quote.
But so far Great Britain is the only country committed to sending more troops, adding about 500. Our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley joins us now. And Candy, this is certainly shaping up to be a major test of the president's foreign policy.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is because you know, John, during the campaign, President Obama, then candidate Obama kept saying we need to bring our allies together. We need to have not group decisions, but certainly there needs to be more conciliatory approach. We can't do it alone. Enough of this cowboy approach. So what has he done over the past year?
He has spent a lot of time overseas; the most traveled first term -- first year president of any president before him. And so here is now when the payoff comes. Can he get these NATO allies to pony up some troops? We already know that France has said no, we're pretty much -- we pretty much are not going to be doing it. Germany is sort of almost hit its limit that it's allowed to.
Canada is already talking about the timetable that it's going to come out. Now the president in these excerpts sounds very confident that he is going to be able to get these five or 6,000 troops from NATO. But it is a test of whether his formulation of foreign policy is indeed going to work. This is one of the first tests. OK we have said to them you're our partners. You're our allies. We all want to be able to consult with one another. Now let's see if the give-back is that those troops are forthcoming. ROBERTS: Why don't we take a look at the results of recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polling, we found that perhaps the president has a very difficult sales job tonight. This is November 13th to 15th. When asked about the U.S. war in Afghanistan, do you favor it or oppose it? Fifty-two percent of Americans said that they oppose it, the majority against this war, Candy. So he has got a tough hill to climb.
CROWLEY: He does. And it can't happen in one night. This has to be an ongoing process. They're fully aware of that. In Elmendorf (ph), when the president was in Alaska, he said to the troops there, I won't send you some place when you are not -- where you are not supported, either by equipment or by the American public.
He totally understands that the American public has to be behind him. And I would submit to you that that's precisely why you're not just hearing about the number of troops or about the strategy or about the goal, but about how to get out.
ROBERTS: But on the number of troops, we specifically asked that question of respondents. If President Obama decided to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, would you favor or oppose? Split pretty evenly -- narrow margin of people support it, 50 percent favor it, 49 percent oppose. But when asked if he sent a fewer number of troops, a smaller number of troops, look at this -- 42 percent of people would favor that -- 56 percent would oppose. So they do seem to be in favor of a larger troop engagement here.
CROWLEY: Intrinsically, I think we could add these up and say that the American people understand or believe that sending more troops will end the war more quickly, that many oppose it, but look at it and say OK, well, the more troops we have there, maybe the more quickly this war will end. And it goes back to some of those Vietnam era lessons learned. Always have an exit strategy. Always have a clear goal, and always go in with as much force as you possibly can have. And I think that's one of the things we're seeing in these polls is that's what the American people believe.
ROBERTS: Candy Crowley, great to see you tonight.
Members of the president's own party, as we said a few moments ago, are voicing opposition to the plan to send additional troops to Afghanistan. California Congresswoman Jane Harman is one of those taking issue with the increased troop levels. She joins us now from Los Angeles -- Congresswoman, if the troop increase were...
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: Hi. Good evening. Good to see you. If the troop increase were to come to a vote in the House right now, how would you vote on it?
REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well it's a moot question. If it were to come to a vote, I would vote no. But the president has already signed orders to send the troops in. What exactly Congress will vote on and when we'll vote, we'll learn more about tonight. I don't know precisely what the president will say.
Let me be clear that in general I support his new regional strategy. I especially think the incentives to get Pakistan to become a full partner and to crack down on terror groups in Pakistan that are destabilizing Afghanistan, India, and us is very worthy. I also support efforts to work around the Karzai government in Afghanistan and to support both the military and civilian efforts at lower levels.
What I oppose is a larger military footprint. I think that there -- for two reasons that doesn't make a lot of sense. One, it is a recruiting tool for the Taliban to say we're becoming even bigger occupiers of Afghanistan. But number two, it keeps the Afghans dependent on our expertise and our logistics. And I think it's time to take the training wheels off and let a capable Afghan force fight for its own country. It is time not to enlarge our military footprint.
ROBERTS: According to many military analysts, and they're almost in agreement about this, that the key to -- there needs to be stability and security in Afghanistan. They differ on how to get there. Do you believe that there would be greater stability and security in Afghanistan if the president were to draw down troops as opposed to put more in?
HARMAN: Well, I -- I think putting more in is the wrong direction. I think we do need to support the effort to reduce corruption in the Afghan government. That's a key, and the president is focused on that. I think there is broad recognition that the Karzai government operates at incredibly inept and corrupt levels, and that's what the work-around surging our resources at lower levels of government and investing only in ministries that perform is all about.
But I think that that's our first move. I then think once we -- once we increase training of Afghan forces, yes, we should reduce our footprint, and the president will tell us about that tonight. I don't know much about that. That news just leaked a couple of hours ago. And I'm looking forward to hearing him. I do think and I have supported this that the president needs to articulate an exit strategy. We don't want to be long-term occupiers of Afghanistan or Iraq, which we are not going to be, or other countries in the world.
ROBERTS: Congresswoman Jane Harman, good to speak to you tonight. Thanks for coming in.
HARMAN: Thank you, John.
ROBERTS: And coming up at 7:30, Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the best political team on television, they will continue our coverage leading up to the president's speech in Afghanistan. Wolf, what can we expect?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We can expect that we're going to have all of our best correspondents and analysts assessing every line that the president has to say, because there are deep ramifications. In fact, let's walk over to three of them right now -- Gloria Borger, Christiane Amanpour, and John King. What does the president most importantly need to do tonight?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well I think he needs to explain to the American people very clearly why it's in our own national security interest to make this kind of investment in Afghanistan, and after he does that, he needs to explain to them that it is not an open-ended investment, that there is an end point to it. And that it will succeed. It's a tough job he's got ahead of him.
BLITZER: He's going to say that the troops are going to go in big numbers right now. But starting in July 2011, we're going to start bringing them back. So he is trying to get both sides of this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Speaking to experts on the ground today, they said the last thing the region needs to hear is an exit strategy, because the thing that everybody wants to hear is that the United States is going to stay to finish the job. Many people believe that it will take some two years of heavy war fighting to beat back the Taliban, and then maybe another three years to consolidate and to enable the building, the development, to allow Afghanistan to stand up on its own two feet.
BLITZER: And look at the stage craft for tonight. We've got a picture of the podium where he is going to be speaking, in the theater at Ike Hall (ph) at West Point, Ike Hall (ph) named after Dwight Eisenhower. We're not going to see him surrounded by a lot of cadets and soldiers, although they will be in the audience.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember during the Iraq war, especially when political support dipped, Democrats always criticized then President Bush and Vice President Cheney for going to military installations by surrounding themselves, using the troops they said for political purposes. So the president won't do that with the imagery, but the White House said he very much wanted to go to an Army installation because it is the Army that has paid the heaviest price of two, three, and four deployments to Iraq and to Afghanistan.
And Wolf, they're going to pay that price again now. We're told when the president settled them (ph), as he essentially has accepted General McChrystal's assessment of the situation on the ground that it is deteriorating, that it is getting worse, and if he doesn't get more troops soon, it will continue to drift. And the president is going to be telling the American people, but also the Army families, those who serve and those who support them back here, you have at least two or three more very tough years ahead of you and you will be deploying again and perhaps again.
BLITZER: You're going to be using the magic map tonight to explain what is going on?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll lay out the assessment of the threat in Afghanistan using the map. We'll also lay out some of the political challenges for the president. And one of the things we will show is that this is now President Obama's war. He -- yes, mistakes were made in the Bush administration, and he will make that case tonight that he is trying to end what he calls drift. But he runs the risk now, Wolf, as he escalates this war that if there are casualties, this is a very risky business and a risky proposition, that he is the one who will be held accountable.
BLITZER: And he said during the campaign, Gloria, he wanted to focus in on Afghanistan away from Iraq, and that's what he is doing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. He called it a war of necessity. And that's exactly what I think you're going to hear this evening. His mission is going to remain the same, which is to dismantle and destroy and defeat al Qaeda. And we'll hear him talk about that tonight.
BLITZER: We got more than a dozen of our analysts and correspondents standing by. We'll have full reaction to what the president is about to say, John. In the meantime, let's go back to you.
ROBERTS: Looking forward to it, Wolf. Thanks so much.
Coming up, the decision to escalate has been made. Now we'll ask military experts where in Afghanistan the new troops will be sent to fight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Among the rarely heard voices in the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan are those of the Afghans now living in the United States. Our Casey Wian spoke with two Afghan-American leaders in Orange County, California who are closely watching tonight's presidential speech.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hasan Nouri is one of an estimated 300,000 Afghan-Americans in the United States. The son of an Afghan diplomat, now an engineer and American citizen, the war in his homeland is personal.
HASAN NOURI, AFGHAN-AMERICAN: Every time a young American man gets killed, it's an enormous pain for me. Every time there is some innocent men, women and children get killed, that's a lot of pain for me.
WIAN: We spoke with Nouri at an Afghan-American television network studio in Irvine, California. He supports President Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.
NOURI: We have messed up things so bad during the last eight years that we need an immediate and interim increase in the number of troops to provide enough security so the Afghans could establish, elect a national government that has no allegiance to any foreign nation or power.
WIAN: Most important Nouri says is a clearly defined exit strategy that reassures Afghans the U.S. has no plans to be a longer term occupying force.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE) WIAN: Nabil Miskinyar runs Ariana Afghanistan Television and is a frequent critic of the Afghan government. He says troop levels are essentially irrelevant because the Afghan people have little confidence in their government.
NABIL MISKINYAR, ARIANA AFGHANISTAN INT. TV: The people of Afghanistan, they are not looking for these things. Because the people, they don't have the food. They don't have security. The people, they don't have a job.
WIAN: Miskinyar hopes to begin local broadcast operations in Afghanistan next year. Despite the risks, he says he needs to be on the ground to truly understand the direction Afghans want to take their country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: Both men say American style or even American influenced democracy will not work in Afghanistan. They point to its history as a diverse collection of tribes with a common trait. They don't welcome foreign occupiers for very long -- John.
ROBERTS: Casey Wian tonight -- Casey, thanks so much.
Coming up, much more on the president's decision on Afghanistan -- is sending 30,000 more troops there a good idea? Two foreign policy experts with extensive experience in the region will join me here, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: We're now about 37 minutes away from President Obama's announcement on a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Joining me now are two experts on the country. John Nagl is president of the Center for a New American Security. He's also a member of the Defense Policy Board and a long time member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Matthew Hoh is a former Marine Corps captain and resigned his position with the U.S. State Department in Afghanistan in protest over how the war is being handled -- gentlemen, good to see you tonight.
John, let's start with you, if we could. The president has made the decision, 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in the next six months. How would you best put those troops to use?
JOHN NAGL, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY: If I were General McChrystal, I would focus on the south initially. Kandahar is Afghanistan's second city. It's the home base of the Taliban. It's where the Taliban began. But currently we don't have enough troops to clear and hold it.
I would spread the rest of the troops across population centers in the south and in the east. But I'd reserve at least four or 5,000 of them to work on training the Afghan army and the Afghan police. Capable Afghan security forces are going to enable an American exit strategy from Afghanistan some time not too many years in the future. ROBERTS: Is it -- we understand from a briefing by a senior administration official there will be a brigade at least in the initial surge forces assigned to training Afghan security forces. So it sounds, John, like they might have been listening to you, there.
Now Matthew, you're opposed to a troop increase there. Also, I wanted to talk to you about this idea that General McChrystal says that if the U.S. were to draw down troops in Afghanistan, that there is a likelihood that al Qaeda would come back. The president seems to concur with that. But you disagree. Why?
MATTHEW HOH, FORMER MARINE CORPS CAPTAIN: I disagree. Al Qaeda is an organization that doesn't really exist as an organization anymore in the sense that we think of it. It's an ideological movement. It recruits individuals or small autonomous and independent cells worldwide. It exists on the Internet. It does have leadership, but the leadership is primarily figureheads now.
And so what it does is it uses the ideology driven across the Internet, and it picks up people around the world. We need to attack al Qaeda with intelligence and law enforcement focus. Army combat brigades are not going to affect al Qaeda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
HOH: The 60,000 troops in Afghanistan are not affecting al Qaeda's operations.
ROBERTS: Do you agree with that, John?
NAGL: I don't. I think that al Qaeda does have an Internet presence, but it also still has a physical presence. It's on the ground inside Pakistan, which is the real key of the problem here. So much of what we're doing inside Afghanistan is intended to prevent Pakistan from sliding further down hill and to encourage Pakistan to continue its efforts against al Qaeda and the Taliban on its side of the border.
ROBERTS: Now Matthew, if not a troop surge, what would you do? What do you think the proper solution in Afghanistan is?
HOH: Sure. You have to -- you have to look at al Qaeda as a different problem than looking at the civil war in Afghanistan. With regards to the civil war in Afghanistan, you need a political solution, a political settlement. This war has been going on for over 30 years. You need something to bring both sides of this conflict to the table.
In 2001, we removed the party that was in power, the Taliban, and replaced them with the Northern Alliance, which roughly represent the two different sides in the civil war. We never did anything to politically settle this conflict. I think we're making a mistake by labeling what is happening in Afghanistan as insurgency and not as a civil war and that we need to drive for a political solution to end this. ROBERTS: All right, well we'll see what the president has to say tonight -- Matthew Hoh, John Nagl, good to see you tonight. Thanks so much.
CNN special coverage of President Obama's speech on Afghanistan continues in just a moment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: President Obama's speech on his Afghan war plan now just about 30 minutes away. CNN's special coverage on Decision Afghanistan continues right now.
BLITZER: He has been in office now for almost a year. This is certainly going to be the most important national security speech of his administration so far. I'm Wolf Blitzer. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Campbell Brown is here.
Campbell, the president's got a really tough mission ahead of him tonight.
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: He does, Wolf. If you look at the polls, most of the country not with him in his decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. And this speech tonight is really about educating people about what is at stake, and it's probably going to take a lot more than one big prime time speech to do that.
BLITZER: We're only about a half hour away from the start of the speech, the president at West Point. Let's go to our senior White House correspondent Ed Henry. He is standing by.
Ed, they already released some excerpts of what the president is about to say.
HENRY: That's right, Wolf. One of the excerpts is all about look forward to July of 2011 and wanting to get these troops out. One bit of color I wanted to pass along is the fact that I just spoke to some of the cadets who will be in the room, the senior cadets from West Point. What they were basically telling me is that they're going to be graduating in May. And they will be heading to either Iraq or Afghanistan next spring and summer. These interest people most affected, bearing the sacrifice that this president, this commander in chief will lay out tonight. I asked them, are you scared? Are you worried? And all three of these cadets said no. This is our mission. This is what we sign upped for. We're looking forward to following through. But what we want to hear from the president tonight is what exactly is the mission. They think he has to refocus it and explain what is going to happen moving forward.
BLITZER: Over at Eisenhower Hall will be cadets, soldiers and invited guests. There will be a few thousand people in that audience, right?
HENRY: Absolutely. And what top White House aides say, they can expect the president to speak for about 35 to 40 minutes. On the substance, he is going to talk about sending 30,000 more troops. And the key is he is going to talk about sending them much quicker than even General McChrystal suggested. Rather than spreading it out over a year, he wants to get them there in the next six months. And also, on the other end, he wants to talk about trying speed up withdrawal. You'll remember last year as a candidate President Obama said about Iraq, we want to be as careful on the way out as we were careless on the way in. It's almost what he is saying now about how he wants to be very careful about pulling out. He is not going to set a firm deadline for pulling out all U.S. troops, instead saying that he wants to base it on conditions on the ground there is some flexibility there, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Ed. We're going to get back to you. Ed Henry already at West Point getting ready for the president's speech.
We're here with our top analyst, our top reporters, many of whom have spent quite a bit of time in Afghanistan. They know this terrain quite well. Campbell, there is no doubt that this is going to be the president's war as of tonight.
BROWN: It is indeed, Wolf. And with me now, I think the most appropriate place to start, probably the best foreign policy team in television. But you guys have all been there. You've been on the ground in Afghanistan. You've spent a lot of time with the military commanders. Christiane Amanpour, start us off with what you think he must convey tonight, given the vast number of audiences he is speaking to.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He's got to convey that he is in it for the long-term in terms of getting the job done as he himself has said. Obviously he has a domestic constituency here so he's talking about starting to withdraw. But the last thing people out there want to hear is an exit strategy or a definite timeline. They want to hear that the Taliban is going to be beat back. The first thing people out there want is security. Then they want to hear that there is going to be some kind of development so that they can actually have some kind of better livelihood. This is not going won by bombs and bullets alone. This is going to be by bread and butter, better livelihood, books, education, that kind of thing. And that's what is going to have to happen.
BROWN: But Nic Robertson, you have been there. Is this something that can be achieved given the timeline being laid out?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If the timeline is 18 months to see significant improvement so that you can start drawing down, that seems to be very rapid and perhaps overly ambitious at this particular stage. We've been told now it's a generational thing that is going to happen in Afghanistan. Education takes time to trickle through. Building of security forces takes time. Police in particular are very weak. Getting rid of the corruption within the government is no overnight fix either. So it does seem as if this is a very tight timeline to draw down sufficient numbers to show that we are actually coming out. BROWN: And Barbara Starr, inure leaving for Afghanistan in the morning. You've talked to the military commanders. They've been briefed on this. They know the numbers he is talking about, the commitment he is willing to make. Is it enough in their view?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the question is it enough for the young soldier or marine on the ground. The young kid who's got one more nighttime patrol, one more ambush to live through, one more convoy through insurgent territory. They're going to want to hear what is in this speech that is going to make their job more safe, and what about the 30,000 troops that are going? What is in this that is going to make it possible for them to win?
BROWN: And Chris Lawrence, you're just back. You've been talking to them. Is that what they want to hear? Is that what they want the president to convey?
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think they'll be looking beyond this speech to see what they're commanders say about how this is going to affect their particular unit. Those teams that go out and clear the roads of IEDs. Will they be able to get more eyes on the roads so the insurgents don't come and replant the bombs after they go through? It's that level of detail that I think the individual soldiers are going to be looking at after this speech.
BROWN: And quickly, Michael Ware, our cynic. You have been known to be our cynic on occasion. How optimistic are you?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends. Is the president finally ready to fight this war or not? We've seen eight years of America failing to fight the war in Afghanistan, either on the development front or tactically on the battlefield. Now sending an extra 30,000 troops is the first start. But that in a vacuum is not enough. And something else we need to be keenly aware of. And we may or may not hear this tonight from the president. The war is not ultimately going to be won or lost in Afghanistan. You've got to get Pakistan to stop tacitly supporting the Taliban. To do that, you need to allay Pakistan's fears about India, because India essentially backs the Afghan government. So there is so many moving pieces. We even see the subtle hand of Iran in there helping the Taliban. There are so many moving pieces here. That just sending troops alone just to fight is not going to be enough.
BROWN: Before we get into some of the politics on this, because there is so much more to talk to, I want to go back to Wolf to get a sense, Wolf, from what people on the ground who are there now are feeling about tonight as well.
BLITZER: And for that, Campbell, let's go right to Kandahar. That's one of the most dangerous areas in Afghanistan right now. CNN's Frederik Pleitgen is on the ground.
You're with some U.S. troops, Fred, on the scene. I know it's either in the middle of the night or getting ready for early in the morning where you are right now. What is the mood of the troops as they get ready to hear their commander in chief? FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, it's about 5:00 in the morning here in Kandahar. The main military base here in Kandahar. In the television room where a lot of the troops are going to be watching this announcement. I can tell you from having spent a lot of time here over the past couple of days that this has been the talk of this military base, really. This has been the defining topic. Every one that I talked to, every single soldier is telling me they need more boots on the ground here. They say their main problem is they'll go into an area of Taliban activity. They'll clear that area of Taliban activity, but then they simply won't have enough soldiers to hold that area. And that they say is a major concern. This, of course, one place where we expect the bulk of those additional troops to come, into Kandahar. It's going to be a very important focal point of the president's strategy. One thing that they're saying is that Kandahar city in particular is one that is very important. The Taliban have been gaining ground here in Kandahar city. It's the spiritual home of the Taliban, and this is certainly a place that is going to be very, very important moving forward. And it's something that you can literally sense here on the ground, Wolf.
BLITZER: We're going to come back to you, Fred, because we want to get reaction from the troops on the ground in Afghanistan as well. We have a lot to cover over the next several hours as we watch what happens, the president getting ready for his speech at West Point. And our special coverage will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're only about 18 minutes away from the president's address. Not only to the nation, but to the world on his new strategy in Afghanistan, including the deployment of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops. That will bring the troop level from the United States alone up to about 100,000 over the next several months. Reaction on Capitol Hill already has been intense. Let's go to our senior Congressional correspondent Dana Bash.
Dana, a lot of the Republicans are happy what they're seeing. A lot of Democrats not so happy.
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It certainly is ironic, not something we're used to with this president. But look, the bottom line is I spent a lot of time today walking around, talking to lawmakers. So did the rest of our team here on Capitol Hill. Especially when we're talking about Democrats, the overriding thing we heard is skepticism, deep skepticism of their fellow Democrat in the White House and this plan, even though they certainly knew about this during the campaign that this was his idea. They're hearing from constituents back home. They don't like this idea. And even Republicans, Wolf, who support the idea of sending more troops don't like the idea of having this exit date of July 2011.
BLITZER: There is going to be a lot more reaction, Dana. We're going to follow it every step of the way. Let's bring in Campbell Brown. Campbell, you've got some members of the best political team on television standing by. BROWN: And Wolf, Dana made reference to this, Christiane made reference to it earlier. This is the president's challenge tonight. He is speaking to two vastly different audiences. Democrats are opposed to what he wants to do in Afghanistan. And how do you appeal to them, Donna, and at the same time not signal to your allies and enemies that you are not committed to this and willing to stick it out.
DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: First of all, I think Democrats will listen to the president and hear what he those say. I feel it's important that the president clarify the mission in Afghanistan. After all, it was just eight months ago, nine months ago the goal was to destroy and disrupt al Qaeda. What is the role now? And what role will Afghanistan play? Before he comes back to the capitol and say look, I need additional money to pay for the troops, I think the president needs to spell out exactly what the troops will be doing and when they will come home.
BROWN: How ironic is it that the right is President Obama's biggest champion at the moment, Mary?
MARY MATALIN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: He needs to quit worrying about the Washington politicians and he needs to not focus so much, as people have been all day telegraphing he would, on how to get out. He needs to focus more on why did we get in and how are we going to win as we look at our own polls here. People want enough troops in there to be able to win. He needs to use the what he has relative to the struggle so far, and that is victory. Get out of Washington and his audience public support should be the people who want to win, not just get out.
BROWN: But how can you get out of Washington when at the same time you do need Congress behind you? I mean, they got to fund this thing, right?
PAUL BEGALA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: They do. And there is a lot of skeptical Democrats about it, about funding this. They didn't like funding President Bush's war in Iraq. Certainly Barack Obama didn't even like funding that. At the time, though, he said I'd rather those troops go to Afghanistan. Well, now he is president. The troops are going to Afghanistan. Three years ago we had 23,000 troops in Afghanistan. OK, six months from now we'll have 100,000. That's a serious commitment. What I think not only Democrats, but the country wants to hear is what seems to be the news in the pre-speech leaks is that he does have an exit strategy. That's the debate that the country is waiting for. We're looking at ten years, almost ten years this July 2011 deadline he set.
BROWN: Before I get to you, Alex, on this, I want to go to you, John King. We've been talking about how divided the country is right now. And John can break it down in terms of what the polling is.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks Campbell. Let's move the map of Afghanistan to do it. As we take a look at the mood you're all talking about. First, let's look at the threshold number. Do you favor or oppose the war. The majority, 52 percent of Americans in our latest polling oppose the war. It gets more interesting if you start to break things down. Should the president do essentially, we asked people should the president do essentially what he is going to announce tonight, 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan? The country is divided. 50 favor, 49 percent don't. And this is very interesting when you break it down. Look at this. Democrats overwhelmingly oppose to sending more troops. The Republicans give the president big support. A Democratic president gets high marks from Republicans, independents are evenly split. Another interesting way to look at this is the breakdown between men and women. Men are much more likely to favor sending more troops to the war, women much more likely to oppose it. And as the president does this Campbell, this goes to the point you're talking about with the analysts, we have a pessimistic country at the moment about this. How are things going in Afghanistan? In March 55 percent said things were going badly. That went up to 61 percent in May. Now 66 percent. Two-thirds of the American people think things are going badly. The political challenge for the president is to say because it's going badly, I need to send more troops. That's the best way to fix things and get out sooner. But that's a very steep hill for the president, Campbell.
BROWN: And to that point, Alex, how does he do it? What does he have to say?
ALEX CASTELLANOS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, he has done something at the start that is jeopardizing some of the Republican support he had. Christiane has said that the people in Afghanistan on the ground who are going to be there don't want to hear about an exit strategy on the first day. They don't want to see you take one step forward and at the same time take a step back. Neither do the Republicans in Congress. A lot of Republicans feel that wars are not won by presidents who enter them look for an exit strategy. They're won by presidents who enter them to make the other guy look for an exit strategy. His commitment to this war is in question. What does he have to do tonight? He has to convincingly persuade this country he is committed to success, and that it's worth the price.
BROWN: And this is going to be probably a big campaign going forward well beyond just tonight.
CASTELLANOS: He's got an argument to make. Last time al Qaeda only had box cutters and an airplane ticket. If they get a nuclear bomb from Pakistan because they control the state next door, that's important. But he's got to make that case.
BEGALA: That's how we got into Iraq, by the way. The mushroom cloud and all those myths.
BROWN: All right. We've got a lot more to talk about on this. We're going to take one very quick break before we come back. We're just a little more than ten minute ace gray the president's speech beginning at the top of the hour. We'll come back after this break with a lot more analysis. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: They're watching and getting ready for the president's speech at West Point, all across the country. Troops especially are really anxious to know what is going on. There are watch parties going on in Chicago for example, at Camp Pendleton in California, in Fayetteville, they're watching as well. Loved ones of U.S. troops standing by, they're getting ready to hear what the president, commander-in-chief, has to say. This is an important speech the president will deliver. He will not only announce his strategy for a surge of some 30,000 U.S. troops, a hope for surge of NATO troops as well. Maybe 5,000 if he can convince the NATO allies to come forward and join the U.S. in this escalation of the NATO military involvement. But at the same time he wants to announce that those troops will start withdrawing from Afghanistan starting in July 2011. Campbell Brown, this is a tough assignment for the president to sort of juggle all of these various aspects of this highly sensitive and very risky strategy.
BROWN: Let me explain why it has taken them time to get to this point. Gloria Borger three months and preparation for this moment tonight. Talk to us about what has gone into this, deliberations that took place, give us a sense behind the scenes.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: When you think about it, more than 20 hours of meetings in The Situation Room. I am toad the president asked the intelligence community to produce dozens of fresh assessments on issues about the enemy. Issues about, for example, play out a scenario. What would happen if Pakistan collapsed? And one scenario after another scenario. And he pushed the intelligence community. He pushed his military commanders. Kept telling them to go back and get more and more and more information for him. Until he informed everyone of his decision on Sunday.
BROWN: David, is there, is this the kind of speech that is going to make no one happy ultimately in the end? It doesn't quite go far enough for anyone?
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR: There is that possibility. Some will think the soup is too hot. And some think it is too cold. He has to convince him just right, the goldilocks speech. Several of us here at these tables, we know the president's head is in the speech. He spent all the hours preparing for it. Tonight we want to know if his heart is in it. Is he really committed to this war or not? Or is he just looking for a way to get it behind him? I don't think we know that yet. One of the things that is going to be so critical. I have never seen a president go in -- on a -- war fight speech and not have his heart committed to it, not do it with, matter of conviction the you don't win wars unless you have a sense of conviction about it.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: He is speaking to the troops at West Point. Really talking to the American people. He has to remind them what happened on 9/11. You can have progressives and liberals talk. We can pull out along those lines. He has to remind people this country was scared to death, and that ground zero was Afghanistan, it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't anywhere else. This is why we have to finish the job there and actually define that. He likes to be calm, cool, collected. He has to hit an emotional chord to get Americans to understand. You need to be with me on this. Because you were scared eight years ago and you should be scared if this country goes awry.
BROWN: Isn't that a hard case to make? Just given the amount of time that passed. And how many events this country has been through that, since that time. Aren't we seeing this from a vastly different perspective now?
BORGER: We are. Campbell, I think in a way it comes down to the basic question, are we safer? What can the president of the United States do to make us safe? We talk about our national security interests and the rest, what is going to protect me and my children and my family from another attack in this country?
GERGEN: To your point, Campbell. This is one of the toughest speeches I have seen any president give for war. Typically when a president goes to the country about sending combat troops into action we have just been attacked or there is an urgent threat to our national interest. And Americans don't feel that right now. They don't sense that about a war that has gone on and on and. The U.S. government frankly over the last several years has done a lousy job trying to help Americans understand why Afghanistan matters. Just to go back to Roland's point. That's what he has to do. To show his heart is in it. I think it is a very tough speech.
BROWN: Well, to the point. We have talked about this a lot. The country, beyond the men and women there fighting has not been asked to make a sacrifice, except, as I said, the men and women who are going there. John King can talk to us about that. Because they're going to be packing up and shipping out soon, John.
KING: Campbell, and an army under strain for eight years, will face more strain. Let's start with where they will come from. Troops will come from installation as cross the country. Let's look at where the initial troops are likely to come from. Start up here, Fort Drum in upstate New York. One of the installations sending troops as part of the surge into Afghanistan. Another installation, Fort Campbell, troops also will be heading in the month as head to Afghanistan. Two installations in North Carolina, the army post at Fort Bragg, sending more troops again rotating into Afghanistan. And first out of the box we are told marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Marines and army carrying the burden as the president escalates in Afghanistan. That's where they will come from.
Let's take a better look where they are going. Go around the world and look in the region. You get there. Stop that here. Pull this out. Obviously everyone talking about this. The world's most volatile neighborhood. Afghanistan in the middle. Let's stretch it out to look at the map of Afghanistan. Here it is separated. Kabul the capital with the star. Here are the different regions. I will draw a line for you to make a point. Want you to follow this through. I will come through here like this. Remember where the line is. That will stay right there. Now why is that significant? Let's take a look at where the troops are right now. If you look at the current play out -- 45,000 NATO troops, 68,000, this number higher now because of a rotation. That is the number of U.S. troops before the president's escalation. Let's close it down. Take a look. American troops here, American, British troops here. Americans into this region here. Other flags of the NATO countries here. Why is that significant? Remember the line there. Look now here. This way. The darker the province, the higher the influence of the Taliban. Inside the line where you had most U.S. troops, Helmand, Kandahar, up in here, at the strongest. The new troops going in to reinforce the existing troops in the area. As the foreign policy team was talking. We can look at Afghanistan. We can look at the fight in here. Certainly big escalation of the fight. The question is what impact will it have in here? You come into the tribal regions here as well, along the border right in here in Pakistan. The United States wants to push the Taliban and the limited al Qaeda presence here.
The question is what happens in the border area, as Michael, Nic, Christiane were talking. Osama Bin Laden was believed to have escaped Afghanistan and is some where still in the mountainous region up in here. The president is escalating in this area. Going to come back, show you this again. American flags here. British flags down here. Most of the American and British troops are in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan at the moment. Again, just as you listen to the president tonight -- remember this. Darker the province here, the higher the Taliban influence. This is the challenge. The president will make the case after eight years of what he will call drift in Afghanistan sending more U.S. troops in now to fight this enemy is the best solution to bring stability to Afghanistan and the president, tougher challenges he will say more troops now means they will come home sooner -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, thanks, John. We will be getting back to you. It is fascinating the president has decided not only within six months to build up the U.S. troop presence from 68,000 to close to 100,000 by adding another 30,000 U.S. troops and hoping to get more NATO troops. But he is also -- fascinating a year and a half from now he will start withdrawing the troops. A date, July 2011 when he wants the troops to start coming home.
BROWN: And as everyone has made -- underscored this upon the tonight that is a tough case to make. An extremely difficult case to make to try to appeal to so many different audiences and, you know, to people who wonder whether that is really achievable. That you can get in that quickly and -- get the troops home especially given as was pointed out the strain that the military is under. These guys, men and women have been doing certainly more than one tour. They're packing unto get ready to go again.
BLITZER: Logistically, Afghanistan is certainly no Iraq where at least in Iraq you have Kuwait, staging ground to deploy troops and equipment, supplies. There's no such staging ground in land locked Afghanistan. The president only about 90 seconds away or so from the start.
