Return to Transcripts main page

In the Arena

Stalemate in Libya?; Chaos and Bloodshed in the Middle East; American Student Held Captive in Syria; Japan's Nuclear Reactor Core May Be Leaking

Aired March 25, 2011 - 20:00   ET

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

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. Our regular Will Cain is here.

Will, what have you got for us tonight?

WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The protests across the Middle East have now spread into Syria. Country with the long, ugly and violent history of dealing with protesters. We're going to talk about what to expect there in the coming weeks.

SPITZER: All right. It is going to be ugly and violent, as you say. An extraordinary time in the Middle East, Will, and we begin with Libya where the critical question is this -- checkmate or stalemate?

I want to start by showing you an example of how and why the coalition dominates the skies and how it's been employed against Libyan forces.

What you're watching is a British Royal Air Force tornado bomber targeting and destroying a Libyan battle tank. In a split second the tank turns into a ball of fire. This superiority is why the Obama administration hoped that this campaign would be a quick checkmate and the fall of Gadhafi.

Yet almost one week into the Libyan campaign, it's increasingly looking like a drawn-out stalemate. Gadhafi still shows no signs of relenting in his brutal war against his people, ignoring all calls for a cease-fire.

In Ajdabiya, in Zintan, and in Misrata the fighting continues while Gadhafi forces are dug in deep in Tripoli. Almost one week in, hope of a quick checkmate -- that is of an end to the Gadhafi regime -- is fading. And as American forces hand off control of the campaign to NATO, it looks like a long-term stalemate is a possible outcome.

Tonight's question, will the U.S. and our allies have the political will to continue the longer efforts to drive Gadhafi out of office if the war bogs down? And can we accomplish our objectives within the constraints of the U.N. resolution?

We go now to Nic Robertson in Tripoli.

Nic, it seems the Gadhafi regime continues to try to spin a story. What are you seeing and what are they trying to tell you?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they continue to try to show us that there were civilian casualties here. They believe if they can do that then that will somehow weaken the international resolve here.

They took us to a farmhouse on the eastern outskirts of the city where a missile or a rocket or something had impacted in the farmland. They told us there'd be civilian casualties. The stories we heard there didn't add up. It was clear that something had impacted, but there were no casualties around for us to see and conflicting stories about who and what had been hit.

But what we did see on the way driving out of the city to the east are clear signs of how the coalition aerial bombardment campaign is effective here. We saw smoke rising from two military bases, damaged buildings in one of those bases, and a damaged radar control system outside another one of the bases.

This is a radar that controls a network, a small type network of surface-to-air missiles right on the seafront where coalition aircraft would fly over and into the city. That had been targeted and destroyed, but at the same time, we also saw how Gadhafi is moving his assets, moving his military assets around, his air defense assets, to try and keep them safe from coalition targeting.

We saw a camouflaged anti-aircraft gun dug into the side of the road behind a high sand berm right along the seafront there so it can catch aircraft flying over. And outside another base, we saw a surface-to-air missile system, a mobile, small portable surface-to-air system -- missile system hidden under the tree.

So Gadhafi clearly has some of this equipment in his arsenal still, has taken it outside the bases, is hiding it from sight. But he still plans to use it at coalition aircraft flying over the city here -- Eliot.

SPITZER: Well, Nic, that raises the inevitable question, are we sinking into a stalemate or does one side have a distinct advantage at this point best as you can tell from everything you're seeing and hearing?

ROBERTSON: Nobody has an advantage right now. Over time, the coalition has the air supremacy, but it's going to take time to degrade Gadhafi's forces on the ground. His will isn't broken.

We understand from coalition commanders he continues to want to reinforce his red line, his line in the sand, Ajdabiya in the east of the country, he has forces dug in there. The rebels can't push them out.

That's a stalemate. He's arming the tribes to bring them in the fight if the army fails him. And what we are seeing here is that he's scattering his weaponry around civilian neighborhoods so it's going to be hard to take it out and targeted all across the country. So it is degenerating into a stalemate of sorts before you get into other questions like what happens if the rebels take Ajdabiya and advance through the rest of the country. Where would the coalition be positioned and what issues would they face if they found the rebels were advancing through territory where there were civilians that were loyal to Gadhafi.

This would present many issues. So it is heading into a troublesome, it appears, stalemate at the moment -- Eliot.

SPITZER: All right, Nic, thank you for that report. You stay safe over there.

Joining me now is James Traub, the contributing writer for "The New York Times" magazine and he writes also a weekly column for Foreignpolicy.com.

James, as always, thanks for being here. So the president, we've just heard, is finally going to speak to the nation Monday night at 7:30 about Libya. What will he tell us is our objective over there? How does he square the multiple purposes we have so far heard about?

JAMES TRAUB, FOREIGNPOLICY.COM: Well, he has to distinguish between the military objective which is laid out in the U.N. Security Council resolution, and the political objective which he has quite explicitly said he has and which our allies share. Military objective is a humanitarian one. Political objective, get rid of Gadhafi.

I think the case that's going to be hard for him to make is, how do we get from one to the other. That is, you could say we've succeeded. The military campaign has succeeded. But the military campaign has to also ultimately serve this political goal of getting Gadhafi out.

SPITZER: Look, you just said the critical point. The military -- our military is there to get our political purposes accomplished. And if the political objective was to get Gadhafi out and yet we're handcuffed by a U.N. resolution that says only civilian humanitarian purposes, that tension, that disjunction has to be squared.

TRAUB: Well, but we're not really handcuffed by it. That is, if the U.N. Security Council resolution did not include the expression, "all necessary means," which U.S. ambassador to the U.N.'s Susan Rice insisted that it had, it would be true that we would only be able to engage in explicitly humanitarian no-fly zone kind of activities, but the fact is a lot of the other things you're seeing, which have nothing to do with the no-fly zone, are directed towards degrading Gadhafi's military capacity.

SPITZER: Two points. The tape we showed at the very top of the show of that tank being destroyed clearly that is a military function, is going to help us get rid of Gadhafi, destroying his entire military.

Point two, however, is that at the end of the day, if we cannot be there to assist the opposition forces when they go on offense, then we're not going to get Gadhafi out. And we're not going to be a critical part of this.

Can -- does the U.N. resolution give us cover to use our air power to help the opposition forces when they play offense, not defense?

TRAUB: You know, I think this is a very good question. I suspect that we'll find a way of fudging that. But I want to add one thing, which is we keep using this word stalemate. I think it's much too early to use the word stalemate. That's kind of TV time. And then we're paying rapt attention to this thing.

SPITZER: Right. Right.

TRAUB: Kosovo took 76 days. And of course people said it was a stalemate. This has taken six or seven days so far. The war changes every day. We don't know what's going to happen.

Yes, it's going to be protracted. That's clear. Is it a stalemate? No, not yet.

SPITZER: James, I can see that point, you're right. This is way, way, way from a stalemate. We're just framing the possible outcomes, possible -- all right. Sit there. Sit tight.

We're going to bring in David Scheffer. He's a world renowned human rights legal expert, was part of the team that created the International Criminal Court, same body that now is going to try to bring Colonel Gadhafi to trial.

Ambassador Scheffer, thank you for joining us. This would be a novel approach. Do you think that if the ICC, the International Criminal Court, brought a case against Gadhafi, that would lead to his departure any faster than he might otherwise?

DAVID SCHEFFER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR WAR CRIMES ISSUES: Well, first, I think there's a strong likelihood that such a case will be brought, not only against Gadhafi but other leaders of his regime. That signal has been sent very loud and clear by Prosecutor Ocampo.

Whether it will lead to his departure, perhaps ultimately yes. I think we've seen in the past, whether it be Milosevic, Charles Taylor, Karadzic, Mladic, or even Presidential al-Bashir of Sudan today who's not going to run again -- he's under indictment by the ICC -- ultimately these indictment discredit these leaders.

They shame them, they embolden those within their societies who want new leadership to press them to step down, to be removed or, in fact, to be arrested, which was the case with Charles Taylor.

SPITZER: But David?

SCHEFFER: And with Milosevic. So I think -- I think that's possible. Yes?

SPITZER: Let me play devil's advocate just for a moment here. Because I want to push you. There are some who are saying that the prospect of having the sort of (INAUDIBLE), the realty of an ICC case hanging over Gadhafi's head in fact cuts off exit avenues.

In other words, he can't leave, he can't find refuge any place else in the world because he knows that the ICC will track him down and try him, and wouldn't it be better to let him find some remote island somewhere in the world and just let him go there and be rid of him. Is that a concern as well?

SCHEFFER: Well, first of all, I don't think that's really an option for him anymore. If he's under indictment by the International Criminal Court, there's really no place to hide anymore. I mean he can try to, but ultimately he'll have to be brought to justice.

That day of sort of finding an island where someone can go off and rest -- the rest of their days without encountering the full brunt of international justice, those are gone. They're just gone. So it's -- you're correct, Eliot, it's not a question of him departing to some secure location. It's really a question of him being forced out of office, if he has to, surrendering to the ICC if his deranged mind gets us to that point.

But yes, it is true. Once he's indicted he will have to face that fate. And that's just the reality now with the International Criminal Court.

TRAUB: Ambassador Scheffer, Jim Traub with "The New York Times" magazine. You rightly mention that it isn't only Gadhafi but people around him who have been referred for prosecution. His head of security, his personal security head, the foreign minister and so forth.

I assume the hope there is that's a way of peeling those people off. Gadhafi may not be susceptible to that kind of threat, but they may.

First of all, is that the idea? And second --

SCHEFFER: Precisely.

TRAUB: Can you point to other cases where in fact that has worked?

SCHEFFER: Well, first, it is true that his regime colleagues are all actually specifically listed by Prosecutor Ocampo as targeted for investigation. They know that they're under investigation now. So they have to take that into account in terms of their daily decision- making and whether or not they want to remain loyal to Gadhafi, or perhaps try to undermine him or take steps now that will mitigate their own liability before the International Criminal Court someday.

As to, you know, has it worked elsewhere, well, with President Bashir, there are colleagues of his who have been indicted in Sudan before he was indicted. Now we haven't seen Bashir leave yet, but two things remarkably happened. One, he decided not to run for re- election again in Sudan. Secondly, he let the southern Sudanese referendum proceed fairly peacefully recently.

Another example is the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. Colleagues around the top indictee of that army, Kony, have also been indicted, and you've seen a real disassembling of the Lord's Resistance Army. They are not anywhere near what they used to be.

Why? Because it's a constant feature and we've recorded this. It's a constant feature in the camps of the LRA, almost five, six times a day. What is the ICC doing? Are they tracking us? Where are they?

SPITZER: And David --

SCHEFFER: What can we do to minimize our risk?

SPITZER: David, let me cut off there for one second. Time is so tight. I've got to throw a last question to James here before we cut out for a moment.

James, it seems to me unbelievable we still haven't recognized the opposition since that would help our political forces, our military, help us arm the rebels. Is this a mistake? France did it a week or so ago at least. Why haven't we done that?

TRAUB: I think it's a very specific thing we could do. We could put a consulate in Benghazi. Whatever is going to happen in this military contest, at this point Benghazi belongs to the rebels. If we're going to help them, and the fact is, we're doing a lot of things behind the scenes, we're in very close contact with the rebel leadership.

I don't see a reason why we could not have some kind of diplomatic representation in Benghazi, both for substantive reasons and for symbolic, for emblematic reasons.

SPITZER: All right, guys, there are lots of arrows in the quiver.

James, as you point out, we should put a consulate there.

David, as you point out, this criminal court, the ICC case is going to add more threat against Gadhafi and rightly so.

All right. James Traub, David Scheffer, thanks for joining us tonight.

Coming up, an American college student is missing, lost amid the violent anti-government protest in Syria. I'll speak to his father right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: There's an American college student missing in Syria tonight. Twenty-year-old -- 21-year-old Tik Root is a junior at Vermont's Middlebury College studying Arabic in Damascus. The International Studies major disappeared seven days ago and was watching protest in Damascus when he's grabbed by Syrian officials. He has not been seen since.

It is believed the Syrian government has Tik Root in custody but that has not been confirmed. Tik's father Tom Root joins me now from Vermont.

Tom, has the Syrian government actually admitted that they have him?

TOM ROOT, SON MISSING IN SYRIA: They've acknowledged that they have him in the sense that they have said it's almost certain, in quotes, that we have him, which is their words for saying, yes, we have him. There's been absolutely no word about his condition, where he's at, how he is, anything about his condition whatsoever.

SPITZER: Let me read for you -- we literally just moments ago when we spoke to you and asked if you wanted to chat with us this evening, reached out to the Syrian embassy. Let me read to you what we got from them. I doubt that it will shed much light for you.

ROOT: OK.

SPITZER: But let me -- let me read this to you in its entirety.

It says, "The Syrian embassy in Washington was recently made aware of Mr. Tik Root's situation and has been following it very closely ever since. We have been in touch with Mr. Root's parents, his state senator and the U.S. embassy. This is an unfortunate incident that we hope will be resolved as soon as possible."

Now obviously I don't know if those are words of encouragement to you, I hope so. The fact that they give a time frame like that. Had they used any language like that before?

ROOT: No. To be honest, this is the first day that we've had contact with the Syrian embassy in Washington. We've been dealing with the U.S. embassy in Damascus, and they've been incredibly good.

SPITZER: Do you know what he was doing? Have his friends over there been able to shed any light on where he was, when he was seized, what the environment was, anything that would help us get him back faster?

ROOT: Sure. The most we know is that sometime between Friday of last week, between noon and 3:00. He left his roommate, went back to his room. And Tik went to the old city of Damascus, which he is fond of.

And at that point, we knew that there was a demonstration going on in the mosque of the old city, so we put two and two together, would recognize that he probably would have been intrigued by watching that demonstration.

He would never have joined it. He knew the consequences of that. And we suspect he was picked up on the periphery. We've heard that that is sometimes done in these situations by the police. SPITZER: Well, if there's any message you want to get to Tik, we don't know if he's going to be watching CNN overseas or what -- what would that message be right now?

ROOT: Well, the message now is the incredible support from -- from congressional delegations in Vermont and elsewhere, from clearly all his friends and family, all of the people at Millbury College, all these people have dropped everything for him right now. So he's been the focus of their lives and our lives for the past week. And they're doing everything in their power to get him out.

SPITZER: All right.

ROOT: I'm very proud of their efforts.

SPITZER: And what is your personal message to him if let's hope he can get it.

ROOT: My personal message is, Tik, you know what I said when I last saw you. It remains true now. I love you as much as I did then. Let's get you home and get you safe. I miss you terribly.

SPITZER: All right, Tom. Well, we will see what can be done and good luck and everybody is on your side, going do everything humanly possible to get Tik home.

ROOT: Thank you for this time, Eliot. I appreciate it.

SPITZER: All right. Needless to say, this is every parent's nightmare. And we will keep everybody apprised of what we hear.

Will Cain is here about more -- has more on the chaos in the region and Syria in particular -- Will.

CAIN: Yes, in fact tens of thousands of protesters today in Syria and dozens killed this weeks.

My guest is Peter Brookes. He's worked for the Defense Department, the CIA and now the Heritage Foundation.

So, Peter, Syria has a long history of violent crackdowns on protesters. In fact, the current president, Bashar al-Assad, his -- his father suppressed an insurrection in 1982, killing something like, what is it, 20,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So here's my question. Do you expect to see in Syria Assad follow the footsteps of his father and take this down a violent path? Or will this go in the direction of Egypt? You know a more peaceful transition of power?

PETER BROOKES, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, we certainty can't rule out the fact that he'll crack down very hard and we're -- in fact we're seeing some of that. What I expect will happen is that he will try to give out certain -- incrementally give out certain things to the opposition, to try to quiet the -- try to quiet the uprising while at the same time arresting members. And perhaps reminding people that this is a very repressive police state, perhaps invoking what happened in happen in Hama very gently to let people know that this is a tough regime and it's not necessarily going to step aside very easily.

CAIN: But Peter, do you think that's going to work. This concept of incrementalism may have worked in the past, but it didn't work in Tunisia, didn't work in Egypt, and doesn't seem to be working now in Yemen. So do you think it's going to have a chance to work in Syria?

BROOKES: Not necessarily. But that is why I think what they're going to try to do, as others have tried to do -- I mean we're even seeing that in Libya with Gadhafi talking about a cease-fire and talk -- you know, about possible concessions to the opposition, getting together to talk about things.

I don't know that this is necessarily going to work, but the fact is, is that the opposition has a very tough road to hoe in Syria by -- in getting rid of this Assad regime.

CAIN: A serious and complicated issue for me. Help me understand what our best hopes as American -- coldly as America, what is our best hopes there? On one hand, Syria's been defined as a state sponsor of terrorism. On the other, you've got this issue that exists in all of these revolutions, is what rises in its place? What's our best hopes?

BROOKES: That's right. Well, that's a very -- that's a very interesting question. A lot of these groups have been cloaking themselves in the flag of democracy. The question is -- are they really small-D democrats, and people that will lead these countries in a direction of secularism as well as freedom and democracy.

That's not quite clear in any of these -- any of these states as we look at them right now. You know Syria is a major problem for the United States. State sponsor of terrorism, ally of Iran. It's got its hands back into Lebanon after it left in 2005. It's an enemy of Israel when it has land disputes with Israel, as well. Supports Hamas and Hezbollah.

So the hope -- the hope is, is that when you could get this regime to at least change its behavior, if not be replaced by a group that would support democratic reforms.

CAIN: Let me dance across the Middle East real quick and go down to Yemen. Again other another complicated issue. We've got a place that's ripe with Islamic fundamentalism, it's a home to al Qaeda, and its president has been an ally to the United States. At least to some degree, in counterterrorism measures.

What are we hoping for there?

BROOKES: Well, I mean, this is -- Yemen is further along the -- along the way. It's certainly not as hot as Libya is, but we're seeing embers there. And there's a possibility that President Saleh will step down in the short term. He says he doesn't want to do that because he's worried about who the opposition is.

Now once again we have al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And Will, I think that's what you were referring to there. And the fact is that we've had at least three plots over the last 18 months that have originated out of Yemen against the United States.

So the concern here is, is that if there's a power vacuum or the wrong sort of government comes in to play, that we could lose that counterterrorism cooperation and we could see additional plots against the United States or our friends and allies.

CAIN: All right, Peter. Complicated issues. I really appreciate you joining me -- Eliot?

BROOKES: Thanks for having me.

SPITZER: This is like three-dimensional chess over five timeframes. Absolutely unbelievable. All this happening at once.

CAIN: Right.

SPITZER: Historic moment with vast uncertainties.

All right. Coming up, in Japan, a frightening forecast for one of those damaged nuclear reactors. We'll go live to Tokyo. Coming right up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Frightening news out of Japan today as it appears the nuclear core reactor number three may be leaking radioactive material. Workers near that reactor detected radiation 10,000 times stronger than normal.

Martin Savidge is in Tokyo. He joins us now.

Martin, what are you hearing? What's the latest?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Eliot, as you point out, the government greatly concerned about the circumstances that may be going on at reactor number three.

We've got an image of that reactor. We're going to show it to you. It's a graphic. Basically here's the problem. They think that the water levels with the radiation they found, 10,000 times, as you say, above normal in the case that this is perhaps a leak coming from the core of the reactor.

That particular reactor of all six that are out there is the most dangerous because it has mixed fuel. It's the only one that does. A mixture of uranium and plutonium. That's very dangerous stuff.

Meanwhile, overnight though, the government also said you know what, we had found equally radioactive water levels in reactor number one. Well, that's a bit confusing because how did that happen? Could it imply another core leaking? Or is it somehow that the water from three has now moved over to one?

They don't really know. And that's what's confusing and also what's concerning that many people -- Eliot.

SPITZER: Well, Martin, very quickly, I would gather then if there is no known reason for the leak, there's no way to resolve the issue until you know the cause. You can't come up with an answer, am I right about that?

SAVIDGE: Right. And this is -- this is the problem because no one can actually get in and get eyes on because the circumstance is too dangerous for humans to go into these reactors. And so trying to figure out how you deal with this, what they do know is that of course with those high levels of radiation, you can't keep sending people in. It's going to delay the recovery work, it's going to delay trying to get those cooling pumps back on line. It's another serious setback -- Eliot.

SPITZER: All right. Martin Savidge, thank you for that update.

So if radioactive material really is leaking from the core's container, what are the possible impacts?

For that we go to Victor Gilinsky, the former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Welcome back, Victor. What do you do when you see these sorts of numbers?

VICTOR GILINSKY, FORMER NRC COMMISSIONER: Well, I'll tell you. The numbers are very high all over the place. Not only inside the reactors but the numbers on the site for the public doses are -- they're all about 10,000 times too high. And you're getting deposition to material outside the site also.

I think they're less sure about the conclusion about the reactor whether it meant that there was a crack in the reactor or break in the -- in the reactor itself. They seem to have backed off from that. But they really don't know, and it's very hard for us here to figure it out if they -- if they on the spot don't know.

It's true you can't get in there because the readings in the plants are very, very high. And the readings on the site are extremely high, as well.

SPITZER: You know, Victor, all I can tell you is, as somebody who knows none of the science, watching these radiation levels day by day, there seems to be a trend line down in the right direction, then suddenly, boom, 10,000 times what's permissible makes you think that something very ugly is going on in there, and we're just not aware of it.

And as you say, we can't go in to look. So how do you begin to get your arms around this if you're back at the NRC? What would you do? GILINSKY: Well, the first step, of course, is dealing with the heat. And they seem to have turned the corner. They're not there yet, but they seem to have turned the corner as far as controlling the heat. The next question is the containment of the radioactive material. And they've just got a horrendous mess on their hands.

It isn't just these reactors. The thing they're most concerned about are the spent fuel pools, especially in three and four, because those are just open to the air and the fuel there has been damaged, they lost water in there. I'm not sure what the situation is right now, but they certainly -- the fuel went through extreme damage and may have melted even. And that releases the radioactive material, as you've heard about, iodine, cesium, and there's a direct path to the outside.

SPITZER: All right. Victor Gilinsky, thank you so much for that affirmative upbeat news. Obviously we all continue to be worried deeply about this and just hope things take a turn for the better.

All right. As nuclear energy expands worldwide, there hasn't been a new plant built in the United States in more than 30 years. Our next guest wants to change that. David Crane is CEO of NRG Energy. We're just trying to build two nuclear plants in Texas. One problem, his partner is none other than Tokyo electric, TEPCO.

Welcome, David. Not the partner you want right now. Just full disclosure, David and I were classmates in college and law school.

Let me frame the issue this way -- when I was in office as governor, I was one of many people who said you know what, nuclear power can and should be one of the bridges we put in place to get us to the land of renewable energy. You still think we need nuclear power even in the midst of what's going on in Japan. You still feel that way?

DAVID CRANE, PRESIDENT & CEO, NRG ENERGY: Oh, I absolutely feel that way, Eliot. And I think the most important thing is, is nuclear like solar and wind, both of which have a bright future, but they're all zero air emission forms of power generation. And if we're going to deal with what I think is the biggest environmental issue what we all have around the world which is climate change, we need nuclear, solar and wind. And I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment that's a preacher. I think you need both because obviously solar and wind are not reliable sources of power. And notwithstanding this tragedy in Japan, nuclear power is usually about the most reliable form of power generation that we have.

SPITZER: Now just so it's clear, you're the CEO of one of the largest power companies in the nation. As a percentage of your total production, nuclear is tiny. Most of what you have is coal and natural gas. Am I right about that?

CRANE: Well, nuclear is about 10 percent of our capacity but it's more like 20 to 30 percent of our overall generation because nuclear plants produce an enormous amount of power. SPITZER: OK. Now, explain to me why in that list you just gave us, you said wind, solar and nuclear, how about natural gas? Natural gas is also zero emission and is also domestic. Why not go heavily towards natural gas?

CRANE: Well, we are going to go heavily towards natural gas. Our company right now is building a couple natural gas plants. But left to the -- if you leave the power industry to its own devices right now, all we will build is natural gas plants. And I think one of the great virtues that the American electric system has is that it's fuel diversified. So I want to see more natural gas plants but I don't want to go to 100 percent natural gas.

SPITZER: Why not? Why not use natural gas and make that our go- to source for the next 10 or 20 years until the wind and solar and other renewables can really come on line in a big enough form?

CRANE: Well, first of all, I'm not sure you ever get to the point where wind and solar are the workhorse of the system because they're just not reliable. You would need to be able to come up with a way to restore that power effectively and no one has come up with that yet. And that's been the holy grail of our industry for as long as I've been in it. But natural gas is still a fossil fuel. It still emits carbon and other pollutants in the air.

SPITZER: But far less than coal?

CRANE: About half as much.

SPITZER: Right. All right. Well, half is still significant. And coal is clearly what we have to move away from is what I hear you say.

CRANE: Well, you know, non-clean coal. I mean, I think that the country -- I think the world needs to work on clean coal technologies because there are other countries that are going to keep burning coal no matter what the United States does.

SPITZER: The issue is clean coal. We'll have to make that a conversation. Some of the economics I don't think work given current technologies.

CRANE: The economics are tough.

SPITZER: Let's talk about the politics of nukes right now. Given what's happened, put aside science. Is it politically plausible there are going to be nuclear power plants, new ones, built in the United States?

CRANE: Well, one of the interesting things that comes out of this, even since the crisis started in Japan that there's been a reaffirmation of support for nuclear power from President Obama, Secretary Chu, and the Republican leadership in Congress. So there's actually a consensus for nuclear, but it's a long way from rhetoric in support of nuclear power to new nuclear power plants. SPITZER: Look, it's the same issue. As everybody knows, we need and desperately want a place to store the refuse of the spent fuel rods of nuclear power. Yucca Mountain hasn't been built, probably never will be built. And so everybody agrees on the overarching policy, then NIMBY, not in my backyard creeps in, nobody wants it. So where -- can you name one place in the United States right now that is putting up its hand saying build a new nuclear power plant here right now?

CRANE: Oh, yes. I can tell you exactly. Bay City, Texas, because that's where our plant is.

SPITZER: And they're with you.

CRANE: Oh, totally with us. I was just down there on Monday.

SPITZER: Can you do it without federal loan guarantees to cover this enormous downside financial risk that might eventually in the event of a disaster?

CRANE: You cannot build nuclear power plants in this country without federal loan guarantees because nuclear power plants are just too big relative to the size of American power companies. But, Eliot, let me tell you, the government offered loan guarantees and that's why our company started to develop a nuclear --

SPITZER: OK. We'll continue this conversation some other night. David, thanks for coming in.

Next, a battle of Wanat in Afghanistan. Never heard of it? There's a reason. Investigative reporter Drew Griffin has an unbelievable story coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: As the U.S. military involvement in Libya seems to be ramping up, we're still involved in two long-term wars in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the history is murky, especially when it's written by the U.S. Army.

CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin has a special report on the alleged cover-up of the battle of Wanat in which nine soldiers died. One soldier who survived said, and I quote, "Our leaders left us in a fishbowl, handcuffed by the enemy moving in." At first, the military found those leaders derelict in their duty, but then in a strange about-face, those very same leaders were taken off the hook.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Going hot. Fifty meters east. They're within hand grenade range.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand by for fire.

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is video from Apache helicopters during the battle. Hundreds of Taliban fighters so close to the U.S. soldiers. The two sides were just meters apart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten meters.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got to be kidding me.

GRIFFIN: By the time the Apaches arrived, 75 percent of the soldiers in Chosen Company Second Platoon were dead or injured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is miserable. We still have 12 days.

GRIFFIN: This is video those soldiers took just days before the battle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn't this look fun? Go army.

GRIFFIN: The 49 soldiers digging in by hand, trying to establish a new combat outpost in a village called Wanat. The Afghan contractor responsible for bringing heavy equipment had not shown up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's people up here, they want to shoot at us. They're going to go up to those things up there called mountains and shoot.

GRIFFIN: Village elders had warned Chosen Company the Taliban was planning an attack, and that is exactly what happened.

LT. JONATHAN BROSTROM, UNIT PLATOON LEADER: It's Lieutenant Brostrom.

GRIFFIN: Jonathan Brostrom was the unit's platoon leader and on his last trip home, a surprise visit for Mother's Day, he told his father about one last mission in Afghanistan. A mission he was worried about.

DAVE BROSTROM, JONATHAN BROSTROM'S FATHER: They were moving out of a place called Bella (ph). Camp Bella (ph), that's where he was spending most of his time, and they're going to move down to a location which he didn't disclose.

GRIFFIN: That location was just down the valley at Wanat.

BROSTROM: He was worried about it. You know, he said, "Dad, they're going to follow me. This is a bad situation."

GRIFFIN (on camera): They're going to follow me meaning --

BROSTROM: Well, the insurgents would follow him. And I said, son, don't worry about it. You know, you're in the Army. You'll be OK. (Gunfire)

GRIFFIN (voice-over): Videos Jonathan brought home with him, though, showed everything in that valley was not OK. (Gunfire)

BROSTROM: And he was -- he was getting attacked -- I would say, you know, once or twice a week, or maybe more. You know, when a father looks at it, it looks like he's being shot at every day. So I asked him a whole bunch of things -- you know, how far away is your battalion headquarters, your company. How often do your commanders come around and see you? Do you get much of Apache support or artillery support?

GRIFFIN (on camera): Questions I would imagine you're asking not as a dad but as a lieutenant colonel.

BROSTROM: Well, it was my experience coming out, but I was also concerned about the situation.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): You see, Dave Brostrom is not just the father of a soldier. For 30 years, he was a soldier. And it turns out the retired lieutenant colonel had good reason to worry.

BROSTROM: Basically the Army sent these guys up there and said "do the best you can"? They did.

They underestimated the enemy. I guess they hoped that everything would go right.

GRIFFIN (on camera): Everything went wrong.

BROSTROM: Everything went wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're on the left-hand side. We'll look for the green smoke and put some (expletive deleted) down.

BROSTROM: You know, we got the notification, you know, on the 13th of July that he'd been killed that same day. You know, it just kind of -- it all came together. I said -- you know, I wonder if he was doing this mission he was talking about. And he was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Finally I'm going to be able to answer some of the questions that you've had for over a year.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): The battle at Wanat was such a disaster it sparked an investigation. Two years later, a marine general would share the results of that investigation with nine grieving families. One of the families recorded that meeting.

LT. GEN. RICHARD NATONSKI, MARINE (RET): We felt that there was dereliction of certain elements of the chain of command as a result of their inaction prior to the battle.

GRIFFIN: Marine Lieutenant General Richard Natonski found three officers had been negligently distracted. The company commander, the battalion commander and the brigade commander had not adequately planned the operation. The soldiers had no heavy construction supplies to build a base at Wanat. No potable water, in 100-degree temperatures, and most damning -- no officer visited Wanat until the day before the attack. The findings approved by then-CENTCOM Commanding General David Petraeus should have ended the careers of the three commanders who David Bostrom blamed for his son's death. But the Army had something else in mind --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll just tell you that the perception right now is that you were told to soften this to the United States Army. And that's exactly what happened here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SPITZER: Drew, one of the things you have to wonder when you see this harrowing tale is -- would the investigation whose story you're going to tell us more about in a minute, would this investigation have even happened if one of the fathers of one of the killed soldiers had not been in the Army for 30 years?

GRIFFIN: It's hard for me to say if that would have not happened. But certainly Lieutenant Colonel Dave Brostrom took his grief and put it to action, pressed his contacts, his old colleagues, squeezed his buddies in the Army to find out what happened. And to a person, his contacts were telling him something's wrong here, Dave. This investigation is not going right, and you should continue to press on.

He did press on. It took him two years, and he finally got answers, but as you alluded to, Eliot, not the answers he wanted to hear.

SPITZER: What the Army did next was rewrite the history and reassign the blame. Drew will have that story coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: The battle of Wanat, Afghanistan, left nine U.S. soldiers dead and 27 wounded. It was a debacle. Soldiers fighting the enemy undermanned, underresourced, and, according to the Army's own report, the higher command wasn't paying attention. But instead of punishing those responsible, the Army decided to rewrite the history. Here again is Drew Griffin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LT. GEN. RICHARD NATONSKI, MARINE (RET): We felt that there was dereliction of certain elements of the chain of command.

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A three-star Marine lieutenant general had just explained to the families of nine dead soldiers that the officers responsible for the troops at Wanat did not do their jobs. Mistakes were made leading up to the battle, he said, in this video recorded by one of the families. But no sooner had the General Natonski finished that a second general stood up, U.S. Army General Charles Campbell, who delivered a bombshell.

GEN. CHARLES CAMPBELL, U.S. ARMY (RET): And I informed the secretary of the Army of the action that I took. And my determination that the officers listed in the report had exercised due care in the performance of their duties.

GRIFFIN: It was a complete reversal from the findings of Marine General Natonski, findings approved by Army General David Petraeus. The letters of reprimand to the three commanders were rescinded. No one would be punished. Petraeus was asked about the reversal at a Senate hearing and made clear he still believes the three commanding officers were derelict of duty, disagreeing with General Campbell, the colleague who reversed his decision.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER U.S. FORFCES AFGHANISTAN: We discussed that. I respect his view in this particular case. I support the process. But I did not change the finding that I affirmed after the investigating officers provided it to me. But again, I support this particular process.

GRIFFIN (on camera): But for Dave Brostrom, an especially stinging moment was yet to come. The Army's Combat Studies Institute was writing the final historical report on the battle of Wanat and re- interviewing only those officers in the higher command. The same officers that had been originally found derelict of duty. Then the Army's Combat Studies Institute released what is now official Army history.

DAVE BROSTROM, JONATHAN BROSTROM'S FATHER: My personal feeling, this is my feeling, is that the Army when they took a look at General Petraeus and General Natonski's independent investigation, it was embarrassing to them. The final decision was more to protect the institution than it was focused on, you know, finding officers or chain of command derelict in their duties.

GRIFFIN (on camera): And put a lot of the blame on your son.

BROSTROM: Yes, they did.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): In what is now official Army history, the Army largely blamed platoon leader Lieutenant Jonathan Brostrom for the deaths. The report says he picked a poor location for the observation post and failed to use Afghan security forces as lookouts.

BROSTROM: It's a lot easier to blame a dead second lieutenant than it is the chain of command.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SPITZER: So, Drew, this just begs the question -- now what? What recourse do the family members have? What pushback is possible? Is there an inspector general that the Army was looking at this? Congressional committees? What can people do?

GRIFFIN: Certainly Dave Brostrom has asked for all of that. He's gotten some help from the Senate Armed Services Committee, particularly Senator Webb. They held a hearing with the CSI, the Combat Studies Institute but the Army's entrenched. They seemed to be saying, listen, we don't want to second-guess our military leaders in battle. But I got to tell you, Eliot, military leaders have told me over the phone that that is exactly what should have been done in this case. Not to just punish these leaders, but to prevent this from ever happening again. At this point, it looks like unless retiring Army Chief of Staff General Casey gets involved, that this is going to go down in history. It is going to be blamed on this dead platoon leader.

SPITZER: Do we know where Charles Campbell is? He is the general who stood up on that video, that gripping video and said "I'm just reversing the conclusions of the people who did the report." Where is he now? Has he been forced to explain that decision and what the possible rationale might be?

GRIFFIN: He is retired now. And we did contact him by phone in Korea where he's working in an exercise, an Army exercise. He basically said, "I followed the procedures. I looked at all the evidence from the original Natonski report, and it was my decision to reverse this." His personal decision looking at the facts before him. And at this point, he seems to be the end of the line unless, like I said, the Army chief of staff gets involved.

SPITZER: All right. Drew, that is one amazing report. And you know what, we're going to reach out to General Campbell when he gets back from Korea, invite him on the show, and tell the world whether or not he has the guts to show up. All right.

Breaking news. Lately it seems like news is breaking every day. Revolution, an earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear threat. And that's not hype, that's realty. I'll break down another amazing week with Will Cain when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: You know, Will, with all the chaos in the world, it is still North Africa and the Middle East where things are breaking out left and right. That's why I, in particular, am looking forward to the president's speech Monday night. He will lend some structure to our response to what's going on in that part of the world.

WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Dear God, let's hope so. I mean, whether or not we're talking about Egypt, Syria, Libya, it bothers me that we don't provide answers to questions before we act, Eliot. We ought to know our position. We ought to know what we're supporting. And before we go to war, we ought to know our objectives. And this isn't a partisan thing. We can't just revel in our incompetence. We have to have answers.

SPITZER: Look, wait a minute. Let's not be too critical. And I've been critical at certain points, but wait a minute. We have stopped a humanitarian disaster in Benghazi. We have seen autocracies fall because of our support for revolution. We are protecting our national interest. They have done a good job projecting democracy, our core interest. At the end of the day --

CAIN: You're in the first quarter of a four-quarter game, Eliot.

SPITZER: Of course, we are, but you know what, at the end of the day the president is moving us through a very difficult period. We will hear from him Monday. I can't wait.

All right, folks. Will, thank you for being here. Folks, thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.