Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Reporter's Notebook: The Latest Developments in the War

Aired March 02, 2002 - 09:32   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: From the air strikes near Gardez to the request for bin Laden family DNA, there have been a number of developments in the war on terrorism this week.

Joining us now from San Diego, CNN military analyst General Don Shepperd. And from the Pentagon, CNN's Barbara Starr. They'll be answering some of your e-mails and calls. Again, the number is 404- 221-1855.

Hello to the both of you.

MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Morning.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Morning.

PHILLIPS: Now, General Shepperd, what are you doing in San Diego? Are you vacationing?

SHEPPERD: I wish. Long night last night, long day today, and life goes on.

PHILLIPS: And you're up early for us. We appreciate it.

OK, here we go. Let's get right to the e-mail, shall we?

Billy from Abilene, Texas, wants to know, "Do the U.S. plan to help the Afghans establish a military force?" Actually we've been reporting a lot about that. Barbara, you want to talk about that and how they are helping?

STARR: Well, they are beginning to help them. What the U.S. wants to do is help train and equip an Afghan military force. The whole idea is to have the Afghans look after their own security. Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld has said it's much better to have them do it for themselves than to have a U.S. or international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan for years, that really the security problems in Afghanistan can only be solved by the people themselves. If they can get a trained and equipped Afghan military force together, that's going to be the best way to go.

PHILLIPS: Much safer route military-wise, and also for the safety of our soldiers, right, general?

SHEPPERD: Correct, yes. It's very important that we establish security across this nation. The two elements are a police force, of course, disarming the population, and then an Afghan army that is trained and ethnically representative of the various factions there. And that's what the Pentagon is trying to do, Afghans doing it for themselves, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Let's move on to Michael from Tennessee. His question, "There have been more people killed by military equipment errors than hostile fire. Should this be a cause for concern?" General, I'm going to let you answer that.

SHEPPERD: No, really, it's a fact of life that as we go into the precision weapons, we are having less and less casualties, but a higher percentage of them, of course, are killing our own forces. But there are fewer and fewer casualties as a result of, both military and civilian, as a result of the precision weapons that we're using out there.

So the number of total people killed accidentally, if you will, is going down, but a higher percentage of them are ours because we're also losing less soldiers because of the way we fight with stand-off and precision weapons.

PHILLIPS: Let's go to the phone lines. Joe from Georgia has a question. Go ahead, Joe.

CALLER: Yes, thank you very much. CNN is truly a great network.

I want to ask the general, general, are we winning the war on terrorism to your -- in your judgment? And how is the morale of our wonderful troops?

SHEPPERD: Well, the morale of our troops is great. They are very purposeful. They understand what they're doing and why.

It's way too early to say we're winning the war on terrorism. As the president's secretary of defense has said, we're going to be at this war in a lot of places over a long, long period of time, and perhaps that's starting to sink in. These are the very, very early and initial steps. So far it's gone well in Afghanistan, but many miles to go even there. It's a difficult war in a difficult country even in Afghanistan.

PHILLIPS: E-mail now from Canada, Brian wants to know, "With American forces spreading out, should more emphasis be put on coalition forces such as China and Russia to show this war on terrorism is global? And it should be, with all these parties taking an active role." Barbara, you probably know about the involvement from other countries.

STARR: Well, there are dozens and dozens of countries involved in the war on terrorism, of course, and they're all making different types of contributions. One of the ones that's very little discussed is a number of countries such as Jordan, for example, have established hospitals inside Afghanistan and are providing medical care to thousands and thousands of Afghans across the country now. So there's all kinds of contributions going on. The thing that nobody seems to really replace the U.S. with, though, is intelligence. The U.S. is really, at this point, the only country that can conduct the sophisticated kind of intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, using satellites, unmanned aircraft, manned aircraft, radars, all kinds of sensors.

And it looks like that's really going to be one of the main tasks for the U.S. military in the war on terrorism across the globe.

But they do want to keep as many countries involved, keep a coalition going, because the feeling is that's what's going to keep the world community behind this effort for years to come now.

PHILLIPS: General, you want to add to that?

SHEPPERD: Well, I just think the coalitions are absolutely necessary. Wherever we go, we have to have bases to conduct the military operations, we have to have cooperation from the military in those countries. And we have to be welcome. And so these coalitions are absolutely key, wherever we go around the world. And if at all possible, not become an invading force but help the police departments and help the militaries within those countries to do it for themselves. It's a smart policy, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: We got a call from Mark. Go ahead, Mark.

CALLER: Hi. I'm curious about Afghanistan, actually, in particular. It seems like the U.S. military with this new crop-up of the pockets of hidden al Qaeda and Taliban are being reactive rather than proactive in the military strategy for the time being. And I'm curious if there is some sort of military option, and if it's something that's been discussed, where we'll get to a final point, and we'll have to march sort of as many troops as possible from one border to the other to really sweep out every nook and cranny of what's going on.

PHILLIPS: General, you want to start?

SHEPPERD: Well, you could put a whole bunch of troops on the ground in Afghanistan and march from one side to the other and still have the same problem, which is, there are thousands of places to hide within that country and outside the country, and then come back in over a long period of time with guerrilla forces.

So, yes, we are being reactive in that we're hitting these pop-up targets of pockets that are either remaining or coming back into the country. And it's just going to be a way of life for a long time there until we establish order in that country.

Also, as Barbara, I believe, reported earlier, the Pakistani military is moving to seal off the border down there in that Paktia Province. So it's not practical to put huge numbers of troops in there, nor do we want to do that. The way we've gone about it makes a lot of sense, but it's a long road to final success.

PHILLIPS: Take another e-mail here. Barbara, I'm going to direct this one to you. This is from Terry in Kansas. "How will we know when we have won the war on terrorism?"

STARR: Well, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that we'll know that when Americans can go back to their sort of pre-September 11 lives and live without some overhanging fear. That is part of the way you'll know, part of the way you'll know when -- is when the al Qaeda seems to disappear as being a threat.

But there is also a basic international political reality. The war on terrorism will at least take a leap forward into being won when they do get Osama bin Laden. Everyone says, of course, that's not the goal, that the war on terrorism will continue for years, because the al Qaeda is in something like 60 countries across the globe. But it certainly is going to be a leap forward into winning once they find bin Laden. And that just hasn't happened yet.

PHILLIPS: Barbara and General Shepperd, I'm going to ask you both to stand by. We're going to take a quick break and continue this discussion.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Hi, we're talking about the war on terrorism. From San Diego, California, we have Major General Don Shepperd with us, and our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr. Thank you both so much again for being with us.

We're going to get right to the e-mails. This was one comes from Jim in Des Moines, Iowa, and he actually addresses this one to you, general. "With some American forces going into Georgia, isn't it inherently dangerous to have American forces so close to Russian troops? And why hasn't the Russians helped the Georgians?"

STARR: Well, the Russians are helping the Georgians. And basically, we were invited in by President Shevardnadze to help train the forces there. It's dangerous any time you go into a foreign country, but it's part of what the military does, establishing these relations and training other people, helping them with equipment so that we don't have to go in and so the countries can do it themselves.

And this area, next to Chechnya, of Georgia is a very, very dangerous place, reportedly where some of the al Qaeda either exist or have fled. So, yes, it's dangerous, that's what we do.

PHILLIPS: Call from O'Neil (ph) in Texas. Go ahead, O'Neil.

CALLER: Hi. General, I just want to know if there's any way that I -- that anybody can verify the claims that the al Qaeda and Taliban are regrouping along the border? Are we simply taking the word of intelligence that we know at some point has decided to deceive us and the rest of the world? Is there any way to independently verify that?

SHEPPARD: Well, first of all, we have, again, as Barbara said earlier, sophisticated sensors out there that are verifying our intelligence. We don't take our reports from any one source. We're aware that we can be played against one another by various warlords in this area, tribal chiefs, if you will. So we're very, very careful.

But again, it's very obvious that these people have fled and are regrouping, and it's going to happen for quite a period of time. So we're using everything that we have. And we have human intelligence and sophisticated sensors to locate them and go after them when we find them.

PHILLIPS: E-mail again, this one from Gary in Georgia. "My son is serving in Afghanistan as a U.S. Marine. The biggest risk he faces is flying around in helicopters that the Marines have. Will President Bush's new budget fix this?" Barbara?

STARR: Well, President Bush, in fact, is asking for a great deal of increased funding for operations and maintenance, and the e-mail reflects a very serious problem in the military. Many of these helicopters are aging, the maintenance is very difficult as they get older.

And there's some very unique problems in Afghanistan for helicopter operations. There's a lot of dust and wind, and there have been a number of incidents where helicopters have attempted to land in something called a brownout. As they begin to land, they kick up dust, they kick up dirt, and it's very, very difficult for the pilot to see exactly where he's landing.

There have been a number of hard landings, there have been accidents, of course, as we have reported. And this is a real problem in Afghanistan. So the weather's a problem for helicopters, and maintenance is a problem, as some of these helicopters are aging.

The budget is trying to put more money in for spare parts for maintenance, but there's really only so much that the military can do. Some of the helicopters are simply old and are beginning to wear out. So the e-mail is on target, it is a problem.

PHILLIPS: General, you know all about wearing out aircraft, don't you?

SHEPPARD: Yes, we do indeed. The service chiefs early on estimated they needed an extra $100 billion a year to modernize the old equipment that is now getting, in some cases, 20 and 30 years old, in the way of fighter aircraft, even bomber aircraft, if you will.

On the other hand, we've added about $40 billion to the budget. It's not going to do everything. And at the same time, we're trying to not only do that but transform our forces into some of the new equipment, the space programs and the uninhabited air vehicles, uninhabited combat air vehicles.

So it takes a lot of money to do this, a lot of time. And as the caller says, it is very dangerous in Afghanistan, helicopter operations, as Barbara described, in the dust and the weather in that environment are very, very dangerous. They all take place low to the ground and a lot of it at night.

So it's a tough business that we're in, not for sissies. PHILLIPS: Isn't that true!

Major General Don Shepperd, always straight to the point, also Barbara Starr, our Pentagon correspondent, both of you, thank you so much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com