Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Interview With General Jones; Interview With Senators Feinstein, Kyl

Aired December 06, 2009 - 09:00   ET


JOHN KING, HOST: I'm John King, and this is "State of the Union."


KING (voice-over): President Obama escalates his war of necessity.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I have determined that it is in our vital national interests to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

KING: Can he win over skeptics who question the exit timetable, the costs, and the legitimacy of the Karzai government? In an exclusive interview, I'll sit down with national security adviser, General James Jones.

Then two leading senators weigh in on war strategy, health care, and the economy. The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California and the No. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona.

In our "American Dispatch," we visit a military school in Roswell, New Mexico, where for some, an escalation in Afghanistan could mean future orders to the war zone.

This is the "State of the Union" report for Sunday, December 6th.


KING: We begin this Sunday with President Obama's decision to substantially increase the American troop presence in Afghanistan. The commander in chief says the surge is necessary, but insists it won't be open-ended. The president's new war strategy is raising concerns among his critics and some of his supporters. Here to talk about it and break it down is the national security adviser, retired Marine Corps General James Jones. General, welcome back. JONES: Thank you, John.

KING: I want to begin with just a short time ago, our Christiane Amanpour had an exclusive interview with President Karzai of Afghanistan. And he says that while he wants to help and he's appreciative of the United States' help, when it comes to getting the Afghans ready by July 2011 to start taking over the security of their own country, he says he might need a little bit more time. Let's listen.


PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI, AFGHANISTAN: We will try our best as the Afghan people to do it the soonest possible. But the international community must have also the patience with us and the realization of the realities in Afghanistan. If it takes longer, then they must be with us.


KING: If it takes longer, they must be with us. There's been some confusion, some on the left saying, 2011, we start to draw out. Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates in taped interviews yesterday saying, there's no deadline, there's no firm exit strategy.

Help us clear it up. If President Karzai needs more time, will the American troops stay as long as necessary?

JONES: John, the president's decision on 2011 has more to do with the transition than anything else. We want to see over the next two years more Afghan capacity developed quicker, under -- the rule of law in the government, less corruption, better leaders at the provincial levels and in the ministers, in the ministerial levels. We want to see responsibility taken by the Afghans themselves in increasing doses (ph), more visibility of the Afghan army, better training for the Afghan police. And in 2011, when we achieve those -- we achieve those goals over these two-year periods, we will be able to see more Afghanization of this problem, and we will be able to make some withdrawals of our own troops, because they'll be more capable.

KING: But if they're not more capable...

JONES: It is not a cliff. It's a glide slope. And so, certainly, the president has also said that we're not leaving Afghanistan. We are here to make sure that Afghanistan succeeds. We can't want this any more than the Afghans do. President Karzai leads his nation the way we think he can, this is a very achievable objective.

KING: And President Karzai also said in that interview, he believes in five years, 2014, the Afghans should be capable. That is his goal of taking control of the entire country. Do you share that assessment, or is that overly optimistic, given the poor history of the past eight years in terms of training the Afghans and then keeping them in the military once they're trained? JONES: I think it's very good to set goals, and I'm glad that President Karzai has set a goal for his country. We will do everything we can to help him lead that country to that direction, as will the 42 other countries there with us.

The important thing is that after eight years now, we get on with this. We've had five years in his first administration. We can do much better, and I think there's more focus and more sense of purpose now than ever before. The status quo is clearly not working. KING: As you know, there are some critics out there who don't like timelines, and normally military men don't like timelines. Were you comfortable with this during the process when the president said, I want to have a timeline for leverage on the Afghan government, or did General Jones say, you can't put a timeline on the military?

JONES: In this particular case, I think it's a good idea. Because -- and you can see already the reaction, globally, with the other countries who have rallied to the president's side on this, being a very good and useful forcing function that just simply had to be done.

KING: Let's go through some of the criticism. Senator John McCain says if you put a timeline out like this, you're essentially telling the Taliban, lay low if you want and come back a little bit later. Let's listen.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region, all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war.


KING: Answer the point that, essentially, by telling the Taliban, you're going to begin to withdraw in 2011, that why wouldn't they just lay low or creep back across the border into Pakistan and wait this out?

JONES: Well, I think it's important to remember that this ramp- up in troops, another 30,000 on top of the 33,000 that we put in this year, is going to have a very, very positive effect on any momentum that the Taliban claims to have or might have achieved over the last few years. And 2011 is not a cliff, it's a ramp. And it's when the effects of this increase will be, by all accounts, according to our military commanders and our senior civilians, where we will be able to see very, very visible progress and we'll be able to make a shift.

KING: Where's the end of the ramp? If the beginning is 2011, where's the end of the ramp? Is that 2015, 2020?

JONES: Well, the end of the ramp will be predicated on exactly how much progress we're making with regard to the capability of the Afghan national security force, the better governance that we hope to see, both at the national and regional levels and local levels and tribal levels as well. The capabilities of the Afghan national security force that we expect to bring online very quickly...

KING: If you can't give the American people a rough target date -- you have a target date to begin to withdraw. Do you have a target date for the end?

JONES: We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times. We have -- we're going to be in the region for a long time. We want it to be -- we want this relationship to be, as we have with all struggling democracies, we want to be helpful. We want to transition from more of a purely military relationship to a civilian relationship. And we want to establish -- we want to make sure that the people in the region have an opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations in peace and stability.

KING: I'm going to ask you to come with me over to the magic map so we can take a closer look at some of the stakes here. And one of the things I want to do as we get started -- is to just -- don't worry about that, bring that out, I'll come along with you.

I just want to draw a line across the country here. I'm going to essentially split the country in half and then get it to draw -- draw there, and we'll come across here like this. And the reason I'm doing this now is I want to help people understand the stakes here.

First, let's take a look at where the NATO troops are right now. If you look at it right now, here's the deployments as we go. And you see all the American flags mostly inside the line, the Canadians, the Turks in there with us as well, the French, the Brits, some of the Australians, other NATO forces up here.

Now, why is that important? Here's a look. The darker the province, the stronger the Taliban.

Is this going to remain largely, for the most part, an American fight inside this line, where things are the toughest?

JONES: Well, we have nations -- other nations with us inside the line in the southern regions as well.

KING: Go back and show that here.

JONES: Exactly. And more importantly, we're going to have Afghans in this region as well. We have asked the Afghan national security forces to commit between 4,000 and 5,000 Afghans in the southern region to bolster our troops.

KING: Down in here?

JONES: Exactly right.

KING: Right.

JONES: Yeah. So... KING: But will the new NATO forces include combat forces who are going in here and doing the dirty work alongside the Americans?

JONES: Well, yes, I think it will, but the other thing that it will do is it will stabilize the north and the west of the country, which is very important. And secondly, we have other forces that are working in other parts of the country. And that will allow us to move our forces back towards the border regions, where really the most important struggle that we're going to have is to make sure that on the Pakistani side of the border, that we eliminate the safe havens. KING: Right.

JONES: John, probably the most important thing that we need to achieve strategically in the next two years is to work with our friends in Pakistan and make sure that these safe havens are eliminated. If that happens, everyone agrees that if that happens, the strategic effect to the west, in this -- in the country of Afghanistan, will be much, much easier. If the safe havens stay, then the problem is longer and more difficult.

KING: Well, then, help us understand that, then. What is the commitment? Because many have questioned the commitment of the Pakistani government to do that. They say they go after the indigenous Pakistani Taliban, but they are not going up in here, where you have the Afghan Taliban that has come over the border and had refuge. Is part of the new strategy -- is there a new commitment from Pakistan to do more up in here?

JONES: We are working with the Pakistani authorities, the Pakistani military in an increasing atmosphere of trust and confidence and realization that these problems have to be -- have to be tackled. This is a cancer in the region that effects not just Afghanistan, it affects Pakistan as well.

And I think the Pakistani government and the military deserve a lot of credit for what they've done in the last seven or eight months, first in the Swat Valley and second in South Waziristan. And of course we have -- we want to encourage them and help them in any way we can to go into the other areas to make sure that we scatter these insurgents.

If you scatter the insurgents and they don't have a base of operations, then you have the upper hand. And this is how we got into Afghanistan, because this was a base of operations, we were attacked from here, and we want to make sure Afghanistan does not once again become a launching pad for other attacks against us or our friends.

KING: As a candidate, Senator Obama said that if the Pakistani government was not doing what he thought was necessary as president, that he would send U.S. forces over the border to take out a high- value target. Does that policy remain in effect with President Obama?

JONES: We have high confidence that Pakistan has come to the understanding that they need to take care of the problems inside their border. To the extent that they will do that, this is good news. We're going to be doing everything we can to make sure that that happens. And we will work with them in every way possible to make sure they are successful.

KING: Let me ask you one last question, at the map here. As you look at this region and you push the Pakistanis to do more, one of the question marks is, is he there? Is Osama bin Laden somewhere in this mountainous region right here? When was the last time -- you've been in office now almost 11 months, since you have been the White House national security adviser, have you seen intelligence -- reliable intelligence about where he is? JONES: The best estimate is that he is somewhere in North Waziristan, sometimes on the Pakistani side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border.

KING: Right in here?

JONES: Very, very -- exactly. Very, very rough, mountainous area. Generally ungoverned and we're going to have to get after that to make sure that this very, very important symbol of what al Qaeda stands for is either, once again, on the run or captured or killed.

KING: All right. We're going to have to get after that. You mean, a more determined, a more focused, some new effort to get him?

JONES: I think so. I mean, if we -- we need to make sure that the al Qaeda stronghold in North Waziristan, in that region, which is still planning -- actively planning operations, they're targeting us and targeting our friends and allies, does not become a reality.

KING: General James Jones, we'll be back with the general in just a minute. We'll break down more of the challenges ahead in Afghanistan and we'll also ask him about other pressing challenges facing the president. Stay with us.


KING: We're back with National Security Adviser General James Jones. Let's talk a bit about the politics now of selling the president's strategy. Here's the cover of this week's TIME magazine, "It's His War Now." President Obama on the cover greeting cadets at West Point after his big speech last week.

Those who are criticizing this general, saying that we don't need 30,000 more troops and we don't need an open-ended commitment to doing this, many of them are using words that you spoke right here two months ago. Let's listen.


JONES: The good news that Americans should feel at least good about in Afghanistan is that the al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.


KING: If that assessment remains correct, fewer than 100 al Qaeda, 20,000 or so Taliban inside Afghanistan. Answer the critic out there who says, why do we need 100,000 U.S. troops and then 40,000 or 45,000 NATO troops to go after 25,000-27,000 people?

JONES: Well, there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that we want to make sure that al Qaeda doesn't -- can't reestablish bases in Afghanistan. But more importantly, this is a comprehensive mission where quite a significant portion of our troop increase will be devoted to training and mentoring the Afghan forces and developing them more rapidly so that the army and the police can have a more successful effect in the country.

So when you're talking about the number of troops that we're trying to put in there, some of them are support personnel, some of them are training, some of them are mentors. It's not all combat troops. So we want to respond to General McChrystal's assessment that the Taliban had, in fact, regained some momentum. I know he was concerned about that.

This will buy the time and space that we need in order to get these other things going. Get the Afghan governance established. Get the Afghan national security forces established. Better integrate the cohesive aspects of our economic development program and coordinate an international effort. It was going to be 5,000 to 7,000 more NATO forces as well.

So this is a -- there is much more energy and positive direction in this than we've had -- and focus, than we've had anywhere in the last few years.

KING: I covered the White House for quite some time, nearly nine years, and both President Clinton and then President Bush, will tell you that being president is a lot different than running for president. As a senator and as a candidate, Barack Obama was very harshly critical of the Bush surge policy in Iraq. And I want you to listen to him on the Senate floor.


OBAMA: The responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy.


KING: And yet, if you look at The Washington Post and The New York Times, both have stories today detailing the process that you led to get ultimately to this decision. Obama pressed for faster surge. He was so critical of the policy in Iraq. But it says in both of these accounts that on November 11th, he turned to General David Petraeus, the architect of that surge, and said, I need one of those.

Has the president come to appreciate -- would he now call the Iraq surge a success?

JONES: Well, I think -- that Iraq is on the right path. And I think the president recognizes that and understands that the surge played a role in that. But it was -- as you know, more than just the troop increase that contributed to the turnaround, the situation in al Anbar province, which was not a surge benefactor, but also coincided to have a popular uprising.

We are looking for Afghans, as a result of this renewed commitment for the next two years, to also understand that this is their moment, this is their time to coalesce around an opportunity that they have to make their country what they wish it to be. JONES: And I think that everyone around the table in uniform or out of uniform coalesced around the strategy and after, as you know, many hours of deliberation, came up -- came up in full support of what we're about to do.

KING: A good general, as you are, listens to his officers on the ground. I want to read you something from a lieutenant on the ground in Afghanistan. Lieutenant Richard Allis says, "We're still not at the point where the Afghans can either stand on their own or at least lead or plan missions. I'd say we're at least four, five years away from that." Four or five years away from that is well past July 2011.

JONES: It depends on where you are on the ground. You could probably find another lieutenant in the north or in the west from another country who would say, "This is pretty calm. This is -- this is pretty good."

There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. It's estimated that fully 7 of those provinces today are fairly autonomous and -- and -- and have the instruments of success already resident, specifically security, economic development, and reasonably good governance.

If we can -- if we can make progress over the next two years to turn that number of 7 into 15 or 20, I think we'll be doing some good things. So it -- Afghanistan cannot be understood by simply being in one -- one place at one time. It's very complex, and the same situation doesn't exist all over the country.

KING: A couple quick points before I let you go. When you were here two months ago, you said you were still hopeful that Guantanamo Bay would be closed by the end of the year. It's clear now that deadline will not be met. Do you have a new target date for getting it closed?

JONES: I think the important thing is that it's moving in the right direction. The president is still insisting that we will close the facility, and we're working on finding new solutions. It won't -- we won't meet the target date, unfortunately, but -- but the important thing for the American people...

KING: Three months, six months, any idea?

JONES: Oh, I think before that, but -- but within that timeframe.

KING: Within that time? JONES: Yes, I think so.

KING: The president also is on record saying that Iran essentially has until the end of the year, that he would have a good sense by the end of the year as to whether the Iranian government is prepared to come to the table and negotiate with the Americans, our European allies, to get rid of its nuclear program. Iran has been very defiant, as you know, in recent days.

Three weeks from now, if there's not a breakthrough and a major turnaround in Iran, will the president begin the new year by immediately pushing for tough sanctions?

JONES: Well, the president has said consistently -- and -- and the international community has also said consistently -- that we would know, we would be able to see which way Iran wishes to -- wishes to go by the end of the year.

KING: That clock's ticking.

JONES: And that clock's ticking. The door is still open, but, unfortunately, the picture Iran is painting is not a good one. But we are still open to negotiations. The IAEA is still working feverishly to try to bring this about.

What's on the table is very logical, very fair, very reasonable. And if Iran wanted to signal to the world that it wishes to participate more fully in the family of nations, this is a very, very good way for them to do this.

KING: General James Jones, the national security adviser, sir, we appreciate your coming in today to help us understand this.

And there are a number of questions about the president's war strategy coming from Congress. We'll sort through those with two leading members of the Senate. Stay with us.

JONES: Thank you, John.

KING: Thank you.

JONES: Appreciate it.

KING: Thank you very much for coming in on Sunday.

JONES: Appreciate it. It's my pleasure. Thanks.


KING: I'm John King, and this is "State of the Union." Here are our stories breaking this Sunday morning.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is responding to President Obama's new war strategy in Afghanistan. In an exclusive interview on CNN's "Amanpour," President Karzai says it will take at least two years before Afghan forces can begin taking the lead in security operations. He urged patience from the international community, saying if it takes longer, quote, "they must be with us."

The U.N.'s top climate official is speaking out about the damage caused by controversial e-mails from some of the world's leading climatologists. Those hacked e-mails appear to show the scientist discussing ways to suppress dissenting views on climate change. In an interview with the Associated Press, the U.N. climate official admits the e-mails damaged the image of global warming research, but he insists scientific evidence of warming -- a warming planet is solid. His comments come on the eve of a major international climate summit in Copenhagen. President Obama today makes a rare visit to Capitol Hill. He'll meet with Senate Democrats and urge them to work out their differences on health care reform. Key sticking points include the government-run public option and abortion.

Those are your top stories here on "State of the Union." Up next, two top senators debate the health care bill, the president's Afghan war strategy, and much more.


KING: Among the concerns being raised in Congress about the president's new Afghan strategy, the wisdom of an exit timetable, how to pay for the war, and whether President Hamid Karzai's government can be trusted.

Here to talk about all of those issues, as well as other things, including health care reform, the Senate's number-two Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, and the Democratic chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinstein of California.

Thank you both for coming in.

KYL: Thank you, John. KING: Let's start with General Jones. When you were here a couple months back, you said you wanted a timeline, a timetable on the Afghan strategy, because you thought it was adrift. He now calls it a ramp. He says there's no firm date to get out. They hope to start transferring control, as the president said, in July 2011. Does that satisfy you?

FEINSTEIN: It satisfies me, yes, because I think it's a transitional period. I think it sets a goal. I think it enables an evaluation. I think it's a concentrated sense of attention. And if you can begin to remove troops, that will happen. I think this...

KING: "If you can"? No guarantee?

FEINSTEIN: Well, look, you know, the president has said we're there to -- to win. And so if we're there to win, let's have a strategy and the tactics to go with the strategy to win. This surge enables that. It has worked before; it has a chance of working now.

It's a difficult circumstance; there's no question about that. And a lot of the difficulty comes from the corruption in the Afghanistan government. Now, hopefully, if President Karzai cooperates, if we can secure and protect and hold certain areas, you can begin to tamp down this enormous opium population that fuels the Taliban, you can begin to put real agricultural relief and development in places that can replace the poppy, you can begin to build some of the economic development and, most importantly, train both the military and the police so that they can, in effect, hopefully, within 14 months or longer, take care of their own nation.

KING: You are among the Republicans, Senator Kyl, who said, Mr. President, why? Why would you set a date? You can't do that in a sensitive military operation like this. Have they mitigated your concerns some? Secretary Clinton says it's not a firm deadline. Secretary Gates says, you know, it's conditions-based. You heard General Jones saying it's a ramp, that they hope to start to transfer in July 2011, but he couldn't say how long that ramp would run. Have they answered your concerns?

KYL: Well, first, let me say that most of the Republicans with whom I've -- in fact, all that I've spoken with are supportive of the president, they want this mission to succeed very much, and we will do everything we can to support his policy.

I think he has complicated matters by having this firm beginning of withdrawal date. I mean, he said it is chiseled in stone. But what happens the day after and how many troops come down, I think, is the question. And as long as that's conditioned base, it has a chance of succeeding.

The reason I -- I said it complicates matters is that, in war, will matters. In fact, the whole object of war is to break the will of the enemy to fight.

And I was in Pakistan and Afghanistan earlier this year. Before the Pakistani government had really decided to begin its effort to push the Taliban and the other indigenous terrorists there out of the Swat Valley and -- and to go into North Waziristan, I was concerned at that time that they were weighing the equation. Do they side with the United States here or do they, as they've historically done, make deals with the terrorists?

They have sided with us on the -- I believe, on the assumption that we're going to be there to stay. So our commitment to support them and to support the Afghanis really needs to be a firm one that they believe in. And, of course, that's important for our NATO allies, as well.

KING: You're stressing the point of partnership. Pakistan is one key partner; the other key partner, of course, is President Karzai. And he does not have a great track record if you look back at the last six or seven years.

He did an exclusive interview this morning with our Christiane Amanpour, in which she put the question to him about the president's strategy, will you be ready? The president says in July 2011, you need to start to take control and then quickly take control all across the country. Here's President Karzai.


KARZAI: We want to have in Afghanistan in another two years the ability to lead operations and provide security for the Afghan people in -- in many parts of the country, especially parts of the country where we have trouble fighting -- and -- and -- and terrorism and trying to bring violence down. By the end of a five years term of -- of the current government, we plan to lead operations for the security of the Afghan people in all of Afghanistan, in the whole country.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Five years. That would be 2014. President Karzai says he thinks he'll be ready, Senator Feinstein, to take over security of the entire country. You know the track record. You know the high attrition rate in the Afghan army. The United States has paid to train them, has given them weapons, and many of them get that training, get the weapons, and then get out.

FEINSTEIN: That's right.

KING: Do you believe -- is there a new commitment from him that -- is 2014 a reasonable benchmark to now write down and say, "Let's hold him to it"?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I believe our government has made the point that he has to shape up. And I also believe and hope that we will condition any aid to go directly to localities as much as possible, instead of to the central government and if it goes to the central government, to those ministries that we know are corruption-free.

And there are key strategic ministries, I'm told, that are, in fact, corruption-free. If that's the case, we've got a chance. I -- I believe very strongly that President Karzai and the Afghan government has to do their share. And by that, it means no corruption, it means seeing that stability and aid gets to the people, it means working with the United States hand in hand.

And I think, if those three things happen, we have a real chance of seeing that this country becomes stable and secure. The precise amount of time is hard. It took us a long time to train up the Iraq army and police, and a lot of lessons were learned in so doing. I think if those lessons can be applied to Afghanistan, yes, we have a chance of doing it.

KING: Do you trust him? Do you trust him? I mean, so much of this comes down to, can the United States -- you mentioned all the aid, nearly $40 billion in the last eight years, and -- and more to come, not excluding what it cost just to send our troops there, do you trust him?

KYL: He's a very charismatic and very capable leader. If he commits himself to the goals that both he and the president have talked about here, I -- I believe he can be successful, but he's got to commit himself to those goals, and there's no question that there is corruption within his administration and, some assert, within his family.

As a result, again, when I was in -- in Kandahar, for example, tribal leaders there were very distrustful of him, and they wanted us to stay and to be able to rely on our commitment. So he's going to have to change his ways.

But I know he's a -- a smart leader. He knows our support is not unlimited. And in that regard, all of the things that Senator Feinstein said that he's got to do, I think he understands, and I certainly agree with all of those things. So what choice do we have but to work with him, watch him carefully, push him where we have to, support him when we can, and try to work this together so that we achieve the mission. That's the bottom line here.

KING: You're the chair of one of the most sensitive committees in the Congress, the Intelligence Committee. What does the intelligence tell you about the possibility -- if the United States' mission is now successful, and you're routing out the Taliban, you're getting the 100 or so Al Qaida left in Afghanistan, if those troops are doing their job, and some of the Taliban and Al Qaida then go across the border into Pakistan, is there a risk of instability in Pakistan, a nation that has nuclear weapons?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm not going to give you any precise classified information. But I am going to say, I -- I think there is a serious concern.

I think Al Qaida has, in effect, metastasized. It may be limited in numbers to a few hundred, but they are training, they are funding, they have outreached. You now don't just have Al Qaida, but you have a very serious criminally oriented, ideologic Taliban.

You've got Lashkar-e-Taiba. You've got the Haqqani network. You have a kind of fulminating amalgamation of terrorist groups, each of whom is striking in different places.

FEINSTEIN: I never thought I would see the mosque that was attacked in Rawalpindi, highly secure, restricted to the elite of the military, and yet they were able to strike with impunity, not just one, not just two, but several people.

And I think that if we do not abate this threat in Afghanistan, that Pakistan will be next. I believe they are on a march. I believe that you cannot deal with the leadership. Maybe some of the followers can be changed and you can work with them and you can grow them into decent human beings.

But this is a regime, you know, that has taken women into the stadiums and shot them in the head in the back for minor crimes. This is a regime that has thrown acid in the face of young girls trying to go to school. This is a regime has bombed schools. This is a regime that explodes IEDs from a mile away.

So I think the intelligence is such that it says, this remains to be a threat. and if you don't address it, it will grow. And if they can attack the West, they will.

KING: Do you believe, then, Senator Kyl -- again, to the trust question, you mentioned your trip to the region. Does this Pakistani government understand it, as Senator Feinstein explains it, and will they have a comprehensive, continued and sustained effort, not only against the Pakistani Taliban, but against the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda that have come across the border, or will it be, as we have seen over the years in many cases, episodic, that when pressured, they have some actions and then they pull back? KYL: The single biggest factor that will influence that decision is our commitment. If the Pakistani leadership believes that we are going to stand with them, that we will support them -- bear in mind, we don't have troops in Pakistan, so they have to do all this themselves. But there are ways that we can support them and have been doing so.

And if they believe in our commitment to be with them, I think they will and I think they have the ability to do that. And what Senator Feinstein said about working together is absolutely correct and critical. But if they believe that our will is limited or our commitment is limited, then, as they have done in the past, over centuries, deals will be made, accommodations with potential enemies arrived at, because they have to stay in the neighborhood long after they think we're gone. So I go back to what I said in the beginning. If our will does not flag, if our commitment remains strong, I believe the Pakistanis can and will be with us. And as Senator Feinstein said, it's critical in our effort to succeed in both of those countries.

KING: Let's bring the debate home. The president is going up to Capitol Hill today. You're meeting on the weekend, which is rare, the health care debate is front and center right now. He is going to go, the president, to your caucus, the Democratic caucus, to try to keep you all together and try to do a little deal-making.

But let me start on the Republican side. Based on what you've seen so far, there's the debate on the Senate floor, which the public can see, and then there's the real business being done behind closed doors, trying to negotiate deals not only among the Democrats, but trying to get one or two of your Republican colleagues to come over.

Senator Kyl, as we speak today, do you see any possibility that one or two or three or four Republicans will support health care or are you all still completely united?

KYL: Right now Republicans are united against the approach that's being taken by Senator Reid and by the president. And I think you put your finger on it. There's a big difference between what's going on behind closed doors in Washington, D.C., and what the American people are seeing and telling us.

I can't tell you how strongly public opinion is expressed to me through phone calls and letters and when I go back home to visit with people, I get one simple message, stop this health care bill. And you see it in public opinion surveys. One of the most recent surveys shows the support for it down by 18 points. Among independent voters, more than three to one, it is opposed.

So what I hope is that we will listen to our constituents. There are ways to stop, call time out, back up, and take a different approach to this than this -- you know, the approach that's being taken, to get the government very deeply involved into health care at an enormous expense.

And at the end of the day, incidentally, not even affected the rise in insurance premiums, which will continue to occur, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

KING: What's the one thing you would want from the president today? You still have disputes within your caucus about the public option. Still have disputes within your caucus, let alone the Republicans, but over the abortion language that should be in this bill. And I could list many, many more. If you needed the president to solve one problem today, to help things move forward, what would it be?

FEINSTEIN: Well, to get 60 votes. I mean, if we have 60 votes, we move, and it gets done.

KING: But you don't have 60 votes now. FEINSTEIN: I want to say something. You know, this is the opportunity for health care reform. Some people say, well, we should do it next year, there are too many things. And you know, there's an element of truth to that. But this is it. And we have a system that wastes money, that doesn't save the lives we -- if you look at some of the various...

KING: Let me interrupt you for one second. You say, this is it. You have a Democratic president who was elected in a big election, you have an 82-seat majority in the House of Representatives, you have 58 Democrats and two independents who work with you in the Senate.

If this is it, if you don't deliver on the "this is it," should Democrats be held accountable next year?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think if we don't deliver, we've got a problem. I think it has to be, look -- look, this saves money, it saves lives, it saves Medicare. It's incremental. It goes into effect slowly. The first year, some small business tax credits go into effect. That's 2010. And those people in this country that have no coverage because they're denied for pre-existing conditions would be able to buy insurance.

I think that is one big step forward. The rest of it -- let me just finish, John, the rest of it goes into effect over a few years. It's not until 2014 that the exchanges would go into effect and a public option. We have the opportunity to look at it carefully in the next couple of years. Watch how it goes into effect, and if necessary, make some changes. But if we miss this opportunity to pass this bill, it's lost.

KING: Senator Kyl, before I let both of you go, the president will give a speech on jobs this week. And the White House has said it would like to take some of the unspent TARP money, the bailout money, and use it for some new jobs initiatives. Are Republicans prepare to do that? I believe, under the rules of TARP program, you would have to vote to change it, to allow the president to spend that money somewhere else.

KYL: We've talked about it, and I think what our view would be, take some of the unspent stimulus money. That's what it was supposed to go for. It's clearly not doing its job. The TARP money that's returned to the Treasury is supposed to be used for retiring our debt, or not allowing our debt to continue to rise, as it has been. I think we would like to see that -- the TARP money applied to the debt and use this unspent stimulus money to more directly create jobs. I think if we do that, there might be some Republican support for the plan.

KING: Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona; Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, thank you both for coming in this morning.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much.

KING: Up next, we head west to Roswell, New Mexico, where for military academy students, the president's new Afghan war plan isn't just academic, but very personal.


KING: In our travels this week, we wanted to take an up close look at the president's new Afghan strategy and talk to some people who might be affected by it. So we traveled out to the southwest, Roswell, New Mexico, and we went to a remarkable place, the New Mexico Military Institute. It was founded in 1891 -- 800 students, a little more than that currently enrolled. Seventeen percent of the cadets go on to military service. Who's gone to the New Mexico Military Institute? Let's look at some of the famous alumni. Conrad Hilton, you know him, he's the founder of the Hilton hotel chain. Owen Wilson, he's a famous actor. And here's my favorite, our friend, the anchor from our sister network HLN, Chuck Roberts, who's a great man and an NMMI alumni. In our "American Dispatch" this week, all the way out from remote Roswell, an up-close look at how wartime adds to the sense of urgency and a sense of service at a military institute whose students operate under a strict code of honor.


KING (voice-over): For Jon Huntsman, every push-up has a purpose.

JON HUNTSMAN III, CADET RECRUIT: I want to go in the naval special warfare program.

KING: It's a passion born of watching Navy SEALs train during family vacations along the California coast, one he knows could ultimately land him in Afghanistan or another war zone.

HUNTSMAN: If you're in special forces, you train, if you train to be in those parts of the world, in times of war.

KING: Huntsman is at the New Mexico Military Institute because he needs to boost his academic standing before attending the Naval Academy at Annapolis. With afternoon workouts, new friends on a similar path to service.


KING: Chantel Ferguson is committed to the Coast Guard Academy. Mickel McGann to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Stephen Reardon's next stop is the Air Force Academy where Deborah Wright also hopes to earn a spot and learn to fly.

DEBORAH WRIGHT, STUDENT, NMMI: I've always wanted to fly planes. I just had my heart set on the air force, and I really want to go there and the fact that the country's at war right now really hasn't hindered that decision at all.

KING: NMMI is their stepping-stone. Some come here for high school, others for two years of college or for a one-year program specifically designed to prepare students for the major military academies. The uniforms are a requirement as is intense physical fitness training.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know the initial philosophy.

KING: But the foundation is a tough academic environment with an emphasis on math and science, an approach superintendent Major General Jerry Grizzle says stresses both learning and leadership.

MAJ. GEN. JERRY GRIZZLE, SUPERINTENDENT, NMMI: My entire faculty, everyone has master's degree and more than half have a doctorate degree and they're teaching ninth graders as well as they're teaching freshmen and sophomores in college. And so the quality and the value of that education is what people seek and they kind of accept the fact that we do that in a military platform.

KING: The president's new Afghanistan strategy is of high interest. Just shy of 20 percent of the students here go on to military service, some directly into the army through an ROTC program, other after moving onto the academies.

HUNTSMAN: Being at a military school obviously I think everyone's all for the president sending 30,000 more troops over there.

KING: And yet Huntsman is skeptical of the president's pledge to surge now and start drawing down U.S. troop levels in July 2011.

HUNTSMAN: When I heard the date, well, I know we're not going to be out of there in 2011. I think they just kind of threw out a date there just to kind of give the American people, like, a promise, you know? We're going to try to get out of this mess.

KING: Huntsman knows a thing or two about politics. His father and namesake was Utah's Republican governor until he was tapped to serve this Democratic president as U.S. ambassador to China. While skeptical about the timeline, young Huntsman gives the commander in chief high marks for adding 30,000 troops against the wishes of most liberal Democrats.

HUNTSMAN: It's risky, but it's for the better of our country not for the better of his party.

KING: The college students here have lived in a country at war since they were 10 or 11. The high school students, even younger and those heading next to the service academy say friends often question their choices. MICKEL MCCGANN, NMI: Many people say why are you going into the military service? Why would you give your life? But this is what we want to do.

CHANTEL FERGUSON, NMMI: Some of my friends are, kind of, wow! Are you kidding me? You're going into the armed forces?

STEPHEN REARDON, NMMI: When I go home, I get questioned all of the time, why do you do it? Why would you do it?

KING: An answer that they feel a call to serve and they come here to learn and to prepare for the challenges and risks of wearing the uniform in wartime.


KING: Our thanks to those young cadets and everybody at the military institute. We had a fabulous visit. As you know, one of our goals is to get out of Washington as often as we can. We've made it our pledge on STATE OF THE UNION to travel to all 50 states in our first year. So far, 47 weeks on the air, 46 states including Louisiana, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Check out so you can see what we learned when we traveled to your state.

I want to say good bye now to our international audience for this hour. But up next for our viewers here in the United States, Howard Kurtz and his RELIABLE SOURCES look at the mega frenzy surrounding the Tiger Woods saga.


KING: I'm John King and this is "State of the Union."

With his announcement of a troop surge, President Obama takes ownership of the war in Afghanistan. Is his new strategy getting fair scrutiny from journalists and pundits? Plus, after allegations of extra marital affairs, Tiger Woods offers a public apology of what he calls transgressions. Should the star golfer's private problems be off limits or are they fair game for the media? In this hour of "State of the Union," Howard Kurtz as always, breaks it down with his "Reliable Sources."