October 14, 2009
CNN’s State of the Union: Senator John McCain talks with John King about Athe Nobel Peace Prize and Afghanistan.
Sen McCain handles the Nobel Prize question adeptly but it looks like he wants to laugh. He thinks barry needs to act with “deliberate speed” and not take half-measures aka political expedience and is in favor of more troops.
KING: Senator McCain, thanks for joining us. I want to start with the big news that came at the end of the week. The president of the United States, who a year ago this weekend was your campaign rival, heading into the final month of the campaign, is the Nobel Peace laureate for 2009. Deserved?
MCCAIN: Oh, I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award, and Nobel Committee — I can’t divine all their intentions — but I think part of their decision-making was expectations, and
I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to.
But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.
KING: Did it surprise you, a little more than eight months into office, at a time when, yes, he has set some lofty goals around the world, but he has not won more NATO troops for Afghanistan; he has not convinced the Israelis to do what he says is necessary to sit down with the Palestinians. Were you surprised?
MCCAIN: I think all of us were surprised at the decision, but I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order.
KING: The great irony of the moment may be, he voices his humility and his gratitude for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and then he spends much of his day in the situation room, in a war council meeting, debating the fundamental question of Afghanistan and whether to send more troops.
I want to walk through the threat with you. I know you have had questions about both the policy and the process. Let’s start with the policy. If you listen to the president back in August in a speech to the VFW, he was quite forceful, describing the U.S. military in Afghanistan this way.
========video========
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans.
========video========
KING: And yet one week ago…
MCCAIN: Totally agree.
KING: You totally agree with that, and yet one week ago on this program, General Jim Jones, his national security adviser, offered what sounded like a much more optimistic assessment of the security situation.
=======video==========
GENERAL JIM JONES (USMC, RET.), NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The Al Qaida 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.
I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban, and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger, imminent danger of falling.
========video=======
KING: Those statements less than two months apart sound very, very different. Does the administration have a mixed message, or perhaps an internal debate about the scope of the threat?
MCCAIN: I think we are all very aware, because of the way this town leaks, we kind of follow one day after another the discussions or debate that’s going on within the White House. How true those reports are, I don’t know, but they’re generally accurate, as we find out.
But, look, I agree with the president in that speech, and I also agree with what he said in March, where he said we have a strategy. And so
I have urged the president to act with deliberate speed, because Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal and General Petraeus have said the situation is deteriorating.
Just over the last several days, as you know, week or so, we lost 10 more brave young Americans. And the longer we delay the decision, the longer it will be before we provide them with what the needed resources are. And I’m not trying to rush the president. I think the president has to be deliberate, because this is the most difficult decision that any president makes, to send young Americans into harm’s way. But we do have the strategy. We do have the leaders. And we have a successful strategy that worked in Iraq, that can be adjusted to the situation in Afghanistan.
And I hope the president will heed the advice of his advisers.
On the specific issue that General Jones raised, I think some people are beginning to differentiate between the Taliban and Al Qaida in the respect that one poses a threat and the other won’t, et cetera. One, they will become inextricably tied.
Two, the Taliban are the most cruel and oppressive and repressive people. I mean, the abuses that they have inflicted on women, as well as all people, are something that we would — should find very distasteful, to see them in power anywhere.
KING: And yet, as you say that, there are those in the White House who say, look, we may find them repugnant, but they are a political force in Afghanistan. And as we move forward, perhaps we have to find a way to bring some of them into the process. Recognizing that, again, we don’t like it, but they have political presence and political support in Afghanistan. Should part of the policy be trying to find a way to integrate some of the Taliban?
MCCAIN: Part of the strategy will clearly be that. I mean, there are people who work for the Taliban for money, for because they think the Taliban is gaining, which they are, for a variety of reasons. But there’s still a hard core of Taliban that are dedicated to the prospect of taking control again in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I mean, they move freely across the borders, as we know. And there’s a lot of things we talk about, but I’m pleased at the progress that the Pakistani military is making. And the Pakistani foreign minister just this week said, we Pakistani military go in, we clear and we hold and we secure, and you Americans are using the wrong strategy. I’ll tell you, I didn’t think I’d hear that for some time ago.
KING: You said the president — you hope the president takes the advice of his advisers. But there’s a mix in that advice. Admiral Mullen, General McChrystal, General Petraeus have said we need more troops, and General McChrystal wants as many as 40,000, maybe even a little bit in excess of that. But if you listen to General Jones, who says fewer than 100 Al Qaida right now inside Afghanistan. If you accept that view, could you not say, then, maybe the right approach is, as Vice President Biden advocates, a smaller footprint, go to special forces, use the drones, use intelligence and put fewer Americans at risk?
MCCAIN: Well, I think that would be the counterterrorism strategy, which we attempted in Iraq under Rumsfeld and General Casey. It didn’t succeed. The strategy that was developed by General Petraeus, in particular, but also with General McChrystal as his strong right arm, did succeed there.
But should we risk — should we risk going against the advice and counsel of our best and strongest advisers? Those we’ve given the responsibility? As you know, General McChrystal’s predecessor was fired by the president because of the confidence that he had in him.
So the question is, is do we take a risk and go to a strategy basically that failed before versus one that succeeded?
And again, this is very tough decision. But I do, again, argue, for some deliberate speed, because our allies in the region are beginning to get the impression that perhaps we are wavering, especially in light of the fact that in March, the president announced that we did have a strategy.
So are we developing a new strategy, or is it just trying to adjust for some changed circumstances?
KING: I want to get to some of the politics of this debate in a minute, but another policy question first, because many see a parallel to Iraq, in the sense that it has been eight years in Afghanistan now, it has been billions of dollars. We have shed American blood there, and yet a European commission report out just this past week says for all the efforts to train the Afghan national army, there’s a 24 percent rate of attrition. And others have said, not only do they leave, but they take their weapons with them, and some of them still get paid. What has gone wrong and what is the United States doing wrong when it comes to the fundamental challenge of getting the Afghans ready to do this themselves?
MCCAIN: First of all, rightly or wrongly, we were focused on Iraq. I happen to believe we had to win there. Whether we should have gone in or not and weapons of mass destruction — you’ve covered on other days. But I think the important point here is that, again, if the military of a country does not think they’re going to succeed, you have all kinds of problems. Look at the total collapse of the Iraqi army at one point after we had built them up.
The Afghan soldiers are very good. They’re the most highly respected in their country. There’s just not enough of them. We’re going to have to train a whole lot more. And it doesn’t mean just training. The thing that works with these militaries is operating side by side with American troops. That’s what really gives them the kind of, not only training, but the kind of morale and esprit that goes to — is an essential ingredient in militaries that succeed.
So we’ve got to expand the military, and could I mention — you mentioned the Karzai government, the corruption has got to stop. If there is a finding and it’s that the election was corrupted to the point where a runoff would have been called for, have a runoff, have it quickly, as soon as possible.
But corruption in the government is a huge problem and we have to have — that’s part of this equation. And we have to have the Karzai government show us that it is going to truly reform. By the way, small item, I’d say his brother should leave the country.
============
KING: Let’s talk about the process and the debate about more troops in Afghanistan, because in the past week, we have seen General Jones, right here on this program saying that…
MCCAIN: I saw it.
KING: Saying that Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general in Afghanistan, the president welcomes his advice, but General Jones made clear he thinks it should have been delivered a different way.
======video=======
GEN. JIM JONES (RET.), NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.
=========video========
KING: And so then the question in town was whether that was supported elsewhere in the administration, and the defense secretary, a Bush holdover, Robert Gates, says essentially that he agrees with General Jones.
=======video==========
ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I think the important thing is for the president to hear the advice of his commanders and to have the advantage of hearing that advice in private.
=======video========
KING: Do you believe they’re trying to muzzle General McChrystal?
MCCAIN: I don’t think they’re trying to muzzle General McChrystal. I have the highest regard for General Jones and Secretary Gates.
The fact is, General McChrystal was told we had a strategy last March.
General McChrystal had to receive clearance to give the speech that he gave in London, and he was asked a direct question, whether the counterterrorism strategy, as I mentioned, the same one that failed in Iraq, would work.
And he said, no. I wouldn’t expect him to say anything else. But, look, this whole thing of leaks and leaks of the assessment and all of this is kind of the ugly side of the way we do business here in Washington. And I do believe that General McChrystal should and will — I mean, he certainly understands that the chain of command has to be observed.
I think he should be consulted very heavily and frequently.
But also, at the same time, since he has a responsibility,
KING: Well, do you think the United States can win in Afghanistan with fewer than 40,000 more troops?
MCCAIN:
I do not. And I think the great danger now is not an American pullout. I think the great danger now is a half measure, sort of a — you know, try to please all ends of the political spectrum.
And again, I have great sympathy for the president, making the toughest decisions that presidents have to make. But I think he needs to use deliberate speed and I think he needs to adopt a strategy which he has basically articulated last March and before.
KING: And if he adopt what you consider to be a half measure and says 10,000 more troops or 20,000 more troops, can General McChrystal stay on as the commander in that capacity, or do you believe that that would be a rebuke to his leadership?
MCCAIN: I really don’t know, because I would have to see exactly what the plan was and General — one thing about our military leaders, they have a spirit that’s indomitable, but
I think to disregard the requirements that have been laid out and agreed to by General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, I think would be an error of historic proportions.
JOHN KING: And during the Bush administration, when there was resistance to the surge, you used the Senate floor and you used hearings to pressure the administration to listen to General Petraeus. You’re trying to do the same thing now, trying to pressure, or at least convince President Obama, to listen to General McChrystal and General Petraeus, above all others.
To the degree that you went to the Senate floor and you said, you worry that Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, and even your own friend General Jones were now listening to the left wing, the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. I put your criticism to General Jones last week and he took exception.
=====VIDEO=========
JONES: I don’t play politics and I certainly don’t play it with national security and neither does anyone else I know. The lives of our young men and women are on the line. This is — the strategy does not belong to my political party and I can assure you that the president of the United States is not playing to any political base. And I take exception to that remark.
=======VIDEO=====
KING: Do you accept that, or do you think that Rahm Emanuel and General Jones — who once served under you, when you were the Navy liaison on Capitol Hill, do you think that they are catering to the left?
MCCAIN: No. I have the highest respect and regard for General Jones, and of course great respect for the president’s main adviser, Rahm Emanuel. The point I was trying to make and the point I will continue to make is that General Jones was not correct about Iraq. He called for a strategy that I think would have failed. And I would like for him…
KING: Now do you think he’s wrong again?
MCCAIN: I think — I don’t know, exactly, because I don’t know exactly what his position is. I think he’s working a process that I think is too slow. But I think he’s working a process. I have the highest respect for him,
but I really believe that to not give the resources which are — a sufficient number of troops is a main component, to our leaders in the field, given in light of the experiences we’ve had, would be a fundamental error that would lead to consequences for a long, long time.
Tags: foreign policy, citizens against proobama media bias, proobamedia, national security, Senator mccain, afghanistan, president obama, senator john mccain, barry soetoro, al qaeda, taliban, john king, general mccrystal, nobel peace prize, state of the union
