Meet the Press (NBC) - 2009-05-10 - 1 of 2
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:00] Contract
[0:02] >> from NBC News in Washington. This is
[0:05] Meet the Press with David Gregory.
[0:10] Our issues this Sunday. The president
[0:13] calls it the most dangerous place in the
[0:15] world. The front line in the war on
[0:17] terror is now the rugged frontier lands
[0:19] of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's where
[0:22] al-Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban have
[0:25] come back with a vengeance in the years
[0:27] after 9/11 and where the White House has
[0:29] decided to surge more than 20,000
[0:31] additional US troops. This week, an
[0:34] unprecedented White House summit with
[0:36] the region's leaders and a warning.
[0:38] >> The security of Pakistan, Afghanistan,
[0:41] and the United States are linked.
[0:43] >> Is it America's war or their war? And is
[0:47] it winnable? With us exclusively this
[0:49] morning, President Aiv Ali Zardari of
[0:52] Pakistan and President Hammed Carzai of
[0:55] Afghanistan.
[0:56] Then, insights and analysis on why these
[0:59] two countries now represent the most
[1:01] pressing national security challenge to
[1:03] the Obama White House. With us, Steve
[1:06] Call of the New Yorker magazine, former
[1:08] longtime foreign correspondent and
[1:10] senior editor of the Washington Post and
[1:12] author of the best-selling book Ghost
[1:14] Wars about Osama bin Laden and the US
[1:17] engagement with Afghanistan. And Andrea
[1:20] Mitchell, chief foreign affairs
[1:22] correspondent of NBC News.
[1:28] But first, the presidents of Pakistan
[1:30] and Afghanistan. I sat down with both
[1:33] leaders earlier this week after their
[1:34] White House meetings. Pakistan's
[1:36] President Zadari in office for the last
[1:38] 8 months is the widowerower of slain
[1:40] Prime Minister Benazir Bhau. I began by
[1:43] asking about the Taliban and whether he
[1:45] agrees with the Obama administration
[1:47] that the group represents an existential
[1:49] threat to his country.
[1:52] No, I consider the philosophy of Taliban
[1:55] as threat to the world, not just to
[1:57] Pakistan and your country, but I feel
[2:00] it's a larger threat,
[2:02] >> an existential threat to Pakistan.
[2:04] >> Pakistan, the whole world. They start
[2:06] from the Horn of Africa and come down
[2:08] all the way to Pakistan. They don't
[2:10] evolve from Pakistan and go up. They
[2:12] come down.
[2:13] >> Do you consider the Taliban to be a
[2:14] bigger threat today than India? I
[2:17] consider it's a different uh then India
[2:20] is a country and Pakistan is a state we
[2:23] two states which in fact Pakistan
[2:26] stemmed out of the subcontinent out of
[2:28] India so it's a different relationship
[2:30] it's a different context
[2:33] >> is there a war with the Taliban inside
[2:36] Pakistan
[2:37] >> there is a war sir
[2:38] >> and is it America's war or Pakistan's
[2:40] war
[2:41] >> it's a war of our existence we've been
[2:43] fighting this war um much before They
[2:46] attacked 9/11.
[2:48] They're um kind of a cancer created by
[2:51] both of us, Pakistan and America and the
[2:56] world. We got together. We created this
[2:58] cancer to fight the superpower and then
[3:01] we went away rather you went away
[3:04] without uh finding a cure for it. And
[3:07] now we've both come together to find a
[3:10] cure for it and we're looking for one.
[3:12] When you speak like that, it doesn't
[3:14] sound as if you consider it Pakistan's
[3:16] war. You consider it America's
[3:18] responsibility.
[3:19] >> No, I think it's a joint responsibility.
[3:21] I think it's a joint responsibilities of
[3:23] all the democrac democracies of the
[3:25] world. That's why we made this friends
[3:27] of democratic Pakistan so we can bring
[3:30] more strength to the situation. You've
[3:33] got to admit that you all have been
[3:35] trying to battle it for the last 8
[3:36] years. the or the world powers have been
[3:39] trying to battle it for the last 8 years
[3:41] in Afghanistan and nobody's come out a
[3:44] victory as yet
[3:45] >> and so you say there is a commitment on
[3:47] the part of Pakistan to fight the
[3:48] Taliban now how many troops how many
[3:51] Pakistani troops do you not now have in
[3:53] the western part of your country
[3:55] battling the Taliban
[3:56] >> three times the amount of troops you
[3:57] have battling them in Afghanistan that's
[4:00] 125,000 we have
[4:02] >> on ground
[4:03] >> and yet the administration you have a
[4:04] military force of roughly 660 60 650,000
[4:08] men. Has the administration said to you
[4:10] there should be more fighting men in the
[4:12] West?
[4:13] >> There is a point of view that more men
[4:15] might
[4:16] uh improve the situation, but that's
[4:18] something it's still disputed by our
[4:20] military analyst. We don't think that
[4:22] more presence of more troops there. You
[4:24] must remember 650
[4:27] uh personnel, strong army doesn't mean
[4:30] they're all infantry. That's the
[4:32] fighting brigade is the infantry. That's
[4:34] the teeth of the army. So they're not
[4:36] all infantry. They're tank drivers,
[4:38] they're truck drivers, they're other um
[4:42] um gunners, etc., etc. So we have a
[4:46] infantry of 250,000 out of which 125,000
[4:50] happens to be in those mountains.
[4:52] >> So you have a sufficient number of
[4:53] troops
[4:54] >> fighting the Taliban.
[4:55] >> We think they're sufficient.
[4:57] >> You appeared on Capitol Hill this week
[4:59] and the chairman of the House Foreign
[5:01] Affairs Committee, Representative Howard
[5:02] Burman, said this. Speaking of you, he
[5:05] said he did not present a coherent
[5:07] strategy for the defeat of this
[5:08] insurgency. I had a sense of what
[5:10] they're doing today. He said, I did not
[5:13] have a sense of what they plan to do
[5:14] tomorrow. What's the strategy?
[5:17] >> So, well, he didn't even ask me. So,
[5:18] it's okay, but I'll tell you what I plan
[5:20] to do. We we've been lobbing in part in
[5:24] in America. My wife was lobbying and we
[5:27] were of the view and always have been of
[5:28] the view that democracy is the answer to
[5:32] the problem. It may like somebody said,
[5:34] it may not be the best form of
[5:36] government, but it's the only form of
[5:38] government. Now, we've got democracy.
[5:40] Democracy needs help and needs a little
[5:43] more help than we've been getting in the
[5:45] past. What the American public and
[5:48] people at large do not understand is for
[5:50] 10 years you have given $10 billion to u
[5:54] a dictator, but you've given them for
[5:56] the war in these mountains. It's
[6:00] actually reimbursement for the money
[6:02] spent after all 125,000 troops moving in
[6:05] logistically otherwise do cost. So
[6:09] you've been paying back the government
[6:12] of Pakistan for the expenses occurred as
[6:15] such but we need to support democracy.
[6:18] We need to support the country. We need
[6:20] to support we need to support the
[6:22] systems and we've been involved for the
[6:23] last 30 years. It's not uh
[6:25] >> but is that a strategy for cracking down
[6:27] on a Taliban insurgency? Sure it is.
[6:29] Sure it is. The stronger my institutions
[6:32] are, the more the youth I employ, the
[6:34] less fer they have, the more poverty
[6:37] goes down, the less uh fer they have to
[6:40] recruit from. That's the strategy. What
[6:42] else can what is there is no scientific
[6:44] theorem to that. And if there was one,
[6:47] if you had a strategy, you would have
[6:48] done it in a in 10 years. But there's a
[6:51] military question which is is Pakistan
[6:54] capable of dealing with an insurgency
[6:56] capable of mounting an effective
[6:58] counterinsurgency when the orientation
[7:00] of your military has primarily been to
[7:02] fight a big enemy to the east in India
[7:05] predicated on the idea of some kind of
[7:07] deterrence. Are you able to mount a
[7:10] counterinsurgency strategy at this
[7:11] point?
[7:12] >> Sir, we've been in this war for the last
[7:15] seven years. But if you see the record
[7:17] of the one year that the democratic
[7:20] government of Pakistan, the PPP
[7:22] government and its allies has been
[7:23] there, we've done more to damage the
[7:27] infrastructure of the Talibans or the M
[7:30] or these um um miscarrenants, whatever
[7:34] you need to call them, than ever before.
[7:37] >> And yet there are some who say that the
[7:39] strategy has not borne fruit. Uh you
[7:43] went in, so people understand, you went
[7:44] into an area uh north of Islamabad, the
[7:48] Swat Valley, and you essentially made a
[7:50] deal with the Taliban, which is they
[7:52] would put down their arms if Islamic law
[7:55] could be applied, could be implemented
[7:57] there.
[7:58] >> Incorrect.
[7:58] >> Incorrect. Tell me what's correct.
[8:00] >> The correct position is that we came up
[8:02] with a formula which was that there will
[8:04] be speedy justice there known as uh
[8:08] Nazame, nothing to do with Sharia law.
[8:12] It's been interpreted by
[8:14] as law by them and then that didn't work
[8:19] but we had to get the population to be
[8:21] with us. The population was fed up of
[8:23] them and was fed up of the fighting.
[8:26] Some uh they the provincial government
[8:30] came up with this uh idea that let's go
[8:33] for a peace deal and uh let's get the
[8:36] people involved. They tried. It hasn't
[8:38] worked. But when you made this deal,
[8:39] when you actually signed this deal,
[8:41] >> the parliament signed on this deal. The
[8:45] parliament recommended me to me.
[8:47] >> Were you against it?
[8:48] >> I was. Yes, I had a position against it.
[8:51] >> Why? Why did you think it was misguided?
[8:52] >> I thought that uh it won't work.
[8:55] >> Did you think it was abdication to the
[8:57] Taliban?
[8:58] >> No, it's not abdication. I thought that
[9:00] the Talibans are not rational people. I
[9:02] don't think there's any good Talibans.
[9:04] The world does. So that's a difference
[9:06] of opinion. But so you think there's no
[9:09] negotiating with them?
[9:10] >> I don't think there should be a
[9:11] negotiating with them at the moment.
[9:13] Maybe one day when there is uh enough uh
[9:15] we've done enough then always there
[9:17] cannot only only be war. There has to be
[9:20] a the parliament has come up with a
[9:21] strategy which is a 3D dialogue,
[9:24] deterrence and development. So we have
[9:26] to go into dialogue by the will of the
[9:28] people which we did. It didn't work. Now
[9:30] we've got into the deterrence phase
[9:32] where we are fighting and then once
[9:34] we've calmed the situation down enough
[9:37] then we'll go into the development stage
[9:38] to give them the ownership give them
[9:41] schools. You have the fighting that's
[9:43] going on in SWAT. You have the Taliban
[9:44] insurgency there. That insurgency has
[9:47] also spread into Punjab to the state of
[9:49] Punjab. I don't have to tell you that's
[9:50] where half uh Pakistan's population is.
[9:53] And it has led to some dire assessments
[9:55] by analysts who look at your country
[9:57] with a critical eye, including a former
[10:00] adviser to General David Petraeus um who
[10:04] helped him with the insurgency in Iraq.
[10:05] And he said this, "We're now reaching
[10:07] the point where within 1 to 6 months we
[10:09] could see the collapse of the Pakistani
[10:11] state because the Taliban insurgency has
[10:13] so destabilized Pakistan." Does he have
[10:16] that right? I think he he's had other
[10:18] positions wrong before. So, and having
[10:21] said that, we have a threat. Yes. Is the
[10:25] state of Pakistan going to collapse? No.
[10:27] We are 180 million people. Their
[10:30] population is uh much much more than the
[10:34] the insurgents are. But we do have a
[10:36] problem. We have a problem because it's
[10:39] been there. It was like I said, it was a
[10:40] monster created by all all of us. We got
[10:43] together and we didn't we forgot to make
[10:45] a cure for it. Can you survive
[10:47] politically?
[10:48] >> Of course.
[10:49] >> Is it possible to defeat this insurgency
[10:52] without US soldiers fighting by your
[10:55] side or at least training your soldiers
[10:57] in Pakistan?
[10:58] >> I think uh we need to find a strategy
[11:00] where the world gets together against
[11:02] this threat because it's not Pakistan
[11:05] specific. It's not Afghanistan specific.
[11:08] Like I said, it's all the way from the
[11:10] Horn of Africa. You've had attacks in
[11:13] Spain. You've had attacks in Britain.
[11:15] You've had attacks in America. You've
[11:16] had attacks in Africa, Saudi Arabia. So
[11:19] I think the world needs to understand
[11:20] that this is the new challenge of the
[11:23] 21st century. And this is the new war
[11:25] and we've all got together. The question
[11:27] a lot of people ask is are you is
[11:30] Pakistan really committed to that war.
[11:33] In the New York Times, Dexter Filkins
[11:34] who who's reported from Afghanistan and
[11:36] Pakistan writes this. Whose side is
[11:39] Pakistan really on? Little in Pakistan
[11:41] is what it appears for years. The
[11:43] survival of Pakistan's military and
[11:45] civilian leaders has depended on a
[11:47] double game, assuring the United States
[11:49] that they were vigorously repressing
[11:51] Islamic militants and in some cases
[11:53] actually doing so while simultaneously
[11:55] tolerating and assisting the same
[11:57] militants. From the antis-siet fighters
[11:59] of the 1980s and the Taliban of the
[12:01] 1990s to the homegrown militants of
[12:03] today, Pakistan's leaders have been both
[12:05] public enemies and private friends. When
[12:08] the game works, it reaps great rewards.
[12:10] billions in aid to boost the Pakistani
[12:12] economy and military and Islamist
[12:14] proxies to extend the government's reach
[12:16] into Afghanistan and India.
[12:19] >> I think it's a old concept and old
[12:21] theory that he's talking about. And what
[12:24] billions are you talking about? Like I
[12:26] said, a billion dollar a year that's not
[12:29] even altogether this aid package is not
[12:33] even onetenth of what you gave AIG.
[12:36] So
[12:38] let's face it, we need in fact much more
[12:42] help. We are responsible, a responsible
[12:45] state. We've brought democracy back.
[12:48] It's young democracy accepted. It was
[12:51] not me who was aiding the dictators of
[12:53] the past.
[12:54] >> Is there a view however in Pakistan that
[12:56] the Taliban should be kept around for a
[12:59] rainy day as it's been said as a bull
[13:01] work against Indian influence in
[13:03] neighboring Afghanistan?
[13:04] >> I don't think so. I don't think so.
[13:06] >> You don't think that was part of the
[13:06] past at all?
[13:07] >> I think it it was part of your past and
[13:10] our past and the ISI and the CI created
[13:12] them together. It and I can find you 10
[13:14] books and 10 philosophers and 10
[13:16] writeups on that. What all you didn't
[13:18] do?
[13:19] >> Fair argument. Certainly, a lot of
[13:20] people would agree with you. But did the
[13:22] game change after 9/11 to a point where
[13:24] the US decided to root out this threat
[13:27] and Pakistan was straddling both sides?
[13:29] >> You tell me I was imprisoned by the same
[13:31] dictator you were supporting. You were
[13:34] supporting a dictator.
[13:35] >> You're speaking of General Mashar.
[13:36] >> Yeah, I'm speaking of General Masharov.
[13:38] In fact, uh I lost my wife on his watch
[13:40] and I has I spent five years in his
[13:42] prison.
[13:43] >> But Mr. President, you know well that
[13:45] there is a widespread belief that your
[13:48] military and your intelligence services
[13:50] still have these same sympathies for the
[13:53] Taliban.
[13:54] >> I wouldn't agree with you. I think
[13:56] General Masher may have had a mindset
[13:59] that I to run with the um head and hunt
[14:01] with the hound, but certainly not on our
[14:04] watch. We don't have that thought
[14:05] process at all.
[14:07] >> Let me ask you about Pakistan's nuclear
[14:09] arsenal. There's been a question about
[14:11] the security of that arsenal. You've
[14:12] assured the world that those nuclear
[14:14] weapons are secure, but I wonder why
[14:18] you're continuing to add to your
[14:19] stockpile, add to your arsenal at what
[14:22] is described as a pretty uh fast rate
[14:24] when there's so much instability in the
[14:26] country.
[14:26] >> That's that's that's not a fact. It's a
[14:29] uh it's a position that some people have
[14:32] taken. We we're not adding to our stock
[14:35] piles as such. Why do we need more?
[14:38] >> So, you're not adding to your nuclear
[14:39] arsenal at all?
[14:40] >> I don't think so. No,
[14:41] >> you don't. Do you know?
[14:43] >> Even if I did, I wasn't going to tell
[14:45] you.
[14:46] >> There is a view that in the intelligence
[14:48] community in this country that it does
[14:50] not know where all the nuclear weapons
[14:52] are within Pakistan. Why not share that
[14:54] information? So there could be a joint
[14:55] strategy to keep those weapons secure.
[14:58] >> Why don't you do the same with other
[14:59] countries yourself?
[15:01] I think it's a sovereignty issue and we
[15:03] have a right to our own sovereignty.
[15:05] It's a sovereign country.
[15:07] >> Who's in control of Pakistan? You or the
[15:09] military? I think the military is in
[15:12] control of their hemisphere and I'm in
[15:14] control of the whole country.
[15:16] >> Can they overrule you?
[15:19] >> No, I can overrule them.
[15:21] >> Haven't they overruled you in the past?
[15:23] >> No, we've gone to their position and
[15:25] they've come to our positions.
[15:27] >> But you still have final say.
[15:28] >> The parliament has final say. It's the
[15:31] parliamentary form of government and I
[15:33] am a product of the parliament. But why
[15:35] is it when you wanted your intelligence
[15:37] chief to go to Mumbai, you were
[15:39] overruled by your military?
[15:40] >> No, it was not overruled by the
[15:42] military. They thought it was too too
[15:44] soon and eventually we've offered uh for
[15:47] the intelligence chief to meet.
[15:49] >> There's a lot of discussion about
[15:50] additional aid as you've been talking
[15:52] about throughout our conversation for
[15:54] Pakistan, $ 1.5 billion for 5 years, a
[15:57] total of $7.5 billion. But as you know
[15:59] there's discussion about putting some
[16:02] strings some limits on that aid based on
[16:04] performance by Pakistan. Do you disagree
[16:06] with that policy?
[16:07] >> I think it's uh um doubting an ally
[16:11] before you go into action together. If
[16:14] we are allies and we and we understand
[16:16] it's an accepted position that you we
[16:18] cannot work this problem out unless
[16:21] Pakistan, Afghanistan and America are on
[16:23] the same page. How do you go and taking
[16:25] ally along by saying okay I don't trust
[16:27] you from the first day? It's not a good
[16:31] uh position to be in. So I feel that we
[16:34] shouldn't have any um any kind of
[16:37] conditionalities. We should have a
[16:39] result resultori or oriented
[16:41] relationship where I should be
[16:45] g given a timeline and I'll give you all
[16:48] a timeline so we can both give each
[16:50] other timelines and meet the timelines
[16:53] uh on the on the on the positive.
[16:56] >> In terms of USPakistani cooperation,
[16:58] there are drones that fire missiles and
[17:01] target uh Taliban and other extremist
[17:04] al-Qaeda uh figures within Pakistan. Do
[17:07] you consider those to be effective?
[17:10] >> I would consider them to be very
[17:11] effective if they were part of my
[17:13] arsenal. I've been asking for them, but
[17:15] I haven't got a positive answer as yet.
[17:17] But I'm not giving up.
[17:19] >> Where is Osama bin Laden?
[17:22] >> You all have been there for 8 years. You
[17:23] tell me. You lost him in Tora. I didn't.
[17:26] I was in prison. In fact, my wife warned
[17:29] America about
[17:31] Osama bin Laden in ' 89.
[17:34] She rang up senior Bush and as asked of
[17:38] him, are you destabilizing my
[17:40] government? Because he paid the then
[17:42] opposition $10 million to to uh
[17:45] overthrow
[17:47] the first uh
[17:50] woman elected in Islamic country. So we
[17:53] knew that he was your operator and
[17:56] >> so you're not actively looking for him.
[17:59] I think the world is looking for him and
[18:01] we are part of the world lookout
[18:04] brigade.
[18:04] >> Do you think he's alive or dead?
[18:07] >> I've said before that he I don't think
[18:08] he's alive.
[18:10] >> And you believe that?
[18:11] >> I have a strong feeling and I have sort
[18:13] of reason to believe that because I've
[18:14] asked my counterparts in the American um
[18:18] intelligence agencies and they haven't
[18:20] heard of him since seven years.
[18:22] >> Mr. President, thank you very much for
[18:24] your views and good luck with your work.
[18:25] >> Thank you, sir.
[18:27] Coming next, 7 years after 9/11 and the
[18:30] war rages on with the insurgent Taliban
[18:32] still controlling parts of Afghanistan.
[18:34] Can the government regain control and
[18:37] the tough issue of civilian casualties
[18:39] due to US air strikes? Some harsh words
[18:41] from President Mohammed Karz. Our
[18:43] exclusive interview from earlier this
[18:44] week is next.
[18:48] Meet the Press is brought to you by GE
[18:51] Imagination at Work and by the Boeing
[18:55] Company.
[18:58] We know why we're here.
[19:01] To redefine air travel for a new
[19:03] generation.
[19:06] To ensure our forces are safer and
[19:09] stronger.
[19:12] To take the world we share to tomorrow
[19:15] and beyond.
[19:17] >> Around the globe, the people of Boeing
[19:19] are working together
[19:21] to make a difference.
[19:24] >> That's why we're here.
[19:41] Heat up
[19:53] here.
[20:13] So, do you guys actually walk the walk
[20:15] when it comes to communication
[20:17] technology?
[20:18] >> Absolutely. I think you can save both a
[20:20] lot of money but a lot of people's time
[20:22] if you choose the right technology for
[20:24] the right place and we think we save uh
[20:27] tens of millions of pounds a year.
[20:28] >> Wow. That's a big number right now.
[20:29] >> It's a very big number.
[20:31] >> So if you can do something that's good
[20:33] for the company and good for your
[20:34] shareholders at the same time then um
[20:37] it's pretty much a no-brainer.
[20:39] >> Real bay landed junction.
[20:44] Afghanistan's President Hammed Carzi
[20:47] after this brief commercial break.
[20:53] In a changing world, who do you want by
[20:56] your side?
[20:58] A financial adviser who knows you.
[21:02] An adviser who understands you.
[21:07] An adviser who has weathered the
[21:08] changing world right beside you.
[21:12] The world changes.
[21:14] Our commitment to you doesn't. That's
[21:16] the financial relationship we call you
[21:19] and us. UPS.
[21:23] >> She wants to make up.
[21:25] >> We decide to turn in early.
[21:27] >> We just know.
[21:28] >> Finding the moment that's right for you
[21:29] both can take some time. That's why
[21:32] Seialis gives men with erectile
[21:33] dysfunction options. 36-hour Sealis or
[21:36] Seialis for daily use. Seialis for daily
[21:39] use is a clinically proven lowdosese
[21:40] tablet you take every day so you can be
[21:42] ready anytime the moment is right.
[21:45] >> Tell your doctor about your medical
[21:46] condition and all medications and ask if
[21:48] you're healthy enough for sexual
[21:49] activity. Don't take Sealis if you take
[21:52] nitrates for chest pain as this may
[21:53] cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure.
[21:56] Don't drink alcohol in excess with
[21:57] Sealis. Side effects may include
[21:59] headache, upset stomach, delayed
[22:01] backachche, or muscle ache. To avoid
[22:03] long-term injury, seek immediate medical
[22:05] help for an erection lasting more than 4
[22:07] hours. If you have any sudden decrease
[22:09] or loss in hearing or vision, stop
[22:10] taking Seialis and call your doctor
[22:12] right away.
[22:13] >> Seialis for daily use or 36-hour
[22:15] seialis. Ask your doctor if seialis is
[22:18] right for you. So when the moment is
[22:20] right, you can be ready.
[22:24] >> Mr. President, welcome back to Meet the
[22:25] Press.
[22:26] >> Happy to be here.
[22:27] >> President Obama talked about the
[22:29] deterioration in Afghanistan during a
[22:32] speech back in March. This is what he
[22:33] said. The situation is increasingly
[22:36] perilous. It's been more than 7 years
[22:39] since the Taliban was removed from
[22:41] power. Yet, war rages on. Insurgents
[22:44] control parts of Afghanistan and
[22:46] Pakistan. Attacks against our troops,
[22:49] our NATO allies, and the Afghan
[22:51] government have ridden risen steadily.
[22:54] And most painfully, 2008 was the
[22:56] deadliest year of the war for American
[22:58] forces. So, here we are, 7 years after
[23:01] the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
[23:05] Another American president is committing
[23:06] troops to Afghanistan. 21,000 additional
[23:09] troops. By the summer, there'll be
[23:11] 68,000 US troops. My question, is it too
[23:14] little too late?
[23:20] Well, um, a very important question
[23:24] indeed.
[23:26] when we began in 2001
[23:28] uh with the arrival of the international
[23:30] community in Afghanistan
[23:33] and uh the two the Afghan people and the
[23:36] international community joining hands
[23:39] uh we together defeated the Taliban and
[23:42] the terrorists and the al-Qaeda in less
[23:44] than a month and a half
[23:47] subsequent to that the Afghan people
[23:50] would uh as we established the interim
[23:52] government would come in large numbers
[23:55] hundred of them to my office and ask for
[23:58] more international forces in the
[24:00] country, in their villages, in their
[24:03] towns, in their districts. That didn't
[24:06] happen at that time.
[24:08] Uh so in that sense uh the arrival of
[24:13] more forces uh is late. uh it should
[24:17] have happened then six years ago and uh
[24:20] we should have paid attention uh then
[24:23] six years ago to the sanctuaries to the
[24:25] training grounds to the uh those
[24:27] financing the terrorists it's a bit late
[24:30] but as we all know it's never too late
[24:33] for a good thing to do with 21,000
[24:35] additional troops there's a question of
[24:37] what can be gained but the issue of
[24:40] civilian casualties as a result of US
[24:43] air strikes how much damage does that do
[24:46] to the US effort?
[24:48] >> A lot of damage. Uh this is something
[24:50] that I've been engaged with uh um with
[24:53] our allies for um at least 6 years now.
[24:58] >> And you talked to President Obama about
[25:00] >> Oh, very very much. For at least six
[25:02] years now in different ways, in
[25:04] different forms. The Afghan people are
[25:06] allies of the United States. The Afghan
[25:08] people want this effort together to
[25:11] succeed. The Afghan people see that the
[25:13] presence of the international community
[25:14] in Afghanistan brings us plenty of of
[25:17] good things. But Afghan people also want
[25:19] to have their children safe. The Afghan
[25:22] people say we are fighting together with
[25:23] you shoulderto-shoulder against
[25:24] terrorism. That we are part of the
[25:26] struggle. That we are not our homes, our
[25:29] villages are not places for terrorism
[25:32] and that they should be safe. It's an
[25:34] important thing that America recognize
[25:36] that civilian casualties are the biggest
[25:40] concern in Afghanistan and a damage to
[25:42] the effort against terrorism.
[25:44] >> When President Obama addressed the
[25:45] American people and announced more
[25:47] troops going to your country,
[25:49] >> he raised a very important question
[25:50] which is what is America's purpose
[25:53] >> in Afghanistan? Dexter Filkins, veteran
[25:55] war correspondent, has covered
[25:56] Afghanistan and Pakistan thoroughly for
[25:58] the New York Times, writes in the
[26:00] current edition of the New Republic this
[26:01] and he starts with a question. What can
[26:03] be won in Afghanistan? Driving around
[26:06] the country as I did recently, one is
[26:08] constantly overwhelmed by how little has
[26:10] been accomplished there. In December
[26:12] 2001, the country lay in ruins. Today,
[26:15] it is still pretty much the same place.
[26:17] Today, Taliban fighters move freely
[26:19] across the countryside and in some
[26:21] places they have set up a shadow
[26:22] government. After 8 years of neglect,
[26:25] the Afghanistan state is a weak and
[26:27] pathetic thing. Pretty strong words. Why
[26:30] is that the case?
[26:31] >> Very wrong words.
[26:32] >> Wrong. You say it's wrong.
[26:33] >> Very wrong words. Pretty strong wrong
[26:35] words. It isn't like that. In 2001,
[26:39] Afghanistan did not have a single
[26:41] kilometer of paved road.
[26:44] Today, Afghanistan has its ring road
[26:46] completed
[26:48] nearly 3,000 kilometers and above. Today
[26:52] we have many of the roads in the cities
[26:54] paved. Today we have uh health services
[26:58] which were only to about 9% of the
[27:01] Afghan population in 2002 reaching um
[27:05] nearly 85% and over of the Afghan
[27:08] population. The rural development
[27:10] program of Afghanistan goes to more than
[27:12] half of Afghanistan's 40,000 villages.
[27:15] In 2002 we had 4,000 students in Afghan
[27:18] universities and only three or four
[27:20] universities. Today we have 75,000
[27:22] students in Afghan universities. Over 14
[27:26] uh public universities and and many
[27:29] private universities. In 2002 the 4,000
[27:32] students that we had were all boys, men.
[27:36] Today nearly 40% are girls of the
[27:38] 75,000. Today we have thousands of
[27:40] Afghans studying abroad. At least a
[27:43] thousand each year in India and hundreds
[27:45] in Europe and America. We have experts
[27:47] returned to Afghanistan. I met with them
[27:49] 3 months ago. the country is a lot
[27:51] better.
[27:51] >> Back in 2003, this is what you said
[27:54] about the Taliban. They were the ones
[27:56] who provided safe haven to al-Qaeda.
[27:58] These are the people that threatened
[27:59] both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is
[28:01] what you said back in June of 2003. I am
[28:04] not worried about the resurgence of the
[28:06] Taliban. The Taliban movement as a
[28:08] movement is finished and is gone. Were
[28:11] you wrong about that?
[28:14] >> I was not wrong about that.
[28:17] >> But they're back. out. No, it's there's
[28:19] a difference. The Taliban as a movement
[28:22] is gone from ruling Afghanistan. They
[28:25] were the government in Afghanistan. In
[28:27] 2001, they were the government. Today,
[28:30] they are not the government. In 2002,
[28:32] they were threatening you. Today, they
[28:34] are not from Afghanistan. Yes, they are
[28:37] a threat in the form of the terrorism
[28:39] that they uh bring upon us, in the form
[28:42] of the violence that they bring upon us,
[28:44] not as an organized political force
[28:46] holding the government in Afghanistan.
[28:47] >> Are they an existential threat to your
[28:49] leadership?
[28:50] >> They are not an existential threat to
[28:51] Afghanistan's government. They are a
[28:53] threat to to our uh efforts towards more
[28:56] security, more progress, more
[28:58] reconstruction, and a more peaceful
[29:01] life. that threat they definitely are
[29:03] and especially in parts of the country
[29:06] that's strongly there. Yes,
[29:08] >> the new administration has a slightly
[29:10] different strategy for trying to deal
[29:12] with the Taliban and it has to do with
[29:14] operations on a tactical level similar
[29:16] to what was done in Iraq to try to turn
[29:19] some of these what might be called
[29:21] irreconcilables and bring them into the
[29:23] American fold. This is how the president
[29:25] described it back in that March speech.
[29:27] >> There is an uncompromising core of the
[29:30] Taliban.
[29:31] They must be met with force and they
[29:34] must be defeated. But there are also
[29:36] those who've taken up arms because of
[29:38] coercion or simply for a price. These
[29:41] Afghans must have the option to choose a
[29:44] different course.
[29:46] And that's why we will work with local
[29:48] leaders, the Afghan government and
[29:51] international partners to have a
[29:53] reconciliation process in every
[29:55] province.
[29:56] >> Now you have called that reconciliation
[29:58] process unworkable. Why do you believe
[30:01] that?
[30:02] >> No, I I didn't call the reconciliation
[30:04] process unworkable. And by the way, I
[30:07] agree with President Obama's description
[30:09] of the elements of peacemaking with the
[30:11] Taliban. uh those Taliban who have been
[30:15] driven out of the country by fear or
[30:17] coercion or intimidation by our forces
[30:21] or the international forces or by
[30:23] whatever other circumstances
[30:25] uh that they found themselves compelled
[30:27] to leave the country and take guns
[30:29] against us or the ones that we want to
[30:31] reconcile with the sons of the soul they
[30:33] must return. to be very precise, those
[30:36] of the Taliban who are part of al-Qaeda
[30:40] or other terrorist networks or those who
[30:43] are in the grip of, you know,
[30:45] intelligence services must not and
[30:48] cannot come to Afghanistan because they
[30:50] will continue to bring violence and
[30:52] destruction and and and damage to
[30:53] Afghanistan. But those who have been
[30:56] driven out of fear or the other
[30:58] circumstances that I described earlier
[31:00] are welcome. They're the sons of our
[31:02] soil. They're from our country and we
[31:04] want to reconcile with them. And that's
[31:05] what President Obama was referring to.
[31:07] What I was objecting to was the
[31:10] international forces directly engaging
[31:13] at local level with the Taliban
[31:15] commanders for reconciliation. That is
[31:17] the job of the Afghan government.
[31:19] >> Speaking about the Taliban and the
[31:21] defeat of the Taliban and al-Qaeda
[31:22] generally, do you have more confidence
[31:25] today in Pakistan's commitment to
[31:28] fighting and defeating the Taliban than
[31:29] you did under General Masharov?
[31:32] Definitely more. Yes. Definitely there
[31:34] is a recognition the Pakistani
[31:36] leadership in the democratically elected
[31:38] leadership uh they see very much um
[31:42] the same way things that that that as we
[31:45] see. Therefore we have a lot more
[31:48] confidence there. Uh we had a very good
[31:50] meeting in Washington. I hope that this
[31:52] will be taken into uh um further steps
[31:55] meaning implementation on the ground.
[31:58] I'm a lot more confident and a lot more
[32:00] hopeful. You are running for reelection
[32:03] and as you campaign you've had some
[32:07] pretty pointed messages. You're critical
[32:09] of the United States for civilian
[32:10] casualties as a result of US air raids.
[32:13] You also were at a a rally recently
[32:16] during which you were very clear and you
[32:18] said, "Look, I have made certain demands
[32:20] of the Americans and if they do not
[32:22] provide additional aircraft, for
[32:24] instance, I'll go somewhere else and
[32:26] I'll get it." You appeared to threaten
[32:28] the administration and I wonder whether
[32:30] your core political message is an
[32:32] anti-American message.
[32:34] >> It is not. It is very much a
[32:37] pro-American message. So the Afghans do
[32:40] want this relationship with America to
[32:42] continue. But of course Afghanistan has
[32:43] a character of its own and an interest
[32:46] of its own and a demand upon our allies
[32:50] as well. Um we are uh we are your front
[32:55] line in the war on terrorism. The Afghan
[32:57] people have given everything on a daily
[32:59] basis in the war on terrorism. We have
[33:01] our police dying every day at least five
[33:04] or six of them. Our security forces, our
[33:07] army, our people. Our villages are not
[33:10] where the terrorists are.
[33:13] And that's what we kept telling the US
[33:14] administration that the war on terrorism
[33:17] is not in the Afghan villages, not in
[33:20] the Afghan homes. Respect that uh
[33:23] civilian casualties are undermining
[33:26] support in the Afghan people
[33:29] for the war on terrorism and for the the
[33:32] relations with America. How can you
[33:34] expect a people who keep losing their
[33:36] children to remain friendly?
[33:38] >> And and that's a moral question as well.
[33:41] We have to be morally on a much higher
[33:44] platform in order for us to win the war
[33:46] on terrorism.
[33:46] >> And do you worry that do you worry that
[33:48] the US has not met that standard?
[33:51] >> The US
[33:52] >> have they not met their own moral
[33:53] standard?
[33:54] >> The US The US The US has not met that
[33:57] standard in Afghanistan.
[33:59] The United States must stand on a much
[34:01] higher moral platform in order for us
[34:03] together to win this war.
[34:04] >> Let me be clear about what you're
[34:05] saying. Are you suggesting that the
[34:06] United States is waging an immoral war
[34:08] in Afghanistan? No, it's not immoral
[34:11] war. It's the standard of morality that
[34:14] we are seeking
[34:16] which is also one that is being desired
[34:19] and spoken about in America. In other
[34:22] words, are we the same as the
[34:25] terrorists?
[34:27] Are we the same as the bad guys? Or are
[34:30] we standing on a much higher moral moral
[34:33] platform? Are we better human beings or
[34:34] not? We must definitely be better human
[34:37] beings in order for us to tell the
[34:39] people that look those guys are wrong
[34:41] and we are better and we must show that
[34:43] in our practice and that practice should
[34:46] be extreme care
[34:49] for civilians and their children and
[34:51] their homes and and for the civilians to
[34:54] see us completely distinct and separate
[34:58] from the terrorists. So we have to be
[35:00] better.
[35:02] My mor moral platform has to be a lot
[35:05] higher, a lot more distinct and likable
[35:08] than the terrorists, than the bad guys.
[35:10] That's what separates us. Otherwise,
[35:12] there will be no difference. So why
[35:13] should the people care about us or and
[35:15] not care about them? Do you get my
[35:18] point?
[35:18] >> And yet, Secretary of Defense Gates has
[35:21] made the point that there has to be
[35:24] sustained commitment on the part of the
[35:26] Afghan people and the Afghan government.
[35:28] He says this. It's absolutely critical
[35:30] that the Afghans believe that this is
[35:32] their war. It is their war against
[35:34] people who are trying to overthrow their
[35:36] government that they democratically
[35:38] elected. Do you think that's the view of
[35:39] your people?
[35:40] >> That is absolutely the view of our
[35:42] people and that's why our people even
[35:43] when they are bombed, even when they
[35:45] suffer, they still come to us.
[35:48] They receive me in their midst when I go
[35:50] to to offer my condolences. They receive
[35:52] the American soldiers. They received the
[35:53] American officers when when an incident
[35:55] like that in Farah, there was an
[35:57] incident of massive civilian casualties
[35:59] and the US military officials and the
[36:01] Afghan government went together to the
[36:03] population. That means the people are
[36:05] still with us. Had they been against us,
[36:08] they would have not received us, they
[36:10] would have not come to us. But then
[36:11] there is a limit to all of that. Any
[36:14] society will will will get fed up with
[36:16] with with continued violence and and
[36:18] continued casualties. Uh that's
[36:21] something very very serious and I and I
[36:25] have conveyed this to my friends in
[36:27] America in all humility and friendship
[36:32] on behalf of the Afghan people that
[36:35] Afghans are a straightforward
[36:39] honest allies believing in the cause
[36:42] that we have undertaken and that's why
[36:44] we were able to defeat the Taliban and
[36:47] the al-Qaeda in less than a month and a
[36:49] half. And if you continue to behave the
[36:51] way we are, we will lose that. And
[36:54] that's and that's a correct thing to do.
[36:56] >> Before you go, just a couple of other
[36:58] issues. One of the big issues fueling
[37:00] the insurgency in Afghanistan is the
[37:03] poppy crop, opium. This is what you said
[37:05] on this program back in 2004.
[37:08] >> This production of of of poppies uh
[37:12] supports tourism. It criminalizes the
[37:14] economy. It undermines institution
[37:16] building in Afghanistan. Afghanistan
[37:18] will have to destroy it for the sake of
[37:21] the Afghan people and also because of
[37:23] the world. We will succeed because we
[37:25] have to succeed.
[37:26] >> And yet today 60% of Afghanistan's gross
[37:31] domestic product is poppy. It is opium.
[37:34] It accounts for 93% of the world's
[37:37] production of opium. That's not a very
[37:39] strong record.
[37:41] >> It isn't it isn't like that. Today when
[37:44] I was speaking was it 2004 we had u uh
[37:48] only um well in 2005 we had only three
[37:52] provinces free of poppies in
[37:55] Afghanistan. Today uh we have 22
[37:58] provinces free of poppies in Afghanistan
[38:00] either completely or mostly you know to
[38:04] to a bigger extent. uh only one province
[38:08] in the country is producing uh poppies
[38:11] to the quantity that it can make 60% of
[38:14] Afghanistan's exports. So Afghanistan
[38:16] has made progress in in in in in
[38:18] reducing poppies in Afghanistan in
[38:20] eradicating and in removing it from from
[38:22] our agriculture. But the money that is
[38:26] spent to eradicate poppies and to
[38:28] provide it with alternative livelihoods
[38:30] is something that we have a question
[38:31] about with our allies. Finally, this
[38:34] spring you signed a law that makes it
[38:36] legal for Afghan men to rape their
[38:40] wives. Now, you have said in the past
[38:42] month that you were reviewing that law.
[38:44] Are you going to repeal it?
[38:45] >> It has been reviewed when uh there's so
[38:49] much that I can talk about this law as
[38:51] to what is there. It is not exactly as
[38:53] as as is printed in the in the in parts
[38:56] of the world media. But when I heard of
[38:59] this, I called the minister of justice
[39:01] and he told me that there were problems
[39:03] in this law and that it will be uh then
[39:06] I instructed the review and amendment of
[39:09] the law. I called in the clergy in the
[39:12] country, the senior most who who had a
[39:14] hand in drafting this law and they
[39:16] agreed with us to have it amended and
[39:18] reddrafted and even parts of the law
[39:20] removed. I've already done that. The
[39:23] minister of justice was with me about 10
[39:25] days ago um to give me the amended law
[39:29] that will be sent to the parliament. So
[39:32] it's something that we have to do and we
[39:34] have to correct it regardless of whether
[39:36] >> so but just be clear then how are you
[39:37] correcting it? What is permissible
[39:39] behavior?
[39:40] >> It's it's well it's it's the it's not my
[39:43] choice. It has to go through a legal
[39:45] process and uh consultation and back to
[39:48] the parliament. We are democratic
[39:49] country. We have a parliament that that
[39:52] uh passes laws like that that debates
[39:55] them and that sends them back to the
[39:57] concerned.
[39:57] >> But but are basic human rights part of
[39:59] your democratic values?
[40:00] >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
[40:02] >> So So
[40:04] raping of women is a crime in
[40:06] Afghanistan and would be a crime.
[40:07] >> Absolutely. A crime in Afghanistan
[40:10] because our religion is extremely
[40:13] extremely difficult on that. So this
[40:15] particular area the ability to rape your
[40:18] wife is something that will be repealed.
[40:19] Is that are you saying that unaccrim
[40:23] it's not in these very sharp words that
[40:25] are described in the western media even
[40:28] if it is milder than that it is wrong
[40:30] and it will be repealed it will be
[40:32] removed and the amendment will be made
[40:34] in this law. So the Afghan people don't
[40:37] want that and the Afghan people are
[40:38] sensitive about it. I assure you that
[40:40] has been done and something that really
[40:43] embarrassed us when it came out. Um we
[40:45] are a lot more aware a nation a lot more
[40:48] culturally good a nation than than
[40:51] sometimes we are seen in in in the rest
[40:53] of the world.
[40:53] >> So in
[40:55] democratic Afghanistan it is illegal for
[40:58] a man to rape his wife.
[40:59] >> Absolutely like hell. Sure.
[41:02] >> All right, Mr. President. Thank you very
[41:03] much. Good luck with your important
[41:04] work.
[41:04] >> Thank you. Coming next, some perspective
[41:06] and analysis on our interviews with
[41:08] Presidents Zardar and Carzi. What now
[41:11] for the US? NBC's chief foreign affairs
[41:13] correspondent Andrea Mitchell and the
[41:15] New Yorker Steve Call, author of the
[41:17] Pulitzer Prizewinning book Ghost Wars
[41:19] about the CIA's involvement in
[41:21] Afghanistan and Pakistan after this
[41:23] brief station break.
[41:27] I had a picture in my mind of next year,
[41:30] and it certainly didn't include getting
[41:32] up at 6:00 a.m. and going to work every
[41:34] day.
[41:41] >> We've been through times like this
[41:43] before, but uh not just before I was
[41:46] about to retire.
[41:58] By 2010, 30% of the data stored on the
[42:00] world's computers will be medical
[42:02] images.
[42:02] >> The trouble is all of that information
[42:04] is trapped.
[42:05] >> X-rays aren't talking to
[42:06] >> medical records aren't talking to
[42:07] >> patient histories aren't talking to
[42:09] insurance forms. We're trying to connect
[42:10] all that data. Make it smart.
[42:12] >> We would see the patterns in your
[42:14] medical history,
[42:14] >> in the histories of entire populations.
[42:16] Predict dangerous drug combinations. We
[42:18] can tailor cures
[42:19] >> to your genetic code. Put the focus back
[42:21] where it belongs, on the patient. That's
[42:23] what I'm working on. I'm an ibmmer.
[42:25] Let's build a smarter planet.
[42:28] >> Oil, energy, the environment. Where are
[42:32] the answers? This isn't a liberal or
[42:35] conservative issue. It's a human issue.
[42:39] As an energy company, Chevron has a
[42:41] great responsibility.
[42:42] So, we've improved our own energy
[42:44] efficiency 27% since 1992. And now we
[42:48] ask you to join us in one of the most
[42:50] important efforts of our time. Using
[42:53] less. Will you join us? Chevron, human
[42:56] energy.
[42:57] >> All this week, our special series, women
[43:01] making a difference. Changing lives by
[43:04] reaching out with helping hands and open
[43:06] hearts.
[43:07] >> She's a really cool teacher.
[43:10] >> Inspiring women of all ages from across
[43:12] the country on NBC Nightly News with
[43:15] Brian Williams.
[43:19] Want more smiles for your dollars?
[43:22] >> With Craft Mac and Cheese, you get three
[43:24] bowls for about a dollar. And that's a
[43:26] lot to smile about.
[43:29] Craft Mac and Cheese. It's the
[43:32] cheesiest.
[43:33] >> Sprinter Van Service, Sprinter Van
[43:36] Parts, Sprinter Van Body Shop. Stop
[43:39] everything. Sprinter Vans. $10,000 off.
[43:41] $10,000 off Sprinter Vans. Now,
[43:44] >> your best buy is at Timberline or I'll
[43:46] eat my hat.
[43:48] >> Join Oregon as she turns 150. Appreciate
[43:50] the past, celebrate the present, and
[43:52] imagine the future. Attend local events,
[43:54] volunteer, and get your Oregon 150
[43:56] merchandise. Visit oregon150.org, your
[43:59] one-stop shop for all things Sesqua
[44:00] Centennial. Happy birthday, Oregon.
[44:04] We are back and joining us now, Steve
[44:05] Call of the New Yorker and Andrea
[44:07] Mitchell of NBC News. Welcome to both of
[44:09] you. We've had a chance to watch those
[44:11] two interviews. And to to frame this
[44:12] discussion a little bit, Doyle Mcmanis
[44:14] in the Los