Michael Ware said what he would do if he could talk with Obama about Afghanistan
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 25, 2009 - 7:55am.
Current Events
Hello Everyone:
Michael Ware of CNN in my opinion is the best reporter in the cable news business when it comes to reporting about foreign policy issues. He is objective, credible, insightful, and he explains in very blunt detail why things are happening the way that they are. While I realize that no journalist is infallible, I can definitely say that I have never known Michael Ware to make an unsound judgment call in all of the years that I have been watching his reports!
Michael Ware was asked about Afghanistan on CNN yesterday "What would you do if you had a chance to talk to the president?" His answer in my opinion was right on target about what the role of the troops should be, what needs to be done to achieve a political solution, and he made it very clear that "It won't be pretty. It will be messy, but at least it will hold itself together:"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/24/sitroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
U.S. Droves Hunt Insurgents in Pakistan; President Obama Vows to Finish the Job in Afghanistan; 150 Years Ago Darwin's Landmark Book; Big Bang Machine Finally Running
Aired November 24, 2009 - 17:00 ET
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: "What would you do if you had a chance to talk to the president? What would you say to them about what needs to be happening next when you see the situation on the ground?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: All right, several things. We could talk for a long time about this, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Only a few minutes, Michael.
WARE: First, send in the troops. Apply the pressure at the joints and ligatures of the Taliban. You can't cover the whole place. Try to find places where you can hit them with U.S. troops where it hurts. Bring in the Afghan forces as best they are and as quick as you can build them where you can, but turn to the tribal leaders and the old warlords. Pay them off. Put them in their interests and outbid the Taliban. That will give you a success similar to what you saw in Iraq. It won't be pretty. It will be messy, but at least it will hold itself together.
MALVEAUX: All right.
WARE: And finally, you've got to start banging India and Pakistan's heads together because they are the runs who are fueling this war.
MALVEAUX: All right. Michael Ware, thank you so much..."
This question was asked toward the end of the interview so right below is the full CNN transcript of this interview where Michael Ware went into more detail about the situation in Afghanistan.
Here is the video link to watch this very informative and interesting interview:
http://www.mickware.info/2009/files/13e968c5b3a0d75e4fa88464e5fb1b17-203.php
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Length: 5:42
"Suzanne Malveaux talks to Michael about the upcoming announcement regarding the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy..."
http://www.mickware.info/2009/files/13e968c5b3a0d75e4fa88464e5fb1b17-203.php
Michael Ware has made it very clear for a long time that "America cannot win the war in Afghanistan with bombs and bullets" and I completely agree with him:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17772
Michael Ware: "America cannot win the war in Afghanistan with bombs and bullets"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 10, 2009 - 1:47pm.
Michael Ware also on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 last night where he participated in a panel dialogue. He made it clear again that "you're not going to win the war. And you're not going to defeat the Taliban," he went into further detail about the political solution mentioned right above when he said "You need the old warlords, the veterans of the Soviet war. You need to bring these people in, because, once you get them onside, a local boss, when he says there will be no Taliban in my district, there will be no Taliban in that district," and he ended by saying "It's a very complex mix:"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/24/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Finishing the Job in Afghanistan?; Taxing Cosmetic Surgery
Aired November 24, 2009 - 22:00 ET
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: "Michael, CNN has learned that president will likely send 34,000 additional troops, which is slightly below the 40,000 requested by General McChrystal. Is that enough to, as the president put it today, ensure that al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate in the region?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends how they're used.
I mean, you're not going to win the war. And you're not going to defeat the Taliban. And, indeed I'm sure that's not the aim. The aim is to hurt them. Right now, the Taliban machinery is virtually untouched. They're able to recruit, train, deploy, supply, and engage fighters at their will. And there's no shortage of them. But using extra troops to try and put pressure on the Taliban, to at least force them to a negotiating position, I think, is the ultimate objective. And it depends how they're used.
And you use them with local forces, not just this paper tiger, which is the Afghan army. But you need the tribe leaders. You need the old warlords, the veterans of the Soviet war. You need to bring these people in, because, once you get them onside, a local boss, when he says there will be no Taliban in my district, there will be no Taliban in that district...
HILL: Michael, despite what is currently happening in western Pakistan against the Taliban, since 2001, Pakistan's main focus, which Fareed alluded to, has always been on its eastern border with India.
So, can there ever be full cooperation from Afghanistan when we're talking about this fight?
WARE: This is what America needs to understand, that U.S. troops are bleeding and dying in Afghanistan over less to do with jihad, far less to do with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and almost everything to do with Pakistani and Indian rivalry.
Afghanistan is just another battlefield where that competition is being fought out. And it's in neither side's interest to help America, who is caught in the middle right now. So, it's about making Pakistan feel secure about its national interests. It's getting India to feel secure about its national interests while at the same time somehow furthering America's interests. It's a very complex mix, Erica..."
Here is the CNN Anderson Cooper 360 video link to watch the entire panel dialogue about Afghanistan that Michael Ware participated in:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/11/25/ac.afghan.problem.cnn
Afghanistan quagmire (3:39)
Added On November 25, 2009
CNN's Erica Hill takes a closer look at the issues at play in Afghanistan with a panel of experts (Michael Ware, Fareed Zakaria, and Atia Abawi.)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/11/25/ac.afghan.problem.cnn
I really hope that Obama listens to Michael Ware and I especially hope that he listens to Gen. Clark when he said on CNN that in addition to "more troops" in Afghanistan, there needs to be "more economic advisors there. They really need a political strategy. They need stronger diplomacy in the region. They need to work India as well as Pakistan in this:"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18143
Video & Transcript: Gen. Clark on CNN on November 24 talking about Afghanistan
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 25, 2009 - 2:23am.
It is my hope that both Gen. Clark and Michael Ware were at least able to give Obama their advice before he announces to the country what he is going to do about Afghanistan. I do not mind if Obama "dithers" a little longer if he needs to and if he is talking with the right people because it is MUCH more important that he gets this right as opposed to making a very quick decision and getting it wrong. I definitely want Obama to succeed because IF anything serious goes wrong with Afghanistan, then it would probably cost the lives of many people and Afghanistan could become to Obama what Vietnam became to LBJ and what Iraq became to Bush 43. No sane person should ever want to see that happen!
Whatever Obama does about Afghanistan will not be easy, it will be very expensive, and it will not be completed very quickly. I really hope that Obama makes the country fully aware of these things when he announces what he is going to do!
Mitch Dworkin
http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my political website!
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/24/sitroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
U.S. Droves Hunt Insurgents in Pakistan; President Obama Vows to Finish the Job in Afghanistan; 150 Years Ago Darwin's Landmark Book; Big Bang Machine Finally Running
Aired November 24, 2009 - 17:00 ET
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: "While President Obama is vowing to finish the job in Afghanistan, will more troops actually make a difference? Over the years, CNN's Michael Ware has spent a lot of time covering the war in Afghanistan, and he's joining us now from New York.
Michael, thanks for being here. Obviously we're hearing that we're on the very verge of getting a decision about the number of troops. What do you make of the idea of putting more U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan? Is it going to make much of a difference?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends what the president hopes to achieve. If the president wants to put pressure on the Taliban war machine, then, yes, he needs to send more troops because right now with all the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Taliban machinery is virtually untouched. Indeed, American operations are feeding into it, giving it more recruits, indeed as Nic's package shows from the drones, from other sorts of attacks, so America doesn't have enough forces on the ground to actually hurt the Taliban. The idea would be to put pressure on them, to turn the screw and to bring them to the negotiating table which we see the Afghan trying to do.
But more importantly, and perhaps poignantly we have the Indian leader in country today meeting with the president, and what Americans need to understand, and this is a bit difficult, American soldiers are dying more because of India's rivalry with Pakistan using Afghanistan as a battlefield than it has anything to do with jihad or holy war or the Taliban, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: And obviously, Michael, that's something that the president talked about with the prime minister of India today, but I -- I know there's been a split. I've spoken with senior administration officials over months on end here about this top-down versus bottom-up approach, that you either try to build up the Afghan Army and police, or you try to work with these warlords, these little small militia groups to try to take on the Taliban themselves. How do you think more U.S. troops is going to -- is going to affect balance there?
WARE: Well, it's going to help you meet in the middle between those two notions. The U.S. mission desperately needs to do both of those things. It needs to build an Afghan Army and an Afghan police service that can at least vaguely do the job, at least in an Afghan way.
But at the end of the day, I mean, I lived in Afghanistan. I lived in Kandahar, the homeland, the heartland, the birthplace of the Taliban. I know that place, and there, there's no such thing as a central government. There's no federal tax or services. It's about valley by valley by valley and village by village by village. That's where power rests. If you have a dispute with your neighbor, you don't go to the police. You go to the local warlord, and he answers to a warlord above him. They are the ones who control it. So if you can bring them on board, some of them are on the fence, some are now with the Taliban simply because that's in their interests right now, then if one of those warlords says there will be no Taliban in my district, there will be no Taliban in his district.
MALVEAUX: Michael, what do the Afghan people think about this? Do they want us there?
WARE: Oh, well, certainly at first, certainly at first rooting the Taliban. Let's not forget, the Taliban were welcomed when they first arrived because the chaos, after the Soviet invasion and America turned its back, that's something the Afghan people have yet to forget, that that left them in this anarchy raping, pillaging, it's unimaginable the anarchy that went on, Suzanne, and America left them to that fight. The Taliban rise up and in the religious cloak at war said we'll bring you law and order, and they did. Now when that went too far, sure, the Americans removed them. There was some celebration, but at the end of the day ordinary Afghans are fiercely nationalist, and they see any foreigner as a foreigner. They see the Americans as foreign occupiers.
MALVEAUX: So they don't trust us? Do they trust us?
WARE: No, no, they don't at all. So many promises made. Where's the delivery? Where's the roads and where's the electricity? Where's the schools and the security? You have your tanks roll through my village in the day. You pass out lots of lovely leaflets. You talk to our elders, but who rules at night? And where will you be tomorrow when I'm attacked? No. They don't trust you at all.
MALVEAUX: What would you do if you had a chance to talk to the president? What would you say to them about what needs to be happening next when you see the situation on the ground?
WARE: All right, several things. We could talk for a long time about this, Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Only a few minutes, Michael.
WARE: First, send in the troops. Apply the pressure at the joints and ligatures of the Taliban. You can't cover the whole place. Try to find places where you can hit them with U.S. troops where it hurts. Bring in the Afghan forces as best they are and as quick as you can build them where you can, but turn to the tribal leaders and the old warlords. Pay them off. Put them in their interests and outbid the Taliban. That will give you a success similar to what you saw in Iraq. It won't be pretty. It will be messy, but at least it will hold itself together.
MALVEAUX: All right.
WARE: And finally, you've got to start banging India and Pakistan's heads together because they are the runs who are fueling this war.
MALVEAUX: All right. Michael Ware, thank you so much..."
2-1 oppose closing Gitmo, most Americans or at least 1/2 oppose health reform, most favor military tribunals...and on and on.
It's amazing Obama has accomplished so much of the liberal agenda so far, but many fail to recognize that.
As for Afghanistan, I suspect when he lays out his strategy next week a majority of Americans will approve. It's his war now, and it's clear he has taken the time necessary to develop a well thought out exit strategy.
I really hope that Obama fully understands this and that he can effectively articulate it to the entire country when he makes the announcement about his new Afghan strategy:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/30/sitroom.03.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
White House Party Crashers Investigated; Afghanistan Strategy?
Aired November 30, 2009 - 18:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "We're just over 24 hours away from President Obama's huge announcement on his new Afghan strategy expected to include at least 30,000 additional U.S. forces being deployed to Afghanistan.
CNN's national security analyst Peter Bergen and CNN's Michael Ware, they're both here to discuss whether or not the strategy might work.
Michael, you've spent a lot of time in Afghanistan. Another 30,000 or 35,000 U.S. troops. Is it going to get the job done?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends entirely on how they're used, Wolf. I mean it's what the focus is going to be. You cannot possibly cover all of Afghanistan. So you need to pick your targets. And principally, the Taliban war machine, by and large, remains untouched, despite the troops who are already there.
Despite the operations in Helmand Province where the Marines have been sent, their ability to recruit, their ability to supply, their command and control remains intact. So how we're going to use these 30,000, where are we going to send them, and at the end of the day, Wolf, there's still not going to be enough.
We need an Afghan partner within the government. And I think we need Afghan partners beyond the government -- Wolf...
BLITZER: What will this exit strategy, Michael -- the president supposedly is going to talk about an exit strategy down the road. We know the Taliban, they've had others who have come in over the years and tried to deal with Afghanistan like the Russians, for example.
If the U.S. is going to stay five or 10 years, to them it doesn't necessarily seem like a long time.
WARE: Well, no, it's not. As you know, Wolf, the Taliban fight generationally. They fought the Soviets for 10 years. They fought every other occupier invader before that as history tells us.
Bottom line, with American military might, you are not going to defeat the Taliban. It's their home soil. The terrain is against us. We don't have the troops. The people are scared. There's a weak and corrupt central government that does not give the villages any confidence.
The best that you can hope for is to put the hurt on the Taliban militarily. Make them feel the American military presence. And that hopefully will parlay to a political deal because ultimately that's going to be the only solution.
And as Ambassador Holbrooke, the president's special envoy to the region, has said, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, has already been in direct talks and indirect talks with the Taliban. So there's going to have to be an accommodation of some sort before America can come home..."
I also hope that Obama fully understands the VERY important points that Michael Ware made below (especially when he said "militarily, you will not defeat the Taliban") and that he can effectively articulate them to the entire country because Afghanistan will more than likely be much more difficult than most people may think:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/30/ec.01.html
CAMPBELL BROWN
Manhunt Under Way For Suspected Cop Killer; Congress Investigates White House Party Crashers
Aired November 30, 2009 - 20:00 ET
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: "And, Michael, details about what exactly is in the speech have sort of been leaking out over the last 24 hours, a lot of emphasis, we understand, on him conveying that this is not an open-ended commitment.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely.
BROWN: What does that mean, though? What do conditions have to look like on the ground?
WARE: Well, America can't be bogged down. You could be there endlessly.
But, the bottom line, as we have said time and time again, militarily, you will not defeat the Taliban. So, you're looking for a political solution. For a political solution, you need partners within the Afghan government, within the enemy, as we saw in Iraq, when many of these Sunni insurgents returned from al Qaeda to the American side.
But, most importantly, the American government needs to look beyond the Afghan government. The government of Hamid Karzai will not be able to deliver.
BROWN: Well, what's the situation then? Because you say partners and basically they are relying on the Karzai government. I mean, like it or not, it's what you have got to work with.
WARE: It is. And it is what it is. It's a corrupt, riddled regime of warlords and potentates. But that's what any regime in Afghanistan is going to be. But you need to look to the tribes. You need to look to some of the old warlords who fought the Soviets.
You need people on the ground who can say, I can control my district, because, from Kabul, President Karzai has a lot of trouble projecting power. So, you need allies beyond the Afghan government..."
I do NOT think that the public will be very patient with Obama IF anything serious goes wrong in Afghanistan since this is what people think right now before he has even announced what he is going to do yet:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-24-Poll_N.htm
Approval of Obama on Afghan war dives
Updated 6h 4m ago | Comments 680
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — "Public approval of President Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan has plummeted, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, amid rising pessimism about the course of the conflict.
The nation is divided over what to do next: Nearly half of those surveyed endorse deploying thousands of additional U.S. troops, while four in 10 say it's time to begin withdrawing forces.
The mixed picture comes as the president weighs a request from the top U.S. commander for about 40,000 more troops. Obama said Tuesday he would announce his decision after Thanksgiving.
"It is my intention to finish the job," he said.
His extended deliberations may be taking a toll: 55% disapprove of the way he is handling Afghanistan and 35% approve, a reversal of his 56% approval rating four months ago.
"He's being held responsible for a deteriorating situation and relentlessly bad news," says political scientist Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University. "But Americans continue to believe doing something about al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was the right thing to do."
On a series of fronts, Obama is moving against headwinds:
• By more than 2-1, Americans say the United States shouldn't close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as Obama has promised.
• By 49%-44%, they oppose passing a health care bill in Congress this year, which he calls critical.
• A majority are against holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, and nearly six in 10 say the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind should be tried in a military rather than a civilian court. That's at odds with the decision announced this month by Attorney General Eric Holder.
When it comes to seven specific areas, Obama no longer commands majority support on any. On only two — energy policy and global warming — does he have a net positive rating. On the economy, health care, jobs and Afghanistan, a majority disapprove of how he's doing. There's an almost even divide on his handling of terrorism: 45% approve, 47% disapprove.
Even so, his overall approval remains at 50%, about where it has been since the first week of October..."