On CNN's new show in Dobbs' old time slot, Erica Hill brought on Jeremy Scahill, Michael Ware and Peter Blaber to discuss the President's decision to
December 3, 2009

On CNN's new show in Dobbs' old time slot, Erica Hill brought on Jeremy Scahill, Michael Ware and Peter Blaber to discuss the President's decision to escalate our presence in Afghanistan. It's nice to see Scahill getting some more air time in the MSM. And I think Scahill was spot on with this statement:

SCAHILL: We need to have a sober discussion in this country on this question, is our continued occupation there, as Michael says, ultimately harming our national security? Are we creating fresh enemies that will blow back to us later? That to me should be one of the crucial questions.

Transcript via CNN.

HILL: For more now on the president's plan and its chances for success, I'm joined by Peter Blaber, former delta force mission unit commander. He's also the author of "Mission, The Men and Me." Here in New York, Jeremy Scahill, the author of "Blackwater, the Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and also an investigative journalist for the "Nation." His story in the current issue is on the "Secret U.S. War." Michael Ware is also with us in the studio, CNN's international correspondent who of course has reported extensively from Iraq and Afghanistan. Good to have all of you here.

Michael, I want to start with you because I know it was something that you mentioned last night. You spent so much time there. You said last night, the key to this, really, is winning over the warlords. The average American sitting back, you hear that, you think, why on earth would the U.S. want to deal with warlords in Afghanistan?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, sadly, it's an unavoidable trait that the fundamental building blocks of the Afghan society are the warlords or the tribal chiefs, depending on what you want to call them. It's a very feudal society. If you're up in some remote mountain valley, Kabul can exercise absolutely no authority over you or your village. So if you got a land dispute or any kind of problem, you go to the local big chief. That big chief will have another big chief. They're the people that America needs to be reaching out to. At night, in the villages, that's when the Taliban comes in. That's when the Taliban runs. That's when they have control. It's these people that can counter the Taliban at night and when America is not there. But only if we finally put it in their interest to do so.

HILL: So, Jeremy, how do you put it in their interests? How do you make it enticing to them to work with U.S. forces?

JEREMY SCAHILL, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, "THE NATION": I found it very interesting to read the communications from al Qaeda and from the Taliban both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, where there is a difference where they were essentially saying we're glad President Obama made this decision because it's a great recruiting tool for us. I think this really it has to be part of the calculus. How is the U.S. presence in Afghanistan affecting the swelling ranks of the Taliban and hindering the cooperation that Michael references here when talking about the other tribes?

HILL: There's a bit of that, too, is inflammatory language, is it not? They're going to say that no matter what?

SCAHILL: Well, of course. But I also think that we're seeing an increase in the ranks of the Taliban now in an unprecedented scale since the war was first launched. And we cannot eliminate what the glaring factor that the U.S. occupation presents in terms of being the fly paper for the al Qaeda and for Taliban.

HILL: Peter, you were there when the war first launched. You went in, and you thought small special op groups are really the way to make this happen. How do they end up helping dealing with the Taliban that you're dealing with today, which is not exactly the same as the Taliban that was there in 2001?

PETER BLABER, AUTHOR, "THE MISSION, THE MEN, AND ME": Sure. Well, the Taliban is a guerilla-type army, they move in small teams. They use hit and run tactics. They usually fight from terrain that they're familiar with. And they act still using the same terrain. And you know, to try to counter that type of tactics with large non- nimble forces is an exercise in futility. It just gives them more targets. And allows them to -- just plays into their game, which is that hit and run type of operation. So I really believe that we should go back to what we already know works, what's been tried and tested. In the early days of Afghanistan, when less than 500 interagency forces working together, in small cross-functional teams with their Afghan counterparts were able to overthrow all of al Qaeda and all of the Taliban. The situation has changed.

HILL: So are you confident from what you heard of the president's plan, yes, the numbers were much larger than the numbers you're talking about? But are you confident within the president's plan there is that strategy you that feel is needed to accomplish this?

BLABER: I believe that if any commanding general can recognize, employ that type of strategy, it's General McChrystal. So I am optimistic that General McChrystal will array and allocate his forces accordingly.

HILL: What about for you, Fred, is this plan something that's going to work there? Because you do need the support of the Afghan people. There wasn't so much talk about the Afghan people last night. The talk was really about the American people.

PLEITGEN: Certainly. It's all very American centric. I'm going to tell you despite what others might say, America is now pretty much seen as an occupier. It may be an occupier with good intent. But you are an occupier, nonetheless. And as we know, occupiers have never fared well in Afghanistan.

HILL: Is it controversy over this --

PLEITGEN: No, they still are seeing foreign troops in their villages. They're still seeing foreign tanks. And we know what they do with foreigners even al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, from the very inception, from the very beginning of their alliance, Osama Bin Laden swore as the protector of the faithful and that was a very savvy PR move. Osama didn't want the Afghans to see a bunch of Arabs from al Qaeda to be imposing their will on Afghans and that's what we're doing.

SCAHILL: Let's remember, that there are, according to General Jones, the national security adviser, less than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan with no ability to strike. And he said on CNN in October that there is little chance of the Taliban rising up. Those are precisely the justifications the president laid out last night. So what are we talking about here? A career military guy in General Jones laying it on the line and then the president contradicting him in this address. I think there's a muddled message that ultimately is going to come back to bite the president.

HILL: You think there should be no troops at all?

SCAHILL: We need to have a sober discussion in this country on this question, is our continued occupation there, as Michael says, ultimately harming our national security? Are we creating fresh enemies that will blow back to us later? That to me should be one of the crucial questions.

HILL: We have only about 15 seconds for each of you, I'll start with you, Peter, is this decision by the president is it making the U.S. more or less safe?

BLABER: It's making us more safe. No matter what you think about the numbers in Afghanistan, one fact remains the same that a small disparate group of terrorists eat, live and wait to kill you and your family and destroy the western way of life. We can either take the fight to them or sit on our hands back here and wait for them to accomplish their mission. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather take the fight to them and destroy them before they have the opportunity to destroy our families, our country and our way of life.

HILL: More or less, I guess you're --

SCAHILL: Well, I guess it makes us less safe. By that standard, we should be invading Saudi Arabia tomorrow and overthrowing the monarchy dictatorship there. The fact is this makes us less safe as Americans. We're creating a disaster in terms of instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I think we're going to pay the price for years to come.

HILL: Michael, 15 seconds to answer this question. What is a win for the U.S. there?

WARE: A win for the U.S. is leaving behind some kind of functioning state, whether it's recognizable to us or not, that could at least hold itself together in some fashion, prevent sanctuary to al Qaeda and you can walk away. Bottom line, America did not go there to save Afghan women, to educate Afghan children. America was tacitly accepting the existence of the Taliban government until al Qaeda came to strike. America's interest is simply denying sanctuary. You achieve that? Go home.

HILL: Those are some fighting words for a lot of people in this country that it's not about women or children but we're going have to leave it there.

WARE: It is what it is.

HILL: Michael Ware, Jeremy Scahill, Peter Blaber. Appreciate your insight all of you this evening. Thanks.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.