CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview with Chris Murphy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: We have some breaking news for you now.

The United States says that it has carried out a defensive airstrike in Kabul against an ISIS-K car bomb that was intending to target the airport. That's according to a U.S. defense official. The official said a significant secondary explosion indicated a substantial amount of explosive material in that car.

Initial, so far, appears there were no civilian casualties, the official said.

Joining me now, a staunch supporter of President Biden's drawdown, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, I do want to get your reaction to this news that the Pentagon is saying that an unmanned aircraft carrier that an airstrike targeting a suspected terrorist car bomb.

What's your reaction? And how concerned are you about the danger facing U.S. troops and American citizens and Afghans over the next 48 hours?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): It speaks to the danger that exists at the airport right now and the necessity of making alternative arrangements to get especially the remaining 300 or so Americans that want to leave to the airport.

[10:30:08]

I think this threat remains beyond the next 48 hours. ISIS-K is going to use its abilities to continue to try to go after the Taliban and after Afghan citizens and perhaps American allies even after the 31st. So, we're going to have to have eyes on ISIS-K. We're going to have to continue to have the ability to follow what they're doing.

TAPPER: You heard Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton from neighboring Massachusetts earlier in the show.

He's been unsparing in his criticism of not the decision to withdraw, but the way that the evacuation has gone. He told "New York Magazine" -- quote -- "Even if you completely agree with the Biden administration's decision to withdraw, the way they have handled this has been a total F-ing disaster."

Now, I know you disagree. I know you agree with President Biden and Jake Sullivan, who was on earlier, saying that, no matter how the U.S. withdrew, it was going to be chaotic.

But do you really think there's no way that this could have been planned better in terms of evacuating American citizens or legal permanent residents or Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants, no way at all?

MURPHY: No, of course, there's no way you run a massive evacuation operation like this and not have things you would have done better in retrospect.

But I understand the point to be from Representative Moulton and others that we should have begun the mass evacuation earlier, and that would have solved for some of the chaos we're seeing today.

I think there's a couple problems with that. The first is, we were under the belief in the spring and summer of this year that the Afghan military would stand up and fight. And the military and the government was telling us that, if you start the mass evacuation of the embassy, of Afghans, it is going to sap the will from our soldiers to stand up and defend the country.

It was logical to believe that a mass evacuation too early would have actually led to the result that we were trying to avoid, which was the collapse of the government.

Second, even if we had begun that evacuation earlier, there still would have been, frankly, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Afghans that, upon the collapse, the unexpected overnight collapse of the government, would have rushed the airport. There still would have been the scenes that we're seeing today with all of the incumbent security threats that are attached to it.

So, in retrospect, obviously, the government and the security forces of Afghanistan did collapse. And so we probably should have started that evacuation earlier. But we were laboring under the belief that they wouldn't. And we were trying not to take steps that would lead to that overnight collapse.

So, I think that is the difficulty with just suggesting that we should have begun all this earlier.

TAPPER: But the preparation for the worst-case scenario did not seem to happen, at least not as efficiently as it could have and should have.

I assume, as an elected representative of the people of Connecticut, as somebody on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you, like many members of Congress I know, like many journalists I know, like many veterans I know, are being besieged with requests, individual requests: Here is the passport number and phone number of an American citizen in Afghanistan, in Kabul right now who can't get through to get to the airport or is outside the gate and can't get in.

That's happening. And that has been going on now for a week-and-a- half. Sometimes, these private citizens have been able to make inroads and get people plucked out. But, often, they're not. I mean, this -- the fact that digital Dunkirk exists, it's a wonderful tribute to the people doing it.

And, obviously, the people on the ground in Kabul are awesome. And I'm not talking about them. But the fact that it exists says that there's a failure here of the government.

MURPHY: And, listen, remember, we sent out an APB to American citizens beginning in the spring that they should all leave. We implored U.S. citizens to get out, knowing that there was going to be enormous risk.

But your point is that Congress needs to do a full-scope investigation of what has gone wrong. My contention is that there's probably no way for the Afghan security forces and the government to collapse overnight and there not to have been a corresponding chaos on the ground and the scenes that you are seeing and an opportunity for ISIS- K to be able to make this kind of fatal mischief.

When Congress does this oversight, I want to make sure that it's over the last 20 years, not just the last two months, because to believe that there was some way to do this evacuation in a way that didn't have panic on the ground, that didn't have a risk of loss of life, I think is the same kind of fantasy thinking that led us to stay in Afghanistan for 10 years too long, even when we knew the Afghan forces couldn't stand up for themselves.

TAPPER: I don't disagree.

I mean, obviously, when you withdraw, there's going to be chaos. Obviously -- I mean, of course. But the idea that this is being done as efficiently as could be done just flies in the face of everything I'm sure you're hearing behind the scenes, certainly everything I'm hearing.

Just looking forward, you heard Jake Sullivan saying earlier in the show that August 31 is not a cliff. It's not as though, if you haven't gotten out by that day, that's it. There's still going to be efforts.

[10:35:09]

How are people going to get out, American citizens, legal permanent residents of the U.S., who seem to be -- have been -- they're now second on the list, as opposed to equals with American citizens?

What about Afghan Special Immigrant Visa recipients? Are they going to be able to get out? They're afraid that the Taliban are going to kill them.

MURPHY: Yes. I think it's a question.

And, obviously, we are going to be in the position of having to rely on discussions and negotiations with the Taliban, which feels unacceptable to Americans that have been fighting the Taliban for 20 years.

Now, as Jake Sullivan has said, the Taliban has all sorts of reasons to continue to allow for some number of people to be able to transport out of the country, certainly American citizens. They have got to keep that airport open. They're a landlocked country. They can't operate an economy without a functioning airport.

But I think these are all questions the Biden administration is going to have to answer. How do you continue to move people out of that country even after our 2, 500 troops leave?

TAPPER: Do you think the U.S. should formally recognize the Taliban?

MURPHY: No, I don't. I don't.

But I also don't think it's a great idea, as some are suggesting, to recognize opposition forces that are not actually running the country. It tends to make the United States look pretty weak when we are recognizing people as the leaders of a government that actually aren't running the government.

But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking to the Taliban. Even if we don't formally recognize them, we're going to have to be in discussions with them. We're going to have to tell them the consequences for their actions, if they don't continue to allow, at the very least, American citizens, green card holders and people in the SIV pipeline to get out of the country.

TAPPER: What happens to the women and girls of Afghanistan?

I mean, there are already anecdotal reports of Taliban fighters grabbing 14-year-old girls. And, I mean, I would call it a forced marriage, but it's not a marriage. It's forced rape and slavery. I mean, what happens to these girls?

MURPHY: It's part of the reason why we were there for 20 years, right? We were in the business of trying to stand up an Afghan government that would be able to protect those girls.

And in the end, the Afghan government and the security forces decided not to fight for them. The question is, should we have stayed there forever in order to protect those advances in part of the country?

Remember, the Taliban, by the time 2021 rolled around, already controlled more than half of the country. It's a tough question, Jake. But I think, if you ask my constituents, they were not necessarily willing to sacrifice another 20 years of American blood and treasure as to the question of who controls Afghanistan. I know that's a really hard conversation, but there are really awful,

despotic regimes all around the world, and the United States does not make the decision to send our troops into every single one when we have an issue with the human rights decisions of a particular foreign regime.

TAPPER: Well, often, they're our allies.

MURPHY: Yes.

TAPPER: Senator Murphy, thanks so much for being here.

MURPHY: Thanks, Jake.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source