MSNBC "With David Gregory"- Transcript

Interview

MSNBC with David Gregory

MR. DAVID GREGORY: Now, let's turn to Capitol Hill. Joining me now for reaction, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed. Senator Reed, of course, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and he was at his alma mater, West Point, for the president's speech last night.

Also joining me, Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, also a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Welcome to both of you.

Senator Reed, let me start with you. The political question is really more difficult on the Democratic side. Does the president have the support of his party?

SEN. REED: He does. I think last evening he went a long way in explaining to the American people why we're there, the strategy, but also the stakes of the United States. Al Qaeda is still operating in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. I think his explanation and his process of decision-making is going to result in the support, not just to the party, but more importantly, the American people.

MR. GREGORY: How do you say that this is a vital American interest, and on the other hand, say, we're going to get out, start getting out on a date certain?

SEN. REED: Well, the president has indicated and this was reaffirmed today by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen that the date in 2011 is to begin a transition. It's based upon not any arbitrary choice, but it's based on the advice of military commanders. The key factor is the training of Afghani troops. Our forces, our military leaders are confident that they can field sufficient Afghani forces at a quality level that is more than adequate to begin this transition. The pace of the transition will be decided by the commanders on the ground. But it's absolutely vital to have such a goal because not only do we have to reassure the American public that we're not conducting open-ended campaign in Afghanistan, we have to begin to light a fire on the Afghanis to start the training and the governance, improvements and the anti-corruption efforts they need.

MR. GREGORY: Senator Chambliss, where are you on this?

SEN. CHAMBLISS: Well, I agree with what Jack just said. What Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates both said today really clarified what the president meant when he said that we're going to begin bringing troops home in 18 months. What they said was that we're going to look at the situation on the ground in 18 months and if we're having success, that will dictate one timetable for coming out of Afghanistan. But if there's a need to stay a little bit longer in some areas and the weather dictates this, as well as our ability to move troops around dictates this that we may be there a little bit longer.

But I think the president did a good job laying the foundation for where we are in Afghanistan last night, and I think it's time to rally the troops and rally the policymakers around the president's position and let's move forward and achieve the victory that we all want to have in Afghanistan.

MR. GREGORY: So you sound like you're comfortable with the notion of an exit strategy that the president laid out and it's your call today to fellow Republicans, don't fight the president on this exit strategy?

SEN. CHAMBLISS: Well, I questioned it last night when I heard him say that and I paid very close attention to his exact words, but today when I heard Admiral Mullen and I heard Secretary Gates define really what he meant, I'm much more comfortable with it. You know, none of us want to see an open-ended situation. We all want to make sure that we do the job that we get out and we bring our folks home.

I know that General McChrystal has told me as late as last week that whatever the president said he's going to be comfortable with. We thought we knew the direction in which he'd go, now, we have a clearer understanding of that.

MR. GREGORY: It sounded to me, Senator Reed, listening to the speech last night what was remarkable was a more limited scope of American goals in Afghanistan because anybody who studies the history of that country or even the past 30 years knows how difficult a country it is to make any kind of headway in.

Did you hear the president last night saying, this is important, we're going to fight it, but only up to a certain point beyond which we just can't continue to pour the money and blood into this country?

SEN. REED: Well, the president started limiting our objectives last March when he sent the first increment of 20,000 troops. He's recognized that the threat to us is not directly from the Taliban, but it's from al Qaeda and other terrorist networks they collaborate with and that's both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So he's very clear about we have limited objectives. We want to stabilize that country and then turn their security over to themselves, but never relinquish the ability to attack al Qaeda wherever it may be.

MR. GREGORY: Senator Chambliss, you know, there's a lot of debate about what the Bush administration did or didn't do right in Afghanistan. The reality is when President Bush and others talked about great progress in 2002 and beyond, that progress was reversed. That is not a debatable fact anymore or debatable position.

What went wrong? How did the United States get it wrong in Afghanistan over these past eight years in your judgment?

SEN. CHAMBLISS: Well, it's easy to look back and be a Monday morning quarterback right now, but we did achieve one goal back in 2003 and 2002 and that was to remove al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Today, there's a very minimal presence of al Qaeda, but they're across the border in Pakistan. But one thing I think we clearly did wrong and that is that we probably should have started a training program for the Afghan army and the Afghan security police back then, and certainly, it should have been very robust. If we had done that, then I think we'd be in better shape.

I think if we had put more pressure on the Karzai government seven or eight years ago to make sure that they were cleaning their act up, that they were ridding the government and the country of corrupt policies that we know exist today, we wouldn't be looking to the people of Afghanistan to have to restore trust with them like we're having to do today.

So I think there are a number of things that you can always look back and say, gosh, if we had to do it over, here's what we would have done. But the fact is we did achieve some success back then.

MR. GREGORY: But isn't the problem, Senator Reed and General McChrystal said this in reaction to the president's speech that the most important thing is to stand up security forces in the future, in Afghanistan? A lot of Americans have to be saying to themselves, why is it worth dying for what's known as among the most corrupt governments in the world that has not demonstrated any capacity to put in the field security forces to achieve the goals the president is talking about.

SEN. REED: Well, the issue here is not longevity of Karzai; it's the activity of al Qaeda, both in Afghanistan to a limited degree and in Pakistan. We know right now and as the president said, there are people that we are intercepting and arresting that have been influenced or directly trained in these safe havens that are coming to the United States and Europe and trying to attack us again. That's what's at risk here. That's what's at stake here. It's our personal security, our national security. And in order to accomplish that effectively, not only the president, but our military leaders, the secretary of defense have indicated we have to help stabilize the Afghanis, but very quickly enough and that's why the president has indicated a date for transition. We have to get the fight to be their fight, not our fight.

MR. GREGORY: Quickly, for both of you. Senator Reed, first. How are you going to pay for this? Should the president, should Congress consider raising taxes to pay for these additional troops?

SEN. REED: I think we have to consider paying for everything we do going forward. We have a trillion dollar deficit. We are in a situation where we have to begin to reconcile what we do and pay for it. We're doing that in health care. We should do it for everything.

MR. GREGORY: So even if it means higher taxes?

SEN. REED: Well, I think everyone would like to avoid that. We're either going to have higher taxes or you're going to have find savings elsewhere within military programs or a combination of both.

MR. GREGORY: Senator Chambliss?

SEN. CHAMBLISS: Well, I would not support raising taxes to pay for this. We've got enough waste, fraud and abuse floating around Washington that we can pay for a fundamental requirement that the Constitution requires, which is to field a militia that will defend America and defend --

MR. GREGORY: All right. But Senator Chambliss, unlike the Iraq war, should this war which you support and additional troops, which you support, should that be paid for?

SEN. CHAMBLISS: Well, I don't have a problem in trying to find a way to pay for it. You know, we've had a stimulus package. We've bailed out financial companies, automobile companies and what not without any regard to paying for it, and I thought that was wrong. I think we need to do a better job of paying for everything we do here and we wouldn't be looking at that $1.4 trillion deficit that Jack just referred to.

MR. GREGORY: All right. And we will leave it there. Senators Chambliss and Reed, thank you both very much for your time.

SEN. REED: Thank you, David.

SEN. CHAMBLISS: Thank you.

Source