I found this earlier on another channel but for some reason can't embed it so I uploaded it to my channel. However, YouTube is saying it might be blocked in some countries (which is weird because MSNBC vids usually don't have any restrictions). I've also carried out a search on YouTube for this video and, weirdly, the original (links below) doesn't come up in the results. So, apologies in advance if the embedded one doesn't play for you. If it doesn't work try the original part 1 below. If that doesn't work either, Rachel's site also has the interview
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/">here.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABvBtGOI58cPart 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ph7ukAX1YYPart 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ZSGYFJ0GsMADDOW: But we begin tonight with the older of our two wars. Do you want to see what the plan is for how to make Afghanistan work? The plan for how in year nine of our war in Afghanistan, escalating the war there is going to turn the tide and give us some reason to be glad that we've been there for all these years?
Here-here it is. Here is the plan. You got that? That is the plan. There it is. It's an unclassified slide obtained by NBC News' Richard Engel in Afghanistan.
This is how the Joint Chiefs of Staff is planning to win in Afghanistan. This is the justification for the war being continued into year nine and 10 and 11 and escalated because this is how we'll win.
You got this memorized now? Has it been there long enough? Do you see how the plan works? Do you understand that?
OK. Good. Go do it.
I can even try to explain a little bit based on the plan, if you want. See, this part over here, that part there, this is where it shows that the goal is to make the Afghan government work. So you want to keep people who already support or sympathize with the government supporting the government, you want to get people who are on the fence to start supporting the government, and you want to get people who are insurgents or in sympathy with the insurgents to at least become neutral. That's what the little green train means there.
And to get that, you need to work on security in the country. All these parts of the plan shaded here deal with that. You've got to work on Afghan governance there, how their government works-here's your marching orders for that part of it.
You've got to work on development. Here's how development's going to work. See? Over here, it's like, ability to move people and goods rapidly. And down there in the right-hand corner, it's private sector capital. Oh, so that's how that works.
And then here's how information is supposed to work now-information systems in Afghanistan. Security, governance, development, information systems-it's all going to come together like a symphony through the magic of counterinsurgency.
See how much this makes sense? This is the battle plan. This explains why we are staying in the war, in this war for years 9, 10, 11, whatever, and why we are escalating now, because we're just going to-we're going to just do this.
We made it big so we can follow it here at work.
Richard Engel's filing on this from Afghanistan notes that some people will see this as genius, an effort to get everything that matters in the war considered all at once, all in the same piece of paper, because everything matters all at once in wartime.
To other people, this shows the, I guess you'd say, spaghetti logic that it takes to justify putting more troops and more money into this war now.
In Richard's words, it's what happens when smart people are asked to come up with a solution to the wrong question.
Joining us now is a very smart person, our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice.
Ambassador Rice, thank you very much for your time tonight.
SUSAN RICE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Did you ask my 7-year-old to make that chart for you?
(LAUGHTER)
MADDOW: It's kind of amazing.
RICE: I've never seen such a chart, having been in every meeting on this topic. So, I'm not sure where that comes from. But it makes for a good opening.
MADDOW: It's a Joint Chiefs of Staff document. And obviously, this is not-you know, I don't think they're issuing this to people and telling them to follow it, but it does institute the-it does illustrate the-I don't know-the daunting complexity of what it is we're trying to do.
RICE: It is, indeed, complex.
MADDOW: Do you think it boils down to trying to make the Afghanistan government work?
RICE: Rachel, the key purpose of our strategy and approach is the same as it was when the president articulated it in March-which is to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and prevent al Qaeda from reestablishing safe haven in Afghanistan and to eliminate the safe haven in Pakistan. That's the simple and direct purpose.
And reaffirming that is essential, because the fact is, whether we find it a pleasant topic or not, the reality is that al Qaeda continues, even as we sit here, to plot and plan to attack us here in the United States, as they did on 9/11.
MADDOW: But they're not in Afghanistan.
RICE: There are some elements in Afghanistan, but the bulk of al Qaeda-it is true-is now been displaced across the border into Pakistan. But what we must do and what this strategy is designed to do is to prevent al Qaeda from coming back and reestablishing safe haven in Afghanistan under Taliban auspices.
And the reason why it is so important to reverse the momentum of the Taliban and prevent the Taliban from taking over authority in Afghanistan is because the Taliban and al Qaeda have been and remain symbiotic, even though they are separate entities, the Taliban is like tissue, conducive tissue in which the cancer of al Qaeda can thrive, because it is utterly supportive.
In Pakistan, where we also are working to reduce and eliminate the safe haven, you have now a government that is actively going after the extremists and actively trying to counter them.
MADDOW: Is-in terms of what we're doing in Afghanistan, and I understand that it's-it's not-"fashionable" sounds derogatory, but it is fashionable to talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan as Af-Pak, as if they are one place. They are separate countries.
RICE: They are.
MADDOW: And our engagement with those two countries is very, very different. In terms of Afghanistan, specifically, if there are only very limited elements of al Qaeda there, if it is to prevent future safe havens for the Taliban and thereby, eventually, for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, is this a Bush doctrine war? Is this a preventative war to stop the threat that doesn't exist today?
RICE: No.
MADDOW: One from emerging in the future?
RICE: Absolutely not because the threat exists. It has manifested itself in the killing of 3,000 people here on 9/11. It's manifesting itself repeatedly in plots that we've recently just disrupted here in the United States. They were hatched in this border area to again.
MADDOW: Border area of Afghanistan?
RICE: Of Afghanistan and Pakistan, along that border. Well, it is a porous border, as you well know, having looked at this. Yes, there are different countries. Yes, we have very different approaches and strategies to them, but there is nothing different about that area. It is completely porous and people and fighters can and do move freely across that border.
And so, as we work to eliminate the safe haven in Pakistan, it's vitally important that the Taliban, which has nurtured and supported al Qaeda in Afghanistan, not gain control and not be able to establish large swaths of authority in the country in which al Qaeda can again have a safe haven.
MADDOW: Is there a war in Pakistan? And are we part of it?
RICE: Is there a war in Pakistan?
MADDOW: Yes.
RICE: The Pakistani military, as you know, is actively going after extremist elements in Swat, in South Waziristan, as we speak. So there is that war, and that's the war that the Pakistanis are fighting for the security of their own people, where they've suffered attacks from these extremists almost every day.
And we view that as an important step that is beneficial to the people of Pakistan, as well as to our national security, because the groups that they're going after are the very groups that are in cahoots often with al Qaeda and those that will attack us.
MADDOW: I know that you can't and won't talk about CIA actions.
RICE: You're right.
MADDOW: Nobody will. But-and I mean this-I mean this-I'm asking this in a way that I really hope there is an answer. Whose job is it to explain and to answer for the CIA's activities in Pakistan? Is-as the nation's top diplomat, isn't there a diplomatic disconnect between what we're doing and what we will admit to publicly?
RICE: Well, again, I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters, but I think-as the president said very clearly last night, we are stepping up our counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and globally. And that is essential for all the obvious reasons. These are extremists who seek to-to do us direct harm.
And I'm not going to get into all of the means by which we're pursuing that, but it would be negligent for the administration and the United States government not to take opportunities to diminish the capability and ultimately destroy the capability of al Qaeda to attack us here at home.
MADDOW: What I'm concerned about is that the war against al Qaeda is a war in Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is preventative in the sense that it is trying to block these future.
RICE: You talk about it as if it's a hypothetical. The big difference is-and I know you're making the analogy to Iraq and preventative war-there was not, in Iraq, a proximate threat to the United States when we made the decision to go to war there in 2003. There is and remains a proximate threat to our national security that emanates both from Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Now, the extremists have been displaced largely, not entirely, into Pakistan, but the Taliban, which supports and nurtures them, is gaining strength in Afghanistan. And if they are not restrained and their capacity diminished, the extremists, al Qaeda that have moved to Pakistan because Afghanistan had become less hospitable, will easily flood back across the border. And there in Afghanistan, with the Taliban authority that actively nurtures and supports them, will be even more potent than they are in Pakistan, where you actually have a government that doesn't want them to succeed.
MADDOW: So.
RICE: So, this is not a hypothetical. This is very real, very proximate. And it's not about prevention at this stage. It is about actively countering a clear and present danger.
MADDOW: Is the role of our troops, at least in eastern Afghanistan-is it to backstop what's happening in Pakistan? To prevent a backwash, the way you're describing it, of al Qaeda fighters fleeing that real war in Pakistan that we're not officially fighting, that's the Pakistani government fighting for their own lives, fighting those forces to a greater or lesser degree, depending on happy we are with them at the moment-is it to stop those fighters from getting in to Afghanistan?
RICE: I would put it differently. It is to-as I said earlier, it's to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, and prevent it from establishing safe haven in Afghanistan again, and to disrupt and eliminate, ultimately, the safe haven in Pakistan.
And since the border is entirely porous, it's hard to distinguish, you know, one place from the other. There's no line on the map which the al Qaeda are observing and refusing to cross. They move from Afghanistan largely into Pakistan and they have infiltrated often subsequently and can move freely across that border.
And if the Taliban gain strength and takes over large swaths of Afghanistan and they have been gaining momentum, then al Qaeda's ability to move freely throughout Afghanistan is radically enhanced. And that is a clear and present threat to our national security.
MADDOW: It could also be said that al Qaeda could take over Somalia, which has ceased to function as a regular state. It could also be said that al Qaeda, which has deep penetration into parts of Yemen, in parts of that country that could be described as very, very challenged in terms of its governance could have a home base and a safe haven.
RICE: Could, but doesn't.
MADDOW: But "could, but doesn't" in Afghanistan right now.
RICE: No, has and will, to the extent that the Taliban is able to take over increasing swaths of that territory. Because the difference is, in Yemen, in Somalia, which has no government, the Taliban is an authority that when it was the government in Afghanistan gave every aid, support and government to al Qaeda and will do so to the extent that they are able, going forward.
MADDOW: Al-Shabab wouldn't qualify in that workout.
RICE: You want to talk about Somalia, I'm happy to talk about Somalia.
MADDOW: Please. I mean, I see a lot of threat out there. Why aren't we-why aren't we invading?
RICE: First of all, we are involved in efforts to counter al Qaeda wherever it exists. But al-Shabab is not governing in Somalia. It is not even the responsible authority in substantial portions of Somalia.
But, yes, we have every reason to be concerned about Somalia, but it is not the hotbed and the focal point of al Qaeda that is in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area, it has been for over a decade. And it is from that region in South Asia that trainers from all over the world have gone for support, for instruction, and then they have fanned out elsewhere.
So, to leave untended that critical region from which they have an active and operative safe haven, to examine other parts of the world, would be counterproductive. We don't have that luxury.
MADDOW: To be able to make that sort of a definitive geographic case for why it matters to be involved here, in such great numbers, at such great costs, heading into year nine, heading into year 10 in this place, we have to consider that parts of 9/11 were planned in the United States. Great parts of 9/11 were planned in Germany. There doesn't have to be a safe haven in order for al Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks against us.
RICE: That's true. But where there is a safe haven, their ability to train, to plan, and to acquire resources and act on the basis of those resources is substantially enhanced. It is a fact that, you know, you don't-it is not essential to have a safe haven in order to conduct a terrorist attack, but where you do have a safe haven, you have the ability to project much more violence, plan and train for many more operations, and it is a far greater threat than simply an individual cell or an individual plotter.
MADDOW: Ambassador Susan Rice, our U.N. ambassador-A, you're very good at this, B, you're-it's very good of you to give me this time, and I'm hoping you wouldn't mind sticking around for just a couple more questions. Is that OK?
RICE: Yes.
MADDOW: All right. Good.
All right. Diplomatic victory.
RICE: How long you've been doing this?
MADDOW: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Just ahead: More of my conversation with the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: We're back with America's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.
Thank you very much for staying with us, Ambassador Rice.
RICE: Glad to be with you.
MADDOW: I want to understand a point that you made in the last segment about the overall reason why we're there-why we're there. I asked you, are we there to shore up the Afghan government? And you said, we're there to beat al Qaeda.
If the Afghan government doesn't get shored up, if it stays-and these are my words, not yours-as feckless and corrupt as they seem to be right now, can we leave if we have Osama bin Laden's head on a platter and we've done other damage to al Qaeda? Can we leave with the Afghan government in this bad of shape?
RICE: What we seek in Afghanistan is a capacity to build up its ability to provide security throughout the country, such that the Taliban is unable to take control. And we seek a government that is able to prevent the return of an al Qaeda safe haven to Afghanistan.
MADDOW: Is that a stronger government than Afghanistan's ever had in modern times?
RICE: It's a government that has built up its security forces, to a standard that doesn't yet exist. And that's a large part of the logic for the president's decision to surge 30,000 troops. Those 30,000 will substantially be devoted-not entirely-but substantially be devoted to accelerating with the additional NATO forces that will come in, the training of Afghan national security forces.
And, you know, one of the reasons for the logic of "If we hurry up and get folks in," which we're working to do, additional troops, have them do the training and have them actively partner in the field with the Afghan national security forces, which is something that substantially accelerates their ability to come up to speed, then we will accelerate the time frame in which those forces come online and we will enhance their quality. And that's why the president has said that in 18 months, two years after the first complement of troops that he deployed will have arrived, that we will, in fact, expect to be able to begin to transition some responsibility for security to Afghan forces in those areas of the county that are most secure.
MADDOW: And when will American troops start coming home at that point?
RICE: And at the same time, that will enable us to begin to transition our forces out.
MADDOW: And when-in that transition, there's been some confusion, both last night and today, about whether or not that transition and the bringing home of American troops means just to the extra 30,000 being sent now, does-or does it mean that we drawdown below the 70,000 that we've got there now?
RICE: What the president said was that we will begin to transition to Afghan forces, where they are capable and ready and where security is greatest, such that those forces that we have put in there will, in particular, this additional 30,000, will begin the process of withdrawal. Now, I can't tell you which units, from which parts of the country.
MADDOW: But overall numbers will fall below what they are now.
RICE: It will depend-they will begin to decline. I can't tell you at what point they will get below where they are now and what point they'll get below where they were.
MADDOW: I want to know if we're still going to be there 15 -- in year 15 of the Afghanistan war.
RICE: No. The president has been extremely clear that this is not an open-ended commitment. We will not be there indefinitely. And that a large part of the logic for indicating that we intend to begin this transition process in 18 months is so that the Afghan people and the Afghan government are empowered and motivated to begin to take responsibility for securing and governing their own countries.
It is very important that there'd be no sense on the part of the Afghans that this is an indefinite commitment.
MADDOW: If we are talking about 400,000 Afghan security forces, which is the number that General McChrystal has used, the cost of supporting that many Afghan security forces dwarfs the entire Afghan national budget.
Are we going to be paying the bill for that indefinitely?
RICE: First of all, let me say that we-that the review did not result in a specific target number.
MADDOW: OK.
RICE: . for either the police or the security forces. We are committed to building up the capacity of the Afghan national army as quickly, but with quality, as we possibly can, and that's what this additional increment of NATO and U.S. forces will do to a substantial extent.
MADDOW: OK.
RICE: But the number is not fixed in stone.
MADDOW: "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" just reported on a prison, allegedly, being run by U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan. And it was a prison unit that nobody knew about before. It was apparently attached to the Bagram Air Force base and the prison we knew about there. But this particular part, run by the secretive Special Forces, apparently, not making prisoners available to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Is it the policy of the United States to keep some detainees from being seen by the Red Cross, or was this just a mistake?
RICE: I'm not intimately involved in that policy or its implementation. I would not be in a position to answer that. I do know that we have-always had, in this administration, a general policy and practice and commitment to giving access to the ICRC to prisoners.
MADDOW: OK. One question that I know was in your remit, although that you're not going to be anymore comfortable answering it. Former American officials, including General Jay Garner, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Galbraith, are among those who have made news recently for making or being poised to make a lot of the money in Iraq now as investors or consultants.
When former officials or former Foreign Service officers do business deals that plainly trade on the work they did as American officials, doesn't that undermine every American official working around the world now in these sensitive environments? Doesn't that hurt us?
RICE: You know, Rachel, I don't think it undermines every one of the dedicated men and women who serve in our Foreign Service or who serve in our armed forces. We have plenty of people, whether diplomats or former military officers, former government officials, who choose to lobby or choose to make money based on their prior relationships. That's not an uncommon phenomenon.
I think, in the case-in at least one of the cases you've described, I found particularly concerning the report about former Ambassador Galbraith, given his, really, massive potential interest in Iraq and particularly in Kurdistan, and the fact that it hadn't been disclosed, as he did his consulting and his op-eds in places like "The New York Times," but those are personal choices. There is nothing, it seems, illegal about what he's said to have done or alleged to have done and others. People make their own choices.
And I insist that it doesn't, in any way, undermine the quality or the virtue of the good, hard work that our diplomats do every day around the world.
MADDOW: One last question for you. How is it being U.N. ambassador?
Are you-are you enjoying the job?
RICE: You know, I am enjoying the job. It's a-it's a really good time to represent the United States globally and the United Nations is really the tip of our engagement with the rest of the world. I'm there with 191 other countries every day and the leadership that President Obama has provided, the profound change in our policies, in our approach to the rest of the world is felt and reflected and manifested the United Nations.
So, it's actually a conducive environment to advance our interests, get done important things that matter to our national security, and to stake out positions that are reflective of our values and our principles. And I am enjoying it.
MADDOW: Boy, that's a very different perspective than former Ambassador John Bolton.
RICE: You think?
MADDOW: Yes, it's night and day. It's really nice to have you here.
RICE: Thank you.
MADDOW: Thank you very much, Ambassador.
RICE: Take care. Thank you.
MADDOW: U.S. ambassador of the United Nations, Susan Rice.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
