C-SPAN/NEWSMAKERS

Host: Susan Swain

Guest: Carl Levin, (D-Michigan)

Reporters: Roxana Tiron, Rick Maze

SUSAN SWAIN, HOST: ... Carl Levin of Michigan.

Our two questioners are Rick Maze, congressional editor for the Army Times, and Roxana Tiron, who is a defense correspondent reporter for The Hill.

Thanks to both of you.

Rick, let's start with you.

RICK MAZE, REPORTER, ARMY TIMES: Senator, it seems inevitable at this point that there's going to be a troop build-up in Afghanistan. And it's going to include one element that you've been after, a big increase in trainers. And it's going to include probably some security forces, too, to try to protect the country.

Can you tell me a little bit about how much numbers you personally expect the increase will be?

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: I don't have a predication or an expectation. I have a position at to what I think should happen, but I have no way of knowing what the decision is.

There have been rumors to various effects, but there's been rumors all along here. Number one and number two. The focus of the media, it seems to me, has just been exclusively on a troop number. Whereas, the issue is much broader than that, and so there's going to be many elements, I'm sure, in this decision.

Number one, it may include a troop number, but that number then would include, if there is a troop increase, would include trainers, I assume. People who are enablers, people who are involved in logistics, if there's going to be troop increases.

And so a key part of the troop increase question is what number of combat troops, if any, would be involved. And then, on top of all of that, you've got the other aspects of a policy in Afghanistan. Of course, strategy coming first, as to whether we're basically going to have a counterinsurgency or counterterrorism strategy. I think that decision has been made some time ago, and I think correctly.

But there's also, on top of that, all of the other elements of a strategy. For instance, how are we going to show the resolve that is important to success in Afghanistan? Not just with additional combat troops, if any, but with the trainers, trainers for Army and police, with the equipment issue.

The equipment going to Afghanistan is -- to the Army in Afghanistan, is critically important. There's not been a major thrust for that equipment so far. We need to see that, I believe, so that we can see a transition from our being there in large numbers, to the Afghans taking responsibility for their own security.

And on top of all those factors, you've got the question of whether you're going to have an Afghan government there that's going to take on corruption. And whether or not they're going to start delivering services in a much better way.

And whether they're going to have a plan to reintegrate the Taliban, particularly those lower-level local Taliban, back into Afghan society, the way it was successfully done in Iraq.

And that is a package. And I would hope that it, whatever that package contains, that it would be a NATO/Afghan initiative. And it not just be a U.S. decision. And surely not limited to the question, which the media has been focusing on, which is the question of troops. It would be a comprehensive NATO/Afghan initiative.

MAZE: Senator, you said several times, "if" there was a troop increase. Is there any possibility you see at this point, that there would not be a troop increase coming out of the White House?

LEVIN: I just don't know what's going to come out of the White House. I, of course, have argued for holding off any combat troop increase while these other factors are focused on, so that we can see a transition to Afghan control of their own fate.

The Afghan army has got to grow a lot faster. It has not been growing fast at all recently. There's got to be a much better effort on equipment and so forth.

So, I just don't know what, if any, the additional combat -- what number of additional combat troops, if any, would be coming. And if so, what would be American and what would be other NATO countries. It's something I just do not know. Can't predict with any confidence.

What I only can do is say what I have been urging upon this administration, which is to both Afghan-ize and NATO-ize this effort.

ROXANA TIRON, REPORTER, THE HILL: And Senator, could you sort of indicate to us, at what point do you think the Afghani security forces can take over? And how much longer do you foresee the U.S. military actually staying in Afghanistan, in large numbers?

LEVIN: Well, they are capable of taking over now to the extent they have the forces now in Afghanistan. They've got more troops than we do, and more -- a majority of their units are able to both take the lead with us, and indeed act independently without us, so that they are able, to the extent that they have the numbers in the Afghan army, to take control in a certain number of areas right now.

And as they grow in numbers, they'll be able to take control of both independently and with our support in more and more areas. So, it's kind of hard for me to say what number of square miles, or how many cities they'd be able, right now, to take control over effectively, but there's a significant number that they can do now.

They're partnering with us in many, many areas, but not enough. When I was in Helmand Province a few months ago, the ratio of America Marines to Afghan soldiers was five Marines for every Afghan soldier.

Well, that is not acceptable. It ought to be reversed, if anything. You want to have a training, mentoring, partnering program with the Afghans, but it's got to be a much larger number of Afghan soldiers for each of our Marines or soldiers that is in that partnership relationship.

TIRON: What would you -- what would you describe sort of, in some short terms, as a success in Afghanistan? At what point do you think the mission will be successful?

LEVIN: When the Afghans are able to secure most of their population, and when they -- from the Taliban. And, when they have a government, which is a lot less corrupt, and a lot cleaner than the current one, in terms of its activities. And a government which is able to deliver services to the Afghan people.

SWAIN: Senator, in your opening comments, you, several times, referenced the NATO, combined NATO, force. I'm wondering, considering the pressures that some of our NATO allies are feeling at home, what your message to them would be about the level of commitment they should put to this effort.

LEVIN: Well, I thought the prime minister of England came out with a very sound, solid speech on this subject a couple weeks ago, that I call the British model, because it's the one I think we ought to follow.

His model was, the transition to Afghan control. And he went through all of the ways in which we could show resolve during this transition period, and support, and partnership, during a transition period.

He talked about trainers. Focusing on numbers of trainers that the British were going to increase numbers. They're going to build a training facility. He talked about additional unmanned aerial vehicles, more flying time for them. Newer and better helicopters in larger numbers coming from Britain.

He talked about having a plan for the reintegration of the Taliban. He talked about a larger economic commitment from Great Britain, that that would be conditional upon a plan to reduce corruption in the Afghan government.

And he talked about this all being contingent upon NATO and the international community, also supporting and coming through with additional kinds of support and commitments on the part of the international community.

And then he said, at the end of that, and we would also increase the number of troops, as one of a large number of factors. We would increase the number of troops conditional upon all those other things happening, from 9,000 to 9,500. Well, that's about a four-percent increase.

That's a very modest increase. I would hope that any increase that's in combat forces, that the president decides upon, would be that modest, if it comes at all.

TIRON: Senator Levin, if -- there's been a lot of polls out, saying that the U.S. public is not very supportive of the Afghan mission. How many more military deaths do you think the U.S. public can tolerate until the United States would have to withdraw?

If there's a surge, the assumption is, there's probably going to be a lot more service members killed, the news coming to the United States. How much longer do you think the public could tolerate, and should tolerate, this?

LEVIN: I would never want to make that kind of a prediction, based on deaths. Each one of those deaths is significant. And I would never make a prediction like that.

The president is making a critically important decision for the security of this country. He has taken the needed time to do it. He, I'm sure, is under a great deal of pressure from the Republicans, who just, every week it seems, are attacking him for taking this time. And, if he does something less than what they think General McChrystal is asking for, they would be critical of him.

I think, again, unless it is part of a larger NATO decision, where it seems to me that the decision of the president would be seen in that larger context and would be more difficult to attack the way, I think some Republicans at least, are geared up to attack, and have already said that unless the president goes with 40,000 combat forces, that he somehow or other is not doing what McChrystal is asking for.

Number one, they don't know what McChrystal is asking for. That is a series of options. It's not been made public. It's not one number. And what McChrystal also is asking for is, not just a number, as a matter of fact, he has said, don't focus on a number of troops. Focus on strategy. Focus on the whole host of things that you've got to look at in order to succeed.

So, I think that the president's decision is one which he's making with great care and proper care. And it's going to be based on American security, and so it can't be answered in the kind of way in which you've asked.

SWAIN: Well, let's flip the question around, and have you suggest what the president needs to do to sell this, and the cost to the American public in both lives and treasure.

LEVIN: Lay out what the mission is, the purpose is, the relationship to American security is, and to be part of a larger NATO announced initiative. So that it's not just America, it's -- America is part of a larger NATO coalition, which is going to be supportive of success in Afghanistan.

Because it's important that we do succeed in Afghanistan. We can succeed, I believe, without a significant number of additional combat forces, through the other initiatives that I've talked about.

And that's what the president needs to do, is to explain why it is that success is important and how we are part of a larger effort in that regard.

MAZE: Senator, among the anxious people waiting for a decision, aren't just Republicans who are finding a reason to complain. It's the military families and the soldiers themselves, who think there may be a surge, and they be deploying as early as January.

So, morale-wise, there is a negative effect of the long process in making a decision here. And it can't come as any surprise to the Obama administration that they were going to face, in Afghanistan, a decision at some point.

Is there a time when a decision has to be made? On behalf of the morale of the troops?

LEVIN: I think the troops are incredible. And the troops want the best strategy possible for success. And they don't begrudge this president the time to come up with that strategy, and the way to succeed at it, any more than they'd begrudge President Bush, who took three months before he decided on a surge against the advice of his commander in the field, General Casey.

What our troops deserve is the best thinking and all of the equipment and training that we can give them. And a reasonable period to rest after they have been deployed. There have been a huge number of deployments here.

Our troops and their families are extraordinarily brave. They never complain. They're entitled not just, again, the means and the tools to succeed, and to have us support their families, but they're also entitled to the best possible strategy.

And the president has taken, I think correctly, the time to sort through the complexities of Afghanistan, so that we are on a course with our NATO allies to promote success there.

SWAIN: At this point, the number of weeks into the Pakistani campaign, and to the border regions, what would your message be to the government there?

LEVIN: The government in Pakistan?

SWAIN: Yes, sir.

LEVIN: That I think they finally have turned their attention to the border regions. There's other regions in Pakistan further south, which are controlled by the Taliban, that I hope that they'll also turn their attention to.

But I want to give them credit, because I think up in the FATA area, so-called, the border area, that they have taken some heavy casualties, and they've had some real successes going after the Taliban. And it could help really turn things around in Pakistan.

But again, there's other parts further south that need that same kind of determination and grit.

SWAIN: Halfway through.

TIRON: Sir, so switching gears to the Fort Hood shootings.

I was wondering, at what point do you think it would be appropriate for your committee to start having open hearings on this? And what your initial reaction is, as to what went wrong.

LEVIN: Well, of course we're in the middle of briefings, now. And we will, as soon as we have a few more briefings, make a decision as to when our first hearing is.

I announced that we will be having hearings. I've already announced that, and we are undertaking an investigation, focusing on the military piece of this. Other committees will be focusing more, probably, on the FBI part of it, the Joint Terrorism Task Force pieces of it.

But I just can't tell you exactly when the hearings will begin, other than that there will be hearings, and that they'll begin after we've had some additional briefings, which will then put us in a position to have public hearings, so that we hold them in a way which is useful for the public.

But also, we've got to do all of that, being careful not to, in any way, undermine the criminal investigation and prosecution, which is so essential here.

TIRON: And Senator, Senator Lieberman, yesterday had his first public hearing, and he qualified the shootings as a terrorist attack. I was wondering whether you'd be comfortable to name that a terrorist attack or not.

LEVIN: Well, it sure looks like that. There may not have been any others that weren't with him, but it probably could be labeled a terrorist attack.

I'm not uncomfortable with thinking that that's the likely outcome here, or the likely accurate description.

MAZE: Using that test that you just had, it sure looks like -- doesn't it sure look like something went wrong with the military personnel system? That they didn't identify this man as a potential risk?

LEVIN: I think there's some real questions that need to be asked about it. But you have to start, before you get into that system, and look at what we did have, which was at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces is in two cities, which were presented, apparently, with e-mails which would seem to raise some real flags and require some further inquiry.

And after the decision was made by that FBI-led JTTF, not to pursue those any further, at that point there was no easy way to connect back to that, whatever happened inside of the military. He gave a lecture, with slides, which apparently did not raise any questions.

When you look at the slides in hindsight, you wonder, shouldn't questions have been raised about some of the things that he told his colleagues. But he was describing there what the risks were in terms of Muslim soldiers who were under the kind of pressures that some people were being put under, in terms of a doctrine, which said you don't kill or wound other Muslims.

He laid that out. And he wanted to know -- well, he wanted to raise the question of, does this raise such risks that there ought to be some conscientious objector status, which is offered to these soldiers.

Now, that is something which could raise a question about him, as to whether, psychologically, he was talking about himself. But it also raises some very legitimate questions about whether or not we should not be more careful, to have in our military, people who have a conscientious religious objection to going to war against any particular group, whatever that group may be.

That was a legitimate question, so -- but before you get to the military, which is what we're going to focus on, you have to wonder about the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force not pursuing the leads that they had, apparently through e-mails, between him and a radical cleric in Yemen.

MAZE: Do some of the reports about concerns other officers had had about him raise questions in your mind, too, whether the military's properly evaluating people, or whether there's some censor that's going on so that they're not giving a honest evaluation of what they think of their fellow officers?

LEVIN: There are questions that need to be addressed, both inside the military, and that investigation's going on right now, and by us, in terms of our oversight responsibilities.

The answer to your question is yes.

MAZE: And are you satisfied with what Secretary Gates has announced, that their internal investigation, are you satisfied that they're looking at everything that needs to be looked at this point?

LEVIN: Well, from what I've seen, yes. I mean, I haven't -- I heard what Secretary Gates said. It sounds like it's a thorough, prompt investigation. The president wants a report on intelligence by the end of November. And that's prompt and proper.

So I would think yes. But that does not eliminate the need for congressional oversight. We have a responsibility here, not just to make sure that the FBI has a proper investigation at the intelligence services here, including Homeland Security, properly investigate what happened and what didn't happen that perhaps should have happened.

But Congress has a responsibility also to oversee the military actions, and lack of actions, under these circumstances.

SWAIN: One of the secondary themes that came out of the Fort Hood story was a concern about the level of stress on the military and their families. I'm wondering, as we go into this new increase for Afghanistan, what your questions are to the military, or what congressional policymaking might be, with regard to refreshment of the troops and their R&R.

LEVIN: Well, we have that ongoing responsibility. As you point out, it's an important one, a heavy one.

And we think we're asking the right questions, because the America people are determined to give our troops the support that they need while they're in harm's way, and after they come out of harm's way, when they have to bear the brunt of the impacts of having put their lives at risk, and the stresses that they were under.

So, we are telling -- and the military knows this, because this has been the case for many, many years. The American people really want us to support our troops and our veterans. Regardless of what position they take on the two wars that -- the recent ones, Iraq and Afghanistan -- regardless of what position one takes on that, that the American people really want that kind of support to be full.

And it is, and the military and the Pentagon know that we will provide everything, and we constantly prod them. What can we do with the suicide rate? What can we do with the lack of what we call dwell time, the time periods between deployments? How can we reduce the stress on our troops and our families? That is a constant question, and we do everything we possibly can to support our military and our veterans.

MAZE: Can we have a 40,000-troop increase in Afghanistan and provide dwell time to troops?

LEVIN: I don't see how that's possible. I think that's one of the many, many questions which the president is struggling with.

TIRON: Sir, on another issue of military readiness, the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. President Obama has said that he would like to repeal the ban.

And I was wondering whether you think the 2011 Defense Authorization bill would be the best vehicle to repeal that law?

LEVIN: Well, that's surely one vehicle. It's easy for me to say, because I was opposed to the don't-ask-don't-tell policy before, when it came into existence.

But the repeal of it, if it's going to happen, can only happen after a very careful and a very clear review of the policy by the people affected by the policy, obviously.

But in the military, we've got to, I believe, show the military that we are going to take their views and their suggestions as to how we can change our policy effectively and have this work in a way which doesn't produce conflict between, or within, the military, or a morale problem in the military. But how it can be done in a way which can promote morale in the military.

You know, a particularly younger military, I think are very much open to the end of this policy. Other countries have long ago gotten rid of the don't-ask-don't-tell-type policies and have gays serve in the military, because they have proven that they can serve effectively in the military.

So it is important that we do this, but in order to accomplish the dropping of this policy, which I believe is the right way to go -- in order to succeed at that, we've got to follow a course which involves listening to the military, listening to their concerns, trying to address their concerns, without giving up the goal, which is to drop a policy, which, it seems to me, is no -- it's just not appropriate anymore.

MAZE: You talked earlier this year that you would have hearings after you finished the defense bill, and you would have them this year.

Well, you finished the defense bill, and it's still this year. So, when are your hearings?

LEVIN: We were going to have them in December. And now, we're not going to be able, probably, because to have them -- probably, because of all the things going on, including Fort Hood.

It's just, there's so much on our plate. We may not be able to have the hearing this year. But that's not an effort to avoid the hearing. I want the hearing. The military wants the hearing. They want to be involved. They want to be asked.

So these recent events have just put a huge kind of a responsibility on us to focus on the Fort Hood event first, and that means we may not be able to get to the don't-ask-don't-tell hearing, which I had hoped not only would be in December, but late November originally.

MAZE: Senator, and you also said that it can't happen until after there's a careful review. Well, is a careful review going on within the Pentagon now?

LEVIN: It...

MAZE: So that you can, next year, address it? That we're not talking about a prolonged process.

LEVIN: Right. It is. I've talked to Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen about this. They are reviewing this policy a number of ways. They're not going to begin the review when we announce that the hearing date is December such-and-such, or January such-and-such.

They are looking at this now. This time is not being lost in terms of the Pentagon going through that internal process. Talking to people at all levels, officers, enlisted personnel, young, older, men and women, retirees. They are going through an important process here with the command and everybody leading up to the hearing.

SWAIN: Senator, that's it for our time. Thank you very much for being with us this week.

LEVIN: Great being with you.

SWAIN: We appreciate it.

Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Commitment.

Let me turn to Rick Maze and Roxana Tiron to put Senator Levin's comments in some larger context.

Let's begin with Afghanistan. Rick, you've been covering this town, and relations between the Pentagon and Congress for a long time now. It seemed as though Senator Levin is waiting, just like the rest of us, for news from the White House about what the -- which direction the president is going.

MAZE: Well, I think, in part, he's not telling us how involved he's in, because they have been listening to him very closely when he talks about trainers, and that being a requirement.

But it's also true that President Obama is being very slow and deliberate, as he does this. And I don't know really what troops think.

When Obama goes to military bases and speaks to the troops, one of the lines that gets the most applause is when he tells them, "I'm not going to send you anywhere and put you at unnecessary risk. That I want to be a commander in chief who's careful.”

And so, in part, he's doing what he said. This is a big decision for them. I don't think that there is a clear answer. I think that whatever it is, it’s going to take a long time. And they have to settle with themselves that we're not going to send troops in and be there a year. We're talking five years, seven years, something like that.

SWAIN: Pretty strong advice to the president, about making an announcement that involved a NATO coalition announcement. Are you getting any indications that that's what we're going to have, as a country?

TIRON: Not exactly. The president has expressed the need and the importance of having NATO collaborate with the United States, that he can't send more U.S. troops without having the NATO allies contribute them as well.

But NATO, at the same time, is waiting for President Obama to make his decision as well. And if he saw the U.K. prime minister already is talking about transferring security forces -- transferring the mission to Afghani security forces in 2010.

So there's a little bit of a discrepancy between what is expected, what Senator Levin is expecting, and what President Obama is expecting to see, and what Europe is looking at as well.

MAZE: And that big increase they're promising in British troops is 400 troops. That's not anywhere close to the 40,000 that we're talking about sending in U.S. troops.

SWAIN: Yes, he did use it as a percentage.

MAZE: Well, he did. That just sounds so much better, doesn't it?

TIRON: And the level, I think -- and also, the other countries, if you look at, they never send more than 1,000 or 1,500 troops.

SWAIN: Right.

TIRON: So we're talking a much bigger percentage from the United States. A much bigger commitment.

SWAIN: And what are members of Congress hearing from the public? Both of you asked questions about public tolerance on this.

And I'm wondering what the pressure is like on Capitol Hill for the president to sell this effectively.

MAZE: I think that the biggest trouble that they have in selling it is going to take a long time, and it's going to cost a lot of money. And this is a country that doesn't see why we're spending money on a long, extended war right now.

And with all the emphasis that's going to happen in December and early next year on job creation, that is a sticking point. And that's something that they have to overcome. And I'm not sure that President Obama, great speechmaker that he is, can, in one speech, explain to the American public why we need to be doing that. That's what they face.

SWAIN: There was reference made by Senator Levin to the Republicans. Can you inform our audience about what the Republican reaction is going to be, if Senator Levin has the president's message right?

TIRON: Well, I guess most Republicans, of course, have stressed the need to have an Iraq-type surge in Afghanistan, which means a significant amount of troops, about 40,000. I think they probably would even support more.

And Senator Levin basically was referencing to the fact that, if President Obama doesn't do that, anything below that would prompt criticism from the Republican Party.

If he wants to do 40,000, if he wants to send 40,000 troops, that means that some of his bigger supporters in Congress would be the Republican Party, because you're not going to see that level of support, of strong support, from the Democrats.

MAZE: And I didn't hear Senator Levin saying that that was the message that was coming from the president. I think what Senator Levin said is, that is the message he wished was coming from the president.

SWAIN: Right.

MAZE: That we really expect that there'll be a ground-troop increase coming out of the White House. I don't think that the can do anything less than that at this point.

And...

SWAIN: Combat troops?

MAZE: Combat troops, in addition to the trainers.

I don't think that they can do anything less than that at this point, just because of the pressure from within the military on him, that we need these troops. And it's very hard for the commander in chief to say to the commanders on the ground, no, you don't need them. I mean, I don't think that he can make that decision.

SWAIN: One part that I hope you can help me understand. I thought I heard Senator Levin suggest that the Afghani army is already capable of handling their own defense. Did you hear that as well?

TIRON: I think that's a little bit of a gap between his understanding and what, for example, Secretary Gates said yesterday in the press briefing.

Secretary Gates didn't think that any transfer of security to the Afghanis was, you know, imminent or -- you know, it depends on the regions, on districts. It's a really case-by-case basis.

But it didn't seem -- I think the understanding in the Pentagon is not the same, that they are in fact able to take over.

MAZE: And capable or willing are two different things. So, I think that they might possibly be capable of doing it, I don't think they're willing to do it on their own yet.

SWAIN: We...

MAZE: There are political reasons for that.

SWAIN: One minute left.

At the end of our interview, you pressed the senator a few times on the don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Why is that?

MAZE: Well, I think that he made a promise, and that there's a lot of people in the gay rights community that expected hearings in December. And that they'll be quite surprised to hear from him, that he's put them off because of some reason.

I think that they're not surprised it's been put off, but from him, they expected that they were going to have hearings in December.

SWAIN: What about the rank-and-file in the military?

MAZE: I think -- well, it depends on what rank-and-file you're talking about. I think that we have found a lot of tolerance to change, except among the senior commanders who may face leadership problems as a result of it.

Probably the day is coming when it's going to happen. I don't know when it will be.

SWAIN: Roxana, a very last question for you, and not much time.

Did you learn anything on the Fort Hood discussion?

TIRON: That Congress definitely will perform oversight. That they're not going to leave this to the military alone, or the executive branch. That they really want to exercise their role in oversight.

SWAIN: And hearings will happen soon, it sounds like.

TIRON: Yes.

SWAIN: Well, thanks to both of you for being here this week, and for your questions.

TIRON: Thank you.

END