Afghanistan: Forget the Election, Let's Have Some More Troops

Video & Transcript: Mullen, Eikenberry Sell Afghanistan War on “Meet the Press” (23 August)
Transcript and Analysis: Mullen, Eikenberry Sell the Afghanistan War on CNN (23 August)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Our readers, who are a pretty sharp bunch, might have noticed that I was none too happy when I posted the video and transcripts of the Sunday interviews with the Obama Administration's Dynamic Duo on Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the US Ambassador to Kabul, General Karl Eikenberry.

In part, that was because of the insipid set-up questioning of CNN's John King and the asinine opener of NBC's David Gregory, "Have the American people lost the will to fight this war?". In part, it was because Mullen and Eikenberry were hopeless once they got beyond their scripted talking points (to Gregory's credit, he exposed the limitations with the challenge, "We’re rebuilding this nation?....Is that what the American people signed up for?").

But, mainly, I'm angry, concerned, resigned because the strategy of Mullen was so blatant: "You know, let's just aside this complicated politics stuff and throw in some more soldiers."

KING: There have been a number of options circulated. A low-risk 15,000 more; medium-risk 25,000 more; high-risk 45,000 more.

Senator John McCain out this morning saying that he is worried that that has been made public, because he thinks there’s political pressure, and that at best, then, you guys will split the difference and give 25,000 more troops. Pressure?

MULLEN: Well, I think it is serious and it is deteriorating, and I’ve said that over the last couple of years, that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated. Their tactics just in my recent visits out there and talking with our troops certainly indicate that.

To be precise, Mullen avoided the direct response, "YES! YES! More soldiers!" in both interviews because he can't jump the gun on an Administration decision

MULLEN: General McChrystal [the US commander in Afghanistan] is about to wrap up his assessment, and he’ll come in with that assessment in detail, and I haven’t seen that, that…

KING: You have no doubt he’ll ask for more troops?

MULLEN: Actually, we’re not at a point yet where he’s made any decisions about asking for additional troops. His guidance from me and from the Secretary of Defense was to go out, assess where you are, and then tell us what you need. And we’ll get to that point. And I — I want to, I guess, assure you or reassure you that he hasn’t asked for any additional troops up until this point in time.

What Mullen could do, however, was to bring home his message with an Osama bin Laden puppet show (even if he had the problem that his puppet isn't in Afghanistan):

The strategy really focuses on defeating al-Qaeda and their extremist allies. That’s where the original 911 attacks came from, that region. They’ve now moved to Pakistan. Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of Taliban and extremists taking over again, and I don’t think that threat’s going to go away.

Eikenberry chipped in, "We need to go back and remember Afghanistan and how it looked on the 10th of September of 2001."

So the media summary this morning does Mullen's job, ratcheting up the threat level. The Washington Post headlines, "War Conditions 'Deteriorating,' Mullen Says". In The New York Times, Helene Cooper --- who can always be relied upon to channel the necessary message --- tops her story, "U.S. Military Says Its Force in Afghanistan Is Insufficient", with the revelation, "American military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Obama’s chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operate across borders."

So what happened to the focus on the political path and the "democracy is great" line? Well, to be blunt, it didn't go too well this weekend, with mixed turnout in the Presidential ballot and clear indications of widespread manipulation of the vote. Eikenberry played his assigned role by declaring, "A very historic election" and "Over three days now I haven’t been able to get [indelible ink] off [my] finger", but then he just took up space while Mullen set out the real priorities. The same New York Times that has Helene Cooper campaigning for the troop increase doesn't even mention the Afghan elections. (The Post, thank goodness, does report on Sunday's press conference by Abdullah Abdullah, "Karzai Opponent Alleges 'Widespread' Voter Fraud".)

OK, so the US military has pretty much jacked in the illusion that it's primarily concerned with a political settlement. But, noting that Mullen could not commit to a troop increase because the review process is ongoing, surely Obama and Co. can step in against a military-first escalation? After all, we've documented all year the tension between the White House and its commanders. It was less than two months ago that National Security Advisor James Jones travelled to Afghanistan to warn that, if any request for more soldiers came in, Obama might query, "WTF [What the F***]?"

Fair enough. But here's my own little WTF question: why, 72 hours after the Afghanistan election, did the Obama Administration choose to spin its line through a General-turned-Ambassador and the nation's top military officer?

Video & Transcript: Mullen, Eikenberry Sell Afghanistan War on "Meet the Press" (23 August)

Transcript and Analysis: Mullen, Eikenberry Sell the Afghanistan War on CNN (23 August)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

We commented earlier on the Obama Administration's double act selling the war in Afghanistan, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, on CNN. As disturbing as this appearance was, this one might be worse.

Like the CNN interview, this exchange started not with consideration of Afghanistan's political situation but with the question of how many troops the US should put into the country. And to set that up, host David Gregory asked a fatuous, leading question about weak-willed US public opinion to which Mullen invoked both Al Qa'eda and 9-11.

To give Gregory some credit, he did get to the serious issues of Afghanistan's political and economic development and whether the US was "nation-building". When he did, Mullen and Eikenberry floundered helplessly. Granted I am not a fan of the Obama policy, but even a supporter of the US effort should have concerns after this performance.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DAVID GREGORY: first, in addition to waging political battles at home, the President is faced with two ongoing wars abroad.

This week Afghans went to the polls as Americans expressed fresh skepticism about the U.S. war there now entering its ninth year. And in Iraq, new threats of sectarian violence after bombers strike inside Baghdad's green zone. Two men charged with coordinating the U.S. military and diplomatic mission in that region join us now: Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from Afghanistan this morning, our U.S. ambassador, retired Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry.

Welcome to both of you.

Let me start with you, Admiral Mullen on the question of U.S. resolve. This was a poll taken by The Washington Post and ABC News this week, and these were the results. Is the war in Afghanistan worth the fight? No, 51 percent. Has American--have the American people lost that will to fight this war?

ADM. MIKE MULLEN: Well, I'm, I'm a Vietnam veteran myself. I'm certainly aware of the criticality of support of the American people for, for this war and in, in fact, any war. And so certainly the numbers are of concern.

That said, the president's given me and the American military a mission, and, and that focuses on a new strategy, new leadership, and we're moving very much in that direction. I am very mindful and concerned about the threat that's there. The strategy really focuses on defeating al-Qaeda and their extremist allies. That's where the original 911 attacks came from, that region. They've now moved to Pakistan. Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of Taliban and extremists taking over again, and I don't think that threat's going to go away. They still plot against us, see us as somebody they want to, to, to kill in terms of as many American lives as possible. And in that regard, we're very focused on executing that mission.

MR. GREGORY: Well, let's talk about that focus. General McChrystal, our commander on the ground, is expected to release his report, his assessment of what's happening on the ground. Will he request of this president more troops to fight in Afghanistan?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, McChrystal's assessment will come in here in I think the next two weeks. And his guidance was go out as a new commander, put a new team together and come back and tell us exactly how you assess conditions on the ground, take into consideration the president's strategy. He's going to do that. The--his assessment will come in and won't speak specifically to resources. There's an expectation we'll deal with resources after that assessment.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Well, but Senator McCain is saying in an interview this morning it will deal with resources, that he'll come back with high, medium and, and low threat assessments in terms of how many more troops you need, whether you need 15,000, 25,000 or 45,000 additional troops. Will he come in with a specific troop request, and will that increase in troop request meet skepticism from the White House?

ADM. MULLEN: The assessment that he will submit here in the next couple of weeks won't specifically deal with requirements for additional resources. We'll deal with the--with whatever additional resources might be required subsequent to that in the normal process.

MR. GREGORY: But this question that Senator McCain raises, which is he's afraid that there's going to be skepticism in the White House about any request for more troops and that more troops are vital if you're going to carry out this mission, where do you fall down on that?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think when we look at the strategy the president's laid out, look what General McChrystal says he needs to--in order to carry out that strategy, my recommendation to the president will be based on getting the resource strategy matched absolutely correct. And so we'll see where that goes once the assessment is in here. And I've had this conversation with the president, who understands that whatever the mission is, it needs to be resourced correctly. That said, it'll be the initial assessment that will be important, and then the risks that are associated with that assessment, and then we'll figure out where we go from there.

MR. GREGORY: But can you carry out this mission with the troops you've got?

ADM. MULLEN: That's really something that we will evaluate over the next few weeks after we get the assessment from General McChrystal.

MR. GREGORY: Ambassador Eikenberry, let me bring you in here and talk about the elections this week. Already there are claims of irregularities and fraud, voter turnout much lower than expected in the south, particularly low among women. And we don't have a clear result yet of the election. To what extent does this election, this presidential election in Afghanistan highlight the challenges that the U.S. faces there?

MR. KARL EIKENBERRY: Well, David, let's talk about what we do know about the election. First of all, it's a very historic election. It's the first presidential provincial council election led by the Afghan people that's taken place in this country in over 30 years. And the second point, it's a very important election. This is an election in which, as in all democracies at this point in time now with the, with the presidential election, with the provincial council election, which the people are going to the polls and it's an opportunity them--for them to renew their ties with their government. And that's important to this process to remember. If we look back over the history of Afghanistan over the last 30 years, we have civil war, we have occupation, we've got a complete collapse of governance and rule of law which sets the conditions then for Afghanistan to be a state controlled by international terrorism. Those were the conditions that led to 11 September of 2001. So this election that's just been completed, yes, it's, it was a very difficult election, but it's an opportunity then for renewal of the trust in the bonds...

MR. GREGORY: All right. Well, let me...

MR. EIKENBERRY: ...between the people of Afghanistan and their government.

MR. GREGORY: Let me jump in here. There's the question of the Taliban. The Taliban is really enemy one for U.S. forces there. It's stronger, it's resurgent from the period after 9/11. What does this election show, the level of intimidation by the Taliban about the Taliban's strength and the challenge to U.S. forces?

MR. EIKENBERRY: Well, I think it shows, David, that there's great excitement within this country for the Afghans to regain control of their country, for sovereignty. We had a two-month extraordinary election campaign that we just got through, a very exciting time in which there was unprecedented political activity that occurred, TV debates, rallies throughout the country. It was a very civil kind of debate that occurred. And it was all national candidates, for the first time in Afghanistan's history crossing ethnic lines and campaigning around the country.

MR. GREGORY: I want to bring Admiral Mullen back in here. We're talking about the threat of the Taliban. And, you know, ultimately a lot of Americans are wondering--you see it in that poll--what it is we're fighting to do there. The president this week told Veterans of Foreign Wars Afghanistan is a war of necessity. But other people have said no, it's not, it's actually a war of choice. Richard Haass, who was around in the Bush administration when this war was started in Afghanistan, wrote this in The New York Times this week: "In the wake of 9/11, invading Afghanistan was a war of necessity. The U.S. needed to act in self-defense to oust the Taliban. There was no viable alternative. Now, however, with a friendly government in Kabul, is our military presence still a necessity?" My question: If the central mission was fighting al-Qaeda, are we fulfilling that central mission still?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, David, this is the war we're in. And in fact, the mission the president has given us is to defeat and disrupt al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. And that's very specific and that includes the Taliban, which has grown to be much more sophisticated in the last two to three years and is a much tougher enemy in that regard. And they really are linked. Across that border in Pakistan, they provide the safe haven for al-Qaeda. They also feed fighters into Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda would very much like to see Kabul become the capital that is was before, essentially run by extremists. So in that regard, the--it's very much linked. And again, it's the mission that the military has right now to focus--and General McChrystal is doing this--focus on the security for the people, focus on the Afghan people. And that's a significant change from where we were just a few months ago. And it is in that focus that both understands what they feel about their security, which is pretty bad right now and getting worse, and moving to a direction--moving in a direction that provides security so then we can develop governance, so then we can develop an economy and they can take over their own destiny.

MR. GREGORY: We're rebuilding this nation?

ADM. MULLEN: To a certain degree there is, there is some of that going on.

MR. GREGORY: Is that what the American people signed up for?

ADM. MULLEN: No, I'm--right now the American people signed up, I think, for support of getting at those who threaten us. And, and to the degree that, that the Afghan people's security and the ability to ensure that a safe haven doesn't recur in Afghanistan, there's focus on some degree of making sure security's OK, making sure governance moves in the right direction and developing an, an economy which will underpin their future.

MR. GREGORY: But there seems to be a fundamental problem here. You know, in the Vietnam era it was talk about mission creep; the idea of, you know, gradually surging up forces, having nation-building goals and, and running into challenges all along the way. You're not going to commit to this this morning, it doesn't seem, but the reality is that it appears to fulfill this mission--to beat the Taliban, which is stronger than it ever was, to also fight al-Qaeda--there needs to be more troops in addition to this goal of trying to secure the population.

ADM. MULLEN: The, the focus on the, the people certainly is going to come by, by way of having--create, creating security for them, so their future can be brighter than it is right now. But it isn't just that. I mean, part of the president's strategy is to bring in a, a significant civilian capacity. Ambassador Holbrooke was just there on his fifth or sixth trip, and he was both--in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. So this is a civilian military approach. It's a new strategy. It's the first one. And I recognize that, that we've been there over eight years, but I, I, I also want to say that this is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military side. So in certain ways we're starting anew.

MR. GREGORY: The question for both of you is about exit strategy. This is what the president said back in March, so the American people know when this is going to come to an end. He said, "There's got to be an exit strategy. There's got to be a sense that it is not perpetual drift." And yet just a couple of weeks ago--you mentioned Richard Holbrook, envoy to the region. He was a forum here in Washington. He was asked how he would define success in Afghanistan. This is what he would say: "I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue--we'll know it when we see it." We'll know it when we see it? Is that supposed to provide solace to the American people that we're not getting into drift when it comes to an exit strategy?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I've said from a military perspective I believe we've got to start to turn this thing around from a security standpoint in the next 12 to 18 months. And I think after that we'd have a better view of how long it's going to take and what we need to do. Again, we're just getting the pieces in place from the president's new strategy in March on the ground now both on the military side--we've put forces there and we will have--we will add more this year--and on the civilian side. So it's going to take us a while to understand that. I don't see this as a, a mission of endless drift. I think we know what to do, we've learned a lot of lessons from Iraq, focusing on the Afghan people. It's a counterinsurgency effort right now, it's not just a--what was a counterterrorism effort several years ago. And that's why we've got to focus on the Afghan people, their security and creating forces, Afghan forces to provide for their own security.

MR. GREGORY: Ambassador Eikenberry, you're a former military man as well. What's your gut tell you? How long is it going to take to succeed in Afghanistan?

MR. EIKENBERRY: David, let's talk about progress. What--and what we would see as progress is over the next several years that the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police are much more in front, much more capable and that they're able to provide for the security of their own population. That's a several year process and beyond. What else does progress look like? Progress looks like a government of Afghanistan that's able to attend much more to the needs of their people, to provide reasonable services to them, to provide security for them. And progress look like a region in which there's more cooperation. Can we see outlines of what progress might look like over the next several years consistent with our strategy, ready to partner with the next Afghan administration that emerges after the winner of this election has occurred? Yeah, sure we can.

MR. GREGORY: It's just interesting, Admiral Mullen, that he talks about progress and not victory. Is victory possible in Afghanistan?

ADM. MULLEN: I try to focus this on what it's going to take to succeed there given the mission that we've got, and I go and would just re-emphasize now just on top of the progress, it's the focus on the people and giving them a future that allows them to take care of their own country and doesn't create an environment in which al-Qaeda and its extremist allies can threaten us as they have and execute a threat as they did in the past.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you quickly about Iraq, the violence playing out this week in the green zone; 95 people killed, an attack on the foreign and finance ministry. This is Baghdad, where the Iraqis are now in control. You have warned about the threat of sectarian violence that could ultimately doom Iraq. What troubles you about what you saw this week?

ADM. MULLEN: Well, I, I, I still think that is probably the most significant threat is if sectarian violence breaks out in, in large measure. And so these attacks last week certainly are of great concern not just to me but General Odierno, Ambassador Hill and many others. And we're watching that very carefully. That has been addressed very quickly with Prime Minister Maliki and his leadership. In addition to that, I've been concerned about the politics of it all; in fact, resolving the issues particularly up north around Kirkuk. Those are probably the two biggest threats to the future security and progress. But I've also said we're leaving. I mean, we're, we're--in, in the next several months--they're going to have an election beginning next year. After that we're going to start a fairly rapid draw down of our forces. And so it's really important that the political and military leadership of Iraq take control and generate positive solutions for them as a country.

MR. GREGORY: Finally here, we are just days away from the eighth anniversary of 9/11. What is your assessment of al-Qaeda's capability of striking the U.S. again?

ADM. MULLEN: Still very capable, very focused on it, the leadership is. They also are able to both train and support and finance, and so that capability is still significant and, and one which we're very focused on making sure that doesn't happen again.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it there.

Ambassador Eikenberry in Afghanistan, thank you very much for being with us this morning.

And, Admiral Mullen, always nice to have a couple of San Fernando Valley guys together on a Sunday morning. Thank you very much.

ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, David.

Video and Transcript I: National Security Advisor Jones on North Korea, Pakistan, Iran (9 August)

Transcript II: National Security Advisor Jones on North Korea and Pakistan (9 August)
Transcripts III: National Security Advisor Jones on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea (9 August)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

National Security Advisor James Jones is doing overtime today as the Obama Administration's foreign policy salesman. He's been interviewed on three of the top Sunday morning politics chat shows: Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday (transcript in a separate entry), and Face the Nation (transcript in a separate entry). The topics covered are the same: this week's release of two American journalists from North Korea, the possible assassination of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, and engagement with Iran.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And it's a triple dose of nothingness, with little of significance being said. To be fair to Jones, that's because of the appalling simplistic media narrative. On North Korea, it's sentimental "Yay, We Got Americans Out of an Evil Place" vs. "Oh, No, We Cut a Deal to Get Americans Out of an Evil Place". The Mehsud case becomes a Boy's Own story of daring American operations (even though no American would have been physically present, even in the air above, when the unmanned drone fired its missile), obscuring the problems in Pakistan that will last beyond --- and possibly be magnified --- by the killing. And Iran? Both the media and Obama Administration are in the side alley of the nuclear programme issue.

DAVID GREGORY: General James Jones, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. JAMES JONES (RET.): Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

MR. GREGORY: Big news; North Korea, the two American journalists back home. This was the scene as it played out in Los Angeles on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton accompanying the two journalists back home. He has since come back east and you have been able to fully debrief him. What can you say you have now learned about North Korea and specifically Kim Jong Il?

GEN. JONES: Well, I think that first of all I want to emphasize this was a private mission. And we can get into that if you'd like. But this was a private mission where--in, in which there were no official or unofficial messages sent by this government or by President Obama. So we celebrate the fact that we've had these--this great reunion and--but we can say that--we can also report that the president did--former president did spend time with the Korean leader, that he appeared to be in control of his government and, and his--he sounded very, very reasoned in terms of his conversation.

MR. GREGORY: His health is a big issue, right?

GEN. JONES: His health is a big issue, but obviously we didn't have any time to make an assessment there. But he seemed in control of his faculties. And the president, the former president was able to engage him on a number of subjects. As you know, he had very--relationship with his father and--when he was in the--when he was--when the president was in office, and so he was able to convey his own, his personal views with regard to the importance of the issues of the moment, which is making sure that nuclear weapons do not appear on the Korean Peninsula.

MR. GREGORY: Well, let's talk about that, the nuclear issue. It must have come up during their conversations. What was said?

GEN. JONES: Well, I think--I don't want to speak for President Clinton. We're in, in the process of getting, getting his thoughts as well, we haven't completely finished with that. But, but it's clear thus far that he did press home the fact that if North Korea really desired to rejoin the family of nations in a, in a credible way, that the, the, the way forward is not to, to build nuclear weapons and to rejoin the, the six party talks, and within the context of those talks that they could have a dialogue with the United States.

MR. GREGORY: So North Korea has said they don't want to be part of these six party talks anymore. Just a couple of weeks ago they were exchanging insults with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

GEN. JONES: Right.

MR. GREGORY: Do--did they give an indication to the former president that that's changed, that they might be willing to come back now?

GEN. JONES: I, I think time will tell on that, David, to be honest. But I, I'm quite sure the former president was very articulate and persuasive, that the North Koreans know exactly what the world, the global community, particularly the members of the six party talks expect, and there is a path for them to, to, to move forward.

MR. GREGORY: Any positive signs, though, from the talks?

GEN. JONES: We'll have to wait and see.

MR. GREGORY: Is there a deadline, in your mind, for when they need to come back?

GEN. JONES: I, I think this is such, this is such a big issue that--and we're making such good progress with our relations with China and Russia and other countries to, to, to show them the, the, the, the wisdom of making the right decisions here. But it, it is up to them, and we--they know exactly what, what the end stage should look like.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you a little bit about the backstory. How did this first come up, the idea of sending President Clinton over there? You did a lot of vetting of this idea. What were your concerns and how did it come up?

GEN. JONES: Well, it, it actually came up through a private channel, through the communication from the two girls to their families. And evidently, the North Koreans implied that if former President Clinton were to take on this mission, that they would guarantee the release of, of the two girls.

MR. GREGORY: But it had to be Bill Clinton; couldn't be Al Gore, couldn't be somebody else?

GEN. JONES: They specified Bill Clinton. And, and so the president said, well, let's see if former President Clinton'd be willing to do this thing.

MR. GREGORY: So there were no reservations in your mind or the president's mind?

GEN. JONES: I, I think the, the president, from day one, gave us the task of trying to get those girls back. And, and that was, that really was job number one. And we thought that--and, and, and President Clinton, former President Clinton said he would be, he would take this on in a private way, and that's exactly what happened.

MR. GREGORY: But, but you're experienced with this. I mean, the North Koreans say things all the time and they don't live up to their agreements. How did you test that in fact he wouldn't come back empty, empty-handed?

GEN. JONES: Well, you know, ultimately, regardless of all of the, the, the, the backwards and forwards on this--and we did, we did have, we do have channels to talk to the North Koreans. We, we received a personal assurance of the leader that they would grant, in their terms, special amnesty, and that if former President Clinton came to North Korea that he would leave with those two girls. And ultimately, you say OK.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GEN. JONES: Let's see, let's see which--let's see if they'll live up to their word. And they did.

MR. GREGORY: There's been some criticism of this mission, and it centers around this photograph. This was the picture that experts say Kim Jong Il wanted, and he got it. There is the former president sitting right next to him. Henry Kissinger writes this this morning in op-ed piece in The Washington Post: "A visit by a former president, who is married to the secretary of state, will enable Kim Jong Il to convey to North Koreans, and perhaps to other countries, that his country is being accepted into the international community--precisely the opposite of what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has defined as the goal of U.S. policy until Pyongyang abandons its nuclear weapons program." Did this president just hand Kim Jong Il a propaganda victory?

GEN. JONES: I, I don't think so. I mean, maybe in Kim Jong Il's mind, and he'll play it out inside of North Korea anyway he wants. But we vetted this, this mission with the South Koreans, with the Japanese, the Chinese, with the Russians, and we have 100 percent support by all these countries. We--the president also--the former president also asked for the release of a South Korean detainee and the, the, the Japanese abductees, which we think would be also a great picture to see the reunification of those families, which we're very concerned about. So no, I don't--I, I, I just think that, you know, we wanted to get those girls out. The North Koreans gave us a, a path to that and the president of the United States said, "Look, we want these families reunified. They shouldn't be held in captivity." And, and by the way, if we hadn't done that, we'd be having a different conversation tonight because--today, because they would have--they would have said, "Well, you had an opportunity just, just to send the, the former president."

MR. GREGORY: All right. Well, to that point, former President Clinton, he goes to Pyongyang, he goes to North Korea, gets this result. If you want a breakthrough with North Korea, a breakthrough that's been so elusive to previous administrations, should President Obama go to North Korea and talk to the North Koreans now?

GEN. JONES: That's a--that, that is the--the future relationship of our two countries wholly dependent upon the ability of the North Koreans to understand where they are in terms of not only just the United States, but, but this big issue of nuclear weapons and...

MR. GREGORY: All right, but would you, would you rule that out as a potential for breakthrough?

GEN. JONES: I, I wouldn't speculate on, on hypotheticals. I--we are doing, we're doing the right thing with a whole family of nations. Proliferation is a big issue. It's a big issue in North Korea, it's a huge issue in Iran, and we are at the, at the center point of this, this, this debate. And it's a global debate, it is not just about bilateral relations. This is a very serious problem.

MR. GREGORY: Let, let me go through a few other hot-button issues in our remaining moments. In Pakistan an important al-Qaeda figure, a Mehsud, who was the head of Pakistan's al-Qaeda leadership, reportedly killed. Are you able to confirm that today?

GEN. JONES: I wish I could, to be honest with you totally. We think so. We, we put it in the 90 percent category, if you want. But Pakistan has confirmed it. We know there are some reports now from the Mehsud tribe that, that he wasn't. But the evidence is pretty conclusive.

MR. GREGORY: What, what does it mean to the United States' security?

GEN. JONES: Well, I think it's a--this is a big deal. And, and it's not only--by the way, it's not only happening in this part of the world, it's happening in other parts of the world as well with some--with a gradual coming together by the family of nations to reject terrorism as something that's acceptable. In terms of the region, it means that the Pakistani armed forces and the Pakistani government are doing quite well in terms of their fight against extremism. This was--Baitullah Mehsud was the public enemy number one in, in, in Pakistan, so it's their, their biggest target. And we've already seen evidence of dissension in the ranks about who's, who's going to follow him. This is--if this is--if this happened, and we think it did, this was a good thing.

MR. GREGORY: Is it still your belief that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan?

GEN. JONES: That one's a little bit more elusive. We are still very much on the hunt. We think that he's still in that general region. But that's a, that's a tougher nut to crack.

MR. GREGORY: Let me...

GEN. JONES: But this, this was a big deal.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Afghanistan. General McChrystal, commander on the ground, is doing an assessment of the mission and what he needs to achieve that mission successfully. The question about the endgame, The Washington Post reports today about the long-term cost to America. "As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the U.S. is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war." What is the endgame in Afghanistan? What kind of time frame should Americans expect?

GEN. JONES: The endgame in Afghanistan is obviously to turn the responsibility for their security and economic prosperity and the governance over to Afghans as quickly as possible. We're doing that three ways. One is in March we announced a comprehensive strategy that wasn't only focused on troop strength and security, although there's a certain minimum there that's required, but also the, the cohesion of security, economic development and good governance and rule of law from local mayors all the way up to Kabul. We've generally done pretty well over time on the security pillar. NATO, the United States and 47 sovereign countries, are on the ground in Afghanistan. The U.N., NATO, the European Union, the World Bank, all, all sorts of nongovernmental organizations, all the instruments are there to turn this thing in the right direction. The question is, how do you work--get them to work more cohesively?

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GEN. JONES: And that's the new strategy. And, and, and if we can get that done--and we will know that fairly quickly. We're--we've published a new set of metrics--or not published, but they're being developed in, in concert with the congressional guidance. We have a, an envoy in--hard at work to frame this whole thing, new commanders, new ambassadors. And we think that it's going to change--it's going move in the right direction. I don't--I, I can't tell you...

MR. GREGORY: At least a decade, though? I mean...

GEN. JONES: No, no, no. No.

MR. GREGORY: ...should Americans really settle--it's less than a decade, you think, in terms of...

GEN. JONES: Yeah, I think, I think, I...

MR. GREGORY: ...our commitment.

GEN. JONES: You can't predict here where the tipping point is, just like we couldn't really predict it in Iraq. But it will--if it's done right and if it's done cohesively, the tipping point will be much, much quicker, much sooner than that. We will know whether this strategy is working in--within, within the--by the, by the end of the next year, and we'll be able to make some prediction--maybe some predictions at that time. But not before.

MR. GREGORY: General McChrystal wants more troops for Afghanistan. Will he get a skeptical response from President Obama?

GEN. JONES: General McChrystal is doing what all good commanders do when you take over a big job, you do an assessment. You--General McChrystal has the overall strategy that's been agreed to and he is making his commander's estimate on how to function within that strategy. And we'll just have to wait and see what he, what he has to say. But it, but it has to be--whatever, whatever we do is with the context of a new--a, a strategy that was agreed upon in March, and very--a very comprehensive one.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, on Iran, are there new developments this morning about those three American hikers who strayed into Iran?

GEN. JONES: Yes, there are in the sense that the government has officially acknowledged that they have them in their custody.

MR. GREGORY: And that's news. That had not been disclosed before.

GEN. JONES: That, that, that is as of this morning, we do have that, we do have that confirmation.

MR. GREGORY: How does this administration deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Is he in a position, you think, with the political fighting, to engage with the West?

GEN. JONES: We certainly hope so. It--he is the figure of authority that we have to deal with. But it's clear that there's major, major problems going on--I won't say major problems, but major events going on inside of Iran that have to do with the election. But we have to deal with the figures of authority that are in position. We have sent strong messages that we would like these three young people released as soon as possible, and also others that they have in, in their custody as well. This is--these, these are innocent people. We want their families reunited, and we want it--we would like to have it done as quickly as possible.

MR. GREGORY: We'll leave it there. General Jones, thank you very much for being here.

GEN. JONES: Thank you very much.

MR. GREGORY: Thanks for being here.

GEN. JONES: My pleasure.