'Meet the Press' transcript for October 11, 2009

MR. DAVID GREGORY:  This Sunday, war and peace.

(Videotape)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA:  To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize.

(End videotape)

GREGORY:  President Obama unexpectedly wins the Nobel Peace Prize even as he tries to craft a new strategy to win the war in Afghanistan, now entering its ninth year.  Is the centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy mission impossible? This morning, an exclusive debate on the way forward and whether the Taliban and al-Qaeda can ever truly be defeated.  Two key voices on the Hill and two experienced military leaders weigh in:  chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; a GOP member of that same committee, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; former commander in chief of U.S. Southern Command, retired General Barry McCaffrey; and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired General Richard Myers.

Then the political debate.  Will the president be able to get his own party's support when he finally presents his plan for Afghanistan?  When will we see some agreement on health care, and what more should the White House do to create jobs?  Insights and analysis from our political roundtable:  the National Journal's Ron Brownstein, The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot, "BBC World News America"'s Katty Kay and The Washington Post's Bob Woodward.

Finally, our MEET THE PRESS Minute from February 4th, 1968; some very important lessons from another war that didn't go as planned.

But first, the debate about the way forward in Afghanistan.  Joining me now: the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin; and the Republican from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham; as well as retired Generals Richard Myers and Barry McCaffrey.

Great to have all of you here for such an important discussion.  So here's where we are.  On the president's desk, a request for more troops, up to 40,000 troops, from his general on the ground, General McChrystal.  The president has said in Afghanistan it is a war of necessity.  In March he said there was a massive counterinsurgency strategy, that was the strategy.  So, Senator Levin, if his commander comes to him and says, "I need more forces," why isn't the answer yes?

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI):  The answer is that the president of the United States has got to look at all aspects of this.  Obviously a commander's recommendation is important, it'll be given great weight, I have no doubt about that, and it should be given great weight.  But so also should the recommendation of a secretary of Defense who is the choice of the president to be in that position.  And the president has to look at a much broader perspective than the commander's request, as important as that is.

GREGORY:  But doesn't it flow--war of necessity, massive counterinsurgency strategy announced in March, handpicked guy goes in there, an expert on counterinsurgency, says, "I need at least 40,000 more troops," doesn't it flow that the answer would be yes?

SEN. LEVIN:  The flow is that you want to succeed, and what--how do you maximize the chances of success?  That is the question, and that's what the president is struggling with.  We don't know what all those recommendations are, by the way, of General McChrystal.  But General McChrystal said a number of things, not that he just needs more resources, whatever that number is.  He also says we need a new strategy and that that is even more important than the resources.  Those are McChrystal's own words.  He also says deliberate, take the right amount of time to think this thing through.  And he also says that what is even more important than numbers is the resolve.  And I had a personal conversation with McChrystal, and what he says is that you want to find ways of showing resolve to the people of Afghanistan.  There are many ways to show resolve in addition to more and more combat forces, including many more trainers to get the Afghan forces to be a lot larger and a lot stronger.

GREGORY:  Right.  You say no, don't send more troops?

SEN. LEVIN:  I'm saying at this time don't send more combat troops, but I say focus on the Afghan forces, the army; faster, larger, better equipped.  Why are we shipping--why don't we have a great plan to ship equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan?  We ought to do that to strengthen the Afghan army.  So there's a lot of ways to show resolve other than more and more combat forces.

GREGORY:  Senator Graham, where are you?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC):  I think I'm with General McChrystal.  He says that the force structure we have today--68,000 American troops plus our NATO partners plus the Afghan army--are not sufficient to turn around the momentum that the Taliban have gained.  I am all for more trainers.  The president says we're not going to withdraw.  He's rejected the counterterrorism strategy. The only difference this morning is whether or not you put combat troops in to enable the trainers.  The Afghan national police are getting slaughtered. It's hard to train people, send them off to fight when they get killed at their first duty station.  So without better security, the training element will fail.  That's exactly what happened in Afghanistan.  So we need more combat power.  General McChrystal says 40,000, in that neighborhood; I would go with the general.

GREGORY:  There, there's a larger question of what the nature of the fight is right now, and I'll turn to the two generals here.  This is how The New York Times reported it on Thursday in terms of the debate that's taking shape within the White House:  "President Obama's national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States." In fact, General Myers, the current national security adviser, General Jones, says there's fewer than 100 al-Qaeda fighters actually currently operating in Afghanistan.  What is the central front here in this war?

GEN. RICHARD MYERS (Ret.):  I think the central front is against violent extremism, which plays out in both Afghanistan and, as we saw just recently in the last several months, in Pakistan as well.  So I don't know how you differentiate between violent extremists that have an extreme view of their religion and are willing to take--go to any means to achieve their political goals.  And, and we--we're seeing it play out in Afghanistan, we're seeing the Taliban in Pakistan.  So it's, it's more than Afghanistan, it's Pakistan as well, it's the region.  Uzbekistan has terrorists that have found safe haven in Afghanistan before.  And then it's--I think that, that's spills over into the, the rest of the world, matter of fact.

GREGORY:  But where should the fight be, General McCaffrey?  I mean, in--within the White House there seems to be a very strong view that the focus on Afghanistan and counterinsurgency against the Taliban might be misguided. We went to war after 9/11 to take out al-Qaeda, and they don't appear to be there in big numbers in Afghanistan.

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY (Ret.):  Well, you know, I actually think Senator Levin sent the--set the argument up correctly.  The last thing we ought to debate is whether the answer is 40,000 or 10,000 troops.  The real question is you've got this giant nation, 32 million people, it's 500 miles from the sea, which complicates matters.  Our logistics lines go through Pakistan.  The question is do we have resolve to build a viable state in Afghanistan?  And that's a function not just of troop strength.  Now, having said all that, there's 25,000 Taliban on the ground now is the unclassified number we're talking about.  The country's then quadrupled in terms of direct enemy threat, we're about on the verge of losing small U.S. combat forces.  I don't see how the president can't back up his ground commander in the short run.

GREGORY:  So you got to escalate?

GEN. McCAFFREY:  I think in the short run you got no option.

GREGORY:  General, do you have to escalate?

GEN. MYERS:  I think you probably do, but I would, I would caution--I don't--it's not about 40,000 or whatever the number is--and by the way, that doesn't all have to be U.S., in my view.  I think one of the things the president and his team has to do is convince our friends and allies who committed at the Bonn conference back in 2001 to help support development of Afghanistan, that they have to pony up as well.  And they have to do so--when they do so, they have to do it with the right rules of engagement.

GREGORY:  Senator Levin, some of your colleagues, Senator Graham included, Senator McCain, say, "Hey, remember the surge in Iraq?  That was--that's a model here.  And that--things got better in Iraq." We don't know the outcome in Iraq yet.  But you traveled to Iraq in 2007 and you said there were tangible, positive results from surging U.S. forces.  Why not apply those lessons to Afghanistan and send more combat troops if your general says we need them?

SEN. LEVIN:  The surge that really worked--that will work in Afghanistan will be a surge of Afghan troops.  And that's not me speaking, that's a captain, Marine captain down in Helmand province who says the Achilles' heel in Afghanistan is the shortage of Afghan troops.  Our own commandant of the Marines, General Conway, says if he could change one thing in southern Afghanistan it would be to have more Afghan troops.  As far as the Iraqi surge is concerned, it took place after the strategy was changed to try and, successfully, to get to get 100,000 Iraqis who were attacking us to switch sides.  That was called the--an Iraqi surge, Sons of Iraq.  And we need to do the same thing in Afghanistan.  It takes a plan.  We don't have a plan yet to get those, those lower level, those local Taliban fighters who are on a payroll not because they're, they're wildly fanatic religious people but because they're being paid.

GREGORY:  But, Senator Graham, doesn't it also take a government in Afghanistan that's a legitimate ally, that isn't corrupt, that isn't failing in the fundamental job of governance?

SEN. GRAHAM:  Absolutely.  You could send a million troops into Afghanistan and it would not legitimize their government.  So I...

GREGORY:  But then why are you pushing for more troops when we don't have an ally there?

SEN. GRAHAM:  Well, because I do believe, like Iraq, where you had a dysfunctional government, the security environment was impossible for Iraq to move forward.  And once the security got better due to the surge, the Iraqis stepped up.  So what I am suggesting is that training the Afghan army and police only is a failed strategy.  We had 200,000 people trained in Iraq; they folded like a cheap suit when they went in combat.  Only when we embedded with the Iraqi army and police and provided better security did the training get better and governance get better.

You have to do two things here.  You have to bring about security, because if the Taliban keep re-emerging it's a mortal threat to Pakistan, according to the foreign minister of Pakistan.  Any area lost to the Taliban means soccer stadiums are reopened.  It would be the defeat of NATO.  So you've got to secure the country against a re-emergent Taliban and have benchmarks and measurements on the Afghan government to get them to perform better for their people.  You have to do two things at once.  It's exactly what we did in Iraq. But without better security, more combat power, we're going to lose in Afghanistan.

More from NBC News broadcasts   Did Nobel speech reveal 'Obama doctrine'?   Steele reacts to Reid's slavery comment   Afghan exit not a ‘drop-dead deadline,’ Clinton says Knox’s father: Verdict ‘a travesty of justice’ Now on msnbc.com: Real-time news Follow on Twitter: Making a Difference

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Dec. 6: Clinton, Gates, McCain, roundtable Nov. 29: Rick Warren, Bill & Melinda Gates Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: