Debating U.S. Troops In Afghanistan; U.S. Boeing Investigating Dreamliner; The Future Of Afghanistan; OBAMA & Karzai Meet
WOLF BLITZER, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. We're waiting for a joint news conference by President Obama and the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. You're looking at live pictures from the East Room of the White House. It's expected to begin in just a few minutes. The two leaders have been meeting to discuss the U.S. military troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014, also the future security of the country. Joining us now to talk about president Karzai's visit to Washington, what's at stake for the United States, what's at stake for Afghanistan, our White House correspondent Brianna Keilar, our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger, our Pentagon Correspondent Chris Lawrence, and Richard Haass, he's the president of the council on foreign relations in New York. He's the author of the book "Foreign Policy Begins at Home," a foreign (ph) advisor, the then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Let's go to the East Room of the White House first. Brianna, you're there, they've been meeting now for a while. Set the scene for us. I know one of the key issues involves any U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after all U.S. troops are supposed to be out by the end of 2014.</s>BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf, and it has been a very cordial reception, I will say, for President Karzai here at the White House, as he comes here today for bilateral meetings that have already taken place as well as a working lunch with President Obama and the vice president. And then, he'll be wrapping up his day here with this press conference with President Obama. But that cordiality which we saw here today and also when Karzai met with Secretaries Clinton and Panetta bellies some tension in this relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan over the past few years. Some very serious issues that are being discussed today and that we will hear questions asked of both President Obama and President Karzai, and that does have to do, of course, with U.S. troops remaining in Afghanistan beyond 2014. The question is, if any remain in the country. And if so, how many. And as the U.S. has sought to seek some concessions for Afghanistan in this process, they've floated the idea of their being zero troops in the country. Of course, there's also a concern from the U.S. that this would leave the country vulnerable. But at this point, they also are trying to negotiate with President Karzai on the issues of Afghan troops -- or, pardon me, Afghan detainees that are under U.S. control. Something very much of concern to President Karzai. And also whether any troops remaining in Afghanistan beyond 2014 would be subject to Afghan courts and laws. Wolf.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Brianna, stand by. Chris Lawrence, our Pentagon correspondent, is here. Chris, there are right now 66,000 U.S. troops, part of a larger NATO military presence in Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers still shelling out billions, maybe $100 billion a year to keep that military presence in Afghanistan. Question, they're all supposed to be out by the event of 2014. The pressure, though, is enormous to accelerate that withdrawal and get them out even more quickly for financial reasons and other reasons. Is that likely to be accepted by sources you're talking to over at the Pentagon?</s>CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, and I think one thing as I look at this statement that's going to come out, the word "sustainable" keeps popping up over and over again. And "sustainable" means money. Can we pay for this over the long run. I think when you look at the fact that the U.S. is going to be kicking in about $2 billion a year to sustain the Afghan forces, that's in addition to any other aid that the U.S. gives, this could very well be a fairly sizable commitment if President Karzai is going to get what he wants, which is a lot of support for a long number of years.</s>BLITZER: And given the financial interests right now, Gloria Borger, given the fact that the U.S. has got some major budget deficits, is there an appetite, a political appetite, here in the United States to continue to shell out $2 billion a week to keep that strategic presence in Afghanistan?</s>GLORIA BORGER, CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: In a one word answer, no. The president is facing the prospect of mandatory cuts in Pentagon spending. If you look at the polling, over half of the American public believes that things are not going well in Afghanistan. There's no real appetite to continue to spend that kind of money there. And I think the question that the president is asking his advisers, and will be talking to Karzai about, or has talked to Karzai about, is just how large a force do you need to carry out the objective. And the objective is training and counterterrorism.</s>BLITZER: Right.</s>BORGER: And do you need 3,000 to 9,000 troop, do you need 15,000 troops, do you need no troops and just kind of a minimal force there? And what can you do -- how large a group of people do you need there in order not to alienate the people of Afghanistan, right?</s>LAWRENCE: And what's more important to the United States? Is it training more Afghan forces or is it battling counterterrorism? And I think that's going to be a key question because the interests of the United States in Afghanistan may somewhat diverge on this. I've heard from some sources that President Karzai would prefer that any troops that stay focused on training his forces which bolster the Afghan army, consolidates his power and the power of the government somewhat. Whereas the U.S. may want to focus more on a counterterrorism piece. And, Wolf, when you look at it, I mean, for every year that a soldier or Marine is in Afghanistan, it costs $1 million per man. So even a small force of 3,000, that's $3 billion a year.</s>BLITZER: And Richard Haass, give me a quick thought right now. If the U.S. were to completely pull out of Afghanistan after 2014 with a zero troop presence in Afghanistan, just like the U.S. has a zero troop presence in Iraq right now, what would be the difference?</s>RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: In terms of counterterrorism, not a whole lot. We could always use drones or special forces, much like we do in other countries. I thinks the biggest effect would be, it would work against the training up of Afghan police and army. And probably even more important, it would be a psychological and political blow to the Afghans. It would be a little bit of a fill up to the Taliban. And just like we've seen Iraq in some ways get worse without any U.S. presence, my hunch is Afghanistan's going to get worse no matter what the size of the U.S. presence is. But if there's zero American presence, it will probably accelerate the downward trend in that country.</s>BLITZER: All right, I want everyone to stand by. We're waiting for the president of the United States, the president of Afghanistan. They've been meeting in the Oval Office at the White House. They're about to walk over to the East Room of the White House for a joint news conference. They'll both be making opening statements and then they'll be answering reporters' questions. Our special coverage continues right after this.