the u.s. post office. richard trumka among our guests tomorrow morning. thank you for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. happy thanksgiving. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . .

>> and later a house hearing on the government's role in the bank of america merger in 2008. >> newsmakers is pleased to welcome the chairman of the senate armed services committee, carl levin. we have our correspondents here. rick, let's start with you. >> there's going to be a troop buildup in afghanistan and going to include one element you have been after, increase in trainers and probably include some security forces to try to protect the country. can you tell me about how much numbers you expect the increase will be? >> i don't have a prediction or expectation, but i have a position as to what i think should happen, but i have no way

of knowing what the decision is. there have been rumors. but there have been rumors all along here. the focus of the media has been exclusively on a troop number whereas the issue is much broader than that, so there will be many elements in this decision. number one, it may include a troop number, but that number 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 are going to be troop increases. 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 have the other aspects of a policy in afghanistan, of course strategy coming first, as to whether we are going to have a counterinsurgency or counterterrorism strategy and

that has been made a while ago, and on top of that all the elements of a strategy, for instance, how are we going to show success in afghanistan, not just with additional combat troops, but with the trainers, trainers for army and police with the equipment issue. the equipment going 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 so 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 have the question of whether you are going to have an afghan government there that is going to take on corruption and start delivering services in a 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 whatever that package contains that it would be a nato-afghan initiative, 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, but a comprehensive nato initiative. >> you said if there is a troop increase. is there any possibility that you would see there is not a troop increase coming out of the white house? >> i have been holding off combat troops while these others are focused on so we can see a transition to afghan control of their own fate. the afghan army has to grow faster and has not been growing fast at all recently. there has got to be a much better effort on equipment and

so forth. i don't know, what, if any, additional combat troops would be coming. and if so, what would be american and what would be other nato countries. it's something i do not know. can't predict with any confidence. what i can only can do is urge this administration, which is to afghanize and natoize this effort. >> senator, can you indicate to us at what point do you think the afghani security forces can take over and how long will the u.s. stay in afghanistan in large numbers? >> well, they are capable of taking over now to the extent they have the forces now in afghanistan. they have more troops than we do and the majority of their units are able to take the lead with us and act independently without us, so they are able to the extent that they have the numbers in the afghan army to take control in certain number

of areas right now. and as they grow in numbers, they will be able to take control both independently and with our support in more areas. it's hard for me to say what number of square miles or how many cities they would be able right now to take control over effectively, but there is a significant number they can do now. they are partnering with us in many areas, but not enough. when i was there a few months ago, the ratio of american ma evens to afghan soldiers was five. that is not acceptable. it ought to be requestionersed. -- reversed. we want a partnering, but it has to be a much larger number of afghan soldiers for each of our marines or soldiers that is in that partnership or relationship. >> what would you describe in short terms as success in afghanistan? at what point do you think the mission will be successful?

>> when the afghans are able to secure most of their population and when -- 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. >> senator, in your opening comments, you several times referenced the combined nato force. 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? >> i thought the prime minister of england came out with a solid speech on this subject ta i call the british model which is the one we ought to follow.

his model was the transition to afghan control and he went through all of the ways which we could show resolve during this transition period in support and partnership during a transition period. he talked about trainers, focusing on number of trainers that the british were going to increase numbers, going to build a training facility, he talked about additional manned vehicles, more flying time, newer and better helicopters in larger numbers coming from britain. he talked about having a plan for the reintegration of the taliban and larger economic commitment but that would be conditional about 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. 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. that is a modest increase. i would hope any increase in combat forces that the president decides upon would be that modest if it comes at all. >> senator levin, there have 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 toller ate until the united states would have to withdraw. if there's a surge, there is probably going to be more killed , and how much longer do you think the u.s. public can tolerate this?

>> 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 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's somehow or another 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 and has not been made public. and what milk crystal is asking for is not just the numbers, he said 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 is making with great care and proper care and it's going to be based on american security. so it can't be answered in the kind of way in which you've asked. >> 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. >> 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 as 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. >> senator, among the anxious

people waiting for a decision aren't just republicans, but the military families and soldiers themselves who think there may be a surge and may be deploying as early as january. morale wise there is a effect on the decision and can't come as a surprise to the obama administration that they were going to face an afghanistan decision at some point. is there a time limit that has to be made on behalf of the morale of the troops? >> 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 begrudged president bush when he took three months. 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 deloiments here. our troops and families are brave and never complain and are entitled to not just the means and tools to succeed and to have the support for their families, but are entitled to the best possible strategy. and the president has taken the time to sort through the complexities of afghanistan so we are on a course with our nato allies to promote success there. >> at this point, the number of weeks into the pakistani campaign into the border regions, what would be your message be to the government there? >> they have finally turned their attention to the border regions. there are other regions further south which are controlled by the taliban which i hope they

will turn their attention to, but i want to give them credit, because i think up in the fattah area, the border area, that they have taken some heavy casualties and had real successes going after the taliban and could help turn things around in pakistan, but there are other parts further south that need that same kind of determination. >> 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? >> well, we are in the middle of briefings now and as soon as soon as we have a few more, we will make a decision as to when our first hearing will be. i have announced we will be having hearings and we are

focusing on the military piece of this. other committees will be focusing more probably on the f.b.i. part of it, the joint terrorism task force pieces of it. and i can't tell you exactly when the hearings will begin other than there will be hearings and they'll begin after we have had some additional brofingse which -- briefingings which we will have them in a way that is useful to the public but we have to do all of that being careful not to in anyway undermine the criminal investigation and prosecution, which is so essential here. >> and senator, senator leiberman yesterday had his first public hearing and he qualified the shootings as a terrorist attack. i was wondering if you would be comfortable to name that as a

trit attack or not? >> it looks like that. there may not have been any others that worked with him, but it probably could be labeled a trit attack. i'm not -- terrorist attack. i'm not uncomfortable thinking that is the likely outcome or likely accurate description. >> you think -- do you think something went wrong with the military personnel system that they didn't identify this man as a potential risk? >> you have to start before you get into that system and look at what we did have, which was at the joint terrorism task force in two cities, which were presented apparently with emails which would seem to raise some real flags and require some further inquiry.

and after that, the decision was made by that f.b.i.-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 should questions have been raised about some of the things 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, which said you don't kill or wound other muslims. he laid that out and wanted to know -- he wanted to raise the question well, does this raise such risks that there ought to

be some objector status which is offered to these soldiers. that is something which could raise a question about him as to whether he was talking about himself, but it also raises some legitimate questions about whether or not we should not be more careful to have in our military people who have a religious objection to going to war against a particular -- any particular group, whatever that group may be. those are legitimate questions. but before you get to the military, which is what we're going to focus on, you have to wonder about the f.b.i.-led terrorism task force not pursuing the lead they had apparently through emails between him and a radical cleric in yemen. >> some of the reports about concerns from other officers raise questions in your mind as to whether the military is properly evaluating people or a

sensor going on about whether or not they are giving proper evaluations? >> there are questions that need to be addressed inside the military and that investigation is going on right now and by us. the answer to your question is yes. >> are you satisfied with what secretary gates has announced with their internal investigation? are you satisfied? >> from what i have seen, yes. i haven't heard -- i heard what secretary gates said. it sounds like it is a thorough investigation. the president wants an investigation by the end of november. that is prompt and proper. but that does not eliminate the need for congressional oversight. we have a responsibility here not just to make sure that the f.b.i. has a proper investigation and that the intelligence service here -- intelligence services here,

including homeland security properly investigate what happened and what didn't happen that perhaps should have happened, but congress has the responsibility also to oversee the military actions and lack of actions under these circumstances. >> one of the secondary themes that came out of the fort hood story was concern about the level of stress on the military and their families. as we go into this new increase for afghanistan, what your questions are to the military or what congressional policy making might be with regard to refreshment of the troops and their r and r. >> we have that ongoing responsibility, as you point out. it is a heavy one. and we think we are asking the right questions because the american people are determined to give our troops the support that they need while they're in

harm's way, after they come out of harm's way where they have to brunt the impacts of having put their lines 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 years. the american people really want us to support our troops and veterans regardless of what position they take on the two wars, the recent ones, iraq and afghanistan, regardless of the position. the american people really want that kind of support to be full. and it is and the military and pentagon know that we will provide everything and we prod them what can we do with the suicide rate and the lack of dwell time, the time periods between deloiments, how can we -- deloiments, how can we reduce the stress on our troops and families and we do everything we

can to support our military. >> can we have an increase in troops and provide dwell time? >> i think that's one of the many questions which the president is struggling with. >> on the issue of military readiness, the don't ask, don't tell policy, president obama has said he would like to repeal the ban and i was wondering whether you think the 2011 authorization bill would be the best vehicle to repeal that law? >> it is one vehicle. it is 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 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, morale problem in the military, but how it can be done in a way which can promote morale in the military, particularly the 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 serving in the military because they have proven that they can serve effectively in the military. so it is important that we do

this, but that 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. >> you talked earlier this year, you would have hearings after you finished the defense bill. will you finish the defense bill this year, is so when are you going to have the hearings? >> we will not probably because of all the things going on, including fort hood. there is so much on our plate, we may not be able to have the hearing this hearing. the military wants the hearing and want to be involved and want to be asked, so these recent

events just put a huge kind of a responsibility and 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 hoped to have been in december. >> you said you won't have it until after a careful review, is there one going on right now in the pentagon so that you can have it? >> it is. i talked to secretary gates and admiral mullen about this, they are reviewing this policy and won't begin the review when we announce the hearing is in december or january. they are looking at this. 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 command. >> that's it for our time. thanks for being with us. senator carl levin, chairman of the armed services committee. let me turn to you to put senator levin's comments in larger contexts. let's begin with afghanistan. you have been covering this town . it seems as though senator levin is waiting for news from the white house as to which direction the president is going. >> he is not saying how involved he is in because they have been listening to him closely. but it's also true that president obama is being very slow and deliberate as he does this. and i don't know what troops think. when obama goes to military bases and speaks to troops, one of the lines that gets the most applause is when he tells them i'm not going to put you at

unnecessary risk and i want to be careful. and so he is doing what he said. this is a big decision for them. i don't think there is a clear answer. whatever it is, it's going to take a long time and they have to settle with themselves that we aren't going to send troops in and be there a year, but five years. >> pretty strong advice to the president that involved a nato coalition announcement. are you getting an a indication that's what we're going to have? >> not exactly. the president has expressed the need and importance of having nato collaborate with the united states that he can't send more troops without having the nato allies contribute as well, but nato is waiting for president obama to make the decision as well. if you saw the u.k. prime minister is talking about transferring security forces, transferring the mission to afghani security forces in 2010. so there is a little bit of a

discrepancy of what senator levin is expecting and president obama is expecting to see and what europe is looking at as well. >> british troops is being talked about is 400 troops. >> you use that as a percentage. >> and the level, and the other countries, they never send more than 1,000 or 1,500 troops. so we are talking about a much bigger percentage from the united states. >> 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. >> the biggest trouble they are having is it's going to cost a lot of money and take a long time and the country doesn't see us spending time and money on an