Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

KATE: Good morning, Mr. Eichten. What's coming up on Midday?

GARY EICHTEN: Kate, first hour here, we're going to catch up on the debate underway as to whether or not the US should send more American troops to Afghanistan. Of course, the Commanding General McChrystal is recommending, apparently, that about perhaps as many as 40,000 additional troops are needed. So we'll get to that conversation with Congressman Tim Walz. We'll get started right after the news over the noon hour. Interesting debate about whether buy American pays off.

KORVA COLEMAN: From NPR News in Washington, I'm Korva Coleman. A key suspect in an alleged plot to attack New York City transportation sites has pleaded not guilty to federal charges. He appeared in federal court today in New York. NPR has learned more arrests linked to the alleged plot are pending. NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports.

DINA TEMPLE-RASTON: This morning marked the first time that Denver area shuttle bus driver Najibullah Zazi answered the terrorism charges in court. Prosecutors say Zazi conspired to use weapons of mass destruction against US targets. Zazi denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The case has garnered so much attention because Zazi appears to have a bona fide connection to Al-Qaeda.

Authorities say he told them he trained in explosives at an Al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan. Investigators say they found a bomb making recipe on his computer. His court appearance comes as authorities tell NPR that they're preparing to arrest a handful of other people. They say helped Zazi buy some of the supplies he needed to build the explosives. Dina Temple-Raston, NPR News, New York.

KORVA COLEMAN: President Obama is to meet NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. They're expected to discuss future plans for Afghanistan. Rasmussen has warned that the current situation must change if NATO wants to win the conflict against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The top US military official there, General Stanley McChrystal, has asked for more troops to go to Afghanistan to win the battle. The White House says President Obama is weighing his options. The Conference Board says its index of consumer sentiment fell unexpectedly in September, and it says that does not bode well for the nation's retailers as the holiday season approaches. NPR's Jim Zarroli reports.

JIM ZARROLI: The Conference Board says its index of consumer sentiment fell from 54.5 in August to 53.1 this month. The number of people who said business conditions are bad rose slightly, as did the number of people who say jobs are hard to get. The number of people who think conditions will improve in six months was also down slightly.

Despite the decline, the Conference Board says consumers remain a lot more confident about the economy than they were earlier this year. But the report said consumers remain quite apprehensive about the short-term economic outlook and about their incomes. It said with the holiday season quickly approaching, this is not very encouraging news. Jim Zarroli, NPR News.

KORVA COLEMAN: A private housing index has determined home prices were up in July by more than 1.5%. The S&P Case-Shiller index tracks home prices in 20 major Cities in the United States. The index has now increased for three months in a row. The news suggests that the limping housing industry is beginning to recover from the recession. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial average is down 30 points. It's currently at 97.58. The NASDAQ is down 11 points. This is NPR News.

1: Support for news comes from the Wallace Foundation, a source of ideas for expanding learning opportunities beyond the school day at Wallace foundation.org.

PHIL PICARDI: From Minnesota Public Radio news, I'm Phil Picardi. US officials say they may soon get an update on the condition of a hiker with Minnesota roots arrested in Iran. Shane Bauer and two other Americans were arrested in July after crossing the Iranian border. Two US officials say Iran has notified the Swiss they can meet with the Americans to verify their condition. The move comes in advance of a meeting between Iran and five world powers seeking to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

State lawmakers who are running for governor have collected a total of nearly $23,000 in legislative expense payments since early June. Republican State Representative Marty Seifert of Marshall raised the issue last week. He said he's concerned some candidates may be using their legislative leadership positions to schedule visits around the state to gain publicity.

Analysis of legislative expense reports shows Seifert claimed more money in the last four months than any other house member running for governor. Seifert says it's unfair to compare his report with Metro lawmakers because he lives farther from Saint Paul than other candidates.

MARTY SEIFERT: I'm not disputing the fact that you have the ability for a day or two a month to be able to come up to the Capitol, do legislative business. That has to happen. We're all incumbent lawmakers, and there are constituent requests that pile up that need to be dealt with from time to time. But it's all about the but-for test, in my opinion.

PHIL PICARDI: Seifert claimed about $6,100 in expenses since June. The only legislator running for governor who claimed more than Seifert was DFL Senator Tom Bock of Cook, who claimed $6,600.

There's a freeze warning for Northeastern Minnesota for tonight. There's a Frost advisory for parts of East Central and Southeastern Minnesota as well. Today, partly cloudy in the East. Mostly sunny over much of the state. High temperatures 50 to 60 degrees. It's Minnesota Public Radio news.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks, Phil. It's six minutes now past 11. And good morning. Welcome to Midday on Minnesota Public Radio News. I'm Gary Eichten.

President Barack Obama is focused on Afghanistan this week. The president is meeting today with NATO Secretary General to discuss NATO's role in the war. This afternoon, the president meets with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Tomorrow, he'll meet with his national security team. Eventually, the president will have to make a critical decision, namely whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan.

Last spring, the president ordered an additional 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan. But the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, says even more troops, may be 40,000 more troops, will be needed if the US has any hope of winning the war. Most Republicans say the president needs to move quickly and approve the troop increase. Many Democrats are urging the president to go slow and reject the troop increase request. Well, during this hour of Midday, we're going to discuss the proposed troop increase.

Joining us this morning is Minnesota first district Democratic Congressman Tim Walz, who was in Afghanistan on a fact finding mission earlier this month. Congressman Walz is a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, and he is the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in the US Congress. He served 24 years in the Army National Guard and retired as a Command Sergeant Major.

Minnesota Congressman Tim Walz is our guest this hour. We're talking about proposals to send more US troops to Afghanistan. And if you have a question or a comment, give us a call here at 651-227-6000, 6651-227-6000. Toll free number 1-800-242-2828 or you can send in your question or comment online. Go to mprnewsq.org and click on Send question.

Congressman, welcome back to Midday.

TIM WALZ: Thanks, Gary. It's always a pleasure to be here.

GARY EICHTEN: General McChrystal reportedly has told the president that the United States can't succeed in Afghanistan unless we have a substantially larger troop commitment, and he says those troops need to be sent soon. Do you agree with that assessment?

TIM WALZ: Well, at this point, we're still trying to get through things. I went over specifically on the second trip to talk with General McChrystal. I think he's incredibly bright. I think his strategy that he's refocusing on as a counterinsurgency, as opposed to just the counterterrorism kind of holding pattern we've been in for eight years. But I think this is an issue that must be vetted.

There's nothing more important that we do in Congress than send our young men and women to war. And I think we've seen eight years. And I listen to the public. They're very frustrated. What have we gained? What's the ultimate outcome? What are these troops going to be used for? And how are you going to measure and guarantee success? So I put a lot of stake and value in what General McChrystal and the Commanders on the ground say.

But just like when President Bush was in, I've been talking about this being the central focus on the War on Terror. I felt it was neglected. And the emphasis on Iraq, I think, distracted us from this mission. So I was critical then, and I'll be critical of this administration to give us what the vision is. What's the plan? How do we succeed? And at this point, I have deep concerns and deep questions to ask.

GARY EICHTEN: What is the mission? What is our mission in Afghanistan?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think-- and I agree that-- I've always said that the folks who perpetrated 9/11 emanated out of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was using a failed state under the Taliban, or at least a dictatorial state to launch missions. I think the mission is to, first and foremost, ensure that this nation never suffers those attacks again and denies Al-Qaeda the safe haven of a failed state to operate from.

I think that's the articulated mission, but I don't think we have actually done that. And the focus on that we were going to take territory, hold territory and kill insurgents is unworkable. And I've been saying that for years too that the focus was on the wrong thing.

If it was about making Afghanistan at least a moderately stable state, then we should have been focusing on the people and the government and not focusing on the insurgents. And that needed to be a separate mission, focusing on bringing those to justice who committed 9/11, tearing down the terrorist networks, tracking the money, making sure they couldn't operate freely. But if it was to make sure Afghanistan didn't become that operating base, we focused on the wrong things for eight years.

GARY EICHTEN: Is the situation in Afghanistan has grim as the reports appear to be? I mean, all the generals seem to be warning that it's pretty grim. Is it?

TIM WALZ: Well, yeah, it's difficult, but I think there's something interesting here. I think what's happening is the generals are speaking honestly. And we're not sugarcoating. We're not talking when we started Iraq, when we heard Secretary Rumsfeld say it'd be weeks, not months, when General Shinseki, at that time, said it will not be. It will be a long time. And it will take a lot of troops.

I think now what you've got is you've got the right people there. I think they're speaking honestly, and I think they're assessing a very difficult situation, a very tumultuous country with a terrain that is almost-- as a geographer, I can tell you this, there's no place else on Earth that looks this rugged. And with 29 million people, 40,000 villages at the heart of three counter insurgencies and war for 30 years, there's a lot of mix in this that's not as simple as we'll smoke you out of your caves. You have to think how you're going to do that.

So I think the situation is difficult. I think it's a challenge. But I think the reason the reports may seem so grim is I think you've got an open environment where you've got the Secretary of Defense, Admiral Mullen's at the Joint Chiefs and the Commanders on the ground like General McChrystal, speaking the truth about what's there. And it's a challenge. There's no doubt about it.

GARY EICHTEN: Secretary Gates, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that if we are defeated in Afghanistan, it would be catastrophic for the United States. If nothing else, it would give Al-Qaeda a big boost in terms of its propaganda war. Agree with that assessment?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think I do. And I think we've given them that boost for eight years. And that's what's troubled me. I think we made an analogy that it was synonymous. Taliban was synonymous with Al-Qaeda. There's no doubt that they were sharing and working together at times. But the Taliban is an internal domestic organization inside Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is worldwide extremism that wants to hurt not just the United States.

I think Secretary Gates could have gone further for all Western nations. So I do think he's right. And that's what makes this so challenging. Again, I think we need to-- and he talks about failure in Afghanistan and victory and success in Afghanistan. We owe it to our warriors that we're talking about this question of sending more troops to define what that looks like, define what it would be.

If it's is that moderately stable state with some good at least local control for the Afghan people will reject the Taliban, will reject the extremism of Al-Qaeda, that's what has to be there. But yes, I do. I accept his rationale that Al-Qaeda makes no doubt about it. They still possess capability. The only non-state actor that can reach internationally and do what they've done. So it is a concern.

GARY EICHTEN: As you talk to your constituents, Congressman, are they fired up about this issue?

TIM WALZ: Not the way I would like to see them. I think there's a great concern. There is a pessimism like you're talking about. I think they're thinking we've been at this thing longer than we were in World War I and World War II combined. You can throw Korea in pretty quick.

They're asking, what have we gained? What are-- when we hear these negative assessments of Taliban's back in 80% of the country, troop deaths are up. We're not seeing any cooperation. We've got an election that could be fraudulent to undermine all of this. I think they're very, very pessimistic about it.

And my goal-- and I'm very pleased you're doing this and I'm hearing more people do it. We have a national responsibility as citizens to engage just as feverishly in this debate, as we have in our engaging on health care. This is critically important. We spent $900 billion in the last eight years. We've sent over 4,000 of our warriors that didn't return. We've got another 20,000 severely wounded. And this is a choice that this nation is going to have to think very carefully about.

GARY EICHTEN: We're talking this hour about Afghanistan, specifically, the decision that the president and the Congress are going to have to make, whether or not more US troops should be sent to Afghanistan. And joining us this first hour of our program is Minnesota Congressman Tim Walz, who represents Minnesota's first district along the Southern border of the state. Congressman Walz spent 24 years in the military. And he is just back. He just came back a few weeks ago from another trip to Afghanistan.

I'd like to have you join our conversation as well. Give us a call at 651-227-6000, 651-227-6000. Our toll free number is 1-800-242-2828. Our online address is mprnewsq.org. When you get there, click on Send a Question. Jerry, go ahead, please.

JERRY: Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I don't think the president has a whole lot of experience or credibility on this matter, and I think he needs to listen to his Commanders. I remember when lots of people were saying the Iraq war was lost and it was not worth it, the president included in that and we turned that around. So I guess that's my comment, that he should just listen to the Commanders and turn it over to them. He can supervise it, but he has no business trying to figure out what's best and what's not best. He needs to listen.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. All right. Thanks, Jerry.

TIM WALZ: Well, Jerry, I appreciate your position. The one thing I would say is I disagree with you on this. He absolutely does. He's not just the commander in chief. He's in charge of our overall foreign policy and strategy. General McChrystal's role is to figure out how we fight a counterinsurgency in one part of the world. The US interests across the world are much broader. And the question the president needs to ask is, how do I best use the resources to secure this nation?

And you're absolutely right. He needs to listen to the Commanders in the specific areas, but he also has to combine this with information coming from the State Department, coming from economic indicators, coming from our NATO allies. We have a system that does not allow the military to control all decisions. It's civilian leadership. Our Constitution was very clear about that to make sure we didn't have a military dictatorship.

But I agree with you that he needs to listen to the folks there. His credibility on the issue, I don't think I agree with you on that, but I can tell you that Congress's responsibility. He has 435 members and hundreds members of the Senate that also need to be actively engaged in this and ask the questions.

And I would argue, Jerry, to what was won in Iraq. Our soldiers fought nobly. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and trained to do, and I would expect nothing less of them. But from an overall national security perspective, what was gained? And I think that's a question that the president most certainly has to ask.

So I appreciate your sentiments on this. I too, went right to and spent a day with General McChrystal because I agree with you. I trust his assessment on the Afghan situation. But I also listened to the State Department, the CIA, USAID, and of course, then the president's decisions.

GARY EICHTEN: Realistically, though, Congressman, can the US just pack up and leave?

TIM WALZ: I don't think so. And this is what's troubling, Gary. And I know there's several different schools of thought. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld seemed to think that you could keep kind of a hands off, a remote fighting of this. We've basically been fighting a counterterrorism operation.

General McChrystal's strategy is switching this and saying it's a counterinsurgency in the way you win those. You win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, who, for the most part, reject the Taliban, without a doubt. But they also do not trust their own government.

My fear is, and I agree, that what's happening in Northeast Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan, in the tribal areas is a safe haven. It's an operating point. It allows the ability for these people to conduct these missions that want to harm the West. I know. I don't think we can. But the question is, how big our footprint there is? What's the focus? Are we going to gain the support?

And I think one of the fears, and this is what the American people need to recognize, is we can do everything in our power from a resource standpoint to our military and to this mission, carry it out perfectly. If the Afghan government under President Karzai has not seen as legitimate collapse, does not provide security for the people, we will not be successful.

And so we have to figure out how to combine all these very challenging pieces, but still being focused on allowing those folks to operate freely. Not focusing on Pakistan and strengthening their ability to root out the extremism, I think, would be a grave mistake. I know Secretary Rice kind of extrapolated further to another 9/11. I don't know if we can make that assumption, but I think it is wise to assume that's what they would like to do. And so we have to be very smart about this.

GARY EICHTEN: Is the Obama administration split on this, the president's advisors, military on one side, civilian on the other?

TIM WALZ: I don't believe so. What I'm hearing-- and we spend a lot of time. When you go on these congressional delegations, you spend a lot of time with the civilian sector. You spend time with the military looking at all these aspects, briefing and asking the questions in some of these. Some are open, unclassified, others are classified.

I think there's a very concerted effort here. I think what they're doing is the right. And the smart thing is they're listening and drawing this information from all sources and reevaluating as they should reevaluate. Because quite honestly, this discussion should have happened, in my opinion, eight years ago.

And I don't think it-- I'm not a sage on this, but I think it was very obvious to me that General McChrystal talks about the math of killing two insurgents and a few civilians, ends up creating 10 insurgents and a lot of angry civilians, and that doesn't get your mission completed. So I think they agreed together, where we need to be. I'm not sure that there's yet a coalesced around one strategy to do that.

GARY EICHTEN: Tom, go ahead, please.

TOM: Thank you. Representative Walz, the British have lost three times in Afghanistan, the Russians once, and we've had our Vietnam. What makes us think that the hearts and minds campaign is going to work for us? I'd like to see some hope, but so far, we just keep hearing more and more about civilian deaths in Afghanistan and a tremendous level of corruption with the Karzai government. So why should we be hopeful? And what should we look for, if things are going in a good direction?

TIM WALZ: Now, it's a great question. And I agree with Tom. Tom's got a great point here. This whole thing, and General McChrystal stresses this to, the success of this mission and whether we make the quote unquote, "win" in Afghanistan is dependent on the Afghan people.

And I would share my concerns with Tom. And I would tell you it's really influencing where I'm at on this issue because the Karzai government, I've met with some of his ministers, had supper with a few of them. They seem to be fairly well-versed people and I think talented on this. President Karzai's legitimacy is definitely at question here. This election has been, in my opinion, a real setback.

I was hoping, and this is not the position of the US government, it's my position, that President Karzai would call for a runoff with Abdullah and then just let it be settled that way and let this take away this question of that, because Tom is right. And it's what I want to know. And what I'm assessing is that we can send in any number of troops, any number of resources, have the best generals on the ground, the best warriors on the ground, and we could still not get what considered a win, because you would still have a failed Afghani state. Because right now, the corruption in the Karzai government.

The people are turning to the Taliban as much as the Afghan people dislike the Taliban, which they do. The Taliban, at least in some cases, is adjudicating things fairly. They root out corruption. They have a system granted operating out of Pakistan under Mullah Omar, that has a complaint system for their governors. They have a shadow government that's shadowing the Karzai government, where Karzai's ministers aren't held accountable. The Taliban's at least are.

And we may disagree on how they're held accountable with execution or whatever it might be. But the people are starting to see this and weighing their options and saying, at the end of the day, at least there's some stability there. I don't like it, but it's better than going this way.

So Tom is right. And I think if those questions aren't answered, Tom, then it's going to be hard to convince the folks that this is the right direction to go. And going back to Jerry's point on this is the Commanders on the ground are going to stress what it takes to win militarily and go in the hearts and minds. But there's a whole spectrum of other things that play into this. So it's a great question.

GARY EICHTEN: Paul, your question, please.

PAUL: Yes. Actually, listening on it brought up a couple of more, but I'll try to stick with what I was originally going to ask, which is I am a member of the National Guard. I am enlisted, married with children. Question-- my biggest question is, what are they going to do about deployments over there? When is that going to be answered? I've heard a lot of they're discussing it, but do we know when?

And the next question then would be, speaking of Afghan and hearts and minds and things, what kind of correlations, if that's even the right word, between when the Russians or the Soviets-- when the Soviets were over in Afghanistan, and the hearts and minds that they tried to do over in Vietnam? What have they learned from that, and what are they doing differently now?

TIM WALZ: Yeah. Well, first of all, Paul, thanks for your service. And more than maybe has just more important your family service because I understand what they're going through and your deployments. And the answer to your question, not sarcastically, is maybe very little over the last eight years, what we've learned about this. I'll give you an example. And Paul probably appreciates this.

When I went to Afghanistan in 2008, I was given a huge escort. Myself and other members of Congress, we blasted people off the roads. We act like we own the roads. And these are Afghans trying to go to work, pick their kids up from school, things like that. Very irritating. They see us as occupiers.

General McChrystal strategy now as this time we went is we were in an unmarked van and we rode in traffic. And they offered us the opportunity as we were out talking to folks to wear a flak vest, to wear Kevlar. But General McChrystal did not. And many of his members and we chose not to, some of us chose not to, of showing that with support and the solidarity of trying to win the hearts and minds.

But it's very, very difficult. We spent eight years not doing that, doing our mission. The soldiers were doing what they were supposed to do. And this mission doing it this way, there's no doubt. And this is a valid question. It's going to be more dangerous for our troops to try and win this. And the Soviets never won the hearts and minds.

And I think that this is what we have to ask. And this is why I'm engaging in asking folks to call in to give their opinion. We're going to hold town halls to tell us why we think this is possible. And those are the questions you should be expecting your members of Congress to answer.

And at this point, Paul's question is right at the heart of are we going to win on this and have we learned anything? I think now we're learning. I think General McChrystal is right. The question is, is it too little, too late?

GARY EICHTEN: Paul also wants to know when he's going to know.

TIM WALZ: Yeah. Well--

GARY EICHTEN: And when would that be?

TIM WALZ: Yeah. Well, I do know that we have about 300 Minnesotans in Afghanistan. I think there's very little doubt. I think we've received a notice of sourcing. Paul probably recognizes what that means is. Kind of a warning order to get ready. Probably sometime around 2011, we're going to see a brigade sized element.

And I think all of us in Minnesota know when we're talking brigade sized elements, that's the first brigade of the Red Bulls, who still have the distinction of serving the longest time in combat zone of any unit since World War II. And they've served before on other missions. They were in Kosovo. They were in Europe. And they're going to be asked again.

So again, this is a question. We don't have a lot of troops. We have troops ready. We have troops willing to do whatever is asked of them. But Paul made a statement. National guardsmen with a job, married with children, has done his service. Give me a heads up when I can expect to go again, and what my mission is. And right now, they don't know what their mission is. So I think you can-- Paul, that's an answer. Best I can tell you is probably look the next couple of years.

GARY EICHTEN: How much more dangerous is it going to be for US troops in Afghanistan pursuing, following the tactics that McChrystal has laid out, which includes much less reliance on airstrikes, fewer artillery bombardments to support ground troops? In other words, it sounds like the men and women are out there on their own, basically.

TIM WALZ: Well, this is a fabulous question. And actually, my colleagues who are with me, there were six members, Republican and Democrats, and I was the one asking this question because it's come up. Does this new strategy in trying to reduce civilian deaths, trying to say, we're not going to try and go in and kick down the door in this village or whatever, what's that doing?

I talked to every member. I talked to every sergeant majors out there in charge of this, that I went special forces, all the folks that were there and said, does our rules of engagement, the row is what the military calls, our rules of engagement, putting you at more risk? Unequivocally, they said no. Is it going to be down the long run a little harder? Yeah, I think the answer is that it will be. But the Commanders are very cognizant of this.

But I think this is the case of we're going to be shaking branches that we haven't shaken before, and folks are going to fall out that want to do us harm. They're becoming more sophisticated with their improvised explosive devices. There's no doubt that the Al-Qaeda and foreign fighters learned this in Iraq and are bringing that knowledge back. We don't have enough MRAP vehicles, the mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. And so yeah, I think it will be.

But I can tell you the strategy and the way the Commanders look at this, we're not hamstringing or tying the hands of our troops on the ground. We're not putting them in a position where they cannot defend and protect themselves. But what we are saying is the protection of the civilian population in Afghanistan is the road to victory. That is how you do it. If they are not protected, there is no chance to win the hearts and minds.

GARY EICHTEN: Pete, quick question here before we break for news.

PETE: Yeah, I know that there's a politics and a military much like in corporate America. And I know when I think a project isn't going well in a company that I don't want to really put my name on it. I wonder if there's any significance. And David Petraeus was put out there as a pretty marquee player in this strategy of counterinsurgency in Iraq.

And I know that there's some different command structure with McChrystal in there at this point at the Afghanistan level. But is there any significance that we should take away from not hearing from David Petraeus put out there on all the talk shows like he was for Iraq?

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Thanks, Pete. Yes, he's supposed to be the main man.

TIM WALZ: He is. He's still the commander there. He supports. And Pete, he has actually come out and made statements that he's in support of General McChrystal's strategy. He stresses the importance of this. And I actually had the opportunity. This summer, I spoke at the American Legion National Convention in Louisville, and General Petraeus was there and mentioned the commitment to getting this right to success in Afghanistan.

I think what he's doing is what a central or upper level commander should do. He's allowing his field Commanders to assess the situation and given the freedom. That's how our military works best. But I do think you should probably watch a little bit there. But he is in support of this. He is absolutely committed to it. And I think most of the troops that I talked to-- General McChrystal is a singularly unique individual and has the support of his folks. What he's doing is unprecedented.

And I think there's maybe some of your listeners out there saying, is he going to be another Petraeus executing a strategy that works really well, or is he going to be Westmoreland continuing to ask for troops? And he's a man up to the task. He's a man of honesty and integrity. And I think that's what's more happening here, Pete, if you want to know the politics, that he's letting his Commanders on the ground do what they're trained to do.

GARY EICHTEN: Talking about the debate underway as to whether more US troops should be sent to Afghanistan, President Obama is weighing lots of recommendations, lots of meetings being held this week, even. Joining us here in studio to share his thoughts on the issue, Minnesota Congressman, first district Democratic Congressman Tim Walz, who was just in Afghanistan earlier this month. Back for another fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. He's here to share his thoughts.

Love to have you join our conversation. Give us a call at 651-227-6000, 651-227-6000. Toll free number 1-800-242-2828. Online address mprnewsq.org. When you get there, click on Send a Question. We'll continue here in a couple of minutes.

SPEAKER 2: Programming is supported by Iron Range Resources, helping businesses and communities grow in Northeastern Minnesota. Iron Range Resources, your vision, our backing. You can visit them at businessesbeautiful.com

SPEAKER 3: MPR News Q has a new commentary page with thoughtful opinions from people in your community. Explore perspectives on the news from people in the know. Go to mprnewsq.org and click on commentary.

PHIL PICARDI: From Minnesota Public Radio News, I'm Phil Picardi. An Afghan immigrant has pleaded not guilty to plotting a terrorist attack on New York City using common chemicals. Najibullah Zazi, his lawyer, entered the plea today in Brooklyn, where Zazi was ordered held without bail. The defense lawyer says what he's seen so far does not amount to a conspiracy.

Three Americans who have been detained in Iran, including one from Minnesota, will apparently be getting a visit. US officials say Iran has notified the Swiss government that it can have access to the three, who were arrested for illegal entry in late July. The move could be a conciliatory gesture on Iran's part. It comes ahead of a meeting between Iran and five world powers. Hiker Shane Bauer was born in Minnesota.

Iran's nuclear chief says the site of a uranium enrichment facility was chosen to make sure the country's nuclear activities are able to continue in case of attack. He says that's the reason the facility was built inside a mountain and next to a military base. The disclosure of the site brought new pressure on Iran to come clean on its nuclear program.

A new poll finds a majority of Minnesotans don't want Governor Tim Pawlenty to run for president in 2012. The star Tribune Minnesota poll conducted last week found 55% against Pawlenty running for president, with 30% in favor. Still, the poll also found that half of Minnesotans would consider voting for Pawlenty if he were nominated for president by the Republicans. The poll also looked at first term DFL Senator Al Franken. He took office in July after a long contested election. Franken has a job approval rating, according to the poll, of 41% with 30% still undecided on his performance.

Partly cloudy skies in the East this morning. Otherwise, sunshine throughout the day. High temperatures 50 to 60 degrees. There's a freeze warning in Northeastern Minnesota for tonight, and a frost advisory for parts of East Central and Southeastern Minnesota for tonight. This is Minnesota Public Radio News.

GARY EICHTEN: And this is midday coming to you on Minnesota Public Radio News. Good morning. I'm Gary Eichten. It's about 26 minutes now before 12 and over the noon hour. Interesting debate. We're going to have a debate. Six folks debating the issue of whether Buy America policies are good for America, or whether they are a hold over from another age. I think you'll find that real interesting. We'll get to that over the noon hour.

This hour, we're talking about proposals to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. Joining us here in the studio, Minnesota first district Democratic Congressman Tim Walz, who was in Afghanistan earlier this month, and who, along with other members of Congress, is going to face a pretty tough decision in a while here as to whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. 651-227-6000 or 1-800-242-2828, online address mprnewsq.org. Click on Send a Question. Jenna, go ahead, please.

JENNA: Yes, I'm calling in to find out whether Congressman Walz has heard some of this stuff that Obama is being pushed into a quick decision by McChrystal and Petraeus, partly because of the leaked memo to the Washington Post by Bob Woodward. Is there-- is this a military push to see troops in there? Petraeus did a good job in Iraq, for the most part, but he's not-- it's not a wonderful result by any means. And are we now going to do that whole thing? Is the military going to push for more troops? And where are they going to come from?

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Thanks, Jenna.

TIM WALZ: No. Good question, Jenna. The thing is, while the military is-- and the first, I would say, is the integrity and the commitment to the country by General McChrystal and Petraeus is above reproach. I think the leaked memo through Woodward and things, probably one of the worst kept secrets in military planning. I think most of us knew that. I was with myself, with General McChrystal, and at that point a semi-classified, but not high security briefing where there were quite a few numbers of civilian staffers there.

So I think a lot of people knew this was coming. He had been talking about it publicly. But I do think they're going to assess their strategy to try and put things out there. General McChrystal has made it very clear that he thinks the president's doing the right thing by carefully evaluating, by taking a little time.

I know there are going to be some. And I saw Senator Kyle on one of the Sunday morning talk shows saying that we got to do this now and the commanders have it or the failures on Obama. Senator Kyle hasn't said a thing in eight years about this that led us anywhere further. So I take that with a bit of grain of salt.

But what I can tell you, Jenna, my assessment, my knowledge of the military, my knowledge of being on the ground there and spending a day with General McChrystal and having spent quite a bit of time with General Petraeus is, no, that's not the case. They're going to advocate-- just like an earlier caller said, he thinks we should just accept theirs and that's the strategy. That's not it. They're going to advocate for what they think is the right solution. The president's going to weigh a lot of different pieces of advice, and that's what should be done.

So my point is that we do have a time frame here that needs to be worked on, but this is too important to not engage the public on. And when you're asking these questions and calling in and listening and bringing this up, that's what you should be doing. I'm going to have a series of town halls, just like the health care town halls, to hopefully get people engaged on what I consider to be an equally important topic, how we're going to deal with this situation.

GARY EICHTEN: Does the president have to get congressional approval to send these additional troops to Afghanistan?

TIM WALZ: He does not. But what he'll need is resourcing. And this is something that's always a very difficult question. I think what you're probably going to see is a lot of people are convinced that the way you end these conflicts is by withholding resources for them. Whether it's an unpopular position or not, I don't share that position with them.

I think that once you've committed troops, and once the president commits troops, that decision has been made. And what we need to do is if we disagree with that, is work on trying to put a better policy out and hold them accountable. But Congresses really only way to do this is by withholding resources.

And I have-- it's my experience, and it's my moral belief and ethical belief that is-- that can't be done to the troops. There are others that disagree. And I don't claim to have a moral superior position. It's just one that I hold. But no, if he chooses to do this, the question will be he can't do it without the resources, and he'll want to make sure that's lined up first.

GARY EICHTEN: Is there any evidence, Congressman, as to when it is that Afghan security forces would be able to carry the burden themselves?

TIM WALZ: And that's where this thing will be won. As you said, it will be won. The hearts, minds will be won in the security of the Afghans feeling they can go to that. This strategy calls for about 240,000 Afghan troops, about 160,000 police, for a total of about 400,000 to control the country.

This is pretty massive. They're not nearly there yet. The initial big push on this to get above 50% or so was to be done in 2011. General McChrystal is saying it must be done by October of 2010 to get there. The training is coming along. This is something-- whenever I go and visit these places, I see what these folks are doing.

And I asked our folks, these are special forces trainers, seals, Green Beret, things like that. And they said that there's groups of commandos now in a fairly large number of them. That's what they call their elite troops in Afghanistan. And I asked them, compare them to the US troops. And he said they are like a very well-trained infantry company, which is a high praise, which makes them among some of the elite forces, traditional army forces in the world.

So I think there's reason to believe they're coming along. They have to come along, that we have to accelerate this. I think the same thing we heard in Afghanistan or in Iraq. We kept hearing reports about how many people were being trained, and how many were ready.

And I think when we look back, we weren't hearing honest assessments on that. And that posed the problem. I think we are here. And I think October of 2010, there will be a critical mass of these folks that may be able to maintain some security in these regions.

GARY EICHTEN: Dan, your question, please.

DAN: Well, Afghanistan, historically in the last 200 years, it has been a loser for every country that gets involved there. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan. It destroyed the Soviet Union. And now, we think we're going to go over there, and we're going to train these elite troops. This Congressman wants to put more troops in Afghanistan. You're going to need 200,000 or 300,000 troops in Afghanistan to really keep the Taliban from taking over all these rural areas. Afghanistan's population is spread out brutally.

GARY EICHTEN: All right. Fool's errand, basically, Congressman.

TIM WALZ: Well, that's the argument. And I don't know if Dan was referring. I have not said that I want to put them there. I said, I'm assessing this situation, and I'm a geographer and a history person. And so Dan is not saying anything that I don't literally lose sleep over.

The number he says is 200, 300. It's actually 400,000 is what it takes. So he's not overstating the momentous size of this task. But I do think we need to have an open, honest debate in this country. If we're going to bring these troops home, what exactly is that going to mean?

And I'm not saying that just as the sky is falling and it's pessimism, but I do think you need to assess that the Taliban, in conjunction with Al-Qaeda and other extremist forces, I think, will be open to using this area as a staging ground. It is possible that we could leave. The Karzai government could stand up on its own. Afghanistan could do this on its own. And they could go out and capture these folks, and they could convince Pakistan to join them. I think that's a tall order.

And this may be one of those things, Dan, and this is a tough one. That I'm trying to wrap my mind around is there is no good answer here. What we have to decide is what is in the long-term best Interest of the security interest of the United States, and how do we best do that to build a coalition.

As President Obama, I think, rightfully told the European Union and the rest of the world, we can't be expected to solve all the problems. We will do our share. But Al-Qaeda has struck in Madrid. They've struck in London. They will strike wherever they can against the West. So we need to figure that out. But I'm not advocating at this point dropping them in. I, in fact, need to see a lot of proof here. And your point is well taken.

GARY EICHTEN: What's your thinking, Congressman, on the Taliban? Let's assume that they came back into power in Afghanistan. Are you just assuming that categorical, they'll let Al-Qaeda operate in Afghanistan?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think there's ample reason to believe they might be friendly to that, but it's not a given in stone. And as I've said before, don't make the mistake as which I think we did early in this fight, that it's synonymous with that. No doubt, Mullah Omar and the Taliban was allowing Osama bin Laden and those folks to operate freely.

But in large portions of the country, a lot of these so-called Taliban Commanders and things or former Mujahideen, they have an extremist view of how a society should be organized, not widely accepted by the Afghan population, where you don't see necessarily a lot of headscarves in Kabul. You do in the rural regions.

But I think there's reason to believe there's a lot of analysts, well, at least some analysts that believe the Taliban could be flipped, to flip them over and say, we're going to give you more control, you're going to be part of this. I think it may be worth looking at for the Karzai government to engage them a little bit.

Now, I say that with great apprehension and great reserve. Because long before September 11 and as a geography teacher, the Taliban horrified me, their treatment of women. I think many of your listeners probably remember, Gary, the executions of the women in the stadium, the destruction of the Buddhist statues, just total disregard for culture, human life and things like that. But at the end of the day, they have much more of a domestic agenda than they do an international agenda. And I think that's important to keep in mind.

But I would also-- and I know some of your listeners are out there listening, if Al-Qaeda is looking for a failed state and Afghanistan starts to stabilize to a certain degree, mostly by Afghans own work, that doesn't mean there aren't other places around the world. Somalia is the one that comes mostly to mind. So when the caller who called in earlier said, just listen to the Commanders--

I stopped through Kenya and got on the boats just South of the Somali border with our seal forces to see what's going on there, what's happening there. And the same thing is carrying itself out there. So this is a broad issue. And I think our strategy, unfortunately, whether it be what I consider to be a neglect of the situation in Afghanistan and an overemphasis on Iraq, has put us in a position where we have some very tough choices to make in the near future.

GARY EICHTEN: Setting aside the potential Taliban, Al-Qaeda connection. Let's assume that there is no connection. Taliban come back to power. They don't want any part of Al-Qaeda. They don't want to get blasted again as they did in 2001. What's you're thinking? Is the US in a position to accept that and all that goes with that, the closing of the schools, the torture, all of the rest of it?

TIM WALZ: Well, I think that's the real challenge. And we see it around the world in other places. I know this mission originally started out on making sure we got the folks who were responsible for 9/11 and then the traditional or, unfortunately, traditional mission creep snuck into this. And all of a sudden, we were nation building. I was never under any illusion that Afghanistan would look anything like a Western democracy.

But I do believe there are certain human rights and certain global principles that must be adhered to. And I think it's the world's responsibility to try their best to enforce those, whether it's an Iran trying to arm nuclear or whether it's abuse of your own citizens, why we see in either Myanmar or Afghanistan.

But I think we have to think very clearly that we got into, especially the last eight years, that the solution was always military. I think we've proven that that's not the case. We have by far the greatest military that ever-- the world has ever seen. But that alone will not solve all these.

So I think we need to have that question. Will a Taliban not adhering to Western style democratic principles, but at least staying within boundaries of acceptable international law? Could we live with that? I think, yeah. Crossing over that line, execution of women, things like that, then I think the answer is no. But we have to figure out a smart way to try and get allies to do that.

GARY EICHTEN: Back to the phones. Bob, you're up next. Go ahead, please.

BOB: Yes, I'm just-- my name is Bob from Minneapolis. Just curious. You've touched on it a bit about the-- I'm just curious about the overlap. How do if you're shooting a Taliban or an Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? And how can we talk about Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan?

TIM WALZ: On the first question, very difficult to do that. On the second question, you absolutely cannot. On my first trip, Bob, to the region, I was in Pakistan because I was very concerned about what was at that point, appearing after the assassination of Buddha. And it looked like a disintegrating of Pakistan society.

A failed state with nuclear weapons is the world's nightmare. There is no doubt about that. Afghanistan is being heavily influenced by Pakistan. Mullah Omar is working out of Quetta there, I believe it is. And those tribal provinces, we have to engage them.

And again, I think we did, which is a classic mistake, is we engaged and saw a state at the point in the early part of this war as Pakistan being an ally, when in fact, they weren't. They were kind of playing both sides of the hand, not doing what they needed to do in the tribal areas, but still getting US aid. For all the aid that's gone into Pakistan, I think people should know, and I've been there and seen this, not one of those projects has any reference to that we did it for them. I think that's an important part of winning friendship on this.

So no, we have to engage them more. You can't deal with Pakistan without engaging them. And the issue that you said engaging the Taliban, that was our belief that we went in militarily, and we drove them out. They just went into the mountains, waited.

And what's happening now is if you think this is a tank landing kill insurgents type of thing, we simply sweep through. And the minute we're gone, two or three of these guys come back down, chop a hand off or execute someone, start reinforcing their law, and we've lost that area again. So that's what makes it so complicated.

And at this point, I think the people who know the difference, who can tell the difference between Al-Qaeda and Taliban are the Afghans themselves. And that's what General McChrystal understood. Our best intelligence comes from these folks. Our best chance of success is when the Afghan people who dislike with a huge majority dislike the Taliban have the capacity to rise up and push them back out.

GARY EICHTEN: Penny, your question.

PENNY: I'm curious, with the addition of-- for the training of the 400,000 Afghani troops, who's going to pay for that training initially? And in the long run, if the only crop that comes out of Afghanistan is poppies for heroin?

TIM WALZ: No, you're absolutely right. And I think a question that we also should ask is that, we spend a lot of money and time training the Mujahideen, who are now fighting against us in the very same place. Is there any guarantee? And I asked folks this, are there any guarantees that this well-trained commando group is not going to be on the other side in a very short amount of time? And our Commanders said, well, we can't give you an absolute answer on that, but we think we're screening them. We're talking about human rights. They're getting a wide breadth and spectrum of training.

You know who's going to pay for this, Penny. And that's a question why I'm taking it to my folks. I hear a lot of folks talking about it. And Senator Kyle and some of the callers say, give them the troops and do it right now. We spent $900 billion on this endeavor already, $200 billion of it in Afghanistan, and with very little to show for it. So I don't want the public thinking that you can have one way and not the other.

If you're going to talk and complain that health care for US citizens is too expensive, then you better decide how much you're willing to spend on this, and how are you guaranteeing just to simply say-- like Secretary Rice said, is if we don't do this, they'll do another 9/11. Well, let's-- that very well may be true, but let's find out how we prove that, how we best stop it, and how we get use for our resources. But you're absolutely right.

GARY EICHTEN: A couple of Iraq-related questions. Number one, if we accelerate troop withdrawals from Iraq, does that make the decision on Afghanistan a little easier, presumably you'd have more troops to work with? Number two, if you withdraw a little quicker from Iraq, does that just give Al-Qaeda another place to go hang out?

TIM WALZ: Well, yeah. And I think people need to be careful. I have spent time in Iraq. Also, one of the earlier callers mentioned that we won there and it's over. Keep an eye on the news. And I think you may see things aren't exactly what we would like domestically there.

But I think it's very important to keep in mind the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is not just a few miles or things like that. It's literally light years in terms of development and infrastructure and say what you will, a horribly reprehensible government under Saddam Hussein, but had working ministries, water, things like that. All of that, not the case in Afghanistan in many cases.

So as far as the acceleration of troops, yes, it's possible, but these troops need to rest, recuperate, refit. You heard Paul say it in-- and this is-- you could hear it in his voice. This is a guy willing to do whatever he wanted-- whatever is needed for his country. But there comes a fatigue in this. And that fatigue is not just that I don't want to do it. It becomes really measurable in performance on what they're able to do.

And I think right now, the public needs to understand our military and is well-trained and well-equipped, and the attitude that they have still can reach a breaking point. And so you can't just take troops that have served 12 months in Iraq and then just ship them right over to Afghanistan. For one thing, it's an entirely different situation going on. It's an entirely different struggle. And these folks need to be fitted with different types of equipment in many cases.

GARY EICHTEN: Bruce, your question, please.

BRUCE: Yes, thanks. Congressman, you've got a big responsibility here. And that's why you're on the phones, on shows like Gary's, and town hall meetings. You're trying to make up your mind. And it seems to me that you're afraid of the future. You're afraid of what sort of a decision that you're going to make and how that's going to affect us in the future. And the future is not for sure.

Afghanistan seems to me to be much more like Vietnam than Iraq was. The country is larger. It's more spread out. There's a Taliban there that can be equated with the Viet Cong rhetorically. And the governments that we-- in the early '60s that we installed, and then reinstalled because they were corrupt is the same that's going on here in Afghanistan.

Now, what sort of difference? Would we have been any worse off in Vietnam? And I'm saying this to look back, so you can make a decision in the future. If you look-- if we would have withdrawn troops, our presence from Vietnam in the mid '60s rather than the mid '70s, would we be in any worse off, any better off?

TIM WALZ: OK. Valid point. Well, the first thing, Bruce, is-- and I do think you make a valid point. And I'll discuss it just briefly. But the first thing is, it's not-- what you're hearing from me is not afraid of the future. My responsibility lies with the mother and father, husbands and wives, children of the folks that we're going to go ask and send into harm's way, and they will die. There will be members of them dying.

And that is the most important, and the most agonizing decision I make. And I refused to do it based solely on ideology. If the facts do not support my ideology, I'm going to change my ideology, not just look for facts that support it. So I am agonizing, yes. I am concerned about a future that doesn't work right on this. That's why the front planning makes a difference.

And I would say, I'm not so certain that your analogy with Vietnam, it actually works in this case, not on the insurgency side. Because I think that we have to come to grips with and understand, is this group, is Al-Qaeda as a group a truly exponential threat to the United States? They've proven that they have a reach that, as I said.

The Vietnamese, for whether it was adhering to basic human conduct or choosing not to, did not reach and wreak havoc inside the United States per se in military. They did, obviously, culturally and the struggle that went on. But this is Al-Qaeda that did perpetuate and perpetrate 9/11 would love to do so again. And I think that's the question.

So I asked Bruce-- and I think you bring up a very good point on this, Bruce. And I don't know. You very well be right. This may be-- it could be an overexaggeration of the threat, and that maybe all of this has been for naught, and these people will just go away. My question is that I'm not certain that I believe that. And I think the risk and the responsibility I have to make sure I turn over every stone is that great.

GARY EICHTEN: One sobering lesson or fact from Vietnam was that in the mid '60s, '64 or '65, then President Lyndon Johnson is on tape as having-- as saying, we're not-- there's no way we can win this war. But of course, I can't withdraw the troops, because then I would be accused of losing the war.

TIM WALZ: Yeah.

GARY EICHTEN: And so the war went on for another 10 years. 40,000 more, 50,000 more people died as a result, US troops. Same thing here where President Obama is going to look at this and say, it's-- basically, we can't win there, but I can't afford to pull the troops out.

TIM WALZ: I don't think so. And I say that I can't speak with absolute certainty. I think the difference is, and this question got asked to General McChrystal on one of his interviews, or maybe 60 Minutes or something, and they said, if you think this can't be won, what do you do? He said, I will immediately say that today to the president, and to that, and I will set plans for how we withdraw.

And I think maybe the difference here is that we've created much more of a culture where our military leaders have the ability to make those decisions. They understand that they're responsible to the commander in chief. They understand and will support his ultimate decision. And I would like to think, and I would hope all listeners would, of all of us, that if there were a way to end this and you would lose politically because of that, I would sure hope they would choose the ending this and walk away and do something else.

And I think-- at least I feel very strongly about this. This is to me, that's why I'm out there. I'm going to talk about it. I'm going to hear. I would hope nobody's out there saying, boy, this is a no winner, politically. I don't think it is. This is-- this has bad written all over it, but it's too important to deal with. And I think that's changed. And I think that's a positive in our country that we're doing that better.

GARY EICHTEN: In a nutshell, Congressman, not too much time left, but I'm curious, what criteria will you personally bring to your decision as to whether support troop increase?

TIM WALZ: Well, I want to see what the metrics are of how they show this is actually going to work. I want to see examples of success that's happened on this. I want to know, and when-- I agree with Secretary Gates. To a certain degree, he said you can't set a timeline for getting out. No, but I do believe you can set an exit strategy based on plans. I want to know how that's going to happen, how they're going to show that these are going to make a difference, how they're going to be protected, and how we, back here, will know we're making any difference.

Because I'll tell you on just one quick story. We started building a road in one part of the province. A soldier told me about this and all this-- it was a place that was very safe. All of a sudden, it started getting very dangerous. They couldn't figure out why. They finally ended up setting up a meeting with someone, and they said, because if you build this road, it will allow people to come up here and take our timber, and we don't want it.

That's how complicated this thing is. And we need to have a strategy that doesn't make mistakes like that, doesn't put our soldiers at risk. But it does, I think, bring it down and boil it down. As some of your callers said, this place has been a disaster for a long time.

GARY EICHTEN: Congressman Tim Walz, thanks for joining us today.

TIM WALZ: Thanks, Gary.

GARY EICHTEN: Minnesota first district Congressman Tim Walz, joining us to talk about proposals to increase US troop strength in Afghanistan. Congressman Walz was in Afghanistan just a couple of weeks ago. He is, among other things, the highest ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in the US Congress.

SPEAKER 4: Each weekday, Minnesota Public Radio News invites you to join the conversation on mprnewsq.org. Today's question. When you have a choice, do you try to buy American? Share your answer. Go to mprnewsq.org.

GARY EICHTEN: Lots of responses, as you might imagine. Peter says, I bought a Subaru, which is part of a large Japanese Corporation, all parts made in Germany and assembled in Indiana. Between immigration and globalization, the notion of buying American on its own merit is antiquated and inefficient.

Kelley says, I buy American whenever possible. I look for American products. I totally avoid food from China. My daily job is in imports. And yet I wholeheartedly feel that in the long run, we need to support American products and materials. Well, we'd love to have you join our conversation. Go to mprnewsq.org and click on today's question or text us, 677-677.

SPEAKER 2: Programming is supported by Minnesota monthly's wine week, where you can savor, sip and sample from over 20 local restaurants offering customized wines and food pairings October 4 to the 10. More at minnesotamonthly.com/wineweek.

SPEAKER 5: Support for this program comes from Gustavus Adolphus College's Nobel Conference 45, October 6 and 7. H20 uncertain resource will examine the state of the world's critical and precious water resources, gustavus.edu/nobelconference.

SPEAKER 6: Sometimes all a do it yourself mechanic needs is a little encouragement.

SPEAKER 7: We tend to be a little bit shy about hitting the $60 million instruments.

SPEAKER 6: Hey, someone's got to do it. And you have to be prepared. Always be ready with a plan B.

SPEAKER 7: I did put some air in the tires yesterday.

SPEAKER 8: How about rubber? Did you put any rubber in there? We're Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers. Join us for Car Talk.

SPEAKER 9: Listen to car talk. Saturdays at 11:00 and Sundays at 1:00 on Minnesota Public Radio News.