MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 6, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Good evening. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
Tonight, we're going to take a look at Afghanistan. And later in the show, we'll be dealing with a disrespectful cartoon that may raise some issues as to how we sustain the morale needed for this war effort.
But first, Afghanistan is thousands of miles away from America. And, sadly, until a few days ago, it was probably just as far away from the minds of many Americans. I think the success there had led folks perhaps to think that all was over in Afghanistan.
But now, as we've seen the first day of real and significant casualties, as we mourn those losses, we are also led to look at what the U.S. is doing in response to what appears to be continuing resistance. U.S. troops continue their pursuit of the remaining al Qaeda forces.
The Pentagon calls it Operation Anaconda, referring to the boa constrictor-like strategy that they are using, our forces fighting in a remote, mountainous region in the eastern part of the country near Gardez, where hundreds of opposition soldiers remain. That area is being circled by our forces, choking off all escape routes.
We're going to take a look at the developments in Afghanistan this evening and talk a little bit about future implications. But first, here's the latest on today's developments from MSNBC's Tom Aspell.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOM ASPELL, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Five days of intense combat, American ground forces and their Afghan allies flushing out al Qaeda and hard-core Taliban fighters from caves and tunnels in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, now believe the battle is going their way.
FRANK HAGENBECK, MAJOR GENERAL, OPERATION ANACONDA: We've got confirmed kills in the hundreds. We truly have the momentum at this point.
ASPELL: Nearly 1,000 American soldiers have been helicoptered into the Shah-e-Kot mountains to push what's left of the al Qaeda and Taliban towards blocking forces around the edges of this 60-square-mile battlefield. American soldiers haven't fought in these conditions since the Korean war, mountains more than 10,000 feet high, and subzero temperatures, and an enemy which keeps firing back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's another one. You start hearing them whiz by your head. So we both took cover, pinpointed where the attack was coming from, returned fire.
ASPELL: Afghan soldiers, trained by American Special Forces over the past month, are arriving from Kabul and northern areas to join the fight. Today in Gardez, the provincial capital 10 miles north of the battlefield, leaflets were passed out, offering a $4,000 reward for information leading to the capture of al Qaeda fighters.
But money may not work. Most folks here still sympathize with the Taliban and are resentful of Americans fighting in their tribal areas.
With American commanders saying today that already half the enemy force has been killed and there is no way out for those left, Operation Anaconda could be over within a few days.
(on camera): American forces need a decisive victory here, not just to prove to their Afghan allies that they can fight hand-to-hand on the ground, but to convince the local population to stop supporting al Qaeda and the hard-core Taliban fighters, and prevent them regrouping again so close to the Pakistani border.
Tom Aspell, NBC News, Gardez.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: It's 8:02 in Afghanistan right now in the morning. And our forces are gearing up for another day of challenge. MSNBC's Ron Allen joins us live via videophone from Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Ron, welcome to MAKING SENSE. What is the...
RON ALLEN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: : Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: What is the day likely to hold for our forces there now?
ALLEN: Well, there are reports that the United States is going to send more reinforcements to the front line, hundreds more troops as well as attack aircraft and helicopters. They feel that they have the upper hand now. There have not been any casualties for the past couple of days of fighting since those incidents involving the Chinook helicopters.
The American commanders, based on what they're saying here, think that the tide has turned. But they figured out the problems that were plaguing the operation in the first few days. And they are now intent on finishing this pocket of resistance off, Alan.
KEYES: Now, what we are looking at, is it an episode that is likely to be repeated, these kinds of operations? Are we going to see more pockets of resistance like this with the possibility of further casualties as we try to pacify the country completely?
ALLEN: I think a number of people at the Pentagon have said to the American public that there is the possibility of more casualties. It's certainly a sensitive issue with the American public. And the Pentagon wants to keep support for this war.
There are a lot of Taliban fighters who are dispersed throughout the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. In fact, there are Taliban supporters who are dispersed throughout the country.
These are people who did not necessarily leave and flee months ago when Kabul and then Kandahar fell in succession. These are people who still live here. They have put their guns away. To use the old cliche, they have taken off their turbans and shaved their beards. But these are people who are here and still believe in the same causes they believed in months ago.
Up in Paktia province, for example, while the fighting is going on, there are a lot of people who support the al Qaeda and pro-Taliban fighters, who have been there for several months. That's why it's been so difficult to dislodge them from there, Alan.
ALLEN: Now, what is your sense? You've been there. You've had a chance to interact with folks in Afghanistan. Our presence looks like it's going to go on for a while. We're obviously going to have to reinforce our forces in order to make sure we're achieving the greatest effect. How do you think that is going to be greeted by the Afghan populace?
ALLEN: Well, I think the government here is very anxious to see more international forces come to this country. They have been asking for an extension of the national mandate beyond Kabul. And that, so far, has been something that the United States and its allies have flatly refused to do.
As far as most people here, I think they're more concerned about economic assistance. A lot of people here will tell you, to use the words of an aid worker I talked to, that the war here, the American-led war, is just a blip on the radar screen. Remember, this is a country that's been at war for the better part of the last two decades.
They want relief supplies. They want economic prosperity. They want something to lift them up out of the depths of war. And if the Americans are here doing that, that's all to the good. But I think that is the major concern of most people here.
The American military keeps a very low profile here. They're out on a military base. They're at an airport that's well out of the city of Kandahar. Most people don't have an awareness about them here.
And, again, I think the government will welcome troops to bring security. And the people would welcome anyone who will bring some prosperity, Alan.
KEYES: Ron Allen, thank you so much. We appreciate your joining us this evening with that insight into what is happening in the day and days that are coming up.
We're going to be examining some of the key questions that arise from these realities here on the program tonight on MAKING SENSE. Obviously, one that's got to be on the minds of many Americans is how long are we going to be committed, and what kind of a presence are we going to have in Afghanistan over the time frame that is required to produce an effective result?
How much is this going to cost, not just in the way of treasure, but in the way, obviously, of risk to American lives? And, finally, how effective is it going to be? And to answer that question, you have to have a sense of what it is we're trying to achieve. Will we get the kind of stable government in control of the countryside that will reassure us that this country isn't going to become once again a safe haven for terrorists to direct blows against us and others in the world?
We're going to be talking about this tonight with a panel of experts. But first, joining us now is Arnaud De Borchgrave, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He's also editor-at-large at United Press International and the “Washington Times.” Welcome to MAKING SENSE, Arnaud. I appreciate your coming with us this evening and taking some time out of what I know continues to be your busy life and schedule to chat with us a little bit.
ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, SENIOR ADVISER, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: My pleasure, Alan.
KEYES: As you look at the situation in Afghanistan right now, what is your sense of what it's going to take to achieve America's goals there?
KEYES: It's going to take a lot more boots on the ground. I think we underestimated from the very beginning, Alan, how many boots would be required. We thought we could do it with special forces and precision-guided munitions. We're in there for a long time. As much as the Bush administration dislikes the idea of nation building, it is unavoidable.
KEYES: Now, when you say nation building, I put that in terms of the need for a stable government that we can work with and that can control the countryside to a sufficient degree to preclude its use by terrorists. Do you think that is an accurate way of understanding where we're headed, where we'd like to go?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Absolutely, Alan. Let's not forget what happened after the Soviets pulled out in 1989. You immediately had warlordism. And there are the beginnings of warlordism now in the countryside outside of Kabul.
And you had that until the Taliban came to power in 1996. They managed to restore an element of stability throughout the country. And then that fell apart, too.
Also, let's not forget that the al Qaeda people number about 40,000 to 50,000. That was the number of so-called Afghan Arabs who were trained in the country.
Many tens of thousands are still around, as Ron Allen pointed out. Their arms have been cached away. And they started regrouping, which is now the operation that is under way. And you will see other pockets of resistance around the country in the weeks to come unless not only we put more boots on the ground, but our allies put more boots on the ground and spread all over the major cities.
KEYES: Now, that sounds like we have at least a couple of militarychallenges, obviously the first one being, as you just described, to be rooting out the terrorist al Qaeda forces, destroying and eliminating them as a threat in the country. Isn't there also an element of peacekeeping that is inevitable in an Afghanistan that has such a long history of internecine struggles?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Yes, I don't see how you can avoid it, Alan. If we decide to leave it to our allies — the Brits, incidentally, are in there, but they have got an exit strategy, and they're leaving by date certain. We have to take the lead in putting more allied troops, friendly troops, to police the whole country. If you were to pull out, it will go back to exactly what happened after the Soviets pulled out.
KEYES: Now, we just heard from Ron Allen that they're — among the populace there, there is a desire, maybe even an expectation, that our role is going to have economic implications. Is there an economic dimension to the presence that we have to have there in terms of helping to somehow support or build the Afghan economy?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, let's not forget that there was the donor conference in Tokyo. And they all — many countries agreed to fairly large amounts of money over the next five years, which would seem to indicate that we're in for the long haul. We have committed, I think it is a total of about $15 billion that is going to be required in the next five years.
KEYES: It would seem to me, finally, Arnaud, that what you're describing is something for which the American people have to be prepared. Don't you think it would be wise to lay this out in a clear and lucid way so that we know what we're getting into and what its implications are?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Yes, I don't think it's clearly spelled out. I think everyone thought we were going to score a quick victory. And what has happened since last Friday has come as a bit of a shock to those who thought they understood what was happening in Afghanistan. And we're going to see a lot more of that in the weeks and months to come.
KEYES: Thanks, Arnaud De Borchgrave. I really appreciate your coming with us today and sharing your heart. As usual, you have I think a very clear and lucid understanding of these requirements. I hope that it will be clearly communicated in just that fashion to a lot of Americans because if we're to sustain this for the long haul, we are going to need that kind of understanding.
Next, we're going to get to the heart of the matter, where we'll lay these issues and more on the table for our panel of experts, not all of whom agree with the sense that we ought to be laying ourselves on the line in this way in Afghanistan or with the idea that this is necessary in order to fight the war on terrorism. Plus, we'll have our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, does this make sense? There's a Harvard law professor who is written about in an article in the “Washington Post” today. And it's “The Reliable Source” I think the article was called.
His name is Charles Nesson. And in an interview with the “Harvard Law Record,” he actually said that — well, he went through a whole lot of stuff about how he used drugs in his youth and all of this. And then he said he tokes up every morning on his morning walk, and he goes into class after smoking a couple of joints, and so forth and so on.
Now, I know he's sharing the law with them. But he's also, it seems to me, given that there are laws in Massachusetts against that sort of thing, sharing an example of lawlessness. Do you think that's a good combination for the lawyers we're going to produce in this country? Does it really make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Just a reminder, the chat room is humming tonight. Tammy writes: “I think the war found the U.S., not the other way around.” And you can join right in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
Coming up in our next half hour, did this editorial cartoon making fun of the 9-11 victims' families go over the line? We'll be talking about that in a little debate in the next half hour.
But first, we're going to get to our panel with the heart of the matter, talking about America's involvement in Afghanistan, how long we'll be there, what the risks are, what we are hoping to achieve.
Here are some stats on what's being called Operation Anaconda. We have 800 to 900 U.S. soldiers involved, 200 special ops soldiers from our coalition partners, 1,000 Afghan forces. And so far we've had seven U.S. casualties. For the al Qaeda opposition, as many as 400 fighters may be involved, and 100 to 200 casualties thus far.
Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee. He just returned from a five-day trip through central Asia, including Afghanistan. Also with us...
REP. HAROLD FORD, JR. (D), TENNESSEE: Thanks for having me.
KEYES: ... You're welcome. Thanks for coming.
Also with us, James Phillips, a senior fellow from the Heritage Foundation, and Charles Pena, senior defense policy analyst fellow at the Cato Institute. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen.
Let me start tonight with Harold Ford since you just got back from the region. What is your sense, after having been there firsthand, of what is going on there, what the U.S. involvement is and will be, and what you think, given what you heard and were briefed on, we are going to accomplish there?
FORD: It was an extraordinary trip, Mr. Keyes. The morale of our troops is at a great high. I had an opportunity to meet with Chairman Karzai and feel his confidence and really be a part of the vision he has for a stable and pluralistic Afghanistan. I had an opportunity to even meet with some of the economic and defense ministers from some of the surrounding nations, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
And it is a great feeling that America's efforts are not only appreciated, but will be successful. It may take a little longer than we thought. But we will be successful militarily.
The next phase that many of them have raised is what our involvement will be after we're able to squash al Qaeda and the Taliban. How is it that we in the coalition will engage this region and perhaps provide an engine of economic growth, not by giving out money and handing out money, but how can we play a viable role in the reinvigoration and the rejuvenation of this central Asian region?
One of the things I've asked Senator Daschle to do, as well as members of administration, is to look at convening a central Asian economic summit with the defense and economic ministers of many of these nations to begin to dialogue about how we can create a meaningful and structured role for America and the coalition to play in helping to rebuild this area because, truth be known, if we don't do these things, we really invite the kind of horror and terror and oppressive regime that controlled Afghanistan for such a long period of time.
KEYES: Now, James Phillips, what is your sense? I think hearing from Arnaud De Borchgrave, we hear from Congressman Ford, really an assumption I think, which is also shared obviously by the administration, that we have to be there if we are going to preclude having this country fall back into its role as a facilitator of terrorism. Do you think that's true? And do you think that it's something that we're going to be accomplishing by the means we're using?
JAMES PHILLIPS, SENIOR FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I think it is true that the U.S. must remain engaged in Afghanistan for the long haul because when the U.S. turned its back on the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, that allowed Afghan radicals to foment a civil war, which eventually led to the coming of power of the Taliban in 1996. And if we want to keep the Taliban and al Qaeda from re-infesting Afghanistan, then we want to make sure that we put together some kind of a government that can keep them out of power.
So, I think that the U.S. should be committed diplomatically, economically, and militarily against the al Qaeda and Taliban remnants. But what I would try to avoid at all costs would be U.S. involvement in an open-ended peacekeeping mission.
FORD: He's right.
KEYES: Charles Pena, do you think that that's an accurate assessment?
CHARLES PENA, SENIOR DEFENSE POLICY ANALYST, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, I guess I would have to disagree slightly with my colleagues. I don't think that ultimately U.S. national security interests depend on a stable, multiethnic representative government in Afghanistan. Really, I think all that really matters to us is that whatever government, or governments if Afghanistan were to split up, in power understands that we will not tolerate a regime that harbors terrorists and that we will come back and do to whatever regime allows that to happen exactly what we've done to the Taliban regime.
It would be nice to have a stable, Democratic government in Afghanistan. But, ultimately, I don't think our security interests necessarily need that.
And I think really what's more important is that economically Afghanistan recovers. And I think one of best things that we can do is open up trade with Afghanistan and break down some of the trade barriers here in the United States and with our allies and friends around the world and bring Afghanistan into the global marketplace.
KEYES: Harold Ford, do you think that peacekeeping role is one we should take on? Is it one we're going to be able to share with other allies? What do you think is going to happen there?
FORD: No, part of it, we'll probably have some short-term role. But I would agree with the guest — I didn't hear any disagreement from Mr. Pena. I happen to agree with a lot that he said.
But as we engage that in helping to train a military, we probably will have some sort of short-term role we'll have to play with our coalition partners in keeping the peace. But that long-term effort should be sustained — not only should be played, but sustained by — the Afghans themselves.
One of the things that the Uzbekistani defense minister said to us while we were there is that drug trafficking recommends a significant source of funding for these terrorist organizations. We in America — why I think it's so important we have this summit — it's important for us to hear all these issues as we begin to structure some sort of response.
I would agree with all — with the two panelists. We certainly can't have an open-ended economic or military involvement there in Afghanistan. But if we're serious about creating the kind of stability in that region that will suppress or control terrorism, then we have to be serious about this effort and think in large and broad terms...
KEYES: Well, can I...
FORD: ... not just arming and blasting, but helping to develop some economic model.
KEYES: ... can I raise a scenario for all three of you to consider?
FORD: Sure.
KEYES: Because I think the world turns out to be less attractable than we would like it to be. And the easy assumption that you have stage one, and you pacify the country, and resistance stops, and you concentrate on other things, very often the world doesn't work that way. Very often, it works in such a way that you have got to be fighting your enemy and the resistance to that enemy represents at the same time that you are making efforts to keep your supposed friends from one another's throats.
And while the population is being trampled by an ongoing war, you're making efforts to lift up an economy that continues to be wracked by internecine violence. That has been one of the realities, sadly, in Afghan's history for a long time.
Now, if that turn out to be the kind of complex situation we have to continue to deal with over time, don't you think that in committing ourselves to this we are, in fact, looking at the possibly that we'll be there for a time we cannot really calculate, and that we have to be honest with ourselves and with the American people about that possibility?
I think it would be a mistake to lead people to think there's some cut-and-dried solution to this, when in fact it may drag on for some time that will require patience if we're to achieve the kind of objective, especially in terms of counter-terrorism that you want.
James Phillips, if we are facing that kind of a more inchoate scenario, don't we still have to sustain our commitment?
PHILLIPS: I think difficulty has never been an excuse for doing nothing. I think it is going to be very difficult. One of the problems with Afghanistan is historically it's been the cockpit of Asia. Many of its neighbors have tried to intervene in its affairs. First, the Soviets tried to dominate. The Pakistan have tried to dominate it. Now Iran is starting to flex its muscles.
I think one of the things the U.S. should be doing is to be forging some kind of a regional consensus to restore Afghan neutrality over time. And I think the Iranians will be a big problem there.
But it is going to be difficult. I think we should help Chairman Karzai try to restore Afghan independence and prosperity. That will be expensive in economic terms, but not as expensive as fighting a war at $1 billion a month that we've been doing lately.
KEYES: Now, Charles Pena, a question for you. I have been watching this situation. It seems to me that a number of folks, Senator McCain suggested it. Arnaud De Borchgrave was I think suggesting it as well, that we're going in fact in the near future, near-term, to deal with this, we're going to have to have more troops on the ground. Don't we have to be prepared for that eventuality so that we can concentrate the kind of forces that will help us better to deal with this situation?
PENA: I think that all depends on what the remnants of the al Qaeda and Taliban threat look like. If this is the last pocket of resistance, then maybe not. If there are going to be other pockets of resistance, then possibly we might need more troops.
I think the thing that we really have to be concerned and worried about is that we get sucked into internecine warlordism. I mean, there already is some evidence that that's happened in the last several months and that even some of the tribal warlords in this Operation Anaconda have been pursuing their own agendas. And that's possibly what happened very early on in the operation that led to the seven deaths of American soldiers.
So, I think it is too easy to say that we need to just pour more military forces into the fight because we have to define what that fight is all about. And I think we need to be very certain that we are going after al Qaeda.
KEYES: Congressman Ford, looking at that kind of a possibly more powerful scenario, we commit more troops to this effort, I think it is very important that all along the way we be clear with the American people both about our ultimate goal of trying to stabilize the region in order to preclude terrorism and about some of the difficulties that may be faced and the need for a clear commitment over time. Don't you think we have to be up front and be making clear that kind of a level of commitment now?
FORD: Sure. And I think the American people have an appreciation for that. I also think that many, at least across my district in Memphis, are unwilling to second-guess our military. I think they've done a terrific job. And if it takes more troops, they'll make that decision. And I think they will gain the support or earn the support or have the support of the people.
My question, really what I'm looking for answers to, is what happens afterwards? I assume we'll win this war. The president has promised it. And having met with many of our military leadership there in Afghanistan, they have great confidence it will occur as well.
Again, it may be not happening at the accelerated pace we wanted it to happen. But it will happen. The question then becomes, how do we sustain that victory? And that's really what this conversation here is about. And one of the reasons I would hope in the very near future, perhaps late spring, we can convene that kind of summit here to begin to hear from those leaders there in that region about how we create, or how we can be a part, rather, of the creation of a vehicle that can bring about the government stability, the economic reforms, the pluralistic and open society that will allow for the trade that Mr. Pena talked about. Right now, I don't know what they could trade with us, but how we could create an infrastructure where indeed they can become viable players in the world market. And, Mr. Keyes, someone who supports the market as fervently as you, I would imagine you would support something along those lines.
KEYES: Well, it seems to me that we have to make sure that we understand the nature of our commitment over the long haul. And I think that's been a kind of universal sense that I've gotten as I talk to responsible people, including, of course, all of you on the show here tonight. And it's something that I think has to be shared clearly with the American people...
FORD: Thanks for including us in that group.
KEYES: ... they will be prepared for the kind of things that I think are going to be required in order to make this work. Thank you, gentlemen.
FORD: Thank you.
KEYES: I really appreciate your joining us tonight.
What you're seeing next is two bodies that were found at the World Trade Center site. And, of course, one was a New York Police Department officer who was asked to retire on 9-11. Another was a former Marine who had come down to help out that day. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
What you're looking at is preparations to receive the two bodies that were found at the World Trade Center. All of this reminds us, these live pictures and are own sensibilities should remind us of the terrible nature of the tragedy that day.
But sad to say, my friends, apparently not everybody in this country shares that sensibility. And we're going to be talking in the next few moments about, I think, an episode that clearly shows that some people are forgetting, that they do not understand, that they don't remember, and that they don't even seem to appreciate the significance of the events that occurred on September 11.
I'm alluding to a cartoon that was posted, I think it was on the “New York Times” Web site. It was also released by a syndicate to other newspapers around the country. It is a cartoon by the artist Ted Rall. It's six panels long. And I have to tell you, we're sharing this with you because we're going to be talking about the outrageous nature of it.
Obviously, so that you can understand it, we have got to go through it. We have got to read it. First panel is the title of the comic. It says, “They're eerily calm. They smile and crack jokes and laugh out loud. They are the scourge of the media. Terror widows.”
The second panel shows two people talking. The man asks, “So when your husband called you from the 104th floor, he knew he was going to die? And the widow says, “Oh, yes. He was on fire. By the way, Larry, that's a bitchin' tie.”
The next panel shows a woman whom we can only assume represents Mariane Pearl, wife of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, who says, “Of course it's a bummer that they slashed my husband's throat, but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone.”
In the fourth panel, a widow remarks, “I keep waiting for Kevin to come home, but I know he never will. Fortunately, the $3.2 million I collected from the Red Cross keeps me warm at night.”
And the panels continue in this tasteless vein. This is the cartoon. We're going to be talking about it tonight with Scott Stantis, the president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists and an editorial cartoonist for the “Birmingham News” in Alabama. And also with us is Congressman Chris Smith, Republican from New Jersey.
I want first to address myself to Scott Stantis. I look at this sort of thing and in the course of the day, at first we were thinking about it from my outrage, the more I thought about it, I said, no, we have got to take a good, hard look at this. This strikes me as the most brutal, insensitive, tasteless garbage that I think I have seen in a long time. How can one justify a willingness for a paper's whoever to associate themselves with this kind of callus insensitivity to the heartbreak of this country?
SCOTT STANTIS, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN EDITORIAL CARTOONISTS: Well, let me start by saying this. I personally am abhorred by the cartoon. But as a commentator, you're a commentator, you know that you've got to, you've got to have commentary and commentary sometimes pushes the outside of the envelope.
Does this go over the line? I think most rational people will say that it does. However, that's why God made editors. Where were the people at the “New York Times” for this. Where were the people who are editing this? That's my question. I think that's one question we have to ask ourselves.
But as far as cartooning, as far as commentary, editorial cartooning and editorial cartoonists traditionally push the outside of those parameters. I think it is an important element of what we do.
KEYES: Well, see, I have got to tell you. I think this goes way beyond pushing any envelope. One of the things that most appalls me about this is that whoever did this seems to forget that we're talking about real human beings. We're talking about people with feelings, with heart, with family, who have been through a crushing experience, and you're sitting there making fun of their grief and implying all kinds of sick things about their condition.
And I think they also forgot this is a grief we all of us share. These people are not alone. Americans by the millions have hearts that go out to them. And this individual...
STANTIS: And I...
KEYES: ... seems to be utterly oblivious to this. I wouldn't call that pushing the envelope. Representative Chris Smith, do you think that's just pushing the envelope?
REP. CHRIS SMITH (R), NEW JERSEY: It's beyond the envelope, frankly.
You know, these aren't political people. These are victims who have suffered intensely because their husbands or wives or their fathers or brothers or sons or daughters had been murdered by terrorists. You know, I think Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate and the “New York Times”, which had it on its Web site, owes these individuals a profound and an immediate apology.
You know, it's not just bad taste. Bad taste we can all deal with. I've had things done against me, we all have, that was bad taste. You just roll with the punches. This is meanness. This is a hate cartoon that engenders a certain backlash against these victims. Not only did they see their husbands die and they saw it over and over again as the planes crashed into either the Pentagon or into the World Trade Center, not only did they see that and live it and relive it, now they're being made fun of, now they're being ridiculed as if they are looking out for the money.
One of those cartoon parts said that they're getting $3.2 million and the lady in that says that keeps me warm at night. That's sick. You know, I looked into this guy, Ted Rall, a little bit and found out he himself is dealing with some personal problems that he seems to be vetting and venting, if you will, onto the editorial pages.
KEYES: Well, you know, one of the things that...
(CROSSTALK)
STANTIS: That's unfair. I know Ted Rall. I know him to be a flamethrower. He's done cartoons that I find abhorrent — and I'm sorry I hit my microphone — I find abhorrent. Believe me. In the past, he has done cartoons that advocate that violence and murder are really the only ways or the only acceptable ways to get...
SMITH: Exactly. He talks about being against gun control because he feels we need maybe to take up the gun at some point to get the fascists. I mean, this guy has a problem with violence and to go...
STANTIS: Right. And I agree you.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, can I share a thought with you?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold on one second. I want to share a thought with you. One second.
STANTIS: My question is what do you suggest we do?
KEYES: One second. I want to share a thought, though because I think it goes a little bit further even than we've discussed. I think we need to remember what the 9/11 attacks represent.
I think as we look at the World Trade Center site, we need to remember, this stands in history with Pearl Harbor. It stands in history with remember the Maine. It stands in history with remember the Alamo. And this is not something that simply represents individual grief or even the grief of all of us in the country. It represents a historic truth which is the cause of a war for which our young men and women are right now risking their lives and dying.
You ridicule this grief and you have attacked the cause of the war. You have assaulted that which, in fact, is still vital to the moral support we require for this war effort. I think it's more than just pushing the envelope.
SMITH: And so do I. And I think...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: It's an outrage. Where is the outrage here? Pushing the envelope, regret? I think this is outrageous and I think it also borders on a lack of patriotism.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: Let me ask you this. What if you lived in the area where many of these widows lived? And there has been a backlash that some unscrupulous journalist has helped to engineer, wild exaggerations about what it is that they may be getting. That cartoon said $3.2 million from the Red Cross. That's unmitigated nonsense. It's not even close to that. And they're struggling. They're dealing with a pain that has become very public and they have to share it with the rest of us.
That's unfortunate. They don't get a time to grieve and to go off alone because of all these people interfering. Then you get somebody who's beyond being insensitive and this is cruelty. You know? His problems and he's got lots of problems that I've read about now, I spent several hours reading some of his stuff, this man is working out his psychiatric rubber room experience and venting it on these poor widows. I hope there is a backlash in favor of the widows. I'm not for censorship, I'm for...
STANTIS: Let me ask you this. What do we do about this?
SMITH: He ought to be fired. Universal (UNINTELLIGIBLE) should fire him immediately. There is something called beyond bad taste. This isn't bad taste, this is cruelty. This is hate-cartooning. This is not to be tolerated.
KEYES: I want to second that motion. We have seen at other times in this society, when folks have come forward and have made remarks that are callous in their disregard of peoples' dignity from different groups and so forth and so on. Here we have folks who are the victims of this great assault on us who have felt the evil burden in their own life, this individual comes forward with this hateful cartoon and you want regret and pushing the envelope?
I think that this is somebody who should not be associated, if the media has any standards, if journalism has any standards, they need to declare that this sort of thing shouldn't be associated with their profession. That's what I think needs to happen.
SMITH: And let me add, Alan, if this guy wasn't so dangerous and so cruel — again, they have felt it. I have talked to some of the widows. They are hurting from this. They're already hurting from obviously losing their loved one. Now we have a situation with this pathetic guy who is working out his problems and, again, you read through his writings, this is someone who has real personal problems. I hope he solves them. But don't focus it on people who have suffered so much.
STANTIS: I think this is a bigger issue and I will tell you why. Alan...
KEYES: Scott, go ahead.
STANTIS: You're a commentator. I'm a commentator. How many times have you gotten letters that people said you're insensitive, you should be fired?
SMITH: These are private individuals, I say to my friend. These are not public people.
STANTIS: You're a private individual. So is Alan.
SMITH: No, I'm a politician, a lawmaker.
STANTIS: I think what this cartoon did was reprehensible.
SMITH: You can hit me all you want. Don't hit these widows.
STANTIS: I think it is important though that we say there's a First Amendment in this country and that virtually all speech is protected.
SMITH: But he doesn't have to be hired. “The New York Times” could have the decency to fire him.
STANTIS: I agree. Where were the editors on this?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Where were his syndicate's editor?
(CROSSTALK)
STANTIS: What I meant about going to the outside and pushing the outside of the envelope, that's what we do. But as I said earlier in the show, that's why God made editors.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, hold on. Gentlemen, we've come unfortunately to the end of our time. Obviously this is engenders a lot of — exactly, it engenders a lot of emotion.
Scott Stantis, Representative Smith, I want to thank you for joining us this evening. I really appreciate it. Obviously this stirs up a lot of feelings and I think rightly so. And I'm afraid I think that the people at the syndicate and everybody else are missing the point.
I think they misunderstand what the World Trade Center represents now, what the site represents, what the victims represent in terms of the historic moment when this country felt that evil blow that has led to a war that is now claiming casualties, belittle the grief, you belittle that cause.
Belittle the grief, you belittle the sacrifice of the people who are being brought out of the site right now. These folks have widows, too. Do they have to look forward to this kind of ridicule, and brutality? Because that's what it is. You're not only brutal when you attack people physically, you're brutal when you trample on their hearts and their grief and the grief of their families.
I think this is intolerable and I think the media folks, you have a right to say it, and everybody else has a right to back away from you when you say it and that's what decent journalism ought to do right now.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: This is the scene live at the World Trade Center tonight as they are preparing to remove two body that is were found at the site. According to Major David Anderson of the U.S. Marine Corps, one of these bodies was a New York Police Department officer who was in process of retiring. And was at One Police Plaza on September 11. He was sent to the World Trade Center and died in the collapse. His name was John Perry.
The other was Sergeant Mike Curtain of the NYPD Emergency Services Unit. He was with the unit for only a short time, after having just retired from the Marine Corps in the summer of 2001 as a Sargent major. Curtain was 45 and had a distinguished career in the Marine, including being dispatched to Oklahoma City and helping in the recovery efforts there. His wife is being flown in from Long Island tonight by the U.S. Marine Corps and she will participate in the ceremonies that will be observed there tonight.
Obviously apropos of our discussion this evening, since — what I don't understand, how could people forget they're dealing with real people and this kind of brutality touches real human beings? It doesn't make sense to me. Let's go to Corwin from Ohio. Corwin, What's on your mind tonight?
CALLER: I just wanted to say you guys are talking about the comic strip there. Come on, get over it. It's just a comic strip. There's so many more important issues going on right now like our boys that are overseas fighting.
KEYES: Corwin, excuse me. Corwin, if you're going to take that attitude, you don't understand what's required to support our boys overseas. You actually think that if we let people reduce the grief and pain caused on September 11 to the subject of stupid ridicule for exploitation in their brutal comics that we are going to continue to remember the significance of that for which our young people are risking their lives?
I think you're naive. I think when you ridicule the cause — do you remember the wars we fought? Remember Pearl Harbor? Remember the Maine, remember the Lusitania? The reason those things became slogans is because when you're at war, that which was the proximate cause of the war, which exemplified the evil that you are fighting, has to be remembered and has to be remembered for what it was.
And if you let cartoonists like this get away with what they're doing, then they'll reduce it to ridicule, and as you ridicule the cause, you will eventually undermine support for the effort.
I think this goes beyond just a cartoon, sir. And I think if we fail to appreciate that, we'll be opening the doors to the kinds of things that will seriously weaken our ability to sustain this critical effort. Let's go to Art from Pennsylvania. Let's go to Art, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Mr. Keyes, hello, how are you? This is Art Madea (ph) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I just wanted to let you know I support you 100 percent on this. This sleazy losers' cartoon and the failure of his editorial staff to stop it represents the decline and absence of standards in this country. Particularly and especially in the media, and also displays the lack of patriotic spirit that exists in the liberal media. And I do — I do question the patriotism of anyone who would make fun of this tragedy.
KEYES: I do, too. I have to tell you, because as I said, think of it. It's quite logical, my friends. You have this terrible attack, which then became the cause for our entry into this war, and now we have folks risking their lives so that we can try to stamp out the evil that struck that day. If you're going to start ridiculing the grief and pain of the people who directly suffered from that evil, don't tell me that you aren't reducing the significance of that terrible event and therefore reducing the significance of that which reduces the significance of the cause for which we fight. There is an issue of patriotism here.
Let's go to Brad from New York. Brad, Quickly.
CALLER: Hi, Alan. I live in New York City. I think in lieu of this week's story that broke about the 10-kiloton nuclear warhead potentially being detonated in this city, I think it is high time that the president of the United States goes on national TV, in much the same as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis, and explain for us once and for all what this government knows, what we don't know. And what our course of action will be if, if in fact, an event like this occurs and begin to show the uncivilized world out there what the ramifications might be.
KEYES: I think that I agree with you. The president has to be up front about the dangers and perils we face. I think he has done that job and will continue to do it. I think it's all important that we show some understanding for the fact that you can't always talk in the government about everything you know, because then you'll let your enemy know what you know. And that will undermine your ability to know more. So there's a tightrope that has to be walked. But I think you do have to keep people informed enough that they will understand the real critical nature of the challenge that we're faced, and I think the president has been trying to do that.
Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it. We'll be right back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Tomorrow on MAKING SENSE, Bernard Goldberg, former CBS news correspondent and author of the blockbuster best-seller “Bias.” A CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news.
Well, in a sense, you've already heard my outrage of the day because I couldn't be more outraged about this cartoon and all its awful implications. I think it arises, at least in part, from forgetting we're dealing with real people. I was thinking about that, too, as I considered the Pickering nomination, which is going to come up for a vote tomorrow, where Senators are posturing for political reasons, forgetting the real career, the real life, the real courage that has been shown by this man, this individual.
You know, one of the keys to civility might be just to remember that we're always dealing with real people, whether their on the TV screen, in the public eye or in private life. And if we do that, we'll remember their heart and we'll remember how important the truth is when we're making our judgments about them.
I think if this cartoonist had remembered that, if the folks in the Senate would remember it, we'd get fairer judgments and we'd have a more cordial and civil society, which is the society we defend from the evil that struck us on September 11.
See you tomorrow. Good night.
Tonight, we're going to take a look at Afghanistan. And later in the show, we'll be dealing with a disrespectful cartoon that may raise some issues as to how we sustain the morale needed for this war effort.
But first, Afghanistan is thousands of miles away from America. And, sadly, until a few days ago, it was probably just as far away from the minds of many Americans. I think the success there had led folks perhaps to think that all was over in Afghanistan.
But now, as we've seen the first day of real and significant casualties, as we mourn those losses, we are also led to look at what the U.S. is doing in response to what appears to be continuing resistance. U.S. troops continue their pursuit of the remaining al Qaeda forces.
The Pentagon calls it Operation Anaconda, referring to the boa constrictor-like strategy that they are using, our forces fighting in a remote, mountainous region in the eastern part of the country near Gardez, where hundreds of opposition soldiers remain. That area is being circled by our forces, choking off all escape routes.
We're going to take a look at the developments in Afghanistan this evening and talk a little bit about future implications. But first, here's the latest on today's developments from MSNBC's Tom Aspell.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOM ASPELL, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Five days of intense combat, American ground forces and their Afghan allies flushing out al Qaeda and hard-core Taliban fighters from caves and tunnels in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, now believe the battle is going their way.
FRANK HAGENBECK, MAJOR GENERAL, OPERATION ANACONDA: We've got confirmed kills in the hundreds. We truly have the momentum at this point.
ASPELL: Nearly 1,000 American soldiers have been helicoptered into the Shah-e-Kot mountains to push what's left of the al Qaeda and Taliban towards blocking forces around the edges of this 60-square-mile battlefield. American soldiers haven't fought in these conditions since the Korean war, mountains more than 10,000 feet high, and subzero temperatures, and an enemy which keeps firing back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's another one. You start hearing them whiz by your head. So we both took cover, pinpointed where the attack was coming from, returned fire.
ASPELL: Afghan soldiers, trained by American Special Forces over the past month, are arriving from Kabul and northern areas to join the fight. Today in Gardez, the provincial capital 10 miles north of the battlefield, leaflets were passed out, offering a $4,000 reward for information leading to the capture of al Qaeda fighters.
But money may not work. Most folks here still sympathize with the Taliban and are resentful of Americans fighting in their tribal areas.
With American commanders saying today that already half the enemy force has been killed and there is no way out for those left, Operation Anaconda could be over within a few days.
(on camera): American forces need a decisive victory here, not just to prove to their Afghan allies that they can fight hand-to-hand on the ground, but to convince the local population to stop supporting al Qaeda and the hard-core Taliban fighters, and prevent them regrouping again so close to the Pakistani border.
Tom Aspell, NBC News, Gardez.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: It's 8:02 in Afghanistan right now in the morning. And our forces are gearing up for another day of challenge. MSNBC's Ron Allen joins us live via videophone from Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Ron, welcome to MAKING SENSE. What is the...
RON ALLEN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: : Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: What is the day likely to hold for our forces there now?
ALLEN: Well, there are reports that the United States is going to send more reinforcements to the front line, hundreds more troops as well as attack aircraft and helicopters. They feel that they have the upper hand now. There have not been any casualties for the past couple of days of fighting since those incidents involving the Chinook helicopters.
The American commanders, based on what they're saying here, think that the tide has turned. But they figured out the problems that were plaguing the operation in the first few days. And they are now intent on finishing this pocket of resistance off, Alan.
KEYES: Now, what we are looking at, is it an episode that is likely to be repeated, these kinds of operations? Are we going to see more pockets of resistance like this with the possibility of further casualties as we try to pacify the country completely?
ALLEN: I think a number of people at the Pentagon have said to the American public that there is the possibility of more casualties. It's certainly a sensitive issue with the American public. And the Pentagon wants to keep support for this war.
There are a lot of Taliban fighters who are dispersed throughout the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. In fact, there are Taliban supporters who are dispersed throughout the country.
These are people who did not necessarily leave and flee months ago when Kabul and then Kandahar fell in succession. These are people who still live here. They have put their guns away. To use the old cliche, they have taken off their turbans and shaved their beards. But these are people who are here and still believe in the same causes they believed in months ago.
Up in Paktia province, for example, while the fighting is going on, there are a lot of people who support the al Qaeda and pro-Taliban fighters, who have been there for several months. That's why it's been so difficult to dislodge them from there, Alan.
ALLEN: Now, what is your sense? You've been there. You've had a chance to interact with folks in Afghanistan. Our presence looks like it's going to go on for a while. We're obviously going to have to reinforce our forces in order to make sure we're achieving the greatest effect. How do you think that is going to be greeted by the Afghan populace?
ALLEN: Well, I think the government here is very anxious to see more international forces come to this country. They have been asking for an extension of the national mandate beyond Kabul. And that, so far, has been something that the United States and its allies have flatly refused to do.
As far as most people here, I think they're more concerned about economic assistance. A lot of people here will tell you, to use the words of an aid worker I talked to, that the war here, the American-led war, is just a blip on the radar screen. Remember, this is a country that's been at war for the better part of the last two decades.
They want relief supplies. They want economic prosperity. They want something to lift them up out of the depths of war. And if the Americans are here doing that, that's all to the good. But I think that is the major concern of most people here.
The American military keeps a very low profile here. They're out on a military base. They're at an airport that's well out of the city of Kandahar. Most people don't have an awareness about them here.
And, again, I think the government will welcome troops to bring security. And the people would welcome anyone who will bring some prosperity, Alan.
KEYES: Ron Allen, thank you so much. We appreciate your joining us this evening with that insight into what is happening in the day and days that are coming up.
We're going to be examining some of the key questions that arise from these realities here on the program tonight on MAKING SENSE. Obviously, one that's got to be on the minds of many Americans is how long are we going to be committed, and what kind of a presence are we going to have in Afghanistan over the time frame that is required to produce an effective result?
How much is this going to cost, not just in the way of treasure, but in the way, obviously, of risk to American lives? And, finally, how effective is it going to be? And to answer that question, you have to have a sense of what it is we're trying to achieve. Will we get the kind of stable government in control of the countryside that will reassure us that this country isn't going to become once again a safe haven for terrorists to direct blows against us and others in the world?
We're going to be talking about this tonight with a panel of experts. But first, joining us now is Arnaud De Borchgrave, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He's also editor-at-large at United Press International and the “Washington Times.” Welcome to MAKING SENSE, Arnaud. I appreciate your coming with us this evening and taking some time out of what I know continues to be your busy life and schedule to chat with us a little bit.
ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, SENIOR ADVISER, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: My pleasure, Alan.
KEYES: As you look at the situation in Afghanistan right now, what is your sense of what it's going to take to achieve America's goals there?
KEYES: It's going to take a lot more boots on the ground. I think we underestimated from the very beginning, Alan, how many boots would be required. We thought we could do it with special forces and precision-guided munitions. We're in there for a long time. As much as the Bush administration dislikes the idea of nation building, it is unavoidable.
KEYES: Now, when you say nation building, I put that in terms of the need for a stable government that we can work with and that can control the countryside to a sufficient degree to preclude its use by terrorists. Do you think that is an accurate way of understanding where we're headed, where we'd like to go?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Absolutely, Alan. Let's not forget what happened after the Soviets pulled out in 1989. You immediately had warlordism. And there are the beginnings of warlordism now in the countryside outside of Kabul.
And you had that until the Taliban came to power in 1996. They managed to restore an element of stability throughout the country. And then that fell apart, too.
Also, let's not forget that the al Qaeda people number about 40,000 to 50,000. That was the number of so-called Afghan Arabs who were trained in the country.
Many tens of thousands are still around, as Ron Allen pointed out. Their arms have been cached away. And they started regrouping, which is now the operation that is under way. And you will see other pockets of resistance around the country in the weeks to come unless not only we put more boots on the ground, but our allies put more boots on the ground and spread all over the major cities.
KEYES: Now, that sounds like we have at least a couple of militarychallenges, obviously the first one being, as you just described, to be rooting out the terrorist al Qaeda forces, destroying and eliminating them as a threat in the country. Isn't there also an element of peacekeeping that is inevitable in an Afghanistan that has such a long history of internecine struggles?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Yes, I don't see how you can avoid it, Alan. If we decide to leave it to our allies — the Brits, incidentally, are in there, but they have got an exit strategy, and they're leaving by date certain. We have to take the lead in putting more allied troops, friendly troops, to police the whole country. If you were to pull out, it will go back to exactly what happened after the Soviets pulled out.
KEYES: Now, we just heard from Ron Allen that they're — among the populace there, there is a desire, maybe even an expectation, that our role is going to have economic implications. Is there an economic dimension to the presence that we have to have there in terms of helping to somehow support or build the Afghan economy?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, let's not forget that there was the donor conference in Tokyo. And they all — many countries agreed to fairly large amounts of money over the next five years, which would seem to indicate that we're in for the long haul. We have committed, I think it is a total of about $15 billion that is going to be required in the next five years.
KEYES: It would seem to me, finally, Arnaud, that what you're describing is something for which the American people have to be prepared. Don't you think it would be wise to lay this out in a clear and lucid way so that we know what we're getting into and what its implications are?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Yes, I don't think it's clearly spelled out. I think everyone thought we were going to score a quick victory. And what has happened since last Friday has come as a bit of a shock to those who thought they understood what was happening in Afghanistan. And we're going to see a lot more of that in the weeks and months to come.
KEYES: Thanks, Arnaud De Borchgrave. I really appreciate your coming with us today and sharing your heart. As usual, you have I think a very clear and lucid understanding of these requirements. I hope that it will be clearly communicated in just that fashion to a lot of Americans because if we're to sustain this for the long haul, we are going to need that kind of understanding.
Next, we're going to get to the heart of the matter, where we'll lay these issues and more on the table for our panel of experts, not all of whom agree with the sense that we ought to be laying ourselves on the line in this way in Afghanistan or with the idea that this is necessary in order to fight the war on terrorism. Plus, we'll have our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, does this make sense? There's a Harvard law professor who is written about in an article in the “Washington Post” today. And it's “The Reliable Source” I think the article was called.
His name is Charles Nesson. And in an interview with the “Harvard Law Record,” he actually said that — well, he went through a whole lot of stuff about how he used drugs in his youth and all of this. And then he said he tokes up every morning on his morning walk, and he goes into class after smoking a couple of joints, and so forth and so on.
Now, I know he's sharing the law with them. But he's also, it seems to me, given that there are laws in Massachusetts against that sort of thing, sharing an example of lawlessness. Do you think that's a good combination for the lawyers we're going to produce in this country? Does it really make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Just a reminder, the chat room is humming tonight. Tammy writes: “I think the war found the U.S., not the other way around.” And you can join right in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
Coming up in our next half hour, did this editorial cartoon making fun of the 9-11 victims' families go over the line? We'll be talking about that in a little debate in the next half hour.
But first, we're going to get to our panel with the heart of the matter, talking about America's involvement in Afghanistan, how long we'll be there, what the risks are, what we are hoping to achieve.
Here are some stats on what's being called Operation Anaconda. We have 800 to 900 U.S. soldiers involved, 200 special ops soldiers from our coalition partners, 1,000 Afghan forces. And so far we've had seven U.S. casualties. For the al Qaeda opposition, as many as 400 fighters may be involved, and 100 to 200 casualties thus far.
Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee. He just returned from a five-day trip through central Asia, including Afghanistan. Also with us...
REP. HAROLD FORD, JR. (D), TENNESSEE: Thanks for having me.
KEYES: ... You're welcome. Thanks for coming.
Also with us, James Phillips, a senior fellow from the Heritage Foundation, and Charles Pena, senior defense policy analyst fellow at the Cato Institute. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen.
Let me start tonight with Harold Ford since you just got back from the region. What is your sense, after having been there firsthand, of what is going on there, what the U.S. involvement is and will be, and what you think, given what you heard and were briefed on, we are going to accomplish there?
FORD: It was an extraordinary trip, Mr. Keyes. The morale of our troops is at a great high. I had an opportunity to meet with Chairman Karzai and feel his confidence and really be a part of the vision he has for a stable and pluralistic Afghanistan. I had an opportunity to even meet with some of the economic and defense ministers from some of the surrounding nations, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
And it is a great feeling that America's efforts are not only appreciated, but will be successful. It may take a little longer than we thought. But we will be successful militarily.
The next phase that many of them have raised is what our involvement will be after we're able to squash al Qaeda and the Taliban. How is it that we in the coalition will engage this region and perhaps provide an engine of economic growth, not by giving out money and handing out money, but how can we play a viable role in the reinvigoration and the rejuvenation of this central Asian region?
One of the things I've asked Senator Daschle to do, as well as members of administration, is to look at convening a central Asian economic summit with the defense and economic ministers of many of these nations to begin to dialogue about how we can create a meaningful and structured role for America and the coalition to play in helping to rebuild this area because, truth be known, if we don't do these things, we really invite the kind of horror and terror and oppressive regime that controlled Afghanistan for such a long period of time.
KEYES: Now, James Phillips, what is your sense? I think hearing from Arnaud De Borchgrave, we hear from Congressman Ford, really an assumption I think, which is also shared obviously by the administration, that we have to be there if we are going to preclude having this country fall back into its role as a facilitator of terrorism. Do you think that's true? And do you think that it's something that we're going to be accomplishing by the means we're using?
JAMES PHILLIPS, SENIOR FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: I think it is true that the U.S. must remain engaged in Afghanistan for the long haul because when the U.S. turned its back on the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, that allowed Afghan radicals to foment a civil war, which eventually led to the coming of power of the Taliban in 1996. And if we want to keep the Taliban and al Qaeda from re-infesting Afghanistan, then we want to make sure that we put together some kind of a government that can keep them out of power.
So, I think that the U.S. should be committed diplomatically, economically, and militarily against the al Qaeda and Taliban remnants. But what I would try to avoid at all costs would be U.S. involvement in an open-ended peacekeeping mission.
FORD: He's right.
KEYES: Charles Pena, do you think that that's an accurate assessment?
CHARLES PENA, SENIOR DEFENSE POLICY ANALYST, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, I guess I would have to disagree slightly with my colleagues. I don't think that ultimately U.S. national security interests depend on a stable, multiethnic representative government in Afghanistan. Really, I think all that really matters to us is that whatever government, or governments if Afghanistan were to split up, in power understands that we will not tolerate a regime that harbors terrorists and that we will come back and do to whatever regime allows that to happen exactly what we've done to the Taliban regime.
It would be nice to have a stable, Democratic government in Afghanistan. But, ultimately, I don't think our security interests necessarily need that.
And I think really what's more important is that economically Afghanistan recovers. And I think one of best things that we can do is open up trade with Afghanistan and break down some of the trade barriers here in the United States and with our allies and friends around the world and bring Afghanistan into the global marketplace.
KEYES: Harold Ford, do you think that peacekeeping role is one we should take on? Is it one we're going to be able to share with other allies? What do you think is going to happen there?
FORD: No, part of it, we'll probably have some short-term role. But I would agree with the guest — I didn't hear any disagreement from Mr. Pena. I happen to agree with a lot that he said.
But as we engage that in helping to train a military, we probably will have some sort of short-term role we'll have to play with our coalition partners in keeping the peace. But that long-term effort should be sustained — not only should be played, but sustained by — the Afghans themselves.
One of the things that the Uzbekistani defense minister said to us while we were there is that drug trafficking recommends a significant source of funding for these terrorist organizations. We in America — why I think it's so important we have this summit — it's important for us to hear all these issues as we begin to structure some sort of response.
I would agree with all — with the two panelists. We certainly can't have an open-ended economic or military involvement there in Afghanistan. But if we're serious about creating the kind of stability in that region that will suppress or control terrorism, then we have to be serious about this effort and think in large and broad terms...
KEYES: Well, can I...
FORD: ... not just arming and blasting, but helping to develop some economic model.
KEYES: ... can I raise a scenario for all three of you to consider?
FORD: Sure.
KEYES: Because I think the world turns out to be less attractable than we would like it to be. And the easy assumption that you have stage one, and you pacify the country, and resistance stops, and you concentrate on other things, very often the world doesn't work that way. Very often, it works in such a way that you have got to be fighting your enemy and the resistance to that enemy represents at the same time that you are making efforts to keep your supposed friends from one another's throats.
And while the population is being trampled by an ongoing war, you're making efforts to lift up an economy that continues to be wracked by internecine violence. That has been one of the realities, sadly, in Afghan's history for a long time.
Now, if that turn out to be the kind of complex situation we have to continue to deal with over time, don't you think that in committing ourselves to this we are, in fact, looking at the possibly that we'll be there for a time we cannot really calculate, and that we have to be honest with ourselves and with the American people about that possibility?
I think it would be a mistake to lead people to think there's some cut-and-dried solution to this, when in fact it may drag on for some time that will require patience if we're to achieve the kind of objective, especially in terms of counter-terrorism that you want.
James Phillips, if we are facing that kind of a more inchoate scenario, don't we still have to sustain our commitment?
PHILLIPS: I think difficulty has never been an excuse for doing nothing. I think it is going to be very difficult. One of the problems with Afghanistan is historically it's been the cockpit of Asia. Many of its neighbors have tried to intervene in its affairs. First, the Soviets tried to dominate. The Pakistan have tried to dominate it. Now Iran is starting to flex its muscles.
I think one of the things the U.S. should be doing is to be forging some kind of a regional consensus to restore Afghan neutrality over time. And I think the Iranians will be a big problem there.
But it is going to be difficult. I think we should help Chairman Karzai try to restore Afghan independence and prosperity. That will be expensive in economic terms, but not as expensive as fighting a war at $1 billion a month that we've been doing lately.
KEYES: Now, Charles Pena, a question for you. I have been watching this situation. It seems to me that a number of folks, Senator McCain suggested it. Arnaud De Borchgrave was I think suggesting it as well, that we're going in fact in the near future, near-term, to deal with this, we're going to have to have more troops on the ground. Don't we have to be prepared for that eventuality so that we can concentrate the kind of forces that will help us better to deal with this situation?
PENA: I think that all depends on what the remnants of the al Qaeda and Taliban threat look like. If this is the last pocket of resistance, then maybe not. If there are going to be other pockets of resistance, then possibly we might need more troops.
I think the thing that we really have to be concerned and worried about is that we get sucked into internecine warlordism. I mean, there already is some evidence that that's happened in the last several months and that even some of the tribal warlords in this Operation Anaconda have been pursuing their own agendas. And that's possibly what happened very early on in the operation that led to the seven deaths of American soldiers.
So, I think it is too easy to say that we need to just pour more military forces into the fight because we have to define what that fight is all about. And I think we need to be very certain that we are going after al Qaeda.
KEYES: Congressman Ford, looking at that kind of a possibly more powerful scenario, we commit more troops to this effort, I think it is very important that all along the way we be clear with the American people both about our ultimate goal of trying to stabilize the region in order to preclude terrorism and about some of the difficulties that may be faced and the need for a clear commitment over time. Don't you think we have to be up front and be making clear that kind of a level of commitment now?
FORD: Sure. And I think the American people have an appreciation for that. I also think that many, at least across my district in Memphis, are unwilling to second-guess our military. I think they've done a terrific job. And if it takes more troops, they'll make that decision. And I think they will gain the support or earn the support or have the support of the people.
My question, really what I'm looking for answers to, is what happens afterwards? I assume we'll win this war. The president has promised it. And having met with many of our military leadership there in Afghanistan, they have great confidence it will occur as well.
Again, it may be not happening at the accelerated pace we wanted it to happen. But it will happen. The question then becomes, how do we sustain that victory? And that's really what this conversation here is about. And one of the reasons I would hope in the very near future, perhaps late spring, we can convene that kind of summit here to begin to hear from those leaders there in that region about how we create, or how we can be a part, rather, of the creation of a vehicle that can bring about the government stability, the economic reforms, the pluralistic and open society that will allow for the trade that Mr. Pena talked about. Right now, I don't know what they could trade with us, but how we could create an infrastructure where indeed they can become viable players in the world market. And, Mr. Keyes, someone who supports the market as fervently as you, I would imagine you would support something along those lines.
KEYES: Well, it seems to me that we have to make sure that we understand the nature of our commitment over the long haul. And I think that's been a kind of universal sense that I've gotten as I talk to responsible people, including, of course, all of you on the show here tonight. And it's something that I think has to be shared clearly with the American people...
FORD: Thanks for including us in that group.
KEYES: ... they will be prepared for the kind of things that I think are going to be required in order to make this work. Thank you, gentlemen.
FORD: Thank you.
KEYES: I really appreciate your joining us tonight.
What you're seeing next is two bodies that were found at the World Trade Center site. And, of course, one was a New York Police Department officer who was asked to retire on 9-11. Another was a former Marine who had come down to help out that day. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
What you're looking at is preparations to receive the two bodies that were found at the World Trade Center. All of this reminds us, these live pictures and are own sensibilities should remind us of the terrible nature of the tragedy that day.
But sad to say, my friends, apparently not everybody in this country shares that sensibility. And we're going to be talking in the next few moments about, I think, an episode that clearly shows that some people are forgetting, that they do not understand, that they don't remember, and that they don't even seem to appreciate the significance of the events that occurred on September 11.
I'm alluding to a cartoon that was posted, I think it was on the “New York Times” Web site. It was also released by a syndicate to other newspapers around the country. It is a cartoon by the artist Ted Rall. It's six panels long. And I have to tell you, we're sharing this with you because we're going to be talking about the outrageous nature of it.
Obviously, so that you can understand it, we have got to go through it. We have got to read it. First panel is the title of the comic. It says, “They're eerily calm. They smile and crack jokes and laugh out loud. They are the scourge of the media. Terror widows.”
The second panel shows two people talking. The man asks, “So when your husband called you from the 104th floor, he knew he was going to die? And the widow says, “Oh, yes. He was on fire. By the way, Larry, that's a bitchin' tie.”
The next panel shows a woman whom we can only assume represents Mariane Pearl, wife of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, who says, “Of course it's a bummer that they slashed my husband's throat, but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone.”
In the fourth panel, a widow remarks, “I keep waiting for Kevin to come home, but I know he never will. Fortunately, the $3.2 million I collected from the Red Cross keeps me warm at night.”
And the panels continue in this tasteless vein. This is the cartoon. We're going to be talking about it tonight with Scott Stantis, the president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists and an editorial cartoonist for the “Birmingham News” in Alabama. And also with us is Congressman Chris Smith, Republican from New Jersey.
I want first to address myself to Scott Stantis. I look at this sort of thing and in the course of the day, at first we were thinking about it from my outrage, the more I thought about it, I said, no, we have got to take a good, hard look at this. This strikes me as the most brutal, insensitive, tasteless garbage that I think I have seen in a long time. How can one justify a willingness for a paper's whoever to associate themselves with this kind of callus insensitivity to the heartbreak of this country?
SCOTT STANTIS, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN EDITORIAL CARTOONISTS: Well, let me start by saying this. I personally am abhorred by the cartoon. But as a commentator, you're a commentator, you know that you've got to, you've got to have commentary and commentary sometimes pushes the outside of the envelope.
Does this go over the line? I think most rational people will say that it does. However, that's why God made editors. Where were the people at the “New York Times” for this. Where were the people who are editing this? That's my question. I think that's one question we have to ask ourselves.
But as far as cartooning, as far as commentary, editorial cartooning and editorial cartoonists traditionally push the outside of those parameters. I think it is an important element of what we do.
KEYES: Well, see, I have got to tell you. I think this goes way beyond pushing any envelope. One of the things that most appalls me about this is that whoever did this seems to forget that we're talking about real human beings. We're talking about people with feelings, with heart, with family, who have been through a crushing experience, and you're sitting there making fun of their grief and implying all kinds of sick things about their condition.
And I think they also forgot this is a grief we all of us share. These people are not alone. Americans by the millions have hearts that go out to them. And this individual...
STANTIS: And I...
KEYES: ... seems to be utterly oblivious to this. I wouldn't call that pushing the envelope. Representative Chris Smith, do you think that's just pushing the envelope?
REP. CHRIS SMITH (R), NEW JERSEY: It's beyond the envelope, frankly.
You know, these aren't political people. These are victims who have suffered intensely because their husbands or wives or their fathers or brothers or sons or daughters had been murdered by terrorists. You know, I think Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate and the “New York Times”, which had it on its Web site, owes these individuals a profound and an immediate apology.
You know, it's not just bad taste. Bad taste we can all deal with. I've had things done against me, we all have, that was bad taste. You just roll with the punches. This is meanness. This is a hate cartoon that engenders a certain backlash against these victims. Not only did they see their husbands die and they saw it over and over again as the planes crashed into either the Pentagon or into the World Trade Center, not only did they see that and live it and relive it, now they're being made fun of, now they're being ridiculed as if they are looking out for the money.
One of those cartoon parts said that they're getting $3.2 million and the lady in that says that keeps me warm at night. That's sick. You know, I looked into this guy, Ted Rall, a little bit and found out he himself is dealing with some personal problems that he seems to be vetting and venting, if you will, onto the editorial pages.
KEYES: Well, you know, one of the things that...
(CROSSTALK)
STANTIS: That's unfair. I know Ted Rall. I know him to be a flamethrower. He's done cartoons that I find abhorrent — and I'm sorry I hit my microphone — I find abhorrent. Believe me. In the past, he has done cartoons that advocate that violence and murder are really the only ways or the only acceptable ways to get...
SMITH: Exactly. He talks about being against gun control because he feels we need maybe to take up the gun at some point to get the fascists. I mean, this guy has a problem with violence and to go...
STANTIS: Right. And I agree you.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, can I share a thought with you?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold on one second. I want to share a thought with you. One second.
STANTIS: My question is what do you suggest we do?
KEYES: One second. I want to share a thought, though because I think it goes a little bit further even than we've discussed. I think we need to remember what the 9/11 attacks represent.
I think as we look at the World Trade Center site, we need to remember, this stands in history with Pearl Harbor. It stands in history with remember the Maine. It stands in history with remember the Alamo. And this is not something that simply represents individual grief or even the grief of all of us in the country. It represents a historic truth which is the cause of a war for which our young men and women are right now risking their lives and dying.
You ridicule this grief and you have attacked the cause of the war. You have assaulted that which, in fact, is still vital to the moral support we require for this war effort. I think it's more than just pushing the envelope.
SMITH: And so do I. And I think...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: It's an outrage. Where is the outrage here? Pushing the envelope, regret? I think this is outrageous and I think it also borders on a lack of patriotism.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: Let me ask you this. What if you lived in the area where many of these widows lived? And there has been a backlash that some unscrupulous journalist has helped to engineer, wild exaggerations about what it is that they may be getting. That cartoon said $3.2 million from the Red Cross. That's unmitigated nonsense. It's not even close to that. And they're struggling. They're dealing with a pain that has become very public and they have to share it with the rest of us.
That's unfortunate. They don't get a time to grieve and to go off alone because of all these people interfering. Then you get somebody who's beyond being insensitive and this is cruelty. You know? His problems and he's got lots of problems that I've read about now, I spent several hours reading some of his stuff, this man is working out his psychiatric rubber room experience and venting it on these poor widows. I hope there is a backlash in favor of the widows. I'm not for censorship, I'm for...
STANTIS: Let me ask you this. What do we do about this?
SMITH: He ought to be fired. Universal (UNINTELLIGIBLE) should fire him immediately. There is something called beyond bad taste. This isn't bad taste, this is cruelty. This is hate-cartooning. This is not to be tolerated.
KEYES: I want to second that motion. We have seen at other times in this society, when folks have come forward and have made remarks that are callous in their disregard of peoples' dignity from different groups and so forth and so on. Here we have folks who are the victims of this great assault on us who have felt the evil burden in their own life, this individual comes forward with this hateful cartoon and you want regret and pushing the envelope?
I think that this is somebody who should not be associated, if the media has any standards, if journalism has any standards, they need to declare that this sort of thing shouldn't be associated with their profession. That's what I think needs to happen.
SMITH: And let me add, Alan, if this guy wasn't so dangerous and so cruel — again, they have felt it. I have talked to some of the widows. They are hurting from this. They're already hurting from obviously losing their loved one. Now we have a situation with this pathetic guy who is working out his problems and, again, you read through his writings, this is someone who has real personal problems. I hope he solves them. But don't focus it on people who have suffered so much.
STANTIS: I think this is a bigger issue and I will tell you why. Alan...
KEYES: Scott, go ahead.
STANTIS: You're a commentator. I'm a commentator. How many times have you gotten letters that people said you're insensitive, you should be fired?
SMITH: These are private individuals, I say to my friend. These are not public people.
STANTIS: You're a private individual. So is Alan.
SMITH: No, I'm a politician, a lawmaker.
STANTIS: I think what this cartoon did was reprehensible.
SMITH: You can hit me all you want. Don't hit these widows.
STANTIS: I think it is important though that we say there's a First Amendment in this country and that virtually all speech is protected.
SMITH: But he doesn't have to be hired. “The New York Times” could have the decency to fire him.
STANTIS: I agree. Where were the editors on this?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Where were his syndicate's editor?
(CROSSTALK)
STANTIS: What I meant about going to the outside and pushing the outside of the envelope, that's what we do. But as I said earlier in the show, that's why God made editors.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, hold on. Gentlemen, we've come unfortunately to the end of our time. Obviously this is engenders a lot of — exactly, it engenders a lot of emotion.
Scott Stantis, Representative Smith, I want to thank you for joining us this evening. I really appreciate it. Obviously this stirs up a lot of feelings and I think rightly so. And I'm afraid I think that the people at the syndicate and everybody else are missing the point.
I think they misunderstand what the World Trade Center represents now, what the site represents, what the victims represent in terms of the historic moment when this country felt that evil blow that has led to a war that is now claiming casualties, belittle the grief, you belittle that cause.
Belittle the grief, you belittle the sacrifice of the people who are being brought out of the site right now. These folks have widows, too. Do they have to look forward to this kind of ridicule, and brutality? Because that's what it is. You're not only brutal when you attack people physically, you're brutal when you trample on their hearts and their grief and the grief of their families.
I think this is intolerable and I think the media folks, you have a right to say it, and everybody else has a right to back away from you when you say it and that's what decent journalism ought to do right now.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: This is the scene live at the World Trade Center tonight as they are preparing to remove two body that is were found at the site. According to Major David Anderson of the U.S. Marine Corps, one of these bodies was a New York Police Department officer who was in process of retiring. And was at One Police Plaza on September 11. He was sent to the World Trade Center and died in the collapse. His name was John Perry.
The other was Sergeant Mike Curtain of the NYPD Emergency Services Unit. He was with the unit for only a short time, after having just retired from the Marine Corps in the summer of 2001 as a Sargent major. Curtain was 45 and had a distinguished career in the Marine, including being dispatched to Oklahoma City and helping in the recovery efforts there. His wife is being flown in from Long Island tonight by the U.S. Marine Corps and she will participate in the ceremonies that will be observed there tonight.
Obviously apropos of our discussion this evening, since — what I don't understand, how could people forget they're dealing with real people and this kind of brutality touches real human beings? It doesn't make sense to me. Let's go to Corwin from Ohio. Corwin, What's on your mind tonight?
CALLER: I just wanted to say you guys are talking about the comic strip there. Come on, get over it. It's just a comic strip. There's so many more important issues going on right now like our boys that are overseas fighting.
KEYES: Corwin, excuse me. Corwin, if you're going to take that attitude, you don't understand what's required to support our boys overseas. You actually think that if we let people reduce the grief and pain caused on September 11 to the subject of stupid ridicule for exploitation in their brutal comics that we are going to continue to remember the significance of that for which our young people are risking their lives?
I think you're naive. I think when you ridicule the cause — do you remember the wars we fought? Remember Pearl Harbor? Remember the Maine, remember the Lusitania? The reason those things became slogans is because when you're at war, that which was the proximate cause of the war, which exemplified the evil that you are fighting, has to be remembered and has to be remembered for what it was.
And if you let cartoonists like this get away with what they're doing, then they'll reduce it to ridicule, and as you ridicule the cause, you will eventually undermine support for the effort.
I think this goes beyond just a cartoon, sir. And I think if we fail to appreciate that, we'll be opening the doors to the kinds of things that will seriously weaken our ability to sustain this critical effort. Let's go to Art from Pennsylvania. Let's go to Art, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Mr. Keyes, hello, how are you? This is Art Madea (ph) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I just wanted to let you know I support you 100 percent on this. This sleazy losers' cartoon and the failure of his editorial staff to stop it represents the decline and absence of standards in this country. Particularly and especially in the media, and also displays the lack of patriotic spirit that exists in the liberal media. And I do — I do question the patriotism of anyone who would make fun of this tragedy.
KEYES: I do, too. I have to tell you, because as I said, think of it. It's quite logical, my friends. You have this terrible attack, which then became the cause for our entry into this war, and now we have folks risking their lives so that we can try to stamp out the evil that struck that day. If you're going to start ridiculing the grief and pain of the people who directly suffered from that evil, don't tell me that you aren't reducing the significance of that terrible event and therefore reducing the significance of that which reduces the significance of the cause for which we fight. There is an issue of patriotism here.
Let's go to Brad from New York. Brad, Quickly.
CALLER: Hi, Alan. I live in New York City. I think in lieu of this week's story that broke about the 10-kiloton nuclear warhead potentially being detonated in this city, I think it is high time that the president of the United States goes on national TV, in much the same as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis, and explain for us once and for all what this government knows, what we don't know. And what our course of action will be if, if in fact, an event like this occurs and begin to show the uncivilized world out there what the ramifications might be.
KEYES: I think that I agree with you. The president has to be up front about the dangers and perils we face. I think he has done that job and will continue to do it. I think it's all important that we show some understanding for the fact that you can't always talk in the government about everything you know, because then you'll let your enemy know what you know. And that will undermine your ability to know more. So there's a tightrope that has to be walked. But I think you do have to keep people informed enough that they will understand the real critical nature of the challenge that we're faced, and I think the president has been trying to do that.
Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it. We'll be right back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Tomorrow on MAKING SENSE, Bernard Goldberg, former CBS news correspondent and author of the blockbuster best-seller “Bias.” A CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news.
Well, in a sense, you've already heard my outrage of the day because I couldn't be more outraged about this cartoon and all its awful implications. I think it arises, at least in part, from forgetting we're dealing with real people. I was thinking about that, too, as I considered the Pickering nomination, which is going to come up for a vote tomorrow, where Senators are posturing for political reasons, forgetting the real career, the real life, the real courage that has been shown by this man, this individual.
You know, one of the keys to civility might be just to remember that we're always dealing with real people, whether their on the TV screen, in the public eye or in private life. And if we do that, we'll remember their heart and we'll remember how important the truth is when we're making our judgments about them.
I think if this cartoonist had remembered that, if the folks in the Senate would remember it, we'd get fairer judgments and we'd have a more cordial and civil society, which is the society we defend from the evil that struck us on September 11.
See you tomorrow. Good night.