tv Face the Nation CBS January 13, 2013 8:30am-9:30am PST
bullet, there's no seatbelt you can put on to be sure that you will not be in this circumstance again. >> schieffer: we'll talk about all of it with senator john mccain, a senior republican on the armed services committee stanley mcchrystal, the former commander of our troops in afghanistan. wells virginia's democratic senator joe manchin and loss an list mayoran -- los angeles marion antonio villaraigosa and amy walter and our own john dickerson. this is face the nation. captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning even again and we're going to begin with the senior republican, senator john mccain. senator thanks for being with us
this morning. well the president made it pretty clear on friday, we're leaving afghanistan and perhaps sooner than some expected, and every report you hear from behind the scenes is we're going to keep very very few people there. what do you make of this, what's your take on all this? >> it's a one of a series of decisions the president has made basically irrelevanting his military advisors so whether it be in iraq which is now unraveling very significantly or whether it be the decisions about a surge and how many and how soon they leave. there's a series of decisions all of which the president and the vice president have overruled on military leaders of their advice and council. which is the president's right to do. but each time i believe that it ensures the risk of failure. i think there's a very very great risk now that with the president's announcement that they are basically going to be out, that the afghans will not
be able to effectively counter what still remains a significant cal bontaliban and significantly discordant situation in both afghanistan and across the border in pakistan. so i think you probably are going to see an unraveling gradually. i think there's only one afghan brigade that is capable of acting independently. these forces need air support intelligence, all of the kind of logistics and other support that is necessary to be effective. fighting forces, they're not going to have that, and so i am much less an optimist about this eventual outcome. but when you look at the middle east, look at what happened at iraq, look at what happened in syria, the united states no longer leading from behind waiting from behind, and then you look at the decisions concerning afghanistan, you can
understand why people throughout the region believe the united states is withdrawing and that is not good for the region. >> schieffer: let me ask you this senator. we went to afghanistan in the beginning because we wanted them to deny al-qaeda a safe haven the terrorists who caused 9/11 and i think to some extent we probably have done that. but as long as they have a safe haven in pakistan, does it really matter, and i'm not saying to the afghan people, but does it really matter to the security of the united states, whether or not we're in afghanistan? >> well again the pakistanis and others will act in accordance with what they think what will transpire in the region. prior to 9/11 the united states contained terrorism on my part of the world. after 9/11 we actively went after and our strategy was to
eliminate and now with president obama it's to disengage. they see us disengaging. now, i would remind, you're right exactly why we went in there. now the reason why al-qaeda was able to locate was because of the taliban control. i don't think there's any doubt that the taliban are a significant force remaining. and al-qaeda has proven to be remarkably capable of regenerating itself with new leadership quite often. so you see a region and with enormous difficulties not to mention the threat of iran being, continuing on the path towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons. let me ask you about the president's choices for his cabinet. correct me if i'm wrong but i can't remember a time when the opposing party has opposed every single person that the president nominates for his cabinet. it's usually been the rule if
the president's going to be in charge of the government, we have to give him the people he wants to run it. but republicans seem to be against every single person that he has nominated this time around, at least so far. >> varying degrees. >> schieffer: except for john carry, if the sources are right is his second choice for that most because he did want decisions like lindsay graham and let the up session to her. can you be for senator hagel? some ways he was determined cochair of your campaign in 2000. he would seem to be your kind of guy. a veteran a guy who has been shot at. >> he's a friend. by the way in this process usually with the previous presidents both republican and democrat, when they're considering nominations they call in the other side and say you know, key members on the other party and say hey i'm thinking about nominating mr. x
what do you think about it. there's been none of that with this administration. but more importantly than that, i honored chuck hagel's service. he's a friend. my questions about him and they will be raised in the nominations are what is his view of america's role in the world. whether he really believes that the surge was the worst blunder since the vietnam war. that clearly is not that's not correct. that's in fact, it's bizarre. why would he oppose calling the iranian revolutionary guard a terrorists organization. same outfit that's on the ground now in syria killing seniors same outfit that was exploiting the most lethal ieds into iraq killing americans. so these are legitimate questions that need to be asked. i honor his service. we are friends but i have an obligation to the men and women who are now serving in union form. >> schieffer: at this point would you vote against him.
>> no. nor would i vote for him. this is why we have hearings. and bob again, i almost, i have a clear record almost always giving the administration the benefit of the doubt republican or democrat. but in this particular case, advise and consent is still a role by the senators. >> schieffer: what about john brennan, the nominee for the cia. your friend lindsay graham says he should not be confirmed until we know more about the attack in libya. are you going to -- >> i think lipid lindsay's right. it's been months now and we still haven't gotten basic information. how were the talking points that were given ambassador rice to tell the american people. and on this program why weren't there dod assets for seven hours capable. there's so many questions that have not been answered, and lindsay's right. in the case of mr. brennan mr. brennan says he oppose
torture but there are statements where he basically supported it. and finally as you know, there was an investigation, there is an investigation ongoing about the leaks after the takeout of osama bin laden and mr. brennan was there in the whitehouse and some of those leaks came out. we need to know the results of that investigation as well. there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. i look forward to the hearings. i have always believed that a president deservelz the deserves the right to choose his own team but there are significant questions. >> schieffer: let me ask you a couple questions about gun control that's obviously coming to a head here. did you think an assault weapons ban can pass the congress? >> no. >> do you think it should. >> no. >> schieffer: what do you see as the answer to this problem with guns? >> well, my friend across joe manchin has taken an issue. people respect the 2nd
amendment rights. we obviously have a situation where crazy people, deranged individuals are having access to guns. now exactly how do you do that. in norway, a country with the most stringent gun laws a guy was able to slaughter a huge number of people there in norway. so i think we need to look at it in its entirety. i think all of us should have this conversation. i applaud the conversation. we need to have it stopped much just by believing taking guns away from people is the answer. i hi history shows that's not the right way to do it. >> schieffer: john mccain. we'll get another side from west vert democrat joe manchin. senator thank you for being here. i want to go back to the talk to what john mccain was talking about. he doesn't seem too enthusiastic about reducing the size of our troop forces in afghanistan. how do you come down. >> i have the most are spec for
senator mccain, john mccain and a true war hero that the senate looks up to. with that we respectfully have a difference of opinion on this. in west virginia we basically are a hockey state and we felt that when our country was attacked on 9/11 we had every right and responsibility to go get the people that did damage that killed 3,000 americans. we've done that, we've killed osama bin laden. we've crippled al-qaeda. now i guess are we going to be there forever? is our mission now to occupy that country in some way, shape or form forever? i don't believe so. i believe that's wrong. i believe we need to come back home and rebuild america. i think we have to be original and basically with the war on terror have our operational forces our strategic forces who are able to go anywhere and be able to strike at any time. before someone comes to america or does harm to americans? i believe in that.
but a war of occupation will be occupy these countries is not one we signed up for. it was not the mission given to us 123450eu6789. >> schieffer: you're favoring getting out of there. >> the quicker the better. >> schieffer: should we leave a residual force there of some kind. >> bob i would think i've been there twice now as a governor and as a u.s. senator and i believe we have some strategic especially the force base. that's a tremendous opportunity strategic point for us to launch from to protect our troops for our special forces to operate out of. i would did he ever to the experts -- defer to the experts and professionals on that. we have this war on terror not just from our generation but our children's and grandchildren's. we have to be able to strike at terror before it strikes us. >> schieffer: i don't think there's any question we have denied al-qaeda a save haven in afghanistan but they now have a safe haven in pakistan. what do we do with pakistani.
>> i approve of the jones strikes there. i'm one that says we should use all the technology we have to protect america and americans without putting them in harm's way. that's been very effective. we've been able to strike and take out al-qaeda leadership, taliban leadership. those who wish to do us harm and do it with the least amount of harm to our citizens and our men and women in uniform. i believe we should be able to use the technology and our special forces in the most lethal way to protect our country. >> schieffer: do you have any concerns about chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. >> i haven't had the privilege of serving with chuck. i don't know chuck hagel. i know his reputation and i've spoken to him once on the phone. he's coming in next week to speak with me and i look forward to that. i have some questions i want to ask and sit down and get his view points on israel. our greatest ally. i wanted to see where his rack, why he -- iraq, why he chose to oppose the iraq war which i think was a wise choice now we know all the conditions.
also iran. i believe the sanctions in iran are working and can even work further without going in and having a land war there. and afghanistan. i believe that he believes as i do that there's not going to be any changes that we're going to significantly make there no matter how long we are there. it's going to be a very interesting conversation i look forward to having. but i truly believe, i was a former executive being a governor and i always appreciated when the senate gave me the gave me the respoask basically putting -- respect of basically putting my staff together. i will give every consideration to our president to do the same. but there are some serious questions. >> schieffer: what about gun control. you had one of the most memorable ads during your campaign for the senate because you actually fired a rival at one point dure -- a rifle at one point during that. you're a proud member of the nra but you're saying after the shooting in connecticut we need to do some stuff. >> first of my life did i ever think i would ever see children
let's say babies and kindergarten get slaughtered. that has changed the dialogue and it should change it. how have we gotten to a culture of mass violence. whether if you're just going to say it's all about guns and we need gun changes and bans, then you're wrong. if you think it's all about -- >> schieffer: what do you need. >> we need a comprehensive approach. john and i are basically going to be spear headed and leading as far as cosponsoring a bill which is basically commission on mass violence, which i'm hoping the vice president would incorporate in his recommendations. you've got to have people with the expertise, people that understand mental illness. how do people get their hands on this weapon that has this. >> schieffer: let me ask you this senator. could you envision a ban on assault weapons and some of these larges magazines if that's part of it. >> if that's part of it, it's something of the conversation i will give you my answer this way. i want to talk to my friends and
my members. i don't have an assault weapon. i shot assault weapons. i hunted with semi oughtics. i own my guns, my shotguns and do all the things i do with hunting with my family. i want to know and hear from them why do you have a magazine or need a larger clip magazine. you can't just push the nra away and law abiding gun owners away. they have to be at the table and you need to find out what their preference of protecting that. the other thing is the registration. these are discussions we have to have. we've got an atmosphere in washington bob that basically is guilt through conversation anywhere. that if i sit down and say i'm willing to talk about this i want to know more about mental illness, about registration, about clips. i want to know people that are protecting those defending those positions. how about the first amendment. and what i would say to all of my friends in their nra and gun owners that there's no way that they're going to take your second amendment rights away. that won't happen.
>> schieffer: we welcome general stanley mcchrystal who was in afghanistan until 2010. he is here, he has a new memoir out "my share of the task" which was released last week. we'll talk about the book general but i'm going to just ask you i want to get your take on the president's announcement that it looks like we're going to be leaving afghanistan maybe faster than we thought and all the talk is he's going to leave a very small residual force there. what's your take on that? >> well bob when i got there in 2002 the country was physically devastated and morally and mentally traumatized. the society was in tatters. let's been an awful lot of blowing but afghanistan -- progress but afghanistan is hard. it's always hard. if you study their history it's complex and difficult. there are female in school, there are opportunities, there are places that are secure that were not secure just a few years
ago. the afghan stores are improving but they -- forces are improving but they've got a long long way to go. my question on the future is what do we want in the region. this is not just a case al-qaeda was in afghanistan and now they largely are not. it's a question of the future of the region, the future of the afghan people but also the stability in the region and i think that what we want to do, what our strategy is all to be what we're talking about now rather than just the numbers of forces there. >> schieffer: let me ask you the question i asked senator mccain and that is, i would agree with you and i think most observers would, that al-qaeda no longer has the safe hairch haven in afghanistan but as long as thet have a safe haven in pakistani but from the standpoint of u.s. security, does it make any difference now what happens in afghanistan? >> i personally believe that the region matters and afghanistan cannot be viewed in isolation for pakistan or even iran or the
other neighboring countries. so if for example there were an unglurchedungovernorred area, i think pakistan's very stability now with the pakistani insurgency, those would really be threat upped and nuclear armed pakistan in a threat upped position would be a real challenge. >> schieffer: what do we do about pakistan? >> i think that it's our long term strategy we have to be talking about. what makes pakistan act the way they do. their relationship with india the places like kashmir. what motivates their thinking. what is the direction of pakistani actions? part of that is impacted by what we do in the future of afghanistan. i believe that a stable afghanistan is important to pakistan. i think it's important to the region. >> schieffer: is a stable afghanistan possible if you have say 2500 american troops here? i mean no one believes if the people i talked to is correct
that if afghanistan is ready to stand on its own and detent itself now can it be stable without an enormous amount of u.s. help. >> there ought to be a u.s. law passed saying retired members can't talk about specific troops on the ground. the active general they're there, they thank you what they're doing. i think that, i believe afghanistan can be stable. i think they must take responsibility for their security. the vast lion's share but i think the strategic partnership that president obama offered to president karzai is critical. not just physically. it's not how many troops and how much money it's the idea in the minds of of gaps that afghans that they have a reliable partner. >> schieffer: but what is it that needs to happen there? i mean, i'm just talking about what seems possible to you? is it possible for them to be stable if we draw down the troops to say 2500. >> again, i don't know numbers. i do know in the minds of
afghans, if they view america as a reliable friend, an al kai. everybody needs friends and allies. it gives them greater confidence to do what they need to do which is take responsibility. >> schieffer: right now they're shooting us from time to time. they shoot the people that are trying to help them. how do we handle that? >> well that's a very difficult phenomenon. but i think it shouldn't be taken out of context in the larger scheme. it's not the major activity. and i don't think that it should be what drives our decision. our strategic interest ought to be -- >> schieffer: we're going to ask you to come back on page 2 and talk to you about some of the things you talk about in your book, whether you think the impact of all this has been on our u.s. forces and a lot of other things. we'll do that on page 2. i'll be back in a minute.
>> schieffer: broke's barack obama second term begins next week. it's like a second wedding brings excitement, great expectations in fairy tale settings. the second time reality sets in. all involved and learns nothing is quite as easy as once thought. even so, i can't remember approaching inaugural week feeling there was less excitement in the air. the fight over the fiscal cliff was so distasteful and ridiculous it left me wondering not so much about the
possibilities of the next four years but whether our political system is so broken and our politicians so inept that they, we actually are no longer capable of solving our problems. the nation remains deeply divided. the president won re-election nor did congress thanks to the power of incumbents to raise money and gerrymander districts. most of the old crowd has returned to a gallop poll that gives them a 14% approval rating. at one point during the iraq war, george bush's people unfullerred the banner saying the mission accomplished a declaration proved famously premature. i think we have learned since then not to jump to conclusions and i guess that's progress. but being a romantic come inaugural day i'll feel the old excitement again. yet what i've seen lately i have
>> schieffer: welcome back to face the nation. we're here and we want to talk some more with general stanley mcchrystal. general, when you wrote your book it's no secrete. your people said some very inappropriate things about the president, commander in chief. you were called to washington, you offered your resignation and the president took it. i think a lot of people thought in your book it might be a get-even book. you would give your side of the story. you really didn't say much bit at all. you said look these people were my responsibility, i'm the leader and i offered my resignation the and the president took it. is there any more to the story than that? were you angry? where are you disappointed? how did you feel at that point? >> well, we had had an in-bed and we had had a lot of those and the story from the in-bed the rolling stone produced was sure to cause a controversy. i don't think the story was particularly accurate in the way it represented my team. but you know, i was in command
and the simple elegance of command is you assume responsibility. you don't try to push it to someone else. you don't cry about it. and when i decided to write the book, i have a lot of feelings about what happened. but the most is that responsibility's key. and there's no point in fingerpointing. i'm not sure washington needs another book like that. i was honing that this hoping this would be be red in 20 years at west point. that's how i tried to write the book and live my life. >> schieffer: no regrets. are you an re? >> i have regrets that some of the things i was responsible for i didn't finish. i didn't finish the job in afghanistan. i let down a lot of people that worked for me, 150,000 troops worked for me. the afghan people, many of them believed deeply in me. i was worried that my wife of then 33 years now 35 years that
i had let her down. but they've been remarkably supportive, and i don't have any regrets in my life. i was extraordinarily lucky to be part of the things i experienced. >> schieffer: now you're back in washington. you've had a chance to see how washington works. it's not altogether an inspirational time here i would think. we see the political system virtually broken. i was just talking about it. let me ask you about chuck hagel. do you have any problem with chuck hagel? >> i've only met him once and i certainly have no problem with him. he certainly has a great record not just as a soldier but as a senator. >> schieffer: let's talk a little bit about afghanistan and this is the longest war and the impact that this war has had on our military. when we're talking about the surge and sending more troops at a man and i heard colon colin powell say look correction we're not
sending more troops we're sending the same troops. it's almost as if we have run the military into the ground. these people are exhausted we see suicide's up, we see all of these horrendous things. are you worried about that? >> there are two things that concern me. the first is in the force itself. about a year and-a-half ago a ranger platoon sergeant, and i run it for the ranger was killed. and he was on his 14th tour to combat. now there are tours three or four months long but cumulatively 14 of those is a lot. he had just entered the rangers at 2001 so his entire career his service had been in that environment. he had a wife and i think two children. he is representative of the force. and if you think not just to the service member but of the wife. the spousal husband whos ever back with the children with repetitive years gone, repetitive stresses and strains. they're an extraordinarily professional force. to my knowledge this is the first time we fought a lengthy
war with a completely professional force. we don't really know the long term impact. it's held together well but there are a lot of disturbing numbers like suicides which worries me a lot. >> schieffer: it seems to me that we are asking a military to do more than it is designed to do. and people are talking about reducing the size of the military but it seems to me if we're going to ask the same of the military that we're asking now, we actually need a larger military. and i don't think that's going to happen. >> well, i would take it in a slightly different direction. we are asking the same military but i'm not sure it's a military that the american people know. most of us see a soldier or sailor airman marine at the airport we say thank you for your service or we buy them a meal or something. i did some statistics not too long ago and in the civil war one out of every 62 americans was wounded know just served.
so you not only knew veterans you knew someone in your town your family or whatever who was wounded. now that's one out of every 7,293 americans. >> schieffer: about 1% isn't it. >> it's less than 1%. american soldiers are largely anonymous to americans. they are this sort of figure, iconic figure. they admire them, particularly people like special operators but they don't know them. and it worries me that they become a carure. i think that america commits itself in a way that it understands. >> schieffer: would you favor a draft? >> i personally believe that national service is important for the nation. that's all young people serve a term of national service. certainly not all military but i believe those things have two effect. one it binds people to their nation or important and another thing is we're also a nation that doesn't get to know each
other well. someone from inner part of the city never nietzsche someone from an -- nevermeets someone from an upper neighborhood. we need ten years after the fact when they're meeting somewhere and the question is where did you serve begins the connection that allows them to move on. because we are getting too fragmented in my view. >> schieffer: what do you think is the greatest threat to our national security at this point? >> in the near term, it's clearly our economic challenges. our inability to make tough decisions to move our economy forward. that worries me in the near term. in the long term it's our education because that is the future. >> schieffer: not terrorism education. >> we can handle terrorism, are we can handle a nuclear-armed iran. we can't handle another war where new americans are young enough to protect our country. >> schieffer: thank you for your service thanks for being with us today we'll.
>> schieffer: joining us now the mayor of los angeles antonio villaraigosa. you are going to make a big speech tomorrow on immigration the "new york times" reports this morning. the whitehouse is planning a big push on immigration. give us an out line of what you're thinking about here. >> the time is now. we can't wait another political season to pass comprehensive immigration reform. this isn't just a moral it's an economic imperative. if we bring these people, 11 million people from out of the dark and into the light it's about a $1.5 trillion impact on the u.s. economy. the dreamers alone is dollars 129 billion impact. we can't do this piecemeal.
this has to be a pathway to full citizenship. >> schieffer: what do you want to see happen. and did you get an advance peak at what the president's going to present here? >> i did get to talk to him a bit but i'll let him make that presentation. >> schieffer: what do you want to see happen? >> well, what i just outlined. >> schieffer: what are the most important things. to pass the citizenship but how do you get that. >> well, you get it, obviously you have to have that pathway that allows folks to become full citizens. make sure that you get at the end of the line, that you pay your taxes that you not that you have a background check but in the end we've got to make sure that these people have a pathway to full citizenship. that's very important. you can't do this in a piecemeal way. and importantly i think it's got to be bipartisan. it won't be pass muster if it's not. i'm heartened to see senator mccain and others i think about
eight in the senate that have been working together and talking about comprehensive immigration reform not just a piecemeal approach. >> schieffer: who are the first people that ought to get citizenship? kids? >> well i think we need to make sure that 11 million people after the background check after they get at the end of the line. obviously the people who become citizens first are the people who have been in line. after they get out of the line, after they have done everything to make sure that there is, you know, they had a fullback ground check, paid the back taxes. we got to do this in a way that kids, all ofgives all of these people an opportunity to be a citizen of the united states of america. >> schieffer: you are also trying to do something about guns. what do you want to see in that field? the vice president is setting up this task force. you just heard john mccain is saying he would not put a ban on assault weapons. there is still a lot of controversy on this. what needs to happen here and how do we get that.
>> after newtown the massacre of 22 children in an elementary school. we can find a middle ground here. the fact of the matter is vice president biden sat with all of the constituents including the nra. i do believe that we need an assault weapons ban. california i was one of the authors of the assault weapons ban. it's important. i think we need to ban high capacity magazines. we need universal background checks. right now 40% of all the sales of guns and assault weapons are dub privately. and you don't need a background check for that. we need to repeal the tr amendment which says you have to throw away a background check after 24 hours and really limits the ability of the federal state and local governments to work together to get guns out of the hands of criminals and people that shouldn't have them, the mentally ill. we can do a lot more to beef up and fortify our mental hill
registries to make sure we know who is on those lists. we've got to do a lot more to provide mental health services. we've got to address the culture of violence in this country. you see parents really need to have a conversation with their kids particularly young kids, video games and the movies that they see. we can have this balanced bipartisan discussion without the kind of naysaying that we've had in the past. the time is now. >> schieffer: what about this idea of police in schools any mean, i can see in some schools where that might be helpful maybe even necessary. i can't imagine in every school that that would be the answer. what is your feeling with that. >> in l.a., we are patrolling every school. we have officers coming to every school in our city. >> schieffer: every day? >> every day. not all day but at various parts of the day while school's open, they are visiting the campuses to make sure things are going well. but like you that's not the
answer. it's a comprehensive answer and i just mentioned some of the points of that balanced approach. i don't agree with the nra that we should be arming our teachers. but we should have discussions in our classrooms about bullying and violence and resolving conflict without violence. we've got to do a lot more around mental health as i mentioned but we do need guns, sensible gun safety laws in the united states of america. you know, the republicans in the house and senate are blocked. the approval of a director of the atf for the last seven or eight years we've got to beef up and really move away from the kinds of things we've done in the past. >> schieffer: while you're here, are you going to talk to anybody at the whitehouse about maybe a little more diversity in some of these cabinets. >> i think when it's all said and done you're going to see this president is commit to diversity, to having will and people with color in the
cabinet. i can tell you this is the man who passed and spear headed the support that led to the ledbetter act. he's committed to that and when it's all said and done that's what you'll see. >> schieffer: any chance we'll see more of you around here. >> let's there's a chance. >> schieffer: really? just kidding. >> on the show anyway. >> schieffer: all right. thank you so much. we'll try to kick this around with another analysis on a roundtable. that's next. thank you mr. mayor.
>> schieffer: finally a lot of questions. now we get all the answers from our reporters town table rajiv chandrasekaran, the war within the war for afghanistan plus the national editor of the cook political report amy walter and our own john dickerson back after some post campaign vacation time. well rajiv you hurt john mccain you heard joe manchin you heard stanley mcchrystal.
kind of three different points of view on afghanistan. i think one thing that seems certain here, we're getting ready to leave afghanistan. that's the bottom line. >> we most certainly are and there's going to be a very substantial reduction in forces this year. the president made that all but clear in his remarks with the president karzai last week. and i think we're going to have a very small follow on force there in 2015 and beyond. bob, washington is so awk sells wd --obsessed with this number. it's going to be what the military wants which i here from my sources is 12,000. ultimately the difference between 3,000 and 6,000 isn't going to be all that great. the more important issue is actually one of money which something this town likes to debate a lot about. you know as we reduce forces, afghanistan is still going to need $4 billion a year stake its army and police force. think back to the stays when the
soviets withdrew. the communist backed government didn't even fall a year later it fell two years later when the soviet union collapsed and could no longer pay bills. >> schieffer: left me just ask you the question i ask all of us here, if the taliban or if al-qaeda what's left of it, if they have a safe haven in pakistan what difference does it make in just for u.s. security, with a what happens in afghanistan. >> that safe haven could lead to future attacks around the world. now we can control those safe havens i believe with a very modest presence of special operations forces in the intelligence agency. you don't knees thousands and thousands there. but what afghan stages does need is money to support its army and with fewer troops there. is there going to be political
support in this country to write those checks and that's a big question mark. >> schieffer: let's shift the matters back here at home. money, we've got the debt ceiling argument coming up here. the government's going to run out of money at the end of february if something isn't done. do you see more of the same what we saw during this fiscal cliff or is this something better on the horizon. >> wouldn't that be great if i could say yes but i can't say yes. remember when the election ended and it looked like this was going to be an era of compromise. john boehner came out and said of course we want to work with the president. the president said of course we want to work with the public. that was shattered within about 20 minutes after both men said that. and so i don't think we're looking at compromise anywhere, it's really about who can get their way by trying to intimidate the other side more. so democrats not the president but other democrats saying hey here's a way that's not compromise. we're going to print a coin, a trill undollar coinen dollar coin.
think of this sort of establishment republican saying how about a partialual shut down of the government to get what we want. so we're not looking at all about compromise. it now seems like one side is just going to say if we try to scare you enough, you'll bend to our will. >> schieffer: in keeping with that, we had the fiscal cliff we're at the end of it and now we have mini little fights, over the debt celling a fight over the crest ter sequester and the government in march. now we have three big fights. the behavior in the whitehouse is interesting in the debt ceiling. usually in these fights they'll say we are not going to negotiate with ourselves in public. but that will suggest they negotiate with somebody on pretty. now they're saying we're not going to pick up the phone when the republicans call. that's why when they said we're not going to mint a trillion dollar coin we're not going to add the 14th amendment to have the president do something to avert this curious problem with the debt ceiling. they don't agree with either of
those two approaches because those two approaches have a role for the president and they say the president has no role here. it's all congress dealing with bills they've already i mean spending they've already done. that's the difference in posture. >> schieffer: do you think that the big fight is going to be over whether to raise the debt celling or over the so quealdso-called scwels if you sequester and that is to avoid these cuts in the program. >> there's a big fight among republicans about this because the debt celling is more powerful because the pain is if we blow the debt ceiling is real. for some republicans because the pain is so big -- >> schieffer: what would be the impact on the defense department, rajiv, if the cuts goes into effect. >> it takes us back to level of defense spending we had back in 2006 and 07. it's far more than we're spending in 2001. yes, there will be jobs furloughed, there will be
weapons system but we won't be able to procure. but ultimately the defense can continue doing what it does as its core mission. and i see chuck hagueal is confirmed as secretary of defense. he's going to be pushing for a new series of cuts i believe that will take us down this sort of pat path. he feels the defense department is too bloated and the fiscal health in this country has to involve further reductions to our military. we saw peace dividends after the cold war. pulling our troops out of afghanistan and out of iraq. we thought new approaches to contain al-qaeda and other terrorists organizations with drones, special forces activity, then perhaps it's time to start looking at right sizing the defense budget. >> schieffer: do you think chuck hagel is going to be confirmed. there's going to be a real fight here. >> i think it's going to be a nasty fight. a lot of mud will be sludge slung. he's facing the senate where
many voting for him were not people he served with, newcomers to that body. i think ultimately he will get the necessary democrat support and that from a handful of republicans to get confirmed. >> agreed. folks i've talking to suggest it's an even bigger number. i think you saw senator mccain while he sad some critical thing to say about him, he was not certainly putting his fist on the table saying this will not happen under my watch. he said i'm not not going to confirm him. >> schieffer: john mccain, you recall a time every single time someone is nominated there's this immediate opposition. >> that's the new world we live in now although as you pointed out kerry senator kerry is likely to have a pretty easy slide. it will be interesting to see how much they beat up on kerry and how much they beat up on hagel who had the same position on the e wrong surge. there are a lot of fights that republicans have been itching to
have about iraq, about iran, about israel, they've been looking for an opportunity to have. they tried to have it over ben gotbenbenghazi with susan rice and it will all happen with the naigal nomination. >> schieffer: when john kerry ran for president there didn't seem to be overwhelming support from republicans about his record. here's a guy who was a vietnam vet and all of that but there seemed to be a different take. >> for hagel it's he as a republican going against republican orthodoxy. it's almost as if he switched parties and they're now asking republicans to support him. and when you think about vietnam and service yes we have many new people in the senate who didn't serve with hagel. but you know, less than half of the people currently in the united states senate were even old enough or they were female to be drafted in vietnam. so this is a very new generation. they don't look at that service in vietnam in the same way that
maybe a different generation looks. >> i was interested the president in selling hagel used a little of the ghost on the vietnam and basically saying here's a representative of the enlisted man and arguing that anybody who is going to knock him better have served themselves to have standing to even be in the conversation. i think twice the president in introducing hagel basically said he's working for the enlisted man. i thought that was an interesting way to try to free load the argument for hagel. another interesting is when obama came to office he told the pentagon i'm going to parallel my way into existing paul z i'm not going to do a lot of crazy new things. chuck hagel is a pick of the new obama doctrine whatever it may be. they're all obama. this is the really obama doctrine. >> schieffer: one thing you might not know, i was in texas and the texas papers were filled with reports with hutchinson, the former republican senator may be the pick for transportation. we'll be back in a moment.
i know. i know i need to quit this. - well, how about... - that smokers' helpline? yeah, they can give me a plan. - help me through the rough spots. - so you're ready to... quit? everyone wants me to quit-- my doctor, my wife the dog. - not good for the dog. - anyone else? hmm? what? anyone else want you to quit? me! i want me to quit. tdd# 800-933-4833 - ( rings ) - woman: smokers' helpline. oh, hi, it's me.