we will evaluate in december 2010 whether we believe we will be able to meet that objective. >> the situation in afghanistan and pakistan is serious. but it is not, in my view, as negative as frequently portrayed in public. >> our guests this hour, senators dianne feinstein, joe lieberman, orrin hatch. and the big picture. will scaling up now help us get out any sooner? how will the u.s. navigate the delicate balance between military deports, efforts in afghanistan and counterinsurgency efforts in neighboring pakistan. richard haas, president of the council on foreign relations joining us. plus, are our allies doing enough? british ambassador to the united states is here with us today on "andrea mitchell reports." good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. we begin this hour on capitol hill where members of the president's war cabinet have been trying to sell the war strategy in afghanistan to congress. defense secretary robert gates, secretary of state hillary clinton and joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen are all testifying before the senate armed services committee. later they'll go to the house. nbc's kelly o'donnell is on capitol hill today. savannah guthrie is at the white house this morning. first of all, kelly, the action is up there on the hill. some tough questioning today for the war cabinet on the strategy and the timetable. the whole question of a target for transfer to afghan forces and withdrawal. >> that really developed, andrea, into being a center piece of the questioning today. last night the president said that he would add the 30,000 troops and that they would begin to come home 18 months later. which takes us to july 2011. but when pressed about that, the real question from republicans and to some extent democrats, too, would that be a decision to begin withdrawing based on the conditions on the ground? meaning how are things looking, are u.s. forces in a position where they feel that's safe to do? or will it simply be doing it at that date. and what we learned is that while the president was rather clear and direct and did not give much wiggle room, his top advisers and top war cabinet did explain that it would be evaluated. they gave a sort of a new dpate. saying in december 2010, roughly six months before the target. they would evaluate and they would look to see if they, in fact, could do it. that was a bit different than what we heard from the president last night. they also tried to emphasize this would not be a complete exit from the country in 2011. but to begin transferring to local control, to local afghans, different areas that are in better shape. so there was a lot of questioning about that. senator john mccain said the president gave the wrong impression. others said it really was confusing. one senator said, has there ever been a president who announced a surge and a withdrawal at the same time? and the top officials had no specific answer to that. timing was a big part of what we heard today. andrea? >> and, san van na and kelly, this is how robert gates, the defense secretary, of course, testified when pressed hard on the whole question of why afghanistan. let's watch. >> failure in afghanistan would mean a taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country. and likely a renewed civil war. taliban-ruled areas could in short order become once again sanctuary for al qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in pakistan. >> savannah, that argument is not going over well with the anti-war element of the president's own party. >> reporter: no. i think we saw it last night. the president really took pains to say that this was a vital national security interest. and it was aligned for the left side of the democratic party. he said, if i didn't think this was a national security interesting with i would gladly bring the troops home. of course, we've heard gates echo that this morning. it's interesting about gates. i think in many ways he's the architect of this plan. he was the proponent inside these war cabinet meetings we now know who had this idea of giving stan mcchrystal, the general, nearly all the troops he wanted, trying to make up the rest, almost, with nato contributions, and adding speed to it. and i think as kelly would verify, a lot of the questions also this morning have been about whether this is really feasible. how much of a heavy lift this is for the military to get nearly the 30,000 in by may and all the 30,000 in by late summer or fall. i think privately, certainly, military officials have been telling us this will be difficult. but they think they can do it. >> joe biden pressed today during the "today" show interview about whether or not he actually disagreed with the strategy going in. and wanted fewer troops. this was his response. >> if you notice, i've never publicly said what my position is because i reserve that for the president. here's what i can say. i was skeptical of taking our eye off the ball. the ball is al qaeda. that's the reason we're there. they are in pakistan. the taliban leadership is in pakistan. >> and biden was also, savannah, asked about going from the sublime to the ridiculous, asked about his photo snaps with the party gate crashers. you reported some new information about their e-mail defense. but the e-mails that they exchanged and released yesterday seemed to indicate that they were told definitively by that pentagon white house liaison that they had not been invited. >> reporter: look, i think that the e-mails add to the ambiguity, if anything. on the one hand, it shows that this defense department official was actively trying to get them into this state dinner. however, this official says she followed up with a phone call the day of the dinner saying, i wasn't able to get you an invitation. the salahis, the couple, claimed they never checked their voice mail. there's an e-mail from them to this defense department official saying at the end of the night, well, we just went in just to check and see. and lo and behold, our names were on the list, and we're so thrilled. the most fascinating thing about all of this is the response they got the next day about 1:00 in the afternoon from this woman, michelle jones, saying, well, you're welcome. i'm so glad to hear you had such a wonderful til fuful time. she doesn't express astonishment they were able to get in. this is the classic washington bureaucratic response. take credit for something you didn't do. the white house says she was just trying to be polite. >> exactly. before i let you both go, briefly, kelly, is there any sign they are going to actually show up when betty thompson has that house oversight committee tomorrow and puts the secret service on the line? >> reporter: there will be a big hearing and a lot of attention on it tomorrow. the house homeland security committee has asked the salahis to come here to capitol hill to testify. sources i've been talking to say they have not yet gotten a response. also, republicans on the committee, pete r king, the ranking member, had asked for the white house's social secretary, dez ray rogers to come here and address questions. so far sources told me they have not had a response from the white house. but the secret service director, mark sullivan, says he will be here tomorrow and will talk about what happened, the breach of security, what went wrong, and it'll be one of the high-interest hearings tomorrow. and, perhaps, maybe the salahis do like to attend big events in d.c. perhaps they will come. >> maybe not this one. savannah and kelly, all over that story, all stories. thank you both very much. joining us now, california senator dianne feinstein, chair of the intelligence committee. senator, welcome. thanks very much for joining us. let's talk about the big speech last night. the president had a tough challenge last night to satisfy all sides. apparently he didn't satisfy everyone. perhaps satisfied no one. what is your assessment of this decision to surge now and set at least a timetable for the beginning of a withdrawal? >> well, my assessment is that the president has taken the right action. it's been an action that's been debated, discussed, put together by all of the senior people in the administration. and president obama put general mcchrystal in there. general mcchrystal is his person. general mcchrystal is as skilled in counterinsurgency and surges as anyone in the united states military. therefore, what he says he needs to do the job is important. now, the question i think comes, is afghanistan, in fact, a national security problem for the united states? i believe it is based on intelligence about what the morphing of the these terrorist groups is doing, the development of a whole new network, the hakani network attacking our people. and we know that they will attack us if they can. so i think that this is an appropriate action. i believe it is in the national security. >> let me suggest a couple of contrary viewpoints. one is from your own colleague in california, senator barbara boxer. she wrote in a statement, i support the president's mission and exit strategy for afghanistan, but i do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 american nato and afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 taliban and less than 100 al qaeda. at the same time at the hearing today, senator, susan collins was questioning defense secretary gates and was asking, why afghanistan? let me play a little bit of that for you and ask you to respond on the other side. >> okay. >> the fundamental question to me is how will it make us safer to invest more troops and more treasure in afghanistan as long as al qaeda still has the ability to establish safe havens in other countries? >> it is the only country from which we have been attacked successfully. if anything, the situation i think is more serious today than it was a year ago. because of the attacks of the taliban in pakistan on pakistan. and the effort of al qaeda in collusion with the taliban in pakistan to try and destabilize pakistan itself. >> susan collins was saying, senator, that al qaeda is in 20 countries, spreading, and afghanistan fewer than 100. why is afghanistan so critical to our national security to invest all of this $30 billion more in this coming year? >> well, i happen to agree with secretary gates. and my reading of the intelligence indicates he is correct. you have the entire border areas, a kind of safe haven. we have targeted al qaeda leadership. and we have gone after them one by one. but what we have also seen is an intersection of these terrorist groups. what we have also seen is the leadership essentially residing in pakistan. if the taliban, if the hakani network, if others are able to take over afghanistan, do you really believe they stop there? i don't think so. i think they go after pakistan. what is pakistan? a major nuclear power. the estimates are several dozen nuclear weapons. that is a real problem, and that threatens the national security of virtually every nation. now, i think this is going to be done differently. the strategy is different. the strategy is, select the areas. put in enough people to secure them. protect the afghanis. and at the same time, begin to train up a military and a police department. i think it has to be that also that you begin to replace the opium crop. wherever opium is, corruption is seeded. and that's certainly true in afghanistan. so the agricultural mission of this insurgency, i think, is critical. and that dollars go not necessarily to the central government, but directly into local specific projects. >> john mccain on the "today" show, though, and the senators mccain and others at the hearings today all focusing on this exit strategy and saying it undercuts the mission. let's watch. >> i don't think that a date certain does anything but encourage our enemies and dispirit our friends. they know there'll be a certain date when we leave. >> does he have a point? >> well, he does have a point. i listened carefully, or i read the tran script of what the president said last night. essentially what he said is on that date we will begin to withdraw. but we will also consider what has been gained. now, as has been testified hereto this morning, the iraq surge was 14 months. and it worked. this surge has 24 months, essentially. and i think there is a substantial likelihood of success if the military is able to apply it in a good, sound manner as i believe the intention is to do. so i recognize the difficulty of this. all of us would like to say, americans, come home. we have a bigger domestic agenda. and, yet, you know, again, based on the intelligence of what i see happening in this part of the world, it is a very serious situation. and they will come after us if they are able. the question is, can we disable them? >> and that is the big question as to whether this strategy can and will work. we thank you very much. the chair of the senate intelligence committee, dianne feinstein, today. coming up next, the british ambassador to the united states joining us on the pledge by nato allies. what they are saying they will do as the war in afghanistan enters a new phase. plus, with president obama taking heat from both sides of the aisle, we'll be talking about the political consequences of all this. pat buchanan and moveon.org both joining us on "andrea mitchell reports." if you've taken your sleep aid and you're still fighting to sleep in the middle of the night, why would you go one more round using it ? you don't need a rematch-- but a re-think-- with lunesta. lunesta is different. it keys into receptors that support sleep, setting your sleep process in motion. lunesta helps you get the restful sleep you need. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving or engaging in other activities while asleep without remembering it the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks. allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. stop fighting with your sleep. get a free 7-night trial on-line and ask your doctor about switching to lunesta. discover a restful lunesta night. but aleve can last 12 hours. and aleve was proven to work better on pain than tylenol 8-hour. so why am i still thinking about this? - how are you? - good, how are you? aleve. proven better on pain. to start losing essential nutrients? not long. in fact, green beans lose half their vitamin c in a week. that's why green giant freezes them within 8 hours to lock in nutrients. ho ho ho to paraphrase winston church hill, i don't think this is the end. i don't even think it's the beginning of the end. but i do believe it's the end of the beginning. and i believe as we go forward, we're going to have new resolve and new focus. >> that was general stanley mcchrystal today addressing troops in kandahar, afghanistan, a short time ago. preparing for this next stage in the war. an appropriate clip, because here is the british ambassador to the united states. thank you very much, sir nigel. let's talk about the british commitment. gordon brown has addressed comments again today. this is a very tough political issue for the prime minister. at the same full-timtime, you w first to come forth with 500 troops which brings you to more than 10,000 troops. how hard politically is this bag home? >> it's very tough politically. we've had a very rough year, indeed, as you have. we've lost 99 people this year in helmand. this has been a very difficult period. we've made the same decision as you. we've decided to reinforce, give our troops that extra space. we had 8,300 troops before the afghan elections. we increased that by 700 for the elections. we've decided to keep those there permanently. we've added an extra 500. that takes us to 9,500. with our special forces, it takes us over 10,000. that isn't just numbers. that is quality as well. and we are doing some very, very tough fighting. >> all of our military advisers say that the british troops are the best forces. sub peshly trained. there are some weak links in the nato alliance and, in fact, that there hasn't been enough from the other nato leaders. where do you think that we could go for more help to internationalize this. there are 43 countries. some of them are providing pittanc pittances. >> we have to get it in perspective. it is an international coalition. there are lots of countries there. the overall trend has been a good one. we've gone up significantly over the past couple of years. we agree with what president obama said yesterday. we welcome what he said. we think now is the time for the whole international community and the whole of nato to rally behind what the president and what the prime minister have said this week. so the nato secretary general today talked about being confident of increasing the non-american nato total by about 5,000. at least 5,000. as i've said, a good chunk of that will come from the uk. but there are others that he's approaching. this will take a bit of time. it's not going to happen overnight that you're going to get the nato response to this. the foreign ministers are meeting this week. then in london, the end of january, our prime minister has called a conference on afghanistan which president karzai will attend, which the u.n. secretary general will attend, which the nato leadership will attend. and we hope that that, too, will look at both the military and the civilian international contribution to afghanistan. so overall, the whole effort needs to be scaled up, including the military side. >> i wanted to ask you about that conference. because the announcement that i read from gordon brown and from your other leaders said that the conference envisions all of afghanistan's neighbors being there. this is a neighbors conference, will iran be invited? do you expect iran to attend? >> i haven't seen the detail of it just yet. clearly, a very important piece of this is the regional buy-in. iran has been involved in the past in discussions of afghanistan. >> has, in fact, been helpful. >> at some point since 2001 has certainly been helpful. and we certainly hope for that again. but i haven't seen the detail of who's coming to the london meeting. >> and, finally, when we look at the broader picture, why afghanistan? americans, even harking back to vietnam, are very wary, some americans, particularly on the left, the anti-war left, of the domino theory. if we don't stop them here, they'll be in pakistan. they'll be educationlsewhere. how do you justify to your people, to our people, the strategic importance of afghanistan? >> i think secretary gates summed it up very well in the clip you showed before. and certainly that rings true for the uk. it's right to look at afghanistan and pakistan together. i can't see any argument that -- in afghanistan, which is, once again, an open space for the taliban, weakened pakistan itself. and for the uk a weak pakistan giving free reign to al qaeda is a real threat to our security. three quarters of the plots against us come from pakistan, the al qaeda there. the strategic prize ultimately is pakistan. that's why it's absolutely right for the president last night to talk about the need for partnership with pakistan, but also the need for the pakistan yan authorities to do more to bear down on what have become safe havens for al qaeda in pakistan. we must stop that. >> thank you so very much. >> thanks very much for having me. up next, senator joe lieberman on the debate over how to pay for this ramped up military operation. and the justification for it. and if you have a question or a comment about all these stories that we are talking about today, follow me on twitter. logon to twitter.msnbc.com. follow the link to my twitter page. what's our favorite part of honey bunches of oats? the sparkly flakes. the honey-baked bunches! the magic's in the mix. my favorite part? eating it. honey bunches of oats. taste the joy we put in every spoonful. honey bunches of oats. we call the bunches in honey bunches of oats the prize in the box. well, now there's a prize inside the prize. pecans! pecans! baked into crunchy oat bunches. taste the delicious surprise in every spoonful. new honey bunches of oats with pecan bunches. beautiful. i just want fewer pills and relief that lasts all day. take 2 extra strength tylenol every 4 to 6 hours?!? taking 8 pills a day... and if i take it for 10 days -- that's 80 pills. just 2 aleve can last all day. perfect. choose aleve and you can be taking four times... fewer pills than extra strength tylenol. just 2 aleve have the strength to relieve arthritis pain all day. yeah, my son's got all that and he's on his first date. will new pepto instacool cover him? what's he got, a little bit of the nervous stomach? the chimichangas probably aren't helping either. ouch. well, when he feels the instacool sensation, he'll know that pepto's about to kick in. oh, ah-ha. honey, do you feel... the instacool sensation -- yes, mom. thank you, mrs. wagner. you're welcome, sweetheart. [ pepto guy ] have a great date, everybody. [ male announcer ] new pepto-bismol chewables with instacool. yup, you're covered. somewhere in america, there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, 69,000 people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers. president obama has, of course, announced his troop surge of 30,000 troops with a short time line, some would say. how do you pay for all of this? joining us now, connecticut senator joe lieberman, chair of the homeland security and government affairs committee. senator, thanks very much for joining us. let's talk about war taxes, surtaxes, gas taxes. a lot of proposals out there. where do you come down on any and all of this? >> well, generally speaking, if you feel that a war is worth fighting, in other words, that our interests in a car are so great that it justifies deploying american troops, then you've got to be willing to pay for it. i wouldn't hold it up because of a failure to pay for it. but to me we have to be open to adopting some kind of taxes to pay for the additional expenditures of the effort that the president announced last night in afghanistan. but i think the one caveat here, the one sort of let's just step back and look at it, is when such taxes would go into effect. because we're obviously working our way slowly, anxiously, out of a very deep recession. and when you're in a moment like that, you just don't want to increase anybody's taxes. so timing is the key. >> when we talk about paying for it, first we have to get to the threshold question of is it worth the cost of american lives? and let me share with you something that i know you've probably already read today. thomas freedman, he had lunch with the president yesterday along with some other columnists. i don't know if the menu didn't agree with him. certainly the strategy doesn't agree with him. he said, i can't agree with president obama's decision to escalate in afghanistan. i'd prefer a minimalist approach working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the taliban regime the way we did in the first place. given our need for nation building at home right now i am willing to live with a little less security and a little less perfect afghanistan. to now make afghanistan a part of the war on terrorism, ie another nation building project is not crazy, it's just too expensive when balanced against our needs for nation building in america, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. pretty negative point of view from tom freedman in his influential column in t"new yor time times". >> i respectfully disagree. i think you've got to go -- i think the president spent a lot of time in this process before he announced the decision last night to escalate. i think in that process, he considered every other plausible alternative, including the ones that tom freedman mentioned. but they don't work. and then you've got to ask yourself, what are the consequences if the government of afghanistan collapses, either the taliban and al qaeda take over or there's civil war. and the consequences for us are disastrous. in the region, it would lead to instability in neighboring pakistan and throughout the region. it would be a major victory in the war we're in against the islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. i believe as chairman of the homeland security committee, when you consider that most of the direction, a lot of the training for terrorist attacks, not only 9/11 but since certainly the inspiration comes from that part of the world where the al qaeda leadership still is, it would -- a failure, a defeat in afghanistan would increase terrorist attacks against us here in the united states. i just think that's unacceptable, particularly when we can turn it around. and, there are, i think it's worth what the president has to say. i give the president a lot of credit. he went against the majority of people in his own political party to make this decision. every public opinion poll says most democrats don't support this policy. the president should be given a lot of credit for putting our national security interests ahead of partisan political interests. i think the rest of us should fall in behind him and the military and give him 18 months to make this work. >> of course, he didn't get any credit from dick cheney, the former vice president. and this is what general petraeus had to say when asked about the dithering charge of the whole process and the way he went about -- the way the president went about this. this is the general's response from "morning joe" today. >> good. >> this process was actually quite good, joe. it was a very substantive discussion. everybody's assumptions and views were tested. i think out of this have come sharpened objectives, a very good understanding of the challenges and the difficulties and what must be done. >> do you think the military really agrees with that up and down, and agrees with the way this whole process unraveled or unrolled, i should say, not unraveled? >> i do. i've talked to some of the leaders of our military privately. and this was a very deliberate -- >> was dick cheney out of line, senator? >> well, i think -- i respectfully -- >> in criticizing the president? >> obviously he retains his rights of free speech. but i think this was -- i don't agree with what vice president cheney said about the process of president obama. this was very dlibtive. it was very important. i think the president has made a timely decision, particularly important and surprising to me that he's asked the military to deploy these 30,000 troops within six months, which was much earlier than general mcchrystal originally asked for them. i'll tell you this, andrea. the president made a decision to go to a counterinsurgency strategy back in march. and he sent an additional 20,000 american troops to afghanistan as part of that. i think in some ways, he may have looked back and said, you know, this was so important a decision, it was the beginning of my administration working on economic recovery, i want to go back and look at this in real detail, dive way down. and he did that here. and i think two things result from that process. one is he's now a much better able to make the case to the american people about the -- for the policy. and, secondly, he will be a hands-on commander in chief in this war. and those are the best commanders in chief going way back to lincoln and roosevelt, church hill and a lot of others like that. >> joe lieberman defending the president. thank you very much. now to the white house for the president's primary defense, robert gibbs. >> -- that karzai gets the message, that you actually have leverage over him and what he does? >> well, i -- look. two things. i think based on what he said in his inaugural and based on the conversations back and forth that the president -- the two presidents have had, the president remains -- he is confident that president karzai understands what's expected. i would say, again, the reason why there's a transition point provides an incentive to ensure that steps will and must be taken. the president is very serious about that, i think, again, outlining that the time for blank checks was over. >> did karzai ever ask for such a time line or withdrawal point to not be set? >> not that i'm aware of. i'd have to go back and look through the notes. yes, ma'am? >> a couple of things also on afghanistan. one is, today secretary gates said the u.s. might not begin to scale back the troop surge until after july 2011. is that some kind of discrepancy? and, also, what does the president see happening within the next 18 months in afghanistan? i mean, what would be different between now and then? and then if things don't work out, is he open to a major kind of course correction? >> let me -- three things. on the third thing, i think is related very much to the second. which is what the president envisions is quite frankly what he laid out in some detail last night over the course of more than 30 minutes. we are going to increase the number of air forces-- our forces in afghanistan. getting there sooner and staying for a longer period of time. in order to degrade the taliban, fight that insurgency. at the same time, help train afghan national security forces, an army and a police, and ak set ra -- accelerating that to the point where the transition moment that the president identified as july 2011 is the point that he believes we should be begin that transition. and begin to, i think you heard secretary gates say today, we have build, we have hold. but, importantly, we have transfer. and we're not going to be there forever. the president said that. the folks testifying today said that. this is not an open-ended commitment. we are going to provide them with the incentives that they need via this transition point to get their act together to train that security force and army so that beginning in july 2011, we can transfer the responsibility of afghan security to the afghans. that's what's fundamentally important about this. i think the president believes, based on the decision that he made, that this is the best course for it. yes? >> former defense secretary rumsfeld took issue with a line from the speech last night. i just wanted to clarify it. the president said commanders in afghanistan repeatedly asked to support the deal with the ree american jens of the taliban but these reenforcements did not arrive. i assume you were talking about the mckiernan request in 2008? >> well, that's, i believe, what the speech -- the line in the speech -- i will let secretary rumsfeld explain to you and to others whether he thinks that the effort in afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure as secretary of defense. i think that's something that -- >> he said he's unaware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006 when he was secretary of defense. >> again, i'll let him explain to the american public whether he believes that the effort in afghanistan during 2001 to 2006 was appropriately resourced. you go to war with the secretary of defense you have, jake. >> that's cute. the question, though, is what specifically was president obama talking about when he said that? >> again, what president obama was talking about were additional resource requests that came in during 2008, which we've discussed in here. jake, again, i'll leave it to the secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006 to discuss the level of resourcing for that, understanding the level of commitment we already had dedicated in iraq and whether or not he feels sufficient that history will judge the resourcing decisions that he made during that time period in the war in afghanistan were or were not sufficient. >> okay. so progressive democrats on the hill have said today that they think that the president should pursue a war authorization for the surge of troops. are you guys thinking about doing that at all, or -- >> no. i think the president made very clear last evening that -- why we are there now. the conditions for what happened on september 11th brought our forces through an almost unanimous vote of congress to afghanistan. and obviously that is inordinately plays sufficient for what the president is talking about. >> just one more. in his march speech president obama mentioned that if the taliban returns to controlling afghanistan, it would be bad for human rights. and he specifically singled out women and girls. he did not mention human rights in afghanistan. he talked about human rights more broadly. last night he didn't mention human rights in afghanistan and he definitely didn't mention specifically women and girls. >> i believe in the context of the three pillars that he saw mentioning the basic recognition of human rights in afghanistan as obviously important to what is happening there. >> he didn't mention women and girls. is that -- >> again, i think the umbrella of basic human rights was the same thing. >> even though he mentioned it in march and didn't mention it last night, we're not supposed to read anything into that at all? >> i wouldn't. i have not looked exactly at the word phrasing of each speech. the umbrella of recognizing the basic human rights of everybody in afghanistan would include that, yes. yes, sir? >> robert, since there's this 2011 drawdown date is there a high degree of certainty that there will be stability in afghanistan by that time? or is stability less of an issue and more of the local afghan forces are able to handle the situation, whatever it may be? >> i think you're going to -- i don't think you can have one, honestly, without the other, dan. i'd refer you to the testimony that secretary gates gave today, which he believed what we had laid out was very achievable in the transition time frame that the president spoke about last night. again, we -- part of that is stability and incentvizing for the afghans for what they need to do. again, we can't -- we won't be there forever. the role of providing security to the afghans will have to rest primarily be afghan national security forces. that's what this new dedication of resources will do, is accelerate that training and ultimately the president believes, the team believes, in developing that time frame that those conditions will be met. >> but ultimately, then, it's up to the afghans to really run that time line, right? because if they don't -- if they don't come up to speed, then do you leave at that point? >> but, again -- well, we're there to make sure that it happens. that's why, again, let's -- just for some historical, we started when the president, as he said last night, put his hand on the bible on january 20th, we had roughly 32,000 men and women in uniform in afghanistan. right? that has increased to roughly 68,000 by the end of the summer of 2009. and by the end of the summer of 2010, we'll add an additional 30,000 to that. you've basically got triple the resources. you have triple the resources over that two-year time period in order to accelerate that training. that training will be assessed, benchmarks will be laid down so that we can ensure that on a very frequent basis, and certainly looking back annually to the goals that are set, that we are achieving the level of training necessary to do what this plan envisions doing. again, the secretary of defense and those that testified today, as well as those that helped develop that policy going forward, believe that it's achievable in the time frame that the president enunciated last night. >> another question. we've seen the president in the past when he rolls out any new initiative, whether it be health care or stimulus, whatever it might be, he always takes it on the road really to sell it to the american people. he's not doing it today, nothing that we know of this week. is he planning -- >> robert gibbs explaining some of the questions that have been raised at the congressional hearings and elsewhere in the aftermath of the president's big speech. joining us now, richard haass from the council on foreign relations. richard, did you hear anything from robert that clarified any concern that you've had about the timing of surging first and then withdrawing? >> no. what it actually does, andrea, is highlight the -- you can call it contradiction, you can call it challenge, you can call it dilemma in the stated policy. that the united states, according to the president, has vital national interest there. and the united states is going to add 30,000 troops. but in 18 months we're going to start taking those troops out. obviously the 800-pound gorilla, if you will, is the question, is what happens if the afghans simply aren't ready at that point? that's something that nobody can answer with any confidence right now. >> you wrote an opinion piece for politico today. you wrote, there is, ok, no way of knowing that by the summer of 2011 it will be possible to dial down the u.s. troop presence and not see the situation on the ground unravel. the choices there would be to stay longer, to increase u.s. force levels or to reduce the u.s. presence and roll even further. even though our afghan partner, excuse me, is not ready to take our place. >> the word dilemma is often overused. here it really applies. if we reach that point, which i think is actually likely, andrea, in 18 months, where it will probably be impossible for general mcchrystal or anyone else to tell the president the afghans are really up to the task, you can start reducing american troops with confidence, then that's a bad day in the oval office for this president. either he has to go back to the american people and say this hasn't worked out the way i wanted, we've got to keep these troops there longer or even increase the troops, or he's got to announce that he is going to bring down the troops, but you could then have pictures of terrible events unfolding in afghanistan. so this is an amazing, if you will, roll of the dice or whatever cliche one wants to turn to. but this is an extraordinary risk for this -- not simply for this president, but for this country. >> are you satisfied that pakistan would be at risk if we did not take this plunge in afghanistan? >> no. >> more at risk than it already is, should i sna. >> i think -- how would i put it? to choose an arbitrary number, 90% of what's going to determine pakistan's future is going to depend on what happens in pakistan. above all, the decisions of the government, the military and the civilians alike to stop tolerating the presence of various extremists and terrorists and take them on. what happens in afghanistan, i would say, maybe, is 10% or something like that of the future of pakistan. it's one of the reasons, andrea, quite frankly, that i don't believe the case can be made that what happens in afghanistan really is vital. i don't think it's going to determine the future of pakistan. i don't think it's going to determine whether the united states faces serious terrorist threats from al qaeda. it's interesting. the president referred back to the situation after 9/11. i think then the case for getting involved, ironically enough, for doing something like what we're doing now, the case for doing that after 9/11 was strong. i think the case for doing it now is far weaker. >> richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations, thank you very much. joining us now, elise hoague. i'm not sure you would disagree with the way richard laid it out? >> no. i think our members are very clear, andrea. while they support this president, worked very hard to get him elected this is one policy that they just fundamentally disagree with. they think the escalation sets us in the wrong direction in afghanistan and, in fact, we should be working to bring our troops home now. >> what about the domino theory, patrick? what about if afghanistan falls, pakistan becomes weaker, it's a nuclear armed nation, and we've got al qaeda then reinserts itself in both countries? >> i agree with that. there is a real danger of afghanistan then becoming a sanctuary for taliban and al qaeda and also a sanctuary for pakistani taliban. let me say i agree with richard haass to this extent. i think mcchrystal's won the battle for troops. but i think the anti-war folks who want to end this war have won the battle for policy. look at all the rhetoric obama used. this is america's security is at stake, our people's safety is at stake, nato's credibility is at stake. >> he was catering to moveon.org and -- >> the security of the world. he uses apock liptic rhetoric. look at the minimalist decision he made. 30,000 troops for 18 months and then they're coming home. this is not lbj. this is richard nixon. this is decent interval. this is you folks in kabul have got 18 months to get it right and we are coming home. i think we are on our way out of iraq. i think we are on our way out of afghanistan. i think this was hot rhetoric behind an exit strategy. >> i mean, i think our members were unconvinced. we spoke to them after this speech as well as before the speech. they still believe that escalation is the wrong strategy. now, they are looking clearly today to congress to not make the mistakes we made in 2003 and make sure there is transparency and oversight on benchmarks and timelines so that we are bringing our troops home safely and quickly while keeping our country safe and focusing on our domestic priorities. >> haass has a very good point in that in 18 months, obama's going to face a hellish decision. i don't think anyone believes the afghan army will be able to hack it at that point. >> to be continued. great to see you. thank very much. coming up, is 30,000 troops enough? is it the right number? we'll be talking to republican senator orrin hatch next. this is onstar reporting a stolen blue chevy tahoe, south on i-75, near exit 5. we're on it. onstar, we may have that tahoe. ok, i'll flash the lights. we got it. it's in the clear. i'm sending a signal to cut the power. we got him. mr. ross, the police have recovered your tahoe. what doctors recommend for arthritis pain... in your hands... knees... and back. for little bodies with fevers... and big bodies on high blood pressure medicine. tylenol works with your body in a way other pain relievers don't... so you feel better... knowing doctors recommend tylenol more than any other brand of pain reliever. the president's newly unveiled afghan strategy is getting hit from all sides. the left, the right, both the anti-war crowd and the military hard liners still unhappy. republican senator orrin hatch says 30,000 more troops still not enough. senator, great to see you. thanks for joining us. as a member of the intelligence committee, do you think that hamid karzai can step up to the plate given all the pressure on him, the personal phone call the night before last from the president and what secretary clinton has said has been conveyed both to him and the pakistanis about what's going to come next? >> i know hamid karzai. i have to say it's a very difficult country to run because it's made up of great tribal elements. yeah. he's our horse, and we're going to have to ride his administration. it's just the way it is. i have to say, though, that i'm very concerned. i thought the president did a good job last night. i thought his speech was good. we have a pie here about three-quarters baked. the other quarter is the real issue. that is the president has agreed to put 30,000 people in there. i think that's been very good. he's followed the advice of his generals. i commend the president for that. the real problem here is that what do we do in just 18 months? it took us eight years to develop 80,000 afghan troops. the estimate is it will take at least four times that number to be able to bring stabilization to afghanistan. can we do that within the next 18 months? >> what robert gates -- excuse me, senator. what the defense secretary said in his testimony today was he reminded people that the surge in iraq was only 14 months and that by the end of that the iraqis wanted us out. they wanted to stand up and take over. you don't think the afghans can match that? >> i have a great respect for robert gates. no question about it. let's understand it. afghanistan's not iraq. iraq was largely an urban area. you could go in there. you could do the counterinsurgency moves that were done much easier. afghanistan is rural. all of them are rural villages. we can do the same thing. it's really going to take some time. like i said, it took eight years to get 80,000 troops prepared. that's the quarter of the pie that has to be a matter of great concern to us. and the president did leave a little leeway there in 18 months. i don't think he got himself bound down to where he can't -- he has to pull our troops out if we're on the verge of victory over there, on the verge of getting things stabilized. i happen to -- i'm very concerned about what richard haass said. because i don't quite agree with him. i think that if the taliban comes in and they really establish themselves and take over afghanistan after we leave, look, they've got a jihadist move. i think they could very easily try to take over pakistan to get to those nuclear weapons. frankly, once that happens, this whole world is going to change dramatically. i hope it never happens. that's why it's so important for us to be there, do a good job, and for the american people to support our troops while we're there. >> and there'll be more testimony on all of this tomorrow, so that will be our next 24. thank you very much, senator hatch, for helping us segue into that. the president will also, of course, be trying to talk about the economy tomorrow with that jobs summit at the white house. we're going back to basics there. a special programs note. this one of great pride and joy here at nbc news. be sure to join brian williams tonight on "nbc nightly news" as brian marks his fifth anniversary as anchor and managing editor of the broadcast. he's traveled 500,000 miles to 25 countries and anchored 1,000 broadcasts in that five-year period. check your local listings. a special broadcast tonight. i'm andrea mitchell. join us tomorrow. we will have our guests including congresswoman jane harman and michigan governor jennifer granholm. alex wit picks up our coverage next. you're watching msnbc. ( sneeze ) transform drinks you want, into cold medicine you need. introducing fast crystal packs. a new way from alka-seltzer plus to... get cold and flu relief in a taste-free, fizz-free powder. alka-seltzer plus. ♪ [ male announcer ] we're cutting the cost of yuletide. ♪ taking the bah-humbug out of your budget. and amping up the merry in your christmas. ♪ we're lowering prices on everything you need to make your home -- and the season -- more festive. ♪ oh, yeah [ male announcer ] adding more jingle to your pockets, and more happy... to your holidays. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. the debate over president obama's decision to send 30,000 more american troops to afghanistan is playing out now on capitol hill. but questions from members of congress, will the surge work? how much will it cost? and was setting a firm date for withdrawal really a good idea? tiger woods comes