SUMMARY: Although tensions between the U.S. and Iran are high, officials from both countries insist they don't want a military confrontation. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will resist sanctions but not wage war, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called sending more U.S. troops to the region a "deterrent." Meanwhile, U.S. allies in Europe are sharply divided on Iran. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday that a few hundred American troops may stay in Syria as a stabilizing force after the majority of U.S. forces withdraw. Still, American allies fear that ISIS will have the capability to create a powerful insurgency as U.S. presence in Syria recedes. Nick Schifrin talks to Judy Woodruff about President Trump's new plan and the reaction to it.
SUMMARY: Over the weekend, President Trump told CBS News that the U.S. mission in Iraq should expand to include watching Iran -- a change that would exceed what Iraq has invited the U.S. to do in its country. The statement sparked criticism from Iraqi leadership, as well as reassurances from the top American commander in the Middle East that the U.S. respects Iraq's wishes. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: The draft framework of an Afghan peace deal: If the Taliban agree to a cease-fire, working directly with the Afghan government and preventing terror groups from using Afghanistan as a base for planning attacks, U.S. forces will withdraw. John Yang talks to the International Crisis Group’s Laurel Miller and the Center on International Cooperation’s Barnett Rubin about this "complicated" process.
SUMMARY: ISIS claimed responsibility for a deadly attack in northern Syria's Manbij that killed four Americans, countering the Trump administration's assessment that the terrorist group had been defeated. While Vice President Pence repeated that the U.S. is now able to "hand off" that fight to allies, other officials expressed concern that withdrawal plans have enlivened the enemy. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: President Donald Trump signed a sweeping defense authorization bill Monday that offers a statement of policy as well as spending priorities totaling more than $700 billion. Nick Schifrin joins Amna Nawaz to discuss the scope beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to long-term strategic threats from Russia and China, plus policy on North Korea, civilian deaths in Yemen and soldiers’ pay.
SUMMARY: No matter what you may think about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the more than 3 million men and women who have fought are America's sons and daughter, wives and husbands, brothers and sisters. In “The Fighters: Americans in Combat in Afghanistan and Iraq,” reporter and veteran C.J. Chivers tells their stories with intimacy and empathy. Chivers joins Nick Schifrin for a conversation.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review executive editor Reihan Salam join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Trump’s escalating calls for tariffs on Chinese imports, the decision to deploy the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border, ethics concerns for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. 50 years after his death.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): From calling for a National Guard presence at the U.S.-Mexican border, to floating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, the President’s announcements this week raised more questions than answers.
And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Salam. That is indicated — syndicated…
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: … columnist Mark Shields and “National Review” executive editor Reihan.
Reihan, welcome to the program.
And, Mark, you are more than indicated. You’re syndicated.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
Mark Shields: Part of the syndicate.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: So let’s start, Mark, with the lead tonight, and that is these mixed signals mining from the top of the administration over trade.
The President putting out the word, the White House, late last night that they were looking seriously at more taxes, more tariffs on China. And then the President’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, saying — today saying, well, no, no, we’re still in negotiations.
What are we to make of this? The President clearly wants to send some sort of signal to China.
Mark Shields: No question about it, Judy, and he has, I think it’s fair to say. Larry Kudlow is an interesting case.
I first ran into him, he was working on the anti-war campaign of Senator Gene McCarthy, a Democrat, then worked for Senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat, and then became a supply-sider, free trader with Ronald Reagan, and is now whatever Donald Trump is economically, and one can’t be absolutely sure.
But I think his time is short, because he’s been cast as the interpreter of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump fancies himself the world’s greatest communicator, and he doesn’t need an interpreter.
But that having been said, I think it’s fair to say that China in the short run — in the long run, is in tougher shape on this than we are, because we’re a bigger share of their market. But in the short run, which is where we all live, especially in a November election and the Republican majorities hanging by a thread, I think the pressure will mount on Donald Trump politically from his own base.
These are red states particularly being felt on the soybeans and the retaliation by the Chinese. So I think that’s where it is politically. I mean, if you’re a Republican up for reelection this year — and I would just point that more Republicans have retired in the year 2018 than any year since 1930, which was the middle of the first Depression, which tells you something about how they see it.
You want to talk about tax cuts. That’s what you want to talk about. You don’t want to talk about trade and immigration and borders, quite frankly. And I think that’s where the President’s returned.
Judy Woodruff: Reihan, how do you see the calculus?
Reihan Salam, National Review: I disagree politically.
Mark raises a very good point when he says the Chinese have been shrewd. They are targeting Republican constituencies, rock-ribbed, middle-of-the-country, farm Republican constituencies, et cetera.
But there is also the fact that Donald Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican. He was a sort of third-party candidate running under the Republican banner. And protectionism is an idea that is awfully popular with many people.
Now, when you’re talking about the negative impacts here, the thing is that sometimes we have a tendency to overstate them, because a lot of the negative impact is borne by companies that have relied on those supply chains, right?
But the thing is that, overall, think back to the Soviet grain embargo. You had a lot of farmers who said, yes, this is going to hurt me, but ultimately I support the policy.
You might wind up having a lot of people rally around the flag and saying that, yes, China, they engage in a lot of trade abuses, and this is something where they need to get clamped down. And so that’s why I think that, as opposed to tax cuts, which are a classically orthodox Republican thing to do, here Donald Trump left to his own devices is trying to do something a bit different that might be appealing to people who otherwise don’t vote Republican.
Judy Woodruff: But you don’t see mixed signals coming from the administration, or do you?
Reihan Salam: Oh, I absolutely see mixed signals.
So, part of this could be the savviness of, hey, this is my opening bid, and then I try to get something halfway, but there are definitely mixed signals.
Mark Shields: I respectfully disagree, in the sense that, if you want to go back to the grain embargo, you ask Democrats who lost their seats at that time under Jimmy Carter.
I do think, quite bluntly, that Donald Trump is playing Presidential politics, and he’s keeping his promise. He’s talking about his constituents. That’s why he returns to tariffs. That’s why he returns to the border and the hordes of rapists descending upon us, quite contrary to fact and reality.
But I don’t think, Judy, that this is helping Republicans, who are in an increasingly discouraging situation and condition heading into November 2018.
SUMMARY: President Trump said Thursday that he wants to send as many as 4,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. While his plan has raised concerns, there is precedent from past administrations. John Yang speaks with former ICE acting director John Sandweg, and former Department of Homeland Security adviser Theresa Cardinal Brown, about decision to deploy troops, then and now.
SUMMARY: In an exclusive interview, South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha tells Judy Woodruff that they are cautiously optimistic that possible talks between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Trump would be a breakthrough for a peaceful resolution. They also discuss President Trump's recent threats to pull American troops if the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [KORUS FTA] is not improved, and more.
SUMMARY: Turkey's military appeared ready on Friday to invade a Kurdish area of Syria and attack a force who, backed by the U.S., helped liberate Raqqa from the Islamic State. While the U.S. wants to convert them into a stabilization force, Turkey's president says they are a grave threat. Nick Schifrin talks with former Pentagon official Andrew Exum and Mona Yacoubian of the U.S. Institute of Peace.
SUMMARY: As part of the Trump administration's review of America's 16-year war in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary James Mattis announced that the President has given him the authority to decide appropriate troop levels. The U.S. commander in that country has recommended boosting the number by thousands more. William Brangham speaks with retired Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO.
SUMMARY: The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in light of a deteriorating security situation. Retired Gen. David Petraeus joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the need for a long-term U.S. military commitment in that country, civilian casualties in the coalition fight against the Islamic State, the American policy on the crisis facing Qatar, and more.
SUMMARY: The Pentagon has authorized the deployment of 400 additional troops to Syria in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State militant group. Judy Woodruff discusses the U.S.'s deepening military involvement and the complexities with former Defense Department official Andrew Exum and Bulent Aliriza of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): United States military involvement in Syria has deepened since President Trump took office. The Pentagon has authorized the deployment of 400 more troops, some of whom are already there. Five hundred special operations forces sent by the Obama administration are also on the ground. War planners reportedly are seeking to send an additional 1,000 American troops to Syria.
Yesterday, in Tabqa, Syria, American forces aided Syrian rebel and Kurdish forces in the taking a strategic dam and road from ISIS. All this comes on a complex battlefield and under the wary eye of Syria's northern neighbor Turkey.
For more on what's happening now and what may come, I'm joined by Andrew Exum. He served in the Obama administration until this January as deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East policy. He's also a former Army Ranger and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. And Bulent Aliriza, he's the director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It's a Washington think tank.
And we welcome both of you back to the program.
Andrew Exum, to you first.
How much of a change is what we are seeing right now in Syria from what was going on in the Obama administration?
ANDREW EXUM, Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense: So, significant in one way. Significant in terms of the numbers. It is clear that the Trump administration doesn't have the same reticence that the Obama administration did in terms of putting more boots on the ground, especially conventional troops, as opposed to special operations troops.
Where it is similar is that what we are trying to do, it seems, is replicate the success we have had in Iraq working, by, with and through local forces, so no direct combat themselves, but really enabling local forces to try to win the fight.
It seems what the U.S. military is trying to do is put the same infrastructure on the ground that has proved successful in helping the Iraqi army in Mosul in Syria to help the Syrians successfully take Raqqa.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, if the Trump administration seems to be headed toward 2,000, assuming this next 1,000 contingent gets there, is that where the Obama administration would have eventually gotten, or is that not even clear?
ANDREW EXUM: So, it's a really good question.
Over the past 18 months, we have steadily ramped up our commitment in terms of resources to both Iraq and Syria, and certainly, as the fight developed in Iraq, we continued to put more troop there, for example, building up the Qayyarah West Airfield in presentation for the fight against Mosul.
So, you could say the Obama administration might have eventually done something similar to this. We really don't know. In some ways, this is typical of the ramping up of the strategy so far.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including a look at the Democratic debate, campaign fundraising, and troop withdrawal in Afghanistan.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): The Democratic candidates for president faced off in their first debate this week, and new fund-raising numbers give a closer look at which contenders are winning the money game.
For all that and more, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
So, you watched the debate, obviously. How was the tone different from this? It seems that perhaps FOX News set the tone in a much more aggressive and sharp way for the questioners in this round. Is that what we’re going to see throughout the cycle?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: I think that Democrats, generally speaking, felt better about their debates than probably Republicans did about theirs.
There is no question that Donald Trump brought big numbers and brought a certain level of suspense, and you kind of hold your breath at what’s going to happen to it. But Martin O’Malley and — the former governor of Maryland, in one of his rare good moments on Tuesday night, pointed out that the Democrats had gone through an entire debate discussing issues with no personal attacks. Nobody had been accused of being ugly or a loser, and there had been no racial stereotyping or negatives.
So I think, in that sense, there was an entirely — difference in tone.
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: There was a difference in tone, a difference in subject matter. I think the Democrats actually have the advantage of subject matter, because they actually did talk about middle-class concerns, whereas Republicans are talking about weird stuff.
But the other factor is, the Republicans are actually arguing and fighting with each other. And what I saw up there was Hillary Clinton performing extremely well, and four other guys lying down and let her, letting her have the nomination. It’s like Bernie Sanders held up the white flag of surrender when he refused to really go after her on the character and moral issue, which is his only way in.
And the other three, I don’t know why they were there. O’Malley was the one who surprised me the most. I thought he would come in and see the Fiorina model and come out with some sort of aggressiveness. He had a little toward the end, but in the beginning, it was just passive.
HARI SREENIVASAN: How do you think Sanders did?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, I thought Hillary Clinton had the best night of her campaign.
I thought that she was in command, she was comfortable, she was spontaneous. She came back from the break and was a little late getting to the stage, having obviously visited the ladies room, and kind of tossed a — gave the lie to the stereotype of the joyless feminist by pointing out it takes women a little bit longer to go to the lavatory.
And I just thought there was — it bordered on the authentic. I thought she did very well. David is right. Campaigns are about differences. And when you’re behind somebody, you better draw the differences with them, whether it’s in style, or substance, or record, or character. And the others didn’t do that.
I thought Bernie had a — Bernie Sanders had a better night than David thinks he did, and I think it was reflected in the dial polls, which viewers watch it and their emotions and reactions are gauged. It’s a very legitimate way of measuring people’s reaction. People use it on speeches, presidential acceptance speeches and so forth. He did well on that. He did well on the focus groups.
-----
MARK SHIELDS: You can’t talk at the money, Hari, without talking about the concentration of big money in this campaign.
And The New York Times did a story last Sunday of 158 families in the United States that have given over half the money in this campaign.
HARI SREENIVASAN: So far, yes.
MARK SHIELDS: Citizens United, thank you, Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice(s) Scalia and Thomas and Kennedy. I mean, this is truly oligarchy.
And people who worry about big money having too large a voice, this has given them a megaphone. And the golden rule operates, where who he has the gold rules. And it is truly terrifying for those who care about democracy.
LEAD: California airman Ed Drew’s job as a gunner on combat search-and-rescue helicopters is one of the most dangerous in the military.
When he got word he was heading to Afghanistan last spring, Drew, who’s also a photographer, was inspired to make something lasting while he was there — in case he didn’t return.
Little did he know that by reviving a long lost art he would end up making history.
Our story, narrated by Scott Shafer, was produced by our partners at KQED San Francisco.
ED DREW, soldier/photographer: When I grew up my life wasn’t incredibly easy, my mother worked all the time, my real father was out of the picture.
I really had to learn on my own how to hold myself up. Photography is one of those things that I used as a vehicle for self-expression ‘cause I felt in my heart that I was an artist.
SCOTT SHAFER, KQED: Working out of a makeshift darkroom, using highly reactive chemicals, metal plates and a large format camera… artist Ed Drew is putting his own spin on a 19th century art form.
ED DREW: I like tintypes because it’s not just something simple … you have to set it up and you have to be really physical with it, you can’t just click.
You’re basically making a photo on a piece of metal. You’re exposing it, developing it and fixing it all right then and there.
