USSR/)LLEHRER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 8, 2010
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: December 26, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
MACNEIL/LEHRER NEWSHOUR
26 December 1984
***********
..-USSR/>LEHRER: President Reagan took out after the Soviets like <
>AFGH.ANISTAN>old times today in a harsh statement about Afghanistan.
.Mr. Reagan said the continued occupation.of'Afghanistan
constitutes a 'serious impediment to the improvement of
bilateral relations with the Soviet Union.' In a written
statement released at the White House, he called for a
prompt negotiated end to what he called 'this brutal
conflict.' But Reagan was not the only one in Washington
to mark the fifth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. Republican. Sen. Gordon Humphrey of New
Hampshire held a news conference to say a few things too,
including some words of criticism for Mr. Reagan's
administration. SEN. GORDON HUMPHREY (R-N.H.): The
freedom fighters remain critically, tragically and
scandalously short of the weapons and supplies they so
desperately need. And so I question the management of the
American aid program. I suggest that there is no
effective accountability in the expenditure of these
funds. It appears that most of our aid is being lost in
the pipeline. And I suggest the intent of Congress is
being subverted by the apparent bungling of the
administration of the intended aid program'.
LEHRER: Sen. Humphrey and others will'be with us for the
lead focus section on Afghanistan in a few minutes.
***********.. - ~~J
USSR/>LEHRER: We focus first tonight on Afghanistan, that <
>AFGHANISTAN 2>small, poor, harsh land in the mountains 'of Asia, which,
until five years ago, was mostly ignored by most of the
outside world. In December 1979, Soviet troops invaded
Afghanistan to bolster the leaders of a Moscow-backed
coup. Now, five years later, the Russians are locked in a
ferocious guerrilla war that has devastated the land and
driven 4 million of Afghanistan's population of 18 million
from their homes, most to meager refugee camps in
neighboring Pakistan. Today, the Soviets have an
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
estimated 110,000 soldiers inside the country and another
40,000 poised on the northern border. They control the
country's few major cities, including the capital of
Kabul. The'guerrillas, fiercely independent tribesmen who
call themselves the Mujahadeen, or holy warriors, control
mountainous areas in the harsh country. Earlier this
year, the Soviets, determined to wipe out the guerrilla
strongholds, launched saturation bombing attacks.
High-altitude jets and helicopter gunships devastated many
villages and destroyed livestock and crops. The
Mujahadeen kept up their hit-and-run attacks and ambushes,
occasionally raiding even Kabul. But their sniper rifles,
mortars and captured Soviet ground-to-air missiles cannot
match the Russian air power. U.S. aid to the rebels,
which flows through Pakistan, has totaled more than $600
million since 1979. The Reagan administration says it
will request 280 million more next year. But recent
government reports have questioned how much of that aid is
actually getting to the fighters and the refugees. And it
also questions the quality and type of military equipment
involved. The continuing flood of refugees into Pakistan
is straining that nation's capacity to provide for the
Afghans without causing severe internal, economic and
political problems. As the war enters its sixth year,
both sides appear determined to fight on, even into the
next generation. Refugee camps in Pakistan have become
military training centers for boys and young'men. And the
Soviets are also reported to be sending thousands of young
Afghans.to Russia for study and indoctrination so they can
be Afghanistan's pro-Soviet leaders of tomorrow.
LEHRER: Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches and
complains. For five years, presidents and Congresses of
the United States have been the leading complainers.
Today, President Reagan issued another strong presidential
statement of. condemnation. It was matched by one from
Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.),. a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, who believes the United States
is not doing enough to help the other side in Afghanistan.
Senator,.your statement today was tough. You said that
our aid is being lost in the pipeline be, because of
mismanagement. What do you mean there, specifically?
SEN. GORDON HUMPHREY (R-N.H.): Well, that's right, Jim.
Every, every firsthand report that I've encountered, and
I've talked to reporters who've spent weeks inside
Afghanistan and who've recently returned, military
analysts and others: who've been there, every firsthand
account I've been able to, to uncover indicates that only.
a trickle of the aid is coming out of the far end of the
pipeline, in contrast to what we're putting in at the
front end here in Washington. And for years, we'v,e been
increasing, the Congress has been increasing the level of
funding for this program, because there's broad and, and,
deep support in the. Congress, bipartisan, across every
2
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
kind of, of dividing-line, to aid these valiant people.
It's such?a?compelling cause. And we've, we've increased
appropriations year after year. And yet today, despite
all of that aid, five years later, despite, as, as noted
on your news clip a moment ago, the, the expenditure of
hundreds, hundreds of millions of dollars, ah, the rebels
today are, are poorly armed, poorly equipped. Most of
them still don't have proper footwear. They're still
making.,sandals out of used tires. They don't have"
am. munition for their larger weapons, which are the only
weapons effective against the Soviet weaponry, and have
very few of. those'weapons to begin with and not what they
really need. Just, just to give you one example, Jim-, one
of the reporters I spoke with the other day, this weekend,
in fact, who just came back, related an experience he had,
I believe it was in Paktia Province, which is that.just
across the border from Panjshir, he discovered that one of
the commanders, one of the important commanders in that
province didn't even have a professionally drawn map of
the area for which he was responsible. He was, this, this
commander was using a hand-drawn, crude and, and
Inaccurate map. So the reporter gave him, gave the
commander a map, a commercial map that he had brought in.
And this commander, according to the report, was just
childlike in his delight in having a basic tool.
LEHRER: Where does.the fault-lie, Senator? HUMPHREY:
Well, I believe it'lies in, in the administration of the
program. I'm glad to hear President Reagan has once again
issued a statement of support. But the problem is we keep
encouraging the freedom fighters and 'sort of implying that
help is on the way, and yet it doesn't arrive. The fault,
I think, fundamentally, is that, is that?we have taken a
hands-off policy. Our people. in Panjshir and, and in the
northern...
LEHRER: When, when you say 'our people,' who do you mean?
HUMPHREY: Americans..
LEHRER: American, American employees of the United States
government? HUMPHREY: Yes--as I'm told, are forbidden to
have anything to do with the freedom fighters in the
refugee camps and, and, and the headquarters around
Panjshir. And so it's all done through intermediaries and
apparently with no procedures at all for accountability or
for accounting for these weapons.
LEHRER: Uh huh. So you're saying the stuff's getting
ripped off? HUMPHREY: I, I can't say for sure where it's
going. But'we know, almost with a-certainty, that very
little of it's getting through, despite increased
appropriations year after year.
Cnued
3
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
LEHRER: Is it your belief, Senator,, that if. this aid was
getting through to the right people that the war would be
going differently than it's going? HUMPHREY: I'think so.
I don't claim that the freedom fighters can win a military
victory over the Soviets. But remember, our official
policy is to force a negotiated settlement which would
lead to the withdrawal of the Soviets and, and the,
re-establishment of an independent and, and free'
Afghanistan. But we're not even providing the freedom
fighters with enough weaponry and equipment to accomplish
even that. What we're doing instead, ah, the effect. I'm
afraid to say, is rather cynical, we're, we're providing
them with enough, just barely enough to stay active and to
get shot to pieces, but not enough to, to, ah, force the
Soviets out.
LEHRER: And actually helping the Soviet position more
than we are our own, is that what you're saying?
HUMPHREY: Well, I'd say that we're playing into the
Soviet strategy, not only for the reason that we're not
getting these weapons through because of bungling in the
administration, poor. design and poor execution, but also
in, in, in the design of the program. We need to do far
more internal to Afghanistan in the way of providing
economic assistance so people will stay instead of leaving
and going into the refugee camps, which, as I say, plays
into the strategy of the Soviets.
LEHRER:. Thank you, Senator. Robin?
MACNEIL; An official administration view now from Phyllis
Oakley; the State Department officer who monitors-U.S.
policy towards Afghanistan on a day-to-day basis. A
career foreign service officer, Ms. Oakley has spent the
last two years serving as the State Department's Afghan
desk officer.' Ms. Oakley, how do you respond to the
senator that only a trickle of U.S. aid is getting through
to the freedom fighters? PHYLLIS OAKLEY (State
Department): Well, I think I will use the word that
Undersecretary*Michael Armacost used in his on-the-record
press briefing on Dec. 20. And that is, you have to look
at the 'empirical situation' on the ground in Afghanistan.
After five years of fighting--and that in itself is an
incredible story of an.indigenous resistance movement that
had begun in 1978 and following the Soviet invasion in
1979--this movement has grown and spread and today become
so effective that it has been successful in keeping the
certainly heavier-armed and -equipped army of the Soviet
Union from achieving its objectives in Afghanistan. And*
first of all, I would like to say I welcome this attention
to the question of Afghanistan and am delighted to be here
to discuss this. But let's look at the fighting in 1984,
against an increasingly aggressive military posture of the
Soviet Union that began in the seventh Panjshir offensive
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
in April and May moved-west to *Harat, around Kabul and
now in the eastern part of Afghanistan, where heavy
fighting still continues. The Soviets have not been able
to achieve their objectives and.we think perhaps have
slightly lost some ground. I'm sure you all are aware
that the question of why any country might be doing to
supply assistance to the refugees and to the Mujahadeen is
considered an intelligence question, and I can't comment
on it...But you've got to look at the situation on the
ground and what the Hujahadeen have been able to achieve.
MACNEIL: Can you comment on this? Would you, say that the
U.S. can, the administration can point with pride to.-the
success of the resistance and, ah, and claim some credit
for it? OAKLEY: Well, I, I would phrase it a little
differently. I would point with great pride to our
relationship with the government of Pakistan and what the
government of-Pakistan has, has done in these past five
years of standing up to the Soviet threat, to welcoming
the refugees, the between 2 and 3 million refugees who
have poured into Pakistan, and who have, with us, sought a
negotiated political settlement, as the senator pointed
out. And I think that we can point with great pride to
what the combined support of these two countries, as well
as the vast majority of the world, as witnessed by the
vote at the U.N., recent vote of the Islamic conference,
and that together, and this is not just an East-West,
Soviet-U.S. problem, but what we, with the vast majority
of the countries of the world, have been able to do to
show our admiration and moral supporttor the Afghan
freedom fighters.
MACNEIL: Well, I know you're in a difficult position and
you can't, because it's an intelligence question, comment
on the flow of this support to the freedom fighters
directly, but let me ask you this:, Are you satisfied that
the program, however clandestinely it's being
administered, are you and the State Department satisfied
it's being well-administered and that it's having the
effect intended by the Congress? OAKLEY: Well, let me
answer that in a very broad term. I'm not gonna be
satisfied in Afghanistan until the Soviet troops are out,
and that's the goal of U.S. policy. And I agree with the
senator that we have not sought a military victory. And
certainly,' we have never said that the Afghan Mujahadeen
are going to be able to oust, militarily, the Afghan
resistance. We seek a political settlement. And the
military pressure on the ground is certainly an important..
part of that pressure. It's not enough the Soviets have -.
not yet negotiated. And we aren't going to be satisfied
until we can bring them to a settlement that gets the
Soviet troops out.
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-0107OR000301510007-3
MACNEIL: Well, would you say, again on this--point that he
raised, that his charge that this is being scandalously
mismanaged, this program, is an-unfair charge? OAKLEY:
That gets very close to, to a difficult situation that's
hard for me to, to answer. But I would go back to the
empirical situation. If there is a program and it's so
badly managed, how can the Afghan Mujahadeen continue to
thwart Soviet objectives in Afghanistan? The Soviets have
not been able to wear down. their resistance. They've not
been able to capture the loyalty of the people. They have
not built an effective Afghan army. And they have not
increased popular support for Soviet, ah, the Soviet
ruler, Babrak Karmal. I think you have to look at the
total picture.
MACNEIL: I see. OAKLEY: And the Soviets are not winning
in Afghanistan.
MACNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?
LEHRER: Senator, how do you respond to that? HUMPHREY:
Well, I especially disagree with the last statement. The
Soviets, in fact, are winning. They're not winning
militarily, because they haven't sought to win militarily.
They know that they would have to commit enormously larger
numbers of troops and wealth than they have already to
defeat a guerrilla force. That's just in the nature of
guerrilla warfare, especially in rugged terrain and with
a,. with.a determined foe, as the freedom fighters are.
They're not seeking a military victory. What they're
seeking.is what they sought and achieved back in the '20s
and-'30s,.when they, when they subjugated other regions of
the USSR. They're seeking to drive out the population.
They're-seeking to, and succeeding in depopulating
Afghanistan. They've already killed off all the doctors
and, and'the.intelligence,,with the exception of those
they could subvert into their own orbit. They're carpet
bombing. They're fostering famine. They're destroying
crops. They're, they're, they've destroyed the medical
facilities, as I've stated, such that if you're wounded
today as a combatant or as an innocent, ah, ah*, victim,
you're dead. There's no medical care in Afghanistan.
They are, they have a deliberate campaign to, to drive out
the population as a way of un...
LEHRER: And it's working. HUMPHREY: Yeah.
LEHRER: Your, your position is that it's working.
HUMPHREY: And they're going to win if, if, we don't change
our policy. OAKLEY: Well, I, I wouldn't agree with you
on that. And I think, though, the discussion that. we're
having highlights one of the gravest problems of dealing
with Afghanistan, and that is the question of really
knowing what is going. on in the country. Very few people
Q-1tinurd .
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-0107OR000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
can get in. The reporters that go in have to trek in.
You talked with people who've come from.the East. It is a
very spotty picture. And it's a problem for all of us,
not only you, but certainly for those of us in the
department. So I think you have to weigh the individual
reports with the, the policy of the entire government.
Certainly in the East, these, these efforts have resulted
in depopulation. This-is not true of the entire country.
Certainly, the Panjshir Valley is now deserted, but it's
not true of the northern plains, where there is still a
sufficiency of food. And part of this, as I say, the
problem is just knowing what-is going on and what we can
do to be effective. I don't think the story of
Afghanistan is over. And I'm not gonna throw in the
towel. And I'm gonna keep up my admiration and support
for the Afghan resistance. HUMPHREY: Nor am I, and
that's why I'm, I'm issuing this criticism. The Soviets
are going to?win because they are in fact succeeding in
depopulating the country.
LEHRER: Is it... HUMPHREY: They've already driven out a
quarter of the population.
LEHRER: Is?it your position, Mrs. Oakley, that that's not
what the Soviets want? OAKLEY: I think the Soviets
certainly have used the technique of depopulation and
driving out the civilian population in certain areas that
are of strategic importance and which are known for
strategic support of the Mujahadeen. But I don't believe
that it is true in the entire country,,'certainly on"the
areas bordering the road up to the Soviet Union, certainly
in the Panjshir Valley, in the area of Logar and then over
close to the border. This has often been-the result of
such policies. But, again, it is not completely
countrywide.
LEHRER: All right. Well, neither of you go away. We'll
be right back. (Oakley and Humphrey laugh) Robin?
MACNEIL: Would more U.S. aid help end the fighting? Or
will it have to end by negotiation? To discuss that, we
have Selig Harrison, one of the foremost American experts
on Afghanistan, a senior associate of the Carnegie
Endowment in Washington. Mr. Harrison just returned from
a trip to'the region. He's written extensively on the
war. His most recent article, 'Afghanistan's
Self=Determination and Soviet Force-Withdrawal,' was
published in the current issue. of the Journal of the U.S."
Army War College. Mr. Harrison, Sen. Humphrey just said
the Soviets are going to win.' Is he right?
SELIG HARRISON (Carnegie Endowment): I think as'long as
aid to the resistance is provided,.the resistance will
fight. They'll fight even if aid.isn't provided,. some
sections of it. But to,.tq say that the. Soviets. are going
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
to win, it seems to me, is not the, not the -way to look at
it. The, the Soviets are building a stronger and-stronger
position, and they're certainly not going to be driven
out. So?we''re at a situation now where the war is
escalating. The Soviets have got 150,000 men in the
country at any one time. .-I've just, I've just been in
Pakistan. I've talked to intelligence people in the
Pakistan government, in the Indian government, who have
access to what's going on in Afghanistan. The Soviet, the
Soviets have more men in now than ever. We have been
escalating during the past two years. A great deal of
assistance has been getting in. I strongly disagree with
Sen. Humphrey. Certainly, some of.the aid has been going
into the black market. Certainly, the Afghans are very
disunited. They don't have a well-coordinated military
operation and they don't have any political follow-up, so
that when they win a battle, they can't consolidate their
control over the territory where they won the battle. So
they're on kind of a treadmill. A lot of the aid is being
dissipated. But certainly it's an escalating upward curve
in which heavy artillery, heavy machine guns are getting
in. I think the most important criticism that the senator
could make to the administration is that the management of
ammunition inputs and programs that would keep'the weapons
that are going in operational certainly could be improved.
But basically, this situation can't go beyond a certain
point. The aid has to go in through Pakistan. It's a
country of 100 million people. It's a very important
country.to the United States and to the stability of, of
that region. And I...
MACNEIL: More, more important than Afghanistan to the
United States? HARRISON: Well, I think you have to look
at the region as a whole. If the war in Afghanistan
escalates. beyond a certain point, the Soviets, as they've
indicated recently with their bombing raids into the
border areas of Pakistan, with their continuing threats to
destabilize through supporting the ethnic insurgents in
Baluchistan and in the Sind and in the Northwest Frontier,
ah', escalation is a very dangerous thing for Pakistan...
MACNEIL: 'Let me.... HARRISON: ...which is...
.MACNEIL: Let me ask you, sorry to interrupt, just let me
ask you this, finally. Is U.S. policy, as you understand
it at present, do you think it's realistic in working
towards or encouraging the negotiated settlement that Mr.'
Reagan reiterated today Washington wants? :. HARRISON: No,.
I don't. .I, I think that we are-correct in providing aid._
to the, to the freedom fighters. But we've got to
accompany that with a very flexible approach to the U.N.
negotiations currently going on. They're gonna resume on
the 13th of February in Geneva. We. haven't convinced the
people of that south Asian'region I just visited, and I
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
don't think we've convinced most of world opinion, that we
are prepared for a settlement that will get the Soviet
forces out unless it also provides for a change of regime
in which the Soviet regime that is now there would have to
be replaced by a completely different type of regime,
which most ofworld public opinion, I would argue, doesn't
necessarily consider necessary. And there's a big
difference between a settlement that gets the Soviet
forces out and a settlement that insists on a basic
political turning of the clock back (sic).
MACNEIL: OK. Jim?
LEHRER: is. Oakley, what's your comment on that? OAKLEY:
Well, I would certainly agree with, with Sagan (sic),
we've often talked about this, of the role of the United
States in the negotiation, that our goal is negotiated
political settlement. We feel that we have made every
effort to give, rend our, lend our support to the
Pakistanis in their indirect negotiations with the Afghans
and with the Soviets there as observers. The problem in
the negotiations is Soviet willingness to negotiate the
withdrawal of their forces. They claim that the problem
of Afghanistan is outside interference, but we don't have
what we consider to be 115,000 Soviet troops in
Afghanistan, with the number between 30-, 35- or 40,000
just over the border in the Soviet Union. And we feel
that the negotiations have not succeeded because it has
been the Soviet willingness to negotiate.
LEHRER: So you don't, you disagree, you say Harrison's
wrong when he says the problem is the U.S.. insistence that
the Soviet influence leave along with the troops? OAKLEY:
I disagree with him, and we've been over this on the U.S.
role of support for the negotiations.
LEHRER: Senator, what's your view of how the United
States is playing a negotiated settlement bet? HUMPHREY:
Apparently without much success. It's been five years
now. There doesn't appear to be any movement.on the part
of the Soviets to leave or to do any of the things that we
seek through negotiations. And why should they? They are
winning, as I've said. Mr. Harrison is the first witness,
eyewitness to, I've heard, who says that a great deal of
aid is getting through. Every other witness I've talked
to or whose remarks I've read in transcript, when they've
appeared before Senate committees, have indicated that
only a small amount is getting through, it's cruelly
inadequate. In any case, we ought to be talking about
what the intent is of Congress. We're the ones who
provide the appropriations, so it's the intent of Congress
that we would provide an effective. amount of aid that
would allow the freedom fighters to fight. effectively.
That it would be cruel to.provide only enough so-that-they
9
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
 Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3
could struggle along,'and yet that's what we're doing,
practically speaking.
LEHRER: Is that your reading of it too, Mr. Harrison?
We're giving just enough aid to keep these people
fighting, but not enough for them to make any difference.
HARRISON: Pakistan doesn't want the level and
sophistication of the aid to go, to go to a point that
would provoke destabilization of Pakistan. And the United
States, properly, in my opinion, is afraid, is concerned
that the Soviets may move into Pakistan in various ways
that could'draw us in. So we have every reason to be
restrained. HUMPHREY: Well, the State Department, of
course, always says that President Zia of Pakistan is
worried. But I can assure you that Zia is more worried
about what will happen to Pakistan or parts of it,.
Baluchistan and other parts, if and when the Soviets
consolidate their hold on Afghanistan. Parts of Pakistan
will be next and Zia knows that. And I think all this
talk about Zia being the bottleneck on, or Pakistan being
the bottleneck on our aid program is, is an effort to hide
behind. something that's more shadow than substance.
LEHRER: Is that true, Mrs. Oakley? OAKLEY: Well, again,
I don't agree with that. I think the position of
Pakistan, not only in welcoming the refugees, but opposing
the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has been a very
dangerous, gutsy position. And I think that we have to
look at what is possible and realistic, in that area and
not, perhaps, what we might like.
LEHRER: Mr. Harrison, if we're all around five years from
now and this program is still. on the air and we invite you
to come on as a guest, are we still going to be talking
about the Russians and the Soviets and U.S. pressure and
all that sort of business in Afghanistan? HARRISON: If
we continue to provide aid at present levels, the
resistance will continue to fight, the Soviets will bring
in more forces, their regime in Kabul will become more
consolidated. Time is on their side, and every year that
passes,-.it's harder-to get a good settlement.'
LEHRER:. And Sen. Humphrey will be holding a news
conference on the 10th-year anniversary and Mrs. Oakley
will be here and we'll see you then. Thank you all.
Robin?
MACNEIL:_ There are still three parts to: come on the
NewsHour. Charles Krause gives us a picture of a
Nicaraguan town caught in civil war, like the meat in a
sandwich. In another focus section, we join the debate
dividing colleges. Should scholarships be awarded for
need or for merit as well? .And we profile the unusual man
l0.
Approved For Release 2010/01/08: CIA-RDP88-01070R000301510007-3