CHRIS MATTHEWS: Right now, let‘s bring in Democratic senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who‘s a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Casey, are those the right questions? How many troops can we send over to Afghanistan more than the 68,000? If so, how long do we keep them there? And what can they actually get done if they stay there a significant amount of time?

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, Chris, I think that there are a whole series of questions, those that you mentioned, but many more. We have to get this right on so many levels, militarily and also the non-military questions. Troops and all the questions tied up with that are part of this. But we have to get this right.

I think one thing that‘s very clear from what we learned in Iraq, we have to get the strategy right before we talk about resources. And getting the strategy right‘s not going to be a couple of days. I think the president should take all the time he needs to get the strategy right and then to have a discussion about resources. But the Congress has a role to play here, and we have to have a much better debate than we had with regard to the war in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: What do you think, Senator, of the argument, the historic argument that the British went in there and they were thrown out? They killed to the last man. The Soviets were thrown out with brutality. They hated the Soviets. We‘re in there now. Why do we think we can change Afghanistan? Is that a good argument, that you can‘t change a country that is Afghanistan, and we‘re us?

CASEY: Chris, I think you make a good point. I think we have to-in addition to assessing what‘s happening now and questions of resources and strategy, you do have to look at the history that we know about, the graveyard of empires, the book that was written, all of that.

But I‘ll tell you, when I was in Afghanistan for two days in August, and then one day in Pakistan, General McChrystal in his briefing to us, in addition to assessing the threats, talked specifically about the history. He has studied the history of what the Russians did well and didn‘t do so effectively. He studied that history, and I think he‘s going to-I think he already has incorporated that in some of his recommendations, and I think the president‘s going to cognizant of that, as well.

MATTHEWS: but isn‘t there a tissue rejection that sets in, where people in a country, a third world or a fourth world country like Afghanistan, the longer you‘re there, the more you rot in their eyes? You just become hated, don‘t you?

CASEY: Well, there‘s no question that one of the difficulties in coming up with the right strategy but also communicating very effectively with the American people is this strategy is different than almost anything we‘ve ever done. Counterinsurgency by definition is unlike what we did in World War II, unlike what we did in Vietnam even, and other wars. So it‘s going to be difficult to articulate that.

But I think we have to give the president the time he needs to work with General McChrystal, as well as all of the talented people he has around him on his foreign policy and national security team, to be able to come up with strategies where a lot of it is going to be non-military, engaging the people, developing trust so they can govern themselves, so they can provide their own security with the Afghan army and police and also so that they can deliver the kind of services to people that maybe the Taliban is promising they can deliver.

So it‘s-there‘s no question about it that there‘s a dimension here that is wholly apart from the military strategy. It‘s political. It‘s engagement with people on the ground and it‘s developing trust, and that‘s not easy to do.

MATTHEWS: Could you defend a loss of a service person over there? I‘m sure we‘ve lost them in Pennsylvania. We‘ve lost them all over this state. Can you defend, when you look into the eyes of a parent or a spouse, someone killed in Afghanistan right now is actually making this country safer? Can you make that case right now?

CASEY: Oh, I think we can, Chris. It‘s very difficult. We‘ve lost more than 35 Pennsylvanians. We have into the several hundreds now that are wounded just from Pennsylvania.

But I do believe that the stakes here are higher than the stakes that we faced in Iraq because of the threat to our own security in that region, meaning the possible threat-not just what‘s happening in Afghanistan, but what‘s happening in Pakistan, to make sure that that country is stable enough so that the-any extremist group, whether it‘s the Taliban group in Afghanistan or Pakistan or whether it‘s even al Qaeda-that they never get control of nuclear weapons, that they are never able to set up sanctuary in either place.

So the direct threat to our national security is very evident there, and as difficult as is it to make the case for war to any parent, any loved one, to any family member, I think we can make this case credibly. That doesn‘t mean we have the strategy set forth right now.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the Pakistani government is the enemy of the Taliban in Afghanistan-not the Taliban-in Afghanistan-in Pakistan. Do you believe that we‘re on the same side, we and the Pakistani government, in opposing the Taliban in Afghanistan? Do you believe that?

CASEY: I do. Chris, from working on this in the Foreign Relations Committee-I also chair the subcommittee that has both countries under it but-and also talking to people in Pakistan, and following this-I just spoke to President Zardari the other day. It‘s very clear this is a different approach now, and candidly, a much better approach from our vantage point, that the Pakistani government has taken with the Pakistani army. General Kiyani is very serious about this, taking the fight already to the Swat valley and also getting to Waziristan. I think they understand the threat now, or at least are reacting to the threat in a much more substantial way than they were a year ago.

So despite all the bad news that we keep hearing about Afghanistan, I think there‘s some good news to report there. In Pakistan, I think the effort is much more focused and effective to take the fight to the Taliban in-in Pakistan. I think our intelligence sharing is much better. I think you‘re seeing the results of that.

But we have to continually monitor what‘s happening in Pakistan. This aid package, the Kerry-Lugar bill, is very important...

MATTHEWS: Right.

CASEY: ... to develop the kind of-the kind of trust that our two governments probably have let break down over time.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania.

CASEY: Chris, thank you.

MATTHEWS: Let‘s go right now back to Howard Fineman and Pat Buchanan. Pat, there‘s a real issue here about America. We‘re a country, too. Do the American people have it in us to spend five years trying to build a modern centralized government in Afghanistan, with people loving us, with supporting us, with feeding them, building schools, building highways, building latrines? Is that our business, nation building in Afghanistan?

BUCHANAN: You‘re asking, Do the American people have the patience and perseverance and will to put hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan for five years? The answer to that question, Chris, is no. And just because you asked the right question at the beginning-look, the question for-that Barack Obama ought to ask General McChrystal is this. General, if I give you the 45,000 troops, can you do the job you‘re talking about, protecting the populations, getting control of the cities, fighting al Qaeda and all these things? Well, how many are you going to need for exactly how long to do it? Because Chris, a majority of the American people already think-oppose the war. A majority don‘t want the troops going in.

So we‘ve got a short timeframe here. And if I looked at it, I would say, quite frankly, I don‘t think we have it within us in terms of the value of what we‘re going to get for it, the possibility of us winning it, and what it‘s going to cost over that time to really do it. So Barack Obama‘s got to say, Do we start a new strategy now, or do we do it in a year when this one doesn‘t work?

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, Pat. Thanks very much, Howard, as well.

Let‘s go to Republican senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. He‘s a

member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committee. Senator

Chambliss, this reminds me of 1968, after Ted, when General Westmoreland

said, We can‘t win that war in Vietnam with a half million soldiers, I need

I need 250,000 more. That said to me we can‘t win it. This guy‘s talking more numbers, when he‘s really talking, The mission‘s not working. Do you believe that even with 40,000 more troops that we can achieve the mission of nation building in Afghanistan?

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I‘m not sure that 40,000 is the right number, Chris. I think whatever General McChrystal says he needs is what the number ought to be. It may be more troops now. It could be more later. Could be less later. I don‘t know.

But here‘s what I do know. We had an experience in Iraq, where we had a very dysfunctional government because we had a lot of violence going on. When we increased the numbers of troops in Iraq and we had a change in strategy with the surge, we started restoring peace in the whole community of Iraq. And once we restored peace all around that country, then we were able to move forward with having success. We saw stability in the government all of a sudden. We saw the people of Iraq getting on board with us.

Right now in Afghanistan, we have the same scenario. The theater is different. The contrasts are different. But still, we‘ve got to have sufficient troops under General McChrystal‘s control to establish peace in that country. If we don‘t do that, then we‘ll never achieve success.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe-same question I asked before. Do you believe that the Pakistan government, Zardari‘s government, is really on our side against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Not-they‘re against their own Taliban, to some extent. Are they really on our side? Because historically, that government has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.

CHAMBLISS: Well, I mean, obviously, you‘ve-you‘ve hit at kind of the heart of this thing, Chris, because you can‘t decouple Pakistan from Afghanistan. We‘ve got to have a commitment from the Paks to provide us assistance if we‘re going to prevail. Otherwise, you‘re going to continue to have these folks go back and forth across the border.

Right now, I‘m not sure the answer to your question is in the affirmative. We haven‘t seen the right kind of signs coming out of the Paks. But we do know that they‘re giving us some permission to carry out some military operations that have been very beneficial, and hopefully, we‘ll be able to continue to have some sort of cooperative spirit with them that will allow us to get a more favorable reaction from the Pak government, as well as from the Pakistani people.

MATTHEWS: What do you think of the government in Kabul? I mean, that election‘s a little bit murky, to put it lightly. Lots of talks of what we used to call in this country in our big cities "irregularities," meaning cheating. Do you think there was enough cheating by Karzai to steal that election?

CHAMBLISS: Well, I‘m not sure whether he stole it or what. But you and I have been through enough elections to know that when you have 100 percent of the vote and a significant vote going to one candidate and all other candidates get zero, something‘s askew there.

MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, what about...

CHAMBLISS: Again...

MATTHEWS: ... losing-a Georgia boy or Georgia young woman gets killed down there? Are they getting killed for that government that may be crooked?

CHAMBLISS: Well, there‘s no question but what there‘s an awful lot of corruption in the Karzai government. That‘s one of the ultimate issues that‘s going to have to be resolved. We‘re going to have to rid that government of corruption, and that‘s not going to be easy. But we‘re not even going to be able to do that until we establish peace and have some success in that realm.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CHAMBLISS: Here‘s what bothers me about delaying this decision, too, Chris. And that is, we do have Georgians that are dying over there, and I don‘t like that. I don‘t like it under the best of scenarios. But here the president has had this report from General McChrystal for 30 days now, as of today, and we still don‘t have a decision that‘s been made by the administration on what we‘re going to do. We‘ve got to move forward, and we‘ve got to be able to protect those folks, and I don‘t think we‘re giving them the best protection right now that we can.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well said. Thank you very much, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.