BLITZER: I spoke about the complex relationship between the U.S. and the Pakistani government that Democratic Senator Jim Webb. He's on the foreign relations committee. Pakistan has about 100 nuclear warheads, we believe. So I asked him if the U.S. can allow Pakistan to become a failed state, if you will, possibly leaving that nuclear arsenal vulnerable.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. JIM WEBB (D), VIRGINIA: The discussions that I've had with people in the Pentagon is that -- the security of these nuclear weapons right now is not a question, but the increased size of them and the -- the government, even before it becomes a failed state, and what its intentions are -- intentions are, are things we need to look at.

BLITZER: The billions of dollars the United States provides Pakistan every year, $20 billion since 9/11. Is that money well spent for U.S. taxpayers?

WEBB: I have been asking those questions for a couple of years now. I asked them directly, Admiral Mullen two years ago when I -- I'm confident that they are doing a better job here in our government of bringing accountability into the process but -- whether it's a direct program for program accountability or something else when you're increasing your nuclear arsenal the way that Pakistan is, somebody using money in some way that's not really healthy, I think, in this situation here.

BLITZER: So will you continue to vote for this aid to Pakistan?

WEBB: I think that the -- the situation right now, as tenuous as it is, requires all of us to be very careful when we're looking at questions like that. But I believe that the accountability on the one hand and then a way to ensure some sort of stability in the government itself on where we need to be looking.

And that's why -- I, again, I mentioned this morning that China could actually be a player here in a positive way, and I -- I'm someone who has criticized that -- the Chinese government in many different areas were not doing this, whether it's Iran, Burma or North Korea. But here I think even the Chinese have an interest. They're a long-term ally of the Pakistanis. There are people who would say that -- and I'm among them -- who would say that, I think, China enabled Pakistan to become a nuclear power.

They have a very strong interest in the stability of that relationship. And we haven't been addressing the situation that way at all. We talk about India, part of it. We talk about the Afghanistan part of it. And we need to realize that long-term, China is geographically in that region, and we should be calling on them to be more responsible in terms of a stability in Pakistan.

BLITZER: And China is playing an increasingly important role in many countries. Not just Pakistan, Afghanistan. But speaking of Afghanistan, is it time right now to simply pack U.S. bags and get out of there?

WEBB: I think what we're seeing -- I hope what we're seeing now is that -- kind of negotiations that would allow us to do that on the timetable that has been laid out.

BLITZER: Timetable through 2014. That's a -- that's a long time.

WEBB: Well, there are two timetables. One is -- the July of this year. To -- hear the results of the strategy that's been implemented and the plans for reduction of forces. And 2014 for complete turnover to the -- to the Afghani government and lights out for the American military.

BLITZER: I asked the question because it's costing, like, $10 billion a month for the United States to maintain 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. That's money that could be spent elsewhere.

WEBB: I totally agree with you. It's enormously frustrating. And I think what Secretary Gates said at the West Point speech a while back is right. And that is this is not the formula for the future. We have something of -- there is a law of -- duty of the -- negligence law where they said once you assume a duty, you have to carry it through. You have a responsibility.

And I think we're seeing that in Iraq and where we still have 50,000 people, by the way. And if -- in Afghanistan, and in order to reduce our forces and increase our maneuverability in military terms against the threats that faced us, and not to use this model in the future.

BLITZER: Senator, we're out of time but a quick question. Have you been thinking about life after the U.S. Senate?

WEBB: I've got my hands full here in the Senate for another year and a half.

BLITZER: All right. I'll take that as a no. You haven't been thinking about it. We'll have you -- we'll have you back. Appreciate it very much.

WEBB: Thank you.