PBS NewsHour full episode Aug. 21, 2017

JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR ANCHOR: Good evening. I`m Judy Woodruff.
On the NEWSHOUR tonight:
Across the U.S., the sun goes dark for a moment, leaving scientists, students and novice sky
gazers marveling at a sight not seen in almost a century.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILES O`BRIEN, PBS NEWSHOUR SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT: It`s the combination of all the senses that
are involved -- the temperature dropping, the light becoming this ethereal kind of blue,
and then, suddenly darkness at noon for a brief period of time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: Then, President Trump is set to unveil a strategy in Afghanistan -- a look
at the challenges of fighting the United States` longest war.
And, top Navy officials order a global pause in operations after a collision leaves 10
sailors missing, the second accident involving a U.S. ship in just two months.
All that and more on tonight`s PBS NEWSHOUR.
(BREAK)
WOODRUFF: People gathered across the country for a historic event today, a total eclipse
of the sun in a 70 mile- wide band, crossing from the Pacific to the Atlantic coasts. With
special eyeglasses or homemade boxes, tens of millions looked to the sky to witness a
sight not seen in most people`s lifetimes.
Our science correspondent, Miles O`Brien, was in Idaho to watch for us and in partnership
with our colleagues from the PBS program, "Nova". Miles gets us started and then, he
and William Brangham discuss the day`s celestial and earthly events.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
O`BRIEN (voice-over): It is the first coast to coast American eclipse in a century. Millions
had front row seat for a celestial minuet of moon and sun.
JACK KRUMP, TOURIST: We got to Charleston yesterday morning, came up because this was
in our path and we could come and when you can, you should, so we came to see the eclipse
because it`s a once-in-a-lifetime deal.
STEPHEN ULMAN, CHICAGO RESIDENT: I`d never seen an eclipse so I figured this was my chance
since I was so close to Chicago.
O`BRIEN: Beneath a 70-mile wide path from Salem, Oregon, to Charleston, South Carolina,
day turned to night for two minutes or more.
It thrilled the public and the experts alike.
Williams College astronomer Jay Pasachoff was among them. He has traveled the world
for years chasing eclipses. This is his 66th. No one has seen more.
Pasachoff is drawn by the beauty, and the scientific opportunity, when the moon appears
to swallow the sun.
JAY PASACHOFF, ASTRONOMER: And then this white corona appears all around you. It`s dark and
it`s just a wonderful experience to have. And there`s great science that you can do.
Only on the days of eclipses do we see the corona appear, and so we want to take advantage
of that as much as possible.
O`BRIEN: Understanding the sun`s corona is a priority for scientists. Among the mysteries:
why is it hotter than the surface of the sun itself?
But there are practical reasons as well. Sometimes, the corona breaks free of the sun`s magnetic
field, causing a coronal mass ejection -- billions of tons of hot plasma moving at 2,000 miles
per second.
Normally, the earth`s magnetic field deflects most of the highly charged particles. But
every now and then, a large coronal mass ejection can overwhelm our defenses, disabling satellites
and causing power outages.
Bill Murtagh is among the scientists watching this space weather for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. The biggest event they ever saw
came in 2012.
BILL MURTAGH, SCIENTIST: And this is what we saw. All of a sudden that flare occurs,
the eruption occurs and that blast was tremendous. Very big. Very, very fast.
O`BRIEN: Fortunately, it did not hit earth, as it would have caused widespread power outages.
A total eclipse is one way scientists try to better understand coronal mass ejections.
MURTAGH: We would love to improve our capability to predict. If we can better model what the
magnetic field might look like within an eruption, then we would be in a great place.
O`BRIEN: NASA and the European Space Agency have sent several craft to study the sun over
the years. The next big mission, the Parker Solar Probe, is slated for launch next August.
It will fly through the corona itself gathering data. But no spacecraft can match the teaching
opportunity provided by a total solar eclipse, which occurs when the earth, moon and sun
are perfectly aligned, so the moon blocks the sun`s light.
The moon is 400 times smaller than sun. But also 400 times closer to the earth. So, from
our vantage point, they seem to be the same size.
But total solar eclipses happen rarely because the moon`s orbit is tilted five degrees. And
it is elliptical, so sometimes it is too far away to completely obscure the sun, causing
a so called annular eclipse, with its distinctive ring of fire.
The last total solar eclipse visible in the Continental United States happened in the
northwestern corner of the country in 1979.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O`BRIEN: Of course, Jimmy Carter was president back then. That eclipse was in the northwestern
U.S., ideally suited for Washington state. This time around, Washington, D.C. wasn`t
a bad place to watch. President Trump did so, briefly forgetting to put on protective
glasses before he finally did the right thing -- William.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM, PBS NEWSHOUR CORRESPONDENT: So, Miles, you were there in the actual shadow
cast by the moon on the face of the United States. Tell us what -- for those of us who
were here outside of that shadow, what was it like?
O`BRIEN: You know, William, I`ve never seen the total eclipse of the sun before. This
is my first experience with this. And, of course, we`ve all seen the pictures in the
films.
The experience of being in it is surreal. It`s the combination of all the senses that
are involved, the temperature dropping, the light becoming this ethereal kind of blue
and then, suddenly, darkness at noon for a brief period of time. I stopped looking through
the welder`s glass and looked at the sun or what was the sun, this disk with this amazing
aura around it, and I was truly gobsmacked, I was at a loss for words.
It -- you know, we think we`re all so advanced and evolved, but I think it appears to us
in a very fundamental, kind of limbic brain place. It`s sort of an instinctual response
that you have, it`s difficult to put into words, but it was spectacular.
BRANGHAM: And I understand you were with a rather unique brand of scientists and enthusiasts
out in Idaho. Would you tell us who you spent the day with?
O`BRIEN: It was like the United Nations of astronomy here. People from five nations here.
Many of them operators of planetariums, some of them amateur astronomers, a few professional
astrophysicists, some of them doing some actual science here.
What I like about this and what I like about covering science in general is it does afford
opportunities like this that really do bring us together. And we live in a time when things
that bring us together seem to be in short supply. So, it was really nice to see us in
this particular place come together and really in many respects the country kind of savor
this moment together.
BRANGHAM: You reported several times about how crucial this day was for science. And
I`m just wondering, why is it that we have to wait for an eclipse to do these sorts of
measurements? Can`t we put a filter on the telescopes or the devices that we used to
measure the sun? Why do we have to wait for the moon to actually block it?
O`BRIEN: You know, it`s interesting. You can think about it. You can just cover the sun
with your thumb, right, and maybe you get the same thing. It doesn`t work that way.
It`s important to have something in space that does the blocking because the atmosphere
gets in the way of the science. If you have something -- coincidently, the moon being
400 times smaller than the sun and yet 400 times closer makes it a perfect disk to occult
the sun, creating that clean view of the corona which you really can`t get unless you`re in
space.
And so, this is an opportunity for science. There are probes that have gone to the sun
and will go to the sun that will get all kinds of other types of science, but this does give
scientists a great opportunity to further understand the corona and its behavior.
BRANGHAM: So, the last one of these was in the late 1970s. Today was obviously a historic
event for the U.S. When`s the next one? When`s the next chance we might have to get a gander
at something like this?
O`BRIEN: April of 2024, only seven years away. By quirk, this is happening. It`s roughly,
as we said, about every 18 months, that eclipse happens somewhere. Any given place on the
planet, the odds are one in 365 years that you`ll see a total eclipse.
Put that all into the Rubik`s cube and you get another American eclipse from Texas all
the way up into Pennsylvania, New York and into Maine in seven years` time. And, I having
done this one and seen it in person, I can tell you, William, if I`m around, I will be
there seven years from now to see it in person.
BRANGHAM: All right. Fantastic. We are always grateful for our Miles O`Brien, especially
on days like today. Thank you so much.
O`BRIEN: You`re welcome, William.
WOODRUFF: Just a marvelous today.
And remember to stay with PBS tonight for "Nnova`s" special, "Eclipse Across America."
In the day`s other news here on Earth, Spanish police shot and killed the fugitive suspected
of plowing a van through a crowd in Barcelona last week. They caught up with Younes Abouyaaqoub
about 30 miles west of Barcelona. Police said the 22-year-old Moroccan was wearing a fake
bomb belt when officers confronted him and opened fire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEP LLUIS TRAPERO, CATALAN CPOICE CHIEF (through translator): The continuation of
the investigation can be extended, but the 12 people that we have always referred to
in the cell have been accounted for. Now, we can say the 12 people that were part of
the group are all dead or detained.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: The death toll rose to 15 today, in the Barcelona attack, and one that occurred
hours later. The count includes a man who was stabbed to death by the fugitive who was
killed today.
There`s been yet another car ramming attack in Europe, this time in Marseilles, France.
Police say that a man drove a van into two bus stops about three miles apart today. One
woman was killed. The driver was captured later. Officials say the suspect has psychological
problems, and they`ve ruled out terrorism.
The U.S. fired a new diplomatic broadside at Russia today. The American embassy in Moscow
stopped issuing non-immigrant visas for eight days, and three U.S. consulates stopped indefinitely.
The move could affect hundreds of thousands of would-be Russian tourists.
In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced it as a bid to stir discontent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERGEY LAVROV, FOREIGN MINISTER, RUSSIA (through translator): My first impression is that the
American authors of this decision have embarked on another attempt to provoke the displeasure
of Russian citizens with the actions of Russian authorities. This is a famous logic. It`s
the inertia of the Obama administration in its purest form.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOODRUFF: The visa action is retaliation for Moscow`s order that the U.S. cut diplomatic
staffing in Russia by hundreds of employees.
The U.S. and South Korean militaries began annual war games today, amid heightened tensions
with North Korea. Some 17,500 U.S. troops are taking part in the drills. They began
with computer simulations of a North Korean invasion.
Back in this country, at least eight people were killed and more than 50 others injured
in Chicago over the weekend, in a new spate of shootings. The "Chicago Tribune" reports
that the violence unfolded in a 13- hour period ending Sunday evening. The city has recorded
more than 450 homicides this year.
There is word the Secret Service`s budget is stretched to the brink, again. It`s partly
because agents have to protect 42 people under the Trump administration, up from 31 under
President Obama. The director says some one thousand agents have already hit salary caps
for the entire year. He says it`s been a recurring problem in recent years.
A Los Angeles jury has ordered Johnson and Johnson to pay $417 million to a woman who
says that talc in baby power caused her ovarian cancer. The company says there`s no scientific
basis for the claim, and it plans to appeal. Hundreds of similar lawsuits are pending nationwide.
On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 29 points to close at 21703.
The Nasdaq fell three points, and the S&P 500 added two.
And, finally, from London, the famed clock tower Big Ben chimed its last today, for the
next four years.
Big Ben had been in service since 1859, but now, it`s undergoing renovations that will
keep it mostly silent until 2021.
Still to come on the NEWSHOUR: the Navy wants answers, ordering an investigation after another
warship accident this year. A drought threatens to turn off the Eternal City`s renowned fountains.
From the NEWSHOUR bookshelf, a witty novelist capturing the humor and drama of middle age,
and much more.
(BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Since inauguration day, the Trump administration has been deliberating over
what to do about the war in Afghanistan.
Tonight, the president will address the nation and reveal changes to that policy. The U.S.
has almost 10,500 troops there now. More than 2,400 Americans have died and more than 17,600
have been wounded since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. And tens of thousands of Afghan
civilians and military personnel have been killed.
For many Afghans, President Trump`s announcement can`t come soon enough.
Special correspondent Nick Schifrin starts our coverage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK SCHIFRIN, PBS NEWSHOUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Afghanistan this weekend,
an anxious country celebrated its independence day. Security was extremely tight. The government
controls only half the country. Over the last couple years, violence has increased, stability
has decreased. And the Afghan government says it still needs the United States.
MIRWAIS YASINI, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, AFGHANISTAN: Hopefully there is one day we will be a good
partner without having any troops in Afghanistan. But for the time being, it is necessary.
SCHIFRIN: Mirwais Yasini is the first deputy speaker of Afghanistan`s lower parliament.
In 2009, he ran for Afghan president. He speaks for many here when he asks President Trump
to increase U.S. troops.
YASINI: We would like to have a steady and continuous war against ISIS particularly,
and Taliban. Ambiguity is costing us. And we are paying, and international security
is paying the prices for the delay of the strategy which is coming out of the White
House.
SCHIFRIN: For months, the Trump administration`s been debating its policy. Now-fired senior
advisor Steve Bannon advocated withdrawal, or replacing troops with private contractors.
President Trump`s expected to reject that plan and endorse a 4,000 to 5,000 troop increase
advocated by military advisors with long histories in Afghanistan. National security advisor
H.R. McMaster, who is a brigadier general, was tasked to fight Afghan corruption. Chief
of Staff John Kelly, a former four-star whose son First Lieutenant Robert Kelly died in
Afghanistan. And Defense Secretary James Mattis, who led troops on the ground during the Afghan
invasion.
They`ve teamed up with current commander, General John Nicholson, who just yesterday
painted an apocalyptic picture if the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan.
GEN. JOHN NICHOLSON, COMMANDER, NATO FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN: If we were to fail, it would
unleash waves of migration in the millions around the world. If we were to fail, it would
embolden jihadists globally.
GEN. JOHN ALLEN (RET), FORMER COMMANDER, NATO FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN: Putting some more firepower
back in can make a huge difference at the right time and at the right place to be successful.
SCHIFRIN: From 2011 to 2013, General John Allen was the U.S.`s top commander in Afghanistan.
Last year, he campaigned against Donald Trump, for Hillary Clinton:
ALLEN: Hillary Clinton will be exactly, exactly the kind of commander-in-chief America needs.
SCHIFRIN: But today, he`s backing President Trump if he increases troop numbers.
ALLEN: Here`s an opportunity for President Trump to make decisions that can put us on
the road to the success that he`s looking for.
SCHIFRIN: Allen and the president`s military advisors say deploying more troops that are
better integrated and have no departure date can turn the tide, and help push the Taliban
to the negotiation table.
ALLEN: You can get a lot more out of 5,000 if they`re properly positioned, to train and
to advise, and if we resource this properly, and we resource it in the context of both
time and the right kinds of individuals, we can be successful.
SCHIFRIN: As a civilian, Donald Trump disagreed. Between 2011 and 2013, he wrote at least 11
tweets criticizing the Afghan government and urging President Obama to withdraw.
We should leave Afghanistan immediately, he wrote in March 2013. No more wasted lives.
If we have to go back in, we go in hard and quick. Rebuild the U.S. first.
That skepticism is shared by retired lieutenant colonel and former National Security Council
staffer, Doug Ollivant.
DOUG OLLIVANT, SENIOR FELLOW, NEW AMERICA: What is this magic powder, this secret sauce,
this new idea that you`re going to do with this new 4,000 troops that you weren`t doing
when we had almost 100,000 troops in country? And if it didn`t work with 100,000 troops,
why do you think it`s going to work now?
SCHIFRIN: Ollivant used be a senior advisor in eastern Afghanistan, advocating for more
troops. But today, he and other critics advocate leaving a small number of U.S. assets to ensure
Afghan government stability, and facilitate counter-terrorism, and otherwise, to withdraw.
OLLIVANT: Pulling the band aid off will hurt. But are the policy options going to be any
different from 10 years from now? Or 15 years from now? The best tribute we might be able
to give to someone who died in Afghanistan is not to have another generation of children
die in Afghanistan.
SCHIFRIN (on camera): Many Afghans acknowledge while the country has made great strides,
major parts of the U.S. policy haven`t worked. But they don`t want the U.S. to abandon them.
And they urge the president not only to increase U.S. troops, but somehow help fix the problems
that have long plagued the Afghan government -- a lack of resources, and endemic corruption.
YASINI: My advice is to support the people of Afghanistan economically, financially.
The corruption -- fighting against the corruption is not less important than fighting against
the terrorism.
SCHIFRIN (voice-over): It`s been 16 years since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. President
Trump`s hoping his decision can prevent what he`s complained about: his successor inheriting
America`s longest war.
For the PBS NEWSHOUR, I`m Nick Schifrin.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: The deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan has been accompanied by rising
ethnic tensions, warlord rivalries, as you just heard, corruption, and a government in
the capital city that many say is barely functional.
To walk us through what the U.S. faces: Andrew Wilder is vice president of Asia Programs
at the United States Institute of Peace. And Ahmed Rashid is a long time journalist and
the author of several books about Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Gentlemen, we welcome you both to the program.
Ahmed Rashid, I`m going to start with you. You wrote earlier this summary about the crisis
the U.S. faces in Afghanistan. You talked about the strengthening Taliban, the dangerous
role of Iran and Russia, the political crisis in Kabul. How bad is the situation there?
AHMED RASHID, JOURNALIST/AUTHOR: Well, I think there are multiple crises. Much of the talk
in the U.S. has been about troop levels and how many troops President Trump should send.
But there are other equally major problems.
There are political crisis right now. The President Ashraf Ghani has lost a lot of legitimacy.
There is enormous opposition against him from the parliament, from politicians, from warlords,
and I don`t mean the Taliban.
There`s a huge economic crisis and no guarantee that the Trump administration is going to
come up with all the money that is going to be needed.
And then there`s this regional interference by now three neighboring countries deeply
involved in giving some kind of support to the Taliban -- Pakistan, Iran, and Russia.
And at the moment, it doesn`t seem that the U.S. has a team either in the National Security
Council or in the State Department which could deal with such a multitude list of problems.
WOODRUFF: Andrew Wilder, what would you add to that? And do you -- you talked to this
administration. Are they aware of what they`re dealing with here?
ANDREW WILDER, UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE: Yes, they are. You know, it`s very
daunting the challenges in Afghanistan, and I think there is no quick fix. People are
looking for a silver bullet and for many years and many administrations, we have been looking
for quick fix solutions. So, I think there is an opportunity to re-think our strategy
and I will be listening very closely to President Trump tonight to see, you know, what it`s
going to be.
But, you know, in the segment we just showed, yes, there is very rightly skepticism. So
we decide on an additional 4,000 troops. What impact is that going to have when we`ve had
100,000 troops before and 4,000 troops would bring us to around 12,500, 13,000. They`re
not -- it`s not going to defeat the insurgency.
But I think as Ahmed rightly pointed out, we`ve always focused on troop numbers and
the military strategy and have not put nearly enough emphasis on what is the political strategy
in Afghanistan. So, I actually hope that we hear there will be more troops sent and we`ll
have a modest increase on the military side, but primarily to support a political strategy
which will be focusing on what Ahmed said, getting the Afghanistan government to step
up more, to tackle corruption and things that are undermining its legitimacy, which is fueling
the insurgency. But also the regional strategy, getting Pakistan to do more, but also trying
to focus on what is possible to get a politically negotiated end of the conflict with the Taliban.
WOODRUFF: Ahmed Rashid, what would the strategy be on the part of the United States that would
address the regional threat, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, that would address this political
crisis inside the capital with the current leadership?
RASHID: I think what has been so sad is that for the last year or two, the U.S. has not
had a regional strategy. Its has not really been able to put together an alliance of countries
around Afghanistan which would talk peace and persuade the countries who are interfering
to pull out of there and the Taliban to get to the peace table.
What you need is a major diplomatic push. Now, given everything else that`s happening
in the world, the Middle East, North Korea and others, I fear that President Trump is
not going to put together a really high-powered team which is going to effectively deal with
some of these neighboring countries and bring them together in some kind of alliance. And,
of course, there are problems. I mean, the U.S. has very shaky relations with Iran, but
Iran is a major player. The U.S. has very good relations with Pakistan, but it is also
become a major player in backing the Taliban. So, this needs a great deal of diplomatic
effort which at the moment is just not there.
WOODRUFF: Andrew Wilder, is it your sense again from talking to people in the administration
that they are prepared to come up with some semblance of a strategy that you and Ahmed
are describing?
WILDER: I think so. I mean, certainly, we thought we were close to having a strategy
in April and then in July, and I think one of the things that delayed it was a sense
in particular from the State Department that we didn`t have an adequate regional strategy.
And I think Ahmed is right, the absence of that has truly destabilizing behavior. People
don`t know what the U.S. policy is going to be, so Iran helped stepped into the void a
bit more, Russians have stepped into the void in addition to what Pakistan has been doing.
WOODRUFF: But as you said a moment ago, Ahmed Rashid, a moment ago, the U.S. right now strained
relations with Iran, strained relations with Russia. So, how does one see working around
that to make a difference?
RASHID: Well, I think there have been very good proposals by America`s scholars that
really would get the Americans to look at Afghanistan separately, perhaps involve other
players, neutral players like the United Nations, and support perhaps not an American-led but
perhaps someone else-led coalition of countries with interested parties like Russia, Saudi
Arabia and others and get them to sit around a table and work something out.
The problem is that certainly it`s risky and it would be extremely difficult to do simply
because the U.S. doesn`t have good relations with so many countries. But it`s the only
thing that`s going to work. And if the U.S. can`t do it, get somebody else to do it.
WOODRUFF: Andrew Wilder, we heard Ahmed Rashid say a moment ago that part of this should
be looking at a way to bring this to an end, but is that even realistic at this stage?
WILDER: I think it`s difficult but I think it`s realistic and I think that`s what our
objective should be. And I should point out, actually one area where I think the Taliban,
Afghanistan`s neighbors and the U.S. agree is -- or President Trump agrees, we don`t
want our troops there forever. So, that seems to be something we should negotiate on.
It was interesting when I used to travel to Afghanistan last year or the year before,
the big concern in Afghanistan`s neighbors was that we were leaving precipitously, it
was going to collapse, which would be very bad for the neighborhood. Now, I think the
concern might be that, you know, they also don`t want us there forever. And so, my argument
for I think the opportunity for the Trump administration is to make the case that, no,
we also want to leave, but we don`t want to leave precipitously and have it collapse.
We want to leave responsibly, and we can agree on that with Afghanistan`s neighbors and eventually
with the Taliban as well.
WOODRUFF: To both of you, very quickly at the end, Ahmed Rashid, what would you like
to hear President Trump say tonight?
RASHID: I would like to hear him give a very nuanced speech in which he does not just talk
about the military deployment but also talk about the other issues: strengthening the
Afghan government, getting them to do more reforms, dealing with corruption, helping
the economic crisis in Afghanistan, all these refugees who are fleeing the country, getting
them to stay put by having a sounder economic policy and raising money from other places,
and most importantly, taking steps to get the Taliban to the table to talk peace.
WOODRUFF: Andrew Wilder, just quickly to you. What do you want to hear?
WILDER: I would like him to renew our commitment that we want a partnership with Afghanistan.
We don`t want to abandon Afghanistan. So, I think that would have a stabilizing thought
that we are not about to jump ship and abandon them, and going to have positive political,
economic and security benefits in the region. But I also, I think, President Trump needs
to explain to the American people why we`re in Afghanistan, why it`s important not to
leave precipitously because I have no doubt in my mind it would then become one again
a safe for transnational terrorist groups that would threaten the U.S.
WOODRUFF: If the U.S. did pull out?
WILDER: Exactly, yes.
WOODRUFF: Andrew Wilder, Ahmed Rashid, gentlemen, thank you both.
WILDER: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: The Navy`s top admiral has ordered a one-day, worldwide safety review after a
destroyer collided with a civilian oil tanker ship east of Singapore. Ten U.S. sailors are
missing and five are injured. Just two months ago, there was another deadly collision between
a destroyer and a cargo ship near Japan.
These are the latest in a series of incidents involving Navy ships in the Pacific. Is there
a systemic problem?
John Yang has more.
JOHN YANG, PBS NEWSHOUR CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Judy.
To examine that question, we`re joined by retired Navy Officer Bryan McGrath, who commanded
a destroyer identical to the ones involved in the two latest collisions. He`s now a consultant
to the Navy.
Mr. McGrath, thanks for joining us.
We`ve had four incidents in the Pacific with Navy ships. The last two collisions, the Fitzgerald
off the coast of Japan, the McCain now off the coast of Singapore. A run of bad luck
or is there something more elemental wrong here?
CMDR. BRYAN MCGRATH (RET.), HUDSON INSTITUTE You can`t hang your hat on a run of bad luck.
It`s unsatisfying and probably not the right answer. The right answer is to look hard at
what ties these incidents together, all four of them, potentially, and learn from that.
So, it`s -- reaching conclusions is wrong right now. Forming hypotheses is right.
YANG: But what could be the problem? If there is a systemic problem, what do you think the
roots could be?
MCGRATH: The roots go back to tend of the Cold War. The roots go back to America becoming
the predominant sea power on the face of the earth and losing an opponent that focused
its efforts and, over the course of time, the Navy became less important to the country
and we progressively funded it less. We had less of a Navy, less of a size of the Navy,
and we funded it inconsistently over the course of the last 12 or 13 years.
YANG: So, how did the lack of funding translate into these kinds of accidents?
MCGRATH: It translates by having too few ships to do what`s required in that theater, and
because there are too few ships and the work has to be done, my theory is that they sometimes
have to cut corners on the basic training, and I think CNO today who announced a panel
to look into this, I think that`s one of the things they`ll look it, whether or not they`re
getting the basic training time they need.
YANG: CNO, chief of naval operations. So, in this sort of pause, this operational pause,
what`s going to happen?
MCGRATH: The first thing is if a ship is involved many a sensitive operational mission, it won`t
pause. It will continue to do its operations. But by and large, throughout the fleet, both
at sea and in a shore, ships will take a full day. They will get their bridge teams, their
combat information center teams, their engineering teams together, their navigation detail.
And they will go through the procedures. They will go through the common reports. They will
go through the things that they have to do every time right the first time and create
a sense of importance, create a sense that business as usual is not acceptable. We have
to get back on the right side of safety here.
YANG: You commanded a destroyer, Arleigh Burke (ph), for how long?
MCGRATH: Two years ago.
YANG: Did you have any close calls?
MCGRATH: Anyone who`s gone to sea for an extended period of time has had close calls. How close
they are comes -- is a factor of how just well you and the other ship involved are following
the rules of the road. If both ships follow the rules of the road, they`re not going to
collide.
YANG: Bryan McGrath, thanks for joining us to talk about this.
MCGRATH: My pleasure.
(BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Now to the ripple effects inside the White House, after President Trump`s reaction
to Charlottesville and the departure of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
Here to break it all down, our politics Monday regulars, Amy Walter of the "Cook Political
Report" and Tamara Keith of NPR.
And welcome to both of you, politics Monday.
The country got through last week, Amy, but I think it`s fair to ask the question how
many damage was done to the president.
AMY WALTER, NATIONAL EDITOR, COOK POLITICAL REPORTER: Right.
WOODRUFF: I was away last week enjoying some family vacation time, but there was no avoiding
what was going on.
WALTER: That`s right. It`s never a good time, Judy, when you`re the president of the United
States and your own party is finding lots of different ways to distance themselves from
you. Report after report was that elected leaders weren`t even going to go on television
to defend because they were worried they would have to defend the president.
The short answer, though, is we don`t really know what total effect that the results of
Charlottesville and the president`s reaction have had. We`re starting to get some polling
data, but it`s really not definitive yet. The only thing we have is history to guide
us.
And we`ve sat at this table plenty of times during 2016, Judy, where we watched the "Access
Hollywood" tape, the attack on John McCain not being a war hero, the president attacking
a gold-star family who was Muslim, where we said, well, maybe this is it, maybe the Republican
base will now divide over this candidate, this nominee. Obviously, they never did.
So, it`s a little bit soon to tell, but it`s pretty clear even in talking to the voters,
listening to the voices of voters and a lot of the reports over the weekend, they`re not
abandoning this president. The question, of course, is what happens when a president is
constantly being -- his own party in Congress has constantly distanced themselves and watched
out for themselves. How much effect can you have as president when you`re only talking
to a narrow slice of the electorate over and over again?
WOODRUFF: Is that what`s happening, Tam?
TAMARA KEITH, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NPR: Yes. Now, an interesting thing is there are
some rank and file Republicans like Bob Corker from Tennessee or Susan Collins from Maine,
who are saying things that are clearly distancing themselves from the president and saying it
in a way that says the president`s name. But when you get someone like Paul Ryan, the speaker
of the house, or Mitch McConnell, the majority leader in the Senate. And Ryan put out a statement,
you know, arguably, a very strong statement condemning neo-Nazis, saying there are -- there
are no sides when it comes to racism and neo-Nazis and white supremacists, never mentions the
president`s name.
But there certainly is a sense there are many Republicans in Congress, obviously, you have
these business leaders who jumped ship from the advisory council to the president and
all this indicates that there are a lot of people who aren`t as afraid of this president
as they were earlier in his presidency.
WOODRUFF: So, would do it -- Amy, what does that mean? I know we`re all, you know, sort
of groping
(CROSSTALK)
WOODRUFF: -- trying to understand what has changed. Has anything changed? Are we just
right back where we were eight, 10 days ago?
WALTER: It feels like every day is about like a dog year. It`s like every day, seven years.
So, you have to sort of live within that, knowing that by tomorrow, we could be talking
about something else, and so, it`s unclear if there is real systemic damage.
But the president has a pretty important task ahead of him as we come back into the fall
and that`s will he be able to get his legislative agenda back on track, and that`s where we
can have an answer to this question about how much damage did this really do. As I said,
if you`re a president who`s sitting at anywhere between 35 and 40 percent approval, it`s hard
to get a whole lot done.
It`s hard to first of all pressure members of Congress with an approval rating that low
and for members who are Republicans, the base may still be with Trump, but they know that
independents and other swing voters in their districts may not be. They can`t guarantee
that he can come and help them in the fall of an election year with approval ratings
this slow. So, it really does limit his ability to be a strong legislator and chief as well
as an executive.
WOODRUFF: And when it comes to appealing to the base, the person who I think most represented
the base in the White House, Steve Bannon, is now out as of three days ago, Tam. How
much difference is that going to make do we think in what`s going on?
KEITH: I think we just don`t know. You know, how many times have we said on this very set,
how much difference is this going to make?
WOODRUFF: Right.
KEITH: This person leaving, this person coming in, this new chief of staff? And I think the
answer is we don`t know.
What we can say is that Steve Bannon is still going to have a voice in this country and
on the right, and he also is still going to have a telephone. And President Trump may
be unhappy with him now but as we have seen, people who have been fired from the Trump
orbit, they come back like celestial beings, they come back around and come back in. Like
a Corey Lewandowski who was fired as campaign manager, who then I saw walking out of the
White House the other day.
So, people go way. They come back. And Steve Bannon is going to continue to have an influence
in this White House and with this president, simply, if only because President Trump reads
"Breitbart News".
WALTER: Yes. And the shakeup in the White House is reflective of the broader debate
within the party right now, between these two different wings of the party, the more
establishment versus the anti-establishment, the Tea Party versus the original. That is
a debate that`s ranging within the Republican Party. It makes sense that it`s also happening
within the White House and that debate isn`t going away at anytime.
WOODRUFF: So, because as you look at Steve Bannon who represented all the nationalist
instincts and populist instincts, the fact that`s not going to be in the president`s
ear, it`s not that he`s not going to hear it. But it`s not going to be as regular.
KEITH: It`s also still going to be in the president`s head. President Trump believes
-- President Trump has those nationalist instincts. I mean, he has been talking about some of
these nationalist ideas for years and years and years, well before Steve Bannon entered
his orbit.
WOODRUFF: So, that`s -- and that`s still going to be there. So, as we look to see, OK, different
chiefs, chief of staff, the chief strategist has gone, the communications shop has changed,
but the president is still the president.
WALTER: The president is still the president. And as I said, you know, the people who have
left the White House, you had one establishment wing with Reince Priebus, the former RNC chairman,
Sean Spicer came from the RNC, and one from the outside. And that`s what his policy portfolio
looks like so far thus far. You had some wins from the nationalist side, the Steve Bannon
side, the travel ban, pulling out of Paris. But also, the more traditionalists have gotten
their way as well.
So, it has been this balancing act within the White House and, of course, within the
party. But both those issues are tearing -- the difference on those issues are tearing the
party apart and the president`s temperament as well.
WOODRUFF: More to come.
Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, politics Monday -- thank you both.
KEITH: You`re welcome.
WALTER: You`re welcome.
WOODRUFF: A serious drought has swept southern Europe this summer. Some farmers in Italy
and Spain are predicting the worst crop yields in 20 years. Agricultural damage and loss
are expected to be in the billions.
NEWSHOUR special correspondent Christopher Livesay bring us this report from Italy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTOPHER LIVESAY, PBS NEWSHOUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For three generations,
Daniel Granieri and his family have farmed olives in the tiny hilltop town of Nerola,
producing extra-virgin olive oil from these fields outside Rome.
This summer, things took a turn, and for the worst.
DANIEL GRANIERI, OLIVE FARMER (through translator): I started to get very worried. From being
worried, that turned into being absolutely certain about the drought. There`s never been
anything like this, not in 20 years. This is the worst it`s ever been.
LIVESAY: Granieri is also the regional president of the Italian Farmers Association, Coldiretti.
He shows me some of the damage up close.
GRANIERI (translated): Look here, there`s hardly anything compared to the olives that
should be on this branch. Raising the price won`t offset the loss. But we`ll have to raise
them at least 10 to 15 percent. We`ve lost up to 70 percent of our harvest in the region.
LIVESAY: The drought is so relentless that his town now rations water. For eight-hour
blocks every day, they can`t turn on their taps. And they aren`t alone. So far, 20 nearby
towns have had to follow suit. Roughly $200 million in crops have been lost in the Central
Lazio region alone. And two billion dollars have gone up in smoke nationwide, due to drought
and related brush fires, according to Coldiretti.
Conditions have gotten so dire that even Rome, the city of aqueducts, has warned it too may
have to ration water for a million and a half Rome residents, and the tourists who flock
there.
(on camera): There are almost 3,000 of these drinking fountains like this all over Rome,
and there`s a trick to getting a good drink.
But that could soon be a thing of the past. The city is currently turning off 30 fountains
a day because of the drought.
(voice-over): Romans call them nasoni, or "big noses" for their curved spigots. The
water utility says it`s the first time in history they`ve had to turn them off, a radical
move in a city where water plays such a central role, from the Trevi fountain, to the Tiber
River.
TOM RANKIN, PROFESSOR, LA SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY: Rome was founded where it is because of this
water, because of the Tiber Tiber.
LIVESAY: Tom Rankin is a professor of urbanism at Rome`s La Sapienza University.
RANKIN: The Romans were smart. They started removing the groundwater where it was undesired,
using for their water source, wells.
LIVESAY (on camera): So, the ancient Romans were master engineers of water.
RANKIN: They really were. They really were. And when you think about it, the sewer system,
they were certainly in place in the 4th century B.C., and it`s still functioning today. It`s
probably the most cost- effective public works project ever built.
LIVESAY (voice-over): But modern city planning has fallen short. The drought is one thing,
he says. But long-term mismanagement is also to blame.
Officials from both the city and the water utility declined requests for an interview.
RANKIN: Rome, of all the European capitals, is the only city that has a fully sustainable
water supply, meaning that the water table is recharged faster than the city can use
the water. The real problem, though, is not that there wouldn`t be enough water to provide
for the population, it`s the waste of water.
LIVESAY (on camera): The waste of water?
RANKIN: The waste of water. The water system is damaged. And therefore, at least 25 percent
of it, some say up to half of it, leaks out before getting to its destination.
LIVESAY (voice-over): Leaks like this one, that`s caused foliage to overgrow a path along
the river.
RANKIN: Because you see, this water isn`t actually stagnant, it`s flowing. It`s flowing
from the city`s water system.
LIVESAY: And this one, which has formed stalactites.
The water utility says it`s working to repair city pipes in order to avoid rationing water.
But the lingering threat frightens Roman shaved-ice vendor, Maria di Pascale.
MARIA DI PASCALE, SHAVED ICE VENDOR (through translator): It would be a tragedy because
without water, you can`t survive, you can`t work. It`s essential for humans to survive.
But especially us, because we need it for our business.
LIVESAY: The threat is especially acute for some of Rome`s most vulnerable. The Red Cross
says turning off public fountains poses a serious risk to the city`s thousands of homeless,
which include a growing number of migrants.
Volunteer Marzia di Mento distributes food and water to migrants and refugees outside
Rome`s Tiburtina Train Station.
MARZIA DI MENTO, BOABAB EXPERIENCE (through translator): We need those fountains. We use
those that are closest to the camp. We use this pipe for the people to bathe in.
We`re afraid it could be turned off at any moment. It`s their only water source. It would
be a huge loss.
Many of the migrants have skin diseases from the trip over here by boat. They need water
to clean those wounds. Water is fundamental.
LIVESAY: For the moment, Rome says it`s averted water rationing by tapping Lake Bracciano,
about 30 miles outside the city. But that`s caused still more problems, as water levels
plummet to alarming lows, threatening local plants and wildlife.
Back in the Rome countryside, farmer Daniel Granieri survey`s his olives. This year, he`ll
have to pick them early in order to save what isn`t already lost.
GRANIERI (through translator): Drought has absolutely become a recurring event. A farm
like mine now has to decide either to change business, or make some serious changes in
infrastructure. If this happens again next year, farms will go out of business.
LIVESAY: For urbanism professor Tom Rankin, Rome`s drought is a wake-up call, not just
for the Eternal City, but for cities around the world coping with a changing climate.
RANKIN: If Rome, which is by definition a great water city, if it can no longer manage
its abundant resource, then how can we expect places which have a very limited supply of
water to survive? On the other hand, if Rome were able to demonstrate its ability to engineer
a solution, providing fresh, clean water for free to a growing population, then it would
set a model for the rest of the world.
LIVESAY (on camera): Is that what we`re seeing, Rome rising to the occasion?
RANKIN: Not yet.
LIVESAY (voice-over): For the PBS NEWSHOUR, I`m Christopher Livesay, in Rome.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: Now, a look at a sexual revolution in ways you might not expect. Jeffrey Brown
has this latest addition to the NEWSHOUR bookshelf.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFFREY BROWN, PBS NEWSHOUR CORRESPODENT: Suburbia, sex, satire and a touch of the supernatural,
subjects Tom Perrotta has taken on in novels, and the films and TV shows adapted from them.
Among them, the 1998 book "Election" made into a film starring Reese Witherspoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REESE WITHERSPOON, ACTRESS: Who put you up to this?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you mean?
WITHERSPOON: You woke up this morning and suddenly decided to run for president?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: In 2004 in 2004, came the novel and then film "Little Children" with Kate Winslet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATE WINSLET, ACTRESS: It`s him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, Jesus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And most recently, "The Leftovers," an apocalyptic tale that became an acclaimed
HBO drama.
Now, Tom Perrotta is out with his seventh novel titled, "Mrs. Fletcher," about a woman
coping with her empty nest, her son who`s gone off to college and the sexual boundaries
both explore.
Tom Perrotta, nice to talk to you.
TOM PERROTTA, AUTHOR, "MRS. FLETCHER": Oh, great to talk to you.
BROWN: So, for you, the writer, were looking at sort of sexual norms today.
PERROTTA: Yes, absolutely. So, in a way this is a book about college and identity. Eve
sends her son Brendan off to college and she`s alone in the empty nest and she`s looking
for a way to jumpstart her life. She`s lonely, and through a strange series of circumstances,
starts looking at this porn that confuses her, but it also features middle aged women
like herself and it makes her see herself as possibly an object of desire, and in doing
so, it kind of changes her view on the world. Ordinary situations that seemed completely
innocuous before are suddenly charged with some erotic possibility and sometimes she
acts on that.
BROWN: Get to look at the limits of acceptable behavior today.
PERROTTA: Yes, and I`m always interested in this idea of transgression and the fact that
the lines keep changing, you know? So, in "Little Children," the adulterous couple,
that`s not the scandal, you know. But the pedophile is the scandal. Whereas in the 19th
century in novels like "Anna Karenina" or "Madame Bovary," the adulterous couple was
the scandal.
So, we keep redefining where that line is and for Eve, worrying about her son`s porn
consumption and she just feels like, oh, that`s -- it`s terrible what these kids are exposed
to and it`s had harmful effects on him. And then she starts looking, out of curiosity
and it gets under her skin in a strange way.
And so, she`s in that place where a lot of my characters are where she`s doing something
she herself disapproves of but she can`t stop.
BROWN: It`s Jane Austen, right? I mean, this is the stuff of, how do we treat each other,
what`s allowed and what`s not?
PERROTTA: Right, I`ve seen, you know, my parents generation have one view of sex, my -- and
one experience of sex, my generation had another, and now, my kids are coming of an age in a
time when all sorts of sexual identities are suddenly available but also this huge amount
of pornography on the Internet, so that, you know, any kid who wants to be exposed to the
entire encyclopedic spectrum of sexuality can get it.
And I just don`t think that we know exactly how it`s affecting people. I think part of
the fun of this book was to show a middle aged person experiencing this late in life
this kind of sexual re- education.
BROWN: You know, I want to say, I mean, for the audience too. I mean, we`re talking about
a book that is sort of about pornography and sex, but there`s not a lot of -- this isn`t
a book with a lot of pornography or even a lot of sex for that matter. You`re writing
a book about sex without a lot of sex.
PERROTTA: Yes, I hope that doesn`t disappoint anyone.
(LAUGHTER)
PERROTTA: Right, I think that it`s really about how we think about sex, how sex factors
into our identity and how that identity can change at different points in life. For instance,
Eve takes a night school class on gender and society and she has a transgender professor
and the book kind of tracks this moment that we just lived through where, you know, the
culture has started to re- define gender as a spectrum, to see that trans people are,
you know, human beings and part of the community, but it`s also been challenging to a lot of
people who are used to thinking about sex in, you know, very binary terms. And so, think
about gender in very binary terms.
BROWN: You know, it looks like you`re a writer who is in some way tracking his own life.
I mean, I wonder if this is fair. I mean, I think of early novels as a young guy and
then, you know, married, living in the suburbs with kids, and then up to today as an empty
nester, it sounds like yourself, right? Is that fair?
PERROTTA: Yes, that is absolutely fair. It`s --
BROWN: You`re your own material.
PERROTTA: I am. And so, I don`t often write about myself or people I know, but I do write
about the life passage that I`m going through and it helps in a way because I think I`m
very close to it while I`m writing. So, it`s not seen through that mist of nostalgia, you
know, and so, I really felt like, you know, what I was reading in the newspaper was feeding
directly into this novel.
BROWN: Is your television experience impacting you fiction writing in terms of storytelling,
or how you even approaching a novel?
PERROTTA: I don`t think so. You know, I feel like if you look at "Mrs. Fletcher" and you
look at some of my earlier work, I think you`d say that`s the same writer doing that.
On the other hand, what has happened is I`ve become much more aware of what`s special about
novel writing, what are the kinds of things I can do. I can go into a character`s head.
I can follow their inner monologue in a way that`s very difficult to do in a drama. And
so, I think that I try to avail myself of the tools of fiction when I`m writing fiction,
I`m much more conscious of that.
BROWN: All right. The new novel is "Mrs. Fletcher". Tom Perrotta, nice to talk to you. Thank you.
PERROTTA: Great to talk to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WOODRUFF: And that`s the NEWSHOUR for now. Join us again right here at 9:00 p.m. Eastern
tonight for special coverage of President Trump`s address to the nation on the path
forward in Afghanistan. That`s to be followed in the East by "Nova`s" special: "Eclipse
Over America."
I`m Judy Woodruff. For all of us at the PBS NEWSHOUR, thank you and we`ll see you later.

PBS NewsHour full episode Aug. 21, 2017

Latest Posts