Reed: Will GOP Pay For More Troops?

Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who has been in support of the administration's strategy for Afghanistan, said it cannot be assumed that Taliban control in Afghanistan would confer greater influence for al Qaeda.

"I think you have to question the assumption," he told CBS News Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"I think al Qaeda looks for ungoverned areas, wherever they may be. Again, the irony here is that al Qaeda has significantly reconstituted itself in Pakistan over the last several years. And we didn't, I would argue, pay the kind of attention we should have to Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He advocated taking a similar approach to the Taliban in Afghanistan as was taken with the Sunni tribes in Iraq.

"Try to pull away as many of the Taliban as we can who will swear that the government in Kabul is legitimate and they will support it," Reed said, noting that some "irreconcilables" will have to be "taken out."

On the Senate's response to the road ahead in Afghanistan, Reed - who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee - said, "The question not only should be asked, 'Will the Senate approve (and particularly Republicans) additional troops,' but 'Will they pay for it?' They've been notorious over the last eight years [for] sending troops but putting it on the tab for future generations."

Schieffer explained that given estimates of how much it costs to keep an American combat soldier in Afghanistan an additional 40,000 soldiers would add up to an additional $10 billion.

Reed said that the cost - and whether Senate Republicans would approve the additional expenditure - is a key part of the debate. "Glib assertions of sending more troops is something that we have to look behind in terms of many other factors. Do we have the civilian capacity to complement the troops? How much progress and how fast can we bring the Afghani army online?"

Reed and Schieffer noted that the cost of training an Afghani soldier is significantly less than keeping an American soldier in the region.

The Democrat asserted that while General Stanley McChrystal and his colleagues conducted a very good analysis of the situation in Afghanistan, their perspective on what is need is "rather narrow.

"It's military operational aspects. They assume we'll have civilians. They assume that this will be paid for. They assume that this can be sustained over time. The president doesn't have the luxury of those assumptions," Reed said, "and he has to look across the board."

The Senator would not commit to being convinced that an additional 40,000 combat troops are necessary in the region.

"We do not want to repeat mistakes previously of assuming a rather simplistic approach: more troops and more this, et cetera, and just go forward. I think now is the time for a fundamental analysis of all of the components. The president is doing that," he explained.

In response to Vice President Joe Biden's proposed drone strategy in Pakistan, Reed said that there is a need for counterterrorism forces on the ground in Afghanistan, not just unmanned drones.

Finally, he argued that cooperation with Pakistani forces is key. "That's a very delicate issue because they're very sensitive of their sovereignty, they're very sensitive of our presence in Pakistan."

Reed said that lately Pakistani forces have shown they are "generally fearful of their own situation, a willingness to cooperate more, to conduct operations in south Waziristan, to attack or allow drone operations in their air space."