Face the Nation Transcripts October 26, 2014: Fauci, Rogers, Manchin

(CBS News) -- Below is a transcript from the October 26, 2014 edition of Face the Nation. Guests included Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Jon Lapook, Rep. Mike Rogers, Sen. Joe Manchin, Clarissa Ward, Mike Morell, David Ignatius, Amy Walter, Nancy Cordes, David Leonhart, John Dickerson and Anthony Salvanto.

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: I'm Charlie Rose.

Today on FACE THE NATION, the latest on Ebola, terror and the midterm elections. Officials work to ease anxiety over new case of Ebola in New York City. There is a new mandatory quarantine for health care workers returning from Africa. Does it go too far? We will talk to Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.

Plus, with the midterm elections just nine days away, what impact will the president have on the outcome? West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin will be here. And we have new results on those two Senate races from our CBS News/"New York Times" Battleground Tracker survey.

And this: After 13 years, the last Marine unit in Afghanistan has packed up is heading home. What next for the U.S. in Afghanistan?

Finally, we take look at the rise in homegrown terror attacks with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and an all-star panel.

Sixty years of news because this is FACE THE NATION.

Good morning.

We start with Ebola in New York City. Dr. Craig Spencer, the latest American to contract the disease, remains hospitalized at Bellevue Hospital. But there is growing controversy over the mandatory quarantine issued by the governors of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida. That quarantine applies to all passengers coming back into the U.S. who have come in direct contact with Ebola patients in West Africa.

We start our coverage with Dr. Anthony Fauci from the National Institutes of Health.

Good morning.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Good morning.

ROSE: Do these quarantines go against science? Because you have always insisted we should start with the science.

FAUCI: Well, first of all, the most important thing is to protect the American people. And, as you said, you got to base your decision and your policy on scientific evidence and scientific principles.

What we are taking about health care workers coming back, they are at different levels of risk depending on their experience. And you tailor the kinds of monitoring, passively, actively, direct, according to that kind of risk.

The idea of a blanket quarantine for people who come back could possibly have a negative consequence of essentially disincentivizing people from wanting to go there. The reason that's important, Charlie, is because the best way to protect Americans is to stop the epidemic in Africa. And we need those health care workers to do that.

To put them in position when they come back that, no matter what, automatically, they're under quarantine can actually have unintended consequences. And that's reason why we're concerned about that.

ROSE: I suppose the governors would say two things.

Number one, if you look at monitoring, it doesn't seem necessarily to work, self-monitoring. And, two, we have a responsibility to make sure that panic doesn't set in.

FAUCI: That is correct. That's appreciated and understood.

When you look at the kinds of monitoring, continually on an everyday basis making sure we're getting it work and doing it right, and as you will see, the monitoring protocol that we will put into place will be able to be tailored according to the scientific evaluation of the risk.

So when you put everyone in the same basket, that is the thing that we're concerned about.

ROSE: In fact, the nurse who is now in quarantine said: "I'm scared that, like me, they will arrive and see a frenzy of disorganization, fear and, most frightening, quarantine and therefore disincentive to come."

FAUCI: Right.

That's exactly what we're concerned about. It's totally understandable -- I'm not being critical of people who make that decision and understand why they may want to do that. But we have to keep emphasizing, be careful, and make sure that what your decisions and policy are based on scientific data and scientific evaluation.

ROSE: Do we have more on Dr. Craig Spencer?

FAUCI: Well, I can't comment on his personal care, Charlie, because I'm not directly taking care of him. I just have to see what I read in the media.

ROSE: But getting back to the science, can you get Ebola from a bowling ball that's been in the hands of someone?

FAUCI: You have to come in to direct contact with the body fluids of someone who is sick with Ebola.

If a person who is without symptoms and not sick has a bowling ball, that is essentially no risk. It's so vanishingly small as to be unmeasurable.

ROSE: In West Africa, is it moving to some kind of tipping point or is it slowing down?

FAUCI: Well, you know, you can't tell because lot of cases now are becoming unreported. We know from the people who are there, from our own people that it is still raging, it still needs a considerable amount more effort on the global community to try and stop that, particularly trained health care workers, hospital beds, the things that would put down an epidemic.

So, it's still a serious problem.

ROSE: As someone who understands Ebola and at the forefront of this battle today, have you learned any new science based on what's happened so far or is it simply a new experience from the numbers involved?

FAUCI: It's much more a new experience and different circumstances, but the fundamental scientific principles of how it's transmitted has hot been changed.

The fundamental principles of contact tracing being paramount to your methodology of suppressing it, that hasn't changed. The experience of an explosion of an epidemic in highly populated area and exportation out, that experience certainly is new.

ROSE: Of all the things that you have seen so far, what is it that you think must be rebutted so as not to cause fear?

FAUCI: Well, I think rather than rebut is to just keep stating the fundamental principles. When someone is without symptoms, if you do not come in to contact with their body fluid, this is not spread the way other diseases like influenza or other types of respiratory diseases are spread, where you can -- you and I could be talking, and I'm a little bit sick and I can go that and you can get -- you don't get Ebola that way.

That is the thing we have to make absolutely certain. Look at the experience. The only two people in the United States who have gotten Ebola are brave health care nurses who have taken care of a patient who was seriously ill.

ROSE: What is most important thing we have learned so far?

FAUCI: Well, we have learned that we have got to be more -- continue to be aggressive in our educating people to understand, because right now we have devastating epidemic in West Africa, and we are having epidemic of fear in the United States.

We have got to continue to try to educate people about what they need to or do not need to be afraid of.

ROSE: So far, if there are no symptoms, there's no contagion?

FAUCI: Right.

You have to come into direct contact with body fluids. Someone who is standing there looking well, they're not going to transmit it.

ROSE: Do we know more about Amber Vinson?

FAUCI: Amber Vinson, I'm just hearing from reports is doing really quite well, but that's just secondhand. I haven't taken care of her.

Nina, I have. Nina is doing great. She's back home, feeling well.

ROSE: Nina Pham.

(CROSSTALK)

FAUCI: Nina Pham, she just sent me e-mail 10 minutes ago saying, how are you doing? I miss you.

ROSE: Thank you very much, Dr. Fauci.

We now go to New York CBS News chief medical correspondent Jon LaPook.

Jon, let me continue this conversation about health care workers. You have talked to the nurse and to her parents. What are you learning from them?

DR. JON LAPOOK, CBS NEWS CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Morning, Charlie.

I understand there's a debate on the one side, and we have heard that about whether or not there should be mandatory quarantine. But what I'm learning, from them is, on the other side, there should be no debate about whether we treat returning health care workers, who are there heroically, with compassion and respect.

And I spoke to Kaci Hickox this morning, her parents last night. And there's really two phases here. One is in the airport she felt that she really was not treated with respect. In fact, she said at one point she felt she was being treated like a criminal. She didn't know what was going on. She was not aware of where she was going to go.

Several hours went by. She was hungry. They finally gave her a little bit of food. And then she went to the hospital in Newark, University Hospital in Newark, and there it changed a little bit. She was put into a tent. She said the personnel really for the most part, the nurses and the doctors, were terrific and very compassionate.

But still now in the second phase she went in to sort of not knowing what was going on. She was in sort of some cold scrubs for a couple of days. She didn't get her clothes. She wasn't able to take a shower, still hasn't been able to take a shower. She has a little scrub, little basin that she was able to give herself sponge bath with.

There is a bathroom there, a little sort of port-a-potty with a little curtain for privacy. But her big question is, what is going to happen next? She spoke to an assistant commissioner who called her, and she said, what is next? And really she wasn't given an answer, so she's sort of in limbo. What she wants to go is go back home and be with her loved ones. ROSE: Does she believe and has she said that it would be a deterrent for her if she knew she faced a quarantine coming back from Africa?

LAPOOK: I asked her about that, Charlie. What are the repercussions, I said. She said, I think wisely, I'm right in the middle of it and I need a few days to really think about that. But then she added she did think that it could be deterrent to people to going over there, because, after all, going over there heroically really to try to save people on the other side of the ocean and putting yourself in danger, and then on top that have to have to worry about coming back and put in quarantine.

I actually wrote down something she said. I said, were you scared and what was the hardest part of being over there with the protective equipment? She said the PPE wasn't the hardest part. The hardest part is watching people separated from their family sick and scared. This is somebody who is truly compassionate. She just went over there to help people. Her parents are beside themselves being so far away not being able to do something for their daughter.

ROSE: For the record, do you think more and more people are raising concerns about the quarantine because it is not coming from science, but from an effort to make sure that there's not too much fear and panic?

LAPOOK: I think Dr. Fauci really addressed that very well. I think what is important is that when you are talking about doing a quarantine, it seems like that audibles are being called. It's being done on the fly.

And this is something that has to be thought out. She ended up being taken to a place that she said only one other person had ever been in that tent. There was no television, not that that's so crucial. No books. No ability to have access to a good computer network. She did send me some pictures on her iPhone.

But these things have to be thought out and logistically think, OK, these are people who are doing the work that needs to be done, because in order to stop from coming over here, we have got to get rid of it in West Africa. They're coming back here.

How are we going to treat them? Are we going to treat them with respect and the dignity that they deserve?

ROSE: Thank you, Jon, Dr. Jon LaPook.

We want now to turn to West Virginia and West Virginia Democratic senator -- the Democratic Senator from West Virginia Joe Manchin. He's in Charleston, West Virginia, this morning.

Good morning, Senator.

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Good morning, Charlie. How are you?

ROSE: Good. It's good to speak with you.

How worried are you that the Republicans, according to the polls and even the trends, may lose (sic) the Senate, and the implications of that?

MANCHIN: Well, let me just say about our Democrats that we have running right now in the so-called red states, this is the strength of our moderate team.

And, Charlie, if we're ever going to change Washington, you have to have moderates, whether it be in Democrats or Republicans. And I'm hoping all the people in the states, whether it be down in Louisiana in Mary Landrieu country, up at Mark Begich in Alaska, Kay Hagan and all of our people that we have, and Mark Pryor down in Arkansas, this is the strength of our moderate team, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, and we have, of course, Mark Udall and Mark Warner.

But these are people that are willing to reach across the aisle, work with Republicans, independents, whoever they may be, trying to find solutions for America. I'm hoping the citizens and constituents and voters of those states look at that.

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: So, how different are these moderates in terms of positions from the president?

MANCHIN: The president -- I know what people are asking, is, can the president help them in those states?

I don't think the president can help in those states there. These people have voted against the president on issues. I have watched them and worked with them. I have always said this, Charlie. No matter who the president is, whether it's George Bush, whether it's Barack Obama or whoever the next president, we should all want the president to do well.

But we have responsibility, especially as senators, to speak up when we think it's not in the best interest of our country or our states that we represent. These are the people that do that. And let's look on Republican side.

We have got Lamar Alexander, we have Susan Collins, we have got Lindsey Graham. Those are good people. I hope they come back too.

ROSE: But the president said in a radio spot that they have been very helpful to him in getting his agenda passed.

MANCHIN: That might be his evaluation.

You know one thing. If that agenda looks good for America in certain things we're talking about, then they're going to vote. But just saying the president calls up and tells them how to vote, that doesn't happen. I know that for a fact. I'm living proof of that. I have very little contact with the White House. But the basic is, is that when you see what is good, no matter what -- who the president is or what the policy may be, you do what is best for your country first. Can't we get out of this absolute visceral type of attacking each other and toxic atmosphere in Washington and be an American first, and we can be Democrats and Republicans, we can be conservative and liberals if you want to be?

ROSE: If the polls are right, can the Democrats turn this around in the next nine days? The perception may have set in.

MANCHIN: Charlie, let me tell -- let me just say this.

I have never seen this much money. It's a shame. It's almost an absolute shame in what is being done to the American voters, having this much money spent trying to believe that you're somebody you're not or someone controls your vote or controls how you think or what you say.

I know these people, and that's not the case. So, for them to say, based on all this money -- and still every race I have seen, Charlie, that I just spoke about is within the margin of error. It can go either way. And I think, hopefully, when the people look at who represents them, the best interest of what they're doing and how they have been doing it, that they will vote for some of these really great moderate Democrats who have been there.

ROSE: You have addressed issues of guns. We have had another shooting incident. Guns, are they an issue in this election?

MANCHIN: You would like to think that we can have elected officials with enough fortitude to basically look at gun sense.

I am a lifetime member of the NRA. I am a gun person. I enjoy -- I just came off of a hunt yesterday. And we were at Hunters Feeding the Hungry. I enjoy this, and I think it's for good purpose.

But with that being said, you got to have gun sense. If I don't know who you are, Charlie, I'm a law-abiding gun owner, treat me as a law-abiding person. I'm not going to do something wrong just because I own a gun.

But I also am a law-abiding gun owner, be responsible that if I go to a commercial gun show, if I go on the Internet, I want to know who wants to buy my gun, and I would think they would want to know who they're telling their gun to.

That is common gun sense. And most of America and most gun owners agree with that. That's all we did.

ROSE: One important issue of foreign policy, today, Americans -- American Marines turned over Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan and they are leaving Afghanistan.

Do you believe that Afghanistan faces some consequence because of the declining American military presence there? MANCHIN: Well, Charlie, hindsight is 20/20. You would like to think -- I have been in that area. Most all Senators have been over, and had privilege of going and seeing the tremendous dedication and commitment from our troops that support us and defend us.

With that being said, I hope better evaluations have been made on ability of the Afghans to defend themselves. Do they have the will to fight? Do their leaders -- are they committed to have a tranquil type of a transition, they want to have a better quality of life for that part of the world and their people there?

That didn't happen in Iraq. We do not want to see what happened in Iraq repeated in Afghanistan. But they're going to have to have the desire to defend and die for their country. We have shed enough blood and enough treasury, spent enough treasury in that part of the world and haven't changed it.

If the people don't want change, we can't give it to them. I am very thankful that our people, our Marines are coming home. I'm very thankful for that.

ROSE: But you just returned, I think, from London, where you talked to some officials of the British government. Mike Rogers just returned. And we will talk about that with him.

But do you support what the president has done with respect to fighting ISIS in Syria?

MANCHIN: I'm not for putting American troops on the ground.

I did not vote to go in there and try to find 5,000 Syrian rebels who we could think that would be kind, and considerate, compassionate towards our desires, pay $500 million and expect them to turn around fight the ISIS and then turn around and fight Assad, and expect us to get drawn into a civil war.

I don't think after 13 years, if we have learned nothing, I have said in the great state of West Virginia we have a little common sense and we understand the definition of insanity, continue to do the same thing and expect something different to happen.

With that being said, it should be, we should take the air war. We will be happy to help tactical and technically helping you with the air war, but it should be an Arab Muslim ground war. The Saudis have to engage, the Turks have to engage. The Kurds are the only ones, it seems, that want to fight and defend and die for what they believe in.

And until we see the other regions, we're not going to change that, Charlie. If we can contain them there, leave them there, I don't know what else to do. They are intent on destroying each other. And they have been doing it for 1,400 years. And the bottom line is, I think we should be very clear in our position in the world is, if you plan, if you are training to do harm to Americans, we will come take you out wherever you are.

ROSE: Senator, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We will be right back in one minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSE: Back now with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers.

Good morning.

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-MI), CHAIR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Good morning, Charlie.

ROSE: You just returned to Britain and other places, as I said.

The Brits have taken a position they will do what they can do in Iraq, but not in Syria.

ROGERS: Yes.

ROSE: Were you successful in trying to change their mind?

ROGERS: Well, we had a lot of very constructive conversations, both with their parliamentary security committee folks and their intelligence services and defense individuals.

Let me say this, Charlie. One of the things that I think has shocked our British friends is this lack of strategy. I think that they will be with us if we can put together a coherent strategy for Syria and Iraq. I really do believe that.

ROSE: What kind of strategy that we need that we do not have now?

ROGERS: Well, if you think of what we're doing, we're really small pecks at a very big problem.

And so what we're going to need to do is, we're going to need to further engage our NATO allies. We're going to need to allow special forces capability soldiers both from Britain and United States and others to go downrange with these individuals that we have trained, both Iraq, the Peshmerga -- the Iraqi soldiers, Peshmerga, and even in Syria that would allow more effective fighting on the ground.

ROSE: That is putting combat troops on the ground, isn't it?

ROGERS: Well, I think we didn't have war with ISIS in the beginning. We had a war on semantics.

And that is just a dangerous place to be. I think when people think about boots on the ground, they're thinking big maneuver elements, divisions, brigades, battalions. No one is talking about that, although I don't think we should eliminate it. But nobody is talking about it.

ROSE: If necessary, you would recommend it? If the military says we need American boots on the ground in Syria to stop ISIS, you're in favor of it?

ROGERS: If that means -- well, here is my concern.

If we don't do this smaller, more effective thing now, we will get to the point where we're going to have to have big maneuver military elements. Special forces capabilities, special capability soldiers and intelligence officials are needed if you're going to be more impactful. If you put a 20-year plan together to beat ISIL, you will have 40 years of trouble.

ROSE: Let me move to another concern among many people. It is the idea of lone wolves, people in the United States or in Canada on their own. What kind of threat does that pose to our own national security?

ROGERS: Huge and getting worse.

And so here is the problem. In Britain, they're very close to being overwashed, meaning their resources can't keep up with the individuals that have both gone to Syria and fought and have come back. There will be a point where they will have to do a priority list, meaning people think they are a danger, they can't keep up with.

We're not that far behind. Certainly, the Canadians are not far behind and in Australia not far behind. And the Australian case is so concerning because these people wanted to go to Syria to fight. And they were told by the ISIL leadership folks, stay in Australia, spontaneous act of terror, kidnap people, cut their heads off and videotape it. That's what's changed. That's why people are so upset and nervous.

ROSE: What do you say to the CIA report that we read on the cover of the -- front page of "The New York Times" last week that they're unsuccessful generally when they come to the aid of these kind of groups?

ROGERS: Unsuccessful in...

ROSE: In terms of success of providing covert aid to groups that are fighting governments.

ROGERS: Well, again, we -- I think with a more overt NATO-based operation is a very different kind of an operation.

I will tell you that watching this problem develop over the last three years in multiple places in the world, it has been less than effective. We have not seen the kind of results that we would hope to have seen.

But we should learn from that experience. And one thing that we know, if you have those special capability soldiers downrange with them in this fight, those forces tend to fight better, they know that they can get medevaced off the battlefield, their intelligence is better, and their target sense are better.

ROSE: Chairman Rogers, thank you. ROGERS: Yes, thank you.

ROSE: Good to see you.

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSE: Today in Afghanistan, the last U.S. Marine unit has officially handed over control to the Afghanis.

CBS News producer Erin Lyall is embedded with the Marines at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand Province -- Erin.

ERIN LYALL, CBS NEWS PRODUCER: Charlie today's ceremony was described as simple, but it was full of military pomp and circumstance. They played three national anthems, from the United States, from the U.K. and from Afghanistan, and there was a ceremonial lowering of the coalition flag. Only the Afghan flag is flying above Camp Leatherneck now.

ROSE: Is this really it for these Marines?

LYALL: Well, Charlie, aside from a handful of Marines who will cycle through Kabul as advisers, this is officially it for the Marines. It's been a long 13 years here, particularly in Helmand Province, where they suffered most of their casualties. And they're ready to go.

But everyone I have spoken to here from the commanders on down really consider this a successful mission. They think the Afghan army is up to the task of securing the region. And they point to the summer fighting months as evidence of that, because the Afghans took on the Taliban by themselves without any ground support from the Marines or any cover from the air, frankly.

They acknowledge that there is still a lot of work to be done, there's still some insecurity, particularly on the roads, but they think the Afghans are up to the task and they think it's time they took over.

ROSE: Erin Lyall in Afghanistan, thanks.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSE: Some of our stations are leaving us now, but for most of you, we will be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSE: Welcome back to "Face the Nation." I'm Charlie Rose.

CBS News foreign correspondent Clarissa Ward is here, along with CBS News senior security contributor Mike Morell and Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

Let me go, Mike, first to this question of lone wolves and homegrown terror. What do you make and what do you assess from Canada and the U.S. in New York?

MORELL: So, Charlie, we have had three attacks in the last week, two in Canada and one in New York City. And there was a terrorist attack in the United States last week. The media, sort of, didn't pay a lot of attention to it, but there was.

Also, in the last month, we've had arrests in Australia, Malaysia, France and the United Kingdom, arresting people who were planning attacks. So this is a very significant threat, this self- radicalization inspired by ISIS's message.

ROSE: And how do you combat it?

MORELL: I think you have to combat it a whole number of ways. All right? You have to be on these websites where these individuals are going and getting radicalized, and when they talk about violence and committing violence, you have to investigate them. And you also have to take on the narrative -- although that's not something the United States can do by itself; we need the help of our allies and the help of moderate clerics in Islam to be able to fight this narrative.

ROSE: This is tougher than -- for the intelligence agencies -- than simply knowing what's going on in the Middle East?

MORELL: Yes. And I would also add that one of the problems we have now -- and Matt Olsen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has been very articulate about this -- is what Ed Snowden did has made both the law enforcement against this problem more difficult and the intelligence against this problem more difficult.

ROSE: Clarissa, you have talked to people who have been recruited. What is it that attracts them to ISIS?

WARD: Well, I think sometimes we forget that there is a real ideology behind this. This isn't just a bunch of psychopaths who see people being beheaded online and think "I want a part of that." There is a perception among these people that they are the victims of a war that the West is waging against Islam. And so there's an appeal that comes with essentially trying to be a hero and go in and defend your religion and defend the innocent Muslims who are being persecuted. So that's the first thing.

The second thing, I think, when you look at the shift in recruitment of radicalization, and you just touched on this, is the role to which the Internet is playing. People are not being recruited any longer in mosques by clerics with very foreign-sounding names. They're being recruited online, behind closed doors, by people who speak their language, by people who they may even know who come from their own country, which is why some authorities are even calling it "bedroom jihad." And often the families don't even know these people are being recruited. So the question becomes, if you don't know that your own son or daughter is being radicalized online, how on earth can authorities actually monitor that?

ROSE: So in the sense the message is feeding into a grievance they already have against the West, but here's a place where you can join a crusade against them? WARD: This is a real battlefield, where Muslims are taking the law into their own hands, so to speak, and fighting back against the oppression of the West. They look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan; they look at drone strikes, and they believe fundamentally that the U.S. wants to obliterate Islam. That's their ideology.

ROSE: And women -- young women are included as well.

WARD: They are. And it's amazing to see how many young women are going over now to join ISIS or to marry jihadi fighters. And I think sometimes we forget, in all of this, that there's a certain romance to the narrative of jihad as well. You're a young teenage girl living your, sort of, middle-class, suburban live in the U.K. or the U.S. or Canada, or wherever it may be, and suddenly you're talking online to this brave, handsome young warrior who is risking his life to fight jihad. There is a real romance to that narrative, especially for a teenage girl.

ROSE: But we need a message -- the West needs a message to counteract that, and make sure it's not against Islam but against these people.

WARD: Absolutely.

ROSE: On the ground -- you just were in the Middle East -- where do we stand in the fight against ISIS?

And has bombing, with some troops from Peshmerga and the Iraqis, in Iraq, made a difference?

IGNATIUS: Charlie, I have just come back from Lebanon and Jordan, which are both next to these wars, one in Syria, one in Iraq. I found people who were anxious, who wanted to see what the U.S. strategy for combating this problem was, who were in some cases beginning to be very impatient as the U.S. slowly moves into its -- its active phase.

ROSE: What do they want from the United States?

And is it U.S. leadership that they think is essential?

IGNATIUS: I think that people in the region are comfortable with President Obama's statement that the Arab Muslim world has to take the lead, that the boots on the ground have to be principally Iraqis, Iraqi Peshmerga from the Kurdish part of the country and new Sunni national guard in the Sunni areas, Shiite fighters in the army of Iraq.

In Syria, it's more complicated because boots on the ground will have to be created. But again, I think there's an idea the administration has. What I'd emphasize, having just come back from there, is that time is really slipping away, that people have been waiting now for a month for signs that the U.S. is serious.

Take the national guard in Iraq. Sunnis are ready, in the tribes, I think, to join up with this force. And yet the weeks pass and it hasn't been created yet. If they can move quickly...

(CROSSTALK)

IGNATIUS: ... two weeks...

ROSE: The most specific thing the president could do to make them understand he appreciates the time dimension would be what? IGNATIUS: I think if you could get the formation of Sunni national guard units in Iraq with major tribal leadership, 5,000 people moving toward training in the next two weeks, that be would crucial. If you could also get a statement by the president that the U.S. advisers will travel into combat areas with those forces, that would be crucial.

ROSE: Mike?

MORELL: So I think that we have to be careful that we don't get impatient here. The president made it very clear that this is going to take a very long time, and he's absolutely right. My sense of where we are on the Iraq side of the border is, in those cases where we've had good forces, Peshmerga or even on the Iraq side -- the Iraqi side -- we have done well. We've also made a conscious decision, Charlie, not to take weak forces into battle.

And so we have to make sure that, when we take these forces into battle, that they're going to be effective. And that's going to take some time. So let's not get impatient here.

The other thing I'd say on advisers is, I would move from the brigade level to the forward operating base level in terms of advisers. But I would not put advisers with units that are actually doing the fighting. And the reason I wouldn't do that is because, at the end of the day, the Iraqis have to fight this war themselves, and when you put -- when you take a U.S. special forces guy and put him in a unit, they become Michael Jordan; they become Superman, and they take over the fighting. The Iraqis have to do this themselves.

So I'd be a little cautious about putting U.S. special forces right on the ground with the guys doing the fighting.

ROSE: Clarissa, I want to just take a moment to talk about Afghanistan, too. We saw today the Marines leaving Camp Leatherneck. When you look at that war, which all of you have participated, in terms of different capacities of journalism, in the CIA, after 13 years, what do we say about what we achieved, appreciating the loss in blood and treasure?

WARD: Well, I think it's difficult to make that statement just yet. I think we have to watch what happens over the coming years. I mean, December 31 is the official end to combat operations, but obviously, I think, there were lessons learned in Iraq, so we are leaving just under 10,000 U.S. troops, 2,000 NATO troops, and they will continue to advise and train the Afghan army, but there will also be a smaller contingency of special operation forces who will continue to launch counterterrorism raids as well.

But one example that really struck me when I went to Afghanistan -- I went to this base called Nangalam in the Pech River Valley. This was some of the hottest activity. A lot of Americans died there. And they had this big ceremony to hand this base over to the Afghan troops and there were flags and anthems just like we saw today.

And within a month, the Taliban had closed down the road that would allow the Afghan army to get their logistics and their supplies, so they weren't able to resupply. They couldn't get food; they couldn't get water; they couldn't get ammunition. And they literally went into survival mode and they stripped the base completely bare. They weren't going out on their patrols. And within another couple of months, the Americans had to come back in, retrain and rebuild the entire base.

And that -- you know, one is very much hoping that we will avoid that scenario or a repeat of the scenario. But so far, I don't think there are any guarantees.

ROSE: Mike, when you look at this front page story in the New York Times today about what happened to Jim Foley, including waterboarding. And they say, "Well, that's what the Americans did."

MORELL: In my mind, Charlie, no equivalence. What the United States did to a very small number of senior Al Qaida operatives, the worst of the worst, was used to get information to stop attacks that were going to kill Americans. That was the intent. The intent here on the part of ISIS is just punishment.

ROSE: Punishment.

One last question about our allies there. What -- what success are we getting from Sunni Arabs in convincing Sunni militias and the provinces to come fight against ISIS and not support them and not stay on the fence?

IGNATIUS: Charlie, U.S. commanders think that they have several dozen Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq who are prepared to move toward a program that would be a kind of Sunni national guard. We'll see in the next couple of weeks whether that's real or not.

I think, going to this broader question of the long-haul fight, it's things that don't involve boots or bullets. It's changing the education system in the Muslim Middle East so that people aren't radicalized. It's working with prisoners in prisons so that these don't become literally schools for jihadists. It's finding a way to talk good sense online to young people.

(CROSSTALK)

IGNATIUS: Yes. As much as the U.S. needs to work with allies to crank up the fighting side of this, I really hope they're paying attention to the long run, because this really is a generational issue. And unless more money and effort goes into that, it's going to be the same thing every few years, I fear.

ROSE: Thank you, David. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Clarissa.

We'll be right back and talk about the midterm elections and politics.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSE: With the midterm elections just nine days away, we have some new results from the CBS News and New York Times joint venture the "2014 Battleground Tracker." Joining us today: Amy Walters, the Cook Political Report; David Leonhardt, editor of The New York Times "Upshot"; CBS News political director of elections Anthony Salvanto; and CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes; and CBS News political director John Dickerson.

Having said all of that...

(LAUGHTER)

ROSE: Enough titles to go around. Anthony, give us a snapshot of the moment.

ANTHONY SALVANTO, CBS DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS: Snapshot is Republicans go into the final week with the edge to retake the Senate. Big picture, we think they will get at least the 51 seats for the majority. Wouldn't be surprised if they get to 52.

But they haven't sewn it up yet, Charlie. And I suspect that when it gets really late on election night, and we're on that second or third cup of coffee, we're going to be looking at three races, our results suggest. It's going to come down really to Iowa, to Colorado, and to Georgia. Those three, you tell me who wins two, three of those three, I'll tell you who wins the Senate.

ROSE: David, take us to Colorado.

DAVID LEONHARDT, EDITOR, "UPSHOT," THE NEW YORK TIMES: Colorado is fascinating because President Bush won it twice, then Obama flipped it. But this is a midterm year. And the midterm electorate is more favorable to Republicans. And so in Colorado what we have is we have the Democratic incumbent, Mark Udall, leading very slightly the Republican challenger Cory Gardner.

But Gardner seems to be gaining. And so the question here really is, are Democrats going to be able to turn out young voters and Latinos and others in a midterm year to resist this Republican trend.

ROSE: Is the focus on this Senate race the most typical of the nation that we can learn most from?

AMY WALTERS, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: It actually isn't. Because this math is...

(LAUGHTER)

WALTERS: Sorry. But I think Colorado...

ROSE: Hold your fire, Dickerson.

WALTERS: ... and Iowa...

(LAUGHTER)

WALTERS: Sorry, OK, hold on. I'm going to bring you back a little bit in that Colorado and Iowa are going to be very important for us.

Look, for Republicans this map has always benefited them. These are red states up in a midterm year. They should be able to win those red states and win control of the Senate. But it's winning in a place like Colorado, or Iowa, or New Hampshire, that they need to be able to win a national election for 2016.

So we're all going to be focusing very much, especially on Colorado, as David said, has been swinging back and forth to see if that Republicans can figure out the magic sauce to be able to win in a place they need for the Electoral College in 2016.

ROSE: How much a factor is the Democratic ground game?

WALTERS: That's the factor. And there are a whole bunch of Republicans who have a little bit of post-traumatic stress thinking about the ground game issue. They were up in polls in the 2010 election. They ended up losing on the ground in that election.

They thought that Obama was going to be -- it was going to be a very close race in 2012, it was a big win. So Republicans say, we have the right candidates this year and we have a better ground game.

Democrats say, we've got a new system of voting that the Democratic legislature put into place. Every voter in that state gets a poll mailed to them. You don't have to ask for it. It just shows up. And they can track those voters now better than ever.

JOHN DICKERSON, CBS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Charlie, there's something else happening in Colorado that broadens out all of these other races. Two things, one, the focus of Democrats on women. It has been -- when you travel in that state, it feels like women's reproductive rights are on the ballot themselves as a referendum.

And so the Democrats have run that playbook before, and the question is whether Republicans now have found a way either to blunt that or whether the old playbook just doesn't work. And as Amy said, Colorado matters because we draw grand conclusions. It's a battleground state that will be a battleground state in the 2016 election.

One other important thing about Colorado is that Cory Gardner is a good candidate. In the past Republican senatorial chances have been doomed because they've had a couple of bum candidates. Colorado in 2010 was one of them. Ken Buck not considered so great.

Cory Gardner is good representative of the kind of solid Republican candidate who is running a pretty good election. And that matters across all of these races. And that's one way in which the Affordable Care Acts matters.

He wouldn't have gotten in this race if many months ago the Affordable Care Act hadn't softened up the Democrats. Even though it's not a big deal here at the end, that is one way in which that president's Obamacare mattered to recruit good Republican candidates.

SALVANTO: And to that point, across all of these races where we see candidates' favorables on the rise, and Cory Gardner is one of them. Michelle Nunn's in Georgia is another one, where these voters are telling us that what they have seen in the last few weeks of these candidates has made them think better of that candidate.

That is not happening everywhere. But where we see it, in Colorado, in Georgia, that candidate is actually moving a little bit.

ROSE: OK. We mentioned Iowa earlier. I mean, what does the tracking show us now about Iowa?

SALVANTO: So Iowa is a dead heat. We've got Joni Ernst, the Republican, and Bruce Braley, the Democrat. A dead heat. Part of what so fascinating about Iowa is that Joni Ernst is really conservative, and Bruce Braley is a proudly populist liberal. And so whoever wins here, we're talking about two very different candidates.

ROSE: And who is running the better campaign?

LEONHARDT: Well, I think overall most people would say Ernst is running a somewhat better campaign. Braley has made some missteps. He criticized Iowa farmers, doesn't seem like the kind of thing you want to do in Iowa.

On the other hand, look, this is a race in some ways the Republicans should win. Iowa is a close state. This is a midterm election with a Democratic president. And the fact that it's a dead heat suggests that the campaigns are not wildly divergent in their quality.

NANCY CORDES, CBS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This is another state, like Colorado, like Alaska, where Democrats like to talk about their ground game. And they say, you know, if we're behind by a point or two going into Election Day, we can make it up with our ground game.

Republicans concede that Democrats in the past have been better at this. They say they're getting better. And they point out a ground game helps you, but it can't help you if the message isn't going your way, too.

If you are losing on message, you are not going to win on ground game because whatever you do to try to get your voters out, they're not as enthusiastic as the other side.

ROSE: OK. Anthony, let me to go Georgia too. Michelle Nunn is a surprise, it seems to many observers, that she is gaining a bit.

SALVANTO: It is. This is one of the very few states that Democrats think they have chance to take a seat from the Republicans, in a year when they're mostly playing defense.

And Michelle Nunn has been gaining. She is down 3 right now in our survey, if you include those who are just leaning. She is tied among people who have already made up their minds.

Now, this is another race that really comes down to turnout, comes down to a ground game. But the big question here is, will this go to a runoff? If nobody gets 50 percent in Georgia, then they hold a runoff election in two months.

And that could actually be where we all head to see control of the Senate in January. This may not end on election night.

CORDES: And at this point, based on your numbers, Georgia is really the only state where Republicans have chance of losing one of their seats. I mean, in Kentucky, it's still a wide gap between the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and Alison Lundergan Grimes.

In South Dakota, that was kind of Democratic pipe dream that they might be able to flip that seat. It doesn't look good for them there either. So this is really -- they're pinning all their hopes on Georgia.

ROSE: John, you were just in Louisiana recently, how does that look with Mary Landrieu?

DICKERSON: Mary Landrieu has been in the Senate for 18 years. She is the Democrat who is using every tool of incumbency. It used to be a rule of politics, if you were an incumbent, you were pretty safe.

She is in trouble. It looks like that's almost certain to go to a runoff in that state. And she's basically saying, though, I'll be chairman of the -- or, I am chairman of the Energy Committee, I can bring in -- I can do good things for oil and gas interests in the state.

And Katrina comes up all the time in that state. And what her argument is basically, another one is coming, you remember I was here for you after Katrina last time, and when another hurricane hits, why do you want to get rid of your hurricane insurance, which is to say, her, when there is another disaster.

And that's the strong pitch she is making. But in the polls it doesn't look like it's going to get her to that 50 percent, which means there's a runoff probably in Louisiana. (CROSSTALK)

ROSE: Go ahead.

SALVANTO: And all of this speaks to this other narrative here, too, which is can Democrats win in the south? And with moderates -- and you were speaking earlier about it in North Carolina as well.

Now we have Kay Hagan up now a few points, 3 points now in her race. But this is another case where between Arkansas, between North Carolina, between Louisiana as you mentioned in Georgia the question is will there be any Democratic senators left in the south after this And that's one place where they are certainly trying to hang on.

ROSE: North Carolina. Why is she doing well?

WALTER: She is doing well because she has been able to localize this race. What Democrats have said from the beginning is we're going to lose if this is national election, we're going to try to localize it.

What we are seeing, though, in talking to people on the ground there, it is tightening back up and that Tom Tillis has been able to renationalize it in part thanks to talk about Ebola, talk about terrorism, that he brings it back to Obama.

She's localized it on issues of education specifically because Tom Tillis in the legislature.

ROSE: How about the black vote in North Carolina?

WALTER: Well, that is going to be really important to try to generate that vote. But what Democrats have to do in the south is do much better than the president among white voters. It's not enough to just have a black turnout hitting historic margins. You need to be able to...

DICKERSON: And then maybe what's happening in Georgia. In the Georgia race, it's local set of conditions and this outsourcing, David Purdue, the Republican, who has been nailed for his business career in which he used outsourcing -- Georgia has second highest unemployment rate in the country, a lot of those white voters have lost jobs. They see him, perhaps, as the kind of person embodying that negative economic conditions. That may be what is helping Michelle Nunn there.

LEONHARDT: Let's be clear, North Carolina and Georgia are different from Louisiana and Arkansas. North Carolina and Georgia were the two narrowest victories for Mitt Romney in 2012. So, it's less of a deficit Democrats have to make up to...

ROSE: I've got one more state to get to, Kentucky. Tell me about Kentucky. CORDES: Well, Kentucky, you know, we haven't seen much tightening there. The minority leader Mitch McConnell who has had a tough race Republicans say he's going to win but going to win ugly. But they still feel very confident that he will be victorious.

WALTER: Yeah, I think that this is one of those races -- look this is one of the races. Look, Georgia is going to be the most important because -- not just because they can lose the race there, but in 2016 this is state that Democrats can put in play.

ROSE: David, is this a wave election?

LEONHARDT: I don't think it is. I think wave election you see the Republicans winning states like Georgia easily. I think you see them winning Iowa and Colorado and then you see them making inroads into places like Michigan and New Hampshire.

I think this will be a good election for Republicans. I don't think it'll be a wave.

ROSE: And what is the most important thing about this election having -- coming two years before the presidential election? What's the most important thing to look at.

WALTER: I think the most important thing to look at is Republican brand, that is what they got to figure out. If they can fix it in time for 2016.

ROSE: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. I want to thank everyone for joining us and for all the CBS News/New York Times battleground tracker results. Be sure to check out CBSNews.com and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROSE: That's it for us today. Bob will be back next Sunday. I'll see you tomorrow on "CBS This Morning." Thanks for watching Face the Nation.