tv Washington Journal Erik Prince Discusses Afghanistan War Strategy CSPAN August 11, 2017 7:33am-8:23am EDT
net roots nation 2017 conference on c-span. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, robert o'hara talks about the life of civil war quartermaster general montgomery seem a -- c. may. railamerica shows to advocacy films from the mid-1950's about traffic and road safety. >> we need proper traffic regulations -- regulations and we need cars and roads improving. the driver must improve. almost as great a challenge to communities as the road itself. how can communities go about a safety program? >> sunday at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts, a behind the scenes tour of the myths of its zoning castle on the national mall. at 6:45 p.m., the u.s.
commission on civil rights marks the anniversary of the americans with disabilities act with a report of its history and the work that remains. american history tv all weekend every weekend only on c-span3. journal"ngton continues. host: we welcome erik prince, the founder of blackwater usa and the chairman of frontier service group. let's get right to it. an editorial in the usa today, you wrote the following "the president can restructure the war similar to a bankruptcy reorganization by aligning u.s. efforts under a presidential envoy strategic decisions regarding humanitarian aid and military support, and intelligence, become laser focused on creating a stable and supporting afghanistan, the ability would give our troops and exit way. we have been in afghanistan or
16 years, what would you like to do? guest: the president would pull out completely, that would be bad because isis and the taliban would take over the country and a rally cry for every terrorist one of the in the world. we could keep doing the same, spending now more than -- that almost $1 trillion and now spending more than the entire defense budget of the u.k. just in afghanistan. more than 2000 american dead and 20,000 plus wounded. health-care costs from the war will be $1 trillion on top of that. we are not winning, secretary mattis said, the terrorist forces control almost half of the country. the current strategy is not working. i tried to take a step back and the reason i wrote a restructuring is to say let's take away some of the incremental decisions, we have 17 different commanders in 16 years.
there has not been a unity of command. you have to have one leader in charge of all things from the department of defense, state come intelligence community, for afghanistan and pakistan. one person that makes decisions forward, not 9.5 time zones in washington. to really support the afghan security forces in a proven way. there is about 9000 u.s. troops in the country and 4000 nato and 26,000 contractors. i am not arguing for an expansion of contractors, rather significant contraction of contractors and eventually we will provide the offramp for u.s. troops. left, right, or center, everyone would say let's figure out how to be done in afghanistan, to deny terrorists sanctuary and leave. this will get there and it costs less than 1/5 of what we are spending now and will return $40
billion back to the treasury. host: can you compare this to anything in history? have other countries try this? guest: this is not unleashing private armies. this is doing largely what the u.s. special forces have done in afghanistan, the afghan special forces fight and function effectively. they do 80% of the offensive missions. they have been trained and mentored in a white i am recommended for u.s. special forces operate alongside them, they live, train, patrol together. the rest of the afghan army has not been done that way and the u.s. is in one base and the afghan are in the other base. i am talking about putting contract trainers on a long-term basis that live, train, and patrol with the afghan unit and provide a structural support, skeletal system that provides leadership, intelligence, communications, logistics expertise, each of the afghan
battalions from the bottom up to depend on. i knowledge from history, the flying tigers, when the united states was not in world war ii and we needed to help china defend itself from japanese aggression because they were bombing their cities. you had americans as contractors going to fight and they became part of the chinese air force in 1940. first foreign-policy crisis america first with the barbary ,irates led by william eaton eight marines and 90 contracted professionals. frenchman.lian, they liberated the 340 american sailors held hostage by the bay of tripoli in 1805. plenty of examples throughout history and a lot still classified because more of this has happened that people want to imagine. ,ost: our guest is erik prince
the founder of blackwater usa, if you are a veteran of afghanistan, a line set aside, 202-748-8003. we will get to your calls and comments in a moment. you have been to afghanistan with the navy seals and blackwater, how did we get to the current situation and why the stalemate? guest: the taliban was decimated in months after 9/11 by 100 cia officers and u.s. special forces and air power. they are not 10 feet tall. they were truly decimated. the more we have turned it into a conventional army operation, we have gone backwards. we are at the point the taliban, having survived 415, 16 years, are at their best. survivors of the war u.s. operates and how the u.s. collects signals intelligence and surveillance, and target,
and we have the finest military in the world, if they could just get the enemy in a way to fight the way they want to fight. we have amazing conventional capabilities but fighting against guys in pickup trucks and foot flops is a different war and we have not adapted to fighting that war with a military largely built to defend western europe from the soviet union. het: the president said expected to announce a decision soon, what if we pulled out completely, then what? guest: people say what is victory in afghanistan? that is harder to define but i can type what losing looks like, if the u.s. pulled back all support for the afghan government, the taliban and isis type forces would take over the country. they are ready dominate almost half the country. john mccain wants to see an additional 4000 troops and he wants to do what the u.s. did in iraq to afghanistan. guest: it is more of the same.
as 140,000 as many troops in the country, 100,000 americans and 40,000 nato, that and,ot work, they can push as the taliban says, americans have the watches but we have the time. you have to do a sustainable, cheap, long-term strategy that helps keep unrelenting pressure on the terrorist elements. proclivity to want to surge, go in there and rush and chase after them, that is a false presumption because the enemy ducks and covers. they have the time. host: the founder of whitewater and now chair of the front work -- what your organizations -- would your organization's benefit? guest: we would have a go at it as a bid. i was asked by people at the white house after i wrote an opinion to elaborate on the
make a detailed analysis of what the budget would take because they wanted a comparison. say that this program would cost less than 20% versus what the pentagon is spending now. i know what the numbers are and what this should cost. host: usa today say we spent $50 billion a year, does that sound right? guest: yes, my plan would cost them billions and include existing spending they are doing on the afghanistan secret forces budget, remaining there to keep active-duty soft guys. the contracted these would provide mentors, at the battalion level, across the afghan army for the long-term. air and governance support to make sure the afghan military guess the logistics support they need, food, fuel, parts, ammunition, they get those
things on time and the medical support, and tactical intelligence. i believe that is all you need to do to keep the afghan forces upright. host: what is your view of general nicholson, the commander in afghanistan? guest: he has been dealt a tough stand. being the 17th commander in 16 years, living with other people's incremental decisions and no one has been in charge for a long time. i had the vantage of coming with a clean sheet of paper and saying, this is what needs to happen to make this work. if the u.s. army could suddenly send a brigade of sergeants, senior sergeants and staff officers to be the embedded majorities, i would shut up. but they cannot, they have not organized that way in 16 years, they did that in vietnam or the embedded mentors into the vietnamese battalions and operated with them but the u.s. army is not big enough to do
that, they can distribute of sergeants a way to do that but would render a third of the army combat in operable. in theaving served military, whether i rock, afghanistan, north korea, is the military prepared for 21st century warfare? guest: again, we have amazing conventional capabilities. look at the last two wars, largely insurgencies, the conventional part of the iraq war was quite small, short. it evolved into an insurgency and an afghanistan has been an insurgency almost the entire time. getting a military in the paradigm, and the mindset to do both is very hard. coming at this, i like the idea of contractors doing this. these are veterans that have already served in the u.s. military and serve them well going back and doing it again.
deploying in a different model but the same skill sets and same people. where a country of great innovation and flexibility at figuring out ways to solve problems after 16 years, why not consider what has worked in the past. somebody from a leading says here's a crazy idea, lasers, even by today's outlandish standards, the u.s. should hire a mercenary army to fix afghanistan. guest: he is wrong on a couple of points. the way these mentors would work as they would be adjunct, attached to the afghan army which by the united nations definition does not make them mercenaries. they are not mercenaries and not a private army operating in afghanistan, the are under the afghanistan chain of command and anduntable under the ucmj there to support the afghan military, what the u.s. army should be doing but for the last 16 years have yet organized that way. host: our guest is erik prince.
nancy, democrat line, new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. as an older person, i am much older than erik prince, i am curious, you do not seem to operate under any laws. military,e afghan there was no central military or government in afghanistan before, there was always tribes. you are men were arrested for open fire in the square in iraq when civilians were killed. how did you get access to all of our treasury money to build your own mercenary army in afghanistan? i am appalled we would consider hiring mercenaries on behalf of the american government. we will never be done with terrorists as long as you continue to occupy afghanistan. it is unbelievable, 16 years later that we are pouring all this money in dick cheney lied
through his teeth and you are a good friend of his. how did you get money from the treasury? guest: let me clarify a couple of things. .e are not doing that work now the u.s. military is doing it and have been doing it for 16 years. it is costing the taxpayers more than $50 billion per year. there is an afghan government, one we recognize. largely been elected and is representative. we could either choose to pull out completely, and i believe the afghan government would be defeated and it would collapse and it would be another completely failed state. harboring a lot of terrorists. or we can keep doing the same thing. i do not think we should do that. this is an off-road to end the war and to bring the troops home and be done. host: chris in wisconsin, republican line. with erik prince. caller: good morning.
aboutonflicting the story $1 trillion. gained, facts i have the $6 trillion. -- it is $6 trillion. , that is aint, korea scary situation. -- i dothat we need to not know exactly what to say about that. other than, we cannot let them loose. the third point is that iran, syria, lebanon, israel, all of trouble.tors are -- is guest: look, i agree, the united
states has been and the norma's amount of money between a rock, afghanistan -- an enormous amount of money in iraq, afghanistan, and i want u.s. to stop spending the money and --ld like to carter rise stop this bleeding wound in afghanistan, americans were killed last week, two kids in their 20's driving back from a meeting with a provincial governor were blown up on the way back to the base and the taliban will continue to do that and no had to fight the united states. they know how to cut and cut. the united states is largely on the defense in afghanistan and in this time to bring that to an end on not giving the terrorists sanctuary. $1 trillion versus extreme dollars, i said $1 trillion in health care costs, i do not disagree that we have spent more than $6 trillion. host: alexandria, louisiana, independent line. >> i would like -- caller: are
you going to be responsible for peoplepital bills on his because, in iraq, they ended up on social security because the corporations, as soon as they got back to the states and were injured, they were fired and ended up on social security. they had several programs showing this on c-span. guest: any contractor that goes abroad on behalf of the u.s. government should have what is called defense base act insurance which is a long time disability insurance in case they are injured or there is a deathbed -- death benefit annuity for any surviving family members. like that,e cases those are an anomaly and that was not the case with any of our former employees. host: who is funding the taliban? guest: david money off gold,
, we have been there for 16 euros and there is not a mining law or energy law, they know how to make money, taxing the areas producing the resources and keeping a huge chunk of the money. while illegal -- legal minors cannot do it because there is no law. some support from pakistan. between waste from the u.s. military, graft and corruption from the afghan government, and the trading in the commodities, the taliban is well-funded. host: when you talk to the afghan people, what do they tell you? guest: they are most concerned about being abandoned as they know what the consequences would be if the u.s. pulled out. government had a bad week last week and lost an entire company to a telephone ground attack. -- taliban ground attack.
support?the air where is the reaction forces and help from the united states or other afghan forces? this planet with structure of the battalion level with air support and medical support, those problems go away. they realize that and appreciate that. host: if your company, a hypothetical, got involved and your sister is betsy devos, any conflict of interest with your sister in the cabinet? guest: not at all, the educational department is separate. host: fairfax, virginia, democrat line. caller: are you considered -- considering asked her your sister's husband about him funding the private military. to what address should i send my tax money because he wants to privatize everything in the government?
everybody is up in arms about having to pay for health care, the government is mandating them to buy something they do not want. i do not want to send my money to erik prince or anyone like him but i will not begin in the choice, how much money will you make -- be given the choice. how much money will you make? is ending theus war in afghanistan one not having the taliban sex, it cannot be done for one dollar, we are spending $52 billion next year, $1 billion a week, let's bring that to a close and return 40 plus billion dollars to the treasury. host: with regard to the warfare in the 21st century, is the military nimble enough, is it getting the right training to do things they need to have done? taliban are on
the best of their game, they have been at this for 16 years and have continuity in theater, the problem in the way the u.s. military deploys is they send guys for six months, nine months , they deployed and leave and the local area and knowledge and experience leaves with them and they do not come back to the same area. we have been fighting the same war 16 times. that is a flaw in how the u.s. deploys. in any large bureaucracy is not nimble. a huge advantage to come this from a clean sheet of paper. -- advantage -- and do what is needed to accomplish the task. versus trying to build a building with a unwieldy set of tools. host: a couple of calls on blackwater, what is the status on that company? guest: i sold it in 2010 and it is run by a couple of -- it is owned by a big new york hedge fund and they continue to do
security and bodyguard support through the u.s. government, i am not involved. host: what is the service frontier group? guest: pledges six company, we do most of our business in africa and the transportation of groceries and goods from cape town to the drc. with aviation support out of kenya and malta. a lot of medevac and cargo movements by air. host: john, holsters fit virginia -- falls church, virginia, independent line. caller: we have been at this for a long time with very little effect. you bring rational thought to an emotional conversation which is hard to win. we need to try something else. it is time and i appreciate everything you are doing. i see a lot of opportunities to bring in new technology and a new way of fighting.
that the services have not been able to do. taliban were defeated the first time around by 100 cia officers and if you hundred soft guys backed by air power. going back to the relentless pressure on the taliban and other terror offshoots in afghanistan, it does not have to be so hard and costs so much. let's figure out how to stop this war. host: we were in touch with the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan in he said the afghan government does not comment on internal deliberations of other government and we are reserving judgment until a formal policy is announced. awaiting a decision by the president, have you talked to general mattis, general kelly, others about your plan? guest: i talked to general mattis, i have not talked to general kelly. said that mys analysis of the root problems were the best he has seen.
he may not agree with my policy recommendations, meaning putting contracted guys into the roles. he said the root problem, meaning sustain the battalions from the bottom up with long-term mentors, i think that is the right approach and he would agree. host: if your plan was implemented, how long would it take to succeed? guest: it would take about 1.4. 1.5 years to fully ramp up, getting people into all of the positions, 100 different battalions across afghanistan. you would see significant changes on the ground within months because the afghan battalions functioning much better that have reliable air support will put more pressure on the taliban. ,hat soldier in afghanistan what afghan soldier wants to leave his base knowing that he has almost no chance of any reaction force support him if they get in a big firefight?
he can diewounded, of an infection after 10 days because he did not get antibiotics and is assured that he will get no air support if they get into a fight. what afghan children -- soldier is confident going into a fight? host: how big is afghanistan? guest: bigger than texas and 30 million people live there. host: we go to texas. caller: my question is for mr. prince. these private military companies , we are seeing an increase in --urgencies, in afghanistan [indiscernible] opinion, how can corporations such as blackwater
entered these regions? what sort of oversight and regulation would need to be in place? guest: sure. you're right. there are a lot of insurgencies. there are more places on fire in earth -- on earth then anytime in 50, 60 years. the secondary effects of that is exporting terrorism, pushing a lot of migration and refugees out of those areas. figuring out how to put out those fires is important. governments can turn to the private sector, like the u.s. government has, or that kind of training support, it aviation, thattics support, to get done. anytime the u.s. does that, it is related by the state department. it is controlled. those rules are based on the
original arms export laws for preventing the sales of sensitive missile or weapons technology. those could use up dating to make them more relevant to make the u.s. a more helpful platform to help these countries suffering these insurgencies. host: our conversation with erik prince, who is advocating for parts of the effort in afghanistan. caller: i was wondering what would be so catastrophic out of just being in afghanistan? the russians did. they did not win in iraq. they did not win in afghanistan. they did not win in vietnam. those countries were ruled by other people long before now, and they were different rulers, different ways of living than ours.
they got by. why can we not leave. at the russians cannot do it, what makes you think we could do it? host: thank you, nancy. guest: the russians in the 1980's had put in $1 billion of u.s. legal aid per year that drove the soviets out of providingn to include the afghans with surface-to-air missiles. donenately, no one has that to the u.s. effort in afghanistan. we are not there to colonize it. the u.s. went there to prevent it from ever being used as a base of operations to launch a terrorist attack against the homeland after 9/11. there is an argument to be made to pull out completely. but doing that in this era of isis and lots of lone wolf, individual type attacks, it a baseas a caliphate, for radical islam to rally
around. as you go through the process of trying to defeat isis on the ground, in iraq, and syria, and suddenly afghanistan falls, which it would if the u.s. pulled out completely, you have another base of operations for an isis-like force. that is what we are trying to avoid. i tried to provide a cheap and sustainable option between pulling out completely but continuing the same level of heavy spending we are doing. this plan costs less than 20% of the current plan. host: as you have indicated, there are a lot of systems in afghanistan the computer to the problem, correct? guest: sure. there are certain things, structurally, they need to be addressed, like the mining law, the energy law. -- thate $1 trillion of the afghan government should be
benefiting from. it is a diplomatic failure on thoses.'s part to push laws and bring about a turn in the economy. host: let's quickly turns or north korea. this is what the president said in new jersey. [video clip] >> for people who was questioning that statement, maybe it was not tough enough. host: and this morning -- "military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, shared north korea act unwisely. hopefully, kim jong-un will find another path." that from the president this morning. jong-unemember, kim killed his half-brother in in international airport idiot he strapped his uncle to the end of a military gun and blew him away. he is not a rational guy. those comments are not directed
at kim jong-un, they are designed to go to the people around kim jong-un, so that they realize if you do something stupid, it is not just him who will go, it is all the leadership clique. fires a missile, it is a marketing project. certainly a threat to the west. his nuclear missile program is iran's nuclear missile program. them sellingof weapons is a strategic problem to the u.s. the more of those nations have those weapons, it will be our problem. ist: can diplomacy work or conflict and war inevitable? hope conflict is avoided. if i were the united states, i would try a program like the united states did for the soviet
union in the 1980's. the wall came down, the berlin wall, because able on the east side of the wall figured out what was on the west side of the wall the really putting and information program together -- figured out what was on the west side of the wall. really putting an information program together in north korea would make it harder for kim to govern. host: by china does not want that, they do not want to see a unified korea. guest: they might not, but anything that makes kim's life troublesome is ideal. kim fromthat removes rural and reifies -- it is probably time to end the kim dynasty. host: and the question everyone seems to be asking -- are you
worried, are you concerned? guest: if i lived in the first 20 miles next to the dmz, that is the most worrisome spot. the fact is kim, every time he tests -- and he is testing out -- and him shooting into south korea or japan or guam -- 400,000 american citizens there -- that is a problem. so spending on missile defense deterrence, this beforexample of why -- we worry about another war in south korea, let's finish the one we have been in the longest. host: let's turn back to afghanistan and the treatment by the chair of that senate armed forces committee, senator john mccain -- we must face stocks that we are losing in afghanistan. time is of the essence if we tide. to turn the
the goal of the strategy is to ensure afghanistan never again becomes a sanctuary for terrorists to plot and conduct attacks against america or our allies. we need an approach to bolster efforts, the strength and capability of the afghan government and security forces, and intensified the poetic efforts to facilitate a negotiated peace progress -- process in afghanistan. guest: you could've said that in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, or now. -- we need to is have one person in charge of all u.s. policy for afghanistan. that one person in charge and make them responsible for it. we have not had that. it would be interesting to see senator mccain's response if the , anddent names that person senator mccain would expect to have oversight over that guy. treat this like a bankruptcy. this has been going around in
circles for 16 years. if you put a business in bankruptcy, you have a court appoint a bankruptcy trustee. that is kind of what we need in the afghanistan effort. do what we need to do to deny terrorists sanctuary, stabilize the afghan government, and figure out how to leave. that is america's goal. , southoe is next carolina. caller: good morning. let me give you a little background. i used to work for the federal government and the dod. i was involved in logistics and help out -- helped out the portable units they used to take over to the sands. i retired in 2007. anyway, you are familiar with a-76 circular, as a contractor. i have always that the military should we an inherently
government function. let me explain something -- the government is not supposed to compete with the private sector if the private sector can do a job more efficiently and effectively. erik knows that. he is a millionaire. aside from the money thing and tactics and strategy, i would like to go back to a hearing in the senate armed services committee -- they goodness for c-span that we can watch those things. general nicholson testified in february. my senator, lindsey graham, question him in detail about what was needed to win in afghanistan. he said at least 30,000 more troops. he also said that contractors to oneer government guys over there -- two to one over there. that rush isdismay trying to undermine our efforts over there.
he also said if we do not win this thing over there and get that place stabilized, we will feel their presence on this continent -- host: we will have to end there and give our guest chance to respond. guest: let me answer last to first. you are right. there are more contractors in afghanistan already. 26 thousand. nine and a half thousand of those are americans in afghanistan. there are another 9000 u.s. troops. there are a lot of contractors there. the plan i am advocating severely reduces all of those numbers. inherentlyn of governmental comes up. i was born in the summer of 1960 nine, the summer of woodstock and apollo 11. is it were to say inherently governmental that only the u.s. government can put , ofcket into space, 1969 course he would have said yes. but now today, 2017, the only way the u.s. government gets to
space is on a private contractor's rocket war with the russian space govern -- program. the idea of what is inherently governmental, time and technology changes that. host: will from ohio, good morning. caller: the first thing i would like to say is this whole thing is ridiculous. the russians warned us 15 years afghanistan,o into you will not win. they were right to the second thing i would like to say is we are spending all of this money between afghanistan and iraq. you can rebuild every hospital and school in america with the money we are spending over there. this could be putting americans to work, it would be creating jobs, and you would have money to support the entitlement program we need for people. this whole thing is just ridiculous. guest: i think the president
agrees with you. he has said repeatedly he is not the same bigith military, big spending approach in afghanistan. i think he wrestles with pulling out completely and putting that money to work back in the unite states and infrastructure versus spending it to you i try to provide him an option to keep pressure on the terrorists and still return more than $40 billion back to the budget to spend in america. host: from georgia, rick. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span, for your service to our nation. i have a couple of comments. first, as far as a grand war in afghanistan, history teaches us and generalt four to have won a war in afghanistan was alexander the great, about
300 bc. privatization from the military is a terrible idea. all the way back to the history, mercenaries have always been a failure. mercenaries cannot be trusted. mercenaries are therefore a profit. their allegiance is to money, not to a nation. i think you have revealed your motives, when you try to compare afghanistan to a business. war is not a place to realize a profit. the analogy with a business in bankruptcy is not well taken. thank you. effort isould say the in bankruptcy. the fact that the afghan state is 90% plus dependent on donor funds to operate, and that even our secretary of defense
acknowledges we are not winning, having spent close to $1 trillion, any rational observer or investor could characterize that as being in bankruptcy. again, trying to save a lot of ,oney and putting this thing trying to find an offramp for the longest war in history, is important. as to the idea of mercenaries, or contractors, i respectfully strongly disagree with you. anyone who looks at the history of the flying tigers, what they accomplished against the japanese, even winston churchill praised those guys, those contractors, those for -- former army, navy, air force pilots who went to work for a chinese company to defend china against japanese aggression. churchill equated those pilots to the same work the raf did in britain. host: legal now to a call in virginia.
-- we go now to a call in virginia. caller: i think you're tried to push innovative solutions, which is excellent. but a couple of points. one of the things i would say is have you heard of soap ways airlines and the arming of some arsenal involved area to boko it and other areas this is one has been conducting. all of the manifests with airplanes are available on crowd source -- crowd sourcethetruth.org. would make sense to me to cut out those lines going to the spiders fighting against our troops. host: are you familiar with this? guest: is their leakage in arms trade in the world? yes, sadly. that is not necessary in afghanistan, because when the
taliban can roll over and afghan base and destroy it and capture all of the arms provided by the u.s., they do not need it. host: this in the headlines -- the blackwater ceo held a secret seychelle meeting to establish a back line between trump and russia. is there any truth to it? guest: i was in a business meeting when i was in the seychelles that had nothing to do with the u.s. government really. host: young not been contacted by anyone investigating this? guest: not at all. host: what do you think of trump? guest: i feel for the guy, as much negativity is attacking him. he was a multibillionaire, living a comfortable life. but he cares about his country and decided to step up and do something about it. i think the guy could cure cancer, and the left would still
criticize him for curated -- for curing cancer, somehow. he is in a thankless position. i am thankful he is president, and not hillary clinton. as did measures and comes together, there will be good things ahead. host: is his rhetoric appropriate? rhetoric, particularly at kim jong-un -- like i said, i think that was directed at the circle around kim jong-un. having clear definition from the united states about what the consequences are of firing whistles at guam is appropriate. host: last call from new york, rich. thank you for waiting. caller: i would like to say it is not terrorists who scare me, it is you. you are nothing more than a warmonger or. -- a warmonger. i am sure there is a special place in hell for you. guest: i am sorry you feel that
way. i am trying to figure out how to end the war in afghanistan and bring the troops home. i question how you would do that. host: let's go back to our earlier point. is "privatize" the right word? guest: first of all, let's end the war. everyone left of center once the figure how to bring the troops home. you have to have some sort of structure in place to have afghan security forces are bright and effective the of this is the model to do that. people want to complain about contractors in afghanistan -- there are already 26,000 there. this number reduces -- this planned reduce that number 80%. i will take criticism. people have criticism to throw around. the fact is, these are difficult problems, and for the united states to pull out of afghanistan completely and leave a terrorist safe haven is a problem.
a solution to that, people can criticize me for that, but if you're not over the target, you're not taking flak. host: if people can follow you on twitter are on the web? guest: i am not on either. host: but your website? guest: sure, but has nothing to do with solving afghanistan. host: erik prince, thank you. when we come back, we turn to health care. ron pollack and raise mary turner will talk about what they think needs to happen less. later, "usa today" out with an invitation into the california trucking industry. "washington journal" continues in a moment. ♪ >> saturday night on "book tv,"
beginning at 9:00 p.m. eastern, former marine officer tracy bell talk about their book, "it's my country too: women's military stories from the american revolution to afghanistan." >> for too long, women's military histories have been discounted or appropriated by others. so she just felt like the timing is right. it is time to give these women a voice. >> we are not a social experiment. we were soldiers, sailors. we ended up in iraq and afghanistan, doing the same jobs, in many cases, as the men, and coming home to a country that did not recognize many of us as veterans, but with the same visit -- physical injuries
as the men. 10:00 p.m., "after words." senator jeff flake talks about his book "conscience of a conservative." s.e. how doewed by you make the case that cupp. >> the health of conservatism is a real-world matter that has real-world invocations? it is for between two things. try to win for the sake of elections, but if we, as conservatives, want to an act conservative policy, you have to treat an election like how do you set this up for governing in ways we can move forward in our agenda? , robertat 11:00 p.m. o'neal, who participated in the killing of osama bin laden,
talks about his military career and his participation in some book "then his operator: firing the shots that killed osama bin laden and my years as a seal team warrior." >> the guy who brought me up to bin laden's bedroom pulled me aside and said do not take this the wrong way -- if we know we are going to die, why are we going? i said we're not going for fame. mom,e going for the single who drops her kids off at school tuesday morning, then 45 minutes later, she jumped to her death from a skyscraper, because that than better alternative burning to death. onwatch beginning at 9:00 c-span 2's
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on