yes absolutely afghanistan. is a very contentious issue between the united states and pakistan as and i mentioned before the united states and pakistan have conflicting interests in afghanistan. the taliban and its associates are the enemies of americans and the afghan government while they are supported by certain circles within the pakistani establishment this year two thousand and eleven will be a very critical year in afghanistan in july the obama administration is planning to withdraw. begin withdrawal of troops from the country also it is a beginning of transition of security responsibilities to security forces and after have been allowed in scaling and now the critics of the are here in the united states as well. they are trying to convince and ministration to call it mission accomplished and leave afghanistan but i think that that will be very much huge mistake because i've been alive and it's gone but the terror infrastructure and the ideology is still there as we saw the taliban announce is july first

to a safe haven in afghanistan. it was called that by the american military who witnessed it. it's obvious that this is one of the problems when you use words like taliban, you know, it's kind of this uniformed word, and everybody assumes it means the same thing. it doesn't. there are obviously those who are part of the power structure with possibly working directly with the pakistani intelligence or in some way empowered, and then you probably have the average, you know, afghans or even, you know, other people from other countries or men from other countries who have no particular power at all, so, you know, there's a hire hierarchy within the structure that needs to be appreciated. >> how can we assume they are evil? >> the air lift of evil means they removed the fighters off the ground in afghanistan. >> america's allies were basically assisting the enemy in ease keeping from csh escaping from the battle and from being captured without explanation, and american soldiers were told to stand down and not interfere w

we get to afghanistan, and they send their top moscow guy down on afghanistan, talks to roger. roger is shocked to tell us, they the to get out. they want to get out really quickly, and they are desperate, and we bring the story back tonightline, and it was obvious that the mainstream media and beltway crowd was not interested in doing anything with this possibility. they didn't actually create what roominger described as the golden bridge to help soviets withdraw and stay safe. they wanted to leave that and not look like it was a defeat base cle. that's number one. well, charlie starts to get his project going to increase funding after that point. the exact -- what needed to happen was the insurgency had to stop from pakistan and what wilson did was increase the insurgency. if that had stopped, the president had said on camera to us that the soviets would leave, so these are all the his -- this is part of the historical record. what charlie was doing was actually increasing the chances of the soviets staying there longer, and that actually was the goal of the whole idea was to

yes absolutely afghanistan. is a very contentious issue between the united states and pakistan as and i mentioned before the united states and pakistan have conflicting interests in afghanistan. the taliban and his associates are the enemies of americans and the afghan government while they are supported by certain circles within the pakistani establishment this year two thousand and eleven will be a very critical year and afghanistan in july the obama administration is planning to withdraw. begin withdrawal of troops from the camp three and also it is a beginning of transition of security responsibilities to security forces and after have been allowed in scaling now the critical software here in the united states as well they're there they're trying to convince and ministration to call it mission accomplished and leave afghanistan but i think that will be very much huge mistake because i've been allowed and it's gone the terror infrastructure and the ideology is there as we saw the taliban announces july first

yes absolutely afghanistan. is a very contentious issue between the united states and pakistan as and i mentioned before the united states and pakistan have conflicting interests in afghanistan. the taliban and its associated are the enemies of americans and the afghan government while they are supported by certain circles within the pakistani establishment this year two thousand and seven will be a very critical year. in july the obama administration is planning to a draw. begin withdrawal of troops from the camp three and also it is the beginning of transition of security responsibilities to security forces. have to have been allowed in scaling now the critical software here in the united states as well they're there they're trying to convince and ministration to call it mission accomplished. leave afghanistan but i think that'll be very much huge mistake because i've been alarmed and it's gone but the terror infrastructure and the ideology is still there as we saw the taliban announces july first spring offen

yes absolutely afghanistan. is a very contentious issue between the united states and pakistan as and i mentioned before the united states and pakistan have conflicting interests in afghanistan. the taliban and its associates are the enemies of americans and afghan government while they are supported by certain circles within the pakistani establishment this year two thousand and eleven will be a very critical year and afghanistan in july the obama administration is planning to withdraw our. begin withdrawal of troops from the country and also it is the beginning of transition of security responsibilities to security forces and after have been allowed in scaling now the critics of the war here in the united states as well they're there they're trying to convince and ministration to call it mission accomplished and leave afghanistan but i think that that will be very much huge mistake because i've been allowed in is the terror infrastructure and the ideology is sell there as we saw that the taliban announces july

for afghanistan any time soon. the most likely future of the next two years is some form of a messy stalemate. the afghanistan characterized by a mix of the government, strong local officials, and a taliban presence supported out of pakistan that will be extensive in must of the pashtun south and east of afghanistan. resolution by either military or diplomatic means is unlikely and continue constitute as a basis. walking away from afghanistan is not the answer. the country should scale back what we are doing and what we seek to accomplish. and aim for an afghanistan that is simply good enough in light of local realities, limited interest, and the broad range of domestic and global challenges now facing the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, dr. haass. very comprehensive and i think appropriately provocative and thoughtful as always. we look forward to following up. dr. slaughter. by the way, welcome back. i don't know if you know it, dr. slaughter was an intern here in 1979. by persistence,

war strategy in the country in afghanistan here's his response. the last reasonable sounding rationale for the war in afghanistan is now evaporated i mean president obama said that his job one is for security goes was attacking al qaeda and al qaida is largely driven out of afghanistan almost completely and bin laden is dead there's no reasonable rationale left for the afghanistan war and what matthew hoh said in your clip before is absolutely sure every year the war in afghanistan continues to go worse from a strategic standpoint for the united states and so it's like the rationale that it was legitimate before bin laden was dead was dead and now that he's gone there's no reason to keep troops there ok let's follow the three that the u.s. pulled out of taliban or gain control you're making strategically this is getting worse and worse favre can't control the country are you ok with that well i think the problem in afghanistan is that there's this idea that the taliban will just overrun the entire territory of afghanistan retake kabul it'll be jus

for afghanistan any time soon. the most likely future of the next two years is some form of a messy stalemate. the afghanistan characterized by a mix of the government, strong local officials, and a taliban presence supported out of pakistan that will be extensive in must of the pashtun south and east of afghanistan. resolution by either military or diplomatic means is unlikely and continue constitute as a basis. walking away from afghanistan is not the answer. the country should scale back what we are doing and what we seek to accomplish. and aim for an afghanistan that is simply good enough in light of local realities, limited interest, and the broad range of domestic and global challenges now facing the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, dr. haass. very comprehensive and i think appropriately provocative and thoughtful as always. we look forward to following up. dr. slaughter. by the way, welcome back. i don't know if you know it, dr. slaughter was an intern here in 1979. by persistence,

war in afghanistan. stephen biddle is a senior fellow for defense policy at the council on foreign relations. an expert in defense policy and strategy. gentlemen, we look forward to your help in addressing many of the questions i have just posed. senator lugar. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses and we look forward to a very important hearing with them. afghanistan has been important and to still be a source of threat to the united states security. on that we are all agreed. the question before us is whether afghanistan is important enough to justify the lives, the massive resources that are being spent their, especially given our nation's debt crisis, or can we achieve the most important national security goals in afghanistan essentially preventing the taliban from taking over the government, and preventing afghan territory from being used as a terrorist safe haven at far less expense? at our first hearing on afghanistan last week, i offered four observations as a prelu

strategy in afghanistan i'm joined by bradley blakeman in washington he's a former member of george w. bush's senior staff and currently a professor at georgetown university and in islam about because the shop i view is a risk and security analyst all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want but first let's take a look at some of the issues and opportunities facing president barack obama when it comes to afghanistan. more than a week following the killing of al qaeda leader osama bin laden the question that is gathering steam is whether the u.s. will now change its war on terror strategy a decade of chasing the specter of bin laden has marred the u.s. in a war against an enemy that is state less and it seems ubiquitous without gracious and afghanistan iraq pakistan and yemen the cost of the war on terror and mounts to a staggering three trillion dollars the death toll is the call to estimates but hundreds of thousands of afghans iraqis and pakistani civilians are believed to have lost their lives and most of all we're making progress in our

policy in afghanistan is said to be transformed following the killing of our top terrorist. located welcome to crossfire nine people about with the killing of osama bin laden u.s. president barack obama has an historic opportunity on afghanistan will he use it and what is the downside if he doesn't. across the u.s. strategy in afghanistan i'm joined by bradley blakeman in washington he's a former member of george w. bush's senior staff and currently a professor at georgetown university and in islamabad because the shock i could hear is a risk in security analyst all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want but first let's take a look at some of the issues and opportunities facing president barack obama when it comes to afghanistan. more than the week following the killing of al qaeda or leader of some of bin laden the question that is gathering steam is whether the u.s. will now change its war on terror strategy a decade of chasing the specter of the loddon has marred the u.s. in a war against an enemy that is stateless and it see

for afghanistan any time soon. the most likely future of the next two years is some form of a messy stalemate. the afghanistan characterized by a mix of the government, strong local officials, and a taliban presence supported out of pakistan that will be extensive in must of the pashtun south and east of afghanistan. resolution by either military or diplomatic means is unlikely and continue constitute as a basis. walking away from afghanistan is not the answer. the country should scale back what we are doing and what we seek to accomplish. and aim for an afghanistan that is simply good enough in light of local realities, limited interest, and the broad range of domestic and global challenges now facing the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, dr. haass. very comprehensive and i think appropriately provocative and thoughtful as always. we look forward to following up. dr. slaughter. by the way, welcome back. i don't know if you know it, dr. slaughter was an intern here in 1979. by persistence,

killed osama bin laden but many questions still remain one of the biggest being our current war in afghanistan we're asking are we done yet then rumors are flying as to how torture may have played a role in the hunt for bin laden so tonight i'll speak with military blogger jim hansen to figure out what we've heard is really fact and what's fiction then all the economic front i'll ask if the u.s. has gone bankrupt searching for al qaeda as number want wars in iraq and afghanistan the cost of homeland security all of these factors have weighed heavily on our national purse so when we realize we can't afford any more war answer it marks the fortieth anniversary of the significant protests that took place here in washington d.c. so on this historic day will investigate why there are any large scale protests in our country like we used to see and decades past and we love this segment so much that we've expanded it to cover every day this week it's happy hour i'll be joined by jim hansen and producer jenny churchill to discuss all the stories that are making a buzz but that phone is going to have to

half years on the war in afghanistan has grown visibly worse while u.s. rhetoric surrounding it has consistently spun in circles we are making progress that is workers enabled us to make the progress that we have made i think it's possible that by the end of this year the war. since two thousand and three washington has repeatedly per cleaned turning points for a conflict that critics call our failing quagmire the reality is that things are still mean that things are worse than they were this time last year every year we send more troops every year as we spend more money and the insurgency grows and size karzai government gets weaker and the violence gets worse and nearly fifteen hundred u.s. soldiers and ten thousand afghan civilians have been killed in a war costing america two billion dollars per week meanwhile after sasson aiding a man it's been hunting since two thousand and one the united states has conducted an operation that killed osama bin laden i disconnect between what the us says and what the world sees may have deeper a defining moment in th

is in a much better condition afghanistan has an infrastructure afghanistan has a parliament has had two presidential elections but at the same time i think there's much more that could be done in this regard. many people and you of course read it here that it say that the have their government is. an efficient and corrupt is it true and there what in your opinion should be done to make it more efficient and less correct look it's understandable for people to criticize the afghan government because of corruption but you worked what is specifically important for people to realize is that they're different levels of corruption there's corruption in the afghan government but at the same time there's a very serious corruption in the international community which also has to be addressed and also corruption particularly could be addressed with by systematic procedures and policies and regulations corruption by the west particularly in its contracting mechanism in various different levels it's completely seen in different contexts as compared to what the corruption is seen in afghanistan t

yes absolutely afghanistan. is a very contentious issue between the united states and pakistan as and i mentioned before the united states and pakistan have conflicting interests in afghanistan. the taliban and its associates are the enemies of americans and the afghan government while they are supported by certain circles within the pakistani establishment this year two thousand and eleven will be a very critical year in afghanistan in july the obama administration is planning to withdraw. begin withdrawal of troops from the country and also it is a beginning of transition of security responsibilities to security forces i'm after been allowed in scaling now the critical software here in the united states as well they're there they're trying to convince an ministration to call it mission accomplished. leave afghanistan but i think that that will be very much huge mistake because i've been allowed and it's gone the terror infrastructure and the ideology is still there as we saw the taliban announces july first sp

for afghanistan any time soon. the most likely future of the next two years is some form of a messy stalemate. the afghanistan characterized by a mix of the government, strong local officials, and a taliban presence supported out of pakistan that will be extensive in must of the pashtun south and east of afghanistan. resolution by either military or diplomatic means is unlikely and continue constitute as a basis. walking away from afghanistan is not the answer. the country should scale back what we are doing and what we seek to accomplish. and aim for an afghanistan that is simply good enough in light of local realities, limited interest, and the broad range of domestic and global challenges now facing the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, dr. haass. very comprehensive and i think appropriately provocative and thoughtful as always. we look forward to following up. dr. slaughter. by the way, welcome back. i don't know if you know it, dr. slaughter was an intern here in 1979. by persistence,

is an a much better condition afghanistan has an infrastructure afghanistan has a parliament has had two presidential elections but at the same time i think there's much more that could be done in this regard. many people and you've course read it here that it say there the have their government is. an efficient and corrupt is it true and there in your opinion should be done to make it more efficient less correct look it's understandable for people to criticize the afghan government because of corruption but you would want to specifically important for people to realize is that there are different levels of corruption fears corruption in the afghan government but at the same time there's a very serious corruption in the international community which also has to be addressed in also corruption particularly could be addressed with by systematic procedures and policies and regulations corruption by the west particularly in its contracting mechanism in various different levels it's completely seen in different contexts as compared to what the corruption is seen in afghanistan that is con

what exactly is the mission in afghanistan? >> i think the administration has expressed a relatively clearly. the core goal that the white house has put forward is the idea to disrupt, defeat, in the af-pak region and they want to be stable left to achieve that goal. more specifically in terms of transition, in one sentence, i think the mission of the moment now is to make the country stable enough that we can reduce the u.s. footprint to a sustainable level without an unacceptable drop in security. there are two important words there -- sustainable and unacceptable. sustainable, i think, means fiscally, and unacceptable translates into the core gold. and a couple drop in securities is one that undermines our ability to destructive defeat them in the region. we're making afghanistan stable as a means to an end of defeating outcry in the region. i think that is a relatively low bar for some of the goals. that does not mean it will not cost a lot of resources to get their. that is probably a separate question. >> dr. john, do you

we have a war going on in afghanistan. we are firing hellfire missiles in western pakistan and now we are dropping a lot of ordnance in libya. if you want to be a conspiracy theorist and you are a muslim, i think these americans are at war with islam. that would be a very dangerous situation for us to be in. >> just to raise the question, we are not fighting an ideology which would be that brand of islam. maybe we talked earlier today about we hid the reset button. how do we achieve success? it is not through body count. when we were in afghanistan i remember thinking at the time, this would be last april that success was measured in the number of police that were trained. the number of judges that were in town. is that still true? is that the new yardstick or the old yardstick? >> very good question. as i said earlier the number one need is security. the numbers 2 need is food. nine or ten years into this war 40% of the afghans go to bed hungry according to the un statistics. they have an insufficient supply of calories w

the one looking at afghanistan. hope to resolve that and take you back over to the hearing momentarily. u.s. house come in for their general speeches this morning. as we mention add moment ago we will come back at noon. two bills today, repealing mandatory funding for two programs established by the health care law. over in the senate today, general speeches but we might see some possible debate and vote on a resolution commending u.s. forces and the intelligence community for their successful operation in bringing about the death of osama bin laden. we mentioned that senate foreign relations committee, that's on the situation in afghanistan. there will be a hearing later this afternoon on the house side, homeland security subcommittee looking at the security threat from pakistan. particularly in the wake of the killing of osama bin laden. that's coming up at 2:00. that will be live on our companion network, c-span3. we'll take you back live now over to senate foreign relations. >> about the performance of our troop

withdrawal from afghanistan. and they wonder what that means in terms of life on the ground because there are a lot of people including a lot of women who had used the space to try to build schools, build businesses, all of that stuff, and they wonder whether that is going to end when the international community leaves. >> well, stand by for just a second, gayle, because i want to ask wes about the troop numbers. let's go to the p, wes. how many troops right now, and what would you project when the president talks about withdrawals if they really are going to be substantial withdrawals? >> absolutely. and right here you see the map of afghanistan. and currently we have approximately 100,000 troops who are still currently trained who are operating in afghanistan within the field. but there's also two really important numbers that have to be thought about when we're talking about afghanistan with the administration and also congress, is thinking about the first number, is the fact that we have 1,219 killed. 19 k.i.

can pull out of afghanistan pakistan can solve begin begin to pick up the pieces and then we return to some sort of normalcy you know mark if i can go to you the fact that he was in pakistan killed there there is reports coming out today that bin laden could have been living there for six years and that is pretty remarkable on one of america's close this our eyes on the war on terror after billions and billions of dollars of aid and he's killed there apparently without the knowledge of the pakistani authorities which is just impossible to fathom that ok i mean what is going on here. well for me what it really calls into question is our presence in afghanistan for a decade and what it was that for if the already clee the only right the only justification we had to be in afghanistan was to hunt down and capture or kill the people directly responsible for the september eleventh attacks i mean that's really the only legal and moral justification the united states would have had to be there instead we've engaged in you know once we went in there you know the paraphrase colin powell we broke

if our goal and afghanistan as dr. slaughter said and i think you just said is to prevent terrorist attacks on the united states, why are we limiting this to afghanistan? aren't there other countries in the middle east but also harboring terrorists, which until on the united states? are in their countries in africa? so, why have we drawn the line here and say we will stay as long as necessary to reach a good enough solution in afghanistan? >> it is actually the same approach that i will suggest to the other countries. what i'm trying to do, it must be a drafting problem and i wasn't clear. i am trying to scale down dramatically the u.s. involvement and investment in afghanistan, much more akin to what we have been doing in other countries like yemen and somalia. i want the emphasis to be on counterterrorism, a degree of training but i agree with you i don't believe coming up with something senator corker said before you are right, this is not a template that sustainable i don't believe it is a template of to be sustain

if you visit the women in afghanistan, if you visit the women of afghanistan, many women in the congress have done, and some of our male colleagues as well, they will tell you whether you're talking about educated women in kabul, but really more relevant to me, poor, poor women in the provinces. i visited a group of women in one province -- a number of provinces and spoken to women there. and the women there say, we really want to educate our daughters eric we want to have access to health care clinics and the rest but we can't have that until we have security and we can't have security until we end corruption. so many things going on in afghanistan that must change. and there will be a better chance of their changing if we make an investment in the civilian side of this transition. whether it's diplomacy, whether it's part of the construction, they tell me not to say reconstruction because not much was there before. construction there, where they're building schools work evisited little girls in school in different parts of afghanistan, very encouraging. our troops know that we have to

invasion of afghanistan is gone now the world is waiting to see if his death will bring about change and how america handles the ongoing conflict. and the victory over terror on russian soil by chief al qaeda coordinated in the north caucuses has been eliminated officials hopeful the news will devastate the region's terrorist network. strikes in libya seemingly getting in nato no way that the possibility of a ground attack looming ever more experts say that was the alliance's plan all of the. billboard is here in half an hour's time but for now it's cross talk with people they were enjoy. you can. still. go and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle with the killing of osama bin laden what is changed u.s. president barack obama says justice has been done and that the world is better and a safer place bin laden is no more so as the so-called war on terror been worth it . and. crossed out the war on terror in the post bin laden era i'm joined by patricia de janeiro a professor of international security at new york university's department of politics in irvine we have mark divine he's

yes absolutely afghanistan. is a very contentious issue between the united states and pakistan as and i mentioned before the united states and pakistan have conflicting interests in afghanistan. the taliban and its associates are the name is off americans and the afghan government while they are supported by certain circles within the pakistani establishment this year two thousand and eleven will be a very critical year and afghanistan in july the obama administration is planning to withdraw. begin withdrawal of troops from the country and it is a beginning of transition of security responsibilities to security forces and after have been allowed in scaling now the critics of the are here in the united states as well they're there they're trying to convince and ministration to call it mission accomplished and leave afghanistan but i think that will be very much huge mistake because i have been allowed and it's gone the terror infrastructure and the ideology is still there as we saw that the taliban announces july

and true way into basically being able being able to work on the withdrawal from afghanistan and more appropriately iraq as well however i think you know this administration is it has not been much different than the last one is for us as far as foreign policy is concerned and you know this idea that we want to keep bases in places without the support of the governments and without really speaking to the governments the national governments and seeing how that is going to align interests and help the region and help those governments is is just i think the wrong policy the wrong way to go with policy. at this time anyway you know dan you know i want to talk a little bit about the pakistan angle because there's more questions than answers i at this point here but i mean when you look at pakistan would you say that the bush slash obama war on terror as it can be called a success by any any to mention whatsoever. i think you just have to look at the situation in pakistan today and compare it to what it was before the before the occupation of afghanistan began and now today we have insurg

in afghanistan. pakistan is a modern country, with millions upon millions of people, albeit with a disjointed government. so you can't look at it in a vacuum. that's not a fair assessment. >> understood. and finally, some of the most appealing framing we have heard here in the conversation around the bin laden kill, has been to look at it as a comma and not a period in the progression of this event. do you agree with that framing? >> absolutely. somebody is going to fill in the vacuum for bin laden. may 1 was a great day in american history, a great day in the war against terrorism. it validates a lot of what we were trying to do, and the fact that we will never rest until those that do us harm are brought to justice. that's what the message of may 1 is. but somebody is going to come up in the ranks, and we always have to be diligent. we got a lot of good intel out of that compound he was seized at. and right now, the powers that be in our country are working around the clock to make sure that if oth

can pull out of afghanistan pakistan can solve begin to pick up the pieces and then we return to some sort of normalcy you know mark if i can go to you the fact that he was in pakistan killed there there is reports coming out today that bin laden could have been living there for six years and that is pretty remarkable on one of america's closeness our eyes on the war on terror after billions and billions of dollars of aid and he's killed there apparently without the knowledge of the pakistani authorities which is just impossible to fathom that ok i mean what is going on here. well for me what it really calls into question is our presence in afghanistan for a decade and what it was that for its theoretically the only right or the only justification we had to be in afghanistan was to hunt down and capture or kill the people directly responsible for the september eleventh attacks i mean that's really the only legal and moral justification the united states would have had to be there instead we've engaged in you know once we went in there you know the paraphrase colin powell we broke it a

policy in afghanistan will be transformed following the death. still. to. locate welcome to crossfire tonight peter lavelle with the killing of osama bin laden u.s. president barack obama has an historic opportunity on afghanistan will he use it and what is the downside if he doesn't. across the u.s. strategy in afghanistan i'm joined by bradley blakeman in washington he's a former member of george w. bush's senior staff and currently a professor at georgetown university and in islam about because the shop i could hear is a risk and security analyst all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want but first let's take a look at some of the issues and opportunities facing president barack obama when it comes to afghanistan. more than a week following the killing of al qaeda or leader of someone bin laden the question that is gathering steam is going to the u.s. will now change its war on terror strategy a decade of chasing the specter of the modern has marred the u.s. in a war against an enemy that is stateless and th

gentlemen i'd like to stay with afghanistan but i think that's news bradley i'd. like to ask you you know we've been this is ten years going on the united states has been in afghanistan for ten years and its coalition of the willing that is dwindling all the time i mean it looks to me you know the insurgency is just it can afford to wait it out ok i mean the united states is i mean i was reading an interesting article coming from a military source u.s. military source just today he said there's such a psychological fatigue of the military after ten years these were these people didn't expect to be there for a decade ok and take that's taking its toll as well i mean what my point is is that if you don't make a pretty negotiated deal pretty soon on terms that are appealing to the people on the ground it doesn't matter the united states will just be bled dry over just a year after year tens of billions of dollars i agree there are now. there is fatigue and there's a question as to what the end game is sooner or later the pakistanis and the afghanis have got to stand

the endemic corruption, the high-level corruption that sprises in afghanistan -- exists in afghanistan is going to continue to exist. president karzai in a meeting mg that i attended was questioned about corruption. and his response was, well, 70% of the fund that you put into afghanistan are not funneled through my government, so who did you give your money to? it's a fair question. it's not a completely genuine one because there was plenty of money left over when you look at the 30%, but a lot of money disappearing in this process. and there are a lot of houses being built in kabul, multistory mansions, and land that's been expropose rated by senior officials of the afghan government. and nobody can explain how someone with a salary of $11,000 a year can build a multimillion dollar mansion. or other mansions are being built in dubai or purchased in dubai by people running kabul bank. and kabul bank is the, happens to be where we put all the fund for the pay of the afghan national army. now, some of that money may not be there when we need et, when we go to draw on it. this is a situa

still in afghanistan especially now that osama bin ladin is out of the picture. the military targets these people because they aren't toeing the line they're not. they're not playing the game but they are just doing their jobs so why are journalists abroad getting killed at the hands of the u.s. military. that evening it's wednesday may fourth by five pm i'm laurin a stranger watching our t.v. now it's a fog of war or you may want to just call it the fog of p.r. the obama administration since announcing bin laden's death has flip flopped on the details first it was a firefight and an armed bin laden fought back listen to this he was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in and whether or not he got up in the rounds i quite frankly don't know. they later the white house knew that an ounce bin laden wasn't armed at all they gave a different account take a look at a woman rather bin laden's wife rushed the u.s. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not to kill bin laden was then shot and killed he was not on that is just one inc

mission in afghanistan and pakistan. frankly the elimination of osama bin laden fulfilled a good part of what they say we are doing there. if there can be a moment of operational clarity in which to declare victory and get out, is osama bin laden's death that moment? across the idealogical divide we'll go talk to michael steel. >>> in his first major interview after taking over the u.s. war effort from general mccrystal in afghanistan, general david petraeus was asked on "meet the press" last august about osama bin laden. and about the importance of the united states getting osama bin laden. and about the connection between that and the afghanistan war. >> is his capture less important today than it was? >> well, i think he remains an iconic figure. i think capturing or killing osama bin laden is still a very, very important task for all of those who are engaged in counterterrorism around the world. let's remember why we are here. we're here so that afghanistan does not once again became a sanctuary for transnational ext

laden at in kill osama bin laden deprives people who wanted to stay in afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat. it was the republicans can't use it against the president right now congressman jerrold nadler from new york said we accomplished what we had to do in afghanistan a long time ago we had to stop wasting our troops and our money and our lives and get up and chairman of the senate armed services committee carl levin advocated for a troop drawdown in afghanistan by saying afghans are now in an even better position to take responsibility because whatever direction it's coming from pakistan from that safe haven no longer has guidance whatever strength and lines presence or direction could give to even republicans around congressman jason chaffetz acknowledged that finding bin laden proves that we don't need one hundred thousand people on the ground in afghanistan their public unclip stern some florida simply say now the bin laden has been executed we must go home enters the white house and pentagon so that they're sticking to the withdrawa

they are based in afghanistan, but their work is focused on pakistan. up at the border, we were stopped from filming them, but a former commander agreed to talk if his identity was protected. >> smith: the wikileaks war logs released in 2010 contain references to the cia's private army in khost. they fire mortars at taliban and al qaeda targets in pakistan. with the help of drones, "shadow coverage," they ambush and kill insurgent fighters crossing the border. >> smith: pakistan is supposed to be an ally in the war against the taliban and al qaeda, but us soldiers fighting along the border complain that pakistan's army supports the militants. >> from my time on the border, we experienced, on a regular basis, pakistani military complicity with the insurgency. it could be turning a blind eye as the insurgents launch rockets at our bases. it could be allowing passage, you know, kind of right under their noses. it could be even aiding and working with the insurgents to know what times to cross the border, telling them when our patrols or when the afghan arm

the question of cooperation with respect to afghanistan. i see opportunity in all of this to sort of punch a reset button and frankly serve our interests and theirs much more effectively. >> schieffer: what if they don't? what if they don't see it that way? do we just go it alone without them? >> here's the difficulty. i think don rumsfeld will ratify this. you know, we rely on the pakistanis for the transfer of our major supplies to afghanistan through karachi and through pakistan. we have opened a northern route but it's not capable of doing what we need to do. secondly, everybody has to understand that even in the getting of osama bin laden the pakistanis were helpful. we have people on the ground in pakistan because they allow us to have them. we actually worked with them on certain parts of the intelligence that helped to lead to him and they have been extraordinarily cooperative and at some political cost to them in helping us to take out 16 of the top 20 al qaeda leaders with a drone program that we have in the western part of the co

and afghanistan and that is disrupting and dismantling and we are going to ultimately defeat. but this base the question since the valid goal of invading afghanistan to find bin laden is now comp list what is to be done about al qaeda which though many argue is no longer relevant as french as the sell out across the region last week it issued a response to bin ladin skilling saying his quote blood will be a curse that will chase the americans and their agents a curse that would pursue them inside and outside their country the spiral of this obama seems to be sticking to his guns promising to move forward with a plan to withdraw from afghanistan. the white house too has reaffirmed obama's stance saying the drawdown is on but they operation against al qaeda will now be relegated to the afghan army the focus of that operation of the u.s. personnel in afghanistan is an al qaeda operation continues the july two thousand and eleven transition date for the beginning of a drawdown remains. very much in place the pace of the drawdown will be determined by conditions on the ground but i

and he joins us now from kabul, afghanistan. and now tell us how the troops are reacting so far. we are to imagine it's very jubilant there. >> reporter: well, peggy, the reaction i've been getting from troops has come online to me. troops are happy to see this happen. they believe their sacrifice means something. and this war that has gone on ten years now. but i have to say that i've just been in contact with a top u.s. officer here who tells me the reaction from afghanistan will be muted. nothing official is planned. after all, a war is still being waged here. and they do not want to ignite any protests from afghans here in this country by showing celebrations of u.s. troops on bases. so they're going to keep it low-key, because this war is going on. as of may 1st, which was yesterday, the taliban announced that they were beginning their spring offensive. this will take the form most likely of many, many suicide bombers around the country. south of the capital yesterday, there was a report of a 12-year-old boy who detonated a

of al-qaeda in afghanistan. given the fact that you have had more threats, more attacks or attempted attacks on the u.s. homeland from yemen in the last two years than afghanistan, does it make sense to keep 100,000 troops on the ground in afghanistan in a long-term counterinsurgency operation? >> a couple of points. the principal goal of the effort in south asia, including afghanistan is strategic defeat of al-qaeda. absolutely. we took a big step toward that on sunday night. first point. the second point, we also have as a goal not to have afghanistan become or again a safe haven or a place where an organization like al-qaeda could have the operational space to plan against us. we are making progress, chris, on both of those goals and we made a lot of progress on goal number one on sunday night. with respect to the drawdown pace and numbers that will be decided on decisions going forward. with respect to the al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula in yemen, when the president came in office he decided to intensify e

troops in afghanistan. are you worried about providing a specific end date and that would possibly enable the taliban to move in the day after the u.s. troops left? >> first of all, i am not in favor of a time table. i am in belief that that time table should be tomorrow. i realize that may be several months. i was opposed to us going into iraq from the beginning. i really thought that there was no threat to our national security. i really thought that if we went into iraq, we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end. i thought we had the military surveillance capability to see iraq roll outf any weapons of mass destruction and if they would have done that, we could have gone in and dealt with that. afghanistan, originally, i was completely supportive of that. we were attacked. we attacked back. that's what our military is for. after six months, i being we pretty effectively had taken care of al qaeda. but that was 10 years ago. we are building roads, schools, bridges and highways

strategy in afghanistan i'm joined by bradley blakeman in washington he's a former member of george w. bush the senior staff and currently a professor at georgetown university and in islam about because the shop i could hear is a risk and security analyst all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want but first let's take a look at some of the issues and opportunities facing president barack obama when it comes to afghanistan. while in the weeks following the killing of al qaeda leader osama bin laden the question that is gathering steam is going to the u.s. will now change its war on terror strategy a decade of chasing the specter of the loddon has marred the u.s. in a war against an enemy that is stateless and it seems ubiquitous with operations in afghanistan iraq and yemen the cost of the war on terror and mounts to a staggering three trillion dollars the death toll is the focal to estimates of hundreds of thousands of afghans iraqis and pakistani civilians are believed to have lost their lives and most of all we're making progress in our

is it time to leave afghanistan? the numbers to call it -- democrats, (202) 737-0002 republicans (202) 737-0001, an independents (202) 628-0205. you can e-mail us and we are on twitter. let's take a look at this "usa today" ps. is it time for america's longest war to end? nearly six in 10 americans think so, according to a usa today/gallup poll taken over the weekend. other newspapers asking similar questions this morning. from the "new york times," the killing of osama bin laden has set off a reassessment of the war in afghanistan. that's their right to that phones to hear what you think about this. roger in michigan, good morning. t think it is time for troops to leave afghanistan? caller: it is time for us to leave. when president bush took us time -- there, he said that we needed to deal with the twin towers business and everyone agree with that. the idea was to get the person to it did that. and we did. this is not barack obama's or any longer. iraq was never his work. our economy is tied to this and president o

this is the unanimous across afghanistan. i do not want you to walk out of here and say this does not count any more. but one of the trouble areas in rural afghanistan said, "i don't care about electricity. i would like to have fresh water and i would like to be able to take stuff my villagers' grow to a market and sell it does all that is pretty sycophant. that is pretty visceral. -- that is pretty significant. that is pretty visceral. i think a strong local government with responsible leaders and an ability to provide security -- that is a credible police force. it is honest. it has the best interest of the local community at heart and an incredible military. should something happen, they will step in and reinforce, or stepping in and do the bidding of the nation. that is pretty simple. to me, that is the fundamental basics of counterinsurgency. that is what is important for afghanistan. i will tell you what. from what i saw, and i think michael can speak from -- for himself, there are those leaders there. they are in the v

to pull out of afghanistan entirely. now, the government here is saying that will be premature, that will be giving an opportunity for the taliban to regroup and perhaps be able to launch an even stronger attack on the government here. but certainly there is a lot of pressure on karzai to be able to deliver. this is someone who in the past has been accused of being corrupt and incompetent, not actually being able to be the strong leader that's needed to unify the country. a lot of pressure on him. >> i guess i'm asking, too, whether it be hamid karzai directly or other members of leadership or perhaps even ordinary afghans who are saying, was this military operation, the concentration of this war on terror in afghanistan all for naught when he is found, located and killed in pakistan, if people feel like there in afghanistan from top all the way through other levels whether this effort in their country was worth it in the end knowing that the end or pinnacle of this mission takes place in neighboring pakistan? >> reporte

explain to me if the purported purpose of going into afghanistan in the beginning was to deny al qaeda safe haven to chase bin laden down and get the modern why today in twenty a lot then are the taliban in afghanistan and then we worth the thousands of troops that we have on the ground in the trillions of dollars or something yeah it's a difficult question and that's one of the reasons why i resigned my position from state department afghanistan was because of that because but we were fighting were fighting taliban were fighting these were all pashtuns for most part real pashtuns who are fighting us because we're taking part in someone else's civil war so it's a complex question i think this goes back to american domestic politics this goes back to president obama running against senator mccain in two thousand and eight he had to prove that he was for a democrat for a black democrat he could be a good commander in chief and he was going to he had been president obama was right on iraq we should have gone in but he's going to be right now afghanistan he's going to win the good war and

the question of cooperation with respect to afghanistan. i see opportunity in all of this to sort of punch a reset button and frankly serve our interests and theirs much more effectively. >> schieffer: what if they don't? what if they don't see it that way? do we just go it alone without them? a. >> here's the difficulty. i think don rumsfeld will ratify this. you know, we rely on the pakistanis for the transfer of our major supplies to afghanistan through karachi and through pakistan. we have opened a northern route but it's not capable of doing what we need to do. secondly, everybody has to understand that even in the getting of osama bin laden the back stanees were helpful. we have people on the ground in pakistan because they allow us to have them. we actually worked with them on certain parts of the intelligence that helped to lead to him and they have been extraordinarily cooperative and at some political cost to them in helping us to take out 16 of the top 20 al qaeda leaders with a drone program that we have in the western part of t

i want to talk about afghanistan. what does this mean for our mission in afghanistan? >> one thing to add to the earlier commentary, the importance of pakistan is hard to overstate. not just because they're a giant country with nuclear weapons, but in addition, were it not for our can't to take our logistics thus the port of karachi, on a 1,000-mile run through the khyber pass we could not for 90 days support 150,000 nato troops 800 miles from the sea. so pakistan is absolutely primary to our ability to continue this struggle. i think looking forward in afghanistan, there may well be an impact on al qaeda's ability to recruit and retain. i'm not sure. i don't believe it's going to have a significant role on what's going on inside afghanistan to the extent that this is a tribal war of the pasch tuns against the rest of them. i think the war will continue, but that doesn't detract from this as a major shot in the arm to the u.s. armed forces. 48,000 killed and wounded fighting the war on terror. this is a good day for the u.s. armed forces. >> all right. we will talk mor