missile defenses. >> i would agree. under my narrative, we've always for almost 30 years, three and four administrations, tried to get through negotiations, a handle on the threat. i would think this is the kind of issue we ought to pursue strategic dialogue administration started with russia and the strategic dialogue jake sullivan suggested beginning to be discussed so we are in agreement. of course we ought to try to see if we can get negotiated limits on those but ballistic missile defense capability is a hedge against those efforts. >> where want to turn to questions in a minute but picking up a little bit on the clues in your discussion now in russia particular about the whole conversation may have been different if we can imagine the u.s. never withdrawn from the treaty trying to focus limited activity on missile defense in the confines of the complex you could have, how might this be different? maybe not different at all, or may be quite different. >> i think he's right, efforts over multiple a

missile defenses. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley characterized the test as very close to a sputnik moment referring to the 1957 satellite launched by the soviet union that shocked america and demonstrated the kremlin's military technology prowess. in its annual report to congress on the chinese military released on november 3, the department of defense noted that the people's liberation army rocket force launched more than 250 ballistic missiles for testing and training in 2020 alone calling this more than the rest of the world combined. meanwhile, north gray continues to work on developing a range of missiles that threaten both south korea and japan including are forward station forces and increasingly threatening the united states. this -- their symmetry is expect both china and north korea will increase we attempt to use cyber capabilities to infiltrate and disrupt u.s. missile defense systems. in deploying a secure missile defense system to defend the united states, it's

missile defenses. if they insist our missile defenses should be on the table then we should assist their modern systems -- we should insist their systems be on the table. they could sell it abroad and therefore it spur regional proliferation, the imprecations of which we do not understand. i'm wondering if there was any discussion of this. president putin was visiting and at this week and had a meeting with modi in delhi. i wonder if the discussion was on the table. i am only speculating. in any event this is a concern of mine, proliferation of regional missile defenses capable of being against intercontinental ballistic missile's. thank you for this opportunity. i look forward to the discussion. >> thank you. you make a compelling point. one real potential implication in change in respect to the treaty is ballistic missile systems. let me zoom out and ask this follow-up question. from a theoretical perspective we think about strategy innate mathematical sense. the logic of mutually assured destruction

next me i can you have a defense strategy? i've been more calls for the need for your life of military power, but can the european survive without in april and the united states? this is inside story. ah, ah. hello, welcome to the program i'm has, i'm seeking the idea of a common defense has long been debated among european leaders. the block has historically relied on the nato alliance and the united states for military action . but after the taliban took over afghanistan this year and the mass evacuations, the followed questions arose about the european union's ability to drive its own defense policy. on monday, on gary and prime minister was the latest leader to call for a common defense force in europe. he was holding talk with the french president during the summit of east european leaders. mean look at that for you, cause i got 1st we both love our countries. second, we both work for strengthening europe. and finally, we will, i think, agree on the fact that europe needs strategic autonomy. there are 3 notions we see fit

security and defense. general james also executive chair, two-time chairman of the atlantic council of major general arnold so thank you for joining us and i'm sure you and everyone else jointly my salute general powell here we are committed to saving the global future together with our allies and partners with the dedicated focus on producing actionable recommendations with real-world facts. there are two others running us today who have done that throughout their careers, significantly impacting trust department defense plans and priority so i'll get into this is the conversation they haven't impacted the plans and priorities as much as they would like to have. working to develop sustainable nonpartisan oddities to address the most important security challenges facing united states and allies and partners. seeking to honor another general, he passed away last year in august seeks to honor his legacy service embodies nonpartisan commitment and security support for u.s. leadership in cooperation with allie

security and defense. general james j. jones jr., also executive chair americas, two-time chairman of the board of the atlantic council and major general arnold pineiro. thank you for joining us. here at the atlantic council we are committed to shape in the global future together with our allies and partners with a dedicated focus on producing actionable recommendations with real world -- to individuals joining us today have done just that throughout their careers. significantly impacting u.s. department of defense plans and priorities. and probably, again, we will get into this in the conversation. but they haven't impacted the plans as much as they might have liked to. we will get into that. the council scope works to develop sustainable nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the united states and its allies and partners. the center seeks to honor another general, general brent scowcroft, who passed away last year in august. it seeks to honor his legacy of coming into the causes o

europe does spend quite a bit on defense. it needs to pool and share and get out of this national defense industry, really work towards a europewide defense industry, strengthening its innovation base and really working toward that. i think this direction could become a reality. the important thing is not to talk just about distant, unrealistic goals for the time being. talk about concrete steps to invest in concrete capabilities as europe. anchor: what do you see as the motivation for a europe defense force? >> we see with macron, he will have the eu rotating council presidency. he's running for office in france. he's really pushing the strategic at tana me narrative. this is something that he has been long to profess. he mentioned about two years ago that nato was framed. france has been seen as a real pushing. there are two ways to look at this. one could be that europe is stronger and does more burden sharing. it would be more useful to nato. for the last 30 years, there's been this idea that there's is a peace dividend.

you can't just simply say, well, we say it's defensive, therefore it must be defensive. no, it's well depends on, well, who is it directed against? what do they do? they think that the deployment is defensive. if not, then, and other than that, it's not acceptable. you know, in patrick, i mean it's coming to a head right now. i mean, do these blink ins and the elements are these book, the caliber to understand the historic moment that we're at right now because this is the russians are saying, you've gone far enough. and we're not going to take it any longer. the line has been drawn. i mean, these people, serious enough to understand that i'm looking at the current foreign policy gaggle and for lack of a better term. it is led by people that i don't think have that sort of depth in the current administration or any recent u. s. and ministration for that matter. but there's also, you know, the u. s. is in a very tight spot right now because of the emergence of a military union in europe. that if that, if that becomes the sort of the lead defense force for europe, then tha

defense companies to do as well? phebe: i think defense spending historically has been driven by threat or the perception of threat, and it is not a particularly safe world at the moment. that's number one. number two, president biden has been a lifelong supporter of national security, so this budget that he submitted to capitol hill was a nominal increase. importantly, all of our programs were fully supported because of their criticality to the war fight. david: most of the large aerospace defense companies have moved to washington. do you see the pentagon leaders from time to time? do you go see the secretaries of army or air force or navy? what do you do in terms of interacting with them? phebe: so i think it's important that we know our customer, both on the uniform military side. we tend to try to know them as well, and then, with each change of administration, we try to get to know the primary decision-makers and get insight into the decision space, help them think about what we can provide. so i spend time wit

can europe have a defense strategy of its own? it's been more calls with a need for united military power, or can the europeans survive without nato and the united states? this is inside story. ah hello, welcome to the program i'm hasn't seek. the idea of a common defense has long been debated among european leaders. the block has historically relied on the nato alliance and the united states for military action . but after the taliban took over afghanistan this year and the mass evacuations, the followed questions arose about the european union's ability to drive its own defense policy. on monday, on gary and prime minister was the latest leader to call for a common defense force in europe. he was holding talked with the french president during a summit of east european leaders. mean look at that so that you call has got 1st we both lover countries. second, we both work for strengthening europe. and finally, we will, i think, agree on the fact that europe needs strategic autonomy. there are 3 notions we see fitting under strategi

i always defense it. well, i know it doesn't take a genius to figure out what you may call to defend it, but somebody else does not see this defensive. so that's why they think you final acts. then security is indivisible. you can't just simply say, well, we say it's defensive, therefore it must be defensive. no, it's well depends on, well, who is it directed against? what do they do? they think that the deployment is defensive. if not, then, and other than that, it's not acceptable. you know, in patrick, i mean it's coming to a head right now. i mean, do these blink ins and the elements are these book, the caliber to understand the historic moment that we're at right now because this is the russians are saying, you've gone far enough. and we're not going to take it any longer. the line has been drawn. i mean, these people, serious enough to understand that i'm looking at the current foreign policy. yeah. go to the lack of a better term in or is led by people that i don't think have that sort of depth in

ah ah, i can, you have a defense strategy. i've been more calls for the need for your life in the military . our can the europeans survive without in april and the united states. this is inside story. ah, ah, hello, welcome to the program i'm hasn't seen the idea of a common defense has long been debated among european leaders. the block has historically relied on the nato alliance and the united states for military action . but after the taliban took over afghanistan this year and the mass evacuations, the followed questions arose about the european union's ability to drive its own defense policy. on monday, the hungarian prime minister was the latest leader to call for a common defense force in europe. he was holding talk with the french president during the summit of east european leaders. mean look at that so that you call has aren't got. first we both lover countries. second, we both work for strengthening europe. and finally, we will, i think, agree on the fact that europe needs strategic autonomy. there are 3 notions we

. >> was it self-defense? >> the lead detective kept telling us, everyone's life is in danger. >> or was it something else? >> it's a lousy excuse to kill somebody. >> what secrets were stored on this tape? >> when he come out, i was ready. >> villain? >> i just couldn't believe what i heard. >> or victim? >> hug your family. kiss your children. you don't know when you're going to lose them. >> hello, and welcome to dateline. as day to turn tonight, a dog mystery unfolded on a stretch of sidewalk in miami, when a car pulled up and opened fire on a father and his infant son. a widow was wrecked with grief. desperate for justice. the shooting was caught on a security camera, but detectives soon learned that the pictures only revealed a small glimpse into this twisted tale. here's keith morrison with "miami heat". >> it was dusk in miami. the days heat retreated. parks filled up. soccer games were called to order. orlando mesa loved the evening ritual. he and his 18 month old son, noah. orlando doted on the boy.

europe does spend quite a bit on defense. it needs to pool and share and get out of this national defense industry, really work towards a europewide defense industry, strengthening its innovation base and really working toward that. i think this direction could become a reality. the important thing is not to talk just about distant, unrealistic goals for the time being. talk about concrete steps to invest in concrete capabilities as europe. anchor: what do you see as the motivation for a europe defense force? >> we see with macron, he will have the eu rotating council presidency. he's running for office in france. he's really pushing the strategic at tana me narrative. this is something that he has been long to profess. he mentioned about two years ago that nato was framed. france has been seen as a real pushing. there are two ways to look at this. one could be that europe is stronger and does more burden sharing. it would be more useful to nato. for the last 30 years, there's been this idea that there's is a peace dividend.

when he was referring to this european defense force. what exactly does that mean and do europe and the united states have different definitions of that? it had exactly, there are different definitions. i tend to the conference ones here in brussels. people are flown in from all over europe to attend to special thing, conference and strategic autonomy. and after one full day, we are waiting for better. you got more green need to show. she was late, so i turned to my left and i asked the german next me, do you know? so do you know, a strategic autonomy mean zone? they said, nope, and i turned to the right and i asked the french person sitting next to me and he said no. so the idea of strategic autonomy is very ambiguous. i would say the friends have a view of it as we've been discussing, but i would say other member states, especially those in the baltics, are very concerned about the strategic autonomy narrative. almost how people coming to blows at this conference about strategic autonomy. because those who are closest to raso feel actu

defense. general james l jones. two times chairman of the board of the atlantic council. and major general arnold punaro. so, thank you so much for joining us and i'm sure you and everybody else joining me and mine salute to general powell. here at the atlantic council, we're committed to shaping the global future, together with our allies and partners. with a dedicated focus on reducing actionable recommendation with real world impact. the two individuals joining us today have done just that throughout their careers. significantly impacting u.s. department defense plans and priorities. so they'll probably, and they'll get into this in the conversation -- they probably have it impacted the plans and priorities as much as they might have a like to. and we'll get into that in discussion. the council center for strategy works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the united states and its allies. the center seeks to honor another g

the audience is the defense establishment. uniform military officers as well as civilians and people think about that kind of stuff but also the broader public. really important to me that, and not to me but i think it's really important our military strategy, defense strategy has to be explicable and reasonable to the american people because the great power rivals with potential thinking of fighting could go to a nuclear war or could be exceptionally costly. people need to buy into it. i was conscious in the book of trying to explain that so i don't the weather of a success or not but it's too a very wide audience in that respect, people who are interested in these issues and almost all americans should be interested in these issues. >> i love the way you with all the various options and narrowed it down to get to your conclusion. a lot of these books people will just give you their conclusions upfront and you don't know why they chose that path i love that part of it. i'm going to jump to a part had some disagreements. >> ru

they engage formerly with the department of defense. that's why, for example, in the provision that we've put forward, we were initially going to define extremism based on discussions with the military, informally. we deferred to the military. it's our understanding that the d.o.d. is working with the department of justice in coming up with a definition that would withstand constitutional scrutiny or challenge. we also in those conversations deferred to the department, to establish the procedures. and i'll add that both democrats and republicans have really been harping on this with the military. on what those procedures will be, if in fact you are separating members, because of extremist ideology or behavior. so instead of defining that, which we were ready to do in congress, we deferred to the military. we've engaged academics on this. we've engaged various advocacy groups, southern poverty law center has done a lot of work in this area. just to name one. so we've really tried to tap into the best thinking, to understand the best prac

we've engaged informally with the department of defense. that's why, for example, in the provision that we put forward, we were initially going to define extremism based on the discussions with the military informally, we deferred to the military, it's our understanding that the d.o.d. is currently working with the department of justice in coming up with a definition that will withstand constitutional scrutiny or challenge. we also in those conversations deferred to the department to establish the procedures and i'll add that both democrats and republicans have really been harping on this with the we've engaged academics on this. we've engaged various advocacy groups. southern law center. and tapped in to the best thinking. to understand the best practices and the best approach to giving the tools for admission. their primary mission is to deter war. and sometime in all of that effort, to focus on winning. so, this is an opportunity to say let's not forget about the good, bad and indifferent. put into good use because we do not want the mil

yes, said the defense. a classic case of imperfect self defense. perfect nonsense, said the prosecutor. she grilled lyle on cross examination. >> when you put the shotgun up against her cheek, and you pulled the trigger, did you love your mother? >> yes. >> and was that an act of love, mr. menendez? >> it was confusion and fear. >> you were afraid of her at that point? >> yes. >> they slaughtered their mother in a way that was so cruel she got up to run, and they went out, and they reloaded, and they put the gun up to her cheek, and blew her brains out. i'm sorry, that is the height of cruelty. >> what's more, observed reporter alan abrahamson -- >> let's count how many seconds it might take to go out to the car. walk, walk, walk, walk, walk, grab the shotgun shell, put the shotgun shell in, run back in. remember, time is ticking. time is ticking. you put the barrel of that shotgun against her cheek, and you pull. that is intent, no doubt about it. >> the prosecution believed the brothers were flat out lying about the abuse, and the events leading

offensive, defensive, they shouldn't get any of our weapons. we should stop selling them any weapons until they stop starving the country of yemen. the new york times tells the story of a mother who after three days of failing to get a ride carried her eight month old to medics to treat her child's malnutrition, even a week of formula enriched, he still lay motionless on the hospital bed. tens of thousands of children have died from malnutrition from this war and we should not be complicit and should not be aiding the saudis. international aid agencies who have to fight the saudi blockade, put it this way, the people of yemen are not starving, they are being starved. the saudi siege of yemen is made possible because of the united states. united states provides billions of dollars worth of military aircraft and thousands of air to ground munitions. only weeks ago, the biden administration approved a new 650 million dollar sale of 280 advanced medium air to air missiles and 596 missile launchers. as painful as it is to admit, the united states is

someone would differentiate offensive weapons from p defensive weapons, but really even defensive weapons can allow a country to absorb attacks in order to consider offensive operations. the real question is not an artificial designation of weapons as offensive or defensive, but whether congress is serious about using the leverage of arms sales or withholding arms sales to end the blockade in yemen. that the biden administration continues to reward saudi arabia with weapons seems to indicate that president biden is not really serious about withholding arms sales to end the war in yemen. indeed, if this administration were serious about ending the saudi blockade, they could do one thing, and this thing would end the war, would end the blockade tomorrow. the saudis, i think would immediately stop the blockade if this administration would stop sending spare parts, stop fixing the planes. bruce rydell writes the saudi blockade would be grounded in short order if we quit sending them spare parts, quit repairing their aircraft. we could stop this war if we really had the will to do it. all amer

the capitalization requirements for defense companies, large defense, and we are one of them, are significant. given those requirements and given the intimacy we need to have with our customer, i think we are well-balanced at the moment. when you think about the competition, we have a buyer with a -- purchase power. we are up against a very powerful customer. there is a lot of shaping in our contractual discussions. >> sometimes people say the defense budget is high because the cost overruns of new weapons. is that a fair criticism? >> if you think about the complexity of modern weapons systems, it is not unusual for some of them to have, early on in the development, some cost overruns. it is incumbent upon us as a defense industry that once we understand the technology and had to build it and had to build it effectively, we need to -- as we go down our curves. it is important part of the evaluation we have with our customers. >> in any businesses -- complex problems come to you. the problems that come to me in my senior leadership team for resolving and to be highly complex and meddlesome. y

we've engaged informally with the department of defense. that is why for example in the provision we put forward we were initially going to define extremism based on discussion with the military informally. we deferred to the military. it is our understanding the dod is currently working with the department of justice and coming up with a definition that will with stand constitutional scrutiny or for challenge. we also in those conversations deferred to the department to establish the procedures and i'll add that both democrats and republicans have really been harping on this with the military. tell us what the procedures will be if in fact you are separating members because of extreme ideologies or behavior. so instead of defining that which we were ready to do in congress, we deferred to the military. we've engaged academics on this. we've engaged various advocacy groups, southern poverty law center, who's done a lot of work in this area just to name one. we really tried to tap into the best thinking and to understand the best practices a

they had sued the defense department for all 50000 of them. most were unclassified and these are publicla records. this was long after rumsfeld had retired the thought is important for the public to see these. the national security archives had just won in court the defense department was gradually release the snowflakes under a rolling basis. i met with them they agreed to let me have a sneak peek so to speak at their snowflakes to deal withn. afghanistan there were so many coming in everything about rumsfeld it was kind of overwhelming. i was able to sort through them. let me give you a sense of some of these memos in line with other interviews we've got. one that really jumped out at me, this is what it looks like a one page, one page memo from donald rumsfeld he sent it to a subject meetings with the press october 21, 2002 this is when you're at the start of the war in afghanistan. also today to 55:00 p.m. i met with the president, introduced me too his classmates from yale. i then met with the president for about three minutes and talk to

national defense spending must go up. the balance of appropriations and the balance of the appropriations has to come down. the legacy riders must come back in. the poison pills has to go away. it's pretty simple as far as i'm concerned. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i want to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that a continuing resolution is a cut to defense. if you come to the table, we discuss it, we can move forward on the defense of this nation. with that, let me yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from maine, the chair of the appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the very able chair for yielding me the time. i rise to support the continuing resolution, which extends government funding at current levels until we pass a full ap

it was a game changer for the defense. a lot of us who watched the trial saw how incredibly aggressive the prosecution has been. certainly we heard professor turley talk about, maybe we should rethink some of these laws on the books when it comes to weapon confusion like in this case where it's clear that officer potter had no conceivable intention whatsoever to shoot and kill mr. wright. that's clear. certainly the way she presented herself at such an authentic anguished way, it was clear as someone who took the stand that she really meant it. she had no intention whatsoever to harm mr. wright. it was just a terrible mistake on her part. >> jacqui: mercedes, the jurors asked two questions of the judge. one, what can we do if we cannot reach a verdict? to that he answered by rereading the jury instructions. the second was they wanted to handle the gun. why would they want to do that? in the defense obviously objected. what might that tell a juror in trying to come to a decision? >> well, the weapon confusion. i look at the

we have high quality defensive names. these are consumer staple companies and health care companies. these are all great companies, all high-quality companies the problem is, they are only about 15% of the stock market. none of this, none of these defensive names are enough to sustain any kind of rally in the stock market and you see that today so the market's in a little bit of a difficult situation we are dealing with some richly priced stocks. there is some risk in the market people are naturally derisking in the most risky stocks byes, this makes perfect sense, but it's little bit gut wrenching to watch it. and we just need a little more clarity on omicron and the fed's intentions that we will get that december 15th. >> some of the names are markedly higher when compared to the rest of the market with gains of 2% or so. >>> bond yields falling today, too, after the jobs report disappoints. rick santelli is in chicago tracking it all for us hi, rick. >> indeed, it was a very peculiar jobs report we saw the post covid l

the audience is the defense establishment. uniformed military officers and people who think about that. also they broader public. it's really important to me and it's reallyt important that our military strategy or defense strategy has to be explicit goal -- the great power rivals were fighting have to go nuclear war could be exceptionally costly so people need to buy into it and i was acutely conscious in the book of trying to explain that. i don't know whether i was successful. still is still very wide out into that respect. almost all americans should be interested. to make you and all the various options and narrowed it down to get to your conclusion. a lot of the these spokespeople just give your conclusions upfront so i love that part of it. i'm goings to jump to the part where i have some disagreements with you. i love to just run into conflict in your book you said in order to focus its scarce resources the united states should not size shape or foster its military to deal with any other scenario alongside a war with c

in the department of defense. and a senior fellow of john -- of the john hopkins university's applied dissics did shall did-physics lab toamplet we are privileged to be joined by my colleague, a.e.i. senior fellow, elizabeth. dr. stockton's service as an assistant second for president obama put him on his current path of support to industry and government to meet emerging challenges and infrastructure resilience, cybersecurity, and strategy planning. >> now that he's left office he provides strategy advice to major electric utilities, trade associations, and the electrical subsector coordinating council to help them strengthen preparedness against cyber threats. he chairs the grid resilience subcommittee of the department of energy's electricity advisory council, and serves on the national association of regulatory utility commissioners task force on emergency preparedness. miss elisabeth braw's work focuses on defense against emerging national security challenges, specifically focusing on hybrid and gray zone thr

the audience is the defense establishment. uniform military officers as well as civilians and people think about that kind of stuff but also the broader public. really important to me that, and not to me but i think it's really important our military strategy, defense strategy has to be explicable and reasonable to the american people because the great power rivals with potential thinking of fighting could go to a nuclear war or could be exceptionally costly. people need to buy into it. i was conscious in the book of trying to explain that so i don't the weather of a success or not but it's too a very wide audience in that respect, people who are interested in these issues and almost all americans should be interested in these issues. >> i love the way you with all the various options and narrowed it down to get to your conclusion. a lot of these books people will just give you their conclusions upfront and you don't know why they chose that path i love that part of it. i'm going to jump to a part had some disagreements. >> ru

i think it was effective for the defense. that may be because i'm a jaded defense attorney, but i think pretextual stops are front of mind for a lot of folks. it makes her appear that look, she wasn't driving around looking to pull over young black men for air fresheners. that wasn't her view, but once the stop was made, she backed up her brother officer, and participated in the stop and worked as we will see, i'm sure she will elicit again, was only looking to protect her brother and sister officers. >> danny, i understand you're saying no, this helps her, but if you're sitting in that jury and finding out normally wouldn't have done this and you're a training officer, why did you go along with it? does that not introduce that issue? >> it does. it does. but it is while she would not have made that stop herself, it is a reason for a stop. it is -- and that goes to the key of police citizen encounters. that there are so many violations that the police can technically pull you over, that all they need to do is conjure up a swe

but seth remained at the defense table. his former father-in-law coiled behind him ready to pounce. >> i was praying, please just let me stand here. >> reporter: for more than a minute glaglaring, burning a ho in seth's back. if looks could kill. >> an urge to go forward. god, please don't let me do that. just let me stand. >> reporter: what were you doing in your mind? >> i don't want to think of what i was doing in my mind. i was wanting to do something. >> reporter: two hours later the jurors returned, but nothing had changed. >> mistrial is declared. >> reporter: unbelievable. veteran prosecutors who never had a hung jury before were now o-2. again the state didn't hesitate. seth techel would go on trial for a third time. >> our intent is to retry it. that was an easy decision to make. >> reporter: even though the jury's vote was again in favor of conviction, this time 9-3, lisa's family was starting to have its doubts. >> is there something i'm overlooking? did he not do it? is there something they see and they're like

he dictated it under secretary of defense for intelligence. the top civilian intelligence official at the pentagon. i will read the whole memo from rumsfeld. who the bad guys are in afghanistan or iraq. i read all of the intel from the community and it sounds as though we know a great deal that in fact when you push out it, you find out we have not gotten any think that is actionable. we are human intelligence. let's discuss it. two years into the war, secretary defense, i have no disability and to who the bad guys are in afghanistan. think about it. two years in the war, defining the enemy. we knew the enemy will be started war with al qaeda and bin laden. within the first six months, al qaeda was gone from afghanistan. the leaders had been captured. that part of the mission had been accomplished. here we are two years later still fighting. we still have troops there. we cannot really define who the enemy is. even the defense secretary cap. who are the bad guys? i do not know. if you are going to war and you cannot define or identify the enem