britain to be all to help the bomb steal your from. so this meeting, saddam isn't that interesting there. i am. shadow on al jazeera, a diverse range of stories from across the globe. from the perspective of a network gen and analogy era. ah, this is al jazeera, i'm darian obligated with a check on your world headlines. he was president joe biden has warned that another attack on capitol airport within the next 24 to 36 hours is highly likely bite and has also promised further attacks against the ice ok in retaliation to thursdays bombing. gabriel alexander reports from washington. d. c. fridays drone strike big killed 2 ice o k members and wounded another was the 1st retaliatory strike against the group.

but according to president joe biden, it won't be the last. it's unclear of those killed had a direct roll and thursdays airport attack the killed over a $150.00 afghans and over a dozen us military personnel. not the pentagon, won't release the names of the ice o k members. they killed only saying they were planning future attacks. i am not going to talk about specific capabilities. isis may have lost, and in the strike they lost a planner and they lost the facilitator and they've got one wanted. and the fact that 2 of these individuals are no longer walking on the face of the earth. that's a good thing. a good thing for the people who can stand. it's a good thing for our troops in our forces at that airfield. and i think i'm just gonna leave it there for the us. and the taliban are coordinating on airport security. that cooperation did not extend to the drone strike. a taliban spokesperson told reuters news agency. they should have been informed before the

air strike took place in a statement saturday afternoon. biden said the chance of another terrorist attack in the next 24 to 36 hours is very high. it's believed round. 4000 us troops are still at the airport and cobble and commanders say, despite the risks, the mission continues in till the august 31st deadline biden has put in place. the u. s. military pull out from afghanistan was measured in months and then weeks. and now it's down to days and it could be the most unpredictable and dangerous phase of all with president biden's simultaneously warning americans that there could be more attacks against us troops in capital. while also more strikes against those, the u. s. says his responsible. gabriel is hondo al jazeera washington. the last british military flight has left trouble carrying the u. k. 's remaining

diplomats and troops out of i've done it's done. it brings in and nearly 20 years of british military presence, last plane for afghan civilians left earlier on saturday. thousands of people who are entitled to resettlement in the u. k. have been left behind. hundreds of afghans are protested outside the banks in capital, while others formed long lines of cash machines. government employees were among those marching, demanding their salaries. they say they have not been paid for the past 6 months. it's almost 10 days that i've been waiting here to get my salary. i am an employee of the government. we have a patient at home. we have problems, we cannot take our salary is out. a few days ago the banks reopened, but closed again. give us our salaries so that we can be able to solve problems. hurricane ida is gathering strength as it approaches new orleans. it's expected to make landfall on the u. s. gulf coast later on sunday. as

a dangerous category for hurricane. exactly 60 and 16 years after hurricane katrina, louisiana has declared a state of emergency and sole tens of thousands of people to evacuate immediately. another hurricane is heading up the west coast of mexico. civil protection officials have been monitoring the progress of hurricane nora as it makes its way to baja, california the police in peru have rated the office as a president. frederick is ceos, peru leave it. party officers have been investigating the left wing parties, campaign finances. the raid came a day after christie as cabinet want approval and peruse. congress which is dominated by right wing parties. thousands of protesters in washington, d. c. had been demanding an end to a bake. all voter suppression states like georgia and texas haven't acted laws that many see as restricting. right? those are the headlines on al jazeera. next is the bottom line. thanks for watching

. bye bye. ah . hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. was 20 years in afghanistan, enough or did the dangerous brewing there justify the united states staying even longer? let's get to the bottom line. ah, it was a war that spanned for us. presidents, 2 democrats and 2 republicans and became the classic definition of a forever war. every year, those in power would say the golden afghanistan are achievable that the enemy was being rolled back and the us forces should stay. at one point at a former president brock obama, they were over 800000 deployed us troops, not counting those of american allies. former president, donald trump was obsessed about ending this war and reached the deal with the

taliban last year to do so. finally, the last president to inherit the war joe biden pulled out only to watch and shocking on. as the taliban retook their country within days, the government and army that washington had propped up for decades disappeared into thin air and afghan president, ash rob ghani, fled to be united arab emirates in a helicopter, reportedly stuff with cash. about 800000 people have fled and deadly attacks have taken place right at the entrance of the capital airport. america's goals and the country wavered from preventing a haven for terrorism to nation building and democracy promotion, which one was it? who knows? maybe the lack of purpose was what biden was trying to end. so what's the right decision? my guess to day says absolutely not. he is john bolton, national security advisor, the former president, donald trump, and former ambassador to the united nations, where the president, who actually launched the war on afghanistan 20 years ago, george w bush. and he's the author of the room where it happened. a white house memoir,

ambassador bolton, thank you so much for joining us today. as we get started, i want to play a clip from president joe biden. what he said about afghanistan in april will not conduct the hasty rush to the exit. will do it will do it responsibly deliberately and safely and we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners who now have more fortune against and then we do. and then this from his secretary of state anthony blinking in june. whatever happens in the understand if there is a significant deterioration. insecurity that could well happen. we've discussed this before. i don't think it's going to be something that happens from a friday to a monday. so i wouldn't necessarily equate the departure of our forces in july or august or by early september with some kind of immediate deterioration in the,

in the situation. so, ambassador, i don't know if it was friday or monday, but it was pretty darn fast. what we saw, the deterioration in capital and around the entire nation of afghanistan. from your perspective, knowing this war intimately for many different positions. what happened? well, i think there are 2 different decisions at play here. the 1st, the decision obviously being to withdraw american military forces and therefore, inevitably, nato military forces. a decision probably shared both by donald trump and by joe biden. the 2nd was the question of the execution of the decision, which is essentially biden's responsibility. but i think that the, the fact of really 3 presidents in a row who were very dubious about the u. s. mission didn't have a clear definition of what the objectives were. and certainly beginning with trump

openly talking about withdrawing american forces. all had a catastrophic effect over time on the morale of the afghan national army and the afghan police. and so when the decision to withdraw finally was announced by biden, i think the military concluded that they were going to be left behind and that they had lost all hope. by that time, you know, the u. s. presence was small, but vital and like the keystone of an arch. when you take grad stone away, the entire arch can fall and all you have is a big pile of stones. the pile of stones may look impressive, but if you don't have the keystone, it doesn't hold together. what is the responsible position in this case in the sense that i thought about this view? and i was very taken with the article that you wrote in the washington post

recently arguing that our equity strategically are not just about what's happening in the airport. not what's happening with atkins being left behind. they evolve pakistan, they involve the radicalization of leadership. there they involve the potential that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of those that have been at least party to the take over in afghanistan, that there are other dimensions to this. how do you weigh the subject of nuclear vulnerabilities versus say, you know, china and russia, you know, being thrilled with america tied down and spending a trillion dollars in afghanistan. where do you balance those 2? well, you know, and the trump administration, we didn't have a big strategic discussion that's, that's one of the problem. and i think it's also been part of the problem in the american political debate. my own view is that when the united states withdraws, we leave a big hole in central asia, and that vacuum is going to be filled by somebody, china, russia, iran, pakistan,

india, a lot of players. and it's not going to be to our advantage. and i think that's one of the, one of the key things that was missing from the overall debate, i would say, to exaggerate, for effect a little bit here at both. trump and biden believed that looking at this big pile and pick up sticks, which afghanistan represents, is they could reach in and pull out the american stick and everything else would remain the same. that's fundamentally wrong. and i think unfortunately, we're beginning to see that now you can't ignore the fact that for 20 years, our position has affected other people's perceptions and policies, including our nato allies, who, as biden pointed out, had more military in afghanistan than we did at the end. and when you, when you take that foundation out, it takes a lot of people's confidence in the united states and it gives our adversaries

a lot of opportunities about sure, i'm sure you're read into things that i am not when it comes to classified information. but one of the areas i've been interested in was of the command control and the control by pakistan, government authorities of their nuclear weapons. do you have worries that those controls inside pakistan are coming in undone or could be hijacked by nefarious players inside pakistan? i'm just interested in whether you can share your level of death con concern. well, i can certainly say this, you know, you can deliver a nuclear warhead on a jeep. you can put it in the hold of a tramp steamer and sail it into a harbor. so the physical separation from an f 16 or, or even a ballistic missile, doesn't really tell you a lot, i think within pakistan itself. and this is something we became concerned about right after $911.00. i went with secretary state pal to his on his 1st

visit to pakistan after 911 in my job at the time involved getting a better sense of what pakistan's control over that nuclear arsenal was. i would say this, not that worried about one or 2 weapons slipping away, slipping into the hands of terrorist. i worry about it, but i think the pocket studies understand how much it's in their interest that they not lose control. that way. what i'm more worried about is the prospect that the entire government of pakistan falls into the hands of radicals, pakistan taliban, or other equivalence. the military is already filled with radicals in inter services intelligence. and now was caliban in control of afghanistan, right next door. it's far from hypothetical. so in that case, you would have the entire arsenal in the hands of terrorist or,

or sponsors of terrorist and you know, by public estimates that could be as high as $150.00 nuclear weapons, which is a pretty frightening prospect. let me ask you about the taliban. now you have a colleague, former colleagues, al callo side, who has been the presidential envoy for both president trump and president biden, dealing with the taliban. and you know, i remember going back that it's always been a question of whether the taliban were al qaeda. if you read a charming master's book, he says they're indistinguishable from each other. general david portray us is set in the path indistinguishable from each other. but now the question is, is the taliban and entropy that 20 years after our invasion after $911.00 and they're hosting al qaeda? do you believe that taliban is a? is it potentially they are an entity that can govern afghanistan in a way that we can negotiate or deal with them? well, i don't, i don't think that that's really possible. taliban itself of course is,

is highly fragmented. there are different factions. there are leadership struggles . it's certainly not a model with and you know, when you talk about the taliban or el coyote or let's not forget isis, which is also present as, as we can see in the terrorist attack on the airport. it's not like these are separate entities that you know, have membership cards and secret handshakes and you can tell one from the other. it's like the only analogy the even comes close and it's not very good. is europe after world war one with all the disorganization that lead lead to the totalitarian takeovers in germany and, and italy, you know, one day somebody could be a fascist, the next day that could be an anarchist. the day after that they could be a communist and we look back and say, how could that be? because for many of these people, it wasn't the particular ideology. it was the extremism itself. so that really fits

with taliban al qaeda and ices. i think it's there inherently trustworthy. we just saw yesterday, a taliban spokesman say, you know, some of been lod didn't really have anything to do with 911 and that's why i felt it was fundamentally flawed strategy to negotiate with taliban to begin with. i just don't think there words worth the paper. it's printed on. you know, i'm ambassador. you know, there's a, there's a fascinating historical lesson. you know, i always go back to japan and say, what would john foster dulles have done? and when john foster dulles was worried about after world war 2 about japan going back into a china, you know, centric orbit. and he said the way not to have that happen is to wedge jet. and the japan economy deeply into the u. s. economy even on a preferential basis. now at the height of our involvement in afghanistan, we were spending on $120000000000.00 a year with a nation whose g d. p was about $14000000000.00. did we do this wrong? did we?

should we have wedged afghanistan and its society and its economy deeply into the u . s. economy to create a different vector? because when i look at that a trillion dollar spent, those, if i look at you, those of you who have supported what we were doing, shouldn't we have gotten more for that for that for that level of investment? well, the short answer is yes. we should have but the, but the longer answer and i think it's implicit, and your question is we shouldn't have invested that amount to begin with. the been the nation building paradigm. and it's part of the theory of counter insurgency warfare. and there's a long history to it. in my view is fundamentally flawed. i just don't think i speak as you know, as an alumnus of the us agency for international development. so i didn't in those trenches there's, there's a role for american foreign aid for an economic assistance. it can be very important, but people are constantly analogize and to the post world war to marshal plan it's,

it's a very bad analogy. i think that we should have understood afghanistan had not had centralized government in many centuries and we weren't gonna created for them. and the taliban runs on an ideology base, big theological, ideology and extremist ideology, that's not based on the complaints about living standards is based on something way, way different from that. so that affecting the living standards in afghanistan doesn't necessarily affect the ideology in pakistan. for example, you can have some of the, some of the poorest areas of pakistan or some of the most extreme and the urban areas where there's a higher standard of living are much more quote unquote, modern and western. so i think, i think there were a lot of mistakes made, i think that contributed heavily to running up the bill that we've paid much of

which has now been wasted. but i think it also goes to the question of what our objective was after the victory in 2001 after taliban and had been defeated. and al qaeda had basically been pushed out of the country. and i think that objective should have been limited and was originally it was to keep taliban and al qaeda from coming back and permitting the conditions that established the possibility for another attack on the united states. that was a kind of minimalistic objective. but i think we have achieved it for 20 years. we spent a lot more than we needed to to do it. but there's no reason it could have been continued at a relatively low cost and certainly a very low human cost, which is the most important thing. i'm reminded that in a way you were the father of the proliferation security initiative. i'll tell our audience that this was an initiative that was launched during the bush administration to look at new nuclear weapons and materials and controls and try to

bring them, you know, under broader agreements and controls to deal with them. and i guess in again to go back to your washington post piece, you said you wondered whether the president biden would have the backbone to tell china that it has responsibility, that it could be culpable. you know, in what happens in evolves in pakistan's nuclear program. what could happen if something got year became wayward, and i'm just interested again to go back to look at this. is china a potential collaborate with us, or are they a foe when it comes to dealing with afghanistan and what may happen there? well, i think we're going to find them on the opposite side of the future of both pakistan and afghanistan. look, china, it poses an existential threat to the west in its current configuration, under its current government. what they will do, looking at our withdraw from afghanistan, is try and staunch any potential terrorists support for the weaker is inside china

. but they'll also try and use it as a kind of a rear area for pakistan. where as you know, they, they have held the nuclear and ballistic missile programs. they've invested an awful lot of financial resources as part of the belt and road initiative. and what they're really looking for, and we'll get in the near future, our oil and gas terminals in pakistan where raw materials from the middle east can be put into those pipelines. go directly to trying to overland from pakistan into china, and not have to sail all the way from the persian gulf through the south china sea . that's a huge security matter for china. and they, they want that domination and they also, by extending their influence in pakistan even further wandering circle india almost entirely from the north. let's, let's not forget,

we've got these 2 most populous nations on earth, both nuclear equipped, who have not been on the friendliest of terms for a long time. why think this his race have really seen question when to go back to, you know, 2 things i've, i've read that you've written. if we need to look at the world as it is not the world as we wish it were, are. and you want to read a clip from taliban spokesman, who merger heed. and he says, i'd like to assure our neighbors regional countries, we're not going to allow our territory to be used against anybody, any country in the world. so the whole global community should be assured that we are committed to these pledges that you will not be harmed in any way from our soil . so again, to go back to the world as it is at this moment. and given your concerns about nuclear weapons, given what we've seen unfold, and given what your previous boss kind of lay the railroad track to do, what are our real options at this moment? well, i think on afghanistan itself, they're,

they're very limited. we see signs that the tajir ethnic minority in the pantry or valley is going to resist. this is the territory, the legendary oxford sha masood stood off the soviet union for 10 years and had no trouble brushing the taliban aside after, after the soviets left. whether they can do it again. i don't know that the taliban national army is now one of the best equipped in the world given all of our equipment that they've taken over. but i think looking to help that resistance might be a possibility. my focus would be to phone number one, just making sure that that the taliban keep their commitments, which i don't for a minute think they will. but we need to be prepared to take steps to make sure that neither al qaeda nor isis, nor anybody else really do establish those rear bases, those privilege sanctuaries. we watch that happened in the 1990 s. when taliban was

in charge before. and we obviously paid a steep price for it. the other, the other thing to watch is on pakistan i'm very concerned is we've just discussed about their nuclear weapons. and i think we have to be prepared to take preventative action. if we see those weapons begin to move in a way that indicates they might be about to go into use because the risk bears just to extraordinary. what are the precedent biden's argument that china and russia are just thrilled to see america spend trillions of dollars in one place in the world. i wants to ask. they had a policy planning and try this ministry of foreign affairs, what their grand strategy was. many, many years ago, and he says it was how to keep america distracted in small middle eastern countries . and we, what about the possibility that extracting ourselves from afghanistan actually gives america the wherewithal and capacity to begin responding and doing things more nimbly elsewhere in the world. do you find any credence in that argument?

no, i mean, i think it certainly will stop spending money in afghanistan, but we were down to a very small amount anyway in a true presence of 2500, which is what was the last notion that we would keep there. but even a true presence in the 10 to 15000 range is not huge, given the overall size of our military capability. and as an insurance policy against a terrorist attack, it was important. look, the chinese threat requires enormous attention. there's no doubt about it. nobody should have any illusions on that score, but surely we can chew gum and walk and say the alphabet at the same time. if america can't handle multiple challenges on multiple fronts, we need to go back to school. what kinds of signals do you think this afghanistan moment is sending to other allies, israel, japan, south korea?

taiwan. do. do you think that that they're so far, restrain communication, about fear of america banning and abandoning them? is something that is more palpable, more possible today than it was yesterday? i think it's, it's more possible i'm, i'm less worried about the concerns of allies. i think i think we can remind them of winston churchill is famous observation. you know, you can always count on the americans to do the right thing. usually after they've tried everything else. that that's what we're in the process of doing now. stay calm, what i worry more about is the perception of our adversaries. jason tang and vladimir putin and others that they see an aberration in the trump presidency, which gave them enormous opportunities, has now gone away, but it's been replaced by a president who on nord stream to on chinese hacking of our computers on what's just happened in afghanistan has, has portrayed a weak united states,

and i think their calculation is, what more do we think we can get from this president? that's the issue. americans need to debate very quickly. we've just been through a couple of impeachment of president trump and lindsey graham, whom you know, senator lindsey graham, has said that joe biden should be impeached for what is unfolding and afghanistan. do you agree with senator graham? no, i don't. it's not a high crime or misdemeanor it's stupidity, but that's, that's not an impeachable offense. and i'd say with respect to the trump and peach mentioned this whole conversation about impeachment, the framers did not give us a parliamentary form of government. governments don't fall at the whim of parliamentary majorities or lack of popularity. they have 4 year terms we've. we've struggled along from $1789.00 to the president without president to the present time, with only one president resigning from office. we don't need to make this into

a tradition with we'll leave it there. john bolton, former un ambassador, former national security adviser, and an author of the book in the room where it happened, a white house more. thanks so much for joining us today. well, thanks steve. for having me, glad to be with you. so what's the bottom line? when they look at afghan, a stand, some american decision makers see a national security challenge. some see an opportunity to change the social fabric other, see a military quagmire that achieves neither stability nor democracy. my guest today sees have can stand, is going back to its earlier role as a haven of transnational terrorism. but this neo colonial approach to endless occupation of afghanistan could just as easily lead to that same outcome. in the end, it's the president's job to make the not so easy decisions. and i think joe biden knew that americans are really tired of this war. they support the decision to end it, despite the incompetence that led to america's friends and afghan co workers struggling

desperately to get out of cobbler airport. they support the withdraw, even if it comes back to haunt them as a terrorism nightmare. and that's the bottom line. ah, a story of life deception life and death. an israeli spy operating on the deep cover in syria, knowing that discovery would mean certain death. algae, 0 well health gripping story markets by l. e. calling operated on the cover in syria, in the $960.00 notation career that ended in public execution. l eco. and most of the agents on al jazeera, there is no channel that covers world views like we do. and the roman correspondent

i am constantly on the go covering topics from politics like environmental issues. the scale of this camp is like nothing you've ever seen access to health care or something. well, we want to know, how did these things affect people? we revisit places day even when they're no international headlines. they're really invest in that not the privilege as a journalist. oh, this is al jazeera, i'm getting obligated with a check on your world headlines. the united states is warning of a specific credible, threatened air travel airport. been a warning comes hours after president joe biden said that another attack on the airport was highly likely within the next 36 hours bite, and also promised for the strikes against ice ok in retaliation. for thursday's deadly bombing that killed at least 175 people.