but that's what caused this a didn't real office, a unique perspective on afghan, happy in history, through the eyes of the fearless and vision we to make it germany, go to the polls and elections the the i'm going to merkel replace after 15 years in power. what will the result mean for german and european union? september on al jazeera. oh i hello, i'm diamond jordan into the top stories here on 0. several rockets have been fired towards campbell airport. some of them i've been intercepted comes a day after the us that warned that another attack on the facility was hardly likely shalon phillips as more from complex the information we have right now from a resident who was near to the vehicle which fired the rockets. they said that the 5 rockets were fired, they made the back of a trunk, about 4 kilometers with

a pool, but with the trunk facing the airport shooting. and that direction we saw imagery of one building that was damaged by a rocket. it's unclear if there are actually any casualties from this, but we do know that the c ram, which is anti myself system, was activated. i actually woke up to it this morning at about 6 45 am, is quite a distinctive thunder. and we understand that that the system, some of these rockets that were hitting the airport and for a little bit of context that antimissile system was only installed in early july by the, for the afghan government and by the americans. because they were worried about a telephone threat on the airport now, of course to tele, bonner and controls, and they countering other threats. no one has taken responsibility for this, although it is the emotion of i saw this is typically the type of thing they do. this and suicide bombings. now, the white house has just put out

a statement saying that their operations will continue uninterrupted. i can tell you that the 17th is still entering and leaving africa and s face. and they say, until they have to be out by midnight tomorrow. they will continue. on sunday us horses launched a drone strike in cardboard targeting would be suicide bombers. they say plan to attack the city's airport. according to some meter report, 6 people including 4 children, are among the dead. us central command has responded to those reports. gabriel elizondo has moved from washington dc the sent come spokesperson saying that they are investigating that they are aware of the media reports. and that they are saying that they cannot yet confirm that. but in the statement, they are saying that there were powerful subsequent explosions after the drone strike insinuating that the drone strike hit the vehicle. and then there were that caused one explosion, killing those inside. but then there were perhaps,

according to the sent com, subsequent explosions as well emanating from the vehicle. dissolved has been declared in the us state of louisiana. up to hurricane either knocked out power to the whole of new orleans is left more than half a 1000000 people without electricity. the storm has weakened since making lamb full on sunday. at least one person has died. saudi state, meat is reporting that the country's defense is intercepted and destroyed. 3 drones launched by who the rebels in yemen. on sunday, the rebels attacked humans biggest database in the south with drones and missiles. at least 30 soldiers were killed and had military base in large providence. the base is used by many government forces, backed by saudi arabia and the u. s. e. meanwhile, humans received its 1st batch of johnson and johnson cobit 900 vaccines. more than 851000 doses arrive and aiden airport on the global co vaccine countries now received about half

a 1000000 doses through the un that program. a lockdown has been extended in new zealand, most pop into city restrictions will now stay in place in oakland for another 2 weeks. the country's battling and outbreak of the delta variant after being virus free for nearly 6 months earlier, a woman died after getting a shot of the pfizer vaccine. the health ministry said the woman died falling a rare side effect, which causes inflammation of the heart. an israel offering booster shots of the covered 900 vaccine to anyone above the age of 12. the country began administering 3rd shots of the 5 the job to the elderly last month. and several palestinians have been injured during protest along the border fence separating the gaza strip from israel. the israeli army fired at demonstrators who were setting fires on throwing rocks and explosive devices. the protest took place after strikes on alleged hammers, targets. so those with a headlines, the news continues here now to 0 after the bottom line station. thanks for watching

the news. hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. was 20 years in afghanistan, enough or did the dangers 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, but 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 to 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 the 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 today 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 a hasty rush to the exit. we'll do it. we'll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely, and we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners who now have more forces and against and then we do. and then this from his secretary of state, anthony blinking in june. whatever happens in afghanistan, if there is a significant deterioration. insecurity, that could well happen. we 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, august or by early september with some kind of immediate deterioration in the, in the situation when baset or i don't know if it was friday or monday,

but it was pretty darn fast. what we saw, the deterioration, incredible 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 likely 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 represent 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 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 and 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 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 that 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 they could be an ad arcus, 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 isis. 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 a fundamentally flawed strategy to negotiate with taliban to begin with. i just don't think their words worth the paper. it's printed on, you know, and bastard, 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 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 to the post world war to marshal plan it's, it's a very bad analogy. i think that we should've understood afghan stan had not had

centralized government in many centuries and we weren't going to created for them. and the taliban runs on an ideology, a baby, baby 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 is 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 it 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 is no reason it couldn't have been continued at a relatively low cost and certainly a very low human cost, which is the most important thing. yeah, 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 trolls and try to bring them, you know, under, you know,

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 collaborating 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're also try and use it as a kind of

a rear area for pakistan. where as you know, they, they have help 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 china 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 he'd. 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 laid 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 1991 taliban was in charge before. and we obviously paid

a steep price for the other. the other thing to watch is on pakistan, 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. a batting 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 position 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 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, the 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 withdrawal,

even if it comes back to haunt them as a terrorism nightmare. and that's the bottom line. ah, one of the last remaining ancient forests from southeast asia is a lifeline to hundreds of lumberjacks and dr. ah, we follow the treacherous journey as they walk through extreme condition together and transport the dangerous but precious cargo risk and get all borneo on al jazeera. the latest news, as it breaks the storms spared the worst for a long island, which fear to direct it, but it's still whipped up high winds,

and high waves with detailed coverage of government incentives are still still risky to send all the children back. not only put them from around the world, hundreds of children have been born to women abused by fighters. in addition to social pressure, you can only carry their religion if both parents are leaving the hello, i'm down jordan, with a quick reminder, the headlines here on out to 0 separate rockets have been fired towards campbell airport. some of them have been intercepted. it comes a day off, the us had warm that another attack on the community was highly likely show that more now from cobbled the information we have right now from a resident who was near to this vehicle, which by the rockets they said that 5 rockets were 5, they made the back of

a trunk about 4 kilometers with a pool, but with the trunk facing the airport shooting. and that direction. we saw imagery of one building that.