>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: it is a historic week for the united states supreme court. and the court affirmed in a six to three hearing today that nationwide subsidies called for in the affordable care act are illegal. chief justice john roberts wrote in the majority opinion -- "congress passed the affordable health care act to improve insurance markets, not destroy them." he was joined by ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia

sotomayor, and elena kagan. also voting with the majority anthony kennedy, often called the swing vote. in three conservative justices voted against it. the decision makes a major victory for the obama administration on health care. the president spoke at the white house earlier today. in president obama: today after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law and after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. my greatest hope is that rather then keep fighting battles that

we have settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together and make health care in america even better. charlie: public opinion of the law has improved, but it remains a polarizing issue. joining me now from washington adam liptak. he is a supreme court correspondent from "new york times." i'm pleased to have him here. let me begin with the significance of this. does it put aside the legal challenges to the affordable care act? adam: there are more challenges lurking in the lower courts, but having survived the supreme court twice unscathed, it looks like this is a law that as the president might say is getting woven into the fabric of american society and will be very hard to pull out wholesale. is it possible that later congress might do something? that's possible, but i don't think that the supreme court will take on this issue again. from the perspective of the supreme court this does uphold once and for all the affordable care act. charlie: even though he had done it earlier, were you surprised by john roberts? adam: we knew that the four liberal justices would vote in favor of the administration.

in two votes were in play, justice kennedy and the chief justice. the administration was hoping for one, must he particularly delighted to get two. the chief justice was this time an leading a unified and lopsided majority, really speaking in ringing terms about the law, quite different from three years ago when his opinion was fractured. joined in whole by no other justice. with a grudging quality to it. we seem to have a shift from the chief justice. charlie: when you look at the issue itself, explain to us the states that did not have exchanges. it was argued the subsidies did not apply. adam: there was a phrase in the law that if you look at all by it self you might well think that only states that have established their own exchanges, these days typically democratic

run states, party run red states, are entitled to exchanges. the phrase is that the exchange must be established by the state. the chief justice said, so, if you bear down on those words that is probably the better argument. but you have to put those words in the context of a sprawling 900 page law and what it meant to achieve. he said that it would frustrate the purposes of the law, many interlocking provisions, to deny subsidies in maybe two thirds of the state to poor and middle-class people who need them in order to buy health insurance. charlie: justice scalia, in his dissent, called that thinking quite absurd. adam: right, justice scalia is a textualist. he thinks that the words as written have meaning and that the mean what they seem to mean and that congress could fashion a new law and it is not for the court to save congress from its

mistakes. you charlie: so, any opinion in this historic decision? i assume it is historic. is it not? adam: i would say so. the technical legal construction argument may not have lasting precedential resonance, but the symbolic resonance, the centerpiece of the obama legislative legacy being upheld by a supreme court thought to be hostile to president obama is super significant. charlie: scalia also said that the law should be called scotus care. adam: he really thinks that his colleague and friend, the chief justice, has gone out of his way to twist first constitutional

law and next statutory interpretation law to rescue a law that justice scalia seems to have no sympathy for at all. you know, there is some truth in that. president obama, while a senator, voted against the nomination of chief justice john roberts, but the chief justice has returned that favor in a very gracious way by twice of affirming the affordable care act. charlie: the court this week is probably going to announce what they think about same-sex marriage. will that be an historic decision as well? adam: that is probably a once in a decade decision, the culmination of the civil rights struggle. most of the signs on to a decision in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. and i think we will get that decision more likely monday than friday, but one of those two days. that will cap a term in the supreme court that has, across a whole range of issues, turned

out to be surprisingly liberal. you have a court dominated by five republican appointees who are generally conservative, but this term at least they have time after time deliver liberal decisions. charlie: why is that? incharlie: why is that? your adam: it may just be the selection of cases. it may be the mood of the times. you can connect the health care case and the same-sex marriage case, assuming it comes down the way the people think it will, as an attempt to unite the nation not a patchwork of states where there are and are not subsidies, states where there are same-sex and marriage or not. it may be in the supreme court attempting to have one united states. charlie: was there any great

constitutional case decided in this term? adam: the biggest case in the term of constitutional separation of powers terms may not have gotten the attention it deserved. it involved the question of an whether congress could tell the president something about a the status of jerusalem, the capital of israel. here, again, the court makes what a lot of people would think is a liberal decision to say no -- the president wins, the president is allowed to decide. it comes up in the context of passports. congress passes a law that says if you are an american with a child born in jerusalem, instead of jerusalem you can have israel put in the passport. both president obama and his predecessor, president bush, said that that interferes with the president's power to run foreign affairs and recognized sovereign nations. the supreme court agreed there too. charlie: likely to be any

retirements in the next two years? adam: unless someone's health goes staggeringly and surprisingly south, i don't see you it. i think the next president may have two or three supreme court appointments, which certainly puts pressure on people in the presidential campaign, but i don't see any justice in voluntarily going unless you there is a real health issue. i don't think that one of the more liberal justices would risk supreme court nomination this late in the president's term and obviously the more conservative justices would rather have a more conservative president appoint his or her successor. charlie: when you look at the court today and look at the way that it operates, is there a judgment that john roberts has been a good chief justice? adam: i think he is respected by his peers, very charming. charlie: ah. adam: there have been chief justices that played favorites and were not straight with her colleague, and he is not one of or him those. him but at the same time the

will truth is that this court is will truth is that this court is often divided along ideological lines not reflected in today's decisions but in the second one today, where justice kennedy joins either the four liberals or the four conservatives. i think that the chief justice has been working to do away with that image. he is pleased when the press reports that this is a court that is not about politics but about legal judgments. charlie: when history is written of the supreme court, is it likely to say that o'connor and your kennedy, swing justices, exercise enormous power in terms and of the outcome in what the court said was constitutional? adam: absolutely right, charlie.

it turns out that the medium justice at the ideological center has completely outsized power. you see that in arguments where the moment that justice kennedy perks up with a question everybody including his colleagues becomes exceptionally attentive because they know that it is kennedy's vote that will decide many cases. charlie: adam, thank you again. as always, a remarkable thing we have watched in the court in two separate instances in which people thought there would be a real challenge to the affordable

charlie: the united states is drawing its longest-running war to an end. american troops are scheduled to a withdraw from afghanistan in really withdraw from afghanistan in 2016. the white house announced that in march, they will keep 10,000 u.s. forces throughout this year. a meanwhile, taliban fighters have regained ground. last year they suffered their highest number of casualties since the war began. ben anderson is a course on it for "vice," on hbo. he has covered afghanistan for seven years and i am pleased to have him here at this table. you have been to iraq,

afghanistan, and other places. give us a sense of where -- what is the moment -- what was the action on the ground? who is winning? who is losing? what is happening? a happening? how strong are the security forces on behalf of the afghan of government? ben: in previous cases i thought it was a bloody stalemate, but you now it appears that the taliban appears to have the upper hand and the afghans are you security forces look like they are not on the point of complete failure but the numbers just don't add up. they are suffering the highest casualty rates since the war began as well. this summer we will see the taliban retake several areas in their heartland, but they almost

retook a major city recently. charlie: [indiscernible] ben: i don't think it's going to you willben: i don't think it's going to happen, but i have afghan friends who fear that happening. those who have money have an exit plan ready in case that does happen. their opinion is more important than mine. they are very afraid. there are attacks in kabul regularly, more regularly than there ever were. charlie: so, how did he get to this point? the afghans who did not have a central government? was there too much corruption? all of the above? what happened? ben: if you go back to the beginning, the removal of the taliban was fantastic. the rush to iraq played a major part in what we are now seeing in afghanistan. the worst warlords of recent history were put back in power. the very people whose behavior led to the taliban and sweeping to power so easily in the first place. people were so sick of corruption and violence they thought that the taliban would be good muslims who provided security and justice. in by putting those people back in power it planted the seeds for the insurgency that we saw later on. the nationbuilding effort was youthe nationbuilding effort was not taken seriously until 2009 2010, and by then it was far too late.

the policy that president obama adopted was counterinsurgency. they cleared entire areas of the taliban and did a good job doing that. there was never anything to transfer to the afghan security forces. the government was never anywhere near ready. charlie: could they have been ready? ben: it is a very long-term project. if the u.s. marines could not defeat the taliban with all of resources they have, what chance has the afghan security forces? the afghan security forces is still funded completely by foreign aid. the government cannot pay any of the bill for their own security forces. charlie: could the marines, all that we had on the ground, if we you that we had on the ground, if we had double that and used every means that we had to wipe out the taliban, what is been impossible? ben: by the time they took it seriously, it was too late. in 2001, when the taliban --

charlie: swept into pakistan. ben: then a deal could have been done. the taliban have a much stronger position now than they had then. i think that almost everybody, including the taliban, realized things had to change. then there would have a chance to do a serious nationbuilding project. charlie: any connection between the taliban, isis, or al qaeda? ben: i am following reports closely. it looks like the so-called isis in afghanistan so far are disgruntled taliban members looking to get some attention, respect, instill fear into people, printing flag and pledging allegiance to isis. i would not say that isis at l has a presence in afghanistan. the taliban and actually wrote a very polite letter recently reply saying -- you have no place in afghanistan -- don't get in the way of what we are trying to do.

if you do, there will be trouble. i don't think that's a serious threat. charlie: are the taliban willing to negotiate? ben: these are very mixed signals. one of their main preconditions is that the u.s. has to be out which is now the case. as you said in the beginning you the summer or spring offensive has already started. they've already killed a large number of people. some elements are talking, plenty of other elements are still fighting. which only strengthens the negotiating table. charlie: the argument is made on here often that the fact that the united states will have no troops behind in iraq, contributing to the rise of isis. there is a debate as to how many troops we leave after 2016. what is the best thing to do? ben: if you leave a vacuum, it's filled by other players.

in iraq, it was filled by isis and in iran as well. there is a vacuum right now in afghanistan. the taliban are filling that now. 10,000 troops isn't that much. for every infantry troop or soldier out really doing something, there are between 6 8, and nine in support of that person. if you've got 10,000 there, that is a fairly small fraction of them actually doing something. the best thing to do now, the security forces needs training and equipment. it is a very long-term project. an extra 12 or 18 months, i don't think is going to achieve the goals we are seeking. one of the big misunderstandings in afghanistan was that some of the large groups of people that wanted things to change radically, by removing the taliban they thought that would have an easily and we are now seeing that our allies actually have very few ideological differences with the taliban on many issues.

in some areas i have seen the afghan police doing things -- the most hideous crimes imaginable. child rape, child murder spectacular levels of corruption. charlie: these are by the afghan security forces? ben: mostly the police. and there is a militia force now that the u.s. pays for that is expanding now. trying to change an entire culture in the space of a few years from outside, especially when most of the population doesn't want those changes, i think was a pipe dream. charlie: some argue that we made a mistake getting into the afghanistan after russia was kicked out. ben: if you present what happened then to obama now, it probably looks like a dream scenario. three years after the russians left, the u.s. troops stopped

engaging. the government stayed in power three years and then collapsed. i think -- you could almost describe what's happening in afghanistan today as a civil war. 450, roughly, soldiers are killed every month. civilian casualties are higher than at any point since the war began. him and charlie: did the corruption go away with karzai? ben: absolutely not. him and opium is the best example of that. apart from a few years here and there, it has gone up every year. if we were out in helmand with the police chief himself and we were walking through poppy field after poppy field and then we went back to the police base for lunch and within the police base there was a poppy field -- these

poppies are not getting destroyed. everyone is involved. charlie: it is a lot of money involved? ben: one third of the afghan economy is based on the opium trade. it's big money. charlie: what is the lesson for the united states and all of this? ben: i was in iraq before afghanistan. we traveled to the various frontlines and in the last we went to kurdistan. going from baghdad to urbil is like going from baghdad to paris. kurdistan, it strikes me now because of the dispute, it is thriving. the lesson there is that we are very good at removing the taliban or whoever it is. real change after that had to come from within. charlie: with a plan. [laughter] ben: that definitely helps as well. but support the right people who have the country's interest at heart and are streetwise as well, people who know who to

deal with and not to deal with. charlie: you never have those kinds of relationships and bonds. ben: i have some friends who work for ngo's in a rack in afghanistan and the best example i can think of is emergency. he operated a number of hospitals in afghanistan during the taliban era and now. just a tiny fraction of the money that we spend daily in afghanistan. if your interest is in nationbuilding. in the long run that is how you reduce extremism in countries like this. providing a better way of life. education, health care. support people like that. charlie: in the absence of doing that is how the taliban rises. ben: the taliban are doing a better job of providing security and justice in quite a few areas of afghanistan. in charlie: you said that none of the child rape was conducted by the afghan security forces.

ben: far less. the afghan police force are notorious for abducting young boys, sex slaves at night, servants during the day. charlie: movies have been made about that. ben: i did a documentary, i cannot repeat the language he used, he used the worst language imaginable. he said -- they basically have to have sex with something, what do you expect to do? but in much worse language than that. it is hideous language. charlie: you were in iraq. did you see so money? ben: we were with one of the shiite militias. i was staying outside of the mosque. charlie: one of the militias that were trouble for us when we were in iraq. ben: plenty of american blood on their hands, for sure, now being

aided by u.s. airstrikes. i was sitting outside of the mosque, waiting for the operation to retake tikrit to start. ramadi literally walks in front of me. charlie: gray hair, no helmet, nothing. ben: nothing. i was thinking to myself, head to the face, that he knew that we were westerners he would kick us out straightaway. in in fact he did find out we were there and kicked us out. he heard that we were there to cover this operation and was very angry about it. i think that he just said -- leave, now. he later said -- it would not surprise me if he just got his men to stick a bullet in your head and tell everyone that they were killed by isis during the fighting. i have no idea if that's true or not, but we had to leave and did not get to cover the operation. charlie: talk about the fighting a in iraq respect to the battle against isis.

you have got iraqi militias. is he directing those militias? as you are suggesting? ben: absolutely. created and commanded by iran. absolutely. a we interviewed former ambassador ryan crocker, we spoke to him for the work we are doing in iraq and he said there is difference between them and isis. charlie: no difference between youcharlie: no difference between them? ben: in terms of the crimes they commit and the way they behave. charlie: beheading and? ben: yes. charlie: i see. i assume that the militias had a directed all of their hostility towards sunni's, as well as isis. a ben: that is the big fear. in the areas where they clear out isis, they take revenge and against the sunni population. charlie: and that is the problem in the beginning. ben: yes. i think that one of the biggest

mistakes of the war was allowing maliki to have a second term. a after the first, i think i feel i put that question to a ambassador crocker and he said he was the only man who would have done that job at that point. but he had a record of governing along very sectarian lines. that should have been enough. most iraqis voted for a secular coalition. but maliki was given a second term. i think that that directly led to the rise of isis. charlie: fighting isis now are acharlie: fighting isis now are shia militias. you are saying that they are often as bad as isis was in terms of beheadings, in terms of pillage, in terms of violence against women? ben: exactly. you could spend half an hour on youtube and see the exact same crimes that they are committing. charlie: the argument is that if we do bring the militia in here,

there is a hard choice, but what choice can you make if you need them to drive out isis? ben: the big question that i left with was -- i think isis could be defeated in iraq. the kurds are doing well against them. the tribes might do well. a the shiite militias are beating them. the big question is -- what happens next? it looks like they are set up ait looks like they are set up for another round of sectarian war, just like we were before. that was tens of thousands of in lives lost. him and people being killed just because they came across the because they came across the him and him and wrong checkpoint and answer the wrong questions about being shia or sunni. charlie: they didn't have the ancharlie: they didn't have the right answer. ben: we met a man in iraq and wikileaks released a cable saying that his preferred manner of killing was an electric drill. that was who might be in charge if isis is defeated.

charlie: the interesting thing to me is that the same thing is true in syria. you have got the a same issue there, what follows assad, whether he goes peacefully or what happens. him is it some combination of isis and al nusra? ben: i think they played a master game in terms of making them into such monsters. charlie: that seems to be changing from afar. ben: i haven't covered the recent war in syria, but there are some people who argue that dealing with people like saudi arabia, and trying to encourage them to slowly reform, is better than violent overthrow and what happens next, which is the rise of isis. charlie: i was in russia recently and there is some question as to how deep their support is for assad. they want to maintain their own

interest. as the russian leader said to me, we do not want to see isis in damascus. so in syria, and in iraq, what is the long-term outlook in the battle against isis? from iraq to syria to libya? ben: at the moment, i think we are seeing a conflict which is almost a power-play between iran and saudi arabia, which could go on for years. ambassador crocker said to me, isis now has thousands of fighters with u.s. or european passports. don't even need a visa. just get on a plane. that is a capability that al qaeda could only dream of. there seems to be an attitude,

if they want to have their civil war, let them. it is not our business to stop them. my question to that would be what happens next? the most vicious group comes out on top. i'm sure they will set their sights towards us. charlie: what real leverage do we have? ben: i think this is a long-term legacy of iraq and afghanistan. assad knows that we will not intervene. the last interventions were such disasters. charlie: that is obama's reticence? ben: even if he wanted to, i don't think he could send in large numbers of ground troops. what depresses me is, i think most people on the right and left a great that we should have intervened in rwanda.

distrust about intervention is so bad, if that happened again tomorrow, most people would not. charlie: the secretary-general and bill clinton have all said we made a mistake not intervening. ben: it is a perfect case. if rwanda happened again tomorrow, i don't think we would intervene, which is the real tragedy of iraq and afghanistan, not to mention the lives lost. charlie: you went to work first for the bbc. ben: my first film was six months undercover as an undertaker. charlie: what was that about? ben: it was a texas firm of undertakers who were buying out family funeral homes and running it like a major corporation, trading to up sell everything. under training those who looked after the bodies. it was very profitable.

charlie: you did that for the bbc? ben: it was for another channel. charlie: how did you get to "vice?" ben: i met shane eight or nine years ago. he gave this speech over breakfast. he was 100% convinced that what everyone says about young people not caring about international affairs is wrong. they just haven't got a place to go. charlie: they lack the coverage. or the kind of coverage they seek. ben: i've been living in america 18 months. foreign coverage is awful. it is often people in studios here talking about it, or if it is in location, it is on a hotel roof many miles away. "vice" is a fairly simple model of getting there and showing what is happening. not us telling you what is happening, actually capturing it on film. charlie: i think about cbs news and what i know.

"60 minutes" has correspondents who are not sitting in studios talking. go ahead. ben: i've seen some of the coverage. it does seem like as a whole one foreign story gets covered at a time. that might be a missing plane story. unless the story happens to be -- charlie: you're saying there is a quota of foreign stories. ben: a quota of one. i can't remember the last time afghanistan was seriously covered by anyone else here. charlie: so the attraction of "vice" to you was, you get a chance to go in the field to wherever you want to go, to tell stories up close and show us things we will not see otherwise. ben: i was told by everybody i worked for, young people don't care about current affairs. he's proven it not to be true. in the last 18 months, i've been to sudan, pakistan, iraq, yemen, and many other places. i've never heard of anyone getting that much support.

charlie: what is it, beyond the fact that you are covering the material in the field, what is it about the style of "vice" that you think is attractive? ben: i think we don't lecture about what is happening. we just show what is happening. i think it really is as simple as that. i often get criticisms of "vice" and i think they were applicable a few years ago. charlie: too sensationalistic? ben: the correspondents were so excited about that they were there and that was it. a lot has changed since then. there is a massive commitment to show these very important foreign stories and say -- charlie: whether it is north korea or nigeria or wherever it is. ben: i did a story in sudan a while ago. that is not going to get good viewing figures.

but it is a very important story. they backed me to do it anyway. i don't know many places where someone like me could get that kind of backing. many people are watching and enjoying it and coming back for more. charlie: do you feel like you've had the kind of experience you wanted to have, that you've done the stories you wanted to do, and you want to do more of them? as all of this influence you and giving you a vision of a role you want to play? ben: that's been another great thing about doing "vice." i did something about the afghans who cannot get visas and are under threat from the taliban. i was organizing transport to the interviews. i said this would make an

amazing e-book. an e-book appears a few weeks later. charlie: an e-book you did? ben: yes. it was mostly their own words. i organized their stories into a digestible format. charlie: this was a problem in iraq too and afghanistan. ben: a big problem in both countries. charlie: especially after the withdrawal from iraq. ben: they are having to wait literally years, i've heard of cases of seven or eight years, to get visas. charlie: and they should have been given immediately. ben: generals who were on the front line have said, i can completely vouch for this guy. this guy could be a benefit to america. it doesn't present a security risk. charlie: i want to show a couple of things of you in the field. this is ben talking to children in local militias. you will see the kind of reporting that engages him. ben: these boys, aged 10, 12 and 14, must fight to defend

their villages. can you describe what happened recently? were you fighting as well in the attack? do you find it hard to be brave when there's fighting? you are much tougher than me. good luck. these child soldiers, along with their family, are part of a u.s.-created force called the afghan local police. charlie: is it men and women male and female? ben: mostly men. their commander is actually

their grandmother. charlie: tell the story about what the grandmother did, who when someone snatched two of her grandchildren, two of those boys, she went out and kidnapped -- ben: several taliban family members. and they arranged an exchange. charlie: and said, you want a deal now? ben: this is the scene of the biggest u.s. operation where the entire war began. that's how they are sorting out problems now. the afghan government and security forces play no part in resolving the crisis. charlie: what draws you to it? is it just the story? or is the risk of life? is it -- what? ben: people say, you must be an adrenaline junkie. honestly, it is not thrilling at all. it often feels like an endurance test. now, i'm thinking, what is going to happen this time? i hope it is nothing too bad.

it's not exciting but it's you know-- in afghanistan, so many lives were lost and so many promises were made that i do feel an obligation to keep going back and show what actually happened as a result of all that loss. i don't know what that actually achieves. maybe it makes politicians here and in london, it makes it slightly harder to lie about progress there. i don't know. but i feel like if i'm physically capable, then these are the stories i should be telling. charlie: how large is your team? ben: me and one other person. as small as possible. charlie: so you can travel faster? ben: you can travel faster, if i join a group of rebels or u.s. marines, i can say, we are not going to slow you down. we won't get in the way. the idea is that we forget -- that they forget we are there. if there's just two of you, you can spend weeks rather than a day or two. charlie: i saw something on youtube of you this afternoon.

i wanted to see the kind of things you are doing. there you were, walking in the middle of a road, and i'm thinking about landmines. you were talking about them too. that would be the scariest thing in the world for me. ben: in the same clip, there were ied's. charlie: and somebody found something and said, don't touch it. ben: all of them were set off. someone was watching. this was slightly different. a wire was attached and they attached a battery to the wire. they had indicators. they put piles of rocks here and there. when people walk by those rocks, they connect the battery. i promised my mother i wouldn't be ever again right at the front of the patrol.

i think the bomb maker was waiting for more marines to come behind us. they came up behind us, i moved forward a bit. somehow on a corner between the ied's they were deaf and blind for a good few weeks. none of them were actually on top of the ied's, so they weren't killed or maimed. but i have one friend who asked -- charlie: reporter or soldier? ben: photographer who lost both of his legs and an arm. that is terrifying. you ask them all the time -- is it worth that? is it worth losing limbs? i would say no, but it's worth risking them. not worth that kind of injury. i have had some close shaves and have been lucky so far. charlie: what is the closest

shave? ben: that was very close. and in the middle of firefights and afghanistan that lasted for seven or eight hours. in one case, the guys either side of me were hit. charlie: is war the only thing that interests you? ben: not at all. i have done some environmental stories. i've done some films about slave labor in dubai. i think that conflict is -- i don't know if that's what i'm good at, if that's the right phrase, but i can perform well. i can get young men with weapons, i can get them to open up to me. charlie: where wouldn't you go? ben: i have never said no to a job. charlie: if isis said -- come, we will let you photograph anything you want -- ben: that is a good point. there was a palestinian filmmaker with a relationship with those guys. there was talk of me going in there. charlie: and? ben: they promised a letter guaranteeing our safety. my problem is not a guarantee of safety, the problem was morally i had a very big problem.

going to speak to men who take pleasure in beheading journalists. journalistically i could not see a really good reason to go. we had done the film already. we had shown the nature of these guys. we knew what they were capable of and what they wanted to do. i didn't know what was to gain from doing that stuff. morally i would have felt very compromised. of course it would have been completely on their terms. charlie: and they could change their mind midway. ben: an older gentleman went and was treated well and returned safely. i think it would have been physically possible to do. but i could not bring myself to not be able to challenge these people who are taking such pleasure in killing people including colleagues. charlie: are they the worst?

ben: the worst i have seen in my career. i can't think of a modern equivalent. maybe the rebels of liberia or sierra leone. the khmer rouge is closest. charlie: they have an almost similar ideology. ben: yeah, yeah, they are more of a death cult. everyone has seen the videos. they are disgusting. i always used to think that every conflict had a political solution. isis has made me question that completely. what would the negotiation be? what would a deal look like?

charlie: it is very tempting. i asked a leading american security person who is now a member in the armed services and asked, what would it take? he said -- we would need 100,000 troops. the question then becomes -- suppose you make that kind of commitment? what are you stepping into? ben: and again, what comes next? you would be fighting alongside these shiite militias who are just as bad. charlie: i would presume that they would say that there is no cooperation except working through the iraqis to figure out where the airstrikes should be. is there more of a cooperation between the militias and the americans in charge of airstrikes? ben: i think it will be because they could not take it on their own. charlie: they had failed to take it on their own. that is where they start, in the beginning? ben: i think that that has provided a model for the level of cooperation in the future. remember, i described why some afghans welcomed the taliban in the first place. these conditions existed in iraq but many of those refugees welcomed isis. who could've assumed that life there under maliki would be such hell?

that is what you need to stop happening. charlie: general petraus talks about that all the time, getting the politics right. there is also this omar in pakistan. what is the city he's supposed to be in? has anybody talked to him? is he alive? ben: i think he is alive. charlie: is he directing things? ben: the taliban right now, the taliban right now we have to say in brackets that it could mean 30 or 40 different insurgent groups. it's very different from the taliban of 2000, 2001. i am sure that most of them are just fighting to defend their own back gardens. charlie: take a look at this final clip, you with local forces on a base.

ben: that is the taliban? do you talk back to them, or just listen? they were 400 meters everywhere. that man is one of the good men. one of the capable men. he was killed two or three days after we left by a massive ied. those bases, i am told now, are now in the hands of the taliban. that is the second largest city in helmand province. charlie: you commented on a piece i did at this table with marines who had been in falluja. what was it that they said the thought reflected more better, more accurately, to the dealing of people on the ground? ben: people assume that when you go in, embed, that you are somehow pro-war and that they are somehow pro-war.

i think the interview you did shows better than anything else i've seen on television that they know better than anyone else how bad these wars were. they know better than anyone else that a lot of the fighting and dying that happened there has been for nothing. in some cases it has been worse than for nothing. it has been to introduce someone in power who was so bad that it led to another round of civil war, or another round of sectarian war. i don't see veterans talking like that on television very often. you could just tell that the knowledge that they shared was so hard earned. the most hard-earned knowledge. charlie: if you see your brother killed, when you take a place like falluja, then you leave and then you read one year later that all the work that you did and all the lives that were lost have simply been upended again.

you don't want to say died in vain, but the commitment that they make in the lives that were lost, the bravery required, all of a sudden it's back the way it was. it's got to be hard. ben: that is probably one of the biggest contributors to the ptsd issues that we read so much about. charlie: post-traumatic stress disorder, yeah. ben: they died doing a job for them and their friends around them, but i think they knew back then that the overall goal was an eventual handing over to the afghan government or iraqi security forces. that that was the major flaw in the plan. charlie: does the ukrainian conflict interest you beyond reading about it? ben: someone else and knows that well and covers it in detail, i leave that to him. charlie: thank you for coming, pleasure to have you on the program. ben: thank you very much. ♪

>> people for the first time are lucky. it is definitely interesting. charlie: what is incredible about this is we go from one room to another, it is like one treasure after another. >> this is wonderful, this is also a problem. you must have exhibitions that show all the things. when you have 10 titians in one room, it is difficult to appreciate each one. charlie: so, here we are. how good is your picasso collection? >> we have some fantastic. pieces like this. this is a wonderful condition. this is one of the best picassos we have. this is on the level of [indiscernible] this is our collection of matisse. one of the best in the world. charlie: look at this, look at this, look at this. this is the morocco period.

>> this is the fantastic matisse. the best one. charlie: you have something on loan? >> yes. these pictures are there, music and dance, dance is right famous. the last was given to the museum of vuitton. we have agreements with them for certain exchanges. charlie: i love the color. >> this was a big collection of american art masterpieces, postwar. given to us from the american foundation. all of these masterpieces of american decorative art a big addition to our collection.

and a big gesture of trust from the americans. charlie: it is not only building, it is acquiring? >> yes. i have a lot of friends. [laughter] ♪

>> ♪ at the hop ♪ little anthony: hi, i'm little anthony from little anthony and