announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. dr. abdul abdul is here. he is the chief medical officer at afghanistan. some units have remained to train as the country is facing resurgence by the telegram. -- the military kunduz.ized the city of

it is the taliban's biggest military gain since 2001. the extent of the american presence in afghanistan after next year has yet to be decided. have dr. abdul back at this table. welcome. is it going from bad to worse? bdul: i wouldn't call it that. an issue that should be addressed and hopefully will be. i believe that is a temporary gain for the telegram. charlie: why is that happening? afghanistan: security forces have shouldered all of the responsibility for

security from previously 140,000 americans in an international plans. and then the military security transition, the elections, which was contentious. between 2012 and 2014, taliban strategy was to survive and it was hoping that once the withdrawal completes , then they could come back in a big way. 2015, theyng of looked for a final victory. in the past 12 months, they have made lots of efforts, lots of attempts. moment the focus is to

get it back and liberate the people. white happen was lack of coordination. made clear to people. afghan history look back at the time of the northern alliance and cia and special forces as the taliban will run out of afghanistan and into pakistan? them andeffort to get to eliminate the taliban did not take place because america became by the iraqi war? will that be a historic decision that will forever be part of afghan history? charlie: -- dr. abdullah: that will be a

part of afghan history. from one side, he was at the -- active as being in the front line of war against terror. from the other side, he was providing sanctuary to osama bin laden. charlie: i never understood why. they wanted to have someone who could play a role in the future of afghanistan? dr. abdullah: they did not woulde that afghanistan stand on its own feet. has beenpolicy there unfortunately to use terrorism and extremism as a means of achieving former policy. that was also an important factor. afghanistan, the policies of my colleagues, my former boss

president, to divide in rule and also to weaken the local indigenous forces. charlie: on the effort to do the war or an effort on something else? dr. abdullah: a strong central government to consolidate his position and leading to him being weekend afterwards, because he thought al qaeda and taliban are gone and that it is time to go off to the internal by weakening indigenous forces. that they should have transformed into national police. charlie: i am interested in this. you believe what he wanted to do was to weaken internal forces so andould strengthen himself

you believe it was important to andrporate local forces make them stronger. dr. abdullah: also not to leave a vacuum in between. today we have a national army. we should not have left any vacuum. tot was used by the taliban get back. circumstance allowed them an opportunity to get a foothold again. dr. abdullah: if i may point to a part of the military strategy which was a lot of insurgents against the taliban later on, everyone learned on the ground weresmaller-scale attacks especially effective based on the right intelligence.

working, tactic was turned againston the united states and put pressure on nato forces not to launch and operation. and then we heard news about 2014. what we see today, what we are witnessing, today it is a compilation of quite a few factors which belong to the past. did his alleged corruption weaken the position against the taliban? dr. abdullah: corruption in the system, as well as not letting institutions be strengthened. also election after election marred and so forth. all of these were practiced. charlie: houston did you know

about the death of omar? before.a year or so dr. abdullah: a year or so. two years ago. chief of intelligence said 2013. charlie: 2013? dr. abdullah: we don't have any evidence that mullah omar is alive. we don't have evidence about his movements. no one has seen him. no one has heard him. no communication. nothing. of course, it was not possible for them to come up 100% proof that he was dead. the people that knew he was dead , it was a very small circle

.mongst the taliban charlie: they were issuing orders in his name when he was dead. charlie: they knew he was dead? dr. abdullah: absolutely. omar spent all his time in pakistan and was in contact throughout. charlie: they had to gave him a sanctuary otherwise -- dr. abdullah: yes, of course. you might have heard that there were a few rounds of negotiations with the taliban. authorities would say they represent omar. we know how to get message to them and messages back, which was a sham. charlie: because he was dead? dr. abdullah: because he was dead and we thought we had been

cheated. taliban andmbers of senior members in taliban tanks, taliban leadership, thought they were cheated. that is why there is division amongst the taliban. charlie: do we assume that mullah omar was in favor of negotiating or not? dr. abdullah: he did not believe in negotiating settlement. the division's first. why was it kept secret from the taliban? war was conducted in the eyes of a lot of taliban foot soldiers. he was like the king of all muslims, and in their own perception with a legitimate mandate. imam on they learned their

was already dead and negotiations were conducted when asked who has authorized negotiations, a were told it was mullah omar. charlie: what does this mean for the future of the taliban and and its political and military positioning that he is no longer there in terms of his own public acknowledgment? dr. abdullah: taliban, in their organization, will never be the same. there were different groups, but all of them had accepted mullah omar as the top leader. his orders were binding. not from the leader, but also religious, according to their belief, their perception of religion.

beenew leadership role had challenged right from the beginning. the current leadership is trying to solidify its position. these efforts are part of that. charlie: as you know, many people have argued that the united states' departure from iraq and not leaving a force there, not being able to negotiate with the prime ledster that time somehow to some of the problems they have today. american troops have been a restraining force on maliki and somehow would have impeded the animosity between sunnis and supported, in the beginning, and helped isis become what it has become.

is that risk in afghanistan, too? dr. abdullah: rather than making it further complicated for myself to pass judgment on what happened in iraq, i would say it isn't working -- it is important that the current number of troops are sustained. charlie: both you and the president are at one on that. dr. abdullah: we are on that, and not on the others. also, the commanders on the ground, the generals that are helping us. charlie: what is the number of american troops? dr. abdullah: correctly it is 9800 -- currently it is 9800. we would like at least 9800 to stay beyond 2016, because by thely the decision is

end of 2016 the number will be in the hundreds and it will be kabul-centric. charlie: your argument is we need close to 10,000. dr. abdullah: at least the current number, which is 9800. charlie: will you get it? dr. abdullah: i hope. it is not just a call for self interest. , and youeen together mention the americans have made sacrifices alongside the afghans in dealing with a common enemy. thingsave been a lot of and lives have changed for millions of people. girls, and boys and life is better for those. at the same time, in order to consolidate those gains, we need

-- we don't expect 130,000 beops to be there, if i may very open and candid. there will be elections in the united states next year and the administration should not be left in a situation that will have to make an even much more difficult decision afterwards, but rather given a choice that the current level is there and then deal allows as the situation charlie: -- situation allows. charlie: you except, don't except, were don't want to -- accept, don't accept, or don't

want to comment on iraq? dr. abdullah: it was a factor. what happened there, it was went government that against the president rather than the current administration. here you are talking about a willing party -- willing partner. willing partner which is anditted to the common goal it was honest about its challenges, as well as his opportunities. charlie: is your goal in negotiating peace with the taliban or something else? dr. abdullah: our goal is achieving these in afghanistan -- peace in afghanistan. charlie: by negotiation? is abdullah: whenever there an opportunity for negotiations,

we have to seize it. we are determined in that regard. otherwise, protect our people and also protect ourselves from being used by the terrorists, which are not just threats to the afghan people, but to the whole of mankind and to peace and instability in much wider world than a territory called afghanistan and. isisie: do you worry that may be able to unite radical jihadist groups under one flag? nusra?a, al dr. abdullah: they will not be able to do that. certainly there will be different branches and different means. tactics ortry brutal through the plan which is

headways so making quickly. ,hat will help them for a while but they are not able to lead a global movement. charlie: why are they gaining ground in afghanistan? the perception is they are gaining ground. they have a presence. dr. abdullah: in some parts, they do have a presence. groups ofis the taliban which have turned their allegiance towards isis. charlie: why would they do that? dr. abdullah: that is also due to internal divisions in the taliban ranks. at this stage, isis is not a significant threat in afghanistan. but isis is a significant threat worldwide and also in our region

that we cannot take lightly. charlie: and syria. dr. abdullah: and syria, and iran. the fact this has happened so quickly, this has created an appeal. charlie: especially from the young around the world, who come from everywhere. dr. abdullah: and to go from everywhere. charlie: right. what the you think of the russian president in syria? dr. abdullah: russian presence in syria. charlie: putin said off the record to me that he had no plans to do that. off the record and i believe it. charlie: afghanistan was a terrible lesson of history.

been bad for a lot of dr. abdullah: people who tried to conquer it. dr. abdullah:dr. abdullah: partly, it is because of that. there are other constraints that they are having. troops on the ground will not help the situation. the show are said -- bashar that in, and i watched new york. they will continue that policy. charlie: bringing it back to you, one quick question about pakistan. you seem to suggest clearly the pakistanis and the leadership of pakistan knew that osama bin laden was there. they had to know. laden,ullah: osama bin

absolutely. charlie: they all denied it. they said they don't know at the highest officials. someone had to know, but they don't know. and you are saying, get serious. dr. abdullah: he was in a military containment near a military compound in a bottle that -- in obama bad. if he knows the chief of al about himdoes he know having a residence near a military containment. that creates questions. charlie: it does. so, they had to know? dr. abdullah: they had to know. charlie: what does that say about them? dr. abdullah: if there is one afghanistan or the

misadventures of these terrorist terrorism asusing a means of achieving foreign policy does not work. it has not worked for any state. the reason i am so sure about it , first, it is a lesson from history, but second, these will turngroups against those states. groups that pakistan have created are now fighting against pakistan, which were created for other purposes. the minute they find their opportunity, they turn against states. it is important for the states extremists, these radical, nonstate actors to use these opportunities for short-term gains, which look

, but anyone in that position is in a losing position. charlie: you came to the u.n. and called on international partners to realize the gravity of the situation and use any effective means to support our aspirations for a durable confidence building process leading to talks with willing taliban and other armed opposition groups. what has been the response? charlie: that was the call from me on behalf of the government of afghanistan. -- there are more than one country that are willing to facilitate this. but at the same time, we have be neutral.o

there are certain things that are important. first of all, the consistency in the messaging and coherence of the messages given to the countries are important. talking about pakistan, afghanistan, and at unity government. people tried, after the formation of the unity government, with sincerity, in seriousness, to communicate together. we are not the enemies of pakistan. we will not allow ourselves to be used t against pakistan. at the same time, we understand that friendly relations based on visual respect and respect for -- mutual respect and respect for sovereignty and respect for one another. that benefits all of us. there is a lot to gain from it.

persond up learning that this, was sent to ink to this, was hopefully this two years back. that was disappointing. 0 you have to catch a -- charlie: you have to catch a plane to afghanistan. i thank you for coming by. dr. abdullah: it is always a pleasure talking to you. charlie: abdullah abdullah from afghanistan. ♪

charlie: margrethe vestager is here. she was previously the danish minister of economy. the commission brought antitrust charges against google and the russian energy giant gas from -- gazprom. her show of strength is a reminder that brussels has white. i am -- has bite. i am pleased to have her here. are you proving that brussels has bite? i don't know, but this is a pleasure to be here.

charlie: we like strong women at this table. margrethe: europe, as a state, we build on the state of law, and you can do find business in europe if you play by the book. charlie: google is not playing by the book? margrethe: we have this concern that this very successful company, extremely dominant in search, iseneral using this dominance to prevent themselves enabling markets, where it is not under merit. we like competition very much. charlie: do you believe your stance and the stance of the eu is tougher in general then standards of the united states, businesseses against and foreign businesses? you have a tougher attitude about competition? margrethe: it is too early for

me to do that comparison. there may be things on which we differ, but i think that in general, we have kind of the same approach. we copy it. antitrust competition way of thinking, invented 100 years ago, and we did it 60 or 70 years ago. by steadfastly challenging google, european union competition commissioner has convinced many that she is a -- margrethe: [laughter] that, but i about think we need to think carefully about what we need to do, and to keep markets open and

fair and enable a level playing field. that, it is not a bad business. -- it is not about businesses. it is about keeping europe open for business. charlie: it seems to take a long time for these things to be resolved. do -- can it has to this place, undone? it has to do something with fundamental due process. with getting the fact right, businesses the right to defend themselves, and not to rush to decisions. our casework may have to stand up in court. it should be evenhanded, it should be impartial. we should do our best effort. that can take a lot of time.

charlie: our european values different from american values in western competition and the role of corporations? margrethe: no, i don't think so. charlie: where is the difference? margrethe: we have differences in the way we approach things and are markers are very different. in europe we have been building up the single markets decade after decade, but we still have some national markets. it is different from here. a company can be very dominant in europe and not necessarily so dominant in a u.s. market. i think when we differ, it is much more reflection of different facts. we have an actual excellent collection. the federal trade commission, and the department of justice,

the work that they do. we work closely together when we have things in common. charlie: why did you want this job, anyway? margrethe: i have been a legislator in different roles and i was beginning to think that we put all our political leadership into passing new legislation. that really is sort of realizing that it takes maybe more political leadership to make it come true, to implement it, to make it work on ground, where people need to change their habits, the way they do things, in order to change the world we are living in. i really want to work for that. i am law enforcement. that is making it work. charlie: have you given up on danish politics? margrethe: you know, sometimes i miss my colleagues. i miss my friends. so far, i have not gotten to the

point where i miss danish politics. charlie: but you would still like to be prime minister. margrethe: well, whatever people might think about that, i don't know. i do a job, and hopefully i do it well, and let's see what the future brings. charlie: explain to me the prices. how does that work out? how do you go about making your decision with respect to google and the power of its search engine? one of the things that comes to my desk is people that complain. they feel that this is not right, things are not done by the book. charlie: these are other companies. margrethe: yes, american companies or european companies. charlie: american companies, too? margrethe: yes. and then we start looking. if we find something, we will open an investigation. then we start gathering lots and lots of data. ,nd then to interpret the fact

do we think that we find evidence of foul play, that things are not as they are supposed to be? if we think that there is a case, then we write a statement of objection, we send it to you, and you can defend yourself. and then we do, as you should, with an open mind, read the defense that is coming up. --rlie: there is a major of has there been a major case where you wrote your fax and they wrote their defense and you said, you are absolutely right. come and talk to me. margrethe: my shift has just begun. i have been there for 11 months. sometimes you can take people's data and the way they see things on board. in other areas, you might feel different. i think that depends. we have very strong internal

opinions, inecond order to qualify the things we do before we would ever send out a statement of objection. now we will see. now we are diving in to the answers we have gotten and start to analyze them. charlie: do you believe you have an unfair reputation in the united states among technology companies? margrethe: i don't know. i think part of the reputation comes from the job. charlie: in other words, you have to be tough because that is the definition of your job? margrethe: i think so. charlie: to be vigilant. margrethe: to be consistent, to be evenhanded, to stay focused, because basically what we all do is to serve our citizens. charlie: what is the issue with gazprom? margrethe: the russian oil company doing great business in europe. charlie: much to the delight of european medicine. margrethe: selling a lot of gas.

we find in many countries they had used a dominant position to charge very, very high prices. in that case, we have sent them a statement of objection and we have gotten their official got theirbut we also first draft on what could balance our concerns to find a solution. charlie: denmark is not part of the eurozone, nor is britain part of the eurozone. what is your analysis of the greek economic issue and all of the change of governments there has done to the possibilities and the future of the eurozone? margrethe: well, right now, that is on the table. they make the move soon to be closer together, to be much more

committed in their economic policies, inc. when you have had a crisis like this and things have been at risk, torn apart, then you would want to move together. that is being debated as we speak. charlie: do you believe the crisis is still there, and the question of what will happen to greece is still to be determined, or do you believe that the most recent agreements and most recent elections make a difference? now there isthink a chance that things can move forward in a constructive way. certain,, nothing is but i think there are better chances then there were months ago when greece made headlines

in every newspaper around the world. ofrlie: what is your notion greek europe today? is that a viable idea today? margrethe: you don't choose your crisis. what you choose is whether you will take responsibility. as i have experienced it, also first-hand, almost a decade, every time that question were asked, it was yes, we will take responsibility. not only do you have strong institutions in the parliament and council and commission and court, you also have people who oft to make europe a place not only of an innovative place where also a people can pursue their dreams. it is a very basic vision, i know that. but for your children to get an

education, for yourself to have an interesting job to provide your family, there is this idea about the your dream. charlie: i can't let this opportunity go without talking about the television series "borgen." do you see yourself in it? margrethe: yes. i do. my husband is a teacher. one.rty was a small i know some people would say it is just fiction, but actually, i think it is a pretty accurate portrait of ladies politics. charlie: in what way? margrethe: in the way that you talking together, having to find women toe, and for play a strong role. charlie: you are the inspiration for the prime minister. margrethe: yes, i -- charlie: you can see that.

you recognize that. margrethe: but you never really know. charlie: are you flattered if it is true? margrethe: yes, i am. very much. most of all, i admire the people have done the series. so many people have gone around. it andobe" has enjoyed hopefully got a peek into this scandinavian environment. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment. ♪

charlie: dr. peter whybrow is here. his books include "a mood apart." 's latest is "the well-tuned brain." it examines why the brain is often out of sync with the world around us. leisure to have you here. -- pleasure to have you here. did 9/11 make you think of the themes? dr. whybrow it was mainly the breakdown in 2008. why did that happen? how can a country believe it will live on debt forever? i think that brought me to the point where i thought if we use neuroscience as we can, what we know about behavior, we begin to

direct our public policy in a different way. charlie: how do we do that? dr. whybrow: many of the plagues we have now, obesity, debt, lack of trust, all of those things, they have a common core, and the common core is human behavior, the way in which relate to each other. if you peel it back, which i do in the first part of the book, who we really are, we are short-term discounters. we love the immediacy. we love the reward. we are also have it-driven. if you put -- habit-drivens. you have a habit and a reward systems based on short term. but in the western world in general, you come up with this situation where we are driving ourselves to our worst -- it is a perfect storm. thisie: why did we develop

passion for instant gratification? simply because it was there? dr. whybrow: it was there. that is the old brain. that is the ancient brain. inadvertently, we have stumbled into this situation where we are now driving that part. the frontal cortex, which is rather primitive compared to the ancient, 700 million year old areer in the seat, we completely out of focus. the rider has lost control of the horse, if you will. charlie: how do we fix this? dr. whybrow: i think we can do it in various ways, but first by knowing ourselves, which is what i talk about in the first part of the book. the way we make choices is pretty well known, and the weight in which we combined reason in making those choices. when you have a society that is

driving immediate gratification and enabling people to use debt to make that gratification real, suddenly you end up with a circumstance where you can't get away from the drive. once we begin to realize that, we will begin to ask ourselves, why do we have children advertised to in ways that drive them particularly towards the brand systems? most children can identify a couple of hundred different brands by the age of three. they probably don't know what is going on in the garden. i think that the issue becomes one of education and how you develop trust. we have all sorts of interesting things that we could do in terms of social policy and we don't do it. charlie: you say there is a mismatch between the relaunch it

really and how culture has developed. betweenrow: -- neurologically and how culture has developed. dr. whybrow: if we pay attention to human attachment, which is the core of what we do -- the need of attachment. your program would not be the power it is if you were a robot, were it? charlie: it might be better. [laughter] dr. abdullah: -- dr. whybrow: no, no. we have invented the latest barbie doll. these are fascinating things. fascinating technologically. charlie: we are applying our minds to the wrong thing. dr. whybrow: yes, we are. education becomes distorted. charlie: talk about obesity. dr. whybrow: obesity is a very good example. that is where we have built immediate satisfaction in terms of the food that we get.

you would much rather eat something quickly and move on to do something next then you would rather sit over a meal. the fast food industry is fantastic. inhas done so many things terms of feeding us. does things to us when you don't exercise. 50% of the population does not exercise at all. they do not get out of the chair to turn on the television set. you end up with growing obesity, which changes the way in which behaviors manifest. perfect example. if you are very busy and you eat a lot, there is a high correlation between how much you sleep and how much you weigh. the less you sleep, the more you way. it is counterintuitive, but it is true. this is true for children. charlie: some people, thin

people, i know they slid more -- sleep more. dr. whybrow: you should be trying to sleep eight hours a night. where you get to that, i don't know. charlie: i try to approach that simply by taking naps a day. i don't sleep eight hours and 1 -- dr. whybrow: that is a good thing to do. when you sleep, for reasons we understand, is a very important knitting of the general coil. the other thing about obesity is that in our frenzied lifestyle, we increase enormous numbers of stress hormones, which makes you fatter, too. charlie: the habit part is if we rely on instant gratification and that becomes a habit -- dr. whybrow: you put your finger on it. we all have habits. i crossed my arms.

say, cross it the other way. now i start fumbling. that is a habit. that is not only a habit physically speaking, it is a habit inside your head. the way you relate to people is formed very early on. three-year-old child is forming literally millions of connection a week in terms of the way the brain's wiring up. those habits will drive us in a direction that we frame when we are young. charlie: i want to go to the financial crisis. what did you understand about that and the developments of that to develop the themes you are talking about? dr. whybrow: i think it was a surprise to everybody who was there. even the economists did not figure it out. we blames the bankers. we forgot to ask, what

contribution did we make? the debt that we have accumulated was extraordinary during that time, and most of us accumulated in. not just the whole country, but every individual is being forced into the idea that you can have your television tomorrow morning because all you have to do is mortgage yourself for several years. you keep on mortgaging yourselves. charlie: prices never go down. dr. whybrow: exactly right. the individual is just as much responsible as the banker. bigger scale on the banker. much easier target. we were all responsible. the argument in here is let's be responsible and think about this. we have borrowed as much money and we are borrowing at the same rate between 2008 and now, as we were beforehand. almost exactly the same. i read an op-ed in the "wall street journal" about that. charlie: i am obsessed by the brain. dr. whybrow: thank goodness.

you have done wonderful programs. charlie: what is the most exciting frontier? dr. whybrow: i think it is genetics. it has been there for a while, but now we are able to take genetics and look at the vulnerability and asked the question, how does that interplay with the environment in a way that creates these synergies? someone when the nobel prize understanding how to edit -- dr. whybrow: yes. the way that we have the have the technology which is a way of dissecting the gene and figuring out what the machinery is doing, that is extraordinary. that is going to make a huge difference in the way we unfolds,d the way it and also normal behaviors. charlie: it is getting

extraordinary, and you wonder how far you can go as we deeply understand the brain, how central it is to everything else. where this is going to take us in terms of the future, and how it will affect the kind of society when we prolong life longer and longer. does that presents new problems? does that present new challenges? does that present new opportunities? dr. whybrow: i think it does all of those, but i like to focus on the opportunities. lots easier to hang drapes then look to the future. in the future, we look to technologies but don't forget what human beings have learned from each other. although we can understand the vulnerable in genetics and sort of the exceptional, it is the general society interaction which creates society itself. the culture is embedded in the

things we are doing right now. we lose the face of that. we think, good god, we have all the environmental problems. technology is going to fix it. i don't think so. i think what will fix it is talking to each other about how we can work together. charlie: how we can harness technology. dr. whybrow: exactly. it and: you do look at you ask yourself some very human questions. what impact is there with the obsession of social media and smartphones doing to the brain over the long run, and second, that the human level of contact? someone would argue that there is more contact because it is so instant. you can tweet and tweet and be with your friends all the time. you can gather more easily. you can do all these things.

others say, what is it doing to brain chemistry? dr. whybrow: it is small bandwidth. as i'm sitting here watching you and watching you watch me, i am looking at your face -- dr. whybrow: and i'm focused totally on you and what you say. dr. whybrow: and i can take an enormous amount of bandwidth from that. when i'm tweeting, i don't get that bandwidth from you and i don't understand how you feel about things and nor do you understand my nuances. you end up with a much more primitive, a more scaled-back early, a caricature. charlie: pleasure to have you. dr. whybrow: good to see you again. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

angie: a warning for wall street, jpmorgan says that market conditions and rates are ramping up pressure. the chips are down for intel, the world's largest chipmaker sees a tough corner ahead as companies scale back the demand for data centers. using a head, singapore is poised to act entering a technical recession. good day to you, i'm angie lau him a welcome to "first up here cap