i can't wait for the rough and tumble of the battle for the white house come november. but today surely is a chance to put partisan politics to one side and to pay tribute again to the president on a bold decision and especially to the s.e.a.l.s on a brilliant, successful operation. and most importantly, to celebrate the fact that thanks to their collective actions, america is now a safer place than it was on april the 28th, 2011. that's all for us tonight. "ac 360" starts now. i'm andrew stevens in hong kong. we begin with breaking news that we're following new developments in the case of the escaped chinese dissident chen guangcheng. a senior u.s. official is telling cnn that chen has left the u.s. embassy in beijing. let's go live now to stan grant, who's been following this story from beijing. stan, what do you know so far?

>> reporter: yeah, you can add to that senior u.s. official, you can also add to that chinese state media. now remember, andrew, that this has befr benever been reported. ever since chen guangcheng fled last week after 18 months on house arrest, that has never been reported in state media. that has all changed in the last few minutes. xinhua, state-run media, is now confirming this. chen has left the embassy of his own volition, and they're demanding the u.s. apologize to china for one of its citizens being allowed to enter the u.s. embassy in beijing. so china taking a tough line here, saying to the u.s. you should never have harbored chen guangche guangcheng, but also confirming that chen guangcheng has left the embassy voluntarily. we're hearing reports that he's been taken to a medical facility in beijing, where he's getting treatment, but also crucially

being reunited with his family. remember chen guangcheng has been suffering ill health for some time now. speaking to his friends and supporters, they've been complaining for months that he was not getting the proper medical treatment while he was being kept under house arrest. one of the concerns after he fled was that he get the medical treatment that he so desperately needs and are concerned about ongoing health issues. the other concern was his family, what was going to happen to them when the authorities realized that chen had fled? we'd heard reports of clashes between the family members and security. the family was being locked down inside the village. we were just at the village 24 hours ago and saw evidence of that, a lot of security on the ground. we were followed. we were chased. we were ultimately chased out of the village itself. but now we're hearing that his family is also in beijing and he's being reunited with them at this medical facility. what's fascinating here is the time line. we're also talking about the visit of hillary clinton, the u.s. secretary of state.

she arrived just today. there's been a flurry of activity the last couple of days between china and the united states of how to resolve this so it did not flare up during the critical meetings that secretary clinton would be having in beijing. now we learned that chen has left the embassy voluntarily, is getting medical treatment here in beijing, and has been reunited with his family. andrew? >> stan, does the mere fact that xinhua is publicly reporting this, telling the chinese people what's been happening, does that suggest that chen himself could be out of danger from any sort of backlash from chinese authorities on his escape from the house arrest and that decision to go to the u.s. embassy? >> reporter: we're getting into areas of conjecture here, but you can read something from this statement. while there's been an information blackout on the chinese side, it hasn't been carried on state media, social

media has been blocked. search terms connected with chen guangcheng have been blocked on the internet. while that's been happening, we've been reporting it freely on international media. as you're aware, often when we report things the chinese don't want getting out, they block us. they simply black our stories out. we have not been blacked out. stories i've been doing the last few days have been running freely uninterrupted, and we've not been getting the normal push back that we're accustomed to receiving from officials here during a sensitive time. there's been a bit of a double gain here. on the one hand, trying to control the information to the wrong people, but allowing that information to get out in the international media, perhaps hoping or expecting the information would be reimported back into the country and people would learn secondhand. now we're getting firsthand reporting. confirmation that chen guangcheng was, "a," in the embassy, and confirmation that he's now left the embassy. that may give indication to his fate.

what's also interesting is the other part of the message, andrew. that is, this drawing the line with the united states and demanding the u.s. apologize to china for allowing one of its citizens, the chinese citizen to enter the embassy, and to give refuge to that citizen in the embassy, someone that china has considered in the past an enemy of the state. we need to put this in context and let you know about chen guangcheng, those who haven't been following this closely. he's a blind activist, a self-taught lawyer, someone who testified against forced abortions in china under the one child policy here. he spent four years in prison after organizing demonstrations, allegedly disrupting traffic and damaging property. after coming out of prison, he's been held the past 18 months under lock and key 24/7 house arrest. only in the last week or so did he manage to escape and get into beijing, touching off the events we've seen unfold in recent days, leading to the fact now that apparently he's out of the

embassy getting treatment, reuniting with his family at a beijing medical facility. >> stan, thank you very much for that update. stan grant joining us from beijing with the latest breaking news that chen guangcheng has left the u.s. embassy and is understood, as we know so far, is in hospital receiving medical treatment. to our u.s. viewers, you will now return to normal programming. for international viewers, stay tuned. "world business today" starts right now. tonight's breaking news, president obama's surprise visit to afghanistan. what he said to the troops there and what he said to the american people. tonight he's airborne heading home already. departing bagram air base tonight where he arrived just after night fall. reporters traveling with the president sworn to secrecy until air force one touched down at the air base that often comes under taliban fire. then he headed to kabul, where

he and president karzai signed the strategic partnership agreement. it promises american support for afghanistan through 2024. ten years after the last american combat forces are scheduled to leave the country by the end of 2012. excuse me, 2014. the president made some brief remarks, then headed back to bagram for a rally with the troops. more than 130,000 men and women from 50 countries serve in afghanistan. the vast majority, about 90,000, are american right now. a short time later, just about a half hour ago, mr. obama spoke to the united states, laying out his vision for ending america's longest war, saying afghanistan is where the war began and where it will end. here's a portion of his address. >> today i signed an historic agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries. a future in which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two

sovereign states, a future in which war ends and new chapter begins. ten years ago, the united states and our allies went to war to make sure that al qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. despite initial success for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. but over the last three years, the tide has turned. we broke the taliban's momentum. we've built strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership, taking out over 20 of our top 30 leaders. and one year ago, from base here in afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed osama bin laden. the goal that i set to defeat al qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild is now within our reach. we've begun to transition to afghan responsibility for security.

already nearly half of afghan people live in places where afghan security forces are heading into the lead. this month at a nato summit in chicago, our coalition will set a goal for afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. international troops will continue to train, advise, and assist the afghans and fight alongside them when needed. but we will shift into a support role as afghans step forward. as we do, our troops will be coming home. last year we removed 10,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan. another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. after that, reductions will continue at a steady pace with more and more of our troops coming home. as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014, the afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country. as we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. the answer is clear. our goal is not to build a

country in america's image or to eradicate every vestige of the taliban. these objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and most importantly, many more american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. afghans want to assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. that requires a clear timeline to wind down the war. others will ask, why don't we leave immediately? that also is clear. we must give afghanistan an opportunity to stabilize. otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al qaeda could establish itself once more. as commander in chief, i refuse to let that happen. we emerged from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it's time to renew america, an america where

our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. a united america of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation. this time of war began in afghanist afghanistan, and this is where it will end. with faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future. let us finish the work at hand and forge a sxwrujust and lasti peace. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states of america. >> let's get some quick reaction now on the speech, the trip, the politics surrounding the bin laden anniversary and the reality of what's happening on the ground in afghanistan. with us tonight, gop strategist ari fleischer, white house press secretary for george w. bush, had an inside view to trips like this one, so does democratic strategist paul begala. full disclosure, he's leading the obama super pac right now.

also gloria borger. i just want to get a quick headline from everybody about what they thought of this speech. ari fleischer? >> i think you've witnessed the power of income bensy, kincumb. this is what presidents can do. in the post-9/11 world, both parties are split about foreign policy. we have a strong feeling about fighting and winning, but we're tired of it and want our troops to come home. it's hard to see this being a significant issue in the election. >> paul begala, to you. >> when barack obama took office, there were 32,000 american troops fighting in afghanistan. now there are almost 90,000, and there were 160,000 fighting in iraq, and now there are just a very few. he has put a powerful stamp on america's military conduct in

that region, and he is now responsible for every one of those troops who he saw today. >> right now the timetable. 22,000 troops to leave by the end of this summer. according to the president, sm 68,000 to remain until the end sometime around 2014. gloria borger, headline from you. >> i think what the president did in going over and signing this document was essentially a strategic embrace of afghanis n afghanistan, saying we're not going to decembssert you. we're going to be committed to you until at least 2024. he came with a plan, anderson. this is how we make the transition to the sovereignty of afghanistan, to having its own troops lead the way, quicker than some of us thought, in their own defense, and also talked about, interestingly enough, a negotiated peace in which he said we would start talking to the taliban. i think that's going to be quite controversial.

>> david gergen? >> excellent speech. interesting how much more forceful and how much more of a leader he is on the foreign affairs front than on domestic policy. there's a man who had a plan going all the way back to the campaign. he said he was going to try to crush al qaeda and take out bin laden. he's done both. he did it tonight, not by taking praise on himself, but by giving credit to the troops, as he should. and extending the stay in the region. >> you called this an agreement to make an agreement. what do you maep? >> according to senior administration officials i spoke to this afternoon, there's going to be about a year when they basically negotiate the actual details, which include the money for the afghan national security forces and the number of troops on the ground obviously. a post of 2014, some of that's conditions based, but to get to a status of forces agreement, which is the real technical term for a longer -- this is what is described as a nonbinding

executive agreement. i don't think that means very much in practice. it's not a treaty. >> it's more symbolic. >> but i don't want to discount the fact that this is an important milestone on a long process that has been going on for a while. i also think this says something pretty big about president obama. here's a guy that was an anti-war president, came in on that ticket. he tripled the number of troops in afghanistan. now he's saying they're staying for another dozen year. he quadrupled the number of drone strikes in afghanistan. he's fighting in yemen and somalia. he's been an unexpected president, i think, for a lot of people who thought of him as sort of basically a negotiator rather than somebody who was very comfortable with the use of force in certain circumstances. >> so much, though, of what he talked about tonight depends on the afghan national security forces being able to stand up, to go on patrol, to have operations. you and i have been out on patrol in helmand province and elsewhere in afghanistan with the afghan troops. i think you and i were on patrol with some afghan troops who

stole cornvillagers, and the u.s. military, who was with them, made them give it back. >> i'm scratching my head to think of a really significant operation that the afghan military has conducted independently. in iraq you could point to that, where, for instance, they went down to basra and did a significant military operation in 2007. that's yet to happen with the afghan security forces. are they getting better? yes. but it's going to be a while. >> i want to play something that president obama said about al qaeda. let's listen. >> one year ago, from base here in afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed osama bin laden. the goal that i set to beat al qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild has now entered our reach. >> you've just written a book

about osama bin laden manhunt. the president talks about al qaeda. there's not much al qaeda presence in afghanistan anymore. the taliban is still very much a presence, and we just saw two weeks ago, they're able to launch attacks in the capital itself. >> yeah, but i think these are spectacular attacks that don't necessarily mean -- i can't think of a single major city that the taliban or even big town the taliban has ever held. they can't do a tet offensive on kabul. the afghan national security forces who are relatively weak, and the taliban are a little stronger than they've been in the past. if we sort of left tomorrow, the taliban might take over a large chunk of the country, not because they're strong, but because the afghan national security forces are weak. so building those forces up and having the plan with the advisers going forward after 2014 is critical to make sure they don't have that success. >> david gergen, just yesterday,

you wrote a column for cnn.com, asking whether the u.s. is overselling bin laden's death, hyping it for political gain. what do you think of this trip now? >> anderson, whether or not you like president obama, any veteran of the white house -- and ari would agree with this -- has to admire the professionalism that went into these last days. they had this major public relations offensive that built up to this climactic presidential moment on this long trip. all of that has been done partly for substantive reasons, and clearly a large part is for political reasons, looking toward november. i have felt, as ari felt, that they went overboard in their ad on going after romney. i thought they were excessive on a lot of this. but it does go with the territory. what i think has been left out of the discussion -- and peter would be very good on this -- and that is we have -- we are leaving one era where bin laden

was threatening us, but we're moving into a new era that serious observers are saying, this is actually going to be more dangerous than it looks. pakistan remains volatile. it's building 12 nuclear weapons a year. you've got al qaeda -- islamic militants are taking more political control in the middle east in places like egypt. that has all been left out of this. i do think there's been a quality about what the white house has done and sort of say, well, basically, we're now safe, when we are not. and there is a lot out there in this new world that we really ought to be. that's where i think the republicans ought to go. what are we going to do about this new world into which we're emerging. >> gloria, was this good politics? >> was what good -- the trip? >> yes. >> everything is going to be seen as a political move. and given the fact they released the web video on the killing of

osama bin laden, would mitt romney have gone down the same path and they got in a fight, they set themselves up for this trip. but -- so people are going to see it through a political lens. from their point of view, however, let me say that what the president was able to do this evening was to tell the american public that he is winding down two unpopular wars, iraq, afghanistan. 7 out of 10 americans want to get out of afghanistan. most of them want to get out tomorrow and not wait until 2014. so from the president's point of view, this works. >> we've got to take a quick break. more with our panelists. you mentioned mitt romney. we'll have some statement from him. we'll obviously bring that to you. a lot to talk about in our special coverage. let us know what you think. do you think the u.s. should get out sooner? what do you think of the president's address on facebook,

google plus or twitter. up next, the fiery message to the troops the president gave and details about how the risky conditions on the ground, just how risky they still are. yoyou u wawalklk i intna coconvnvenentitiononalal ms ststorore,e, i it't's s rert ababouout t yoyou.u. ththeyey s sayay, , "w"weleu wawantnteded a a f firirm m bebn lilie e onon o onene o of " wewe p prorovividede t thet inindidivividudualalizizatat yoyourur b bodody y neneede. ohoh, , wowow!w! ththatat f feeeelsls r reae. itit's's a aboboutut s supuppope yoyou u fifindnd i it t momost. toto c celelebebraratete 2 25 5f bebetttterer s sleleepep-f-forof yoyou u - - slsleeeep p nr inintrtrododucuceses t ther ededititioion n bebed d st inincrcrededibiblele s savf $1$1,0,00000 f foror a a l li. ononlyly a at t ththe e slsleeer ststorore,e, w wheherere n

we did not choose this war. this war came to us on 9/11. and there are a whole bunch of folks here, i bet, who signed up after 9/11.

we don't go looking for a fight. but when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do. >> president obama tonight at bagram air base ten and a half years after al qaeda attacked and american forces drove them out, a year to the day after navy s.e.a.l.s shot and killed osama bin laden. mr. obama working without a teleprompter, looking energized, his supporters would say, to be in the company of the troops. he thanked them for their service. >> when the final chapter of this war is written, historians will look back and say not only was this the greatest fighting force in the history of the world, but all of you also represented the values of america in an exemplary way. i could not be prouder of you.

and i want you to understand i know it's still tough. i know the battle's not yet over. some of your buddies are going to get injured. some of your buddies may get killed. and there's going to be heart break and pain and difficulty ahead. but there's a light on the horizon. because of the sacrifices you've made. not only were we able to blunt the taliban momentum, not only were we able to drive al qaeda out of afghanistan, but slowly and systematically we've been able to decimate the ranks of al qaeda.

and a year ago we were finally able to bring osama bin laden to justice. >> this trip is not only a surprise, it's also been a race to get the president out of the war zone as quickly as possible. bagram air base has been a major target, so is the area surrounding the palace in kabul, which explains why the president did not linger there today. for more on the tight security around the presidential trip and other trips, we're joined by nick paton walsh and john king. nick, it does not get much riskier than this for the president on the ground. what kind of security measures went into this visit, particularly considering the attacks we saw in kabul just weeks ago? >> initially, it was secrecy. the afghan media broke this about 6:00 local time, u.s.

officials desperately trying to firefight that. we heard from one official that everybody in the presidential palace was sent home around noon but still there were attempts to keep this under wraps. the path he took, pretty much as safe as you can imagine. flying into bagram. the chance of attack, but immense fire power around air force one. then the helicopter ride into the capital. and the motorcade into the presidential palace. we saw a city in lock down. very little air traffic in the skies above us. we normally hear many helicopters buzzing low over the city during the evening. but nothing really until about an hour before we heard news of the president's arrival, suggesting perhaps that some of the rumors of a very, very important person arriving were true, anderson. >> you see dawn breaking there. significant because the president wanted to get in and out under the cover of darkness. and the president has left afghanistan. john, you know what it's like to travel with the president on a trip like this.

you went to baghdad with president bush. from being on air force one, what is that like? >> it's a dicey ride in. perhaps they're overstaying the risk, but they want to be extra cautious with the president. you showed the pictures of this president's visit. you see air force one. it's a 747. has the united states stamped on the side. the big flag on the back. they advised president bush when i took that trip to baghdad, they advised president obama the same thing. they'd rather he take a nondescript military plane, the type that flies in at these military bases that doesn't look any different. he wanted to take this to send a signal. i was recruited and just left the white house beat six years ago. they white house said would you do this on a secret basis. tell as few people as possible within the news organization. they tell you turn off all electronic devices, shut off the televisions, shut off the l.e.d. clocks. they don't want anyone to see that plane coming in because of the risks of a mortar fire or rocket propelled grenade, something like that.

the way out is dicier. everyone knows the president is on the ground. everyone's seen the pictures of air force one. they know it's the 747 in the case of trip i took and the trip today. when i left baghdad six years ago, shut everything down. they don't want an electronic signal off that airplane that somebody could track to fire a missile at. air force one is like imagine you're revving your car with your foot on the brake, you gun the gas, and pho. a 747 going up at 45 degrees or more of an angle. you feel the gs. >> nick, you're on the ground in kabul. do you see international forces, or is it mostly now just afghan forces on the street? >> reporter: to be honest, in kabul, it's very much an afghan controlled city. you occasionally see u.s. vehicles patrolling around. but they maintain a low position. the afghan troops have been in

charge of security in kabul for quite some time. the question is how good a job are they doing. i think you heard much of president obama's speech extolling the virtues of the afghan security forces. but to be honest, as you heard peter say, it's been patchy. i've seen american soldiers regularly express deep frustration of lack of professionalism of the afghan force. of course with this expediting timeline, we're told on a regular basis how good the security forces are and how they can keep the insurgency, which has given nato significant trouble over the last decade, how they can keep the insurgency in check. >> we've also seen increased attacks by afghan security forces against u.s. personnel and international security forces. much more now with peter bergen. joining also is fran townsend and major general james "spider" marks. fran, just strategically, as you look at this agreement has been signed, how significant is it? >> it is sort of a rhetorical commitment to the afghans.

and it is significant the president went there to sign it, to give them reassurance. >> he could have stayed in washington and signed this and done it electronically. >> that's right. but it makes sense that he wanted to go there as evidence of his commitment to afghanistan. i will tell you the most important part is will it get funded by congress and what will troop levels be. he talked about once you get to the 68,000 in september, there will be a steady drawdown through 2014 until we're out of afghanistan. but that timetable has to be recommended and the numbers will have to be recommended by u.s. generals on the ground and what will that look like and what is the afghan force ability to fill that vacuum. >> there's also the question about what other international forces will still be there and willing to stay. there's a nato meeting coming up. there's going to be talking about nato funding for this international force. we've seen a number over the years concerns about the role international forces have been willing to play.

there's been questions of engagement from some of the other forces. >> some countries have pulled out. the australians who aren't part of nato pulled out. i think of the nato summit in chicago. if nato is going to survive as an idea, it's got to make the afghan thing plausibly work. and i think $4 billion is what's required to fund the afghan national security forces. in the grand scheme of things, that's not a great deal of money. $500 million has been promised by the afghans. i'm sure at chicago there will be some agreement for some level of the money from the french or the british that the president will be able to say yes we have people who are willing to spend this. we've been spending $100 billion a year in afghanistan right now. $4 billion is a small amount. >> a lot of americans hearing that are going to think that's a huge amount of money that, if it was spent in the united states, might have a big impact. to those who say look at corruption in afghanistan and where does this money go and

this is a poor country. how come it cost billions and billions of dollars to fund a military? >> well, as a factual matter it costs about a 50th -- for an american soldier and an afghan soldier, the cost is about a 50th less. from a cost point of view, it makes sense. the u.s. lost $500 billion in the course of three hours in terms of the impact it had had on the american economy on 9/11. from a pure cost benefit analysis, probably worth spending a fair amount of money in afghanistan to prevent that. >> general marks, do you think there was reason to have increasing confidence in the afghan national army and the afghan national police force? >> we have no choice. we have to have confidence in what they can achieve. you look at where they started and where they are and there's a long road ahead in terms of reaching a level of professionalism that's required in each policeman, in each level of the security force, and in

the military as well. >> would you trust them if you're on patrol with them? >> i'd trust but verify. i'd have no choice but to have that afghan soldier next to me. that would be the mission. but i'd have to verify that that individual is, in fact, capable of doing what he needs to do. and i'd probably sleep, like a lot of guys, with one eye open. it's a matter of where you start from and what the expectations are, and can we get there from today. and clearly we have until 2014 to improve that status and then beyond -- i think the numbers are significant because that sells locally. that sells in the united states. that's where the audience needs to understand it. but within those numbers, it's very important that we get into some level of details. and that's intelligence and that's special ops guys and training forces to ensure they can continue to grow. >> this may be a dumb question. i've been on patrols with afghan forces and with our forces on the ground who i have huge respect for. but how come -- i mean, the afghans did a pretty good job against the soviets fighting the soviets. how come they need all this military training?

are we trying to get them to a level -- clearly we're trying to get them to a level they've never had before, but haven't they been able to defend themselves and fight wars? the taliban seems capable of conducting strikes without having a huge foreign force spending billions of dollars training them. >> true. first of all, the soviets presented themselves in different formations than how the united states is now training them to present themselves. the soviets had large formations, and the mujahedeen could do a pretty good job of going after those, and the soviets decided it was time to go. the soviets did not transition into much more aggressive counterinsurgency type of operations. in terms of recruiting the taliban. it's an incredible differentiator of what we're asking a u.s. soldier to do and a taliban soldier to do. if you ideologically could get that young potential taliban

recruit to sign up, the only task you're asking him to do is sacrifice his life and carry something into some crowded village. >> it's easier to dothan trying to provide security for a village or trying to be a police officer in a town. fran, do you have confidence in the afghan forces can get up to the job? >> i think the key that no one is talking about is corruption. we haven't dealt with the corruption and dealt with the weakness of the karzai government there. >> because that also gets to a soldier's willingness to fight for a central government. if the general is building a mcmansion in kabul, the foot soldier isn't going to trust that general or want to trust that person. >> that's exactly right. so we haven't very effectively dealt with the corruption problem up until now. that was true in the bush administration. it's true in the obama administration because we don't want to talk about it. until we address this directly

were the karzai government, we're not going to solve it. the timeline now is getting shorter and shorter. >> there are allegations about members of karsai's family involved in corruption as well. more with the panel coming up. coming up senator john mccain weighing in on the trip to afghanistan. whether he sees it as the president hiking the football in the end zone.

president obama heading home tonight from afghanistan. we touched on this at the top coming when it does and where it does, it is inevitable there is a political component to the trip.

at this point in the election cycle, mr. obama left washington with republicans including mitt romney criticizing his decision to run a campaign ad on the web about the killing of osama bin laden. not much, though, in the way of partisan talk about tonight's trip. senator john mccain calling it a good thing. here's what he said exclusively to cnn's congressional correspondent, dana bash. >> what do you think about the president's surprise secretive trip to afghanistan? >> i think it's a good thing. i think it's always good when the president goes to where young men and women are in harm's way. and i think that many of us who have been involved in afghanistan are very supportive of the strategic partnership agreement which i'm sure he'll be talking about. and we think the agreement is good. we obviously would like to know the details. >> now, senator, you have been very outspoken, very critical of what the president did recently politically with an ad boasting about getting osama bin laden and hitting mitt romney for it. do you think this trip is also part of his political campaign?

>> no, i can't accuse the president of that. a lot of people, both here in congress, including senator lindsey graham and senator lieberman, worked on the strategic partnership agreement. it's important we send the message to friends and enemies alike that the united states has a long-term commitment to afghanistan. >> so this is not spiking the football in the end zone as he said? >> no. i don't view it as that. i wish the president would explain more often to the american people why afghanistan and it's important that afghanistan not return to a base for attacks on the united states of america. >> dana joins me now. much different tone than we heard from senator mccain. a lot of that probably, i'm guessing, has to do with the fact the president is overseas. a lot of republicans, a lot of democratic people do not want to criticize a sitting president when they're overseas. >> that's definitely a part of

it. it's sometimes thought of as an old school tradition, and people like john mccain certainly keep it. but in this particular case, i've gotten virtually no statements from republicans at all since the president has spoken, and i think it's primarily the fact that he is in a war zone speaking in front of troops. but also because what you've heard from republicans, the criticism that you've heard from them on afghanistan is that the president doesn't talk enough about this war. in fact the last time he gave a major speech about it was in june 2011. almost a year ago. so it's hard for these republicans to say you shouldn't go talk about it. you shouldn't go over there when they've been saying please talk about it some more. the other thing particularly particularly senators like john mccain, lindsey graham, they've been pushing the president to go forward with the strategic partnership agreement because they've been very concerned about pulling combat troops out by the end of 2014, and this makes clear to everybody in the region that there will be a u.s. presence on the ground for a pretty long time. >> dana, appreciate it.

let's bring in david gergen and gloria borger. we heard from senator mccain. does it surprise you that the views on the war are different that senator mccain did not criticize president obama today? >> i'm not surprised he wasn't criticized because, as dana pointed out, he's kind of old school about that. also he really supports this strategic agreement because he is a part of the republican party that wants to see a long-term commitment in afghanistan. i think one of the reasons you haven't heard from other republicans is actually -- and you know this, anderson. there's division within the republican party. i mean, more than a majority of republicans oppose the war in afghanistan. so republicans want to get out of afghanistan. and so the president went over there to announce that he's winding down in afghanistan. and if you're a republican, you know, that's kind of not a bad thing. because republicans are very fiscally conscious and at a time when the economy is not good at home, there are more and more questions about whether the money that we're spending over there is cost effective.

>> it is interesting we've reached a point where this war is unpopular amongst democrats and republicans as well. >> it is interesting that we have that. and people do want the war to end. but, anderson, i would caution that i think president obama and whether it's president romney or not, can move forward with keeping troops on the ground as long as the casualty numbers are low. and it's not terribly expensive. we after all have kept troops in korea now for almost 60 years as at the dmz, as you well know, and in other parts of the world. they've been in the sinai for a long time. and the public has gone along with that. the presence in afghanistan in a volatile area of the world with pakistan next door can be really helpful for american foreign policy. this is something on which there will be bipartisan agreements.

yes, some people will complain, but as long as the casualties are down, it's not too expensive. >> some democrats may complain about it even if it's only in a training role. but as you know, this strategic agreement doesn't require that the united states do anything. it allows us to do that. >> the president talked about the training role and a counterterrorism role. that's sort of undefined. there's a lot of different activities that can take place under a counterterrorism role. >> on purpose. >> yeah. it's really important that a democratic president has made a commitment to afghanistan for another 12 years. if this had been a republican, it might -- you know, and a democrat were elected, you might see that unravel. but if mitt romney were to become president, he's going to keep that agreement and so will barack obama for the next several years. i think the united states is -- even though there's going to be quibbling on the sides, i think the united states is very, very likely now to have a presence there for the foreseeable future. >> i'm sorry. we've got to leave it there. david gergen, gloria borger.

appreciate it. president obama's speech from bagram air base is fueling talk tonight. more with ari fleischer, paul begala, peter bergen. that's next. let me tell you about a very important phone call i made.

when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans...

exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... with all you need to enroll. put their trust in aarp medicare supplement insurance. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. the prices are competitive. i can keep my own doctor. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. call now to get a free information kit. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. and the advantages don't end there. choose from a range of medicare supplement plans... that are all competitively priced. we have a plan for almost everyone, so you can find one that fits your needs and budget. with all medicare supplement plans, there are virtually no claim forms to fill out. plus you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare. and best of all, these plans are... the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. when they told me these plans were endorsed by aarp... i had only one thing to say... sign me up.

call the number on your screen now... and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan. you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, to help you choose the plan that's right for you. as with all medicare supplement plans, you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare, get help paying for what medicare doesn't... and save up to thousands of dollars. call this toll-free number now. so i brought it to mike at meineke. we gave her car a free road handling check. i like free. free is good. my money. my choice. my meineke. joining us again, republican strategist ari fleischer, paul begala, peter bergen, and retired major general james

"spider" marks. ari, in terms of politics and i hate to talk about politics on a day like this, but do you anticipate tomorrow hearing a lot more about this trip from both the left and the right? because the left has been pretty silent as well. >> that's right. it's a sign of how split both parties are about these long military entanglements. no. i think it's going to quickly fade. we're in such a domestic news cycle. election, economy. just as when the killing of bin laden a year ago riveted the nation, we shifted back over a not very long amount of time. i think the bigger substantive issue, though, in afghanistan is the place is still a mess. you know, the president said tonight that in the last three years the tide has turned. since he became president, he says, the tide has turned. i don't think anything has turned. afghanistan was a mess, it is a mess. whether we're there or not, they're going to go on fighting. the war doesn't end. it's just a question of whether we're going to be involved in it or not. i'm fine no longer being involved in it. we didn't set out on september 11th to stay there forever. so the day has to come when the

troops have to come home. i'm glad they're coming home soon. but nobody should think that what the president is doing here means afghanistan is going to be a land of peace. it won't. >> peter bergen, has the tide turned both against the taliban and al qaeda? >> as a factual matter, you're more likely to be murdered in my hometown of washington, d.c., than you are to be killed as a civilian in the afghan war right now. the violence is relatively low. by afghan standards, this is a picnic. think about the soviets when they killed 1 million people and made one-third of the population homeless. the civil war in kabul killed hundreds of thousands. think about the rule of the taliban. afghans overwhelmingly continue to feel their lives are getter better. this is a country without phone service. now one in three afghans have a cell phone. this is one that didn't have a girl in school. now there are 2 million girls in school. this is a country where they had no economic indicators because there were none. now they had 22% gdp growth rate.

admittedly from a low point. i could give you a list of -- there's an optimistic view of afghanistan. we know what's wrong with the place. and it's shared by a lot of afghans themselves. the one thing they were concerned about was we were going to head for the exits. today's decision, i think, will help them -- will reassure them that we have a long-term presence there. most of them want that. they don't want permanent bases. they don't want to be occupied, no one does. but they do want to feel the united states and its allies isn't heading for the exits. >> general marks, in terms of what our military has been doing on the ground, no one's really used the term nation building or no one likes to use that term, under the bush administration, under the obama administration, but it has been a lot of nation building. >> absolutely. in fact, what peter just laid out is spot on. that's not what the united states went into afghanistan to accomplish. but it ended up being what we accomplished. and we will continue to accomplish with our partners. and clearly that's -- this is really an example of mission in its finest. we went in to accomplish a

very specific mission. we did that quite rapidly in 2001, right before christmas, the taliban departed. and then we departed. in essence, we departed in terms of having a presence that could do something about a resurgence of the taliban, and we missed that, and we diverted our attention to iraq. but clearly, we have been able together to accomplish quite a bit in afghanistan. we also have a commitment to continue that effort through 2014 and now beyond. >> paul begala, in terms of the president's base committing to stay in afghanistan for another 12 years essentially, that's not a message some in the president's base want to hear. >> well, not just the president's base. both parties, ari is exactly right, are war weary. this country is war weary. if you look at the cnn poll or any of our polls, voters don't even just want to get out in 2014 like the president does, they want to get out tomorrow. i suspect -- i do admire john mccain is old school, and i admire they're not criticizing

our president on foreign soil. i think you're also going to see they're not going to criticize him much about this because, "a," they're not going to have a better alternative. "b," they want this to be barack obama's war, and it is. he's responsible for it now. and they're happy with that. what the president is trying to do is say i want to rebalance. not innovate and conquer other countries, but project our power in a more nimble way and rebuild america back home. that's what he said when he formulated this. he said the country i want to build is the united states. >> peter bergen, it's impossible to talk about what's happening in afghanistan without talking about what's happening in pakistan. the relationship with pakistan is frayed right now to say the least. >> yeah. 2011 was the worst year in the relationship. there are some kind of positive trends in pakistan that tend to get overlooked in these discussions too. we're going to see the first civilian government in pakistan fulfill its term, either the first or second, depending on how you score it. there's going to be another election either at the end of

this year or beginning of next year. you can then foresee a period for the first time in pakistani history where you have the civilian government for a decade. the military have no plan for a coup. a lot is very anti-american, but a lot is anti-taliban and pro-democracy. there was an arab spring where they got rid of a military president from pakistan, president musharraf. there's an independent judiciary doing cases against both the military and civilian government. these are institutions that are important to pakistan's future. what pakistan hasn't had yet is particularly good leadership. hopefully in the next few years a leader will come up. >> peter, we appreciate you being with us. his new book is called "man hunt." it really takes you inside the hunt for osama bin laden. it just came out. i recommend it. ari fleischer, thank you. paul begala and general marks. we'll be right back.