hall with house speaker paul ryan, moderated by jake tapper. that starts sharp at 9:30 eastern, only here on cnn. that's it for us now. i'm jim sciutto in all week for erin burnett. watch "outfront" any time, anywhere. "ac 360" starts right now. good evening. president trump speaks to the country tonight about the war in afghanistan, america's longest war to date. he'll unveil his strategy, which is widely expected to call for additional troops. whatever the decision, it comes six months since his last major address in 16 years since the war began. the u.s. and its allies brought down al qaeda and the taliban and despite years of training forces and hundreds of billions of dollars, the government of afghanistan is still not strong enough to fight on its own. american combat operations ended there two years ago but the fighting continues. tonight, the president is expected to call for additional troops in a war that's cost the

lives of 2300 american servicemen and women, and cost american taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. for years, before president trump was responsible for the conduct of the war, he was firmly against the war. october of 2011, he tweeted, when will we stop wasting our money on rebuilding afghanistan. in march of 2012, afghanistan is a disaster. we don't know what we are doing. january of 2013, i agree with president obama in afghanistan. we should have a speedy withdrawal. why keep wasting our money? rebuild the u.s. march that same year, we should leave afghanistan immediately, no more wasted lives. if we have to go back in, we rebuild the u.s. first. when citizen president trump became candidate trump, his views, as they say, evolved. >> do you believe that american boots should stay on the ground in afghanistan to stabilize the situation? >> i wouldn't totally disagree

with it, but at some point, are they going to be there the next 200 years? it's going to be a long time. we made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. we had real brilliant thinkers that didn't know what the hell what they were doing and it's a mess. at this point, you probably have to, because that will collapse about two seconds after they heave. just as i said collapse wiraq wo collapse after we leave. >> there he is, grudgingly accepting the case for staying in afghanistan. here he is with a different reason, a variation about going to iraq. >> afghanistan has great mineral wealth, nobody knew, but afghanistan has great wealth in minerals. and nobody knew this. so china is taking out the minerals on this side of the

ridge, and we're fighting over here. how stupid are we? >> despite all his criticism of president obama, if president trump announces he's expanding the u.s. presence, he'll be continuing his predecessor's policies, and as the president prepares to address the nation tonight, he's going the ask the question to trust his judgment where american lives are concerned at the precise moment polls show the majority of people do not. athena, what else do we know what the president is going to lay out in his speech tonight? >> reporter: hi, anderson. we're about to hear more than just about afghanistan. we expect the president to address how the u.s. can better work with other countries in the region, like pakistan. we know the white house wants to see pakistan do more to fight terror networks. we know they've been developing a strategy to counter the growing iranian influence in afghanistan. i don't know how much we'll hear about that tonight.

vice president pence was set to speak with the president of afghanistan ahead of tonight's address. we're still awaiting a readout of that call. secretary of state rex tillerson spoke with the leaders of afghanistan, pakistan, and india today. the topic was how the u.s. would like to work with each country to stabilize south asia through a new regional strategy. so we expect the hear the president talk about that tonight. >> do we know how much the president's national security meeting this weekend shaped what he will say tonight? >> reporter: that's the big meeting that we saw the president send out a photograph, a class photograph of the generals and military leaders who were in attendance. vice president pence cut short his trip to central america to attend the meeting. the president in a tweet on saturday said that is when the decision on afghanistan was made. we don't know exactly what was discussed in that meeting at camp david.

but we do know there has been some intense debate during this months long deliberation about afghanistan strategy, regarding just how much more military and financial commitment the u.s. should make to this 16-year long war. folks like national security adviser h.r. mcmaster were among those arguing for increased engagement, and people like now departed chief strategist steve bannon were arguing the opposite. bannon opposes adding u.s. troops to afghanistan. that is in line with the tweets and commentary we saw from candidate trump during the campaign. and from citizen trump four years before that, with the president, as we expected to announce an increase in troops in afghanistan, it looks as though a hawkish argument won. but the president faces a challenge tonight in convincing his supporters that increasing engagement in afghanistan is the right move, considering he spent so long arguing for full withdrawal.

>> athena jones, appreciate that. a second ago, in fact, the president expands the foot print in afghanistan, it will be a blow to the foreign policy that steve bannon supported. he's back at wribreitbart news. take a look at some of the headlines. what is the goal in afghanistan? h.r. mcmaster endorsed book that add slow ka-- advocates koran k. there's word that he's ready to go after some of the people he butted heads with, jared kushner and ivanka trump among them. so bannon certainly didn't waste any time getting back to work at breitbart. how much of his fingerprints are on some of these headlines? >> it seem like a lot of thinks fingerprints are on these headlines.

steve bannon has made his mark at breitbart and made it very quickly. within hours he was back at breitbart, back to his old job he had before he joined the campaign as executive chairman. and he's not being shy about the fact that he will push his agenda. within hours of his ouster, he told the weekly standard, i got my hands back on my weapons. i'm going to crush the opposition. it seems that way in a lot of the headlines at breitbart. specifically today, as to president trump's possible increase of troops in afghanistan, we saw two different headlines today from columnists there, saying trump's afghan plan, why the u.s. will neither win or lose. we saw another column that said after 16 years, why would more troops or money help? so we're seeing steve bannon's mark at breitbart very quickly. >> how much could that ratchet

up in the days ahead? >> reporter: the targets are very clear, and the message is already very clear. we know that reportedly steve bannon had these people in his target. in fact, the editor in chief of breitbart put it this way to "vanity fair" saying that he wants to beat their ideas into submission. steve has a lot of things up his sleeve, to very ominously pointing at what is to come. we know those targets include jared kushner and ivanka trump. we know that steve bannon has mockingly referred to them as javanka. already gary cohen, labeling all thee of those as new york democrat globalists, going against everything that steve bannon believes in. and steve bannon has his sights sell on national security adviser h.r. mcmaster. his deputy labeling them as hawks. which we might see some of their fingerprints on president trump's plan in afghanistan. so a lot being pushed out of

breitbart already, anderson. >> jessica, thanks. i want to bring in my political panel. i mean, so much for resigning or being fired and kind of going away gracefully and not revealing things that you learned while you were working for your employer. it doesn't seem like that's steve bannon's philosophy. >> very old fashioned. >> what happened to that thing of just like keeping the secrets you learned? >> i don't know what is going to happen and i don't think they should have expected it to happen. i wonder if some of the people who advocated for him leaving aren't going to regret it. he's much more dangerous outside because of what he knows and also because -- look, breitbart is going to operate now on a much more effective fashion with steve bannon back there. whatever you want to say about steve bannon, he knows what he's doing. he knows how to get his message out there. and it will be much more effective organization in terms of targeting the issues that they care about. >> he also has a lot more

information that he's learned. he had a security clearance. >> yeah. and i think that he -- donald trump pays a lot more attention to the news than he pays attention to people right in front of him. you have a lot more influence over him if you can get people ginned up in the outside world versus sitting there trying to talk to him. >> it seems like he's trying to keep trump on the populist side and save that donald trump, which his base loved. at the same time, we're hearing quotes from people at breitbart about impeachment if the president does not adhere to that. >> i visited bannon twice in the white house, once in march and once in july. what i can say is he viewed himself as surrounded by enemies. surrounded by people -- >> enemies in the white house if >> he had his concentric white house. people in the white house like

jared kushner and mcmaster, those are the top people. so he's losing these battles on personnel, because the top people were not in his camp ideal logically. then he had the larger republican establishment, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, who he believes did not accept trump's populist, nationalist agenda. that bannhe believed he was the that was protecting that agenda from all the people who came into the trump world after the election. and let's be honest, he lost, right? he doesn't believe in the tax cut plan being put forward by the republican party. he wasn't a big believer in the obamacare plan. and to the extent he tried to get it through, he failed. his trade agenda never really got off the ground in the way he wanted. he was against the strike in syria. he lost that battle. and now tonight, it seems like he's against the president's plan in afghanistan.

so we're seeing the most idealogical, the purpose who defines trumpism more than anyone else, now on the outside and will fight that from his perch at breitbart instead. >> for those that wonder what difference does that make, i spoke with an editor. they have 50 million unique viewers each month that. is a powerful voice, and steve bannon will continue to do what he's been doing, that is hold the president's feet to the fire, try to influence him to continue to carry the flame that got him elected. bannon was instrumental in that connecting with the working class people, pushing this nationalist, populist agenda. and he felt as though it wasn't getting done while he was in the white house. he will point out a lot of the people we just named, jared kushner, ivanka, and others, saying they would be more comfortable in a clinton administration. so what bannon will do, they're

going to push back on the globalist ideas and increasing the foot print militarily. but he's going to do it communicating directly to the people. they are more aggressive now that bannon is back. >> is this going to be one of those relationships that president trump seems to have with people that have been fired or resigned. there was corey lewandowski, has he really been fired? he's still receiving calls from the president. is steve bannon one of those people? >> here's the difference, i think, that makes steve bannon's situation unique. steve bannon was never really a trump acolyte. corey lewandowski and others were cultish followers. he saw donald trump as a vehicle to get his movement out there. and steve bannon is very much a true believer in that world view. so a lot of this was self-interest for him.

so now that he's out of the white house, his loyalty was never to trump, it was, like you said, he felt that this movement was the priority, and he would protect that at all cost, even if that means turning on trump at some point to protect that movement, this populist, nationalist world view that breitbart pushes. and steve bannon, love him or hate him, is a really smart guy. so he understands how this median works. he has a lot of money behind him. billionaire bob mercer is behind him. and they will -- they will use this platform in a way to either make trump's life miserable and try to get him to acquiesce to their world view. or it could be wonderful. but i'm -- you see this already. he hasn't been gone for a week, and you already see the #war coming from breitbart.

steve bannon is excited about this political guerrilla warfare. >> he uses a lot of war terminology. >> whether trump will rely on his advice or not, he does have a history of doing that. one trump adviser said he values your advice more when he's not paying for it. i think -- i gave a long list of fights that bannon lost in the white house. it's fair to point out he really did change the republican party on immigration. he and trump changed the party. they were going in a different direction when trump came along and bannon and he pushed the president to remove the united states from the paris climate deal. so not all of his battles were lost. >> it is interesting. we're going to be hearing from the president in 45 minutes or so, obviously bringing it live and we'll talk about it afterwards, as well. but from what donald trump as a citizen said about afghanistan

to what we believe he's going to say tonight about expanding maybe several more u.s. troops as advisers, it is a sea change. obviously as president you're responsible for this. >> i think when he was running, the things he said, and he said he was running on, was not to expand in afghanistan. and so that was something that really set him apart from all of the other candidates on this stage. >> no nation building. >> that distinguished him and it can be one of the things -- >> we have to take a quick break. we'll bring you information on the president's address tonight. when we come back, find out why the secret service cannot pay its agents for protecting the first family, even for hours already worked. the details from "usa today" are startling. later, after president trump's speech outlining his new afghan strategy, paul ryan faces

his voters at a cnn town hall event in wisconsin. a big night ahead. we'll be right back. you need the best equipment. for the best ride. the best fit. and the best night's sleep. the beautyrest black hybrid features advanced memory foams for individualized support and a conforming feel. you'll find it exclusively at mattress firm, home of the love your mattress guarantee. if you don't love your mattress, exchange it or get your money back within 120 days. iadults are just kids withtress, much, much better toys.

the c-class sedan, coupe and cabriolet. the thrills keep getting better. lease the c300 sedan for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. advil liqui-gels minis. our first concentrated pill that rushes powerful relief. a small new size that's fast, cause it's liquid. woohoo! you'll ask, what pain? new advil liqui-gels minis. when heartburn hits fight back fast with tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum tums chewy bites. no, please, please, oh! ♪ (shrieks in terror) (heavy breathing and snorting)

no, no. the running of the bulldogs? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money aleia saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

new reporting out today that the u.s. secret service is unable to pay its agents and bills. according to "usa today," more than 1,000 agents have already hit limits for salary and overtime allowances. only congress can raise those caps. even if it does, some agents will not be paid for hours they already worked. one problem is this administration has more people to protect. 42 pebbles members of the trump administration have protection, compared to 31 in the obama administration. president trump travels almost every weekend. as of today president trump has spent 65 days at trump properties, almost one-third of his administration. each of the president's five children have full-time secret service protection. they travel a great deal, as well. trump kids have been to lake placid, north dakota, and

abroad, germany, ireland, italy, among many others. the irony is that before he was president, donald trump was incredibly critical of president trump for his travel, which was not as frequent. in 2011, trump tweeted, barack obama is now in hawaii, costing taxpayers $4 million. and why did barack obama and his family travel separately to martha's vineyard? some of the money the secret service pays to rent golf carts, the trump organization is actually making money from the secret service and from taxpayers. the secret service responded to the story claim thing doesn't have anything to do with the size of the protection the president needs.

>> joining me now is kevin johnson, the "usa today" reporter that broke this story. it's an amazing story. so the secret service has said, it's just an increase in operational tempo. but i don't quite understand, it seems like a part of the increase in operational tempo is they have so many more members of the trump administration to cover and so much more travel. >> that's correct. the trump family has 18 members who are covered by security details. and that has driven a large part of the increase, as you mentioned earlier. up to 42 from 31 during the previous administration. so the -- in talking with director ales, i spoke to him personally. he indicated -- he acknowledged president trump's large family and indicated there's nothing that he can do about that, and wouldn't attempt to do anything about it.

his mission is quite inflexible. so he's working with what he's been dealt. >> a lot of people are surprised to learn that the secret service has to pay -- the trump organization to rent golf carts. more than tens of thousands of dollars so far just spent on golf carts because the president plays golf so much and the secret service has to follow him around, and paying to be in trump tower, they have now this dispute and they're out in a shack i guess or some sort of trailer out on the street. >> yeah, that's a whole other story all together. the potential conflicts that exist as the secret service carries out its mission in protecting the family members and others. you mentioned the trips that the family members have gone on, the sons have gone off to attend events that are related to trump properties. those are trips that the secret

service has no say over what they do. and merely has become a condition of their protective requirement. >> also, it seems like a lot of members of the administration, who in past administrations have not had protective details do now. i think the head of the epa has one, i think the secretary of education has one, as well. is that correct? >> there's a lot about this administration obviously is different. i think what is different really for the secret service, the way it was explained to me, is that they've never had this type of an arrangement where you have adult children who have business interests as far flung as they do. and require travel as part of that business. so it's been a new and -- a new challenge for them to adapt to this reality. >> also, obviously everybody who

needs protection should get protection. they're working for the american people and working for the government. what is the solution here? just a matter of congress appropriating more funds? >> well, i think there was an expectation last fall when this problem was first raised after a contentious election cycle. 1400 secret service agents had reached their caps. they were maxed out in annual pay and overtime. that prompted congress to approve a one-time fix to ensure that all those 1400 would be paid for the overtime that they earned during that whole season. there was that expectation, though, that the work would normalize after the inauguration. obviously that hasn't happened. so what it will take in order for these folks to be paid, will be another approval by congress

to raise the caps and director ales has proposed or is talking with lawmakers about raising that cap from $161,000 to $187,000. but even with those caps, or with that cap, if it's approved, 130 will still not be paid what they're owed. >> that's incredible. to think they've already worked and will not be paid for the overtime. speaking of straining the secret service budget, the president is leaving tomorrow to campaign in phoenix. the city's they your last week or last week asked him to postpone the visit because it comes so soon after the tragedy in charlottesville, virginia, and also because the possibility that the president is going to pardon sheriff joe arpaio. the mayor said --

>> arpaio faces up to six months in prison for ignoring a court order. gary tuchman is in arizona and joins us now. there's been concern about what kind of response president trump may get in phoenix from those who don't support him. what's the reaction there right now? >> reporter: i can tell you, it's not just the mayor but other local leaders who said to president trump, please postpone this rally shortly after the rally was announced this past wednesday, just four days after the deadly violence in charlottesville, virginia. all systems are still go for the rally to take mace here at the phoenix convention center tomorrow night. all systems are go for large scale protests across the phoenix area, demonstrators are getting ready to participate in these protests, making signs and banners. they're buying large quantities of water. supposed to be over 100 degrees when this takes place. it's nothing unusual to go to

protests. but it's usually a few dozen to a few hundred people. it's expected the seven or eight groups say they expect thousands of people to be on the streets next to the convention center. one of the leaders oh of the protest movement is the founder of a local software company. you've rallied against him before. >> yes. >> reporter: and the largest number of people who showed up before? >> a thousand. >> reporter: what are you expecting for this rally? >> over 10,000 really. >> reporter: so that's the number of people on facebook who said they are going to come? >> yes. that doesn't count the people that are offline that don't rsvp on facebook. it's a bad example for my kids, he's a bad example for humanity, to be honest. >> reporter: now, the protest is scheduled to begin about an hour before the president arrives. there would be a lot of security inside the rally and also because of the protests, outside

the rally. >> arpaio was popular there for a long time, but he lost re-election last year. i wonder what people are saying about a possible presidential pardon of him. >> reporter: one thing we should point out, anderson. usually the justice department is involved in presidential pardons. the justice department said the wheels are not spinning regarding joe arpaio. however, the constitution gives the president the power to issue a pardon without justice department blessings. a lot of these protesters, very angry about that possibility. he's been a lightning rod. he faces up to six months in prison. but we talked to a lot of trump supporters in arizona. ne they would like nothing more than for donald trump to take the stage and say, i pardon joe arpaio. >> are you going to the rally? >> yes. this will be my eighth. i love trump, he's great. >> reporter: he's been alluding to the fact that he might pardon

joe arpaio. >> i'm 100% behind that. >> reporter: tell me why. >> because he's not guilty. >> reporter: trump rallies are always loud and boisterous. this one is expected to be extra loud and extra boisterous. coming up next, new reporting on the collision at sea involving a navy warship and the search for ten missing sailors going on right now.

and in this simple everyday act, we see. when we give, we receive. ♪ here ya go. awesome, thank you. thank you. that's... not your car. your car's ready! wrong car... this is not your car? i would love to take it, but no. oh, i'm so sorry about that. you guys wanna check it out? it's someone else's car... this is beautiful. what is this? it's the all-new chevy equinox. this feels like a luxury suv. i love this little 360, how do they even do that? i made a bad decision on my last car purchase. well, your car's here. bummer... bummer. wah-wah. i'm ready for an upgrade. (laughter) i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay. then it hit me...

managing was all i was doing. when i told my doctor, i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease even after trying other medications. in clinical studies, the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. just managing your symptoms? ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

pruesident trump will be addressing the nation on afghanistan. we have a reporting of a u.s. warship where u.s. sailors may have been killed. the "uss john s. mccain" collided with a commercial tanker ship. two months ago, the "uss fitzgerald" hit a vessel off of japan, killing seven, and the "uss champagne" hit a fishing ship in january. bear in mind, ships like the "uss john s. mccain" are solar systems that give them a preview

of anything that is coming at them, which raises questions, starting with how do you miss a merchant ship or what happened? in a moment, what the navy is doing to try to fix the larger problems. but first, jim sciutto has late word on what may have caused this particular collision. jim, what are you hearing? >> reporter: a navy official is telling me that the crew lost steering. the simple ability to steer as it was entering these busy shipping lanes. and they -- this is crucial as well. they weren't, for some reason, able to activate the backup steering system, which these advanced destroyers have. they don't know why they weren't able to do that. it was only after the collision that the crew was able to regain steering again. >> it wasn't that they didn't see this ship, but they lost power. >> they lost the ability to steer out of the way of it. so equally concerning. this is the early part of the investigation, so they're just

beginning to see why that is. was it a human error, a mechanical error? the steering, it's not like you have a big screw that turns the screws. there are wires connecting it. so it could be anything along that series. >> jim, thank you very much. more now on this sad string of incidents, and what the navy is trying to do about it. michelle kaczynski joins me with that. the tourt time this year a u.s. warship is involved in an incident. the navy has done a day freeze of activity? >> even one of these accidents was shocking. i remember when the first one happened. then there's another, another, another. even setting aside this one, it could have been something mechanical, but there are big problems in the other three. the last one that just happened in june, the "uss fitzgerald" also there in asia, it turns out, even though the investigation isn't over, members of the crew made serious mistakes. so from that time, the navy has

been looking at things more closely. but now with this latest accident, they want to do something much more. so they're doing this operational pause so that every u.s. fleet, every single ship across the u.s. navy will take at least one day over the next couple of weeks. it's not as if the navy is going to shut down for one day. but each one of these groups is going to take that time to assess everything. even the basics. how did they deal with safety procedures? how did people on the ships and the ground work together? and they also want to do a large scale review of the entire situation of the nefleet. cnn talked to a top naval analyst today. one of his theorys was intriguing. he said it could be, you know, if they do find endemic problems, that there is such a reliance on all of this great technology on these magnificent

ships, that that could lead to some complacency and the problems we saw just two months ago. >> michelle, thank you for your reporting. joining us now is retired rear admiral john kirby. admiral kirby, to jim sciutto's reporting about the loss of steering, how does something, whether it is that or something else, how does something like this happen? >> if loss of steering was at play here, it could happen any number of ways. maybe you lose power in that part of the ship. maybe maintenance wasn't done properly on some piece of the steering gear. maybe there was just some -- machines break, so something could happen. i just don't know. we just don't know enough right now. i myself, in one transit in the strait of hormuz in the late '80s, that guided missile fr

frigate lost power and we couldn't move the rudder. it's rare but it happens and it puts the ship and its crew in greater danger when it does. >> this idea of an operational pause, one commander told me that seems more like window dressing. that's not a real solution. that's just kind of a stop gap measure. >> i would disagree, and slightly agree. i disagree that it's just window dressing. it is an important thing pour the navy to take some time out, review procedures, look at the training manuals again. make sure that the watch standing team and organization and certifications are all up to snuff and that the material readiness of every ship and squadron is up to snuff. that said, i do agree that this isn't going to solve all the problems. that's why the cno, admiral richardson, didn't just put his eggs this that basket. he ordered a comprehensive review across the entire fleet in the pacific to try and make

sure that if we do have a systemic problem here, if there's something deeper going on, if there's a thread to pull through all these incidents, that we find out what it is and try to eliminate it. >> four collisions or groundings this year, is that just a coincidence? or is it a possible indication of some sort of systemic training issue or overreliance on high tech? >> yeah, we don't know. it's interesting that they're all happening in the forward deployed naval forces, which is the western pacific naval forces that are home ported there. that's kind of interesting. all in one region, all of one force. i think they're going to take a look at that. that's why the cno's order was to take a comprehensive view of that and see if there is a systemic issue. every incident has to be investigated on its own, and i suspect for each one, there were a number of individual factors that came together that created the problem.

but when you have four like this, all of them ship handling related in some form or fashion, within about eight months, it's the right thing to ask some tough questions. is there something larger going on? is it a leadership problem? is it a training problem? is it a funding problem? the navy has lived through a lot of fiscal uncertainty in the last few years. and navy leaders several years ago, you might remember, anderson, were warning that there could be real training performance problem it is the funding situation didn't get involved. i'm not blaming this on budget. i'm just saying they're going to look at all of that. >> the bottom line, seven sailors killed the last time, ten missing tonight. our thoughts and prayers with their families. up next, what to expect when president trump makes an address to the nation and unveils his plans regarding afghanistan. we'll take you there for the remarks that begin 18 minutes from now.

more on that when we continue. i needed something more to help control my type 2 diabetes. my a1c wasn't were it needed to be. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's suppose to do, release its own insulin. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight.

trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain in your stomach, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. once-weekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals.

with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. when heartburn hits fight back fast with tums chewy bites. fast relief in every bite. crunchy outside. chewy inside. tum tum tum tum tums chewy bites.

we're just moments away from president trump's primetime address to the nation. he's just arrived at the venue where he's expected to unveil his new strategy for afghanistan. the battle there has stretched on there for nearly 16 years. the taliban controls more territory than it did just weeks after 9/11. jake tapper is going to moderate a town hall after the address with paul ryan in racine, wisconsin. the president's going to speak soon at joint base myer henderson hall, not far from arlington national cemetery. i want to check in again with athena jones who is there. do we know any more about the plan the president is going to lay out in his speech? >> reporter: hi, anderson. we expect the president to talk not just about afghanistan but south asia as a region.

we know the u.s. wants to work bet we are neighboring countries like pakistan. the white house wants to see pakistan do more to fight terror networks. we also know they've been developing a way to counter the growing iranian influence in afghanistan. so it's possible we hear something about that. i can tell you that vice president mike president was speak to the afghan president. we're still awaiting a readout of that call. and we know that secretary of state rex tillerson spoke earlier today with the leaders of afghanistan, pakistan, and india. and the state department spokesperson says the topic of those calls was how the united states would like to work with each country to stabilize south asia through a new, integrated regional strategy. so we expect to hear some focus on that. secretary of state tillerson is set to be at tonight's address. >> athena, appreciate that.

i want to bring in our panel now. general hurtling, i heard you say the u.s. is at an inflection point in afghanistan. i would imagine there's been a number of inflection points in 16 years, but what are your expectations for this speech tonight, if it is a matter of a few thousand more troops. i was there in 2002 in may, and forces were training afghan national forces. >> we keep hearing, anderson, people talk about the afghan issue is that it's different today than it's ever been before, or this is a new way to approach it. there might be a little substance to that. it is a different time in afghanistan. the gani presidency has been good. the commanding general in charge over there with president gani

has been a great relationship. they're doing things, although the taliban has taken hold again and they control about a third of the country. here's the thing that when i'm specifically looking for in this speech tonight. the first thing is, does the president own he's got to give me as a citizen today more than the "what" of his strategy, he's got to give me the how and the why. he's got to influence the rest of the country, too. this is one thing that a president does, influence people to understand his rationale for sending american forces to an overseas location. in this case, it's relatively few. it will probably be about 4,000. but that's still a significant bump from the 8,000 that are there now. the second thing that he might have to explain is, this whole south asia strategy. and i agree with it, first of all. the federally administered tribal area between india, pakistan, and afghanistan has been critically important for

the last 17 years, and not much has been done about it. the second thing is, will this strategy bring the taliban to the table. i think they are ready to come to the table with the afghan regime. but the question is, they haven't wanted to in the past. because they felt the united states was leaving. then the third thing, something that's very important that we learned from iraq is, are the forces that are going to be inserted there going to focus on a counterterrorism campaign. in other words, train the afghan counterterrorism force as opposed to the entire army. we saw some successes with that in iraq. and there could be the same kind of things going on in afghanistan. i think that's what general nicholson is proposing. >> peter bergen, it seems like the afghan commando forces that general hurtling have talked about, they have had the most successes against the taliban. but just in terms of training the afghan national army, training the national police force, it seems like there's been a lot of talk about that, a lot of money put into it.

and still, the same problems seem to exist year after year after year. >> well, yeah, the afghan commandos, which are about 20,000 in number, are doing disproportionate amount of the fighting and dying. to add what general hurtling said, another thing coming out of the speech is a line i've heard from inside the trump administration is their biggest criticism of the obama administration in this regard was the fact that when president obama announced a surge of troops into afghanistan december 1st, 2009, a significant surge of 30,000 troops, he also announced the withdrawal date. you and i were at cnn reporting on this at the time. and the crawl on cnn even before the speech was delivered was the withdrawal date. so the news became the withdrawal date, not the surge. of course, that affected the taliban calculation, the regional players' calculation. what i would expect out of tonight is that president trump

will not make some kind of announcement about a date certain withdrawal. >> jim, one of the things when you talk to village elders in small little villages in afghanistan, which, you know, with the marines in helmand province and elsewhere, they say, we're on the fence because we're not sure how long america's commitment is. i imagine it's still an argument how long the commitment is. president trump early on has been saying, we need to pull out. how long are we going to be there. >> time and numbers, certainly there's great fear there. i've run into the same thing, when you talk to the village elders, students, men and women, they have the fear, will america walk away again. that's a fair question. but the numbers are really key here as well. if you're talking about going from 8,400 troops that you have now to adding 4,000 or so, that's a 50% increase, but when you look at where troop levels have been in the past, in 2011 it peaked at 100,000 troops. president obama, when he had his

surge, it had the time limited, that was a surge in the tens of thousands. i remember being embedded with marines in helmand province when they had 30,000 troops and the marines were telling me, we don't have nearly enough people to cover this. look over on that hill over there, the taliban control that hill, right near and overlooking our base. so if you're adding 4,000, the mission is different. how do you take back a third of the country from the taliban. that's an open question. >> also, i remember there was all this talk about not just the military, this will be a multi-pronged thing. the state department will flood the zone with state department personnel to essentially donation building, which has now been done which the u.s. is not saying it's being done, but done on the backs of our military, which are not necessarily the ones who should be having to do this alone without any backup from the state department. >> that's right. i think many people in the american military today, or people who are retired would say that there can't just be a

military solution here. i think what many people are waiting to hear from trump tonight is what is that comprehensive strategy. we've heard a little reference to reconciliation in that process with the taliban. that should be probably be a part of his speech to lay out a comprehensive strategy. what is the broader south asia strategy, how are you going to get these other countries engaged, what will be the difference. and in terms of what we do here, as the united states, the budgetary proposed cuts, the fact that tillerson and the trump administration have not fully staffed and put people in place. this is a place where we could really see an impact of that. >> nick, you were just in helmand province, talking to the marine commanders on the ground. in all the years you've been there, there's always been talk, pakistan needs to help more. most of their military is focused on the other border on india. and there's been complaints from u.s. forces for years about, you

know, militants crossing over the border in pakistan, the u.s. can't pursue them. it's not clear to me how things can be different now that the administration is saying, well, we're going to work closer with pakistan and get them to do more. >> i don't see how you can implement a regional strategy that suddenly changes the equations inside afghanistan. so the pakistanis recently did crack down on militants because they were feeling pressure from terror attacks. but they've been accused of softening of as of late. it will always be a safe haven inside the border across in pakistan. the taliban increasingly hold the territory there. they're looking amongst the youth in afghanistan to compete for recruits from isis who are more extreme. the idea of them suddenly coming to the negotiating table is far-fetched right now. their leader, his son reportedly gave his own life in a suicide

bombing in just the last month or so. this is extraordinarily hard line leadership, not looking to suddenly come to the table. they're winning, frankly, militarily. i think most people accept that at this stage. even the short-term gains. dying at a rate of about 30 a day at the moment. the short-term gains are often taken back by the taliban. it is a precarious situation, and one with no real original ideas left to play. during the obama administration, those tens of thousands of troops flooding the zone there, they brought trainers to the whole focus that the obama administration gave in their messaging, delivered at times that they were winning, they were getting those security forces ready. it simply wasn't the case. we saw ourselves again and again, once u.s. backing disappeared, those forces simply crumbled. the idea that you can boost potentially trainers, or the number of people on the ground and assist in that training, and suddenly see a radical change in the potency of the afghan

emergency forces, that's a little far-fetched. i think what we'll see today is a lot of rhetoric that trump has tried to keep a distance for himself in the past, but also really a strategy that's perhaps just enough to perhaps keep the disaster of the taliban sweeping into major cities of afghanistan from happening. but not something that's going to radically change the map here. because really, frankly, every idea has already been tried. and it hasn't worked. there's a reason why, anderson. they call it the graveyard of empires. >> mike, i want to play something that then candidate trump said in 2015 when asked about troop levels in afghanistan. >> do you believe american boots should stay on the ground in afghanistan to stabilize the situation? >> i wouldn't totally disagree with it, except at some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? you know, what's going on. it will be a long time. we made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. we had brilliant thinkers that

didn't know what the hell they were doing, and it's a mess. at this point you probably have to. because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave. just as i said that iraq was going to collapse after we leave. >> again, that he later said he was talking about iraq. he didn't understand the question was about afghanistan. mike, the president expected to ask americans to trust him on this new afghanistan strategy. i guess the question, there's questions about how much, i think jen made the point, how much is he going to own this, that this is about winning. you heard what he said as a candidate. he called it a mess. the u.s. made a terrible mistake getting involved in the first place. many of the trump voters like that he didn't want to ramp up engagement in overseas conflicts. >> well, a lot of the trump voters liked that he was going to be strong, that he looked like he would be a candidate and he's proving as president that he would have a strong approach to these issues, whereas we've seen weakness from president obama. we don't know right now what our

policy is in afghanistan. he inherited this situation. it was interesting hearing jen say he's got to lay out how he's going to handle southeast asia. i would challenge anybody to describe what our policy was that he inherited from the obama administration. what i find very interesting is nick saying, sort of oh, we've already tried everything. there's a general on the ground there, nicholson, who doesn't believe that and who has a plan. the president's going to listen to him. i think you're seeing what's consistent from the campaign to what's going on now is the president has taken some time, he inherited the situation and he's now going to lay out his plan to be successful. it will be based on what the generals on the ground are telling him. it will show strength and it will show aggressiveness with our allies. i think that's a really important step for the country and for our success in afghanistan. >> general hurtling, he said nicholson had the