give it to them. >> i can't afford to give it to them. >> disagrees, but watering understands the blue dog rationale. >> they're pretty right wing, and that's pretty typical of most moderate, be it republicans or democrats, in this area. he needs to do that because that's where the problems lie. >> john king will be back here next week. i'm jessica yellin in washington. have a great sunday. this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you around the world. we have a great show for you today. the next president of afghanistan, the iran and the global economic recovery. first afghanistan. july was by far the deadliest month for the international

coalition since the war in afghanistan began in 2001. more than 60 million american and british troops were killed. how do we staunch the blood flow? talking to the taliban, reconciling and even buying them over to our side is something we've discussed on this show. it is something i have long been a proponent of. this week i think i heard the strongest endorsement yet from two crucial players. a speech on monday for the afghan government needs to, quote, rank in file taliban soldiers and give them reasons to switch sides. later in the week, u.s. secretary of state hilary clinton seemed to agree. she commanded the important nato speech and said it's consistent with the united states. so why isn't it happening? meanwhile, the top u.s. commander in afghanistan, stanley mcchrystal, is expecting to ask for additional troops and equipment. that request will first land on

the desk of secretary of defense robert gates. listen to what gates said in april when he and i talked about troop numbers. >> i have been quoted as accurately as saying i have real reservations about significant further commitments of american military to afghanistan beyond what the president has already approved. >> but that means that a year from now, six months from now, you are unlikely to approve a request for additional troops in afghanistan. >> i would be a hard sell, there is no question about it. and i've not made a secret of that either publicly or in government meetings. >> so it appears that he has now changed his mind. in recent days, gates said he is waiting to see mcchrystal's request, but if needs are

demonstrated, he would be open to sending more troops. while all these forces gather, a crucial events will occur in afghanistan in a few weeks. on august 20, the country will go to the polls for the first ever contested election. they led the country shortly after the fall of the taliban in 2001. his own popularity has dipd substantially. could a new afghan president change the die nynamics of the country? will he be more friendly or less friendly with the west, and what will it mean to the taliban? coming up in a minute, a presidential debate of sorts. i will talk to the two candidates with a greater chance of karzai's recent hopes. and what exactly is the governor doing in iran?

ashfar ghani complained about it. let's get started. now, first up in our face-off of the afghan candidates who hope to unseat karzai is ashraf ghani. he was in the columbia university, he has a phd. he's been a guest on our program before, so i welcome him back. mr. ghani is coming to us from a tent in kabul. welcome, ashraf. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be with you. >> ashraf, begin by telling us what you think went wrong with karzai's government. what happened? >> he turned out to be a very

poor manager in the sense that he couldn't deal with issues in a manner that met response to the needs and aspirations of the people and create momentum. the other side is tolerant for corruption that grew into massive disease, into a cancer that's eating to the society, and then the poor quality of governors. the people he has appointed where today the heart of insurgency is. these are people that have failed to govern before, and it was their bad behavior that has given rise to the taliban. >> you said recently to george packer of "the new yorker" that shakespeare is sometimes the best guide to what happened in afghanistan. what did you mean by that?

>> the palace is full of intrigues. it's all about tactical play, who gets closer to the king. the style of karzai is created in the palace is much more like medieval where the intrigues all around. somebody gets close in order to outmaneuver somebody else. all is a game of pretension. he does not understand that he is being fooled. so it's there where we're really getting the sense of shakespe e shakespearen tragedy. it truly is tragic. afghanistan did not need to become what it has become, the sixth most corrupt government according to the index, the second failed state, the center

of draft production, but most significantly, a place of disenchantment of the population with this government. >> you said something very significant. you said that he has restored the taliban. so you believe that the failure of governance is at the heart of the taliban and not some idealogy that it's refueling this insurgency? >> i've talked to a lot of people where the heart of insurgency is. again and again, their story comes to one thing. an injustice that could no longer be tolerated and force them to active resistance. they point out its effect during the first three years, there was no insurgency. the taliban disappeared. they became ordinary men and women and some went away.

so 80% of what's happening in afghanistan is due to bad government. >> lots of people are advocating some kind of national reconciliation, talking to the taliban, reaching out. i've written about it, the foreign secretary of britain recently gave a speech advocating it. it doesn't seem to really be happening in afghanistan. is that because karzai is not making the effort? is it because so far the taliban are not responding? >> how would they trust in his word when we were his closest colleagues at one time can not trust in his word? the president changes his mind on an hourly basis save a daily basis. he makes policy on the hook. first we need to get a cease-fire. this is not going to be an easy issue, but we need to try

everything possible so we can build a cease-fire, and once we have a hint of a cease-fire, then we can discuss an issue of an exit date for national forces. those of the united states are not here to build an empire. they are here to create a stable afghanistan that would be a source of stability to the region. so we had an organic basis for a partnership between the afghan people who strive for nothing else but stability, peace and prosperity in the national community. but we have not had an afghan leadership that can credibly represent the wishes and aspirations of the people to the national community and take the kind of action that would establish the political

framework for lasting peace and a just order. >> what do you think of the obama administration and its strategy towards afghanistan? is it an improvement on the bush years? >> there is a very good team from the president himself to general jones at the national security council, secretary clinton and ambassador i eikenberry. this is a team of stability. i think the team of afghanistan, the act of courage and determination, we need to help them gain credible momentum so his commitment can be appreciated and the american public can be persuaded that the commitment was wise, timely and

effective. >> ashraf ghani, we thank you very much for taking the time in the midst of a campaign and sitting there in a tent in afghanistan for joining us. thank you. >> it's a pleasure to be with you, and it's an honor. >> i think the previous administration are sort of having a blind date with bush and karzai. so what do you think?

i think i'll go with the basic package. good choice. only meineke lets you choose the brake service that's right for you. and save 50% on pads and shoes. meineke.

now we have abdullah abdullah. he was the one-time foreign minister of afghanistan with strong ties to the u.s. he was a key figure in the northern alliance, the opposition group that helped the united states stop the taliban in the days after 9/11. welcome, sir. >> thank you. >> let me ask you, do you see president obama's approach to afghanistan as one that is better than president bush's? how are you reading the new administration in washington? >> i think the previous administration in the united states was sort of in a blind date with mr. karzai and continued to the end. then they realized the partner is not sincere and cannot deliver to its own people.

i think the new administration is a new beginning and a new approach to many issues, including afghanistan, and afghanistan gave us hope as a result of the elections that there will be another opportunity for working together in order to make afghanistan stablized as well as to test the needs of the afghan people, and the concern in the hopes of the united states helping us. >> there are a number of people who have argued that the united states, and most importantly, the afghan government, should be talking to the taliban, trying to get members of the taliban to switch sides, to isolate the hard-core employments and broaden the base of support for the afghan government. you have called the current efforts of reconciliation a

joke, quote, unquote. so what's wrong with the way we are trying to talk to the taliban now, and how would do it differently? >> the current administration is losing the people, and because of the dissatisfaction of the people towards the government, the current administration is losing the people. and that trend has to reverse before anything else could happen. next to that, there are thousands and thousands of people who have joined the ranks of insurgency because of other issues rather than taking the taliban through the process. there are thousands of people which have joined the insurgency because of other reasons. by taking those reasons out, you can take a further step towards

national reconciliation. >> mr. abdullah, you have worked with the president karzai. you were the first foreign minister. what do you think of him as a leader? what are the flaws ma tthat leau to feel you must challenge him in this election? >> our hopes were he would be a fair leader and take action in the beginning where the whole afghan nation joined hands in supporting the afghan people as well as the process. he has turned his leadership -- a golden opportunity has turned into today's situation, which is a disappointment, an utter disappointment. so i am disappointed, but i should mention i didn't vote for him in the election despite the

fact i was the foreign minister, and i have told him i have not voted for him for certain reasons. because i could see that he is leading country towards the wrong direction, which is today's situation. in today's situation, afghanistan should be more stable, democratic institutions should be functioning better, and the corruption issue, we should end up being on the top of the list, and many other issues, including the failure to deal with the insurgency. >> let me ask you finally, mr. abdullah, if you are elected president of afghanistan, what would be the first thing you would do to signal to the afghan people that there is a new administration in place? what would be your first act as president of afghanistan? >> i think the first thing is about the message. what is my message to the people of afghanistan? it is a message of change and a message of hope. i will not promise to the people

of afghanistan anything that i will not be able to deliver. the main issue is the show of mistrust. it is, unfortunately, very high and very serious. so to change that, an honest message that this leadership would be a disservice of the people of afghanistan rather than a gain which is benefitting from the hardship which has been imposed upon the people of afghanistan or from the billions and billions of dollars which has been thrown into afghanistan in the name of supporting afghanistan and the afghan nation. it would be hard for people to believe any future leader because they will judge it against the current situation, but an honest approach for the

people, the people who give you time will assist you and it will come in the first day. >> abdullah abdullah, thank you so much for joining us. >> you're welcome. (pouring rain) i had a great time. me too. you know, i just got out of a bad relatio... it's okay. thanks. goodnight. goodnight. (door crashes in, alarm sounds) get out! (phone rings) hello? this is rick with broadview security. is everything all right? no, my ex-boyfriend just kicked in the front door. i'm sending help right now. thank you.

(announcer) brink's home security is now broadview security. call now to install the standard system for just $99. the proven technology of broadview security system delivers rapid response from highly-trained professionals, 24 hours a day. call now to get the $99 installation, plus a second keypad installed free. and, you could save up to 20% on your homeowner's insurance. call now-- and get the system installed for just $99. broadview security for your home or business - the next generation of brink's home security. call now.

now for a what in the world segment. here's what got my attention this week. it's rare that a set of statistics make news, but the release of this month's price index was the report of the new lead story in both "the new york times" and the "wall street journal." why? the industry showed the decline in the market would soon be ended and the recession would soon end. the decline of the housing market has been the single largest cause of the crisis, and its end could well be the beginning of a recovery. when you're trying to understand your way out of the recession, the single most important question is will the average american start shopping again? i know you've heard about china, brazil, the european trade, but as a share of the world economy, the american consumer is

currently equal to the total economy of china plus india doubled. so when governments around the world are spend ag lot of money, they will not be able to do that indefinitely. at some point the american consumer has to get back into the market. so is he or she doing that? well, we don't really know that. the housing data is good news, and actually, most recoveries begin with recovery of the housing markets followed by automobiles, appliances and then other consumer categories. but many experts argue that this is not an ordinary recession and will not be an ordinary recovery. the consumer went deep into debt over the last ten years, is slowly paying that off and won't get easy credit any time soon. the optimists point out, on the other hand, that the american savings rate is already back up to 7%, which is close to its 30-year average. the pessimists say yes, but americans are going to be very cautious now and save more in

the face of the uncertainty and hard times they foresee. so the key so understanding whether and when we will experience a real economic recovery around the globe lies not in the set of hard economic facts but a very soft question. when will americans feel confident and secure enough about the future that they will start spending again? is it when the savings rate is 8%, 9%, 12%? the fate of the global economy rests on the answer to what is ultimately a question of human psychology. and we will be right back. i think what we're doing is reporting what they prefer the people not know. that's what annoys the government and it's nothing like espionage, we don't send out codes or anything like that.

. here are the latest headlines right now. the remains of the first

american lost in the persian gulf war 18 years ago has been found and positively identified. military officials say they belong to navy captain scott spiker. spiker's jet was shot down on the first night of the 1991 war. we hear about this unexpected recovery. >> reporter: what the pentagon is telling us is that they were acting on information provided by an iraqi sicitizen in early july, and that led the u.s. marines stationed in western iraq to go to a location in the desert which was believed to be a crash site of captain spiker's jelt. >> for 18 long years, spiker's friends and family didn't know if the navy pilot was dead or alive, and there was always the possibility he was being held captive. here's what a former class mate had to say after learning spiker

had in fact died in iraq. >> it's a bittersweetenedi endi. it's great we finally accomplished an ending, but it's bittersweet. if he was found alive, look what he's missed. his children are in college now, and what kind of life would he have led being a prisoner of war, and there was always speculation that he was tortured and beaten, so like i said, it's bittersweet. >> the u.s. state department says it's gathering information in assisting the families of three hikers deemed miss ng iran. the americans were arrested after entering the country illegally from iraq's outside region. we now know the identity of one of the hikers. he is joshua fatal, and he lives in this house outside

pennsylvania. cnn spoke with his mother. >> my husband and i are eager for the best welfare and conditions for our son josh and for the other two companions he's with. and that is our only concern, his welfare and the best conditions for him. >> and on to canada now where one person was killed and as many as 75 others injured when a stage collapsed during an outdoor concert in alberta. the organization of the four-day festival has canceled today's events. now back to fareed zakaria gps in a moment.

welcome home, man.

the iranian officials like to say that the united states and great britain are interfering in their internal affairs, that in some manner the west is responsible for the wrangling of the disputed elections. just last week, a conservative iranian man made this charge. >> right now you have almost 40 television channels in persia

basically funded by the american government and the european governments or in some cases owned which have played a very negative role in the past few weeks, turning people against one another. >> it is, of course, an absurd accusation. the iranian people are angry at what they see as a fraudulent elections, not because of something they saw on tv or heard on the radio. but it does raise the question, what tools are western countries using to figure out or influence what is going on in iran? is it propaganda, is it espionage? joining me to talk about this from washington, john mclaughlin, the former deputy director of the cia. from berkeley, california, robert barrett, a former case officer for the cia, and from prague, john o'sullivan, the executive editor of radio for

europe. the charge is directed at people like you who are broadcasting from outside iran, beaming it into iran, and there are many. what are you doing that is getting iranian government so rild up? >> i think what we're doing is reporting news that they would prefer the people not know. and we are acting in a way like domestic broadcaster for the iranian people. although i'm the executive editor for the entire organization, our iranian service is staffed entirely by iranian journalists, and they are doing what afternon iranian journalist would be doing if you had free television or free newspapers in iran. that's what annoys the government and it's nothing to do whatever with espionage. we don't send out coded messages or anything like that, we simply report the news and we provide a forum for debate among iranians.

on both those counts, free debate, the government doesn't like it. >> so you don't encourage people to go out and demonstrate or protest against government? >> no, we don't directly do anything like that. of course, if we report, for example, that people have been shot or killed while demonstrating, it might have the effect that some people will then respond by being in dig anato nant by turning against government or perhaps demonstrating themselves. we do say it is severe and people who decide to join in the demonstrations are taking a risk. we prefer people stay at home. >> john, you saw this play itself out in the former soviet empire. how powerful are these tools of information technology, information warfare, some people

call it? >> they were powerful tools during the cold war, fareed, but that was a time when we didn't live in the media-saturated environment of today. i don't think those kind of tools are as important to espionage as they once were, and while i don't know what the u.s. government is doing at the moment on this, i strongly doubt there is anything that would justify the charges coming out of iran. in fact, looking at iran today, i think the reputation for this is in iran itself, not only the street demonstrations that are so evident in the world media but also i think what is most striking and what the iranians should be more worried about is not what outsiders may be doing but what insiders are doing and saying. the most striking thing to me in the last couple weeks has been the degree to which we see splits developing within it rainian government. we see conservative newspapers

criticizing the government, we see the grand ayatollah who has scolded the republican guard for its treatment of protestors, friday's sermon by ralph sinjani made it very clear that he's upset with the way the government handled the situation. they have asked for a referendum. there are splits between the intelligence, the ministry and the republican guards. these are not things you influence with propaganda or with media piped into the country. these are things that develop when a country like iran is confronted with some of the choices it now faces and some of the engagement strategy that's come out of the obama administration, i think, has obliged people within the country to think about their options, and as a consequence of that, fractures have developed. >> do you think the offers of engagement by obama have been useful in that they have

complicated the life of the iranian regime? >> i do. i felt this for a long time. because clearly iran is not a monoli monoli monolithic society and not at the top, either. so when obama offers thoughts about the future and the future relationship with the united states, i think unlike a circumstance in which you are not engaging them and in which the iranians are simply cast you as a great satan, when they're confronted with choices, they use their heads and they have differences among themselves. so it hopefully drives a wedge, i think, between some of the factions in iran. >> do you think this kind of appeal to nationalism that the iranian regime is trying to employ works? that is to say, we may say look, this is absurd, obviously the west is not involved. but iran is a proud country, traditionally a country of

nationalism. might it be true that the united states and britain have interfered in the past? as you probably well know, one of the great best-selling books in iran is called "my uncle napoleon," and it's basically a book about how the brits actually control everything that's going on in the country? so does it work when they say, you know, it's all this western interference that's causing our problems? >> fareed, no, i don't think it works. regime has certainly made these charges against the demonstrators and the leadership of the opposition, but what we have to remember is mousavi and others were all extremely close to khamenei. they have impeccable credentials. they were there at the beginning of the revolution, many of them were there in exile with khamenei. they are not susceptible to

charges they're taking money from the cia or outside. i think when they made these charges right after the election was disputed on 12 june, they fell absolutely flat, and they arrested the british employees at their embassy in tehran. that fell flat as well. it was a strategy that's failed, and i agree with john completely. we see these cracks inside the regime which, frankly, for me two months ago were unthinkable. this has come out of nowhere, and yet what we're really seeing is many of the ayatollah's people are coming out against khamenei as well as ahmadinejad. >> what do your analysts tell you? you had many from iran. are we in a pre-revolutionary situation in iran? >> we are in a pre-revolutionary situation that could continue for a long time because we've seen splits in the regime at every level which we couldn't really have imagined before.

but why have we seen them? they emerge because the regime itself made the colossal mistake of blatantly rigging an election when one of the things which is important to its survival and success was the idea that there was a democratic element to it. the result was the people came out onto the streets, tlfhere w a genuine resistance. they forced people like mousavi to leave it in a more dramatic situation than intended. i think what will happen is a loosening of the regime in the long term, even if the president succeeds. whether or not he succeeds, i think we're going to see more people, more factions at all levels of society demanding the right to express their view and gradually gaining that right. and that is going to open up all sorts of opportunities, although i think for the moment it's not going to have a great deal of

impact on the diplomatic relationship between the united states and iran. >> gentlemen, we will be right back. we'll be back with john mclaughlin, robert baer and john o'sullivan. >> what i think happened sent shock waves through the region as well as iran that it no longer has the standing it had and it no longer seems like this force that cannot be stopped in the region.

we are back with john mclaughlin, the former deputy director of the cia, john baer and john o'sullivan. john mclaughlin, do you believe there are important rifts within the iran regime? and do you think this is significant in a broader sense? >> the iran republic is one of the great survivors of the last three decades, so i think we should not under estimate the e

resillience of the regime. but i don't think these things can be papered over as it was before the election. it's impossible to know at this point where ilts goit's going, may look like a year from now, but i think it's fair to say iran will never be the same again. just, for example, how we thought of iran, say, two years ago when the united states was pinned down in iraq, when israel was fighting hezbollah to a standstill in lebanon, iran at that point seemed like a colasus forming in the region. its prestige was high. what happened in the aftermath of this election, i think, sent shock waves through the region as well as iran, so it no longer has the standing it had and it no longer seems like this force that cannot be stopped in the

region. it has been weakened in that respect in terms of its regional posture. in a way it gives the united states a lot of openings it didn't have before, openings with regional partners in the gulf and elsewhere, the middle east. it gives us openings to throw proposals in there that they have to think about and disagree with, although i think the prospects of stopping this nuclear program are very low. >> talk about that for a minute, john. what would you do? a weakened economy, weakened government? would you try to strike a deal in getting a good bargain, as it were? >> the argument can be made that because they feel weakened and they have a sense of legitimacy in the region that they may be open to proposals they would have rejected some time ago. i think that's a thin read, though, personally. my sense is that the belief, the conviction that they need and

want and deserve a nuclear program of some sort, this is not unique to me, it's widely held that this is a broadly ira. so i think the united states at this point has to be thinking about three options. one is extreme diplomatic -- extremely intense diplomatic engagement to exploit the situation, and hopefully movement toward some consensus with us on this. problem there is you've got to have the russians and chinese on board, and i think the russians would have a very high price. second option that people don't take off the table is a military option. frankly, i think it's a horrendous option. i think it would have horrible consequences that would be -- lead to proxy retaliation on the part of iran's proxies and kind of an endless struggle that no one needs. and the third option, which is almost unthinkable but which people really need to be

thinking about, is what if we can't stop them? how do we manage an iranian nuclear -- a nuclear iran? so there are no great options here, i don't think. but i believe the united states hand is somewhat strengthened in pursuing the diplomatic option in these circumstances. >> bob, let me ask you about a very important point that john mclaughlin made i thought, which is it does appear or at least one can speculate that the current events have weakened iran's influence in the region. you remember a few months ago, what everyone was concerned about was that iran had emerged as the great new power in the region. its hand had been strengthened in iraq with its proxies, in lebanon through hezbollah, in the palestinian areas through hamas, and on the arab street there was a general feeling ahmadinejad and the iranian regime were the great proponents

of the great arab cause, that is, the cause of palestine. looking at things today, do you think iran's current troubles have weakened its proxies and its informal or soft power in the region? >> i think we should watch that. remember in 1981, when there were car bombs going off in tehran, when there was truly a violent struggle for power. more violent than it is now. iran was just getting under way its revolutionary message. a year later it was coming into lebanon. right in the middle of the iran/iraq war. iran continues to export its message even when things aren't well at home. you look at yesterday and the last couple of days. clearly there was an iranian hand in iraq in raid is the mujahadin camps, the opposition require think whatever government comes into power in tehran, even if ahmadinejad

resigns or something dramatic happens like that, he will fight anyone who replaces him, will want to make sure iran goes in the way iraq needs to, even if we withdraw troops. an aggressive irare raun, we shouldn't count it out. >> john o'sullivan, let me ask a simple note. which is, have many of the people you would have worked with on the ground in iran been intimidated, harassed, arrested? what is the status of people who have done some of the on the ground reporting for you in iran? >> well, i think you know yourself from the -- from youtube, from sms messages and so on, that aun awful lot of the stuff that's coming out to us and later through us comes from citizen journalists there. many of those, of course, have been arrested, beaten up, attacked. some of our reporters actually described to us what happened to

them physically. but i think it's important to know that there is a very large reserve of people who come back either as professional journalists or as citizen reporters and are prepared to keep getting this message out. and before one begins to despair about the power of authoritarian governments in this regard, i think we should look at today's need from moldova. only a few weeks ago aelection wan apparently stolen. there was a new election today which has produced a defeat for the government. when we look at the battle between, so to speak, democratic crowds and authoritarian governments, it's far from certain that authoritarian governments are winning that battle. and in the case of iran, i think that although they will probably sustain themselves in office for some time, they will not have the power that they had previously and they're having to -- they're going to have to make more and more concessions,

both to their rivals within the ruling clique and also to the crowds on the street, in order to be able to sustain themselves. and while they're doing that, they're not in the confident position of being able to export revolution on the one hand, or to continue some aggressive domestic policy on the other. i do think this battle on the streets in tehran and other -- certainly in other iranian cities does have in some sense a restraining effect on the ability of the regime to cause trouble outside because it's simply compelled to pay attention, to make some concessions, and to pay regard to what's going on in the streets. >> john o'sullivan from prague. robert baer. john mclaughlin. thank you all very much. >> thank you, fareed. >> thank you. some lunch.

you hungry? yeah. me too. (door crashes in) (broadview alarm) (gasp and scream) go! go! go! go! go! go! (phone rings) hello? this is mark with broadview security. is everything okay? no. someone just tried to break in. i'm sending help right now. thank you. (announcer) brink's home security is now broadview security. call now to install the standard system for just $99. the proven technology of a broadview security system delivers rapid response from highly trained professionals, 24 hours a day. call now to get the $99 installation, plus a second keypad installed free. and, you could save up to 20% on your homeowner's insurance. call now - and get the system installed for just $99. broadview security for yop- home or business - the next generation of brink's home security. call now.

and now for our question of the week. last week i asked you whether we

are nearing the end of the recession. are we seeing the light at the end of the tunnel? it was a pretty close vote but the majority of you actually said no. one viewer who did not give his name turned our cliche inside out to make a point. is the light at the end of the tunnel actually that? or is it the headlight of an oncoming freight train? now for this week i want to know, who would you vote for in the afghan election? the incumbent, hamid karzai, or one of the win i spoke of today? abdullah or ghani? as always i'd like to recommend a book. "free: the future of a radical price." by chris anderson, when says sometimes the best price for your book, music, art, or your magazine is, well, free. now, as an author, as a magazine editor, somebody who puts out a tv show, this scares me. but he makes a very compelling argument. it's a very t