>> a gorgeous hermes bag a birkin, for $64,800, not once but every single year for the next ten years, to which they will say to the republican party, "thank you very much." >> congressman grayson first made headlines a while back describing republican health care reform as a die quickly plan. grayson was defeated earlier this month and i think we're going to miss him. thanks for watching "state of the union." up next for our viewers in the united states "fa read zakaria, gps." welcome to all of you in the united states, and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. this week a crucial debate that will determine whether the united states can finally set its economy on a course of long-term stability and growth. we've got short term problems with this recovery, mainly because consumers remain cautious and mired in debt. the government can only do so

much and only for so long to boost the economy through spending and tax cuts and low interest rates. fundamentally the u.s. government has to create an economic climate that convinces consumers and investors and businesses that america is open for business. and that means getting our house in order. the fiscal reform commission appointed by president obama has presented a set of proposals from its two chairs, republican alan simpson and democra democrat erskine bowles. i don't agree with all of them but there's enough to begin a conversation to lead to a compromise to finally set the u.s. an a sound fiscal course. the problem is simple. americans have an appetite for government benefits that greatly exceeds our appetite for taxes. for over a generation, we've closed this gap by borrowing lots. but over the next decades that becomes impossible. the gap becomes gargantuan.

over the next 75 years, the cost of entitlement programs exceed government revenues by $40 trillion. yes, that's trillion. so the present path is unsustainable. what to do? the obvious answer is that we have to cut spending and raise revenue. each of us will prefer a different mix. in fact the "new york times" website has a nifty feature that you can open up and simply punch in the cuts in tax increases you would prefer to close that gap. i've made my choices and you can see them on our website, take a look and make your own choices. the commission's proposals are valuable in that they take on a number of issues that have been politically radioactive so far, advocating gas taxes, phasing out tax benefits for debt on our houses, cutting defense spending, and we need to be able to put everything on the table to make this work. the greatest danger is not in the economic realm. there are answers in the economic realm. it's in the political realm.

the political system is geared to destroy exactly such centrist proposals because the left and right tear it apart from each side, the moderates run scared and the problem stays unresolved. that's what happened with immigrati immigration, for example. the only problem is, this is our biggest national problem. unattended, the costs spiral, the politics get worse and the fiscal condition of the united states becomes more and more dangerous. i write about all this in greater detail in my column in "time" magazine. check it out online and in print and you can also see an opposing view on the same issue from joe klein, who is a good friend, a bright man but of course on this issue, simply wrong, in my humble opinion. we have a great show for you today. first up, a rare glimpse of iran's world view from a fascinating source. the larigiani family have been called the kennedys of iran. mohammed came to the thun week to defend his nation's human rights record at the u.n.

he'll talk to bus that and much more. is iran ready to come to the table with the u.s.? then what in the world? a government plan that worked. part two. next, the u.s. and nato say combat operations in afghanistan should end in 2014. should it happen? can it happen? we'll ask a terrific panel. let's get started. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com mohammed larijanis comes from one of the most powerful family in iran. they head two of the three branches of iran's government called by the larijanis. their father was a very influential grandayatollah. mohammad is a math ma trigs, former parliamentitarian, former

foreign minister now among other things the head of the country's human rights commission. that brought him to new york thork to defend his country's human rights record at the u.n. larijani is a smart man from an influential family often at odds with president mahmoud ahmadinejad. you'll want to hear what he has to say not just on human rights but democracy in iran, the nuclear issue and relations with the united states. welcome, mr. larijani. >> thank you very much. >> let us talk about the reason you're here. there is a u.n. resolution condemning iran for human rights. you have been involved in human rights for a long time. what do you say to the world when they look at iran's record on human rights and seem appalled? while this is the right question and the right time, this democracy, which is unique in the middle east, in fact the

greatest democracy in the middle east led iran less than 30 years to be a prominent country, in science, technology, political influence. so i think this is a very basic issue for us. when we look to the human rights, we see it in the way that this pursuit of countries like the united states and a number of europeans as way way to put political pressure on iran because they don't like such an erection of democracy. >> but the condemnations are not just from the united states and they're not just from governments. they're human rights watch, amnesty international, you go to almost any impartial human rights organization and they will point out executions, stonings, amputations, political prisoners. this is fairly well-documented.

>> well it's not well documented. it's a kind of media blitz of what the issue of human rights but the allegations are not well-founded, or it is ill-founded. the famous one, a lady condemned to capital punishment, involved in illegal relations with another person. she received capital punishment, but our legal system in the case of capital punishment that it has a lot of check and balances. it is right now going through the check and balances, while there is a chance that it should be lessened, the punishment, or not, this is dependent on the -- >> let me interrupt. the difference as i understand it is not clear that the woman actually murdered her husband at all. this was a later charge. she's been condemned to death by stoning which is a cruel and unusual punishment. >> okay.

>> and as far as until the western outcry, frankly, there was no process of review that anyone was aware of. so it does seem very different and in addition, you have hundreds more executions per capita than any country really outside of one or two in the world. >> well let this -- >> this is an unusual case. >> let us -- >> stoning a woman to death, burying her up to her head and trying to prolong the pain as long as possible, you regard this as a compatible with the modern world? >> first of all, you should be aware that the stoning is a very rare punishment for the extreme case of crimes which involve extreme adulterous case. it is an extreme criminal structure. let's go to the notion of cruelty. cruelty is a notion which is very much a cultural relative. you know, consider in new york,

berlin and london, if police is coming, some people cry that there is something damaged to their body of the puppy but at the same time, governments are tolerated who kill hundreds and thousands of children elsewhere in the world. so you see, this is not cruelty and the other is cruelty. we think punishment is cruel. it doesn't matter how to kill. if it's executed by gas, executed by injection, by guillotine or by sword, it is cruel. the idea is that what is the rationale of the punishment. >> historically you don't flog people to death anymore. you regard that as cruel and unusual. you're saying it doesn't matter if at the end of the day if you inflict punishment it's all the same? >> no, punishments are quite different. i want to say that cruelty is a notion which is not absolute.

it could be cruelty in one society and in other it is not cruel as it perceived in the other >> let me ask you it democracy. you say iran say flourishing democracy but not a liberal democracy. i want to see what you mean because many of us look at iran and we see a country where there is a kind of facade of democracy, but you have a screen progress cess which effectively rules out any serious political opposition. because anyone who wishes to run who is not approved by the guardian council cannot run for elections, even then when you have people who run for elections the vote tallies have been questioned by many, many independent authorities and indeed by millions of iranians. this is not my view, but millions of iranians thought the last election was fraudulently conducted and calculated and now many of those people, the

leaders of the so-called green movement are either under house arrest or have been in various ways persecuted. that's a democracy? that's a model for the middle east? >> well, our democracy is as genuine as any other democracy. the latest election was, in fact, a great election in the sense that we had most time of the media devoted to the debates. every issue was quite clear. the decision of the people was exactly clear. 24 million voted for ahmadinejad about 12 million, 13 million voted for mousavmousavi. >> and the vote anounsed in places where the voting had not begun, 10 15rks minutes within the voting being over the announcements were ahmadinejad won by the large

margins >> no. >> you don't have computer votes. you were doing this by hands. in many places they were hand -- >> no, no, we have computer votes. in fact we check computer votes with the hand records as well. we do have them. i think other countries in the world consider the election was correct. >> no country considers that, sorry, that's simply not true. a lot of countries that reconciled themselves to it, but every independent observer got reports from iranians saying these were fraudulent. >> no, iranians, if -- >> there were millions of people on the street protesting in iran, not in the united states. >> protests is not strange for democracies. any democracy could have protests and dispute an election. in iran there were disputes about election obviously. how we could be a democracy without dispute? ? not dispute, it was over whether or not the election had been

manipulat manipulated. not dispute we woofer preferred one outcome. >> it was a general election, mr. zakaria. democracy needs to be strengthened and flourished, democracy needs culture. the great mistake of the green was they were carried away by the exploitation of the united states and western countries. it was an ugly scene thatoma and others sided with one of the candidates against the other. this was a great mistake of the green. this is the reason they lost even the popular support of the people. >> we will be right back with mohammad larijani. he says the iran and u.s. don't need to be enemies forever, when we come back. could you imagine normalization of relations with the u.s.? >> why not? why not? i mean, hatred and hostility is not authentic.

we think we should have good relation with all countries in the world. at northern trust, we understand... that while you may come from the same family... you know, son, you should take up something more strenuous. you have different needs and desires. - i'm reading a book. - what's a book? so we tailor plans for individuals, featuring a range of integrated solutions. you at your usual restaurant? son: maybe. see you tomorrow. stairs? elevator. to see how our multi-faceted approach... can benefit your multi-generational wealth, look ahead with us at northerntrust.com. [ but aleve can last 12 hours. mtylenol 8 hour lasts 8 hours. and aleve was proven to work better on pain than tylenol 8 hour. so why am i still thinking about this? how are you? good, how are you? [ male announcer ] aleve. proven better on pain.

(voice 2) how bad is it? (voice 1) traffic's off the chart... (voice 2) they're pinging more targets... (voice 3) isolate... prevent damage... (voice 2) got 'em. (voice 3) great exercise guys. let's run it again. who can change the world are the ones who want to. well, we want to.

and we invite you to join us. starting today, when you buy a chevrolet, we'll invest in renewable-energy, energy-efficiency, and tree-planting programs across america -- reducing carbon emissions by up to eight million metric tons over the next few years. and just one more way we can proudly say: "chevy runs deep." ♪ try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis.

we are back with mohammad larijani, the human rights commissioner of iran, one of his brothers is the speaker of parliament, another brother is the head of the judiciary. they have called the kennedys of iran. mohammed larijani is also a mathematician deeply involved in iran's nuclear program. all right let's talk about nuclear weapons and nuclear issues. does iran wish to -- is iran on track to build nuclear weapons? >> iran is on track to advance as a nuclear technology. nuclear weapon does not add to our security. it won't be an asset for our defense. it is mostly a liability for us. >> are you categorically ruling out the possibility? >> absolutely and categorically, iran's strategic interests and practical strategy is not to go

aever weap aafter weapons. >> why not find a way to clarify that and therefore have a different relationship with the international community? do you foresee a possibility of a deal? >> well, there are people on different perspectives. i am myself very optimistic. i think the sign of success will come from the moment that the western countries and the united states reach the position that they should live with an iranian capability which is not directed toward weaponry. >> but everybody from president obama to secretary of state clinton have informed that iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology. the issue is just the weapons. >> if they are really serious on that, but they are not serious, because the platform is obvious, is mpt. it has three pillars.

>> right, but let's just stay with whether or not you say you're optimistic. >> yes. >> why are you optimistic? do you think the -- >> the reason that i am optimistic is that the hostile policy of the united states on depriving iran from nuclear technology has failed, and it's failed drastically. our first -- >> wait a minute, but you have more and more sanctions against you every month. >> well, sanctions is not success. >> where is the optimism? where is the deal possible? i don't understand. >> well, the deal is obvious. if the united states reached this conclusion that let us work with a capable iran, i think this is a beginning of the success. >> do you think that in the next few years there is a likelihood of iran having direct conversations with the united states? >> well, this is up to the united states' administration. they are likely the most hostile

policy toward iran, politically, media, and even infiltrating within iran and sabotaging iran, supporting terrorist groups in iran. so for any common person who talks to the normalization relations with iran, the major question is what is the expectation of the united states? what do they want? why are they so much hostile to our iran? i think it's up to them. iran is not going to be a country to be ordered like some other countries for relations. >> but if the united states made an overture to have comprehensive negotiations on all issues with you, would iran accept? >> iran will very much welcome such a comprehensive discussion, which the reason for that is we are interested to bring the tension down in the region. it is in our basic national interest as well. >> could you imagine normalization of relations with the u.s.? >> why not?

why not? i mean, hatred and hostility is not authentic. we think we should have good relations with all countries in the world. so why not united states? there is nothing intrinsically bad in here. it is the policy and the continued policy and unfortunately persistent policy of the united states in hostility toward iran. this is the main blockade. >> and you will get rid of the death to the america chants and the ritual burnings and desecrations of the american flag and n iran? >> death to american chant is not death to america. it's death to imposing, is death to bringing country under pressure. it is death to superstition, so definitely nobody wants to have

death to a single country. it is not doet america. it is not death to the united states as such. >> that's what you say. >> what? >> that's what the chant says, this is a literary interpretation of it. >> no, no, the death means no more american intervention in iran. iran is an independent country. if they ared ready to deal with a strong iran, influential iran, on a legal base and just base, the doors are open. >> let me ask you another question in which there is much discussion. some iranian officials, particularly president ahmadinejad, have said things that have led many to believe that iran wishes to attack israel. can you say categorically that iran will, under no circumstances, launch an attack on israel? >> it is not in our interest to attack any country and we never did that. >> so when president ahmadinejad says israel should be wiped off

the map, what did he mean? >> well, what ahmadinejad has said is very clear-cut. he said the policies that israel is following, the policy of occupying, the policy of depriving the palestinians from their homeland, ethnic cleansing, this policy has failed. we consider this regime a grand failure. a grand unjustful act in the area. the souls s area. the souls ource of a lot of ten and the source of tension which the bridge of that is felt even in new york. what is the source of 9/11? the sad story which happened in here, more than 3,000 people lost their lives, well, the source is over there. the source of a lot of tensions and terrorists acts in the world is stemming from this point, and i think this approaches that the government of the united states,

one after another is following, giving a cart blanche to the jewish state, this is a continued mistake. >> mr. larijani. >> thank you very much. >> we will be right back. extraordinary craftsmanship. we fill them with amazing technology. and we fill them with inspired design. and now your chevy dealer wants to fill them with as much good will as we can. come see how chevy is giving more. right now, get no monthly payments till spring plus 0% apr financing and fifteen hundred dollars holiday allowance on most chevy models. see how your dealer is giving at facebook.com/chevrolet. you need to do the preventative things that you need to do for your heart health. for me, it means an aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. speak to your doctor.

[ heather ] businesses need a reliable financial partner. one who can stay in sync with their moves. my job at ge capital is to get bobcat all the financial and business support they need. we provide financing for every bobcat dealer in north america. together, we've rolled out over 100,000 machines to small businesses all over the country so they too can grow. ♪ ge capital. we're there for bobcat every step of the way. ♪

now for our "what in the world" segment. this was receipt markable scene at 9:30, thursday morning at the new york stock exchange. [ bell ringing ] the largest ipo in american history. the people revving that engine were executives of general motors, and they were about to raise $20 billion. let me remind you just how bad things have been for the car company. amidst the global financial crisis in november 2007, gm posted the biggest quarterly loss ever, a staggering $39 billion in the red. in the summer of '08, things

only got worse when gas hit $4 a gallon. shortly thereafter general motors looked at the books and warned the company might soon run out of cash, that's when we witnessed the infamous shot of the executives from the big three ngers on capitol hill pleading for emergency loans. in 2009 general motors was delisted off the new york stock exchange, and in the end, the u.s. government bailed out general motors with more than $50 billion taxpayer dollars, but restructuring the company worked. general motors has been steadily paying back the government's money to the tune of about $10 billion and that's before the ipo. it made $2 billion in the third quarter of this year, and every quarter of 2010 has been profitable. the company has said if trends continue, general motors will make $19 billion in pre-tax

profits this year. so the much derided government bailout saved an american icon rigorously restructured a company and brought it back to profitability in virtually no time at all. it also saved jobs, about 1 million of them, according to a new study from the center for automotive research, whichtallies with other estimates. and so as we enter thanksgiving week instead of constantly deriding the american government this should be a case where we should say thank you, something along the lines of warren buffett's thank you note to uncle sam for the t.a.r.p. published in the "new york times" this week. he says the company faced an extraordinary emergency, a destructive economic force unseen for any seen for generations. he said it was remark ababl aba effective actions. bad regulations, bad policies helped cause the financial

crisis. but sometimes government acts wisely, as well. and thank god in the depths of 2008, it did just that. and we will be right back. >> we spent billions on the afghan army and i was in helmand in 2009, didn't show up for that surge and they're not showing up for this surge. i don't know where the hell they are. it works...beautifully. neutrogena. [ commearlier, she hady vonn! an all-over achy cold... it works...beautifully. what's her advantage? it's speedy alka-seltzer! [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus rushes relief for all-over achy colds. the official cold medicine of the u.s. ski team. alka-seltzer plus.

i just wish that all of the important information was gathered together in one place. [ printer whirs ] done. ♪ thanks. do you work here? not yet. from tax info to debunking myths, the field guide to evolving your workforce has everything you need. download it now at thinkbeyondthelabel.com.

[ male announcer ] what does it take to excel in today's business world? our professors know. because they've been there. and they work closely with business leaders to develop curriculum to meet the needs of top businesses. which means when our graduates walk in the room, they're not only prepared... they're prepared to lead. devry university's keller graduate school of management. learn how to grow the business of you at keller.edu. >> ( creature inhaling ) >> ( branches breaking ) >> ( creature growling ) >> ( horse hoofs beating ) >> ( horse nickering ) >> ( train whistle blowing )

>> ( engine revving ) >> man: experience the power of progress. take advantage of exceptional new and certified pre-owned values during the season of audi event. 2014, that's when combat operations in afghanistan are now set to end, but afghan president hamid karzai wants to reduce millations operations before. that wha is the right strategy to end this war and not create bigger problems in the process? i've gathered a panel who come at this question in different ways. rachael reed is the afghanistan researcher for human rights watch. max boote, senior fellow at the council on foreign relations, writes on afghanistan and all kinds of defense issues and called in to advise general

petraeus, general mcchrystal and other key u.s. officials over the years and neo rosen, spent years in iraq and afghanistan reporting on america's wars there. welcome. so max, is ending the war really the right way to think about this in the first place? >> i think our goals should be not so much to end the war as to transition the war from our troops to those of the afghan national security forces and that's something which i think is eminently achievable by the 2014 deadline nato is putting out there. in the past couple of years you've seen the afghan security forces increase in size from about 150,000 to more than 250,000 and their quality has been going up because of more intensive mentoring and a closer working relationship with american troops. so that should be our goal, it should not be to make afghanistan as peaceful as switzerland. we don't have to. all we have to do is make it so the afghan government can defend its own territory. >> neo what's the problem with that vision?

>> on paper, you have 250,000 afghan troops, sure. in reality you have a fraction of that because of atrix and who is fighting and the best example is kandahar, billed as the most important battle ever in the war in afghanistan. who are we relying on? colonel abdul razak from the border police. a warlord very destructive brutal warlord. we've spent billions on the afghan army. i was in helmand in 2009, they didn't show up for this surge and not showing up for this surge. i don't know where they are. this is a political conflict and requires negotiating with the taliban. they're not anymore unsavory than the warlords we've empowered. instead of doing that, petraeus is ruling out negotiations and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where the taliban are pushed into the hands of al qaeda. there's no reason on earth for the u.s. to be in afghanistan.

al qaeda is not in afghanistan. >> some of the questions about government, the governance and rule of law, and too much focus on short term military gains, too much focus on handle over to the afghan security forces without looking at or trying to shape the political environment that underlies much of the conflict that we're seeing. i was just in kandahar a couple of weeks ago and looking into some more recent allegations of human rights abuses by razak and i think it sends a terrible message that this was a year the americans and nato, talking about going into kandahar and sorting out governance and look who their partner is, a man notorious for past human rights abuses, narcotics smuggling, a host of problems. and this is the man they're standing shoulder to shoulder with. >> a lot of the reason why we're dependent on the warlords and local power brokers is because we have not had a lot of our own troops in afghanistan. we've not been able to exert our own power and not put a lot of money and effort into training

the afghan security forces. both of those things are changing. the number of our troops surged from 30,000 in 2008 to 100,000 today and to the nir's point, how we shouldn't be fighting the guys, we should be negotiating. it's not either/or. the general realizes you have to fight them to set the preconditions for negotiating. and this is a point that was driven home to me by a nato officer in kabul who said you have to knock them on their backside before you offer them a helping hand up because if you reach out to them now they're going to slap you away. >> nir, when you traveled there and look at these people, one of the puzzles in afghanistan is that the taliban seems to be able to make inroads in large parts of the pashtun areas. even though there's not much support. they have 10, 15, 20, 25% support depending on what poll you look at and what area you look at.

then you look at the towns and the villages and the taliban is able to reseizeily come in and replace some karzai-backed government backed official. >> polls in afghanistan are nonsense. it's not the actual western polling companies who conduct the polls. they use afghan subcontractors, afghanistan is the most corrupt country on earth. people are sitting in their homes making up the answers. you can't conduct the polls in much of the country but yes it's true that the taliban aren't necessarily winning because they're beloved by people but because the government is losing and hated and the americans are hated as well. we are not a benign actor. we are as much a maligned actor as the warlords, dropping bombs on weddings, empowering warlords, arresting innocent men by the thousands and breaking into homes and special forces are killing pregnant women. the occupation is a brutal systematic imposition of violence. >> nir -- >> i want to hear what rachael has to say. >> a clear example of just this point, that nir is making, i was in kunduz in september.

gang rapes, murders, daily thefts and extortion and people have nowhere to turn to. if your district governor or police chief or district judge are connected to the same militia you have some cover that goes back to the cabinet or the vice presidency, then where do you turn? so one of these things that we say after in afghanistan, is that this kind of predatory behavior among the local government officials drives the insurgency, and in kunduz it's palable. >> there's no question there's predatory behavior driving the insurgency. we have not made a serious effort at nation building. we have not given afghanistan the attention it deserves and not given it the kind of resources we've given in the past to bosnia or kosovo or iraq or other countries and that's only now starting to change. and so we're training the afghan security forces, making a bigger push on governance, the number of u.s. civilian officials has gone up 300% in the past year. there's no question the abuses are a problem but now we have the resources to begin to address them in a way we didn't

before. pursuing the live footprint strategy for nine years. >> you made one point i think is pertinent which is when we have more stability, then, then we can do these things and that's been the mantra from the beginning. it's security first and justice later and i think we see the results of that at large across the country. >> in iraq it was oil and people wanted to control the state to get the resources. in afghanistan there are no resources except for american dollars. our presence is this corrosive presence which feels the conflict. the warlords want us to say there. everybody benefits from war. warlords using to protect the convoys, benefitting from us, karzai and his drug dealing brother are benefiting from us. the taliban demanding kickbacks from private security from different contractors to work in the areas are benefiting from us. our money is the main source, is the main cause of the conflict in the first place. all we want is more and more an more, more troops, more money. >> nir i agree with you there's corruption in afghanistan and a lot of the aid money is siphons

off with maligned actor. if we weren't there you'd see horrific civil war with kabul getting bombed every day and the taliban eventually taking over that, would happen again if our troops weren't there. >> we'll take a break and talk about what is likely to happen when we do start pulling back 2014, whether that's realistic and what afghanistan will look like after 2014. when we come back. >> it is something you hear very often in afghanistan, people's fear that there would be a return to civil war. ice 1) we've detected an anomaly... (voice 2) how bad is it? (voice 1) traffic's off the chart... (voice 2) they're pinging more targets... (voice 3) isolate... prevent damage... (voice 2) got 'em.

(voice 3) great exercise guys. let's run it again.

if anything, i thought i'd get hit by a bus, but not a heart. my doctor put me on an aspirin regimen to help protect my life. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. check with your doctor because it can happen to anybody.

i'm candy crowley and here are today's top stories. ireland plans to ask for an international bailout from its financial crisis. for more than a week the country has insisted it didn't need help. palestinian president mahmoud abbas says he will not resume peace talks with israel unless there's a freeze on the israeli set almosts in east jerusalem. israelie hardliners will reject any plan that calls for the halting of plans to settle. aids activists are praising pope benedict xvi for condoning the limited use of condoms. the pope says condom use may be morally acceptable to prevent the spread of aids. up next, much mores fareed zakaria gps" and then "reliable sources" interview with former president jimmy carter. ♪

[ male announcer ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah. riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks...

wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary. just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... [ male announcer ] e-trade. investing unleashed. [ male announcer ] an everyday moment can turn romantic anytime. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help

for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

we are back talking about afghanistan with raiched reed, max boot and nir rosen. max, if things go according to plan, we do transition, we do start passing stuff over to the afghan authorities 2014, what i'm not sure i understand is, why will some of this not simply start up again, that is the violence, because in afghanistan, in iraq, we were in effect backing the majority of the country in a civil war. they won. in afghanistan it's not quite that situation, because the taliban, which is the largest part of the country, is divided, the northern alliance is not going to go anywhere so it feels like there are still elements of a kind of john going civil war. we can repress it, you know, like putting a lid on it, but

when we leave, won't it all just bubble up again? >> it's note really a civil war, fareed. it's an intrapostune conflicts, probably about 42% of the population and even there a minority, as you.ed out yourself the public opinion polls suggest little overall support for the taliban. we can stand up, afghan national security forces, that are fairly robust, they're not necessarily going to eliminate the insurgency but they can tap it down to a fairly low level br i where it's not a threat to the integrity of the state. >> it is something you hear in afghanistan people's fear there would be a return to civil war and i think that unless you engage in a serious political reform and bring in accountability and start to marginalize some of the most abusive figures who head the differentette lick blocs i think it is a real risk and i think also in this move with the

internationalal hasty to get things done, we're be basically deal making rather than genuine reconciliation and that too is dangerous for long-term security. >> and what about the role of pakistan, which at the end of the day, the single most likely scenario seems to me if we pull back, won't they move forward? >> depends on how you pull back. you need to reach political accommodation. you have to reach a settlement with the taliban. you can't just kill them. there's no negotiation now, they're just killing them or attempts to do that. yes if you just suddenly withdrew from afghanistan you would have pakistan backing militias, with russia, china, iran, india, everybody would be backing militias. that would be terrible for the afghan people. i don't think it would affect american national security. >> why? explain. >> because i can't imagine any national security interest america has in afghanistan today. al qaeda was defeated in 2001 and 2002. al qaeda is not in afghanistan. it's in pakistan, yemen, in

internet cafes and slums around the world,et a symbol, motivation and inspiration but not some james bond villain planning and sponsoring operations around the world. >> i can't believe i'm sitting here listening to say you can't imagine what national security interest we have in afghanistan. think back to 2001 to remember why we're there because of at tacks on the world trade center and the pentagon which emanated from afghanistan. >> or from hamburg, germany or florida. >> it was planned from afghanistan the headquarters of al qaeda and it's true we succeeded in chasing the al qaeda headquarters across the border into pakistan. that doesn't mean they won't come back if we leave afghanistan. another huge consequence of our departure if we leave in a way that creates a vacuum for the taliban, for the terrorists, for all sorts of maligned actors, this will be claimed as a major victory for al qaeda in the same way they saw the departure of the red army in the 1980s as an inducement for further terrorism see americans leaving with our tails between our legs as an encouragement for more attacks

on us. >> people talked about prestige and loss after vietnam. we're still the only superpower in the world. >> rachel, what do you think about the underlying debate, what is the effect of american military actions in afghanistan, pakistan, there are those who say like nir you're creating more jihadis and anti-americanism and radicalism. when you see it on the ground what is the sense of people's reaction to the use of american military force? >> well i've done a lot of work on civilian casualties in afghanistan and it's been very true to say this has been the recruitment tool for the insurgency, the number of civilians being killed by u.s. and nato forces. i was in the main hospital of the south a couple of weeks ago interviewing the conflict related patients there, and every single one of the patients that i interviewed except for one ina soldier said their injuries were caused by american

bullets, american bombs, american mines. which is almost certainly not true because the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the taliban. it is notable despite their efforts to reduce civilian harm there is enough disruption and anger and hostility in some areas so battered by the conflict that still the americans are being blamed for it. >> and on that note we are going to have to stop. max boot, raceh reid, nir rosen thank you very much. we'll be right back. because of one word,

imagination and reality have merged. because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of one word, america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word... is how.

our question this week from the "gps challenge" which of the following was not added this week to the u.n.'s list of intangible heritages that are in need of preservation? is it a the spanish flamenco dancing, b, mexican tequila, c, french food, d chinese acupuncture. stay tuned. go to cnn.com/gps for ten more questions. while you're there don't forget to check out our podcast. subscribe to it on itunes and that way you will never miss a show and the price is of course zero. this week's book of the week is martin jack's "when china rules the world: the end of the western world and the birth of a new global order." the subtitle says it all. the book basically says we ain't seen nothing yet. china is going to change the western dominated world we are

all comfortable with. whether you agree with it or not this is a very forcefully written lively book full of provocations and predictions. now for the last look. after the recent u.s. elections, new york mayor michael bloomberg equipped the incoming class of congressional freshmen can't read. i don't imagine his honor meant that literally but down in brazil, there's a politician whos literacy is being questioned by prosecutors. ♪ the candidate in question is a clown. yes, an actual clown named grumpy, i kid you not, i'm not making this stuff up. grumpy won his congressional seat by a landslide, garnering more than twice as many votes as his nearest competitor, sleepy, the sleepy part is not true but grumpy might be even grumpier. he has been forced to submit to a literacy test to see if he's fit to serve. grumpy's campaign slogan was "it can't get any worse." here's hoping grumpy livesru