these are just using things that have worked in other countries and at other times and in other contexts in the united states, bring it to bear on our current problems of increasing the small and medium-sized enterprises and the of the thing you mentioned is very important, having a mechanism. the current system acts as a tax on every transaction and a big tax. they are complaining about a small financial tax that they impose a much larger tax, a much larger tax on every transaction. whenever you use one of those debit cards they are imposing a big tax. >> host: this is going to be probably our last question, right on time. financial system right as necessary but not sufficient because the bigger question is the broad economic system and you talk about three challenges the world faces, restoring demand and full employment,

restructuring the financial system and the restructuring in the u.s. economy to deal with shifts in the world's the economic structure. you talk about hunting for new comparative of vintages and creating programs to map that but in the mix of this you talk about the challenge of the balance between the government and markets and its pro first have to in the u.s. to do what's worked in the past, period of growth and we had regulated finance etc but also other countries, the capitalist market economies to and thinking of those three big challenges i'm wondering inclosing what you think we are going to see from the obama administration going forward and what you think ought to be done. >> guest: i think the obama administration has made a shift from the bush administration and recognizing there is an important role for government but the question is what that

role is and how big that rule ought to be. they all agree they're ought to be able even the financial sector agreed there ought to be a role of bailing them out and getting a lot of money so everyone agrees the government should do something if we are going to give the bank's money but i think most of us think that it should have a broad role and we talked in this conversation a lot about the role in preventing disasters. if you are going to have to build big hospitals with some preventive care so not so many people went to the hospital. but there's another i think much more creative role for the government. what has been the most important innovation of the 20th century and the last part of the tariffs and trade was the internet. who financed that? government. the private-sector brought that to market. what i find interesting about that it is a kind of public

sector partnership. it couldn't have happened without the government playing a critical role. you'll get all the basic research on which all of the advances of technology that we use, most of that basic research is supported by the government. there is a good feeling and good reason why that is the case but the fact is that you can't have the advances in technology if you don't have advances in science on which they rest. >> host: and the innovations and therefore the growth and employment. >> guest: it all has to rest on a foundation of government to reply from so disturbing during the bush year of was this constant bashing of the government. the government doesn't do everything perfectly. and any of was that what happened in the bush administration have to agree the government often takes things

very bad but it's also the case of the private sector dawson to get things perfectly. no government, no space government probably has ever wasted money outside of the war on the scale of our private sector in this crisis and we should remember that. so private-sector fail, governments have failed. we need systems of checks and balances and that's part of the space process. but one of the concerns is the system of checks and balances may be getting underlined. ..

you told me you just returned from afghanistan. what are your impressions? >> guest: well, my impressions have even changed since i got back because we've obviously had to capture of the taliban second-in-command this week. what i'll say though is as they move into the late winter, early spring, there will be nato offensive in helmand province were receiving u.s. marine corps forces in the central hohman river valley as well as now over the past week the offensive by pakistani intelligence agencies and u.s. intelligence agencies against senior taliban officials in pakistan. so we're really not seeing an offensive on both sides of the border. >> host: mark moyer, has her mission in afghanistan changed since president obama came to office and how would you define our mission? >> guest: well, i think the fundamental mission of trying to provide a stable afghanistan. how we do that has changed and

had a large infusion of troops seen a lot of the media fishier already in larger campaign, the most heartening example and if are making progress. i think the most important thing though is looking at long-term afghan development. when i was over there last month that's really what i was looking at was how do you develop in afghanistan that becomes more self-sufficient. we all know that's important, the best question is how do you go about doing that. >> host: in a recent foreign policy magazine article, this is what she wrote eared in developing the u.s. >> guest: yeah, because in a situation like this you need to develop leaders. leadership is the key. and you can develop a leader in a year or two years for the

critical medical levels of command. in the past week i do speed that up to her judgment. i think we've now just in recent months finally figured that out and we are moving towards better long-term development and at the same time we do in the short-term fixes in terms of trying to get the afghans to replace some of the bad commanders who are already there. >> host: mr. jones, and "in the graveyand of empires," this is what she wrote. first step must be to address massive corruption at the national and which has alienated the population and field support for insurgent groups. several forms of corruption appear to have acerbically contributed to the afghan insurgency. drug trafficking, bribery among senior officials and pervasive extortion among afghan police and judges. >> guest: well, corruption if you look at bank in transparency international data, they rank afghanistan at the bottom of countries worldwide. in one of the things i think we

found is when you look back at afghanistan's previous period, so for example, the year is out medio shotton king-size earshot, they were fairly legitimate government over the course of the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. what we faced our some crisis of legitimacy with the central government. and over the long run to establish stability and security, there has to be some legitimacy at the central government level. in particular that means doing something about the large-scale corruption we see and government officials involved in the narcotics trade as well as individual involved in my rescale extortion and bribery, usually about major contracts, large amounts of cash. this is not just about police checkpoints along the road. this is large amounts money that are being used. and i think it's actually partly fueling the insurgency because it separating the local population from a government that you as illegitimate to some

degree. >> host: are we doing that at all? >> guest: well, i think there have been steps. most of the key cabinet ministers at least in the power position, warnock for example, the administer a defense actually tend to have pretty clean records. the other interesting thing about corruption that i just know to his people also tend to forget that the main insurgent groups, especially the television aren't often probably more widespread corruption in the afghan government is. they actually make your money primarily off the drug trade and off of tax and local farmers. in a sense, the insurgents are doing exactly what the government is essentially been worse in some of various peers who got multiple organizations developing corruption. >> host: good evening to you, thanks for joining us. if you'd like to participate in our conversation this evening we're going to but the numbers up on the screen. 202-737-0001 for those of you in the east and central time zones. 202-737-0002 if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones.

you can also send us an e-mail at the tv@c. span.org. orie tweet at twitter.com/booktv. here's a little bit more about our guest here will start with mark moyar. also professed along with being an author and professor at the marine corps university and he's written a couple of books including his "a question of command." he's also written phoenix and the birds of prey, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism in vietnam. in time for stake vietnam war, 1954 to 1965. dr. moyar has served in or has been several times to afghanistan. our other guest is seth jones, author of "in the graveyard of empires." he's also a political scientist at the rant corporation and a professor at georgetown university. mark moyar, we've been in afghanistan about 8.5 years. is there an ending to this? >> guest: i think there is. it taken us a long time to get

there. in the early years for one thing it didn't seem too much violence or need to focus on it and of course we at iraq. the insurgency really didn't get going until 20,000 lives and on a large scale and was slow to react. we tried for several years to ramp up the afghan forces quickly, they began about the quantity pushover quality. and that's also again gets to the issue, we talked about corruption. you know, the corruption starts with commanders on the afghans because at some level there tolerating this. and for too long, we've sorted let them sort this out. but you know, just in the past few months we've seen some encouraging examples above are starting to prosecute people for corrupting governors, police chief, it we just upgraded the training initiative to three-star general caldwell. again, you're now seeing our best and brightest going over there. for a while, most of them are going to iraq.

general caldwell, general mcchrystal, a lot of art top folks. so i think we aren't going to be a turning point in this year. >> guest: i think we're actually beginning to see what looks like u.s. and the afghansp structures existed across the borders in the inter-shura. this week we've now seen public information about the talent and

leadership, including the shadow governors now being targeted in pakistan. this becomes a systematic effort, this begins to change the game in pakistan because this means that nowhere now and save for the taliban leadership. >> host: what was the point of preannouncing our intentions for this week's military actions? >> guest: i think they knew the television were going to figure it out. they're very good at surveillance and they would've seen this massive troop doing far in advance. i don't think we lost much in terms of the element of surprise. it didn't enable us to set the groundwork for the local population shortly before the offense we had a lot of meetings with the local elders, which i think approved. unofficial cuts are already seeing them now cooperating with us even as the offensive is ongoing. it's also important to make sure we got all the afghan leadership on board. just go if i could add one thing to what mark said and he pointed this out. i just want to emphasize, in my

view, the focus in and around this area where will probably not be the military operation, there'll be the development side. but also will be the political effort. when i've been to march, what you see marcia is the range of tribal community leaders that have a hold on power. they range from parkside the north side to some italicized. and part of the negotiation has been a co-op or course of possible. the allegiance and influence of the ski powerbrokers are this will be a major struggle word is very decentralized. this will be a major struggle over the next couple of months because the taliban, as they've done historically, will try to co-opt and coerce the same individuals as well. >> host: finally, before we go to calls, a question for both of you. seth jones, what if we left afghanistan, what would happen?

>> guest: well, in my personal view, the talent in a particular and the groups allied with it would probably slowly, assuming they were backed by states in the region, there is some state support from iran and pakistan, would probably take increasing tracks of territory. it's difficult to know how long that would take, but i think they would clearly make a push to take kabul at some point. and as we've seen in the past, especially with some of the insurgent groups that like to haqqani network has a very close alliance with al qaeda in north waziristan. you potentially see training camps at some point with foreign fighters and other foreign groups. i would say based on the relationship now between some of the insurgent groups and foreign fighters, we would be somewhere around where the u.s. was in the late 1990's and early 2000. afghanistan would be in a

streaming area as parts of pakistan are for that matter. >> host: mr. moyar. just go i agree with that and i would also emphasize you have to look at what happened in pakistan and they are watching over doing in afghanistan as a signal of her intentions. and if we were to withdraw, i think that would push them in the direction of supporting taliban elements that they supported earlier, also make it which were difficult for us to deal with that government and of course the nuclear power. there's lots of things to be concerned about, deterioration in pakistan. >> host: our first call comes from norton, virginia. please go ahead him and nancy. >> caller: i wanted to follow-up on what professor moyar said about long-term development in afghanistan. i wondered if either gentleman is familiar with greg moore defends the, three cups of tea. and there is a book described in that book that was used as a gallery, which means it has economic value.

and what either of the gentlemen know if our state department or department of agriculture is considering giving singer sewing machines to the women in the afghan region to try to change the sociology of their? >> guest: there are range of efforts actually by the state department, so should the u.s. agency for international development. the afghan ministry of rural rehabilitation and development, to pursue a development strategy that is in line with military efforts. and that is that an area that have been pacified or actually in areas that are already relatively peaceful to provide a range of development projects. we see up in the north there've been efforts effectively to -- that i've seen up close to get women involved in making carpets, for example, up in the mazar-e-sharif area.

long-term sustainable work before women. there are range of projects as you look across northern, western, eastern, southern afghanistan. some of them are. part of the question is, are they quick impact worth a long-term focus. and frankly in the areas i would say that are most vulnerable to the entries and see and are the most insecure. there also may view has to be a counterinsurgency part of that. in other words, they have to help encourage the population to oppose insurgents as well. because otherwise, as we've seen, insurgents will intimidate. they will destroy in some cases a development projects. so i think they have been in fact did in some places. where they've been able to be stable over the long run and also where they have been involved in really helpful long-term counterinsurgency projects as well.

>> host: march into, are we nationbuilding? >> guest: it means what you mean by nationbuilding. i think we are to some extent change in our institutions. more importantly we are trying to build a national culture they are, which has been weak in the past. one of the things i got the opportunity to see and spend time looking at the national military academy and they are actually with 18 -year-olds, they are doing a very good job of bringing together people from diverse ethnic groups and provinces together and instilling a sense of nationalism. i think we're making progress there and that is a long-term effort patch are not going to do the same thing with the 40 -year-olds. but i think that's in the long-term for your going to make progress with younger generations of afghans who are going to see the importance of the nationstate and are going to be more virtuous than avoid things like corruption. >> host: ginny in portland, oregon. >> caller: hello, is this peter? you are a workaholic. you do a very good job.

i watch you in the morning times. but i had two quick questions i was going to have either of the guests the first question is, how important is marjah to the taliban, really? how important is it? is it going to hurt them short-term, long-term? and the number two question is, they've been growing poppies for a long, long time and because it's easy, it's low maintenance. and why can't we buy that from them, turn them into morphine? they are in a war zone. people are getting hurt. and when you go to a hospital or dark or, i'm hearing they don't even have morphine. >> guest: when they talk about the first question you had.

i do think marjah is important militarily. the one thing they really would like to have a sanctuary and that is what they said. they been able to process opium there. they've been able to build ivs. doing those things are a lot harder when you're up in a cave or running around the house somewhere. and we know any insurgent will tell you that. they also like areas to rest and recuperate. so it's important to take us away from them as i left big century and then we have to do a pakistan sanctuaries. it is clearly something that we don't want to allow them to live anywhere. and i think, you know, it's not going to the be-all, end-all. more importing and clearing it is going to be clearing it. >> host: what about the poppies question? >> guest: well, i think there have been a number of buffers to try and deal with the poppies

issue. i have been affected tissues in the east of us genistein to get farmers to actually grow other things, including wheat, fruit and some areas of nangarhar province because there are those options. the problem we have right now in the south in parts, hard and helmand, where poppies are grown is that the nato forces and afghan forces don't actually control the territory, at least chunks of the territory. so it also make that moot whether you buy it or not because they don't think all the territory. the taliban owns in some cases some of the land and texas farmers were doing it and once the key trade routes. along two roads where the narcotics is taken. so the first step in much of the south come over most of the poppy is grown actually has to be the first to control the territory and then we can get into the question of whether it does make sense to buy?

doesn't make sense to get farmers to grow other things like wheat or other options? >> host: does that make sense? >> guest: well, it certainly is. the central helmand river valley, the u.s. agency for international development was involved in the 1950's in agricultural production mayor. and that area is a hotbed or historically has been a hotbed for a range of different types of produce, including wheat as well as the range of different fruits and vegetables. so they are clearly an option. >> host: giovanni in district heights, maryland. good evening. i'll call her a drink, peter? how are you doing, to chant? my comment is on, will the war ever stop and duty all understand that god is watching every step and progress?

and when he said about shall love down neighbor, and thou shall love thou cells. and we are the brothers of this planet and we are here to multiply. >> host: giovanni, where are you going with this question? but would you like her to afghanistan war authors to address with that question? >> caller: i would like to hear the joyful expression on their question. do they believe in change? >> host: is there anything there you'd like to address. >> guest: let me talk about the question of if this were ever going to end? i think it's a good question because i was with the american people have a limited patience for this war and we've seen other words over time the patient the roads. i think we can get to a point where the insurgency is brought down to a nuisance level. there probably will be an ongoing level of violence. but the key here is to develop the afghan security forces to

the point where they can handle these insurgents without american combat troops. and so, i think if we can get to that point, it becomes a nuisance level of violence, i think then we will have succeeded in the world will essentially be over. >> host: >> guest: i've got two additional points. i think it's worth remembering that if you look at the taliban regime during the 1890's after september 11th, 2001, in the new actually see right now. what you see is one of the most repressive regimes that we have seen that regularly violates basic human rights. it's the view of women, and if large-scale oppression of beheadings of individuals. part of what we are dealing with is a range of militant movements i think that art and have been very brutal. so for the u.s. to withdraw, i think he would subject the

afghan population to the same sort of barbarity that they had to face during the 1990's. the other thing i'd also note is that this the area where u.s. and other western intelligence agencies indicate that the core al qaeda element remains as osama bin laden as noble as opry and others. i think the caller is -- this has to end. the afghans have suffered a tremendous amount here. we're also dealing, i would argue, with some groups whose behavior in the past has been very abusive. >> host: next call for the two gas, seth jones and mark moyar. >> caller: good evening, gentlemen. i just have a question. i'm a retired military, fighting two wars. it befuddles me on the fact that power we going to continue

finances were, number one? and number two, do you really believe down deep, are we even going to come to a solution? i just listen to what you said and is from the first intelligent thing i've heard about this work. you know, are we really going to be able to accomplish what we set out tozygb

form may not be able to pay for at any point. so we're going to have to come up with a way to draw down this war eventually. i think we are going to need to continue some investment in the country for a long time. you know, we pulled out after the soviets left and let things deteriorate and i think we can't completely withdraw from there again. >> host: a little bit more >> host: how many afghanistan troops are fighting against u.s. troops?

>> guest: we are now moving into position with trying to have all the afghan army forces partner with our forces again because there's a number of reasons. it helps us because they have better report, can get intelligence and on the other hand we can provide them with assistance in a lot of areas that they're not just capable of. and we're ming more and more towards his concept of partnering. every measuring battalion there is partnered with an afghan army battalion. but there is certainly a danger that they are going to be overly dependent on this. and part of how we get around that is having the right american battalion there who takes the time to work with their afghan counterparts. but again, it is going to be a struggle. we saw my back and we tried to keep turning things over to the iraqis 2005, 2006. we had to come in and take a larger role. we are taking on a larger role, working with them more closely because we can't allow them to

fail. but in the long term, we're going to have to figure out a way to withdraw. you know, as we've done i think very well in iraq to gradually let them take responsibility. >> host: and seth jones, to go back to the caller's point, are we ever going to get out of their? are we ever going to win and the name of your book, "in the graveyard of empires." >> guest: well, what i think is interesting is foreign governments, whether it's a free british wars, whether with the soviet invasion began in 1979. it's been pretty clear that foreign governments have had a very difficult time stabilizing afghanistan. but, between 1929 and 1978, there was a period of stability during the news even dynasty. so what is clear that afghans do have a history of stabilizing their country. there has been recent stable

periods. so the issue for us as we like to turn to create a stable afghanistan, relatively stable document and is one where we increasingly, as mark noted, have afghans both of the central government, but also the local government levels doing the bulk of the work. and if i could decide one thing, you know, we have often thought in the last eight years there's been a concept of trying to do this entirely from the top down from the central government. i would also argue that there is never, ever been a history in afghanistan and rural areas where the central government has provided long-term stability. so we have to remember we're not dealing with a traditional western states. >> host: and from "in the graveyard of empires" you write this.

charles from sales, missouri. go ahead with your question for our guest. call code good evening, gentlemen. this has been alluded to before and as long as we throw money at the new government, iraq and afghanistan, they're going to go back to their tribal affairs or whatever. and here we are, we've wasted all this money and started doing the bush administration. and worse, all of the person that been killed and wounded here and now really terrible. just remember and i think one of the alluded to this before. once we leave, we'll go back to the same old same old. i like your comments please. and good health to all. just go as a good question and a good comment. i would note that if you look at the last hundred years in afghanistan, there are and have

been stable. part of the question for the united states for nato countries operating in afghanistan and for the afghan government more broadly as has been done in afghanistan's history of ensuring long-term stability. what i know ten posh tune areas of the country is about that really goes from here rot in the west of afghanistan down through the south and into the use. posh tune by the largest tribal group in afghanistan. power has been very decentralized their the pastuns have a tendency to do a lot of policing at the lowest level on iran. we we see them used arbakai, the cello outside another local security forces. i think part of as we move forward, as we look towards more stable solution, we've got to think about top-down efforts to

build a stronger central government as mark noted earlier with afghan national security forces and with development efforts that one of our previous guest noted as well as bottom-up efforts to work with key local legitimate institutions in pastuns areas with shura enterprise. i think if you look at the history again, there have been models for stability and would need to look vy carully at this. >> host: and to build on that point, as though the 63 tweet then, largely ignoring how the pastuns are the majority tribe and they are represented. >> guest: i would say the president is a pop inside. the administrator of defense from the pastuns. so the president has tried to balance some of the key pastuns as well with some individuals from the northern no client

whose backs anti-heat. as we saw in the early period of 2001 and 2002, we've got mortar representation of pastuns in the government. but we don't have yet and what we need to do is start finding a way to incorporate tallow band pastuns into this government in some respects. this is what we call reconciliation. we are going to have to reach some sort of agreement with those individuals that want to switch sides on being able to pull those individuals who have been fighting against the government. most of them are pastuns, into the government. mark mortier, an e-mail from maine. i'm an iraq war veteran and even though i'm proud of service to the current year can't help but wonder why we are sending more and more troops into afghanistan. it seems like all a key. about lately is how difficult it is to train afghan soldiers as

many are illiterate and turn the other way when the fighting is going on. military solution to the problem cannot be the answer. it just seems like an impossible task with our soldiers being caught in the middle, been injured and dying almost on a daily basis. just go i would first find out we were saying the same things in iraq a couple years ago that this is a hopeless situation. and where do time now, which i think hopefully will be seen as the turning point going forward. but i do think it has been very valuable already to have these extra troops there. as you mentioned, you need to deny them sanctuary areas that you don't have enough troops we saw this in iraq, you go and clear winner yet and take the insurgency to another area and it became the waccamaw. if were able to build them up in some areas. the same thing is happening in afghanistan now. the other thing i would add to is that through the partnering

effort american forces are having a multiplying effect on the afghans. for example, there are cases where you'll have 40 afghan policemen and you take ten american troops and put them with those. those 40 may have been very ineffective before. when you have the ten americans, they bring a lot of expertise. they keep denying and make sure things are being done properly. and so instead of getting those ten americans you also have 40 more afghan troops who work into getting much before who are now. >> host: this is booktv in prime time. with seth jones and mark moyar. mark moyar, "a question of command." seth jones, "in the graveyard of empires." what's this picture on the front of your boat? >> guest: just a reminder of the soviet experience in afghanistan, partly to learn the

lessons of the soviet. >> host: mark moyar, you've written a lot about vietnam, are there comparisons? >> guest: there are comparisons, certainly. one of the things i like to point out to people as we often evoke the idea of afghanistan being another vietnam is in its hopeless. and i argue here and in my other books on vietnam but they're actually. where we are pretty successful. 1962, 1963 that a life province insurgency which is on partially undone by the two we organize against the south vietnamese president. and also after the ten offensive has been very effective counterinsurgency that by the end of the war, it's no longer an insurgency, the conventional threat. so i think it's a myth that insurgencies are all-powerful and that there's nothing you can do to stop them. >> host: seth jones, we spent about $680 billion on the vietnam war in today's dollars, about the same that we spend in

iraq. how much have we spent in afghanistan, 979 service members have lost their lives so far. >> guest: well, the exact amount is actually difficult to calculate. but it's in the billions of dollars. one of the thing that's been a devil of a in afghanistan has been helpful if there is a much greater foreign peasants. so we have german forces operating in the north italian forces, operating in the west in a range of other nato countries that even if they haven't used a lot of their forces for combat operations were sent development people into the areas that are most war-torn, they have provided assistance. the germans have been involved in police training. italians have been involved in the justice sector reforms. the japanese have provided a lot of money for demobilization of combative and now for reintegration of tel aviv right now. so one of the things that at least has been helpful in the afghan complex is that burden

sharing has been much more acute in afghanistan that it was in iraq. and we really do have a locker partner nations that are providing -- a man, the japanese have just ended up several billion dollars again for reintegration of the senior-level taliban officials. >> host: new york city, you're on the air. call >> caller: i have a question for mr. seth jones. i have read your book and i commend you. one major problem is that we are still dealing with the conflict of north and south, just like in many other places. the center for global crisis in 2003 put out an excellent paper called, disenchantment of posh

pastuns. how are you going to win the hearts and minds of afghans when the afghan province says, you probably know it, says you can make an afghan go to a house with you with kindness, but you will not be able to take them to heaven by force. >> guest: well, that's a great question and a great point. i would say that one of the things that the afghan government and nato, more probably, has to do better, including in pastuns areas is to recognize again that power is very vocal estimates areas. and that they may not have according to the interest of outsiders, whether it's u.s. or nato governments, even whether it is essential governments. they will act in their own

interests. and that's okay because what we've seen, i would argue, when you look across the east in the south is a range of types and subtypes and clans, whether it's to aris fortune copies, wore a size or a good-sized, i don't like the taliban, don't like the haqqani government, don't like the@@)pbvgu abc and bbc which indicated that the taliban has well under 10% support

versus 90% support in that recent poll. so leveraging desires interest in the local population i think is quite critical. >> host: jane, houston texas. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i question is going to center on the proliferation of the radical matter says that are cropping up in a separate area of afghanistan the narrowing version of islam promoting jihad and shahada. and with the influence from saudi and persian vicinities, financing at the school, which also have military training, soon to be giving the taliban a new group of fighters. what are we doing us a nation or as a group of nations to get

these countries to back off the support of the schools? >> host: mr. moyar. >> guest: we are doing things behind the scenes to work on these issues. it is an important matter and as you mentioned the insurgents are coming out of these madrassas. we've also talked about other efforts to promote education in afghanistan. i want to hit on which one of the earlier caller says about the three cups of tea and can we use that approach? greg mortensen has done a great work in schools all important but you can't just be the insurgents through education because we've seen in case after case, you know, vietnam, private sample as well, i'll solve the door. if you just send them the teachers, the insurgents are going to kill them or force them to flee because they recognize that those people are a threat. so we need to do the education piece. but in conjunction and closely coordinated with security and

governance. >> host: in early december, president obama announced an additional 30,000 troops on top of the 68,000 or so there were already there. how many of them moved over? >> guest: i'm not sure the exact number. they're certainly more common in the spring. i believe there's a marine entire regimental command team is scheduled to come in and a couple months here. but clearly, it's interesting to compare them to the size of the iraq's urgent, similar in deployment size. i think they are already starting to make a difference as i mentioned in helmand. they are playing a critical role in who are going to see more of kandahar coming up this year. again, it's not just 30,000 americans, but you've got to factor in the number of afghans that are being empowered by having those americans working alongside them. >> guest: i think the biggest difference that we're seeing now is just adding to mark's point,

in 2006, the united states moved most of its forces out of the south, the taliban heartland, their center of gravity, where most of the key taliban leaders are from. and handed over to the british, the canadians, the dutch industrial you. let some special forces. now what we're seeing is the area where it's decreasing its forces in general is in the south. this is the taliban heartland. so not only were we increasing forces, we are going with varying forces with army forces into the heartland of the taliban. so it's an increase in the numbers, but also the location of those forces as well. >> host: what is your role as an adviser to general mcchrystal? >> guest: i served in 2009 as they plans officer in adviser to the u.s. military, looking out a whole range of issues with the military in afghanistan. >> host: and he just got back. as you meet with general mcchrystal over there?

>> guest: sure, it worked with them fairly regularly. >> host: and where fee-based and what kind of security does he have? >> guest: is based in kabul where the isaf headquarters is located. he actually gets around on a compound quite easily. he's somebody who in general has a strategy that is very population centric. very people oriented person. he is very family, takes that strategy and personalizes it in his interactions with individuals. the very interesting to watch. >> host: does he ever get off based? does hamid karzai ever get out? >> guest: there is no question that general mcchrystal, like every major u.s. and nato military gets out quite a bit, gets out into rural areas, get that into urban areas. beats the population.

in fact, general mcchrystal has been very adamant about giving out regularly. president cars i have not gotten out alive. he does occasionally get out in a little bit in the presidential campaign. but he's not gotten out and in the afghan population for security reasons. there've been several assassination attempts against him so it's constrictor bin. >> host: is abdullah abdullah still in afghanistan or has he left? >> guest: i'm not sure where he is right now. i did want to comment on the question you mentioned. the reason i went out last month was general caldwell is starting a new leadership initiative on the afghan side wants to get them in more discussion about leadership which i think would not be damaged in two. one of the things we've seen for many of the afghans as they don't go out into the field as much as we would like. a lot of them want to try to do

things by cell phone. and at the same time, they micromanage. they will be in the office, but they'll be telling someone what to do hundreds of miles away. and so when one of the points i make in the book is the case after case. in templer, in malaya, and abrams and vietnam, they spent a lot of their time out there circulating what we called now a battlefield circulation, going out and see what's going on and also assessing their local commanders, saint is this person doing a good job or not? also providing some coaching to those commanders. >> host: mike in la, good evening. >> caller: i'd like to know, during world war i and world war ii when the west in the middle east, why didn't they try to make afghanistan a main focal point in creating stability in western family governments then when they were already there and waiting so blind and having to deal with it now? >> guest: that's a good

question. the u.s. actually was relatively weak in that area, even though it was involved in some areas of the middle east, it was the biggest powers in the region by far were the british, british have a major presence in especially the area of india, as well as the russian, the soviets. afghanistan during that period was primarily served as an area of competition between the british and the soviets. but by the 1950's, so about a decade after world war ii, you did see a major increase in the u.s. presence there, especially on the development side. if you go into places like how manned or, our provinces, you see areas like tarmac farms, where the u.s. contribution at that time was on a development level and you still see a lot of

that infrastructure still there today. >> host: another tweak from terra tracker. why is the handoff of pogrom prison to afghan control receiving so little critical inquiry and the west? >> guest: that's a good question. do we have seen a lot of problems with house detainees are handling them. we have the same in iraq and staff knows more about that tonight is to let him comment on that piece. in iraq, we had a lot of problems with huge numbers of people as being a vested interest though it is to train them. initially some commanders would go out just to arrest massive numbers of people and when i was last there which was 2008 there was a lot of concern about who's been let out of these prisons in iraq. and i think there's ongoing concern because they're flooding a lot of people out in especially now that our presence in iraq is excited, they're

having a lot of trouble tracking these people. the future there is some pretend and we've talked about the ethnic problems there, to shoot me versus the cf. >> host: anything you want to add about five program present? >> guest: no, i would just note that i do think one of the lessons from abu ghraib in general was decent treatment of prisoners. and when you look at the websites in the recruitment policies of a lot of the jihad e-groups now, they use abu grade, the photographs that came from it. there's an extraordinarily negative implication when you start to go down that road. so as we move forward on bob graham and other facilities, i think there has to be in my sense is there is only an improvement in the way prisoners are treated.

>> host: michael, chicago, good evening. >> caller: gentlemen, good evening. i appreciate you taking my call. hopefully this something of a loaded question. in your opinion, do you think it's naïve to think charlie wilson train of thought to say hey, we would have now the these folks high and dry after we pushed them in afghanistan that would be in this quote, unquote massacre in now. second part of that question again i hope is not loaded. clearly, the north alliance when we take kabul, these folks were were -- what are these folks doing, not the united states, to maintain our credibility? a lot of folks they do usaid et cetera. but i'm sure was afghanistan and i had a long memory i'd be

thinking about to these folks left before. what's going to stop them? they've exerted their will for lack of a better term. >> guest: that's a great question. i cannot tell you how may times i got asked that question and continue to get out of the question i by afghans, pakistanis and others in the region. that figure was a problem that the u.s. and ultimately the soviets got out of afghanistan. because what was i was central government collapsed by the early 1990's in afghanistan move into a direction, but anarchy. competition among warlords and militia forces. at the u. s. bennett, played a more direct going broke or in an agreement and trying to settle disagreements among abdul bushido some, the other major actors, i think it could have ensured long-term stability. so part of what the united states has to signal i'll have become more difficult with a

2011 deadline that's been announced to some degree, although i think there's some flexibility on it, is committing development aid and forces, long-term to the region. and i think it is in a pretty good job of trying to convince the afghans of pakistan governments and others in the region that it is committed in the long run to the stability of afghanistan. and part of that is actually working with neighbors. the russian, and the indians, the afghans, the chinese, the iranians to some degree as well on that as well. because as we weren't historically from afghanistan, the neighbors of a large stake in afghanistan as well. just go to gap, i would say when i was there last month there was a fair amount of concern over the july 2011 deadline that has been set. and everyone over there is doing an excellent job of structuring structuring -- that doesn't mean we going to have a massive a job. i do think it's very important

to watch in this country about afghanistan. i think it's important that the president, members of congress are out there talking about firmness of our commitment. i think we can do more in that area to reassure them. there is an argument to be made that if we put a timeline on that that's going to force them to get their act together. and there's a certain amount of truth to that. but i don't think request to that point yet. i think you do that when they're in a bit of a firmer fitting. we need to write now send them a message that we are going to be there for the long-term. and i tend to agree with president karzai's timelines. i think it's going to be five years to get them to the point where they can take over most of the security. i may even be a little bit aggressive but i think an aggressive time frame is good. >> host: blue and washington d.c. is on the air. >> caller: all make a quick question and then i'll hang up and listen to the answer.

who exactly is helping the taliban and because my point is this. i don't think iraq would be funding them [inaudible] >> host: we cut the basis of your question. your cell phone was fading out there. let's talk about the funding of afghanistan with outside players in afghanistan? >> guest: well, the taliban has been a pretty good job of getting redundancy in its@@$s)pa support on the

taliban case, despite the fact that iran nearly went to war with the taliban at the end of the night to 90's. iran has provided some low levels to the taliban in some other insurgent groups. state support. as has elements of the pakistani government. it's interservice and intelligence director. and so there has been state-supported. so interestingly, this arrest of the taliban and second in command in karachi has been any notable oily springs up the question, what is a notable shift in pakistan's policy toward the taliban?

>> guest: i think that's an excellent summary. the only thing i'd add is that i mentioned how leadership is really crucial in terms of afghan security forces, is also crucial in terms of the taliban. and they don't have a huge foreign presence, but we do know that some of their commanders are pakistanis were from other countries. and those people are very important. in many cases more important than a large amount of money. because we've seen some very militarily skillful taliban forces and that's not an accident. they're getting some very good leaders from pakistan and elsewhere. and that's again part of why they're judging the pakistan piece of this is so crucial. >> host: let's talk a little bit specifically about pakistan. it sounds a little schizophrenic that if the head of the isi is supporting or the isi is supporting the taliban after its, but they're also our ally. did i say that correctly?

a >> guest: you did say that correctly. the pakistan government has continued to acted in its own interest, as anything way. they've targeted militant groups that threaten states. so they have targeted al qaeda on their territory, they've also now increasingly targeted what some people call the pakistani taliban, based out of the south waziristan because it's like to massoud had another range of militants. dave operated in areas where militants can be targeted for suicide attacks in pakistan. but at the same time they have assisted historically militant groups have operated in afghanistan and kashmir in india. >> host: and when you say they do you mean state support? >> guest: elements of the pakistani state that included support to them. >> host: out of their federal budgets in some way?

>> guest: out of whatever budgets they have in some way. >> guest: you've got to remember the pakistanis have viewed afghanistan in the context of their troubled relationship with india and a few.as somewhat of an insurance the policy of rear area. and there's still a lot of suspicion among pakistan. because in the past as we were in afghanistan, we've been stuck on that. they too were upset about the way we attend in afghanistan after the soviets lost. so they were to some extent still hedging about how long is the u.s. going to be there and we need to have the taliban on our side at some point in the future. >> host: so the obama administration, how is it addressed the pakistan question? >> guest: well, i think they've been doing a pretty good job so far. you know, most of it -- most of the effective work is going on behind closed doors. but clearly we've seen some good cooperation from them. we saw the arrest of a number to

tell a band figure recently. you know, -- >> host: a rest wasn't just happenstance? >> guest: i don't think so. they probably could have arrested him earlier. again, they were doing a better job now cooperating with them and we are providing more assistance to them as well, which i think snake in a more cooperative. >> host: there's another side to that which is our ally. let me bring this in diabetes e-mail e-mail we got from colonel paul calvinists in its address to you, seth jones. we met a couple in 06 when i escorted you and zero piatt and reduce the. i worked strategic reforms for the m. a y. in the amt and a solid 2 cents. i look forward to reading your book as i will be returning to afghanistan in a couple of months. my question, how do we deal with what i believe is the other center of gravity in the war?

the population of the western democracies in the growing afghanistan fatigue? do you believe the west has the will to sustain the major effort required for the counterinsurgency fight and how do we get the word out on positive aspects and improvements over the last two years? saft, you have the respect of the u.s. armed forces. thank you for what you do. >> guest: quick question from a great soldier. this is a very important question. what we've seen with some countries, with the canadians, for example, is a decrease in commitment to afghanistan. they're deployed a range of forces to kandahar and are now primarily in and around kandahar city. we've seen the dutch long-term commitment waning. ..

for example to help train police forces even if it's not in the most insecure areas can be helpful so i think there are ways to continue to get allies on board and of this war begins to turn its looking like a kid who's potentially at a turn,

european population support may actually begin to change. >> host: last call for the guest read daniel, frost byrd maryland. please, go ahead. >> caller: yes, this is an especially interesting program this evening and by thank c-span for continuing its excellence. i'm wondering, we do here as you even mentioned a moment ago we hear a great deal about the significance and problematic distrust between certain elements at least of the pakistani intelligence and the karzai government is not of the larger pashtu community, and i'm wondering if any of you, perhaps mr. jones especially no of any attempts, overt or otherwise to arrange direct communication or even back channel communication. between those elements of the pakistani intelligence and the karzai government and or other centers of leadership in the

suspicious pashtu community. >> host: short answers. to start with you, mark. >> guest: yes, they're have been instances of that that have been going on quietly. and i think i would like to make the point that karzai for all of his faults, he does have certain moral authority and a unifying figure in the country and i think he is someone who potentially is capable of brokering certain compromises with elements of the taliban. >> guest: there have been efforts of particular to improve the relationship between president karzai. less the isi but presidents ariana leadership def pakistan. in that sense reaching out to the civilian side can help influence the military intelligence side. so this is the way we've seen that pakistan and afghan relationship began to develop.

>> host: finally this tweet each of about 20 seconds to do this. please have the authors give a synopsis of the books of the end. i missed the first portion of the show. seth jones. >> guest: my book looks at the question why the insurgency began in afghanistan after the u.s. overthrow. i look at a couple of sectors. one is the collapsing governments in afghanistan including corruption issues and then focus in particular on highways in the last chapter to stem the insurgency and develop more effective counter insurgency efforts. >> host: mr. moyar? >> guest: mine is a series of case studies being afghanistan. it argues leadership comes down to a question which side has better leaders in certain areas of leadership, and identifying how do we get those kind of people into positions of authority. >> host: mark moyar come seth jones, thank you for being on booktv prime time to discuss the

afghanistan war. >> guest: thank you. >> host: coming up, two more hours of book tv in prime time this evening. up next is michael steele the chairman of the gop. he was at the reagan library recently talking about his new book the 12 step program for defeating the obama agenda. following that you will hear from pulitzer prize-winning economist joseph stieglitz on our after words program. his newest book is called free fall and he's interviewed by laurie wallach of public citizen. that's coming up on booktv prime time. remember to give all booktv rn twitter at twitter.com/book. we set up when we have 40 hours of programming on c-span2. thanks for being with us this evening. now here is michael steele. it's a lot of fun to be here. it is a lot of fun right now as you can imagine in washington and around the country on the heels of what has been one of

the most profoundly important elections i know i've seen in my lifetime in massachusetts and the win of scott brown in taking back the people seat as he put it. [applause] incredibly, incredibly important. so, we are having a lot of fun. and it is a good space to be right now. just as this is a good space to be. i had the incredible honor of visiting the reagan ranch and be among cost the things of his life he and nancy's lives together and it's wonderful. it's a great energy that i get from that and i got from that. now to be the come and share some of that in the context of

his legacy and certainly what it means going forward has a real honor. i really appreciate the young america's foundation and inviting me here to be a part of this. andrew is right we spent a lot of time over the years working with the various groups that come into washington or on a visit are on the country and it's such profoundly important work. i was in the board room before coming down and i was struck by nothing fancy about it, it was on a wall and basically said young america's foundation is committed to encouraging that young americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, strong national defense, free enterprise and traditional values and that is such a powerful statement and it's part of the underlining thinking if you will love that i try to

capture in the book, "right now." a lot of folks in washington all the hype doubt about this book and i don't really understand why. it speaks to some of the core things that we believe as conservatives and republicans and this speaks to them in the context of reagan but most importantly the context how we've regain the trust and faith of the american people who if you haven't figured out right now are not too happy with us. and they've had good reason not to be. but that's part of the past and that's part of i think also the process of healing and recovering. and so i took on the idea of the 12 steps because i think it was an important part to get to recovery. so that's kind of the background and we will get into more but before that i really do want to thank wendy for her sponsorship of the speaker series for 2010. what a wonderful gift to the

community and america to have the voices that have come through here and shared with you d certainly to ron robinson, president of the young americans foundation and andrew who is a

great guy this morning and helping for me to get there and see -- it was raining and started to hail and was just perfect. [laughter] it was perfect president reagan was speaking to me letting you know the cloudy days may be a part of what you do, but the sun does come out. and when it does you better be prepared for it, and that is a lot of my experience in public life dealing with the clouds and the malaise and the floods and all the crazy stuff that goes on but knowing that the sun will come out and things will get better. i was always struck by the quote may you live in interesting times. [laughter] and they don't get much more interesting than what i've seen over the past year. a friend of mine pointed out that was actually a curse and i

could see how that would be the case. but the reality is living in interesting times enables us and in power as us to do interesting things and it allows us to go beyond our comfort zone and of the things we think we know to explore new avenues and opportunities. so, for this afternoon what i want to do is kind of set the tone since we are living in interesting times i thought it would be important to set the tone in a little bit differently with a quote from frederick douglass who once noted i glory in conflict that i might hear after its salt and victory. now i've always liked that. and i'd like to i think primarily because as a roman catholic african-american conservative from washington, d.c. -- [laughter] -- my whole life has been conflict so i get that part of it. i really do.

but today in this our what conflict sauce is not the ups and downs of the elections board rather the nature of conservatives in this post reagan era. it's the vision of the conservative movement. it's radical nature into the unique challenges and opportunities that come from both conflict and victory. and you've seen that played out in small measure over the last few years certainly the elections of 06 and 08 and even as recently as 09 and virginia, new jersey and now in massachusetts. but no great thing has ever been achieved without overcoming obstacles and no quality is more indispensable to the process than the ability to press on through adversity. in other words to persevere. so, in these very interesting times, where we have to confront conflict in order to attain

victory we must persevere. we must find a way to make all of it fit and all of it work to read the first thing i noticed about perseverance is that it comes more easily to the optimist. as a young man i was struck by ronald reagan's optimism and sense of hope. for me that sense of our best days lie before us was captured in the phrase morning machen america. now, that was 1984. but i think by now a lot of people feel and have come to believe that it's more like lunchtime in america. or even dinnertime. in other words, our best days are behind us. in the sun is setting. the day is done. as a young african-american male growing at the nation's capital, such optimism moved me to understand the power of perseverance of the power of

perseverance. and to be able to put into focus that we are often touched and indeed moved to action not to buy the great figures of history but by those whose names are not written in the history books, the names that don't appear on the nightly news but the names of individuals who live in our neighborhoods and communities indeed in our very homes. such is the life of mabel. mabel is one of many faces of america who struggled to raise a family and believed she could provide for her kids more than she herself had received. she was one of those many faces to believe in writing the history of the country not in its history books, cards and consciousness of the individual, of the community so that the promise of this great nation would become its truth.

she grew up the daughter of sharecroppers, had to squint to the colquitt school when she was the fifth grade to work in the cotton field of south carolina, she married a man who abused her both mentally and physically and he himself would die at age of 36 from alcoholism. she would go on to work in a laundromat the next 45 years of her life and the most she ever made was $3.83 per hour. now despite the hardships that come from limited resources and certainly limited opportunity, mabel had an extraordinary sense of the possible. she did what it took to stimulate the economy of her household. she did what it took to make sure despite all the hardships things that needed to be done, raising the kids, providing for the family got done. she made certain as she put it it would be she and not the government who would raise her

kids. it would be a sheet and not the government who would provide for her family and she did a pretty good job because today her daughter is a very successful pediatrician and her son stands before you as the chairman of the republican national committee. [applause] the power of the mabel is a power that we all witnessed every single day and it is why what we fear the most right now, stripping away that power from mabel, the power she feels that she has to raise her kids the way she wants to provide for a family the way she wants. stripping away from her is why the fight right now in this

country for freedom of opportunity. the very things this organization are trying to impress upon young people to appreciate and understand about the free markets and the free enterprise and value of family and community matters. mabel's life in bodies perseverance. the struggles and challenges of her time will tell opportunity for her children and while her story, like so many of ours, contain hardships she also found a way to turn her hopes for her children into action. her desire that tomorrow will be better for us than for her meant more than anything else. she made sure her kids knew the value of hard work both in school and in the workplace. she made sure we could think for ourselves. she made sure we had a good education. she made sure we knew right from wrong. she had our behind in church on sunday and in a classroom on monday morning.

she understood the value of america and the future of her kids. through a remarkable example of her life, my mother was the first person who taught me about fiscal discipline, the value of a dollar, budgeting and most importantly how thoughtful investment when coupled with hard work can provide in power and an opportunity. now, lord knows why doesn't officials of the united states congress can't figure out what the sharecropper's daughter with a discreet education figured out a long time ago. [laughter] out to create wealth with the family. how to create wealth within a community. and while her bank account and not have made her rich, she was rich and purpose as every day she found a way to turn her hopes into action. mabel was never discouraged by the trials of the moment because she knew that they would pass, and because she was in it for the long haul.

she was going to work it out. and that is the power of perseverance. i remember as a young boy at 17, 1976, first time i would get to vote that november. i turned 18 in october, get to vote in november, so back in september, august i'm trying to decide don't to be a republican or democrat -- now my mom is a democrat. she is a roosevelt democrat. my dad is a democrat. and so she raised me to appreciate that i had a mind that i could go out and learn and decide for myself what i wanted to be and she pressed me hard on that. don't be a democrat just because ibm. don't fall lockstep into a mind set were a way of thinking just because others are so she instilled in me a sense of independence so you wonder why i get in trouble in this job is blame mabel. [laughter] because the independent spirit allowed me to go and discover a

man named ronald reagan and it was his voice i heard in the campaign that sounded so much like the way my mother raised me. when he talked about in america there would be better. when he talked about opportunity and the power that comes from individuals, not from government so why go to my mother and say i decided to become a republican. [laughter] welcome the idea of going out and doing that was great. the actual doing of it however was a whole nother conversation which began something like lord, beebee, why do you want to do that? [laughter] so even to this day there is still moments i think she's trying to recover from that and get me back. [laughter] but she understands and she still understands why i did what i did because of how she raised me and what she passed on.

that legacy. and i really appreciate that legacy more than anything else. there was a great moment in 2006 when i was running for the united states senate election my time on the edge of the bed with my wife watching the returns and as in all elections it starts out great. we've all been there. you're looking at the numbers, the first precinct scriven and you're 52-48 and your like jack reed and the rest come in and you're like okay that's a little bit different. so i am watching all the hard work go. i'm watching the the election slip through my fingers for the united states senate and i'm frustrated and angry and my wife is sitting next to me very quietly and patiently taking this in and listening to me. and after several grants it's clear i will not be the next united states senator from maryland i turn to her and go what do i do now? and you know spouses have a way of putting things in perspective for you. and they are very supportive.

she turned to me and looked at me and she goes i think you better get the job. [laughter] that's it? [laughter] and then she got up and left and there i said. lost an election, got to get a job. but what i took out of that moment was something that my mother had taught and that i learned in listening to reagan and that my wife brought home to me in a very real way. persevered. this, too, shall pass. get through it. don't be overwhelmed by it. don't let it breaking down where you can't get up. and as i reflected on this book -- malae wrote this book actually before the 2008

election got under way and because of publications and delays and all that it turned out and god works in mysterious ways i could update to capture some of the realities of the 2009 election. but the core of the book focused on this idea of a party that had been beaten down. a party that had lost its way. a party that had fallen away from conservative principles that defined it for generations but now was faced with an opportunity to move forward to pick itself up. do not be overwhelmed by the circumstances. ronald reagan understood the importance of connecting to the maebell of america. through the themes that inspired us and policies that restored the strength, pride and prosperity of the nation, he did the unthinkable. he helped america embraced conservatism and the core beliefs of the conservative movement. he made it cool to be a

conservative. and that opportunity afforded to him enabled him to then changed the course of this nation to put it on a pathway in which it appreciated prosperity and opportunity, where it appreciated our role in the world and fight@gs"d again in a way that empowers the maebell of the world because they know there is someone standing there helping them

provide for the next generation. thurgood marshall once said we all need to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. but every once in awhile it's nice to have someone bent down and help you. and that is what freakin' understood -- reagan understood that while we espouse independence every once in awhile it's good to know someone is way to be there to help you, to lift you up, to not do it for you, but to show you how. to give you the tools. and in the times we live right now, what is the cry from the american people? don't do it for us. give us the tools and let us do it for ourselves. whether it is health care, job creation. whenever it happens to be, the cry we hear across the land is we can do this on our own.

individually we are strong. together we are stronger. but in all of that it's not the government's job or role to shape the outcome and create that pathway. i think conservatives now have an opportunity to reaffirm to the american people the core belief that government should be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of the individual, that those taxes that we pay, those little things that come out of your paycheck, that they be kept low so that individuals might keep more of their hard earned money. the business regulation should encourage entrepreneurs to take the risks necessary for innovation and development and growth as opposed to using the regulations to beat businesses into submission. some just talk about change, folks. but what we believe and know about the resilience of the

american people that will underscore the change this nation needs is that it is the individual that will stand america up. it is the individual that will help america prospered. it is the individual that will keep us strong. our work is not done. but in some respects, in many respects our work begins a new not in the sense of starting over but starting with a different perspective to a 21st century perspective focused on how we will make the hope of tomorrow a reality today. you heard the mantra. hope is on the way. keep hope alive. hope you have a nice day. [laughter] but they're comes a point hope doesn't get it done. there comes the point where action is the core of what must happen. and that action is what worries

people. is it government action or individual action? and that is the debate this nation faces right now. and whether you see the results of massachusetts or virginia and new jersey as an example of the american people answering the question there are many more opportunities for that question to get answered over the next few years. not in partisan terms but in truly american terms what is this great nation all about? what is its strength and where does it come from? it is one of the gifts ronald reagan left us when he described this nation the way he did as a shining city on the hill. because one of the aspects of that is the light that emanates from the hill is a time or full white. and the question is where does the light come from.

it shines not because of government but because of her people. the light emanates from the hill from its people. the difference between prosperity and poverty is not government. it's people. the difference between ownership and control by government is people, not government. and ronald reagan might think understood and put that in its precise context as he possibly could. so, like reagan when i was 17 and today i put my faith in people, not government. his spirit reminds us the promise of america is the promise of endless possibilities, and it was that spirit that drew me in to the party that donner now the chair.

it is the spirit that recognizes individuals as the catalyst, the action point, mont government negative i think what the future fights over the role and control of government will be about. the optimism and hope that emanates from such possibilities i think enables us to persevered and in power as us not to give up on ourselves and certainly not on this great country. next year the nation will celebrity centennial of president reagan's dearth. between now and then we have an opportunity to reignite his vision of america to remind ourselves and the nation that it is morning again in america. a morning bright with possibilities, the morning of the day representing the rest of our lives as men and women and as a nation. president reagan said it better than i ever could when he said we've got to quit talking to each other and about each other

and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer and numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for. this is your time. this is our moment to carry the message america is waiting for to be the light of this great nation once again. to lift up this begin, this grand wonderful experiment we call the united states and do it in a way in which reagan would be proud. certainly we all know he would expect no less from us. if we are true to his legacy. and true to what he left behind for us to do today. so right now is our moment. right now is an opportunity for us to be something better,

different. but very familiar. and that is the test. are you ready to pass that test? are you ready to do what is necessary to hold the light up once again and show america and show the world its morning. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. [applause] now i guess we have some q&a. the fun part of the program. [laughter] >> my name is louis and i want to thank you for coming to visit us. my hope is that we don't

celebrate reagan's great deeds but that we celebrate the heart of the man because it was that humble heart that topped the board, shoveled manure, cleaned toilets and did not see himself as president of the united states. and we just won a huge election because our people, myself, saw an arrogant democratic party three of the reason why we have an arrogant democratic party is because we have an arrogant republican party. so i would love to see how that is going to change with our party. >> so what point [laughter] but i believe it has. and the nature of some folks in washington that the way i started to answer that question will be news because there are

those who don't want that changed. there's some who like to wallow in the muck of past accomplishments are what they believe our past accomplishments and what is often times lost as you heard this before the will of the people. but it's a real thing and you've seen it now expressed very, very loudly in three elections and my sense of it is that in large measure many republicans and conservatives out there are working toward the same goal. looking back and understanding past mistakes but not dwelling on them and beating ourselves up to the point where you can't move forward. but understanding that in order to move forward you have to at least acknowledge and accept the role that you may have played in

some of the things we are now confronted with. and the commitment the american people are looking for and i assure you yourselves as well is okay are we going to get the same old or is this going to be different? show us how. tell us how. and that is a very unique opportunity and not too many political parties or candidates really get a chance to do that, to go back to the american people and laid bare how they have missed step in the past but have a better sense now of what is expected of leadership. that contract with america in 1994 meant something to people and it still means something today. when they solve this wholesale march away from those principles outlined, those ideals that were fully dealt in the document people took it personally to get it was be as if you're own kid started to reject the very

things you raise them to believe and sort of try to help them understand and made the commitment to them and them to you that this is part of our family. so that sense of rejection was very strong and still is for a lot folks. my hope and certainly the work that i try to engage with the leadership around the country is to understand that and let's move forward with a different renewed perspective about how we greengage with the american people and restore the faith and trust in our leadership and i like what i am seeing so far certainly in massachusetts, new jersey and virginia and there is some even better opportunities that lie ahead so hold on to the face. don't let go of it. but keith everyone honest because again you don't get second chances often in politics and i think the american people

are giving an enormous second chance to really engage them and stand yet again on those foundational principles that have defined us for generations and we are doing that and it is a good thing. yes, sir. >> ra, too, would like to thank you for visiting. it's an honor to have you here. my name is robert olson and i from an hour and a half up the coast. the results of the recent elections both in november and this week i am more optimistic than i have been since probably the 2004 election so are many people who think as i do. we are so optimistic i'm concerned we've become overconfident and complacent. there are too many people already declaring the next congress after the november election as ours. so i guess my question is what can we all do, both you as the leader of the party and us as

the rank-and-file to make sure we maintain our edge and don't let overconfidence lead to something that we don't want to see come nov? >> that is a good question as you read probably i got in trouble because i am very -- i've been maebell raised me to be very pragmatic guy, very honest. i tend to tell people exactly what i think which it learned in this job people don't necessarily want you to do. [laughter] nor do they want to hear it. but of course that doesn't stop me so that someone else's problem, not mine necessarily. i really believe that this november we will do incredibly well given the candidates we are beginning to see emerge and to our already leading in races around the country. how but ultimately ends i don't know yet. there are still races where

individual candidates haven't decided. we don't have a declared candidate at all. so there are still a lot of factors there and that's been my only point is i agree with you i don't want to put the cart before the horse and make declarations i can't back up. someone told me well you are the party chairman you should be thp in 06 and in 08. i mean, that wasn't a repudiation of just normal course. it was outright rejection by the

american people. i know firsthand. i was a candidate in 2006, so i know that first hand. you don't just get up because people are upset with democrats and obama and say they are going to love us. no, if you've been listening to the american people they are telling you clearly a pox on both your houses. if you do not understand what this is about -- [applause] -- if you do not understand our frustration and anger, and if we don't understand that frustration and anger and if we don't know what this is about for them, we are doomed to make the same mistakes and to repeat those mistakes and that is not something i want us to do. so i am very excited. i am working very hard to go out and get good candidates. i have this enormous sense of opportunity ahead of us and everyday work to achieve the goals state after state after

state of winning elections, bringing principal conservative leadership to the front of the room and leading with that, not running away from it but leading with it and trusting the american people will like what they see and hear. so far we are 3-0. so i think that pragmatic approach works. you know? the smart approach works. doing what is necessary on the ground to lay the groundwork for those candidates to run, to help them take the message directly to the people and not have it filtered through the national media or the local media who have a whole separate agenda. that's part of my responsibility i try to uphold a free day so do forgive me if i'm not out here doing the ra-ra every moment. i don't think that is what you want to read i think you want someone going to the opportunities and seizing the opportunities so we get the win

and if we come out where we have got more at the end of the day that we started, that's good. but the reality is we are in a very different ball game than we were two years ago, four years ago and there is a lot of hard work to be done and i am committed to getting it done because i want the majority but when we get it i want us to keep it. i don't want to lose it again. yes, sir. there you go. yes, sir. >> my name is frank. and again, thank you for coming. i almost feel like i ask for the microphone to sue because you pretty much answered some of the biggest concern i had. i think what happened in massachusetts needs to register with the republicans because they didn't win this. the independence in massachusetts one this. i'm from massachusetts are originally, and i know what drives the state and it certainly isn't the republican

policies. i think that was a wonderful thing that happened, and i think that you put your finger on something. the people in this country have said they are not happy with either the democrats or republicans, and if the republicans behave like they've done in the past, the recent election will have meant nothing. i was reading "the wall street journal" a few days ago and there was an article in there that talked about how the american people were kind of disgusted with both parties. i think in fact what they were disgusted with his politics. and i think the message or got out of "the wall street journal" article said that the republican party has an opportunity to rally around a central theme and that is term limits and getting those people of washington that a professional politicians, not interested in what happens to us, but what happens to them, the power grab, the greed and

the bipartisanship that doesn't exist anymore, this partisan nonsense where 100% of the party goes in one direction if another party goes of the other direction something's wrong with that philosophically. and you, as the leader of the republican party have got to hammer that home so that the people that are running under your banner, and i happen to the republican by default. came here from massachusetts and couldn't find a democrat. all i found was socialists and communists. [laughter] but i sincerely hope that the message got across from that election in massachusetts. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [laughter] yeah, there's a number of points i could start with on that one. [laughter] know, i think you're absolutely

right. i really do. i think that "the wall street journal"'s point is a good one that we do have an opportunity here unlike any that we have seen. and it's not just about term limits about whole lot of things starting with okay, what do you believe in and water to quench a fight for? starting with what are you going to do? how is what you believe it when you are going to fight for and do different from what they are doing and what they believe needs to be done? and that is for us a real unique spot to be in. again i go back to my earlier point you don't get second chances in the scheme to often. and the american people are looking at us and say okay here is a second chance. show me something different. show me something that i haven't seen before or that i don't

expect because what i have seen up to now is not what i want from republican leadership and i go back to my point that my opportunity as chairman is to galvanize within the core of the party, grassroots activists, men and women who believe fervently as i do in with this fight is about and why what we can do as republicans as part of a broad conservative movement in the country can do and must do. 40% of the american people now self identify as conservative. that is a big number and age of obama. that is a significant. particularly when you go back and look at the results of the 08 election he would not have got 540% of the people coming out of 08 what self identified as conservative. but what happened? they began to see policies on fold, the decisions on gitmo, on

health care, decisions on how to deal with the economy, jobs, and they realized i think i'm a little bit more conservative than i thought i was because i don't want any of that. so now we have a chance to come and fill in the blanks based on principles that are foundational fact that we believe free-market should be free so wealth can be created not appear for government but here at the grassroots so it can be invested and spent and saved by individuals within the community so that drew can build a business and higher my 18 year old son when he gets done for the academic year and something to do in the summertime. you know? that is what this is about. and if we lose that momentum that's being generated by the likes of bob and donald of virginia and chris christie in new jersey -- new jersey? we want new jersey for good this

stakes then you're going to a slingshot to massachusetts. now be honest, i don't even have to go back and a year. i can go back one month and i bet you 90% of the people in this room would not have predicted tuesday's outcome. they would say massachusetts isn't going to win. that's nice he's trying. god bless him. [laughter] but you had a candidate who didn't get up because he believed something and he brought that something, those beliefs to the table and shared with the people of massachusetts and said to them what they are doing now has not been good for you. and what i'm willing to do are two things: one, account, to be accountable as a leader and i go to washington. and number two, i'm going to washington and i'm taking you with me. very different conversation with the people of massachusetts than the ones they've heard before.

that is our moment. we are the party that is not afraid to account any more. we want to be held accountable in our leadership and when we go and lead, we want you with us because we have our faith in you, the people, not the institutions of government, and i think that is a very powerful argument to make and it's 1i think getting back to this gentleman's question will allow us to achieve the goal of taking the control of the congress this year. if the people have the faith that when we get it will do the right thing with that. yes, sir. >> chairman, thank you for being with us today. i appreciate it. my name is chris garcia a student at pepperdine university. along the same line of communicating with americans and getting them to understand what our principles are i think that most people here would agree the

republican party historically has a problem communicating our ideas to the american people. i've come up with an idea of creating something very simple to pitch to the american people, something like the call of three cars and republican goes perfectly. number one, you respect everybody matter what their race, religion, creed. we believe in traditional values and that goes along those lines. number two door responsible for your actions and that includes self accountability, free markets, not relying on the government and the third would be the reward. if you produce you are going to be rewarded and that is the american dream and what we all agree on as what made america strong. what do you have s. res the idea to pitch the american people some kind of a simple even marketing strategy that is going to say hey, listen this is what made america strong and the republican party. we are the party of the american people. >> look in that camera because you just did. [laughter]

[applause] you just did. [applause] what we have to realize, folks is that i've got a title, that's the jews' right here. this is it right here. stand up, ma'am. don't sit down until the chairman says sit down. [laughter] we looked around and look to someone else who is in leadership to lead and the one lesson i learned in the course i've been on since i was a young man and certainly the time i spent in the monastery as an augustinian to reflect on leadership i conclude simply this is why lead i'm always prepared to lead but i'm never afraid to follow and a true leader is someone who's never

afraid to follow someone else's idea someone else's leadership because what happens then is people see that and say well, he's getting over or she is getting over leadership control, control to someone else following and that is powerful. that's something that reagan did so well. he recognized and others their ability to lead in this moment. he didn't have all the answers. he never pretended to have the answers. quite frankly i don't think he wanted to have all the answers because that leads to something else, something else not good. he trusted others and their ideas so the fact that you have stood up is the first step in leadership. the fact you laid out some ideas is the second step of leadership and the third step is your ability now to convey to everyone else of the validity and importance of what it is you're trying to do by your

nature and youth and experience and all those things come into play and in power then to trust you because you are willing to step up and stick out and say i've got some ideas. while i like the ideas and i like yeah, we can do that, the question becomes how do you then take what you've talked that and put it out in a way so that others could follow on college campuses and community amongst your friends that is where the opportunity lies. a lot of folks tend to look particularly of young republicans and go can you come over on saturday at nixon stamps and do door knocking? and that's great, it's important work that's got to get done but what i'm saying to you is you don't have to ask for permission. you are a part right now. when folks say you're the future no comment or not, you are the right now because if we don't recognize right now, what you can do in your leadership we are going to lose. we are not going to regain the strength we have in the past to

lead because it's your generation that's making the difference in this time. you don't believe me how do you get a barack obama as president. he struck a chord and inspire a generation of the folks to get engaged for the first time in a long time. now what's happening. . and that is what i want you to know that you are already in power. your ideas to the fact if unable to capitalize the three r's a

way for your generation to appreciate what this grand party is about will enable you to help us make the grand new party. a party that increase is not just the past and the legacy of great men and women like reagan but its future and individuals like you. >> that's very encouraging to get thank you. [applause] this gentleman here. excuse me, this gentleman put his hand out three times. help a brother out over here. >> i have a very simple question. the view from the rnc on california and our good friend, senator boxer -- >> time for her to go. >> amen. [applause] >> let me just say that without revealing a whole lot of strategy year because i know our friends are watching california

is going to be important this year. we are excited about the prospects and the gubernatorial and senatorial level we are excited a prospect of the congressional level, legislatively. while folks have been focusing on all of the crazy malaise that comes out of washington about the republican party and who shot john and who is mad at who we and we speaking a fight. we have been very quietly and methodically building layers of support networks, grassroots organizations and opportunity to be competitive in a lot of racist people don't expect us to be competitive. not just here in california and across the country. i'm tired of this party taking the position we can't win so we won't pay their. and i told the political operations and all the other adjunct departments within the rnc there are going to be raised

as everyone will scratched their head and go why are you over here in this race? you're not going to win this race? because at some point, ladies and gentlemen, we have to plant a flag as a party and say we want to compete here even though we know we're going to get other clocks cleaned. we are going to compete because the people need us to and it's about time we do that three [applause] test case upstate new york. while after it was focused on new york 23 and losing their minds of the what happened in new york 23 and they should because the was the biggest cluster you know what shouldn't happen. should never have happened but while folks were focused on the new york 23 congressional district guess what we did. we want to county executive races. you might say to yourself big deal. the counties are as big as some states and population. what it meant was whether it was

westchester county where barack obama won with 60% of the vote last year a republican now runs the county this year because we one fathi election and so the point is when you go and engage in our prepared to compete, when you are prepared to go after the ground you might not get it right now. you might not get the next time that there will come a point when you will. so whether it is california or new york, wherever it happens to be where we've not been competitive before, our goal now is to be competitive, to get good candidates to run to support the candidates and make the investment necessary for them to win. everyone else i said before wouldn't have led by steny one to invest in massachusetts. they wouldn't have advised to invest in new jersey because while republicans just don't win. at some point you have to stop believing the old thinking and

stop doing it the old way and take the risks necessary to compete. i'm the chairman prepared to do that and i get beat up for it sometimes that's fine. throw the rocks and stones at me. meanwhile, letting my guys and gals go in and win. the one, at me again. go on, when, keep going. hit me again. keep going. that's the goal here is to put ourselves as a party in a position we can be competitive. and we will be very competitive in california this year. trust me. trust me. [applause] thank you very much. thank you so much. this is been a lot of fun. i have enjoyed being here in the spirit of reagan and certainly at the reagan library last week and be here at the ranch this week and with all of you.

it does my heart good and it is so nice to know so many people give a about this country and are willing to fight for it every day and i'm honored to be one of the soldiers whose been picked out and chosen to go down a particular path to do my best to make sure we cathk you so mu. god bless you and god bless america. [applause] ..

>> coming up next, booktv presents "after words," an hourlong discussion between a guest host and author of the new book. this week nobel prize-winning economist joseph stiglitz talks about the 2008 u.s. economic collapse and its effect on the global economy.

professor stiglitz argues the need to change the incentives and government oversight is required for the economy to function properly. he is interviewed by joseph stiglitz, director of public citizen's global trade watch. she is the co-author of "whose trade organization?" a comprehensive guide to the wto. >> host: hello. we are here today with professor joe stiglitz india's go to new book, "freefall" that describes the way we got into the current economic crisis, critique some of what is and then to deal with that in place else some of the bigger picture remedies that we need to address in the debates we need to have in their country to move forward to a more stable economy that works for people. so thank you very much for the opportunity to share your book with folks on c-span. it is a very interesting reading and i wanted to start out with the book starts out, which is

sort of the path to this disaster, how we got into this. the first section of the book describes it and it is a lot of things people are kind of aware of, self-interest and deregulation of the financial sector pushed four, the fed not paying to the attention to a bubble and is he described helping to treated but the thing you write about that i think most people haven't thought as much about is basically the issue of incentives. you talk about ceo pay and executive pay but it is more than that. tell us a little bit more of that. >> guest: let me for synthesize white is so important. economists disagree on almost everything but the one thing they agree on is incenses matter. if the incentives dome matter we are out of the job, so it is a very natural way for economists to think about the world. what went wrong in part were incentives at the individual

level and at the organizational level, the level of the bank, the financial institutions. the bank so we talk about the importance of incentive pay, what we discovered in the middle of the crisis was that was seysure raid. because they got high pay when their performance was good. they got high pay when the performance was bad. so, it was clear that that was partly, partly a charade. but, it was worse than that, because they were designed to encourage short-sighted behavior and excessive risk-taking. short-sighted behavior in the sense that it was on an annual basis not on long term, five, ten year, not in terms of how well workers were doing or how well, what's the firm was doing in a broader sense, creativity, how it was doing compared to other firms.

the stock market would go up, they would do well. so it was very much short sighted, and designed to encourage accessorize taking. >> host: those are some of the structural-- >> guest: that's right but incentives not only of the individual but of organizations, so you have things that were too big to fail. what is the mean you were too big to fail? it means that if you gamble and you when you walk off with the proceeds. if you gamble and lose, the taxpayer picks up the tab. so what are you going to do when you have that kind of asymmetry? >> host: you were going to gamble with my money. >> guest: you have nothing to this. it is not real capitalism but they call it capitalism because you socialize the losses, he privatize the gains. and the point i tried to emphasize is when you have that

kind of capitalism, it is not efficient and it leads to the kinds of problems that we have. in fact i joke with my students and say if we hadn't had a crisis it would have meant that all our theories about incentives would have been destroyed, so the crisis actually vindicates what we have been teaching but unfortunately a lot of other people are suffering as a result. >> host: i have this vision as it was reading the first of the book of adam smith and david ricardo sort of rolling in their graves because the way, it is not supposed to will work that you take the risk in the luzhin your report. that is not the basic principle we are supposed to have an capitalist and so i'm wondering what you think the role of economists, people in your own profession particularly government policymaking position was in helping to create those bad incentives but also you describe a lot about how they missed seeing the plowable building, they helped create the

bubble, greenspan. tell us a little bit about that. >> host: as i have tried to analyze who was to blame which of course is the question everyone wants to know, unfortunately i have to say the economists come in for some share, other economists of course. but, they played a role in a number of different ways. there were some economists that were pointing out markets don't always work, that there are problems with information particularly important financial markets. there are things called externalities' where people have that consequences of their actions, affects other people for which they are not compensated. pollution as an example. said there are lots of market failures as we call them and we have gotten much better understanding of those market failures but unfortunately, almost the predominant view of economics forgot about all of that and it became almost a

servant of financial markets and the others, who wanted to gain from a free market ideology. the notion that markets were self-correcting and always were. we should have known that that was of sir. then we have the great depression. markets did not work. one out of four americans were a lot of the job and for a long time, so we know historically that markets often don't work, but they forgot all that. daytop the go to new economy. somehow we were different but the only thing that was different is in some sense was may be our hubris, that capitalism has had these ups and downs since the beginning with one exception and that is really interesting. the 50 years after the great depression, where we did learn

the lesson and we created regulations to try to restrict this kind of bad behavior and they worked remarkably well. not only in the united states but around the world. there was one period in which there were almost no crises@'d'd ot to

blame in this sense that they forgot about these important experiences and what economic theory had explained when markets were and unfortunately when they often don't work. >> host: the book is very useful in explaining what i think the best they called crenson which the freefall was brewing, a different sort of problems in the economics profession, that the trend towards deregulation, the bat incentives but brought it all together one of the things i think you make a very compelling case for is that this was a man-made disaster, not a natural disaster in this is really important because they think of how many times many of us, myself, watching television and economist come out and say this was the 100 year storm, this was a fluke of nature but you make a

compelling case that actually it was a creation of man. >> guest: this wasn't something that happened to the financial markets. it was something that the financial markets did to themselves into the rest of our society. and you could see it brewing and you could see the errors in logic that led to it. for instance here again we talk about the role of the economics profession, they put forth this idea that market for always efficient, and if they are always sufficient you can get bubbles. if you couldn't get bubbles you don't have to do anything about deflating bubble so green fan-- greenspan would feel comfortable in saying there may be a little frothed but nothing for us to do anything about, and went on to say if there is a problem much better to fix it after-the-fact. he didn't say how much it was going to cost, and how long it

would take to fix. but, there was a party going on, and their regulators didn't want to be a party cooper, and particularly because they couldn't believe that markets couldn't take care of everything, and again, it is partly a problem. dave pour not going to have to pay for the cleanup. we were. >> host: i am actually going to look at some of the particular statistics because when i read it the way i felt about it in even more so after massachusetts' vote, the details of the fallout from this man-made disaster like the footnotes that describe their rage a lot of americans are in the across this country, red and blue of different demographics. 50% of the working age population is currently employed which is the smallest percentage

since 1947. we hear 10% unemployment in when you look at it from that perspective that is a stunning figure. millions of families have lost the value of assets in you describe the inequality of who has been hit because with the real estate deflation is for working fate people, their houses their assets. income and equality at the height not seen since the robber baron age. the book is filled with some pretty startling descriptions of the fallout. you describe the situation and what came after it as a major economic war between main street and wall street. here is the question. wall street keets messing up on their own measurements. they are not doing well. but they keep winning. in this war. that gets to sort of what happened after all of that damage was done by certain players? how does that come to pass? >> guest: one way of thinking about it is in the financial markets were not very good in

doing their main task which is managing risk in allocating capital, but they were very good at managing political capital. and, they spend a lot of money and they have gotten a high return. they first got a high return from the regulation and they made a whole lot of money. they then got a very high return in the bailouts. the bailout terms were very favorable. the congressional oversight panel looked at for instance when we were giving them money, we got back securities. these securities that we got back at the time they were issued were worth about 67 cents on the dollar so weak that she did. maybe the people doing this for former investment bankers and if they had been working for a private guide they would have been fired, but it raises the question, who were they working for? but now they are getting a dividend, another dividend from those investments.

they are successfully resisting pressure to regulate them, not to go back to the old regulation we had 75 years ago. the world this change but we need a regulatory structure that is appropriate for the 21st century. in my mind, that was part of the real debate of what we should be doing at that critical moment. were we going to try to go back to 2007 before the crisis? the financial system was overloaded. 40% of all corporate profits were going to finance. credit-card fees that were extracting as much money from ordinary people as they could. modern technology would allow for a payment mechanism that caused anisse for money from your bank account to the merchant when you go into the store gets a charge 1%, 2%, 3% for doing that.

these all are reflections of the failures of the 2007 regime that we don't want to go back to. as i say we have a financial sector. we had to bring it down to size. we forgot that it is a means and not an end in itself, but when we brought it down to size we should have asked the question, what do we want from the financial sector? what part should maybe be some expanded, a venture-capital, the kinds of firms that financed google and yet the new dynamic enterprises, that finance the small and medium-size enterprises, to create job. the job creation is. but what do we do? we let 140 of our smaller banks go bankrupt this year. but, we poured in money to the big banks, whose whose focus has

not then on lending, whose focus has been on speculation. when they came out with the high returns, every but he look where were they making the money? trading. it wasn't from lending and they still aren't making money from lending. money has been cutting back. >> host: they have small business by the neck. >> guest: it is getting worse because a lot of small business lending is based on collateral. collateral is often a real estate and what does happen to the real estate fell you? the this come dylan soapier going to be facing more difficulties going forward, but when they were pouring money into the banks we didn't ask those questions. where we wanted our society, our financial system to go and the results of this is we wound up with a financial system that we were talking before about incentives. economists sometimes called

moral hazard, the risk of the kind of risk of gambling. it has gotten worse. >> host: one of the things i recall from the book that i thought was clever is we talked about how we have gotten too big to fail or too big to resolve things. if you look at this whole situation and billions being poured into those things, they have gotten bigger as ever as a result of the response, with americans having lost their households without any help, you basically come to the conclusion in your book that in some ways things have been made worse. it was a bad situation but the way but the response was done made it worse than it had to be facing a bad situation, and one of the things that struck me as you talk about the failures of the bush and obama administration rag lamons the cause the mistakes of any modern democratic government at the time. in what ways did responses make things worse and what still is salvageable? i'm talking about the initial

responses, not the regulation but the original bailout in the emergency measures? >> guest: let me first give a broad perspective. the banks in the financial system have wasted money. if we have all of this capitol we could have spent it to create jobs, to create new enterprises. we didn't. we put money into houses where they should never been for people who could afford them so that was the initial mistake. then we have the crash. well, going forward the question is, how do we best use the resources we have. there is no reason that we have to underutilized resources. we made some mistakes. now going forth, go forward and used what resources you have fully. but what have we been doing? not using our resources folly and that is why one out of ten americans are in the unemployment but actually that number is much worse.

one out of five americans would like a full-time job and can get one. wanada five. that is a serious problem. if you look at some demographics like us, afro-american yet it is almost one out of two. so these numbers are startling and horrifying. if we had done the right thing, we could have used this money to help american stay in their homes rather than the millions who have lost their homes. we could have used the money to stimulate the economy to create the jobs, but what did we do? the poor the money into the banks. when we did our welfare reform in 1996 for the port, we said if you are going to get welfare, you have to do certain things. you have to go through training. when we put the banks on welfare, we said no, it would be bad for the banks of the put any

conditions on the banks so what did we do? we said do whatever you want. we trust you. >> host: with guest jill weech trustee. look at that record. would you say we trust you? so what did we do? what did they do with our money? they did what their incentives said they would do and this comes back to the theme. they paid out the money in bonuses. they paid out the money in dividends and in the book, in "freefall" i tried to explain why that is, why it is so predictable but of course they were paying money out. it wasn't money that was going to be lent to create new jobs. it wasn't money that was going to recapitalize the banks to make them able to lend more in the future. now the interesting thing is that we have over that period,

congress, people are so angry that they won't give them more money we are doing it indirectly, surreptitiously. they can borrow money from the fed at a low interest-rate, blend it on at a higher interest-rate, lindh it out even to government with no risk and get profit so we are recapitalizing but in a way that will diminish the growth of our economy because it is not in lending. we are giving money without any constraint so what are they doing with the money? they are asking where is the highest return? where is the highest growth? emerging markets. so now we have a double problem. americans are unhappy because they are not creating jobs and lending is weak and being constrained but the emerging markets of are habte because we are about to creative bubble there. and so, they managed to get everybody to cause problems to

every economy around the world. so brazil has said no thank you. we are going to try to make sure you don't rush in with their hot money to lead to a bubble. we saw what a bubble can do. we don't want that, thank you. >> host: it is very interesting. i hadn't thought about that is part of the solution, of the solution that didn't work cause more pain because one of the books-- finks the book describes which i think is useful for folks in this country to understand is the role of the u.s. and exporting both radical the regulation model but also the crisis and the contagion worldwide, and you describe some of the instruments like the international monetary fund, the world bank conditionalities that were imposed on developing countries to deregulate, to liberalize their financial sectors etc. the world trade organization was used in a

similar way and the u.n. commission report describes the problems with that. so that we have those institutions and rules imposed and then we have a worldwide crisis as a result. what is the worldwide response that is needed as far as trying, because we have exported a crisis and they came from us, what is the u.s. role in the global role in dealing with the global nature of this crisis? >> guest: let me first talk about a little bit about the global consequences. as you said, we exported are to regulation philosophy. we also exported our toxic mortgages and in the sense if we have exported so many of our toxic mortgages, about 40% of them that downturn in the united states would have been worse. but, we made, we exported our problems and we have now created a global crisis. this crisis has a very clear mate in the u.s.a. label. one of the consequences of that

has been that it has undermined you might say our credibility, our role of leadership because people use to turn to the united states and they would say, we ought to imitate american institutions, american policies. you knew what you were doing is what they said. they don't think that anymore. and, that in the fact that asia is growing and the asian markets are growing much faster than we are is really leading to a new you might say geoeconomic, geopolitical balance, and you see that in the forcefulness with which some of the emerging markets have responded in the global negotiations. they are much more reluctant to listen to the preaching of the united states. the united states, secretaries of treasury would go to china

and say, whether their fingers and say you what to liberalize their financial markets like we did, and they had a robust debate in those countries. they said, no, thank you. now they say much more loudly, no thank you, because we were worried. now we see how worried we should have then. >> host: it is an interesting disconnect because i have notice friends since with the g-20 summits you have no a globaled call for read like-- regulation. we are going to shift back to the context but at the same time you have the international monetary fund's, sort of the arsonist being in charge of putting out the fires fires the instruments perhaps for some kind of a global mechanism in the crisis. you have that the world trade organization to united states pushing for more financial deregulation.

those rules are ready as you have identified have to be reversed, the existing w t orules so there seems to be this perverse notion of we need to reregulate but there stiller these global institutions. you call for coming to mention the need for global institution to managing global economy and the sad news i thought of as someone who knows that fitial is professor stiglitz it is one, it is the wto. so how do you see the dynamic of internationally, given the shift in the u.s. role, which has its ups sites in as he college market fundamentalism didn't work what we were exporting. how do you you see this new dynamic in the new rules for a global economy are actually created? >> guest: one of the good things of the fallout from the crisis was the recognition first of all that the g8 was outdated. you couldn't have global problems be addressed by a small club. how can you talk about global warming when the biggest is

under the table. how could you talk about global trade imbalances when china is not at the table? moving from the g8 to the g-20 was a step in the right direction. >> host: the g8 being the club of the u.s. and european countries in the g-20 and adding in china, brazil and india for listeners. >> guest: there are still 172 countries not represented, and the g-20 was a self selected club, no political legitimacy. you know sub-saharan african country of then south africa, the developing countries basically unrepresented. so, real deficiencies in the structure. the other thing that was good about the g-20 was that it became a place where the leaders got together and unfortunately in the way that the global governance too often works is it is delegated to particular

ministries, a particular cabinet positions. so, at the wto if you have the trade ministers. at the imf you have the central bank governors and the finance ministers and the secretary of treasury. now what i saw when i was in government, so when i was chief economist of the world bank, quite often those ministries have very little to do with the national interest. those ministries that reflect special-interest. so, u.s. trade representative and representatives of other countries get captured by particular special-interest. the finance ministries, treasury perfect wall street and the similar financial institutions in each of the countries. so, that is how you could have the leader saying, we want, we need more regulation if we are going to prevent a recurrence,

and if the wto, they are saying we have to push the agenda of deregulation even though we have had the biggest races in the last 75 years caused by deregulation, and even though the spread of the duper around the world was facilitated by capital market, financial market liberalization. this is a special interest agenda and i think in a sense of this dissidents has brought home the extent of capture of these ministries and the difference between what is in the national interest and what is going on in these particular international agencies. >> host: that is going to make erp to take a short break before coming back to talk about the difference between the bush and obama approaches to regulation and also what can be done going

forward. ..

just about to discuss the difference between the bush and obama administration approach to the crisis. in the book you talk out something i think a lot of people don't realize that some of the top personnel basically didn't change. you talk about obama can tannin on change you can believe in. but with respect to his economic team and some degree the approach it was more like rearranging the of deck shares on the titanic. what are the differences between bush and obama to the extent of their art and economic policy and in addressing the crisis and what lessons do you take about the continuity of the person now? >> guest: i think there was one clear decision to maintain continuity of personnel and partly continuity of the policies because they didn't want to -- they were afraid of destabilizing the market. the market's use this notion of

fear all the time and they said if you don't do this and they pointed a gun at the congress and said if you don't give us a blank check for $700 billion, capitalism will fall apart. and they use fewer all the time. and so they said you have to have continuity. and obama bought into that set of motions. there's a very big difference even within that because what they did, obama -- bush did not want to do anything but stimulate the economy. >> host: stimulus is a big difference. >> guest: bush didn't want to do anything about mortgages and pouring money down into the banks was like massive blood transfusion to a patient suffering from internal bleeding , so those were two very big differences.

the problem was the stimulus was not big enough, not well enough designed. the continuity applause and one-third of it was a tax cut and the tax cut is what bush had done and it failed. and predictably economists explain why when you have this overhang of debt to the uncertainty you are going to save a lot of it and to stimulate the economy you have to spend. on the area of the mortgages, things were worse because the fundamental problem was that the bubble had broken. the problem was the bank's, the regulators didn't want to believe they have done such a bad job. they didn't want to believe that there was this bubble. they wanted to believe the high prices were the true prices and we were just in a momentary moment of irrational pessimism

and if we could point the spirits and say the right things, talk about green chutes everything would recover overnight. >> host: back like it was. >> guest: back to like it was 33 of the was we had been in a dream world, and the reality was this new low level of prices. and that meant for about one out of four american homes were under water. they owned more money than the value of their homes. that meant most americans were going to lose the value of their homes. to deal with that you had to write down the value of the mortgage in one way or another. reform of bankruptcy, lots of ways, you had to do it. they didn't do anything about that problem and the result is that in 2010 we expect somewhere between two pond five to three plight 5 million mortgage foreclosures -- >> host: more. >> guest: more than in 2009

and in 2008 so it is not like the problem is getting better. in some ways it is getting worse. some have been restructured but even restructuring raised problems because a lot of the restructurings have added new fees and with the new fees people are more in debt. the bank can record the profits from the fees. the fact they are more in debt shows up at a problem further down the line. more of them may go into foreclosure but that is a problem we will have to deal with years down to it so on these issues it was viewed they did something much better than bush. you can't compare the two but it was and what should have been done. >> host: it's interesting because the other observation that's interesting is how obama responded to the crisis and for instance bonding the argument about stability and maintaining

both the same personnel and the same policies you note that he is conservative in the sense of conserving the system and for what to how he can paint is a transformational figure that he, quote come hadn't offered an alternative view of capitalism but the sort of goal was to muddle through and in part throw money into the existing system to shore up. where do you think that takes us? >> guest: obviously it's taken us where we are now where the econ and hasn't recovered in the way that it should have. the national debt is much larger than it would have been had we done the right thing. but when you talk about conservative or what is in the american tradition and there was one aspect of that i found particularly disturbing and that is when they were pouring money into the bank's rather than

going with the usual rules of capitalism the firms often wind up owing more than they could pay and they go into bankruptcy and to get results and you can go into bankruptcy, you convert the shareholders lose everything, the bond holders become the new shareholders and in the case of banks we have a very similar process would we do we call what conservatorship or what you do is you shareholders lose everything, bondholders become the new shareholders and because government is insured depositors must put more money in and sometimes it puts so much in it becomes the effective boehner and dimitri privatizes and sells it back. that is the american way. but what is so interesting is that this whole process got captured by the banks and they said that's the kind of thing they do in sweden and these other countries but it's not the american way but it was the american way.

we did it in continental illinois and the senate over and over and over again. we have always saying that is what you're supposed to do. we suspended the rules of capitalism to give more money to the bankers not only to the banks but the bankers, bondholders and shareholders, so in that sense of and we made things worse going forward caui@"s)pap priorities, so here we have

something close to a new experience or as close as i want in my lifetime, thank you very much of the economy yet there does seem to be a sizable number of individuals, finance years, some of them who cycled into the government not only here but international agencies and other countries, pendants, economists, scholars who still seem hook on these presumptions that have pretty much been factually counter approved and keep touting the same market self correcting and i'm wondering what is it going to take it this didn't do it to get folks to look at the fundamentals which in the second half of the book is what you're calling for. >> guest: there is a way of explaining this which is to remember how well some people were doing before the crisis in 2007. most americans were not doing that well.

median income adjusted for inflation that is the people right in the middle of their income in 2007 was lower than in 1999 but a few people were doing very well including a lot of people in the banks and a lot of other people in this society. but it was relatively few. well, these people would like to go back to that kind of a world, so they have a incentive to try to say nothing because happened yet it's something that happened to us and another way of thinking about it and fixing in with your discussion of what we approach the problem of a plumbing has been clogged. it's stuffed and what do you do then? you called a plumber. who do you call? well, you called a plumber that put in the pipes because he's the one who knows where all the problems are. he created the problems. but if you call in the same

plumber to unplug the called plight scirica pipes coming your not going to get a retro redesign of a plumbing system. he's quick to say thank you very much and send you a big bill for the services and you're going to be angry because you should have had a better plumbing system in the first place. >> host: and its grant to start flowing again but the profits are going to go out to the rest of us like the first design. >> guest: six ackley . the thing i think is important for us is to have a vision of not only the kind of financial system we want but also what kind of a society, what kind of an economic system we want and remember the finance is the means to an end, not in and of itself and that is true with the economy. the economy as a means, part comedy central park, but if our

planet doesn't survive because of problems of pollution or global warming it's not going to be a lot of good to know that we have high gdp. so we have to assess where we are going and say are we going where we want to go? one of my concerns about what was happening in five years before the crisis was that not adjusted we misallocate our scarce physical capital of money that went to the wrong place but also in our human capital. as a teacher it was something i felt very intensely because i would see some of the best most talented students being lured into finance. and in another era some of these

would have become doctors or some would become researchers were discovered a new laser or new transistors, things would have transformed our society and made our increased society to wellbeing. people would have gone to do work in development helping poor people. but the attractions of the megabucks on wall street were so many, such a large fraction of the most talented people and i think that is an unbalanced society. >> host: the final chapters of the book talk about the connection between the financial system and the underlying economic system and then envisioning what you want as a society and making the economic system to deliver on that. before we get to that i just want to go back to the domestic part of their free regulating the financial system because in the book you describe there were two phases, the immediate all my god moment with the bailouts and

you described very interesting leave the use of the lehman brothers collapsed to sort of create an almost terror of my god the world will end you must do this now. after that subsided congress started working on and certain federal regulators started working on we regulating actively making changes on securities, banking and insurance would be operated as a west to deal with the structural issues, change the incentives, to get out where the risk was. how has that been going? you said the test would be if what is on the table were adopted what it prevent what just happened from happening again. how are they giving? >> guest: pretty badly. let me give you one example. the major change in regulatory structure is to give the fed more power. but the fed was -- they were the ones who were responsible. they didn't use all the power they had to prevent the bubble.

they were the ones who said -- >> host: after helping inflate -- >> guest: well, not only that, not only did the pump up in that way but they could have done something about putting regulations on down payments, other instruments, one of the arguments was we only have one instrument, interest rates and that's true. >> host: you make those points in the book. >> guest: so they were responsible. here you have the agency that caused the problem or at least a large responsibility. and you see we are going to solve the problem by giving it more power without changing any of the son of entel structures. without changing the fact that in the new york fed it's basically owned by the banks. >> host: is this the administration or congress or both? >> guest: it's interesting this was the administration plan and the house plan, the senate said this doesn't make any sense and they said we have to create

a new systemic regulator because the fed clearly didn't do its job but even in the house there is a great deal of skepticism about the fed for another reason. we live in a space society and one element of the space society is transparency. you have written about that, and the fed is not fair and transparent and was particularly not transparent in what it did in the crisis. bloomberg had to sue to get some critical information that he thought should be in the public domain. it won the suit and what did the fed to? to disclose information? no. it appealed. is it we are not subject to the freedom of information act which is one of the basic laws of the hour democracy to make sure citizens know the people who are

working for them are doing. we understand why now they don't want to disclose. the bailout with money going to goldman sachs, i wouldn't want to disclose that either but making statements like we had to do, the violation of the law if we didn't pay 100 cents on the dollar meanwhile in france they were selling these for less than 100 cents on the dollar we got roiled. >> host: you pointed out it wasn't even treatment in the u.s. of different classes of interest which is to say 100 cents on the dollar but because there was a contract to you point out for the uaw working guys -- >> guest: they had to redo the contract. >> host: they had to read and take concessions. >> guest: double standard.

not surprisingly the financial markets have resisted doing the kinds of things that need to be done and beginning of the conversation we talked about the risk of the too big to fail institutions. haven't done anything about that. >> host: let's talk about that because you talk in the book about the importance what had been a glass-steagall type, you explain it this updated but looking at the size and firewalls so that for instance commercial banks can be gambling like an investment bank with my savings and it doesn't look like the congress is looking either at slice or at the firewall. >> guest: and there's other things they haven't been adequately dealing with incentive pay. one of the things people are very concerned about incentives, pay needs to more risk taking and shoreside behavior. there's some regulations that

are trying to move in the direction but moving very slowly not clear we're going to get them through part of the problem is in regulation the devil is in the details you can get something that looks pretty good and then you start reading it inside so one of the important things was the consumer financial products safety commission that many of these products still were being sold to individuals or not really good for their interest. they were good for the banks because they regulate a lot of fees. >> host: but not safe for consumption. >> guest: and we look at the toys and food we eat what we say you can buy these complex products and not even the bank is going to understand and let alone somebody that is a first-time home buyer so very important i thought to have a some kind of a consumer

financial products safety commission. it looks like we might get one. but it looks like 80 or 90% of the banks will be exempt. >> host: which is a problem. >> guest: which is a real problem and so they wanted to do just a mild thing saying everybody who offers a mortgage has to offer a plain vanilla mortgage, no bells and whistles, just -- was clear and simple. >> guest: everybody can understand they couldn't even get that through. on derivatives one of the -- aig, $180 billion, think what we could do with $180 billion. what we're doing doesn't look like it is when to be adequate. we say we want more of the derivatives to be traded on exchanges. but we want -- we will also

allow the non-transparent mom fully disclosed. but what are the banks going to prefer? where do they make their money? they make their money -- they are not going to make money on a standardized products that are in competition because the competitive market profits get squeezed to zero. they like being on transparency. but capital markets exercise discipline if they don't know what the banks are doing? so the problem is here in this key area of and it doesn't appear as if we are going to be giving enough and even when we look like we're doing the right thing we look in the details they are eviscerating what the intent of what was needed. >> host: are the five things for the three things that

congress better due to be able to make sure we don't get into this bickel again and also to make the economy of the financial part of the economy work better for people? you mentioned bankruptcy reforms and easy very simple reforms, payments in and looked on payment system of control by visa and mastercard what would you're one, two, three, four, five things they need to do that they are not quite so too big to fail. >> guest: too big to fail was clearly one, derivatives are clearly another, something about incentive systems so that you don't have these people of rewarding them in ways to have access risk-taking, shoreside behavior. they need to do something about excess leverage. the whole variety of other ways of risk-taking. they've got 30-1, 40-1 leverage. what does that mean? it means if the value of the assets goes down by two, three, four, 5% they are wiped out. what happened to the real estate

assets? they went down by 40%. they were wiped out multiple times. so we shouldn't have been disguised. the thing about leverage is when things are going up you make a lot of money. but from a social point of view abzy)h pbp,p$s#hdp'dds)p

forward. >> guest: one of things i'm trying to raise is incentives matter, not just in that way that they've matter in the past, but if we have the right incentives we get the right innovation. the innovation we have had has not been directed at improving the ability of homeowners to manage the risk of homeownership and increasing the stability of the mortgage market. there were ideas out there like the danish mortgage bonds but they did in generate the fees and they were not interested in those things. so one of the things i think is important is if we get the incentives better aligned between society and the but the private rewards are i think i have enough confidence and maybe i am an optimistic here, that

they will be innovative in ways that will improve the well-being of our society. one of the things that we have to do is to try to encourage more lending to small and medium-size enterprises. and that means that a variety of ways of doing that, but basically right now we encourage -- the way we gave the bailout money in disproportionate went to the big banks that make a lot of their money not from lending but from trading. so, we should have done things that encourage that part. now it's not too late. >> host: so the economy gets the financing. let's link -- if the fed is lending money to the banking system let's say you can't use that money to speculate in brazil. brazil will be happier and so will our firms that get the money be happier so this is a

win-win. >> host: and the needed just to be about finance operations, to hire people again to build demand. >> guest: exactly so there are things like this that we can do. we've done things like this and other countries have done it so it's not breaking new ideas. these are using things that have worked in of their countries and other times and other contexts in the united states bringing it to bear on the current problems of increasing lending to small and medium-size enterprises. and the other thing we mentioned i think is very important is having an efficient electronic payment mechanism. the current system acts like a tax on every transaction and big tax. they are complaining about a small financial service tax. but they impose a much larger tax, much larger tax on every transaction, every whenever you use one of those debit cards they are imposing a big tax. >> host: this will probably be our last question because we are

running out of time to talk about the importance of being a financial system right as necessary but not sufficient because the bigger question is the broad economic system and you talk about three challenges the world faces, restoring demand and full employment, restructuring the financial system and the restructuring in the u.s. economy to deal with shifts in the world's the economic structure. you talk about hunting for new comparative of vintages and creating programs to map that but in the mix of this you talk about the challenge of the balance between the government and markets and its pro first have to in the u.s. to do what's worked in the past, period of growth and we had regulated finance etc but also other countries, the capitalist market economies to and thinking of those three big challenges i'm wondering inclosing what you think we are going to see from the obama administration going

forward and what you think ought to be done. >> guest: i think the obama administration has made a shift from the bush administration and recognizing there is an important role for government but the question is what that role is and how big that rule ought to be. they all agree they're ought to be able even the financial sector agreed there ought to be a role of bailing them out and getting a lot of money so everyone agrees the government should do something if we are going to give the bank's money but i think most of us think that it should have a broad role and we talked in this conversation a lot about the role in preventing disasters. if you are going to have to build big hospitals with some preventive care so not so many people went to the hospital. but there's another i think much more creative role for the government.

what has been the most important innovation of the 20th century and the last part of the tariffs and trade was the internet. who financed that? government. the private-sector brought that to market. what i find interesting about that it is a kind of public sector partnership. it couldn't have happened without the government playing a critical role. you'll get all the basic research on which all of the advances of technology that we use, most of that basic research is supported by the government. there is a good feeling and good reason why that is the case but the fact is that you can't have the advances in technology if you don't have advances in science on which they rest. >> host: and the innovations and therefore the growth and employment. >> guest: it all has to rest on a foundation of government to

reply from so disturbing during the bush year of was this constant bashing of the government. the government doesn't do everything perfectly. and any of was that what happened in the bush administration have to agree the government often takes things very bad but it's also the case of the private sector dawson to get things perfectly. no government, no space government probably has ever wasted money outside of the war on the scale of our private sector in this crisis and we should remember that. so private-sector fail, governments have failed. we need systems of checks and balances and that's part of the space process. but one of the concerns is the system of checks and balances may be getting underlined. ..

you told me you just returned from afghanistan. what are your impressions? >> guest: well, my impressions have even changed since i got back because we've obviously had to capture of the taliban second-in-command this week. what i'll say though is as they move into the late winter, early spring, there will be nato offensive in helmand province were receiving u.s. marine corps forces in the central hohman river valley as well as now over the past week the offensive by pakistani intelligence agencies and u.s. intelligence agencies against senior taliban officials in pakistan. so we're really not seeing an offensive on both sides of the border. >> host: mark moyer, has her mission in afghanistan changed since president obama came to office and how would you define our mission? >> guest: well, i think the fundamental mission of trying to provide a stable afghanistan.

how we do that has changed and had a large infusion of troops seen a lot of the media fishier already in larger campaign, the most heartening example and if are making progress. i think the most important thing though is looking at long-term afghan development. when i was over there last month that's really what i was looking at was how do you develop in afghanistan that becomes more self-sufficient. we all know that's important, the best question is how do you go about doing that. >> host: in a recent foreign policy magazine article, this is what she wrote eared in developing the u.s. >> guest: yeah, because in a situation like this you need to develop leaders. leadership is the key.

and you can develop a leader in a year or two years for the critical medical levels of command. in the past week i do speed that up to her judgment. i think we've now just in recent months finally figured that out and we are moving towards better long-term development and at the same time we do in the short-term fixes in terms of trying to get the afghans to replace some of the bad commanders who are already there. >> host: mr. jones, and "in the graveyand of empires," this is what she wrote. first step must be to address massive corruption at the national and which has alienated the population and field support for insurgent groups. several forms of corruption appear to have acerbically contributed to the afghan insurgency. drug trafficking, bribery among senior officials and pervasive extortion among afghan police and judges. >> guest: well, corruption if you look at bank in transparency international data, they rank

afghanistan at the bottom of countries worldwide. in one of the things i think we found is when you look back at afghanistan's previous period, so for example, the year is out medio shotton king-size earshot, they were fairly legitimate government over the course of the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. what we faced our some crisis of legitimacy with the central government. and over the long run to establish stability and security, there has to be some legitimacy at the central government level. in particular that means doing something about the large-scale corruption we see and government officials involved in the narcotics trade as well as individual involved in my rescale extortion and bribery, usually about major contracts, large amounts of cash. this is not just about police checkpoints along the road. this is large amounts money that are being used. and i think it's actually partly fueling the insurgency because it separating the local population from a government

that you as illegitimate to some degree. >> host: are we doing that at all? >> guest: well, i think there have been steps. most of the key cabinet ministers at least in the power position, warnock for example, the administer a defense actually tend to have pretty clean records. the othergu'd"sguab zones.

you can also send us an e-mail at the tv@c. span.org. orie tweet at twitter.com/booktv. here's a little bit more about our guest here will start with mark moyar. also professed along with being an author and professor at the marine corps university and he's written a couple of books including his "a question of command." he's also written phoenix and the birds of prey, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism in vietnam. in time for stake vietnam war, 1954 to 1965. dr. moyar has served in or has been several times to afghanistan. our other guest is seth jones, author of "in the graveyard of empires." he's also a political scientist at the rant corporation and a professor at georgetown university. mark moyar, we've been in afghanistan about 8.5 years. is there an ending to this?

>> guest: i think there is. it taken us a long time to get there. in the early years for one thing it didn't seem too much violence or need to focus on it and of course we at iraq. the insurgency really didn't get going until 20,000 lives and on a large scale and was slow to react. we tried for several years to ramp up the afghan forces quickly, they began about the quantity pushover quality. and that's also again gets to the issue, we talked about corruption. you know, the corruption starts with commanders on the afghans because at some level there tolerating this. and for too long, we've sorted let them sort this out. but you know, just in the past few months we've seen some encouraging examples above are starting to prosecute people for corrupting governors, police chief, it we just upgraded the training initiative to three-star general caldwell. again, you're now seeing our

best and brightest going over there. for a while, most of them are going to iraq. general caldwell, general mcchrystal, a lot of art top folks. so i think we aren't going to be a turning point in this year. >> guest: i think we're actually beginning to see what looks like u.s. and the afghans and nato more bradly potentially moving towards a tipping point. i mean what's interesting again is easy and major effort helmand. there will be very sent an offensive than that, heart problems as well. and what's interesting is over the last really seven years in particular, the taliban leadership, the afghan taliban leadership has been able to operate in pakistan, especially in baluchistan province and other neighboring provinces. the command-and-control structures existed across the borders in the inter-shura. this week we've now seen public

information about the talent and leadership, including the shadow governors now being targeted in pakistan. this becomes a systematic effort, this begins to change the game in pakistan because this means that nowhere now and save for the taliban leadership. >> host: what was the point of preannouncing our intentions for this week's military actions? >> guest: i think they knew the television were going to figure it out. they're very good at surveillance and they would've seen this massive troop doing far in advance. i don't think we lost much in terms of the element of surprise. it didn't enable us to set the groundwork for the local population shortly before the offense we had a lot of meetings with the local elders, which i think approved. unofficial cuts are already seeing them now cooperating with us even as the offensive is ongoing. it's also important to make sure we got all the afghan leadership on board. just go if i could add one thing to what mark said and he pointed

this out. i just want to emphasize, in my view, the focus in and around this area where will probably not be the military operation, there'll be the development side. but also will be the political effort. when i've been to march, what you see marcia is the range of tribal community leaders that have a hold on power. they range from parkside the north side to some italicized. and part of the negotiation has been a co-op or course of possible. the allegiance and influence of the ski powerbrokers are this will be a major struggle word is very decentralized. this will be a major struggle over the next couple of months because the taliban, as they've done historically, will try to co-opt and coerce the same individuals as well. >> host: finally, before we go to calls, a question for both of

you. seth jones, what if we left afghanistan, what would happen? >> guest: well, in my personal view, the talent in a particular and the groups allied with it would probably slowly, assuming they were backed by states in the region, there is some state support from iran and pakistan, would probably take increasing tracks of territory. it's difficult to know how long that would take, but i think they would clearly make a push to take kabul at some point. and as we've seen in the past, especially with some of the insurgent groups that like to haqqani network has a very close alliance with al qaeda in north waziristan. you potentially see training camps at some point with foreign fighters and other foreign groups. i would say based on the relationship now between some of the insurgent groups and foreign fighters, we would be somewhere around where the u.s. was in the late 1990's and early 2000.

afghanistan would be in a streaming area as parts of pakistan are for that matter. >> host: mr. moyar. just go i agree with that and i would also emphasize you have to look at what happened in pakistan and they are watching over doing in afghanistan as a signal of her intentions. and if we were to withdraw, i think that would push them in the direction of supporting taliban elements that they supported earlier, also make it which were difficult for us to deal with that government and of course the nuclear power. there's lots of things to be concerned about, deterioration in pakistan. >> host: our first call comes from norton, virginia. please go ahead him and nancy. >> caller: i wanted to follow-up on what professor moyar said about long-term development in afghanistan. i wondered if either gentleman is familiar with greg moore defends the, three cups of tea. and there is a book described in that book that was used as a

gallery, which means it has economic value. and what either of the gentlemen know if our state department or department of agriculture is considering giving singer sewing machines to the women in the afghan region to try to change the sociology of their? >> guest: there are range of efforts actually by the state department, so should the u.s. agency for international development. the afghan ministry of rural rehabilitation and development, to pursue a development strategy that is in line with military efforts. and that is that an area that have been pacified or actually in areas that are already relatively peaceful to provide a range of development projects. we see up in the north there've been efforts effectively to -- that i've seen up close to get women involved in making carpets, for example, up in the

mazar-e-sharif area. long-term sustainable work before women. there are range of projects as you look across northern, western, eastern, southern afghanistan. some of them are. part of the question is, are they quick impact worth a long-term focus. and frankly in the areas i would say that are most vulnerable to the entries and see and are the most insecure. there also may view has to be a counterinsurgency part of that. in other words, they have to help encourage the population to oppose insurgents as well. because otherwise, as we've seen, insurgents will intimidate. they will destroy in some cases a development projects. so i think they have been in fact did in some places. where they've been able to be stable over the long run and also where they have been involved in really helpful

long-term counterinsurgency projects as well. >> host: march into, are we nationbuilding? >> guest: it means what you mean by nationbuilding. i think we are to some extent change in our institutions. more importantly we are trying to build a national culture they are, which has been weak in the past. one of the things i got the opportunity to see and spend time looking at the national military academy and they are actually with 18 -year-olds, they are doing a very good job of bringing together people from diverse ethnic groups and provinces together and instilling a sense of nationalism. i think we're making progress there and that is a long-term effort patch are not going to do the same thing with the 40 -year-olds. but i think that's in the long-term for your going to make progress with younger generations of afghans who are going to see the importance of the nationstate and are going to be more virtuous than avoid things like corruption. >> host: ginny in portland, oregon. >> caller: hello, is this

peter? you are a workaholic. you do a very good job. i watch you in the morning times. but i had two quick questions i was going to have either of the guests the first question is, how important is marjah to the taliban, really? how important is it? is it going to hurt them short-term, long-term? and the number two question is, they've been growing poppies for a long, long time and because it's easy, it's low maintenance. and why can't we buy that from them, turn them into morphine? they are in a war zone. people are getting hurt. and when you go to a hospital or dark or, i'm hearing they don't even have morphine.

>> guest: when they talk about the first question you had. i do think marjah is important militarily. the one thing they really would like to have a sanctuary and that is what they said. they been able to process opium there. they've been able to build ivs. doing those things are a lot harder when you're up in a cave or running around the house somewhere. and we know any insurgent will tell you that. they also like areas to rest and recuperate. so it's important to take us away from them as i left big century and then we have to do a pakistan sanctuaries. it is clearly something that we don't want to allow them to live anywhere. and i think, you know, it's not going to the be-all, end-all. more importing and clearing it is going to be clearing it. >> host: what about the poppies question? >> guest: well, i think there

have been a number of buffers to try and deal with the poppies issue. i have been affected tissues in the east of us genistein to get farmers to actually grow other things, including wheat, fruit and some areas of nangarhar province because there are those options. the problem we have right now in the south in parts, hard and helmand, where poppies are grown is that the nato forces and afghan forces don't actually control the territory, at least chunks of the territory. so it also make that moot whether you buy it or not because they don't think all the territory. the taliban owns in some cases some of the land and texas farmers were doing it and once the key trade routes. along two roads where the narcotics is taken. so the first step in much of the south come over most of the poppy is grown actually has to be the first to control the

territory and then we can get into the question of whether it does make sense to buy? doesn't make sense to get farmers to grow other things like wheat or other options? >> host: does that make sense? >> guest: well, it certainly is. the central helmand river valley, the u.s. agency for international development was involved in the 1950's in agricultural production mayor. and that area is a hotbed or historically has been a hotbed for a range of different types of produce, including wheat as well as the range of different fruits and vegetables. so they are clearly an option. >> host: giovanni in district heights, maryland. good evening. i'll call her a drink, peter? how are you doing, to chant? my comment is on, will the war ever stop and duty all understand that god is watching

every step and progress? and when he said about shall love down neighbor, and thou shall love thou cells. and we are the brothers of this planet and we are here to multiply. >> host: giovanni, where are you going with this question? bu@@@@@gg"k)k over.

>> host: >> guest: i've got two additional points. i think it's worth remembering that if you look at the taliban regime during the 1890's after september 11th, 2001, in the new actually see right now. what you see is one of the most repressive regimes that we have seen that regularly violates basic human rights. it's the view of women, and if large-scale oppression of beheadings of individuals. part of what we are dealing with is a range of militant movements i think that art and have been very brutal.

so for the u.s. to withdraw, i think he would subject the afghan population to the same sort of barbarity that they had to face during the 1990's. the other thing i'd also note is that this the area where u.s. and other western intelligence agencies indicate that the core al qaeda element remains as osama bin laden as noble as opry and others. i think the caller is -- this has to end. the afghans have suffered a tremendous amount here. we're also dealing, i would argue, with some groups whose behavior in the past has been very abusive. >> host: next call for the two gas, seth jones and mark moyar. >> caller: good evening, gentlemen. i just have a question. i'm a retired military, fighting two wars. it befuddles me on the fact that

power we going to continue finances were, number one? and number two, do you really believe down deep, are we even going to come to a solution? i just listen to what you said and is from the first intelligent thing i've heard about this work. you know, are we really going to be able to accomplish what we set out to do? >> guest: i think we are going to be able to develop and afghanistan that is self-sufficient in terms of personnel, if we can draw down the number of foreign troops i think will be in good shape. i think the public opposition will subside once that happens, even if we have to keep paying. there is an important question on how are we going to keep funding the afghans? has as we build the security forces, we've also raised their pay and the cost of maintaining these forces is going to become

very high and one that the afghan government in its current form may not be able to pay for at any point. so we're going to have to come up with a way to draw down this war eventually. i think we are going to need to continue some investment in the country for a long time. you know, we pulled out after the soviets left and let things deteriorate and i think we can't completely withdraw from there again. >> host: a little bit more >> host: how many afghanistan troops are fighting against u.s.

troops? >> guest: we are now moving into position with trying to have all the afghan army forces partner with our forces again because there's a number of reasons. it helps us because they have better report, can get intelligence and on the other hand we can provide them with assistance in a lot of areas that they're not just capable of. and we're moving more and more towards his concept of partnering. every measuring battalion there is partnered with an afghan army battalion. but there is certainly a danger that they are going to be overly dependent on this. and part of how we get around that is having the right american battalion there who takes the time to work with their afghan counterparts. but again, it is going to be a struggle. we saw my back and we tried to keep turning things over to the iraqis 2005, 2006. we had to come in and take a larger role. we are taking on a larger role,

working with them more closely because we can't allow them to fail. but in the long term, we're going to have to figure out a way to withdraw. you know, as we've done i think very well in iraq to gradually let them take responsibility. >> host: and seth jones, to go back to the caller's point, are we ever going to get out of their? are we ever going to win and the name of your book, "in the graveyard of empires." >> guest: well, what i think is interesting is foreign governments, whether it's a free british wars, whether with the soviet invasion began in 1979. it's been pretty clear that foreign governments have had a very difficult time stabilizing afghanistan. but, between 1929 and 1978, there was a period of stability during the news even dynasty. so what is clear that afghans do have a history of stabilizing their country.

there has been recent stable periods. so the issue for us as we like to turn to create a stable afghanistan, relatively stable document and is one where we increasingly, as mark noted, have afghans both of the central government, but also the local government levels doing the bulk of the work. and if i could decide one thing, you know, we have often thought in the last eight years there's been a concept of trying to do this entirely from the top down from the central government. i would also argue that there is never, ever been a history in afghanistan and rural areas where the central government has provided long-term stability. so we have to remember we're not dealing with a traditional western states. >> host: and from "in the graveyard of empires" you write this.

charles from sales, missouri. go ahead with your question for our guest. call code good evening, gentlemen. this has been alluded to before and as long as we throw money at the new government, iraq and afghanistan, they're going to go back to their tribal affairs or whatever. and here we are, we've wasted all this money and started doing the bush administration. and worse, all of the person that been killed and wounded here and now really terrible. just remember and i think one of the alluded to this before. once we leave, we'll go back to the same old same old. i like your comments please. and good health to all. just go as a good question and a good comment. i would note that if you look at

the last hundred years in afghanistan, there are and have been stable. part of the question for the united states for nato countries operating in afghanistan and for the afghan government more broadly as has been done in afghanistan's history of ensuring long-term stability. what i know ten posh tune areas of the country is about that really goes from here rot in the west of afghanistan down through the south and into the use. posh tune by the largest tribal group in afghanistan. power has been very decentralized their the pastuns have a tendency to do a lot of policing at the lowest level on iran. we we see them used arbakai, the cello outside another local security forces. i think part of as we move forward, as we look towards more stable solution, we've got to

think about top-down efforts to build a stronger central government as mark noted earlier with afghan national security forces and with development efforts that one of our previous guest noted as well as bottom-up efforts to work with key local legitimate institutions in pastuns areas with shura enterprise. i think if you look at the history again, there have been models for stability and would need this. >> host: and to build on that point, as though the 63 tweet then, largely ignoring how the pastuns are the majority tribe and they are represented. >> guest: i would say the president is a pop inside. the administrator of defense from the pastuns. so the president has tried to balance some of the key pastuns

as well with some individuals from the northern no client whose backs anti-heat. as we saw in the early period of 2001 and 2002, we've got mortar representation of pastuns in the government. but we don't have yet and what we need to do is start finding a way to incorporate tallow band pastuns into this government in some respects. this is what we call reconciliation. we are going to have to reach some sort of agreement with those individuals that want to switch sides on being able to pull those individuals who have been fighting against the government. most of them are pastuns, into the government. mark mortier, an e-mail from maine. i'm an iraq war veteran and even though i'm proud of service to the current year can't help but wonder why we are sending more and more troops into afghanistan. it seems like all a key.

about lately is how difficult it is to train afghan soldiers as many are illiterate and turn the other way when the fighting is going on. military solution to the problem cannot be the answer. it just seems like an impossible task with our soldiers being caught in the middle, been injured and dying almost on a daily basis. just go i would first find out we were saying the same things in iraq a couple years ago that this is a hopeless situation. and where do time now, which i think hopefully will be seen as the turning point going forward. but i do think it has been very valuable already to have these extra troops there. as you mentioned, you need to deny them sanctuary areas that you don't have enough troops we saw this in iraq, you go and clear winner yet and take the insurgency to another area and it became the waccamaw. if were able to build them up in some areas. the same thing is happening in

afghanistan now. the other thing i would add to is that through the partnering effort american forces are having a multiplying effect on the afghans. for example, there are cases where you'll have 40 afghan policemen and you take ten american troops and put them with those. those 40 may have been very ineffective before. when you have the ten americans, they bring a lot of expertise. they keep denying and make sure things are being done properly. and so instead of getting those ten americans you also have 40 more afghan troops who work into getting much before who are now. >> host: this is booktv in prime time. with seth jones and mark moyar. mark moyar, "a question of command." seth jones, "in the graveyard of empires." what's this picture on the front of your boat?

>> guest: just a reminder of the soviet experience in afghanistan, partly to learn the lessons of the soviet. >> host: mark moyar, you've written a lot about vietnam, are there comparisons? >> guest: there are comparisons, certainly. one of the things i like to point out to people as we often evoke the idea of afghanistan being another vietnam is in its hopeless. and i argue here and in my other books on vietnam but they're actually. where we are pretty successful. 1962, 1963 that a life province insurgency which is on partially undone by the two we organize against the south vietnamese president. and also after the ten offensive has been very effective counterinsurgency that by the end of the war, it's no longer an insurgency, the conventional threat. so i think it's a myth that insurgencies are all-powerful and that there's nothing you can do to stop them. >> host: seth jones, we spent about $680 billion on the

vietnam war in today's dollars, about the same that we spend in iraq. how much have we spent in afghanistan, 979 service members have lost their lives so far. >> guest: well, the exact amount is actually difficult to calculate. but it's in the billions of dollars. jne"xp ion of the

senior-level taliban officials. >> host: new york city, you're on the air. call >> caller: i have a question for mr. seth jones. i have read your book and i commend you. one major problem is that we are still dealing with the conflict of north and south, just like in many other places. the center for global crisis in 2003 put out an excellent paper called, disenchantment of posh

pastuns. how are you going to win the hearts and minds of afghans when the afghan province says, you probably know it, says you can make an afghan go to a house with you with kindness, but you will not be able to take them to heaven by force. >> guest: well, that's a great question and a great point. i would say that one of the things that the afghan government and nato, more probably, has to do better, including in pastuns areas is to recognize again that power is very vocal estimates areas. and that they may not have according to the interest of outsiders, whether it's u.s. or nato governments, even whether it is essential governments.

they will act in their own interests. and that's okay because what we've seen, i would argue, when you look across the east in the south is a range of types and subtypes and clans, whether it's to aris fortune copies, wore a size or a good-sized, i don't like the taliban, don't like the haqqani government, don't like the insurgent groups and i've had it with them. and they would like to help stabilize, secure and provide services to their own populations. i think in that sense, we need to recognize that they're not doing it for as, they're doing it for the population. that's okay. in this case, we can help them help their own populations. and i think that's actually important because it does not always have to be about the essential governments, especially in the three areas. we see in a recent opinion poll that came out about abc and bbc

which indicated that the taliban has well under 10% support versus 90% support in that recent poll. so leveraging desires interest in the local population i think is quite critical. >> host: jane, houston texas. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i question is going to center on the proliferation of the radical matter says that are cropping up in a separate area of afghanistan the narrowing version of islam promoting jihad and shahada. and with the influence from saudi and persian vicinities, financing at the school, which also have military training, soon to be giving the taliban a new group of fighters. what are we doing us a nation or as a group of nations to get

these countries to back off the support of the schools? >> host: mr. moyar. >> guest: we are doing things behind the scenes to work on these issues. it is an important matter and as you mentioned the insurgents are coming out of these madrassas. we've also talked about other efforts to promote education in afghanistan. i want to hit on which one of the earlier caller says about the three cups of tea and can we use that approach? greg mortensen has done a great work in schools all important but you can't just be the insurgents through education because we've seen in case after case, you know, vietnam, private sample as well, i'll solve the door. if you just send them the teachers, the insurgents are going to kill them or force them to flee because they recognize that those people are a threat. so we need to do the education

piece. but in conjunction and closely coordinated with security and governance. >> host: in early december, president obama announced an additional 30,000 troops on top of the 68,000 or so there were already there. how many of them moved over? >> guest: i'm not sure the exact number. they're certainly more common in the spring. i believe there's a marine entire regimental command team is scheduled to come in and a couple months here. but clearly, it's interesting to compare them to the size of the iraq's urgent, similar in deployment size. i think they are already starting to make a difference as i mentioned in helmand. they are playing a critical role in who are going to see more of kandahar coming up this year. again, it's not just 30,000 americans, but you've got to factor in the number of afghans that are being empowered by having those americans working alongside them.

>> guest: i think the biggest difference that we're seeing now is just adding to mark's point, in 2006, the united states moved most of its forces out of the south, the taliban heartland, their center of gravity, where most of the key taliban leaders are from. and handed over to the british, the canadians, the dutch industrial you. let some special forces. now what we're seeing is the area where it's decreasing its forces in general is in the south. this is the taliban heartland. so not only were we increasing forces, we are going with varying forces with army forces into the heartland of the taliban. so it's an increase in the numbers, but also the location of those forces as well. >> host: what is your role as an adviser to general mcchrystal? >> guest: i served in 2009 as they plans officer in adviser to the u.s. military, looking out a whole range of issues with the military in afghanistan. >> host: and he just got back.

as you meet with general mcchrystal over there? >> guest: sure, it worked with them fairly regularly. >> host: and where fee-based and what kind of security does he have? >> guest: is based in kabul where the isaf headquarters is located. he actually gets around on a compound quite easily. he's somebody who in general has a strategy that is very population centric. very people oriented person. he is very family, takes that strategy and personalizes it in his interactions with individuals. the very interesting to watch. >> host: does he ever get off based? does hamid karzai ever get out? >> guest: there is no question that general mcchrystal, like every major u.s. and nato military gets out quite a bit, gets out into rural areas, get that into urban areas.

beats the population. in fact, general mcchrystal has been very adamant about giving out regularly. president cars i have not gotten out alive. he does occasionally get out in a little bit in the presidential campaign. but he's not gotten out and in the afghan population for security reasons. there've been several assassination attempts against him so it's constrictor bin. >> host: is abdullah abdullah still in afghanistan or has he left? >> guest: i'm not sure where he is right now. i did want to comment on the question you mentioned. the reason i went out last month was general caldwell is starting a new leadership initiative on the afghan side wants to get them in more discussion about leadership which i think would not be damaged in two. one of the things we've seen for many of the afghans as they

don't go out into the field as much as we would like. a lot of them want to try to do things by cell phone. and at the same time, they micromanage. they will be in the office, but they'll be telling someone what to do hundreds of miles away. and so when one of the points i make in the book is the case after case. in templer, in malaya, and abrams and vietnam, they spent a lot of their time out there circulating what we called now a battlefield circulation, going out and see what's going on and also assessing their local commanders, saint is this person doing a good job or not? also providing some coaching to those commanders. >> host: mike in la, good evening. >> caller: i'd like to know, during world war i and world war ii when the west in the middle east, why didn't they try to make afghanistan a main focal point in creating stability in western family governments then when they were already there and waiting so blind and having to deal with it now?

>> guest: that's a good question. the u.s. actually was relatively weak in that area, even though it was involved in some areas of the middle east, it was the biggest powers in the region by far were the british, british have a major presence in especially the area of india, as well as the russian, the soviets. afghanistan during that period was primarily served as an area of competition between the british and the soviets. but by the 1950's, so about a decade after world war ii, you did see a major increase in the u.s. presence there, especially on the development side. if you go into places like how manned or, our provinces, you see areas like tarmac farms, where the u.s. contribution at

that time was on a development level and you still see a lot of that infrastructure still there today. >> host: another tweak from terra tracker. why is the handoff of pogrom prison to afghan control receiving so little critical inquiry and the west? >> guest: that's a good question. do we have seen a lot of problems with house detainees are handling them. we have the same in iraq and staff knows more about that tonight is to let him comment on that piece. in iraq, we had a lot of problems with huge numbers of people as being a vested interest though it is to train them. initially some commanders would go out just to arrest massive numbers of people and when i was last there which was 2008 there was a lot of concern about who's been let out of these prisons in iraq. and i think there's ongoing concern because they're flooding a lot of people out in

especially now that our presence in iraq is excited, they're having a lot of trouble tracking these people. the future there is some pretend and we've talked about the ethnic problems there, to shoot me versus the cf. >> host: anything you want to add about five program present? >> guest: no, i would just note that i do think one of the lessons from abu ghraib in general was decent treatment of prisoners. and when you look at the websites in the recruitment policies of a lot of the jihad e-groups now, they use abu grade, the photographs that came from it. there's an extraordinarily negative implication when you start to go down that road. so as we move forward on bob graham and other facilities, i think there has to be in my sense is there is only an

improvement in the way prisoners are treated. >> host: michael, chicago, good evening. >> caller: gentlemen, good evening. i appreciate you taking my call. hopefully this something of a loaded question. in your opinion, do you think it's naïve to think charlie wilson train of thought to say hey, we would have now the these folks high and dry after we pushed them in afghanistan that would be in this quote, unquote massacre in now. second part of that question again i hope is not loaded. clearly, the north alliance when we take kabul, these folks were were -- what are these folks doing, not the united states, to maintain our credibility? a lot of folks they do usaid et