church, for his faith who knows what would have became of him. for every whipping he'd given himself over hiroshima and nagasaki, he had the catholic church to give him a chance to redeem himself. he was still a priest. he could still do good with that, and maybe in his mind if he did enough good, he would be forgiven on judgment day. i looked at this old man and understood the demons he still carried with him. i wasn't offended that he thought i needed some sort of saving. it was an easy thing to forgive him for. ..

[applause] thank you. thank you. let's open it up to some questions. if you could wait for the microphone and keep the questions short because of the time limits and constraints here so it will all work out just fine and bar will answer any thing you want to ask me. the first man is right there. >> thank you for all the heart and vision. what are your thoughts on the

field of gop contenders? >> i feel sorry for the old school republicans like my grandfather who believed in a basic conservatism. there are a lot of good ideas in that. i think the thing that amazes me about the current crop of candidates is under than john huntsman who is the mormon who believes there is global warming and he believes in evolution and helped get a civil union law passed, other than him, the others amazingly believe that america is as crazy as they are.

and that is what astounds me. some of you are saying maybe it is as crazy as they are. do not despair, my friends. we live in a large country. there are three hundred million of us. that allows for at least a 1 hundred million of them to be stone cold crazy idiots. and it is okay. don't worry about at. they have their radio networks. it is fine. there are two hundred million of us. i know it looks like a lot but they are the minority. we are the majority. and it is hard to feel that right now because of the despair, the collective despair most people feel for having -- i am so excited about voting for president obama and being so disappointed in his ability to stand up for the things that we

believe in. it has been one of the most distressing things i have seen in my lifetime. why he would cave in so much. i thought it was wonderful at the beginning, him holding out the olive branch to them but when they smacked out of his hand the first time, second time, third time, twentyth time, at what point do you stop holding out the olive branch and say are am really sorry, i really tried but i got ten million more votes than the other guy, your guy. so america wanted my plan. so you go have your pity party and i am going to have to get some things done. i wish he had started with that right out of the gate. [applause] to the back too. >> your opinion about for

knowledge of 9/11 referencing the search for truth, four windows from new jersey, the documentary in which they reference the i s i pakistani connection with al qaeda. do you think the administration had foreknowledge? >> absolutely not. the record shows on august 6th, 2001, president bush was on vacation in crawford, was given the security reports that said the headline was bin laden to attack america. and he was going to possibly use airplanes. and he continued on his vacation for the rest of the month. and had this sort of a disengaged outlook that he seemed to have throughout his

presidency. though i think you can claim negligence on that, but as badly as we think of people on the other side of the political fence i would never think that they would know or allow to have happened something so horrible or horrific. i got asked this before. a vietnam vet asked me they send 50,000 -- 58,000 of us to our deaths. don't be so naive. they really don't care about human life. i don't really want to believe that. there you go. >> got one right over here. >> yes, man? >> i love your optimism. it is helpful to hear any optimism at this point. i know for myself and the lot of people associate with feel

really helpless. what do we do now? there doesn't seem to be any leadership among the left or among any progressive people in the country. would you have any idea what do we do about this situation? >> we should be doing two things. we need to get people running for local office and for congress that we can have an impact on. we need to build candidates and create our own farm team and farm system and make sure if not in 2012 leveraged in 2014, 2016 we have the right people running for office. ultimately these two parties are broken parties. they run the country on the right or the left. they don't like either party and it is the perfect time to be ready -- rid of them and have something else in its place. i wish we had a multiple party system in this country that accurately reflected the political viewpoints of all the

people in this country. i thought maybe a year ago what might happen in this election was essentially what happened in 1948 where there were four major candidates that ran. harry truman, thomas dooley and on the far right strom thurmond and on the left you had wallace. if the republican apparatus gets there guys somehow through and it is not the tea party guide is possible the tea party will split off and run their own purse in which the democrats would love to see for the vote but the democrats don't understand there is an equal chance someone on the left thinks that they can't take it anymore. this is not what we voted for and someone from the left may

run as an independent candidate. it could happen this time. so you will have four people running which means someone could win with 38% of the vote if the vote is split. we need a preferential voting system. many cities and counties have it where you vote your first choice, second choice or have a run off system. [inaudible] >> we need to go back to the voting system least have which canada has whether the number 2 pencil and a piece of paper. [applause] the canadians have thirty-five million citizens. they have all the votes counted in a few hours. it is the largest land mass on earth next to russia and they get the votes in in three hours. they bring them in by dogsled on

the backs of baby seals, it is all on little pieces of paper and is right there and there are witnesses that count the ballots when they stack up. that is the way they should be. outlaw computer voting and anything to do with scanning or andy of that -- any of that. [applause] >> one in the back. >> way in the back. >> hello, michael moore. i honor un thank you for all you do. i am a u.s. citizen and i happen to believe people like glen beck and below riley our garbage. >> they are not garbage. they are human beings and they are part of the same human family you and i are part of. you are with me so far. some of the thing they say are

garbage and some of the thing they do are hurtful and harmful. we have to make sure that we never act or become like them. [applause] a have never uttered the words i hate george w. bush. i would never say something like that. i don't. i don't hate him. i never hated him. i hated the thing that he did and i did my best to try to stop them. but i never want to diminish him as a human being. of being part of the same human family i am part of. i didn't mean to interrupt. and wanted to make that clear. >> you are a good person and we know that. >> i am a highly flawed person and seriously overweight. >> what did you do for the tenth

anniversary of 9/11? >> i was here. i slept in. a taped the memorial service and got up and watched it. parts of it. unnoticed paul simon was supposed to sing bridge over troubled water. it appeared at the last minute when he went to the microphone that he changed his mind. they still had the chiron underneath his name saying he was singing bridge over troubled water but he wasn't. he chose to sing sounds of silence. he went from an optimistic song and saying a very dark pessimistic song to the neon god

they prayed, 10,000 people may be more. i was struck by his -- what seems to be a snap decision and the last moment. that ceremony is so tightly choreographed i don't know what heads were spinning when he did that or if anybody mentioned it since sunday. i was deeply moved by his version of that song. you can see it online if you would like to look at it. later that night when the politicians and everybody left the area around 11:00 or midnight that night i went down there on my own and what i said and did is a private matter. i was deeply affected by that day as everyone in this room

was. one of the producers that worked with me was on the plane from boston that went into the towers. that event not only in and of itself was so affecting and so tragic it had a multiple tragedy take place as a result because those who died on that day their names were used in vain to start not one war but two worse and ruin us and our reputation around world. [applause] file is felt some of us should stick up for some those who died so they wouldn't be used to kill other people. i know that many of you probably continue to do that in your own way every day. in the back.

>> thank you. i want to speak to you mentioning the president has caved and many of us in the media like to call the depressed democratic base for the dissolution progressive caucus if you will. i disagree with you in that i think obama's caving is not disposition last much as it is institutional. by that i mean the status quo on campaign finance laws for most states instead of a democracy, my question is do you think in a world where our most promising politicians like a president can be corrupted by the power of money and politics and kowtow to insurance companies on health insurance debate and bankers on wall street and financial regulation debate do you think in that world change is possible when there are many like us with our voices diminished and the very affluent few simultaneously have their voices increased?

>> you answered your own question. the money has a lot to do with our loss of power. here is the good news and i am not pessimistic and cynical about this. no matter how much money they have and they have a lot of it. the richest 400 americans have more wealth than 1 fifty million americans combined. the thing that scares those 400 the most is they have to put up with living in a democracy. they can by elections and politicians. taken by good politicians who come in good and are bought out later. they can do all of that. what they can't do is vote more than once. they only have 400 votes.

throw in a few more billionaires' or millionaire they only have a few thousand votes. we have that 1 fifty million. there are more of us than there are of them. we should never lose sight of that. as long as we have the constitution in fact, one part that is still there's one person, one vote. the day we wake up and realized that we can change things simply by running the right people and supporting them once they are in office and if they turn we turn on them. but we have to be active citizens. we cannot sit on the bench. everybody must be a participant. when we participate, watch out. a few blocks down the street they will be a lot of trouble because there are millions of americans who have seen family members die because they didn't have health insurance.

there are hundreds of thousands who lost their homes and gone bankrupt because of medical bills. there are millions of people out of work and millions working for nothing ready can't even pay the bills. at some point people are going to go i have had enough! enough! [applause] all of us had better be ready for that and ready to respond with non-violent political solutions. new parties, new organizations so that that energy is directed in a good way. history is full of examples of those who believe in a peaceful way of thinking of very skilled at manipulating those who are down and out and very good at

blaming the other. that is not a new routine. so get ready for that. that will be the big fight once the mass of americans who have been pummeled by economic system once they rise up. let's make sure we turn that in the right direction when it happens. >> time for two more questions. one over here. >> i will give really short answers. go. >> i know you are a big supporter of bradley manning, the alleged wiki leaks whistle-blower who is under attack for the suppose the grime of exposing the truth. since bradley manning's first hearing will be announced any day now what can people like us who value the information he is accused of revealing about the war in iraq and afghanistan, what can we do to make sure he has a fair trial? >> that is a very good question. i hope you know about bradley

manning. if you don't go on the internet and read about it. this is very sad that he is taking the fall for doing something that allegedly that he felt was something that was right and good for the country. in another era, daniel l. berg was lauded for it. in this era bradley manning doesn't have the support of the media that supported daniel albert. you need to write letters to the editor and organize people and inform them of this. all the things i am going to say are the things you already know. we have got a problem because we have a media that does not want to respond to this. our liberal media doesn't want to respond. i right in the book when i gave that speech against the war at the oscars, you have to remember the context of that time. al franken supported the war.

bill keller of the new york times supported the war. the editor of the new yorker supported the war. john kerry and 27 other democratic senators supported the war. liberals supported the war. our so-called liberal institutions like the new york times and the new yorker completely failed us. in fact in my humble opinion are more responsible for this war that george w. bush. i expect that behavior from george w. bush. i don't expect it from media that provided cover for. bu bush. even bill keller supports it. the new yorker supports it. come on. i know keller has written a huge apology this week or whenever

for it. but man oh man. in the last week 1,000 people were arrested in front of the white house over a five day period over this pipeline thing from canada. are you aware of this? there has been a little bit of coverage in the media but 1,000 were arrested. imagine if 1,000 tea party ears were arrested tomorrow. where would that story be on the evening news? this is crazy. i promised to go short. we will go to the back. very quickly. i promise i will give a ten word answer. >> thank you for bringing that up. >> thank you. [applause] we are in the lightning round.

>> are you working on your next film and what is it about? >> i can never talk about my next film for all the obvious reasons. i am working on another project that will happen in new york next year. you will hear more about it in the near future. that is all i can say for now. >> you said capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil. it has to be eliminated. what do you think needs to replace capitalism? >> a democratic economic system where the people have a say in how the economy is run. not just to vote for politicians. we have to have a say in how economy works and right now we'd don't. in the back. quickly. >> could i get this in your hand which is a brief description of a film i would like to make about the housing crisis. as someone who has been involved in the housing crisis for 30

years because housing is something -- an important issue. the percentage that we pay has doubled in 25 years. >> you will make a movie about this? >> i want to. i am doing my best buy working a part-time telemarketing. >> making $99 a week when i made roger and me. you had to use film. with a video you can make that film. with or without your help. asking if i can get this in your hand. >> you can't. i am kidding. >> who do i give it to? i enjoyed your book and want to know how long it took to make it and what was the process like? your book. >> took my whole life. i have been thinking about these stories for a long time since i

was crawling backwards. the actual writing took place over the last year. i put more into this book than any other book and i really wanted the nuns to be happy. i told the remaining ones who are still alive that i've aspiring to literature in this book. i don't know if that is the case but in my humble opinion it is my favorite thing that i have written. i am really excited about people reading this. not because it is about me. you don't need to know anything about me. some of these stories tell a social history of these last decades. will be entertaining. >> we really need -- >> i am a student at nyu

reporting on behalf of film students on the newspaper and wondering if you could give us a nugget of advice for people who want to make it in the film industry? >> if you are a film student and you want advice for film students or journalism or whenever. don't go to nyu. [applause] nyu is a fine school. i only mean that because you will be in hock for the next 20 years. what i'd say to you or your fellow students to make sure you are always following your conscience.

follow your heart. don't think about these an audience. trust that the audience will be there. make sure you are happy and feel good about what you have done. try to do those things that when it seems dangerous or risk your cross the line. when you have that feeling you crossed the line you know you are doing what you should be doing. [applause] we are taught from a young age to sensor ourselves and not rock the boat. better to go along so you can get along and we need more ships -- don't put the card out. just put something over my mouth. we need more people to be

muckrakers and go after these sources of power and never be afraid of them. i think it was i f. stone that settle government and corporations are run by lyres and nothing they say should be believed. start with the assumption that when a politician or a ceo is saying something they are not telling you the truth. they may be telling you the truth but the burden should be on them to prove it. instead of what are media does which is automatically assume what they are saying is true. it is not true. you need your own voice and your own critical thinking. our schools have not done you well with that. civics classes have been eliminated. you have been tossed on tests for the last decade or so that art, music and creative things have been eliminated from your lives. these things are so important in terms of helping us as human

beings to cope with this world. i want to close with something that will work for you. a quote from a two line scene from a woody allen film called start up memories. woody allen plays a filmmaker and they're having a film festival honoring him and his movies but he is tired of it and the movies and the crowds and celebrities and all this and wants to give up and goes for a walk in the woods and encounters some aliens and thinks maybe these aliens have the answers so he goes to the head alien and says to him shortstop making movies and do something that counts like helping blind people are becoming a missionary or

something? and the alien responds let me tell you you are not the missionary tight. you would never last. and incidentally you are also not superman. you want to do man cut a service? tel funnier jokes. i really appreciate you being here. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen leaders will once again. michael moore. [applause]..

>> professor benjamin hopkins, what is the east india company? >> the british east india company was a semicommercial company founded in the year 1600 by royal charter by queen elizabeth which gave it the exclusive right to trade with the indies, the english merchants. over time it transformed into a kind of parasital juggernaut and behemoths that is extremely complex and difficult to understand. but the key thing about the east india company is after the mid 18th century, the east india company came to rule over much of the south asian subcontinent which included most of modern day bangladesh, india and pakistan. the east india company was rolled up in 1858 following great mutiny of 1857 and 1858, and control of the south asean

subcontinent passed to the british crown. >> how did it get its charter? >> its charter was granted to a group of merchants who had petitioned the e his beith than court for the exclusive right to trade, and it was actually one of the number of european trading companies including the hudsons bay company that was also chartered by the english crown, but its main competitors were the french east indian company and more powerfully and importantly, the dutch east indian company which largely followed the same course of con and rule, but over the indonesia archipelago. >> when you say it ruled, what was its geographical area that it ruled, and how did it rule? >> that's a very complex question because the east india company being a kind of parasital organization didn't exercise the same rights and

privileges that we think of as a state. what do i mean by that? well, for instance, over the areas of south asia which it ruled, it didn't rule exactly as a sovereign. it controlled that area both as a vas l of the emperor who had rights to collect taxes, but also as is a subject of the british crown, so the east india company had this dual nature where it recognized both the sovereignty of the british crown and also the emperor. and so it actually was charged with ruling over great swaths of south asia in the name of both these monarchs at the same time. now, its area where it had formal control actually rather than kind of as it were coloring all the map red was splotches of concentration, so, for instance, calcutta where its main trading port was. there was a strong established

presence. but when you got into the countryside, up until the 20th century there were a number of indian peasants that had never seen a white man. so its control over the countryside was splotchy at best which in part explains its downfall in 1857. >> now, in your book "the making of modern afghanistan," what's its role in afghanistan? what was its role? >> the east india company had a number of different strategic interests in the area beyond the indus river which would include much of modern-day pakistan and what we think of as modern-day afghanistan. the east indian company's main concern was that of security. not of external security so much as there's a large swath of historical literature which talks about the so-called great game in afghanistan which is this issue of anglo-russian

rivalry between competing and expanding british empire in south asia and a russian empire in central asia. yet rather than being concerned about an external enemy, the russians necessarily, at the early part of the 19th century the east india company was much more concerned with its own internal security. and what it sought to do was stabilize its rule within south asia by stabilizing its frontier. and so the east india company initially gets drawn into afghanistan, as a matter of fact, in order to stabilize its own rule in south asia. >> when did the great game begin? >> the great game, if one subscribes to it, really begins -- there's some literature that says it begins in the early 18th, 19th century, excuse me. other literature really seized a

heydey in the 19th century. once russians had established rule over their own region and build the central asian railroad in the 1870s and 1880s. but it's important to note that even the most hawkish british strategic thinker when writing about the impending russian threat to british india marching through afghanistan, virtually all of them acknowledge that this was a far away, if not impossible, thing that would happen. and the main concern was not, actually, you know, hordes of russian cos sacks, add it were invading india as it were the rumor of a russian army on the doorstep of india which would spread around and destabilize the security of the british-indian state internally. >> so, professor hopkins, is the east india company responsible for be british involvement -- for british involvement in

afghanistan, or how did that work? >> yeah. um, well, it was really driven by personalities. in large part. there are a number of players that in the 1830s the east india company is recovering from part of a global depression and reassessing its role in south asia. some of the upper echelons of the company start to look for new opportunities, and one of the new opportunities they see is to drive british trade into central asia and into afghanistan. and so it's kind of a story of the flag following trade in which free traders, um, are looking for opportunities to expand a british footprint and british influence in the area by driving british goods into the area. so that's how the east india company's involvement starts in afghanistan. they see this as a potential

area of commercial development. but as i said, free trade at this point in time is also a political and not simply an economic ideology. so the flag follows trade in terms of once british goods are in the market and the bazaars and circulating, there is a feeling that the british flag or the flag of the east india company needs to be there to both protect it and influence that. and over time that snowballs and increasingly draws the east india company into an increasing penetration and involvement with afghanistan. but the other part that i think is very important and that my own book touches upon is the east india company's role in south asia itself because the story i've just told you about trade, about russian influence is one that's often told. what's less often told is how the east india company sees participation in afghanistan as a way of undercutting local

rivals within south asia. for example, in the punjab which is where modern-day pakistan and india split, there was an extraordinarily strong indigenous kingdom, the, the sikh kingdom. he had a european-trained army officered by ex-napoleonic officers, many of whom had connections with officers in the tsarist army because once napoleon's forces break apart, many of these get hired by indigenous kingdoms in the punjab. and the east india company was fearful of singh's power. after all, he had a european-trained army of over 80,000 troops directly abutting the east india company's

territories. so in part their interest in afghanistan was driven by a strategy to encircle singh and cut him off by making, yes, a buffer state between an expanding russian empire and english empire. but also an encircling state which would cut off the potential for singh to flex his muscle. >> so, professor hopkins, how much responsibility does british involvement that you're discussing have in making what is today afghanistan? is. >> it would be correct to say afghanistan is a colonial creation. one of my colleagues has referred to it as a fiscal colony of british india. i think t important to note that simply saying it's a colonial creation doesn't mean it's in some way not real. after all, the united states of america was a colonial creation.

we were 13 colonies that broke away from the british crown in the 18th century. so to say it's a colonial creation isn't to take away from its validity as a political entity. but it is to say that the involvement that starts in the early 19th century under the auspices of the east india company and carries on through the 19th century under the auspices of the british crown is centrally formative of what becomes known today as afghanistan. the british are actually the ones who draw the boundary. the duran line is agreed to in 1893 and is unilaterally drawn by the british over the following 40 years. the british and the russians in 1885, excluding the afghans, delineate the northern border. and the border with iran is done under british auspices in arbitration between afghan and iranian sovereigns.

so the british involvement in this area fundamentally shapes what we now know as modern-day afghanistan. that's not to say there wasn't a previous heritage of a political society and entity or that in any way it's somehow ill he g8 mate because it had external boundaries imposed on it, but it is important to recognize the british in forming what we now think of as afghanistan today. >> in the time of the east india company and the british military being involved in afghanistan, what was the reaction of the afghanistan tribes to this mix of people? >> well, the british invade for the first afghan war in 1839 over a kind of botched series of negotiations that lead to an insult, as it were, which leads to the invasion. we need to remember that, first

of all, when british east india company troops invade, the majority of those troops are actually indian hindus as most of the troopers of the british east india company and the british army were. so most of the troops that fight in the first, second and, indeed, third border wars are indian troops. so that carries a dynamic to it. secondly, upon their initial be arrival what the british did in their previous incursions into afghanistan is largely what the americans did in 2001 which was, basically, buying off those who might make their entry more and more difficult. however, what happens over time is that british troops became overextended, their occupation increasingly became a source of tension with local political

leaders, and those political leaders were able to mobilize a kind of xenophobic angst amongst the populace of afghanistan and drive them out so that the first afghan war most famously leads to the defeat of the british garyson in kabul who are forced to retreat in the winter of 1841 and 1842. and supposedly slaughtered to a man. there's a very famous picture of dr. brighton arriving at jalalabad having been the only survivor of that retreat. of course, he was not, but this kind of mythology of empire maintains that he was. what's forgotten, however, in that memory of defeat is the fact that the british actually returned the next spring with an army of retribution that went ahead and destroyed the bazaar in kabul which was the largest bazaar in central asia.

so what we see is with british incursions into the region that over time, as it were, their welcome wears. and it becomes a focal point of resentment which then becomes a point of unity and unification for afghans to drive out the british-indian troopers. >> professor hopkins, your book is calling "the making of modern afghanistan." we've been talking 150, 200 years in history. what can we learn from what you've been talking about about modern afghanistan? >> well, before i engage with that, i think it's important to remember that history is built on recognizing contexts. and that, um, the course of events that happen in the early 19th century evolve out of a specific set of circumstances. so while there might be kind of

generalities that we can draw forward in history, we need to beware of context, that the challenges that face the afghan body politic in the early 19th century, um, were in ways fundamentally similar, but also fundamentally different from that which faces the afghan body politic today. so having said that kind of caveat, i think that what we can see that begins really in the early 19th century are some important themes that continue to shape the afghan body politic today. one is the marginalization of afghanistan or the lands that constitute afghanistan from an increasingly integrated, globalized economy. before the east india company arrived into south asia, afghanistan had been a hub of economic activity. which had supplied regional markets ranging from east, west and south asia.

centrally important was its role as a supplier to south asia on three specific items which were core items for the emperors of the indian subcontinent. first of all, the afghans supplied mercenaries. they supplied extra men who could fight in the wars of the emperors' court. secondly, they supplied the horses for those mercenaries because central asian and afghan horses were very famous for their ability to withstand the pressures of warfare. and thirdly, they supplied fruit, fruit which was a luxury item. it was the kind of lotus or maserati of the 19th century. in fact, the first founding emperor writes in his journals about the fruits of the kabul valley and how he misses those. fruit was a status symbol. a status symbol which becomes replaced as the british take

over british india. instead of melons, a gentry shows off his wealth with english clocks. and instead of using mercenaries, the british east india company uses a professional trained force that no longer uses calvary, the horses, but rather instead uses a trained infantry. so the three pillars upon which the after afghan political economy rested and integrated into a vibrant regional economy are undercut by the entry of the east india company into the region which means that afghanistan is effectively peripherallized from the global economy. and i think we see that again today where afghanistan has been a core, core door of trade and intercourse for that region which asfectively been cut off -- has pz effectively been cut off being excluded from

global bands of trade so that the only way it can participate often in that trade is either through migration which is a huge outpouring that continues today in afghanistan or illicitly through the drug trade. the second element that i think we can bring forward is that of politics. and what we see in the early 19th century is that the kind of social contract upon which the of afghan body politic had been founded begins to crumble along with its political economy. there have historically been three bases of political power in afghanistan; islam, tribe and what i call royalism or the legitimacy of a specific branch of the pashtun. what happens in the early 19th century with the east india company incursions is that those sources of legitimacy which have really been interrelated, they were three prongs of the stool

as it were, enter into a very unstable relationship. what happens over the next 200 years then is that for the most part the afghan body politic is able to reconstruct that social contract using these bases of legitimacy, a very famous ruler, for instance, uses a little bit more of the royalism and a little bit less of the islam versus some of his successors who rely upon islam a little bit more. what we've seen today with afghanistan is, again, a breakdown of that social contract. and the interesting thing to watch is how, if at all, the afghan body politic which reconstruct that social contract, especially as american and international forces begin to withdraw. >> what's on the cover of your book? >> >> that's actually a picture i took which was formerly the seat of government, it was the

central government fort where many of the characters i talk about in my book ruled from. it was the afghan royal palace up until the rule from 1933 -- ruler from 1933 up until his overthrow this 1973 built a new palace. today it's actually off limits because it's mined heavily all over the place, and there's a cemetery out in front where the martyrs are buried. so you can see green flags in front of that picture. >> now, is this in kabul? >> it is in central kabul, yes, and it's very close to the international stable assistance force base. >> when were you over there? >> i was last this kabul in december of 2006. >> and what was your experience? >> twofold. i had gone over because i was invited to give a lecture with a colleague of mine to isaf on the history of counter--

>> isaf is -- >> the international stable assistance force, the nato command. so i'd been asked to deliver a lecture to the nato command. and for part of the time i was there i was kind of under their us auspices which was very cricket constrictive in terms of where you could go and what you could do. i was there, however, with an anthropologist who has many connections there, so for half the time we were with the nato forces, and half the time we went local, as it were. we followed around -- >> [inaudible] >> that's the clothing, the famous kind of taliban cap. i had my beard grown out, and surprisingly as it were, i was often mistaken for being afghan, for being from a particular section. and be -- and so we traveled around, essentially, incognito, especially in the north of the

country for a time meeting afghans, discussing with afghans, kind of getting a much more on-the-ground feel and sense for how things were going. and the difference and distance between the two images that we received were extraordinarily stark. in that this was 2006, and we talked largely with people from the north of the country, especially pan she ris who are from a certain valley that followed the famous hero of the afghan jihad and the leader of the northern alliance who was killed on september 9th, two days before september 11th. so these would be the people most apt to support nato and the continued american and international presence. and in the winter of 2006 they were saying, we give them a year. if no progress in a year, there's going to be war here. and at that point in time there had been no violence in the north, and now today we see

violence has, indeed, taken off on a large scale in the north. so our sense, definitely, back in 2006 was an increasing sense of a loss of patience, a lack of clarity. why are these people here, and what are they bringing us as a benefit? so that was definitely our sensibility at that point in time. >> when did the u.s. start its involvement with afghanistan? >> american involvement with afghanistan really begins in the post-second world war moment. what happens is in 1947 the british withdrew from south asia in what was called the transfer of power leaving two successor states, india and pakistan. pakistan, of course, being split between east and west pakistan at that point in time. east pakistan would break off as bangladesh in 1971. the important point is that, however, in 1947 what happened was the assumption of old

imperial responsibilities that the british held was increasingly taken over by the united states. so in the 1950s the united states becomes increasingly involved in afghanistan through aid, and through the 1960s that aid becomes a kind of competition with soviet aid which is coming in from the north. so through the 50s and '60s there's a kind of friendly cold war rivalry which afghanistan benefited from in many ways by skillfully playing these two off each other. now, obviously, things change in 1978 with the overthrow of the afghan monarchy and the assumption of power in the revolution of the afghan communist party. at this point in time, afghanistan goes over to the wrong side as it were, so the u.s. takes a hostile posture which becomes even more hostile with the soviet invasion in

december of 1979. during the soviet occupation, the united states supplied and supported the anti-soviet mujahideen as they called themselves who waged a guerrilla war against the soviet army. in 1985 the united states launched something called operation cyclone which was a clandestine support program which supplied the knew mujahidn with weapons and cash through the pakistani inner service intelligence agency. so the united states really ramped up its participation at that point in time. once the soviets withdrew in 1989, they continued to support the afghan communist government under imagine they bull la. and the u.s. continued to supply is mujahideen though at a lower level up until that collapse in 1991 and the ending of soviet

subsidies to to the afghan regime. at that point in time, afghanistan really drops from the american radar, and especially under the clinton presidency there's very little interest in afghanistan. there's some residual interest from the refugees caused by the soviet war, there's also, um, some kind of speculative strategic interests out of what are called pipeline politics because the soviet, ex-soviet central asian republics have huge natural gas resources, so there was talk about a pipeline running through afghanistan into pakistan in order to kind of escape the russian or the iranian pipelines. however, afghanistan really falls off the radar until, obviously, post-september 11th, 2001, when the united states invades october 7th with operation enduring freedom and has been spending, this year, $110 billion, $11 billion a

month on operations in afghanistan. >> what was the purpose of president eisenhower's visit to kabul? >> president eisenhower's visit which happens in '58, i believe, the winter of 1958 was -- well, first of all, it was a tour that he kind of puts together in the end days of his administration. so as presidents do at that point in time, they go abroad o kind of polish their international credentials. but it was really to kind of signal to the afghans the american commitment to supporting afghan development. and, also, an attempt to create some sort of strategic with the afghans. that, of course, went no place militarily, and the never very high on the military focal point. but it was a signal to the afghans of the importance in which washington held that

relationship. and it should be noted that actually under the eisenhower administration one of the largest aid project bees was begun in the 1950s. the helmand valley authority. this was a series of dams constructed in the helmand valley based off the tennessee valley authority, and it's kind of a good story of the law of unintended consequences. using the tennessee valley authority as their model, american engineers thought what they would do is they would dam the rivers in the helmand valley in order to create dependable irrigation supplies and also begin to electrify the countryside just as in the tennessee valley. however, what happened was that in building those dams the unintended consequence was actually to raise the level of the water table, and in doing that it brought to the surface all the salt that had accumulated over time in that soil. and this soil had previously been