at 8: 30 a.m., the former act as her -- ambassador to of galveston and a former ambassador to pakistan on the u.s. strategy in that region. "washington journal" is next. .

xd host: let's vç[çlook tpçat tç recent attempted bombing. t!ficiz÷k

>> w3ççin çu.s.a. today a lo devices tested in a lab, do you think you would like çto t(undó a security screening ççof çt( people's clothes. let's go to georgia where bill is calling çon the democrats line. good morning. caller: xdgood morning. host: what is the balance between privacy and security? caller: i believe çin privacy, don't fly anymore, i çdrove a

for a friend and got stopped xdin w3t(i believe austin or whatever airport and the shoes and the whole deal. but they knew about me when i bought the one-way ticket online. all of this security they need to get this credit card cardç. host: it sounds like you were profiled, do you think that was fair? caller: you can profile, i don't care, i am interested in protecting people's lives. host: let's go to sally calling from new york city. caller: yes, i don't understand that even the media and this

racist system of ours always tried to find something to blame our president. he's doing the best he can. now i travel a lot. and i am 95 years old. i travel by plane and train. and then -- i can't go through the regular search because i have a pacemaker. they in that wheelchair, i have to go through in a t(wheelchair in a different section. and they search i]me all over. in privacy asw i]everything els i don't mind. but now how this man got on the train -- got on the plane and

he wasn't thoroughly searched. if they had searched him half the way they searched me at 95 and in a wheelch8 'r. i don't see how -- now i listen to all of the stations, i am so sick of this, this racist country. and you must rememberq america [$p>':j.-ixr[ççand breath qof bigotry. and it comes out all over.i]ç i çóçççhear these i]woman sa president didn't come out and do this or nothing. host: sally$hñ]w3let's hear hoç

tha)president reacted as he in hawaii on vacation with his family, i am reading from "the new york times" that he ordered his security team to keep up with the terrorist, and fáhe o okseek w3those who çç are threatening us,ç if plotti attacks on the u.s. home land. so president obama gave a response and sally talked çóaboç her own experience getting screened through the airports. t(ñr

host: it ñrwas extremely stricç reported one traveler, she ñr arrived at the airport and did not reach çthe screening area until eight hours later.w3 we have noble on the line. good morning.k=çç caller: we are terrorizing ourselves, c'you hear about wh inaudible] you are ready, we are ñractuall terrorizing u!ourselves, every time something would happen, ikmwould get xdonline to post it and the news media ç

here will broadcast across the nation and world and they went on like that.ç in fact çwe are terrorizing ourselves. but they don't have fáto do something whenç?ndóok#vç about hearing chatter, and they were born and ç"nraised in different cold colors and then they çwould terrorize ourselve by çbelieving everything. çoç host: let's go to paulet on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: yes, i think we are leaving out freedom and justice which is really what this

country was founded for. we çççneed çto apply i]what already have. we have so many laws that we paid so many taxes to write these laws and we çare not applying those. we really need to go to what we have the constitution. and this country was founded ç for freedom and for people that were fleeing tyranny and we are going back to tyranny ourselves. we are putting ourselves back 3v03çbrought to us tha to escape. we need to apply .

we don't to 7ibe like another country. we don't want to çbe ç(errorç ourselves kççw3ççthe çworl these false things. i don't think that we need new laws, no, i don't. host: thank you for your call z and look at the comments that president obama made yesterday. >> first i çñrsuggest that we concerns of the traveling public. we made sure that flights in the air were secure and could land safely. we enhanced security for all flights, domestic and international. weçç monitored flights enteri and leaving the united states. and we are working in this country, çxdfederal, state and enforcement with our international partners. second, i have ordered two important reviews because it's

critical that we çlearn from this incident. the first review involves our watch-list system, that çour ( government ;3has had in the system for years, apparently the suspect in the christmas incident was in this system butç not on a watch-list qsuch as th such called no-fly list. so i ordered a thorough review ç of the çw3overall watch system how it can be strengthened. the second review is çççrelaç suspect was able to bring dangerous explosives aboard an aircraft and what additional step we can take in the future. host: let's go to roy çon the independent line. caller: how are you doing çthi

morning?ç host: good, thank you, what is the balance between security? caller: the balance is the rule of law, but i want to comment on that young man and his problem of not having his ducks in a row, which he will regret. america has a line that you follow, the law and the letter and the spirit. and that will make us dominant of the whole world. that's all i got to say. host: ok, let's look at how the qnew york çtabloids are covering this story, ç"the daiç ák tha young man that smuggled the bomb. and "the post."

the airport and the w3plane goi insangisaying w3that çthere ç no organization ó73traveling i] the airport, people cutting in line çafd!w3ó9uççwas i]çóçu!3 i çw3got padded oín, they go ç and çanother flyer saying it w frustrating they took çour ok pillows and blankets and çwe% could not move çuntil iw5çthe stop.ç so çdifferent rules çand different airlines i]depending where you are flying in çóthe country. let's go to our çindependent line, good morning mark.w3 caller: i want to say that çi feel that people!should have searched. if an t(x-ray machine is possib or sniffing mans, we live in a ]9á to kill us.her people just they want to make ça!çpoint, t

want to bring us down. they want qçto terrorize us, other people do. i don't feel as a ççççççr conservative that this is uncalled for, that we should be @ng çon an aircraft on çt(particular international flights coming into this country. president obama does not make me a racist. i am sorry that many people feel this way, but i have the right to dis@wree with çsomeonç no matter the color of his skin. çççxdçççç;z>çççr>ç this is a constant t(çiuçmçt( him,myçççççt(yçxdç çç'

statement.uwwvçt(ç host: mark çwas referring to comments xlçççççthat secre made in talk shows and she reports i]qç!]ççshe was çt context. ççç work, ççççççand no mçoneç satisfied ççwith ççxdçthatç those comments on "the today show" yesterday. we have ray on the line.xd what çqçis"yççqççw3ççthe privacy and security? >> i think that the balance will ççççççççqhave ç% privacy, çóçthere is ççmore scanners. after that you are always fighting the ççççççlast wç they will go into their breast

implants ççsoonbuççççç scanners are not going to work. and then you have conservatives making w3the claim çwe need to engage in racial profiling or claim it's religious profiling ç and then çboil down to racial profiling. i]ççcreate a secon class of citizenship ÷?pñwhere ç people get t(ça lesser brand o protection. w3 have security in this ççcountç whí iwçdruggists can çflow in freely as they do. if you can'zr> stop thousands o pounds of drugs i]across the border, how can you stop ça bo in a suitcase. host: çlet's take a look at t body scanners.çç the president ordered on monday that the review of all

screening policies related to air travel. and the former homeland security director said that this is similar to the kind of device ç of çzçscanning çunder passen clothing in a few seconds.ççt( machines çççççcould ççç as the scanners have them stand with arms out and scanning themq and saying ççthat this is ove invasive and declared a new ç call to emxlny. is that too invasive? we have ralph on the ç independent line.çokçç caller: hi, how are you. i wanted to say i realize there is a problem between t(privacy

and security. however it seems çthañw3the security should trump. and in thinking about this and thinking about it as çfar as bathrooms at the airport. they could actually put cameras even çççççççt(ççççç airlines where you can w3see i] is going on inside the stalls when people are in there. and maybe çsome type of way of actually securing ;[the door % case qyou see something çgoing that's not supposed to. or alert security. and that's all i have çto say.ç >> let's take a xdçççljp)hçç comments çvçqççand t(w3çi' jim dement is holding çup obama's election as gop elector.

and looking at the nomination, 3 that's a nomination filled and for t(the xdçflights from amst to qdetroit is all çexclusive transit security if there wp#htk held up obama's nominee in an effort xdçt(okçto prevent tsa from joining a labor union.ç demint said umar çalleged attempts attack in detroit.ç let's go to thomasville, georgia, where we have scott on the xdrepublicans line. caller: good morning, i wanted to make oka w;çcomment about tw things, first the balance between privacy and security ç

technology increases and population, you are going to give up privacy, w3you have mor people traveling, we are growing together, we had a lot less privacy than in the 50's when we didn't have a global market as we do now. and i wanted to make a comment, i saw the president's response just a moment ago and i wanted to know if anyone out there thought that he çseemed a litt dismissive. it almost seemed like a canned response, he said terms like allegedly and çisolated and radicalism, and he didn't have the fervor that i think you would have as the leader of this nation. host: let's go to lil on line.

caller: it seems to me why is it the united states has to give away all that we are doing 9ñ here this man a former security person, he gets on television and shows how much in a measuring cup it takes to do this. to blow this bomb up. when there were robberies, they showed a robber come on and show you how to open your car and do this and that.q why is it the united states has to give away all çthe technica and concerns that we have so that other people can improve upon them. it's like going to college or school, çif çyou want to do anything go to the united states they will put it on ebay or the internet or anything. and you can see how to unload 

gun or see -- it just bothers me.ç host: thanks for your call, lil. look in the washington journal and why 5athe man, umar was no put to a no-fly list. and there was a terrorist çç and a çselect t-list used to identify people that xdshmu receive additional screening such as a hand [çsearch ççof person's luggage.fá there çis a çno-fly list with 1300 names that çççshould ç recludeoyçw3before boarding aç

that mr. umarç purchased his ticket with cash and that did not set off alarm bells.ç our next /c]acaller, good morniç caller: i çv:am baffled and dismayed of the overreaction this çwsççstory has garnered. and why shouldn't we t(i]ççç dismhcsive of this incident, why should we be cry babies e talking about people that fr/ççwon't çóput safety devices çóçin their car that is proven to save lives.

these full-body scanners or x-ray scanners, yesterday, i have never called before but i am outraged at this overreaction yesterday, the host bill put on [?vblog posting, some blog i put on his website pointing out the astronomical figures and numbers that terrorist ok occurrences occurred, like w3ç billions of miles traveled. w3ç one guy with one balloon in his pants will frighten çeveryone ç a çtizzy, this çis ridiculous. we should not be babies. if i might be able to illustrate with a short analogy. home invasion, two incidents do not equal a trend.

say your home is invaded probably wm(ççafter iywñthe fd you çxdcall the çpolice, okif don't çcatch him.f&i whatever you get a çnew0çi]loc your door and çmove on with yo life. if your home is invaded twice, maybe you get a big, scary dog. but you don't çgo out and hire private police force to surveill your property 24 hours a day. that's insane and it's more insane to gather a para-military force to try çqt irradicate çt(qa çhome invasiç host: let's ymgo to the republican line, from miami.ç caller: i çwant to say!çi çhaq family in spain, we have ç traveled ççfive times this ye. i have no problems çxdoe)u$ thç security, w3i çy]ççmake sur carrying qnothing çthey are

retgqáurng. what i do have w3xdi]a i]okprob howúçdid this qçóman çqget a vç the united states. that's what oki do i]oknot unde3 not only pass security here, but in spain they make you put every little bottle you carry has to be in a special little bag. in çspain they are very ççi]xd >> they are secure about their security.çq:"ti p'd you have t attempts from 2001 çare people coming in from the outside. host: let's look at ]ithe "ne york times" and they detail the ways that airports are çtryingç to make things safer.i]

the ççthings that are done ar the airport perimeter and ñrthe watch-list where they are designed to watch passengers xdç and çtheir behavior. and 20 million was spent on machines for traces on passengers, but the programs ended because of the programs +pp'd the dog scanning teams an finally çu!cargo, the tsa said they met the deadline for passenger screening of çcargo this çyear but w3çnot çófor t deadline for all cargo. let's go to our caller on the line, good morning.

caller: good morning, it seems we will have this problem until we adjust the murderer foreign policy. we are killing people çokevery with unmanned dromes çand calling everyone member al-qaeda members to justify this crap. i don't believe it and i can't believe that çamericans ççar cowards. and the gentleman earlier talked about why these people hate us. the reason they a%e us is because çwe spend billions of ç o take çwhat doesn't w3belong t. host: we will take a çbrief break and talk with jena ç mcneill and talk about the security in our country. be right back. ç

>> all this week talks with i]q interviews with oksupreme court justices on c-span, 8 p.m., and get your own copy of this report, part of c-span's

selection, a three-disk set, one of many items available at c-span.org/store. >> on c-span a look at the leadersç such asmçw3 colin w3ç and robert byrd, and on çó tributes the talk with vladimir putin and çglobal economy with the cartooning. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we xdhave jena mcneill, give us the administration's

response on tuesday. guest: we have a terrorist threat in this country and they want to emphasize we are going to work on the problem. and we want to see details of how they are going to make changes, not just by adding security at the airports but to tackle our intelligence problemç host: how do you think that will resolved and worked towards?ht guest: hopefully with the state and law enforcement and with our international partners, that's key to stop terrorist havens and sanctuaries. host: it sounds like you don't think that the administration has done enough to get that rolling? guest: what is concerning to me, the patriot act, president d

obama showed support çfor the patriot act. i think he needs to go out and stand up for things that are not popular in his own party. host: let's look at the headlines of çthe terrorist alert and yemen as one qw3of th most unstable in the spotlight and that the nation could emerge ças the next al-qaeda. have we paid enough xdattention to yemen? guest: i think it's important çó that we understand there are ñr lot of terrorist operations t we have to continue throughout the world to work with our international partners. there are a lots of w3places around xdafghanistan where al-qaeda is operating. host: what does it mean to çç that al-qaeda has taken credit ç

for this plot? guest: let's w3çimportarhthat look at this and not stop. host: çlooking at the obama administration and do you feel there was a smooth transition from bush administration to obama years? guest: there is a smooth transition but we need to look both administrations can agree that we have to add ñooçstuff the process. but it's important that çwe st terrorists before they get to qr an airport. host: our guest is jena mcneill from the heritage foundation and worked at a consulting firm for border and transportation security çat d.h. s.

you have border hrtsecurity an what lessons do we learn across the border, how do we translate that çin this situation? guest: the biggest lesson çto learned, you can't just add stuff, it [3doesn't make the border 100% safe or the airports safe.ç the threat changes, and you saw al-qaeda when it was legal to bring box cutter çon the airlines. and you think you will see them use this. and lots of times at the border, people smuggle and that's why we just can't rely on putting stuff in the technology. host: ok, let's go to our lines, we have barbara from fairfax, virginia. caller: good morning, i would like to say if a parent flags a

ch!&as having a problem. and we issue visas when we shouldn't. i can name at least four things that we didn't do that would have kept this guy off that plane and kept anybody from getting into our country or getting on these planes. why do we have to take everyone's rights and w7[çi]w3. i don't want to stand in line and have them do this. guest: you made a good point, we çcan't focus on airports an there are three things that are really important that we are

still wanting answers on. he was evidently in some sort of terrorist database, he had issues and his bags went through the consult office and these were issues that required more screening.ç host: we have department of homeland security that çwrites that the biggest lesson of this incident is to overcome our incident to be reactive. we seem to be one step behind the terrorists and we close that door and çwait for them t address another. why not identity these vulnerabilities. what did the bush administration work on?ç guest: there was a program called visa program, it's a

great example t(where we worked with international allies to have information sharing agreements and other security agreements that say hey, if you want to come to the u.s. for better travel, you can do that but pou have to improve your own security first. we have done that qwith a lot x countries and çthat has helpedç us ç4broad to stop terrorists entering the united states.ç host: let's go to johnny çon t independent line. caller: it seems to me that al-qaeda is the second time they have tried to use explosives and the second time they have failed. and tells everyone that they don't know qas much about the explosives than the world thinks.w3xd and it i]shows that çal-qaeda not a force in the çfighting world, because they would know

how to use the explosives. and the amount that this kid had çin his underwear would noç ñfuel tank. we p(w them w3on the news and  they know w3v:this and çv:çt al-qaeda don't çknow anything.ç incidents, ççthe aircraft and when they made w3a mybomb that worked.i]çç foiled since 9/11, so it may be premature to say that al-qaeda is not successful in launching % attacks in the w3unite"hstates.ç it demonstrates they are alive and well, and i disagree that al-qaeda is not a good organization to stop americans. they are really a dangerous,

violent organization that we have to take seriously and have to stop them çfrom hurting us.ç host: steve is çon the independent caller line. caller: good morning, i want to say that we have traded our freedoms for this security. and we have seen that we have not accomplished anything. and i have a letter from president clinton that i warned! him back in office about this coming threat, and hq4sent me a3 çletter ñrsaying that çhis n one priority was ççto çincre and that çwas long before bush and he obviously didn't do it. and you get ]ito the point if these guys are allowing al-qaeda to see that islam is powerful and undefeatable.

and i have evidence that law enforcement is skirting their duties. guest: it's important that we have policies in place for this process, and it's important that we stop these terrorists attacks and you eluded i]to tha. host: give us what is appropriate '/ifor screening a do you support the use of these millimeter wave machines and q what goes too far for privacy invasion? guest: we have to look at what is the biggest bang for our buck. we shouldn't just çspend money at airports. there are lots of technology that could strip us of our privacy, and it may work. and okit's important to strike that balance. i will leave that to the more

technological people. but i think it's very, very critical that we look at where we are making the key investments.ok and i suggest çthat's on the intelligence end, information sharing side of things. host: we ñrhave a twitter, that writes do you feel that we are missing the aspects that are totally ignored?çó guest: we have to look çat tho aspects, and radicalization is something that we need to know ç more about.ç host: little rock, arkansas, paul is xdon the republican's line. caller: yes, good morning, i am 100% favor our security. i feel that xdit is çvery important.

i don't mind the government invading my privacy if it means these crafts are more safer. i don't mind my privacy being invaded. i would like to say to jena that the heritage foundation is a very wonderful group. you do an excellent job in providing the right information for the public. and i wish you god's speed in the future. guest: thank you, it's good to hear kind words about the heritage foundation. and you make a point there are a lot of people that don't mind going çthrough additional screening but i çcare w3that '

completely safe. host: we have crystal on the line. caller: she touched on the issues i had regaty.rding and i do know, and she can verify this for me, i don't know whether it was a stimulus package or what bill they were trying to get through the congress to add additional monies, billions of dollars for homeland security for this new technology they wanted to use to go through the airports for this screening.s% where it would in fact screen a little more than what they had voted against doing. and it was voted down from my understanding. guest: well, there çwas additional money inside the stimulus for the transportation security administration.

now there are a lot of questions about what that exactly went to. i heard it discussed that people got really fancy new uniforms.ç it's difficult to know where that money went towards and where those dollars aligned. host: you talked about other countries and that is a corner stone and what countries are we not paying attention to and what to continue relationships with? guest: it's important to continue with our allies where they can provide information on say this guy and he's a threat and make sure g:$doesn't come over. and there is an assistance program that helps other countries in africa and other countries that don't have the political will to improve their own security.

we help them improve their security practices so when people fly in they are not trying to harm americans. host: we have çódale on the independent line from oklahoma. caller: good morning, my question is how confident do you feel that the american people are with the new homeland security department, in light of this christmas day attempt. and that's pretty much it, i will listen to your answer. guest: it's difficult for me to speak on behalf of the american people. i know personally without going into a blame game, i know that the obama administration is in charge of i]our executive branc and they have the responsibility that we look backwards and forwards to figure out what happened and fix appropriately.

and i hope they will do that in times when it's not popular with their own party. and i hope that obama will really go to congress and ask for the things he needs to and make the appropriate changes in his own branch. host: what are the short-term things that should be happening before congress comes back from the holiday break? guest: immediately we need to assess what what happened, if you see the dots were not connected with this man's father contacting the office and the fact that he was in our database and not screened. and we have to look at thak)çan aggressively figure out in the future how that information can be shared in a timely manner. host: we are looking at a picture of umar abdulmutallab

and his postings online.w3 what have you learned about his profiling based on what we are seeing about comments made online? guest: there were reports that he was a qlonely individual. and it's important that we look at radicalization, and i feel that this man was going to hurt people. and there are a lot of lonely people out there that don't attempt terrorist attacks. and we need to look at why he's radicalized and continue to determine that. host: we have dean calling on the independent line. caller: hi, how are you doing.w3 my question or comment is that first of all i am really tired of people saying that there is a lot of racism going on. i know there is a lot of racism, we need to get off of that, because everyone is a human being, and the çother incident of what happened over

christmas on the plane. i think we need more security in the privacy area. first of all if i am in a plane, i don't want to find out if there is a bomb çin the pla 40,000 feet in the air and no place to go. i think this screening should be a little better.q i know that they have put a çxç of money involved and a lot of people involved and it costs a lot. i think ççmy privacy comes se before my health and everyone's health. guest: i think a lot of people talk about political correctness and how that impacts our ability çto stop terrorists. and this case isç showing çho the watch-list and included names and would have made this

individual have additional screening. and people say çthat çthe lis too big, and others when the list was small, people were not appropriately screened. and the obama administration has to strike that balance. and we can't always cave into political correctness and to keep americans safe. host: the response to al-qaeda and other groups and that response over the hours? guest: you make a great w3point that al-qaeda is not the only ç group that seeks harm.q and the same things that work for stopping al-qaeda are the same that stop people that try to do harm on qtheir own. the patriot act and other tools can stop those in the beginning

regardless i]of the perpetrator. host: we have terry on the line. caller: good morning, i want to ask the question, i am for the security.ñr i wanted to find out from the young lady, are they expecting' administration to start from scratch in protectingi] us or h the republican party when they were in office, do they have ç

can #wç

caller: how can the"se republi line talk about the blocked funding and this demint that w3 blocked the administrator's appointee, i don't understand as both parties are trying everything, çcooperation to he the security. it seems like the republicans are trying to block everything that the obama administration is trying. guest: well, you know, there is' a lot of washington politics, obviously. and whether republican or democratic administration, there will be those politics and that's where çokwe have th people regardless of the administration. eople are there trying to keep the people safe whether their boss ñrçis a democrat or

republican. and i don't worry about the change in administration as i do of making sure that we take the appropriate steps to try to fix the problem. host: the washington journal reports that there was that it was retaliating, and there çis concern that there is retaliation and as we go into the [çmcountries this may esca things, what is çt(your though? çde more attacks on the united states. but that doesn't demonstrate that we shouldn't do this, çweç have to go and work on these places. host: ok, jena mcneill thank you for being with us, from kv

heritage foundation. coming up next, dr. anthony fauci fromxd infectious disease joining us. jú7h5 >> fox news contributor, michele maulkin, on book tv indepth, taking your calls and tweets, three hours okwith michele malkin. >> now available, c-span's book, abraham lincoln,

historiorions from his early years to the life in w3the whit house, abraham lincoln, on your favorite book seller, çand available online, learn çmyçm c-span.org/lincolnbook. >> çó"washington journal" continues. host: dr. anthony fauci, thank you for joining us.ç guest: it's good to be here. host: talk to u!us about k:h1n swine flu. guest: the glitch in the process that the virus used to make the vaccine, and when you make the vaccine, you have to grow the eggs and it didn't grow as well as we wanted. so there was a gap between the

demand for the vaccine and the supply. particularly when the children came back to go to school, and in october when we expected a large amount of vaccine, there was a gap. but as the weeks and months went by that gap closed and we ç clearly have enough vaccine and encourage çpeople to get ffí vaccinated. and the virus that hit us in april towards the end of the school year çxdand the first w and it stayed around during the summer, during the summer camp period. and when you had the return to school, the second wave came back. it's going way down when you look at the states, the number of states have gone from about a month ago, 48 states had

widespread activity and now about seven states have widespread activity. there was vaccine that there was unfortunately a gap between supply and demand and that closed. and we have had widespread virus through the young individuals. it was considered in general as a mild to moderate qseverity pandemic as they go. and the only similarity between other influenzaviruses w3that  virus had predication to younger individuals and the seasonal flu of the çregular deaths that we get every year are generally in elderly individuals over 65 and usually over 80. we are çseeing a disproportionate number of

younger individuals getting seriously ill. but in general, the big picture it's a mild to moderate pandemic. it's tough to use those words mild to moderate when children die. but the number of case where people died çhas been relative small, unfortunately in the younger people. host: what okis the expectation of the summer and next year, will there be new vaccines that need to be developed to deal with h1n1 in the coming years? guest: one thing w3ççto make ç even now and çfrom the beginni the vaccine that we çmade for this virus was an excellent, ç almost perfect match to the circulating virus. and we know from clinical trials that the vaccine prou(qáha robust immune response that he predict çwoul be protected.

the people that çare t(çi]vac are protected at a highçó level. so your question of what is going to happen now, we are seeing a decrease in the number of cases. what we want to be sure that doesn't happen as seen in other pandemics, is another wave from thw)aholiday season that you will get a third wave. we don't ítçthink and we hope t does not happen. and the best way to avoid that is now that we have plenty of vaccine to okget çpeople vaccinated so you have greater protection. . .

>> come o back and a simulate into the regular season flu. those many people will be protected if it recycles itself >> update us please on dealing with hiv.

aids. both how it's being dealt with as far as the disease spread and then also of course, in your neck of the woods, actually being able to fight the illness and combat it when people are infected? >> well, hiv we still have a serious global pandemic. there's over 33 millijz people infected worldwide. greater of 90% are in the developing world. there's 2 point 7 new infections each year and 2,000,000 deaths sz it's still a very serious problem. even here in the united states we have 56,000 new infections each year which is something we have to get our arms around and stop that. it's been that way for well over 10-years. with regard to treatment, treatment is superb for those people that have access to therapy the drugs we have now

have completely transformed the lives of hiv infected individuals, where as when i first started taking care of those people here in 1981, someone would come into the clinic seriouásv ill and likely be dead in 26 weeks. now with therapies available if newly infected comes in and you treat them with the new drugs. if you do math catically modeling they could live up to 69 years. the critical thing the issue of prevention. we still have people getting infected and that's really unacceptable. we have to continue to push the prevention modalities. it's interesting, there's a lot of prevention mt(sráy from needle exchange, mother to child

transmission. behavioral modification and a variety of things to use and yet only 20% of the people that would benefit from the modalities actually have access to them the. it's a combination of major advances made in treatment and in tremendous prevention but getting modalitys to the people that need them. there still a lot of challenge and much more to do in this very difficult situation we're in with a pandemic raging. a lot of challenge as head. >> release fromnih said more than 1 point 1,000,000 are estimated to be infected with hiv. someo'e is infected every nine and a half minutes. it's dispro pox nightly infecting mostly men with intercourse with men. most are at least 50 years of old, they account for

approximately ten percent of all new hiv infections. what isnih's role as we look at it compared to other departments and branchs in the department of human health and service? >> if you look at the major groups involved in addressing it. it's they who develop new drugs to test and determine how best to use them. big challenge of developing a vaccine. big challenge of preventing modal this. other agencies hike cdc plays a major role in surveillance of disease and prevention modalities and making sure when you have disease that's predominated to certain areas, that you educate them and get public health programs implemented. the fda the organization involved for the regulation of

the drugs the vaccines plays an important role all of which compliment each other. you have also programs within the federal government to get drugs available to people who cannot have otherwise access to drugs. so it's really sinner gistic and complimentary in the department of health and human services.qi drugs to the people that need them. >> phones a lot of callers eager to talk to dr. anthony fauci. linda from the democrat line. caller: good morning dr. anthony fauci. really excited. i think the third time i've been able to get to talk to you. i'm a health educator myself. one of the concerns i had about the whole flu epidemic in terms of someone trying encourage the vaccine is

the way anecdotally the vaccine was distributed. it really didn't go to the groups. lawyers in boston got they're vaccine prior to healthcare. workers, where i work we didn't get the seasonal flu until mid-september. which was a private sector screw up because the private supplier decides to get them clients with more business which was kind of disconcerting to me. secondly, we have residents that illness during the height of the h1n1 but the doctors would not culture them. when i hook at thecbc they only count the cases lab confirmed and i'm concerned there's distortion about that. lastly, when were we expecting

this virus to mutate? i'm having trouble convincing people to get the vaccine for both influenzas. >> you asked several questions. let me try to answer them quickly. first of all, with regard to the seasonal flu vaccine. absolutely correct. people should get it, the priority groups first should have gotten the h1n11. you're right. early on a big gap between supply and demand there were inequities in the p(uup& distribution but what's happened is about 75 percent of the vaccine administered has gone to priority groups. those most at risk for complication so even though early on, when you have that gap, there's a lot of stress on the system and actual distribution of the vaccine as to who gets them, is the responsibility of the state and local authorities.

the federal government essentially bought all the h1n1 and made it available to the states in a prorated population related formula. how it was distributed in the states valleyed on how the local authorities and state felt would be the most efficient way to dráu)ibute the h1n11. the seasonal flu vaccine we have distributed more of that this "tsjáñ because it was available early on. because we wanted to get the people vaccinated waiting for about 114 million doses have been distributed. your last week or question about when it would mutate. you can't really predict that but for sure they will and how

they mutate. whether they veer from vaccine protection is difficult to say. this is important for the message and thanks for trying get the message across about getting people vaccinated right now when we have clearly enough for anyone that wants it. there's about 119 million distributed. far cry from the earlier shortages we've had. the vaccine and virus are still perfectly matched. this vaccine is very good for this h1n1. we know it induces a good robust immune response you would predict wou&d be protective. so now is the time for peoplq of any group, early on we wanted to õget the high risk people first and about 75 percent of the vaccine did go to them. we wanted anybody and everybody right now who wants to be vaccinated and should to get

vaccinated now so you can be protected when we know there will be a lot more infections this winter. even though the peek is going down there could be a third wave, number one and number two as i mentioned earlier it is likely though not guaranteed that there will be a recycling next year of this virus as a seasonal type of flu. i# you have been vaccinated this year or infected you have a hig$ degree of profession or protection. >> high. doctor. i'm in portland, oregon actually. my question is, we go through this every single year with the vaccine shore table and i mean it's like, you know - we run into people out here trying travel on the holidays and we're exposed to a lot of different people all over the united states and we saw this every

year. in the last 15 years at least, can we not manufacture enough in this country? seems like it would be a national security issue wouldn't it? >> well first of all with all due respect i have to tell you that information is not correct. it's not a vaccine shortage. seasonal flu. let's put h1n1 a side. what happens with seasonal flu unfortunately the lesion we ceo sonly is inequity of distribution. other people want it can't get it but at the end of the year there's not a shortage. we've had to throw away vaccine where you had unused vaccine almost every single year with seasonal flu. what we do need is to get people into the rhythm of more people getting vaccinated every year.

seasonal flu vaccines we've gone from several years ago where 50 million people a year would get vaccinated to the last couple over 100 million people got vaccinated last year. so, it really isn't fundamentally a shortage issue but getting people aware to be vaccinated "tqp(r year they're almost guaranteed that the vaccine they make is going to be utilized. what we need to do is ramp up getting people's awareness that it's important to get seasonal flu vaccine. it's a serious disease. we lose 36,000 people, mostly elderly people each year with 200,000 access hospitalizations. there's a discordance between what happens in regard to the vaccine and what people perceive as is the a vaccine available.

we need more people vaccinated and awareness this pandemic has given the american public, hopefully if the)e's a good people are aware why it's re important to get vaccinated every year. >> republicans line. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of comments to make. first about the h1n1 and secondly, about the hiv virus. first off, just say that as a republican, i actually believe the obama administration handled the h1n1 very well. i understand you know not everything ran perfectly, but i do believe it was handled to the best of their capability. i'm pretty you. i'm 21 years old, but i was

displaying high risk behaviors thought i had contracted the virus. turns out i didn't but when i went to the locp& health clinic here i was surprised at how much information and how much help the local clinic was, i would had contracted it. the real root of the problems is not, at least for aids and hiv is not the information that the federal government is putting out for the use or for anybody really. i think the real problem lies in the simple fact that a lot of young people my age just don't care. they don't care enough about what's out there. and i think that's real problem. guest: well i'm glad you gave audience. in the united states as we heard, there's 1 point 1,000,000

people infected with hiv, over 20% of them do not know that they are infected and the vast majority of infections transmitted get transmitted by someone that does not know he or she is infected. so what we really need is for people to do just what you did. we need voluntary widespread testing so people know their hiv status and they can get counciled on how to avoid getting infected and if they are infected they can get on treatment and get counseling to avoid other infections. we hope more americans would go and get tested. host hose emerging viruses. you think we'll see more in the future and what can we do to pick them up earlier? guest: i guarantee you will.

'we see essentially a cup all right. year of either emerging or reemerging microbes and that's brand new one we've never seen such as hiv aids. 28 years ago, a reemerging microbe is one that's been around for a while but ate appears in a different form and different geographic location just like west nile virus which for centuries existed in africa and middle east and then just a few years ago came to the united states and now it's a pan democracy the nick the united states. there's no doubt we'll continue to see emerging and reemerging microbes the way you guard is one of them is to have good surveillance mechanisms and we collaborate with the world health organizations. particularly centers for disease control and prevention which are as good as you can get. they're exce&lent in picking up new disease the ropes as they

emerge. "t)apidly picked up the new h1n in april. you have surveillance and then the scientific capability to move rapidly to mp)q diagnostic vaccines and treatments. all those things in place. there's a constant surveillance for these inevitable microbes that we'll continue to see as long as there's civilization and mankind and interaction between microbes and humans. it's been going on since the beginning of our civilization and will continue. caller: good morning. dr. anthony fauci, i'm a polio survivor. i acquired it in 1961 when i was two years old and now effected by post polio and i had three questions about that and immunization practices. the first is, our troops are

being exposeed afg$anistan to the people who have had polio. either as carriers or as actual people who have been given the disease and ramification o f that disease. are they still being immuneized for polio and are they able to be carriers back into our current populus because i know a big frustration with folks innih is a lot of young parents are not immuneizing they're children. my second question is that rotary international and other people are funding it but they're using sabn vaccine that allows the may sayers to say instead of one and a million chance of getting polio vaccine they're immuneizing to give you the disease. that seems to be something we

need to correct and thirdly, i didn't know i had polio. i was not diagnosed until fairly recently and because of that when i acquired post polio that was a real traumatic event for me. i've only been effectd for the last two years and i can barely walk now. is there ááá)r'g done for communication about post polio to a broad are populus than just those that know they were infected initially. i have a feeling there's a lot of folks out there like me. thanks and merry christmas and happy new year. >> same to you. i'll try and quickly ask or answer. first of all just to clarify for the viewers that when you talk about polio vaccine and being carrier there's two types of polio vaccine. a live ten waited vaccine when you want to vaccinate you have

the virus in a weak form replicate and you can cross immunize other people u)u$ it. every once in a while when you have just the live vaccine people susceptible can get exposeed unsanitary conditions to someone that's had that. they can actually get polio that way. we're trying eradicate it worldwide and almost successful. not quite. the question you asked about the troops. whenever they're deployed to areas with diseases that are energy demjpáic they're vaccinated the troops that are vaccinated get vaccinated with the polio vaccine that would not necessarily at all or couldn't be spread to someone else because you get the killed vac(r'e. people need to appreciate that vaccination programs in the united states have succeeded in essentially eliminated polio

from our country and from most of the developed world. unfortunate&y there's still pockets of polio in certain countries in which vaccination programs have not been adequately done or where they big push on to completely eradicate it's a disease but we need to understand when you get the in jebtable vaccine there's no chance to spread it to anybody. >> tell us what happens if your exposed to iá at a young age. he talked about not knowing and now has post polio symptoms. >> well again i don't want to get people confused. what happens is you got tz talk about real infection with polio where someone, particularly for example if someone is exposed to someone vaccinated with live infection.

when a normal immune system see as weak virus it makes an immune response and get protected and not be sick. some people are immuno suppressed and who in a rare, rare instance would get exposed to the live polio vaccine that would normally be handled very well by people. they could wind up getting polio. we see very rare but nonetheless the finite number of cases for that. post polio syndrome is a different story. it's someone who's had polio in the past who decades later áhey get an exacerbation of some of the neurological problems originally related to polio. that's an unusual uncommon syndrome but we do see it in people infected many, many years

ago. it's called late post polio >> pennsylvania. caller: hello? yes. i'd like to speak to dr. anthony fauci it's been quite a number of years since i met him at an aids conference in pittsburgh. my question is now people like myself. i caught the h1n11 or swine vaccine back in 1976. i developed a gilionabray syndrome and was par liced for months. am i immune to the strain now or not? because since that time i haven't been able to get the a'y flu vaccine for any type an or type-b. whatever. >> well, sure. it's clear people who have been

exposeed the 50's to similar h1n1 viruses that are certainly different than the new h1n1 we have seen. most of the people a)e elderly now and that is the reason why elderly people seem to be relatively protected likely due to the previous exposures to the real infection of an h1n1 with some cross reactivity with the current one. the other group of people like yourself vaccinated against swine in 1976 it's likely that vaccination which unfortunately caused you that problem. induced an immune response in you that would very likely make you immune to the h1n1 and your perfectly correct. the fact that you unfortunately had a serious adverse event in

1976 precludes you from getting h1n1 vaccination and i'm sure you physicians appropriately instructed you.% how old are you, i would imagine 1976 that's more than 30 years ago and if you were a young man then you're probably in your 50's or older, that is it likely that your protected from previous exposures but your correct in not getting vaccine this time because of your previous unfortunate experience. "t we have a comment on twitter. dr. anthony fauci please a the new strain of,tb that has appeared in a patient in florida. host: tuberculosis is generally a very treatable disease and curable disease by standard medications what we're starting to see now

are what's called multiple drug resistance and in a rare case, extensively drug resist stent tuberculosis and that mep's the microbe, the tuberculosis microbe has developed a resistance against the standard medications that we use. and it's a serious disease and needs to be diagnosed correctly early on so that individuals can be puá on more drugs and drugs that you know are not resistance in the since the microbe is resr'ce stance to the drug. that's reason we get tuberculosis patients we want to treat them with the full (ááq of therapy. otherwise you have the danger of the emerging of a very resistant microbe which we've seen in the united states rarely. but it's also seen in other

countries, particularly the developing world where treatment is not adequate for the due beer cue low sis and you get the emerging of multiple or extensively drug resistant,tb. we've seen outbreaks in south africa over the past several amonghi vi infected individuals. host: mitchell in south dakota. caller: yes, doctor, i'm 51 years old and i've never taken vaccines bq(puáq the problems with them are sloppily done in labs and commerce and cdc when this h1n1 broke out the cdc was very rude to callers and another thing, sir the lies and deceit done in labs. our food is bogged down with a

lot of chemicals that are killing people. they're also making diseases. i don't trust anything the cdc or government does. guest: i don't knju how to respond to that except sayint vaccine made for the h1n11 and any of the other influenzas historically are very safe and really quite effective. so you know i have to respect people's opinion they have but i strongly disagree. first of all, the vast majority of people that deal with cdc find them very courteous and professional. i have them as colleagues and find them extremely courteous and respectful of the american publi(ház i have to with all due respect, disagree with this caller. host: last call from brooklyn. heather on the democrat line. caller: good morning. dr. anthony fauci, i have a

question about deaths of seniors from the flu. i have a question about senior deaths from the flu. of the seniors lost every year. from the flu, do you know how many of those have never been vaccinated verses those that have been lapsed in vaccinations. guest: it's a good question. let's get the number so viewer cans get it correct. just to talk about seasonal flu there are about 36,000 death as among individuals who are infected with seasonal flu the vast majority over 90% are individuals older than 65 years old and the majority older than 80 years old. some have been vaccinated and still get the flu. "táhe response to the vaccine i very old individuals is not

nearly as robust as it is in younger individuals. but many of those individuals had not been vaccinated. we know you clearly get a benefit from vaccine even if you) elder by but not as much as if you were younger. it's an important point i'd like to make. people that get vaccinated each year for seasonal flu. even though the virus changes immunity that could help them in cross reaction protection so that when they get much older and they're immune system is not as robust they still have the previous vaccinations to help them when they're elderly. elderly individuals as with any disease are more susceptible to many complicated things and that's why we're working harder to get a robust response even in

elderly individuals. host: dr. anthony fauci thanks so much for being with us. dr. anthony fauci joined us. the director of the national institutes of allergy and infectious diseases. coming up next a discussion of the u.s. tragedy in afghanistan and pp)ráup' with ronald neuman and william milam. >> it's 8:32. the top republican on the house commented on the airliner attack on christmas day. speaking on cbs's early show he said the system for preventing a terrorist attack failed when a nigerian man boarded with exp&osives. he went on to say the u.s. needs to be more forward leaning and put into place the latest technology for dealing with it and on the today show. the leading republican on the

house homeland security committee says the nigerian man accused of taking the terrorist threat. it should be tried in military court. it would be difficult if he got legal rights in civilian courts including the right to a lawyer. more on the violence in iran. the british ambassador is summed to file complaint over western support over antigovernment protest. out it was said backed by the brittain, u.s. and other countries. iran forces continue to round up protesters. arrests include the sister of a nobel peace lawyer rent and an update on treaty negotiations between russia and united states. vladimir put sin asking about

missile development update under an exchange for new arms treaty. they're working on the 1991 strategic arms reduction that expáq" on november fifth. it was hoped that agreement could be reached. those are hqpdlines on c-span radio. >> the nigh nature of most human enterprises to ask yourself an as an introspective way and by doing this the right way. >> all this week. a rare glitch into america's highest court through unprecedented on the record "t(áu justices. tonight anthony kennedy and samuel will it o. interviews with supreme court justices at 8:00 profit margins on c-span and get your own copy on dvd. it's part of c-span's american icons collection. including programs on the white

house and capital. one of many items available at c-span.org/store. a look back attributes made to u.s. and world leaders. dalai lama. walter cronkite and robert bird. new years day what's ahead for the new year. vladimir putin discusses his future from the call in program and austin schoolsby the creator of the segway and cofounder of guitarçó hero on innovation and the art of political cartooning. there's less than a month left to enter the student cam contest. $50,000 in prizes for middle and high school students. just create a five to eight minute video on one of our country's greatest strength or a challenge the country is facing.

enter before midnight january 20th. don't wait another minute. goes to c-span.org for more information. >> the rest of the program we'll talk about the u.s. strategy in pakistan and afghanistan. joined by two former ambassadors. ronald neuman former ambassador to afghanistan and william milam former ambasáp"or to pakistan. just so we have context on time, ronald neuman you were the as!assador from 2005-2007 and william milam 1998 to 2001. there at a pivotal time. >> well when the military took over again, yes but i wasn't there at 9/ll so i missed that transition. >> let's look at the top news stories right now. "washington post" suicide bomber strikes shiite in pakistan. 30 killed in blast.

what do we learn from this? what are we seeing happening in pakistan right now? >> things go on. have been attacking the state and people of pakistan continue to do so, and the old sunni shiite violence continues and that's been a history for the last 30-years. since the late 70's. host: judging whom what your seeing how are things to day verses when you were ambassador? >> it's like night and day as far as can i tell. in fact, it was safe to go around almost anywhere in pakistan in my day if váu were a foreigner and even a shiite except during certain periods and it's totally different now. so i think, you know, just the security situation is far different. host: ambassador ronald neuman.

give you initial reflections in the afghanistan country right now. >> the insurgency is worse but it's not hugely popular but it's scaring people. the president's use of the 18 months which i think does not actually mean very much has also confused afghans somewhat. however, there are a lot of pluses as well. and i think one shouldn't be despairing but understand we're paying a considerable price for years of under re-sourcing with finances with money an" military. and you don't correct those things quickly. i think the american people need a much greater understanding of the time lags involved so that we don't falsely judge policies as failures before they begin to work. host: there's a piece today. this is coming from the "wall street journal" looking at what's happening in afghanistan

that says sar sooi international rates hit civilians. ten civilians including 8 school children were killed in an attack. president karzai said monday there's contention over who was actually killed. >> this is a continuing problem. if you kill civilians you make more enemies but the taliban work very hard to position themselves that way. i know that general mcchrystal has made extraordinary efforts to kind of avoid this type of thing happening butyl ban and other groups in the insurgency are good about claiming civilian casualties any time anything happens. unrestrained by truth they're quick. host: we want to take advantage of your expertise and look at changes in policy and look forward. and to start that take a look at comments that then senator obama made in 2007 on august first.

regarding pakistan. >> after 9/11 our calling was to write a new chapter in the american story. the devicing of a new strategy to secure our homeland and safeguard our values and serve just cause a broad. we were ready. americans were reunited and friends stood shoulder to shoulder and we have the might and moral persuasion that with the legacy of generations of americans the tied of history seems poised to turn once again toward hope. but then everything changed. we did not finish the job against al qaeda and afghanistan and did not develop new cape biments to defeat a new enemy or launch comprehensive strategy for terror based. we did not a firm basic values or secure homeland. instead we got a color coded

politics of fear. patriotism as one political party. refusing to talk to other countries. a rigid 20áh century ideology that insists the state lester risk m could be defeated through innovation and occupation of a state. a deliberate strategy to miss represent 9/11 to sell aware with nothing to do with 9/11. >> that's back when he was senator talking about afghanistan. ronald neuman can you reflect on this comments then? host: certainly i agree with his point that we turned away from afghanistan. and that we negligented a lot of things we could do. in fact, i cover a lot of that in the book i've just written. this occured a pum bear of ways. we empowered more people than we

need needed to. we had a tiny force present. first in afghanistan we had 25,000 troops the country the larger than iraq. we were building an afghan army. a fraction of the size of the iraq one. we didn't do economic development in this poor country until 2 1/2, three years after the start of the war. where in iraq you had huge amounts of oil money and 18,000,000 we allocated quickly. we had great expectations from afghans and then we let things drift. we tried to reverse that. i mean there's no real surprises in what's happening now. we were reporting in 2005 the fact that 2006 would be a bloody year. we were seeking more money. i asked for 6100,000,000 for a supplemental in 2006 and after

extensive discussions i got 43. this is the way we were working. iraq was sucking the air out of the discussions of resources and now we're paying a price but it's not hopeless. the taliban are not ten fetal. the press coverage which tends to focus on the areas of conflicts and misses 2/3 of the% country is part of the issue as well as our own mistakes. afghan make mistakes but there's a lot of things to work with as long as we have patients. host: do you think it lines up with president barack obama's strategy years later? >> he maintained that afghanistan was the necessary war. i think there was then a deep gulp when they found out just what that meant. but after a very serious reflection that was disstabilize together the much of the world

that saw it weak but necessary for our political process, i think he's come to a very reasonable policy. about which i would say simply the first test will be does he have the guts to stick with it. it's time to stop the gazing and show resolve overtime. not speeches but sticking with it and secondly the great deal of what counts now is moving from policy to hundreds of decisions on the ground to what people do and we're probably now going to increasingly talk about the wrong things. policies when we ought to talk about execution of policy. >> i was going to say in 2001 after 9/11 in early 2002 i actually worked on afghanistan here in washington at the state department. they asked me to come back and help. we were trying set up the economic reconstruction effort, which was a multi-lateral

effort. the multi-lateral part got set up okay but almost nothing happened. just to back up what ron said, we saw almost no flow of õresources in that time. i was there. and a year after as far as i can tell. host: callers. people lining up to talk to both of you. david from kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. just seems like to me this yeah dynamics.rorist changes the % are we going to every arab country and fight? discuss that if you will. host: sorry david i think we may have lost david. are you still with us. can you elp!orate more? caller: this guy they just caught. coming to detroit. he came in, you know he's from yeah men another arab country and that's al qaeda, trained him

supposedly and, you not pakistan, afghanistan and iraq. are we going to every arab country and fight? you see my point. i mean- >> i understand the question. probably won't go to every arab country or very many of t$em. many of them are hopefully able to handle their own terrorist problems the saudis have done so, but there are areas of the world. afghanistan being the primary one at this point. yes, ma!m yemen, maybe some !ut if we leave a vacuum there that certainly will be be p' al qaeda hang out again. sanctuary. >> that's one i'd like to reenforce. n agreement here. if we leave afp'istan before

there is a strong enough government and army to hold on, maybe with economic assistance. but not foreign troops but if we leave before that you will have with them. let me reflect what this means. they attacked us in september 11, killed 3,000 americans and trumpeted their propaganda they would draw us into aware that would exhaust us for which we would reel back in defeat. i think we need to be very clear, if your pulling out of afghanistan, you have a validation of al qaeda strategy. a massive victory that every muslim will understand whether they're supporters of radicalism will understand the wave has exceeded, maybe not won aware but a 10-year campaign to defeat the united states.

i think what that means for security is very large. that doesn't solve the question or is perfect i correct question. can we go everywhere? no. we can help through a lot of other means. we probably neglected that. >> can i add a little bit. first of all, scenario ron painted of withdrawal abruptly is - would be among other things one of the great recruiting posters for young extremists or young people who tend towards extremism any way on the young muslims so, yes it would weak energy our security by making a lot more people anxious to get at us i think. secondly and the reason i think you asked me here is about pakistan and a drupt withdrawal from pakistan will turn them in a different direction. (p' i go into that further if

people want. but i think pakistan right now is a questionable ally any way. it's teatoring on the edge of do we or don't we. right now, i think and this gets back to the point ron made about the 18 month withdrawal, or beginning of withdrawal period. the pakistans are still thinking, they're leaving we need to make sure our interests in afghanistan are protected by doing what they used to do which is supporting a certain group of the taliban. host: early on in his 10-year as president back in march president barack obama said this in march of 2009 addressing the purpose in afghanistan. >> many people in the united states. and many in partnered countries that have sacrificed so much have a question. what is our purpose in afghanistan. after so many years they say why do our men and women still fight

and die there and they deserved straight forward answer so let me be clear. al qaeda and it's a lies the terrorists that planned and supported 9/11 attacks are in pakistan and afghanistan. multiple intelligence estimates from it's safe haven in pakistan. if the afghan government falls to the taliban or allows al qaeda to go unchallenged that country will be a base for terrorists that want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. >> well, i think he got it right so i'm glad he still thinks so. host: mentioned earlier that execution will be the crucial thing looking to the next year. what needs to be different about what the united states and nato force does that hasn't been achieved before as we see other

countries not have success there? >> let me start with one piece of the military. we've had a great deal of discussion about is 30,000 troops the right number? the answer is maybe. when i left in 2007 one of the things i talk about in my book. my single biggest issue for consultations is we were 3500 short of military there. we sent 4,000 trainers reasoned most of them are the same ones we didn't have 2 1/2 years ago. do we send enough trainers and use the tup&ified people and work in ways that work with the those are questions of execution. not questions of policy or one use can micromanage from washington. same thing in civilian side.

you have people that know what they're doing. do they know how to work with the afghan culture. i think many of them will not. so, these are the kind of issues that we'll actually determine success or failure just as in iraq the, what people talk about success of the surge was not just numbers but a change of tactics and strategic mistakes of al qaeda and opportunity that (psq together exploited so these are the kinds of things we need to focus on in afghanistan to understand whether or not we're actually doing what we need to do. >> next caller on the independent line. caller: yes, and good morning. how are ya'll doing today? first of all, i want to make a comment. i think c-span is fabulous. you guys really do a terrific job. i can't really compare it with anything. it's just fabulous.

couple of comments. did you see the latest vr"eo coming out of the news with the four terrorists claiming responsibility for this? any of you guys seen that? guess what, i got the news for you. they told us two of them were released from get m o. we're losing the pr battle here folks. secondly, when we decided to put the terrorists on trial in new york city, that to me, spelled out one of the worst possible disasters we could do because it's made them more bold and every possible mistakes we can make a long the way, we've made as a nation and we')e playing right into the hands of these people and i'm just going to hang up and let you comment on it. thank you so much.

>> well, the answer is - i did not see the video first of all.% i read about it. i was shocked even to read about it. although it's to be expected that al qaeda would use this as a propaganda mechanism to do more recruiting and so forth. as to the new york trial, i don't really have a feeling about that. it seems to be that we need to try these people and it seems to me that we've tried other terrorists in new york and it's worked okay. so yes, they will try to use it's a propaganda stool. and we hopefully will have to counter that with evidence which i hope we have. i'm sure we have and with a - but the other sort of propaganda war is we will do this under some sort of rule of law in our

court system and i think thpá is a good message in the long run. host: caller brought up guantanamo and people released from there now getting fed back to the system. guest: we have multiple problems on multiple sides. we did a poor job putting people in guantanamo. we were not careful about our intelligence and i remember at one place in my time before i went to afghanistan from another country with my station chief. being a palled by the quality of intelligence. people we had working on the system there. i don't think new entirely what we were doing. we had people we swept up accidentally and they were all probably bad by the time they left. we have not been as careful as we could have in some and have

had good results in some places and poor in others. yeah men the go+ernment is very weak. on the new york trial, this is a gamble. i'm a little nervous about it and i share some of the callers worries but i say here again it execution not policy. if the trial comes off orderly without being public forum for the people to preach about their views and if it looks fair to the media and they're convictd to get good stiff sentences it could be great success for us. if it become as media circus, a propaganda forum for them and worse of all they get light sentences or get uh off it's a disaster and administration is rolling dice for heavy stakes. host: our guests are ambassador ronald neuman ambassador to afghanistan and we also have a

book that he's published recently. the other war, winning and losing in afghanistan and former ambassador to pakistan william milam who has bangladesh and pakistan flirting with failure in southeast asia. that was published. what's the connection there? host: first of all they were two parts of the same country before 1971 really a'd secondly i was ambassador in both. [laughs] so i thought i would write about them both. host: georgia. democrat line. caller: good morning. couple of questions. one, how long will it take to do that whole pipeline from china?istan through pakistan to the other day they said that the chinese is causing problem and i'm wondering if they'll do that so we'll have to stpv because we have an agreement to build

they're economic structure over there and i also wonder if our changing the afghanistan policy to where americans can come in and buy their land and develop it and turning they're governmental structures into private and charging the citizens a lot more, that is causing a lot of animosity. and the other day in the hearing he shouted out and said, what are you talking about they want us there? may want us to leave and they all want us to leave and see us as the enemy and taliban and al qaeda in favorable terms income paired to what we're doing. so we're running from country to country to do all this for the economic advantage of business, banks and oil companies and yet%

americans are dying. host: ambassador ronald neuman? guest: i've heard people make this argument but i find it utterly misty guying because it's one o# the poorest countries on the nation. my wife and i traveled all over by car and horse and by yak and can i tell you that economic "tp"vantage is not readily to b found in afghanistan. the question is of áhe oil pipeline. i've seen this discussed in programs, but there's no final deal. there was not one before. it's been pursued by private companies and has an enormous number of problems and it likely be a good idea if it happened but you could wait for sitting down. it's going to be a long time in the coming and certainly is % neither a reason for going to war and it may never happen.

private citizens can buy land, but i think that the issue is one that afghanistan actually does need more private investment because i think in any country you find government is not a primary creator of jobs but i would dispute the conclusion that people by and large don't want us. there's actually been a lot of poles done. abc and so forth. various credible organizations "t!etween what's happening to u and what's happened with the soviets. the degree of resistance and numbers of people in the war all validate what i've seen as well. which the majority see the foreign presence the last chance for survival. they're worry is one that will mess it up and twy that we'll leave half done. that scares the dickens out of them. but the idea everybody wants us

gone is i think, not true. . guest: i think that those days, and still, the security problems and other problems of building a pipeline are really, really

demands. guest: wonderful linchpin for all kinds of conspiracies, with the symbol and stability that is not true. -- single debility that is not true. guest: let me go to the taliban. i take on them is that the afghans are not it did in taliban rule. most afghans think that the last time around was plenty, a very, very harsh rule, as we know. their attitude towards americans are, i think, as ron says, that we stay long enough to get the job done. where the polls are different are pakistan, where, again, the taliban are not for republic, but americans are even less popular.

that is a whole different -- the taliban are not very popular, but americans are even less popular. that is a whole different story. host: suit on the republicans' line. caller: we have a president who refuses to use the term "war on terror," we have a head of hamas' security who refuses to use the word "-- had of homeland security who refuses to wor -- o use the word "terrorist." 0, by the way, let's not fight them at all. al qaeda is laughing at us and moving forward with this president who does not know what he's doing, who does not know where to turn, and who cannot make a decision. guest: well, i think the president was pretty clear on what he was doing in both afghanistan and pakistan. with the sole exception that i am not sure that i thought that the deadline, or whatever you

call it -- at least a departure was 18 months away -- it strikes me that the president took a long time but made some pretty rational decisions about afghanistan. and in pakistan, which is a very, very difficult case, he is more or less on the right track. as to the mirandizing and so forth, i don't know enough about it to comment. host: ronald on the independents' line in louisiana. caller: 0, got, the lies and hears you. the heights of the cordish empire, the military -- oh, god, the lies i hear spewed. the heights of the british empire -- by any definition, you call that imperialism re.

orwell said that wars are not fought to be one, they are thought to be continued you guys are stooges for the military industrial complex, and most people are on to you. we know you are lying. host: you have a response? guest: well, i would say that i have not been called is due to recently reported -- not been called a stooge recently, but is usually people with different views than the caller. i think his views are absurd and i deny them totally. i think this notion of imperialism is simply confusing. a very different motivations, very different times, very different histories. i think it is probably enough said. i am happily out of the government. i think this kind of simplistic view does not help anybody

understand much of anything. host: you are talking about the timeline is earlier. let's go to, as president obama made during the west point -- go to commons, president obama made during the west point addressed early in december. >> there are those who would want to impose a timeframe for transition to afghan responsibility. some call for a nation building project of up to a decade. i reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the afghan government. it must be clear that afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that america has no interest in fighting an endless war in afghanistan.

host: ambassador neumann, there was pushed back after the president made those remarks from conservatives, concern that he was setting a deadline to put the administration said that "we're talking about targets and goals, ramping up and then back down." guest: we need to distinguish the strategy from the discussion prepare the strategy has been pretty clear and the administration has been consistent across everyone's testimony -- cabinet, generals, ambassadors, all -- that the 18 months is the beginning of the process, conditions-based, which could be very slow. something could happen in 18 months, but it might not be much and it is not necessarily mean that many people are leaving. that is not an unreasonable strategy. there is a question of what point you try to do something. however, the wait was laid out, which i suspect has something to do with domestic politics, has

caused a great deal of confusion. the president's speech laid much more stress on the 18 months than it did on the conditionality. it was much more we do than the testimony of his administration. -- more weighted than the testimony of his administration. four afghans who have seen mostly failures over the last 30 years of war, the suggestion that we are going to go -- this does not get people to put their shoulder behind the wheel and be more self sacrificing. it triggers survival mechanisms. how do i get what i can add the -- what i can out of this place before the foreigners abandon me? there is the reality of troops, money, warfare. these things are much more

important than the word. right now i think that the 18 months works against getting people to work harder in afghanistan. i will let bill talk about the implications in pakistan. >> i think i pakistan -- i feel pretty much the same way about it that rana does, except i wish he -- than ro does -- that ron does, except as she had not done it. pakistan is also talk about our abandonment -- pakistanis also talk about our abandonment of the region in 1993 as soon as the war was over, not only walked away, but we put sanctions on pakistan for their nuclear program. pakistan at one point in the 1990's was the most sanctioned

country in the world, at least u.s. sanctions. they have a long memory, particularly with regard to what the u.s. does, or does not do. that is very, very much in the forefront of their minds. therefore, they have always had -- this has been one of my favorite things lately, is to talk about how pakistan is really kind of living version in politics of the frankenstein legend -- they have created their own monsters, which are now beginning to eat them up, if you will. first of all, they created the taliban, who then attacked pakistan in -- afghanistan in the middle 1990's and took over. and then they created, even before that, these jihadi groups which were meant to fight in kashmir against the indians.

after 9/11, when musharraf made his u-turn, these groups began to fall away from their creator, began to pull away, and think of their own thing, which was war against infidels of one sort or another, the indians, the day americans, be they anybody else. now you have a situation in which pakistan is fighting a war against one sort of it had begun, still allied to -- one sort of taliban, still led to the other sort. as long as pakistanis think they will need the afghan taliban to further the interests once we pull out, is going to be very hard for them to break those links. host: let's go to washington, d.c. democrats line. guesi caller: i want to address

an objection to ambassador milam. he needs to distinguish between what is islam and what is to rescind terrorism happens -- what is terrorism. he says that most young muslims are terrorists. there are lots of young muslims, and i am a young muslim, are in a quandary right now because of what the west has created. you have created a very bad image of islam, and that goes all the way back to the crusades, the inquisition, whatever. you have to continue doing this, downgrading the religion. -- have continued doing this,

downgrading to religion. when the crusaders came in, we did not say this was a christian war. they are taking religion and using it as a tool, and you have to understand that is not the average muslim. and you say that pakistan encourages the taliban? i think it is the united states. we are the ones who encouraged the taliban and told them that this is a religious war, that it is in their religious interest to fight the soviets. we created these monsters and it has spread all over. they are sending a lot of strong wahabbis all over the world and is there anything we are doing against that? to be muslim in our community -- there is such havoc for us as muslims that you're afraid of saying we are muslims. host: let's get a response from

ambassador milam. guest: yes, i would like to responded first of all, i did not say, nor mean to imply, that most young muslims are terrorists. if you heard that, you heard wrongly. i certainly don't believe that. there are young muslims, a few come to order the vulnerable to terrorist -- a few, who are vulnerable to terrorist conditions, and many who are not. if that is what you heard, let me say that i did not say it and it is wrong. i would never believe that. you made a lot of points. i'm trying to think of them all. first of all, that taliban were created in 1994 not during the war against the soviets, and

basically sprang out of the the madrassahs, which were along the pakistani border. they were encouraged -- i don't know at the beginning, but as soon as pthey appeared to be a force that could be relied upon to fight the northern alliance and the other forces are waging war in afghanistan, a pakistani isi did begin to establish links and did help them. there is no doubt about that. but the fact is that the taliban brightpoint part of our -- the taliban were not part of our war against the soviets. i am not saying that the war did not have unforeseen consequences that did not come back to bite us all. but the taliban are a leader phenomenon.

-- a later phenomenon. he made a point about -- you made a point about saudis -- host: saudis in a contained country -- guest: the spread ofw3 wahabbism -- i understand your point very well prep. but it was the pakistani military dictator who took over in 1977 who began to encourage the saudi-wahabbi encroachment into pakistan. host: let us go to richard. from afghanistan -- why don't we take the troops from afghanistan and iran and put them in israel

and that would do more about globalç terrorism. thank you. t(guest: i will simply say thati activeçç effort to bring aboua peace between the arabs and israelisç, but i don't see us doing it with the troops. i don't think you can mangle the two issues. but moving towards a real peace could be a huge improvement in the situation and our reputation in the world, particularly in the muslim world. that is unquestionably correct. guest: it certainly would. that is one of the things that inspires al qaeda and is at the center of al qaeda propaganda against us. i also would like to see a more active diplomatic role. i don't think there's any room for troops. however, i think -- i am very

discouraged about the middle east situation, because it seems to be almost intractable. i don't know that there could be any progress without a much stronger diplomatic effort by the united states with regard to the israelis. çhost:xd ambassador neumann, du agree? you see what could take? guest: i don't want to wander too far out of my area of expertise did i spend!]ost of my career in the middle east, but most ofxd it as an and the peninsulaxd -- has been in the peninsula. you have a week palestinian çleadership, which is divided. you have and our world which probably would support -- an arabç world which probably woud support carter is but does not want us as key. you have the unitedç states

probably more actively engaged than president bush, one it does not seem to have pay off and looks to haveç stretched a goal could not reach on the settlements and then pulled back, leading toç confusion abt us. and israeli primei] minister wih a hard-line reputation. this is a really difficult problem, one of the few thingstd about working on afghanistan and pakistan. guest: indeed. çhost: let us go to jason on te republicans' line. caller: hello, gentlemen. we are fighting a two-pronged war that is not really working. if you look back to 1945 with hitler, he was fighting a two- pronged war and he lost. the thing i'm really concerned about is north korea and iran. they have weapons of mass

destruction that could damage and do harm to the israelis and aspeus. we are looking in afghanistan and iraq, has been fighting hi}s not gotten us anywhere. i am just concerned about these countries that actually have these weapons that can do damage to our allies and us. host: ambassador neumann? guest: those are very profound concerns, and they are the reasons -- very quickly, i think is important to not mingle too many issues. i was not a great supporter of the invasion ofw3 iraq, but havg done it, the question is how you get out of it. and don't think it is quite fair to say that we have not accomplished anything. i think there is a much better chance athat iraq could evolve -- i say could, not will -- into

a more stable country. but the iraqis are increasingly in charge of their own future. in afghanistan, we have accomplished quite a bit, but it has always been behind the curve. but that is problem of not -- putting not not putting -- not putting the right ingredients in. i can try to make pancakes for eight years come in and never put in the -- for eight years, and if i never put in the eggs, it will not rise right. at north korea, i will be smart enough to say i don't know prep. on iran, i worked on iranian issues, and now we have a very, very tough problem. we would like to encourage the opposition, we have no idea if

the opposition can succeed or not, and we also have a real interest in pushing for a non- nuclear iran, which means negotiating with the government. there are people would like to say, "because you want to support the opposition, you should not deal withç the government," and there are people who perhaps correctly say that you have to keep an eye on america's interests, which are multiple, and one of which is getting a deal. we have this complicated business of pressure and diplomacy. these are tools that are not alternatives. we are trying to work both of those. host: for ginnie beach, and next caller on the democrats' line. -- and virginia beach, next caller on the democrats' line. caller: i was in the military and part of an attachment at the u.s. embassy, and we had an opportunity to av to work on the

diplomatic effort -- an opportunity to work on the diplomatic effort. i want to talk more about the iranians. i think the american people have this facade that the iranian people of the big, bad wolf. iran has a lot of other internal problems. they have nothing to gain, really, from "wiping israel off the face of the earth." i wish people would addressed the irgc and the iranian theocracy'sç pillars of stability. they are teetering right now, i wish someone would addressed -- would educate the american people -- israel hasç blown ths nuclear peace totally out of proportion. congress will pick shutdown the secretive --xd the strait -- it

would totally destroy their country could we should focus on why iran is so scared right now. guest: i am no expert on iran, but it strikes me that iran is undergoing a very traumatic kind of internal difficulties. getting to something keepsron d about negotiating on nuclear weapons, i'm not sure that there is anybody to negotiate with right now in iran. we have to negotiate with the government, but the government is a in a sense on the run. it seems to me to be a weak government that will not be able to negotiate. you will not have negotiators with any authority, i think. nonetheless, i think we have to keep trying, keep trying diplomatically with iran. i don't think that iran is necessarily a big, bad wolf. iran is a country in some

difficulty right now, and we have to maintain a rather calm but i think a very steady approach towards it. >> other way, i think the caller might be interested -- guest: by the way, i think the caller might be interested -- the embassy has changed in lopper since you've been there, but some of the murals -- pitted some interesting art work in the basement. the caller used a number of acronyms that the audience might not be familiar with. irgc is the iran revolutionary guard it has treated a great deal of tumbled in around now -- it has created a great deal of tumult in iran right now and it

seems to be taking power away from the theocrats. on diplomacy, there are multiple potential explanations of what they are doing. it is not possible that you have a perfectly normal. in negotiating technique, which i used to see -- in my perfectly normal iran negotiating technique, which i used to say in my days in a rented by the time they're done, the former has gotten so focused on getting a deal that they were taking the bad deals and accepting terms that they never would have accepted because they have become psychologically wound up in the dealmaking. you may have a great argument going on internally about what deals to accept. you may have a stalling tactic. the answer is, we don't know. since we don't know, rather than assuming one answer or the other, it makes sense to both keep pressure on and accelerate pressure but not break off

negotiations. i talked about these as tools. sometimes you use a wrench, sometimes you turn it with a screwdriver prepa. this that kind of thing. unique pressure and diplomacy, don't let 1 exclude the other. host: i want to talk about the violence in pakistan this week. ;ççç"at the new york times" s about a suicide bomber who killed many people at a religious procession on monday. police officers are being blamed for not doing enough to protect people prepar. "riots also broke out in the second largest city in the area at." ambassador milam, what is happening in the country that is directing this anger towards leadership? are we seeing signs of unrest that is different from what we have seen before? çguest: the government is at a

low level of public confidence, for lotsç of reasons. one is that the supreme court recently has ruled that the deal that brought president zardari back to office -çó from one he was with his then-wife benazir bhutto, and overruling many the has weakened the government and reduced confidence the public has in it. there is almost a natural placing the blame on the government for everything bad that happens. we would never do that in america. anyways, that is a joke.

then you have got -- this is, as i said earlier, basically both a continuation of theç war that e pakistani taliban are waging against the state of pakistan, and its citizens. it is the citizens who suffer from these suicide bombers have. but these suicide bombings take place because the taliban, want to weakenw3w3 confidence in the government. one of the basic public goods that governments deliver is çsecurityç, law and order and security prepare pakistani government seems less and less able to -- deliver -- and order -- law and order and security. the pakistani government seems less and less able to deliver that. this follows the idea of many extremist that shiites are t(apostates and deserve to be

killed. it serves in someq way -- for some extremists, it kills two birdsç with oeç stone, if i cod usen that, or many more birds, perhaps. the government is facing a serious crisis of confidence. this bombing is one small manifestation of this crisis, and i think it is going to make a of dealing with pakistan even more difficult. host: our guests are ambassador william milam, the ambassador to pakistan from 1998 to 2001, and ambassador ronald neumann, who served as ambassador to afghanistan from 2005 to 2007. we're talking about u.s. strategy and approach to afghanistan and pakistan when it comes to the war on terror. derrick is on the independents' line calling from minneapolis pr.

caller: hello, nice lady. gentlemen, you realize that in 1967 which israel, taking the west bank and the gaza strip, taking their land -- when you do that, people are not going to lay down. the united states back to israel, and that is why we are having problems street give those people back their land, and then they can rest again. until that happens, there will always be this problem. host: ambassador neumannç, we have had a couple of callers mentioned israel and the situation there. you alluded to that we seek more tensions mount because of what happened in israel, but give us a sense of how information spreads and a country like afghanistan when it comes to israel and the conflict there. çguest: you have a number of

different things goingç on. in fairness compa, the 1967 war started with. pressures -- started with arab pressures. there is enough room for everybody to make mistakes. the famous summit in khartoum, and no recognition of israel -- a hugew3 arab mistakes, when thy could have negotiated back the land. israel is made many --ç israel made many mistakes of their own. what happens with these really issues and the palestinian issue is a affects muslim opinion all over the world. çit is primarily -- i don't wat to say primarily -- something

that has increased enormously with the advent of satellite television. i saw that in my career in the gulf. until the first intifada, they did not much really care, and then they become very attuned to the suffering of palestinians. i think this is a recruiting ground for al qaeda. that is very clear. there are muslims who feel very strongly about this issue who are not necessarily terrorists or extremists. as far as afghanistan itself goes, the vast majority of afghans are much too busy with survival, with afghanistan, and with their local issues. he will not your discussions of palestinian issues in -- you will not hear discussions of palestinian issues in çóafghanistan per se.

people are fighting forç survival and are very concerned about their immediate future. you have to differentiate -- palestinian issues have an enormous attraction in the greater muslim worldç and in a financial support for al qaeda andi] producing foreign recruit. the palestinian issues have almostç no traction in afghanistanw3 itselfç in people picking sides any issues there. guest: 10 --ç can i joinçó in n that? i don't know the immediate situation in afghanistan, but in çópakistan, pakistan has somethg like 60 or 70 satellite tv channels, and there are these that are put into cable. since the population is at least half a literate, almost everybody gets their news -- half illiterate, almost

everybodyç gets their news from television. when something happens in the middle east, and intifada or something bad, this is spread by the pakistani media very quickly, the urdu media, the vernacular media are very quick to jump onfá it. mostçç pakistanis are pretty e to the poverty line, most are pretty consumed with the idea of just reading that day, making enough money to eat the next day, -- justç eating that date, makanf enough money to eat the next day or growing enough food. these issues do not have much resonance among the popular level,i] but among the intelligentsia, they are very sensitive. host:ç jonathan on!dhe republicans' line from portland, oregon. caller: i have a question.

how does india play a role in our strategy for pakistan and afghanistan, since they were growing nuclear competency? guest: this is one of my favorite topics. i am glad that question was asked. thank you for asking it. frankly, india isi] part of the problem in pakistanç -- it's absolute fascination and focus on india. india has, for pakistan, and the primary enemy, the existential and meat for over six years. -- existential and me for over 60 years. the pakistanis still believe in their heart of hearts and their minds that india is the greater threat. even if that taliban were attacking them. india is playing a role to the pakistani mind and pakistani mission -- through the pakistani

mind and vision in the afghan war, because it is a attitude towards the war that still makes things problematic over there. qindia is very important. there is also the question that is often raised about the nuclear capability of india and pakistan. my understanding is that india and's nuclear capability is as much directed -- india's nuclear capability is as much to deterrence towards china as towards pakistan, although they certainly of deterrence towards pakistan. they are so outgunned by india's conventional forces that for pakistan, a nuclear arsenal is basically a deterrent against india. that, of course, leads to a great number of years, that some of the two will go to war and

will become a nuclear war. the second, which you see a lot in the press, is that pakistan's nuclear arsenal is unsafe, because it could be captured by extremists, but that taliban. -- by the taliban. so far, the nuclear arsenal is well protected and well controlled by the pakistani military. until we see signs that the military is falling apart itself, i think the nuclear arsenal is probably not something that should be of primary concern. çguest: in afghanistan, india s been very helpful economically, building roads, turning the afghans. at the same time, we have been very -- training afghan street -- training afghans.

at the same time, we've been very sensitive to pakistani concerns about india. we have focused on economic assistance but not getting into military assistance, because it would be hugely counterproductive. this is the kind balancing diplomacy we need to do. guest: not well enough, i think. i want to add, because i forgot to put that in my answer to the gentleman's question -- the indian establishment of consulates and its large assistance program in afghanistan is one of the things that worries pakistan. they see themselves being surrounded by their primordial enemy, india. his father at them and still bothers them. -- this bothers them and still bothers them. guest: even paranoid have real

enemies. host: let us look at comments the president made in oslo. >> america's commitment to global security will never waiver, but in a world where threats are more diffuse and complex, america cannot act alone. america alone cannot secure the peace. this is true in afghanistan. this is true in failed states like somalia, where tourism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering people -- terrorism and paris is joined by famine and human suffering. -- terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. this will be true for years to come. leaders and allies demonstrate this truth through the courage they showed in afghanistan. but in many countries, this is a disconnect between the efforts

of those who served andç the ambivalence of the broader public. i understand what war is not popular, but i also know this -- the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. peace requires responsibility to. peace entails sacrifice. amt was the international reception to the president's words in reference to our allies and making a unified effort in afghanistan? guest: it was not hostile, but i don't think it made an overwhelming impression. if i could just talk a minute about the issue of allies in afghanistan, there is a fundamental difference between the american public and most european publics that i have had contact with. americans tend to accept that there is a security reason that we are in afghanistan for

national security. the question is can we do it, is it possible, and are we messing it up? with many european publics, when you get to questions of why troops are in afghanistan, the answers will be about allied solidarity, working with the americans, sustaining commenced to nato. there are important political reasons, but they are not as fundamentally important as the national security arguments that americans make. you don't have the political base that governments need to send a larger numbers of troops. at the same time, governments have not made -- i think this is not true of every european government, not sure of the british or some of the others --ç but[ççw3 most european ls have made little attemptç to sl the public's on the national security importance of afghanistan. that was made worse because of every bad relations between the bush administration and number -- not all of the european governments, but certainly european publics.

now you have a president obama, who is much more like to buy european publics -- like to buy europeanç publics, but who is testing if he can push the envelope a bit further in what he can ask for. that is an important thing to do, important to do it so that you get more help, and yet not alienate people so much. it is also important that european leaders step up and carry the argument with their own people about the importance of afghanistan, because america will never have the credibility to carry that argument with european publics. european political leaders have to make that case. host: patrick is calling on the democrats' line in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: talk about a dilution of the position of the american people. ambassador neumann, i don't know what planet you're on, but

the american people do not support either of these campaigns, in pakistan or afghanistan. at a friend of mine, who, by the way, is the sister-in-law of osama bin laden, said this to me about the saudi arabians -- they are that study done with money. -- the taliban with the money. no word the novel from the bookseller and -- in anda not -- a bookseller in kabul said they will never be able to manage themselves. you two or pathological liars and are both working for the military industrial complex. my brother, who is in difficile who has been in both wars, -- afghanistan who is a navy -- who is any be sealed who has been in both wars, afghanistan and iraq, says that monday --

karzai is lining his pockets, along with individuals in the leadership who are stealing billions of american people's dollars, while our country goes down into economic flames. guest: i suppose it will not surprise the caller to find ipothat i don't agree that i ama pathological liar. let me take a very quickly -- first of all, most public opinion polls show that there is a slight balance against the war in america. it has moved slightly with obama's speech. i think there is a bit of an overstatement there that americans are totally against this. there is a very important question, though, which the caller has blundered toward, and that is whether the strategy is supportable with the american people. that is a question that is much more dynamic than people realize. if people continue to be convinced that war is going

downhill, then it will not have support. on the other hand, if you make progress, people will tend to give you more time and space. i suspect the coloaller doubts t the american people would support iraq, and yet two years ago you would hardly have gotten anybody to believe that he would have 100,000 troops in iraq and bombs going off and almost no news stories. that is where we are today. the president hasç political space. if president bush could be a -- could lead a surge can iraq with minimal public support, president obama can do it in two years if he wants to. the saudis are a mixed story. there is a lot of money coming out of saudi arabia still that supports terrorists.

the government is also engaged in a major war for survival against al qaeda and terrorists, and has made a good deal of progress. i simply would say that there is need for a more nuanced understanding rather than this flailing around with generalities. the statement that afghans can never cover themselves. historical absurdity. if they have come -- the statement that the afghans can never governed themselves is a historical absurdity. they have a government themselves. -- have governed themselves. they have covered with a great deal of british money, with the then supporting their army. it is a long subject get into. but the notion that the afghans have never had a country and never governed themselves it is historically simply not true. host: mike is calling on the independents' line. caller: good morning, how are

you? host: we are well. what is your question or comment for the ambassadors? çcaller:ç all of this stems fm ignorance. in order to understand what is happening in the middle east and the world, you must understand who the united states and great britain is. we are two of lost tribes of israel. we must understand pick a perfect timeline. -- understand the prophetic timeline. we are in the last erupted for christ returns. -- era before christ returns. what you see in the middle east, giving away land for peace, everything is geared towards christ's second coming. there will be no peace in the middle east. things will get worse and worse.

keep your mind on in germany, the vatican, and the european union, the king of the north. host: let us get a response. any comments? guest: no, i don't have any comments. host: kathy on the republicans' line. caller: thank you, ambassadors, for your time. i am and military spouse with a husband getting ready to deploy within the next month. i appreciate understanding the themes that you are talking about all morning. i have two questions for you. we know we have to succeed militarily. i question is about the education levels, and the job opportunities that will then make a nation building truly stick in afghanistan. what is in place to help with that, and what can we as civilians tdo to help in those

ways? and if we don't succeed çmilitarily, will the supplies and the money and the training that we have poured into afghanistan then be used as a tool against us in the future? thank you. host: ambassador neumann? guest: i want to say, if it does not sound too funny, that i understand a little of what you are going through -- too phony, that i understand a little of what you are going through. i was a military officer in vietnam and i went through tours in algeria and afghanistan and iraq. my wife has lived through some of what you are living through. i appreciate the amount of sacrifice that spouses have to put up with can get very little recognition for. i do think of that this is a long prospect. you asked what we can do. the most important in that americans can do -- most

important thing that americans can do is be realistic in our expectations. i'm not saying we should go on endlessly if we are failing. but we have to be realistic about what can be done. there is a huge educational deficit in afghanistan. you put your finger on that. it is true that something like 80% of police recruits are electorate -- are illiterate, but i suspect thatç 80% of caesar's armies were, too. the challenges are enormous. but i left, we had built over 600 schools and 600 clinics and published 60,000 textbooks pin educated i cannot remember how many thousands of teachers. the trouble is that the needs

were so much larger. we had taken high-school graduates and given them a few months of training and turned them into primary school teachers and had a huge amount of success, education has gone from less than a million to over 6 million students, with about 1/3 of them girls. but that success of the primary levels is one thing, and having people properly trained as a high school teachers is a much longer in effort. personally, i would like to see the united states taking a much larger number upper students -- larger number of students for colleges and a bigger bite into the long-term problem of education, recognizing that this is a slow business, but if we had recognized it at the beginning, we would have four years of graduating classes from 8 four-your education. we need to start.

i would like to see an expansion. what can we do here? there hopefully will be an expansion of programs thatçó exist, like fulbright fellowships, exchanges. if you have a chance, you might think of having an afghan student, but you are probably doing enough for the country with the deployment. if we fail, i think we could have some supplies, always possible, but the kinds of things that we are using are not particularly suitable for long range corres -- long-range terrorist attacks. the greater danger is what the terrorists can do on their own rather than the kitchen supplies as such. -- thançó leakage of supplies as such. host: karl on the democrats' line in dallas, texas.

realize that we are in a war of confusion. the united states says that this is a war of terror. afghans and pakistanis consider this a war of jihad, which means muslims against christians, ok? muslims are reprobates. these people are stuck back when it jesus' at first was year. -- when jesus first was here. riding camels and stuff like that. we have moved on in america. guest: i think that jihad has a much broader meaning than our war against christians. jihad really is a complex term, which means defense, it also means self reflection, self

improvement. when it is used in a military sense, pin means basically the defense of the homeland -- it means basically the defense of the homeland, and for some extremists, striking at the enemy. at this point for al qaeda, the enemy happens to be christian, but a jihad is a much broader term. most muslims do not think of this necessarily as a war against christianity. nor do i think -- i think if you were to visit a muslim lands that i live in, he would find that muslims nieither ride camels nor are they -- at least the educated ones cap-- as retrograde as you describe them. we have to think about them in a much broader sense and complicated cents. -- sense. host: jack on the independents'

line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. good morning, lovely miss libby. but the way, i was also an officer in vietnam in 1967, and i'm not a pacifist. but i agree completely with my figure to brothers in louisiana -- figurative brothers in louisiana, pennsylvania, and i forgot where the other guy called from. there has been a huge number of us in the united states that take real outrage at these wars, especially a criminal war in iraq. but i want to ask a question -- i am going to make an analogy. you used a couple of words here. you used the word "national security," you have used the word "important."

if i have to have an expensive house and i consider that important, it is important for me to pay for it. i think of living in a dangerous neighborhood with that house and i think a security system is important, it is important enough for me to pay for it. if i don't pay for it, i assume that is not really that important. now, i have a question for you. since we have a war in afghanistan that costs $1 million per year per soldier, and $400 for a gallon of gas, i think it is important enough, if it is for security, that we taxed those who have the most to lose by losing their security -- that is, the rich repo. guest: the basic question is to pay for the wars, and the second

is who should pay for it i totally agree with the first. this system of supplementals is a huge mistake, that policy and that fermenting progress reported -- bad policy and bad for managing progress. who should we tax? çprobably the people who can py most. the only people who should pay is a question i am happy to refer to congress. guest: i hope they can find a way. host: republicans' line, also from minnesota. caller: hi. as ambassadors, you have a job of knowing your parties before going to the negotiating table. how do you feel -- how would you respond after months of negotiations with iranian

leaders where they appear to be interested in talking, and then you make a week later, two weeks later, and they are firing missiles towards other countries? host: ambassador milam? guest: i feel the same way anybody would come frustrated that the diplomatic efforts that we are making as a country, now that we've changed our style with iran and diplomatic efforts, are producing so little results. as i said earlier, i think that iran is a very difficult country to begin with. ronald neumann suggest that the negotiating tactics are not the same as ours and leads us to great frustration in any case. iran right now is in a real