strong when it comes to military affairs and foreign policy. -- the pressure has eased off. obama decided to move >> several of your questions were reference of the confirmation hearings this week. what did you find interesting? >> general petraeus is sort of a mythical figure -- he does not get a lot of push back on capitol hill. i'm surprised that the comments were tempered about the drawdown. because his word is sort of law when it comes to afghanistan, especially. i think you will see him very easily confirmed. there was an interesting debate about the detainee's -- that is a simmering issue on capitol

hill, how the president handles people caught on the war field or in terrorist operations in places like afghanistan where they are non-state actors. i think he is trying to carve out a middle ground. >> the house goes on break this week, but they will get into another big discussion about all of this under the big umbrella of the defense appropriations bill. what are some of the big issues you expect to be fought on the floor? >> there are a number of issues -- it is an open rule, so it is a free-for-all. anyone can bring up any sort of amendment. >> why is the leadership doing that? >> i think it is part of their approach to show they're bringing a new transparent process to capitol hill as the new republican leadership team transitions from the democrats. >> it is the going to be long. >> it will be lengthy. we will see everything from

libya to pakistan spending but also defense spending and how much we want to cut back and various weapons programs and funding for the pentagon. it will run the gamut of issues. >> what is the mood up the pentagon about their new chief coming on board? >> people at the pentagon are looking forward to leon panetta starting on july 1st. he is well versed in national security issues at the same time the mood overall as there is concern about defense spending and their budget which had grown uninterrupted for the last 10 years. panetta as a guy who is good on budget matters. there is no question president obama said that there to figure out where they could cut. we will see how that plays out. >> thank you for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the house recently debated and voted on two measures related to u.s. military involvement in libya. look for continued debate in the house and senate at c-span's congressional chronicle -- a comprehensive resource on congress. find video of every house and senate session and information on your elected officials. >> rep michele bachmann makes her official presidential campaign announcement in her hometown of waterloo, iowa. in a poll released today, she is second after mitt romney. >> c-span has launched an easy to navigate website for politics and the 2012 presidential race, with the latest events from the campaign trail, biographical information, facebook updates from candidates and political

reporters and links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states. "washingtony's journal" a discussion on the proposed reduction of troop levels in afghanistan. this is 35 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span joining us from new york leslie gelb. let me begin with your own words on what the president said saying the white house and president should have said mission accomplished in afghanistan. that quite familiar to the c-span and national audit jones, the words that came about after u.s. combat operations ended in iraq and the banner behind president george w. bush. why should president obama say those words? guest: well, when president bush uttered them on the battle ship,

they were not true. if president obama uttered them today they would be true. e went into afghanistan to punish al qaeda for attacking the united states. and to destroy its listen. and we have done that. if you ask u.s. intelligence today they will tell you that al qaeda in afghanistan numbers in the tens. i think around 50. we also went in to punish the taliban for giving safe haven to the al qaeda people. and while the taliban hasn't renounced al qaeda, we don't know that there is any any more. so, the main reasons we went in have been more or less accomplish accomplished. we didn't go in to transform afghanistan into a democratic

free market paradise. and every time we run in that goal, that nation-building goal, our troops and our money go down the drain. so, it is time to say we achieved what we needed to achieve and it is time to turn over the responsibility after 10 years, to the afghanistans to fight for their own freedom. host: two years ago in a "wall street journal" editorial you said the president's policies in afghanistan were confusing. are they still or has the president cleared things up in the last two years? guest: i think they still are confusing. first of all, i'm satisfied with the 30,000 withdrawal over the next year. i think it is about the most you can do. but he didn't encase that withdrawal decision in a strategy that showed americans

and people in that region how we would deal with continuing risks based on the interests of other countries. you know, we are not the only country that is worried about extremism in that part of the world. the indians are, the chinese are, the russians are. the iranians are. remember, the iranians helped us at the beginning of the afghan war. so, we need to help forge an alliance of these states to contain extremism, to contain the poppy trade, and let them begin to take responsibility for their own interests in the region. host: one day after the president outlined his strategy, members of his cabinet testifying on capitol hill including secretary of state hillary clinton, general david patraeus the c.i.a. nominee, and i want you to listen to what the

chairman of joint chief of staff testified to. the issue is afghanistan, also the regional issues including pakistan and the taliban. here is part from that hearing. >> i get the al qaeda and no al qaeda or small number in afghanistan. that is not the case in pakistan. i just never looked at this as a single country approach. you can't, from my perspective, do that. it is the region and part -- the other core objective if you will of this strategy is make sure afghanistan is stable enough so it can't return to where it was when al qaeda grew up there and in the first place, or some other outfit that would seek to do the same thing. and there are growing numbers of those. and that is not where we are in pakistan. that is where we are in afghanistan. admittedly al qaeda is not there in any significant numbers. al qaeda, however, is very

tightly wound with a network that continues to try to destabilize afghanistan and take over that government. the taliban's goal is to still run the country. i'm hard premis-pressed to thine taliban get back to that position that they won't be the host for organizations like al qae qaeda. host: how would you respond to that? guest: i think that admiral mullen is terrific. he is one of the best chairs of the joint chiefs we have ever had. but i respectfully disagree on almost every count. the first place, there are al qaeda in pakistan, but their numbers there are tiny as well. what we have been going at in pakistan are mainly taliban leaders. sure we go after bin laden and others. but there are not many of them

there. secondly, yes, we want to make afghanistan as secure as we can. but we have to stay there forever. to be sure that that territory wouldn't be used for terrorism once again. at a certain point the afghans themselves have to take on that battle. we can't do it forever. we have other interests. and, of course, there are risks. and admiral mullen and general patraeus were quite right to point out that there are military risks. but there are also risks in our not moving out and not tending to other priorities. our whole foreign policy is locked into the war on terrorism in afghanistan. much of our domestic debt problem is tied up with that, between the $50 billion we are still spending in iraq and over

$120 billion in afghanistan. that is a big chunk of the debt problem and big step if we can get out of there in a reasonable way as quickly as possible, it is a big step to easing the debt problem. host: about a week and a half ago you indicated the president will unveil a plan to reduce u.s. forces in afghanistan by upwards of 30,000 but to withdraw them under military guidance over the next 12 to 18 months. that was pretty much on target and exactly what the president outlined this past wednesday. without revealing your sources it seems like you are talking to people inside the administration. guest: sure, i was talking to the people in the white house. they would like to know how i got that story, too. i tell them it is a job as journalist. host: you say the quick exiters

get the number and the die harders get one last year to the taliban.en ain't democracy grand? guest: right. i think a lot of these decisions are really political. you get the most you can without the roof caving in on you. had the president taken out more than 30,000 in less than a year the military would have revolt and justifiably so. the democrats had to feel like the president was listening to them. around 30,000, the number he put in there for the surge over a year ago, was the least that would satisfy them. so, this was done for democratic reasons, small d democratic. more than for strategic reasons. host: let me put on the table one of the voices jim mcgovern joined us last week taking calls

and discussing the president's draw-down. both in our interview and on the house floor he said the draw-down was insufficient. here is more with the massachusetts democrat. >> i give the president credit for announcing we need to rethink our afghanistan policy. but what he announced which is a draw-down of 30,000 troops over 10,000ebnext year and a half, at the end of this year but remaining 23,000 at the end of 2012, what he announced is insufficient in my opinion. i think it is unacceptable. to me it is a continuation basically of the status quo. we are still going to have 100,000 troops on the ground fighting the same war with the same strategy, the same costs, same casualties. i think we need to rethink the policy. we have been in afghanistan for almost 10 years. that is the longest war in our

history. george will did a piece in the "washington post" a couple of days ago and points out that u.s. involvement in the second world war lasted 1,346 days and u.s. fighting in afghanistan reached that milestone six years ago on june 14, 2005. host: your reaction to comments of congressman jim mcgovern. guest: i'm very sympathetic to his frustration. but as i said, 30,000, i think, maxed out the number that the military, our military, was prepared to go along with. we can't just disregard their vi view. just logistically it is tough to get 30,000 more out of that country in a year's time. it is very difficult because to essentially go through pakistan and that is not easy. so we have to listen to the military that we got into the

war, they didn't want it in the first place and we have to listen to them on a safe exit. but mind you, it is a safe exit for our guys leaving some people there to help afghans who want to fight. but the main purpose of our policy at this point has to be to convince the afghans themselves that finally, after 10 years, this has got to be their responsibility. if they don't want their women to be enslaved again, if they themselves don't want to be subject to taliban dictatorship, they have to fight. the taliban itself in afghanistan is somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 troops. now, there are tens of millions of afghanistans who should be fighting them. it is up to them at this point. and they are prepared in terms of arms to take on this responsibility. they have to have it in their

hearts to fight. we can't put it there. host: our conversation with leslie gelb who began working for senator jacob javits in the 1960's, columnist for "new york times" and past president of the council on foreign relations joining us from new york. we will get to comments. when will the contractors be pulled out of afghanistan? guest: that is a good question because they get overlooked in this process. we have 100,000 troops in afghanistan and maybe upwards of 100,000 contractors, too. and they have to be part of this withdrawal process. they cost a lot to pay for a lot of american contractors. there are upwards of $200,000 a year to some of them, somewhat in excess of paying the troops who are fighting and dying

there. host: frank joins us from florida. gentlemen.d morning, mr. gelb, i have a comment and a question for you. my comment is this. isn't really the purpose of the troop reduction window dressing of the troops obama already sent there. we are involved in five conflicts in the middle east. it seems that something is going o on. every congressman and president we have had since your organization has been formed has been a member of your organizati organization. and one of the members, david rockefeller said this famously. we are on the verge of a global transformation. all we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order, which he terms as a global government system. isn't that what is happening in the middle east, sir? aren't you just trying to get the last few countries left on earth under central banker

control? guest: well, i don't believe in global world order or global governance. and i -- we have never polled the members of the council to see what they think. you may remember that on my board when i served as president were dick cheney and jean kirkpatrick and they tkfpbt believe in global world rthopedic a and global governs. so david rockefeller was expressing his view and was not carrying out a policy in the middle east or fighting wars for global world order. we are trying to diminish the threat of terrorism to our allies and ourselves. host: next call is independent line antonio from boston. good morning. caller: good morning. address.u are the pwbest i call on you a couple of years ago and i say we waste a lot of

money in pakistan. we can spend some money in this beautiful country. the people in this country need to bring up the economy used to be like 30 or 40 years ago. the american people suffer right now. we not be able to spend all of this money. we have to spend the money in this country. i agree with your guest 100% that we have to get out of there. we don't belong there. god bless america and peace to all. host: antonio, thank you. leslie, gelb, do you want to respond to any of that sentiment? it reflects what a lot of americans believe at this point. they think we have done much to take care of our security concerns and done more than enough to give the afghanistans a chance it defend themselves.

host: we have this from the "washington post." i'm scratching my head about the logic of his timetable for reversing the surge that he announced 18 months ago pulling out 10,000 troops this year is ok but why an additional 23,000 in the middle of next year's fighting season? that encourages a battered taliban to hang on longer rather pwarpg for a truce. it repeats the tip your happened mistake when he got a date for wraupl as he ordered them into battle. i thought the president had if right on the larger theme saying if american military might have been shown to have limited effect in shape being events so have the terrorist strategies of al qaeda and taliban. a couple of different paints from david ignatius. your response.

guest: he is a wise man, very good columnist. he wants to have it both ways in the column. he wants us to get out of afghanistan faster because he realizes that our vital spwls are no longer served there. and yet he is complaining about the speed of this particular withdrawal. of course, there will be risks in taking 30,000 out in a year. they won't be there to fight for another six months. but nothing is ever going to be perfect there. we can't reduce security risks to zero. it is up to the afghans to take over. that is the theme for president oba obama, and that is the point that drives into the heads of the afghans. host: on the republican line mike joins us from richmond, west virginia. caller: not richmond, west virginia, richwood. host: good morning. i didn't think that seemed right

but one never knows. organic from richwood. caller: good morning. am i on the air? host: you are. caller: i was talking about the soldiers overseas. when we go into fight i was in one of those abrams tanks. ever never been in a battle with anyone yet but our soldiers when they are fired on by one person with a rifle, i was wondering why they don't let them take care of that person. he is a danger to anybody and could take your led off. i do believe we need to withdraw from there and get out and we need our troops for other things in the future. and prepare our equipment which is fine these days and up to date. and with the stealth missiles and things we have, we have right now. but we need to withdraw from there and take care of the home base. and with regard to the southern gate at the border with mexico. if you have two or three thousand good guys that come across there that are real

fighters and come up from the south they can create a lot of damage to our oil places an communities if they wanted to. host: thanks for the call. we will get a response from leslie gelb. guest: the call raises an important point because here we are asking our military to go fight there war with their hands tied behind their backs because we don't want to injure the afghanistan civilians. so we try to fight the taliban without killing more innocent afghans and it is often impossible to distinguish between the two. that puts our people at risk. that is yet another reason why we ought to be turning over the war to them. host: this graphic is an indication of the u.s. troop fatalities in afghanistan dating back to october of 2001 when it was just a few dozen i would y

say. you can see the increase up to about 1,500 over the last 10 years each of them a tragic loss for families and loved ones. from jody we have lost more than just a treasure in averages. three kids in my neighborhoods will not be here to celebrate the fourth of july this year. guest: i feel for her. host: grace joins us from graham, north carolina. democrats line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm very concerned about the war. we have our soldiers continuing to go there. i'm with obama. it is time to pull out and let all the soldiers and people that are there take their own war. because if we continue staying and staying we are losing money, we are losing soldiers and we need respect for the lost soldier and giving them honor. they are not here but we can say

we did pull out and we are not going to continue losing soldiers. i am really for pulling out of this war. we need to respect our president. he did take care of the mission of taking care of our nation. if persons would stop meddling and giving out false information and let this president do his job. he has done great. we have had a conspiracy trying to hinder him out of the republican party. our president is doing great. let's pull out and let's let our country live again and bring our soldiers home. their families miss them and this is all i have to say. host: thank you for the call. leslie, let me take her comments and phrase it in terms of this. there is a piece by gid i don't know rose what would nixon do. a look at lessons. henry kissing er wrote saying te

and less more on exit on strategy. my question is based on the lessons from vietnam and other past u.s. military involvement, what are the options for afghanistan and what lessons could be applied from the past moving ahead? right. it is a critical question. and in truth i have written about it for two years and it is like banging my head against the wall. as i was listening to your caller i realized people don't really understand that we are committed to keeping the bulk of our troops in afghanistan until the beginning of 2015. that is more than three more years. that is our nato pledge. even after that we will probably have 15,000 to 20,000 troops there. it is that long-range commitment that needs to be adjusted.

how do you adjust it? you have to have a withdrawal plan that i think speeds up the process as part of it. but you do need a strategy in the same way nixon and kissinger had a strategy to kind of cover our exit from afghanistan with other aspects of u.s. power to reduce risks in the region. what nixon and kissinger did was the opening to china, triangular diplomacy playing off most could you against beijing, doing a middle east peace deal. they demonstrated even as we were getting out of vietnam that america still had a lot of power to get important things done. the world began to focus on those things rather than what was happening in vietnam itself which wasn't very pleasant for us. in the case of afghanistan, we

need, as i said before, that strategy to forge a regional allian alliance. it will include almost all of the countries in that region to deal with continuing threats from islamic extremists. host: let me share with you what congressman steve king republican of iowa said this past week on c-span's "washington journal" with regard to the time line of the white house. for the president to announce deployment of pulling troops out of afghanistan on a timetable and that timetable is pretty much consistent with the timetable he announced when he ordered the surge, it is the wrong tactic to tell our enemy well fight a war by a skate on the -- a date. it tells them what they need to whether they are going to try to match up or go underground and wait us out. this tells them to wait us out. a couple more years around there won't be opposition in averages and that opens it up for taliban

to come back in to afghanistan and we know what they did to averages after the russians were gone. that vacuum was filled. there was a power vacuum after the russians filled bit taliban and that laid the foundation for al qaeda to go into afghanistan, which launched the attack on the united states september 11. host: steve kink -- steve king on "washington journal." your reaction. guest: i have heard that argument forever. doesn't make any sense. the taliban know we're moving out. does it make any difference to give them the timetable? if we had a private secret plan to do it would be in the newspapers the next day. they are going it find out about it one way or another. the reason why you make the announcement -- and george bush did it, his father did it, they all did it -- because if you don't, you never move out.

you never create that incentive to deescalate u.s.a. involvement. that is the reason you do it. it is not to trick or give an advantage to the taliban. the taliban understand what is happening. host: a comment from joe bennett in dallas with the e-mail. if afghanistans are not willing to keep them safe they should be ruled by those people. we have done enough to give them the opportunity to be self-sufficient. years is long enough. we will go next to norman from amherst, massachusetts, line for independents. with leslie gelb, former and now president emeritus of the council on foreign relations. caller: good morning. i would like to get mr. gelb's ideas on this. it is reported almost all of the heroin sold in the world originates in afghanistan. and the conventional wisdom is it may be financing u.s. covert

operations. do you have any ideas on this? guest: i think there probably was a time when we were fighting the soviets in afghanistan that there was a connection between our covert operations and the heroin trade, either for private gain or to finance the covert operations. i know of no such connection tod today. but then i wouldn't, would i? host: you are a former aide to senator jacob javits who was instrumental in getting the war powers act passed in 1973. they have been debating that friday. what do you think he would have taught of that house debate friday? guest: well, i think that he would have been happy that there was such a debate and he would have wished we had one right at the outset. it is really outrageous that the

in effect goes it war and to me what we are doing in libya is a war. we have a huge chunk of our mediterranean fleet there providing the basis for military operations and initially conducting military operations themselv themselves. you can't do that without looking at whether we have vital interests there, what we can accompli accomplish, can we do it all from the air or is that just going to punish the people in libya more? are we dealing with a civil war? do we really need to get rid of gaddafi? he was our best friend a year and a half ago. he gave us valuable information about how the terrorists were collecting technology and materials for nuclear weapons. he gave us information about terrorist operations. the rebels started a war against

him, maybe they are justified. but to me this was internal to libya. all of that should have been debated. and congress, under the constitution, has the right to declare war and, at a minimum, it should have asserted its authority by holding hearings as soon as we approached a situation of danger as we did in libya. host: let me summarize what the "washington post" is writing about. first of all the coalition among democrats and tea parties we saw that play out and italian foreign minister saying he wants nato to pull out. they say if this drags on into september it would be tough to continue to get great britain's support in this. the heads li line -- the headli no fast end. president said it would take weeks and we are in the 100th day today. guest: well, there could be 200

days or more. our military, the u.s. military, warped our nato allies and president obama that exactly this would happen. they told them all that we could not win this war or get rid of gaddafi from the air. that you have to go in on the ground. otherwise, we were in for some long haul with very uncertain results. nobody paid attention to them. host: let me show you a couple of tweets. jane said how about two minutes on syria, steve? let's focus on the situation in sir why. we heard from the sir i don't know president in a speech tell violationed and is -- televised. how long can he stay on? guest: every time there is a crisis in a country somewhere around the world there is this

natural and in many ways good american impulse to try to help. but there is a problem. in every case we don't know anything about the countries and we stumble into doing things and after one or two years of making mistakes we say my heavens we didn't know anything about that country. syria is a very complicated place. it is ruled by a dictatorship of a shaoe shiite minority. the sunnis in that country, we don't know if they would be friendly or not friendly to american interests. we would like to see something worked out peacefully. we can't get involved in it. up another point. we have supposedly went into libya for humanitarian reasons, to save lives. now, that morphed into getting rid of gaddafi. but if our interest is

humanitarian why not do something about the ivory coast, sudan and syria. more people were being killed in those places. so we have to be very careful about humanitarian intervention. we can do it but to do it with military operations, with combat and war doesn't work very well. host: our guest has co-authored a up in of becomes including our own worst enemy the unmaking of american foreign policy and irony of vietnam, the system worked. kerry joins us from riverside, california. the line for democrats. caller: good morning, c-span. it seems apparent what president eisenhower warned like the military industrial complex doesn't it seem like they are running everything? and does this have anything to do with this plan that is on the

intern main core, the information about them trying to figure out who is pro, i guess, them, who is against them and who is neutral by having this alternative world? it is the main course on the internet. do you know anything about this. he said american people should find out about it for 200 years it is so treacherous or something. i think the nazis may have something to do with it, too. they did join after world war ii. thank you. god bless america. guest: i join you in god bless america. don't know anything about this internet business. as far as eisenhower's words about the military industrial complex, what he was talking about there was this mentality

to spend money on our national security bureaucracy. spend more than he thought was necessary on the pentagon budget. it is not that he thought our military wanted to get in one war after another. in fact, our military are the biggest doves in our country before wars begin. they know what it is like. they don't want to get involved. once the political leadership commits them and once our blood is spilled, then our military jumps over to the other side and they want to win. that has been their pattern and their dynamic. as far as the military industrial complex and budget, we ought to pay attention to that because since the iraq war, on terror, the base pentagon budget has tkwubl

-- has doubled over the last decade. higher than it has ever been before. the intelligence budget has more than tripled in that same time. winding these expenditures down will be very difficult even though we don't need that high level of spending on those programs any more. host: the taliban is from afghanistan, do you really think that we are going to fight their own people, our interest is not their interest, that is extra tweet. guest: yes, there are different interests. everybody has different interests including afghans. that is a tribal country. the taliban are almost all post -- postune.

they are 60 people of the afghanistan people. you can't beat them into a pulp because they are embedded and ingrained in the majority and there will always be taliban with that majority. it is one of the central flaws in our thinking about that war. it is one thing we didn't begin to understand when we made all of these commitments. host: david joins us from cumberland, rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. good morning, mr. gelb. two questions. first, to you, steve, a c-span question. i'm curious and i have no problem with it but i'm curious as to why we have to unblock our phone numbers when we call in. the second question is to mr. gelb. i know that you used to write for "new york times." i read some of your stuff. i was just curious, do you consider yourself a good liberal? and what political party are you

a member of? thank i and have a good day. guest: well, i have never been a member of a political party say for the two years i worked for senator javits where he did ask his staff to sign up for the republican party, which i did. oils i don't consider -- i don't consider myself a democrat or republican. i don't like political parties very much. if i had to take myself, i would hink of me as a burke iian conservative. traditional conservative. i think more about interests and power when it comes to politics than i do about argues about principle where you can have arguments on all sides of the issue. host: to your point about unblocking, we try to make sure everybody gets through but those

who do so abide by a 30-day policy. we also want to make sure some who in the past got through with their own profanities or degradation i should say of some of the words they use, we don't want to make sure they don't get through in the future because they bring down the quality of the conversation we want to have on c-span. we will get to one other point i want to share with you from adam smith had joins us on the issue of pakistan. here is what he had to say. >> i wish we did not have national security interests in this part of the world. it is a very difficult part of the world, very unstable and not particularly well governed. unfortunately it is the epicenter of al qaeda. so, stability there matters to our national security. then you have to set a very low bar for success. success in that region right now is the ability to contain this

threat. i would love to be able to lay out a plan for eliminating the threat and getting rid of violent extremism and taliban but it is not going to happen. we have to be able to contain it. sven number one -- step one is a stable government in afghanistan and pakistan. as bad as things are with pakistan if that government were descend in chaos or be taken over by the groups that are present that would be worse. so, we have to try to make this relationship work. host: he is the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee. that entire interview 10:00 eastern. your reaction. guest: i think that is a typical american reaction to a very tough problem. i just don't see how we are going to create a stable government in afghanistan. how do we do it?

last time they had their own elections they elected president hamid karzai, who is not the most principled person in the world, whose family is incredibly crooked, and who has developed no legitimacy that people want to fight for. how do we provide that? it is up to them to do it. get that have to through their head. secondly, sure, i worry a lot about pakistan. but i'm yet to hear an american present a plan or policy that can influence what is going on inside of pakistan. even if you had a perfect government in afghanistan, how would that affect the growth of the pacific -- pakistani taliban which is a real extremist force, the division within the army in pakistan where it is growing and growing religious extremism.

the political lies in corruption in that country and tribal and class loyalties there. that country is falling apart with over 100 nuclear weapons. but show phame, other than sayi we should do something about it, exactly what we should do. host: our last call is from illinois, diana, democrats line. caller: good morning, steve. i wanted to tell mr. gelb that in march of this year i was in pakistan and i had to learn about a different type of country for myself and show them how important it is for our country and their countries. but they did not accept who we were and they did not like us. and i agree that the troops

coming home, i agree with pwoeufpl because we -- i agree with obama because we need to bring them home and i wanted to mr. gelb's response. host: thank you, diana. guest: as the caller, i'm sure, has guessed from what i have been saying, i agree with that. time has come for us to speed up our exit from there. we should leave some residual force as to provide training, logistics, intelligence, commando operations. but basically we have no vital interests there that would justify the loss of life and expenditure of $120 billion. the time has come. steve, can i add a broader point? host: certainly. guest: which i have been talking about throughout our conversation. i love the fact that our country cares about what goes on in other countries and wants to do

something to help people in those countries. it is a terrific many pulse. but we suffer from they problems. people who run our foreign policy, whether the political leaders or foreign policy experts. the first is we don't know about the countries we intervene in. every time we make mistakes of ignorance. secondly, we always exaggerate american power to fix the problems and we only learn that three years, five years, into the war. but that is a fact almost everywhere. these are problems mainly internal to countries. and they are not easily changed by external military power. finally, foreign policy experts think much more about what is going on in the world and supposed threats to america than they think about dangers within our own country, namely the

danger to our economy, which is the pweufbasis of our democracy our military power in the world. host: let me conclude on one other point in part because the story is this morning inside "new york times" about the relationship or look thereof between the iraqi leaders and the led line is bitter feud between the top iraqi leaders the government to a standstill. the question is whether or not to ask the u.s. to keep a contingency force here of the scheduled withdrawal in iraq of american troops at the end of the year. the longer this deadlock persists between the iraqi leaders the harder for american military to slow down the 48,000 in of roughly that country. guest: that is true. again, it is one of those internal fault lines that we don't think about because we

really don't understand the country. that is another tribal country, factional country. and it looks as if the great majority of iraqi people just want us out. i think it is in their interests and ours to have a small u.s. there, not to be involved in the internal fighting but just for general stability purposes. but that is going to be decision, not ours. host: leslie gelb the president emeritus of the counc >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the state of the u.s. economy as lawmakers negotiate a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

and homegrown terrorism. a retired brigadier general discusses the planning and logistics that go into the recently announced u.s. troop reductions in afghanistan. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. monday, michele bachmann makes her official presidential campaign announced in her home town in iowa. in a poll released today, michele bachmann is second after mitt romney. watch her speech at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> c-span has launched a new web site on the presidential campaign race. facebook updates from candidates and political reporters and links to c-span media partners in the early caucus states.

>> you are watching c-span. bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," connecting you with policy makers and journalists. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturdays, "the communicators." you can also what our programming any time at booktv.org. -- c-span.org. >> president obama says he believes gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in the u.s.

he made the remarks at the democratic national committee fundraiser. this was the first official fundraiser for gay supporters. it was held just before new york state legalized gay marriage. this is about 35 minutes. >> a round of applause is deserved for that voice of god. kind of creepy. ladies and gentlemen, the show

will begin shortly. please remain in your seats. she scares me. president obama will be coming out soon. [applause] out on stage. calm down, but. before he gets here, let's take a moment to acknowledge how incredibly hard he has worked to bring long needed change to america. with your help, president obama has signed the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, guaranteeing that our service members will be judged on the basis of their bravery on the battlefield rather than their sexual orientation. he declared d.o.m.a. to be unconstitutional, taking us one step closer to merit the quality. he stood up in support of lgbt

young people and all those who suffered in the hands of police. he signed a lot helping to protect people who were victims of crimes based on their sexual orientation. hiv entry ban and put into place a comprehensive aids strategy. he ordered the department of human services to assure medical decision making rights in american hospitals. if our partners get sick, we can be by their side. he expanded the family and medical leave act, guaranteeing that our kids and a partner is gets sick, we can take leave to care for them just like we would

in any other family. he established full partnership benefits for the same sex partners of federal employees. [applause] he demonstrated global leadership by taking a stand at the united nations and speaking out against the odious anti-gay legislation pending in uganda. [applause] and hiring and appointing a record number of qualified lgbt americans, including transgendered americans, the first president to ever do so. [applause] that is a long list. version.a cliff's notes we have made incredible progress over the past two years. we are all benefiting from that

progress. i would like to introduce a man who served his country honorably during three tours in afghanistan. despite being a decorated veteran, he was discharged as a result of don't ask, don't tell last year. there is no one knew better appreciates the progress president obama has made for the lgbt community ban army captain jonathan howking -- hawkins. he is ecstatic to be here tonight so join me in giving him a warm welcome. [applause] >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. two years ago this month, the

military began investigating my orientation that resulted in my discharge under don't ask, don't tell. i sacrificed my personal life to serve my country for 13 years. i felt my world was coming to an end. i felt i had let everybody down, like i had become a complete sell your. the psychological pain was immense. -- i felt like a complete sell your -- like a complete failure. luckily, those days will soon be gone. in december, our president and a democratic congress accomplish something of great significance. they did a really big thing. they rioted a wrong. -- they righted a wrong. they reaffirmed the concept that all people are created equal.

they made real, tangible progress or a group of people, including people like me, in forging a more perfect union. it fulfilled the highest calling of their office. such opportunities are rare, but there impacts are correspondingly profound. we should be immensely proud that together we have moved " on this march toward equality. i have gay and lesbian friends who are still in the military now because of the trust they had that president obama's the ship would get this done. and it did. leadershipt obama's would get this done. and it did. i am working with the pentagon to help ensure the rules they make are smart and wise for a post-nuclear world, a world that will be safer because people are no longer discharged because of

their orientation. nothing illustrates the wisdom of the president's approach better than how much the pentagon has embraced this policy change. with professionalism, and determination, they are rapidly moving passed a law they fiercely in force. i have seen their efforts. they understand and they are getting this right. we all know we have options here, to have someone in the white house who is committed to marching forward, or to have a party in control that demands that we march backwards. the first time i met the president was the time he signed the repeal of don't ask, don't tell in july -- into law. i got to say to him personally something that i am happy to say in front of you all tonight publicly. thank you so much, mr. president. thanks for what you and everyone

else here have done. it means more than you could possibly ever know. we are all so proud of you. [applause] given all that he has done and all that i am sure he is going to do in the future on this issue, to 9, i am proud to introduce our commander in -- on this issue, tonight, i am proud to introduce our commander in chief, the president of the united states, barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> thank you.

thank you so much. thank you, everybody. thank you. it is good to be back in new -- thank you, jonathan, for continuing to fight for this country. i want to recognize the extraordinary performance. i like hearing her saying. i want to thank our m.c. for this evening, neil patrick harris. everybody knows that he is openly terrific.

a couple of other acknowledgments. the new york city council speaker is here. a great friend of mine who helped move the process forward to make sure don't ask, don't tell got done, patrick murphy is in the house. [applause] the dnc treasurer is here. i think they like you, andy. and i want to thank the cochairs of the lgbt leadership council. it is an extraordinary event.

it is wonderful to be back in new york. i see a lot of new faces and a lot of friends i have known for a long time. many of you knew me before i had great here. [laughter] -- gray hair. malia and sasha say it makes me look distinguished. michelle says it makes me look old. [laughter] being here with all of you, i cannot help but think back to the election night to lead a half years ago. we were in grant park. some of you were there. its culmination of an extraordinary journey.

it was a perfect night. we were feeling pretty good. what i said then at grant park was that this was not the end of the road. we did not know how steep it was going to be. we knew it was not going to be easy to rebuild the middle class after a decade of stagnant incomes and rising costs, a decade where a lot of americans felt that the dream was slipping away. we knew it would not be easy to

end two wars and restore america's leadership around the world. we knew it would not be easy to reform our health-care system and transform our energy policy and educate our young people for the demands of a global economy. we did not think it would be easy. i said that night that i did not run for president to do easy things. i ran because i believe that as a nation, it was time for us to do the hard things. it was time for us to do the big things, even if it took time. i knew that at times it would be frustrating. i was not going to let politics or the typical washington game stand in our way. they have held us back for too long. that is what led to the mess we were dealing with in the first place. over these past two and a half

years, i have had some tough calls to make. i had some tough calls to make as soon as i took office. we had to prevent the financial system from falling apart and dragging the economy into a recession. we had to pass reform to start -- to stop abuses in the financial system. we had to rescue the auto industry. i did not think i would be an auto ceo. there were a lot of people out there who said, let them go. that more than 1 million jobs vanished. -- lets more than 1 million jobs banished -- jobs vanish. we said no. we have to step up and deal with it. we started tackling all the challenges we have talked about during the campaign, all the things standing in the way of the american dream. that why i ran. that is what the campaign was about. that is why you supported me.

we believe in an economy that did not just work for those at the top, that works for everybody. prosperity was shared. [applause] prosperity was shared from the machine is on the line to the manager on the floor to the ceo in the board room. we worked so hard in 2008 because we believed that we have to define our success not just by stock prices or corporate profits, but what the ordinary folks can find a good job, whether they can pay the mortgage and take care of their kids and save money for their child's college education or their own retirement and have a little left over to go to a movie or dinner or a play. since we are in new york. [laughter]

that is why we cut taxes for middle-class families. we ended subsidies to the bank worst loans to make college more affordable. i was proud -- we ended subsidies to the banks for student loans to make college more affordable. that is why we are promoting manufacturing and homegrown american energy. that is what will lead to jobs that pay a decent salary. that is why we are standing up a new consumer bureau with one responsibility, looking out for ordinary folks in the financial system so they are not she did. that is why we pass health reform, so that nobody in the richest nation on earth have to go bankrupt because someone in their family gets sick. that was the right thing to do. [applause]

we way to that long campaign because it was time to end the war in iraq. we ended combat missions there. we are on track to bring the rest of our troops home by the end of this year. we need to refocus our efforts in afghanistan. we took out bin laden and because of our progress and the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops, we are now fulfilling the commitment i made to start reducing our troops this month so that afghans can take

responsibility for their own security. i also ran because we live in a world where america is facing stiff competition for good jobs. rapidly-growing nations like china and india are hungry and they are on the move. we were told the best way to win this competition was to undermine consumer protection, under my clean air and clean water laws, hand out tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and everything would work out just fine. it did not work out well. if you look at our history, you will see that that philosophy has never worked out well. america was built on the hard work of people and the ingenuity of our businesses. we also built a system of free public hospitals and sent a generation to college on the gi bill.

we invested in research and technology and we sent a man to the moon. we discovered life-saving medicine. we launched the information age and created millions of jobs along the way. that is how you build a nation. that is how you build a strong middle class. that is what we need to do today. there is an important debate about cutting the deficit. it is critical that we cut the deficit. the government has to live within its means. will soar prepared to bring down our deficit by chilean -- i am prepared to bring down our deficit by trillions of dollars. i will not reduce our debt -- reduce our deficit by sacrificing the education of our young people. [applause] we cannot stop medical research being done by our scientists. we cannot stop building the

infrastructure that made this country great. i will not sacrifice clean energy when our dependence on foreign oil has caused americans so much pain at the pump. that does not make sense. i will not sacrifice america's future. what makes america great is not just the scale of our skyscrapers or our military might or the size of our gdp. what makes us great is the character of our people. we are rugged individualist and we are self-reliant. that is what makes us americans. we do not like being told what to do. what also makes us who we are is we have our face on the future and we recognized that future is shared. the notion that i am my brother's keeper. everybody has a fair shot at the american dream. that is what makes us great.

that is our vision for america. it is not a vision of a small america. it is a vision of a big america, a compassionate america, a bold and optimistic america. it is a vision where we are living within our means and investing in our future. everybody is making sacrifices and nobody bears all of the burden. in america where we live up to the idea that no matter who we are, we are connected to one another. that is what led to many of us to fight so hard and to knock on harrangueoors and to so many of our friends. it is up to each of us to perfect this union. it was our work to make sure we are living up to the simple american value. we are all created equal. we are all created equal.

ever since i entered into public life, ever since i have a memory about what my mother taught me, with my grandparents taught me, i believe that discriminating against people was wrong. i have no choice. i was born that way. [applause] i believe that discrimination because of somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity runs counter to who we are as a people. it is a violation of the basic tenets on which this nation was founded. i believe gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country. [applause]

there was such a good recitation earlier by neil that i feel bad repeating it. but it bears repeating. this is why we made sure that couples have visitation rights. no one should be denied the bedside of their partner in a moment of need. no one should have to produce a legal contract to hold the hand of the person they love. that is why we launched the first comprehensive national hiv

strategy, providing a road map and treatments and reducing infections and embracing the potential of new, ground- breaking research that will help us bring an end to this pandemic. that is what i ordered federal agencies to extend the same agencies -- the same benefits to gay couples that go to straight couples. we will continue fighting until the law no longer -- i heard you guys. believe it or not, i anticipated that somebody might -- [cheers and applause] where was i? [laughter] that is why we are going to keep on fighting until the law no longer treat committed partners like they are strangers. that is why i have -- believed

that the defense of marriage act should be repealed. it was wrong. it was unfair. [applause] and since i taught constitutional law for a while, i felt like i was in a pretty good position to agree with courts that have ruled that section 3 of d.o.m.a. violated the constitution and we could no longer defend it in the courts. part of the reason that it does not make sense is that, traditionally, merritt has been decided by the states.

right now, i understand there is a debate going on in new york. about whether to join five other states and washington, d.c. and allows double message -- civil marriage for gay couples. with the support of democrats and republicans, new york is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do. there is a debate. there is deliberation about what it means here in new york to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law. that is the power of our democratic system. it is not always pretty. there are setbacks and frustrations. in grappling with tough and emotional issues in court and at the ballot box and at the dinner table and sometimes even in the oval office, slowly but surely,

we find the way it will work. that is how we will achieve change that is lasting. change that just a few years ago would have seemed impossible. let me say this. there were those who doubted we would be able to pass a hate crimes law. occasionally, i got hollered at about that. after eight decades-long -- after eight decades-long fight, - after a decade-long fight, we did it. there were those who said we could not end don't ask, don't tell. i remember having events where folks hollered out at the events. [laughter] we passed the repeal. we got it done. we are now moving forward with

implementing it. we are no longer going to demand brave and patriotic americans live a lie in serving their country. folks like captain hawkins who led a platoon in iraq and earned a bronze star for valor. he was discharged only to receive e-mails and letters from soldiers who had said, if they had known he was gay all along, they still thought he was the best commander they had ever had. that is how progress is being won. here in new york and around the country. day-by-day, it is won by ordinary people who are fighting and protesting for change and who are keeping the pressure up, including pressure on me. and by men and women who are

setting an example in their own lives, raising their families, and doing their jobs, joining the pga, serving and sacrificing for this country overseas -- joining the pta, serving as sacrificing for their country overseas even though they got -- they are not treated equally here at home. i got a letter from someone who told me he was a senior in high school. he was proud to be a captain of a club at school and he was gay. he had not told his parents. he had not come out. he was worried about being locked -- being mocked and being bullied. this 17 year old also looked forward to the day when he did not have to be afraid, when he did not have to be worried about walking down the hallway. he closed his letter by saying, everyone else is considered

equal in this country, why shouldn't we be? [applause] yes, we have more work to do. yes, we have more progress to make. yes, i expect continued impatient with me on occasion. -- impatience with me on occasion. i think of teenagers like the one who wrote me. they remind me that there should be in patients -- impatience when it comes to inequality. there are still young people out there looking for us to do more, to help build a world in which they never have to feel afraid or alone to be themselves. and we know how important that

is. to not only tell them that it is going to get better, but to ensure that things actually are better. i am confident that we will achieve the equality that this young person deserves. i am confident that the future is bright for that teenager and others like him and that he can have the life that he wants and that he imagines. there will be setbacks along the way. there will be times when things are not moving as fast as the folks would like. i know that he will look back on his struggles and the struggles of many in this room as part of what may change possible. it took to reach the day that every single american, a gay or straight, bisexual or transgender, was free to love as they saw fit.

[applause] we can look at the progress we made in the last two years, the changes that were led not by washington, but by folks standing up for themselves or for their sons and their daughters, fighting for what is right. not just change on behalf of gay americans, but for everybody looking to fulfil their version of the american dream. whether it is students working their way through college or workers working in factories to build american cars again, in the entrepreneurs testing bold ideas, construction crews lining roads, all those americans who faced hardships and setbacks, but who never stopped believing in this country. they are helping each and every day to rebuild this nation so that we emerge from this. bank of struggle stronger and

more unified than ever before. periodge from this stronger and more unified than ever. the stubborn refusal to except anything less than the best. with your help, if you keep up the fight, if you will be both your time and your energy to this campaign one more time, i promise, we will write another chapter in that story. we will lead a new generation with a brighter and more hopeful future. i will be standing right there with you. thank you. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. thank you, everybody. thank you. ♪

♪ sun coming up olver new york city. -- over new york city. ♪ ♪

as a series continues tonight with ron paul. he discusses his previous presidential bid, the strategy for winning the nomination, and his views on congress. it descend a night at 9:30 p.m. on c-span. -- it is sunday night at 9:00 there the p.m. on c-span. minnesota rep michelle laughlin is in a close race with mitt romney. bachmann got