the threat of home grown terrorism. and later, retired brigadier- general david reist discusses the planning and logistics that went into the recently announced u.s. troop reductions in afghanistan. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" this monday, june 27, 2011. president obama meets with the top democrat and republican in the senate today to talk about the debt limit. majority leader harry reid goes to the oval office this morning. and this evening minority leader mitch mcconnell will make the same trip. the house is out today but one member, representative michele bachmann, will be in the news because she is making her

official presidential announcement this morning. as house members spend time at home in the district, just what to cut from the budget is front and center and "the washington post" looks at the possibility of defense cuts. the gop opens the door to defense cuts. this is what our topic is. this is -- these are the numbers to call -- ken also find us by e-mail -- let's take a look at "the washington post" story this morning. gop opens the door to defense cuts.

our question is whether you think defense cuts should be on the table as a way to cut spending. going on deeper into the story in, let's check this out --

some democrats say they place a higher priority on defense cuts -- and here is where is the potential for compromise, according to some republicans. this is representative barney frank, democrat of nashua to ships -- massachusetts.

looking at how folks have weighed on this and the past, we have an article from a few months ago, back in january, talking about the minority -- then minority leader eric cantor. this comes from cnsnews.com. he said everything would be on the table. let's look at how conversations are expected to go down between minority leader mcconnell and majority leader harry reid and

the white house. this piece from "politico." david rogers reports today's meeting is an important first that for both men -- let's go to of bonds and hear what a viewer has to say from carson city, nevada. caller: how are you? i just think it is ridiculous in terms of barney frank, when asking about defense cuts, whether we should have them. barney frank has never served in the military. we need to turn to the people who have, the people who know what we need and how much of it

we need. and the people who are willing to look belligerent -- belligerently in the sky and screen -- host: looking at what is going on in the meetings today. back to "politico." seeing how these meetings between president obama and minority leader mcconnell may go down. our question to you is, should defense spending be on the table? if you are a republican who favors defense cutting -- among gop leaders, david rogers of politico reports, mitch mcconnell has the most insistent that the president play a larger role in talks going on right now.

looking at "the washington post" story, this is one other top pieces about the gop opening the door to defense cuts. it goes on to talk about how defense spending could actually go down. at the end of the piece, it says --

jim in redding, pennsylvania, a democratic caller. good morning. caller: i was just wondering why we have -- host: yes, sir? caller: why we have some innate aircraft carriers, 11, and china has one and we have so many submarines. why can't we cut some of them? that's all i have to say. host: william joins us from north carolina. caller: how are you doing this morning? listen, where i live at, we have a man named frank -- and he

raises chickens for a living. he feeds them lots of grain and corn. it just give me a few minutes. he keeps some feds so they can sell them and cut the heads of judy off. the republican party thinks as much about a poor person as frank perdue thinks about chickens. the republican party thinks nothing about the poor. they are giving everything to rich people. what do you think about that question a host: let us find out what america thinks about it. massachusetts. john joins us. caller: how is it going? i just found out that the fed had just given another $3 trillion to banks all over the world. so, what's the purpose of the patriot act if we are giving money to our enemies all over the country? host: what do you think?

caller: my thing is the patriot act is to keep us from finding out what the truth is. if we are bailing out -- the fed is bailing out banks in arab nations and other countries, what is the purpose of the patriot act? is this a big act to take money from the poor and give to the rich? host: we are talking about defense cuts. you think it should be on the table? defense spending? caller: that is kind of ridiculous. host: barry, virginia. caller: i think defense cuts should be on the table because there is a huge ahmad of money to be saved just to change the way the pentagon does procurement, for example. without getting too much in the weeds -- for example, way back when the air force procured aircraft starting with the f-16 and half a century ago, you have to find a perfect price contract and the one that came in under

budget, pretty amazing. we have seen in the last half century cost overruns in major systems. again, not to get too much into the weeds, but contract officers generally don't do their job to assess all of the needs that are necessary. the military then comes up with more and more needs that glom onto systems as they are developed and that leads to huge overruns. if we do an accurate mes process -- assessment at the beginning of the process we could cut the price of weapons systems dramatically and we could go to a firm fixed price cost system and we could save an immense amount of money and probably have little if any impact on our defense readiness. host: a comment from twitter, monte writes -- brands in the charleston, west virginia. good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i am very much opposed to defense cuts at this time because we have our troops committed overseas in several places. they are in harm's way in several countries. and and not only that, but we have a situation where we could reduce the defense budget to zero tomorrow and it still would not resolve our debt problem. if we do not think about social security, medicare, and about medicaid, we may as well throw in the towel right now and all of these negotiations and talks be suspended and we just let the government default because those are of a three major leaders of money, federal money, if you will.

-- eaters of money. to look everywhere but the three giant elephant in the room is a complete waste of time. now, once we get to a point where we have somewhat of a stable world and we can responsibly and sensible way remove our troops from places like afghanistan and iraq -- not what the president proposed last week -- but if we can give to the point, then, yes, we did get to those things. the last gentleman talked about. -- procurement issues. that of a great place to start. but for now we need to go to where the heart of the problem is, and that is entitlement and we need to change the mentality of the american people and tell them, you are not entitled to these programs. host: looked -- let's take a look at comments from twitter. let's take a look at minority

leader in the house nancy pelosi talking yesterday on cnn's "state of the union," looking at how the debt talks are going between democrats and republicans and weighing in on eric cantor's position. >> there won't be any agreements for such an agreement unless the house democrats are part of that. unless the speaker comes up to the table with 218 votes. but i think the president has been involved. he talked about bipartisanship. he talked about balance in what we do. obstacles have come because majority leader kantor has what with the table because he doesn't want to deal with special interests -- cantor. >> the republicans don't want any tax increases and is a debt ceiling. >> it is not a question of tax increases -- and >> sorry -- yes, right, they

don't want changes in revenue. >> yes, but what we are talking about -- some of the things -- leader cantor can't handle the truth when it comes to attacks of the dislike big oil inc's sending jobs overseas, for giving tax breaks to wealthiest people in the country while they are asking seniors to pay more for less as they abolish medicare. host: nancy pelosi speaking yesterday on cnn and she is talking about discussions going on what the republicans and democrats related to the debt talks, talking about how leader eric cantor needs to acknowledge in the fact that democrats, in her opinion, have to get some of what they want to be at the table. let's go to alex on the democrats' line from albuquerque, new mexico, and the question is what the defense cuts should really be on the table in a serious way as politicians look at how to bring down the debt.

caller: if we were to cut the military budget by at least 10%, maybe 15, we could save social security and that would give the republicans a huge advantage with their constituencies. there might be other programs, too -- public schooling, education. and we would still be no. 1 militarily, even with that cut. host: let's go to carolyn who is in favor of seeing some defense cuts, joining us from illinois. good morning, carolyn. you are a republican question of caller: yes, i am. i might ron paul supporter. i was a delegate for him the last election. we have bases all over the world. people are forgetting, we still have bases in germany, bases in

japan. let those of other countries jarrod -- either if we are going to be there, they should be giving us money or supporting themselves. we could cut our military in half. my brother is a colonel in the army and he is the first one to tell you how much waste there is. they don't even know -- billions and billions have been given away during these wars and nobody knows where the money is. the other guy who is a republican who says we should cut medicare and medicaid -- i know it is a big amount we are spending and they could cut medicaid -- medicare, cut the waste, but to say that not touching the military -- it is a sacred cow for republicans. i think that is why they lost the last election -- i hate to say it because i am a republican. they will lose again -- we just can't afford the military.

10% of budget -- if it is, it is 5% to hide. they need to get away down. host: as a republican what do you think about representative michele bachmann? she is officially announcing she is running for president. caller: i kind of like michele bachmann. everythingagree with she says -- but none of them -- they all get up there was talking points. what is their plan? nobody is talking about the middle class, except maybe ron paul. we need to get jobs. i say take the money putting in the military and open up factories. host: let's take a look at michelle bachmann of the talk shows -- michele bachmann on the sunday talk shows. she will be announcing today she will be running for president.

>> governor mitt romney has had a history of varying his position on this issue. i think clearly we need a candidate who is pro-life -- that is reflective of our party and my position. >> mitt romney is not? >> mitt romney has to say what he is. but i will say that he is saying now that he is pro-life, this was a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate that by signing the susan b. anthony pledge. and i think it is disappointing that he didn't. host: representative michele bachmann talking on fox news sunday about candidate mitt romney. looking at "the wall street journal" it talks about how the two are fairing in early polling. michele bachmann was the first choice of 22% to mr. mitt romney's 23%.

her numbers are lower in national surveys -- she will be making her announcement today. it will be carried at 10:00 on c-span get she will be doing that in waterloo, iowa. she was born in iowa, so it is sort of a homecoming for her. ms bachmann is serving her third term representing the sixth congressional district and was the first republican woman to be elected to the u.s. house from minnesota. a question is what you think congressional republicans should be open to defense cuts. pennsylvania, where jason opposes the cuts. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call.

always too shortsighted. we've got to stop that. quit commenting on michele bachmann and ron pollack -- barack obama won the presidency for two reasons. we were so conscious -- we got to make sure we can show everybody we have a black president and we found the person to elect him, and he told everybody what they wanted to help. that is what ron paul does. he tells people what they want to hear. people love him. the fence -- why did we win against russia? remember the long war against russia, the cold war? they had a huge military, but it was technologically nowhere near as advanced as ours. we won by staying the course, by devolving our military, by

investing in technology, by being severe -- superior to them. we cannot look to a short cut solving a budget issue and then endangers our safety for our children in the future. host: coming to us from twitter -- writes to us by e-mail -- dennis, democratic caller from upper marlboro, maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. first of all, i want to say the lady from illinois, she kind of stole my thunder. i do believe that the military budget can be cut, and can be cut substantially.

the wars in the future are going to be fought electronically. they are going to be fought in cyberspace, and they are also going to demand seal teams like the one that took out bin laden. and i reallys -- admired him as a president, too, by the way -- eisenhower, he warned of the military industrial complex back and the 1950's. and here we are in the year 2011 and we have all of these troops stationed all over the world. one gentleman already mentioned it. why do we need 100,000 troops in europe? germany is, of course, united, that kind of thing. but my point is. we have to cut somewhere, and

again, the military has to get lean and mean there in this cyberworld we are facing. so, that is just about everything i had to say. thank you. host: let's go to our next caller, san antonio, texas. john, good morning. caller: how wall mind doing today? everybody seems to have a picture of not cutting or cutting military. i am for cutting the military. i am ex military, ok. but no one is talking about cutting the size and cost of government. that is the biggest problem. you can't pay standard -- janitors and the government $60,000, as opposed to the private debt -- sector paying 20,000. one of the peak -- nor the people running for office or calling this morning. you have one guy sang taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. he is right in a sense of the

rich is government, and not the rich people getting a job every day and making money. because i would like to be rich when they myself and i sure would not want to give it to government. i do not -- do not want to give it to somebody not doing nothing at all. that is my biggest beef, the government. but bring the why jews and benefits of government employees to wages of the private sector. host: let's look at how the tea party is talking about it. from "the new york times."

one note about this past weekend, the group freedom word help training for about 150 activists with sessions dedicated to educate them about the budget proposals -- jeff joins us from bedford, virginia on our independent line. if you think defense cuts should be on the table as we look at how to trim the budget? caller: yes, we ought to do a thorough audit to figure out where the money is going. but my true thoughts is privatization of the military.

these contractors are paid an enormous amounts of funds and money could be more well spent if we keep the money within the military. the wars are not supposed to be for profit, it is supposed to be for protection of homeland security and the u.s. itself. host: let's go to new jersey, karen who is in favor of cutting the fence. good morning. caller: hi, how are you? i am in favor of cutting the fence because it is 20% of our federal budget and social security also is 20%. we need to cut back everywhere. we can't just cut back one place or another. i think we should have had a war tax in the beginning right after 9/11 -- the cost is just outrageous. like your other caller said. that we could cut basis in europe.

diggingbases -- bases in europe. host: a comment from twitter. she thinks there is too much hype and hysteria surrounding the need to make cuts. hartford city, indiana. gary opposes defense cuts. good morning. caller: well, i think we should increase defense spending. it is a dangerous world. it is going to be that much dangerous and a bad economy. i think we should forget gone tomorrow and build the reagan star wars. host: bill, independent from kentucky. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am 67 years of age and have voted for many of the presidents that have been elected and i have recently been retired and

paying more attention to the politicians of this nation. and when we are talking budget talks, the policies of politics needs to be taken totally out of it. i have listened to my senator mitch mcconnell and i have supported him in the past but in the future i would see to it that he is gone. i would like to see him in peach, would likely to see him recalled. in terms of the military -- we cut it to -- we need to cut it very small. we need to support our troops and we need to support our military and we need to support our country, but through our military, because we stand out as the no. 1 country in the military might. whereas, we cut our military budget, we are cutting our might, we are cutting our strength, and we open the doors for a lot of things to happen. when we are talking about the budget, what caused it to get to where it is at now?

one of the factors was that when medicare part d was passed, it was passed being on funded. it cost us probably between now and the time it was passed well over $1 trillion. idea oflike the anything cutting medicare, and if i was going to cut anything in medicare, i would repeal medicare d. host: ohio. rebecca opposes cutting defense spending. caller: the reason i think i would say we shouldn't cut defense spending is just in the last several years present a bush -- president bush brought the age scale of bp -- up, and the government switched to a lot of civilian workers and they work right beside our soldiers and a double and triple what they make. it kind of keeps the morale down

for our soldiers. so, i think they should give the jobs back to the soldiers and keep their pay scale up. and a few problems we have in our world, we need to have a military that is in strength. they always say pull the numbers down and make the equipment upscale, but we have ground wars and we have to have strong sold as for that. for the cuts in our government, i think it is condescending and arrogance that the people who are going to get paid like congressmen and senators and will continue to get their benefits way the luck -- above and beyond what civilians get and i think it is arrogant that they would to cut so bad. it will be a culture shock. thank you for letting me call. host: let's take a look at some other news stories. senator john kerry and senator john mccain were in egypt reading the opening bell at the egyptian stock exchange in cairo

yesterday. "the new york times" reports that after talks with the leading military council -- expressed confidence the military ruler wants to transfer power to an elected government as soon as possible. other stories in the news, "the washington post" political roundup. he pointed out one of the good things that happen to democrat is the emerging star of governor andrew cuomo. saying his successful push -- looking at some of the images from the newspapers. yesterday in new york there was a gay rights parade, pride

parade, a lot of focus on that because of the decision late last week to legalize same-sex marriage. our question for you this morning is about defense cuts and what you think they should be part of an overall package to cut spending. there are 36 days left before the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order for the treasury to make ends meet. but "the washington post" does have a cover piece about defense spending and how republicans see it on the table. our next viewer joins us, in favor of the cut. good morning. are you with us? welcome. caller: i call -- i am a democrat, but when the lady asked me what i was i told her -- she said she was not taking any calls, so i called on the

republican line. host: i am glad you got through. caller: you all are not fair and balanced, like you said. this is my first time calling. i could not take it no more, no more. let me tell you something -- i don't know why they are fighting in f. vana -- name of the place. the bible talks about there will be warm -- wars and rumors of wars. aint no man can stop jesus's plan. you better talk what you know. if you are just fooling people out here. if you go by the bible, things will go right. always saying republicans conservative, like the democrats

are devils, the devils are those people saying they are conservative -- everybody is conservative because i live on a fixed income. have not gotten a raise in three years from the social security. i am not on no clear -- i am p- o-o-r. >> i will be p-o-but i will make it because i know a man said thai and looks low and looking on your wall and you have a blessed day. host: the way our phones lines are set up today is you have two lines for republicans because our focus is on this news from "the washington post" that the gop has opened the door for defense cuts. the no. 2 is called -- --

numbers to call -- i am sorry you had trouble getting through at first but we do want to hear your opinion whether or not you are a republican. let's go to betty who is a democrat calling from cleveland, ohio. caller: first of all, i would like to say we could not be a master of everything. we have to depend on the masters -- like mr. gates and the other military leaders for what is to be cut. mr. gates came up with $78 billion very quickly, but it was demonized in our congress and it never went through. if we allow our congressmen, who really are not professional military people, to make those

decisions, they will not get anything done because they are busy making deals with private contractors so they could fill the coffers. first, they want their money out of the bill before any deal can happen. that is what is going on in congress and that is why we can't make progress like we should make. on michele bachmann, let me make a comment on her. she terrifies me -- talking about she will get rid of the epa, here in 2012? this guy that just took over al qaeda, who took bin laden, he is a former college professor, so we need our water and air protection -- protected. they can poison our food and kill millions. poison our water. and they are our neighbors and all among the spirit we need our epa. host: we will talk about terrorism in a segment this morning at 8:30, so if you are

interested that will be coming up. let's go back to "the washington post." for worse, texas, on our independent line. good morning -- for worth, texas. caller: there should be budget cuts to the military. our military and our country, we spend more money on the military than the top six military combined in the world.

billions of dollars a missing in the military, and tens of billions. it is ridiculous not to cut. did amazes me because our congressman not too far back -- we talk about teachers earning $50,000 a year plus benefits for a part-time job -- that is what they were calling it. earning $50,000 a year, yet alone are congress itself makes more than three times more than teachers to. and they get a summer break, winter break, and spring break themselves but they are not talking about themselves getting a budget cut. i think we need to cut across the board but the government -- including our military. we spend more on our military than any the other programs combined in our country. so, yes, they should be cut. they should be cut drastically. host: sorry to cut you off, and that, but we got what you are

saying -- saying. let's get to maryland t. caller: i served as 20 years in the military between 1971 and 1991 and there always has been waste, fraud, and abuse. but right now they can cut. there are places they can cut. there is too much waste going on anyway. you've got contractors when the job we are doing and getting paid more. that is not fair. but i want to respond to the gentleman who called earlier regarding this subject about not cutting the military but telling people that they are not entitled to their social security and medicare. i will respond to him by saying i paid in to those programs just like i earned my military pension and i earned my social security disability and medicare. how dare anyone say that it is an entitlement.

isn't entitled because we paid into it. the trust money -- funds the money was then has been rated. where is the money? that is not our fault. that is all i have to say. host: can i ask -- ask you a question? caller: where do you think politicians should look to hear about where to meet the cuts? defense secretary, pentagon? because there is so much give and take about where there is duplicative or whistle spending. who do you listen to? caller: one person i listened to earlier talked about a procurement -- different ways of procurement. the wars we have been in in vietnam have been unconventional. you don't fight an unconventional war with many, many troops. it cannot do it.

it apparently has not sunk through. vietnam was a failure. afghanistan is going to be -- the russians could not do anything in nine years. what are we going to do? we are just going to lose more people if we stayed there until 2014. we will lose a couple more thousand people for virtually no reason because the government over there. we will have to leave eventually anyway. let them handle their own improbable ambs. militarily -- military we had back in september 9/11 did not stop what happened and it did not stop what happened in fort hood. a terrorist unconventional war cannot be fought conventionally. you can make cuts and turn it

into a counter terrorism -- it could be bought differently, like special forces and what not. host: you talk about afghanistan and we will be talking later on in our last segment about the troop a drawdown and how it will actually worked out in afghanistan. coming up in about 45 minutes we will speak to fox news reporter catherine herridge, national correspondent, and the book out called "the next wave -- on the hunt for al qaeda's american recruits." coming up next, though, we will look at the debt limit and how to deal with this potential debt crisis. we will be talking to stephen bell. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> sundays on "in depth," offer, activist, chickasaw nation activist linda hogan, focusing on native americans and women issues and the environment. her latest book, "rounding the human corners." join our three-hour conversation, phone calls and e- mails, and tweet,s sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> c-span launched a new easy to navigate web site for politics and the 2012 election race. with the latest c-span events from the campaign trail, by all information on the candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates on candidates and

political reporters and links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states. visit us at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from afghanistan by the end of next year, and we will bring home a total of 33 frau's and -- 33,000 troops by next summer. >> search of a 4000 entries online all indices been video library. search, watch, click, and share every c-span program since 1987, all free any time. it is washington your way. >> the house recently debated and voted on two measures related to u.s. military involvement in libya. look for continued debate and house and senate on c-span that a congressional chronicle. a fine video of every house and senate session, daily schedules, committee hearings,

and information on your elected officials at c-span.org /congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: steve bell joins us from the -- where he is economic policy project senior director. the congressional budget office came out with a report looking at the dead and where we are going with it. you came in -- guest: i was watching the earlier show and watching all of the theatrics over the weekend. what we want to do, according to speaker boehner, is save as much money, $2.40 trillion, as we have to increase the debt ceiling. this seems to be a very perplexing problem. i think it happens a lot when people don't think about what we are going to spend in the future. the president says we are going to get out of afghanistan and iraq. it saves you about $500 billion of the next 10 years. we are going to freeze

nondefense discretionary spending -- education and all of that -- 800 billion. it gives you to $1.30 trillion. you make some minor -- minor changes in ag subsidies, chains and we did calculate inflation that affects various government programs, including pensions, and freeze the pay for government workers, you have another $100 billion of the 10 years. now, 1.4. if i take what secretary gates says to do in defense, and you save another 300. and i have not touched the tax code. if i close down a couple of loopholes, like the ethanol loophole which has already been voted down and the senate, and do a couple of other minor tax things, another 700 pettitte $2.40 trillion and i kept my word it would be $3 in savings for every $1 in tax increases or revenue increases. when i have done all that, $2.40 trillion, i say less than 10% of the $26 trillion and that we

will run up the next 20 years. host: can we show your viewers where you did the calculations? a paper napkin. guest: believe and not, i was chief of staff of the budget committee and we did a lot of this on hours on end. host: let us see what director doug allan larsson said, director cbo, outlining the latest predictions for the budget next few years. >> as the republic -- economy recovers and the policies adopted in response, budget deficits will decline markedly the next few years. however, the retirement of the baby boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the share of the population eligible for social security, medicare, and medicaid benefits. moreover, per-capita spending for health care will probably continue rising spending and spending on other goods and services. in addition, the recession and

accompanying policies are leaving a legacy of greatly increased government debts. between the end of fiscal year 2008 and the end of the current fiscal year, debt held by the public will surge from roughly 40% of gdp close to its 40 your average, to nearly 70% of gdp, the highest since shortly after world war ii. host: that was cbo director doug coleman door for -- elmendorf. here are the numbers to call -- "the washington post" reports the congressional budget office warns of the national debt will swell to unprecedented levels unless major changes are made in spending and tax policy. and the cbo offered a scenarios

-- "the washington post" has these graphics. the first shows the budget balancing as the george bush tax cuts expire in 2012, alternative minimum tax is expanded and health care spending is restrained under president obama's health-care law. the second offers an alternative, one in which policy makers short circuit spending restraints but continued to cut taxes, sending the debt soaring. what do you make of this? guest: you are right. ellmendorf consistently put forth the following -- if you don't do something about the pending tax cuts, let them go like last year, and if you continue on the path we have now with spending on medicare, medicaid, tricare and other programs, you can't get the structural deficit under control. what that means that 70% of deede does not sound that huge but very soon we will be at 100% of gdp and 10 years after

that we estimate 200% of gdp. what it means is this -- we will be spending more money on these programs indebtedness when our entire gdp times twice, the largest gross domestic product in the world. you cannot sustain that. host: you mentioned a couple of items but what do you see as big as drivers of the debt. guest: medicare, medicaid, and tricare, which is the program for military. if you take a look at what is happening -- we all know the baby boomers are retiring. we say that and we take that as a fact in our heads. what we don't realize is we have about 10,000 to 12,000 people every day newly joining medicare. and if you take those people and you multiplied the fact that the cbo said that the amount of money we spend per surgical operation or procedure or visit to the doctor also increases,

you get kind of the compound interest affect on the wrong side. not just going up 5% a year, but going up 5% yr + three% a year and that the largest component of spending. the one thing if you mentioned, people go semi hysterical about it. host: what if the country went back to the clinton era tax structure, would it help? guest: theoretically, yes. if you let the tax cuts coming up for renewal next year expire entirely, you would save a substantial amount, probably around $3 trillion off of projected debt. but the argument is, if you do that, the economy will slow down. that is a hypothetical question and i don't think anybody knows what they are talking about most of the time. i have been here when we had tax cuts and the economy slow down and we had tax increases and the economy speeded up. there are a lot of things that affect the economy. host: kathy is a republican joining us from oklahoma city. good morning.

caller: thank you for c- span. i wondered if they have done a study of social security, medicare and medicaid, actual older people getting social security and medicare who have worked all of their lives compared to the women who had six, seven, eight kids, for the taxpayer to pay for and then the kids have ssi because they had asthma because their moms smokes or does drugs so the kids get ssi because one arm is long grandmother or whenever? you hear about the old people and their ssi but we are not hearing about women who have the kids who would be ssi and medicated for 18 years. have you compared those two things and really where the cost cuts could be? guest: the answer is, yes, ma'am. we have. it is a sad thing to say but very little comparatively goes to things like ssi or family

assistance, disability even under the system. the vast bulk of spending for social security goes to people who have served their time in the workforce, they paid in their taxes and their employers have paid in the taxes and they are not eligible for social security. the problem is, we have over promise. the government said if you keep doing this, don't worry, we will take care of you. the fact is one social security started we had 16 people working for every retiree. we now have the three people working for every retiree. you don't have to be deeply profoundly interested in mathematics to understand it does not work once we get to two to one. one of the monikers for our twitter followers -- can you go a little farther with that?

guest: lets talk about a fan would put together last year. 19 people. nine democrats, nine republicans, one independent. former head of the american association of retirees. we have liberal mares and conservative governors. and by unanimous agreement we proposed the following -- you don't do anything for the next 10 years except minor changes in medicare and medicaid. but what you do do about 10 years from now is you change the relationship between medicaid -- governors and their states -- the federal government -- and you take these programs, the federal government will take these programs. that saves a substantial amount of money. more important is what you do is you begin to phase in what is called a premium support system. you give someone $7,000, you say, and you say to him or her, take the $7,000 and go to the private market and by the best

insurance you can get. or, if that does not work with you, you can continue on medicare. and on top of that we will increase about 1% a year. our best estimate is that we will stabilize in medicare spending if we do that -- not cut it, but we will be able to stabilize it. and no 155 years of age now or over will be affected at all. when people tell you we are dismantling medicare or this and that, what they are not telling you is it affects no one and it is voluntary. you save about $7 trillion to $8 trillion over the next eight years by doing that. host: stephen bell as director of the economic policy project. you mentioned it to the work of the policy center did last year. you came out with a report. how relevant is it the remaining? the talks last week between vice president biden and members of

congress stalled. are they referencing the bipartisan center is work? you feel it is having an impact? guest: i didn't think at first it would but we are very likely -- looking. we have people highly respected -- alice rivlin, a democrat, was not only the vice president of the reserve board -- board but also former cbo director and the democrats. we have been diminishing -- i think -- pete domenici. they cut to 97 deal that led to the balanced budget. i think we have substantial credibility. on top of that, some fries and like, when you sit comparisons made and the testimony on capitol hill, a lot of the ideas we put forth -- alice has testified and pete testified, probably over the last five weeks we have seen probably 100 staff members or members

themselves and the house and senate. we've got a good reception and we will see if we can continue to be useful. host: from indiana, on the independent line. good morning. caller: i have heard every politician and even this gentleman addressed cutting and the cutting you are talking about is a from people who put the money into the pot. you talk about entitlements. if he went into the bank and deposit and money, do you think he would be entitled to get the money back in some way or fashion? but we put money into these programs and they think we shouldn't expect to have the money in some form or fashion. secondly, talking about doing all of the cutting from the people who have put money in the pot in this country as far as taxes, social security, medicare, and other programs. and yet i have not heard not one

address of the vote loads of money they are sending overseas from people -- boatloads of money to people who have put nothing in the pot and nobody addressed that. i want to know why not. guest: this is a difficult question because it pains people to hear what i am about ready to say. if you eliminated entirely all foreign aid that we spend every year, you would cut less than 1% of the federal budget. if you were to cutback on social security payments so people only got back what they put in, then we would have a true crisis 10 or 15 years from now. why? because the cost of the program are much larger than the benefits that have been accumulated. as the cbo pointed out, in about 15 years we are not going to have enough money to pay social

security at all. we can do that -- we can tell you you put in 150,000 and we will give you 150,000 back. if we do that, you are going to be really unhappy with us because what you expect that, a set sum increase by the rate of inflation every year, is probably somewhere around $250,000. if i came up to you and said he gave me 150 and that is all i am giving you back, you would say i want 250 -- that is the real dilemma we face right now when we talk about this baby boom retirements problem. it is a difficult concept for people. but we now pay eld, and soon will come more money to newest recipients than they put in. host: a question on twitter.

more of a comment than a question. if the program changes, will people have to rely on the government anyway in the end? guest: a lot of different answers, but basically no. if you tell people to go out and get the best deal you can on medicare, and if you do not find it out there, come on back. our suspicion is the quality of care and the amount of care will increase, but the amount of spending will not. that is the golden dream. you want to get high quality care for a person, but you do not want cost to continue soaring where it is now. we have made promises we cannot keep. we should cut other things.

the vast bulk of our problem -- medicare, medicaid, social security. that is about 70% of the problem going forward. that is where you have to look. host: texas, democrat caller. people why don't you let cash out if you cannot get medicare later, much like corporations let people buy them out when they let them go. guest: that is similar to what we suggest. it is a take on the idea of having a payment every single year -- i am using a number hypothetically of 7000. you pay every year and give to medicare patients. if you can get the best deal you can, it may be the government deal, due to the best deal you can. in essence, we will give you

$7,000 this year and increases by 1% by each year to the end of your life. you are almost like a buyout plan that a corporation would give. host: republican, vista california. caller: i would like to bring up something that very few people know about. i retired from the military in 1975. a shipmate of mine says, hey, do you know what? if you had a retired last year, you would have gotten more money. he said, they changed the date, the years, the figure your retirement is pending. he lost set -- he said i lost

$75. i did not know anything about this. i do not read politics very much. i just wanted to bring this little thing up. i have been retired since 1975. how much money have i lost? everybody that came after me, how much money they lost. i guarantee it would come out to be a huge sum of money -- money. guest: i do not know about the last comment. it seems to me that that is how budgeting works. -- by step down -- stepped dead down in texas, when hundred%

disabled, -- 100% disabled. he pays $3 for all of the pills he needs in three months, 90 days. what if i asked you to triple its. he said, that is nothing. you should do that. the fact of the matter is, he is a typical retired veteran. he is 80. my mother is 87. they live off of retirement and what they have saved. they are eligible for try care. -- tricare. you realize the that that is not the problem. we automatically increase those retirement programs by the rate of inflation.

in 1978 and 1982, we were increasing them around 7% each year. host: what will kill so security is the lack of jobs. how do you figure the economy in general in the job market into this? guest: it is absolutely critical. if we do not have growth in the economy, we will not be able to do any of these things. here is the problem. pardon me. the economists that we look at last year's said we will have real growth in the first half of this year. the neighbors forecasted a 45 days before this year started. 1.8%. economic projections are inherently untrustworthy. we are in a slow-growth economy right them. we do need more jobs.

you cannot cut your way out of a retirement. you cannot tax away entirely. you have to have an economic growth to put people into the work as you enter the workforce. we have not done that for a long time in this country. if you do not have people working, these programs will get more and more difficult to sustain. host: take a look at comments from the minority leader and senator mitch mcconnell made on abc this week talking about tax revenues. >> we need to deal with what will be helpful in reducing the deficit and the debt. we have been spending way too much. we need to quit borrowing, quit spending, and get out or trajectory headed in the right direction. throwing more tax revenue into

the mix will not produce a desirable result, and it will not pass. host: mitch mcconnell on abc talking about not wanting to raise taxes. guest: i respect the minority leader a great deal and had a chance to work with him on and off. he is right. people are not going to vote for tax increases, especially wage increases, especially when the economy is at 9.1% unemployment. you will not get a bipartisan majority for that. i disagree a little bit about the revenues. we are spending 24% of gdp right now. these numbers get a very boring, and i apologize. in this past year, we only got

15% in revenues. a lot of that is due to the extremists and the recession, which we are still crawling out of. that $1.60 trillion is the deficit for this year alone. leader mcconnell is right. it is not -- to be right is one thing, but to be constructively addressing the problem -- i think you can do all three. have growth, cut back dramatically in future spending, and closed lose hope -- loopholes in taxes. you do not have to mess around with tax raises. host: us listen to this issue on abc. >> i wish they would get beyond there talking points and be

honest with the american people as to what these discussions are about. we should not all of these [unintelligible] millionaires and billionaires. we need to be honest with the american people and have an effective tax rate that will be fair to everybody. host: james klein born speaking on abc. -- clybourn speaking on abc. guest: i do not know anyone talking about raising taxes. host: what about regulating some of the tax breaks, such as with the oil companies? guest: we have mentioned that as one of the most important things you can do -- get rid of as many tax breaks as you can.

simplify the code to tax rates, both lower to where they are now. if you close the loopholes, he said about $1 trillion a year. that is money that you do not have to cut. that will probably help the economy grow more rapidly. since 1986, we have introduced thousands of tax loopholes, over the 25 time frame. -- 25 year period. host: kenneth, north carolina. caller: i was listening to talking about a crisis looms. it is amazing to me how the media itself engages in this a deception to the american people. if anybody is suggesting that there is a debt crisis looming, they are in a world of illusion. we have been in the midst of a

debt crisis so long, and we do not know it. if citizens do not know this, the politicians are good at their job of tracking us about the things they tell us. they are trying to fool us in believing that it is going to be a problem when it already is one. guest: i remember trying to get a budget through. instead of giving everyone a full cost-of-living adjustment, we will only give them for a couple of years, a 2.5% increase. cost senatendvote republicans. 25 years ago, we knew that this

cannot be sustained. the american people were not with us by and large. they did not see the same numbers. if they did, they did not believe us. host: the senior director of the economic policy project, stephen bell. -- he is also the staffed director of the senate budget committee back in the 1980's. -- he was nominated by president ronald reagan to be a member of the federal thrift savings plan board, which he served for four years. the central debt held by the public -- you can see the

extended baseline scenario and the alternative fiscal scenario that the city of made out. let's go to illinois, don, democratic column. caller: this is my -- caller. caller: this is my first time calling. how many people die each day? how many senior citizens on social security that die each day. all of these baby boomers that are going to come on -- i live in a small county. they say 50 people and month by here that are gone. host: what would those numbers

mean to you? why do you care about those numbers? caller: the ones that are coming on and passing on. guest: new members coming on the rolls and old members passing away coming off of them. guest: we had net of people who died that day and people will come onto medicare social security. -- we estimate that the average baby boomer will have somewhere between 12 and 15 years. it is somewhat beyond 65. i am 67.5. i am on medicare and social

security. next year, i will be living longer than my father. if that is the way it works out, that is where i will be. people live longer and are healthier. we have to take that fact into account. net of deaths, about 2000 people. host: we are talking about the the economy. according to the new cbo report that cannot last week, there could be permanent savings of more than $7 million -- $7 trillion over the next decade just to keep the debt at its

current level of about 69% of gdp through 2035. we are talking with this -- about as stephen bell. caller: exactly what he was talking about. many are coming off of a social security in the next 10,000. six months after 65, you used to die and off of social security. that is amazing to me. -- guest: if you go to this

premium support plant that we have recommended -- plan that we have recommended, and if you give people a way to go out in the private market, and give them money, say $7,000, and can't stay in medicare or go out and get a private plan and compare those and see which ones give the best deal, you will save a tremendous amount of money. you're right. we see it working right now in housing where rental vouchers are working very well. there is no reason why the it cannot work in medicare and medicaid to. host: -- [unintelligible]

guest: more workers, more retirees. my kids and my grandkids, i tell them, please stay employed. i need your money now. they do not have the same humorous response that i have. host: independent line. caller: i am really concerned, because i looked into both so security and medicare. -- social security and medicare. the problem is that our lawmakers put in ious in the form of t-bills, the same as we

borrow from china or any other country. -- it seems like them trying to destroy social security and medicare since their inception. as far as medicare is concerned, the trust fund -- our president just borrowed half a million dollars from the trust fund. the gentleman earlier that said we are shipping of the money overseas, trillions of dollars on the war every way. we have 90,000 contractors in afghanistan right now, and 99,000 troops in afghanistan. the people that caused the

problem back in 2008 up in wall street and the finest institutions, they are not taking a hit. you want to put it on the elderly. host: let's look at wall street and how it factors into this. guest: as a free-market republican that used to work on wall street for 10 years, the amount of money that greed, stupidity, and duplicity cost this country -- if we could have saved it, save all of the jobs that the major catastrophe caused us to lose, we probably would only have three-quarters or maybe less the problem and what we have now. what should make most people very angry is almost nobody went to jail for what is one of the greatest examples of duplicity

and read in our country's history. what we have done is essentially this. no matter how big you are, especially if you are big and strong, we will bury you out if you do stupid things. -- and bail you out if you do stupid things. isn't it amazing that none of these guys went to jail? if you do not put people in jail for misbehaving, you tended to get more of that missed behavior. -- miss behavior. a lot of money has been spent to cover up people's mistakes. host: let's go to lexington park, md., lisa. caller: should the american people know who you are borrowing money from? why do we as american people have to suffer for the decisions

being made? why do we have to suffer? guest: the biggest single borrower over the past several years has been china. a trillion dollars of american federal debt. japan is #two. great britain has moved up to no. 3. when we started doing this 40 years ago, most of the debt was owed to americans. when you pay somebody interest, because you had that bond, that money stayed in america and circulated in america. the problem now is that half of what we know, we know the people that may or may not have our best interest at heart. that has to be a source of great

concern, and it is. if people own enough of your debt, they can begin to influence your foreign policy. one of the great problems with our indebtedness is how it will affect our foreign policy. -- they can say, we will not buy as much of year debt in this next auction. that would be a problem. it would influence us. host: here is a question from bill. he lost two of his brothers that were to their entire lives and paid into social security. how does that balance out in the system? guest: it is not enough -- it

does not happen often enough to make any difference. it happens when people thought before they get any benefits and do not have survivors, so survivor benefits are not paid. host: republican color. caller: -- caller. caller: can you respond on a twitter strained? -- strea. m. i've got like to get your ideas on how it would help shore up the program? guest: so so security is not the most difficult problem we face. -- social security is not the

most difficult problem we face. -- if you were to phase in gradually if you were to propose an increase in the retirement age, you have solved that problem with 75-year solvency. host: two of our users -- the worse engaging in dialogue on twitter. -- viewers engaging in dialogue on twitter. next caller. caller: we had a system for 250 years, and all of the sudden it is failing. nasa is the first thing that has to be repealed and redone, if

anything. we have to have jobs to support these programs. without repealing nasa or any other type of deal that goes on with the government, we are never going to have jobs. we need something else to get america back to work. >> i agree with that. none of this works. all of the things we are talking about -- theatrical public meetings, none of that will work unless there is enough job growth so that we can accommodate all of the people newly entering the workforce, as well as those that remain in the workforce. we are not doing that right now. at the policy center, we say

growth is a three legged stool. you have to do something about the rate and growth of spending. the third leg is you have to have superior economic growth. there is no doubt you cannot solve these problems at all. they get worse. take a look at some countries in europe. you will see a direct correlation between unemployment and worsening physical circumstances. you are right. we need growth. host: there is an op-ed piece by bill bradley. he weighs in to talk about the president and discussing immediate job creation. as people talk about the economy and debt, unemployment is what he finds to be a big

clincher. guest: it is the underlying witness. if we do not have growth, then we do not have solution. what we did at the bipartisan policy center is recommend the following. for one whole year, let's have a complete holiday on the payroll tax. the president did 2% off of employees, 12.4% total. that is about one sixth of what we recommend it. if you have a payroll tax holiday for an entire year, you not only will get the economy growing again, but you will be creating net new jobs.

we understand you have to have growth. that is why we still recommend that for the next year we have a payroll tax holiday. host: the federal government could pay 20% of the cost of wages and benefits of $20,000 per employee. guest: that is one form of an idea. ours is slightly different. we want to be completed compelled by free market sources not the government. you will see small businesses start to hire. what a small business has to contribute is extremely happy in these times. host: democratic caller in virginia. caller: not only do we pay into

social security, but people pay at least $96 a month on medicare every month. medicare does not pay for everything. you cannot even get an x-ray on medicare. it does not make any sense. the way the money is screwed up in social security -- [unintelligible] you need to get the inside of social security straight. i had to wait four years with no money and have worked 20 some years at my last job. the government jobs -- they do not even pay out temporary disability. they do not even recognize that.

somebody is screwing up the money. it is not our fault. everybody knows people that have worked all of their lives. a person died a few weeks ago that was 64-years old. he was still working and never collected his social security. somebody is using that money. what is going to happen to people that are 47 -- are they going to get a big check? guest: a there are some people that unfortunately died before they reach 62 or 65 and 67 soon. that money goes into the $2.70 trillion alleged trust fund. the woman that called earlier, i think from oklahoma, that trust

fund is an allusion. it is a transfer between government. there is no lock box or trust fund in which this trillion that is set off from other spending. when we talk about that excess, that $2.70 trillion, take that into account. they say we will be close to bankrupt in this system in the next 25 years, even with that $2.70 trillion. host: thanks so much for being with us this morning. guest: banks. it will be a big story for a long time. host: next we will talk about the drawdown in afghanistan, but first a look at homegrown

terrorists. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> this morning and michele bachmann will announce her bid for president for 2012. she will meet with campaign officials this morning in waterloo, iowa. coverage will begin today live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span radio. and time warner will talk about their company and development in the tv industry. you can see that this evening on the "communicators" on c-span 2.

-- 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices. there is an interview with the newest supreme court justice and there is an application with multimedia clips on all of the supreme court justices. this is available now wherever e-books are sold. >> -- inside, contact information for representatives. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> the c-span network. we cover public affairs,

history, and politics. it is available online on the internet, and a social media sites. we take c-span on the road with our digital box, a local content vehicle, bringing local resources to your community. washington your way, the c-span network. created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: fox news correspondent catherine herridge joins us on homegrown terrorism. you were in new york when 9/11 happened. you set up your book by asking a question. you share an anecdote about being in guantanamo bay. guest: one of the things i try

to do in the book is take you along into the investigation -- into the courtroom, san diego, to investigate this new generation, what i call al qaeda 2.0. what we see is this new generation is using our technology against us in a way that we never sought a decade ago. i call them a new digital jihad ist. but the this new leader is emailing or blogging, he is kind of like a facebook friend from hell, and that is how he spent as idolatry on hate. host: you look at a lot of the terrorists who have perpetrated things over the last decade. take us through how connected he is. guest: the book began with a

simple question. one of my colleagues asked me after fort hood, how are americans old enough to remember 9/11 are willing to turn back on their own country less than a decade later. i could not get my mind around what happened on 9/11. you have the fingerprints of this man who has become a household name, but at that time was very unknown. in many of these cases like the one we saw in seattle last week is that individuals that are home grown, they are followers of his lecture and ideology on the web. he went to engineering school here in the united states and was born here. he went overseas and came back. he became a cleric, a leader.

he was able to make connections and find people to be part of his cause. the evidence is overwhelming that he was a player in dunn/11 itself. -- 9/11 itself. one person said to me, there has always been a question that bought a to the investigators. two of the 9/11 hijackers were in the united states in january 2000. mohammad bring peopley shak that speak no english to the get go of san diego unless there was someone there to meet them.

the person was alawacqui. he met one-on-one with the hijackers in san diego. i have been inside that room. it is a very small and private and intimate place. the documentation that the isolation the book show that it was not a series of coincidences, but the evidence of a critical relationship. host: we are talking about her new book. how much of this is home grown terrorism in the united states? we heard about people coming over to the united states. the 9/11 people spoke virtually no english. but you talk about people that were born in the united states,

.econd generation guest: i say in the book that the next chapter may be hard to fight, because you find american center -- said a sense at the center of it. [unintelligible] -- what i argue in the book is this new american generation. this group understand us and our systems and how to use them against us. one example -- the idea that printer cartridges packed with explosives would detonate over

the eastern seaboard of the u.s. one of my contacts said he believes that the devices had been timed based on the fedex and ups tracking systems. only an american would think about using that to launch a plot like this. the threat of the future may not be on the same scale as 9/11. it has a component that is more insidious. they understand our system and us as well. host: us get to the phones. portland, maine, independent line. caller: the most insidious thing is when the media refuses to look at the actual history of things. [unintelligible] these attacks are aimed at

demonizing the american people. we all understand around the world that these have banned myths perpetrated on the united states -- these have been myths portrait on the united states. can you, a it onl-awlaki having lunch at the pentagon? guest: i show in the book that he was a guest of the office of general counsel. nearly 80 people were invited to that one. what is important is it shows me a pattern. at that time, he was an e-mom

around town in washington. i revealed documents that showed right after 9/11, he was interviewed, four * by the fbi. there was a split view of him in washington. some were highly suspicious of his contacts with three of the nine hijackers on flight 97. then he was seen as a moderate, go to guy that could build a bridge between that world and the united states. writing about at lunch at the pentagon was really upsetting on many levels. when you look at his contacts, it was with three of the five hijackers on flight 77. that was the flight that flew into the pentagon. when he was invited back there as a guest speaker, it was like

a thief returning to a scene of the crime. you can imagine him walking into the building and marveling at the destruction that his guys were responsible for. caller: i was wondering how you feel about how infiltrated we are in this country because of our immigration policies and the lack of following up on these people? for years, we had people coming into our country freely. how infiltrated do you think we are and on what levels? guest: i mention that anwar had a helper in san diego. he was a facilitator for the hijackers in san diego. he helped them find apartments

and get jobs at the gas station -- all of these things to help these people who spoke no english. modar came here as a bogus asylum seeker. he was a somali refugee. he actually was an anti- national. during that period, there was an effort to exploit our immigration system, and an effort to exploit our system against us byan anwar. one of them claimed to be a foreign student in colorado and got money, about $20,000 for school. you never would have gotten that money if they knew he was an american citizen. host: -- he appeared to be

foreign-born. you document on how some tried to find their way to get him on violations. they put the wrong social security number down. when he came back into the country, law enforcement officers could get him. take us through that. guest: right after 9/11, al-aw laki was a prime target because of his contacts. i interviewed the case agent that put the award -- arrest warrant together. when he came here as a student to go to the university, he claimed to be a for national to get the scholarship money. he lied about his place of birth on his social security

application. host: it is significant because? guest: everytime he used that number on his passport, it was a continuation of the fraud. to get the arrest warrant, it was a holding charge. you want to pick this person up for whatever it is and put pressure on them. in october 2002, he entered the united states and was held at jfk international airport for hours because of this outstanding warrant for his arrest. an fbi agent in northern virginia ordered his release the the war was still active for his arrest. what i showed in the book is the defense surrounding 2002 --

there are three possibilities. the fbi was trying to make him an intelligence asset. they believe he was a friendly contact. or they were trying to track him for intelligence. i argue in the book that things did not go well for obvious reasons, because i have yet to meet a member of congress, when i show them the arrest warrants and the circumstances in which it was pulled, that it is familiar to them. host: judith, a democratic caller. caller: i am a little concerned. last night i watched the afterward program and i saw a man with a strange name. he was interviewed by ted. he talked about the horrible muslim threat in this country. he used some many inflammatory

words. there were many that were just wrong. any 75 year-old news junkie like myself knew that there were some errors. i look at the king committee in congress that tries to investigate moslems. now i see you. i know many of you are hooked up with david that runs around with mccarthy attitudes to american universities. i see you are with fox news. i think it would be a shame for a few muslims criminals to begin to characterize a whole community as terrorists. this is a danger that we have to look to you.

there was a japanese internment during the second world war. and we are not an innocent people, when it comes to scapegoating. guest: i lay out a very factual anwar and thoser that follow his doctrine of hate. one secretary said we have to figure out where to draw the line. in britain, we decided that we will not use religion to draw this line. we will say the terrorists on one side and everybody else on the other side. there is an effort to use religion as a wedge between us. we have to avoid that. host: catherine herridge of fox news.

how do you find the balance between protecting civil liberties and second-generation americans, and doing the investigative work you are doing? one of the nuances you are talking about is looking at -- muslims, who were born here. how do you guard against stereotyping? guest: i covered a tenure. with no walking10-year period i covered a 10- year period on anwar al awlaki.

this man was a fraud. he pretended that he cannot remember the hijackers. swindling $20,000 to go to college here. he has quite a long rap sheet. on one hand, he presented himself as e-mom and on the other hand was picked up for picking up prostitutes around san diego. you can get a much shot of almost every hollywood celebrity, but not at a guy on the cia must capture list. why does not the government make better use of information to discredit him? in the book, i interviewed a young man who had worshipped at

his mosque at san diego. he says very clearly in the book that he is giving american muslims [inaudible] host: you give opinions about -- you weigh in as the voice of the reporter and analysis. how do you think about protecting civil liberties and people in a way that judith brought up. -- brought up? guest: i am drawing on my factual account and what i have been able to find. after fort hood, it took the administration a couple of months to call it an act of terrorism. but in my opinion, it was not a drive-by shooting. it was something else.

it was a domestic act of violence to reach a political end. caller: i have a comment and a question. my comment is i watched an earlier program about the debt crisis and how we can bring home our troops and not have to fight these terrorist wars overseas. are we at and and a bandage now -- and a vintage now to bring our troops and watch what is going on in the country and keep an eye out for these homegrown terrorists? guest: i lay out where the war on terror is the next. this may be a book you want to get if you want to win the war on terrorism. terrorists take the path that leads to less resistance.

we see franchise operations of al qaeda that have popped up in yemen, somalia, and you have this homegrown component. the threat is more complex and diverse. al qaeda is now much of a franchise operation. the u.s. intelligence community is looking at plot of the pipeline before the death of osama bin laden. both homegrown super cells use his death as we get closer to the 10th anniversary of ninth- 11. -- 9/11.

the people who are making decisions on these issues right now face tough challenges. host: you outlined the three big concerns authorities have. what might it mean for america? what are the concerns about places that could be an attack, vulnerable positions? guest: look at the case we had last week in seattle. two gunmen wanted to launch an attack on a military installation in seattle. one of them was inspired by this cleric in yemen. he was angry that the administration put him on the cia hit list. the reason these two men were stopped is someone was

suspicious of what they've been doing, stepped up, and alerted the authorities. the future may not be a series of 9/11's, but a series of smaller scale attempts on the u.s. if you go on to these websites, that are supporting the small scale, or individual jihad. it is a sign that they believe this ideology that they have been successfully able to create on the internet and has found a small minority of people in this country and has gotten some traction with them. host: -- two islamic converts

were arrested for targeting attacks on the seattle center. guest: this is the story i am talking about. the particular case is concerned, because it was disrupted, not because the fbi was aware of them at the time, but because somebody stepped forward, which is the right thing to do. many are very much under the radar in this country. there was an attack on the recruitment center in arkansas and years ago. the young man that was the shooter on the case is a comfort that traveled to yemen and spent 18 months there and was in training camps there. senator john kerry and the foreign relations committee have an excellent report that they did a year ago that catalogs the number of americans that have traveled to yemen and the prison comforts that have traveled to

yemen as well. host: let's go to seattle washington where ed is calling on the democrats' line. caller: i live in south seattle and close to where the islamic center is. i probably have seen these guys that were plotting. i have a general comment to the american people. it has nothing to do with the terrorists or anything like that. it has to do with our foreign policy. we support the despots of the middle east. they do have a point. it has nothing to do with islam. it has to do with our policies. without a change in these policies, what is going to happen is this will continue. i just want everyone to read and understand everything you can about the middle east and what our foreign policy is doing. guest: i am glad you raised that

point. i would like to give you an illustration from my book, which i think tells people what they need to know about individuals who beverly bought into this sort of peaceful way of life. -- who have sort of bought into this sort of peaceful way of life. i was in guantanamo bay before it was announced that the suspect would be going to the district court in new york, which was ultimately reversed. one of the men is friends with the family of osama bin laden, so he is kind of like a kid a royalty. he takes the legal pad and makes a paper airplane and shoots it across the courtroom at one of his co-conspirators. i see them and open the airplane and both men start laughing. i set myself, i have to find out what was going on. i later learned that his he had even written a flight numbers for 9/11 or the tail numbers for the jets.

to me, these suspects were mocking us seven or eight years after these attacks. to who thesedow people are. host: catherine herridge, from fox news. her next book is "the next wave -- on the hunt for al qaeda's american recruits." one of our twitter follower says -- followers says -- let's start with that. guest: i try to take you along on this investigation so you go to the interviews with me and go through the documents with me. we kind of discover the story about the cleric and his followers together. it is not a dry academic read. it is very much like action- adventure. i am not suggesting people sit down and read his stuff on the

internet, but it might not be a bad idea. once you start to read his writings and listen to his videos, you see that anwar al- awlaki is incredibly effective. what he does is, he effectively breaks down as cultural identity of people who are american citizens and makes them feel, ultimately, like victims. this is the justification for l this justification ofashing out -- this is the sort of justification for this lashing out. when you see these guys in court and you see how they behave, you do not need much of a gut check to know that they're not like us. they do not think like us. they certainly do not respect our civil liberties and freedoms that we have. i think this is a great question. i did it is a call -- a question we are still trying to answer. what is interesting to me is the driver of all this is the internet and all of those associated capabilities.

in some respects, though anwar al-awlaki is on the cia's kill or capture less, in many ways, it will be hard to erase this hate that he has created. host: good morning. caller: are you familiar with this term? guest: no. maybe you can tell me about it. caller: it is where you look at both sides of the problem. the first world as eating themselves to death, the third world is starving themselves. the solution is population reduction. you can apply that in laurel today with terrorism -- in the world today with terrorism. if you look at obama's numbers, they are floundering, at best. god forbid something happened in this country that would be deemed as a terrorist attack, to

what we would then have to become a further militarized police state and give up more of our freedoms. you can get behind the wheel of a vehicle -- host: i do not quite get what you are saying. are you saying there are scare tactics involved? caller: it is called problem, reaction >> solution. reaction, solution. guest: what you see is that there has been a documented case of home grown terrorism -- cases involving american citizens with some type of ties towards -- to international terrorist organizations every few weeks since january, 2009. people ask me how many there are in the united states. i cannot tell you that. i can tell you what these cases are. they follow a couple of

different patterns. these are american citizens who have traveled overseas, for example to pakistan or yemen to get training. perhaps one of the most famous cases is faisal shahzad, who trained in pakistan, came back to the united states, drove the suv into the united states -- into times square, thought he had a successful explosive device. only thing that saved us was the fact that the bomb did not detonate. you see people launched these attacks who have not had training -- launch these attacks who have not had training. there was a young man who tried to detonate a car bomb at the christmas tree lighting ceremony. you have fort hood where, in my opinion, it is not an accident that you had this e-mail

relationship between the elected sitter, major and as always on -- the alleged shooter, major nidal hasan, and anwar al- awlaki. they go to him to try to seek answers. host: in "the new york times," robert f. worth reports from human. -- yemen. guest: one of the things i lay out in this book is that yemen is one of the emerging threat hubs. it may become like afghanistan on steroids. what you have in that country -- the president has left. he was seriously injured in a mortar attack by the opposition.

this was only a unified country over the past 20 years come in 1990. it has a history of breaking apart, if you will. what we've seen in the last four or five months is not al-qaeda and other extremists have been able to develop -- that al qaeda and other extremists have been able to develop a firmer hold on parts of the country. they are in proximity to somalia, which is already a failed state. we're starting to see a migration of extremists, jihadists, whatever word you want to use, from pakistan down into yemen. with that vacuum, there is opportunity. it is really hard to operate in a failed state because nothing works. the infrastructure is not there. it is a little bit of a double edged -- -- edged -- double-

edged sword. the leadership is what i call the trifecta. there is a former guantanamo detainee. unfortunately, these people who get out and go back to the battlefield have a lot of street bread -- street cred. you have the american, who does not necessarily resonate in the arab world, but they have a drop in the west. you have the -- they have a draw in the west. you have the long-time aide to osama bin laden. we do not see anything like les al qaeda franchises anywhere else in the world -- these al qaeda franchises anywhere else in the world. caller: this is so overblown. here is the quote from james

madison. "the means of defense against or in danger have always been instruments of terror in the at home-- against foreign danger have always been instruments of terror at home." the number of american civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year -- 8. the minimum number who died after being struck by lightning -- 29. tobacco kills 5.5 million people per year of around the globe. i wish every time c-span would have one of these oxters -- quacksters, please get someone to refute them. host: we do not have to resort to name-calling. let's get your response.

guest: we have seen a case of ron and tourism with international links every two or three weeks -- of homegrown terrorism with international links every two or three weeks since january, 2009. a terrorist attack is an attack of violence to promote a political end. that is why it has the impact that it does, unfortunately. host: there is conversation on twitter expressing concern for raising the level of fear, raising the level of suspicion. one of the folks writes -- balance the need that a couple of our callers have touched on for privacy and safety? guest: i would not say that, in the course of my reporting, and

invade anyone's privacy. i have never had that accusation. i just go where the facts lead. i would argue in this book what you see is real boots on the ground reporting. in the book, i get this out to get tape from the group in the yemen. i think people will be -- al qaeda tape from the group in yemen. i think people will be surprised that they wanted $30,000 for that tape. i tell you that number because it gives you an idea of how they raise money. no. two, when i got this message from anwar al-awlaki, it was buried in a file-sharing website that was filled with pornography. they use these sites to transmit messages because they are under the false belief that law enforcement cannot go to these sites, that government computers can i go to these sites -- cannot go to these sites.

we had this tape analyzed by a forensic audio analyst. she said that river -- reverb had been added to the tape so that he sounded like he was speaking in a giant mosque to 10 house and people -- 10,000 people, so it had this kind of grand jury to -- grandeur to it. i do not think i invaded the privacy. host: how far should the government go? how do you balance the personal privacy and security of americans versus the need for -- guest: the al qaeda leadership made a very -- had a policy shift. they saw that we were aggressively looking at people from the middle east,

afghanistan, pakistan, and they felt that what they needed to do was look at western recruits, especially american recruits come as the new gold standard -- recruits, as the new gold standard. they have and ease of travel with the american passport. -- an ease of travel with an american passport. it is harder for law enforcement to look at americans. that is where the rubber hits the road. this was not an accident. this was a deliberate decision to go after western recruits for those very reasons. i think that it is a very tough job for law enforcement to know where to draw the line, especially given the fact that so much of this traffic is driven on the internet in a way that just wasn't -- a decade ago -- when does that cross the

line from being unpleasant, hateful speech into something else? host: good morning. caller: good morning, ladies. i have a two-part question. do you investigate the involvement of homegrown terrorists such as timothy mcveigh? i just read that article about the northwest being a hotbed for extremists who are anti- government and white supremacists. is a goodat question. i think that is probably a book and to its own. i do not look at that in this -- book unto its own. i do not look at this in this book. the central question is this man who is on the tiller capture list. capture list.

host: talk about how you do your work. take us through your sources. you have been able to uncover information that others have not. how do you do that? guest: one of the things that i think people will find striking is that there is a lot of passion in the book. i think that is there because i am in a military family. on these national security issues, i am not on the sideline. i think that is infused in the book. i dedicated the book to people who serve. i understand this is not easy for people in the services, in law enforcement, in the intelligence community. before 9/11, i cut my teeth on terrorism during the mainland campaign of the ira. it is something i have been falling for the better part of 20 years. -- following for the better part of 20 years. i had a lot of help from people

to write this book. i have to say the investigators who dealt with anwar al-awlaki right after 9/11, in particular the agent who got the arrest warrant against him, really stepped up to the plate to tell the story. i hope one of the things that the book fleshes out is why this information about awlaki was covered up and never fully explained, not because there needs to be blamed, but because we want to avoid the same mistake. this guy has been at the heart of two major plots against the united states. we had him. we let him walk away. host: catherine herridge, author of "the next wave -- on the hunt for al qaeda's american recruits." aussies for being here. coming up, we will talk about -- thank you for being here. coming up, we will talk about go through withdrawal in afghanistan with retired

brigadier-general david reist. >> this morning, minnesota republican representative michele bachmann will announce her bid for president in 2012. she will make her campaign official in waterloo, iowa. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span and c-span3 deal. later today, -- and c-span radio. later today, you can see doug herzog on "the communicators." >> sunday, linda hogan. her books focusing on native americans and women's issues.

her latest is "rounding the human corners." join our three-hour conversation. sunday, noon eastern, c-span2. >> c-span has launched a new and easy to navigate web site for the 2012 race, with information on the candidates, twitter feeds, facebook updates, and links to c-span media partners. visit us at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> blackberry users, you can access our programming anytime with the c-span radio app. it is commercial free. you can listen to our signature interview programs each week, available around the clock. download it for free.

"washington journal" continues. host: retired brigadier general david reist is our guest. thank you for coming in this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we want to get a sense from you -- the question being asked, as we look at the troop drawdown, what are the powers that be thinking about? guest: i think what they are talking about right now -- especially as we have done this in the iraq recently, they will try to compare and take some of those lessons learned. there is one possible flaw if we look at iraq. pakistan and iraq, although very close to each other, they are very different geography. bachus don is about the size of texas. -- pakistan is about the size of texas. it is landlocked.

what that means, with the mountains come at any withdrawal of equipment and troops is going to have to -- with the mountains, and the withdrawal of equipment and troops is going to have to rely on nations north, east, and south. that means the traditional route where we moved a lot of equipment in, through pakistan, through the port, we will rely on the road network that is not as robust as's as' -- as iraq's. the routes are very long. the roads are not like those in iraq. host: the challenges that were faced getting into afghanistan are the same challenges that will be phased getting out, literally, the physical challenges -- faced getting out, literally, the physical challenges. guest: the distances, of the roads that we have to navigate.

host: how do you think about timing and strategy? we look at how those elements come to play together. guest: i think timing will be critical. the military planners have already planned for all options. the timing, more than anything else, probably cannot adopt a beat-the-plot type thing. that will give us in trouble. there will be an unintended consequences if we put ourselves in that position. that always happens. realizing there will be political calls made, we have to integrate our strategy with karzai and his government. we're going to have to work with our other allies in afghanistan. we're going to have to accommodate all the neighbors for those routes, through pakistan, all of those issues that exist now. host: brigadier-general david reist, we are talking about

logistics and how the leak details will work out -- how the details will work out for the troop drawdown in afghanistan. some of the members of congress, after the president talked about the numbers, expressed concerns that the troops left behind, those who stay in the country, might be exposed, might be vulnerable. is that something you have to think about? guest: that is what i would term "rebalancing the force." there will be issues with who we handed over to. afghan police, army. there will also be cases when a unit leaves -- there will have to be rebalancing of forces in afghanistan to cover the areas where that force left. at the same time we are going to be drawn down, we might be putting forces back in to cover areas across the board. the risk that you spoke of it is, will the afghan police and

army be stood up and ready in time? host: what are some other big risks? guest: i think the timing. the threat has -- we could have all the plans we want in the u.s. our allies will have a say. karzai will have a say. the enemies also get to vote here. as this enemy morphs and changes, they are going to look at the circumstances that exist right now and they are going to attempt to make an impact when and where they want to. some of that we might know. we can plan for it. others, we are just going to get hit with. i think our military planners on site are probably looking at all that. host: our guest is brigadier- general david reist, retired. he is a senior fellow at the

atomic institute for policy studies. here are the numbers to call. republicans -- (202)634-1115. democrats -- (202)624-1111. independents -- (202)624-0760. let's go to florida, where barry is on the line. did i pronounce that correctly? caller: yes, that is correct. months ago, president karzai and his deputies were caught with literally bags full of cash from iran. he got up before press conference, smiled, and said that is ok we needed -- said, "that is ok. we needed it for expenses." he admitted that he was taking

money from our sworn enemy, iran, while our soldiers are dying. we should not be there. what are we doing about this. the correction is admitted -- corruption is admitted. guest: i think you share some of the frustrations that a lot of american people do. we saw this in iraq also. this is a political in-state that needs to be solved. i know the government is working hard with karzai to try to stop things like that from happening. i will speak to the military toof it. -- military side of it. the marines and soldiers are planning to accommodate the military profile. when they hear about incidents like that, they just plow through. that is what a good military planner does. that is what the good soldier

and marine on the ground does. host: san francisco, california, johnnie, are independent -- johnny on our independent line. caller: what does he think is going back and when all of our troops leave? guest: -- going to happen when all of our troops leave? guest: i think as we drawdown forces, one of the positive things that could come out of this is that it will force us to look at some other options that we're currently looking at, but we have to exploit faster. those are the types of things, though, that take a lot of time. these seeds need to be planted today. they are going to grow across years. this is not a day/month thing. the objectives -- that will be a

political in-state which will be a balancing act between the objectives of our country, our allies, karzai, and his neighbors. something i took from iraq was what a lot of the shakes -- sheiks used to tell me. general, you are going to go home. we have to stay here. americans sometimes just do not appreciate that, i don't think, as much as some people who have to live, eat, work, fight daily in a country that afghanistan, iraq, or anyplace else. host: waco, texas. pete, a republican. caller: it is a privilege to speak to you. the president has lost all credibility. he does not give the damn -- a damn about the laws of this country or the constitution.

all you have to do is look at the gulf oil situation. he has held in contempt the court. he does anything he well, damn pleases. i am a staunch conservative. i will tell you if this time to get the hell -- it is time to get the hell out of there. if we are worried about them establishing a camp, why don't we just take some of our planes, say off of san diego's base, and just annihilate the whole camp? how many times we have to do that? we would not have to worry about them establishing a camp. guest: i got to tell you, i do not even know where to go on that one. i will give you some thoughts. when every problem looks like a nail, you are going to hit it with a hammer. as we engage as a global force,

with -- and we are the leader of the world, people look to america to be creative and to set the example. this world is not perfect. it is extremely complex. i saw that in iraq. i watched it right now in afghanistan -- watch it right now in afghanistan. we have to be careful with the actions we take because it affects on how the united states is perceived. we have to make sure that our military effort is not squandered. as you said, make sure our soldiers are not dying in vain. i do not think as soldiers and marines who are serving -- and the air force and sailors -- feel that way. is there a sense of frustration? of course there is. there is a large portion of americans who probably feel the same way. extraction of our military force has to be done right. the rest of the world is

watching us. we cannot send the wrong signal. host: what would be the wrong signal? guest: the wrong signal, in my mind, would be a pullout -- we build something up, we turned it over, we let it fail. our enemies will look at and capitalize in a way that we might not even appreciate. host: let's look at some comments that admiral mike mullen made last week. >> the intent, certainly, of the course of this transition is to hold and transition to afghan security forces. that is going to be the challenge. i am not here to say that is a done deal because it is not, but that is the strategy. we see that is executable. no one has said that is not the case. is it going to be hard? you bet it is going to be hard. host: admiral mullen speaking

last week. what was your take on his comments? guest: he closed with the most pressing -- it is going to be hard. you just have to know that. this is difficult. this war is complex. there are several different venues that are playing into the end state here. the military planners and those performing their functions -- i can tell you after serving 41 years that they are preparing for all options. there will be prepared to execute whatever political beoices are -- shthey will prepared to execute whatever political and choices are made. host: retired brigadier general david reist. he is now with the atomic institute for policy studies. let's go to sarah, -- the potomac institute for policy

studies. let's go to sarah. you are on with david reist. caller: i am a democrat. i disagree with the whole thing. i had a grandson in afghanistan. i do not dislike the military. i was in the military myself. after 10 years, the afghan economic growth is in the opium, which nobody really disputes. some of that opium ends up over here and in our kids. i do not understand why people do not deal with that. we have created a generation of amputees for no reason. host: what would you like to see happen now? guest: i did not want us to go in in the first place. 9/11 was caused by 19 saudis. host: what do we do now since we cannot change the past? how do we go forward?

caller: i think this withdrawal should continue. the afghans have had 10 years to get together. we chose the wrong man to rule. maybe we could correct that while we're pulling out. i would like to see something happen where the women are not going to be mistreated, but i do not see any strong urge by the military to care about that. i would like to see schools -- i would like to see schools here, but i would like to see schools there. it is still a mess. guest: first of all, thank you for your grandson's service. i think a lot of people feel the way that you do at this point in time. i believe that is the president's tone especially of late. he made a comment that we chose the wrong man to lead. -- you made a comment that we chose the wrong man to lead. we cannot put people in power. we have to settle the -- set up

the environment where elections can be held, and then the people of that country can choose. we want those elections to be fair and honest, and that is the end state we're trying to get to. there is a balancing. we have the national will. from the callers i hundred so far, there are not many who are for -- heard from so far, there are not many who are for staying. we have debt and deficit issues. we have a lot of issues that will play into the strategy of how we employ our military forces. we have to do the right message -- have to send the right message to the world. host: she also said that she would like to see women get more rights in the afghanistan, she would like to see more schools built. how do you balance those goals

with her concerns about the lives of the american forces and how much has been invested? guest: i think it just takes time. we are talking about a cultural shift in a part of the world that we're not too sensitive to here. it would be like going to the middle of our country and another country imposing a cultural shift on us. do we like that those things do not exist for the treatment of women? we would like to see the schools. i think sarah is exactly right. those things started to happen in iraq. the coltrane shipped in the muslim society -- cultural shift in most of society is going to take some time. we have to be patient -- in the muslim society is going to take some time. we have to be patient. host: on twitter --

to follow up on your comments from a moment ago, how much of responsibility is there to do nation-building -- how much of of responsibility is there to do nation-building -- of a responsibility is there to do nation-building? the military has the capacity. whether it is structured to -- the answer is probably no. the men and women serving in uniform are given a mission. they will figure out how to do it and do it well. when we look at the nation- building side, who does that for our country? there have been comments made of late that nation-building needs to happen at home before it happens any place else. i might offer that we are a great enough nation that we could probably do both. there are fiscal issues with

that. if we are not filling that void throughout the world, one has to ask who is. host: mike, independent line, shelby, n.c. last chance. caller: yes. if the taliban is allowed to come back in in substantial numbers, does the general thing they will allow al qaeda to also come back -- think they will allow al qaeda to also come back? guest: i think the taliban is waiting in the wings. will they look like they did before? maybe, but probably not. the taliban will look to plug in with whatever support they can gain. if we look at iraq and we continue to see the bombings that are occurring, we've seen

things can slowly working their way back as a troop draw down occurs. even with the police force and the army force that was trained in iraq. we have to watch from our intel side what the taliban looks like, what tactics they are employing, and then how that is plugging in with al-qaeda writ large. that could be a danger. host: brigadier-general david reist is our guest. ihe is retired from the u.s. marine corps. caller: i'd think we need the withdrawal. -- i think we need a withdrawal. we need to stop trying to police the rest of the world. our country is floundering. we need to have it read again. we cannot take care of the world. i believe in -- have it in great

again. i believe in helping people, but sometimes when you help people, you are enabling them. they are using us as a crutch. we need to put our resources back in our nation. guest: thank you. at enabling behavior, ironically -- that enabling behavior, ironically, i have heard that described for some of our own into government programs in our country. this will be difficult. this is not an easy task for anyone. we're in a situation that i talked about before, where our national will, our fiscal posture, how we use military force throughout the world, how we employing nation-building -- employ nation-building, how we take the ideals of the united states and have them be effective throughout the world

-- if we do not do those things, who else will? what will be the effect of that? host: looking at a couple of news stories. this is from the associated press. another story says that pakistani intelligence officials sasay the gunman killed a senio pakistani taliban leader. how do we balance that troop drawdown? hguest: we need them to pull out of the country.

you can withdraw troops, libby, by air, but that equipment that needs to come out, there will be policy guidance that will set forth what equipment can be left, possilby, -- possibly, to assist the stand-up of the army and police, but there is some gear we are going to want to bring home, and that can not all happen with -- cannot all happen with air. those who don't -- any way we can make it happen, we need to keep doing it. we need to chase the bad people to the end of the earth znand kill them. host: how do you focus your efforts and make sure you are going to the best place?

"the new york times" had the report on pakistan. we're talking about afghanistan. how do you pick the focus? guest: it all starts with intel. you have to take a global picture. you have to see who is going to do was the most harm. those areas that are most harmful to us have to be targeted. we have to take care of the problems. host: let's hear from mike in los angeles on our democrats' line. caller: i am retired air force, so this is a sort of military question. do you, in your military opinion, think that the afghan military can take over militarily, considering most of the afghan military is a literate and not a very well- educated -- electric -- ill iterate and not very well-

educated? guest: it does not have to be to our standard. it has to be good enough to pass muster in their country. the things that are being done right now, and lieutenant general caldwell has the dime on this. i worked with him in iraq. there is not a greater man to oversee this issue. he is trying to bring them up to speed. those issues that you talked about are important, but i will go back to the standard that they need in their country to conduct affairs, not the u.s. standard. we. confuse -- we cannot confuse that. we would like them to be as proficient as our military, but considering what we spend on our military, where we draw from,

they do not have that -- that luxury, so we will see how this unfolds. this is quantitate time to build this police force, this army -- this is going to take time to build this police force and this army. it will take weeks, months, years. host: we have a caller on the independent line. caller: thank you pour c-span -- for c-span. i 110% support the troops.t -- troops. they are the best men and world the world has ever seen. i do not -- they're the best men and women of the world has ever seen. i do not support their mission

for "peace." we are there securing oil fields. when the russians were there in the 1980's, they were trying to steal oil. we have no right or reason to be there. the military should come home as soon as possible. eyes fully support the withdrawal -- i fully support the withdrawal. guest: afghanistan is a very rich country in resources before -- resources. before that can be tapped, the situation has to be improved. the same argument could be applied to iraq. the same things are happening in that country. when you look at the vital interests of the united states and what we need for strategic minerals for our continued success, here is a balancing act

on the globe that statesmen need to look at and consider all options. sometimes, they aren't pretty. host: a reader from twitter wants to hear about contractors, nation building, and military contributions. if contractors really step into troop -- their place, is it really a drawdown? guest: i think that is spot-on. just because we take military personnel out of a country, there will probably be someone to serve as a contractor to make those things happen. it might look like it is a gain, but that could be a shell game sometimes on where that pea is and where is being hidden. we cannot lose sight on what our

objectives are as a nation, what afghanistan want our objectives to be, and how we can use military and contracted personnel to bring all of that to light. host: david, republican caller. caller: good morning, general. thank you for your service. i served in vietnam and in the gulf war. my question to you is, why are we the only country in the world that telegraphs our comings and goings and what we're doing, logistic-wise, troop-wise -- to telegraph to the enemies of the world what we are doing? why are those men and women that go there with their cameras --

why are they not doing recon for us and giving you folks the information, instead of coming home and splitting the country up in three different ways? host: by the photographers, do you mean journalists? caller: yes. host: two different questions. let's start with the idea that the u.s., in david's claim, is the only country that lets the enemy know our plan. do other countries do that? what is the ramifications? guest: that is the curse of having a very open press. i was not going to talk about troop strengths, numbers, locations, for just that reason. you can have a discourse about strategy and policies.

when you start targeting numbers, that helps the enemy. he can find out, but let's make it more difficult. the media will cover every single day of this. it will not be just the u.s., but everyone. the national will of every other country is going to be impacted by how this story -- this story is reported every night, whether it is on the television news or social networks. chelsea, minn.to esota. caller: good morning are retired brigadier-general -- the morning, a retired brigadier general -- good morning, retired

brigadier-general david reist. guest: and general petraeus is taking over the cia, i believe that is what you're talking about. i think that is a natural progression. mr. panetta is going to replace gates. petraeus has demonstrated that he is a very -- he is very in- tune with what the intel community brings to the fight. he has leverage that in iraq and afghanistan. -- leveraged that in iraq and afghanistan. that is why our nation, when they look for someone to be the next leader of the cia, general petraeus was the choice. obviously, he rose to the top. host: let's look at the numbers we do know about with the planned troop draw down --

drawdown. there are about 100,000 troops there now. the president has plans to withdraw 10,000 by the end of this year, 23,000 by the end of 2012. let's go to ohio. good morning. caller: i do not want your campaign speech here. what precisely would happen, exactly, if we just picked up and left tomorrow? guest: i do not know what would happen, and i do not know anybody who does. host: if the president says we

are getting out by 2014, it is not a dramatic pullout that millie is asking for, but it is an end that will come sooner rather than later. guest: i do not mean to be flippant with my response. americans want to know what the end state is. the nuances of what happens in the war and the complexity of what happens on the ground is unbelievably complex. if we just left, there is no telling what would happen. there is no telling how we might be attacked or if everyone would just open the door and let us march south to the ports and just take our equipment, get on ships, and fly home. we would love that to be the case. we have seen throughout history, especially in afghanistan, that every force that has withdrawn from afghanistan has done so under pressure from the enemy -- every single one.

our military planners have probably embraced this historical fact and they are preparing for the worst. we have to get out of there. we have to bring out the equipment that we're going to have to bring out. we have to deal with the policies and turning over equipment. but i cannot emphasize enough that the rest of the world is watching this. what i mean is it especially the adversarial side of this -- how we handle situations like this, where the chinks are in our armor. it is extremely important. cutting and running might be the perfect game -- thing righ tnow -- thing that it seems to do because of the national will and fiscal pressures and things like that, but there are second and third-order effects that we have to deal with, maybe not today,

but our kids will have to deal with that. we are a global power and a global leader. we cannot forget that. host: you mentioned earlier that when we talk about end goals and objectives, it is not just the u.s. there are other allies and the afghan people. how do you look at those elements playing out over the next year? we cannot predict how it will play out, but give us a sense of how that will come into play. how will the u.s. operators await what nato had said -- say? what natio has to guest: david petraeus will continue to do with karzai as general john allen takes over. there may be some legitimate reform of the karzai

administration. we want to see everything done above board. it does not always happen. we will continue to watch for those things. we will be on the lookout for the things that pose themselves in the worst light for u.s. and allied action, for some of our allies who have larger for structure -- force structure. even those who have small structure and therefore reason. they will have a voice in how things are done -- have a small structure are there for a reason. they will have a voice in how things are done. host: on twitter -- was our mission to get bin laden? guest: i'd think the mission had

several elements -- i think the mission had several elements. getting bin laden was a great thing. there are other leaders. the question was asked earlier. we have a global scope on this. when we squeeze in afghanistan, we're going to see the bad element go elsewhere. we are going to have to chase them. eventually, she tried are going to do something somewhere that will impact our nation -- they are going to do something somewhere that will impact our nation. caller: you and others refer t o "they," that if we withdraw too quickly, "they" will come back in and reconstitute out the

debt and aid the -- reconstitute al qaeda and aid the taliban. who are "they"? guest: "they" are the bad elements that, when there is a vacuum, "they" fill it. it happens throughout the globe. it will happen in afghanistan. it is happening in iraq where we cannot have a continuous program with eyes on target 24/7. these are the sorts of things where we, our allies, hopefully present karzai -- president karzai will be watching for. we had to -- have to ensure that we keep vigilant and hopefully

with the 24/7 presence that is the bubbly trained -- capably trained to keep "they," that " them" that we are talking about, off of the street. host: you talk about how vacuums are created. the caller said, why don't you just go after the bad elements? we may be going to pakistan, yemen, other places. how do you continue that process when many of our callers have expressed weariness of war? pulling back, yet continuing? guest: you go after the biggest threat. it all starts with the intel. it all starts with the intel.