constitution and create a video illustrating why it is important . our competition is open to all middle school and high school students, grades six through 12. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. $5,000 willize of go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website. >> here on c-span, "washington journal" is next. take you to be bipartisan policy center for discussion on u.s.-turkey relations. whiphe house minority talks about how do we address the opioid epidemic. today's "washington journal,", we look at u.s. involvement in afghanistan by getting your reaction by phone,

facebook, and twitter, and we sit down with john sopko, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction to talk about the latest report. ♪ host: good morning on this monday, november 27. congress is back for what is expected to be at least three weeks of work. some are calling it a year and -- year-end sprint of work. president will be meeting with congressional leaders early this week to talk about all of it. at the same time, plenty of news from overseas, including one headline that says "victory or failure in afghanistan? 2018 will be the deciding year."

that is our focus for the full "washington journal." should the u.s. stay or leave afghanistan? if you think the u.s. should stay, call (202) 748-8000. if you think they should leave, (202) 748-8001. we have a separate line for afghanistan veterans. we look forward to hearing your opinion. your number is (202) 748-8002. if not by phone, weigh in on social media. @cspanwj is our twitter handle. also post a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. to start us off on afghanistan theamela constable, afghanistan and pakistan bureau chief for the "washington post." howt us off by reminding us long the u.s. has been in afghanistan now and what is the current situation? guest: well, it has been 16 years since the taliban was overthrown and the u.n. brought

in a new government, which in 2002.y took office the fighting was actually a bit but it did of again around 2005, 2006. we are really talking 11 years of intense conflict against the taliban insurgency. ups and downs. there have been a lot of difficulties getting the afghan defense forces in shape. the united states has sent militaryof dollars on aid, military troops being there, as well as aiding the government to simply support itself over these many years. the taliban are still hanging in acrossnd causing mayhem the country. now we have this new policy,

what with a new president and new generals, trying to ramp things up in a way that has not been done in a while. we do not know how things will go. haul. will be a long it will be a tough battle. i do not think any american official, here or in washington, thinks otherwise. it is not an easy fight, and it is not over. host: how many u.s. troops are in afghanistan at this point? what are their current roles? what will be the biggest single challenge moving forward? i would not say how many there are today. it is supposed to go up to about $13,000 -- it is physical up to about 13,000. tois probably on the way 8000 or 9000 or more. they will particularly focus on recruiting and training and expanding the size of the afghan

special operations forces. who are working a lot on counterterrorism, which means against the islamic state specifically. and also training them to work to fight against the taliban. another thing they are doing is trying to expand and professionalize the afghan air force. the united states has provided many aircraft. they are in the process of bringing in more than 150 black hawk helicopters to train afghan pilots to fly them in a combat field. and a number of other things. one thought is by adding more troops, they will be able to advise afghan troops at a more basic level and in the field, so to speak. it will be mostly advising and training rather than engaging in direct combat, but working much more closely at a lower level with afghan forces themselves.

nother priority, which does directly involve the troops but is a top priority for both the afghan and the american governments is improve the leadership of the afghan military, particularly fighting corruption and poor management at the top of the afghan defense forces. plate. very full again, a remains to be seen how far it is going to go. certainly, the u.s. and afghanistan are very much on the same chart at this point. they have worked out this joint roadmap for the next several years, which they're are working very closely together on. ofthe last administration president karzai, there was not a good rapport the two governments have now. host: explained the stability of the government -- explain the stability of the afghan government. it is stable in the sense

that i think it is not going to collapse tomorrow or the next day. by it has been really racked internal division. it has a lot of serious problems. as you may recall, when the government took office, it was not the result of a clean and clear election, it was the result of diplomatic negotiations essentially forced by the united states. that has not gone well. the two people in power have not -- gotten along. they have patched things up recently, but the divisions within the government and the political atmosphere surrounding the government is still quite fluid. there is tension. there is a lot of pressure.

there is a lot of political machinations going on right now. everyone is in a pre-election mode, wondering what is going to happen. the current government essentially is no longer outlivede, because it its mandate. its mandate as a temporary joint government ended after two years. the parliament has also not been legitimate the last two years, has outlivedoo, its mandate. basically, you have both the executive and legislative branches of government not enjoying constitutional or legal legitimacy. there is a great deal of public lack of confidence and disillusionment in that situation. it will not collapse tomorrow, on track to to get transition to another government in the future. host: we appreciate this update and set up in afghanistan.

we should point out you are in pakistan. there is this headline that you wrote -- antigovernment protests in pakistan enter a second day, but most are peaceful. what has been happening in pakistan and why is it significant? guest: what has happened is a religious group has launched some protests weeks ago against ,hings they did not like changes in a political law. we can go over those later. startedy, the protests several weeks ago and i was allowed to keep growing. several thousand protesters ended up blocking the major highway between the capital and its neighboring, large city. -- stronger. becoming the government is not doing

anything about it. it has been forced by the supreme court to do something, so they sent in riot police early saturday morning. demonstrators fought back and fought hard. host: pamela constable is the "washington post" afghanistan and pakistan bureau chief. we are losing connection, but we want to say thank you. not sure if you can hear us. but thanks for the update. we are spending the full "washington journal" talking about afghanistan today. we are taking your phone calls and going through orchards of specter with the general for afghanistan reconstruction, john sopko. we will talk with him in person starting at 9:00 eastern time. adam is our first call for this segment. clayton, north carolina.

an afghan veteran. good morning. caller: good morning. afghanistan, it is a complicated situation. there are many moving parts to understand. and how the provinces really feud back and forth with each other. the american infiltration into afghanistan has done many things to try to secure what they say is a freedom concept. but really, what it has done has just emboldened the groups that are there under a religious context to band together. the special forces, that unit disassembles constantly, because it is simply not held together

, and quite often, they are infiltrated by people who turn green on green, afghan folks turning on each other. i will summarize this and just say if they take a lesson from the brits, who went through there -- i think it was general who said the less the afghan people see of us, the less they hate us. they have been in war constantly, since genghis khan. that is the truth. we have no business there. we need to leave that country. the things that are the tantamount successes in afghanistan are not the things that are reported, because war is being perpetuated. as a veteran myself and as ofebody who has experience booze on the ground in afghanistan, i will tell you now -- remember this -- the less they cms, the less they hate us

just the less they see of us, the less they hate us. host: joe has been waiting from silver springs, maryland. do you think the u.s. should stay in afghanistan? caller: i think we should stay. i want to make three very quick points. first is that place has been under war since 1979. it has been wracked internally by war and division. and war before that. it is a place -- it will take a long time for them to sort out a very tangled mess, for them to be able to organized affairs in a way that is not so complicated , is not so messy, and does not breed instability. the second point i would like to make is the place will collapse the same weight iraq collapsed -- the same way iraq collapse.

we will be faced with a choice of either having to go back into deal with the issue or just let the region found -- fend for itself and deal with the extremism that comes out of a collapse like that. the most that can possibly be reduced is a positive-negative, which is essentially keep them from collapsing. , but that reevaluate is ultimately the choice, in my opinion. host: thank you for calling. another viewer who thinks the u.s. should stay in afghanistan is john. he is coming -- he is calling from new york. caller: how are you doing? for starters, we promised the therei's, when we went in in 2001, in exchange for

information and be in on our side, we would not leave. we've promised our allies we would not leave you here. we will not leave you and let the taliban comeback p that is --st and foremost are you and let the taliban, that is first and foremost. secondly, that is a place they will gather to project their hate america. might as well be there. kill them there than here. overseas, a mole thousands of miles away from us. thank you for listening. host: the words of john there. here are some comments on our facebook page. garland writes that you have to look at the geopolitical ramifications of a premature withdrawal of military forces. this is a much more complicated issue than you could imagine.

doug wright's we should first thoroughly listen to the best militaryom our best leaders. it is a convoluted conflict. , it mustide to leave be in the right manner. there have been too many lives taken and national treasure expended for this to be a knee-jerk political decision. some of the details around the afghanistan war -- it started on october 7, two thousand one. this according to the inspector general, the department of defense. it is the longest war in u.s. history. reconstruction costs since 2001 -- $714 billion. 2350.ead, u.s. wounded, 20,000. for -- dline, victory

the trump administration says it has everything it needs to win, but it needs to be proven right. -- "u.s. news and world report." from st. louis, what do you think about this? caller: i think we should stay, mostly. it is not a war you can win immediately. -- fighting over troops and stability takes a long time. there is also a fact that a lot of the tribes do not like each other there. i know people who have served

there. it will take a long time to get it done. afghanistan -- afghanistan is an easy war -- afghanistan is an easy place to start a war. it is hard to get out. host: anthony is calling in. caller: i would draw your attention to an article in the "new york times" by barbara crow 9/11.four months after taliban's baneads on opium, a success. success. if you read further into that article, what it is implying is that if the invasion was all about the freeing up of the opium product. it is though -- it is as though

this war was started. and look at the cities. they cured disease in our city. look at where we are now. ever since we got in there, we are protecting the production of opium. opium cropworld's comes from afghanistan. and here we are, right after 9/11, what a great excuse. not to mention the military-industrial complex. donald trump just sold a ton of weapons to saudi arabia. they are the ones who attacked us on 9/11. afghanistan have nothing to do it. i would ask you to pull of this article to discuss it. host: there is a related piece to what anthony is talking about. it is in the "hill." it says the u.s. has begun bombing the telegram, opium plant -- metallic an -- the

plants inpium afghanistan. the military said it dropped bombs on labs where insurgents turned opium --turned poppy into heroin. this from general john nicholson, the commander of the nato-led operation resolution support. taliban makes the yeartimated $200 million a producing opium. and the strikes took out 10 laps. we have mark from massachusetts. market thinks we should leave afghanistan. tell us why. caller: i am looking at a worldwide effective of how the world has been divided by the imperial period. and lines in divisions between countries go through ethnic

areas. i just returned from tanzania. that wethese problems see around the world are due to the fact that these lines were drawn in berlin and paris and london and affect the whole world for decades. after theyes now were drawn. i do not know how to unravel them. i think that is the area that needs to be addressed more than dealing with the governments. host: thank you. douglas calling from maryland. douglas thinks we should leave. tell us your view. caller: we need to learn from history and follow its lessons. the last call and the call from adam were very good. us, the they see of less they hate us. look at vietnam. we could have learned from that. what do they enemies call the vietnam war colloquially?

"the american war." before that, they were fighting the french. before that, the japanese. before that, the chinese. it never works with outside invaders. people will fight forever. the same happened in afghanistan. they will fight us forever. they fought the russians forever until they gave up. they fought the brits forever until they gave up. alexander the great gave up. it does not work. you cannot go in and tell people how to organize their country. the last call was great, because he point out the borders make no sense. iraq is a country of sunnis, shiites, a few christians, and kurds. it makes no sense. that is truly what we need to work on, not invading and telling them how they need to organize and run their country. we are devoting the full three-hour "washington journal" on afghanistan. if you think the u.s. should

stay, call (202) 748-8000. if you think the u.s. should leave, it is 8001. (202) 748-8002 is a third line afghanistan veterans. michael writes on twitter that the tribal nature of afghanistan makes western-style government and u.s. at best -- tenuous at best. kevin writes if you cannot get it done in 16 years, it is not happening. recently, the special investigator for afghanistan reconstruction -- the special theector, the sigar, general inspector for afghanistan reconstruction john sopko. we have clips from a recent hearing he had on capitol hill. had aboute round he

his recent trips to afghanistan and what he thought the situation was. [video clip] >> you get to meet a lot of folks on the ground. just the average american. if they were to come up to you and say what is going on in afghanistan, the elevator speech you give them? >> it is a stalemate. it aig question is is stalemate going down or is it a stalemate going up? i do not have a good answer for that, sir. sigar's lessons learned report -- what would you say the bottom line of that report is? >> the bottom line is the u.s. government was ill-prepared to conduct a security sector mission. they did not understand the size and scope of what they were facing. our normal security sector assistance is towards a developed country. helping the turks with a new

weapons system. helping the koreans with a new personnel system. this was designing and building an entire military and police force. the other problem is we were totally misaligned and our capabilities with their needs. disorganized. lly understand and utilize nato for the things they could provide. have detailed a number of problems with giving to complicated systems -- giving too complicated systems. having u.s. military offers trying to teach police. having air force pilots teaching police. having people who know nothing about personnel systems teaching ministries on how to develop personnel systems. that was the big problem we found. those are the findings and lessons. host: that was john sopko, the

special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. also this headline at nbc news. still a stalemate. a top commander, general john nicholson, told nbc news the war remains in a stalemate, but the president's new strategy has reversed a decline. into thisy 90 days new policy, but with u.s. forces arriving and the new authority we have been given will put pressure on external enablers. of the conditions to win. the article points out as well that nicholson called out russia and pakistan specifically for enabling the taliban and explain his decision to detonate the ordnancerdinance -- air blast bomb, known colloquially as the "mother of all bombs."

jim on the line now. what do you think the u.s. should do? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we should leave afghanistan. war a 65-year-old vietnam veteran. it concerns me that, as a nation, we did not learn any lessons from the vietnam conflict. for instance, once the united states places a troop on foreign soil, we never know how many troops will have to follow. i was listening to the comments that ms. pamela constable was making. it brings back memories of the statesion, of the united trying to prop up a corrupt government in vietnam, which is what she was saying about afghanistan. what we am unsure about are trying to accomplish in afghanistan. what does success in afghanistan really look like? host: how would you answer that

question? what do you think success looks like? caller: i am not sure. that is my question. i am not sure what our final goal is. blogger previous callers were saying, we have been over there 16 years -- off and on -- and the clear-cut goal of our end goal, i am not sure. i am sure a lot of american people feel the same way. what are we trying to accomplish? is calling on the line of why you think the u.s. should leave. tell us why. caller: they should leave, because the money being sent to assign this are for private military. made byer a statement gorbachev. he said the american people are the most brainwashed people in the world.

we believe whatever our government tells us. when has america ever cared about any brown skinned people enough to stay in their country almost over 20 years, under the cover of helping them set up their government and helping their people be more protected from those around them? when we have black people dying every day and shot down by police in our own country. some -- not all -- some of those same military people come back and march with white supremacist in our country. the only reason the united states would stay in that country of that magnitude is if there is something in that country of value to them. you read it in the article. those opioid feels. that is why they are over there. opioids that hit this country did not hit this country by accident. that is what they are over there for.

whatever reason they do with them, those opioids end up in this country. host: from marie to ron, calling from kentucky. an afghanistan veteran. first, tell us about your experience and what you think the situation is over there. caller: am i on air right now? host: you are. caller: i am 20 years retired from the army. i joined in 1982. desert -- i went to storm, somalia, and i was in afghanistan right after 9/11. the army right now is broke. thereve people going over doing war crimes. i protected all of my people. is really trained anymore. they do not have any ethics classes. they shoot anybody.

it is basically a mess over there. they should pull out. we are a white anglo-saxon christian country. occupy a muslim country. that just does not work. host: anything else? caller: it's just -- it's generational now. i was actually trained. people are not trained now. they go to basic training and end up in a war. you cannot do that. i was in the army eight years before i went to my first conflict. to basic training and do not even shoot your weapon, you commit to a war, murder on your own people. you understand? you have soldiers -- this is stupid. i talk to these young guys all the time. are not trained.

they do not know what they are doing. host: the voice from ron, oak grove, kentucky. we have another two and have hours on afghanistan, looting john sopko, the special inspector general for --hanistan reconstruction including john sopko, the forial inspector general afghanistan reconstruction. according to new figures, the u.s. air force has dropped 3,554 since october 31. this is almost three times the 1,337 they dropped in 2016 and almost four times the figure from 2015. this is consistent with the new strategy trump announced in august to see the presence of u.s. soldiers expanded. here is john sopko at the recent

hearing, talking to democratic result of -- representative val deming of florida. [video clip] >> you said in the quarterly that the congress retroactive action on the afghan defense and national defense and security forces will "hinder" your work. my colleague spoke somewhat about the classification system, the retroactive classification system. youou believe -- i think have answered in the affirmative of this, but you believe the american public should continue basice access to have data on the afghan national security forces? >> yes, i do. since they are paying for it. >> earlier this week, the "new york times" reported that navy totain defended the decision

classified information, saying it was done at the afghan government's request. is that appropriate justification for the dod to classify previously unclassified information based on a request from the afghan government. why or why not? >> i do not, because i believe in transparency. and i think the loss of transparency is that, not only for us but for the afghan people. the truth will set you free. i think somebody else said but it will be uncomfortable in the beginning. presidentat i told ghani. the stuff that was classified -- the taliban know this. the afghans know about it. the u.s. military knows about it. the only people who do not know are the people paying for it

area you that as your constituent. everyone of you who pays taxes. i think the american taxpayer has a right to know how their money is being spent and whether it is succeeding or not. , the onlyssify this people who will not know what is going on in afghanistan are the people who are paying for it. >> has dod provided you with any other justification for classifying metrics that were previously unclassified? if so, what was it? >> the only justification we the afghans did not want it released. the second justification was a reinterpretation of some policy on trask -- on classification. but they never gave us a copy of the policy. the other telling thing is they will not identify who classified the material. host: we will talk to mr. socko about that later -- mr. sopko about that later. here's another headline.

and $120 billion spent on reconstruction, the afghan national defense and security forces are alarmingly unprepared to take on the resurgent taliban who has slowly territory. they asked exactly how unprepared? we may never really know, says business insider. the second time, u.s. forces, afghanistan has classified and restricted once public information regarding the state of afghanistan security forces, including casualties, personal strength, capability assessment, and operational readiness of equipment. all key measures of the country's security woes. you can read that on business week. john is on the line now. do you think the u.s. should stay in afghanistan? caller: i think we should stay, because we ought to finish.

beingf our military is used by israel, because all this is is about who controls the middle east controls the world. that is what it is not so much about color, it is about territory. that is the center of the earth. so whoever controls the middle east controls the earth. our military is being used at israel to go around the whole earth. thank you for calling. william is on the line now from here in washington, d.c. what do you think? should the u.s. stay or leave afghanistan? caller: the u.s. should leave afghanistan. they should never have even gone to afghanistan. the whole idea about terrorist safe haven and a failed state is a complete myth.

handediban would have over bin laden if they were capable of doing so, had we negotiated. or pay them. we did not have to have this trillion dollar war. terrorist training camp, what visual image comes to mind? ak-47's onihad garb, their back, scurrying across monkey bars. we have all seen footage of that. we do not know where they came from. what do monkey bars have to do with hijacking airplanes? simulators, u.s. driver's licenses, those were the tools the terrorist used to perpetrate 911. none of those are available in afghanistan. we should want them to be in afghanistan, because that is one country we can bomb whenever we want. it is ridiculous at this point. a complete waste of money. there is a great book i would recommend about going to

afghanistan. it is called "fool's errand," by scott horton. i think you should have scott horton interviewed on c-span at some point, because he is an expert on the subject. host: thanks for calling. to the line for those who think that the u.s. should stay in afghanistan, david -- joel. caller: good morning. i think we should stay, because we have not done the primary source of that funding. we have to eliminate the obm -- opium crops in afghanistan. it solves the problem of the war, where they get their money, and solve the open your problem in the united states at the same time. host: anything else? caller: i think it is patently obvious that the united states does not want to treat the real

problem. i have spoken to you guys before when you had the commander on about the war. he says it is not our purview to take care of the opium problem. host: thank you for calling. jay has been waiting. jay thinks the u.s. should leave. explain your thinking. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for the opportunity, first of all. my point is what a refreshing thing it is to hear the inspector general layout in plain english and say it is messed up, messed up from the get-go. -- thatwhen something like was a possibility, all of the issues in the treatment of people, the disrespect of these

people's culture. at the same time, that you will carpet bomb it, you will get all of these people to vacuum up and say sure, -- back you up and say we will back your cause, it sense.o they will try to wait it out. the only substantial thing that came out of afghanistan was the billions and billions of minerals they are apparently sitting on. it is just a hostile war zone. they are trying to clean that up. but the whole thing about the obm and all of this -- obm -- opium, the only thing i see coming out of this is more civilians dying, more young men and women going out there and coming back, unfortunately, scarred. with nobody here to take care of them when they come back.

it is complicated. it is passed my pay grade. but this is absolutely ridiculous nonsense. host: thank you for calling. we have other callers who want to get in. we are doing this for the full three-hour washington journal today. later, we will talk to john sopko, the special into the -- the special inspector general. here is the front cover of the latest report they put out october 30, the quarterly report that sigar makes to the united states congress. congress for this position together. if you type "sopko" on , youn.org, our database can see his latest hearing that we covered it we have a small piece from that hearing again. congresswoman walter jones, now, talking to john sopko and getting his thoughts on the need for what he calls a new debate for afghanistan. [video clip]

>> i will tell you truthfully, there are at least 90 members of the house, both parties, that were not here in 2001. i was here in 2001. consistently for 16 years -- i am on the armed services committee -- it distresses me as a taxpayer. i have the marine base camp in district. i have active duty and retirees who have been to afghanistan 5, 6, and seven times. they say nothing will ever change. that has nothing to do with the work you and your staff do. you are the truth tellers. the problem is congress continues to pass bills to waste money over there. we cannot even get a debate. my last point, very quickly, if noware here 10 years from -- i will not be here 10 years from now -- would you be willing

to tell the american members of congress, the american people, who are now financially broke as a nation, have done all about what they can do in afghanistan? , i do not don policy, i do process. but i do promise, the first day i am out of this job, because it is not my job to top policy, i am happy to publicly tell you what i really think about our mission in afghanistan. until then, it is not my job to do that. i support this committee, the chairman, the ranking member, for holding the hearings. i am a history buff. there is a famous quote -- give the people the facts. the country will be free. that is what our job is. we give you the facts. you, as the policymakers, decide whatever you do. i think congressman welch was very accurate on that.

whatever side you are on this issue, i just state the facts. i am mike lee umpire. -- i am like the umpire. some people may not like me. but i am still supporting the game. that is what my job is. your job is to take those facts and handle them appropriately. host: more of your calls now. robert from alabama says the u.s. should leave afghanistan. tell us why. caller: good morning. we should have had another category of never should have been paid you cannot go back to that. with guns,ople making those weapons, those it is adollar missiles, shame. i am 81 years old. i am afraid for my grandchildren. this is the place where the blood will run, in the western

hemisphere. that was invaded by european groups. i heard the best news of the african-american lady -- she was exactly right. we are not talking all europeans here. there are some good ones. but most here are for themselves. my maternal grandfather was in the army. baby brother was in the army. my baby brother was in vietnam. when they came back, they had worse treatment than they were treating soldiers over there. this country is the one that messed up. this is the one you have to get straight. the blood will be here, worse than anything i believe we have seen than anything in the wars united states has perpetrated. i know we have good people, but

they had to follow. the rich people never send their children. they collect the revenue made over there. in woodbridge.se caller: i believe we should pull out of afghanistan. i served in the military until 2010. i have a global perspective for being -- from being deployed. we need to pull out because we have done our part. collaborated with the nation of afghanistan. we have tried to encourage other nations to get involved. there is not enough equity. basically, our focus has been in so many directions. we need to really bring our ideas back at home, re-strategize, say to ourselves what else do we think we need to do? what else can we do better?

within ourandpoint own shores. other nations need to get involved. other nations should take the lead. i understand the strategic value , when we are trying to respond to threats globally or even in that region. however, we half to pull back now. -- we have to pull back now. we have different priorities within our own borders, different priorities in terms of our values. i think we need to pull out of afghanistan. we have enough to focus on. we have to focus on keeping our country more secure within our own borders, focus on our own values, before we try to go back to shake another nation. thanks for calling. sean thinks the u.s. should stay. good morning. i believe we should stay basically because the afghan forces are not ready to take over. they have made a ton of

progress, which i truly appreciate. but leaving now will only allow the taliban to take over and kill innocent civilians. another thing is although -- and i appreciate the veteran who spoke about this matter and how we should leave -- the mission has changed. ever since the previous president announced that we are pulling troops out, we have seen an increase in isis activity and bombing. i know isis is diminishing, but the mission has changed. the afghans are ready to take over. nato troops and afghan are helping to rebuild and protect their society, which is great, but leaving afghanistan would be a huge mess. especially since there are still telegram -- taliban all around afghanistan. things will become more unstable than ever before. leaving the job incomplete will be one of the biggest disasters our government has done.

the u.s. went in there initially, which i do not agree with. we have to finish our job before leaving. host: thanks for calling. plenty of other news as congress be atin for what will least a three-week session. --ch the house on c-span on and the senate on c-span 2. as the goplines, nears a critical vote, it shows the first family coming back from florida over the weekend. the president, for tax cuts. from a tweet -- senate republicans will hopefully, through for all of us. that is at the hill.com. the washington post -- urgent agenda awaits on hill. for a deal before a government shutdown. the lawmakers to do list includes taxes, daca, and more. they remind us government

funding expires december 8. that is in the washington post. "wall street journal, congress prepares for a year-end sprint. they remind us that the senate could actually vote this week on tax legislation. there is also the controversy over the past few days on the consumer financial protection bureau. the cfpb will -- begin work with two people who are claiming to be chief of the wall street policing agency in what is shaping up to be the latest battle between the president and the antitrust resistance. mulvaney named mick friday the acting director, while keeping his omb job. it spread to the courts. the "times" that trump is moving

to counter richard cordray, who announced a deputy director. cordray is up for retirement, which he says makes leandra english the acting director before mr. mulvaney could set foot in the door. over the weekend on some of the sunday talk shows, we had dick durbin, senator from illinois, lindsey graham, senator from north carolina. they were asked about this issue. [video clip] >> you can turn to dodd-frank, the cosponsors of the legislation. i read the provision. when the director steps aside, that deputy director shall be in charge of the agency. not "may." "shall be" in charge. now there's an effort to push mick mulvaney into power. this was the agency that fined

wells fargo. it's a watchdog agency. wall street hates it like the devil hates holy water. trying to end it. but the statue is clear. >> who do you think is in charge of the consumer financial protection agency? >> i think the president is on good grounds to appoint someone. in terms of the agency, it is the most out-of-control federal agency in washington. no oversight at all. they can get into anybody's business. i do not think they do much in consumer protection. find midsized banks that had nothing to do with the financial collapse. host: safe to assume we will hear more on the cfpb position.

again, congress in this week for a three-week pre-christmas rush. lots of legislation coming. we could see that tax bill on the senate floor as early as tomorrow. back to afghanistan, should the u.s. stay or leave? jacqueline, thank you. you have been very patient. from flint, michigan. thank you for calling. caller: you're welcome. i believe they should leave. host: how come? caller: and they did what they had to do. they took out their target, osama bin laden. host: you think that was the only mission they had? caller: yes. they should not have been there in the first place. they took up a target, osama bin laden. they should head over to saudi arabia as well. host: are you still with us? caller: i am here. host: i wanted to ask you about

what some folks on the opposite side might say, that if the u.s. were to leave, that afghanistan could again become a haven for terrorist. what do you think of that? caller: then i believe they should stay. host: paul thinks the u.s. should stay. there are only two reasons to stay. al qaedaof -- first is has returned. isis is there as well. has 200 to 300 soldiers, al qaeda about 500. they are still disruptive. left and afghanistan fell

to the taliban, they would become more disruptive all over the world. it is not a member -- a matter of monkey bars. for 9/11al planning certainly took place in afghanistan. it would continue all over the world. if they had a true safe haven under the taliban. the second reason to stay, which is becoming more diminished, is we are attempting to train the afghan army and police. this is extremely difficult. we probably do not have the best methods to do it. given the cultural differences between the two countries. but the second problem is that the taliban are extremely good soldiersding afghan from serving.

readnstance, from what i in the "new york times," the taliban has gone for the serving of those people in the army and told them they tempe an extremely large amount of money that they isnot have, if the soldier going to stay, or their houses will be destroyed, and they may killed. and they are following those threats, when the soldiers don't quit. this has lead to even more dissertions then we had before. i would say we have to give maybe two or three more years to try to train, tried to change -- theto change, the ethos of afghans who apparently cannot get their army and police together. they just cannot seem to put the inducements in and get the

morality up to speed. if that fails, then maybe we would keep our air force there to support the afghan army. but the afghan army will probably succumb, eventually, and the whole mission then will be a failure. to cause we cannot just stay there fighting isis, if the afghan army collapses. host: thank you for calling. asks why is twitter the u.s. in afghanistan? one, follow the money. two, need for endless war. that was a reference to "1984." another tweet says callers who say we should state finish -- and finish the job had a point in 2005, not 4017. michael, stay or leave? caller: stay, but reevaluate the

mission. it has -- it has evolved into a quagmire. we are extracting our own money for nothing. we are just oiling the war machine. we need -- what do the people need? maybe agriculture. we are the best at providing agriculture in the world. we can bring our technology to help those people. we need to bring u.s. interests other than war. we need to defend what we are doing there. host: walter, you're are on the line. good morning. i had a question. i wonder if any viewers new

other than the political objective and terrorist issue, is there something of value in the natural resources over there that drives the interest of the world enough to send -- i think your quote was 3000 families have wounded. families wounded. i wonder what is, if any, the geologic benefit? are we looking for rare earth metals, or it is someone? and why there? because the terrorist network and having a terrorist base -- i am not sure if that is valid. 1940's.s in the that is about it. more of a question. if we tried to follow the money, what minerals would be out there

-- would we be after? host: thanks for calling. alfred writes on twitter, it may be expensive to stay, but i think we need as many mideast strongholds in order to fully extinguish isil, or isis. eastern time. in washington, congress is coming back into session with a busy workload. we are spending this monday addition -- edition of " talkingon journal about afghanistan. we have watched several clips of a hearing featuring john sopko, this special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. he will be along at 9:00 eastern time. in the meantime, we will continue to look at pieces of that hearing mr. sopko was recently at. we will take more of your calls and comments via social media. we will bring in lots of other

news. to some in facts and figures the caller was mentioning, the afghanistan war started on october 7, 2001, which means it is the longest war in u.s. history, according to the sigar and the department of defense and brown university. --$714 uction costs billion. 2350.ead, u.s. wounded, up to 20,000. secretary of state rex tillerson was asked about the u.s. involvement. [video clip] >> is there a part of the the strategy -- it is conditions based. --seems as though conditions itthe president has made clear we are here to stay until we can secure a process of

reconciliation and peace. it is not a blank check commitment. if you consider the current situation in afghanistan, we were talking about this a few minutes ago. you look a few years in the gone quitenistan had a distance in terms of creating a much more vibrant government, eduac -- educational system. basis for a more society.s afghanistan we need to continue to bite against taliban to make sure it they will never win. we believe there are moderate face -- voices in the taliban that they do not want to fight

forever. we are looking to engage with those voices and have them engage in a reconciliation process. their full involvement and participation in the government. there is a place for them in the government. renouncing violence. to a stable,ed prosperous afghanistan. host: and this headline -- "victory or failure in afghanistan?" it says 2018 will be the decisive year. 2018ar will be decisive in -- will be enough to convince skeptics it is able to put an end to america's longest armed conflict. along with a new strategy and support of new allies, the administration believes it has everything it needs to win the war. advisers all the way up to defend secretary matter say they can accomplish what to previous

administrations and multiple troop surge is couldn't. the defeat of the taliban by western backed local forces, and negotiated these, and the establishment of a popular supported government capable of keeping the country from becoming a haven to terrorist groups. it faces sharp criticism from politicians and populists at home and from some of america's allies, who believe the u.s. is sinking into a forever war. com.ws. back to your calls. stay or leave? (202) 748-8000 if you think the u.s. should stay. if you think the u.s. should leave. we have a separate number four afghanistan veterans, (202) 748-8002.

david. caller: leave. host: how come? are you there? david made his point short and sweet. we have john now from milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. have we forgotten vietnam? look at all of the money we spent fighting a war in someone else's country that did not invite us there, did not want us there. now after spending all of that people shot and killed, we are trading with them. you cannot change the world -- you cannot change the world from somebody else's country. you have to do it from here. think of all of the money we spent in vietnam. and now in afghanistan, if we put that money into our schools and children instead. the: you are calling on

afghan veterans line, correct? i am not a veteran of afghanistan or vietnam. i am much older than that. i used the number already in my phone. sorry for that. host: thank you for calling anyway. kyle is calling from new york, who thinks we should leave afghanistan. tell us why. caller: we cannot bomb our way to peace. i agree about vietnam. we dropped more bombs in vietnam then we dropped in world war ii. ill family members of people, you will never win those people over. be against youll until the day they die. the infrastructure has been totally destroyed. our own troops do not know who they are fighting. they do not know that the bad guys. i have talked to many veterans returning. that was the most perplexing

thing. our national guardsmen and people like that are on their fourth, fifth, sixth tours to this country. it is kind of disgraceful. 90% of the afghan people have no idea about 9/11 or anything like that. they are just trying to survive in a very desolate area. we need to realize that bombing will never bring us peace. host: tile from new york. from is on the line now north carolina. explain your thinking. there are so many different things on this. earlier, someone asked if there was some sort of economic benefit for us to be there. raceanistan is rich in t elements for computers and high-tech. we thought, when we went in, we thought we would be the great savior, and they would give us

the rights to the minerals. but the chinese have it. where are the chinese in all of this? corporate industrial complex ts a forever war, where they can just make more and more money. we are bearing the brunt of it. it makes no sense at all to even be there. had we went in there, they an economy worth $14 billion a year. in a couple of months, we are spending that amount of money now. there is no reason, no sense. i just do not get it. for calling.ou plenty more time for your calls social media.ia

on our facebook page, several hundred comments coming in over this question -- should the u.s. stay or leave? arthur picks up on the natural resources issue. the u.s. extraction industries have not completely removed the naturalntities of resources, he writes. the military must state to protect them. everything we are told is alive. if the u.s. were to leave, it would stage another terror attack to justify their actions. eric writes fortify those willing to support us, then get the hell out. rashid on the line from here in d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. my name is bashid. thank you for writing me. the u.s. marines, special forces, the contractors -- all of them. i used to work as an interpreter

for the u.s. army and other nato forces. to be inove americans afghanistan. it would help us a lot. we are grateful that. the reason there is a problem that we have to wait a long time -- that country was in war the last 40 years. all of the reasons we have right now, they are basically warlords. they do not have the capacity of leading the country the way it should. the new generation -- we should give them the time that the new generation can educate themselves. we are trying to educate ourselves and become the new leaders. so the u.s. definitely has a hard time dealing with those warlords and those that fought there -- they do nothing except fighting. that is why it is hard, but we

do appreciate you and hope the u.s. stays there. and the troops should be increased. afghanistan can feel more safe. thank you. host: to the line for those who think we should leave, the u.s. , edwardeave afghanistan from ann arbor, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i am inclined to believe we have been there plenty long enough. if we wanted to a couple us anything, we would have done it in that time. i am also concerned about the cost of the war, which i think is between half $1 trillion and $1 trillion. we have not paid for that. we are way in debt. we have not paid for the iraq war or the afghanistan war. did you contact any member of the administration? on this afghanistan issue?

"contact," do say you mean as a guest? caller: yes. i am thinking what is matter's -- mattis' position on this? do we even have an ambassador to afghanistan? host: so far, we just showed a group of the secretary of state. we have quoted general mattis in another piece. what would you like to know or hear from them? as to theam not clear policy and the goals. is the goal to reconstruct afghanistan? is the goal to make it a democracy? what is the policy? thank you for calling. edward from ann arbor. "washington post" digs in further on the tax debate. it has this headline -- gop

senator talks tax plan changes to win holdouts. the republicans are seriously considering last-minute changes in an effort to mollify members. as gop leaders seek to keep members from defecting ahead of crucial votes that we expect this week. lawmakers contracting -- getting the most concern are senators ron johnson and steve daines. many members are demanding changes, and their desires do not all overlap. together, the request puts leaders in a difficult position. hope not to create another situation where the bill collapses. we will see how that plays out in the senate. the president going up to capitol hill tomorrow to talk not just about taxes but the overall agenda.

there are some important fiscal deadlines coming. the washington times has this headline -- pelosi defends conyers, says he has worked to protect women. the michigan democrat denies workplace sexual harassment allegations. , justrite senator conyers hours before he decided to step from his leadership post on the judiciary committee while he faces an ethics review. nancy pelosi, the former speaker and minority leader was on "meet the press." [video clip] by duere strengthened process. just because someone is accused two?s it one accusation, john conyers is an icon. lot.s done a his work on the violence against women act.

as john reviews his case, which he knows, which i do not, i believe -- let me finish my sentence. that he will do the right thing. >> and is the right thing what? resigned? that he knowshing about his situation. he is entitled to due process, and women are entitled to due process as well. here's is the statement from john conyers, who stepped down as the ranking member in the judicial committee. in light of the attention drawn by recent allegations made against me, i have notified the democratic leader of my request to step aside as the ranking member of the judiciary committee. deny theseto say i allegations, many of which were raised by documents reportedly paid for by a partisan alt-right

blogger. mr. conyers says i look forward to vindicating myself and my family before the house committee on ethics. i have come to believe my onsence as ranking member these committee would not serve these efforts while the ethics investigation is pending. the statement from john conyers yesterday as he stepped down as ranking member in the judiciary committee. dr. calls on afghanistan. rick, you believe the u.s. should stay. caller: i was in the navy, the army, and the reserve. we should stay and find out all of the real establishment -- either government or whatever. and come to terms with this. there is more to this than what we see. behind the scenes, it is a whole on theferent than

newspaper need to neutralize this situation, get all of these high the scenes players, the ones involved in all of this, and they need to come to some kind of terms. with that, thank you. mar in indiana. thinks the u.s. should leave. tell us your own thinking. caller: someone earlier stated trillions of dollars have been spent on this war. just 1% of -- maybe less than 1% of those trillions -- every american in this country could have health care. not to mention all of the other things that those trillions of dollars could do for this country. at root of this issue, we went osamafghanistan to rout bin laden and al qaeda. as far as i know, al qaeda has long since been destroyed in afghanistan and has been

reconstituted in other places. americans do not want to face it, but really, the taliban, our native afghanistan people. they are not foreigners. these people are fighting to defend their homeland. they are actually freedom fighters. if they were fighting the russians or the chinese, we would call them freedom fighters. but because they are fighting america or american soldiers, they are terrorists. one of your emails earlier, someone mentioned that our war department has a way of ringing the american people around so we supporting all of these wars around the world. that is, frankly, they will instigate terror attacks and stage these kind of things to justify u.s. intervention in all of these hotspots around the world. this is what has been done, when you think of isis. it has been done with syria. now, i here's popping up even in afghanistan and parts of africa. these things are not just

happening in a vacuum. again, the bottom line is these people are defending their country. whether we want to face it or not, they are actually freedom fighters. calling.nks for james is calling from maryland. james things we should stay. -- er: fuller's, put it in a fruit basket. roomsraelis, helping crops. helping what they call -- with the economy. what are they fighting for? fight who? how do we fight the culture? if we do not sell this

eventually? -- solve this? we cannotwitter -- train anyone. we have not been successful in training any other society, and we can barely train our own society. that is from american one. here is more about the hearing that john sopko had on the house side. he spoke about the successes of training the afghans in the u.s. in preparation of the security role they will serve. [video clip] >> you alluded a few moments ago that it is just the way it is. is there a better way to train these individuals and to bring them back here in the united states? would it potentially save a lot of taxpayer money if we were able to train them there? >> congressman, it probably would save money, but sometimes, they have to do it here. cite one of the places

they do training is right in your hometown. moody, where base their best place to train those pilots is in moody. storiese of the success we highlight. i think it would be worth it to talk about why they are so successful in training those pilots and mechanics. and they go back. that is one of the success stories. i think they have to do the training there. >> i agree. i have seen what you are talking about. it is a success story. my thoughts are going beyond moody and some specialized laces, where it is succeeding. and where we are bringing individuals here that we do not know anything about. they are getting military training. they go awol.

it sounds as though there is a significant part of this program that could wisely be done in someplace other than the united states. would you agree? >> it is worth looking into. requiringrst spot is in person interviews for these military trainees by the state department. >> you say that is not happening? >> that is not happening. that is what the state department refused to acknowledge as being helpful. >> and it i hear you correctly moments ago that this does happen with others? and is not happening with afghans? >> yesterday that is what is so perplexing. for every other type of visa, they do in person interviews. but they do not do it for these people. >> is there a specific policy where these people are waived from that vetting? >> as far as i know, it is the policy of the state department. >> just for afghans?

>> i cannot speak beyond that. >> who can give me an answer on that? >> i will have the staff give you an answer. host: john sopko will be here at 9:00 eastern time and will be here to take your calls about his group's work on afghanistan. edward is on the line from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. is cold war two, brought to us by the people who brought us world war i. -- cold war one. the people that really profit from these wars, they will take that money and moved to china or these other countries the parent for these things in the future. while we are left hauling the back.

thank you for getting in my comment. dylan is on the line from south dakota. you think the u.s. should stay. why? caller: i am a vietnam veteran. i saw what happened when we pulled out of vietnam. i think they should just fighting until we kill them all. but i see that these guys that we are training, they are turning against us, like they did in vietnam. same thing. host: thanks for calling. on twitter, also a mention of vietnam. but in this context. after 20 years in vietnam, you would think the military would stop deceiving us as to why we are there. more on the sexual harassment allegations on capitol hill.

lots more headlines. we just talked about john conyers stepping down as the ranking member on the judiciary committee. here is the headline in the "new york times." calls tofacing disclose secs settlements. secret.are kept want to remind you in the house, wednesday, there will be a bill concerning anti-harrassment training. -- democrats from california and several others took part in a hearing back on november 14, which we covered. you can find on our website. there is also this headline in politico. to return toanken

the senate today. his first appearance back on capitol hill. his accusations of sexual harassment surfaced against him of this year. "minneapolis star tribune" he was ashamed. surfaced afterns broadcaster leann tweeted -- thatn tweeden tweeted franken kissed her during a rehearsal. [video clip] >> i am and there is an ashamed -- i am and there is -- embarras ed and ashamed. rework -- i am going to work to regain the

people's trust. i think people know that i have been a serious senator. i do not want to focus on other people. i do not want to focus on charlie rose. i do not want to focus on other people. i know what the allegations are with me. all i can say is i hope that people can look at what they are .nd listen to my response i am sorry. i will do everything i can to earn back the trust of the people i let down, including people who consider me a champion for women. cbs: courtesy of wcco, the station in minneapolis. in politico, franken has called for an ethics investigation into his own behavior. he hoped his experience will offer a positive conjuration to

the conversation. the senate goes back into session today. later this afternoon at 4:00 eastern. they are continuing to work on nominations in the senate. we do expect tax legislation to possibly hit the floor as early of tomorrow. part they have to go through another mark up process in the budget committee to blend the tax bill with a bill concerning drilling at the national wildlife refuge. once that happens, we expect the bill to come to the floor. celia. afghanistan, caller: good morning, c-span. i think you for the hours on this important topic -- afghanistan. we should leave afghanistan as soon as possible. we should instead give them,

give the people, all of the aid as agriculture, technology, education, etc. we can train them in this country. we can do whatever possible. but without military force. military force would not solve problems. it would create more conflict. thank you. host: thank you. florida.alling from caller: i am a vietnam that -- vet. who should have stayed in vietnam. the commander of the troops in vietnam said mr. trump came up with a strategy that would guarantee our win in vietnam.

let us be thankful that we have such a commander in the white house. that is all i need to say. host: in pennsylvania. where is vandergrift? guest: northeast -- caller: northeast pennsylvania. for stayingthe same in afghanistan that i heard when i was in vietnam. ever since the military complex found out we could have more money in wars -- host: anything else you want to add? here are the lines to call in. if you think the u.s. should stay in afghanistan, 202-748-8000. if they -- if you think the u.s. should leave, 202-748-8001. and we have a line for afghanistan veterans, 202-748-8002. we have been at it for an hour and a half and we will be out it -- at it for an hour and a half. we are sticking with your calls,

but a 9:00, the inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction will join us. in the meantime, here is nat from baltimore. what is your view on the u.s.'s role and whether it should continue to stay in afghanistan? veter: i own world war ii and i was on a commission at the beginning of this on what we should do. this lady, that called in was right on in that part of the thing. the argument is strictly around drugs. the opium produced in afghanistan is thousands and thousands of acres and a source for the world. orcould wipe it out with -- the equivalent and pay the farmers to put in other crops. they get about $200 an acre from the taliban, to process our opium. we should pay them $300 an acre

and then we wouldn't have to worry about the problem of the government. it would automatically become very, very democratic. host: thank you for calling from baltimore. opiumites on twitter that is a growing cultural tradition, one of the few crops they can cultivate at a profit for the time being. and the special inspector general was asked about opium production in afghanistan. here's an exchange with congressman tom massey, republican of kentucky from the recent house hearing. [video clip] >> how much of we spent to date eradicating poppy and counter narcotics total in afghanistan? >> we cannot break it down to eradication, but altogether in fighting narcotics, it is 8.6 billion dollars -- $8.6 billion. >> i asked this question 18

months ago. as production of narcotics in afghanistan gone up or down since 2002 when we started spending that money? >> i don't have the exact going back to 2002. from 2015 it has gone up 43%. >> 43% in two years and we are spending billions of dollars to eradicate poppy. i was at a town hall-type meeting this weekend in a factory in my district and one golf --ttendees was a gulf veteran and he told me he has been standing in poppy fields and marijuana fields in afghanistan and now i know the pictures are real that i see that those crops are there and he struggled and i struggled to try to explain to the rest of the constituents in the room how that could be possible.

that we arepossible spending billions of dollars and we can see it everywhere, yet it's not being destroyed? >> it's possible for a couple reasons. first of all, it is difficult because of the security situation. the second reason is we have no strategy. i have complained for the last three or four years, where is the counter narcotics strategy? just like we have no strategy for fighting corruption. you need a strategy. many look at input, output, and outcome. we have no veterans. we have no strategy. whenconcerns me is that general nicholson or general dunford testified that 60% of the funding going to the taliban terrorists comes from narcotics trafficking and we have no

strategy. i think we all read in the press about how we focus on isis and their relationship to oil production and we bombed the heck out of that oil production to cut off that funding source. poor general nicholson is trying to fight the taliban and and no one is focusing on 60% of the funding going to the taliban. if that is a serious problem. if that is the -- that is the proverbial elephant in the room. we are never going to win in afghanistan if we don't focus on the whole narcotics problem. host: john will be with us in 25 minutes. at our facebook page, charlotte's -- charlotte writes "leave, we have only spent -- suffered 2400 dead. the syrians are bombing the taliban so we can build a pipeline where we pretend we care about the links to terrorism. we got into a real fine mess."

"as an afghan american, i would like to give two options. afghanistan definitely needs the u.s. to stay there. they have not been able to stabilize the country and they have countries like pakistan and iran as their neighbors and they want afghanistan to be unstable for their own interest. if the u.s. leaves, afghanistan will go down. " scott is calling from west virginia. what is the name of your town? caller: rothenberg, west virginia. give us your opinion on afghanistan. caller: if we want to put starta first, we should tightening our belts strings and realize we are spending money that -- on things that have nothing to do with our benefit. the drugswant to stop from afghanistan, but if that is our goal, let that be our goal, don't just be there and not have a goal. my biggest concern is why did we

make it such a big deal when the soviet union entered afghanistan and then when we went in there, it was kind of looked as being something we had to do? i just don't understand how we can look at something so negatively when another country does what we do. host: thank you, scott. dean is calling from riverside in rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning. i am on the side of stay in afghanistan. if we leave, it will just the chaos. devolve into if you look at the u.s. involvement in south korea, taiwan, those countries are free today because of us. if we had left south korea, it would be part of north korea or part of china. afghanistan, we will be back there if we don't stay because the terrorist and these

aremist fundamentalists there. if your are not there, it's harder to find out where they kind of work to eradicate them. i don't know if it is possible. host: that was dean. we move on to bernard in maryland. what do you think? i'm a veteran of the military and i believe we should get out of afghanistan. i think the reason we went to afghanistan and the reason we are still there is because of the military-industrial complex. they make countless -- amount of money dropping bombs in afghanistan. host: thank you, bernard. greg is in baltimore, maryland. you think the u.s. should stay in afghanistan. give us your thoughts. john is a little off.

i think we do actually have a strategy. unfortunately, it's incredibly shortsighted. we try to encourage farmers to grow opium crops. of course they are going to grow opium when it -- when it is a major cash crop. theeed to start with long-term strategy starting with the education of the people on the ground. we shouldn't send infrastructure send this whole -- if we infrastructure and education to this country, we would not be having this issue. if it was not us, it was the russians before us and it might be nato after us. thank you. host: william from missouri. you think the u.s. should leave. tell us why. caller: first of all, the taliban since we have been over there, has gained three quarters

more territory than they had and the taliban over there is tribal and it's been going on for thousands of years and we are only there for the pipeline. the opium being grown over there, the taliban had it just about right out and then we came over there and all of a sudden the crop is gone. -- look at china, they've got that one road and they go in with peace. in of our congressman invest the war and all that. it's all about money. yes, we need to educate the people and stuff, but everybody is mad at everybody over health care and this and the entitlements they call it now instead of helping the poor,

everybody is mad, but nobody says anything about $440 million an hour we spend over there. million andf $1 filled up one gas station and it was for electric cars and they didn't have electric cars over there. it's just a big waste of our money and that's all i have to say. host: that was william. writester, one viewer "we have no strategy because we have no mission in afghanistan." we've got kenneth on the line from bristol, tennessee. what are your thoughts on the future of u.s. in afghanistan? caller: i'm kind of split, but stay would be the thing if we had a strategy to win this. we need to bring the indigenous people on board with the united states and not force anything down their throat. i am 60 years old. no intervention since world war

ii that i know of has turned out good for the united states. i cannot think of one. iran we intervened in 1954. it's a problem now. maybe granata. we went in there and did what we set out to do and then we left and they celebrate that day just like thanksgiving and they are pro-american. we need to develop a strategy. we need to stay or we are going to have something worse hit us down the road and maybe tend to 20 years of week -- ten to 20 years if we abruptly leave. host: on twitter mary writes stay or leave, should have never been in afghanistan or iraq at all, should have punished the saudi's if anyone. "why do we writes have an election in afghanistan and ask the people what they want us to do?" another writes "we can't go into the country and get the locals

to fight the bad guys with us and leave them to certain death." matt writes "keep resources in the area to support afghan forces, but withdrawal the bulk of our forces. some air power and a quick reaction force would be sufficient. the afghan army will either step up or we will pull out altogether." with a preview of john, who will be on the progress -- program at 9:00 eastern time, if you missed the earlier part of the program, we show you this clip again. one of the earlier pieces of a hearing he did on the house side, chairman of the oversight committee, one of the subcommittees on national security, the republican of florida talked to john sopko about his trip to afghanistan and his thoughts there. [video clip] >> got to meet a lot of the

folks on the ground, just the average american were to come up to you and say what is going on in afghanistan, what is the elevator speech you would give them? and the bigalemate question is is it us -- a stalemate going down or a stalemate going up and i do not have a good answer for that, sir. the security assistance lessons learned report is extensive. what would you say the bottom line of that report is? >> the bottom line is the u.s. government was ill-prepared to conduct the security sector mission. they did not understand the size and scope of what they were facing. our normal security sector assistance is to a developed country. we are hoping to -- helping the turks with a new weapons system and helping the koreans with a new personnel system.

this was designing and building an entire military and police force. the other problem is we were in our misaligned capabilities with their needs. disorganized, did not fully understand and utilize nato for the things they could provide and we have detailed a number of problems with giving too complicated systems, having military officers in the u.s. trying to teach police, having air force pilots teaching police , having people who know nothing about personnel systems teaching ministries on how to develop personnel systems. that was the big problem that we found. those are the findings and lessons of the report. oregon, katien to is calling. what are your thoughts on whether the u.s. should stay or leave afghanistan? caller: i definitely think we

should leave. i don't think we can be redeemed in the afghani's eyes. staying, how would you feel if afghanistan came over here and decided they were going to tell us how to live? i know i wouldn't like it. i don't know, i heard at the beginning of the show the same old stuff i remember from way back around 2003. the same old bs. we cannot afford it and now we are going for a tax cut. world war ii we were taxed and everybody put in for that war. i don't understand how are we are -- how we are going to keep this and have a -- tax cut, too. it's bad for afghanis and bad for us. host: katie calling on the leave line. frome stay line is peter

alexandria, virginia. tell us why you think the u.s. should stay. caller: i was over there as a civilian from 2011 to 2013 and being involved with contracting , ih the corps of engineers could see a lot of waste and my impression was a lot of money was spent that could have been managed better and when the pulldown came in 2013, everything was winding down and you can kind of see a lot of the contractors there that were afghan contractors and the turkish were wondering why we were drawing down so fast and i met with a local afghan contractor and he told me -- he said, you guys leave, that is fine, i am just going to go back to growing poppy. my family has land and we will go back to it and my impression

overall was that we could stay there -- if we had managed our resource better these people would happily work for two dollars a day. headline me show you a from one of your local papers here, the washington post. afghan leaders in the province are criticizing u.s. airstrikes on the taliban drug labs. it's a story that burst in the last couple weeks. what do you make of that strategy come if you can call it that? caller: they are trying to bomb -- are they trying to bomb the poppy fields? host: the processing labs, it says. caller: that's a waste. they are going to grow. it's so poor over there, the economy will revert back to what it has to and its so dry the poppy will grow. it's very hard to eradicate

something if there is no other alternative. we were providing an alternative and we didn't have to spend as much money to do it. i think some of the progress we had, the ring road that goes around the country was a very good project. host: i think we lost peter. we get the point of what you are saying. --e's more from that story she recently wrote a newly released campaign of u.s. and afghan airstrikes around narcotics centers was met with alarm and criticism from vertical leaders in the province. -- political leaders in the province. 10 such air attacks were carried out in the past week. some legislators and provincial representatives said others -- some could be harmed and others dismissed the campaign as a dramatic and misplaced efforts to showcase washington's

determination to go after criminal activities as part of its new strategy. that's in the washington post. about 10 more minutes of your calls on whether the u.s. should stay or leave afghanistan. harriet from greenbelt, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i am a first time caller. i listen every day. it is surprising to me that if we spend $6 billion as i heard the gentleman say coming on at 9:00 to destroy these crops and they are still producing 65%, why are we wasting money? it seems like such a waste. we, as americans who sent our tax money to the government to be used more widely, they can take money from the poor, but yet, they can spend $6 billion to destroy something that is not being destroyed. it's ridiculous. may,ther comment, if i

with what is going on on capitol hill with the sexual abuse these people are putting against women, i think somebody there on capitol hill should put forth a bill that brings all of this out in the bill should be passed by everybody in the house and the senate so we all know what is going on. these are crooked people that cover their own butt and can send me to do -- me to jail for what they are doing. in misery- elbert calling on the line for those who think the u.s. should stay. guest: stay is not my biggest thing. my biggest thing is why don't we buy that stuff? you can make morphine out of that. the big problem is you have to satisfy the turks who actually buy more morphine -- i guess i -- they buy it from the taliban. those people can make anywhere

near the money. by then, use them, stabilize them. we went in and caused destruction and then we take away their main source of income. that's kind of super stupid. that is my comment. they should just buy the stuff and move it around. the harm they have done by influencing the taliban or increasing the taliban's influence, i don't know how they would do much about that except if they let the morphine go and try to improve that country at the local village level instead of staying in kabul training people, which is what we try to do in the amount. we had all kinds of training south vietnamese, but no influence on the local villages. we ought to get out of there as quick as we could. we seem to be doing the same thing here. host: -- is on the line from mansfield, massachusetts.

your view on afghanistan? caller: this whole thing is a farce. as far as creating the afghan army, these people have been fighting for thousands of years. they should be training our army. these people are natural born killers. the only people the government tolerates us here is they want our arms, they want our weapons, which will be used against us some day. we've got to get out of there. it's a waste of money and that's what i have to say today. host: on to rick from springfield, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thatmment would have to be the reason we should stay is the haven't done what we should be doing all along or at least not enough of it.

the previous caller that was talking about building infrastructure is spot on. the thing that we need to be doing and spending more money on is building infrastructure. if you remember the movie "charlie wilson's war." at the end of that after the united states supported afghans to expel russians, charlie wilson tried to get money to build schools and the united states wouldn't do that even though it was just a small fraction of what it would cost , whichthe afghanistans eventually those weapons found their way into the taliban hands. i think that just for goodwill's sake, if we spend the money we

are spending on the military to build infrastructure, we would be better off. that is my thought on the matter. host: time for a couple more calls this hour before we take on -- bring on john sopko. other news out there in the fiscal, money, financial areas, consumer areas, here is the usa today headline "record cyber monday could signal. it and remind us that retail has got off to a strong start over the holiday weekend. lou and i -- one of the figures $re is 5.0 3 billion for -- 5.03 billion for cyber shoppers. in the wall street journal, fewer pitfalls from powell and confirmation.

they are talking about the new -- the hearing of the new chairman of the federal reserve. jerome powell likely to -- even though the process has grown -- grown more political. -- heads into his confirmation hearing wednesday. it isn't the first time he has been a fed candidate that offered the path of least resistance, writes the wall street journal. we will have part of that hearing on tomorrow morning here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. back to usa today, the headline said folks on both side of the net neutrality case make their cases. proponents are hoping to make plantand against the fcc to overturn a neutrality rules. proposed rules are passed, it would be seen as a victory for telecom and internet companies like at&t, comcast,

and verizon. it would overturn the so-called net neutrality regulations that went into effect during the obama administration. here's a quote "this vote will negatively impact small and medium-sized internet businesses and have the potential to decrease jobs and economic growth systemwide." this is part of the coalition that includes amazon and google. that is from usa today. is calling from woodbridge, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. and whatetnam veteran we have in afghan was just like vietnam. the russians ran afghan before us and now russians are trying to support getting us out. everywhere you look since 1947,

we know where they came from. we went in there with one reason, to get bin laden. are tribal group that have lived there for 1000 years or more, so what are we doing? reason for being there. come on. i am ex-military. i did my 20 years. i don't see the justification. get out and we can have more -- use more money. host: the final call from this hour is bill from new hampshire. thank you for calling. caller: i was a contractor and i advised the afghan national police and i'm really on the fence. on the one hand, we need to get out, but we've invested so much

and the potential is there for some kind of democracy to appear. i think a different approach would be more successful. the problems i saw with u.s. -- nory command continuity and there were several commanders over several years and individual advisors although the units the group rotations, individual advisors were in and out in 6 or 9 months and repeating the same mistakes and the advisors -- civilian advisers were the only continuity. the afghans, i think there has been better -- we need better oversight on the money we give them and take a better look like one of your previous callers mentioned and i told the folks i worked with when i left, i said either go the route of south korea or south vietnam and one-stop there and one is a thriving democracy and economic power. host: bill, thank you for

calling and thanks to everybody who called for these past two hours. it's 9:00 year in washington, d.c. and we have been talking about afghanistan all morning and will continue for the next hour. money and reconstruction in general in a moment or two with the special inspecto general for afghanistan reconstruction, be with us for hour and we'll take your calls, we'll be right bacr.

communicators,the the newest member of the federal communications commission, joins us to discuss net neutrality, the at&t e department's suing over plan to buy time warner and media ownership rules mrchlt carr is interviewed by politico technology reporter john hendell. >> do you have trust in authorities and how you see that overall, given it is pretty big situation to be unfolding right now? view is the seneca has a pretty limited role to say, when rgers, to transaction comes before us, we ake a look and say, is there a transaction specific harm and if there is, we try to find

tailored remedy for the harm, if that addresses the harm we identified, then we can move with the public interest determination. one thing that you saw the fcc view mergers as christmas tree, where you could hang agenda you ulatory want on it. that is not my approach and not lawfully under the communication act the fcc should take. communicatoros c-span 2. >> c-span's student cam video documentary competition is and students across the country are busy at work and sharing their experience through twitter. >> it's not too late to enter, the deadline is january 18th, a position of the u.s. constitution and create a video

importantng why it is to you. our competition is open to all middle school and high school grades 6-12. will be in cash prizes awarded, the grand prize of 5000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. ost: taking us deeper inside afghanistan is john sopko, pecial inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction, sigar, thank you for joining us. how your office came to be and what the role is. a pleasure to y, be here and i admire you for putting on the three hours on is our longest serving war and we need more i think focus on it,

that is very important. sigar, was tobacco sounding acronym created in 2008, and realized thatress we were spending a lot of money there. of idn't do a very good job overseeing how the money was spent in iraq, they created a agency, we are inspector audits, s office, we do criminal investigations, about 200 of us, we focus on afghanistan and we only focus on reconstruction. ne of the reasons congress did this is because we've spent more reconstruction in afghanistan than we've ever done anywhere in the world. e spent more money in afghanistan than we did on the entire marshall plan to rebuild war ii.fter world so congress assumed and i think correctly, they needed a special agency just to look at it and we've been in existence since then. ost: you put out regular

reports, the latest from october 30, of this year, how often does put out 's office reports to congress? uest: we put out quarterly reports, plus we issue lessons reports on a regular basis and issue audits, investigations and inspection regular basis. host: what is summary of this report? what is new and different from the last one? uest: the quarter report signifies reconstruction from the last quarter, required to do set us up.tute that hat was important there, we focused on the classification issue, which was new, classified of information that has been unclassified before. focused on the casualty of territory unt under control by the afghanistan

which is decreased since we est level started collecting data on that. on the e focused economic issue, the economy hasn't turned around for them, hey're facing a bulging population, they don't have jobs, they don't have the to omy, that is main for us report. host: we'll keep phone numbers the screen for john sopko, special inspector general for afghanistan and get a couple going in minutes. if you think the u.s. should afghanistan, call 202-748-8000. should hink the u.s. leave, 202-748-8001. fghan war veterans, 202-748-8003. been with this office six years now. guest: yes. host: how would you describe the the country currently as we head into 2018 by thetion to the effort

u.s. and allies over the years to build up that country? guest: it's not a black/white issue here, there's a mix. of some success some failures. overall, the security situation has deteriorated over the six this that i've been doing job. lthough it stabilized into a better e now, we have a working relationship with the new afghan government, they're cooperative. they are interested in changing, they're interested in changing military and they're also interested in attacking the corruption, em of which is rampant throughout the to try and you're not going win there unless you deal with the corruption issue. they are serious about the problem, the 800-pound gorilla, which i think i was uote as saying before, in the

room. here, the taliban and the insurgency gets most funding from the drug trade f. we don't do anything about that, we'll win. host: in the report, before we get to calls, you have status of here and headline connol reconstruction pipeline, $120 billion dollars afghanistan relief and reconstruction. you have a chart here breaking everything down. to our viewer what is we're looking at here and what significance is. guest: that particular chart ries to break down just the reconstruction number. if you look at the war fighting, figure think the higher you have quoted, comes from brown and harvard university, is about $sec700 billion. reconstruction, money spent to pay salaries of afghanistan and civil d police

servants, that is to build oads, pay salaries of civil servants, build clinics etcetera, that is what that down tshows how much money is for security ssues, about $70 billion of that $120 billion goes to the police and the security forces military and then the rest aid, to humanitarian civilian operations or 2k3w06ernance. host: what is your sense coming the recent hearing on the house side where congress is on afghanistan right now and how it views the current effort there? guest: it is hard for me to congress. all of i was a subcommittee of a very important subcommittee of a very important committee of the oversight and government reform committee in the house. and rom talking to members think even talking to the citizens, i think there is war eariness, weariness about the

money question about when it will end and question of when we right.et it now we're cautiously optimistic with new strategy that we're right.to get it i think that strategy is more realistic, based upon what is the fwround, on the ground right now, rather than i itrary time lines, which think this was accurate strategy.of prior host: does the sigar's office in a report you put out, have any connection to the white house? his is written for congress, but does the white house read the reports? do they act on anything? take recommendations? guest: oh, i can't speak for the but i can itself, speak for the administration, the reports go to the various as well as look at, congress. so secretary of state, secretary agency se, any other work nothing afghanistan. they do read them. they do respond and i think cautiously optimistic, as a matter of fact, very happy, in he last six months, the

reaction that the department of efense has had toward many reports. secretary mattis issued a policy the senior all of leadership based upon one of our dealing it was a report with camouflage uniforms, which decided and we may have wasted millions of dollars on. it we're getting a big response, positive response, secretary dunford -- excuse me, joint chief, e general dunford, in recent testimony commented how they use information. the one thing we author is we institutional memory. a lot of the agencies don't anymore. and people serve nothing afghanistan, some have gone tours, but many months, nine months, a year at most, we have people

or three yearsgo and our agency has been around while, relying on institutional memory. ost: lots of calls coming in for john sopko, special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. chris, you are up first from katy, texas, good morning. aller: great, thank you for taking my call. i have a couple questions in regard to drug trade and the deposit necessary afghanistan. the government narrative since this isn't war, this is a -- not a war choice, a necessity, both presidents bush and obama were referenced 9/11 and i think it important to note that the

timing of military action in afghanistan, as you know, came 9/11.ys after since 2001, production of -- has increased providing 90% of the nonpharmaceutical grade opiates of the world. world market, so that originated the world market originated in central an, in europe, etcetera.sia, deposits, including huge veins cobalt, gold, , among others, you know, to note critical ndustrial metals like lithium, been said that afghanistan characterized as saudi arabia of lithium. karzai claims upward of 30 trillion, quantity that would mining revenue by factor of approximately 60%. these are my questions. you characterize the situation a stalemate. does that not indicate that our going operation there is according to plan and in terms as ar, is this not business

usual? it seems we have military on the assets,there, protecting protecting opiate fields and ther countries, like china, mining assets and using cheap labor to benefit global trade the united states. host: chris, thank you for for ng. calling. john sopko. guest: first of all, i don't do policy, i do process, but i can upon my experience and experience my office and we're looking at -- actually doing lessons learned report on how we got into afghanistan and the that, gy and planning for seen no evidence that we went to proveanistan either he skurj of e on t openium. there is no evident of that. say that much. as far as why we went in on minerals, we the have gotten very little, if nything, from the minerals or

we call extractives which can natural gas. so that, again, we have found no have seen nothing that would corroborate that. to develop the xtractive industry so that the afghan people will do better. so they can start exporting drugs.ng other than ut, in response to the implication that there's a aware operation, i'm not of any. host: you mentioned you don't do process, to that caller and several other callers talkedprogram so far, we opium, and processing plants there, does that action the processprocess, of understanding what is going on there? well, look.

the stated policy is done by the policy makers. can ok at how you effectuate and succeed on that policy. the government gives us policy, you can do it. when you talk about narcotics, on this for harping years, in fact, you're never win the war if that is your objective, on the taliban their funding. our sources and government ources and other experts we've dealt with have said and now nicholson, 60% of the funding from taliban comes from that. got to do ating, you something about it, if your objective is to win with the taliban. now, whether you should do bombing or maybe you should use processes that the policy makers will decide on.

are glad that general nicholson has the authority and it and we're glad equally important, that the willing to nment is direction, too. so the prior regime in afghanistan was not interested in confronting narcotics and unless you've got a cooperative government, you will direction, on narcotics. washington, what is your name? caller: it's stevie, how you doing? ahead, sir. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. morning.od caller: i want to echo chris' undthe impression religious/11, taliban doctrine did not allow drugs or alcohol. they not n, weren't opium growth in taliban area? they are doing to finance it it.ause they can't get

primary financing was pakistan and iran and iraq and different trying to play their own political games within the taliban. so now we're being told that the the ones -- the opium issue? marketing plan from the insurance industries right from the start. narcotics, now they have ot major portion of america hooked on opioids through the and now offices mostly being told it is a different story. correct me if i'm wrong, was the against drugs and opium l and taliban allow growth in controlled regions before 9/11? my only question. you.: thank let's hear from our guest. guest: for a brief period, the taliban stopped the production opium. i think they did it for political reasons, they wanted by the ecognition

international community. the taliban was the government, could raise funding or money through various and sundry they did for brief eriod there, right before the attack of 9/11. host: how powerful is the taliban today? about the land it has taken back, do you want to put it that way? the : well, that is one of significant findings of our latest quarterly report. the taliban have increased, this i will say - largest, most control they have over the country, we identified quarterly report this year. it's hard to identify because areas they control, districts they control and then districts they have influence on. likewise, same thing for the government. data ght now, i think our

is that as of august, 2000 17, 54 districts under insurgent control, increase of six districts over the last months. so about 3.7 million afghans, the population. now live in districts under influence.ontrol or north korea general nicholson wants to retake that territory in two years, realistic? eked guest: it could be done, it will be a hard job and a hard task, new strategy on that and he has additional training and he has additional authorities, so we are, again, cautiously optimistic. we will -- my job is basically referee, i'm here to see what happens and report on it, best and him the we're optimistic. eather to mark in whitehall,

pennsylvania. good morning, mark. caller: good morning, hello mr. doing?opko, how you want to give you a call. far are a few issues, as as i get my information from like different college keep my s and try to eyes open, different things like that. let's see, there was clinton supposedly wined and dined the taliban, according to lehigh valley, to get transfer fees for the tappi pipeline. into ing to take a sedway the nobel prize winner that says today's wars are only fought resources and then want to get into the department of defense, okay, i'm there was 9/11, which going to be frank, i don't believe it was what we were told. i believe the conspiracy was the one that we were shown on t.v.

lies elsewhere, but i will not get into that. also another thing, the department of defense, okay, so then if we're going to be there for 15, 20, 30 years, might as well be called because i of offense, also watch c-span pretty much as far as terrorist attacks in this country, very slim. on corporate lot media, a lot of breaking news and shootings and things like is not the taliban over here. o if you look at the stats on terrorist attacks, you'll see really aren't re any, so there is a lot of fear media, ithing corporate let me emphasize that again. host: mark, let me jump in, your point.g question for our guests specifically? mean, why yeah, i stay over there for -- forever

ever? we don't want to top vietnam, that was bad enough. naturally we don't have the anymore, but i mean, as far as i'm concerned, why don't let the countries, if they want to wheel and deal with in and stuff like that centrcent oil, why do we have to be over there proving we will use cohergz? mark, we get the point, want to move on to other callers sopko? guest: mark, these are good questions, you should ask policymakers, the administration congress. i don't do policy, i do process. he policy stated by every administration since 9/11, we're going in there to find people and i beg to s isagree, mark, i actually do think it wasn't a grand conspiracy, we were attacked and in to find the people who did that and we went in help create a host

government, an afghan government that could continue to keep the errorists out of that area, would not be used to attack us again or attack any allies. that is the stated goal, general mattis and as the has stated recently. we support that goal. host: harris calling from florida, for john sopko. good morning. caller: good morning, three real short questions. okay. caller: i read his report quarterly and in fact, it's in me.t of how many is, you met casualties there are? why do you admit that? if you have any idea what casualty caused by our -- the national government. has alwaysour report

andsfnlieucritical of of that, you are saying that going to cholson is change the course of the war over there f. we give them $70 a year and they can't even carry a gun, what is the use? policy matter, in your assessment, why does general nicholson so dependent on that? nyour own process of in your writing the report, do you get military hat the u.s. or go free cranking over there with backpack and start check og things and thank you very much. host: thank you for calling. the first point first, how do you do your work? guest: well, we work with the military, the military will provide security for us when we field.into the we also get security from the

department, so we don't embed, per se, but they provide can.rity where they but we're limited because of the fact, y situation, in very insecure, we don't just backpacks on and wonder around the country, we take security very seriously. doing that, we also have civil society trainedtions that we've and use them. we also use satellites where we data from other people operating in the country. have 30 ow we work, we or 35 people there full time all the time. oversight e largest resence of any government agency. so that's one question. spent a year,lion i don't want to confuse the listener or your audience, when talk about 120 billion or the that's from 2001

to date. what we are spending just on reconstruction here and i think we noted in the quarterly, is we spend, have about 7.42 billion been pipeline, that has uthorized, appropriated, but not spent and spend 5 to 6 billion a year, we assume will on pent this year reconstruction, not $70 billion per year. i think there was a question how general nicholson. ost: wanted clarification on civilian casualties. guest: we cite, we don't have data, we were citing u.n. organization which collects dat on a regular basis and very trustworthy, there, ly, organization able to get out to a lot of places we don't. was a 52% that there ncrease in civilian casualties

from pro government, that is coa scompligz afghan era operations months.irst nine verall, the number of casualties have decreased a bit this quarter, but those caused afghans and coalition forces increased a little. host: more about your work, headline in the washington examiner and elsewhere classification of data, u.s. classifies data as taliban made gains, the piece u.s. military the arply restricting information that the independent pentagon watchdog can make the key measures in the war, they're talking about your office here. on? is going guest: well, this quarter they started classifying a lot of that we had been previously reporting publicly years. and some of the -- that includes

the afghans, force readiness,perational attrition figures, and even number of women they have in police.litary and and we again, don't do lassification, we were concerned by this classification. our concern is that this is we are sification and strong proponent of transparency, we feel that the you, the eople, taxpayer, should know how your money is being spent. this, we can't tell if we're winning or loses, that money is being used or wasted. e strongly objected to this latest round of classification. writtenre is memorandum by the search director to you bout all of this, about classified or restricted information, you can see here.

read this report publicly and if so, where? quarterly report is public, it's available on our and that's quarterly il, the report. all of our reports, unless or otherwise would implicate security issues, all reports are available on the website. host: we have 30 minutes left with our guest, john sopko, for al inspector general afghanistan reconstruction. back to your calls and debra is chickapea, massachusetts, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. want to focus on what mr. sopko just said, we can't tell losing.we're winning or okay, that just goes to the heart of the problem. is not about afghanistan. u.s. s about the five

weapons dealers who make a rillion dollars a year in selling weapon systems to the hot zones and we're in a hot zone. there is a reason for that, selling those weapon systems and those come back and kill our troops and two, you said that you of only quote the amount money for reconstruction, well, six billion, but what else are we spending our money troops from being that we by the weapons sell to pakistan, saudi arabia, countries? you know, the american people are beginning to realize that there for a reason, but they don't know why and this is reason, because we need to lockheed martin selling

weapons so the people who work for them in this country will salaries, but they make huge profits. i have to say, it's very simple to figure this out. you're just there, you know, as rest of creen for the it, for what is going on there. being killed are by the weapon systems that we're to these middle east countries. host: that was debra. sopko, your reto that? than a hope we're more smoke screen that, is obviously the caller raised issues going my nd my jurisdiction and country. again, we give facts on

reconstruction, the other inspectors generals, areas, working in other hopefully will give you the facts also, and i'm a firm you know, i think people have the facts, we'll be free, that is what this is about. ost: paul from new york city, good morning, paul. caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: yes. your work,nk you for sir. you guys did an interesting report in which you indicated there were planes built, bought from italy, i think c-27a's that cost half billion being scrapended up metal. i am just wondering, was anybody that?hed for if not, why not? t seems so incredibly outrageous and just the amount of money being spent in a small economyad a to begin with, you expect to see a lot more that would have come

of it and i think it is incredibly disturbing, you mentioned how long the war has on, how much money has been spent and first of all, just one example, whatever happened, did anybody get punishd and if not, why not and just in general, how do we think about that much money being spent and small economy and lousy results? really like to hear your response to those two things, thank you so much. host: thank you. sopko. guest: those are very good questions, i wish i could tell punished on the purchase of those airplanes that boneyard in ed of italy and the planes were basically death traps. fly, they weren't the appropriate plane. ongoing an investigation, criminal of nature that, we can't really detail.in great we also have an audit that we've initiated and hopefully we'll be

the questions, but i'm outraged, i get angry that see money like wasted and we will get to the promise you.t, i even if we don't bring criminal why es, we will identify the taxpayer lost so much money afghans got nothing out of it. as far as another issue you have here and that is about accountability, that is one of the most serious issues i think our reports, l of no one's ever held ccountability for wasting money. if you look at every report and testified, every time, not holding people accountable. that?why is guest: you know, i wish i had the answer. to, we haveoes back a lousy h.r. system and our system, we -- the problems we see in fghanistan are not because

people we have sent to the fghanistan troops, the soldiers, the foreign service officers, the aid officers, they are all decent people, 99% of them are, it is not they are that they are stupid. what we've done, given them a broken tools and those broken tools are the same tools when you do a series on the v.a., on health services, the on the i.r.s. and all the other government agencies, procurement is busted, our h.r. system is busted, you are rotation f troops or of people at jobs are busted and people, if our reward system is upside down, which is ward waste, basically what we do in afghanistan and we do in the too, it tates, domestically, reward contracting

money they how much whether theact, not contract is good or not and as long as that is our mentality, will not punish a guy for spending 400 or 500 million on don't fly, he probably got a promotion, that is the whole system, we have to issues here.igger we just see them on steroids when you're in a war zone like afghanistan. host: before we go back to calls, john sopko, you brought says, sigar at the top, big red letters, fraud hotline. hotline about? guest: the hotline is how we get information about cases, how we information, i hope you are showing it to viewers because really something we appreciate. in afghanistan, we also see this in the united states, where people call or our hotline, we nswer in darria, we get

information and do our work. host: let's hear from jeff in laurel, mississippi, jeff, thank you for waiting, you're on with john sopko. caller: thank you. 9/11 happened, the united backing afghan, during the charlie wilson russia, they broke we -- broke russia. and now them, n there fighting they in there to break us. another question you were opium trade,ut, the i think american soldiers field through the opium like a cow trail. they don't mess with them. that, why ng with didn't they get them out? happens to ng, what $8 million that came missing under the state department under hillary clinton clinton? $8 million, poof, what happened to it? thank you. mr. sopko? billion t me, the $8

under clinton's secretary, i really don't know what the to, but the erring opium issue, part is we haven't strategy and we really have not had a willing in afghanistan until the recent government. change, but t will you're correct, we just did not how to ood strategy on -- -- th the opium

anals, helped them build canals. but it is not as easy as crop.ng a new and we're going to have a major report coming out in the next months looking at because we

-- security programs, there, we -- results on that lessons learned report, we haven't finished yet, we're still running it by the going to send it out to agencies for comments, i'll the report comes out. host: guest is john sopko, pecial inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction, state and federal prosecutor, oversight counsel on homeland security, house committee on energy and on erce, select committee homeland security and senate permanent subcommittee on investigations and partner at ken, howard and feld, you left

the firm six years ago now to take on this position, does your of tion have a fixed length time? guest: no, i serve at the pleasure of the president and is temporary elf agency, we go out of existence when the amount of funds fall below 250, 7 billion in the pipeline, may be around for a while. are a temporary agency and should be. host: how many people work with office and doar's you have enough resource? 190 people,ve about i think our resources are adequate. keep getting asked to do more things by congress and that is job.of our as long as we are useful, we might need to address that, right now, satisfied with

resources. we talked about challenges to your work, politico story recently, defense bill leashes afghanistan wash dog, the lead says lawmakers sopko, special inspector general angered many overnment officials with what they call bastic claims about waste, fraud and abuse, tucked defense national authorization passed both houses f congress recently, requires inspector general overseeing key adhere to ghanistan strict government auditing for reports and other products. you, what is different and in terms of what congress is your work and o how will it impact you? i don't really see much areerence, we're glad there

standards and we help dod ig, covered by this, will standards, e to meet follow strict standards we can. terry, in new hampshire hampshire, couple of former mentioned the drug issue and when he first started this mentioned this war would be won until solved the there.roblem we can't solve the drug problem in the united states, like to and how you are doing you expect to solve a major issue like that when you really on what n get a handle is going on in the united states, if that is what it is whether to stay there or get out, if we can't win that war on drugs over probably get d out, let's deal with our problems in our country.

response?, your guest: my response, again, i don't run the programs, to fight just look at how they're carried out and i agree caller, we haven't had issue. the drug i will leave it to the experts dod how to state and traesz that problem and check to see how well it is being done. fulton, maryland, good morning, hamilton. i'm not t's hampton, the secretary treasurer. host: thank you. you r: john, i've seen testify before congress and i share your frustration, but i your gray hair. the the -- lessons learned, is there applied and the other

question i want to ask, you have sigar and sigar, the special nspector general for iraq, i wonder has it been comparison between the two temporary they took away and what has been applied? because what piqued my interest, tools ealing with broken and nothing is being done as disparate have strategy, unworkable system to be applied. to get your feedback and my last question, the temporary aigence seclosed down, will you be writing a book? guest: well, i don't know about a book, but people say comedy., it would be a sigar, ng back to the

that was the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction, was set up, stewart bowen years, t for a number of did are of existence, they number of lessons learned decided to doe've is do discreet ones, the first with corruption and what did we learn about that with number of recommendations, dealt with the security sector systems which is train, advise and assist afghan police and military and that is being done. we'll look at economic development, next one coming narcotics.l as i don't know that compare the sigir's findings, we've utilized the information sigir identified in iraq, we've also utilized information

the gao, dojid, as well as was acting commission that set up. so we've kind of utilized those that is the about as far as i can go. don't know if anybody has compared the two reports. daniel now, om daniel in tacoma park, maryland. good morning. yeah frshgs my analysis, the whole reason we're there, we and so far n -- we've wasted one or two trillion iraq s on both countries, and afghanistan and never going o get our money back and i was actually in high school when we were in afghanistan and i don't and 20 or us there 30 more years and i don't want to see any more troops being and killed. i guess your job is to analicize reconstruct se is that country on a troop's life it i don't think it is worth

in the end. i think that most americans are it g there and i think that is sad we've had both democrats do republican presidents nothing to lead the countries and i don't think we'll leave in the next two or three presidents? host: thank you, daniel, again, policy issue. i appreciate the caller's i don't do again, policy, i just prevent the facts n how we're carrying out those policies. host: how many times have you been over to afghanistan in these six year? don't have the exact number, i think close to 20. i try to go three to four times year and usually stay anywhere from a week to two weeks and try to get around. host: what is it like to be there these day? you don't get around as much as you used to because has ity system deteriorated, basically staying in the u.s. embassy and getting

out. visit with the senior ministers, obviously troops, try as much as possible, i learned further you get out likely younter, more will get the truth. you do that. meet with the president and of afghanistan and try to work with them, try to talk to issues.ut i eluded to before, the afghans is, maybe too well. because i actually have a target back over there because -- they are fighting the same orrupt influences that we are identifying and you know, people may write bad articles about me there, they tend to shoot you in a number of working tors who are for the afghan anticorruption

started to identify big fish fish. they are facing people who will you identify their corruption. we try to work with them, educate them, we have sources help them. it is a dangerous place. that is all i can say. from the sigar report in october, ultimately it says the that was ned a force not able to provide nationwide ecurity, that force faced larger threat than anticipated after draw down of coalition us more.forces, tell host: well, we had the apability of training and adviseing and assisting. it is just we got into this, we ad never done something this huge before. security sector assistance is, i believe, i testified and you have cited it before, it is

system or ew weapon country, to developed to korea, japan, whatever. a e you are dealing with country with high literacy, been years, or 30 something very little infrastructure, the and police were basically destroyed over the last 30 years, so it was very underestimated the difficulty. align our not capabilities to their needs and still got that problem and so those are some big key issues, we didn't utilize nato have. as well as we could host: last few calls for john grove, david from elk california. david, thank you for waiting, you are on the air. caller: thank you. c-span, comment first on the young lady who poke eloquently about the

proliferation of the industrial omplex and the -- fraud abuse report, that alked about six and a half u.s. army -- rs dod ig report or something else, don't know the details of it. -- : if you like caller: the u.s. army -- uest: i'm sorry, i don't know

that report. i read that -- since those initial reports and six trillion would attract some attention. host: thanks, david, i think so, don't know thell details of that report, hear from cindy st. joseph, minnesota, welcome to the program, cindy. caller: hi. names ng to the bbreviation sigar, it sounds kind of close to what leah is talking about scie ntology. is strange, talking about opium fields and we heard two elections for president that troops over there were saying the only reason promote control voices poppy fields and the other thing we heard rom the same soldiers was that

we need to get out of there because we're basically training force. be a fighting and so, seeing how things are oing now, i think our troops need to come home. but i want to clarify on that oincidental name scie ntology, nything to do with you guys -- congress did. anything to do with scientology. host: paul on the air for john sopko, down to the last couple minutes, hi, paul. caller: yes, sir, two quick questions. i remember the how much of the problems are americans coming over to afghanistan?

i think it will work for you. to give america all it's worth. i will take the answer off-line. that was one of the most outrageous things. we built this wonderful building surge,was to be for the by the time they started construction the surge was over. the marine corps general, i have to give kudos to him. they say they did not want the building. please don't build it. it will be a waste of money. they were overruled by generals sitting back behind the lines saying we have to build it because congress gave us the money. we told dod we should hold that

general accountable for wasting $37 million. the pentagon said that is not a problem. different leadership for general mattis is a different secretary of defense. get a different response if we revealed that report today. as far as we know it is still not occupied. the afghans can't sustain it. the are not able to get electrical systems in place. it has been a waste. host: hello, douglas. caller: good morning. . have a problem we should use the wisdom of had in the bible. a lot of people in the united states are that way. they need to check the bible and see what is going to happen to

these countries. , letey want to continue them destroy themselves. i would like to know what your comment is. don't do policy. i can't respond. caller: hello. you are between a rock and a hard place it seems on this project. to -- i don't even comprehend how anything can get done with so many people includingo each other working with the government that is totally dysfunctional and crooked. where do you see yourself going in this direction?

is there any point to it at all? guest: i appreciate your appreciation of my frustration but i am eternally optimistic. what is the alternative. i firmly believe strong oversight -- oversight being will makeo a mission the government better. why i took this job is because i have been watching government screw ups since i started in 1977. change are not going to unless you give strong oversight and keep harping at it. how we do to change business and improve how we do business in afghanistan and what we have identified as problems. host: you talked about the

reports on corruption, on security, on developing inside the country. what else do you want to know that you might not know now? caller: looking at the -- guest: looking at the planning. what have we learned from the way we didn't plan to go in there? ambassadors, to get their ideas. what is useful to them? a number of ideas still percolating. host: mohammed caller:. caller:i have a question concerning the drug trade. during the vietnam war we had military import of drugs.

now we have afghanistan. makinged to stop excuses. we are the largest importer of drugs that you can think of. look at what is going on in the country. nobody wants to say that we can't stop it. we can't stop it. drugs run the world. that is all there is. guest: we don't have any evidence of that. most of the opm coming to the united states does not come from afghanistan. most comes from latin america. most of this drug goes to europe . quite a bit goes to canada and china. we don't really see much here. i don't think there is a grand conspiracy.

host: sarah, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe money is power and power corrupts absolutely. i have a question. how is it good for afghanistan's reconstruction when there is a world site represents afghanistan history and it is slated to be turned into a coppermine by a chinese entity? i would recommend to viewers to look up a documentary called shadow world on pbs. it shows the real corruption behind political power and it is all the way to the top. the corporate takeover of the world by the 1% and how they shuffle money around, take bribes on these arms deals.

that is shunted to offshore accounts. that is what is going on with the world today. corporations don't care about people. they don't care about civilization. they care about money. that is the bottom line. money is power. this is the problem with the world being run into the ground. my relatives fought in afghanistan and iraq and have been ponds of the united states government in this. we can't let halliburton be the iraq,nside contract in which is a contrived war. we are seeing it in afghanistan. trade, thehe drug arms deals, all this is keeping

us involved here. asis a never ending thing long as the wealthy corporations make money. they control everything. host: thank you for calling. we are just about out of time. guest: there are a lot of people who believe there are conspiracies out there. i don't. my office was created. you're looking at the head of a government agency, appointed by a president. there are 70 other inspectors general and our job is to get the facts out there. we are not part of that conspiracy. viewderstand there is a there is a grand conspiracy. we live in a country where they create independent inspectors general and we fund them to bring out truth and give you the

facts, and let you determine policy. the latest report outcome here is a look at it from october of this year. .ou can read it our gas, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. thank you for your time. host: thank you for joining us for this discussion. we will see you back here tomorrow morning at 7:00. we have live program that focuses on international affairs. a discussion on u.s. turkey relations. we will take you to that event. enjoy your day.