insights and opinions this morning. we appreciate the conversation. guest: thank you. host: we are going to take a break but when we come back we will continue the conversation on afghanistan with bill roggio, author of " the long war" journal. we will be right back. ♪ rever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: on your screen is bill roggio. he is managing editor of the long war journal. you have been mapping the what is happening in afghanistan as well as iraq. your reaction to the taliban's ability and the speed to which they have taken over the country of afghanistan. guest: thank you for having me

on. i have been covering afghanistan for 7 years now. i am not surprised this happened. maybe the speed of the last two weeks, but everything leading up to that actually i predicted. the taliban has used its rural insurgency strategy to expand its control. it was doing this for years while u.s. military commanders, u.s. intelligence officials -- and i am talking about the top-level leadership, not the individuals i speak to at the granular level, they understood this -- but the leadership failed to recognize this. they decided they would go all in on a peace process that was doomed to fail. the taliban always had a maximalist strategy for taking over afghanistan. the taliban -- the talks were a

smokescreen to get the united states to withdraw to come to this point. while all of this is happening the taliban was organizing,, training, pre-positioning equipment and people into these districts to expand control. this is a massive intelligence failure, a massive failure in creativity and understanding what the taliban is about by the top level generals and political leaders, our department -- secretaries of states secretaries of defense. they bought into the peace process while the taliban was organizing the military takeover of afghanistan. when i see general miller saying things like " we have to ask ourselves why and how this happened," frankly i am furious! i can answer those questions!

i watched this developed over the course of a decade! if i can do this myself, how can the entire u.s. military with billions of dollars at its disposal fail in understanding the nature of the taliban fail in understanding its ideology, fail in understanding its maximalist strategy and objective? this is a failure in leadership of the highest order and on the intelligence side, it is probably the worst in the last 10 years. host: when you said the taliban's rural strategy, what exactly have they been doing? guest: after the u.s. handed over security to afghan forces

in 2014, the taliban slowly but surely started to take over these remote districts. this was dismissed by u.s. leaders. they said " we only care about the populations unders.' i was reading the taliban's statements from their leaders at the time. these were in english, so it is not like i even had to go out of my way to get these translated. they said " the afghan government does not care about these areas, but we do. we will take these areas over, tax the people, establish training camps, then we will expand our control outward>" from the course of 2014 to 201

6, the taliban was slowly but surely expanding its control. taliban openly rules and many of these districts. the number of contested districts -- these were districts where the taliban was at fighting for control against the afghan government -- these areas were just as important. fast forward to this year, the taliban had contested 214 districts. when biden announced his plan to withdraw, the taliban flipped the switch. the contested districts came under taliban control. once these contested districts

were controlled, the taliban surrounded the cities of the provincial capitals. the taliban controls 30 of afghanistan's 34 provinces. all 30 of those provincial capitals. the siege of kabul has begun. it will not be like the 1990's when you had the northern alliance putting up some resistance in a pocket of afghanistan. the taliban will take the entirety of afghanistan, establish the islamic emirate of afghanistan, and al qaeda, which has remained an ally of the taliban will be offended. host: what does that mean for the united states? guest: this is a major security threat, not only for the united states, but for the west, and

allies like india. al qaeda's singular goal is to establish its own caliphate. it wants to reestablish the caliphate. its tactics are we take one country at a time. that is their nation building. they just got one back in afghanistan. in somalia, a third to half of the country is under control of al qaeda's branch there. al qaeda has active insurgencies in syria, yemen and other places. one thing to be clear about here is the improvement of security here in the united states, homeland security has increased. the entire discussion about the

war against these jihadist groups is to end the endless wars, this narrative picked up by the trump administration, and that was the start of the disengagement. endless wars do not end just because the united states decides to opt out. the jihadists still get a vote. they are waging endless jihad. by leaving territory under the control of jihadists it allows them to continue to expand their mission of creating the caliphate. these places become active bases where they can plot attacks against us here in the west. these are innovative groups. these are groups out of which 09 years of war with the united states --

we have to be cognizant of that. i understand people are tired of afghanistan and of these wars, but our enemies have not tired of these wars. they will continue to come at us. guest: it gives them motivation. it gives them everything they need to continue to take the fight to us. host: i want to point our viewers to the map that shows tell ban control -- shows tal iban control. the orange is taliban threat. new york times reported as recently as late june, u.s.

intelligence agency even if ta liban gained power, would be at least an that year and a half before kabul would be threatened. guest: that went to 90 days and now i'm hearing hours. all within the span of an -- of a month. that is how quickly the tele-man t --aliban --taliban marched on the government. individuals doing the granular work. warning their superiors about the leadership has been out to lunch on this issue. this is why afghanistan is

collapsing. look at the u.s. embassy. they were saying there's no problem here. we are going to keep it open. days ago, president biden had to send in 5000 american troops to evacuate the nbc -- the embassy within a matter of 24 to 48 hours. that is an intelligence failure. that is what collapse looks like. this is what defeat looks like. host: bill roggio is hosting secretary of state. your thoughts. >> guest: they are evacuated to the airport so they can be immediately removed from the country once the taliban advanced begins.

that's why they haven't launched the attack just yet on the city. i also think there might be an aspect there where the tele-band they not want to confront the united states -- where the taliban might not want to confront the united states. it's just a mauer -- is just a matter of hours. it would likely take casualties. this is for fighters who have fought against the u.s. for 20 years. that is a tough pill to swallow for the taliban. it may want that saigon moment of the u.s. helicopters and u.s. planes rushing out of kabul and the panic if they launch an attack on the capital. we do know whatever remaining

embassy personnel and whatever they are doing there in afghanistan is immaterial at this point. the idea that some type of settlement is frankly ridiculous . they should be evacuated. there is nothing the u.s. can do or the u.n. or nato diplomats can do to affect the situation. they are merely at that airport for show. the biden administration has been really spending all of this. they are trying to put the best face on this collapse and i don't think keeping the ambassador and a couple of embassy personnel at the airport , i don't think that sends the message. host: what is the fate of afghan president? >> he's going to have to decided to flee or surrender to the taliban. i don't think they will treat him nicely if he surrenders. when ishmael con --khan

surrendered, they did treat him nicely. if i am ghani, i am not testing the waters. they may let him live to be an example of what happens or he could be swinging from a lamppost. flip a coin and that is what his fate is. host: let's get back to the phone lines. chicago, democratic color. caller: -- host: democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is my first time of death this is the first time i was scrutinized this much -- this is the first time i was scrutinized

this much. we haven't had a victory since world war ii. the general of that war told us after he made president leave offers, beware the industrial complex. my true belief is had this been this -- been a capitalistic society. the powers that be don't give a dam who wins these wars. that's why we can go up in there for 20 years and come out with intelligence like we've got. we should have learned something when russia was in there and we backed russia. i mean we backed the taliban against russia. let's quit living in lala land. guest: is there a question for

me? host: what is your reaction? guest: first of all, we did not support the taliban. many of the individuals that fought in that, i understand the military industrial complex conspiracy theory. that's really all i have to say about that. i dismiss conspiracy theories like that. host: what is your thought on the air force base being overrun. guest: there's a lot of equipment, u.s. supply equipment that is fallen into the hands of the taliban. that is a massive base. i've seen videos of them flying helicopters. humvees, armored personnel

carriers. if the u.s. government, military wants to deny this to the tele-band -- to the taliban, they should be launching airstrikes. we have supplied them with the war material for their army. airstrikes need to be launched to make sure that this material, host: what ishost: the significance of that airbase? tell us more of a history. guest: it was the largest base in afghanistan. it was the headquarters for nato and the u.s. military so there is a propaganda significance for the tele-band. within three months, almost to the date -- significance for the taliban.

within three months, almost to the day, take the headquarters. there is the military is a gift cancer -- there is the military significance. there is another factor. i'm glad you asked. also housed the prison that held numerous high-value targets. a large number of them were members of al qaeda and other jihadist groups. they have been free to so al qaeda and its allies have been given a boost, a shot in the arm. the ranks were replenished. host: charles in arkansas, republican. caller: good morning. i'm old, and one of the things you find many good old is

sometimes you can be bothered. it worries me up about the way this took place is president biden is old. i fear that our allies and other people may need to defend southeast asia. they look at this and host: let's take that point. guest: i don't think age is a determinant. it's your ability to make decisions and make decisions that are in the best interest of the american public. we have to question his decision, not his age. i certainly think that what this decision is a clear sign of weakness. american allies and friends across the world have to be very worried right now. they just watched an army and the government props up by the u.s. and nato collapse within

three months of the decision to withdraw from afghanistan. how this withdrawal was conducted with the responsible. let me give you -- was irresponsible. with the year prior, i was speaking to afghan officials. i will leave it vague. i was advising to them. president trump is not president. after the election, president biden will make a decision to leave afghanistan. you now need to decide how you are going to take this. you need to be organized. the government needed to consolidate its forces. perhaps, get rid of weak individuals within security sources -- within security forces. they needed to make hard decisions. what afghan officials told me was i had been told by nato.

i have been told by u.s. officials. i've been told by u.s. central command. i have been told by u.s. department of defense that the u.s. will not leave. my advice -- i advised them, trust me. this is happening. you need to start doing this now. when the announcement came, they were caught off guard. they thought that big brother, the united states would always be there for them. when it did not happen, they did not make those hard decisions. then they have to try to make decisions while the taliban onslaught began. this type of decision-making and execution makes our allies very fearful. if i am a chinese general and i just watched how the u.s. left afghanistan, how the entire 20 years of played out i would be very happy and be thinking very

confident if there was a direct conflict with the u.s. because it's what happened in afghanistan and it stayed in afghanistan, it would be horrific for the afghan people. from u.s. national security perspective, we can say that is an afghan problem but it isn't. this is why it's a problem for the u.s. these same generals, political leaders are going to have to lead us in our next conflict. it i trust the generals who could not see what was clearly in front of their face, who could recognize the threat that we are facing? there's a man named carter medication. he was an advisor and he wrote an article in political -- in a little -- he wrote an article

and said one of the reasons for the failures in all of this is that we stand -- we fail to recognize that the taliban had religious motivations and this gave them fighting spirit and in gave them a real edge. this is the advised that our generals got and this is how they make decisions. this is the type of generalship of the quality of analysts information and percolating to the top. we have to think long and hard about getting involved in a conflict with china. host: your thoughts on the afghan to help the united states and show you this video. this is from a reporter on the ground. panic and desperate. a traffic jam everywhere. you can't see the video, but he is showing cars bumper-to-bumper. terrified about what will happen tonight. probably last the day before the fall of kabul.

people are trying to get out. people are cashing in there -- cashing out their savings. what are the prospects for these people? >> the human aspect of this, i cover a lot of the military. what's happening on the ground. i'm watching these videos and it breaks my heart. it's horrific what is happening and what is to come is something that those responsible for this failure, they need to be held to account for this. the afghan people are in for some very dark days. those in kabul and the few areas remaining that are grasping for control opposing the taliban,

they will be living this soon. one of the things that infuriated me while covering this over the years is the taliban apologists who told us they will moderate. taliban 2.0. taliban is different. they have been westernized. i wish i could make -- they helped advise those who lead us to this disaster. they own this and they should have to pay a price for it. host: walter in baltimore. caller: what makes his right-wing analysis more valuable than the cia and the other intelligence agencies that we have. i disagree with him totally in that we should have never been in there. as the caller set on your last

set, we should have went to saudi arabia and get some of those incriminated muslim terrorists. we should not never have been into afghanistan. to my point, what makes your right-wing intelligence anymore valuable than millions of met man -- millions of dollars we've spent. when you answered that one, would you please answer the fact that the opium production in afghanistan is the real reason why we were there. not oil, not freedom but opium. guest: this is america and we were -- and we are free to disagree with each other and that's why i love this country. walter, you know nothing about me. you know nothing about my politics are what i believe. i certainly would not describe myself as right wing, but to

answer your question i've been right. it's as simple as that. i have been warning anyone who would listen that what was to come and what has come to pass, i explain how it was happening, why it was happening and sadly, and nobody wishes i was -- nobody wishes they were wrong more than i. every time i'd get up and do my job and every time i go to bed, i wish i was wrong. i wish was the most wrong individual person on the planet. but facts are a funny thing. they cannot be denied. you may wish to believe that the cia and the department of defense work correct about afghanistan, but i encourage you to read the news. you can read publications that some consider left-wing.

i don't. i'm a consumer of a wide variety of news. they are all talking about how politicians and the administration, how the defense department, how the state department, how the intelligence services have all been flat-footed. host: can you explain how you do your job? how do you track what you have been tracking? the world strategy. guest: this is the funny part of all of this. the main source, not the only because i not only watch what they say but i watch what they do. i watch what the taliban says. they said it in english. it's information is spread out. a little food for thought. the department of defense publishes only in one legates.

that tells you the sophistication -- publishes only in one language. i would read it and i see what they are saying and i watch what they are doing on the battlefield. i read news reports. i talked individuals within government within the state department, within the defect -- within the death -- within the intelligence community. i have contacts on the ground in afghanistan. government organizational workers. i read voraciously the afghan rest. i have contacts within the afghan government. a few within the afghan military or -- military. i pool all this information and i get up and i work hard every day and i put this all together. i may not be the smartest man on the planet, but i work very hard at what i do and i've been doing it for years and there's no such

thing off as a day for me. when i go on vacation, my wife will tell you maybe i worked three or four hours that day and some of the work i do is reading the news. i'm doing it every day. i'm staying on top of it and that's what it takes have an understanding. the reality is people do not want to accept the top level leadership our generals, principles within the military and intelligence. they have been politicized. they politicize intelligence to say what the political masters wants to hear. if there is a conspiracy that you want to talk about, if you want something to look at, that's a reason you should be concerned about. here's what happened.

there was analysis was being published and as it made it up the chain of command, the analysis was changed. this was happening in the analysis of iraq. they were changing it because it was saying things that the political leaders did not want to hear. it was an uprising and this was investigated and employees were ticked off that their analysis was being modified for political purposes. this is what is happening every day. if you want to understand how afghanistan collapsed and how there was a failure in intelligence and leadership, this is a major reason. i'm not political. i don't care whether there's an r or eight he to someone -- and are --an r or a d next to

someone's name. they are, they have a desired policy in the case of afghanistan. let's leave. then they mutate the facts to fit that policy. that is a recipe for failure and disaster. it might not look like a big problem in afghan, but woe to america if we make the same errors. host: what should the united states have done instead? what should afghanistan look like if you were in charge? guest: i would have had to be in charge over a decade ago and there would need to be a continuity of leadership. whoever would've followed, i'm sorry i'm laughing at that one. that's -- no one is going to elect me.

you get the facts right first and then make your policies when they are. if the policy was to withdraw, then recognize what is going right and what is going wrong. be honest about what you are going to leave behind and do what needs to be done to ensure that the taliban do not take over afghanistan. if the policy were to be to stay, then you need to be committed to the policy. the president of the united states, he's the one who can convince the american people. he has to expend the political capital. when he says we are leaving, i don't blame the american public. i want to be clear. i don't blame president biden for wanting to leave. he is right, it has been a policy failure and disaster. i would not trust these generals to fix the problems in

afghanistan. in the case of his decision, it's how he decided to lead -- to leave. host: let me go to jennifer jacobs, reporter who quoted senator blinken saying this is not saigon. a viewer wants to know, she says she understands your comparison to the exit in saigon. however my concern for diplomats and military as a possible iranian hostage type situation of 1979. any comment from your guest on this possibility. guest: within the intelligence community are very concerned about, this is why the decision to withdraw should have been made over a month ago. the decision to keep it open, a political decision because the bided administration did not

want to look like that the biden administration did not want it to look like panic button. now that is a possibility. i think with the presence of 5000 american troops, that probably reduces the likelihood of that. these are not things i like to leave to chance. host: jane in illinois, democratic color. caller: you seem to have been right -- host: emma craddick caller -- democratic caller. caller: we need to be aware of our limitations. my question is, where should we be concentrating to promote democracy in our own hitless fear? central america, south america.

aren't we already involved in africa. are you the only knowledgeable person out there who predicted this? or do you have people that agree with you? guest: i'm going to pass on your first question only because this is not my area of expertise and i don't like to pretend i am something i am not. i will say the idea that we can promote democracy in places where it is sour soil, that is something that needs to be considered. that may be the best thing for afghanistan would've been a democracy, might of been something else that would've been more palatable that would've allowed the afghans to not be a base for al qaeda and remain a partner.

creating south korea in the heart of asia. it could've been something else. i'm sorry. could you repeat the second part of your question? host: who else knew what you know? guest: my colleagues. we've been working together on this. there's people in the military, intelligence services, other three letter agencies, state department who know this, who get this. they are not the decision-makers. these are people like me who go to work every day who work hard and focus on these issues. the problem is we are saying things that political leadership, let me be clear. republican and democrat did not want to hear.

the trump administration put that horrific deal, it wasn't a peace deal. it was a deal that allowed the u.s., they got the u.s. out of afghanistan. none of us see ourselves as being political. we just care about the security of our country. that's it. when it gets politicized, when intelligence gets politicized you get failures like this. host: blinken told the taliban if they interfere with u.s. personnel evacuations, there would be a swift and decisive response. guest: i have no doubt that the u.s. military will do everything in its power to thwart an advance during an evacuation.

this is how you prevent that sort of hostage situation. additionally, the u.s. is going to not want the taliban to advance on kabul. the last thing the u.s. needs is the afghan storming the airport. that can create panic and a multitude of problems. civilian casualties, that is something that is not needed. i am very critical of the department of defense for their actions over the last three months. many of them are directly responsible for this failure and for trying to provide coverage for something that was not able to be covered up. he says this, i take him at his word. there's one thing that i know, the u.s. military does not want its citizens and soldiers to be

killed or in the hands of the taliban. host: edward in new jersey. caller: i guess you know that countries and armies need logistics. wouldn't the answer just be mass migration and allowing the refugees to leave? host: let's take your point of migration. turkey being one of them. what's going to happen? guest: at a time of covid, host: let me share with you. the turkish president is giving a public statement saying we will continue to stabilize the region.

cooperation with pakistan. we are facing a wave of afghan migrants coming through a ron -- coming through iran. guest: pakistan, i will focus on that part. everyone is trying to put a best face on this. taliban does not want these people to migrate. they want to have people. they have discouraged it. one of the biggest problems is the failure to hold pakistan to account. i'm going to give you a little here. this is how washington works. i get a panel and a think tank i will not name. 2011, it was me and senior advisor to the obama administration and senior republican advisor. both very prominent individuals

in afghanistan. i explained how afghanistan sponsors state-sponsored terrorism. this is undeniable. anyone who remotely pays attention knows this. i can do this in detail and i will do it in a way where i challenge anyone on this planet to argue against me. the question comes from the audience, what do we do about pakistan? my response is there's things that you can do. what the u.s. was doing at this time and up into dust up until the trump administration, they tried to give crack to a crack at it and -- crack addict and hope he would quit his addiction. start small designated individuals for their support of it to leman and other jihadist groups -- their support of the taliban and other jihadist

groups. cut off aid, work your way all the way up to the point where you start small and work your way up and possibility of state-sponsored terrorism. you start giving india intelligence and military equipment. i can't guarantee this, but i would be nine and 9% certain. i will share this with your listeners. my website has been in pakistan now. -- my website has been and --banned --banned in pakistan now. afghan leaders would've been arrested and possibly executed on the spot.

the training camps, the hospitals. all of their infrastructure would have been destroyed and the taliban insurgency would have been a shell of itself. what do the experts have to say after i had laid this case out? they say well we just keep both of them -- we just keep giving pakistan money and hope they change their behavior. you barely get a credit card in between the opinion of the republicans and democrats, advisors, experts and washington, d.c. on positions like pakistan. that is the way the world works. if you want to know the problem in the, it's the groupthink that exists amongst our political intelligence. there is no creativity.

there is a fear of doing things as it directly is responsible for murdering americans. it's cowardice. it's failure. it's failure to understand our enemy. the pakistani people have suffered. their support for jihad is him has caused the death of -- jihadismn has caused the death of many. host: an afghan veteran, is that right? caller: i'm not. i'm somebody who lives in london, but i follow what is happening if -- in afghanistan. i'm just taking what your guests

has been saying. my question is the u.s. intelligence has been wrong about the taliban under william burns leadership. i wonder how wrong they could be about iranian atomic bomb. perhaps the iranians are much closer to building a bomb or they may even have it. the second point, there's a lot of talk about iranians regime had been training taliban. similar to how they negotiated jcpoa and they were teaching taliban what to say. guest: very familiar with iran's

support of the taliban. the evidence is undeniable. it comes from iranian officials themselves who admitted, just a slew of information. when it comes to support for the tele-band, iranians pale in comparison to what the pakistanis -- for them taliban, iranians pale in comparison to what the pakistanis have done. the pakistani state has a lot of ideological agreement with the taliban where there is differences between the iran and pakistan views on islam. the end of the day, they iranians support the taliban to help drive the u.s. out. iranians did not like the united

states on its border. it is always happy to see the united states defeated. this is a way for it to gain influence within the taliban. the iranians and the taliban were at odds at times from 2006, 1996 to 2001. to your first question, when it comes to issues like intelligence on nuclear these are not the issues that concern me so much within the intelligence community. these are issues that tend, tend to not be politicized. they are consistent over administrations. there is good evidence outside

of what u.s. intelligence services are saying. the threat of the iranians is credible. it's real. by no means am i an expert on this area. my colleagues can speak to this point. a host of our colleagues can speak to this point far better than i. that certainly is an issue. host: let's end with what you are watching for in afghanistan today and in the coming days. guest: right now i have completely under taliban control. it's just a matter of hours or days before the collapse.

does he leave? does he cut a deal with taliban taliban the -- with the taliban? is there any issue with the withdrawal? can it be conducted in an orderly fashion? in the coming days and weeks, i expect al qaeda and other terror groups, keep in mind the united nations called the deputy mayor of the taliban and military strategist who is the man with the plan to take over afghanistan. host: there's also a call for a human emergency meeting. guest: this is all perfunctory.

the time for diplomacy and a stern word of statements has long passed. diplomacy and a stern word of statements, that's what got us here. the u.s. officials thought there was a diplomatic solution when the taliban always had a military solution. host: bill roggio, you can find his reporting and his work. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. it was a pleasure. host: we are going to take a short break. woman come back, we will continue talking about afghanistan. -- when we come back, we will continue talking about afghanistan. was leaving afghanistan a mistake? yes, no, unsure and afghan war vets. we want to hear your perspective as well.

>> >> tonight, the author of "you don't belong here" tells the story of female war correspondents when covering war was a male-dominated profession. >> there was no military censorship, so it was probably the first and last uncensored american war. for women, it was a gift because it was only because of this openness that women could get through what had been the biggest barrier -- that you were not allowed on the field. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on

c-span because "q&a." >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. you will find people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. television for serious readers. discover, explore -- weekends on c-span2. washington journal continues. host: we are back for another 15 minutes. getting your thoughts on whether or not withdrawal of the -- withdrawal of afghanistan was a mistake. this breaking news. taliban has surrounded the city of kabul.

jennifer jacobs reports with bloomberg has this tweet just minutes ago. multiple reports that afghan president has flown out of the country. the taliban spokesperson says they are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power and also happening in the last hour, antony blinken defending president biden's decision to withdraw. >> we are evacuating the embassy, burning documents. this is not just about the overall idea of leaving afghanistan. this is about leaving hastily. how did president baden desk how did president biden get this wrong? >> we were in afghanistan for

one purpose. the deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. over those 20 years, we brought bin laden to justice. we oppose the threat to united states where the that to the point that it is not capable of conducting it again. on the terms that we went to afghanistan, we succeeded in achieving our objectives. when the president came to office, he had a decision to make. the previous administration negotiated that said our forces would be out of the country on may 1. the idea that the status quo could have been maintained by keeping our forces there is wrong. the fact of the matter is had the president decided to keep horses beyond may 1, attacks would have -- decided to keep

forces beyond may 1, attacks would have commenced. we would have back at war with the taliban and i would be on this program today explaining why we are sending forces back into afghanistan and back to war. something the american people do not support. >> that is the reality and the context we are dealing with. host: state of the union, you heard referred to the deadline set by the previous administration under president trump. president biden in his statement when he announced additional troops were headed to afghanistan to help with the withdrawal of americans and others in that country, also blamed the former president are putting him in this situation leaving him no choice to either go through with the agreement to withdraw or go back to open

combat. here is fox news sunday former secretary of state mike pompeo responding to the biden ministrations criticism. >> mr. secretary, what you think widen -- what you think president biden's blame for what is transpired over the deal he inherited from president trump and from you? >> if the risk weren't so serious, it would be pathetic. i would let my 10-year-old son get away from this kind of pathetic blame shifting. you should be focused on -- he should be less focused on blaming this on someone else. it's worth noting, this did not happen on our watch. we reduced our forces significantly. the taliban did not advance. this is the fact it is happening under the biden administration. this is not the way leaders lead

by pointing backwards. we had a bad deal we inherited. we got out of it. we secured america from the risk of iran. every president has had challenges. this president has utterly failed to protect the american people. host: the former president -- the former secretary of state, if you say it was a mistake dial-in this morning, if you say no you can dial in. if you are unsure or if you are an afghan veteran, we want to hear from you. this video of prisoners leaving after being broken out by the taliban. the trite lakes minnesota. you say yes it's a mistake -- detroit, lakes.

caller: people need to think back to how this went on and i say that it went on from bush. when the man any rack, when he -- in iraq, invaded kuwait. they interviewed our ambassador who was at home and told her that he had actually invaded kuwait. her answer was we did not want him to go that far. nobody paid attention to what the man told him in afghanistan. the cia went to investigate him. he said he cared about his religion and his country.

what did daddy bush want to do? he wanted to get into saudi arabia. he did. he built buildings and they blew them up. host: lawrenceville, georgia. you say yes, it's a mistake to leave afghanistan? caller: yeah, big time mistake. this was not only predictable. i was in the navy. i remember vietnam. they did everything they could to create optics. we are going to be back there in six months. host: did you feel the same with president trump said he wanted to withdraw? >> oh yeah. separate that -- that peace agreement with president trump was a nightmare.

this is envelope -- unbelievable. i can't come up with enough adjectives to describe how bad this has been handled from the get go. i supported the war in iraq. in hindsight, that was a mistake. that is where all this stuff started. 20 years later, we are going to be right back where we were. unbelievable. i can't believe the stupidity of our government. host: we are less than 20 days away from marking the anniversary on the attack of 9/11. john and arlington, virginia. afghanistan veteran. when did you deploy? caller: multiple times. thanks for taking my call. i think a lot of times you are

left with a series of bad options in terms of politics. i think we need to look at going forward whether or not the way we have structured our defense come up what has gone so wrong in afghanistan in the last 20 years that has left us with an army that we are trained that collapsed within a matter of hours. as we look forward to future challenges and threats, how we built a defense apparatus and intelligence apparatus can be successful? we need to really think long and hard before we start beating the drums of war with china and russia whether or not we can be successful or whether we fundamentally need to reevaluate how we built the defense of our nation. thanks for taking my call. host: what did you do when you are in afghanistan? caller: i don't want to get into a great deal about what i've done personally. i again appreciate you taking my

call. host: fayetteville, north carolina. you say no, not a with -- not a mistake to withdraw. caller: not a mistake. we've been there for over 20 years and we get to show nothing. it's time to leave. host: ronald in fayetteville, north carolina. whether or not it's a mistake to have withdrawn from afghanistan. walter wellman who is covering afghanistan and what's happening there has this picture at 7:37 a.m. eastern time. staff being evacuated overnight. this story has been quickly evolving on saturday and sunday. richard ingle with this tweet this morning. afghans crowding visa processing

center trying to get visas to the united states. stories of desperation. many coming up to me crying. asked about concerns of the afghan government with failed to halt the taliban advance. >> there is irrefutable evidence that a vast majority of those afghan forces cannot hold ground. it hasn't your plan to withdraw troops changed? >> no. we spent over a trillion dollars over 20 years. we trained and equipped with modern equipment over 300,000 afghan forces. afghan leaders have to come together. we lost thousands of american personnel. we've got to fight for themselves -- they've got to

fight for themselves. five for the nation. the united states insist continued to -- fate -- fight for the nation. making sure that their air force functions and is operable. resupplying their forces with food and equipment. paint all of their salaries. but they've got to want to fight. they have outnumbered the tele-band. -- they are -- they have outnumbered the taliban. new secretary of defense in afghanistan. i think they are beginning to realize they have got to come together politically at the top. we are going to continue to keep our commitment, but i do not regret my decision. host: that was a president

earlier this week. this morning, taliban has captured the surrounding areas around kabul. they said they are waiting for peaceful transfer of power. afghan president ghani has left the country. caller: here's a place where the united states had enemies out in the open. clearly identified enemies. make the lives of people in afghanistan better by destroying the taliban and al qaeda. makes the united states look very badly to abandon an ally so precipitously. it's horrible optics. not just horrible optics -- not

just horrible policy, but horrible optics. i think the united states is going to pay a big price in their war reputation for having abandoned afghanistan like this. host: new york times quotes secretary blinken on nbc's meet the press interview with chuck todd where chuck todd played for secretary blinken the president's quote from june. whatever happens in afghanistan if the rays -- if there is a significant deterioration and security that could well happen we discussed this before. i don't think it's going to be something that happens from a friday to a monday. an iraqi veteran, dave. what did you do there? caller: i spent 21 years in the army. i deployed to iraq 2003 to 2004.

that was on the ground as civil affairs operator. i got to deal with, directly with people. trying to establish democracy. combating anarchy. many aspects of the war. a big comment i had to make is the will of the people that we work with, whether it's iraq or afghanistan is something that is drastically different than the will of the american soldier marine. once we got in, i feel the same for afghanistan, the operator level is it's really hard to get -- to extricate ourselves from either one of those places. the decision has to be made by guys much higher up the chain down myself, but we sort of have

to have trust in our leadership. it's difficult place to be involved. host: what do you make of the taliban ease and speed to which they have been able to capture all of this territory and on the brink of a collapse of the afghan government? caller: i think it's pretty shocking. i think it's something that we should have prevented. any kind of super hasty withdrawal is not good. to get ourselves out of either place i think, something -- we should always strive for. i think it's shocking the speed

♪ here is an update on what is happening in afghanistan. the taliban has taken the country -- capital of kabul. president biden has now set about five dozen treats will be sent to afghanistan to provide security for evacuations.