>> we will be taking you to the white house for remarks by president bagging about the u.s. military efforts to evacuate americans and some afghans from afghanistan after the taliban seized control. we will take you there live. expected to start in about 10 minutes here on c-span. we will take a look at some of today's washington journal. host: can we talk about your

group and where it is based and how it is funded and how you do your mission? guest: our project provides legal representation to refugees and displaced people around the world. refugees are and some of the most difficult situations in the legal process. it offers few due process rights and is not transparent. for the last decade, the international assistance partners have offered a presentation for thousands of refugees and other displaced people to countries of protection. that valuable information from client systems make advocacy to remove obstacles that we see our clients face. we also use that information and

that mission to pursue systemic advocacy through litigation. when that is the bet -- when that is the best course. host: is it all donor base? guest: yes. we do our work from new york, washington, d.c., berlin, beirut. because refugees were often in very difficult physical circumstances, we really pioneered a unique model so we are able to continually represent people even if they are waiting outside the airport as they try to navigate checkpoints. we can still stand touch with them and provide that representation. host: it's focused on those

kabul in kabul. -- those in kabul. can you pick up the story for what happens when they stepped off those? where are they landing? what happens to them next? guest: the first thing is important that there are more afghans and more flights getting out of kabul. we really don't know much about where they are being taken or what happens to them to be honest. right now, the focus is getting people out. getting afghans out because the window is rapidly narrowing. we don't know how long the taliban will guarantee this sort of passage to the airport for afghans. remember, these are people who worked with, for, on behalf of the united states.

military interpreters, individuals who may be family members, green card holders, people who the u.s. equips to be journalists. the u.s. helped advocate to become involved in local politics or teach in rural schools or advanced women's rights. these afghans are particularly at risk. we are hearing reports that they are going door-to-door. right now, the goal is to get them into the airport and onto a plane outside the country. where they go, we really hope that they arrive in the united states and are on a permanent pathway to protection. the administration wasted a lot of time begging other countries to take our own allies and reports are that some are flown to qatar.

we don't know if they are there, how long will they be there, how are they housed, what are they fed, will they come to the u.s., how long will it take? these are all questions we need answers for. we just hope that while the government is operating to evacuate people as many as quickly as possible, the same time the u.s. government with all its might and capacity is coming up with the more efficient and effective to get these afghans into the united states. the existing process before the evacuations, which is to slow, took too long and was broken. we really hope and expect that that process is not what's going to be happening to people

elsewhere. host: what that existing process was to air left people out. explain what a special immigrant visa is, how hard it is to get and how long it takes. guest: special immigrant visa is a special visa provided by u.s. law since 2009 for afghans who work for and on behalf of the united states. very honorable and important intention, the u.s. is there for 20 years. to advance the goals of democracy and human rights and freedom of speech, freedom of press as well as the military presence. it requires a corporation of thousands -- it requires the cooperation of thousands of afghans. they have the confidence to step

up and do that work with the u.s. side-by-side because you made a promise that if their lives came at risk because of their work with the u.s., the u.s. would get their back, that we would not leave them behind and that we will bring them to the u.s. for safety. that promise was supposed to be manifested through the special visa program. unfortunately, from the outset it was a very inefficient process plagued with administrative errors. i could go into the weeds and your callers will be curious, but for example this is for people who work for or on behalf of the u.s. government. one would think the u.s. government with no who worked for the u.s. government. a large part of this process required the applicant to prove to be u.s. government that they worked for the u.s. government.

that process involved tracking down the correct hr person or company you work for and try to get them to write you a letter so that you can send to the americans and hope the americans think that that art -- think that that hr letter and so this is so inefficient. there are at least 14 steps. at the end of the day in the process, it took years. whose application was pending for a decade who was murdered this year before their visa could be applied. so it's really well-intentioned by the americans, but the way that it was implemented wasn't too slow.

one other thing that i point out, there are thousands of refugees, thousands of afghans that work with the u.s. the don't qualify for the program. for example afghans who did work advancing freedom of press, democracy and funding are cooperative agreements. the u.s. government, they interpret that program and that work has not been on behalf of the u.s.. the tele-band, it says are you working on a cooperative agreement or -- on a cooperative agreement? -- v taliban -- taliban says are you working on a cooperative

agreement? they didn't serve side-by-side with the americans, we need to get them out. host: for somebody who makes all the way through this very long pipeline that you are talking about and they get a very special immigrant visa, what is that mean in the united states? what determines where in the united states they go and what do they get when they are here? >> guest: the united states has a long history of welcoming refugees. states where we are seeing so many governors step up and say they are welcoming and ready to invite refugees into their communities. for decades, refugees have been the backbone of the so much american life and so just like refugees, afghans that come in through the visa program are resettled through resettlement agencies. if they have family members and up to felicity, they will be --

once they are there, they are able to receive temporary assistance to get them off the ground. these afghans and refugees are so resilient, they bring so many skills. especially those who worked with americans, but if you are able to navigate the system that is designed to fail and you are able to emerge out of the worst circumstances, you do really well when you have support and protection, and we see refugees move past self actualization and build value in their community and country. america is ready and welcome --

and ready to welcome. that is our history and i think we will continue on that path. we just need to get them here safely. host: sunil varghese is with the refugee rights -- international rep you assistance -- international refugee assistance project. we will start on the line for independent. mike, stockton, california. go ahead. caller: i don't know if you are judging the mood of the american people and our ability to bring in all these refugees. i'm not saying they weren't like to buy our government. a lot of people don't think our government represents the people too much anymore. no one can explain what joe biden is doing at this other

border and all of these poor people come up people our politicians are being put in inhumane conditions, but they don't have any solutions to the problem. the american people were empathetic, but we have been midler -- misled by our government officials for the last 20 years. host: do you think we need to stop accepting refugees? stop immigration? caller: i think the right thing to do would be for people to advocate that all of our policymakers, all of our bureaucrats, all of the politicians in congress, may be joe biden and jill, let those people be transported and dropped in kabul. the color-- host: he brought up afghanistan. how much work do you do with

refugees at the sudden -- southern border? guest: we are accepting fewer refugees than we ever have before. the refugee program has been, it has been around for years. the u.s. has been accepting and remedies have been part of our fabric since our founding. think that we needed refugees, but we are all refugees. i think that we, i take the colors point. but i think he overestimates our ability as a country to continue to adopt and have people join our family. this is part of our family creed and who we are. in terms of the southern border, our organization provides

limited -- provides legal representation for people in the process. it's a think the impact is that the u.s. is a country of immigrants and immigrants, we have a moral obligation to immigrants. it's if we look at and do a study of society and we look at which countries have the largest economic engines. what countries you think capitalist systems are able to move forward the quickest, where innovation lives. those of the countries that accept immigrants. immigrants wherever they come from, especially those who are fleeing for their lives. i do say, if you live in cities

across america where people are leaving, going to bigger cities, you can't find enough people to work. you can't find enough people for help. we need more people immigrants -- we need more people. immigrants and people fleeing persecution. it is amazing to be american and to have such a richness of culture around me and watch in real-time all of it melting into one. i'm excited for myself and my children just to continue this american experiment. i think more americans are excited to see more neighbors coming from different places and what that means for our future. host: marietta, georgia. this is dolores, a democrat.

caller: i'm not calling where i thought it was. mi on the radio? -- am i on the radio? host: go ahead with your question or comment and sunil varghese will hear it. caller: i think it's a delusion that america is a melting pot because when people come here, they do not assimilate. they stick to their own kind. they do not blend with americans. they learn our culture. they bring their culture with them and they stick to it. as far as refugees, i think that's important, but i think it's important that we assist our neighbors. afghanistan is thousands of miles away. we've been there 20 years.

haiti has a crisis and i don't see where the united states is helping them at all. you help your neighbors first. guest: the color has a really important point. right now, -- the caller has a really important point. guest: we have an obligation to make sure the people that worked with us for 20 years don't die. we have an important obligation to our neighbors. haitians have been the victims of discrimination and policies. the u.s. should do more to help. those that are looking to flee from their lives because they are being prosecuted because of their political or sexual

orientation, they should find a home in the united states. there was a program which was a family reification program. there are so many haitians that have family who have been waiting in line to get a visa. the administration should make sure that program is brought back and expanded. if you are a haitian in the usa do have family in haiti, if they need to come to the u.s. they can. the caller has an important point. an earlier point of assimilation, i disagree in terms of. i would have -- i would say what we have seen with the american experiment is the benefit of integrating people from all around the world, i think it takes patience.

it might not, i would say it might be the first generation, second generation. but really we are all americans. we need to do more for haiti, especially for patients who wants to come to the united states. i would us -- for hatians --haitians who want to come to the united states. host: we had someone call who said he thought it would be beneficial that refugees speak english. -- that refugees speak english. how do you feel about that, the need to speak english? guest: specifically, i think english, it really is important and helpful to do well in the

u.s., the graduate from high school, go to college, or get a job. it's important to know english. i would encourage everyone whether they are in the u.s. or otherwise to pick up english as your first or second language. i think afghans, especially the people right now that we are focused on trying to get out of the airport today, trying to get out of the clutches of them taliban. these are people, they are so resilient and they will succeed in the u.s.. we are talking about people who work side-by-side with americans. if we say these afghans served side-by-side with the americans, we should leave side-by-side. i take the colors point, but we need to focus on making sure that if we get those afghans who we made that promise to out of the country.

talking about all these other topics, the taliban are not looking for reprisal. they're not looking to take revenge on journalists that worked with americans. or an employee of a u.s.-based nonprofit. they are looking to send a message. they are looking to scare another generation of afghans to say look, if you work to advanced freedom of speech, freedom of rights, freedom of press, women's rights, democracy. if you show any affiliation or affinity to the u.s., you will be killed. don't do it. that's what we are trying to prevent. i don't know how much time we have. we need to get people out. the president needs to make sure that the airport has capacity for more flights for more afghans. the main point of getting into the airport needs to be solved. we need leadership. i think it's important.

i would love to talk about the value of english, but i think we don't want to lose sight on what is happening right now which is we've got a small window to help our friends and partners and family not be killed and we really need to focus on that. host: we are expecting to hear more from president biden today. to provide -- we will be airing that in its entirety. just about 15 minutes left. terry has been waiting in illinois. a republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. just listening to you for a short time, i have changed my comment three times.

i'm an american and you have to stop putting a sign on our head saying that we are all immigrants all refugees. my family has been here. the second, i do believe that american citizens should be brought back. i do agree on that. the ones that have been put on those airplanes have not been vetted 100%. they know all we gotta do is get on the airplane. guest: i just want to comment.

it's a great discussion, but i'm not the expert on it. when does our american begin. when do we stop being another nationality and start being american? it is an interesting discussion. i agree that we need to make sure that there is vetting. we need to know who is coming to the country. it is my understanding that those people put me -- that evacuated -- there is some sort of vetting. when they are taken to a base,

there is more vetting happening there. refugees are the most vetted population. we talk about the afghans that worked for the u.s., these are people that went through so much vetting that we trusted to interpret for a combat military in battle. someone required people who would -- potentially people who would classify, or people who we trusted and capped continually vetting to make sure that they could be trusted working with the americans. this population has been vetted multiple times. i trust that the american administration will do the proper vetting. i think it's really important to know that the u.s. used a vetting as a pretext to keep refugees out. because the security check regime is so opaque, we don't

really know how it works. we put people in and hope they come out. it became an easy place for the administration to create a virtual law to keep them out of countries. this is not a conspiracy theory. we put out an extensive report on this. these are based on statements from the administration and things we have been able to access. i think we have to guard ourselves to find that balance of making sure that we are safe, but also making sure that the way we do that is efficient, meaningful and fair. we don't want to just bring people over and put them in contention in their country and throw them into never ending vetting system that has no solution. i want to make sure that we are safe and fair. i hear the caller's concern.

host: that available -- is it available? guest: yes we've been working with afghan allies for a decade. you will see reports on why that process was broken and recommendations to fix it. you will see recommendations as soon as the ministration announced withdrawal. we were hearing frantically that when the u.s. leaves, the tele-band will come. they will set up checkpoints, make it difficult to go to kabul . it was really imperative to make sure that evacuations was part of withdrawal planning. i think the defense of that think the defense department was standing ready but did not receive the order. what i'm hoping to hear from the president today is leadership and coordination about the plan

to keep the airport open as long as necessary and to get americans and afghans out and who is doing the coordination to get them to the airport. people are waiting outside in the open with taliban looking at them. we have clients at the airport. a woman and child who were teargas from the americans. it's long is it safe to stay out in the open to say i'm an american, i worked for america. get me out of here. if taliban did not know who they were before, they know now. the process requires waiting at the airport for too long. there are people who are too scared to leave their safehouses to get to the airport. i hope that we have some leadership today, some coordination that can point to say who is in charge. is it the state department?

is it the white house? getting people into the airport and out of the country as long as it takes to get everyone out. host: the president's address expected at 1 p.m. eastern and we will be airing it live and on the free c-span radio app. time for a couple more calls. massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that americans don't seem to want to learn from history. we have gone through this before. i would say it is a military failure, not an administration. if two years ago, we saw the same dam thing in vietnam. they should have been prepared. there should have been a plan with the military in place.

that's all i'm saying. it's a military thing. and we have such a moral obligation. i can't say we -- get everyone we can and send all the supplies you can. we have an incredible system of churches, mason lodges. vfw organizations that would be willing we saw this at the vietnam. and use that. that's the first thing you've got to learn. guest: >> i think we have a

collective responsibility, but also opportunity as americans. i don't want to point fingers at any particular agency. i think as americans, it is our responsibility. second, i would say the lessons of vietnam ranked true very quickly. hundreds of hundred thousand vietnamese in a matter of months. we've been asking for coordination. we haven't seen it.

now that right now i hope whether it's the military or it's at the white house, whoever it is that there is coordination because right now it's a bit unclear. it seems to be military. maybe state department who are determining who gets in. all of this depends on communication between defense and it seems to be that no one right now has a plan or is able to articulate a plan for how to get people to the airport. is that the or state? for the thousands -- is that the defense or the state?

who is in charge? i hope we get that. we've done this before. the u.s. can do anything. the u.s. can do a lot of we put our mind to it. that's the leadership we need. it's something that the president can address. it is that we are running out of time. we needed this months ago. we are at the 11th hour. i hope we continue to see, i hope we see leadership and coordination and a plan to get people in and out of the airport. host: we will find out again what the president has to say at 1:00. thanks for taking the time this morning and chatting with us. guest: thank you for your attention to this. >> coming up live, we will take you to the white house for remarks by president biden on u.s. military efforts to evacuate americans and some

afghans. after the taliban seized control. running a little bit behind schedule, but we will bring you there live when -- will -- but we will bring you there live. host: we are joined by former deputy of u.s. ambassador of afghanistan. what years were you in afghanistan? what were the political and military situation? guest: i was in afghanistan from 2009 to 2011 and i worked on afghanistan from washington at the very start of our involvement there. working on the donor coordination. the time that i went back to afghanistan was during a. -- during a period within

efforts to really boost the work against the tele-band -- work against the taliban. host: you saw the search. did you ever expect that you would see this? guest: i did not think i would see it happen. i hope very much that we would use a combination so that did not happen. what i did hope is that we can get to a situation of a sustainable peace that would involve the taliban.

host: the biden administration, even more the reason why it was the right decision to leave. do you buy that argument? guest: no, i don't. i think a combination of our own over the last two and a half, three years and the lack of unity led to this situation. plus very serious taliban operation to build up their military and political networks across the country. i think what happened was there was a systematic undermining of the morale of afghan forces over the past several years as we negotiated with the taliban. at the same time the government was unable to overcome their own disunity and the taliban took

great advantage of this to build up their military presence. also, to build up a political network and to start negotiating with local leaders and eventually leaders in the different capitals around the country to cut deals and there was a point, there was a tipping point when many people in afghanistan said we being abandoned is not worth me and my family dying for. we've got to switch sides. host: what is the answer right now? what kind of vetting should happen? guest: i think the first steps should be getting people out. taken to a place where we can be carefully vetted. i think the numbers are people who work for us are in great

danger of being killed or persecuted. secondly, that other group of people that worked with us and believed in us for the last 20 years and that a larger group and that includes people from afghan, people fighting for democracy, journalists who felt it was a free pass -- free in afghanistan. -- free press in afghanistan. when you have been in a country for 20 years, and people have grown up working with you believing you, believing in the ideals we put forward and this collapses you have a responsibility to help care for them. we are not the only country in the world that has that responsibility. there needs to be an organized

effort to get out those most endangered very quickly and do the very much needed afterwards. host: we are talking to the former ambassador to afghanistan. taking your phone calls. phone laws -- phone line split as usual. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independent, 202-748-8002. that special line we've had open for war veterans. , we talked about your long career. what this is due to our standing in the world? the reputation of our state department and our ability to engage on the world stage? guest: i think the way we are

leaving afghanistan is going to take a lot of hard work to rebuild the trust among our allies and partners around the world. the respect among our rivals. russia, china, iran not happy with the suffering in afghanistan. i see this is a great opportunity to betray the united states as a declining power it cannot be relied upon. in a broader sense, start rebuilding that credibility to rebuild these partnerships and very rightly, this administration said they wanted to focus on rebuilding alliances and partnerships. right now, if you have seen some of the excerpts of the debates

in british parliament couple of days ago it's really shocking. it's indicative of the hard work now that our diplomats and politicians and statesmen need to undertake to rebuild confidence that we will do the right thing and that we can be relied upon. host: could there be overcompensating?

host: joe is in maine, and independent. caller:. you are of. caller: first i did not catch your whole comment. it talked about the treaty in

doha with pompeo, and trump released 5000 taliban. have you talked about that yet? you want to take care of these people. two weeks ago, they told all americans to get out of afghanistan. they stopped people from traveling there. and then all of a sudden it is joe biden's fault. that is absolute nonsense. host: ambassador wayne? guest: all of a sudden, it is not joe biden's fault. we have taken a series of steps to undermine the credibility and , in the agreement negotiated with the taliban, without close involvement with the government in kabul, and then after the agreement was signed

forcing the government of kabul through diplomatic pressure to release thousands of taliban, was a serious blow. so i think there was a tremendous amount of damage already done during the trump administration, including the consistent messages that we were leaving, and that we were not at that time, preparing for a good transition either that would help sustain the afghan forces or get the taliban to the negotiating table and seriously negotiate. they never seriously negotiated. they used the time when the trump administration was negotiating with them. to, it is quite clear now, to build up their presence in the country and to try to influence local leaders and say you see, the united states are leaving, you need to cut a deal with us. there was a tremendous amount of

damage done before joe biden was elected and came into power. but the way in which the final decision was taken, the president has the right to take that decision. afterwards it was clear that there needed to be strong signs of support, to give a boost to those afghans in kabul. and we promised that support. but clearly did not materialize, and rather, what the afghans in kabul saw were the messages that it was unwinnable. and they saw a very rapid pulling out of the technical support that they had been dependent on for successfully fighting the taliban. host: bonnie in brooksville, florida. democrat. good morning. caller: i think you are saying that trump signing an agreement

with the taliban, and producing a deadline allowed the taliban to gather and be prepared to take over on the first minute. guest: yes, i am. yes, i am. i think that is the case. hang a number of us during that period were urging that what really needed to happen was that the u.s. should be using their leverage to get the taliban to the table to negotiate seriously, to keep them at the table, and to not give up the leverage that we have had over the taliban until these serious peace negotiations were going forward. the idea of getting the afghans to the peace table is a good one but it is never going to be easy. g the afghans to the peace table is a good one but it is never going to be easy. after all of the years of war between the various groups in afghanistan, it was going to take a long process to get them to agree on a future structure for afghanistan, and on there was a whole process of building

trust and confidence, and we just were not ready, apparently to keep our presence strong enough, and to keep working to make that longer peace process actually go forward. host: you talk about the various groups in afghanistan, we have had a couple of questions from callers that you can help on. on the suni shia divide, that is something we became familiar with primarily through the conflict in iraq. and maybe you can answer jimbo's question, do you agree with and afghanistan effort that argues that there is no support from the shia community in iran for a taliban-controlled afghanistan? guest: there is a significant number of shia muslims in

afghanistan. they mostly happen to be from an ethnic minority, and that minority is thought to be of a more asian, east asian origin. many people would say they were descendants of genghis khan's army when they passed through afghanistan, many centuries ago. but, they have been integrated into the republic of afghanistan very successfully, and they actually have had a good deal of peace and they are part of afghanistan, but they have been the target of extremists from the sunni community, including isis of afghanistan, which we believe was responsible for that horrific bombing of a girls school in kabul, which was

mainly of that ethnic minority's girls several months ago. there is great concern that they could be the target of at least prejudice and mistreatment under taliban regime. and, traditionally, there has been support for iran for this shia community. we will have to see how that manifests itself at this time, but there is a hesitancy from iran vis-a-vis the taliban. they have dealt with the taliban, they have talked to them, and i am sure they have been thinking about preserving their interests as a neighbor. but, i think they will show a great sensitivity to try and protect other shia in afghanistan. host: is the taliban sunni group? guest: they are a vast majority

sunni group. i am not aware that they have shia among them. there might be, but that would have to be for somebody much more expert than i on the taliban to say. they are generally thought to be largely a sunni group. host: i am assuming you are joining us from washington, d.c.? plenty of rain and a couple of flood warnings. guest: i am sorry for that. host: the viewers can see how hard it is raining outside the windows behind me, and there have been flood warnings for a couple of days and it sounds like there is another one. no worries. guest: i am turning my phone completely off. host: dj, falls church virginia, independent. caller: good morning. ambassador wayne, i would like to ask you, in your training and

believe me, i tip my hat to people like you because you are much smarter than me. much more educated. but, when you come from a position of being an ambassador to the developing world, i have lived for 40 years as an adult, and we have had a war on drugs, so to speak. and, i am all for it. i am very anti-drugs. how is it that when we literally own a country like afghanistan, and parts of pakistan, like we have for the last 20 years. and the leverage we have over places like mexico, how is it that we as a country are willing

to take trillions of dollars for a war, like a physical war with people getting blown up and the usual stuff as opposed to just adding $1000 per whatever, hectare, and just destroy the fields, the poppy fields? do you have training in that kind of regard? how does that work when you are at the kind of level that you work? do you get training? host: what is the question, the ambassador has experience in afghanistan and mexico is speaking to two of the countries that you mentioned. go ahead, sir. caller: will -- guest: i can answer a little bit. one is a very serious question. i ponder this, and i work on it and i spent a lot of time in afghanistan. i oversaw dea and their efforts

and the state department anti-narcotics programs that went on, and similarly in mexico, that has been a major part of our effort. i mean, i think, part of the problem is that the market for illicit drugs is really attractive and people find ways to produce those drugs. and move the drugs up -- out during the country -- out of the country. it happened in afghanistan and mexico and it happened between china, mexico and the united states and the synthetic opioids of the been coming in so deadly. there is a lot to be -- there is a lot to do on the enforcement side of this, and i've come to the conclusion that we need to be just as serious on the demand

side as we are on the supply side in this effort, and we need to invest much more money in the people who are using and suffering in the united states from drugs, as well as get better at the enforcement side. that runs into problems and all of the countries i have seen, that runs into corruption, because there is so much money will be made by selling these drugs and it runs into the problem of building trust in the countries by offering alternatives to these poor farmers who do not make much, but grow the opium. how else can they survive? and in a country like afghanistan and even in mexico, it has been really hard to work with the local, national -- and

national governments to provide alternatives for farmers who was just -- who are just searching for a way to survive and people are taking advantage of that. and along the whole chain there are serious problems of corruption, and inefficient judicial systems, people get arrested but never convicted, they get arrested and they buy their way out of jail. it is a very complex issue, and a lot of courageous people are working on the local government side and the u.s. side working, but we really have not been able to make significant and consistent progress. remember it was president richard nixon that declared the war on drugs, we have been trying this for a long time, i think we need to take a fresh look at how we do this and look at both the demand and the supply sides. host: when it comes to the heroin epidemic, where is it

mostly coming from? guest: synthetic opioids are mostly coming from china and india are coming into all parts of north america, some directly through the mail and otherwise to the united states, some through canada and a lot through mexico. a lot of those synthetics come into mexico, they are increasingly being processed in mexico. when you are talking about heroin, most of the heroin in the united states is grown in mexico. -- or the opium is grown in mexico and processed into heroin in new mexico. when you talk about mth, -- meth, the largest supplier is also mexico. the heroin -- the opium produced in afghanistan and turned into heroin largely goes to russia and europe.

and, iran, i cannot forget iran, serious addiction problems. those are the struggles in iran, russia, and then in parts of the rest of europe. but, by this illegal trade coming out of afghanistan, and it is important to note that the taliban and taliban commanders have profited greatly from this trade in opium and heroin. host: grayson -- this is frank in georgia, an independent. i have -- caller: i have a question. why is it all of a sudden the taliban have a softer approach? before you answer that, and take five to 10 minutes to answer, i'm going to tell you why, because we are paying the taliban to be calm and relaxed. that is why, mr. wayne.

host: let us have him at his thoughts. guest: i am sorry you are upset and you were asking a very good question. i think the taliban are trying to take a more acceptable approach because one, they do not fully control the situation yet. they have to establish a government and figure out how to manage this country that they have not managed in a large area since they left power in 2001. secondly, they are going to need international assistance. the outgoing government in kabul was reliant on international assistance for 80% of its financing. it needed that money to pay civil servants, to provide services and do development projects, so that is not going to be any different for the taliban and it will probably be

greater because the taliban have less skill among its cadre to manage things. they are very skilled at running an insurgent organization, but running a government is different. third, there is a terrible humanitarian problem in afghanistan, and now the taliban is in charge and is going to be seen as responsible for managing this by afghans. there are millions and millions >> we are going to leave this and take you life to the white house for remarks by president biden on u.s. military efforts in afghanistan. pres. biden: secretary blinken, secretary austin, national security advisor, all the members of the national security advisory team, to discuss our ongoing efforts to evacuate american citizens.