leaders. since 2012, the current head of state, xi jinping. george washington university professor david sham bow has written close to 30 books devoted to the subject of asia. we talk with the professor about his newest book titled "china's leaders: from mao to now." >> listen to book notes plus at c-span.org/podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. announcer" continues. host: joining us this morning is jeremy butler, the ceo of washington -- of iraq veterans of america. i want to get your reaction to the withdrawal from afghanistan. your opinion on that decision? guest: my personal opinion is

that it was the right decision in general. i think that there has been a lot of mistakes, miscalculations, mission creep over the years. we accomplished what the original goals for the mission to afghanistan were a long time ago, but unfortunately the mission creep has been very real in this case. i believe the decision was correct, but there is obviously plenty of room for error and recriminations around the way the withdrawal was executed, but i think in general the decision was correct. we just wish there had been more listening to the veterans groups that were calling for the early withdrawal and evacuation of our -- there is plenty of room for, in my view, bipartisan criticism from many decisions made throughout our time in afghanistan and the way the withdrawal was planned for, the agreements that were reached, and the way it was executed. host: talk about that more on

the evacuation. what are you hearing from other veterans? guest: the biggest thing has to do with the special immigrant visas. this is not a new thing. what i get so frustrated when i hear the president talking about how no one expected the taliban to take over so quickly -- that has nothing to do with this issue. the special immigrant visa program was put in place in 20 -- in 2008, so it has been used since the program has been established, years since the first afghan allies started qualifying via their service to receive one of these visas, and for year after year, administration after administration, there has been excuses, mismanagement, and we have not executed on putting these visas to those -- the fact that where we are now is by our own government in action, lack of congressional oversight for years. we could have had so many siv

applicants through the system and out of the country a long time ago and not be in nearly as bad a situation as we are right now. host: tell us about the bond between u.s. soldiers and these afghan -- afghans who have served alongside of the u.s. soldiers, and help them throughout the last 20 years. guest: i don't think you can say enough about that bond. this is literally something where you have had afghan allies that not only were putting themselves and their families in danger by aligning with the western forces, in this case the american forces, but they were going out on patrol, often unarmed, and unarmored, side-by-side with special forces, conventional forces, everybody, suffering the same casualties and the same risks to roadside bombs, sniper attacks, everything you can talk about. they have been doing this for years, and in many cases they were saving the lives of the service members they were

working alongside. everything from being able to read the landscape, understanding the cultural issues, getting a sense that something is not right, what you are being told is inaccurate. we need to take action right now, to very directly saving lives by fighting back, pulling people out of the way, saving soldiers that were becoming -- injuries from ied attacks. it has been just an absolutely side-by-side partnership for years. on top of that, it is not only the u.s. government that has been promising that these applicants would get what we promised them, it's the servicemembers themselves. they were saying all that you have been doing for us is not in vain, not just a paycheck. we are going to process this application, we are writing letters of recommendation for you. that america is following through on his promise. it is not just a greater issue of these were afghans that

fought alongside the u.s., it is that so many of our servicemembers made the direct promised to them that america would keep its agreement. it is heartbreaking for so many of them to be hearing directly now from those people that they promised, that they are unable to not just get out of the country, but they cannot even get to the airport, let alone to kabul. host: what sort of stories are you hearing? or your colleagues? guest: it is my colleagues. i am working with a lot of people who spent a lot of time in afghanistan, made a lot of close friends, and their hearing heart wrenching tales from people in some cases who are trying to get to the airport, what are unable to, to administrative issues where they have had the paperwork for years, and the state department at others have denied that. people have died. some of these allies that we are trying to get out have already been killed, so it is tragic,

and they are hearing in real time from so many of these allies. obviously today with the committee occasions abilities. this is something that so many groups, encoding my own iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, have been raising for many years. that we as a country need to take a turn on getting the allies out. there was no reason to wait until the withdrawal was well underway. this is something we could have been working on for months if not years, and it would have resulted in a much better situation than we are seeing right now. host: we are learning this morning from alex ward, a national security reporter with politico. according to elite state department cable, these are the latest evacuation numbers as of august 23. the total manifested since midnight in kabul, august 23 -- 483 american citizens, 6425 afghans, eight third country

unknowns for a total of 6916. since operations began, 4407 american citizens, 21,533 afghans, 640 -- 642 unknown, third country. for a total of 26,000, -- for a total of 26,582. does that sound low? guest: it does sound low. we are talking about direct applicants and family members who were already eligible for this program, so roughly 80,000 afghan allies and family members that we promised to get out of the country, who made every requirement that was required of them to achieve this siv application. they have done what they were asked to do, and we have failed them. so the numbers are going up in

terms of how many we are getting out right now, i agree, but it also speaks to what could have been done if the government had made this a priority long ago when it should have. host: we want to hear from our viewers. here's how we're dividing the lines. if you are an afghanistan veteran, dial in at 202-748-8000 . if you are a veteran of another war conflict, dial in at 202-748-8001. all others, your line this morning is 202-748-8002. we will take those text messages from you all, too. 202-748-8003. jeremy butler, the white house announced an extension of the perimeter around the airport in kabul. what do you make of that? what does that say to you? guest: it says they are doing the right thing. this is a very tenuous situation. servicemembers that have now

redeployed back into afghanistan to augment the forces that were there and to help with this withdrawal are in an incredibly challenging and dangerous situation. i don't think we can estimate or understate the amazing work that our military is doing around this effort right now. they are in real danger, so they always want to be the commanders -- the commanders on the ground always want to be expanding their footprint as best they can, increasing safety, increasing their ability to vet, check those coming in. i think that is inevitable. it is a good sign that we are getting not just more forces but more equipment in to be able to do that. that said, they are in an incredibly challenging situation. geography, the topography, the number of taliban around the area. and we are talking about isis k now coming in. they are in a real danger now coming in. it is a challenge, adding to the challenge of when this operation

is completely over and those american forces need to fall back and make their own exit. that is another incredibly challenging and dangerous operation that is going to have to happen after they have completed all the evacuations of siv applicants, other americans, other nationals that we want to get out. host: here's a text from michelle in illinois. she says -- tell us about your discussions with the trump administration and withdrawal plans, and then also what are you hearing now from the biden administration when you started pushing for these evacuations before afghanistan fell. guest: thanks for the question, michelle. a couple of things in there, and i will try to get to everything. this has been on the policy agenda for years.

this predated the trump administration. i want to go back to reiterating that this is an issue that has been around since the u.s. has been in afghanistan. this is not new. under the trump administration, it was difficult to get to this part of the discussion because it was such a much larger push around immigration in general, especially immigration from muslim countries. there was very little in terms of interaction in general with the trump administration and veterans groups. they were not particularly open to hearing from the vast majority of veterans groups about the issues that we were so passionate about, which is disappointing because i think a lot of good work could have been done there. you compound that with the fact that we were so focused on the v.a. and other responses to the covid pandemic, that really this was an issue that they did not focus on. they should have, and as soon as the withdrawal date was noted, it could have been another time

and a missed opportunity to getting these siv applicants out . but as we saw, the trump administration was really drawing down the overall numbers of immigrants that they were allowing into the country, and the siv applicants i don't even think began to make the list in terms of those that they were looking at or planning for around the withdrawal. there was another question there. host: compare that with the biden administration. before the situation right now, you were saying if we are going to withdraw, let's get the process going. what was their response? guest: once again the frustration continues, because it was made very clear, and the expectations were high that the biden administration would be much more welcoming to the message, that we had to act immediately to save our siv applicants, our avenue lies -- our allies. so many groups stepped up work

they had been doing for years in terms of making it very clear what was needed, how early this evacuation process had to begin, and all of the steps that would be required in order to get them out. you had groups posting daily updates on social media saying it is going to take x number of flights with y number of applicants on them every day between now and the september 11 end date for after president biden made the end date for withdrawal. it was very clear, the messaging was there, and it was much louder than in previous administrations because there was a real optimism that the president and his administration would be much more proactive and responsive to the urgent need to get these allies out. so that adds to our current frustration, disappointment, and anger that things are going so poorly, and that little was done

until now. the message was there. it was delivered. you hear so many trying to plead on social media, mr. president, if your staff is not delivering this message to you, they are failing you. you need to know how much more needs to be done at how urgent it is we get our allies out. otherwise we are breaking an incredible promise and bond to those who stood by us for so many years. host: let's go to bill in virginia beach. welcome to the conversation. caller: thanks for taking my call. i assume you're a veteran of the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. as the ceo of your organization. i do have a question for you. i would like your comment. we want to pray for the best but be prepared for the worst. the worst would be the taliban go to war against the united states by the deadline date, which i believe is set for august 31, if i'm not correct.

having said that, we are going to need more troops in afghanistan to get the rest of the civilians, both american and afghani people, out of there and over to the u.s. we helped our troops during the conflict, and we also need to get our equipment out of there. therefore, we need more troops in afghanistan. so it looks like we are going to have to go back and start and continue the effort to get everything out of there that we want out of there, and we need to fight the taliban at the same time. we need to be really, really strong and do them in and get rid of them. thank you, sir. your comment? guest: i appreciate the question. i am a navy veteran, joined in 9099 -- in 1999, deployed to the persian gulf in support of the iraq invasion. i did not serve in afghanistan, but i'm honored to be the head of the organization because so

much needs to be done for the post 9/11 generation of veterans. it is an honor to be here and represent so many that did so much. they should not be having to continue to fight when they come back home. it is an honor to step in and help with that. you are right -- this is an incredibly challenging situation, it is dynamic. we are asking u.s. servicemembers who have already spent so much time and effort fighting in these countries to go back in and do a lot of the work that really should have been done before. so it is tough. i don't have a good answer to your question in the sense that it is going to take a real commitment on the part of the u.s. to navigate this very challenging environment, which is, as you said, to get our allies out, to retrograde safely are equipment and personnel that we have flown into the area of operation, and to do so safely.

i don't think anyone within the administration wants to reengage in direct combat with the taliban. i don't think that is going to be helpful in this situation, and we have spent 20 years trying to do that and we have seen where it has gotten us. i think what is going to be -- and this is just my own opinion -- what the focus is going to be on but -- on the administration is going to be on diplomacy. they are clear they are in regular talks with the taliban to achieve what we are already hearing. i don't know if it has been proven or if it is just rumors we are getting that the taliban has called the august 31 date a redline. i don't think our best case scenario is going to be involving active combat app operations as opposed to continuing the noncombatant operation. we are going to be needing longer than the august 31 deadline in order to get out everybody, but hopefully the u.s. and our allies can continue discussions with the taliban to

allow that to happen relatively peacefully. i would not call what is happening right there peaceful, but you could say it is relatively peaceful in terms of what it could be if we engage in direct conflict with the taliban. host: ralph in augusta, georgia. when did you serve? caller: yes, i retired from the military in 1986, just before the first world war -- before the first gulf war. however, i continued to work until 2014 in el paso, texas, alongside these soldiers who were -- who came to the united states as interpreters, and in other places, other areas, assisted the united states. my job, along with them, were role players.

from the different scenarios the dhp units would phase once they got to iraq, afghanistan, other areas. if they were going to iraq to work at a detainment facility, our role was to be working with detainees. if we were in villages in different areas, we would play that area as village people. dressing like the people that were there. i would like to say that each commandant that went overhead a base as to how they were going to deal with these people, regardless of the training. one other quick thing i will say is that these people told us that they had to have a job within four months after arriving in the united states. some of them left their families

in detroit, san francisco, and came to the areas where they could work. so, yes, i would -- i have lived beside them. they express their opinions. we had a lot of great conversations. host: jeremy butler, your thoughts listening to ralph? guest: i appreciate his comments. it is a good point remembering that so many of these allies have made it over here. many of them have and they continue to support our efforts, continue to support america, as he was discussing, talking about some of the many training facilities that the u.s. has established within the u.s. to get deploying servicemembers a real idea of what it is going to be like when they find themselves on the ground in countries like iraq and afghanistan, to understand the cultural and language barriers that are going to be there.

we are not talking about folks that only served overseas. many of them come back and want to continue their service over here. have grown to love the u.s. military, servicemembers, and they want to continue to work with them. these are folks who want to continue to provide service to the u.s., and they have been incredibly well vetted. they were vetted many times over before being allowed to go out on patrols and work directly with -- and in many cases being very much responsible for a lot of the safety of the u.s. forces. these are incredible folks that really are going to add to the beauty of america, i think. host: sandy in kent, ohio. caller: yes, thank you so much for taking my call. i have seen a veteran who lost both his legs on tv the other day. he worked in afghanistan. he said we can train them to

drive a tank, we can train them to shoot a gun, but these people are not brave. you cannot train them to be brave. and he said when came to shove, they fled. and all of our equipment is there. he talked about how we sent them all of the latest technology, and we just leave it all for the taliban? i mean, if we took it in, can't we get it out? thank you. i listen to your comments. host: a couple questions from sandy. jeremy butler? guest: thanks for your questions. a couple things. first off, there is definitely -- the veteran community, the military community is very diverse. i don't want to imply i'm speaking for everybody, but in my view, the comments that you heard from that veteran speak to the challenges of the overall

u.s. goals as they evolve and as we have this mission creep. to say that afghans didn't fight bravely for their country, you have to look at the bigger picture, which is that they were fighting and dying on orders of magnitude larger than u.s. service members were. we lost approximately 2500 u.s. service members killed in action in afghanistan. the afghan forces were losing that many in a matter of days. throughout the last 20 years we have been there, and really even in larger numbers over the last 10 years ago or so as the u.s. handed off the lead to so many efforts to the afghan forces. absolutely we have seen examples of afghan forces crumbling relatively quickly when put to the test, but we have also seen outstanding and unbelievable levels of courage from so many of them that hung on for so long. the special forces, those that

were given a greater degree of training. so i don't think it is safe to say -- and i think this has been glossed over too much as there has been focus on the speed with which the taliban took over the country. that's the fact that while we were trying to do training of the afghan forces, one thing lacking was the overall emphasis of what they were fighting for. we were trying to build an afghan national army in a country that doesn't see themselves first and foremost as a country. there are much deeper alliances at the tribal and local level, and i think that was failed to be taken into account by the u.s., going all the way back to the 2001 invasion, when we decided to try and make this afghan national army. the reality is that thousands and thousands of afghans have been fighting and dying, civilians as well as armed services, their national police. so many over the years. we really should not discount -- in fact, it is shameful if we

don't remember the sacrifices that have been made by so many afghans in defense of their own country. host: the washington post puts a total number on what you're talking about. 66,000 is the estimated number of afghan national and military police killed in the conflict. this is in the report calculating -- 47,245, the number of afghan civilians killed, according to that same report. jerry in overton, nebraska, we will go to you, jerry. caller: thank you for taking my call. president biden said that there was no comparison between vietnam and the evacuation of vietnam and afghanistan. i see it exactly the same. i remember the people running to the embassy to try to get out.

the same thing is happening in afghanistan with people chasing planes down the runway. i had a brother that i lost in vietnam, and it tears me apart to see the same thing happening again. thank you. guest: i think there are many that are with you and are seeing very, very strong similarities there, and i hope we can use that as lessons learned. it is one thing that is too often the case, that we are too shortsighted in our foreign policy come and we have to remember the lessons that we learned. one of the things we can remember from that, and i was just hearing about it this morning, about the way in which so many of the vietnamese refugees that we brought to the u.s. have contributed so heavily and strongly to the strength and creativity and success of the country. so hopefully, while there are definitely negative similarities between the withdrawal from vietnam and the withdrawal from

afghanistan, we also have to look at the incredible contributions that were made by the vietnamese refugees who did fight alongside us and that we were able to get out back in the 1970's. host: neff annual in parksville, maryland. welcome to -- nathaniel, in parksville, maryland. caller: good morning, mr. butler. i would like to thank you for your service. i was going to talk about the 18 months preceding this evacuation, where the taliban was signing surrender agreements with the local tribal leaders. as far as afghanistan. but i do want to address your comparisons of vietnam to afghanistan. since the fall of afghanistan,

there has been in excess of 350 thousand evacuated after the government fell. in vietnam, after the government fell, there was a total of zero. so i think you are comparing apples and oranges. host: jeremy butler? guest: i am by no means saying it is the exact same situation, but also i think there were hundreds of thousand -- i think we evacuated 300,000 total in the time leading up to the withdrawal of vietnam. which goes back to the point we have been trying to make, that this evacuation of our allies should have been going on for years, at a minimum for months, since the details around the withdrawal were finalized under the trump administration. it was an incredible missed opportunity. incredible frustrating that we did not take advantage of that time when we did have control

over kabul, the airports, and certainly the forces on the ground, and the ability to bring siv applicants to staging areas to bring them out. so much more could have been done if we had started working on this earlier, as so many of us were pushing for. host: i want to run this number by you, and for our viewers as well. 51, the number of countries including nato and partner nations that have fought in the afghanistan war. what do you think about that? 51. how is the taliban in control? guest: it is an excellent question. i don't consider i self an expert on everything that went wrong, but it shows you the limitations of nationbuilding. that is the bottom line. when we went in by the allies, back in 2001, we were able to very quickly achieve the military success that we wanted to. the taliban were making an offer

of complete and total surrender to the u.s., and the u.s. turned them down and said we are going to keep fighting, we want to wipe physically all of you out. i think it goes to the hubris and the extent of the limitations of what military power can do in a foreign country. we showed -- there obviously was a dedicated effort over the last two decades to fight in afghanistan, to rebuild, create new institutions. but that is challenging to do in another country, especially as the rest of those countries begin to turn their attention away to other things. we've not been focused on afghanistan in a good two decades. if you look at the last two presidential elections, there were zero conversations about strategy policy, goals, and afghanistan.

the sum total of it was i'm going to get all of our troops out of the country. you did not get any details behind that. congress for years has not been focusing on their oversight rule. we have continued to fund these operations through overseas contingency operations funding. it is kind of laughable to consider it a 20-year campaign, a contingency. by that point you really should be planning much more firmly for it. in many ways, this is an example of what happens when you take your eye off the real prize and the real goal of why we went in there. so hopefully again, this goes back to what i was saying earlier, hopefully this is an opportunity that we can really, truly learn from and not just look at partisan blame game, finger-pointing, things like that. this has been a 20-year effort that has resulted in where we're at right now, and there is blame to be found for every administration going back to president bush. host: the washington post

headline article is nearly 20 years of war, 10 days to fall. afghanistan by the numbers. the u.s. has estimated -- sent -- spent an estimated $2.2 trillion on the war effort. we are talking with jeremy butler, the ceo of the iraq and afghanistan veterans group. keith, when did you serve? caller: i served from 1980 to 1983. i was with a unit that was a sister unit to the 82nd airborne as artillery. and the closest i came was on practice and stuff. his last statement, i would bring it all the way back to president clinton for not taking a shot twice at osama bin laden, because the civilians around him, we would not accept the civilians, but look what we got afterwards. my question is, these people

coming back -- i don't want to take away anything from anybody, but these are the type of people that you want left in that country to help their country, if they are brave enough to do that. even during the iran situation, i never studied the islamic culture, and so she and pasture and and sunni and all this -- i hear a lot of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and although they did relationships serving, they were serving for their country to help their country was their ultimate goal. and i just wonder, you know, bringing these people here -- we promised to, but the psyche of these people that we just blundered their country into -- plunder their country into devastation, what they will think about the country where they live again. i myself would not like that country.

that just devastated my country and my extended family and had them all killed. host: let's take those concerns. jeremy butler? guest: keith, thanks for your questions and for the service as well. one, we made a promise. what we are doing, to a certain degree is fulfilling the promise that we made. those that are being evacuated go beyond now, qualifying for the special immigrant visas. but the similarity there is that there are also folks following through, and where following through on a promise that the u.s.-made. we encouraged them, told them you need to stand up, you need to expand women's rights here, we are going to support you 100%, so i understand what you're saying. but we are also basically following through on a promise we made to them, which is we are going to create a better society for you and your family, you should trust us, put your hopes and dreams in that even though

there are many in your country who feel that what you're doing is wrong. i do feel that we need to stand by more than just the special immigrant visa applicants, to include those who are now at risk of death because of the forms of democracy and equality that we encourage them to fight for. this is not just a matter of some rights might be rolled back, this is literally they could be facing death, not just them but their families and others, because of what we encouraged them to stand for. so i think it is incumbent on the u.s. to follow through, to get them out, give them a better life. you are right that these are the folks that could build a better future afghanistan, but they are not going to be able to do that if they are forced into hiding or, worse, that they are killed. they can continue to advocate

and fight for change and advancement in afghanistan from the u.s. we deserve to give them that opportunity, in my view. host: let's go to billy in crockett, texas. caller: good morning. i want to say i agree with what you all are saying. as a defendant of african-american slaves, i know how it feels and i understand there is a lot of negativity, president biden, bringing the people out of afghanistan, and dealing with the taliban. dealing with america as the number one nation in the world. it may not be the biggest size wise, but we are the most powerful nation in the world, and -- when you have people coming out like we are allowing them to come out, the people in

america are all from different countries. i just want to say that god has our protection as well. as a longtime writer and activist, i know that a lot of times you do the right things and a lot of things will be negative, but at the end of the day, rather than joe biden -- doing what trump, who has really been a dysfunctional president, what he did say we were going to come out of that country and we are coming out now. but there will always be some type of -- for america. host: let's have jeremy butler respond. guest: thanks. i do want to add what you are saying, because you're right that one of the things that should also be remembered as there does become some unfortunate partisan fighting

around increasing numbers of immigrants and afghan refugees coming here, is that literally just a few months ago, the congress had an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to expand the number of siv applicants that we could give. so it was very much one of the few times that we have seen such strong bipartisan -- i forget the numbers that the legislation passed, but it was almost overwhelming that both republicans, democrats, and independents came together to say we need to vastly increase the number of afghan allies that we bring into this country. it is frustrating to me when i see now some partisan fighting and finger-pointing when it was just a few months ago, maybe even weeks ago that both parties and independents came together and said let's increase the number of allies we are bringing into this country. host: i want to get your thoughts on the press secretary

yesterday talking about the idea of using the bagram air force base for these evacuations. take a listen. >> it was closed down as part of the retrograde, it was always to be closed down, turning over to the afghans. even as recently as three weeks ago, before we had to conduct a noncombatant evacuation operation, the leaders in this building ran a tabletop exercise on what it would be like to run an effective operation out of hamid karzai airport come and we are running that play now. it is not without its challenges for sure, but we are doing that now, and that is the focus, making sure we can get as many people out as possible, using hamid karzai international airport. the numbers are showing that it is working. don't want to be predictive about tomorrow, but it is working.

host: jeremy butler, what do you think? guest: first off, i have been watching every one of these press conferences that the print gone -- that the pentagon has been doing at the state department, and i want to give credit to the administration for the frequency with which they are doing that. we might night like -- we might not we might not like everything we are hearing from them, but they do continue to give regular and frequent updates to the country as to what is happening. two point -- one, this idea about using the bagram air base goes back to the frustration have had, which is that we should have been doing this evacuation months, weeks, even years ago when we did have control of all these assets. so much more could have been completed in a more fluid manner if we had started a long time ago. obviously that is history now, and that is not an option, but on the flipside, the suggestion that we should conduct a combat operation to retake other parts

of the country i think fails to take into account how dangerous that would be. taking airports is something that -- i think we had a caller that was with the 82nd airborne. it's one of the missions they train for, but that is incredible challenging, and i think it would be a given that the u.s. would meet

mr. mckeon: my first question is, do we have any prisoners of

war left in afghanistan? host: do we have any support? guest: no, i think she asked prisoners of war in afghanistan. mr. mckeon: yes -- carter: yes -- caller: yes. guest: there are americans that are held -- i shouldn't say necessarily by the taliban but maybe they were seized by the taliban, they are still being held. there's u.s. veterans that are being held but i don't believe -- i don't want to say this 100% but i don't believe there are any u.s. service members that have been captured. but there are definitely americans, to include american veterans that are being held by -- i think they're taliban. i can't speak for certain because in some cases it has

been a little while since there's been direct contact. i appreciate you bringing up that because that is a very important thing. there has been a movement to really raise the issue to try and get more information from the administration as to what they're doing and the intelligence community is hearing about those individuals. host: gregory, where did you serve? caller: good morning. i actually served in -- i was deployed to panama, i was deployed to saudi arabia. out of all the conflicts and wars we've been in, including iraq and afghanistan, how

many -- i guess let's say vietnamese, kreens, anybody, that when he to bring back to the state because ever since the wars and the revolutionary war in the united states, we've had allies like -- they've used the native americans. they've used african-americans in the civil war for different reasons. i can't remember ever having a big issue with trying to bring back all these people from afghanistan -- i mean, from other countries back to the united states. i want to know how many people from other countries we brought back from other wars. guest: that's a good question. i don't have the answer in terms of numbers but you raise a really good point. which is that foreign individuals fighting on behalf and alongside the u.s. is not something new. this is something that goes back to the revolutionary war and

it's continued through every conflict. i think it speaks to the high regard in which so many do hold the united states and the ideals that wees pows as americans because they support that, they want to be a part of it. they want to help expand that. and that's why they're willing to put their life on the line, to fight for these edial -- ideals. we need to encourage that and reward it when it happens. i am sorry i don't have a specific answer. that's a great question. historians that do. and i'm sure we would be surprised at how high the number is, because you are right, it has been an aspect of every conflict that the u.s. has taken part in. host: let's go to michael in galveston, texas. hi, michael. michael, good morning to you come in galveston, texas. caller: good morning to you. host: your question or comment

for jeremy butler. caller: i want to comment on the discrepancy between vietnam and afghanistan. we were through from vietnam in 1973. saigon did not fall until 1975, only because congress withdrew support from the vietnamese military. the vietnamese fought, there was a corrupt government, no question about it. but there was a significant period to determine what to do about vietnam, and only when congress -- did vietnam fall. that is my comment. guest: i appreciate that, and i don't think anyone is trying to say that the parallels are exact. a lot of this conversation comes from president biden's comments -- i forget now how long it was

ago, four weeks, six weeks -- that we were not going to see helicopters on the top of the rooftop embassy. he was making an argument against any comparison between afghanistan in vietnam -- and vietnam. and i think we have seen those words come back to haunt him. that is not to say that the situations are exact, but it is that the parallels between the chaotic ends and the number of evacuees trying to get out, those trying to flee, are very eerily similar, and the chaos around the withdrawal. it is much more complex than that, and i think we do a bit of a disservice to history in the reality of both situations, and we kind of gloss over it and try to put a picture up side by side to say same thing. you are right. i appreciate that comment. we can always do better to

better understand our history. host: jim is a war veteran in mckinley ville, california. where did you serve? caller: vietnam, 1968 to 1970. host: thank you, sir, for your service. your question or comment this morning? caller: the fact that we spent so much blood and treasure in vietnam is all the more reason why we should have maintained a relatively small residual force there, to keep the taliban from taking over. we have had troops in south korea for 70 years, and even today we have nearly 30,000 troops in south korea. we were down to 2500 troops in afghanistan, none of them in combat roles. we haven't had a casualty there in more than a year and a half. because the afghans are doing the fighting, but they needed our air support, our logistical support, our technical support,

and most of all, or moral support. and, you know, 2500 troops seems a small price to pay in order to maintain a presence there for intelligence, to keep the taliban from taking over so that -- host: jim, how do you respond to the president's upper argument, that if you kept them there, and >> we'll leave this program here for live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives. you can finish watching it at c-span.org. the house is expected to consider the debate rules for three measures. the 3dz .5 trillion budget resolution -- $3.5 trillion budget resolution, a budget restoring the voting rights act and the senate-approved $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. if the house approves those debate rules, the budget resolution will be deemed to have been approved by the house without an actual roll call on the budget resolution itself. the house would then move on to