>> this year marks the 20th anniversary of the september 11 attacks. join us for live coverage from new york, the pentagon, and shanksville, pennsylvania starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. saturday, september 11 on c-span. watch online at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is a place you call home and at sparklight is your home and we are facing our greatest challenge that's why we are working around the clock to keep you connected.

>> sparklight support c-span as a public service along with other television providers, giving you a frontline seat to democracy. leo shane joins us. he is here to talk about number of things, the withdraw from afghanistan, what may lie ahead, the effect on veterans of afghanistan and more. welcome back to washington journal. let me start where a number of folks have asked us this morning about the state of those left behind. all military is out of afghanistan. what is the administration said about afghan allies and other americans who never mean in afghanistan? guest: they are still working to get them out, but the question is how? we've all seen the evacuation over the last three weeks and the military told that took, the importance of having

servicemembers there to secure the kabul airport. without that presence, it is a big mystery how they intend to get folks out of afghanistan. is that going to require the taliban to allow civilian flights to come out? is it going to require some sort of other intervention? we are not sure. secretary of state anthony lincoln has said he is -- blinken said he is working. the president reiterated that message yesterday. but we are all wondering how is that going to work and when will we see these last few hundred americans and other allies left behind actually the country? host: i saw some reporting that there was only u.s. equipment left behind, but also questions about whether the kabul airport itself could be functional again for acer evacuation planes or further rescue efforts to come into the airport. guest: it is not just a question of what did the u.s. to on the

way adam is was the taliban doing, but it is the issue of isis-k and terrorist groups there. what amount of havoc are they going to wreak? are they going to start lashing out against the taliban? we don't know. the state department sort of asked for patience the last few days, saying they have moved embassy operations, their turn to figure out a way to restart these things. but is going to be 10 times for those left in afghanistan in terms of figuring out where the bright be able to escape. -- they might be able to escape. host: you reported on the president's speech lesson on the withdraw from afghanistan. what do you think the overall message is customer -- messages? guest: this really seemed like it was his attempt to put a final word on this to justify

the withdraw strategy just by the evacuation strategy -- justify the evacuation strategy and acknowledge that while did not go as well as he hoped, this was a mission that pulled out 130,000 individuals in withdraw all u.s. troops from afghanistan and this was a mission the major they will not be future american military deaths in a civil war there. it is interesting whether or not that resonates with the critics, grimace to be seen. we have been hearing from republicans on capitol hill that they are very upset with the entire withdraw strategy. a number of democrats of come out and said they think the evacuation should have started much earlier, maybe as early as april. this idea that the government was going to withstand the democratic government was poor planning and poor intelligence. biden seems very clearly focused on getting to the next thing, pushing past this.

whether or not congress will let him is the next question. host: you talk to republicans and l being upset. received briefings over the last few days from kevin mccarthy, he gathered together republican veterans for yesterday and some reporting from roll call this morning about the process that gets underway today. the defense offer is asian -- defense authorization bill markup. the amended on afghanistan. have you heard any indication of what they hope to do in that market? guest: my colleague wrote the same thing, looking at big issues for ndaa and afghanistan. it is going to be one of the friction point as we go through today. this is a big defense policy bill that contains hundreds of thousands of different amendments and pay raise, things like acquisition policy. when the senate passed their version of this earlier this summer, there was the withdraw

and what will be needed for afghan security forces after. now couple days after the withdraw of all u.s. troops, the issue turns to questions of oversight. questions of what to do with the money that was going to be spent for afghan security forces. we are expecting several republican amendments that could be very pointed disappointment -- poignant, looking at who is left behind and what is next. host: just a reference point for viewers, the proposed budget of the administration is $753 billion. 2% over the fiscal year 2021 budget. it includes $15 billion for the pentagon and $10 billion from fiscal your 2021 includes a 2.7% pay raise for troops and civilian dod employees.

the markup of the policy measures that the pentagon will implement in the next year or so. guest: we are still far away away from this becoming actual law. whatever the committee agrees to today, it will have to be agreed to by senate lawmakers. but i think we are going to get today is a preview of what is the post afghanistan fight going to look like mark what are republicans going to be focused on? we've heard from chairman adam smith promising there will be oversight on this, saying in recent days that now it is not the time to spend, but as things move along they will go back. the finger-pointing starts today. republicans will offer several amendments that are looking for better accounting of the money and we will see how many democrats, how may vulnerable democrats, want to go along with that. how may democrats agree with it

and how many feel like this could be a buick -- big election issue and they need to distance themselves from the bided administration's handling of this. host: our guest leo shane, we welcome your calls and comments. for those who are veterans, the line (202) 748-8000. if you're active or retired military, it is (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your question shortly. what is the future of the u.s. double medic in counterterrorism efforts in the region -- diplomatic and counterterrorism efforts in the region another there is not a double medic presence on the ground? guest: they can conduct overwatch from outside of afghanistan and surrounding countries.

they are pointing to the straight they made on an improvised vehicle explosive that has proved they can react to terrorist threats, they can counter isis from afar. it is two hours away for an unmanned drone to get there. it is still going to require -- still hours away. it is going to require significant resources. the diplomatic question is what comes next? the recognition of the taliban government. is there way to provide humanitarian aid in a situation we don't feel like it is just going to be funding taliban operations or terrorist operations there? that is what is facing the state department uproot where the secretary of state saying they set up temporary diplomatic embassy operations in qatar for now. it remains to see -- be seen where it will go from there.

what exactly will the taliban do and what will the relationship be? it is a big question mark. it is going to be harder to any that have any sort of formal relationship with them. host: you've been covering the military for almost as long as the war in afghanistan -- 10 years with stars and stripes and 10 years with the military times. in what ways do you think the war has change the u.s. military? guest: this is the first time i've been on c-span. it is a lot. it is a very different military than what we saw before september 11. this is a military that has had to refocus its mission. there is still a priority on major power competitors, on china, on russia, groups like that. the war on terror has transformed the kind of equipment we buy, the kind of strikes -- drone strikes were not really a thing before

afghanistan and before rock -- iraq. we had a time we didn't have any trips have been on a deployment, now we have a corps of servicemembers who have been on multiple deployments. we got a giant group of veterans of veterans served in combat, some of whom have served and sacrificed limbs, suffered severe injuries and we have several thousand who have died overseas. we have died overseas. with military families who are grieving. the military from 20 years ago is almost unrecognizable for what is today. that all starts with september 11 and the invasion into afghanistan. host: you wrote a piece yesterday that more vets are reaching out for crisis line help amid afghanistan collapse. what are you hearing? guest: we are hearing from the v.a. some significant increases

come about 7% up and call volume , which is a good uptick. in terms of texting online chat, features that generally catered toward younger veterans, texting services, the crisis line is up almost 100%. it was interesting. the department said this is not a negative thing. this is not something they are looking at as a panic of, oh my god, there is a flood of people who are having problems. they're looking at this as a positive as more folks are reaching out. this is a time as they are seeing headlines, as we get into the change of seasons, as the pandemic is getting worse, there are a number of factors that could be giving folks some mental health challenges. they would much rather see an uptick in usage than folks not reaching out. they are encouraged by this, they are saying even a folks are on the fence and don't feel -- they feel like they want to talk to somebody and this is how they choose to reach out, that is

great. they want people to know they are there if they are needed. especially with 13 servicemembers who died in terrorist attack, a lot of folks with mixed emotions. i've been hearing from veterans who have been focused on getting folks out of afghanistan and hitting afghan translators and allies -- now that the adrenaline is wearing down, some of that emotion can come flooding back. some of those problems, some of those things they have been pushing down can come to the surface. those folks know there are plenty of other people reaching out, they should reach out. there is help out there. host: but want to plant the life afghan vets is (202) 748-8000. if you are active or retired military, that is (202) 748-8001 . on that line, david from south dakota. you are first up. good morning. caller: my separation date from

the service was march 1, 1963. but my grandson just got back from the middle east in the air force, and here my opinion. 15 of the 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia. one from egypt. one from lebanon. so why did we invade afghanistan and the first place? we should've never been there. we've been supporting, for the last 20 years, a corrupt government at the president of afghanistan just went to the united arab emirates with three carloads of american cash and i don't think we should have been there. it was a fiasco, the way we got out of there. we should have never given up that airbase. until we had everybody out of their. -- there.

we should not stick our nose in everybody's business into go over there and try and stop a civil war between two factions of muslims who have been killing each other for the last 1500 years, i am just glad we are out of there. guest: i mean, that is echoing a lot of the message that president biden is putting out there. you heard in the speech last night, he said of osama bin laden and al qaeda were not in afghanistan, would we have ever gone in there and would we have erred in that fight? he made it clear that the mission was to get osama bin laden and debilitate al qaeda. he believed that success was important but it is not anymore and hasn't been for quite some time. i heard this from quite a few veterans, too. there is a lot of america has rediscovered afghanistan the last couple weeks.

the veteran community and military community, this something that has weight on them for a while. her a lot of veteran saying look, this is how we expected to end. we expected to be messy. we didn't have a lot of confidence in the afghan government. there was a mission we were sent there to do, we did that mission, we come back. it gets into conflicting emotions and for some buddy who served in the vietnam era, there are a lot of vietnam vets right now in these headlines reopening some old wounds may be never dealt with. they want folks to know there is help for veterans of all ages, not just the ones who served recently. host: this is barbara calling from north palm beach, florida. caller: to those praising biden come i have this to say. all his actions to date have made his country less safe. opening borders, ignoring the situation on the border, shutting down the pipeline, now the fiasco in afghanistan.

his incompetence, he needs to stop blaming others and take responsibility for the damage this is done for the u.s. certainly, our credibility is dire, negative. our allies are very upset. this is not the way the country should be running. host: in terms the relationship militarily with allies, the lic join us in the fight in the coalition -- allies who joined us in the fight in the coalition and afghanistan. guest: it will be interesting to see with the effects are. -- what the effects are. the president has said the reason they didn't start withdraw people earlier was because they wanted to show some faith in the afghan government. when that collapsed, they were forced into the situation of a vacuuming tens of thousands of people to ensure order. -- evacuating. that doesn't speak to the

slowness, with a special immigrant visa, the translator's who worked directly with the u.s. military -- a lot of that traces its roots back to the president trump administration. the changes they made, some of the reluctance they had to admit any immigrants over here. but the biden administration also knew about this problem in the spring. weaver from both democratic and republican lawmakers, really frustrated. a lot of veterans really frustrated they have to accelerate these systems of the folks to get more of those in. that may have a long-term effect. in terms of allies reaction, we are not hearing widespread criticism from major power allies. but we are hearing from quite a few folks who are saying i don't know how i till the next translator, i don't how i till the next local where we end up in a place, if we end up in an effort in country or some other war zone.

how do i rely on the locals to trust us when i say we will protect you if they look and see that there are still folks were left behind in afghanistan. host: with the original may deadline, the one set by the trump negotiation, when that came, before that -- the president was looking for the august 31 deadline. what was the military's position at that time? how long do they want to extend? from what you understand. guest: a couple different completing messages in there. the military had cautioned against the taliban and had reports saying it was likely the afghan security forces and afghan government would fall within months of the u.s. leaving. as it turned out, he fell within months of the u.s. announcing it was going to leave. didn't even wait for the u.s. military forces to leave. by the same token, the commander-in-chief is saying he heard those worries from the military advisers but also felt that this was not a mission

where the u.s. needed to sacrifice lives, keeps advising people and this money to keep it going. it has been an interesting site issue and all this. what is the commander-in-chief's response ability to listen to these people versus make decisions on his own? as that of the military, they can make these calls. but we saw trump sankey want to get out of afghanistan dragging his feet on removing the troops because of concerns about the taliban. host: do think over the course of years we were training them that the u.s. expected too much out of the afghanistan military? host: in retrospect -- guest: in retrospect, it seems that way. they did not have a lot of training. we have reports from years about how hollow the military it was. your viewers have youth that

heard this number. 300,000 afghan troops come afghan security forces, that includes local police in a whole mess of folks. that includes some soldiers who are just on the payroll but were not actually performing any duties and may have just been part of some corruption. this is one of the overarching foreign policy questions for the country. how much can you assert your values and wants for an area when it may not be there? afghanistan is a fractured, mountainous region with a lot of local conflicts and a lot of local priorities. as we've seen in the past, the way we think things should be run in the united states does not necessarily reflect some else. that is going to be one of the big questions from here on out. in the future, if there is god for bid another terrorist attack or another reason for military intervention, which should be the timeline for that?

what is a realistic end goal for that? is it realistic to expect, is it realistic for the state a permit to conduct or is there different diplomatic or different military offensive strategy we should have? host: let's go to jack in florida. you are on with leo shane. caller: i have a couple questions. number one, it occurred in such a short time and is an epic, magnificent accomplishment by the air force and ground forces controlling the airport. the fact they turned around so quick, came back and airlifted those people in a short time is a great development. the second question, as we -- regarding afghanistan and its placement in getting the remaining people out, from guatemala, honduras area, people

are coming to the border have to travel 1000 miles. on foot. you can leave from kabul in about 250 miles. there are avenues to get out other than airlift. so i hope leo can talk to those. guest: on the second point, i've heard that from a few folks. there has been some mornings from veteran groups in some of the folks on the ground but attempting to across-the-board at the moment because of relationship with taliban fighters and getting over to pakistan might not be any safer than where they are now. because of come again, some of the region there are under separatist control. but that is certainly an avenue that folks are looking at in the future. instead of airlift, are there ways to safely smuggle folks out? i know some folks already making those plans. we will have to see where that develops.

on the issue of whether or not the airlift will be seen as a two-minute success, -- tremendous success, the biden administration has been pushing that narrative. 130,000 people and just 18 days. the largest military airlift in american history. quite possibly in global history. but the problem with that is it is being compared to different things. folks have compared it to the fall of saigon and the people brought out in just a short. there. -- the short period there. that doesn't account for the hundred thousand plus who were brought out in a more orderly fashion. in terms of the actual logistics of the military mission, this was a fairly impressive airlift that mobilized a lot of people. the problem was what came before. the disorganized fashion, the number of folks who had to scramble at the last moment, why were they not route in june or may?

-- brought out in june or may question mark -- may? a lot of it will depend on the stories coming out in the coming weeks. the message we are hearing from the state department right now is folks who came to the airport were vetted and let through. but we've also heard plenty of stories from folks on the ground saying they couldn't get through, the taliban blocked them. the various checkpoints made unsustainable to stay out there. or they feared so much what they would encounter in terms of beatings, threats that they did not leave you now they are trapped behind. it will take time for history to judge this on a purely logistic military level, the pentagon can step back and say we were tasked with a dangerous mission to move a lot of people in a short amount of time and we had a certain amount of success with that. but on the larger issue of what it means for the entire afghanistan policy, it will take

time to unpack. host: the defense secretary holding a briefing this afternoon following the u.s. withdraw from afghanistan. the coverage we will have life at 1:00 eastern on c-span instrument at c-span.org. leo shane -- and it stream it at c-span.org. leo shane, what are some things you hope to hear from defense secretary and chair joint chiefs? guest: it is interesting. i should do more of a state department mission. -- shifted to more of a state department mission. it'll be pungent to the white house or state department. there are questions about what the threat level remains for the folks behind, questions about how the military conducted this in terms of their relationship with the taliban. we are to some reports coming out now that the taliban were exporting it even vetting some

folks who may have come to the airport. if that is the case, that is a level of trust in a government that the u.s. has said they do not have any real trust in. today care folks who were in a vulnerable offensive position. the question you brought up before. what is the terrorist overwatch capability now? what are the missions going to be and how confident are they the u.s. will be able to strike a group like isis-k or al qaeda? if there is not the force on the ground. we've heard a lot of questions about the equipment left behind, things the dod has started to account for and expanding what equipment they were able to destroy or disable on the way out. there is still a lot of scenes of humvees and taliban fighters carrying red u.s. rifles. that is an image that is going to stick -- around u.s. rifles.

that is an image that is going to stick with the military. host: we had a guest here last week who was a professor at the american university of afghanistan, joined us from

caller: they are going to leave bagram and troops there. i would like for you to reflect on how important that loss is going to be going ahead with us not having any eyes or ears on the ground as far as intelligence. one other point if you could reflect on back in late 2008, 2000 9, 2012, 2010. we left our troops out of iraq and said isis was not a threat and we had to go back and it took three years to eliminate the caliphate. what do you see happening in afghanistan, the very group we fought for years is leaving and dashes being left in power and maybe even offering them finances going forward, then they are married to al qaeda at

the hip, they protected and harbored al qaeda, do you see us in the same situation two or three years from now. obviously they will not be able to handle the whole situation. host: we will let you go. guest: there is no question that some of these groups are trying to reestablish themselves and establish a foothold in afghanistan, again. white house has been asked and the press secretary was asked yesterday whether or not the president expects if we will have to re-invade afghanistan in the coming years, and they are distancing themselves from the conversations. they say >> we will see. some of these groups are opposed to the taliban. some of them believe the taliban is not radical enough. the taliban of fights -- invite a lot of separatist groups. this is a huge concern.

after 20 years, to be able to fluctuate in afghanistan see how we are performing there is a shocking and appalling result. the other issue is the condition of the exit. president bush did say that. there were a lot of questions about will room and it was a big one if. the may deadline came along, and would president trump have withdrawn all troops? what he of cap bagram? pick whichever day you want t said. he said several conflicting things about that. he said he wanted all troops out last year. he said there would be a complete withdrawal by may. this is when we got a lot of attention due to the situation around the kabul airport.

military leaders have said that, one state got out there, they evacuated. it was an important location. there are a lot of opportunities for folks who want to travel to other locations to fall victim to attacks along the way. it was an area that was easy to secure, and it was talked about is a semipermanent base for a long time. like we have bases in korea, or japan, or germany. in places like korea and japan, we do not have active terrorist threats, or people who are standing by the gates with a sworn mission to take american lives. keeping that kind of base is a perpetual threat to the service members who are there. the biden members believe it was possible.

host: let's go to sabrina and north carolina. caller: exactly how did the afghan people come to hate us so much? and with all of our capabilities we have in our military, how is it even feasible that any of our people are being left behind? why is an extraction not being done to evacuate safely? why are we letting common thugs terrorize our people and not evacuate them out of a danger zone? host: do we have any good numbers on those left behind? americans or afghan allies who want to leave the country? guest: on the history of american citizens who have been left behind, the judgment is said south of 200. 100 or 200 folks who have -- or are interested in leaving now.