tra who will reflect on the 9/11 attacks. he was at the capitol on september 11, two thousand one as a representative for michigan. he will speak at an event hosted by the center for security policy. at 2 p.m. eastern, ike taylor -- a pair of california representatives discusses u.s. trade relations. the center for strategic and international studies is the host. you can watch all of these live on c-span, online at www.c-span.org for listen with the free c-span radio app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> contest is partnering with 1000 community centers to create

wi-fi enabled location so low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a. front row seat to democracy , an investigative reporter for the washington post and the author of "the afghanistan papers: a secret history of the war." mr. whitlock, thank you for coming on. guest: thanks for having me. host: in the first opening pages, you write this, mr. whitlock, and i will have you elaborate. "this book does not aim to provide an exhaustive record of the u.s. war in afghanistan as well as combat operations. rather, it is an attempt to ask what went wrong and how the presidents and the ministration failed to tell the truth. can you elaborate? guest: there are two things in her vogue and -- things interwoven in the book. first, how this level of deception and misleading the american people about what was

really going on there contributed to the length of the war. frankly, under president bush, president obama, and president trump, whose administration did not tell it straight to the american people about how badly things were going on afghanistan, how they did not have a clear mission for a very well articulated strategy. they kept telling the american people we were making progress in afghanistan and we we would -- and we would prevail in the war. according to documents i've obtained from the book, it was clear they knew the war was unwinnable. host: when it comes to those documents, what was that source material? guest: this is a little different for a book, particularly in washington. this is all based on public record. the washington post had to go to court twice, federal courts, to sue the federal government to obtain notes and transcripts from several hundred interviews with key insiders in the war over the last 20 years which to

close -- which took us 20 years to obtain these we obtained these documents. they formed the backbone of this book. what people involved in the three administrations really thought what was going on about the war. host: that is where you found the consistency about what is said about the war and what was happening when it comes to the war? guest: exactly. in these documents, you would have interviews with generals that say we know things are not going well and we do not have a strategy that we think is workable. yet in public, some of the same people or the president were saying the opposite, things were going great and they believed in their strategy and predictions of success. host: when it comes to the administrations themselves, even from the bush administration onward, is there a common denominator of what kept a sense of forthrightness when it came to activities of the war? >> that is a good question. i think early on the deceptions started small under bush, but as

things got worse, they kind of started digging a hole and kept going. over time, it became harder for these three presidents or people who work for them to admit the war was not going well. you have to remember in 2001 when the war started, there was an enormous level of public support for taking military action in afghanistan. it was seen as a war of self-defense, a just cause. polls showed virtually the whole country supported this. people thought we had won the war back in spring of 2002. the taliban had been removed from power and al qaeda's leadership had been killed, captured, or fled afghanistan. the american public thought this was a just war and thought we had one. -- won. from bush to obama to trump, it became harder and harder for them to admit this war that people thought we won was in fact losing, going in the wrong

direction. no one wanted to admit that. host: craig whitlock is with us and if you want to ask questions about his book and what -- when he found out what was going on -- what he found out in various white houses were guarding afghanistan, call us. (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independenta. you can also -- independents. you can also text us at (202) 748-8002 -- (202) 748-8003. i want to play you what he said at the time and give you context of what was happening behind the scenes. [video clip] >> as a spring thaw comes, we expect cells of trained killers to try to regroup, to murder, create mayhem, and try to undermine afghanistan's efforts to build a lasting peace.

we know this from not only intelligence but from the history of military conflict in afghanistan. it has been one of initial success followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure. we are not going to repeat that mistake. host: so that is what he said at the time. tell us what is happening elsewhere within the bush administration. >> that is an important speech in april of 2002. president bush was reassuring americans that we had learned from the lessons experienced by other great powers in afghanistan like the russians during the soviet invasion of 1979 and in the 1980's and the british during the 19th century when you had these great powers invade afghanistan and get bogged down for years and years in losing war. bush was saying we are not going to let that happen to us, we

have learned. yet on that same day, his defense secretary wrote a confidential memo that i obtained for the book and he addresses several of his generals and top civilian aids in which he said i'm worried that if we don't have a plan to stabilize afghanistan, we will never be able to get u.s. troops out of their. he ended this memo -- there. he ended this memo with one word, help!. he is reassuring americans that we will not get bogged down in afghanistan but is writing this memo on the same day saying he is worried about that exact scenario. guest: was he the only one expressing concern at the time about what was happening? guest: i think everyone in the bush administration was concerned to one degree or another but as time went on, that fear started to grow that they were slowly losing their grip on afghanistan. frankly, the line got worse. about a year later, may 2003,

donald rumsfeld took a trip to the capital of afghanistan and had a press conference with the president of afghanistan, and rumsfeld said he announced an end to major combat operations in afghanistan. he said the heavy fighting was over, that they wanted to reassure americans that things were under control. yet in documents obtained through the book, you have several top officers and u.s. military i at -- military at headquarters in kabul saying they were flabbergasted by his statement. they said we were continuing major combat operations and there was no order to stop and the fighting gradually would intensify in years to come. this contrast between what the american people were being told in public and what was going on behind the scenes. host: mr. whitlock, you have probably heard as many as others as what happened in afghanistan starting with the bush

administration started as one thing and ended up as another. in your book and mind, when does that pivot happen? guest: particularly when when we went into -- particularly when we went into iraq 2003. most americans thought we had won the war in afghanistan. the bush administration had this false sense of confidence afghanistan was under control. they stopped paying attention to what was going on and were focusing their energy and resources and attention on planning to evade -- invade iraq. one year into the war, donald rumsfeld goes to president bush and says, there are two generals in town that i think you should probably have a meeting with. one was the general in charge of the middle east in iraq and the other was a general mcneil. bush applied to rumsfeld and said i want to be with general frank because of iraq but who is

general mcneil? rumsfeld said sir, he is the commander in charge of the war in afghanistan. bush replied, well i do not need to meet with him. so the commander-in-chief had forgotten the name of his top general on afghanistan. when rumsfeld was trying to set up a meeting with bush, he said i do not have time to deal with that. i'm focused on iraq. from that moment, that said a lot about where the bush administration's energy and attention was focused. guest: you write -- host: you write president bush was promising the united states would transform an impoverished country traumatized by warfare for the past century. bush offered no specific benchmarks for achieving them, writing so few people ask press concerns the united states committed to an open-ended mission. those who raised doubts were ignored. guest: that's right. this is another common theme,

president bush, president obama, and president trump all promised in public to the american people we would not get in a "nationbuilding program," in afghanistan and we would not get stuck spending billions and billions of dollars trying to modernize afghanistan into a modern-day state. this is something i think the american people were concerned about getting saddled with endless bills for building up a war-torn country. but the documents and interviews we obtained through the book show the complete opposite was happening on the ground. it is to different degrees but under bush, obama, and trump, we spend more than one of the $35 billion on nation building in afghanistan. to put that into perspective, that is more than the united states spent to rebuild western europe with the marshall plan after world war ii, once you adjust for inflation. so we spent more trying to rebuild afghanistan then we did on europe after the end of world war ii, yet we see now that we

have virtually nothing to show for it in afghanistan because the taliban is taking over. host: the book is "the afghanistan papers: a secret history of the war." craig whitlock joining us from the washington post. jerry in taylorsville, kentucky. republican line, you are first up. go ahead. caller: yes, with 9/11, it was a sad thing but they knew they were trying to do something to us when the bombs went off in the twin towers, when clinton was president. the higher ups do not want to listen to the lower people doing all of the work as far as trying to protect the country and people of the united states. i am a veteran and i served in the reagan administration. republicans don't take no crap from people when they mess with us. that is the bad part of the democrats. some countries do not want our

democracy, they want to cs go broke and belly up. so we have to be careful -- see us go broke and belly up. so we have to be careful what we are doing. the united states should be number one spending money on anything. if they are spending money on anything, it needs to be in defense of our country. host: that's jerry in to kentucky -- in kentucky. go ahead. guest: he brings up a good point. i don't know if there's much of a difference between democrats and republicans. the record is clear bush and obama both tried to support a democracy in afghanistan. we spent an enormous amount of money trying to build a new afghan government. we helped design their constitution. at first, it looked like democracy was going to go well. they had free and fair elections in 2004 for the first time in afghanistan. over time, that democracy started to fade.

corruption took root in afghanistan and we helped foster it because we had spent so much money over there, more than the country could absorb. a lot of that money ended up in people's pockets. over time, the afghan people became disillusioned with democracy, and that is why the taliban was able to come back. host: from john in mississippi, independent line. caller: hi. donald trump, when he was president, he surrendered the taliban. not biden, but trump. that is not noted enough. in the capital, when it was invaded, there was a gallo there with a hangman's news. no one talked about where it came from or who put it there. that also should be noted. host: that is john in long beach, mississippi. he mentioned the trump administration and events and actions that impacted the biden administration. anything to add? guest: that is true, the trump

administration entered into direct negotiations with the taliban for the first time and trump had reached a deal with the taliban to withdraw all of the u.s. troops earlier this year. that was by the time he had left office but he started the process of reaching a deal with the taliban to withdraw. to put that into context, obama tried too to negotiate indirectly with the taliban. obama wanted to end the war and trump wanted to end the war. neither one could quite do it. by the time joe biden came into office, he decided he would be the president in the war. this was a very chaotic way it went about but he was the first of the three presidents to make good on a promise to withdraw all u.s. troops from afghanistan. host: this is from leesburg, virginia, we hear from rick on the line for democrats. hello. caller: yeah, i know your reporter has been on this before a long time so i won't tell him

anything he doesn't already know, but to the extent he suggests to your listeners or his readers that what he is saying is a scoop or news is a little disingenuous, trying to sell a narrative, maybe one that did not sell well a year or two ago. cigar has been writing about this for years. if anybody wanted to pay attention, i served in afghanistan for five years. i lost count. we had a constant stream of punk than's and journalists parachuting in. they could've interviewed anyone. on the record come off the record. -- on the record, off the record. this just did not fit the narrative sold at the time. i would just comment that if you are defeatist, you do not belong in the military. our job, optimism is a force multiplier. our job is not to critique

policy or whatever, our job is to make things happen, to achieve a mission. host: that is rick from leesburg, virginia. guest: i think rick brings up a point in that certainly it was not news that things were not going well in afghanistan. many reporters that disclosed this for years and years and the american people knew things were not going well there. if you have a war that drags on for 20 years, by definition, it is not going well. what was news in the documents we had seen -- i had seen from the afghanistan papers or blunt admission by the people in charge they did not have a plan and new this war had become unwinnable. i mentioned general dan mcneill, a two time war commander and very bluntly said in these interviews that we did not have a plan. we did not have a strategy. we did not have a campaign plan at all. he didn't say we had a bad

strategy or misguided tragedy, he said we did not have one period. i thought maybe that was a fluke and he was exaggerating, but his successor, general david richards, the one in charge of u.s. and nato troops for about 15 months, he said the same thing. he said we have a lot of tactics but did not have a proper strategy. i am not a trained military historian but when was the last time you heard commanders from a war admit they were fighting this war without any strategy at all. pretty stunning. you have diplomats, white house diplomats saying they were distorting statistics to make things look like they were going well in afghanistan when they were not. many of them on these documents said we did not know what we were doing and did not have a fundamental understanding of afghanistan. news of these blonde admissions of failures was totally contradicting what was said in public. that is the crux of my book. host: there are pictures in the

book and from the documents from the special and general for afghanistan reconstruction including an interview with rick boucher that talks about the form used and some findings that come from the interviews that took place. what was important about this interview? guest: he was one of the ones that said we did not know what we were doing. that is pretty striking. ambassador boucher was the top u.s. diplomat for south asia, including afghanistan, during the bush administration. he also, as a career diplomat was a chief spokesperson of the state department. in his interview, he almost on burdens himself about how the united states really did not have a good understanding of afghanistan and did not know what it was doing. i want to make a point here, it took the washington post more than three years going to court to force the special inspector general to release this document to. this was not an easy thing to do. the government tried hard to

hide the statements and admissions. we are still in court now for additional documents, trying to pry them loose. this is very difficult to get the truth of what was going on, and the truth of what these people thought out into the public domain. host: the scope of the interviews with the special inspector general, was it u.s. officials or how wide-ranging were the interviews? guest: that is a good question. they were wide-ranging, particularly with other nato countries or allies in europe and canada. they also interviewed a number of afghan officials, not as many as americans but probably a couple dozen. we managed to obtain more than 400 interviews, notes and transcripts, that the inspector general conducted with paul. there's a couple hundred more out there that they have not disclosed yet that we are still in court trying to win access to. it's a pretty remarkable trove of information and interviews with hundreds of people who are involved in the war from the get in 2001 through the start of the

trump administration. host: we have a viewer that texted us this morning, saying how much influence to the state department have over the various presidents in the early days of afghanistan? guest: that's a good question. the state department is influenced but there is no question in these documents running through the last 20 years that the military, the defense department, has the biggest say in what was happening in afghanistan and most influence on the commanders in chief. that said, the final decision on strategy and how much money to spend in afghanistan and for what purpose really rests with the person in the white house, whether it was bush, obama, or now president biden. they are the ones to make the final decisions and are the ones that decide who they will listen to most. their generals -- most, their generals or diplomats. host: david on the independent line, your next up. good morning. caller: hi. is it true in the last 20 years,

many mistakes and shortcomings and failures have inflicted -- affected our policies in the region. it is the long-haul strategic vision of controlling and leveraging over russia, china, and to a lesser extent india, as well as making sure natural human resources are being exploited by our side to deter between the shiites and sunnis so the islamic world could decimate and annihilate itself to their unpopular leader seems to be in place. that is really where the line is drawn in sand in that the taliban, al qaeda, isis, has below, and any other shiite groups are fundamentally

extremist right-wing part of the islamic ward. they have been giving control all over the region. i would like to hear mr. woodlock's comments on that. -- which lock -- whitlock's comments on that. guest: it is clear from the documents i obtained from the book that the central objective of the war really lost focus over the last 20 years. at first, everybody understood why we were going to afghanistan. it was a limited objective. the whole point was to destroy al qaeda and prevent al qaeda from launching another terrorist attack on the united states. within the first year, that mission got blurry. then, the objectives became less clear or perhaps they were many more of them. for instance, it was, are we there to impose democracy in afghanistan, are we there to improve human rights particularly for women and girls, are we there to help the old up the afghan state?

as you alluded to, are we there for geopolitical reasons in the region? there were some people who thought we needed to be in afghanistan to keep an eye on pakistan next door with its nuclear weapons. in recent months, we have heard people say we need to keep bases in afghanistan to keep an eye on the chinese and counterbalance to russia in the region. it very quickly becomes easy to get bogged down. it is sort of a strategic swamp over there. why are we there? what are we trying to accomplish? that is the theme you hear over and over again for the book, people saying it never became clear what exactly we need to accomplish before we could leave because there were some any different themes and subjects and areas that people were pushing on afghanistan. i think that helped contribute to the strategic failure of the war. host: one bit of modern-day news, you write about the taliban quite a bit in your book , following the history they had

over the course of the war. watch goes through your mind that even as of this morning they are forming an active cabinet in afghanistan? guest: it is pretty striking and stunning and depressing that the taliban now is probably stronger than they have been at any point in the last 20 years. they are probably stronger militarily than they were when they controlled most of afghanistan in the late 1990's and until 2001 when we invaded. they have more fighters under their command than they did 20 years ago. they have control over pre-much all of afghanistan at this point. in 2001, they controlled most of the country but not all of it. now, they controlled the whole shooting match. it will be interesting to see what their goals and objectives are and how they interact with the united states and other countries in the region. after the last 20 years, the taliban has only gotten stronger. we do not have much of anything to show for the warfare for the

last two decades. host: silver spring, maryland, democrats line, alex for our guest. go ahead. caller: hecaller: good morning -- caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i hope your work becomes part of the history that is taught in u.s. classrooms many decades from now about the war in afghanistan. it seems vitally important that we if not learn the lessons of this war than at least each it has a story of morals going forward. any events, following along the lines you were talking about of current events, one of the things i have not been able to find out a lot of recent information on is what the state of the afghan national assembly, there parliament, is. we talk a lot about the

president and the country and government collapsing. as far as i am aware, there are still parliamentarians or nationalist emily members that are in the country and have a building they would attend and you legislation in. i do not know what their state is now that the taliban is set up there on current government. if you have insight into what the state of that is, i would like to hear it. host: i think that is a good question -- guest: i think that's a good question. the united states and our allies and afghan allies spent two decades trying to build of rule of law and democratic institutions in afghanistan, including the parliament. i do not know what formal action the taliban has taken, but that national assembly is going to be defunct. i cannot imagine that the people elected to it or appointed to it will hold those positions.

the taliban have made clear as a form of government that this will be a beaocracy and this is not a movement that embraces democracy or parliamentary assembly or anything like that. what they do with the building or what happens to the people that had served in those positions, i would not be too optimistic they will be able to keep doing the jobs. the taliban has taken over, they have lost power in afghanistan, and i think it will be a government that is similar to how they ran things in the 1990's. host: about 20 more minutes with our guest. jersey, democrats line, hi. caller: i have to ask one question, how come we did not fix what happened in the 1980's? all we had to do was they fix their infrastructure, why can't the country help back in the

1980's? we created this. the three-day bomb in the parking garage in the twin towers. explain that. guest: that is right. there's a lot of people that point out the united states was involved in afghanistan in the 1980's when we were dealing with a self proclaimed holy warriors rebelling against the red army, the soviets. we very successfully, meaning the cia and government, bundled a lot of weapons in afghanistan to seize the red army and force them to pull out. the united states stop interacting with afghanistan after that. afghanistan was a wreck economically after all of those years of war and the united states stopped paying attention. what happened then in the 1990's, afghanistan further spiraled downward because they had civil wars internally between various warlords and

other factions. that is how the taliban rose up out of that. a lot of people were tired of the fighting. the taliban came in and swept through the country. there's no question the united states contributed to problems in afghanistan in the 1980's. we walked away, the country got worse, and it became a haven for al qaeda leading up to 2001. you are right to point out the united states does not have clean hands when it comes to afghanistan going back the last 40 years. host: mr. whitlock, you have mentioned an acronym when talking about booking the information you got for your book. this is sherry harden from twitter who asks who are what it is. if you wouldn't mind explaining that. guest: it's an acronym for special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. this is an inspector general, and a arm of the government set up by congress. their whole purpose was to monitor the spending in afghanistan because we were

spending summary billions and billions of dollars to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse so they audited programs, right a lot of reports saying this billion-dollar program was a waste because here's what happened to the money. the difference is they decided to do a side project around 2015 that they called lessons learned. this was not an investigation or audit of money, it was really a program that they were doing to interview people so they could write public reports to learn from mistakes made in afghanistan with the hope we would not repeat those mistakes in the future. the inspector general published a number of the reports but what they did is for all of the people they interviewed, they kept their nose and transcript of what they said confidential -- notes and transcript of what they said confidential. the notes were thorough but watered down, sanitized, and many people did not read them. but they test out these

remarkable admissions of failure and accusations of incompetence in those interviews. it took the washington post going to court under the public record laws to make those public information. host: sigar.org is the website if you want to see some of the interviews they have done over the years. how did they react once releasing the documents? did they give it willingly? guest: not at all. first, when i asked for some of them, they said they would release them but days dragged into weeks and they sat on their hands. finally, we had to get a lawsuit to get some of the documents and we won that. we thought after that point we were to get the rest of them but resisted and saying these were not public record, that the public did not have the right to know this stuff. that their ability to conduct investigations in the future.

days of resisting attempts for more information. it is ironic, but the special inspector general, he is often giving interviews, a bit of a press hound. he likes to boast about the work they do, but in some ways, this was some of the most important work they did, this lessons learned program. it is a shame they felt it necessary to keep the findings of the interviews secret from the american people for so long. host: a follow-up to something you said from albert in chicago saying you had said president obama try to negotiate with the taliban. why was he trying to do that and why did the negotiations not happen? guest: another good question. obama, when he was in the white house, he promised to end the war in afghanistan and pull u.s. troops out by the end of his second term in 2016. that did not happen because they were afraid the afghan stage might collapse.

we ended up keeping troops there. by the time of his second term, obama and his administration had come to the conclusion that they could not vanquish the taliban militarily. they cannot defeat them and have them go away. they were too much of a part of the fabric of afghanistan. the insurgency was too widespread. they knew they would have to come to some political reconciliation between the taliban and afghan government. obama's administration did not want to engage directly with the taliban. they wanted the afghan government that we supported to negotiate with the taliban. that had never happened. the taliban was not eager to negotiate with the afghan government because they saw them as pug mince of the americans. the afghan government did not want to negotiate with the taliban because they knew if they did it would probably result in the loss of their powers. obama's administration efficiently -- officially did not go with the taliban.

things sputtered along. the difference when trump became president is the authorized his government to negotiate with the taliban directly. that is what led to the agreement that his administration signed with the taliban when he was in office. host: let's hear from amy, huntington, pennsylvania, a republican line. caller: good morning. pedro, you are looking well this morning. i have a couple questions and concerns. we all know the iran deal expires next month. i have a problem with putting trust into the people that will be the so-called government over there, some of which have bounties on their heads. how can we negotiate with the very men who took out our twin towers and why didn't we keep control of bagram? we have to have some sort of military force there to prevent another 9/11. we have so many that have come over here in germany and other

countries that have not been -- while we have airplanes there that the state department says you cannot fly into the united states that are already vetted and we find out this morning that the drone strike i could have taken out the suicide bomber was called off by the state department. i would like to know what is going on in the mind of this administration that put us at such risk. we need some type of presence there otherwise we will be dealing with attack after attack after attack. host: that is amy in pennsylvania. guest: amy, i certainly think that is a concern across the board, to what degree the threats emerge from afghanistan now that the taliban is back in power and united states military does not have a presence in afghanistan anymore. i would like to make one correction, that the attack on the twin towers on 9/11, that was not carried out by any afghans.

15 of the 19 hijackers were saudi. i know this was sponsored by al qaeda and opposed bin laden who is also a saudi, and afghanistan was the base of his refuge but most of the hijackers spent a little time in afghanistan. they spent most of their time in europe or the united states preparing for the attacks. i think this is an important distinction to sort out what threat is posed to the united states by afghans or people who are based on afghanistan and what threat is posed to the united states by other transnational terrorist groups like the islamic state or remnants of al qaeda. this is something there's lots of disagreement about within the government and outside the government. there's also disagreement on whether continuing to keep u.s. military troops in afghanistan helps us monitor those terrorist threats or makes it worse because it creates a backlash for a president there.

this is something nobody can answer definitively but is the source of a real debate and will continue to be in the coming years. host: patrick in maryland, democrats line, you are next. caller: thank you for accepting my call. this is my feeling about the 20-year war. the reason we went to afghanistan was to kill osama bin laden. that should have been the end of the mission. a couple questions, one, do you feel that what osama bin laden was killed -- when osama bin laden was killed we should have left and that would have been it? another question, i almost feel that what the united states is was we emphasized we were going to build up the afghans. so that they can defend themselves. i haven't been there 20 years -- having been there 20 years, i believe what the united states did not expect was the afghans would literally be taking over

within the week. i believe that that is the reason why this whole debacle occurred. this is another -- and my only other important question, what does united states feel? what do you feel that winning, what do you mean by we won the war? thank you. guest: those are several really good questions. certainly those are ones president biden has announced -- expressed publicly. he said we should have left after bin laden was killed in pakistan in 2011. again, ironically, president obama tried to end the war after that. his strategy called for withdraw of u.s. troops -- called for a drawdown of u.s. troops and his land was eventually to pull all u.s. troops out by 2016. he could not pull that off because in the end, he lacked faith in the afghan government to defend itself through the

afghan army and police that we were spending so much money to train and equip. looking back, they would have been better off pulling out anyway during obama's term because at that point, the taliban was weaker than it is today and arguably the afghan army was stronger than it is now. so we stayed because over time we thought we were worried the afghan government would collapse and we needed to build them up. the longer we stayed, the weaker they became and more powerful the taliban grew. looking back, i think people who advocate for withdraw from afghanistan probably think it should have happened several years earlier. host: you tell stories in the book about the training of the national security forces and how the trading went when having to introduce themselves like eating in a kitchen and interacting with a towel rack. can you elaborate some of those training instances the united states in had -- united states had in training soldiers? guest: and a lot of

confidential interviews are pretty scathing about the afghan army and police. the afghan police are different from what we have here, this was a paramilitary police force built to protect territory from the taliban. what you hear again and again from u.s. military trainers and advisers is just what an enormously difficult task this was to build up an enormous afghan army and police force that more than 90% of their crews were literate. they cannot read. many of them could not count. they did not know numbers. some of them did not know their colors. so we are trying to train these people in a few weeks out to be soldiers or police and it just was not going well. you hear drill instructors say the afghans couldn't shoot straight, that they deserted at high rates, that they were infiltrated by tele-band

supervisors -- taliban supervisors. in the interview with the people doing the training and equipping, they were predicting the afghan army is not going to last, it would fall apart. but this contrast with what we heard in public from u.s. generals and u.s. presidents over the last 20 years were they kept expressing full confidence in the afghan army and predicting they would defeat the taliban. so complete opposite of what people really seeing on the ground. host: another question is, for those who did train them, what was their understanding of islam and how did that impact decisions in afghanistan? guest: this is another good point. accordingly, the afghans were prepared to serve in their own army. frankly, the united states did not have a good grasp of afghan society or culture or religion. we would train people and have u.s. trainers go into afghanistan and before they went, their redeployment

training and background briefings were geared toward a rock and not afghanistan because the u.s. military lumped them together in the same basket. a lot of times, we had u.s. troops go over to afghanistan and were meaning well, trying to carry out their mission but were poorly prepared to understand afghanistan. we did not speak the languages or understand the cultures. we spent a lot of time spinning the wheel because we did not understand the country well. host: from edward in ohio, independent line. caller: thank you for giving me a chance here. thank you for taking my call. here's my question. how did 20 saudi arabians get trained in the united states and then turn around a year later and attack united states, attacked the twin towers, ok? those two buildings fall and in less than 10 minutes to the ground. then, we continue an eminent war

and go into afghanistan and we make that our base. then we go into iraq. when george senior goes to george junior and asked him why are you there, we have already taken care of this. george junior says we are there for the oil. host: sorry about that, edward. did not mean to cut you off but to the caller point, go ahead. guest: these are the questions a lot of people are raising. they feel our reaction after september 11 across the board did not make a whole lot of sense. i think the point was the hijackers were from saudi arabia for the most part. that is true. so why did we invade afghanistan? i think the original objective was to try to destroy al qaeda. i think most people agree with that. the problem was we got distracted and went to iraq and decided to keep u.s. troops in afghanistan, even though we knew the country and history of not

-- country had a history of not tolerating foreign troops as occupiers. looking back over the years, a lot of the foreign policy decisions made by president bush , president obama, president trump to not hold up, don't make a lot of fundamental sense. host: one more call, from jerry, a republican line. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: on the afghanistan withdraw, it was not a mistake, it was completely intentional. ever since january, their goal is to destroy america and make china the superpower of the world. how do we get surprised when they do what they told us they were going to do? chuck schumer said in january they are in the georgia senate runoff and will change america and change the world. host: that is jerry in virginia.

as we finish up, we talk about a lot of aspects of your book. was there anything most surprising to you in putting this together? guest: the most surprising part was these total admissions of failure from people in charge of the war, very bluntly saying there was one general, general douglas, an army general three-star who was a war czar under bush and obama and he said we were fundamentally devoid of any understanding of afghanistan. we did not have the foggiest notion of what we were doing. this is a guy overseeing the war from the white house under two presidents and to hear him say something like that was striking to me. it was very surprising. he said 2400 lives lost, who will say those lives are lost in vain? he's referring to the number of american troops killed in afghanistan over the last 20 years. for a u.s. army general to raise that question, of whether their

sacrifices remain in vain, as someone who has cover the military for years, i was shocked by that. according to the military, the troops and the sacrifices they made, but i think the general was expressing his frustration with the fact we did not have much to show for our involvement in afghanistan in the longest war in our history. and the trillions of dollars spent. where those lives lost in vain? i hope not. i think our soldiers did their mission the best of their ability, but strategically, it is clear our involvement in the war was a failure. host: craig whitlock, who serves as an investigative reporter, has the book "the afghanistan papers: a secret history of the war." d at c-spanwj. in the moments leading up to these new laws, governor abbott made comments about the voting bill and what he thinks it

accomplishes. here are his thoughts from yesterday. gov. abbott: in texas because of the early voting and voting on election day, it ensures that texas provides even more opportunities for people to engage in the voting process and the president of delaware as well as many other states across the entire country. the law does make it harder for fraudulent votes to be cast. one area that makes it harder to keep, concerns mail-in ballots. mail-in ballots, this is an area where both republicans and democrats every -- agree has been the easiest way to cheat in the election process. the law i am about to sign fixes that problem. another issue that this law addresses is ballot harvesting.

it makes ballot harvesting a third-degree felony. [applause] ballot harvesting is a serious problem in the state of texas. that comes from a federal district judge who was appointed to serve in texas by president barack obama. that federal district judge heard a case, a trial, and during that trial, there was an abundance of evidence presented, an abundance of law presented and after all of the evidence was presented, the judge wrote an opinion deciding that case. in that opinion, that judge wrote that ballot harvesting occurs in abundance in the state of texas, showing the challenge that it poses and the reason why texas took up this cause to make

sure that ballot harvesting fraud would be eliminated in the state of texas. the bottom line of what the law does is what the members around me have said all along, that texas law makes it easier than ever before for people to cast a ballot. it does also make sure that it is harder for people to cheat at the ballot box. [applause] host: those comments from monday just before the signing of the law. we will get your opinion on the law. you could talk about how they compare with your state. here is how you can call us. if you think it is too restrictive and you want to tell us now -- why, (202) 748-8000. not richard if enough, -- not restrictive enough, (202) 748-8001. if you think they are just

right, (202) 748-8002. joining is now, chuck lyndale. guest: good morning. host: remind viewers how this law in texas became a nationwide event. guest: and went nationwide when democratic house members left the state to break quorum and went to washington, d.c. to convince congress to pass federal legislation. texas, we are one of maybe five states that have a majority for quorum. out of 150 house members, 51 democrats leave and they are the minority party. that was a watershed moment here and went national when they met the vice president. they held press conferences that were well attended on the capitol grounds. it became a cause.

host: looking at the specifics of the new law, several of which the governor mentioned in the bit that we played, but we will show viewers on the screen. and it comes to drive-thru voting and changing -- changes on early voting hours, also protections for poll watchers, new rules for people who assist voters and opportunities to correct ballot mistakes and monthly checks for noncitizens. of those, which has produced a lot of friction between the democrats and republicans in texas? what were the more controversial things? guest: i would say the poll watchers and the posing of the 24 hour drive-thru voting. the 24 hour voting and drive-thru voting was an innovation done in houston, our biggest county in the biggest counties in the country.

they had been trending democratic for a long time, they are fully democratic now, harris county. they tried to help with the pandemic. they went to 24 hour voting. 127,000 votes were cast in drive-thru voting. wait in line, go through a tent, get handed a voting machine, hand it back. that is not allowed in state law. it is not against state law, but because it is not allowed, republicans said it was illegal and added that to the law. democrats, 127,000 people voted. more than half of them were people of color. pretty successful endeavor. the poll watchers, poll watchers

are volunteers that go to the polling places. they represent candidates and political parties. republicans see them as the eyes and ears of campaigns and also the public. they are looking for irregularities. democrats look at the history in texas and see that poll watchers have been used to intimidate voters, especially voters of color in past elections so there is not a lot of trust there. those were the two points of friction. this is a sweeping bill. there is a lot in there. host: when the governor mentioned ballot harvesting, applause broke out. what happened? talk about why that is an issue for those who applaud the measure. guest: there have been instances of ballot harvesting in texas. the other point of friction in all of this is democrats see

this effort as an extension of a lie. republicans tend to say how much fraud is too much, probably one instance. you have that dichotomy of perspectives. there is voter fraud probably in every state. there are shenanigans taking place. is there enough to justify taking these steps? that was the point of conflict in texas host: when it comes to these signed into law, usually legal challenges come after that. is that the case? guest: they came before. two federal lawsuits were filed before this was signed into law.

two more lawsuits were filed shortly after the governor or right around the time the governor signed his name. this does not take effect until december 3. there will be time for this. the battlefield is now in the courtroom. there is also at least one lawsuit in state court. host: one of the things that stems after this event is the topic of redistricting and how texas is going to handle that. what is expected? guest: we have a special for september 20 -- a special session for september 20. it is one of the most partisan fights at our capital. there are raw wounds between the parties. republicans are angry at democrats for having skipped out of town. they blew up one special session. nothing could get done without a

quorum so that whole 30 dear period, nothing got done. as for the second special session, the democratic block crumbled, democrats feel they have been shut out of the process of this voting bill. our governor, who is the only person who could call a special session and decide what they can handle, he sets the agenda. he said several high conservative priorities in the last special session. democrats -- it is going to be a tough 30 dear period starting september 20. host: the person watching it is chuck. thanks for your time and explain this for us. you heard that explanation from him and now we will hear from you. if you think the passage of this law in texas is too restrictive, you want to tell us your thinking on that, (202) 748-8000

. not restrictive enough (202) 748-8001. perhaps you think it was just right, (202) 748-8002. post on social media. text us at (202) 748-8003. starting off, derek in washington, says it is not restrictive. thank you for holding on. go ahead. caller: thank you. this is allowed by the constitution. the constitution is a white supremacy manifesto. only white men could vote when this was written. it was written for them. the only thing that matters about these laws, listen to what i am saying. how many judges. that is what mitch mcconnell realized. in order to maintain this, white supremacist had to take over the court in the supreme court. host: let me stop you there because we are talking about texas. you say it is not restrictive. tell us why. caller: it is not restrictive

because it is allowed in the constitution. i am a progressive. if something is legal and all you see is the democrats complain when they have the power to legislate anything they want, they can change the voting law, they can change any of these laws they want. all they have to do is send a bill to joe biden. they don't want to do it. host: do you agree with the governor's decision? caller: i'm glad some of this stuff is happening so these white women can get industry and stop it if they care about these laws. host: john in brooklyn, new york says the law is too restrictive. tell us why. caller: the law is too restrictive because it is a racist law against minorities and brown people. host: why is that? caller: closing polls,

restricting how many days you can vote early, other things that these republicans are doing has nothing to do with fraud. you move the drop off boxes. i wish the conversations about republicans rules in general instead of just texas because there are a lot of states where the republicans know they are outnumbered. they cannot win. i am from north carolina. you see what they did in my hometown. i live in new york now. but i was raised in north carolina. the republicans know they cannot win. the policy is not what people want. they have to make these voting restrictions and do not give people water. it is wrong. host: let's hear from a texan. this is henrietta.

says the law is not restrictive. go ahead. caller: i do not believe it is restrictive enough. i worked during the 2020 election as a private investigator and there was fraud left and right. there is no way the justice department has time to investigate all the fraud going on. host: when you say all the fraud going on, what do you mean by that specifically in texas' case ? caller: i am saying this investigation was held throughout the united states. i work in the texas area. host: and you are saying fraud is there? caller: going on left and right. it would never get to the courts. host: fraud such as what in texas? caller: fraud such as people stealing ballots from elderly, people that are leaders in nursing homes, the directors get

paid so that they can send all the ballots from the elderly that are sick and have alzheimer's and they get paid to turn in the votes for a certain candidate. host: can you are saying you encountered this firsthand? caller: yes, sir. i had an affidavit signed and notarized. host: that is henrietta in texas. texans, you can call and give your reactions to the governor this week. the rest of you can call on these lines and give your comments. this is cameron in seattle, washington saying, washington state has had vote by mail for years with no issues. the motor -- voter education process is based on the honor system. it raises questions." " how does preventing clerks from mailing emigrant applet since -- from mailing applications prevent fraud?" el nino saying, "stand up and

take a bow, governor." still in arizona, "134 people for one dropbox. that seems restrictive for me." if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. texas voting law is what we are talking about. you can tell us about the level of restrictions exists in the law. it would ban drive-through voting. it would also change voting hours or early voting hours. it would offer new mail-in voting requirements for partisan poll watchers. no unsolicited ballot applications. opportunities to create mail ballots. also monthly checks for noncitizens.

that applies to texas. you can talk about that. maybe it applies to your home state as well. little rock, arkansas, says the changes are just right. ursula calling us. tell us why. caller: it is fine except for the poll watchers. i don't like that. if people are going to vote, they will vote. they will find a way to get out and vote. black people, most of us really want to vote. i do not think it is going to stop anybody from voting. host: specifically, why do you find the changes just right? caller: except the poll watchers, it is ok. you need your id and everything. nothing is wrong with that. host: ursula in little rock. we will hear from rick, in virginia, saying changes are not restrictive. hello. caller: good morning.

i wanted to point out that voting in america for the citizens should be considered one of the most sacred things that we have to do. it should have rules associated with the voting rights for citizens of america. it should not just be blase, meaning no id, ballots mailed out to everybody. i have heard some people call in and ranting on republicans and how this is controlled. it is amazing that i have not heard anybody reflective of what democrats do in their cities and states. take california for instance. they had changed the rules in such a way that it is hard for republicans to get voted there, correct? host: when it comes to texas,

what makes it not too restrictive? caller: rules and regulations. host: when it comes to texas, what makes it not restrictive? caller: say that again? host: when it comes to texas, what makes it not restrictive? caller: not restrictive? host: that is what you are saying, the changes are not restrictive. what makes it so? or not restrictive enough? caller: i would think that there has to be more things to do because the one thing i was not sure with the gentleman you had on their was how much time before the election a person was allowed to vote. and we have gone from a voting day to a voting period, which everyone knows elections are coming up and it should give ample time for people to cast their vote in some way, shape, or form. host: that is raked in virginia.

in germantown, maryland, susan says the changes signed into law are too restrictive. tell us why. caller: i think it is just plain discrimination, period. the changing demographic in texas and the rest of america is very obvious. they are hearing from their constituents, particularly those in rural america. they are seeing their way of life die. host: what makes the changes discriminatory? caller: what makes the changes discriminatory? preventing minorities from voting, making it hard for them to vote. and saying that rights -- w hites are fighting hard to stay in important positions.

in the short run, maybe, but in the long run, i think it will hurt the republican party very much and they will be the minority by 2040 and beyond. we will see a new order of things. host: that is susan in maryland. "the washington post" highlights other states that have made changes to bring voting laws -- their voting laws. they provide a map. they highlight the fact that in 2021 that laws were made to pass voting. they highlight 11 states in which they became more restrictive, including idaho, wyoming, iowa, texas among them. 18 states doing that, california, oregon as part of that. colorado, new mexico, and minnesota including several on the east coast.

there is a map you can find online, if you wish. texas is what we are focusing on, as far as the changes introduced by the governor there, signed into law. not restrictive enough is one way you can tell us, if that is what you think. maybe you think they are too restrictive. maybe you think they are just right. from oklahoma, this is jim on the line for not restrictive enough. hello. caller: every minority should be insulted by the accusation that it is restrictive to them because everyone in this country that is a legal citizen has an id to conduct all business. it is not like elections sneak up on someone. democrats have a history of proving that they are the racist party from voting against equal rights to fighting to keep blacks in slavery. every democrat-controlled community that is run by democrats has serious poverty

and poor conditions for democrats. host: when it comes to texas, you say it is not restrictive enough. why do you think that? caller: not o [applause]